Military Review

China may be interested in "Ulyanovsk"

67
The Chinese aircraft carrier program is gradually gaining momentum. Although it is still far from the commissioning of a new Chinese aircraft carrier, more and more new messages are already being received regarding the relevant projects. Not so long ago, Chinese shipbuilders reported the start of research and design work in the field of naval nuclear reactors. This news It was received unequivocally: China is preparing to build an atomic surface fleet and, first of all, aircraft carriers with a nuclear power plant. The timeline for the start of construction of such ships, for obvious reasons, has not yet been named, and probably has not even been defined yet, but the relevant works have already started.


The other day, the Chinese news portal Mil.news.sina.com.cn opened the veil of secrecy over some of the details of the works. The authors of the publication in plain text stated that China could use not only its own developments, but also foreign experience. As a foreign project of an atomic aircraft carrier that could help Chinese designers and scientists, the Soviet project 1143.7 was named in the publication. Under this project, in the late eighties and early nineties, the aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk was built. Journalists directly stated that, despite the sad end of the Soviet project, the developments on it are interesting for China and could be used in the development and construction of new ships of similar purpose.

The official plans of the Chinese Ministry of Defense regarding the construction of new aircraft carriers have not yet been announced. To date, all available information on this topic has been reduced to several statements by various high-level officials, all of which are extremely general. No exact numbers or detailed technical information has been provided so far. For this reason, there are several assumptions about the further development of the Chinese aircraft carrier. fleet. One of the most popular versions (it is worth noting, it is also mentioned in the publication Mil.news.sina.com.cn) is the one according to which in the coming years China will build a number of non-nuclear aircraft carriers and only after that it will start creating ships with a nuclear power plant.

According to various estimates, a series of non-nuclear aircraft carriers will consist of no more than four or five ships. Such a quantity will provide aircraft carriers with all three fleets of the Chinese Navy and thereby increase their combat effectiveness. Chinese shipbuilders are guaranteed to spend several years on the implementation of the non-nuclear part of the aircraft carrier program. It is possible that the last of four or five ships with a steam turbine power plant will be laid down not earlier than 2018 or even later. Around the same time, the start of construction should be attributed, and if everything goes well, then launching or even commissioning the first Chinese aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant. The number of such ships also remains in question, but it can be assumed that it will not exceed the total number of non-nuclear ships with aviation group.

Creating an atomic aircraft carrier, primarily because of the most complicated power plant, is a rather difficult task even for an industrially developed country. Given this fact, as well as some characteristic features of the Chinese approach to the design of military equipment, interest in the Soviet project 1143.7 looks more than understandable. Also in this context, you can recall history with the origin of the first Chinese carrier-based fighter Shenyang J-15, which can reveal the situation with the new aircraft carriers of China and Soviet developments in an interesting light. Recall, despite numerous statements by officials that J-15 was developed by China independently on the basis of the earlier J-11 fighter (an unlicensed copy of the Soviet / Russian Su-27SK), most experts and aviation enthusiasts associate its appearance with Chinese purchases from Ukraine, one of the prototypes of the Soviet T-10K. Thus, there is every reason to suspect China of the complete or almost complete absence of any of its own developments on the subject of atomic aircraft carriers, as well as of wanting to use someone else’s experience and pass it off as its own.

China may be interested in "Ulyanovsk"


Demonstrating the reasons why the Soviet project 1143.7 is interesting to China, the portal Mil.news.sina.com.cn cited the main characteristics of the lead ship, named Ulyanovsk. A ship longer than 320 meters with a flight deck about 80 m wide should have a displacement of over 62 thousand tons, and also be equipped with an 33-meter take-off springboard and two steam catapults. "Ulyanovsk" could carry up to 70 aircraft of several classes: fighters, helicopters and long-range radar detection aircraft. In addition, anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile weapons were provided. The operability of the huge ship was supposed to be provided with the help of four nuclear reactors KN-3 and four steam generating plants OK-900. The total power of the power plant is 280 thousand horsepower.

The construction of the aircraft carrying cruiser Ulyanovsk began in the autumn of 1988, at the Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant (Nikolaev). To assemble the structures of such a large ship, we had to modernize the equipment of the plant. "Ulyanovsk" was supposed to join the Navy by 1995 year, but the difficult economic situation in the Soviet Union, and then its collapse put an end to all plans. The ship was ready for about 20% (shipbuilders managed to build most of the hull structures), but the leadership of independent Ukraine ordered to stop work and cut the unfinished ship into metal.

It should be noted that the construction of "Ulyanovsk" stopped not for technical reasons, but because of economic and political problems. Thus, this project, despite its sad ending, can be considered successful, at least technically. Probably, this fact attracts the attention of Chinese shipbuilders. The technical solutions applied in the 1143.7 project are of great interest for any country that wants to start creating its own atomic carrier fleet. China is trying to cooperate with Russia in the military-technical industry and therefore we cannot exclude the possibility that he formally offers to begin a joint project to develop an atomic aircraft carrier as a whole or just a nuclear power plant for it.

