Military Review

The new nuclear aircraft carrier created in Russia must surpass all ships of this class existing in the world - Commander-in-Chief of the Navy

229
The new nuclear aircraft carrier created in Russia must surpass all ships of this class existing in the world. This was stated today by ITAR-TASS by the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov.


"Work continues on the creation of a promising new nuclear aircraft carrier for our Navy. These works are carried out by a number of design bureaus and defense organizations in St. Petersburg. The results of the work on creating the appearance of a promising aircraft carrier are regularly reported to the Russian Defense Ministry and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy," he.

"We need an aircraft carrier, not yesterday and not today, but a really promising ship capable of performing tasks in cooperation with groups of surface ships, submarines, orbital grouping of spacecraft. It must have the broadest capabilities for conducting combat operations in a situation of any complexity, on any maritime and the ocean theater of military action ", - said the commander in chief.

According to him, the new Russian aircraft carrier "must surpass all existing ships of this class in its seaworthy, combat and functional characteristics." “This is our strict requirement for the industry, and we will not give up on it,” stressed Chirkov.

Currently, the Russian Navy has only one heavy aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, in service with the North fleet. There is a program for its modernization until 2020.

In December, 2012, Chirkov announced that serial construction of new domestic aircraft carriers would start from 2021. "During the 2021-2030 period, our combat potential will be increased by serial construction of promising aircraft carriers as part of the naval aircraft carrier complex, 4-generation multipurpose nuclear submarines, multipurpose ships of the ocean, far and near sea zones," he said then.

Chirkov said that the creation of a naval aircraft-carrying complex implies not only the construction of aircraft carriers themselves, but also bases with the necessary infrastructure, aircraft, crew training centers.
Originator:
http://www.arms-tass.su/
229 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. sergo0000
    sergo0000 20 May 2013 08: 07 New
    50
    Oh, to live even before that. winked
    1. fortunophile
      fortunophile 20 May 2013 08: 50 New
      33
      the new Russian aircraft carrier "should surpass all existing ships of this class in terms of its seaworthiness, combat and functional characteristics." "This is our strict requirement for the industry, and we will not abandon it," Chirkov stressed.


      the requirements should be set ambitious but reasonable. You can also ask the military-industrial complex to create an 2020th generation fighter by 8, and then be indignant that they did not cope with this task. We laugh when we hear about France and its mission to develop a 6th generation fighter. For us, the construction of (full-fledged) aircraft carriers is an innovation, which means that we need to set the task "on the shoulder", given that the shipyards are now not in the best condition. We see how many boats and submarines are being built (the terms are terrible), and therefore to lay the wunderwaffe, build it back for a long time and write off the unfinished hull in Nztany years?
      For me, they would take a project from the times of the USSR (forum users posted on the site) slightly adapted to the present and on the road, without loud words about "having no analogues" hi
      1. Manager
        Manager 20 May 2013 09: 45 New
        10
        Quote: fortuneophile
        requirements must be set ambitious, but reasonable.

        But really. Let's look at the deadlines for the delivery of the same boats and other small ships. And an aircraft carrier, especially one that is plotting this for you on a boat and not even 100 boats.
        It seems to me, for starters, it’s worth building a suitable modern shipyard in a couple of years (it’s better even 2 and 3 are identical) and build on them 1-2 aircraft carriers of simple, Soviet projects or even American copies. At least some experience will appear. Further it will be possible to talk about ambitions.
        1. Siberian German
          Siberian German 20 May 2013 15: 09 New
          0
          I support this opinion - conclude a contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier for India, for example, and work on it
          1. Retx
            Retx 20 May 2013 15: 40 New
            0
            Hindus themselves are building an aircraft carrier for themselves, in addition to ex-Gorshkov (I can’t even pronounce the name today and write it too).
            The answer was given by Sevmash himself.

            Quote:
            There are no shipyards in the country where assembly of warships of the required displacement of 60–80 thousand tons can be carried out. Supporters of domestic aircraft construction, however, found a way out. They plan to build future aircraft carriers at two different shipyards on a modular basis, and then assemble them at Sevmash. This method is used, for example, by the British when creating Queen Elizabeth. Only they have shipyards where the modules are welded, are relatively close to each other. In our case, nothing closer than St. Petersburg is yet to be seen.


            Quote:
            It’s breathtaking from the cyclopic workshops of Sevmash, where nuclear submarines are being built now. Initially, they were created to build battleships and heavy cruisers. None of them replenished the fleet. However, even the largest warships of the middle of the last century in their dimensions can not be compared with modern aircraft carriers. Therefore, you have to build a new giant boathouse for the assembly of modules. Some argue that you can do with the available ones. But this is a hoax. On an open slipway, it will not work either. Severodvinsk is not Newport News, where the Americans build aircraft carriers and where in winter the air temperature rarely drops below zero Celsius. In the Arkhangelsk region, severe frosts can stand for a long time. There are few people who like to work in the “fresh air” on a polar night, especially with an acute shortage of labor in the country. And if there are such enthusiasts, then you will have to pay them such crazy money, which the leaders of some enterprises will envy. And for technological reasons, welding the body at significant subzero temperatures is not particularly desirable. This was understood even in Stalin's days, when human life was not worth a penny, and competent engineers were not enough.

            Quote:
            At Sevmash, it will also be necessary to deepen the pool where the ships descend and expand the bath port. These preparations require billions of rubles and several years of hard work.
            1. Basarev
              Basarev 5 February 2014 21: 31 New
              0
              Quote: RETX
              even in the Stalinist era, when human life was not worth a penny

              This cannot be! It was not for nothing that even Stalin himself said: "Man is the most valuable capital"
          2. Revolver
            Revolver 21 May 2013 00: 35 New
            +1
            Quote: Siberian German
            conclude a contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier for India, for example, and work on it

            And turkeys want? It seems they are not very happy with how Vikram-like-him-there is being refined (formerly Gorshkov).
            And do Russia need aircraft carriers? To be honest, America doesn’t need them painfully, they tuned them up in the experience of the war with Japan. As always, the generals (and in this case the admirals) plan to fight a war that has long ended. Just one successfully launched torpedo or rocket (for example, the same Yakhont), and all this floating pile of bucks gurgles to the bottom. The future lies with low-noise submarines and subtle surface ships, and an aircraft carrier cannot be made inconspicuous, and even less so underwater.
            What aircraft carriers are good at is to "force peace" on any coastal banana republics that think they are too independent and independent, and even then there was a hole in Vietnam. Well, the truth is, there was behind the narrow-eyed Union, and the USSR is not a banana republic and not even the current Russian Federation (ay, minusers!). What kind of banana republics Russia should be "forced into peace" at the cost of building an aircraft carrier, and even surpassing all the existing analogues (for money, mind you, too). Estonia with Georgia or what? So a couple of motorized rifle divisions will be enough for them.
            And in the case of a big mess, aircraft carriers will defend themselves at bases well-fortified and protected from all directions, like Tirpitz throughout the Second World War. Why? Yes, because if such a bunch of bucks gurgles, a lot of military and political careers gurgle with it, and nobody who has big stars or who is sitting in high offices wants to.
            1. Basarev
              Basarev 5 February 2014 21: 56 New
              0
              Exactly - more hovercraft should be built. Due to their low noise and speed, they can be simply priceless.
        2. No_more
          No_more 20 May 2013 19: 23 New
          +2
          But still, I often meet comments that it is necessary to build not 20, but 200 aircraft, not one shipyard, but 3. But after all, somewhere later it will be necessary to put on such production facilities, the people who will work there, the infrastructure intended for such a scale of production of specific military products.
          Everyone wants everything at once, including me, but I need to think about the day after tomorrow. The temptation to take radical measures is always great, but sometimes they have to pay very dearly.
      2. patline
        patline 20 May 2013 09: 49 New
        10
        it is necessary to set the task "on the shoulder", given that the shipyards are now not in the best condition.

        Soviet developments, no doubt, good. But you need to look in perspective. Having spent money on the construction of aircraft carriers of past generations, it may not remain or remain insufficient for promising ships. But in addition to the army and navy, you need to keep doctors, teachers and spend on other necessary needs.
        So in my opinion, it is more economical to design and build promising ships, build new shipyards and infrastructure, especially since at this stage we are protected by our nuclear weapons from global threats.
        1. Kolya
          Kolya 20 May 2013 10: 31 New
          20
          Aircraft carrier is too expensive a toy. There are cheaper and more effective weapons, unless of course there are plans for independent countries to democratize. Maybe I don’t understand what, but if a pair of Yakhont’s put any piece of iron to the bottom, then it might be better to develop a submarine fleet and long-range aviation equipped with the likeness of modern Yakhont or torpedoes. Amer feed their military corporations, so they build aircraft carriers because.
          1. aksakal
            aksakal 20 May 2013 10: 52 New
            10
            Quote: Kohl
            unless of course there are plans for independent countries to democratize. Maybe I don’t understand what, but if a pair of Yakhont’s put any piece of iron to the bottom, then it might be better to develop a submarine fleet and long-range aviation equipped with the likeness of modern Yakhont or torpedoes. Amer feed their military corporations, so they build aircraft carriers because

            - well, corporations and Russian ones would not hurt to feed them, Russian corporations are highly paid jobs, why not win a tender for the development of an oil field somewhere in Limpopo and send Russian specialists there (with business trips, with "double for difficult tropical conditions" )? And anybody dissatisfied with the Russian winning the tender UNITA should be brought under control with an aircraft carrier - why not? Why not drive the aircraft carrier to the shores of some tiny, but rich and ambitious state, so that they would apologize for the beaten Russian ambassador for a very long time and pay the Russian ambassador the appropriate compensation. An aircraft carrier is a good means of projecting power into any region,
            Quote: Kohl
            submarine fleet and long-range aviation equipped with the likeness of modern Yakhont or torpedo squall
            - good defense, but no more. They cannot be means of projection of force, alas ...
            1. 4fedor1
              4fedor1 20 May 2013 12: 16 New
              +3
              and not only for the ambassador but for his citizens anywhere in the world. even if we are guilty, let our motherland judge us and not some kind of p and d
            2. knn54
              knn54 20 May 2013 12: 43 New
              +6
              -The new nuclear aircraft carrier being created in Russia should surpass ...
              On the "cut" of funds and timing, for sure.
              but base points with the necessary infrastructure, aircraft, crew training centers.
              Now even the flagship of the Northern Fleet is nowhere to base.
              -axakal: ... a submarine fleet and long-range aviation equipped with the likeness of modern Yakhonts or torpedoes Flurry They cannot be means of projection of force, alas ...
              Yes, one submarine does the Yankees more efficiently than two aircraft carriers, which also need an escort.
              1. aksakal
                aksakal 20 May 2013 14: 44 New
                +2
                Quote: knn54
                - The new nuclear aircraft carrier being created in Russia should exceed ... By the "cut" of funds and terms, for sure.

