Military Review

Charles de Gaulle. The ship is a disaster

155



The flagship of the naval forces of France. The first nuclear aircraft carrier built outside the United States. The most powerful and perfect warship of Europe. The true lord of the sea. All this is the true pride of the French sailors aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" (Charles de Gaulle, R91). Invincible Poseidon, able to smash the enemy on the surface of the earth, water and airspace within a radius of thousands of kilometers!

40 combat aircraft and helicopters, guided missile weapon (Four 8 charging modules UVP for firing Aster-15 anti-aircraft missiles, two Sadral self-defense missile systems). A unique set of detection tools: 6 radars of various ranges and purposes, the VAMPIR-NG search and tracking system (IR range), a full set of radio interception and electronic warfare systems.

Combat information and control system "Zenit-8", capable of simultaneously allocating, classifying and taking on support to 2000 targets. 25 computer terminals, 50 communication channels, satellite communication systems Inmarsat and Syracuse Fleetsacom - the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle brilliantly copes with the role of the flagship of the maritime strike group.

Charles de Gaulle. The ship is a disaster


500 tons aviation ammunition, 3400 tons of aviation kerosene. A full-fledged air group, including Rafale fighter-bombers, Super Etandar attack aircraft, E-2 Hawkeye early warning and control systems, multipurpose, anti-submarine and search and rescue helicopters Aerospatial Dolphin and Cougar - up to 40 aircraft units located on the flight and hangar decks.

Two airborne aircraft lift capacity 36 tons. Two C-13F steam catapults (similar to those installed on American Nimitz) - each of them is capable of accelerating an 25-ton aircraft to a speed of 200 km / h. The rate of release of aircraft from the deck of "de Gaulle" - 2 machines per minute. The rate of reception of aircraft, in theory, allows you to safely land on the deck of an aircraft carrier to 20 machines for 12 minutes. The only limitation is that the dimensions and design of the flight deck do not allow the aircraft to take off and land at the same time.

A special pride of French engineers is the system of automatic stabilization of the ship SATRAP (Système Automatique de TRAnquilisation et de Pilotage) - 12 compensators in the form of blocks of 22 mass each, moving along special grooves on the gallery deck. The system, controlled by the central computer, compensates for various wind loads, rolling, roll when cornering, constantly keeping the ship in the correct position - this allows you to perform take-off and landing operations at sea to 6 points.


Bridge

The full displacement of the gigantic ship reaches 42 000 tons. The flight deck is a quarter of a kilometer long. Crew - 1350 sailors + 600 man wing.

Fantastic design plows the sea at the speed of 27 knots (50 km / h). One recharging of reactors is enough for continuous operation during 6 years - during this time, “de Gaulle” manages to travel a distance equivalent to 12 lengths of the Earth Equator. At the same time, the real autonomy of the ship (in terms of food, aviation fuel and ammunition) does not exceed 45 days.

The aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle"! Beautiful, strong and charismatic ship. The only drawback: “de Gaulle” spent most of his 13-year-old service at ... repair docks.

France plans to write off its newest aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle. Instead of the "de Gaulle" for the French Navy will be purchased a new aircraft carrier type "Queen Elizabeth" British built. The reason for the shocking and unexpected solution is the innumerable problems and irregularities identified during the first years of operation of the French aircraft carrier ship. (The original phrase is "The Charles de Gaulle").

- site http://www.strategypage.com, news from 5 December 2003

What could be the real cause of that disgusting situation in which a completely new ship, which entered service only two years before the events described (18 May 2001), almost turned out to be scrapped?

The French are experienced shipbuilders who have repeatedly amazed the world with their wonderful creations (without any irony). The legendary submarine artillery cruiser "Surkuf" - a true miracle of 1930-s technology. Modern stealth frigates "Lafayette" and "Horizon". In its unique landing ships "Mistral" - thanks to its modular design, a huge "box" built in just a couple of years! France is well acquainted with nuclear technology - the submarine component of the French Navy is equipped with high-end technology of its own design: the Triumphan submarine, the Barracuda submarine-based ballistic missiles M45, M51. All weapons meet the highest international standards.



France is one of the recognized world leaders in the development of marine detection, control and communication systems: radar and sensor systems, CICS, thermal imagers, communications equipment. There is simply nothing to reproach the French.

French shipbuilders are no strangers to the development and construction of aircraft carrier ships: in the middle of the last century, the French Navy adopted two aircraft carriers of the Clemenceau type - one of which, Sao Paulo (formerly Foch), still serves in the Brazilian Navy. Solid ships for its time, whose displacement and size were close to the characteristics of the modern "de Gaulle".

And suddenly - an unexpected failure! How could this happen? Did the malfunctions and “childhood diseases” that any design had could have so negatively affected the fate of the new French aircraft carrier?
"Children's diseases" - this is poorly said. Problems in the operation of "de Gaulle" have become a genuine disaster for the French Navy.

Ships are dying without a fight

The fate of Charles de Gaulle began in the 1989 year, when the bottom section of the future aircraft carrier was laid at the DCNS shipyard in the city of Brest. At first, it all worked out quite successfully: just 5 years after the foundation, in May 1994, the largest warship ever built in France was solemnly launched in the presence of President François Mitterrand. In the summer of the same year, reactors were installed on the aircraft carrier. The hull saturation with high-tech equipment began. But the further the work progressed, the harder it became to keep the project within the specified schedule.

The extraordinary abundance of systems and mechanisms on board the ship led to a continuous series of changes, which delayed the already time-consuming process of building a huge aircraft carrier. For example, in accordance with the new European radiation safety standards, we had to completely rework the reactor protection and cooling system - all this is already on an almost finished ship. In 1993, an international spy scandal broke out - shipyard employees were suspected of having links with British intelligence MI6.
The construction of the aircraft carrier was regularly hampered by the French Parliament, reducing funds to finance this “exceptionally important” defense program. The day came when the work at the shipyard was completely stopped (1990 year) - this situation was repeated several times in 1991, 1993 and 1995, as a result, Charles de Gaulle finally turned into long-term construction work.


It is obvious that the basing of 40 aircraft on the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is impossible in reality. Half of the aircraft remains to rust on the upper deck, where the wind, humidity and the scorching sun will quickly bring the machine into complete disrepair. On average, an aircraft carrier carries 20 combat aircraft, a pair of DRLO complexes and several turntables

According to official data, the ship was built about 10 years and cost French taxpayers 3,3 billion dollars - a little less than the cost of the American supercarrier like "Nimitz" (4,5 ... 5 billion dollars at the end of 1990's).

But the real tragicomedy began after a series of sea trials and test aircraft landing on the deck of a ship in 1999.
Constant vibrations, problems in the cooling system of the reactor, poor-quality coating of the flight deck. Unexpectedly, it turned out that the designers had made a mistake in calculating the required runway length - for the safe landing of the E-2 Eagle XHUMX Hawk aircraft, it was urgently necessary to extend the flight deck by an 4 meter.

Defect repair took a year, finally, 4 of October 2000 of the year, Charles de Gaulle, arrived on its own at the naval base of Toulon.

The approbation of the new technology began as a matter of urgency - the crew of “de Gaulle” was formed back in 1997 year and waited patiently for its ship for three years. Within a few days, the aircraft carrier left its home port and set off on a friendly visit to the shores of the United States, to the naval base of Norfolk.

Alas, at that time it was not possible to reach the shores of America - during the training maneuvers in the Caribbean Sea the blade of the right screw fell off. The aircraft carrier returned to Toulon in a three-node route. The investigation showed that the cause of the accident was (well, who would have thought!) Poor-quality parts manufacturing.

- Who was making the screws?

- Firm "Atlantic Industries".

“Submit these scoundrels here!”

“Monsieur, Atlantic Industries no longer exists ...”

Silent scene.

The problem was that the firm Atlantic Industries disappeared without a trace, not only with the fee for a dishonestly executed contract, but, much worse, with all the documentation for the manufacture of screws. And to calculate and manufacture 19-ton ingots from copper, iron, manganese, nickel and aluminum with surfaces of double curvature is a task far from simple (and not cheap). As a temporary measure on the ship installed screws from decommissioned aircraft carrier "Clemenceau". The “de Gaulle” speed decreased to 24 ... 25 nodes, while the entire aft part was unsuitable for the life and work of the crew - the vibration and noise reached 100 dB.



The aircraft carrier spent almost the entire next year on repairs, tests and sea trials. However, at the end of May 2001, Charles de Gaulle found the strength to get out of the dock and take part in the Golden Trident naval exercises. The result of 10-day maneuvers was the scandal surrounding the Rafal M fighters - it turned out that the the fleet aircraft are not suitable for decking. The entire first batch of promising fighters was decisively rejected.

But this is only the beginning of a joke called "aircraft carrier" Charles de Gaulle ".

In December 2001 of the year, “de Gaulle” set out on his first combat expedition to the Arabian Sea. The task is aviation support of the operation “Long Freedom” in the territory of Afghanistan. During the march, the Super Etandar carrier-based attack aircraft carried out 140 combat missions over Central Asia with a duration of up to 3000 km. As for the newest “Rafale”, the chronicle of their combat use is contradictory: according to one source, the fighters struck several blows at the positions of Taliban militants. According to other data, no sorties were conducted - Rafali only participated in joint exercises with deck aircraft of the US Navy.

In any case, the role of "Charles de Gaulle" in the war was purely symbolic - all the work was performed by American aircraft, which made ten thousand combat and providing sorties over the territory of Afghanistan. Understanding his own worthlessness, “de Gaulle”, whenever possible, sought to leave the theater, and while American planes crashed the Afghan mountains, the French aircraft carrier arranged photo shoots at the ports of Singapore and Oman.

In July 2002, de Gaulle returned to the naval base of Toulon. The hike was successful, except for the fact that, due to a radiation accident on board, the crew of the aircraft carrier received fivefold radiation doses.

The French had enough impressions for a long time - for the next three years, “de Gaulle” did not make long hikes. The aircraft carrier returned to the Indian Ocean only in 2005 year. The prosperous French were clearly not pleased by the prospect of flying under dushmansky bullets and Stinger missiles - as a result, de Gaulle took part in joint exercises with the Indian Navy under the code designation Varuna, and then hurried back to the base in Toulon.



In a similar scenario, 2006 passed the year - after which hour X came. The reactor core is completely burned out and needs to be replaced. The sea elements patted the ship coolly, the hot exhaust of jet engines melted down the flight deck, a part of the auxiliary equipment failed - the aircraft carrier needed overhaul.

In September 2007 of the year, “de Gaulle” went to dry dock, from where it did not leave until the end of 2008. 15-month repair with reboot of the reactor cost France the amount of 300 million euros. The unfortunate aircraft carrier finally returned its native screws, upgraded radio electronics, laid 80 km of electrical cables, updated catapults and aerofinishers, and expanded the range of aviation ammunition.

Flashing fresh paint, the aircraft carrier arrived at the naval base of Toulon, and three months later it was safely out of order. The whole 2009 year the ship spent on repairs again.
Finally, by 2010, the main defects were eliminated, and intensive preparation of the ship for the accomplishment of new feats began. Ahead - long and dangerous campaigns to the other end of the Earth, new wars and Great Victories. October 14 2010, the squadron of warships of the French Navy, led by the flagship Charles de Gaulle, set off on a regular mission to the Indian Ocean.

The hike lasted exactly one day - a day after the launch on the aircraft carrier the entire power supply system failed.

After an emergency two-week repair, “de Gaulle” still found the strength to go along the chosen route and spent the whole 7 months in distant latitudes. Just an incredible result, given all the previous "achievements" of the aircraft carrier.



In March, 2011, the global media got around the sensational news - the French aircraft carrier is moving to the shores of Libya. The next attempt by de Gaulle to prove its necessity passed with a full house - carrier-based aviation carried out hundreds of combat missions as part of providing a “no-fly zone” over Libya. Multi-purpose fighters "Rafal" delivered a series of attacks on ground targets, using up a total of 225 high-precision AASM ammunition. After working around the 5 months in the conflict zone, Charles de Gaulle returned to Toulon in early August of the 2011 year. On the next repair.

Probably should add a few "strokes" to stories this hike. The de Gaulle air group consisted of 16 combat aircraft (10 Rafale M and 6 Super Etandard). At the same time, for attacking Libya, the NATO command attracted more 100 strike machines, among which were such “monsters” as the B-1B and F-15E “Strike Eagle”.

It becomes obvious "invaluable" contribution of the aircraft carrier in this military operation. And the cost of each of the 225 AASM bombs dropped (given the cost of maintaining a “floating airfield”) was simply astronomical — it would be cheaper to shoot a laser from an orbital combat station.

2012 didn’t bring any significant success - “Charles de Gaulle” periodically went to the Mediterranean to train deck pilots, while spending the rest of the time on endless repairs.
In the near future (tentatively 2015 year), the aircraft carrier will have another “capital” with recharging of the reactor.

Diagnosis

Unhappiness, pursuing the aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle", have a single reason - the excessively complex design of the ship, aggravated by its cyclopean size. All this leads to irreparable loss of reliability. Thousands of mechanisms, millions of parts - every second on the ship one of the structural elements necessarily breaks. Periodically one of the critical objects fails - and then an avalanche-like increase of technical problems begins, leading to a complete loss of the ship’s combat capability.

Unlike conventional rocket and artillery combat ships, the aircraft carrier has to work with 20-ton objects (aircraft) that constantly move along the upper deck and inside the ship, periodically accelerating to 250 km / h (Rafal landing speed). From here - 260 meter deck, catapults, arresting gear, optical landing system, powerful lifts and power equipment.

Airplanes serve as a heightened source of danger: to neutralize the incandescent exhausts of jet engines, it is necessary to lay tens of kilometers of cooling system pipes under the flight deck, together with powerful pumps. Permanent work with flammable and explosive substances, which, unlike the missile cruiser or submarine, are usually dispersed literally at every turn - all this puts its imprint on the aircraft carrier design (special measures for fuel storage, fire safety, and ammunition elevators). A separate item is the power plant of colossal power with an energy extraction system to power the catapults.


UVP with Aster-15 rockets. Optical landing aid system in the background

Finally, self defense systems. In the case of the French aircraft carrier, its built-in weapons correspond to a frigate or a small destroyer. Plus - a mandatory set of tracking, detection, communication and control. However, everything is just fine here - electronics brings a minimum of problems, unlike moving mechanical parts (GEM, catapults, etc.).
All of the above factors are multiplied by the gigantism of the mechanisms and the terrible size of the ship. The result is obvious.

In the form in which there is a modern aircraft carrier - this is insane. And nothing can be fixed here - the dimensions and landing speeds of the planes are too large. But the most important thing - in our days, there is simply no need for "floating airfields".

The French are not the only ones who have fallen into this trap, seeking to emphasize the prestige of their country. Americans who have 10 nuclear aircraft carriers can simultaneously put up no more than 4-5 combat groups - the rest of the ships are in docked-hull docks. Extremely low reliability - the “Nimitz” literally “pour in” before our eyes. Persistent problems. Endless repair.

The French were aware of this, so they planned to build 2 aircraft carriers of the “de Gaulle” type - if one of them breaks down at the most crucial moment, another must come to the rescue. Naturally, all plans to build a “backup” collapsed, the results of the service of the lead ship were barely known.

PS On 2013, the year in the French defense budget (the so-called Livre Blanc) denotes no further cooperation with the UK in the framework of creating a joint aircraft carrier. In the near future, France does not plan to build aircraft carrier ships.
Author:
155 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Canep
    Canep 13 May 2013 08: 37 New
    -1
    In the form in which a modern aircraft carrier exists, this is insanity. And nothing can be corrected here - the sizes and landing speeds of aircraft are too large. But the most important thing - nowadays there is simply no need for “floating airfields”.
    .
    PS On 2013, the year in the French defense budget (the so-called Livre Blanc) denotes no further cooperation with the UK in the framework of creating a joint aircraft carrier. In the near future, France does not plan to build aircraft carrier ships.


    What other arguments are needed for the defenders of aircraft carriers? A lot of resources have been spent, and the result is a floating air base that no one needs. The fleet needs ships of the Kuznetsov type, one for each fleet, excluding the Baltic, for air cover.
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 13 May 2013 09: 11 New
      10
      Quote: Canep
      The fleet needs ships of the Kuznetsov type, one for each fleet, excluding the Baltic, for air cover

      If we talk about the maximum air group, then De Gaulle is closer precisely to Kuznetsov, because the displacement is even less and quite decent. Where is there to "Nimitz" Nuclear power plant, of course - this is the difference, but there are American steam catapults too. As for the differences in air groups (if we omit the fact that there is usually "shortage" on both ships now), then this is a question, mainly, to the plans of combat use, and not to the features of the aircraft carrier. But it is important that there are AWACS aircraft in its air group. So far, we still have plans for their creation as plans and remain ... and without the notorious catapults it is more difficult to implement.
      1. Canep
        Canep 13 May 2013 09: 42 New
        +1
        Do not forget "Kuznetsov" can stand up for itself, it can do without an escort, it is a full-fledged combat ship.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 10: 04 New
          24
          "Kuznetsov" CANNOT do without an escort
          1. Canep
            Canep 13 May 2013 10: 06 New
            -4
            Mute dispute with the deaf.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 13 May 2013 10: 17 New
              13
              RCC removed from Kuznetsov. SU33 do not have air-to-surface weapons
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 10: 19 New
              24
              Yes, just tired of reading about spherical horses in a vacuum.
              Kuznetsov can solve all of its tasks only when it is part of a large ship formation. No one will ever send such a ship alone - and not only because the lone TAVKR is very vulnerable, but also because it cannot solve its tasks alone.
              If you fence off the ocean and release Nimitz against Kuznetsov one on one (obviously delirious, but still) - Kuznetsov will lose to the smaller air group due to the absence of AWACS aircraft, etc., etc.
          2. old man54
            old man54 14 May 2013 22: 22 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            "Kuznetsov" CANNOT do without an escort

            Well, it seems like he can potentially do everything himself, i.e. dispense with the escort, but ... I would not send it to the sea in case of potential databases alone, in general, in principle, the price of the issue is too high if it is drowned.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2013 22: 29 New
              +3
              Quote: old man54
              Well, it seems like he can potentially do everything himself

              And what exactly, dear old man54? Could you list the tasks that Kuznetsov could solve alone?
              1. old man54
                old man54 15 May 2013 13: 22 New
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Quote: old man54
                Well, it seems like he can potentially do everything himself

                And what exactly, dear old man54? Could you list the tasks that Kuznetsov could solve alone?


                Well, firstly, he has a very powerful personal air defense system, especially for the time of commissioning, so much in general! Plus, you can and should use your air group to protect yourself from the beloved attack air group "potential enemy". Those. here everything is more than all right, amerovskie UAs are not standing nearby. :)
                Secondly, he has a wide range of weapons for protection against attacks by submarines, and especially with the use of carrier-based anti-submarine helicopters, and there is a high probability of their early detection and subsequent destruction!
                Thirdly, the design availability of an ultra-long-range anti-ship missile system, when receiving reliable target designation, allows it to attack large forces of the enemy's NKR independently, even in this case, without resorting to the help of its air wing. Although I am sure that the joint and well-coordinated attack of the NK group by attack aircraft and the Granit anti-ship missile system makes this attack extremely effective!
                Enough? :) But, again, ships of this class and displacement during the database (military operations) should not go to sea alone, without an escort. With him, it is somehow calmer and more reliable. :)
                1. old man54
                  old man54 15 May 2013 21: 08 New
                  +2
                  There are a lot of clever people "-" to bet, but to argue their position, and there are not very many who wish to do it in an enlightened and gracious way! Did I lie about something, or embellish it? :) Or just wrote something that doesn't suit someone, something that people don't want to understand and see? :))
                  1. vyatom
                    vyatom 6 June 2013 14: 59 New
                    -1
                    Gentlemen, I have a question:
                    At whose expense is the banquet?
                    Who will pay for the construction and operation of these giants?
                    Midnight people? Or grandmothers from their pensions in 7-8 tr
        2. Hirsh
          Hirsh 13 May 2013 10: 16 New
          +3
          Where can he stand? At the docks? Statistics on repair work at "Kuznetsov" in the studio
      2. patline
        patline 13 May 2013 09: 53 New
        +6
        The article is interesting. The question arose, what about the operational reliability of our "Kuznetsov"? If there are informed people here, can anyone tell what?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 10: 10 New
          20
          Kuznetsov has a lot of problems. Probably, the main one is the extremely unreliable EU because of which the ship can’t develop the nodes laid down in the passport now, and it’s better not to go out into the sea without tugboats.
          On the other hand, "Kuznetsov" does not have such goodies as an atomic chassis and catapults. Those. structurally it is simpler than de Gaulle. On the other hand, de Gaulle NEVER got into a situation of the wildest underfunding, in which Kuznetsov was permanently staying, so it is very difficult to judge what problems Kuznetsov had from the lack of timely funding and what from the unreliability of the design.
          Well, the operating conditions cannot be reset - the Northern Fleet is not Toulon unequivocally.
          In general, both are now ships of very limited combat capability.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 13 May 2013 11: 28 New
            +6
            De Gaulle simply never fell into the hands of domestic conscripts and thieving midshipmen.
          2. Santa Fe
            13 May 2013 12: 02 New
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But de Gaulle NEVER fell into a situation of wildest underfunding,

            In the same time:

            Kuznetsov did not have to go to 7 monthly campaigns.