Should Russia agree to such cooperation? Most likely no. The construction of nuclear aircraft carriers can be attributed to the category of projects of the defense industry, which should be created only independently. Carriers with nuclear power plants, due to their capabilities and characteristics, are a great force and therefore the technology associated with them should not be transferred to third countries. In addition to the military-technical aspect, it is also necessary to pay attention to the military-political one. Over the next few years, the Russian Navy will not receive ships of this class, and therefore cooperation in this area with a large neighbor with big plans cannot be considered a sensible step. At the same time, Russia may agree to sell some technologies that are not directly related to nuclear reactors for ships, but at the same time, are necessary for the realization of Chinese plans. However, cooperation or refusal of it requires an official request from China. So far, Beijing has not sent Moscow any such documents and it is not known whether it will send it at all.


Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Ulyanovsk" in construction, 6 December 1990 of the year




TAKR "Ulyanovsk" at the Black Sea Shipyard in Nikolaev, the beginning of the 1990-ies


On the materials of the sites:
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/
http://militaryparitet.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
Author:
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. mark1
      mark1 18 June 2013 08: 52 New
      +2
      What else can they give back? Everything has already been made. And cooperation with China in the shipbuilding industry ... It is possible that for Russia it can be very interesting if, for example, you conclude an agreement that 50% of the total orders for joint projects are made in China, and 50% in Russia for the DV Zvezda ", create powerful cooperation. I think this is the way out, both for our shipbuilding as a whole, and for the development of the Far Eastern region. But for this it would not be bad to conclude something like an allied treaty.
      1. w.ebdo.g
        w.ebdo.g 18 June 2013 11: 22 New
        +7
        Of course, it is necessary to build such a ship, because these are new (well-forgotten) construction technologies, and experience (the son of difficult mistakes) that you can’t buy, you only need to survive it, and draw conclusions ...
        Of course, it is necessary for the aircraft carrier and several support ships, together they form the aircraft carrier group. It is the group that needs to be built. It is expensive. So what to do? Who is easy now?
        I vote for the Russian AUG !!!!
        1. mark1
          mark1 18 June 2013 11: 30 New
          +6
          And I'm for the Russian AUG (for 6 at once).
          -You give the first Russian AUG by 2020! ... or by 2030? ... or by 2050 ???
          For 2013, we have a small fleet with corvettes (well, very large and complex ships - almost aircraft carriers)
        2. old man54
          old man54 18 June 2013 13: 31 New
          +4
          Quote: w.ebdo.g
          Of course, it is necessary to build such a ship, because these are new (well-forgotten) construction technologies, and experience (the son of difficult mistakes) And what to do? Who is easy now?
          I vote for the Russian AUG !!!!

          Did you even read the article? :)) There, in fact, it’s not about the construction of our aircraft carrier, namely, Chinese. :)) It's ridiculous directly.
      2. old man54
        old man54 18 June 2013 13: 27 New
        +3
        Quote: mark1
        What else can they give back? Everything has already been made. And cooperation with China in the shipbuilding industry ... It is possible that for Russia it can be very interesting if, for example, you conclude an agreement that 50% of the total orders for joint projects are made in China, and 50% in Russia for the DV Zvezda ", create powerful cooperation. I think this is the way out, both for our shipbuilding as a whole, and for the development of the Far Eastern region. But for this it would not be bad to conclude something like an allied treaty.

        Illusions and naivety, forgive generously! Firstly, China will not agree to such cooperation; it has enough of its own production capacities today, however, like fin. funds! It is more profitable for him to buy, or to steal, for him there is no fundamental difference in this. And you can’t completely trust the Asians, including the Chinese! They will deceive, sell, they have it in their historical memory, in blood and in their tradition!
        1. mark1
          mark1 18 June 2013 15: 48 New
          0
          Quote: old man54
          China will not go to such a cooperation

          Will or will not, this neither to me nor to you is not known, a mystery covered in darkness. it’s rather a job for our politicians and diplomats (if they, of course, want to honestly eat their bread). All the same, my neighbor and I need to establish normal relations on the principle of equal to equal and at the same time there must be some level of trust bolted by mutual strategic interests. Otherwise, we will really have an enemy on the border who wants to chop off everything that is possible. Attitude towards the Chinese as the thieving "Asians" who want to somehow deceive the "white master" - a relic of past centuries - now we ourselves risk becoming in the eyes of the Chinese these very "Asians."
          And I just suggested the desired direction of mutually beneficial cooperation, maybe a little naive - but what to take from me !? Idealist.
          1. old man54
            old man54 18 June 2013 19: 07 New
            0
            Quote: mark1
            All the same, my neighbor and I need to establish normal relations according to the principle - equal to equal, and at the same time there must be some level of trust, held together by mutual strategic interests.