                - It’s clear that if Chirkov is so dumb .. he’s so much to steal under Shoigu and Rogozin, then this will only fix the prison laughing Any corrupt official keeps his nose to the wind and believe me, a competent corrupt official does not steal, if the authorities are not disposed to endure it. Or then we agree that both Rogozin and Shoigu are thieves. But if they are thieves - I can’t say anything here. Then it is easier for Russia to completely destroy, to drag the entire population through the empty for 40 years and rebuild laughing
              2. aksakal
                aksakal 21 May 2013 07: 59 New
                0
                Quote: knn54
                They cannot be the means of projection of force, alas ... Yes, one submarine does the Yankees more efficiently than two aircraft carriers, which also need an escort.

                - well, if we talk like that, then we will cram all over the world, across all the oceans of the "Scythians" and become the most powerful in the world at sea laughing "Skif" is a bottom rocket. It lies to itself and lies, with the slightest camouflage, it is difficult to detect by all sorts of radio beacons. And if it lies so deep, then both finding and disarming such a missile is a big technical problem. And at the right time on command, it starts up to the goal. Why then do we need ships at all, if we will pacify everyone anyway? laughing Let's scare it - just take away your aircraft carrier, we just have missiles poured there, that beads in front of the boar laughing
          2. Andrew
            Andrew 20 May 2013 20: 52 New
            0
            Carriers are needed not only in order to bring democracy with blows. but also to ensure the air defense of their ships in the ocean. And this is more important for us than the bombing of some Limpopo.
      3. nickname 1 and 2
        nickname 1 and 2 20 May 2013 10: 17 New
        +2
        Quote: fortuneophile
        forum users laid out) a little adapted to the present


        And on .ren goat accordion?

        For reporting?

        We do not need props!
        We got along and will manage.
        And if you do it, the BEST BEST, 30 YEARS, BEST!
        1. RusPruss
          RusPruss 20 May 2013 11: 28 New
          +1
          "I suppose the Americans won't get to Tambov ..."
      4. SerAll
        SerAll 20 May 2013 11: 07 New
        +3
        ---- "For me they would take a project from the times of the USSR" ---

        I apologize, but do you think it will be different?
        1. elmir15
          elmir15 20 May 2013 11: 22 New
          +5
          If it will be an aircraft carrier,
          not an aircraft carrier cruiser,
          then I'm only for it.
          That's just the use of aircraft carriers
          requires a completely different naval doctrine.
          Nth number of support ships required
          for knocking together an aircraft carrier compound,
          even more supply ships
          for such a connection
          and the doctrine of applying it all.
          It seems like neither one nor the other nor the third
          we don’t have yet.
          And it is unlikely to succeed in the next 20 years
          catch up with the Americans.
          But still, we hope for the good.
          The main thing is to go your own way without looking back
          to other people's projects.
          1. builder
            builder 20 May 2013 20: 04 New
            0
            6-8 destroyers, 2 cruisers, 2 nuclear multipurpose submarines (nuclear submarines).
            Currently, the Russian aviation industry does not produce carrier-based aircraft that could launch from the deck of an aircraft carrier using a catapult.
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 20 May 2013 20: 10 New
            0
            Quote: elmir15
            application of aircraft carriers
            requires a completely different naval doctrine.

            Total No:
            - doctrines
            - locations,
            - production base.
            There is:
            - money
            - the realization that "probable friends" understand ONLY strength,
            - a tiny margin of time before the remnants of the past power will become final disrepair.

            And what is the conclusion? Probably, to decide what tasks have to be solved (i.e. with a doctrine) and ... start building. And during this time, prepare basing places and coastal support infrastructure. Where to build? For this, there is an NSR in Severodvinsk. Yes, a giant like a new American can’t be made there. But who said that shape and size should be necessarily of this kind and type? A catamaran or trimaran with electromagnetic catapults in the inter-hull space is much more comfortable, more stable on the wave, more spacious and with less draft. And the flight deck, which is used entirely for landing, can be much more spacious than in the classic layout. With the construction of buildings in this situation, the same 55th workshop will quite cope, since there were at the same time 3 "Sharks" 941 projects were built there. You can even dock them afloat. Nuclear ship installations and their support for the NSR is a long-established topic, with the features inherent in aircraft carriers, the plant has trained on the Indian contract. In the meantime, it will be under construction, there will be just enough time and a base to prepare.

            By the way, the survivability of the ship with this scheme is also significantly higher
        2. Gemar
          Gemar 20 May 2013 17: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: SerAll
          ---- "For me they would take a project from the times of the USSR" ---

          I apologize, but do you think it will be different?

          I would like a new project.
          I’ll dream right now ... Aircraft-carrying icebreaker cruiser! wassat And what about the Chinese in the Arctic?
          1. VAF
            VAF 20 May 2013 20: 46 New
            12
            Quote: Gamar
            I’ll dream right now ... Aircraft-carrying icebreaker cruiser!


            Seryoga, I propose immediately 2 projects, so as not to forget anyone and the submarine wassat



            and .. aerospace lol



            tankmen, air defense, artillery rocket
            1. Quiet
              Quiet 20 May 2013 22: 26 New
              +1
              Sergey anneals again !!!! Respect !!! good hi wink
      5. Per se.
        Per se. 20 May 2013 11: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: fortuneophile
        For me, they would take a project from the times of the USSR (forum users posted on the site) slightly adapted to the present and on the road, without loud words about "having no analogues"
        Indeed, we have the opportunity to use the Ulyanovsk atomic project, but we have no desire. We have a desire to build a supercarrier, which the Americans do not have, but we do not have the opportunity. Here, frankly, I want to say a toast ... By that time, the Chinese have built and will operate more than one aircraft carrier. If you think about it, it’s better now not to wear the most fashionable bast shoes than to wait twenty years barefoot, especially since you can build at least one "training" nuclear aircraft carrier according to ready-made drawings, in parallel with everything else. You look, these years, until 2021, will not be lost.
      6. vyatom
        vyatom 20 May 2013 13: 09 New
        0
        Quote: fortuneophile
        Do we see how many boats and submarines are being built (the deadlines are terrible), and therefore to lay the wunder-waffle, build it for a long time and write off the unfinished hull after Nztany years on needles? without loud words about "unparalleled

        So it is cheap and uninteresting. And to wash a few costs of aircraft carriers?
        Recently I read "Overhaul" by Leonid Sobolev about the state of the Russian fleet before the First World War. Unfortunately, nothing has changed, although 100 years have passed.
      7. Siberian German
        Siberian German 20 May 2013 15: 08 New
        +1
        so maybe you need to set goals after tomorrow to get tomorrow's products
      8. Simon
        Simon 20 May 2013 15: 26 New
        +1
        If the state plans to mass-build aircraft carriers from 2021, then they will mean to build shipyards and berths for them and to develop modern equipment and weapons, there is still time. Many products were developed during the Union in the years 50-70, which to this day no one in the world can repeat, for example rocket engines. And the needles are too sorry, so many needles, where are we going to put them? hi laughing
      9. Rico1977
        Rico1977 20 May 2013 16: 16 New
        0
        I would like to talk about weapons - an aircraft carrier, all the same, it should have defensive weapons, and here we seem to be losing a lot. It seems to me that the Americans have taken the right path - unification - when there are fifty launch tubes, and depending on the task, they are loaded with the right ammunition. And since we have some launchers for some missiles, others for others, and this is additional weight, dimensions, less quantity, complexity (maybe a little higher efficiency, but it’s not worth it). Or am I wrong? Maybe there are some difficulties in such a unification? For me, there are some pluses. This more likely does not even apply to aircraft carriers, but rather escort ships ... Although an aircraft carrier so armed and without an air wing would be dangerous. There are experts - answer (and I'm not talking about weapons on new physical principles - it would be nice, but that's just not soon, I think they will appear)
        1. Flea
          Flea 20 May 2013 16: 18 New
          0
          A fan of aircraft carriers without planes, but with granites, are you?
      10. VAF
        VAF 20 May 2013 20: 35 New
        +2
        Quote: fortuneophile

        For me they would take a project of the times of the USSR (on the site the forum users laid out) a little adapted to


        I agree completely, +! drinks

        well or all the same according to current realities and current leaders ... buy from someone else already!
        And what "experience" is .. because the barge-Mistralki bought .. so why not buy an aircraft carrier?
        And build quickly and efficiently!
        Suggest at Britt, build fast, modern. We'll "stick" a mace on it (there is experience with Granites on Kuza) and go!
        After 3 years, we will have and not to ..... the eleventh!

