Military Review

Sea aerodrome platform as a base for creating universal warships

The beginning of the XNUMXst century for the military fleet The Russian Federation is somewhat similar to the beginning of the twentieth century for the navy of the Russian Empire. For various reasons, the Russian fleet met the beginning of the XNUMXst century with dilapidated infrastructure, the presence of outdated types of warships in the fleet and disputes over the vision of the new look of the fleet. How does this look like the beginning of the last century, when the establishment of the Marine General Staff took place with the participation of Peter Stolypin and the young naval general staff officers began to fight the "old men" admirals from the Main Naval Headquarters for implementing programs to build new ships !?

The development trends of the Russian fleet, the possibility of transforming the Maritime Collegium into the Admiralty of Russia, the appearance in the waters of the seas and oceans of new warships based on offshore airfield platforms are discussed by the chairman of the Organizing Committee of the Russian hydroaviation, captain-flagship of the hydroaviation Peter Khomutovsky.

Admiral Gorshkov saw the warships and merchant ships of the Soviet Navy the first line of defense of the Soviet Union in the oceans. In his opinion, - Tanks, airplanes and even ground-based nuclear missiles are a passive element to contain global conflict, a kind of blank for use in land theaters of war. In the event that local conflicts develop into a world war, navy ships that have the ability to maneuver in the waters of the oceans will be the main element of world geopolitics in the struggle for naval dominance. The warships in the arsenal of which Her Majesty is armed with a cruise missile are of strategic importance for the country's defense, since they allow waging a so-called contactless war and solving the tasks of global confrontation and destroying various targets on enemy territory.

However, the position of Admiral Gorshkov came into sharp contradiction with the land leadership of the Armed Forces of the USSR. In the leadership of the USSR Armed Forces, the main opponents of Admiral Gorshkov were supporters of the "continental strategy" of the then Chief of the General Staff, Marshal N.V. Ogarkov.

Marshal Ogarkov’s “Continental Strategy” was based on the preferred development of strategic nuclear forces and air defense, envisaged planning an all-European conflict using tactical nuclear weapons and medium-range missiles. In this case, funds were earmarked for the development of the land component, which were intended to create three carrier fleet groups and to develop the ocean infrastructure. Also, because of this, the program for creating Lun EKP drums, the aircraft carrier killers, which were planned to be used not only in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic, but also in the polar maritime theater, was not implemented.

Sea aerodrome platform as a base for creating universal warships

Long march of the warship of Russia in the Indian Ocean

“Mysterious”, otherwise you will not name, the decisions of the previous leadership of Russia of previous years led to the fact that at the beginning of 2004, a contract was signed for the sale to India of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Gorshkov, which was a symbol of the power of the Russian Navy. According to estimates of marine specialists, one such ship solved the tasks of anti-submarine support for the entire water area of ​​the Barents Sea. This ship, which received the name Vikramaditya, will not bring the delivery to the Indians and to this day it has not become part of the fleet of India. He does not want a ship named Admiral Gorshkov to leave his native waters! At various times, the heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers Minsk, Novorossiysk, Kiev, the cruisers Zozulya, Fokin, Murmansk, about twenty destroyers and large anti-submarine ships were sold "on needles". Trade in the fleet of heavy ships led to the fact that the world's oceans became unavailable to the St. Andrew’s flag, and Russia, in essence, lost its status of a great maritime power.

В stories The Navy of the USSR and Russia, such incidents have already happened. In the 50s and 60s, Marshal Zhukov, who did not like the fleet and Nikita Khrushchev, who unexpectedly became the leader of the USSR and did not understand the significance of the fleet, destroyed about 400 of the latest ships, including seven cruisers, which were then being built and were already in high readiness for joining the fleet. Almost all of the sea was disbanded and destroyed. aviation, which was part of the air forces of the fleets and trained to destroy naval targets. The Amur Flotilla was liquidated, and the magnificent river monitor ships armed with 130-mm guns were cut into scrap metal.

It has now become fashionable to reflect on the new look of the fleet and the types of warships by people who are very far from naval problems, but who are interested in participating in the very process of discussing naval ideas and trends, sometimes the most fantastic. However, the general trend is alarming - not only naval officers and admirals, however, more and more retired, but sea romantics see the Russian fleet consisting entirely of dreadnoughts and armored coastal ships. There is a strange boom and renaissance from the time of battleships and cruisers to gain dominance at sea, as if it is supposed that the era of naval battles of World War I or World War II will come. At the same time, the fact that the most productive, in the sense of the destroyed merchant and warships of the enemy were, namely, the converted merchant ships, the so-called raiders, is ignored. The war at sea showed that large surface ships were an ideal target for enemy aircraft and submarines and flooded literally within a few days after going to sea and defended in ports under the protection of air defense weapons.