            Living with them as neighbors, yes, is necessary, but just why did you decide that China today treats us as an equal? The Chinese leadership has so much pride that you might not even dream so much! They consider themselves hoo, and for a long time. Even during the time of N. Khrushchev, one of the ins and outs of the conflict with the CPSU and as a consequence of the rift with the USSR was that then, in the 50s, China wanted the USSR not to look at it as a "little brother", but looked like an equal brother. The leadership there were and are exorbitant, and modesty 0! The country was constantly starving, except for rice they didn’t eat anything, but there were ponts ... And already in the 21st century, with our current situation, would you like China to perceive us, barely making ends meet as equals? Isn’t it funny? :) China, which has seriously and almost openly begun to compete with the USA? I believe that they despise us today, but the strategic nuclear forces somewhat “reassure” them and ... the presence of the USA on the planet as well!
            Otherwise, we will really have an enemy on the border who wants to chop off everything that is possible.

            and it is, you what? They just decided that Siberia, where I live, can wait for them so far, they need to solve other priority tasks.
            The attitude to the Chinese as to the thieving "Asians" who want to somehow deceive

            this is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many people, including who they are, the Chinese, know very well who lived there for a long time. In addition, the history of this people leaves no doubt about this! They always, in moments of danger, easily betrayed, deceived, if it was to their advantage.
            1. mark1
              mark1 18 June 2013 20: 50 New
              -1
              You have very strong feelings for China, an impression is being formed - if you had 100 tons of dust, you would have poured all this on the Celestial Empire without hesitation ... But try to understand - they are such and such ... they have been believing themselves for 000 years now the center of the universe, and around there were only barbarians, at the end of the 000th century everyone should have prostrated themselves in front of the Chinese emperors - this is the Chinese mentality (believe us we have enough “shit.” when we think that everyone around us has brought happiness and civilization) Russian diplomacy has always defeated Chinese swagger; now the problem is more complicated. we became weak and they are strong, but we must solve it ... We have our own know-how that the Chinese cannot use when using the power method — engine building, rocket engineering (S-5000 for example), nuclear engineering, etc. etc., well, they do not reach our level (and do not reach if the traitors do not help) - these are the points of contact that will help us to feel equal with them.
              Quote: old man54
              it’s not only my opinion, but the opinion of many people, including who they are, the Chinese, very well know who lived there for a long time. In addition, the history of this people leaves no doubt about this! They always, in moments of danger, easily betrayed, deceived, if it was to their advantage.

              But in Moscow, Tajiks do not like ..
        2. dustycat
          dustycat 18 June 2013 20: 02 New
          +1
          Of the necessary for the construction of aircraft carriers, China has aircraft manufacturing, metallurgy, large-capacity shipbuilding, electronics, weapons and money.
          There is no school and experience in the construction of shipborne and generally compact nuclear warheads and Uralmash.
          Russia has the personnel and experience in the construction of nuclear weapons, a bunch of projects of compact ultra-safe nuclear weapons, Uralmash.
          The dough for what Russia still has needs to be bigger than to build and arm four aircraft carriers.
          The Chinese know how to count money no worse than the Jews.

          So what prevents them from saving on another four aircraft carriers and ordering nuclear weapons from RosAtom ?!

          Moreover, RosAtom does not offer reactors and ready-made nuclear reactors only in the leisure section.
      3. dustycat
        dustycat 18 June 2013 19: 45 New
        0
        50 to 50 is unlikely.
        Most likely, the Chinese will do the hull and internal packing (we have built steel mills for them, we regularly prepare personnel for them), and we will order a nuclear unit and possibly catapults in Russia (we have the uralmash ready, and the Chinese still have to build it and prepare personnel for it) .
        In addition, it is reasonable to replace four nuclear installations with two, moreover, more modern ones. Yes, and two more power will be cheaper than four of the same total power.