        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 20 May 2013 20: 53 New
          +1
          Then such a one, from Paykerite. It is impossible to build for a long time, infection.
      11. ramzes1776
        ramzes1776 21 May 2013 00: 12 New
        +1
        Quote: fortuneophile
        For me, they would take a project from the times of the USSR (forum users posted on the site) slightly adapted to the present and on the road, without loud words about "having no analogues"

        What to think. The project has long been a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk". As much as 20% was ready in due time, but alas, with the collapse of the USSR, they cut it.
      12. edge
        edge 21 May 2013 03: 32 New
        0
        Quote: fortuneophile
        requirements must be set ambitious, but reasonable.

        I do not agree, reasonable requirements use existing technologies and do not stimulate the development of new ......, but this is preparation for a war that has already passed, a dead end.
    2. olegff68
      olegff68 20 May 2013 11: 15 New
      +7
      Quote: sergo0000
      Oh, to live even before that. winked

      And why rush it - the current leadership of the Moscow Region as a whole and the Navy in particular, are very competent and well aware that all the continents are moving - therefore Russia is a large aircraft carrier that will sooner or later sail to America. And by this time you can slowly equip it and equip it!
    3. RusPruss
      RusPruss 20 May 2013 11: 25 New
      +6
      To do better, you need to know what the American aircraft carrier can and what it consists of. They bought the Mistral, and then found out that they do not produce oils for its mechanisms. Under the USSR, they did not boast in advance, but did it in silence.
    4. krasin
      krasin 20 May 2013 14: 03 New
      +5
      Success in the war is decided by two factors: a new model gun and a school teacher. - Otto von Bismarck
    5. Army1
      Army1 20 May 2013 16: 24 New
      +1
      The new nuclear aircraft carrier created in Russia must surpass all ships of this class existing in the world - Commander-in-Chief of the Navy
      I like this phrase, but also alarming.
      And if you control that there are no kickbacks, then ours can all. Good luck.
    6. vjhbc
      vjhbc 20 May 2013 17: 50 New
      +1
      with the existing feudal system it is not needed at all; Russia doesn’t have such tasks in the oceans that it could solve it as a child prodigy for cutting money, but what is needed are destroyers and missile cruisers but not fools like Peter and 2 times less with universal launchers installations and good radars and the main control system is something like Aegis, you look at the whole history of the Russian fleet, all these quibbles on gigantomania and most brought nothing but the shame of the grief of wasting money, but all the glory and pride are medium and small ships
      Quote: sergo0000
      Oh, to live even before that. winked
    7. Yazov
      Yazov 20 May 2013 18: 55 New
      0
      After 8 years, they will begin to build, then another 8 will be built, at best. Eh .. sad!
      1. Quiet
        Quiet 20 May 2013 22: 31 New
        0
        After 8 years, they will begin to build, then another 8 will be built, at best. Eh .. sad!

        As they said before - "The main thing is that the war does not start before this time !!" ...
        1. not good
          not good 20 May 2013 23: 55 New
          0
          The commander-in-chief acted in the role of Khoja Nasretdin, with him in any case there will be no aircraft carrier, for so many years either the "donkey" will die, or the "padishah", and all Chirkov's talk about distant performers is just cheap PR.
  2. aksakal
    aksakal 20 May 2013 08: 09 New
    19
    Well, if they set themselves such ambitious goals - it's already half the battle. A clearly defined task is a half-solved task. And the rest will grow - staff, competencies, experience and traditions. It would be an aspiration, not just a declaration of aspiration
    1. viktor_ui
      viktor_ui 20 May 2013 12: 55 New
      +1
      aksakal - let me doubt your statement that setting an ambitious task with rolling is already a 50% component of future success and this alone will move the accompanying technologies, infrastructure and "crowds" of high-class specialists of the level of both manufacturers and direct users of such wunder to unattainable sustems ... request YES REALLY ... This ser Chirkov has been a week at the Olympus of power for a year, and has repeatedly noted with loud cries of the totality of his plans for the expected unattainable future omnipotence ... wassat
      He pays out loot for aircraft carriers that will plow near space and if he survives a fiasco, we will once again hear the story of scoundrels-related people and cute dumb secretaries in a compartment with his integrity and crystalline thoughts.
      you said - "A clearly set task is a half-solved task" ... nothing of the kind and the maximum you can count on - the right or wrong path will go comrades ... well, or how to choose the location of the city according to the wind rose with the end result for the settlers: techno will cheat on the city or they will be lucky ...
      Maybe I’m wrong (I really want to), but I don’t like this red-haired Chirkov.
      Wherever his record is poyuzat, and then suddenly he is a relative of Popovkin.
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 20 May 2013 14: 00 New
        -1
        Quote: viktor_ui
        Maybe I’m wrong (I really want to), but I don’t like this red-haired Chirkov.

        - I don’t know, not knowing Chirkov, how can you immediately right here on the same board with another red one? There should be a credit of trust for anyone, otherwise assigning someone in general makes no sense - like, no matter who is appointed, the job will fail, you bastard!
        Quote: viktor_ui
        then we will once again hear the story of scoundrels-subcontractors and cute dumb secretaries in a compartment with his integrity and crystalline thoughts.
        - while there are no such facts.

        Quote: viktor_ui
        OH REALLY

        - here it is not about whether Russia needs aircraft carriers or not ... The nature of wars at sea by 2030 can easily change, just as land wars have changed now. No one can predict this. But an aircraft carrier is a local one, but an SUPERVISION for shipbuilders. And attempts to solve the super-task, real attempts, and not a simulation, will lead to the fact that Russia's shipbuilding (including military direction) industry will be in good shape. Why does the gym roll swing? After all, a situation when his physical strength is required may arise, or may never arise at all. Why then does he force himself three times a week, or even more often, to be afraid to strain? Well, to keep yourself in a physical tone, and through that to keep your whole body in proper condition. This leads to good performance and further to high COMPETITIVENESS. And the aircraft carriers ... Well, if not them, then you still need to invent something similar and complex to pull up relaxed shipbuilders. Life on relaxation leads to a belly and shortness of breath.
        1. viktor_ui
          viktor_ui 20 May 2013 16: 43 New
          0
          aksakal - why I put it on the same level as the red one ... I have a stable life experience of rejecting people who start to engage in BOLOGOLOGY at the very beginning of their work ... he would shut up and pull his teeth out of the fleet's rags, and not engage in verbiage about ANOTHER fabulous horizons. You don’t have to go far for negative examples: compare 2 photos of participants in the joint exercises of Russia and Norway, I personally care that two vessels from different centuries started joint training. The statement of foreign media and experts about the archaic nature of the newly formed squadron in terms of the ship component - the last century and comes from the USSR. Let this cat Basilio with galloons at first do concrete things in terms of ships from the 21st century for our sailors and really turn the point in Tartus into something full and respected by everyone (well, at least that) - then, believe me, I have crooked thoughts about him and not be born.

          - while there are no such facts ... but for me, it would be better to knock a peacock from the army from a warm nest at the very beginning of his activity, until he did a damn thing, for which it’s not enough to put it on the wall. ENOUGH US PROJECTORS in the defense industry and he needs to prove that he is REALLY a man of work, and not just another farts.

          Regarding the aircraft carrier and all its attendants, stray people can only be scattered around with pearls like, well, now we’ll have the smallest aircraft carrier in the world, without having many years of experience operating such shock monsters, nor the infrastructure and logistics they need .. .
          Can Chirkov himself in this business fucked pepper and he personally will build everything himself ???
          And for me he is an eructation of the created system of selecting the right people by Metr Perdyukov, in order to facilitate the military budget in the right direction, he drank it.
          I have a one-on-one relationship with him, like Serdyukov, and I can not help myself - they are the point of the rat. N time will pass and we will return to this dialogue. Yours faithfully hi
          1. xtur
            xtur 20 May 2013 19: 11 New
            +2
            Russia / USSR has experience in designing atomic aircraft carriers, God forbid they redesign and reconstruct Kuznetsov, and the first experience of testing some basic ideas will already appear

            Decisions of this level are supervised not only by Chirkov, but by the entire highest vertical of power, since the options for investing money, even in something useful, are more than enough

            So all this can become clear only when the time comes, but not now
          2. aksakal
            aksakal 20 May 2013 21: 36 New
            0
            Quote: viktor_ui
            I personally do not care that two vessels from different centuries started a joint training. Statement by foreign media and experts about the archaic nature of the newly formed squadron in terms of the ship component - the last century and originally from the USSR

            - excuse me, I'm too lazy to look ... Maybe throw off or post a photo with comments from the Norwegians or whoever? And then somehow it does not fit into my head that the Vietnamese Hindus are happy to buy Russian ships from the Russians, all these "Cheetahs" and other things, and do not buy from the Norwegians. It may very well be that you will be able to convince me and with you I will laugh at the Vietnamese suckers who buy the last sucks from the Russians, and this despite the fact that there is a super-manufacturer of super-cool ships in the neighborhood laughing
            Quote: viktor_ui
            Moreover, having neither many years of experience in exploiting such shock monsters, nor the corresponding infrastructure and logistics ...

            - first of all, you don’t believe everything that you listed - either created for money, or acquired in life, in other words - it’s a gain laughing ... In the twenties, the young USSR did not have an automobile industry, in the thirties - aircraft manufacturing. Imagine, Stalin throws "Youth to the airplane," and the youth responds:

            Quote: viktor_ui
            as possible on an airplane, without having neither many years of experience in operating such flying monsters, nor the corresponding infrastructure and logistics ...
            . Presented? Like? I think that if the youth had reacted like this, Russia would not have had aircraft manufacturing to this day laughing
    2. vyatom
      vyatom 20 May 2013 13: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: aksakal
      Well, if they set themselves such ambitious goals - it's already half the battle. A clearly defined task is a half-solved task. And the rest will grow - staff, competencies, experience and traditions. It would be an aspiration, not just a declaration of aspiration

      They say so with us - p ... don’t roll bags
  3. svp67
    svp67 20 May 2013 08: 10 New
    +7
    We need an aircraft carrier not yesterday or today ...