            Over the first 7 years, de Gaulle air group made 19 000 takeoffs from catapults (test, demonstration, training, combat).
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 12: 20 New
              +6
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Kuznetsov did not have to go to 7 monthly campaigns.

              Not accounted for, this is true. The maximum seems to be a three-month hike.
              But, I repeat, it is very difficult to understand the true reasons for its problems. Nevertheless, the ship was built at the World Cup, but tests and fine-tuning had to take place at a "non-native" plant, and even in the wild 90s. If you say that de Gaulle is actually more reliable than Kuzmich, I will not argue. But what is the reason - the irreparable vices of Kuznetsov or the banal lack of knowledge of the ship - I do not know.
          3. Pimply
            Pimply 13 May 2013 12: 21 New
            -4
            What does it mean that you didn’t get it if you got it in the initial stages?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 12: 34 New
              +8
              That is what I wrote. Are we talking about the reliability of ships, or what? De Gaulle's "absence" of funding was expressed solely in delays in funding his construction. Well, when the ship was completed, it regularly underwent extremely expensive repairs and additions, the French did not have any special problems with the allocation of funds for its repair / modernization / operation. And nothing like our 90s.
    2. Hirsh
      Hirsh 13 May 2013 10: 16 New
      0
      Statistics on repair work at "Kuznetsov" in the studio
      1. Santa Fe
        13 May 2013 11: 54 New
        11
        Quote: Hirsh
        Statistics on repair work at "Kuznetsov" in the studio

        On December 25 1990 years, after 8 years, 3 months and 24 days after the bookmark, the acceptance certificate of the cruiser was signed.
        (the ship was built under the mighty USSR! And it was built very quickly. 8 years - this is a whole era)

        But the most interesting thing happened next:

        In 1992-1994, various tests of the ship, its armament and air group continued, the cruiser spent three to four months a year at sea, participated in exercises. / speaking in Russian - it still took 4 of the year to test the cavalry-carrying cruiser - and the situation in the fleet in those years was much better than today. /

        In winter 1994 — 1995, the main boilers were repaired. /began/

        In the year of the 300 anniversary of the Russian fleet, 23 on December 1995, as part of a naval multipurpose group, entered combat service in the Mediterranean Sea, having on board an air group consisting of 13 Su-33, 2 Su-25UTG and 11 helicopters. Gibraltar passed through 10 days of trekking.
        The whole trip was accompanied by serious problems with the main power plant, as a result of which the ship repeatedly lost its course, and could not reach full speed, as well as various malfunctions with ship systems.

        From 1996 to 1998, the year was under repair, which dragged on as a result of underfunding.

        From 2001 to 2004, the year was on a planned average repair. / planned average repair length 3 year wink /

        In 2004, he participated in a monthly campaign in the North Atlantic / wow! /

        On December 5 of 2007 of the year, as part of a naval strike group, he went on his second campaign for military service in the Mediterranean, which lasted until February 3 of 2008 of the year. / "Tamara and I are a couple." compulsory pair for "Kuznetsov" - rescue tug "Fotiy Krylov" /

        On December 8 of 2008, repairs were completed that were carried out during 7 months at the facilities of the Zvyozdochka Ship Repair Center.

        6 December 2011 years, the aircraft carrier went with a detachment of ships of the Northern Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, to the coast of Syria.
        According to the representatives of the Ministry of Defense, the aircraft carrier needs major repairs and will probably pass it from 2012 to 2017 at the Sevmash shipyard

        Basically: pretty good. Kuznetsov is saved by a simpler design - there are no catapults, the number of bulky and complex equipment is minimized. Another thing is that Kuznetsov is only a conditionally combat-ready ship: the Granit missile went out of action 10 years ago (according to one version, the control post was flooded with oil and was not restored). Air group - by 2012 there were 8 flyable Su-33s - i.e. minimum load for the ship and its equipment (aerofinishers, lifts, etc.). There are practically no photographs showing the Su-33 on the deck with suspended weapons - it looks like the elevators of the Kuznetsov ammunition have not been used since the moment of its construction ... etc.

        Kuznetsov is not combat-ready. If there is an urgent need to advance to the shores of Nigeria - an aircraft-carrying cruiser (more precisely, what is left of it) will fail the task.
    3. Santa Fe
      13 May 2013 11: 32 New
      +3
      Quote: Canep
      one for each fleet excluding the Baltic, for air cover.

      cover for whom?
      And most importantly - from whom?
    4. Pimply
      Pimply 13 May 2013 12: 20 New
      +3
      In fact, Oleg is wrong. There is a need, and it constantly arises. Another thing is that it is - expensive. But projecting power is always expensive somewhere. And if you think that the operation of a ship of the Kuzi type is simpler and cheaper - calculate how much it stood in the docks for repair.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 12: 31 New
        10
        Why compare the incomparable? "Stood under repair" and "repaired" in the domestic fleet are often diametrically opposite concepts ... Due to the lack of funding, what is done in a month can take years.
        Although, of course, I do not think that the operation of Kuzi will come out much cheaper (or even cheaper) of a medium-sized nuclear carrier
      2. Santa Fe
        13 May 2013 12: 45 New
        +4
        Eugene, where is the need for aircraft carriers? Try to cite the facts, because you are not one of those who shine with voices.
        Quote: Pimply
        But projecting power is always expensive somewhere

        Projecting power with aircraft carriers - CNN and ORT myths

        865 military bases on all continents project real power
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 14: 16 New
          10
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Projecting power with aircraft carriers - CNN and ORT myths

          865 military bases on all continents project real power

          Oleg, a brilliant conclusion.
          Those. France don't need an aircraft carrier because USA have xnumx military bases.
          Bravo!
          1. Santa Fe
            13 May 2013 18: 21 New
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Those. France does not need an aircraft carrier, because the United States has 865 military bases. Bravo!

            France is fighting on the other side of the earth?


            Only superpowers have the system of foreign bases (Colonies of the Spanish Empire, the British Empire until the middle of the 20th century, USSR, now the USA). Ordinary countries can’t do it, and they don’t have anything to do - ordinary countries never fight on foreign shores. They are fighting only with their neighbors (India-Pakistan, Iraq-Iran, Russia-Georgia, China-Taiwan, North Korea-South Korea, Israel-Arabs, etc.)

            You won’t wait for France to fight Australia.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 20: 50 New
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              France is fighting on the other side of the earth?

              France considered it necessary to use an aircraft carrier for warfare in the Mediterranean, if that :)))
              1. Santa Fe
                13 May 2013 21: 40 New
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                France considered it necessary to use an aircraft carrier for warfare in the Mediterranean, if that :)))

                boring and uninteresting excuse

                In fact, in Libya, land aircraft did a great job. You cannot give examples of warfare on the other side of the Earth, because there was none.
                1. nerd.su
                  nerd.su 14 May 2013 02: 40 New
                  +5
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  You cannot give examples of warfare on the other side of the Earth, because there was none.


                  Ignorance of history is usually compensated by peremptory statements.
                  Let's start right away with the war in Indochina. The French used their aircraft carriers during this war, and the Americans handed over to the French in 1953 the aircraft carrier "Belleau Wood" which the French called "Bois Belleau" were used in combat.
                  The French aircraft carrier Arromanches was used during the conflict in Tunisia to defend Bizerte.
                  Aircraft based on "Arromanches", together with carrier-based aircraft of British aircraft carriers, took part in the Egyptian war of 1956.
                  The aircraft carrier Bayter was used as an aircraft during the colonial wars in Vietnam and Algeria.
                  Let's leave the past. Mali, 2013, Operation Serval. It would seem that they managed without aircraft carriers, using an air base in the capital of Chad, N'Djamena. However, this is only due to the fact that there was no aircraft carrier for

                  "It is the tankers, which are rarely mentioned in the reports about the African war, who play an almost decisive role in it." During the execution of a combat mission, we need five refueling, "says Major David, piloting the Rafale.
                  Read more: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2145335

                  I had to resort to the help of the Allies in terms of logistics.

                  So the deuce to you in history. Well, your conclusion regarding the uselessness of aircraft carriers is unfounded. Expensive, but necessary. For France, to maintain its influence in the Francophonie zone. Well, for us to fight for world peace. That is, to combat the hegemon ...
                  1. Santa Fe
                    14 May 2013 13: 42 New
                    -1
                    Quote: bot.su
                    Ignorance of history is usually compensated by peremptory statements.

                    Sit down, nerd.
                    For the collected information "5"
                    For her analysis "2"
                    Quote: bot.su
                    the Americans handed over to the French in 1953 the aircraft carrier "Belleau Wood" which the French, calling "Bois Belleau", were used in combat.

                    The light aircraft carrier Bellow Wood is a vehicle from another era (World War II). When the planes were small and they could be landed on a 180 m long runway. Air wing - light piston aircraft of the WWII era - i.e. the tactics of using this ship remained at the level of the WWII, when the use of aircraft carriers was fully justified
                    Quote: bot.su
                    The French aircraft carrier Arromanches was used during the conflict in Tunisia to defend Bizerte.

                    Firstly, this is again a story from the distant 50's. When the French Air Force has not yet achieved what modern aviation can do
                    Secondly, the French vseravno lost - it seems, it was not about aircraft carriers))
                    Quote: bot.su
                    Aircraft based on "Arromanches", together with carrier-based aircraft of British aircraft carriers, took part in the Egyptian war of 1956.

                    same. This is the level of WWII - it has nothing to do with modern aviation
                    Quote: bot.su
                    Mali, 2013, Operation Serval. It would seem that they managed without aircraft carriers, using an air base in the capital of Chad, N'Djamena. However, this is only due to the fact that there was no aircraft carrier for

                    Mali is not a coastal state))
                    Rafal will need refueling anyway
                    Quote: bot.su
                    It is the refuellers, who are rarely mentioned in reports about the African war, who play a decisive role in it.

                    I talk about it constantly
                    Quote: bot.su
                    "During the execution of a combat mission, we need five refueling", - says Major David, piloting the "Rafale"

                    This is normal. Distance 2500 km, an unimaginable distance for a plane from WWII.
                    Little Rafal (smaller than the MiG-29) covered 2500 km in each direction, while he was hung with bombs and special equipment. And managed !!
                    Quote: bot.su
                    I had to resort to the help of the Allies in terms of logistics.

                    In fact, it turned out to be easier than driving "Charles de Gaulle"))

                    Especially for botan.su and Andrey from Chelyabinsk - Mali on the world map. The main battles took place in the north of the country - in 1500 km from the Atlantic coast
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2013 13: 55 New
                      +4
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      For the collected information "5"
                      For her analysis "2"

                      How it all started :))))))
                      Oleg said
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      You cannot give examples of warfare on the other side of the Earth, because there was none.

                      He was cited as an example Tunisia, Egypt, Vietnam, Algeria, Mali ...
                      AND? so there were wars "on the other side of the earth" or not, Oleg?
                      1. Santa Fe
                        14 May 2013 14: 43 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        He was cited as an example Tunisia, Egypt, Vietnam, Algeria, Mali ...

                        Tunisia, Egypt, Vietnam - all this was more than half a century ago.
                        When Europeans had colonies, but did not have modern F-15E, Rafaley and Stratotankers

                        War "France vs Mali"? )))
                        Do not tell Andrew, it was a pure police-punitive operation using a squadron of Rafaley from the capital's airport of N'Djamena.
                        An aircraft carrier in such conditions is necessary, like a fish bike

                        Let's write the Allied Prospector operation against Somali pirates here ...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        How were the wars "on the other side of the earth" or not, Oleg?

                        None of the "usual" countries in Europe, Asia or South. Over the past half century, America has not conducted large-scale military operations far from its native shores. only superpowers fought, even the "Mistress of the Seas" was solving the issue of her colonial inheritance in the Falklands

                        "Large-scale DB" refers to a war in which there would be a real need (who, if not SDG?) To use aircraft carriers
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2013 15: 07 New
                        +3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        None of the "usual" countries in Europe, Asia or South. America for the past half a century has not led large-scale military actions far from its native shores

                        Do multinational forces go fishing in Iraq? The contingent of France in Afghanistan entertains the local population with songs and dances? Falklands you Oleg, also not an example?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        "Large-scale DB" refers to a war in which there would be a real need (who, if not SDG?) To use aircraft carriers

                        OK, that means if France hasn’t needed to use AB during the last 50 years (and you really could have done without them), then France doesn’t need aircraft carriers. Here is your thought, Oleg, here is your criterion.
                        Just be consistent then. For the past 50 years, France has not needed to use strategic nuclear forces - down with them, they are not needed. There was no need to use nuclear submarines and in general submarines, there was no urgent need for all types of warships - they could have been done without ... Down with the French Navy. France also does not really need an army - for the operations that it conducted, the same foreign legion would have been quite enough. Down with the army. All down, Oleg.
                        The Air Force, by the way, is also down. There was an EXTREME need for the use of the Air Force in France. She generally had no particular need to climb into Libya. So well them, these Rafali, Oleg.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        14 May 2013 16: 01 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Do multinational forces go fishing in Iraq? The contingent of France in Afghanistan entertains the local population with songs and dances?

                        do not pretend that you do not understand what it is about
                        Afghan and Iraq - take away the army of the Northern Power from there, and all other "allies" - Germans, French, Italians, Hungarians, Spaniards - will flee in a day

                        Afghanistan and Iraq are US interests and are provided exclusively by the US Army. Against this background, the contribution of other countries is simply ridiculous. Independently conduct such wars can not any of the European countries (however, both Asian and Latin American)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        For the past 50 years, France did not need to use strategic nuclear forces - down with them, they are not needed

                        Do not touch the strategic nuclear forces, these are weapons of a completely different scale. With unique features and special value
                        A country with a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deliver a guaranteed strike is viewed differently.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Down with the army. All down, Oleg.

                        According to German plans, the Bundeswehr should have 140 Leopard-2 tanks. How fair is this decision?
                        The problem isn't "useless tanks". The problem is the excessive forces of the Bundeswehr.
                        If the armed forces have not been used anywhere for decades, then they are not effective and must be reformed, and if necessary, reduced.
                        In fact, European countries have many more important problems than the notorious "external threat"

                        ps / did not understand why to drive down aviation, if it is used, moreover, very intensively and effectively ??

                        pps / to Russia (Israel, USA, India) the last paragraph is irrelevant. we, in contrast to a well-fed and calm Europe, regularly there is a need for the use of all military branches
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2013 22: 27 New
                        +3
                        Oleg, I repeat once again - your argumentation is clear, but your logic is unacceptable. You say that if a certain weapon system (in this case, an aircraft carrier) has not been used in the last 50 years under conditions ("if not it, then who?), Then this means that such a system is outdated and unnecessary.
                        Let's analyze the conflicts that France has intervened over the past 50 years.
                        Afghan and Iraq. Here you write
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        US interests and provided exclusively by the US Army. Against this background, the contribution of other countries is simply ridiculous.

                        Suppose, but the fact is that this fully applies to the French Air Force. Their contribution to the operation was really ridiculous and the United States could easily use only its own Air Force, without attracting any allies.
                        Fighting in Mali? You write
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Do not tell Andrew, it was a pure police-punitive operation using a squadron of Rafaley from the capital's airport of N'Djamena.

                        Everything is so - but here's the thing, in the same Mali, Rafali were not at all necessary and could be replaced by conventional combat helicopters - no problem. Yes, Rafali was used there, but the situations "if not Rafal, then who?" there, naturally, did not arise.
                        Libya.
                        In total, NATO aircraft carried out 26156 sorties. The share of France is 4500 sorties or 17,2% of the total. In other words, France was by no means the first violin in this orchestra, NATO would have done well without the French Air Force planes - all the more so since the French Air Force itself does not have 4500 sorties, but only 2910 or 11,1% of the total number of sorties - the rest is work made naval aviation of France :)))
                        What else? Yugoslavia? So there the participation of the French Air Force is even less than in Libya.
                        So Oleg comes out that the participation of the French Air Force in general was not necessary in any conflict in which France has participated over the past 50 years. Accordingly, by the logic you propose, the French Air Force is not needed.
                      5. Santa Fe
                        15 May 2013 00: 54 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        in the same Mali Rafali was not at all necessary and could be replaced by conventional combat helicopters - no problem

                        Sure?
                        "Rafali" did not work from Bamako airport (Mali), they were based in the capital's N'Djamena airport, 2500 km from the DB zone. Why's that? Obviously, there were some reasons - economic, political, related to safety and convenience of work
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        it turns out that the participation of the French Air Force in general was not necessary in any conflict in which France has participated over the past 50 years. Accordingly, by the logic you propose, the French Air Force is not needed.

                        It’s strange that such obvious things surprise you.
                        A single visa-free space, a single currency, a single political system, a single military command, there is even a common government of the European Union

                        The French Air Force is part of the European Air Force. Each of the countries - Belgium, Norway, Denmark ... provided 6 aircraft - a grouping of 60 percussion machines was obtained.
                        No one requires France to independently resolve such issues - the European Union decides them together, drop by drop with the world - and we have a solid army. So Europeans have no right to abandon their tiny armies. At the same time, it is not profitable for European countries to maintain their own tank armada, and most importantly, it is pointless. For this, the EU and NATO were created

                        The European Union, by the way, is an attempt to build a Superpower (not entirely successful).

                        As a result, Europe can collectively fill the face of any neighbor, but it is still unable to wage war across the oceans. For this, BASES and tank landing transports are needed. And de Gaulle with the Prince of Asturias cannot help here - empty bravado and cheap Prestige
                      6. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 15 May 2013 04: 57 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Rafali did not work from Bamako Airport (Mali), they were based at the capital's N'Djamena Airport, 2500 km from the database zone. Why's that? Obviously there were some reasons - economic, political, related to safety and usability

                        Military transport aircraft landed in Bamako, this is no less important than combat sorties.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        At the same time, it is not profitable for European countries to maintain their own tank armada, and most importantly, it is pointless.

                        Nevertheless, the NATO armored forces combined with the Americans are almost as good as ours.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        For this, BASES and tank landing transports are needed.

                        But what about the Mistral? Or Juan Carlos I? And where did the base in N'Djamena come from? Surely not the only one ...
                      7. Santa Fe
                        16 May 2013 02: 47 New
                        0
                        Quote: bot.su
                        Military transport aircraft landed in Bamako, this is no less important than combat sorties.

                        Wonderful. again dispensed with the FGD and Mistral))
                        Quote: bot.su
                        Nevertheless, the NATO armored forces combined with the Americans are almost as good as ours.

                        20 leading the world))
                        And the Americans can cope without NATO at all - just provide them with bases where to unload tanks
                        Quote: bot.su
                        But what about the Mistral? Or Juan Carlos I?