        But Russia needs to build four aircraft carriers with nuclear weapons.
        Well, a couple of helicopter carriers with nuclear warheads would also be necessary. Moreover, the icebreaking class. So that they could simply work with icebreakers and in the event of a mess from the Far East to Europe and in the other direction, they could sneak out.
      4. Reasonable, 2,3
        Reasonable, 2,3 19 June 2013 05: 59 New
        0
        By the way, they won’t let us steal either.
  2. nepopadun
    nepopadun 18 June 2013 08: 55 New
    +1
    Chinese like to copy everything)
    1. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 13: 29 New
      0
      Quote: nepopadun
      Chinese like to copy everything)

      copy because they themselves cannot correct! Just because. It is very difficult to design a modern aircraft carrier.
      1. 77bor1973
        77bor1973 18 June 2013 18: 03 New
        0
        The fact of the matter is that an aircraft carrier is not an airplane or a car, about 70 enterprises were involved in the construction of aircraft carriers in the vast countries of the vast country, most of which are no longer there, the same aircraft lifts were designed and built in Kazakhstan.
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 18 June 2013 20: 07 New
      0
      From the congratulations of the Minister of Foreign Trade to the inhabitants of Russia in 1995.
      “Dear Russians, we wish you in the new year to come up with even more of what we will produce for you. Invent, we will.”
  3. Captain Vrungel
    Captain Vrungel 18 June 2013 09: 04 New
    +4
    Russia does not need, especially Ukraine. Let the Chinese even embody the titanic work of design engineers in creating a unique ship into metal. If someone speaks of patriotism, then he should appear on the slipways in the metal, and not in the drawings in the archive. It's time to stop the squabble and create a jointly modern armed forces. A couple of decades will pass and descending from the palm trees will begin to explain to us "who is who and whose turn it is to climb a pine tree". Do we need it?
    It’s time to lay the Commonwealth aircraft carrier uniting us. And then there will be an aircraft-bearing president with humanitarian aid in the person of "peacekeepers" from the Marine Corps. And in Odessa, one gun remained on Primorsky Boulevard near Pushkin .... But someone already communized the nucleus.
    1. Mairos
      Mairos 18 June 2013 12: 12 New
      +1
      And what joy do we have from the fact that the Chinese "embody"? Can generally give them all the best practices, for the "embodiment". Here it will be joy ..
      "It's time to stop the squabble and create a jointly modern armed forces" - with whom are they joint? With the Chinese? Or didn’t I understand something?
      1. Captain Vrungel
        Captain Vrungel 18 June 2013 13: 24 New
        +2
        Mayrush (Mairos, port in Portugal). So and so we give everything back. Now the SU-35 will leave. On earth in heaven and at sea, in China, the basic equipment is ours, Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian. Time and history will force us to create a single Armed Forces. Otherwise, we risk it, we will settle in the heaps of abandoned mines, and you cut down taiga massifs.
    2. little man
      little man 18 June 2013 15: 33 New
      -1
      Captain.
      It is not clear to create together with Ukraine? Or with China?
      Probably still with Ukraine, since Odessa is mentioned)))
  4. Trailer
    Trailer 18 June 2013 09: 09 New
    +6
    Don’t be afraid! Everyone will sell what China asks for! We need a SU-35, which we really don’t have at home - on, comrade! Need an aircraft carrier - fraternal Ukraine will push. Well, of course, while no one is going to copy planes, and the aircraft carrier will be used only as a floating casino!
  5. fenix57
    fenix57 18 June 2013 09: 11 New
    +5
    "Thus, there is every reason to suspect China of the complete or almost complete absence of any own developments on the topic of nuclear aircraft carriers, as well as the desire to take advantage of other people's experience and pass it off as their own ...".-that is, someone else SURPRISES ...
    With such "imperial" plans, the PRC apparently expects to "creep" over all the seas and oceans, and First of all, to the Antarctic and Antarctic area. Oh, "sharp ear" must be kept! recourse
  6. cartridge
    cartridge 18 June 2013 09: 12 New
    +5
    Such a ship today would not interfere with our fleet located off the Syrian coast. The stability of this group with its own aviation support could be significantly higher than today. So far, unfortunately, the capabilities of several of our ships to organize their own air defense are rather modest, if not any.
    1. mark1
      mark1 18 June 2013 09: 19 New
      +5
      Kuzey and I don’t know what to do, neither a full-fledged air wing, nor modernization.
      But the aircraft carrier also needs a worthy retinue and a trained crew ... So we can only lick our lips and dream of a distant bright future. In the near future. we cannot create a full-fledged AUG on our own.
    2. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 13: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: cartridge
      Such a ship today would not interfere with our fleet located off the Syrian coast. ... So far, unfortunately, the capabilities of several of our ships to organize their own air defense are modest enough, if not any.