At one time, even Admiral Gorshkov, for all his commitment to creating unusually exotic ships, according to the principle, if there is in the US Navy, the USSR Fleet should also be, at the beginning of the 80's, came to the conclusion that it was not promising. vulnerability of aircraft carriers, aircraft carrying cruisers and destroyers. In his opinion, in the situation of the presence of nuclear-missile weapons and high-precision missiles, an aircraft carrier, cruiser or destroyer became an ideal target for the enemy.

Thus was born the idea of ​​using offshore aerodrome platforms, with a 15-20 displacement of thousands of gross registered tons, which had an onboard and anti-aircraft missile system, which would only be temporary bases for carrier-based aircraft. Deck planes were planned to be delivered to the area of ​​possible conflict on heavy ekranoplanes or seaplanes like the Be-2500. Fuel and ammunition were supposed to be covertly delivered on nuclear submarines removed from combat duty and converted into transport ones. The flight engineering staff was supposed to be placed on special, hospital or cruise ships in order to ensure their post-flight rest.

River ships monitors Amur Flotilla

Maritime aerodrome platform (Frederick Creed called them sea aerodromes (seadrome))

Thus, with the minimal cost of the sea airfield platforms, their maximum combat effectiveness was achieved. After all, on an aircraft carrier, as a rule, no more than two or four deck planes are operated at the same time, and it is used as a means, rather of psychological pressure on the enemy from the sea, and not as a means of fire action. At the same time, the aircraft carriers, as in their time, the battleships will be destroyed, in the first battles at the beginning of the conflict at sea.

The history provides a huge number of examples of how the battleships and cruisers were destroyed or seriously damaged by enemy aircraft when they first sailed into the sea. Also, the aircraft carrier and the sea airfield platform are incommensurable by the cost of construction and operation. If the average cost of an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 50-60 is thousand brt. about 4 billion dollars, then the cost of the platform with a displacement of 15-20 thousand thous. no more than 200 million dollars depending on the availability of defensive weapons. At the same time, the tactics and strategy of using the fleet and carrier-based aviation based on the use of sea-based aerodrome platforms make it possible to appear in the shortest possible time in the areas of emerging conflicts, without the use of expensive aircraft carrier groups, for whose maintenance huge funds are needed.

The cost and time of construction, sea airfield platforms also can not be compared with the cost and duration of the construction of aircraft carriers. In addition, if there are a sufficient number of offshore airfield platforms, they can be placed in the places of alleged conflicts, such as Syrian or Somali, in the required quantity.

Syrian port of Tartus

The analysis shows that when setting up the production of universal ships based on offshore aerodrome platforms - the Russian Navy will receive about fifty of these watercrafts within two to three years, which will make it possible to consider the issue of a new vision of using the fleet. The fleet will act not only as a passive defender of the maritime borders and frontiers of Russia, but also as a conductor of Russia's geopolitical interests in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Ocean and especially in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Now in this region, political passions are going wild from contradictions between the parties to conflicts in different countries.

In recent times, Admirals Gorshkov, replacing Admiral Gorshkov, such as Chernavin, Masorin, Popov and others, have become too enthusiastic about underwater games and have failed to realize the idea of ​​creating a new fleet image based on offshore aerodrome platforms. In Russia, the controversy about the importance of aircraft carriers for the Russian fleet does not subside. Until now, even among the professors of the Naval Academy there is no common understanding on this issue, just as politicians, the military or industry have no such understanding.

For example, the leadership of the Krylov State Scientific Center in St. Petersburg, which, having all the possibilities for scientific approbation of all areas of development of the means of struggle in the high seas, has not yet developed its authoritative conclusion regarding the new look of the fleet and the use of sea aerodrome platforms, although I have sent for consideration a civilian version of a small passenger submarine cruise and passenger ship and a Dingo amphibious aircraft based on a sea airfield platform. At the beginning of 2000, this project was discussed with V.N. Yukhnin - General Designer of the Northern Design Bureau, but for various reasons was not accepted for implementation.

Exotic aircraft carrier designs

The epopee of building aircraft carriers is costly and very long, but if the Northern Fleet does not appear within two to three years, the naval airfield platforms, the combat stability of the Northern Fleet's submarine cruisers, Russia's main nuclear shield, will be reduced to zero in the near future. After all, the main enemy of nuclear submarines of the Russian fleet is US aircraft, which has the ability to neutralize the work of submarines, despite all the tricks of submarine commanders. The emergence of naval airfield platforms in various, operationally important, areas of the world to perform tasks in the field of naval activities will show the presence of the Russian fleet in peacetime. In particular, actions will be taken by the Russian Navy forces to create and maintain a favorable environment for the implementation of the priorities of Russian foreign policy to solve the problems of political and economic sustainability that are friendly to Russia and countries.