    Now the means of armed struggle are at a new revolutionary frontier and even a little bit more and the battlefield can change its appearance dramatically, we would like our specialists to step not only in the foot, but also ahead of time ...
    1. taseka
      taseka 20 May 2013 10: 55 New
      +5
      "Chirkov said that the serial construction of new domestic aircraft carriers will begin in 2021" - AND STILL PLANT THE TRAITORS WHO SOLD AN ALMOST READY AIR CARRIER ON NEEDLES TO CHINA!
  4. atalef
    atalef 20 May 2013 08: 15 New
    -4
    According to him, the new Russian aircraft carrier "must surpass all existing ships of this class in its seaworthy, combat and functional characteristics." “This is our strict requirement for the industry, and we will not give up on it,” stressed Chirkov.

    Then it simply will not be. Another tale. It is not possible to create something better in the world without going through an elementary ladder of errors, improvements to achieve the final result. Never in the USSR / Russia was there a full-fledged aircraft carrier (with an ejection launch), in the USSR they could not develop a steam catapult, on the new Amerov aircraft carriers we are talking about an electromagnetic catapult, I'm not talking about the operation of all systems, a full-fledged AUG, etc. When I hear such statements I am just ridiculous. Maybe to start, just create an aircraft carrier?
    Cries of the type Chase and surpass - have heard and what came of it we know.
    I am ashamed to hear such statements from the lips of such a high-ranking official (commander).
    1. Toit
      Toit 20 May 2013 08: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: atalef
      Then it simply will not be.

      They will make an ordinary aircraft carrier, in some ways inferior, in some ways superior to their Western counterparts, and declare that it has no analogues. We will see.
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 20 May 2013 13: 49 New
        +1
        You will see more ...
    2. Saburov
      Saburov 20 May 2013 09: 25 New
      +7
      In fact, any AUG is no more than a watch in the ocean, since it is not capable of solving missions to destroy coastal targets (we don’t take aborigines into account) if the enemy has coastal defense, more or less stable anti-aircraft defense, electronic warfare, anti-ship and tactical missiles Aircraft strike AUG needs to go a distance of 500-650 km (for those who will scream that the radius of AUG 1500-2000 km, airplanes with a pair of hanging tanks and a pair of bombs at low speed are a convenient target, therefore, with such a combat load, only Bedouins can drive in the desert) based on calculations and application practice, the AOG radius is significantly reduced, the Tomahawks of weather protection ships will also not do it due to their subsonic speed and extreme instability to counteract EWs due to their high accuracy, and the AUG is phonite with metal and radio emission so that even missiles they smell them in warehouses, so let the crabs swim and scare the seagulls.
      1. Manager
        Manager 20 May 2013 09: 47 New
        0
        Quote: Saburov
        (we don’t take the natives into account)

        So the natives are the locals. And this word has nothing to do with poits, etc.

      2. Manager
        Manager 20 May 2013 09: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: Saburov
        AUG metal and radio emission so that even the rockets in the warehouses can smell them, so let them crabs swim and scare the seagulls.


        Mdya .... special you however. Listen to you, so AUG are not capable of anything ..... However, everything says the opposite.
        Do not underestimate the enemy.
      3. aksakal
        aksakal 20 May 2013 11: 03 New
        +2
        Quote: Saburov
        AUG needs to go over a distance of 500-650 km (for those who will scream that the AUG radius is 1500-2000 km, airplanes with a pair of hanging tanks and a pair of bombs at low speed are a convenient target, therefore, with such a combat load, you can only drive Bedouins across the desert )

        - Well, it is difficult to call the Syrian troops "Bedouin" or "Papuan", just troops with outdated air defense and outdated coast guard weapons. The Yugoslavs, too, could hardly be called Papuans. But it was precisely the AUGami and a large mass of Tomahawks that forced Yugoslavia to essentially surrender, and in Syria it is still clear that it will not survive in the event of such an aggression without Russian comprehensive assistance. What would you know - not the entire coast of Syria is covered by "Bastions", bomb the "Bastions" if they are not properly covered with air defense weapons for experienced pilots - see the results of the bombing of Damascus by Israel. And the strength of the Tomahawks is precisely in the extremely low profile of their flight (in the mode of following the terrain) and in the possibility of their salvo launch - even the best Russian air defense systems have restrictions on channels of simultaneous tracking, and even more so there are restrictions on the simultaneous destruction of detected targets. Not what you typed.
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 20 May 2013 13: 30 New
          0
          Quote: aksakal
          Yugoslavs, too, could hardly be called Papuans. But it was precisely the AUGs and the great mass of Tomahawks that Yugoslavia was forced to essentially surrender,

          Hmm ... And how many of the over 1000 Alliance aircraft were on aircraft carriers? And the "ax" is not such a wunderwolf, with a low-altitude profile its range is significantly reduced.
          1. aksakal
            aksakal 20 May 2013 14: 08 New
            +1
            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            And how many of the more than 1000 Alliance aircraft were on aircraft carriers?

            - Okay, let's remember Libya after Lockerbie - in those years, too, they weren’t Papuans, the A-200 was in service with Amanita. For those times, it’s a good complex. Amer also bombed not fresh - F-104 and the corsair. But the Amers really needed to punish Amanita for the Lockerbie attack - and they severely punished. No benefit from AUG? Amanita stopped knocking down planes.
            Quote: Rakti-Kali
            And the "ax" is not such a wunderwolf, with a low-altitude profile its range is significantly reduced.
            - add here a small EPR of this muck. Against Russia with its distances, the ax is hardly a good helper for amers, in any case an outdated modification. But against small countries, it works well for now. Unfortunately.
    3. baton140105
      baton140105 20 May 2013 09: 56 New
      +4
      And more than once they caught up and overtook, brother, do not talk ...
    4. Vilor
      Vilor 20 May 2013 10: 03 New
      +9
      I disagree. Do you think that We have never overtaken them? What tasks should be set? Let's build a boat and be happy? We now have some athletes and sports commentators say: "Well, nothing, I congratulate our athletes, we made every effort, trained for many years, and took the honorable 31st place. Hurray !!!" Is this normal for you? Only by setting yourself the highest, most difficult tasks can you really achieve a lot. And only the one who does nothing is not mistaken.
    5. svp67
      svp67 20 May 2013 10: 04 New
      +4
      Quote: atalef
      in the USSR failed to develop a steam catapult

      They could not, but did not want, because of the sharp rise in the cost of the project ...
      1. Retx
        Retx 20 May 2013 12: 26 New
        0
        ? as if developed, even electromagnetic. They didn’t have time to apply.
      2. vyatom
        vyatom 20 May 2013 13: 17 New
        +4
        Quote: svp67
        They could not, but did not want, because of the sharp rise in the cost of the project ...

        Gentlemen, do not forget that in Russia there are a large number of unresolved economic problems and getting involved in the construction and maintenance of aircraft carriers is a rather expensive and dubious pleasure. We must bet on a powerful multipurpose and strategic submarine fleet, as a deterrent.
    6. RusPruss
      RusPruss 20 May 2013 11: 30 New
      +3
      After Serdyukov, it's time to get used to everything.
    7. aksakal
      aksakal 20 May 2013 12: 01 New
      +3
      Quote: atalef
      Then it simply will not be. Another tale

      understandable, Atalef. You are undeservedly minus, you are a good indicator. If you started crying, "no way!" - it means that they took the right course laughing If you shout that "your intestines will be thin!" - means, you just need to strain well, that's all. Thanks again, Atalef smile
    8. wax
      wax 20 May 2013 22: 03 New
      0
      Twenty years later, it is possible that catapults, along with manned vehicles on a supercarrier, will not be needed at all. You don’t need to catch up - time is gone, and it’s pointless, you need to skip this stage of development.
  5. pensioner
    pensioner 20 May 2013 08: 17 New
    17
    According to him, the new Russian aircraft carrier "should surpass all existing ships of this class in terms of its seaworthiness, combat and functional characteristics."


    In the course of it, Tu-95s will sit ... At least ...
    1. Suhov
      Suhov 20 May 2013 09: 47 New
      +6
      Quote: retired
      In the course of it, Tu-95s will sit ... At least ...

      Take it wider.
      Part of the deck is under the cosmodrome. For launching a spacecraft and landing an aircraft of the "Buran" type.
      Well, strategists to highlight the site.
      wassat
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 20 May 2013 10: 04 New
        +1
        Quote: Sukhov
        Take it wider.