      We have the Admiral of the Fleet of the USSR Kuznetsov, he is to us today, under our state. Valsti and the economic situation of the country more than! And if he had appeared today in Syria with a full-fledged air group (40 aircraft), then the very Israel would have greatly shrunk in its cries! Probably, so far we have nothing to do with such a large ship as the Ulyanovsk, so far we are not good to such a fleet! My opinion.:)
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 18 June 2013 20: 10 New
        +1
        Wow ..
        Our "elite" clearly will not soon grow to the ability and courage to manage even the remnants of what remains of the USSR.
  7. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 18 June 2013 09: 36 New
    +2
    In the dashing nineties, information passed that 5-6 KAMAZs with documentation for the aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk had departed in an unknown direction. It is possible that she is in China.
    The Ulyanovsk project was once the most “advanced” or, as they say, “Innovative” in the world. Even now, he is considered one of the best in the world. It is only necessary to earn it a little (to modernize).
    1. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 13: 44 New
      -1
      Quote: VohaAhov
      In the dashing nineties, information passed that 5-6 KAMAZs with documentation for the aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk had departed in an unknown direction. It is possible that she is in China.

      strange, but his Nevsky Design Bureau developed, so the documentation should be there. Although ... of course, the working drawings were also at the Black Sea CCZ in Nikolaev, and the corrupt Ukraine could certainly sell them, for a couple of glass beads and a large piece of fat.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 18 June 2013 20: 13 New
        0
        In addition to the developer’s documentation, there is also factory documentation with corrected misses and design errors.

        It will be much more valuable.
        There, most of the errors are already taken into account and corrected.
        1. mark1
          mark1 18 June 2013 21: 07 New
          +2
          All corrections in the design documentation and design documentation are submitted to the design bureau by the leading designer or technologist, he makes changes to the design documentation and only after that the changed design code is delivered to the plant, and there can be no unauthorized changes in the factory design of design documentation and design documentation
      2. old man54
        old man54 19 June 2013 11: 21 New
        0
        apparently representative with the “independent” hurt my well-aimed attack on the essence of their current state, since they pointed out the minuses :))) But I wrote the truth!
  8. Akim
    Akim 18 June 2013 09: 47 New
    +4
    China may be interested in "Ulyanovsk"

    Yes, they have long laid it! For China, it has been 8 months for a long time. Although the author is right. The first of them (and maybe further) - will be without a ship nuclear power plant. But the fact that he will be ready in the next three years - how to give a drink.
    1. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 13: 39 New
      0
      Was Ulyanovsk laid in China? Right?
      1. Akim
        Akim 18 June 2013 14: 54 New
        +2
        Quote: old man54
        Was Ulyanovsk laid in China? Right?

        Well, not with that name laughing . 2 aircraft carriers laid. One the size of Kuznetsov. He has already taken shape. And the second is much more. I have information from a Chinese journalist. True, it is February. There is nothing fresh yet. And he, too, is no longer on the forum.
  9. individual
    individual 18 June 2013 10: 00 New
    +5
    Quote:
    "It should be noted that the construction of Ulyanovsk was stopped not for technical reasons, but because of economic and political problems."

    The construction of the aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk was stopped by E. Gaidar, a traitor to the interests of the USSR / Russia.
    1. urich
      urich 18 June 2013 21: 48 New
      0
      Gaidar, unlike his grandfather, was an advanced liberal. He and BAM were an unnecessary toy of the CPSU and much more. According to Gaidar, it was necessary to create vacuum cleaners and consumer goods, and not BAM and Ulyanovsk. Nobody argues, consumer goods are also needed. But here I personally am not an economist, which sympathize with the liberals and may blame me, but I don’t think it is right to change BAM and Ulyanovsk for vacuum cleaners and teapots. Sometimes I catch myself thinking that government officials extol Gaidar and the EBN only because they themselves belong to this system. You can not blaspheme the system that gave rise to them, you have to admit that the officials themselves are gawks. So praises sing. How is it different?
      1. old man54
        old man54 19 June 2013 11: 26 New
        +1
        Gaidar, our contemporary, was 100% traitor and Judah! The liberalism that he preached has nothing to do with liberalism itself! Compare with the same England, if you write this! He simply carried out the order of his bosses, from across the ocean, who recruited him and set him to ruin the Russian economy.
  10. fisherman
    fisherman 18 June 2013 10: 07 New
    +2
    Compact nuclear power plants are the only things China wants to master together. The rest is already bought or stolen.
  11. Ulysses
    Ulysses 18 June 2013 10: 16 New
    0
    In addition to the documentation, the chinaways do not need anything from us.
    They will do the rest (accumulate \ rut).
    1. mark1
      mark1 18 June 2013 10: 41 New
      -6
      And how do the Chinese annoy you so much? China is a great country and our neighbor. With or without us, but China will achieve everything that it has outlined, so far it is interested in the remnants of knowledge and achievements inherited from the Soviet Union, this is our attraction so far. We are ready to transfer Su-35 technology to Brazil, we are developing the 5th generation fighter with India, the BrahMos is the same ... We have to go in the same direction with China, create joint ventures to produce high-tech products (better in our territory) and sell together this products to third countries. And the talk that they will deceive us ... You know - we won’t clap our ears and thieves are calculated in time - they won’t deceive us.
      1. Mairos
        Mairos 18 June 2013 12: 17 New
        0
        India and Brazil are far away, and China is nearby and not at all as peaceful as anyone thinks. Why then do the Chinese conduct large-scale offensive exercises in their northern military districts? Are you getting ready to land in Taiwan?
      2. Drosselmeyer
        Drosselmeyer 18 June 2013 12: 41 New
        0
        Without the collapse of the USSR and access to its technologies, China would not have achieved anything in the military sphere. Well, maybe in 50 years I would have reached, in the military sphere, the level of the USSR of the 80s. Western military technologies are closed to China and no one is going to give them anything. Let’s see when the Chinese run out of resources for the embodiment of the Soviet backlog, which they received for nothing, what this will turn out for its armed forces. And it will be no more than 10 years.
      3. old man54
        old man54 18 June 2013 19: 14 New
        0
        Quote: mark1
        With or without us, but China will achieve everything that it has outlined, so far it is interested in the remnants of knowledge and achievements inherited from the Soviet Union, this is our attraction so far.