Very curious and such a fact. Three years ago, L. Strugov, director of the department of shipbuilding and marine engineering, wrote an article - Ekranoplans to be!, But more than three years passed, and there is no ekranoplane even in the project, not to mention the fact that at least one of the projects would be put into production famous designer R. Alekseev. Even, the infamous Lifeguard, the prototype of the super secret Eunit Lun Ekranoplan quietly dies in the shops of the Volga plant. It is sad to write about such "achievements" of shipbuilding in Russia, especially with regard to the management of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), which simply ignores the needs of the Russian fleet in the design and construction of new warships, especially of the aircraft carrier. According to information recently received from USC, the fleet of Russia before 2020 will receive 96 auxiliary vessels. About warships do not say - military secrets! Translated from the marine "Aesopian" language of USC to the public, it turns out that each year about two auxiliary ships will go to each fleet and flotilla. However, now the needs of the fleets are at least ten auxiliary vessels.

Unfinished ekranoplan "Rescuer"

In contrast to Russia, naval strategists of the current sea robber - the US Navy - get the newest ships of all types in a timely manner, including aircraft carriers for navigation in the waters of the World Ocean, despite the huge US national debt !!! At the end of the twentieth century, the doctrine of “US Naval Power - 21” was considered and approved in the USA, which considers the tasks of increasing the power of the US Navy. These tasks are accomplished by building up and integrating combat and support capabilities into a “unified network of forces,” which, in the opinion of the US Navy command, will effectively accomplish the interrelated operational tasks of the Navy. Such as a “strike from the sea”, that is, a long and massive strike by deck aircraft with high-precision weapons, a “sea shield” representing the implementation of a global defense guaranteeing the security of its forces and a “sea basing” consisting in ensuring the operational independence of the US aircraft carrier groups .

US Navy carrier strike group

To implement this concept, the command of the US Navy assumes to have the main classes of naval forces in excess of 375, which in peacetime will have 12 carrier-assault groups and 12 expeditionary attack groups, as well as staffing special groups of surface ships of air defense and anti-missile defense and nuclear-powered submarines with guided missiles on board for navigation in neutral waters. After all, aircraft carriers in neutral waters with deck planes of various purposes on board do not require obtaining permission from other states for basing, intermediate landings or overflights. Therefore, Nimitz-type aircraft carriers are sometimes represented as four acres of US territory, which, by order of fleet command, can be sent anywhere in the world’s ocean, without asking anyone for permission to accomplish the task assigned by the US leadership. And all this is due to the fact that in the USA, there is a development program for both the military and the cruise fleet on 40-50 years in advance, which does not change when the political and military leadership of the country or the high command of the fleet changes. At the same time, projects are being promoted and launched into a series of new types of warships, which such a likely US opponent as Russia does not even have in perspective. The US Marine Department is well aware that the aircraft carrier and amphibious groups of the United States fleet of constant readiness using the oceans as a home site and having modern water craft for sailing to hot spots will allow the US Marine Corps to solve all the tasks assigned to it to protect national interests. America.

Over seven departments and organizations are currently involved in naval problems in Russia - the Maritime Collegium, the Main Headquarters of the Navy, the United Shipbuilding Corporation, the Department of Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia, the Agency of Maritime and River Transport of the Ministry of Transport of Russia, Rosmorport and even St. Petersburg Marine Council . All of them have mixed interests. So it turns out that the Russian fleet is still armed with outdated warships, and the emergence of cruise ships is not being considered even in the long term, that is, progress and breakthroughs in the creation of a modern military and passenger fleet are not observed. Especially, this concerns the construction and use of combat ships based on offshore airfield platforms, the use of which in the event of a crisis situation allows the Russian fleet to create a permanent presence in those areas of the world’s ocean where tension is expected. Thus, the construction and introduction of ships on the basis of naval airfield platforms to the Russian Navy complies with the tasks of the Marine Doctrine and contributes to the observance of Russia's geopolitical interests.

At present, pennants of ships and vessels of the rival countries of Russia dominate in numerous marine areas, and the St. Andrew’s flag abroad is only occasionally observed due to opposition to pirates.

Admiralty of Russia

In the opinion of many maritime theorists, the situation in the naval mechanism can be improved by the resumption of the activity of a single naval body - the Admiralty of Russia, which existed before the revolution, but was abolished by the Soviet authorities. The activities of the Admiralty will allow to systematize the work on the revival of the fleet, eliminate the practice when the fleet composition is determined by short-term programs for the construction of unnecessary or obsolete ships, which are subject to the influence of market factors.

If a decision is made to transform the Maritime Collegium into the Admiralty of Russia, an authorized fleet body will be created, which will add coherence to the entire decision-making system on the creation of new ships and vessels for the military and cruise passenger fleet of Russia.

In addition, the resumption of the activities of the Admiralty of Russia will make it possible to involve in the creation of programs of combat and cruise passenger ships, both budget funds and funds of philanthropists, as was the case after the Russian-Japanese war, when the restoration of the Russian fleet occurred in the shortest period.

In the future, the emergence of branches of the Admiralty of Russia in such regions of Primorsky and Kamchatsky, in Chukotka, and also in the cities of Kaliningrad, Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, critical for the development of navigation of the Far East is possible. Taganrog and Novorossiysk, that is, in those regions where before the revolution existed provincial admiralties of the Russian Empire.