        It is possible and deeper. Although it can cling to the Mendeleev ridge. There is something for developers to think about in general ...
        1. Black Colonel
          Black Colonel 20 May 2013 10: 12 New
          +8
          And for the submarine in the hold why no one is talking?
          1. Canep
            Canep 20 May 2013 11: 19 New
            +5
            The submarine does not have a place in the hold - it is better to place it on davits. laughing
    2. Canep
      Canep 20 May 2013 10: 52 New
      +6
      The project is already there:
      (aviation and ICBMs are shown on the same scale as the ship) lol
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 20 May 2013 10: 59 New
        +2
        Anyway, something is missing ... Toko I don’t understand what.
        1. Armata
          Armata 20 May 2013 11: 37 New
          +2
          Quote: retired
          Anyway, something is missing ... Toko I don’t understand what.
          Iron in the country and the brains of the rulers.
          1. pensioner
            pensioner 20 May 2013 11: 55 New
            +4
            Let me disagree! (about iron).
        2. Patton5
          Patton5 20 May 2013 12: 11 New
          +3
          Dock for submarines!
          1. pensioner
            pensioner 20 May 2013 12: 30 New
            +3
            Hmm ... Let's push the Zvezdochka plant. And we will do our own kind on the go!
      2. Patton5
        Patton5 20 May 2013 12: 09 New
        +2
        This is neither a leviathan))) what kind of project is it real (in the sense of a project) or a figment of something imagination?
        1. Canep
          Canep 20 May 2013 12: 23 New
          0
          See here
          http://alternathistory.org.ua/uberlinkory-sssr-pobedivshego-v-kholodnoi-voine-ki
          ev-i-minsk
        2. Retx
          Retx 20 May 2013 12: 30 New
          0
          Pure banter, who joked and drew =)
  6. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 20 May 2013 08: 18 New
    +9
    Has anyone measured the temperature of the naval commander? Maybe he has a fever? We need an aircraft carrier that satisfies our requirements, our strategy. Why do we need to be on the American aircraft carrier? Its main purpose is shock along the shore. But we need an aircraft carrier controlling the sea. Its main task is the fight against surface ships, air attack weapons and submarines. If we want to get the best aircraft carrier in the world, then its displacement will be at least 100 thousand tons. We do not have such plants.
    We need an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 60-65 thousand tons, with nuclear power plants, electromagnetic catapults. The main weapons should be multifunctional aircraft of the 5th generation (type T-50K) in the amount of 24 units. Mandatory aircraft AWACS (up to 5 units.). Assign anti-submarine functions to guarding ships and helicopters based on them. Part of the helicopters should be on the aircraft carrier. Of the weapons on the aircraft carrier should be self-defense against SVP in the near and middle zone. RCC, hypersonic missiles for coastal shooting - all this is not necessary.
    1. Retx
      Retx 20 May 2013 12: 46 New
      0
      Did he say something about equalizing Americans?
      You, as I understand it, are room admiral. Directly all the requirements instead of the customer called.
    2. luiswoo
      luiswoo 20 May 2013 13: 08 New
      +5
      Comrade naval commander, will save the electric shock, halon front and straitjacket. The project of the “new Russian missile cruiser” sounds like science fiction, as they don’t even remember about it. Without it, it is strange to even stutter about an aircraft carrier. Of the new, we have 3 (!) Corvette and 2 (!!!) "Bora". The rest of the fleet had varying degrees of “scrap metal” (this sensation arose when the Admiral Levchenko BCP (now under repair) crawled out on the 3 day to save Electron from the Norwegian patrol - it’s nothing smaller and operational for that, at that moment it turned out !?).
      And here at once “the most-most aircraft carrier” - this is nonsense, requiring compulsory treatment.
  7. navy33
    navy33 20 May 2013 08: 19 New
    +6
    It is good that we have begun and it is desirable for each Fleet to have an aircraft carrier, otherwise it’s hard for Kuza alone.
    1. ATATA
      ATATA 20 May 2013 09: 47 New
      +2
      We need to have at least 6 aircraft carriers. 3 for the North and the Pacific, and good for 6 for each fleet. But I'm thinking about the money does not work, the navel will untie.
      So at least 3.
      And by 1, consider that they are not.
      1. No_more
        No_more 21 May 2013 12: 34 New
        0
        What for? Because the Americans have a lot of them? I think it’s a habit to line up to the west, considering yourself fools.
        And if you look even to the west, then it is worth noting that aircraft carriers there are gradually abandoned, because There are more profitable and effective means of achieving the same goals.
  8. gregor6549
    gregor6549 20 May 2013 08: 20 New
    +6
    The fact that they promise to begin the long-awaited construction of this class of ships is good. It’s bad that they promise to start with 2010 i.e. then when those who promise are unlikely to be responsible for their promises, and those who will replace them will declare that it was not they who promised. But after the start, it will take at least another 10 or 15 years to bring what has been started to the linguistic end.
    Such promises have already been made more than once. Take the same RUSNANO. And the "promises" headed by Medvedev and Chubais seem to be there, and the money for this NANO has already been allocated in a fucking amount, and at the output of NANO there is nothing but "sawdust" from these money so far. And the sawdust was taken out to no one knows where. I don’t want to remember Serdyukov’s promises to reform the army. Where is there NANO before the wonders of Oboronservis?
  9. timhelmet
    timhelmet 20 May 2013 08: 22 New
    0
    Work continues on creating a promising look for a new nuclear carrier for our Navy - this is the main thing!

    the new Russian aircraft carrier in its seaworthiness, combat and functional characteristics "should surpass all existing ships of this class - keep it up!!!

    serial construction of new domestic aircraft carriers will begin in 2021 - Well then, we will show them !!!!!

    The prospect is all drawn.
  10. Boot under the carpet
    Boot under the carpet 20 May 2013 08: 22 New
    0
    Yes, other words from the officials and you will not hear: "will", "under development", only that somehow more than half of the promises they forget.
    1. nickname 1 and 2
      nickname 1 and 2 20 May 2013 10: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Boot under the carpet
      Yes, other words from the officials and you will not hear: "will", "under development", only that somehow more than half of the promises they forget.


      and which ones?
      Maybe: but everything will be, but everything will fall apart, burn up, explode, and drown?
      And who do?
    2. Fornit
      Fornit 20 May 2013 13: 30 New
      +1
      To quote the classic - "and by that time either the donkey will die, or the emir will die ..."
      But money ... !!!! "Thrown into the abyss!" (FROM)
  11. treskoed
    treskoed 20 May 2013 08: 23 New
    +1
    Chirkov said that the creation of a naval aircraft-carrying complex implies not only the construction of aircraft carriers themselves, but also bases with the necessary infrastructure, aircraft, crew training centers.

    The admiral said everything correctly, but the next "effective manager" will decide!
    1. Fornit
      Fornit 20 May 2013 13: 32 New
      +1
      Our whole trouble is that no one (and never) is responsible for the "bazaar" ...
  12. Asgard
    Asgard 20 May 2013 08: 25 New
    10
    WHAT FOR???
    An aircraft carrier is needed for the conquests and the conduct of colonial wars ....
    With modern rocket, space, and radar technologies, this is simply a huge target, extremely inefficient in terms of warfare and extremely costly ....
    Strategists think in terms of Pearl Harbol (past wars)))
    Well, there’s nothing to comment on, with fools we have power. And there is NO development.

    The two who, with modern education, have "pulled" to the "three")))
    and are able to "dominate" and are measured against who is more))))
    1. ATATA
      ATATA 20 May 2013 09: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: Asgard
      WHAT FOR???
      Of course the question is legitimate. But there is no definite answer yet. Therefore, while not in a hurry.
      The answer to your question vskidku. An aircraft carrier is needed to intercept the KR flying from the Arctic Ocean. An aircraft carrier with airplanes will have a greater radius of interception of the Kyrgyz Republic than destroyers. It is better to bring down most of the ocean, and then finish off the erupted over land.
      1. Patton5
        Patton5 20 May 2013 10: 03 New
        +3
        Better yet, sink the CD carrier until it reaches the line of attack!
        1. ATATA
          ATATA 20 May 2013 10: 07 New
          0
          Quote: Patton5
          Better yet, sink the CD carrier until it reaches the line of attack!

          Better yet, launch the BR first.
          You suggest starting the atomic war first.
          Carriers from neutral waters can launch CD.
          1. Patton5
            Patton5 20 May 2013 12: 01 New
            +2
            The military doctrine of the Russian Federation sees a preemptive strike! Or do you think that they will launch rockets from neutral waters and Russia, fearing the start of the third world war, will try to shoot down rockets and write complaints to the UN?
      2. nickname 1 and 2
        nickname 1 and 2 20 May 2013 10: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: ATATA
        The answer to your question vskidku.


        AND I WOULD HAVE A SWEETLY KNOWLEDGE WHAT WE HAVE (WHICH BIG OR SMALL AND WHETHER IT IS IMPORTANT) A SHIP THAT IS GUARANTEED TO DESTROY ANY Aircraft carrier, etc. AND OUR SHIPS PREFER TO DO NOT CLOSE CLOSER THAN 500KM (AND MORE).

        HERE IS WALKING THROUGHOUT THE OCEAN AND ALL THE STATES HAVE BEEN UNDERSTANDING AT THE DAYS! drinks

        So there!
        1. RusPruss
          RusPruss 20 May 2013 11: 36 New
          +2
          And which, in which case, can dive! ...
        2. Fornit
          Fornit 20 May 2013 13: 35 New
          0
          The science fiction writer Vasiliev has a thing - "Antarctica on line" is called ... So there, throwing one Amerovsky destroyer into Earth's orbit during an attempt at aggression solved all the problems of this independent country. That's where you need to dig !!!! The absolute weapon is the guarantee of absolute peace ...
      3. builder
        builder 20 May 2013 20: 19 New
        0
        Former Navy Commander-in-Chief Vysotsky: "... If in the North we will not have an aircraft carrier, then the combat stability of the Northern Fleet's missile submarine cruisers in those areas will be reduced to zero on the second day, because the main enemy of boats is aviation."
    2. 101
      101 20 May 2013 10: 07 New
      0
      Quote: Asgard
      there is NO development.