        I would not be so sure of China’s wonderful future today, especially with their current economic policies. The resource base of China is a limit tending to zero. There are no energy resources at all, everything is imported and imported. 85% of its economy is export-oriented. To aggravate the financial crisis in the world, which is already in full swing, Europe and the USA will close their sales markets and that’s all, Kitty sailed. Up to 70% of its gold and foreign exchange reserves today are state bonds of the US Treasury, which are candy wrappers in fact, worse than even paper $. Amers will block the Strait of Ormuna and that’s all ... again rice and old berdanks! :)
        1. dustycat
          dustycat 18 June 2013 20: 26 New
          0
          I dare to object.
          In the Chinese economy, the modern businessmen of capitalist bottling have neither ear nor snout.
          None of their forecasts yet took into account the strength of China's regulated economy.
          Even the European Union does not have access to the level of financial control that the USSR had in China.
          The EU itself is only dreaming of the financial discipline that it was in the USSR, and not what it is in China.

          For example, the volume of China's black financial market is at least 30% of the official. And nothing. No crises predicted by Anglo-Saxon analysts occurred - the Chinese economy under the control of the Central Bank of China taxied them very carefully.

          But the Yankees cannot block the Strait of Hormuz, and the Japanese cannot do it.
          And the drain of only 30% of the dollar mass that China has is very much lower US exchanges. They will immediately have nothing to pay salaries for the military.
          The second world economy after all.
          This argument will be stronger than the Seventh Fleet along with the Fifth and Sixth.
        2. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 22 June 2013 17: 52 New
          0
          Quote: old man54
          Europe and the United States will close their markets and that’s all, Kitty sailed.

          Yeah, go around all the surrounding shops and announce that you are closing your "market" from them. Then look where they "sailed" there. At the same time write to us where you take clothes, shoes, household appliances that you eat.
  12. Dimy4
    Dimy4 18 June 2013 10: 30 New
    +5
    First, China will be interested in Ulyanovsk, and only then - Blagoveshchensk, Birobidzhan, Khabarovsk ....
  13. Grigorich 1962
    Grigorich 1962 18 June 2013 10: 32 New
    +3
    I think the time has come when the FISB should finally put a solid barrier to the sale of our secrets abroad. And it doesn’t matter who the western countries or eastern ones are.
    Secret military technology must be developed, purchased and "stolen" by ourselves. We have been quite naive in the sale of weapons and technology.
  14. Dromac
    Dromac 18 June 2013 10: 36 New
    +2
    First you need to turn your vast territory into one huge aircraft carrier with excellent air defense, and then think about aircraft carriers. And ideally, you need to design huge air invulnerable ships that would move anywhere in the world in a short time. Our territory is our aircraft carrier. It is necessary to look into the future as deep as possible, and not repeat the West and not adopt everything after them
    1. mark1
      mark1 18 June 2013 10: 44 New
      0
      And our Earth is a spaceship. Well her to this cosmonautics!
    2. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 13: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Dromac
      First you need to turn your vast territory into one huge aircraft carrier with excellent air defense, and then think about aircraft carriers. ... Our territory is our aircraft carrier. It is necessary to look into the future as deep as possible, and not repeat the West and not adopt everything after them

      Soglsen with you! "+"! But, about the sea borders, such as the protection of the aircraft carrier "RF", one must not forget how! Therefore, a fleet is also needed!
    3. dustycat
      dustycat 18 June 2013 20: 31 New
      -2
      Four nuclear-powered helicopter carriers capable of independently navigating the Northern Sea Route on this very route are enough for Russia.

      And there’s nothing to invent any nonsense.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 19 June 2013 00: 52 New
        +2
        Quote: dustycat
        And there’s nothing to invent any nonsense.