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Reasonable, 2,3
    Reasonable, 2,3 25 May 2013 08: 29 New
    And the stationary platform is not the target? Stupidity is somehow. It can be destroyed and dizilyuhi ie practically any country. And where to put? -In the middle of the Pacific Ocean?. And protection is required, and twice as much, because- doesn’t maneuver. So, what about the cost, you get the same aircraft carrier, but you don’t have to fly around the world. Yes, and to compare incorrect strategies and possibilities with the United States. Remember, Admiral Popov built 3 round monitors? - the so-called “popovki”, which were weakly armed and had poor stability. They were not useful and they were cut into needles. So that's the same thing, only worse.
    1. Larus
      Larus 25 May 2013 10: 31 New
      The author indicates that it is cheaper than an aircraft carrier and has protective weapons + if it is, then there will also be combat protection from ships.
      1. patline
        patline 25 May 2013 12: 13 New
        In case of a full-scale war, yes. A similar platform will be vulnerable. But as an inexpensive aircraft carrier, for a towing or self-propelled vehicle to the area of ​​the necessary presence of strike aviation groups, it’s quite suitable thing. And by the way, you can make stationary platforms in neutral waters - instead of paid bases in the territories of other states.
        1. Larus
          Larus 25 May 2013 14: 57 New
          And I'm talking about the same thing, to build a constructor in the middle of the window and control will be what is needed. Such a constructor can be built with housing and other benefits.
          1. Ataman
            Ataman 26 May 2013 23: 15 New
            Than to drag this platform by sea, it’s easier to immediately build a base in Cuba. With Comrade Castro, you can agree for free.
            I did not understand another:
            if naval airdrome platforms do not appear on the Northern Fleet within two or three years, then the combat stability of the Northern Fleet’s missile submarine cruisers, Russia's main nuclear shield, will be reduced to zero in the near future

            Why should a missile submarine be in the range of its aircraft? And what tasks will he solve there? It seems to me that in this case the tasks are easier to solve with the help of aviation.
    2. Papakiko
      Papakiko 25 May 2013 12: 15 New
      Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
      Some kind of stupidity

      Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
      the so-called "popovki"

      Absolutely and categorically agree with you.
      Platforms it makes sense to set-deploy where with storms ZERO or shallow water. And then it will be advanced-based platforms, and from aviation only helicopters or aircraft with vertical take-off and landing.
      Therefore, the "mattress" is building its MLP landing craft.
      This was discussed here on the resource 20.05.2013/28245/XNUMX:

      For example, a "mattress" platform delivered to Guam and similar to Diego Garcia. These stations Rosskosmos "blamed" in the fall of "Phobos-soil."
      Well, or as an example, a view with a drilling platform, for the place of which you can easily imagine exactly the "advanced base platform".

    3. Per se.
      Per se. 25 May 2013 17: 53 New
      Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
      And the stationary platform is not a target?
      Of course, the target, the motionless target. In general, such ideas are generated by the "water-borne destroyer", or the already mentioned floats - "popovki", which began to rotate when they opened fire from their guns. What platform is better than a normal aircraft carrier? Efficiency zero, this is an ambulance from a turtle. Cheaper? They can drag it in advance and drag it, and after that it will have to put a whole fleet to it for protection and maintenance. Perhaps, according to the principle of stationary drilling platforms, it would be possible to take radars and missile defense systems into the sea, create a kind of “jump” aerodromes from the platforms, but it’s silly to look for an alternative to aircraft carriers in the platforms, they can somehow supplement but not replace full-fledged aircraft carriers, and persisting in this will be more expensive.
    4. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka 25 May 2013 21: 11 New
      Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
      And the stationary platform is not the target? Stupidity is somehow. It can be destroyed and dizilyuhi ie practically any country. And where to put? -In the middle of the Pacific Ocean?. And protection is required, and twice as much, because- doesn’t maneuver. So, what about the cost, you get the same aircraft carrier, but you don’t have to fly around the world. Yes, and to compare incorrect strategies and possibilities with the United States. Remember, Admiral Popov built 3 round monitors? - the so-called “popovki”, which were weakly armed and had poor stability. They were not useful and they were cut into needles. So that's the same thing, only worse.

      I agree.
      If someone thinks that Americans are stupid and do not know how to count money, then they are deeply mistaken. They have no illusions about the combat capabilities of their carrier fleet and are able to use it for its intended purpose. They won’t take any extra risk.
  2. common man
    common man 25 May 2013 08: 54 New
    And who said that she is stationary? I realized that she was self-propelled. This is more about modularity. What is an aircraft carrier? Floating airfield, air transport for the transport of aircraft, tank farm, floating barracks for pilots. All in one bottle. It is proposed to divide it. For better or worse, I don’t know. But there is a sound link in this. I just have a question. The presence of a catapult suggests a powerful power plant. How does it fit into the low displacement of the platform?
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 25 May 2013 12: 45 New
      Quote: man in the street
      Floating airfield, air transport for the transport of aircraft, tank farm, floating barracks for pilots. All in one bottle. It is proposed to divide it.