      I agree. In my opinion, put the loot in an armada drone such birds and cheaper and more promising
      1. orff
        orff 20 May 2013 11: 26 New
        +2
        When will the disease pass in Russia to create all the same? Recently, on TV, an official with bulging eyes said that he was laying NANOASFALT. There is endless populism and kitsch in the media about mega-achievements, but it is worth looking at the statistics, the state of factories, and prices - everything immediately fades. We must work hard and be proud of what we can show and touch, we must be proud of the fact!
        1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
          GELEZNII_KAPUT 20 May 2013 13: 27 New
          0
          You can’t build anything without this disease, and as for officials with bulging eyes, this is a side effect! hi
  13. JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 20 May 2013 08: 25 New
    +4
    Now I understand the desire to buy Finnish shipyards. Apparently these ships will be laid on them, since we do not have a single shipyard capable of building them. At the expense of the need for a fleet of aircraft carriers ..... the question is debatable, well, if they talked about them, then the pros outweighed the cons. It remains to get down to business from words.
    1. KononAV
      KononAV 20 May 2013 08: 35 New
      0
      never will be, hopefully
      1. Retx
        Retx 20 May 2013 12: 53 New
        0
        So what? They screwed up the Nikolaev shipyard, we’ll kill them over time, but the Finns have at least some experience without effective managers who break deadlines and drink loot from the government.
    2. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 20 May 2013 09: 42 New
      +1
      It was about the fact that all Soviet aircraft carriers were built in Ukraine and thought while reading the article.
      1. orff
        orff 20 May 2013 11: 39 New
        0
        And on what ferfs will the Russian passenger river / sea transport be built, which is hopelessly outdated? Remember the story of "Bulgaria" in 2011, which killed 122 people (28 - children). Give all the available shipyards for aircraft carriers and others like him!
  14. JonnyT
    JonnyT 20 May 2013 08: 26 New
    +2
    The news is of course very positive (if you skip the expression "new look" Serdyukov fucked him up)
    but I have fears about what our industry can provide at this stage, the collapse of the USSR threw our industry almost into the "stone age", narrow-profile enterprises almost all were destroyed, in recent years, the commercial industry has been developing, so to speak, which is unique and not competitive capable perished, unable to withstand the conditions of capitalism.
    What will be the components for this aircraft carrier, if they are the same as the phobos soil, then it will not go far ........ Well, in general, in my opinion, now building an air carrier with an infrastructure structure will be a very serious test for the Russian economy .... pluses Of course there are offshore grandmas will not go away)
  15. igor36
    igor36 20 May 2013 08: 27 New
    +7
    Now we urgently need to develop impact drone 12-15 tons so that they can work from the deck of the Mistral, that’s what they will be occupied with.
    1. ATATA
      ATATA 20 May 2013 09: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: igor36
      Now we urgently need to develop impact drone 12-15 tons so that they can work from the deck of the Mistral, that’s what they will be occupied with.

      The right thought. I thought the same thing about it.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 20 May 2013 10: 41 New
      +4
      Quote: igor36
      Now we urgently need to develop shock drones 12-15 tn so that they can work from the deck of the Mistral,

      A sound idea, but with respect to AVU , not the Mistral UDC. The drone will probably be able to take off, but how can you land it on the deck without an aerofinisher? There is an emergency way: to catch with a net, but that way there will not be enough money and nets (expensive and disposable). Installing a landing system means redesigning 1/3 of the ship. This is not real and not rational: he already cost us a pretty penny.
    3. ded10041948
      ded10041948 20 May 2013 16: 31 New
      +1
      Are you serious about working from the deck of the Mistral? Completion of this "floating misunderstanding" for such purposes will cost more than a new development. Moreover, this one (What should I call it, so that it is clear and the censorship missed it?) Is panicky afraid of the cold. And to remake - then it is no longer "Mistral"!
  16. KononAV
    KononAV 20 May 2013 08: 34 New
    +1
    Things are coming days, and now for us it is only a shaking of the air.
  17. Pilat2009
    Pilat2009 20 May 2013 08: 44 New
    +1
    Yes, we Kuznetsov is more in repair than floating
    Although off the coast of Syria would not hurt the air group with AWACS
    1. King
      King 20 May 2013 08: 48 New
      +1
      But when it comes out, the whole world freezes in horror.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 20 May 2013 09: 56 New
        +2
        ... from leaks of fuel oil and a thick smoky trail.
        1. King
          King 20 May 2013 15: 46 New
          0
          Let us recall the last trip to the Mediterranean Sea - everything from the Finns to the Angles to the 6th US fleet
      2. ATATA
        ATATA 20 May 2013 10: 03 New
        +2
        Quote: King
        But when it comes out, the whole world freezes in horror.

        And we stand still. That would return under its own power and without emergency.
        And not as usual. On one boiler and with a large fire.
    2. ATATA
      ATATA 20 May 2013 10: 02 New
      0
      Quote: Pilat2009
      Although off the coast of Syria would not hurt the air group with AWACS

      The fact of the matter is that we do not have a DRLO aircraft in metal for an aircraft carrier.
      Developed Yak-44 for Ulyanovsk. Only a layout was built.
  18. NIKOLAI T
    NIKOLAI T 20 May 2013 08: 48 New
    +1
    What a pleasure to read like that!
    1. nickname 1 and 2
      nickname 1 and 2 20 May 2013 10: 42 New
      0
      Quote: Nicholas T
      What a pleasure to read like that!


      and it's not nice to read the comments with ..... "but everything is bad with us."
  19. pahom54
    pahom54 20 May 2013 08: 52 New
    +1
    No matter what they say, the plans are grandiose, and our presence in distant seas is necessary. I am glad that the goals have been set.
  20. shark
    shark 20 May 2013 09: 19 New
    +2
    I would like to live to see this. See with my own eyes.
  21. newcomer
    newcomer 20 May 2013 09: 23 New
    +2
    Quote: timhelmet
    Work continues on creating a promising look for a new nuclear carrier for our Navy - this is the main thing!

    it means that until the 21st year they will create an appearance, and then together they will get down to business? "Look" (as I understand it) is a beautiful picture with solemn promises that we will have such a wonderful boat in the 35th or even 40th year. the main question was above - "WHY ???". we don't need colonies. we have the richest country in resources. what we have to protect, and not only from an external enemy, but also from theft and collapse ... can any of the experts clearly and intelligibly explain and prove the superiority of carrier-based aircraft over the (more numerous and less costly) coastal aircraft?
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 20 May 2013 09: 46 New
      +4
      What prevents you personally at your own expense and as quickly as possible to create and justify the appearance of the ship? Show everyone how to work, teach loafers. The state will thank you!
    2. Patton5
      Patton5 20 May 2013 09: 52 New
      +1
      And if Russian business spreads more and more around the planet? Do you have enough military bases if you have to defend your interests, are they Arctic, Antarctica again? You strategists are proposing to sit on the priest right now, and when the time comes, you will start yelling about lost time ....
    3. roial
      roial 20 May 2013 10: 08 New
      +1
      What do you mean why??
      Under this case, you can defend a couple of dissertations, grab an extra asterisk and cut a little money for old age.
    4. hilt
      hilt 20 May 2013 11: 22 New
      0
      In order to form a look you need to order research ... smile
    5. Retx
      Retx 20 May 2013 12: 57 New
      0
      20-21 is a bookmark. The appearance is the performance characteristics of the ship, based on the requirements of the customer, from which the engineers later dance, which ultimately leads to the bookmark.
  22. sys-1985
    sys-1985 20 May 2013 09: 48 New
    +2
    One aircraft carrier is not a wise investment. Why is it needed? Dear target, that's all.
  23. lecturer
    lecturer 20 May 2013 09: 48 New
    +5
    To all the crews of the ships of the Navy from the former "DED":

    We can’t give the moorings already,
    Course in the ocean does not lay.
    And do not walk in new jackets,
    The naval masters do not sew.
    Gray Fleet Veterans,
    Believe me, I'm proud of you!
    And to go to sea is so hunting!
    I am not ashamed of this thought.
    Yes, to make the deck tremble
    Foam burun at the stern ...
    And this will not be enough for us,
    When we get home!
  24. Edward
    Edward 20 May 2013 09: 52 New
    +4
    Quote: newbie
    Quote: timhelmet
    Work continues on creating a promising look for a new nuclear carrier for our Navy - this is the main thing!

    ... the main question was asked above - "WHY ???". we don't need colonies. we have the richest country in resources. we would have something to protect, and not only from an external enemy, but also from theft and collapse ... can any of the specialists clearly and intelligibly explain and prove the superiority of carrier-based aircraft over the (more numerous and less expensive) coastal aircraft?

    Well, what does the colony have to do with it?
    Think carefully about where the shores of Russia begin and where they can be with the advent of such ships.
    Oceans and seas are many and everywhere now hostile outposts are standing. They need to be moved, part of the peacekeeping tasks on the seas, so to speak. If this is not done, we will be pressed at sea to our territorial waters.
  25. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 20 May 2013 09: 52 New
    0
    I wonder if this is not a smokescreen for something else?
  26. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 20 May 2013 09: 53 New
    0
    Isn't this a smokescreen for something else? I would like to read the opinions of the community.
    1. 101
      101 20 May 2013 10: 12 New
      -1
      Quote: kartalovkolya
      Isn't this a smokescreen for something else?

      Yes, no. It’s just that a person likes to give out something like that. Not for the first time already
  27. ilya63
    ilya63 20 May 2013 09: 59 New
    +1
    there is a feeling that they are being selected for leading positions in the army and navy on the basis of insanity, what kind of aircraft carrier, what the hell is it needed, where it will be used (or will we carry the Russian vision of crap to other countries?) you will learn to act with what you have, and not yell that the T-72 is the last century, with a normal crew and a modern SLA "slingshot" will make all the Abrams with chariots together.
    there is not much time left, it is necessary to increase what we have now, to grind the combat skills of drugs, new technologies are absolutely necessary, but only where there is a field for their application and people who will use them like a spoon with a fork.
    and then who said that we really need a traditional aircraft carrier, or maybe it’s easier to develop and make an air carrier or put an SU-30 pair on an air cushion or a submarine — this is an exaggeration, but through its prism you can see the pointlessness of such statements, so the question is leadership Army and Navy generally sane?
    1. Georgs
      Georgs 20 May 2013 11: 10 New
      0
      Quote: ilya63
      there is a feeling that they are being selected for leading positions in the army and navy on the basis of insanity, what kind of aircraft carrier, what the hell is it needed, where it will be used (or will we carry the Russian vision of crap to other countries?) you will learn to act with what you have, and not yell that the T-72 is the last century, with a normal crew and a modern SLA "slingshot" will make all the Abrams with chariots together.
      there is not much time left, it is necessary to increase what we have now, to grind the combat skills of drugs, new technologies are absolutely necessary, but only where there is a field for their application and people who will use them like a spoon with a fork.
      and then who said that we really need a traditional aircraft carrier, or maybe it’s easier to develop and make an air carrier or put an SU-30 pair on an air cushion or a submarine — this is an exaggeration, but through its prism you can see the pointlessness of such statements, so the question is leadership Army and Navy generally sane?