        You are doing this.
  15. creak
    creak 18 June 2013 11: 26 New
    +4
    And as for the partnership with China, there is no need to deceive oneself. This partnership is primarily beneficial to China, which we need as a supplier of oil and some military technologies. We must live not only in the categories of today. In the 50s, Russian and Chinese were brothers forever, and all Damansky ended. Therefore, it is not necessary to engage in self-deception regarding our neighbor, the Chinese know how to hide their
    intentions. And then no matter how it turned out, as always, and scratching turnips.
    1. mark1
      mark1 18 June 2013 12: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: ranger
      Partnership is beneficial primarily to China, which we need as a supplier of oil and some military technologies.

      As you put yourself, they will treat you. If the main task is to see a sale of resources and stuffing pockets to the detriment of your country, then the partners will treat you accordingly (as a thief and a fool (this is not about you and me)). You can’t ignore such a powerful neighbor and reduce everything to raw materials and consumer goods. If we want to cooperate with China on an equal footing, we must offer the appropriate products (our knowledge and intellect - or whatever is left there), and in exchange to jointly produce products based on this knowledge and sell together. Something like that...
      1. old man54
        old man54 18 June 2013 13: 49 New
        0
        and what do you think todayChina wants to cooperate with the Russian Federation on an equal footing, as you write, or how? :)))
        1. mark1
          mark1 18 June 2013 16: 06 New
          +2
          for old man 54 And what do you think, the strong side wants to cooperate with the weak on equal terms? For this, we feed the MFA corps and hope for our politicians to convince the opponent - "Russia is not over yet and besides a bunch of atomic bombs we still have a lot of interesting and useful things for mutual equal cooperation." And they just want to be friends on equal terms Cheburashka with a crocodile Gena.
          1. dustycat
            dustycat 18 June 2013 20: 33 New
            +1
            Midovsky then we feed the corps. But for some reason, our "elite" turns all his clever actions into their personal laughing stock.
            1. mark1
              mark1 18 June 2013 21: 55 New
              0
              for dustycat SU And the Chinese have nothing to do with it, it’s not their fault that one of the main ills of Russia is multiplying and multiplying - this is our internal problem
    2. Roll
      Roll 18 June 2013 14: 22 New
      +1
      wassat The Russian and the Chinese would have been brothers forever, if Nikita didn’t lift it, under Stalin there would be no Damascus, and they would not have thought. And we will scratch our turnips anyway, and what else remains under liberalism.
  16. svp67
    svp67 18 June 2013 11: 35 New
    +1
    As a foreign project of an atomic aircraft carrier that could help Chinese designers and scientists, the Soviet project 1143.7 is named in the publication.
    Everything is natural. But it’s a shame that the work and talent of millions of our people do not need us personally ... And we have as in the old days -
    for brother said to his brother: "This is mine, and that is mine" ... And the filthy from all directions came with victories to the Russian land. ...
  17. True
    True 18 June 2013 12: 52 New
    +2
    Understand China's interest - it is building up military power. In addition to Russia, no one will sell him such technologies for political reasons. Neither the United States, nor France, nor even Japan. It's a shame that the work of so many people now serves another country, but this is better than nothing.
    In fact, China is now repeating the Soviet naval concept. He is now what the Soviet Union would be if it had not disintegrated.
  18. Evgeniy46
    Evgeniy46 18 June 2013 13: 53 New
    -2
    If we really help the Chinese with the construction of a nuclear carrier, then with the condition of construction under the guidance of our specialists and a couple for the Russian Navy. A shipyard capable of building such ships is only being built with us. And so would yours and ours. You look and built the atomic “Varangian” for the 2020 year
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 18 June 2013 20: 35 New
      0
      That is just the point.
      But the Chinese, besides compact nuclear weapons and Uralmash’s capacities, need nothing more.
  19. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 18 June 2013 15: 36 New
    0
    Supporters of the appearance of Russian aircraft carriers: What tasks will this ship perform?

    ps / please do not remember about AUG. Carrier strike group - this concept is not at all identical with the concept of "aircraft carrier". AUG retains impressive potential even without an aircraft carrier, it’s easier to say, AUG - this is a squadron of a dozen warships for various purposes

    So why does the Russian Navy need carrier-based aircraft?
    1. little man
      little man 18 June 2013 16: 15 New
      0
      This is a mobile airbase. You can’t tune in airfields around the world. Moreover, we have no bases left. And what would China and India answer this question, interestingly.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 18 June 2013 18: 02 New
        0
        Quote: man
        This is a mobile airbase.