                        Just puppies

                        US Navy Shipping Command - 115 tank landing transports, high-speed rockers and container ships. For example, "Bob Hope" - each larger than the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov", the capacity of 100+ Abrams tanks, 900 Hummers, or one motorized division with equipment
                    2. Denis
                      Denis 15 May 2013 14: 00 New
                      +3
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      The European Union decides them together, drop by drop with the world - and we have a solid army
                      Rather spray ...
                      There should be more unity, harmony or something. Sometimes the football team of the world often lost to not the strongest teams, although the best were collected, but there was no play
        2. nerd.su
          nerd.su 14 May 2013 15: 41 New
          +4
          Well ... Your analysis is also one-sided.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The light aircraft carrier Bellow Wood is a vehicle from another era (World War II).

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Firstly, this is again a story from the distant 50s.

          Well, in the same vein. And it all started with ... Wow, that there is no your statement that France did not fight on the other side of the Earth what Moderators erased, as if not true, probably laughing

          If you look, you will find examples of the military operations of the French and closer to our days.
          And then, not only aviation technologies are developing, but also shipbuilding ones. So the argument that there weren’t such airplanes back then and half a century has passed is a zilch, not an argument. You might think that ships are being built now, no more complicated than in the 50s of the last century!
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Mali is not a coastal state))
          Rafal will need refueling anyway

          But from N'Djamena fly 2500 km in one direction, and from the coast of Morocco 2500-3000 in both directions. Is there a difference? Plus, with a certain level of technology, tanker aircraft can also be based on aircraft carriers.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The main battles took place in the north of the country - 1500 km off the Atlantic coast

          But this does not mean that the next state, which will ask the French for help, will not be coastal.
          In general, everything is bad with the analysis.
          And finally
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Distance 2500 km, an unimaginable distance for a plane from WWII

          Do you recall in what year Chkalov’s flight through the North Pole took place? Or when our planes began to bomb Berlin?
          1. Santa Fe
            14 May 2013 17: 25 New
            -1
            Quote: bot.su
            Wow, that is not your statement that France did not fight on the other side of the Earth

            I didn’t fight. For 50 years there has not been a single serious conflict where the use of aircraft carriers and tank columns would have been required.

            What you cited as an example (Tunisia, Indochina):
            - military operations were conducted using support bases (colonies) on overseas shores... Those. about any "projection of power" - AUG came and started a war, this was not the case, the war was in fact on "its legal territory"
            - these military operations are difficult to call a war - ordinary police and colonial showdowns, where armored personnel carriers and a foreign legion are needed, but not the SDG carrier
            - all the aircraft carriers cited as an example - from WWII with the appropriate tactics and wing.
            Quote: bot.su
            But from N'Djamena fly 2500 km one way, and from the coast of Morocco 2500-3000 both ways. Is there a difference?

            two extra refueling
            Quote: bot.su
            Do you recall in what year Chkalov’s flight through the North Pole took place?

            single record has nothing to do with tactical units of tactical aviation
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. nerd.su
            nerd.su 15 May 2013 04: 30 New
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I didn’t fight. For 50 years no serious conflict

            Yes you are a demagogue smile First, to say that there was no war, then - that war is not a war, but a police operation. If this were an oral debate, then you would have a chance to convince someone. And so demagoguery is visible immediately.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            wherever the use of aircraft carriers and tank columns would be required.

            The presence of aircraft carriers and tank columns is to a large extent a guarantee that they will not be used. For the reality - "the one who does not want to feed his army, will feed someone else's" - has not been canceled!
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What you cited as an example (Tunisia, Indochina):
            - hostilities were conducted using support bases (colonies) on the overseas shores. Those. about any "projection of power" - AUG came and started a war, this was not the case, the war was in fact on "its legal territory"
            - it is difficult to call these military operations - ordinary police-colonial showdowns

            Wow police showdown!
            In Indochina, the French used more than 200 thousand "policemen" and local pro-French "people's guards". The Americans donated 1400 units of armored vehicles, several hundred aircraft, warships, including an aircraft carrier, to the "French police".
            And this aircraft carrier was not the only one.

            At the end of the year, the 4F flotilla began its second campaign in Indochina, this time with its SBD-5 operating from the light aircraft carrier Arromanches (the former English Colossus, leased for five years in August 1946). The ship was in the combat zone from November 29, 1948 to January 4, 1949, and the actions of its air group once again demonstrated the advantages of carrier-based aircraft, although the dive workers also worked from coastal air bases. There is only one fact that says a lot - on this cruise the Dontlesss made as many sorties for bombing as all (!) Aviation Expeditionary Force aircraft for the whole of 1948. Due to its ability to freely choose a position in the Gulf of Tonkin, Arromansh managed to largely mitigate the negative impact of the northeastern monsoons blowing from October to March, which often forced them to cancel flights in the Air Force units.

            In addition, the land base, unlike an aircraft carrier, is vulnerable to sabotage. On March 7, 1954, the French suffered a heavy blow - guerrillas made their way to the treatment systems at the airfields in Catby and Zyalam, where they destroyed at least 38 aircraft in the parking lots and damaged many cars!

            What a projection of force. A real war, combat work, thousands of sorties.

            In Tunisia, Arromanches as part of a group of ships arrived to defend his only military base in Bizerte in an independent state. This is a war, not a police operation.
          4. Santa Fe
            16 May 2013 02: 41 New
            -1
            Quote: bot.su
            In Indochina, the French used more than 200 thousand "policemen" and local pro-French "people's guards". The Americans donated 1400 units of armored vehicles, several hundred aircraft, warships, including an aircraft carrier, to the "French police".

            What does this have to do with our time?

            A fresher example is possible, at least from 70's?
            It turns out impossible - there are no such examples
          5. nerd.su
            nerd.su 17 May 2013 02: 02 New
            0
            So you think France will never need an aircraft carrier? Does this power have no interests overseas?
      3. nerd.su
        nerd.su 15 May 2013 04: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: bot.su
        But from N'Djamena fly 2500 km one way, and from the coast of Morocco 2500-3000 both ways. Is there a difference?

        two extra refueling

        So 40% less fuel. And by about the same figure, the depleted resource of the aircraft, the raid of the pilots, and so on is decreasing.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        single record has nothing to do with tactical units of tactical aviation

        Why are you so constantly sitting in a puddle !?
        But what about the first "Stalin's route" - a non-stop flight Moscow - the Far East (Udd Island) - 9374 km?
        And the flight after Chkalov to the USA of Gromov’s crew? 11500 km and landing at the Mexican border?
        Apart from many other flights.
        TACTICAL aviation ... The practical range of the MiG-3 is 820 km, Pe-2 of various modifications 1200-1400 km. The fourth-generation multipurpose fighter Dassault Rafale - a combat radius of 1800 km, in the version of the interceptor 1097 km. So in terms of distance just the planes of the Second World War period are not very loser than modern ones. And if technology allowed during the Second World War to refuel in the air in a combat situation, in general, in terms of range, modern and half-century-old airplanes had no special difference.

        Conclusion: modern aircraft carriers due to the greater combat load and versatility of modern aircraft, due to the greater range with the tanker aircraft on the aircraft carrier, due to the AWACS aircraft, have significantly greater combat capabilities than the aircraft carriers of the Second World War. Accordingly, higher is the "projected force" - the political and military influence exerted on countries that do not have aircraft carriers. And increasing the combat stability of the fleet in a collision with countries that have aircraft carriers. Military bases and aircraft carriers complement each other. The purpose of the commented article is masochistic obtaining of pleasure by the author of the article in the process of reasoned criticism. Very much like a kind of troll who switched from commenting to writing articles ...
      4. Santa Fe
        16 May 2013 02: 28 New
        -1
        Quote: bot.su
        So 40% less fuel. And by about the same figure, the depleted resource of the aircraft, the raid of the pilots, and so on is decreasing.

        1. An unpleasant feature of deck vehicles - less combat load - deck Rafaly will need more sorties. Fuel consumption will increase.
        2. The developed resource? You can safely write this in minus deck aviation - overload during take-off and landing operations from the deck is much more. The glider resource is faster lost + difficulties with servicing ships at sea.
        Quote: bot.su
        Why are you so constantly sitting in a puddle !?

        You sat in a puddle. And keep floundering in it, falling deeper and deeper
        Quote: bot.su
        But what about the first "Stalin's route" - a non-stop flight Moscow - the Far East (Udd Island) - 9374 km?

        Why are you again talking about STRATEGIC aviation when we are talking about TACTICAL ??
        Quote: bot.su
        The practical range of the MiG-3 is 820 km, Pe-2 of various modifications 1200-1400 km. The fourth-generation multipurpose fighter Dassault Rafale - combat radius 1800 km, in the variant interceptor 1097 km.

        Combat radius and practical range - completely different parameters
        Based on your numbers:
        MiG-3 combat radius ~ 300 km
        Rafal’s combat radius 1097 ... 1800 km. More 6 times !! + refueling option
        Quote: bot.su
        So in terms of distance just the planes of the Second World War period are not very loser than modern ones.

        Aren't you ashamed of yourself?
      5. nerd.su
        nerd.su 17 May 2013 03: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        + difficulties with servicing ships at sea.

        And with the base there are no difficulties in maintenance, political and economic difficulties?
        Ukraine is not trying to negotiate low gas prices using Sevastopol?

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Why are you again talking about STRATEGIC aviation when we are talking about TACTICAL ??

        I remind you that you said that 2500 thousand is an unthinkable distance for WWII aircraft.
        Ok, let's talk about tactical. Range records - the Paris-New York flight, which our beat after flying across the North Pole, belongs to the French Breguet 19. The empty mass is rounded 2,2 tons, the normal take-off is 7 tons. Weak for strategic aviation.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Combat radius and practical range - completely different parameters

        So I wanted to see how much you manipulate the numbers. It turned out - easy to my advantage :)
        The practical range of Raphael is 2000 km, and the combat radius is 1097-1800 km. The radius of the MiG-3 will be about 500 km. But the Rafal is a multipurpose fighter that can also be used as a tactical bomber. Let's compare with Pe-2. The practical range of the Pe-2 is 1200-1400 km, while Rafal has 2000 km. Yes, there is an advantage. But it cannot be said that 6 times. The maximum is 3-3,5 times (500 mg-3 and 1800 rafal or, in terms of practical range, 800 mig-3 versus 2000 rafal). In the bomber version, the overall advantage of the Raphal is only 1,5 - 2 times. And then, in terms of mass and size characteristics, Rafali is nevertheless closer to the long-range aviation aircraft of the WWII times. So the argument is senseless, it is clear that modern aircraft fly "faster, higher, stronger." But we cannot say that they have an unthinkable advantage.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

        No.
      6. Santa Fe
        17 May 2013 09: 10 New
        -1
        Quote: bot.su
        And with the base there are no difficulties in maintenance, political and economic difficulties?

        The Super Powers do not
        Quote: bot.su
        Ok, let's talk about tactical. Range records - the flight Paris-New York, which our beat after flying over the North Pole, belongs to the French Breguet 19.

        At the end of the same year, an improved version was prepared, called the "Grand Raid" or Br.19GR. They took a serial aircraft as a basis, installing a new fuel system on it. In front of the pilot's cockpit there were tanks for 1146 and 258 liters, under the floor there was another tank for 410 liters, and between the pilot's and navigator's seats a container for 180 liters of gasoline was squeezed. The total fuel supply was almost seven times higher than that available on production vehicles.

        If the "record" Rafale is weighted instead of CFT and PTB bombs, its flight range will also increase to 10 thousand km or more.
        Quote: bot.su
        Rafal’s practical range is 2000 km, and the combat radius is, 1097-1800 km. Radius Mig-3 will be somewhere 500 km.

        Combat radius = (practical range minus stock for air combat, minus 5 minute stock for landing) and all this divided in half

        If the combat radius of Rafal is more than 1800 km, this means that its practical range should be within 4000 km)))

        Now on your own. do the same with the MiG-3 and Pe-2 and do not write nonsense anymore
      7. nerd.su
        nerd.su 17 May 2013 10: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The Super Powers do not

        Then there are no superpowers in the world! :) Because even the states have difficulties. At a minimum, the accelerated wear of their printing press))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        If the combat radius of Rafal is more than 1800 km, this means that its practical range should be within 4000 km)))

        The range of 2000 km is without hanging tanks. With hanging tanks, the Pe-2 also flew 2 times further. So, the advantage of Rafal in distance over WWII aircraft is 2-2,5 times. That I still do not take German or American aircraft. And in general, in principle, this is the pre-war generation of cars.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        If the "record" Rafale is weighted instead of CFT and PTB bombs, its flight range will also increase to 10 thousand km or more.

        So, if it’s a smaller one in terms of take-off weight, it will be fueled, then it will be 11500 km.
      8. Santa Fe
        17 May 2013 18: 34 New
        -1
        Quote: bot.su
        And with the base there are no difficulties in maintenance, political and economic difficulties?

        Diego Garcia Air Base - 70 years free rental
        Guantanamo base - rental price $ 1
        the entire infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan is free
        .
        Kamran (base of the USSR in Vietnam) - gratuitous lease for 25 years
        .
        conclusion: the superpowers have no problems with the bases.

        The base is used by many branches of the armed forces - it is a transport hub, a platform for missile defense and radio intercept systems ("Echelon"), a strong point (hospitals, arsenal, heavy armored vehicles). Here it is possible to place strategists, heavy interceptors, reconnaissance (U-2, "G stars"), basic naval aviation (Poseidons) and special vehicles (RC-135 - ask what kind of aircraft it is and what it is for). Finally, it is political influence and a forward outpost for the rapid deployment of troops.

        The same Ramstein is not just the US Air Force airbase in Germany, the Landstuhl Military Hospital, the largest in Europe, is located next door. Radom - a nuclear arsenal, Kaiserslautern and strategic underground command post.
        It is noteworthy that all this cost America a few peas - the super-base was built by German "slaves" and guest workers from Turkey in the late 40s.

        The story of Sevastopol - what is Russia, such and bases

        There is nothing further to discuss here.
        Quote: bot.su
        2000 km range - this is without hanging tanks

        You can’t even decide on the numbers, shuffle them anyhow and then try to draw some conclusions.

        1. Maximum or ferry range is the longest distance that an aircraft can travel in one direction, at the best possible speed and with fuel tanks as full as possible (including outboard tanks).
        2. It took off, flew (not always in a straight line, leaving for PMV, afterburner is possible), maneuvered, destroyed, maneuvered, returned.
        The combat radius is usually ~ 30% of practical range, it all depends on the specific situation, EFT, CFT, etc.

        Raphael's combat radius (RAFALE : more than 800 NM / 1,480 km (2,000 L tanks * 3 + GBU-12 * 4 or SCALP-EG * 2 + AAM * 4)
        3 PTB + bomb load ~ 1,5 tons = 1480 km.

        ant and ne-2 just puppies on the background of a light multi-role fighter of the beginning of the XXI century

        Pe-2: Without a bomb load and with full fuel, it had a flight range of up to 1200 km (according to the reference book "Aircraft of the USSR of the Second World War" from 2003 - 1170 km), but if we talk about its combat radius with "standard" 600 kg of bombs on the internal suspension, then that did not exceed 300 km, and if plus 400 kg of bombs on external sling, more than 250 km of combat sortie were not planned.

        As we recall, Rafal, using refueling, calmly hit targets at a distance of 2500 km.
        Quote: bot.su
        So, the advantage of Rafal in distance over WWII aircraft is 2-2,5 times

        nerd, you wrote nonsense again tongue
      9. nerd.su
        nerd.su 17 May 2013 21: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        conclusion: the superpowers have no problems with the bases.

        The Kyrgyz base "Manas" has been renamed the Air Force Transit Center with some change in the status of military personnel, only the rent costs the United States $ 60 million a year. There are also payments.

        Okinawa. Americans refuse to rent part of the island, transfer some parts of the base to sparsely populated places. The reason is the indignation of the local population, which may ultimately call into question the very location of American bases.

        In South Korea, similar problems begin.

        Guantanamo - a spot on the reputation, however, the Americans on the drum. For the heads are empty, like drums ...

        Conclusion: in the world there is not a single superpower, according to the criterion of Oleg Koptsov.



        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        You can’t even decide on the numbers, shuffle them anyhow

        I am not confusing anything. I am talking about practical range and combat radius. We just use different sources. In order not to get confused, we compare one parameter in one source. Since you don’t like Wikipedia (there’s no reference, call me), where did I get my numbers from? Take the Sky Corner website http://www.airwar.ru/index.html
        So practical range. MiG-3 - 1250 km (he himself was surprised, perhaps one of the later modifications); Pe-2 - 1500 km; Rafal M - 2000 km. If you say that the site is garbage, I’ll say right away that there is no guarantee that your directory is more accurate. Give one source / one parameter that anyone can check on the Internet.
      10. Santa Fe
        18 May 2013 00: 08 New
        -1
        Quote: bot.su
        The Kyrgyz base "Manas" ... rent costs the US $ 60 million a year.

        Sometimes it happens. Of course, they pay something. For example, the naval base of Gaeta (Italy) recently turned off the water for non-payment ... but this is a trifle against the background of world geopolitics

        There is no doubt that the base is an effective, necessary and very profitable project. And there is no substitute for it (unless the full occupation of an overseas country)
        Quote: bot.su
        Okinawa. Americans refuse to rent part of the island, transfer some parts of the base to sparsely populated places. The reason is the indignation of the local population, which may ultimately call into question the very location of American bases.

        Of course, that's why there are two ABs in Okinawa - Futemma (marines) and Kaden - one of the coolest air bases in the world, the base of the 18 tactical air wing (look at your leisure, what kind of unit) ...
        In addition to them, on the territory of Japan are located: Misawa Air Base, a large naval base of Yokosuka (a suburb of Tokyo - this is the issue of sparseness tongue ), the second naval base - Sasebo, etc.

        For 70 years, the Yankees have been spitting on Japanese folk festivities under the walls of AB Kaden and will not give a damn about this - too profitable place.
        Quote: bot.su
        Corner of the sky http://www.airwar.ru/index.html

        Airwar Disappointed (article on Rafale):
        Practical range without PTB, km 2000
        Combat range, km
        in the role of an attack aircraft 1055
        as 1760 interceptor

        Those. There is a clear contradiction and it is impossible to believe this data.

        In reality, as we recall, Rafali performed combat missions at a range of 2500 km. Here is its real combat radius, without any reference))

        About MiG-3, Wiki
        Practical range: 820-857 km on 7860 m
        So the combat radius (30%) ~ 250 km
      11. nerd.su
        nerd.su 18 May 2013 03: 16 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        There is no doubt that the base is an effective, necessary and very profitable project.

        The benefit should be considered, but otherwise completely agree.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        For 70 years, the Yankees have been spitting on Japanese folk festivals under the walls of AB

        08.04. 2013
        US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that Washington will refuse to extend the lease of part of the Japanese island of Okinawa, where American military bases are located.
        ... It is reported that the Futenma Marine Corps Air Force Base located in downtown Ginowan will be redeployed to sparsely populated areas - but no earlier than 2022.

        They hope that by the year 22, everything will settle down. But the brave marines have more than once raped someone or even spoiled the thread, so that they can be forgotten, and maybe even sooner and further they will drive them out.
      12. nerd.su
        nerd.su 18 May 2013 03: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Those. There is a clear contradiction and it is impossible to believe this data.

        There is no contradiction. In general, the calculation of flight ranges is, as I understand it, done for a specific task and each time different. But it is accepted that the longest distillation range, practical range is 0,6-0,7 distillation, and the difference is explained by different fuel residues. The combat radius is 0,3-0,4 ferry range or, respectively, 0,4-0,6 practical. Rafal ferry range something around 3300-3400 km. Accordingly, the practical - 2000, and the combat radius of 1000. Here it is for the strike aircraft and is 1100 km. Armament in the role of an interceptor is easier and has less effect on aerodynamics, but with additional tanks and almost to practical range without PTB it falls short.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In reality, as we recall, Rafali performed combat missions at a range of 2500 km. Here is its real combat radius, without any reference))

        Well, with five refueling! Under such conditions, the combat radius of a rafal is rather limited by the number of targets, because they have not yet learned to reload a plane in the air laughing
      13. Santa Fe
        18 May 2013 15: 05 New
        0
        Quote: bot.su
        In general, the calculation of flight ranges is, as I understand it, done for a specific task and each time different.