      Well, the “mattress” in one bottle AUG looks like this:

      In the case of the platform, we add vessels for accommodation and maintenance and we get "Caspian oil fields, right !?
    2. Papakiko
      Papakiko 25 May 2013 13: 19 New
      It will come out like this:
      1. baku1999
        baku1999 25 May 2013 22: 18 New
        THIS, OIL STONES ...............
  3. il grand casino
    il grand casino 25 May 2013 11: 11 New
    "Exotic projects of aircraft carriers"
    Skywalker takes off)))
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 25 May 2013 11: 21 New
      I recall the joke "... what the Russians just won’t come up with, just to not build roads ..." wink

      Again a certain path, but in fact a simple doctrinaire. There is something like the experience of WWII, the development of the Navy of the USSR, etc.

      Actually, it was under Gorshkov that they came to the need to build the Novorossiysk ...
      And not casual, but on the basis of an analysis of the experience of exercises and simulation of a collision between our submarine-missile fleet and the US Navy AUS. Smart people counted ...
  4. shoroh
    shoroh 25 May 2013 11: 33 New
    it’s better to build an air base in Tartus, to equip it with an emphasis on long-range strike.
  5. crambol
    crambol 25 May 2013 11: 35 New
    The picture shows the supply of an aircraft carrier ON THE WAY with drinking water and fuel from a tanker.
  6. Simple
    Simple 25 May 2013 13: 42 New
    "... but if the sea fleet platforms do not appear on the Northern Fleet within two or three years, the combat stability of the Northern Fleet’s missile submarine cruisers, Russia's main nuclear shield, will be reduced to zero in the near future."

    You can deploy airfields on the islands.

    In general, a good idea that arose at the dawn of the birth of aircraft carriers (in the guise that we all know), but a little modified in a modern way.

    For example, Japan:
    Q9QEwAg & dur = 1

    1000 meter floating airfield model.
    Mega-Float is a Very Large Floating Structure (VLFS)
    (of course, a little bit not what the author of the article meant)
    1. Old skeptic
      Old skeptic 26 May 2013 16: 19 New
      Why not. An option like pontoon bridges. A container ship arrives at the desired point, throws folding pontoons onto the water, of which the pontoon team quickly collects an aero dodger in a couple of hours, and order. It seems according to the standards of 700m in 30 minutes. (this is a bridge). And to sink such an airfield is not easy (there are too many individual modules to break through).
      Something like this. Of course the scaler is slightly different.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Ataman
        Ataman 26 May 2013 22: 58 New
        Well sat on the pontoons in the middle of the ocean, and then? Need refueling, supply of weapons, minor repairs and ... it turns out an aircraft carrier. Although about the "sat down" this is already fantastic, no one will sit on the floats swaying on the waves.
        1. Old skeptic
          Old skeptic 25 June 2013 18: 05 New
          Well, you don’t have to understand everything so literally. Turn on your imagination, scale for tasks, add maintenance vessels, you get such a modular aircraft carrier.
  7. not good
    not good 25 May 2013 14: 29 New
    After the war, there was a project for a modular floating dock, which was assembled like the current pontoon bridges and allowed to choose any length depending on the need. It is possible that such a solution has the right to exist. To build a modular airfield, it will take less than building a complete aircraft carrier to receive heavy aircraft, and most importantly, if damaged, it is easier to replace one section than to drag the whole unit for repair.
  8. uzer 13
    uzer 13 25 May 2013 17: 31 New
    Offshore platforms, of course, are very vulnerable and easy to destroy. Although in some situations their use is possible, you only need to make a preliminary calculation of the appropriateness of their use. But the construction of ekranoplanes is a more profitable and more promising direction. You can refine old projects and get something like corvette or frigate, which has tremendous speed and can almost instantly appear in the desired area.
    1. old man54
      old man54 25 May 2013 20: 43 New
      OOOOOOO! I have been talking about this for a long time to all those who rush about the ideas of an aircraft carrier! "++" to you!
  9. stv
    stv 25 May 2013 18: 08 New
    The idea is good. It remains to complete happiness to supply these platforms with drones and robots for suspending weapons and servicing aircraft.
  10. tomich
    tomich 25 May 2013 18: 25 New
    I, of course, have little knowledge of this issue, but if the platforms are equipped with powerful air defense systems and supplemented by ekranoplanes, then this is not such an easy target
    1. 101
      101 25 May 2013 20: 18 New
      In a storm, all planes will be washed overboard because there is nowhere to cover them. This is a worse platform for an aircraft carrier. And if there is somewhere to hide, then this is an aircraft carrier and not a platform. By the way, an aircraft carrier is not just a runway.
      1. Simple
        Simple 25 May 2013 23: 37 New
        "In a storm, all planes will be washed overboard since there is nowhere to cover them. This is a platform worse than an aircraft carrier. And if there is somewhere to hide, then this is an aircraft carrier and not a platform. By the way, an aircraft carrier is not just a runway."