      Well, you see, dear ilya63, for now the servants, the executive, the bosses are very sensitive. Staff rats, in a word. And for perspective vision, military planning, development, generals, naval commanders are needed. Educated, technically literate, with a high degree of culture, thinking, with a clear vision of this very perspective. Not a soldier, in short. Are there many of them in the current RA?
    2. soaring
      soaring 20 May 2013 11: 16 New
      0
      People! Or maybe first learn to do at least "frets" at the level !? So that the reliability is not worse than the Toyota, and it was not a shame to drive such cars across Europe !? And our military-industrial complex still needs to be raised from the ruins, thanks to all our wise ... m, who screwed up the country and who cannot pull off the oil needle .... I am only FOR the latest projects, but we must really look at things, and not be dashing dreamers! !! Maybe at first the newest concept of warfare can be worked out, so many newest military developments that most likely many types of weapons are simply morally outdated ...
  28. Nayhas
    Nayhas 20 May 2013 10: 02 New
    +2
    Promises were made small, this is not communism after 20 years, not a separate housing for everyone by 2000, not the transfer of the army to a contract basis ... It is clear that after eight years, Comrade Promises will either be retired or hold another important post and therefore now can chat anything, but how it worked for the patriots ... The bomb is direct, they already have such pictures in their minds ...
  29. Blad_21617
    Blad_21617 20 May 2013 10: 02 New
    +1
    damn our fathers commanders one big mistake ... if the missile cruiser is one, if you build a destroyer then the super-duper and the largest ... but ONE. aircraft carrier and that one! yes it’s better to let it be normal but there will be at least one for each fleet
  30. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 20 May 2013 10: 25 New
    +2
    And to cover Our northern shelf, build aircraft-bearing sea platforms! With the right to carry guis.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 20 May 2013 12: 10 New
      0
      Quote: a.hamster55
      And to cover Our northern shelf, build aircraft-bearing sea platforms!

      24 pieces are being built
      1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
        GELEZNII_KAPUT 20 May 2013 13: 56 New
        0
        Advise me to read about them, I can’t find ... I only went about the platform that the Brazilians want to build.
  31. lvn321
    lvn321 20 May 2013 10: 27 New
    +1
    And he must be able to dive and fly, albeit not very high.
  32. Georgs
    Georgs 20 May 2013 10: 29 New
    +1
    There’s a persistent feeling in me that now it’s much more urgent to deal with powerful atomic icebreakers-cruisers, one for each North Sea, to cover our Arctic possessions, and indeed the polar coast, in terms of defense absolutely naked. But they still thought about this under the Reds, by the way.
    1. Patton5
      Patton5 20 May 2013 10: 35 New
      0
      Yes, and thought about aircraft carriers!
      1. Georgs
        Georgs 20 May 2013 10: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: Patton5
        Yes, and thought about aircraft carriers!

        Thought, of course thought. But at the moment this is a big question of priority. And then, creating such icebreaker cruisers is economically viable. On combat patrols, they may well at the same time push caravans along the NSR.
        1. Patton5
          Patton5 20 May 2013 11: 57 New
          +1
          At the moment, I strongly agree with you! But time does not stand still and it is necessary to create a reserve for the future .... Creating an atomic aircraft carrier is not an easy task and I’m more than sure no one will take up this business simply from the bald. Recoil, it’s terrible, but the last word is all the same who, if not the sailors, should decide whether they need this ship or not, and if they need it, why should the state refuse them (to the detriment of its security)? And I think Diltan’s opinions are that an aircraft carrier is an easy target, even if it’s alone, but who will send it undercover? And as part of the strike group, this is simply terrifying power, it was not for nothing that in the days of the USSR the struggle against the AUG was a priority direction!
    2. soaring
      soaring 20 May 2013 11: 18 New
      0
      I agree to all 100% good drinks
  33. Earnest
    Earnest 20 May 2013 10: 30 New
    +1
    The naval commander said, of course, beautifully, but do we need such AUG? Not being a Moreman, I do not presume to judge - I would like to listen to specialists who understand the topic. And then we can't build either SSBNs or multipurpose boats, we buy Mistrals for a promenade to Syria, and here - aircraft carriers ...
  34. Iraclius
    Iraclius 20 May 2013 10: 37 New
    0
    I have two substantive questions - how and why? In my opinion, the country is drawn into a semblance of a fight against windmills.
  35. The comment was deleted.
  36. ed65b
    ed65b 20 May 2013 10: 41 New
    0
    The aircraft carrier will be underwater with plates on board and battle droids.
    So far, there is not even a sketch on paper. The naval commander simply expressed his opinion on this matter. Further dusk.
  37. okroshka79
    okroshka79 20 May 2013 10: 41 New
    -3
    The Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Chirkov, obviously, has nothing to say about today's long-built designed ships the day before yesterday, and that’s all nonsense about a distant bright future. If you believe him, the conclusion suggests itself - in the defense system of the state they can’t decide what the Navy needs for the country and which ships it needs to build and which military equipment it needs to develop for the fleet. ... and time does not wait, the world’s reserves of energy and other minerals are melting, as the last motor resource of the few surviving from the Gromov and Kuroyedov defeat of the navy ship they inherited from Soviet times is seeking.
  38. roial
    roial 20 May 2013 10: 42 New
    +4
    The one that you understand in this.
    Two-level secure parking area 25 000 square. m. Lighting, dispensers, compressed air, nitrogen - in the presence of all the necessary infrastructure! 4 vertical hoist lifting capacity 49 tons. There is a sprinkler and foam fire extinguishing system with a developed network of smoke detectors. Reliable security system - two Sea Sparrow anti-aircraft missile systems (eight-charge unit Mk-29, effective firing range - 30 km), two Rolling Airframe Missle anti-aircraft missile systems RIM-116 (21 ready to launch, ZUR, effective firing range - 9 km). Parking can be delivered as soon as possible to any area of ​​the World Ocean. The cost of an elite facility is $ 5 billion.




    1. Canep
      Canep 20 May 2013 11: 51 New
      +1
      They forgot about the catapult - for the disposal of cars.
      1. roial
        roial 20 May 2013 14: 00 New
        +5
        No problem
    2. ded10041948
      ded10041948 20 May 2013 16: 56 New
      0
      Comedian, however!
  39. shurup
    shurup 20 May 2013 10: 44 New
    0
    Serial production of battleships of the "Soviet Union" type has already begun. All were unfinished and dismantled for metal.
    Not only the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy should remember this.
    But if the task is to quickly spend money, then the aircraft carriers - that’s it. Or maybe right away, every family has a yacht, and not just admirals alone?
  40. istemis
    istemis 20 May 2013 10: 45 New
    +1
    Five carrier groups for each fleet of the Russian Navy - it will be normal!
    1. ded10041948
      ded10041948 20 May 2013 17: 00 New
      +1
      Well, you have an appetite! Two would do normal and that’s good.
  41. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 20 May 2013 10: 45 New
    0
    And in the wells for gas and oil, provide for the installation of a high-explosive mine. And when the fluffy northern animal comes, it is enough to press the buttons: - With gas, or - With syrup.
  42. Sochi
    Sochi 20 May 2013 10: 48 New
    +4
    The technique is created for the tasks, the tasks are determined by the doctrine ... The aircraft carriers were originally (I could be mistaken) created to escort convoys and carried reconnaissance and air defense missions, then they became the striking force of the squadrons having the ability to strike outside the range of naval artillery ... With the advent of their missiles the role diminished and they remained formidable only for the "bandustan". As a base unit, it is strong only in a squadron capable of protecting it and using its power ... So, the role of aircraft carriers in our doctrine, which is purely defensive in nature, is not entirely clear, for the most part it is cheaper to fly from land ... Is it just that we want to reconsider doctrine, or we want to demonstrate our power in the oceans, which is of course important. And so he is right, you need to do it in the future, performance characteristics should be higher than the existing ones.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 20 May 2013 16: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: Sochi
      for the most part it’s cheaper to fly from land ..

      Ground pilots are good for land. Marine - this is a special preparation, not fear of water, iron endurance, the ability to survive in cold water and loneliness.
      Ship pilots are the elite of the Air Force. Personally, I can't imagine: what kind of fan you need to be in order to appear before the clear eyes of God every day and manage to return normally to the deck of the Kuzi! These are the real heroes of our days! Fleet and Aviation!
      1. Sochi
        Sochi 21 May 2013 08: 54 New
        0
        No doubt, of course the elite. Only here we had naval aviation before the aircraft carriers, and the pilots there were wonderful too. Just the question is, what is keeping an airfield on the shore much cheaper than an aircraft carrier, and it is more resistant to damage.
  43. Armata
    Armata 20 May 2013 10: 51 New
    +4
    We need, we want, created. What is everyone dreaming about? He is not even on paper yet, he is only in the reports. How do we like dust in the eyes of people let all the rights. The article is an idle talk on the topic, but when we have it, then it will be the most awesome.
    1. Rico1977
      Rico1977 21 May 2013 00: 16 New
      0
      Yes, it’s just that he may not be needed at all, and for that a discussion
  44. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 20 May 2013 10: 55 New
    0
    In short, apparently by 2030 we will finally be able to "clear the Soviet seas from the sharks of capitalism." am
  45. Dymkovsky
    Dymkovsky 20 May 2013 11: 02 New
    +1
    We can only be respected for our intentions!
  46. DimYang
    DimYang 20 May 2013 11: 08 New
    +2
    An aircraft carrier is certainly a good thing for projecting power into a single point on the globe, but it is too expensive to manufacture and especially to maintain. In my opinion, more should be invested in aerospace attack equipment, when satellites with hypersonic missiles are hanging in corrected geostationary orbits. In principle, to repel their blow is not possible. It is possible without nuclear weapons. It is believed that there are already types of weapons of mass destruction comparable and even more powerful than nuclear, compact enough, based on principles unknown to the vast majority of people, capable of inflicting unacceptable damage. I definitely don’t think anyone will say that it is there (WMD) or not. But when the enemy knows that an ax hangs over his head, capable of clearing the Earth from its presence in 30 seconds, other aircraft carriers will not even swim close. And other means can deliver the necessary number of troops and equipment to the projection site much faster and cheaper . They already existed in our recent Soviet past and could well have been reborn. There would be political will. As for the enemy, let him also launch strike weapons into space. Here it can be assumed whether it will be in time, but now it can be assumed whether it can, mainly due to finances. I think similar programs for them, like a needle for a soap bubble. Well, then in the chaos they will no longer be up to it. So, the time is right now. But this is in my opinion.
  47. Iraclius
    Iraclius 20 May 2013 11: 13 New
    +2
    They cannot in any way rearm the army on the scale that was planned for the 2013-14 at the beginning of the Serdyukov reform. The housing problem has not been resolved. Sectoral departments such as Rosoboronservis and Roscosmos are shocked by corruption scandals ...
    At that time, in a parallel universe, Chirkov, dreamily closing his eyes, imagined how squadrons of Russian aircraft carriers plow the expanses of the Bolshoi Theater. wassat
  48. Scandinavian
    Scandinavian 20 May 2013 11: 13 New
    +1
    the new nuclear aircraft carrier being created in Russia should surpass all the ships of this class existing in the world.