        I agree that Raphael has so many sets of additional equipment that the value of the "combat radius" depends on the specific case.
        Quote: bot.su
        Well, with five refueling!

        It is necessary - and refuel 10 times. Rafal cannot be viewed separately from the "attack aircraft-tanker" complex

        5000 km, 1,5 tons of bombs ... 5 refueling. It's a little rafal

        And here is a specialized F-15E fighter-bomber (F-111 successor)
        The route in the picture, bomb load ~ 4 tons + LANTIRN containers, number of refueling - 4
        Quote: bot.su
        because we have not yet learned how to reload a plane in the air

        Everything goes to this
        http://www.promved.ru/articles/article.phtml?id=1026&nomer=38
        The system in its configuration proposed today includes a bomb bay of a transport and loading aircraft, a loading device on a retractable bar with aerodynamic compensators, as well as an “intelligent” external suspension pylon on a combat aircraft.

        It remains to learn how to transfer coffee through the pipeline to the cockpit, and replace a tired pilot))
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2013 08: 57 New
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    boring and uninteresting excuse

    Of course - fantasizing about "an aircraft carrier - g, the Air Force rules" is much more interesting
    And on the question of examples of warfare on the other side of the earth - they already answered you
  • Pimply
    Pimply 14 May 2013 01: 40 New
    +3
    France still receives up to a third of its income from former colonies in Africa. Yes, she regularly fights on the other side of the Earth, because she has her own interests there.
    1. Santa Fe
      14 May 2013 02: 21 New
      -2
      Quote: Pimply
      because she has her own interests there.

      Interests that is, only they are economic and trade
      But not the military. Rather, the police - suppressing riots between blacks - this is a task for the battalion of legionnaires

      But not for the three billionth FGD

      In fact, for half a century, there has not been a single conflict in which Spain butted Australia or India with Brazil. All but the US Superpower fight only at home
  • Pimply
    Pimply 13 May 2013 14: 51 New
    +8
    Oleg. The base is difficult to consider as a mobile lever of power. Both this and that are equally necessary. Bases are more vulnerable in a number of ways and limited, aircraft carriers are more mobile and vulnerable in other positions. But we need both these and these. An aircraft carrier is operational flexibility, the ability to strengthen a particular group quickly. In the end, this changes the vulnerability of the base as a single target. Aircraft carrier is struck - the base is working. The base is hit - the aircraft carrier is working. And then there aren’t bases everywhere, and not everywhere they have enough aircraft, or the ability to overcome the airspace of a country. So what is the myth?
  • Fofan
    Fofan 13 May 2013 23: 30 New
    0
    such a small chain of US bases in Japan and Taiwan, and so much more in Germany and Italy than Iraq. But this is after the 90s .... the Chinese should be ashamed!
  • Bashkaus
    Bashkaus 13 May 2013 15: 07 New
    +6
    But projecting power is always expensive somewhere But the provocative question, and is it not easier to denounce the cloud of non-nuclear warheads on the finished Proton-M launch vehicle. Payload 24t is a serious matter, considering that the Voivode raises to 9t. Then you do not need to bathe. Minimum costs: build a couple of hangars at the cosmodrome, rivet a dozen rockets, earn some warheads. Let them be kept calm in the hangars. In an extreme case, you can install it on the launcher, and if you completely support it, then you can make fun. And if rocket seeds are not useful, you can always use them for their intended purpose at the end of their life as space transporters.
    It’s just that if you soberly judge, then in the war with NATO, Kuznetsov does not shy away, there are other arguments, and to calm the overexcited ...... (to enter the necessary country) is quite normal. It’s one thing to send an aircraft carrier to the other end of the earth with all escort, and this is thousands of sailors, tons of salaries, etc. Another thing is the regular calculation of the cosmodrome. And to be honest it’s one thing to shoot down three dozen Su33, another thing is 2 dozen intercontinental warheads.
    1. Kaa
      Kaa 13 May 2013 15: 29 New
      11
      Quote: Bashkaus
      isn’t it easier to prototype a ready-made rocket carrier Proton-M with a cloud of non-nuclear warheads
      The new is the well-forgotten old. "The R-27 (4K-10) rocket is a single-stage rocket with a liquid propellant engine. It is the ancestor of marine liquid-propellant rocketry. The rocket implements a set of circuit-layout and design-technological solutions that have become basic for all subsequent types of liquid-propellant missiles.During the processing of data received from satellites, transmission of target designation to the submarine, alerting a ballistic missile and during its flight, the target could move 150 km from its initial position. The aerodynamic guidance scheme did not meet this requirement.
      For this reason, two variants of the 4K18 two-stage missile were developed in the pre-draft design: with a two-stage, ballistic plus aerodynamic and with a purely ballistic aiming at the target. The R-27K missile went through a full cycle of design and experimental testing; working and operational documentation was developed. From the ground stand at the State Central Testing Ground in Kapustin Yar, 20 launches were carried out, 16 of them with positive results. The first launch of a 4K18 missile from a submarine in Severodvinsk was carried out in December 1972, in November 1973 flight tests were completed with a two-missile salvo. In total, 11 missiles were launched from the boat, including 10 launches - successful. At the last launch, a direct (!!!) hit of the combat unit in the target vessel is provided.
      At the time when 4K18 was being tested, the ICRTs "Legend" system was also not yet put into service, the target designation system based on aircraft carriers could not provide global surveillance.http: //imperus.clan.su/publ/2-1 -0-10 Now. like, they promise, to replace the "Legend" by the end of 2013 "Liana" to be commissioned. We are waiting ...
  • old man54
    old man54 15 May 2013 13: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Pimply
    In fact, Oleg is wrong. There is a need, and it constantly arises. Another thing is that it is - expensive. But projecting power is always expensive somewhere. And if you think that the operation of a ship of the Kuzi type is simpler and cheaper - calculate how much it stood in the docks for repair.


    But I, in principle, disagree with the fact that many here believe that Russia, in its current economic and geopolitical state, needs just a few strike aircraft carriers precisely for striking NK groupings and the coast of a potential enemy. And you do not understand that this is a stupid way of copying American doctrine, the way that China seems to have taken! But symmetrically never to catch up with someone who has gone far ahead, I'm talking about the United States. The history of the world structure of battleships is a vivid example! And during the time of the USSR, the leadership understood this perfectly well, why they tried to asymmetrically build a fleet strategy and built ships for it. Russia does not need aircraft carriers for attack, but primarily for the long-range air defense of its NKs and multipurpose nuclear submarines. And it is more convenient to sink their aircraft-carrying barges with missiles of the "Basalt", Granite "class, etc. And without aircraft carriers, even with well-ordered air refueling at the coastal aviation of the fleet, it will never be possible to reliably cover the NK strike force advancing into the world ocean.
  • ultra
    ultra 13 May 2013 15: 36 New
    +2
    Very informative! Thanks to the author! hi
    1. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 13 May 2013 16: 24 New
      +4
      Someone put the wise Kaa minus, probably Mrs. Latynina herself, in this forum the rule is mnius from Latynina, Alekseeva, etc. rabble is equated with a hero star)))
      Kaa, thanks for the interesting answer.
      But it’s good, let's say it’s stressful against moving targets, but if you look at NATO, they will mainly iron the airfields, air defense and CP positions, and they are stationary. Therefore, for such purposes, it can really make a heavy rocket with a large number of heads (how many will fit). After all, if you take the total amount of development and construction of an aircraft carrier, the cost of operation, fuel, fuel and crew, all the costs of training, aircraft, their maintenance, etc. etc. The costs of forming an order for the escort ships accompanying the inlet, and then the amount received, should be divided by the number of bombs / missiles dropped from a specific aircraft carrier, it turns out that dropping each bomb is drop deadly expensive, and it is not a fact that the bomb will lie on the target, and not on the microwave oven. So the question is, isn’t it easier to build a Proton-M missile with 10-15 non-nuclear warheads, the launch of which will be economically cheaper than the departure of a squadron of aircraft from an aircraft carrier? After all, there is a launch vehicle, there are cosmodromes, it’s not a question to build a couple of hangars where to store these missiles, it’s up to you to develop a warhead, but you don’t have to go far either, a cassette is created on which several mace blocks are installed in finished form (each with several heads, but not nuclear) put it all on a proton, close fairings and Voila ... And no aircraft carriers
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 17: 05 New
        11
        I'm sorry to interfere, but there is one vicious nuance that kills the whole idea of ​​long-range non-nuclear ballistic weapons in the bud.
        At one time (and not so long ago), the United States also considered the option of creating ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads. And, recognizing all the advantages of such weapons, the United States abandoned it. Why?
        The reason is simple. Because the launch of an ICBM is detected at a time, but PROVING that a missile with a non-nuclear warhead is launched can only be at the level of "I swear by my mother!" In the end, the United States decided that when using a non-nuclear ICBM, there is an extremely high risk that the Russian strategic nuclear forces will perceive such a launch as the beginning of Armageddon (even if the ICBM is launched outside the territory of the Russian Federation) and ... they will arrange Armageddon. Do you need it?
        Well, the second. According to the set of tests of ICBMs as an anti-ship weapon in the USSR (yes, the same P-27) it was recognized that it was much more expedient and promising to use anti-ship missiles - therefore, subsequently we did not create ballistic missiles for hitting aircraft carriers, and the emphasis was on Basalts, granites, etc. .d.
        And yes, the P-27 had a chance to hit an aircraft carrier only in the presence of a nuclear warhead. Do not be confused by a direct hit on the target ship - it STANDS IN PLACE. But it was not possible to ensure the defeat of a moving target with a ballistic missile
        Less is not from me :)))
        1. I think so
          I think so 13 May 2013 22: 32 New
          +2
          Your arguments are not serious:
          1. "... will perceive such a launch as the beginning of Armageddon ...". Well, it will be so - if someone starts to shoot at the AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, then this is ALREADY the "beginning of Armageddon". And there is nothing to hide or suppose - the beginning is the BEGINNING.
          2. "... it is recognized that it is much more expedient and promising to use the RCC ..." Everything flows EVERYTHING changes ... Then they recognized one thing, now the times are different. The Chinese REALLY have non-nuclear ballistic missiles for shooting at aircraft carriers ... And this gives them SERIOUS advantages. If, in peacetime, it flies to an aircraft carrier that is confused somewhere near China, NON-NUCLEAR such a pig NOBODY WILL start a nuclear war, and the aircraft carrier will either sink or be permanently out of order. And therefore, the p.i.s.s.o.s.s. I WOULD be careful not to wave aircraft carrier fists near China ... And this is what China needs ... The issue has been resolved - the United States has been ousted from the nearby water area by ONLY ONE PRESENCE from China of such ballistic missiles ... And you say - "not expedient".
          3. "... hitting the target ship - it STANDED IN PLACE ...". The target then, of course, STANDED in place, but the progress in armament DOESN'T STAND in place. And now there are opportunities to ensure an EXACT hit of a ballistic missile on a MOVING surface target ... When the R-27 was tested, there were no such control systems, there were no CCD matrices, there were no satellites for observing the ocean surface and ... well, there was not much yet. .. but now ALL of this is there, and the one who will use it will have a DECISION CONTAINING advantage ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 23: 04 New
            +5
            Quote: I think so
            Your arguments are not serious:

            That the United States abandoned ballistic missiles with a non-nuclear warhead - is this not serious? Oh well.
            Quote: I think so
            Well, so it will be so - if someone starts shooting at the AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, then this is ALREADY the "beginning of Armageddon"

            Those. if suddenly the Japanese decide to shake antiquity and try to land on the Kuril Islands and we fucking at their helicopter carriers - will it be Armageddon? So will it be so? :) But the Falklands had the Argentinean aircraft well offend the British fleet. Fleet of nuclear power. And where is armageddon, I ask you? Held on the night of 31 November to 1 December but went unnoticed by them for a general rehash? :)))
            Quote: I think so
            The Chinese REALLY have non-nuclear BALLISTIC missiles for firing at aircraft carriers ...

            The Chinese REALLY lie to the whole world about how cool ballistic missiles they have laughing To prove that they supposedly have them, an allegedly astonished STATIONARY target is shown - the silhouette of the deck of an aircraft carrier. And that’s all.
            Quote: I think so
            The issue has been resolved - the USA has been squeezed out of the nearby water area ONLY BY ONE EXISTENCE of such ballistic missiles in China.

            Let's get back to this conversation when US carriers will REALLY be squeezed out of any water area :))))
            Quote: I think so
            The target then, of course, stood still, but progress in armament does NOT stand still. And now there are opportunities to ensure EXACT hit of a ballistic missile in a MOVING surface target ...

            Oh well :)))) Well, maybe at least in theory then explain how you think this should work? :)))
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 13 May 2013 17: 15 New
    +1
    Quote: Canep
    The fleet needs ships of the Kuznetsov type, one for each fleet, excluding the Baltic, for air cover.


    For that matter, ships of the Mistral type, and Kuznetsov isn’t short of nuclear power plants in Akurat.
    1. Santa Fe
      13 May 2013 18: 24 New
      0
      Quote: Geisenberg
      For that matter, ships like Mistral

      Explain.
      For what tasks?

      ps / and is it possible to solve these problems in a more efficient way?
  • T-100
    T-100 13 May 2013 19: 21 New
    0
    Let us sell Lyama rubles for 2, we will come up with something, complete it, remake it
  • old man54
    old man54 14 May 2013 22: 16 New
    +1
    Quote: Canep
    [The fleet needs ships of the Kuznetsov type, one for each fleet, excluding the Baltic, for air cover.

    Well, hello! :) And why do we, the Russians, have an Avinossian on the Black Sea Fleet, even if it is of the Invisible class, ie. easy? :) What is there to do on it in the Black Sea? Moreover, we have no normal naval base in this theater of operations. Aviation covers everything perfectly! What, even the experience of the Second World War did not teach anything? :(
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 14 May 2013 23: 58 New
    0
    Look again at the pictures, "Kuznetsov" is much larger than "De Gaulle"
  • Bongo
    Bongo 13 May 2013 08: 40 New
    10
    “But the most important thing is that there is simply no need for“ floating airfields ”these days.” - A very controversial judgment.
    1. avt
      avt 13 May 2013 09: 38 New
      +6
      Quote: Bongo
      “But the most important thing is that there is simply no need for“ floating airfields ”these days.” - A very controversial judgment.

      No, quite expected from the author. laughing But in the article he described the specific ship well. Ufrankov with aircraft carriers from the very beginning did not work out right after the First World War. And now the stupid ship was made, unbalanced and defective.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 10: 12 New
        +6
        Quote: avt
        Ufrankov with aircraft carriers from the very beginning did not work out right after the First World War

        Well, why? Clemenceau and Foch were optimal for their displacement, and in terms of reliability ... well, not a Kalash of course, but as a bayonet for sure :)))
      2. Hirsh
        Hirsh 13 May 2013 10: 18 New
        -7
        A stupid aircraft carrier is not alone. Let me give you a hint: it starts with "Forge", ends with "tsov". Can't you see the log in your eye?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 10: 22 New
          +5
          Quote: Hirsh
          Let me give you a hint: it starts with "Forge", ends with "tsov". Can't you see the log in your eye?

          Why are you doing this?
          1. Orty
            Orty 13 May 2013 11: 46 New
            +2
            You already got it! Rody already any arguments at last? Or are you another troll? Kuzya, considering how they handled the 7th in the 90s, it will be more reliable than De Gaulle, moreover, he will be replaced by airplanes of the air group from Su-33 to Mig-29K, they will be more modern and smaller in size, i.e. fit them large and by the way they can carry air-to-surface missiles so shut up already ah?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 12: 35 New
              +5
              I mean - got it? Than?!
            2. ultra
              ultra 13 May 2013 15: 40 New
              0
              Quote: Orty
              Or are you another troll?

              And you have doubts! hi
  • Reasonable, 2,3
    Reasonable, 2,3 13 May 2013 08: 58 New
    0
    Compared to the "Nimitz" - rubbish. And what the hell do they need ?.
  • sergius60
    sergius60 13 May 2013 09: 02 New
    +4
    Midway also demonstrated the "outstanding" combat resistance of this class of ships. Chasing the "Papuans", hitting the "empty net", this is of course "zashibis". Before the first missile with a thermobaric warhead. With a 10-fold coefficient of TNT mass. Equivalent to 3-5 tons of totil - enough?
    1. djon3volta
      djon3volta 13 May 2013 10: 47 New
      -5
      Quote: sergius60
      Before the first rocket with thermobaric warhead

      I agree. in a real battle, two three torpedoes will be salvaged and there will be a TITANIC-2. such holes that will leave an explosion of torpedoes, nobody will patch, the water will pour out and not stop it, the aircraft carrier will drown along with the sailors, planes and everything that is there. and this is reality and without imagination you can understand.
      1. Atrix
        Atrix 13 May 2013 10: 56 New
        +3
        Quote: djon3volta
        Quote: sergius60
        Before the first rocket with thermobaric warhead

        I agree. in a real battle, two three torpedoes will be salvaged and there will be a TITANIC-2. such holes that will leave an explosion of torpedoes, nobody will patch, the water will pour out and not stop it, the aircraft carrier will drown along with the sailors, planes and everything that is there. and this is reality and without imagination you can understand.

        You will launch them in a motor boat with a salvo of 2-3 torpedoes, although according to your comments it is clear that you are not welcome to think with your head.
        1. djon3volta
          djon3volta 13 May 2013 12: 05 New
          -1
          Quote: Atrix
          You will launch them in a motor boat with a salvo of 2-3 torpedoes

          why? I’ll put my hands directly in the water and turn on the motor, the torpedo will float wassat
          I forgot to write that the submarine will launch torpedoes, on a surface target, that’s more understandable? If it’s not clear already, then you’re not okay with your head, since you didn’t guess what I was talking about.
          1. Atrix
            Atrix 13 May 2013 12: 19 New
            +4
            Quote: djon3volta
            Quote: Atrix
            You will launch them in a motor boat with a salvo of 2-3 torpedoes

            why? I’ll put my hands directly in the water and turn on the motor, the torpedo will float wassat
            I forgot to write that the submarine will launch torpedoes, on a surface target, that’s more understandable? If it’s not clear already, then you’re not okay with your head, since you didn’t guess what I was talking about.

            And did you tactfully keep silent about escort ships? 3-4 units "Arly Burke" is it so likely a props? 1-2 submarines probably also toy escorts? And the SH-60F Ocean Hawk and MH-60R Seahawk helicopters probably just fly for beauty and can't find a submarine?)
            1. Santa Fe
              13 May 2013 12: 41 New
              +2
              Quote: Atrix
              And did you tactfully keep silent about escort ships? 3-4 units "Arly Burke" is it so likely a props? 1-2 submarines probably also toy escorts?

              Good idea.

              Even without an aircraft carrier, the AUG retains an impressive offensive potential.
              At the same time, the importance of the Aegis destroyers is much higher than that of Nimitz itself - the Air Force can easily do without the help of carrier-based aircraft, but can not do without the help of SLCM Tomahawk

              Finally, defensive capabilities - anti-submarine defense lies entirely on the GAS and destroyer helicopters and aircraft of the base anti-submarine aviation. "Dead sectors" cover the nuclear submarine

              Missile defense (both local and strategic - the destruction of objects in low Earth orbit) is a pure prerogative of Aegis, the aircraft carrier did not stand close.
            2. djon3volta
              djon3volta 13 May 2013 14: 48 New
              -4
              Quote: Atrix
              And you tactfully kept silent about escort ships

              I'm actually in my post clearly and specifically wrote - if on the aircraft carrier release 2-3 tarpedos that reach the goal, that is, they get to where they are directed, then the aircraft carrier will drown along with everything that is on it!
              all the same, it wasn’t clearly written, yes? how else should I write that it would reach you what I’m talking about ???
              if you throw a brick in the window, will the glass break? Or will you start saying that the glass will be armored, and even the grilles and therefore will not break.