        The photo in my commentary is a smaller model of what they intended to build a floating airfield with an 4000 meter strip.
        Just a "living example" that would have approached the idea of ​​the author of the article, I did not find.
        Why is floating, because Japan is “shaking” periodically, one can say, even often. They have little land, so they build artificial islands.

        Which, according to circumstances, is forced to build Japan-Russia, to put it mildly, redundantly.
        Kansai airport:

  11. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 25 May 2013 20: 11 New
    Why reinvent the wheel ??? Consider the main forces and means of the AUG US Navy

    Flagship aircraft carrier with a deck-based aviation regiment based on it (60-80 aircraft).
    Missile cruisers division with air defense missions (1-2 units)
    Division of missile destroyers with missile defense group (3-4 units.)
    A multipurpose submarine division (1-2 units) with tasks of both submarine defense and strikes on coastal (surface) targets.
    Division of supply vessels (1-2 units)

    It would seem: we are developing and building an aircraft carrier, we are completing the grouping with ships and nuclear submarines, but ... then we get an attack group and we have to change something in the “conservatory”, that is, in politics.
  12. old man54
    old man54 25 May 2013 20: 59 New
    Stalya is very interesting, and even funny! I don’t understand how to put “+”, or “-” myself. :) While reading at first I was almost sure that its author was Oleg Kaptsov, but ... someone takes away “bread” from him, it seems. :)) Covering your navy at a great distance from the home base of your naval coastal aviation is not new, and for our navy, today and tomorrow are more than relevant! Rushing into the race with amers and starting to stamp UA is a utopia, here I fully support the late Admiral S. Gorshkov! it’s a pity that many do not understand this today, and the situation is very similar to the situation with the construction of battleships on the eve of the 2nd MV, and I think everyone knows the outcome of that race of building battleships! And today's Russia neither economically nor geopolitically needs a UA fleet like USA! From 2 to 4 aircraft carriers of the type and displacement of the Kuznetsov, to cover their NK strike and missile squadrons in the open ocean, yes, it is necessary, but no more. Primarily with the objectives of long-range air defense squadron and protection of coastal AWACS aircraft for the Central Command. The fleet of “mattresses” has other tasks, in addition to a potential naval battle with an “equal” force enemy, they also have to bass everybody in the sterns of the “3rd world”, therefore UA is more universal and preferable for them. Although even in their early 60s (after the 50th year) they almost brought to life the decision that they did not need an aircraft carrier, that its theme was obsolete! For us, if we nevertheless consider the medium-term real prospect of a database with USA, then there are uniquely large ocean ekranoplanes of the LUN type, but with a larger range of weapons, a large combat radius of action, and our own air defense. And then all their AUGs turn into potential targets. I think that this is also well understood across the ocean, and most likely therefore, paradoxically, the topic of ekranoplans today is more and more “buried in Russia!” Apparently, their “fifth” column and deep penetration into our tops that make decisions of this level is that they, if they wish, are able to push the decision that is necessary only for their defensive and block the useful for their “partner"! And this would be an asymmetric response to the adversary, which they really are still afraid of!
  13. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 26 May 2013 00: 48 New
    Indeed, the main adversary of nuclear submarines of the Russian fleet is the US aviation, which has the ability to neutralize the work of submarines, despite all the tricks of the submarine commanders.

    It's five. The value of the article is close to zero.
    The United States counteracts Russian submarines in a comprehensive manner.
    Detection: fixed GAS, anti-submarine lines, a meeting of boats on duty near their bases, more than a hundred PLO aircraft, a large number of surface ships.
    Destruction: superiority in the number of multi-purpose submarines, superiority in the detection range of ASGs, superiority in the characteristics of guided torpedoes.
    Destruction of missiles after launch: Deployment of a marine missile defense near missile launch areas.
    MAP - apparently anchored non-self-propelled platform. Easy target for any guided weapon. It is enough just to damage the deck, or the means of the RTO, even by electronic warfare. How it will help the deployment of submarines is completely unclear. If only he diverts part of the forces to his destruction. For these purposes, cheaper and easier to make inflatable models of aircraft carriers.
    Instead of searchlights, it is necessary to focus on achieving superiority in the systems for detecting and destroying enemy submarines. Cover areas for deployment of multipurpose submarines and missile-carrying MA. To increase the combat stability of submarines by groups of escort ships.
    Perhaps the MAP may come in handy at the stage of gaining superiority at sea. But there are more effective "real" aircraft carriers and submarines. WIG in its current form is pure utopia and money down the drain.
    1. old man54
      old man54 26 May 2013 01: 18 New
      Quote: chunga-changa
      [WIG in its current form is pure utopia and money down the drain.