    For the first time in the history of the fleet, Russia will create an aircraft carrier that surpasses all the world analogues that were, and the main competitors are striped with their Nimz. Thus, we will show the mother striped to Kuz'kin, and in the future we will make the deck version of the T-50 PAKFA. And then it’s not just a small battle for the oceans of the world ocean for the purpose of their presence. OURRRA. Did our leadership finally understand that aircraft carriers are still an effective force against world evil.
  49. gregor6549
    gregor6549 20 May 2013 11: 19 New
    +2
    A people without a full-fledged aircraft carrier (or a couple) capable of long-term autonomy of the Russian Navy can seriously affect the situation in various remote areas of the World Ocean that are of interest to Russia, and only an aircraft carrier with a vigorous power plant constituting the core of a no less long-range squadron which should enter surface and submarines of various classes with similar power plants. Then there will not be so much dependence on situations in which Russia, of course, can menacingly bang its fist on the table at the UN, but have practically no tool to solve these situations in its favor by force. Indeed, even if you assemble in the same Mediterranean Sea a superficially powerful squadron that is not covered by modern fighters based on an aircraft carrier, the sense from this squadron will be, if not zero, then very close to this figure. After all, no air defense systems of ships will be able to cope with the whole bee swarm of the adversary, although they will be able to control a couple of three bees before going to the bottom. Do not go to the fortuneteller
    1. Armata
      Armata 20 May 2013 11: 30 New
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      A people without a full-fledged aircraft carrier (or a couple) capable of the long-term autonomy of the Russian Navy can seriously affect the situation in various remote areas of the World Ocean that are of interest to Russia,
      Previously, the Atlanta missile coped with this quite successfully.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 May 2013 11: 33 New
        +3
        Quote: Mechanic
        Previously, the Atlanta missile coped with this quite successfully.

        Did not cope. They coped with the influence on the US Navy, yes. But situations in the oceans are different, and not always a positive solution can be achieved by projecting force onto enemy ships. And they could not do anything against the coast of Atlanta - the specialization is not the same.
        1. Armata
          Armata 20 May 2013 11: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Did not cope. They coped with the influence on the US Navy, yes. But situations in the oceans are different, and not always a positive solution can be achieved by projecting force onto enemy ships. And they could not do anything against the coast of Atlanta - the specialization is not the same.
          I remember when we went to Norfolk on Ustinov, We got into the restocking parking lot in Dover. So the Britons began to panic almost all over the country that our "grin of communism" will now blow apart the floor of England in one gulp. Is this impact on the coastal part? And for this we had other ships.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 May 2013 13: 59 New
            +2
            And in another situation, even during the first after the collapse of the Union of Georgian-Abkhaz military operations, our Black Sea Fleet ships had to go over the horizon - the Georgians rolled a couple of tanks onto the beach.
            And what can they do from Atlanta?
          2. gregor6549
            gregor6549 20 May 2013 16: 38 New
            +1
            Where do all these tales about panic among foreigners at the sight of a Soviet Russian ship come from interestingly, moreover, who entered their port to refuel with their own solarium and feed on their own bread. There is curiosity, which is understandable and understandable. But what a hangover to panic with. Or the thought that the enemy trembles at the mere sight of a floating tub, even if stuck with containers with anti-ship missiles and other "shooters" amuse the storytellers? It's good to tell fairy tales to children. They can believe in them. But why do we need it?
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 20 May 2013 16: 20 New
        +3
        Quote: Mechanic
        Previously, the Atlanta missile coped with this quite successfully.

        Before the advent of aircraft carriers and battleships dominated the seas. And now Atlant, without air cover, has its mission of defeating (not even defeating!) The enemy’s AMG ... You, as a sea man, must understand this! The land guys have to explain this to the fact that the ships are at sea without aerial cover, like our soldiers in 41 under the Stuck bombs. Only in the sea you can’t climb into the trench! Here they are measured by strength and skill: who-whom! And who is weaker, he drinks sea water salty from tears of rage and powerlessness.
  50. istemis
    istemis 20 May 2013 11: 25 New
    +5
    An aircraft carrier is a small piece of the country in any part of the world's oceans. This is a modern command center that uses the capabilities of military, meteorological, hydrological orbiting satellites, it includes weapons from a cannon to intercontinental ballistic missiles with any kind of warhead, this is the runway in the ocean, fighter jets, helicopters. An aircraft carrier group of all kinds of surface ships (including amphibious assault ships) and submarines is capable of autonomously using its own forces using all the forces of the aircraft carrier group and satellites, is able to capture islands, archipelagos, control the coastal zone of the continent, establish a no-fly zone on the coast and on the continent in the radius of action of fighters from an aircraft carrier.
    If Argentina, for example, had an aircraft carrier group in 1982, it would not only easily capture the Falkland Islands, but would also be able to hold onto these islands, win the war with Britain, and put a bullet in the Falklands.
    I note that in 1982 Soviet military satellites were actively used by the USSR to monitor the British Navy's warfare, evaluating their methods and tactics, since they were very interested in the military capabilities of the second-largest country in NATO. So, I think, now we have no problems with military satellites, it’s only a matter of creating modern aircraft carriers of the future, otherwise it will be as usual again - until they build 5-10 years (freezing and thawing the project), a finished project for the day of delivery morally obsolete.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 20 May 2013 16: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: istemis
      An aircraft carrier is a small piece of the country in any part of the world's oceans. , this is weapons from a cannon to intercontinental ballistic missiles with any kind of warhead,

      The emotional message is clear, but not to the puppy's delight! Well, why should I hang up the ICBM? Even the amers (masters and inventors) did not come up with this for the newest Bushes.
      Quote: istemis
      Carrier group of all kinds of surface (including and landing)

      Eco brother you suffered! No need to invent! AMG in its composition does not contain DESO. Covering it from a threatened direction is as much as you like, but not in uniform combat and marching formations.
      Further, I will not comment on the capture of the AMG islands. She does not have such tasks. This t frame belongs to the MP (expeditionary forces). Etc.
      1. Flea
        Flea 20 May 2013 16: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        experts and inventors

        This applies more to untrained scoops. Who else in their right mind would put boilers instead of a normal nuclear power plant and a granite mine, instead of hangars for airplanes, a springboard instead of a catapult, because of which the planes cannot take off with a payload? Only scoops. The breed is like that.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 20 May 2013 17: 19 New
          +2
          Quote: Flea
          Who else in their right mind would put boilers on a pre-aircraft carrier instead of a normal nuclear power plant and a granite mine, instead of aircraft hangars, a springboard instead of a catapult,

          Boilers - rested on the economic performance indicators, and the lack of Zultsers or other similar machines.
          Granite Mines - compensated (at one time) the wretchedness of ship (then) aviation until SU-27K (aka 33) appeared.
          And with a steam catapult our science could not cope, even India was asked, but Gandhi refused. Exit prompted the British with their jumps on Invincible. Now there will be an electric catapult (the essence of a linear electric motor).
          About scoops. These are, for the most part, decent, hardworking people of a single union state. Do not believe the current blasphemer of the Great Country, singing with burry voices. The country was envious of many, it had everything, it produced everything. Remembering the 41 year, I spent a lot on defense, and it undermined my economic health. Further lecture on political economy to read? If the brains are in place - you will understand, but no - do not insult your father and mother, because they also come from the USSR (I hope).
          1. Flea
            Flea 20 May 2013 17: 33 New
            0
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Boilers - rested on economic performance indicators

            Rather, in a delusional unification with 956.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            until the SU-27K appeared (aka 33).

            He appeared, appeared. Only with weapons and full tanks could not take off. There was no full-fledged air group either. And why is it AWACS, EW, better in the old fashioned way, in the BVB.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            made everything

            Yes, only tanks (T-72A / B) had to be bought in Czechoslovakia, because the quality of the UHV and CTZ left much to be desired.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 20 May 2013 19: 29 New
              +2
              Quote: Flea
              Rather, delusional unification with 956-mi

              This also had its own reason.
              1. Flea
                Flea 20 May 2013 23: 56 New
                0
                There was no reason. And the 956 itself was a rare fit with the letter B instead of D. Air defense - a weak hurricane without a tackle for the NLC, a very weak plane, let's say thanks to the damn "platinum" with three torpedoes. Against the background of American Berks, it is very sad and pathetic, both in terms of equipment and in terms of serial production - 17 ships versus 62 ..