              In your opinion, it turns out that in a real battle no matter what happens, the aircraft carrier will survive 100%. Well, it’s all up to you, as you think, but I think the other way around. So when there is a crown about KUZNETSOV, then I’ll say that he will survive, and when describing strangers, it will be the other way around.
              1. Atrix
                Atrix 13 May 2013 16: 23 New
                +7
                From the course "Struggle for the survivability of surface ships" - to ensure the destruction of a cruiser, it is necessary to hit 6-7 torpedoes or anti-ship missiles below the waterline, for an aircraft carrier 10-12 torpedoes or missiles with a conventional warhead. These are data from the late 70s for Slava-class cruisers and Kiev-class aircraft carriers. The survivability was provided by the hull design and special means. I think that a modern aircraft carrier is even more difficult to sink

                In a real battle, you need very large naval formations in order to sink the AUG. And the very coordinated work of surface, submarine and aircraft to attack the AUG.

                Here's another talk about aircraft carriers at the Russian Navy Forum
                Grifonhard writes:
                How perfect is Russian air defense at sea?

                Judge for yourself - 1 TAVKR, incapable of developing full speed (and given the lack of a catapult on it, increasing the speed of the ship itself is the only way to ensure free air flow) and suffering from a problem with a power plant. On which there is only a fighter (aviation AWACS and electronic warfare are absent). As for the air defense system, the Fort air defense system (marine version With 300) is installed on 7 ships only, of these 7 only 4 are in service. There are no other naval air defense systems capable of hitting targets at a range of 100 or more than km in the fleet (ours).

                Grifonhard writes:
                Given modern technology, is it possible in principle to attack an aircraft carrier from the air?

                in principle, it is possible - the question is in the composition of the forces that is necessary for this task, and all the more it is extremely difficult to do this without being unarmed, precisely because of the presence of the AWACS aircraft among the Americans.

                purely technically, that is, according to the weapons on board, if it all falls into the target, then yes. Although modern American ABs are the most survivable ships of modern ones for sure. Another question is how realistic it is to carry out deployment, to provide command and control, to attack, to break through air defense. Here everything is already much more complicated.

                Grifonhard writes:
                In addition to missile defense itself, questions arose about the overall effectiveness of granites. If they work with a targeting satellite, then everything is relatively simple. But if for some reason there is no signal from the satellite, then from the flock of granites some number of missiles rises higher to provide the missile defense and ... there they are shot down by air defense. In addition, the 1.5 mach granites have low speed at low altitudes . That now is no longer a significant advantage.

                In fact, Granites were developed before the Aegis system, and given that the Granite Rocket is healthy, I would not really hope for its invisibility and invulnerability.

                Grifonhard writes:
                Why is aviation so effective against submarines?

                Aviation is capable of setting up anti-submarine buoys, and even at the previous stage, it was possible to establish the boundaries integrated into the network and transmitting data to the aircraft. At the moment, a new - robotic ASW PLO system is being created and is being tested.
              2. Atrix
                Atrix 13 May 2013 16: 23 New
                +2
                Grifonhard writes:
                How effective is Fort against attacking modern aircraft? There is an opinion that with modern means of destruction, American aircraft do not need to approach 100 km.

                this is not an opinion - this is a fact. Harpoon in the initial version had 120 km range, in model D the range was increased to 220 km. In addition to the range of the SAM itself, there is also the problem of detecting low-flying targets, due to the limitation of direct radar visibility (the curvature of the earth's surface is to blame.). The higher the radar, the farther it can detect an object located at a low altitude. / The Americans solve this problem by Hokai. This can also be used when attacking the NK, when the strike group is at low altitude, remaining out of the sight of the ship’s radar, and the target designator is located at a great altitude far from the target.


                From a personal conversation in 1999 from the headquarters of the 7 submarine division - captain of the 1 rank Baghryantsev Vladimir Tikhonovich (personal call sign in the division: Palace-Rector-Continuous):

                “Our anti-aircraft loaves are terribly expensive boats.
                Two “loaves” are more expensive than one “Kuznetsov”.
                We aim two or three of our boats with anti-ship missiles at one American aircraft carrier - at least some kind of guarantee is obtained, which will hit. But the main problem is not the accuracy of the missiles or their range. We can beat them at all on 500 km - no one in the world has such RCC ...
                The main problem is to find the aircraft carrier, recognize it among escort ships and transfer its coordinates to the boat.
                Usually, satellites and aviation should do this ...
                But if something serious begins, then the satellites immediately knock down or crush, and the air scouts in the aircraft carrier’s area of ​​operation are generally suicides ... It turns out that the only hope is their own sonar, and this is a hundred km, not more. Yes, and try to approach the aircraft carrier for this hundred ...
                They’ll detect.
                And the “nine-forty-nine” maneuverability is awful - you won’t come off.
                So we are sitting under water - with long arms, but blind and deaf.
                The only way out is to “cling” to each aircraft carrier for a couple of “loaves” from the very beginning, so that they constantly chop it up with acoustics and follow on its heels.
                But, as I said, this is a very expensive pleasure ... ”

                ... Unfortunately, in August 2000, Bagryantsev was sent to the “senior overseers” during the exercises to Lyachin.
                Both tragically perish on the “Kursk”:

                http://u-96.livejournal.com/132971.html
                1. Fofan
                  Fofan 13 May 2013 23: 53 New
                  -2
                  The main problem - the aircraft carrier to find, recognize it among escort ships
                  Do you know what the Chinese are counting on when they make ballistic missile systems to defeat aircraft carriers? on packs the size of a pack of cigarettes. You lay out a block of such cigarettes for all 100 thousand tons of displacement, and patiently wait. Then, at 8-00 on 13.13.2013, launch your copies of the super-Rocket R-7. in 8-20 warheads (almost almost bchh) they begin to fall. At 8-21, all packs of cigarettes are turned on, and the warhead sees the goal of their entire life. at 8-22 nimits lights it. and now tell me that this is all nonsense and crap.
                  1. patsantre
                    patsantre 15 May 2013 21: 58 New
                    0
                    What the fuck are gearboxes and how will they end up on an aircraft carrier?
              3. Fofan
                Fofan 13 May 2013 23: 42 New
                +2
                Even without an aircraft carrier, the AUG retains an impressive offensive potential.
                Oh yeeees! before the eyes of a dozen frigates, a German-class aircraft carrier was launched to the bottom. a couple of thousand of the dead, ala leonardo-dicaprio, and another thousand 4 beetles of swimming beetles, which need to be removed from the water in the next 20 minutes! But we are Yankee-terminators, we will not catch anyone, we will crush the enemy, we will throw our bricks at him! Do you imagine what a blow to the mercenary army! there will be the sinking of one aircraft carrier?
  • Lavrik
    Lavrik 13 May 2013 09: 05 New
    +2
    Is our Kuznetsov better?
    1. StolzSS
      StolzSS 13 May 2013 14: 20 New
      12
      Our Kuznetsov must be rebuilt anew. I worked on this ship there everything is not as bad as you all think, but there are an awful lot of alterations of imperfections and domestic fucking. There, a friend wrote above about the fact that the franc did not fall into our hands and this is true. For if their ship was broken every year like ours, then Chernobyl would have happened in Toulon long ago, we had a wild situation when the ship surrenders after repairs, and a year later you come to the same ship and it stands sideways half of the hold is flooded, which to hide the fact that the cables are fraudulent and the vessel is absolutely unworkable. There were persistent problems with radars, granites there are generally like a dog 5 legs and even removed them from him for a long time and the mines are empty ... As for the air defense systems, in theory they are normal in practice, I don’t know, but the men who use them 100 horseradish will give a guarantee on the fact that with qualitative interference from the enemy, our radar systems are not kosyachat. Excuse me, that it’s so messy, but the current has become painful and offensive for the homeland. Personally, I would sign up as a volunteer in the firing squad of all kinds of stools and other people’s il ... good as a coastal sea-going aircraft after modernization of the filling of course. That's when all the work on the Kuz will be completed and the base location reconstructed, then we will have an aircraft carrier, and then you can build 29. As for atomic aircraft carriers, I think it’s expensive and insanely irrational stupidity; atomic nafig are unnecessary for us; 33-2 non-atomic aircraft carriers comparable to the forge on displacement only stuffed with new systems and with appropriate basing and maintenance are enough for us ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 15: 15 New
        +4
        Please tell me, dear Alexander, what do you hear about the plans for a large modernization of Kuznetsov? And then there are rumors almost about changing the EU to nuclear. And that in general the whole bunk will be rebuilt from keel to klotik. Or that there will be no modernization at all, but there will be a simple current repair.
        I would be very grateful for any information (but, of course, I do not ask for the disclosure of state secrets :))))
        1. Canep
          Canep 13 May 2013 17: 11 New
          0
          Quote: StolzSS
          As for atomic aircraft carriers, I think this is expensive and insanely irrational stupidity; atomic nafig are not necessary for us; we need 2-4 non-nuclear aircraft carriers comparable to a body for displacement only stuffed with new systems and with appropriate basing and maintenance ...

          It completely coincides with my opinion. + (StolzSS seems to be up to date)
          1. Santa Fe
            13 May 2013 18: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: StolzSS
            As for atomic aircraft carriers, I think this is expensive and insanely irrational stupidity; atomic nafig are not necessary for us; we need 2-4 non-nuclear aircraft carriers comparable to a body for displacement only stuffed with new systems and with appropriate basing and maintenance ...

            In this sense, Ticonderoge has no equal

            Full in / and 10 thousand tons (TARKR Orlan -26 thousand tons)
            122 universal missile silos - SAM, PLUR, SLCM, ASM, special ammunition like SM-3 in any proportion. The entire spectrum of missiles of the U.S. Navy, with the exception of ballistic missiles

            + two five-inch
            + eight-charge launcher for the Harpoon anti-ship missile
            + two Phalanx and two 25 mm Bushmasters
            + small torpedoes
            + hangar for two helicopters, and a cellar of aviation ammunition

            Detection tool:
            - radar with headlight AN / SPY-1
            - Four AN / SPG-62 fire control radars
            - sonar complex AN / SQQ-89 with a hinged sonar, a towed low-frequency antenna and the LAMPS III system (integration of work with anti-submarine helicopters)
            All ship systems are linked into a single BIOS Aegis

            Full cruiser 30 + knots
            Fuel autonomy 6000 miles on 20 nodes

            Advantages: modular design thought out to the smallest detail, ease of crew placement
            Disadvantages: there is a series of indirect evidence of the cruiser’s low survivability
  • svskor80
    svskor80 13 May 2013 09: 06 New
    +3
    Yes, an aircraft carrier is very expensive, very difficult. But this is an indicator of the country's prestige and effectiveness. If you want to be among the leaders - have aircraft carriers.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Santa Fe
      13 May 2013 12: 53 New
      +3
      Quote: svskor80
      But this is an indicator of the country's prestige and effectiveness. If you want to be among the leaders - have aircraft carriers.

      Brazil has an aircraft carrier. Argentina had two.
      But Germany does not have a single ...

      Brazil and Argentina became more prestigious Bundesrespublic Deutschland?))


      The Sao Paulo air group is especially pleased - 10 ancient (the same age as the MiG-19) Skyhawk attack aircraft decommissioned from the Kuwait Air Force.
  • Atrix
    Atrix 13 May 2013 09: 50 New
    10
    The French are not the only ones who fell into this trap, trying to emphasize the prestige of their country. Americans with 10 atomic carriers can simultaneously set up no more than 4-5 battle groups - the rest of the ships are on the docks with a rotated hull. Extremely low reliability - "Nimitsa" literally "strew" before our eyes. Constant problems. Endless repair.

    Such enchanting nonsense still needs to be sought. As always, some unfounded statements and not any facts. That's right, someone wrote "What if Russia does not have this, then it needs to be crap as not an effective weapon"
    1. Santa Fe
      13 May 2013 12: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Atrix
      As always, some unfounded statements and not any facts.

      This has already been discussed several times:
      http://topwar.ru/24966-blef-i-realnost-amerikanskiy-avianosec-tipa-nimic.html

      http://topwar.ru/25440-posledniy-avianosec.html
      Quote: Atrix
      "What if Russia does not have this, then it needs to be crap as not an effective weapon"

      You will not find mockery here of the Orly Burke Aegis destroyers or SeaWolfe nuclear submarines - masterpieces of American shipbuilding.

      This is only about the inefficiency of a wunderwafel like "Nimitz", so don't lump it all together
  • Gadfly
    Gadfly 13 May 2013 09: 54 New
    0
    In my opinion, it is much better for Russia to build aircraft-carrying cruisers (like "Minsk" or "Kiev") with vertical take-off and landing aircraft. Cheap and cheerful. Passion for "monsters" is useless - they are of little use, and Russia does not need to bomb anything somewhere in Africa or Asia. And to catch up and overtake the current American fleet is from the realm of fantasy. Asymmetric responses will be more effective, for example, long-range missile defense systems ("Granite", "Caliber", etc.) and modern nuclear submarines.
    1. Hirsh
      Hirsh 13 May 2013 10: 21 New
      0
      Yeah, rivet the under-cruisers of the pre-combatants. Specialist in everything - specialist in nothing
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 10: 31 New
      +6
      Quote: Gadfly
      In my opinion, it is much better for Russia to build aircraft-carrying cruisers (like "Minsk" or "Kiev") with vertical take-off and landing aircraft. Cheap and cheerful

      It's not cheap and cheerful, but EXPENSIVE and INEFFECT
      Try to figure out how much it will cost to develop a new modern VTOL aircraft that would be able to at least somehow fight the same Hornets and F-35. Discover that such a program would be equivalent to the cost of building 3-4 heavy aircraft carriers AS MINIMUM. Moreover, due to the lack of the ability to base AWACS aircraft on the ships you offer, they will Fatally LOSE classic AB in reconnaissance and control equipment.
      1. Old skeptic
        Old skeptic 13 May 2013 12: 17 New
        +1
        Let me remind you about the possible refinement of the Yak-141.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 13 May 2013 12: 30 New
          +2
          Yeah. Bring to mind the 4th generation airplane? Can you imagine the cost of this refinement? And her real need?
          1. Old skeptic
            Old skeptic 13 May 2013 16: 39 New
            0
            And how many vertical models in the world?
            And the F-35 is also not the fifth.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 14 May 2013 01: 44 New
              0
              Why not be the fifth? F-35 meets the requirements that the Americans are now making to their fifth generation. They decided to abandon the same super-maneuverability (having perfectly placed it on the F-22), shifting its tasks to electronics. In order to catch the target, the pilot just needs to turn his head, and not commit somersaults.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 12: 38 New
          +3
          Alas, this is unrealistic. Too old development. No dancing with a tambourine will make a modern aircraft out of the Yak-141. For his time he was not bad, yes, but his time was gone
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 13 May 2013 21: 17 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Alas, this is unrealistic. Too old development. No dancing with a tambourine will make a modern aircraft out of the Yak-141.
            Why, haven't F-35 used developments from the YAK-141? If possible, drawings and technologies have not been lost, namely from the Yak-Xnumx, and it is necessary to return to the domestic VTOL aircraft. Yes, we need new electronics, perhaps engine refinement, but the YAK-141 was at the final component in the development, almost a finished machine. If it were not for the death of the Union, the car would have been in a series, continuing to improve, and the Yankees would still be fucking, trying to oppose it, without the F-141. VTOL is not a competitor to carrier-based aviation, but an addition to it. As for the topic of aircraft-carrying cruisers, it is possible that it will receive a new vector of application, naturally, without claiming to compete with full-fledged aircraft carriers.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 14 May 2013 01: 45 New
              +1
              RUNNING. They used the best practices at the initial stage of design, throwing away a number of unnecessary steps and saving on part of the tests. This does not mean that they copied the Yak-141. They threw back his circuit and switched to the screw.
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 14 May 2013 07: 06 New
                0
                Quote: Pimply
                They used the best practices at the initial stage of design, throwing away a number of unnecessary steps and saving on part of the tests.
                So about this, Eugene, and speech. Even if the Americans simply bought our blueprints, helped to bury our Yak-Xnumx, for themselves they eliminated the opponent, in general, a whole direction in the aviation of the probable enemy. F-141, naturally, is a more modern aircraft, which will be brought to mind and go further, it will come to the fleet. The problem with the fan and the Yak could be solved with serial construction, some modification would have refused a separate engine, improving and improving the aircraft, and it was a supersonic VTOL. Like convertiplanes, VTOL aircraft should take their place in the aviation of the future, and, I think, these machines will be more and more in demand.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2013 09: 19 New
              +1
              Let's go over a little bit ...
              Quote: Per se.
              Yes, we need new electronics, perhaps engine refinement, but the YAK-141 was at the final component in the development, almost a finished machine.

              That's right, it was. But what kind of car was that? TTX - in the best case, somewhere at the level of the very first Hornets or lower (with half the payload) there is a radar, but no OLS is noticed. So komsmeticheskoe repair will not work - it is necessary to seriously alter the plane, so that it meets the current challenges.
              What is the difference between the Yak-141 from Harrier and the F-35 for the worse?
              Both Harrier and F-35 have ONE engine. But our Yak-38 and Yak-141 had their 3, of which 2 is needed only during vertical take-off / landing. the rest of the time it’s just an extra load, which the aircraft carries at the expense of the fuel reserves of the weapon and of the avionics equipment, of course. In any case, the Yak-141 engines are already outdated, you need a NEW engine. If we take a deadlock three-engine scheme, then we will have to develop practically 2 type of engines (takeoff and landing and marching). If we follow the path of England and the USA, then we have to develop an engine from scratch that we could not do in the USSR at one time - the task I must say, the most complicated. But no matter what path we take, we need to develop the dviglo again, and this is VERY expensive. Moreover - who will develop it? The surviving designers, in fact, are not sitting idle, they are doing their best to create a new generation engine for PAKF. What, will we remove them from the 129 object and transfer them to the dviglo for VTOL? Do you seriously believe that this is optimal? Or suggest creating a new design bureau and from scratch entrust them with the development of a sophisticated aircraft engine? :))))
              Quote: Per se.
              If it were not for the death of the Union, the car would have been in a series, continuing to improve, and the Yankees would still be fucking, trying to oppose it, without the F-35.

              The Yankees would oppose him with their numerous Superhornets from aircraft carriers, which the Yak-141 would have more than enough ...
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 14 May 2013 14: 14 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But what kind of car was that? TTX - at best, somewhere at the level of the very first Hornets or lower (with half the payload)
                Dear Andrei, you are missing out on the fact that 141 world records were set on the YAK-12, in particular, in terms of rate of climb, maximum load and flight altitude with cargo, and there was still a reserve. In addition, the YAK-141 was a supersonic VTOL, I do not think that its characteristics do not correspond to current tasks. Landing and takeoff from an aircraft carrier on it was made back in the 1991 year, as well as much of what the Americans are only now doing on the F-35. Yes, there are two lifting engines on the Yak, but, as I said above, this did not prevent us from setting records for the maximum load. In addition, the installation of a fan was supposed, and most likely, this would be done later, when modifying the machine. We love extremes, first spread rot classic aircraft carriers with their carrier-based aircraft, then put an end to VTOL. Sooner or later, but you have to deal with this topic, you cannot deny the obvious in the evolution of technology. It’s better to do this sooner.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2013 14: 29 New
                  +3
                  Dear Per se!
                  Quote: Per se.
                  You miss that 141 world records were set on the YAK-12, in particular, in terms of rate of climb, maximum load and flight altitude with cargo, and there was still a reserve.