      About ekranoplans and their inefficiency can be more detailed? :)
  14. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 26 May 2013 02: 03 New
    Can. Wing outright loses to aviation.
    Compare the Lun with the Tu-95.
    For the price I will not say anything, I do not know, but I think it is comparable.
    Weapon: Lun - mosquito, 6pcs. range 10-120km, warhead -300kg.
    Tu-95 - X-55, 6 pcs. range from 2000km. Warhead -410kg. (possible BCH)
    Most important - TTX: Lun. speed 500km \ h range 2000km.
    Tu-95 speed approx. 900km \ h range 12000km.
    Base: Lun, on special platforms with access to the sea, a limited area of ​​duty on range.
    Tu-95 at suitable land airports, possibly at a great distance from the area of ​​duty.
    But there is still the Tu-160, everything is much cooler there.
    Perhaps the development of rescue and transport options makes sense, but there should be considered.
    The Soviet regime was strong, they came up with a lot of things for different necessary tasks, but since then much has become different. For example, Lun could deliver rockets to the line of launching tomahawks from a surface ship in 3 hours and sink it. Now the tomahawks are being launched from the submarine, Lun will not even have time to gain speed, the submarine will already be shot.
    1. common man
      common man 26 May 2013 08: 11 New
      Quote: chunga-changa
      Weapon: Lun - mosquito, 6pcs. range 10-120km, warhead -300kg.
      Tu-95 - X-55, 6 pcs. range from 2000km. Warhead -410kg. (possible BCH)

      You forgot to add. Mosquito has a cruising speed of 2,35M, X-55 0,77M. In this regard, the weight of the Mosquito is 4500 kg, the weight of the X-55 is 1700 kg. AND
      Quote: chunga-changa
      The most important

      Mosquito anti-ship missile, and X-55 "Designed for use against strategically important stationary ground targets with previously known coordinates." So the comparison is extremely incorrect.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 26 May 2013 10: 59 New
        There is a RCC modification of the X-55, but the missile is not supersonic, I agree, it has a launch range of approx. 250km
        This does not change the main thing, ekranoplans in their present form are exotic. Re-equipment is permissible for onyx, fuel-efficient engines, bringing flight automation, reducing the load on the crew. The solution to the problems of launch and "flight" in bad weather. International agreements on the possibility of "flying" narrownesses and straits will allow us to search for niches for application. Let's rush from Sevastopol to the Mediterranean Sea. Or from Vladivostok to Japan, again if the weather allows.
        1. old man54
          old man54 26 May 2013 18: 00 New
          Quote: chunga-changa

          This does not change the main thing, ekranoplans in their present form are exotic. Re-equipment is permissible for onyx, fuel-efficient engines, bringing flight automation, reducing the load on the crew. The solution to the problems of launch and "flight" in bad weather. International agreements on the possibility of "flying" narrownesses and straits will allow us to search for niches for application. Let's rush from Sevastopol to the Mediterranean Sea. Or from Vladivostok to Japan, again if the weather allows.

          About LTH "Lun" I vkurse, thanks! But if you vkurse, then it was a pre-design machine. And she created 35 !!! years ago. And now is 2013! I don’t propose you to deploy the construction of the Su-17 or MiG-23 in their initial configurations. :) It is clear that during this time engineering and military thoughts have gone far all over the world, and it is necessary on the existing base, the Lun legacy , to create something new, appropriate to the time. I wrote that it is necessary to increase the combat radius, I think that most of all due to the efficiency of new engines. I also think that speeding up to a supersonic speed is not a problem today. RCC "Mosquito" today is not so that would be "ice", you can either seriously put something. And he is needed, an ekranoplane, as I think, not for lottery (coastal) naval wars, but for ocean raider attacks on the attack of large and serious groups, such as AUG. It is possible to send NKs of course, but they are very slow, very noticeable for radars, very vulnerable to submarine attacks. Yes, well, and the weather is very important for them, as a rule a storm of 5 points for them the limit of the use of weapons. For the ekranoplan, the waves of the sea are not relevant at all, there are such flight modes, on some models, which imply a climb and flight as well as a simple airplane. The speed of movement is akin to the plane, but the combat load they can potentially carry more. For the latest models of RCC I will not say, but it was previously claimed that their GOS ekranoplan did not capture. Its flight altitude is low, unlike an airplane, which means the radar reaction to it is much later than that of an attack carrier. But one and the other is highly desirable to cover fighters from fighter-assault aviation aircraft carrier for example. If there is no aircraft carrier, then the task is greatly simplified for both. Only for this reason I believe that we, Russia, need to have at least one medium-tonnage aircraft carrier per Pacific Fleet and CSF. Not for strike purposes, as with amers, but primarily for long-range air defense. Without a fighter cover and the Tu-95 is not very walking around far from its shore. And after all, your TU-95 / 22M3 also needs a command center, otherwise you will have to climb into the air defense zone of the attack squadron yourself, which would not be desirable, right? :)
          Why am I for a WIG more than that? On them, in the future, if you deal with them seriously, you can put more serious missiles of the "Basalt" or "Granite" class, with the same penetrative air defense characteristics and launch range. It seems problematic to put it on the ground, although ... everything changes :)) Yes, and the missile carrier will be detected faster by the radar than the screen. And why rockets are a priority over attack aircraft, so I regret the pilots. A rocket is iron, and there are people. And how much time, effort and money are needed, of course, to prepare a good pilot, especially for the MA, is not for me to explain to you, you probably know better than me. And in the event of a conflict, they, all, professionals, must be protected, because planes can and will be bought from someone, in urgent need, but the pilots ...
          1. chunga-changa
            chunga-changa 26 May 2013 21: 33 New
            Target designation Tu-95RC, including for mosquitoes.
            What altitude the ekranoplan can gain in case of bad weather, will it be able to "fly" over the weather zone. The sea state for the use of weapons may not be relevant. Actual operation of engines in stormy rain, or snow charges. Icing, snow sticking. Piloting an ekranoplane with a gusty wind at a speed near sound and a height of say 50 meters, imagine. The mode of operation of the automatic height control. Crew loads. Requirements for the flight crew, its qualifications. Taxiing and starting when the sea is rough.
            About the vulnerability of NK and aircraft, all this is offset by the time of patrolling and the possibility of long-term tracking of targets in readiness for use of weapons.
            If we radically improve the technical characteristics of the ekranoplan, keeping the concept, we get the same plane, only bad, with a lot of restrictions. Plus, the lack of an international legal framework for the use of technology in peacetime.
  15. viktor_ui
    viktor_ui 26 May 2013 10: 06 New
    In my mind, before dreaming and balabol at the top of the naval commanders about the most wonderful aircraft carriers ... update at least 1: 1 what we have left over and let these items be from the 21st century. 080808 already assembled combat-ready formations throughout the country, the five-year period passed and again a ship group for Syria was going from all directions (in one of the articles it was already written about the presence of the S-400 in it in a compartment with a death star in low Earth orbit wassat ) Now we need Shoigu for the Navy.
  16. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 26 May 2013 10: 20 New
    In one of the comments I already wrote about platforms for covering our northern shelf. More real than building airfields and bases in permafrost and in the absence of communications. Fast reaction
    on the situation in the region, the ship is still drowning ... But we are all targets, for example, for ground aviation
    basing in the event of a global conflict - ... and where to return to the survivors after completing the assignment, because the main and the alternate aerodrome is probably gone.
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 26 May 2013 11: 14 New
      He served in the USSR at the airport of MA. The scheme was simple. In the event of a global conflict, all survivors flew into the reflection of the landing. A medical service, communication, security platoon, and a radio drive advanced to a predetermined flat section of the coast.
      Surviving crews catapulted over this point, they were picked up and taken out, training on actions was carried out, except of course the bailout.
      The personnel of the base removed equipment from the NZ and went to the points of formation of the units.
  17. KononAV
    KononAV 26 May 2013 13: 42 New
    nothing to say
  18. SIT
    SIT 27 May 2013 00: 18 New
    Why did the US have aircraft carriers? Because ALL military conflicts they have are overseas. It’s impossible to even deal with Cuba without a fleet, but they prefer not to touch it - it’s calmer because it’s very close. The maximum that you can go next to the house is Grenada. Everything else required a mass transfer of troops and appropriate cover after their landing, because occurred in the other hemisphere. What are we going to fight in South America? Where to send our aircraft carriers to cover the landing of divisions? To the Mediterranean Sea? So there is the flight time of missiles from the shore for a minute. With a massive salvo, no air defense is enough. We reached Berlin and Port Arthur quite well. Or is it still necessary for the AUG to storm Washington? So the United States, when they calculated in 1945 how much they would need watercraft to land on the Japanese islands, the tonnage turned out that it would take the entire fleet of the world, including the Japanese. So it’s easier to freeze the winter road through the Bering Strait. It makes no sense to focus on a country in completely different geopolitical conditions and copy the structure of its armed forces as a whole, and especially the Navy in particular. Instead of stupid copying, one must carefully think through his military doctrine and proceed from it to develop the latest weapons one step ahead of a potential enemy, and not to run after him, always one step behind at best.
  19. commbatant
    commbatant 22 June 2013 22: 07 New
    I think that for Russia such platforms can be used on two theater of operations (zone of responsibility of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, for the intended purpose - floating airfields and radars / tracking stations for marine conditions, communication centers, warehouses, etc. along the northern sea route and the Sea of ​​Okhotsk sea.

    Before spending money on the construction of these, you can practice commercial projects (for example, install on some Gazprom platform for oil and gas production, radars and evaluate its effectiveness, especially if the platform is located in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Venezuela, Vietnam , Syria, Somalia).

    However, one must understand that the use of these platforms of the Russian Federation can in peacetime in a threatened period and in wartime they will turn into targets.

    I think that if you build such "cold weather" it is only for the purpose of placing radar and radio interception centers on them (an analogue of the Anglo-Saxon "Echelon" system)