                  I remember this (thanks for the reminder anyway!), But this is the case - these world records were made in class H "Vertical take-off and landing vehicles with jet lift" Ie. Yak-141 was the world record holder, but only in comparison with the same "vertical" as himself. For example, the Yak-141 recorded a 3 km climb in 62 seconds (1991) while the Su-27 climbed 3 km in 25 seconds (1986)
                  Quote: Per se.
                  We love extremes, first spread rot classic aircraft carriers with their carrier-based aircraft, then put an end to VTOL. Sooner or later, but you have to deal with this topic, you cannot deny the obvious in the evolution of technology

                  Nevertheless, in my opinion, VTOL is a dead end branch of aviation. But even if I am mistaken, then we are still not up to the fat - we need to bring the PAK FA to mind and create ships for the fleet under its numb version. This, in my opinion, will be better by the criterion of cost / effectiveness than the parallel development of VTOL with its subsequent small-scale construction
                  1. Per se.
                    Per se. 15 May 2013 07: 48 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    it is necessary to bring PAK FA to mind and create ships for the fleet under its numb version.
                    It’s hard to disagree. As for VTOL, for example, in wildlife, most birds and insects take off without a run. It seems that in technology, a minority of vehicles will fly over the crane over time. Of course, this is just my opinion. It is engaged in VTOL without prejudice to the same PAK FA, if it were the will of our leadership, we need clear guidelines, a specific task, and understanding the importance of this topic. If our leadership also considers VTOL to be a dead end, naturally, we will lag behind the Americans forever. The Yankees, however, are clearly paying increased attention to VTOL and convertiplanes. Maybe because in the strategy of a new war these machines play a very important role?
    3. Pimply
      Pimply 13 May 2013 12: 25 New
      +2
      Now tell me, where will you get the vertical take-off and landing aircraft?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 10: 00 New
    14
    It is obvious that the basing of 40 aircraft on the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is in reality impossible. Half of the aircraft remains rusty on the upper deck

    Let's pay for the poor American carrier-based aircraft - EMNIP is getting even less than half of the air group based on the AV into the hangars of the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
    The problems during the operation of the "de Gaulle" became a real disaster for the French Navy.

    Largely true statement. But why did this happen?
    Oleg writes
    The misfortunes pursuing the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle have the only reason - the overly complex design of the ship, exacerbated by its cyclopean dimensions. All this leads to an irreparable loss of reliability.

    In fact, everything is exactly the opposite. The problems of AB "Charles de Gaulle" are that it is ... too small.
    The British aircraft carrier Queen, which is being built today for the British fleet, is designed to carry 40 aircraft and has a total displacement of 65,6 thousand tons. The Soviet "Kuznetsov" was planned for 50 aircraft (no more than 24-26 aircraft, the rest - helicopters) and also weighs 59-60 thousand tons. You can, of course, recall the presence of "Granites" on our TAVKR, but ... On "Kuznetsov" there is not a single catapult, on the Englishman - too (although rumors about the installation of one still circulate) French de Gaulle has as many as two steam catapults - and this , in fact, several thousand tons of equipment (the catapult itself plus the mass of steam generators of steam pipelines and so on for its operation) Moreover, de Gaulle provides for the possibility of basing 800 marines (!) on armored personnel carriers (!!) (according to other sources - just a sea regiment infantry) And this - with a displacement of 40 thousand tons.
    In other words, having a displacement by a third (!!!) less than the closest analogs and an approximately equal air group, the French AV has catapults and areas for landing troops, as well as an atomic power plant - which its "counterparts" lack
    Economy and the desire to "push the unpushable" into the extremely limited displacement and led to the fact that, as the British said at one time, "If only 8 can shoot on a ship capable of carrying 10 guns, put 6 guns." This is, in fact, the real reason for the great French failures under the name of a great French politician (General de Gaulle was unimportant)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 10: 00 New
      13
      Well and further - Oleg, as usual, tried to compare the effectiveness of the actions of carrier-based and land aviation :))) He did not like the result, so in the article we read
      Probably should add a few "touches" to the history of this campaign. The de Gaulle air group consisted of 16 combat aircraft (10 Rafale M and 6 Super Etandar). At the same time, to attack Libya, the NATO command attracted more than 100 strike machines, among which there were such "monsters" as the B-1B and the F-15E Strike Eagle.
      The "invaluable" contribution of an aircraft carrier in this military operation becomes apparent.

      let's put all the points over I
      The French Air Force has about 300 combat aircraft of the Mirage and Rafale types. Charles de Gaulle had exactly 10 Raphales and 6 Super Etandars - i.e. approximately 5,5% of the French coastal air force. And this 5,5% provided 30% of the sorties of the French aviation in the Libyan conflict. In other words, one French Navy carrier was "hunchbacked" like 6 French Air Force planes ...
      In total, the French made approximately 4500 sorties of all types. Including AB Charles de Gaulle - 840 bombings, 390 Rafale reconnaissance flights, 120 E-2 radar reconnaissance aircraft and 240 refueling missions or 1590 sorties.
      Thus, even such an unsuccessful AB, which, in essence, is de Gaulle, proved its high combat effectiveness and usefulness in an operation somewhat similar to combat.
      1. Atrix
        Atrix 13 May 2013 10: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well and further - Oleg, as usual, tried to compare the effectiveness of the actions of carrier-based and land aviation :))) He did not like the result, so in the article we read
        Probably should add a few "touches" to the history of this campaign. The de Gaulle air group consisted of 16 combat aircraft (10 Rafale M and 6 Super Etandar). At the same time, to attack Libya, the NATO command attracted more than 100 strike machines, among which there were such "monsters" as the B-1B and the F-15E Strike Eagle.
        The "invaluable" contribution of an aircraft carrier in this military operation becomes apparent.

        let's put all the points over I
        The French Air Force has about 300 combat aircraft of the Mirage and Rafale types. Charles de Gaulle had exactly 10 Raphales and 6 Super Etandars - i.e. approximately 5,5% of the French coastal air force. And this 5,5% provided 30% of the sorties of the French aviation in the Libyan conflict. In other words, one French Navy carrier was "hunchbacked" like 6 French Air Force planes ...
        In total, the French made approximately 4500 sorties of all types. Including AB Charles de Gaulle - 840 bombings, 390 Rafale reconnaissance flights, 120 E-2 radar reconnaissance aircraft and 240 refueling missions or 1590 sorties.
        Thus, even such an unsuccessful AB, which, in essence, is de Gaulle, proved its high combat effectiveness and usefulness in an operation somewhat similar to combat.

        It's all how the numbers are interpreted. This is also when they show that 70-90 planes are shouting at Amer Aircraft Carriers that there’s nothing at all, they quietly forget to indicate that in the Russian army there aren’t so many aircraft of the latest modifications, not to mention the new ones adopted in service, and not modified.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 10: 41 New
          +5
          I don’t quite understand - why drag the Russian Air Force into disputes about carrier-based aircraft? Does it have anything to do with the question? :))))
          1. Atrix
            Atrix 13 May 2013 11: 01 New
            +5
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I don’t quite understand - why drag the Russian Air Force into disputes about carrier-based aircraft? Does it have anything to do with the question? :))))

            I would like to give an example of the fact that when they write that 40-90 aircraft it is very small and is suitable only for scaring popuasov. But they themselves forget about the numerical-qualitative composition of the example of Russian aviation, where Russia stands at 2 place in terms of defense potential. What to say about aviation in other countries when they say that aviation on an aircraft carrier is not enough for serious conflicts. And they do not prove the effectiveness of the use of carrier-based aircraft.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 11: 25 New
              +5
              Ahhh, so this is what you meant :))))
              This is certainly true. In general, the concept "a lot / little" makes sense only within the framework of a specific problem that needs to be solved. Those. if we remember that in the modern wing there are only 48 strike aircraft (Hornet and Superhornet) and 4-8 more EW (Hornet-based Growler) and 4-5 AWACS aircraft - it seems to be not much on paper.
              But if you recall that in the British Air Force there are approximately 220 about shock typhoons and tornadoes (including training ones), then we understand that ALL British air forces are just 4-5 Nimitz class carriers. But on the 5 AB of the Nimitz type there will be 25 AWACS aircraft (in the UK there are 7 ones) and 30 EW aircraft (in the UK there are none) then ... In the French Air Force, there’s 4 AWACS aircraft.
              I will not take Russia - the size of our aircraft is completely unclear. The real strength. But it’s already clear that the Air Force of any major European country is about half the US carrier fleet in terms of numbers, but not capabilities ...
              1. Santa Fe
                13 May 2013 12: 23 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The air force of any major European country is about half the US carrier fleet


                ... and 10% US Air Force

                The Air Force (+ KMP aviation) - hundreds of air bases on all continents of the earth, the legendary F-15, F-16, B-52 and B-1B, A-10 and F / A-18 ground-based - these are the machines that carry main job.

                As for the aircraft carriers - the Pentagon would have received much more return if they invested in the Air Force (although it would be better to direct them to reduce the State Debt - the Air Force will do its job very well and there is no place on Earth / on the ground or in the sea /, wherever they could reach the paws of the US Air Force)

                Sheikh Isa, Bahrai. 1991 year. The slender ranks of the Hornets and Prowlers of the Marine Corps are clearly visible
                1. Atrix
                  Atrix 13 May 2013 12: 49 New
                  +3
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The air force of any major European country is about half the US carrier fleet


                  ... and 10% US Air Force

                  The Air Force (+ KMP aviation) - hundreds of air bases on all continents of the earth, the legendary F-15, F-16, B-52 and B-1B, A-10 and F / A-18 ground-based - these are the machines that carry main job.

                  As for the aircraft carriers - the Pentagon would have received much more return if they invested in the Air Force (although it would be better to direct them to reduce the State Debt - the Air Force will do its job very well and there is no place on Earth / on the ground or in the sea /, wherever they could reach the paws of the US Air Force)

                  Sheikh Isa, Bahrai. 1991 year. The slender ranks of the Hornets and Prowlers of the Marine Corps are clearly visible

                  In some ways, I agree with you. But this comes from the same series, why build destroyers, frigates if it is better to build nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles. Why build Aircraft if you can build nuclear missile systems. Each weapon has its own goals, which means that if the United States build aircraft carriers, they have goals for this. And when the need disappears they will write them off.
            2. Orty
              Orty 13 May 2013 11: 49 New
              -3
              No, you just wanted to crap the Russian Air Force, the troll vyser counted down, calm down already!
        2. Santa Fe
          13 May 2013 12: 27 New
          0
          Quote: Atrix
          then also when they show that 70-90 planes are shouting at Amer Aircraft Carriers that there’s nothing at all, they quietly forget to indicate that the Russian army doesn’t have so many aircraft

          1. there are much fewer aircraft on Amer’s aircraft carriers - 70 is at its best, along with rescue turntables

          2. Russian Air Force is not an indicator. The participation of US Navy carrier-based aircraft in local conflicts is much more indicative. She practically does not participate in hostilities !!
      2. Santa Fe
        13 May 2013 13: 11 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The French Air Force includes about 300 combat aircraft of the Mirage and Rafale types.

        How many of them were involved in the operation in Libya?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And these 5,5% provided 30% of French aircraft sorties in the Libyan conflict.

        The 5,5% figure would make sense if all 300 planes Mirage and Rafal of the French Air Force bombed Libya
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In total, the French made approximately 4500 sorties of all types. Including AB Charles de Gaulle - 840 bombings, 390 Rafale reconnaissance flights, 120 E-2 radar reconnaissance aircraft and 240 refueling missions or 1590 sorties.

        Now add here:

        According to 6, F-16 aircraft were allocated: Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and the UAE
        Canada - 7 CF-18
        Italy - 8 Tornado and F-16
        Qatar - 6 Mirages
        Spain - 4 EF-18
        UAE - 6 more Mirages
        Total ~ 60 Drum Machines
        Now, attention, the US Air Force:
        - 10 F-15E
        - 20 F-16
        - 5 strategists B-1B and B-2
        - 6 A-10 Thunderbolt
        - 2 ganship AC-130

        Airbases:
        Italy: Aviano, Siganella, Trapani, Decimomannu
        Greece: Araxos and Souda (on Crete in 300 km from Libya)
        Great Britain: Lakenheath

        It was possible to count drones, reconnaissance complexes / VKP "DzhiStars", RT-reconnaissance aircraft (RC-135 and EP-3C), but I did not do this - and so everything is obvious

        The significance of the de Gaulle aircraft carrier was negligible... just right now, it’s not necessary to say that the 10 Rafaley dropped more bombs than the 30 F-16 and F-15E US Air Force
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 14: 07 New
          +9
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The importance of the de Gaulle aircraft carrier was negligible.

          Oleg, but who would doubt :))))
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          How many of them were involved in the operation in Libya?

          In-in. If there were 300 warplanes, for some reason the French chose to bring their de Gaulle with 16 strike machines to Libya, rather than using land aircraft. I wonder why, Oleg?
          I have already given you answers to this question 100500 times. And the calculations. And explanations. But you just do not want understand the benefits of an aircraft carrier as a mobile platform. So why then a discussion?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The 5,5% figure would make sense if all 300 planes Mirage and Rafal of the French Air Force bombed Libya

          The 5,5% figure DOES make sense whether you like it or not. The fact of the matter is that for some reason France did not deploy "all 300" strike aircraft. Apparently because it was simply not possible to deploy and concentrate the Air Force for strikes on Libya - the flight range and capabilities of air bases were limited. Therefore, the French Air Force, having 20 times more aircraft than de Gaulle had, was able to do only twice as much work as de Gaulle :)))
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Now add here:
          According to 6, F-16 aircraft were allocated: Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and the UAE

          Oleg, well, don’t, huh? With the same success, you could add here the fleet of the Galactic Empire of Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars.
          The French air force had a certain amount of "work" in the operation in Libya. And all these UAE, Canada and so on - they had their own scope of work. And how they will do their job is THEIR headache. Which has nothing to do with the French aircraft carrier at all. But how to do its job for the French Armed Forces is a French headache. The French had an air force and an aircraft carrier with an air group to do their job. Despite the fact that the French Air Force is twenty times superior to de Gaulle's air group, France considered it expedient to use the aircraft carrier, and it "completed" a third of the sorties.
          What's not clear?:)
          1. Santa Fe
            13 May 2013 19: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            If there were 300 warplanes, for some reason the French chose to bring their de Gaulle with 16 strike machines to Libya, rather than using land aircraft. I wonder why, Oleg?

            Because "de Gaulle" was built and now it needs to be used somewhere
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And the calculations. And explanations. But you just don’t want to understand the advantages of an aircraft carrier as a mobile platform

            You drove the last argument.
            It turned out that a group of 30-40 F-15 could easily provide a 24-hour standby of a combat air patrol (four aircraft) at a distance of 500 km.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The fact of the matter is that for some reason France did not deploy "all 300" strike aircraft

            And how much did you deploy?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The French air force had a certain amount of "work" in the operation in Libya. And all these UAE, Canada and so on - they had their own scope of work. And how they will do their job is THEIR headache.

            A rather weak attempt to get out of the angle in which you drove yourself
            The French Air Force, together with the forces of other NATO countries, performed a common task - the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi.

            It turned out that 10 deck rafals + the number of aircraft of the French Air Force involved in attacks on Libya (I hope you find this figure) was not enough to carry out not the most difficult task (helping the rebels in defeating the army of Gaddafi). It was necessary to attract another 100 + attack aircraft of NATO countries (excluding combat support vehicles)
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            France considered it expedient to use an aircraft carrier, and it "completed" a third of the sorties.

            see paragraph 1
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 20: 18 New
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Because "de Gaulle" was built and now it needs to be used somewhere

              Oleg, 300 French aircraft are also built, and they also need to be used somewhere. You see, Oleg, when two dozen carrier-based planes make a third of flights, and 300 + airplanes do the remaining two-thirds, the democratic public inevitably raises the question - maybe we should buy a couple more dozen carrier-based aircraft and completely eliminate the air force? Oleg, they there, in France, know how to count money well. And the Air Force lobby is no worse than the Navy. Therefore, leave tales for children of primary school age to children of primary school age.
              de Gaulle used because it was preferable to the Air Force
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              You drove the last argument.

              laughing laughing laughing
              1. Santa Fe
                13 May 2013 20: 49 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                300 French aircraft are also built, and they also need to be used somewhere.

                They are used daily. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Mali, France’s air defense, aerial reconnaissance and solving other strategically important tasks, there is enough work ...
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                de Gaulle used because it was preferable to the Air Force

                For any weapon, even for a fountain pen, you can find application

                But, as Comrade deftly remarked, Kars - ships do not grow on trees. I am not against a ship, even one such as the ShDG, if it went for free (presented, trophy, etc.). But the French have perceived so many babos at him that it is just right to ask a question - what for?
                And was it possible to solve the problem in another way?

                It turns out you can on. Crete is the airbase of Suda - 300 km from the coast of Libya (where much closer ??). The trick is that the United States, Qatar, and Norwegian air forces were based on the Court. Much farther is the base of Araxos (Belgian Air Force aircraft were based), there are bases in Italy and on the island of Sicily. Everything is literally under the nose of Libya. Is France worse than Belgium, Norway or Canada or the UAE? Could you really not find a place for 10 extra Rafales?

                To ask is not in the rules of the proud French? In 2001, the French Mirages flew from Dushanbe Airport. However, an asymmetric solution)))
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2013 08: 02 New
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  They are used daily. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Mali

                  What, everywhere right away? belay
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  enough work ...

                  And here, Oleg, I allow myself to strongly agree with you. The work of the Air Force is really enough ... And without replacing the aircraft carriers.
                  An aircraft carrier is, of course, not a child prodigy capable of replacing everything in the world. An aircraft carrier is an ELEMENT of a balanced fleet, without which this very fleet loses much in efficiency and is unable to perform a number of tasks.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Could you really not find a place for 10 extra Rafales?

                  Not 10 superfluous Rafales, but 10 rafals, 6 Super Etandars, some Hokai and helicopters. In aggregate, all this draws to a full-fledged regiment. For an aviation regiment, a SEPARATE airbase is required (it was usually the case in the USSR - rarely when the airbase provided the bases for two regiments) Plus, as you Oleg yourself understand, besides the actual taxiing and take-off and landing places, there are still many, many stores of jet fuel, weapons and etc. etc. Those. all this still needs to be delivered there.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    14 May 2013 17: 53 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    What, everywhere right away?

                    Over the past 10 years - Afghanistan, Libya, Mali ... not bad for a European country the size of the Murmansk region? In Afghanistan - continuously.
                    + There are probably a number of showdowns in Africa and the Middle East that I forgot to mention.
                    + safety of the airspace of their own country.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The work of the Air Force is really enough ... And without replacing the aircraft carriers.

                    In fact, it replaces without problems.
                    while the FGD is rusting in the dock,

                    As of April 2009, the French Air Force had 334 men in Afghanistan. They manned the following systems:
                    6 attack planes, based in Kandahar
                    3 Mirage 2000D, since 2005
                    3 Mirage F1 CR, since 20 May 2009. They relieved twenty-three Rafale that were present from 2007.
                    3 Caracal in Kabul Airport, under the aegis of the ALAT, attached to the Army, 3 Tigers, 3 Gazelles Viviane HOT, and 2 Cougars.
                    2 Harfang drones, since 3 February 2009; three were originally deployed, but one was damaged in a crash and brought back to France.
                    In the same theater of operation but outside Afghanistan, 172 men are deployed in Dushanbe, in Tajikistan, manning a logistic base and two C-160 Transall. Furthermore, a C135 is based at the Transit Center at Manas, in Kirghizistan, with 35 men.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Balanced Fleet ELEMENT

                    Banality, which is broken by a simple question: balanced in comparison with whom? US Navy or Turkish Navy?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    and 10 rafals, 6 Super Etandars, some Hokaevs and helicopters. Together, all this draws to a full regiment

                    Do not flatter SDG. Here, a squadron of light strike machines and a pair of mini-AWACS are barely recruited. Turntables are a separate standings.

                    Andrei, I immediately warn you, Libya is a rotten example to prove the need for the participation of the SDG
                    (Who, if not him ??)

                    You can place a couple of Hawkais (or better, Center) at least at the Heraklion Civil Airport (Crete, 300 km from the coast of Libya)
                    16 percussion machines - a pair at the 8 nearby airbases, just do not say that there is not enough space on the Court or Arxos. If anything - you can temporarily rent the airport of Chania (also in Crete)

                    Greece allowed the USA, Qatar and Norway to Crete - it will also let France
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    many, many storages of jet fuel, weapons, etc. etc. Those. all this still needs to be delivered there.

                    as if an aircraft carrier did not need supply ships. autonomy of 45 days for food reserves. And the operation lasted from March to October

                    3400 tons of jet fuel and 500 tons of ammunition, of which only half was used ... a weak argument. the same supply ship will deliver everything needed to Crete.

                    Heraklion Airport. How do you think Sentry will fit here?)))
  • Kars
    Kars 13 May 2013 10: 11 New
    +4
    Wow, I didn’t know that de Gaulle had such a difficult fate.
    Which, however, is not surprising - I did not even know that it was atomic))))
    Thanks, very interesting.
    1. postman
      postman 13 May 2013 22: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Kars
      Wow, I didn’t know that de Gaulle had such a difficult fate.

      The general himself, the same way is not simple.
      Quote: Kars
      Which, however, is not surprising - I did not even know that it was atomic))))

      Seriously?
      We don’t know that the GEC Alsthom PWR K15 reactors, or rather its prototype PAT1 NINE YEARS tried to bring to a critical state.
      1. Kars
        Kars 13 May 2013 23: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: Postman
        The general himself, the same way is not simple.

        Well, I heard a little more about him. Even Mlechin’s movie once looked. I downloaded the biography --- well, just in case, I download almost everything in a row --- all of a sudden the content will become paid, but vryatly when I read it.
        Quote: Postman
        Seriously?

        It is debatable that he thought he was of the same type as that of the Brazilians.
        Quote: Postman
        or rather its prototype PAT1 NINE YEARS tried to bring to a critical state.

        not even sure if this is good or bad.

        But while I can even say turned on))) another news
        The TS-006 set includes 26 sprues, makes 1303 parts, not including etched, cotton threads, and asphalt shoes, and etched 3 pieces, a total of 10 parts. In order to increase realism and interest in the model, we added a special umbrella for the armored mask, and two tank headsets in 1/35 scale

        http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/05/90-gur-khan-meng-models.html
        1. postman
          postman 14 May 2013 12: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          But while I can even say turned on))) another news

          Cool.
          I can’t even imagine 1303 details ...
          I would not have enough patience.
          1. Kars
            Kars 14 May 2013 12: 53 New
            +1
            I'm also awesome. I'm waiting to see live.
  • Fuzeler
    Fuzeler 13 May 2013 10: 15 New
    0
    All this nuclear component is just a dust in the eye: in any case, the crew and aviation on board are powered by neither nuclear power plants based on nuclear energy, but food and kerosene. In addition, escort ships (e.g. destroyers) do NOT have a nuclear power plant, therefore, in any case, the autonomy of such ships (if there are no supply ships in the connection) is a maximum of 45-50 days. So does it make sense to go broke into SUCH ships, if you can build with a conventional PS - it’s both cheaper and more expedient.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 10: 35 New
      +4
      Quote: Fuzeler
      All this nuclear component is just a dust in the eye: in any case, the crew and aviation on board are powered by neither nuclear power plants based on nuclear energy, but food and kerosene.

      yes, but catapults will not work without a nuclear power plant. And that means you need to
      1) refuse to base AWACS aircraft
      2) to limit the speed of lifting an air group (you will have to do a springboard)
      and yes, yes - it’s still not clear what is cheaper - the operation of conventional or nuclear power plants.
      Quote: Fuzeler
      In addition, escort ships (e.g. destroyers) do NOT have a nuclear power plant, therefore, in any case, the autonomy of such ships (if there are no supply ships in the connection)

      Supply ships MANDATORY present in the composition of the connection. It’s just that if there is a nuclear power plant on the aircraft carrier, there is no need for a fifty-tonne tanker for the aircraft carrier, although for other ships the need for tankers remains.
  • fatty
    fatty 13 May 2013 10: 43 New
    +4
    one can agree with Kaptsov, one can argue, but reading his posts is always a pleasure. as Comrade Stalin said, it is stronger than Goethe Faust. Bravo, kaptsov, tinker more often!
    1. smirnov
      smirnov 13 May 2013 12: 08 New
      +3
      Wow, I read the first paragraph, I realized who the author of the article is. Thank you for the interesting materials!
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 13 May 2013 11: 59 New
    11
    You can't argue better than "Andrey from Chelyabinsk". But I would like to add some finishing touches. The documentation for the propellers for De Gaulle did not disappear, but burned out in a fire, later the propellers were made for him and now he walks with his own propellers. The delay in construction is mainly due to the post-August 1991. (and later in the last days of the USSR) with the question, "What the hell is he needed at all?" Further, Oleg's phrase, which has already set the teeth on edge, "... the rest of the ships are at the docks with a torn hull." This is how the picture appears as after the next combat service, Nimitz is driven into a dry dock, where the deck is autogenously opened to him to replace all the failed mechanisms. Nonsense, of course, but Oleg for some reason believes in this. Perhaps he does not know, but after performing any long-term combat service far from his native shores, ANY warship gets up for repair. It doesn't matter whether it's an aircraft carrier or a BOD. The same Nimitz for military service, which lasts about FIVE! months pass up to 60 thousand miles (sea areas). 150 days of operation of ship mechanisms is VERY long, after that the ship is simply obliged to get up for repairs, but damn it does not require "tampering with the hull". The repair is necessary so that the ship does not die like the domestic nuclear cruisers died on the roadsteads that "ate" the resource of their mechanisms in less than ten years ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2013 12: 42 New
      +5
      Thank:)))
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 13 May 2013 12: 11 New
    +1
    What can I say?
    Boo!
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 13 May 2013 13: 51 New
    +4
    the article is very directional and has already been corrected, you just need to read the comments. The truth is always nearby (in the middle). The United States can really do without aircraft carriers, the whole planet is shrouded in airbases + NATO allies are also the richest countries in the world and the United States simply does not have a fleet - an adversary, as the USSR fleet used to be.
    The French aircraft carrier de Gaulle is not a catastrophe at all, it’s just a huge ship with various capabilities (more on this in the comments of people) and perhaps not the most successful design with an attempt to cram the invisible into one ship, but acting very effectively if necessary (Libya, than again already written in the comments). At the same time, the enemy was close by and the French Air Force could get it from airfields on its territory, but what if the conflict happens away? It would be nice for the British to consult for some reason that they did not begin to cover Nimitsa in 1982, and the matter very quickly went to defeat, but was lucky)
    Everything is known in comparison and it is clear that the air base is cooler than any ship, but if there is no air base, and there are ships and interests in this region? The United States can’t be taken here, everything is clear with them, but how about the rest? Take away from the aug the carrier itself and the ships turn into blind kittens, without reconnaissance, without tsu, without an extra-long arm, and the possibilities of working along the shore of modern ships without an aircraft carrier generally cause a smile. All this will be done by de Gaulle for his connection, and any ships have problems, the main thing is to solve them
    1. Santa Fe
      13 May 2013 19: 21 New
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      It would be nice for the British to consult which for some reason they did not cover Nimitsa in 1982 and the matter very quickly went to defeat, but was lucky)

      The Britons had their own problems - a leaky air defense squadron and a lack of modern self-defense systems. As a result, they were bombed point-blank by subsonic Skyhawks. "

      Nimitz ... you’re pretty much enough))) Nimitz with a trained wing is more expensive than the Falklands, the Argentine Navy and the British Navy combined.
      In the 80-ies, the Britons could not master even a full-fledged destroyer (the 42 Sheffield type is nothing more than a frigate, but not the best)
      Quote: barbiturate
      The United States can’t be taken here, everything is clear with them, but how about the rest?

      You do not.
      Ordinary countries never fight away from their native shores. For there are no forces, no means, no ends for such a war. On the other side of the earth, only Super Powers are fighting (with hundreds of bases on all continents)

      / the only exception in 70 years is the Falklands conflict, where the decrepit "Lady of the Seas" decided the issue of her colonial inheritance /
  • smershspy
    smershspy 13 May 2013 14: 56 New
    +3
    I will not say too much, but I want Russia to show its strong and sharp teeth on the seas and oceans!
  • Alexander-Tomsk
    Alexander-Tomsk 13 May 2013 14: 57 New
    +3
    I will not argue with the necessity-unnecessary aircraft carriers for Russia. I want to ask, did I have one thought about the gentlemen from Misty Albion when I read about the mysterious disappearance of the company that created the screws? wink
  • Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 13 May 2013 15: 08 New
    +3
    And these people will teach us how to build ships on the example of the Mistral laughing
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 13 May 2013 17: 12 New
    -2
    The conclusion is clear to me. If it turns out we have to build submarines and need to build them. And it’s cool to throw money into incomprehensible things. An aircraft carrier in today's conditions is suitable only for war with small countries. Now he will not be able to approach the normal distance to the coast. Yes, and in the ocean, he is vulnerable to multipurpose squares.
  • cdrt
    cdrt 13 May 2013 18: 24 New
    +5
    Well, as I saw that the article was about aircraft carriers, it was immediately clear who the author was wink
    To the author - Carthago delenda est - sowink

    Regardless of the position of the author - thanks for the interesting article - the facts, even if seen through the prism of their own opinions, are interesting.

    In my opinion, an explanation of why the admirals of all countries that can afford to have aircraft carriers do not agree with the author wink you need to look in the marine strategy.

    It seems like quite a long time ago it was shown on the facts that the effectiveness of cruising operations (operations against enemy trade communications) is proportional to the ratio of the linear fleets of the warring powers (either Mahen, or Colomb). Aircraft carriers from the time of WWII play the role of battleships of our time.

    All arguments about the fact that aircraft carriers can be sunk are not such (that is, arguments). All that floats can be sunk.

    Arguments about complexity — a battleship in any form — a sailing battleship, a squadron battleship, a dreadnought, an aircraft carrier, are not the essence — always the apotheosis of the complexity of the design, mechanisms, weapons for its time.

    Comparison of the number of naval aviation with land is also not a topic in particular. There are coastal planes somewhere, and aircraft carriers are always directly in the hands of the squadron commander.

    In addition, an aircraft carrier is not just an aerodrome, but a moving aerodrome.
    Actually, an aircraft carrier passes 720 miles per day, i.e. AUG did not pose a threat yesterday morning, but today it is already a clear threat and, notably, not the fact that in that particular place where it strikes land aviation will have a numerical superiority (recall the raids of the American fleet on Japanese territory).

    The argument for aircraft carriers can be taken as the very concept of supremacy at sea:
    the ability to prohibit the use of the sea for trade and military purposes by the enemy
    while providing the opportunity to use the sea for trade and operations offshore for their own forces.

    An aircraft carrier can provide this - therefore, all countries that have serious shipping tend to have aircraft carriers to control the sea.
    1. Santa Fe
      13 May 2013 19: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: cdrt
      Carthago delenda est

      I looked through Yandex, it turned out "Carthage must be destroyed"
      Agree
      Quote: cdrt
      The argument for aircraft carriers can be taken as the very concept of supremacy at sea:

      Argentina had an aircraft carrier. He reigned a lot during the Battle of the Falklands?))
      It looks like someone else dominates the sea ...
      Quote: cdrt
      In addition, an aircraft carrier is not just an aerodrome, but a moving aerodrome.

      This is called the "wunderwaffle"
      Quote: cdrt
      those. AUG did not pose a threat yesterday morning, but today there is a clear threat

      Threat from whom? And to whom? (Meaning the name of the country, for example, France threatens Spain, etc. - of your choice)
      Quote: cdrt
      the ability to prohibit the use of the sea for trade and military purposes by the enemy

      This can be done in a much simpler and more effective way - to release a flock of atomic submarines in communication (which happened in reality at the Falklands-82)
      Quote: cdrt
      therefore, all countries that have serious shipping tend to have aircraft carriers to control the sea.

      Quote: cdrt
      why admirals of all countries that can afford to have aircraft carriers do not agree with the author

      cheap show-offs and ordinary bravado
      At the beginning of the 20th century, many backward countries had one dreadnought in the fleet - for example, Latin America (Argentina, Brazil). What for? Nobody knows. Type for prestige ... their fleet was all-out unbalanced and not combat-ready. and most importantly - there were no enemies against whom a dreadnought was needed

      Brazilian battleship "Minas Gerais"
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 13 May 2013 19: 24 New
        +1
        funny about submarines wink
        You will be able to forbid another to use the sea (although ... we look at the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic and compare it with the power of the main fleet forces participating), but how you secure the opportunity to use it with them is a mystery wink
        1. Santa Fe
          13 May 2013 20: 04 New
          0
          Quote: cdrt
          although ... we look at the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic and compare with the power of the participating main forces of the fleets

          The fragile pelvis that spent 90% of the time on the surface died for good reason: German submariners took the battleship (Barham and Royal Oak), aircraft carriers Eagle, Korejdes, Royal Arch, cruiser Edinburgh with a load of gold ... and 2 + EMNIP warships and vessels with a total displacement of 2000-12 MILLION tons

          For comparison: the total of the battleship Barham is> 30 tons. The underwater displacement of the U-boat VII series 000 ... 600 tons. Even the destruction of 800 U-bots will not make up for the loss of a battleship.

          Now let's see how many forces were involved in countering the Kriegsmarine:
          The entire monstrous fleet of Her Majesty, the U.S. Navy (amers over the years of the war riveted 850 + destroyers and anti-submarine frigates. Of which a third were used in the Atlantic), escort aircraft carriers (130 built pieces, some of which were transferred to britts). German submarines were looking for Catalina with radars, ASDIK sonars were used, strategic aircraft regularly bombed submarines, the Britons hacked Enigma codes from time to time ... but until the last day of the war, flimsy pelvis continued to pack the Allied ships in packs

          Modern submarines are not in the least like WWII U-bots. The inextinguishable flames of a nuclear reactor turned them into real Submarines (not "diving") boats. The deadliest and most effective naval weapon.
          Quote: cdrt
          but how to secure the opportunity to use it with them

          Aegis destroyers for what?
          If necessary - air cover fighter air force
          (air cover is the task of ground-based aviation, an attempt to squeeze planes onto the cramped swinging deck of an aircraft carrier will lead to an illustrative story with de Gaulle)
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2013 08: 45 New
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Now let's see how many forces were involved in countering the Kriegsmarine:

            laughing
            Oleeeeeeeh !! :)))))))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Her Majesty's entire monstrous fleet

            Yes, yes - especially the Mediterranean British fleet. Andrew Brown Cunningham just did that he was chasing German submarines :))))) Compound H in Gibraltar, too. Battleships sent to Singapore. Sommerville’s eastern fleet - (5 battleships 3 guarded carrier) which even got caught with Nagumo :))) British forces as part of the ABDA command. All of them, well, that’s all they were doing, that they were driving German submarines. In the Mediterranean Sea, the Pacific and Indian Oceans, yes :)))
            In total, his Majesty's fleet during the war years (it was at the beginning and arrived during the war) has something about 650 destroyers, frigates, and other sloops. Let 2 / 3 of this number be engaged in the battle for the Atlantic = 440 ships + specified by you
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            amers over the years of the war riveted 850 + destroyers and anti-submarine frigates. of which one third was used in the Atlantic

            those. another 255 ships, and in total - about 700 escort ships. Plus some number of escort aircraft carriers
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            130 built pieces, part of which was transferred to the britt

            Oleg, trim the sturgeon. The USA built Long Island, Charger, 11 units of Bogue, 4 - Sangamon, 50 - Casablanca, and 10 Commencement Bay, and all - 77 escorts. Something was passed to the Britons, but a significant part of them were used in battles in the Pacific Ocean.
            The Britons have built 44 more escorts + 19 "merchant aircraft carriers" so we have only 140 escorts, even if we count the IAC as an escort.
            It is unlikely that more than 70 - 90 British and American escorters were used against submarines in the Atlantic.
            What forces did they encounter?
            By the beginning of the war, the Germans had 57 submarines, during the war years they built (captured and included in their fleet) another 1113 submarine. Thus, in total, the Germans had 1170 boats, of which 863 participated in the hostilities, of which 753 were killed. 32 thousand submariners from 39 thousand were killed (the ratio of dead / surviving is better than that of the kamikaze) The total tonnage of the built submarines was about 700 thousand tons. those. as many ALL 20 battleships and battlecruisers available to England and built during the war.
            Result?
            Despite the most sensitive losses caused by British shipping, the Germans lost the submarine war outright
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            but until the last day of the war, flimsy pelvis continued to heat the Allied ships in batches

            laughing
            Given the fact that starting from about the end of 1943 on ONE sunken ship, the Germans began to lose ONE submarine, this EPIC phrase has nothing to do with reality :)))
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 13 May 2013 19: 41 New
        +1
        Actually what we argue wink
        It seems to be admirals of all countries of the world for aircraft carriers.
        Even the admirals of the Russian Federation, as historically the most anti-carrier power, are now for them.
        It seems that the issue is resolved in the coming years 30-40. Not this way? wink
        1. Santa Fe
          13 May 2013 20: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: cdrt
          It seems to be admirals of all countries of the world for aircraft carriers.

          I explained the reason for this paradox above
          Quote: cdrt
          It seems that the issue is resolved in the coming years 30-40. Not this way?

          It all depends on the economy - there will be another collapse, the military will have to quickly reduce the size of the show-offs and leave only the most necessary.
          In the US, there is regular talk of reducing the carrier fleet to 6 units.

          http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=71992
          Wow! There were no babos on the most dear, valuable and necessary. How are they going to live without USS Abraham Lincoln now?))
  • cdrt
    cdrt 13 May 2013 18: 44 New
    0
    As for the actual problems of Charles de Gaulle, in my opinion, there are several important reasons:
    1. Too many new technologies for one already so complex ship (for French shipbuilding)
    2. The desire of politicians, under the flag of "saving" funds, to get a ship with opportunities like the big ones (Nimitzs) for less money. The result is worth like Nimitz, but times less and more complicated.
    This led to the need to make not just complex mechanisms, but also make them compact. I would not be surprised that the larger Queen ... will cost less in comparable prices (even without taking into account the impact of the cost of nuclear power plants).
    3. Surely redesigned more than once, which also does not add cost savings.

    Apparently there is a certain minimum of units that provides flights for decked aircraft (not VTOL aircraft):
    if you collect them - you get a ship under 70 thousand tons of displacement. This is with a group of 40 aircraft.

    It would be more compact - pay for the compactness of this entire set of units.
    It would be desirable to increase the number of aircraft - pay for hull structures (apparently this is not such a big addition to the base price).
  • Seraph
    Seraph 13 May 2013 19: 24 New
    -1
    I am glad that French engineers are working in the interests of Russia and other non-NATO countries. More broken iron!
  • valiant
    valiant 13 May 2013 21: 46 New
    +2
    Aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle! Beautiful, strong and charismatic ship.

    Maybe the French know how to build beautiful and strong ships, but as warriors they are (to put it mildly) weak and spectacular, as the experience of world wars and battles has shown. A century and a half earlier, Nelson beat the French at Aboukir and Trafalgar with exactly the same result as his successor, Admiral Sommerwil, on the Mers el-Kabir raid. We all remember the "special patriotism" of French sailors in Toulon during WWII. So the main thing is what kind of people control these beautiful pieces of iron.
  • postman
    postman 13 May 2013 22: 53 New
    0
    Quote: Author
    The total displacement of the gigantic ship reaches 42 tons.

    not 39680 ????


    Despite everything that you wrote ("nasty") - NOT BAD devil






    NOT lezit, you see stuffed:


    did the French need Le Redoutable?


    Goals and grievances?
    1. Santa Fe
      14 May 2013 01: 03 New
      0
      Quote: Postman
      not 39680 ????

      maybe 38,085 tons? Standard, design or complete? Before or after modernization? Let ShDG fans bother about it
      Quote: Postman
      NOT lezit, shove stuffed:

      good
      Quote: Postman
      did the French need Le Redoutable?

      This is all the same SNF. Nuclear deterrence. In addition, they can be well threatened - it is not known how life will turn in 10 years.
      Finally, Le Redoubtable is quite versatile - you can unload SLBMs from a boat and use it as a tactical weapon to solve local problems (4 TA 533 mm, mine-torpedo weapons, RCC Exoset)
      1. postman
        postman 14 May 2013 12: 49 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        It's all the same SNF

        Well, within the global framework and against the background of the USSR / USA = this is nothing.
        (this is me to the thesis of necessity / unnecessary de Gaulle /
        By the way, you don’t know why the wiki calls him (ShdG):
        Among the aircraft carriers of other countries, excluding the United States, it is the second largest (after the Russian “Admiral Kuznetsov”) and the most combat-capable aircraft carrier.
        -
        in the world?
        in France?
        among aircraft carriers?


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        SLBM can be unloaded from a boat

        You can’t unload it from them anymore.
        But from the lineup, unload and deliver universal TPKs for the Kyrgyz Republic (like the Americans) - yes

        ============================
        The question is about ShdG) here on the French nuclear submarines: direct current - and associated with this mutotet for energy supply equipment, en a de Gaulle how?
        The same "French delicacy"
        ?
      2. postman
        postman 14 May 2013 12: 52 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is all the same SNF.

        straight ahead.
        http://topwar.ru/27803-sharl-de-goll-korabl-katastrofa.html#comment-id-1153863
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 13 May 2013 23: 41 New
    0
    To the issue of energy. Opponents of the AEU on the aircraft carrier did not ask themselves the question, why did the Americans practically abandon the construction of atomic escort ships leave the aircraft carriers atomic? One of the main reasons is that fuel tanks, huge for such ships, disappear. And their place was taken by jet fuel tanks and aircraft storage depots. As a result, the number of sorties that an atomic carrier can provide with its reserves increases by 1,5 times. Therefore, the Russian aircraft carrier should be only nuclear.
  • Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 14 May 2013 00: 42 New
    0
    Fat frag.
    Alternatively, you can sell to China, which copies everything that it sees. In this case, a naval victory over the Middle Kingdom is guaranteed.
  • Kaa
    Kaa 14 May 2013 02: 31 New
    0
    Quote: StolzSS
    Our Kuznetsov must be rebuilt anew. I worked on this ship there, everything is not so bad as you all think, but there are an awful lot of alterations of imperfections and domestic \\\\\\\. There, a friend wrote above about the fact that the franc did not fall into our hands and this is true. For if their ship was broken every year like ours, then Chernobyl would have happened in Toulon long ago, we had a wild situation when the ship surrenders after repairs, and a year later you come to the same ship and it stands sideways half of the hold is flooded, which to hide the fact that the cables \\\\\\\ and the vessel is absolutely unfit. There were persistent problems with radars, granites there are like a dog 5 feet and they removed them from him for a long time and the mines are empty ... As for the air defense systems, in theory they are normal in practice, I don’t know, but men that use them 100 \\\\ \\ will give a guarantee that with high-quality interference from the enemy, our radar systems will not jam. Excuse me, that it’s so messy, but the current has become painful and offensive for the homeland. Personally, I would sign up as a volunteer in the firing squad of all kinds of stools and other people’s il ... good as a coastal sea-going aircraft after modernization of the filling of course. That's when all the work on the Kuz will be completed and the base location reconstructed, then we will have an aircraft carrier, and then you can build 29. As for atomic aircraft carriers, I think it’s expensive and insanely irrational stupidity; atomic nafig are unnecessary for us; 33-2 non-atomic aircraft carriers comparable to the forge on displacement only stuffed with new systems and with appropriate basing and maintenance are enough for us ...

    In short, the situation with aircraft carriers = as in the 30s with multi-turret defense breakthrough tanks didn’t come in handy, or how they relied on battleships in those years — and aircraft carriers won the war at sea. Now we’re breaking spears about tactics suitable for the Second World War - and what turns out to be REALLY the main striking force of the fleets - no one knows ...
    1. nerd.su
      nerd.su 14 May 2013 02: 51 New
      0
      Quote: Kaa
      Now we are breaking spears about tactics suitable for the Second World War - and nobody knows what will turn out to be REALLY the main striking force of the fleets ...

      Yes, everyone knows - strategic missile submarines. After their application, the remaining ships will be forced to look for food and water in the southern hemisphere, what impact opportunities are there ...
  • Denis
    Denis 14 May 2013 02: 46 New
    +1
    According to official figures, the ship was built for about 10 years and cost French taxpayers $ 3,3 billion - a little less than the American Nimitz type supercarrier ($ 4,5 ... 5 billion at the end of the 1990s)
    And there are cuts about kickbacks?
    Gleb Zheglov was right: "... Tell me that in their England they steal no less than ours .."
    But this is a cool retreat, but why
    The only limitation is the size and design of the flight deck does not allow for the simultaneous take-off and landing of aircraft.
    He has a deck with a ledge (sorry for amateurism) allows?
    Explain who knows
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 14 May 2013 04: 46 New
    0
    in general, you can see how the fleet copes with problems without aviation and it turns out - nothing. If the author was honest to the end, then you can write the same devastating article about Apple, how many of them were built, constantly broke and exploded, stood idle at rem factories and simply got out after less than 10-15 years of operation? no aircraft carriers can be compared here and the apl leaders are completely useless now. A hundred kr will be released on purpose, like three Aegis destroyers (cruisers, costing just like an aircraft carrier) and all? chickens mockery. Therefore, the efficiency is 0.
    For what combat situation are aircraft carriers not needed, but are apl and destroyers like cruisers needed? Far from the bases, in the open ocean, the connection of surface ships and submarines will be destroyed the same way, only with the standards of an aircraft carrier at the head, because it will have an advantage in everything, it was shown by all the events that happened at sea in combat plan over the past 70 years.
    The situation of the war near its bases - why the fleet at all? Everything can be done without it, the fleet is clearly not needed here. The author’s strange logic, de Gaulle, with one and a half thousand sorties of his aviation, is not needed, and dozens of destroyers, frigates, corvettes, apl who have not done anything at all and will not do for the entire period of their existence - valuable combat units)
  • Backfire
    Backfire 14 May 2013 05: 10 New
    +5
    Here on the site everyone already understood that the author of the article is allergic to aircraft carriers.
    Nevertheless, the article is interesting, but the conclusions to which the author wants to bring us - they say the aircraft carrier is money down the drain. These conclusions are erroneous.

    The most important advantage of an aircraft carrier over stationary aerodromes is that the aircraft carrier is a mobile platform! In battle, if you stand still - you Khan.

    I will give an example that is accessible to everyone: you can now write a very convincing article about the advantages of stationary (we call it desktop) computers over laptops (laptops) and tablets. Everything will be there - large capacities for the same money, the possibility of upgrading and modernization, maintainability, longer service life, etc. Nevertheless, people are buying both systems, with the growth in portable computers outstripping stationary ones. I think everyone understands why - there are a lot of situations when it is more important to have an average or even just weak (compared to a stationary) computer at hand - the same laptop or tablet than nothing at all. Even though there is a "beast" at home, compared to which the "pill" looks pale.

    Any mobile system will a priori be more expensive than a stationary one with similar characteristics. Or vice versa, at the same cost, the mobile system will have "sagging" characteristics.

    But here it is important to understand the main thing - the cost of any weapon in itself does not mean anything. It is important that we "buy" with these weapons. If world domination, like the United States in recent decades, then what's the difference how much all this iron, including AUGs with all their escorts and air wings, costs? Pay for it, in the end, those for whom this hardware "works".

    More and more, when creating almost all weapons systems, mobility is one of the main qualities! For example, silo-based missiles are good for everyone. And the weight is already over 200 tons - i.e. carry more payloads (warheads, false targets), and their maintenance is cheaper than, say, on submarines, it is easier to maintain and maintain, and again cheaper. But no, for some reason submarine missile carriers are being built, mobile launch platforms on a car chassis, they are already thinking about the revival of "atomic" trains, and a lot of things have been done for aircraft with a nuclear warhead.

    We even say in practical pistol shooting courses that the ultimate goal is to teach you to shoot in motion. If you stand, you are a corpse!

    I want to give an example of a hundred years ago. Even before the First World War, they rejected the machine gun. It is because of the fact that this is the same amount of bullets per soldier, to Vanka, Hans, John, Francois. Duc of one bayonet is enough for this cannon fodder, well, in a pinch, a couple of bullets. And the point is not in the inertia of the generals, who, as you know, always prepare for the last war.
    Another moment was missed - the cost of the "prize" which the winner will receive has increased.

    Now the value of the "prize" cannot be measured at all. This quantity is not quantitative, but qualitative. At stake is who will gain and retain global control.

    An aircraft carrier is not a weapon, not a super-super-wunderfall. This is a tool that, under certain conditions and in skillful hands, can become worth its weight in gold. The article under discussion only shows that France was unable to "master" such a ship technically, but in no case allows conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness of combat use and the importance of aircraft carriers today.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 14 May 2013 05: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: the postman Le Redoutable needed the French? This is still a strategic nuclear forces. Nuclear deterrence. In addition, they can be well threatened - it is not known how life will turn in 10 years. Finally, Le Redoubtable is quite versatile - you can unload SLBMs from a boat and use it as a tactical weapon to solve local problems (4 TA 533 mm, mine-torpedo weapons, RCC Exoset)


    so, for a reason, why is a reducible, because you can make simple mine-based MBRs, which is much simpler than pushing them into a submarine and threatening anyone with it as well. Is it universal? can I use tactical apl?) of course, but this is the same argument as the one that the aircraft carrier is huge, with large internal volumes and can be used as you like (there will be application).
    In general, such disputes must be conducted personally, because there is too much to say, but spanking the key for hours is not a hunt)
    1. postman
      postman 14 May 2013 12: 51 New
      +2
      Quote: barbiturate
      so, offhand, why redoubtable, because you can make simple mbr mine-based that

      Oh !!! ++
      Just removed from the fingers ... I did not have time.
      Right EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO THE OLEG LOGIC (aircraft carriers / airfields of constant base)
  • gauche
    gauche 14 May 2013 11: 47 New
    0
    I think it is necessary to thoroughly compare two naval combat platforms - aircraft carriers (more precisely - AUGs) and nuclear submarines (operating by a group). Compare the goals and objectives available for both platforms, survival in combat conditions, ability to interact with other branches of the army, use in different military doctrines, target designation and reconnaissance equipment. Separately compare the means of delivery of the striking elements to the target - from ballistic missiles to rifle bullets of the Marine Corps.
    Regarding the inappropriateness of the AUGs for Russia, I fully agree with the author. Copying the monstrous fleet of the USA is the same as picking up a tripper from a prostitute for a man’s prestige. If there is a faithful and reliable weapon — and Russia is up to the mark in the construction of nuclear submarines, whatever they sang — it is necessary to improve it, and not to divert resources to obviously failed experiments with the Mistrals.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2013 12: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: thick
      Regarding the inappropriateness of the AUGs for Russia, I fully agree with the author.

      It is your right. Just one question. Above you write
      Quote: thick
      I think it is necessary to thoroughly compare two naval combat platforms - aircraft carriers (more precisely - AUGs) and nuclear submarines (operating by a group). Compare the goals and objectives available for both platforms, survival in combat conditions, ability to interact with other branches of the army, use in different military doctrines, target designation and reconnaissance equipment.

      Since you are so categorically speaking out in favor of the nuclear submarines, you probably have already done such an analysis? :) It would be interesting to read :)
  • USNik
    USNik 14 May 2013 12: 18 New
    0
    Quote: Backfire
    Here on the site everyone already understood that the author of the article is allergic to aircraft carriers.
    Nevertheless, the article is interesting, but the conclusions to which the author wants to bring us - they say the aircraft carrier is money down the drain. These conclusions are erroneous.

    I agree with you, but I do not support the author of the article. Analogy: which is better - to have a Lada that break (like all cars), or walk?

    Carriers are needed, and the fact that the French and the General have so many problems speaks about the mistakes made during the design and construction, largely thanks to
    shipyard employees suspected of having links with British intelligence MI6
    bully
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 14 May 2013 15: 20 New
    0
    Quote: thick
    I think it is necessary to thoroughly compare two naval combat platforms - aircraft carriers (more precisely - AUGs) and nuclear submarines (operating by a group). Compare the goals and objectives available for both platforms, survival in combat conditions, ability to interact with other branches of the army, use in different military doctrines, target designation and reconnaissance equipment. Separately compare the means of delivery of the striking elements to the target - from ballistic missiles to rifle bullets of the Marine Corps. Regarding the inappropriateness of the AUGs for Russia - I fully agree with the author. Copying the monstrous fleet of the USA is the same as picking up a tripper from a prostitute for a man’s prestige. If there is a faithful and reliable weapon - and Russia is at its best in the construction of nuclear submarines, no matter what they sang there - it is necessary to improve it, and not to divert resources to obviously failed experiments with the Mistrals.


    Why is it? Again, the ships are opposed to each other, but you just need to clearly understand what tasks the fleet faces, what ships it needs, and specifically, in order not to deal with abstraction at all, to our fleet. Here no one says (said) that the apl is worse than an aircraft carrier, you cannot think of such categories at all, this is childish) You need to clearly understand who our neighbors are, what our economy is, what tasks our fleet will have to solve, in which parts of the ocean and on which seas, who is the potential ally, and who is the enemy and think whether we need an aircraft carrier (or several) or not. My opinion is that if Russia plans to build an ocean fleet, it’s necessary, with proper use and prepared crews, it will significantly strengthen any surface connection and make the sky over the patrol areas of its airliners much safer, and the fleet’s reconnaissance capabilities will increase by just 2 orders of magnitude (you give an analogue of hockeys to our deck))
  • Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 14 May 2013 17: 43 New
    0
    Such a question is for those who really can say something on the merits. Even, one might say, a puzzle.
    We have AUG with this very "De Gaulle" off the coast of Syria. The task is to destroy it with the available forces of the Russian Navy. Suppose that the forces that you deem most appropriate for this are already deployed in the Mediterranean.
    That is, I ask you to explain to me what forces and means of the Navy today (in 2013) can destroy the AUG?
    I really don’t know the answer to this question, there is no irony in it, I’m just interested to know the opinion of experts.
    1. Santa Fe
      14 May 2013 19: 05 New
      0
      Quote: Kowalsky
      We have AUG with this very "De Gaulle" off the coast of Syria. The task is to destroy it with the available forces of the Russian Navy.

      Attack on a NATO bloc country ?!

      Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack on one or more of them in Europe or North America will be considered an attack on them as a whole, and, therefore, agree that if such an armed attack takes place, each of them, in order to exercise the right to individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, will render assistance to a Contracting Party subjected to , or to Contracting Parties subjected to such an attack, by immediately carrying out such an individual or joint action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force for the purpose of the restoration and subsequent maintenance of the security of the North Atlantic region.

      - 5 article, NATO CHARTER NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
      Washington, DC, April 4 1949
  • Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 14 May 2013 17: 43 New
    0
    Such a question is for those who really can say something on the merits. Even, one might say, a puzzle.
    We have AUG with this very "De Gaulle" off the coast of Syria. The task is to destroy it with the available forces of the Russian Navy. Suppose that the very ships, ships and aircraft that you deem most suitable for this are already deployed in the Mediterranean.
    That is, I ask you to explain to me what forces and means of the Navy can (if at all) today, in 2013, destroy the AUG?
    I really don’t know the answer to this question, there is no irony in it, I’m just interested to know the opinion of experts.
  • Kowalsky
    Kowalsky 15 May 2013 01: 21 New
    0
    Yes, that’s understandable. But if the war started?
  • gauche
    gauche 15 May 2013 06: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: Kowalsky
    That is, I ask you to explain to me what forces and means of the Navy today (in 2013) can destroy the AUG?

    There is special equipment - the nuclear submarine 949A of the project, the degree of combat readiness is a secret. But this is uncivilized - you just need to ask France to quickly build the Mistral. Then we can resist in a modern way.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Attack on a NATO bloc country ?!

    My friend, why did you go into politics? belay If we talk about this topic, then the issues should be very specific: 1. What can the Russian Navy do against the AUG led by the SDG? 2. What will the Russian Navy command to make the commander-in-chief of the Russian Federation? 3. Who (and what?) Will order to order the commander-in-chief of the Russian Federation?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Since you are so categorically speaking out in favor of the nuclear submarines, you probably have already done such an analysis? :) It would be interesting to read :)

    Yes, I am an amateur, where should I ... I persuade Oleg Kaptsov to write such an article hi I will be happy to participate in the discussion - we need to save the rating. Last time I put on display some views on the prospects for the development of the atomic submarine - I immediately captured black shoulder straps crying
    1. Santa Fe
      16 May 2013 02: 13 New
      0
      Quote: thick
      why did you go into politics

      weapons are nothing without the political will to use them
      Quote: thick
      1. What can the Russian Navy do against the AUG led by the SDG?

      The modern Russian Navy is likely to die the death of the brave.
      65-76 are removed from armament, there is no target designation and foreign bases, problems with those. ship condition

      We are waiting for the Ash to appear with light RCC Caliber and 8 TA
      Quote: thick
      I persuade Oleg Kaptsov to write such an article

      ?
  • gauche
    gauche 16 May 2013 03: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Withdrawn from weapons 65-76

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    We are waiting for the Ash to appear with light RCC Caliber and 8 TA

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The modern Russian Navy is likely to die the death of the brave.

    Ottakota - once - and perish. A mustache that is in service is not suitable for such a trade. SWEET_SIXTEEN, how is that? According to the article, it turns out that the SDG should be renamed "Trouble" - but everything that the Russian Navy has will not be able to push these exposed dominoes belay Without 65-76 can the French only do 69? wassat By the forces of diplomats bully
    Not so bad really. Well, we don’t have a magnificent orliberk, which you revered so much, and there are no ticonderoges either. But the AUG with de Gaulle is not at all fatally unshakable and terrible for the Russian Navy.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    weapons are nothing without political will

    hi I have to agree - I wrote about that. Whoever pumps the tremendous Mistals from the treasury is an obedient man.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 May 2013 12: 28 New
      0
      Quote: thick
      Ottakota - once - and perish. The mustache that is in service is unsuitable for such a craft.

      how many pikes are left in the navy?
      how long have torpedo firing been conducted?
      Is there a system of CERs? - in their entirety, they went to hundreds, the constant monitoring of any point in the ocean
      Quote: thick
      ShDG should be renamed "Trouble" - but everything that the Russian Navy has will not be able to push these exposed dominoes

      The French Navy is not only the ShDG
      these are modern frigates horizon, Lafayette, multipurpose submarines, anti-submarine aviation
      Quote: thick
      Without 65-76, can the French only do 69? By the forces of diplomats

      Yes, great noticed))
  • gauche
    gauche 17 May 2013 05: 05 New
    0
    No, you shouldn’t underestimate our fleet. A separate AUG with a FGD (incidentally, the abstraction - the West (NATO) is one pack) is quite in the teeth of a separate Pacific Fleet or Northern Fleet. The Russian Navy is not capable of demonstrating strength - yes, but by quietly recapturing and fleeing - everything is very even. I understand that it is unfounded - but it is a fact.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    no target designation and foreign bases

    This is just a special case - it would be necessary to protect the PMTO in Tartus. And reconnaissance and target designation is now satellite - both for Shchuk-B (971) and for Anteyev. The satellite constellation is operational. The surface presence in the Mediterranean is also indicated.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    how long have torpedo firing been conducted?

    Does hto know them? wink
  • Strong
    Strong 26 August 2013 19: 12 New
    +1
    I look forward to the diagnosis "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" from Dr. Kaptsov! As a separate article. It would be very interesting to read.

    At the moment he has bypassed only the Latin American aircraft carriers and the Thai royal yacht, not counting the aforementioned Kuznetsov.

    And yes, again, literary tricks in the style of "torn up corps of the rest of the American aircraft carriers in the base." Dr. Kaptsov, as a recognized expert on aircraft carriers, should know that only Newport News Shipbuilding knows how to deploy the hulls of aircraft carriers, and in turn, its capacity is by no means enough to simultaneously repair 5-6 aircraft carriers and build another new one. And at anchorages, where these vessels usually spend their time between voyages, it is nonsense to deploy hulls and arrange major repairs.

    However, knowing this well, Dr. Kaptsov uses such savory hyperbolas. What for?
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 27 November 2013 17: 20 New
    0
    Yes, the French "got bumps on their head". I would like to believe that the Russian shipping industry and the Navy will not repeat them repeat