        For what purposes do you need a mobile airbase?
        Quote: man
        And what would China and India answer this question, interestingly.

        empty bragging of the leadership of these countries
        Same as Brazil's only dreadnought at the beginning of the last century
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 18 June 2013 18: 46 New
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          empty bragging of the leadership of these countries

          For India I agree, for China no.
          The PRC is going to compete with the United States for world domination. The controversial question is whether aircraft carriers are needed for this, but in any case, the PRC's intentions are quite understandable.
          But why the aircraft carriers of India is a mystery to me.
          1. dustycat
            dustycat 18 June 2013 20: 39 New
            0
            Maybe it’s not clear to us why India’s aircraft carriers, but they are asking Rosoboronexport for a pair of Admiral Kuznetsov-class buildings.
            However, it seems to them that the Chinese will build it faster.
          2. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 18 June 2013 20: 50 New
            0
            Quote: Odyssey
            China intends to compete with the United States for world domination. The controversial question is whether aircraft carriers are needed for this.

            Odysseus, dozens of allies and hundreds of bases around the world are needed for world domination. But not 5 pelvis with 30 airplanes
            Quote: Odyssey
            But why the aircraft carriers of India is a mystery to me.

            here is a funny link
            http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0

            %B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%

            BE%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0


            map of US military bases
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 19 June 2013 03: 18 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Odysseus, dozens of allies and hundreds of bases around the world are needed for world domination. But not 5 pelvis with 30 airplanes

              In general, I agree. And China is moving in this direction. First of all, bases are being built in Asia. Myanmar-Bangladesh-Pakistan.
              Then comes the introduction to Africa and South America. Of course, they are still very far from the United States, but the trend is obvious.
              As for the fleet, China is clearly building a smaller copy of the US Navy.
              Let's see what they get out of this.
    2. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 19: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      For the supporters of the appearance of Russian aircraft carriers: [b] what tasks will this ship perform?
      So why does the Russian Navy need carrier-based aircraft?

      I’m not an ardent supporter of aircraft carriers, but if we want and have the efforts to create at least a small ocean squadron headed by an Orlan-class cruiser, then in the Atlantic and in the Pacific and Indian windows for confident long-range air defense of such a squadron A Kuznetsov type aircraft carrier is simply necessary. Without it, such a squadron cannon fodder away from its bases! Although with him, too ... but still more options, much. :)
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 18 June 2013 20: 52 New
        0
        Quote: old man54
        Without it, such a squadron cannon fodder away from its bases!

        And who will attack?
        Is the Indian "Vikramaditya"?)))


        Answer: the US will attack - incorrect
        1. St. Andrew's flag is inviolable as long as Russia has a strategic nuclear forces
        2. In the event of a gpothetical attack, the squadron of Orlan and Kuznetsovs is doomed in any case - look at the number of American submarines, they will bite the forehead
        1. old man54
          old man54 19 June 2013 11: 38 New
          +2
          And who will attack?
          Is the Indian "Vikramaditya"?)))


          why are the Indians, it’s necessary and possible to be friends with the nmim, they are not bad! :) But for a showdown with the same Jews in the middle-earth, “Kuznetsov” would be very useful, for air defense!
          Well, or if my dream comes true and Russia someday nevertheless gives small-shaved faces, then again, an aircraft carrier, at least one, is necessary to cover its NK in the Norwegian and North Seas.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 20 June 2013 16: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: old man54
            Russia someday nevertheless gives small-shavens on its faces, then again an aircraft carrier, at least onerequired to cover their NK in the Norwegian and North Seas.

            will die as soon as leaving the base

            The Britons are building seven Estuary submarines (two already in service - some of the best multipurpose boats of the 4th generation)
            1. old man54
              old man54 20 June 2013 19: 46 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              will die as soon as leaving the base

              Is that why it is so confident? :)) And what, are our NPL systems on the NK + deck helicopters already insignificant? :) News however! :) Do we already have our own multi-purpose submarines for underwater protection of an AOG order? Neither pr. 671 RTM, nor these Boreans. It is clear that there are options, and not small ones, but then the tanks must also be canceled altogether, after all, many of them will also be deciphered in front-line combined arms combat, so they are not needed at all, right? :)
              The Britons are building seven Estuary submarines (two already in service - some of the best multipurpose boats of the 4th generation)

              right are the best? who said that? Themselves? Today, wherever you spit, you get into the best of everything, especially in terms of weapons.
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 21 June 2013 00: 08 New
                +1
                Quote: old man54
                Why is it so confident? :))

                NK are powerless in front of the boat.
                this truth became clear in WWI
                Quote: old man54
                But what, are our NPL systems on the NK + deck helicopters already insignificant? :) News however! :) Do we already have our own multi-purpose submarines for underwater protection of an AUG order? Neither pr. 671 RTM, nor these Boreev

                the Yankees threw tens of times more forces on the PLO, but even they could not guarantee protection against the nuclear submarines
                Quote: old man54
                right are the best? who said that? Themselves?

                One of the best
                The most advanced multi-purpose submarine project
        2. old man54
          old man54 20 June 2013 11: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          [i] Answer: the US will attack - incorrect
          1. St. Andrew's flag is inviolable as long as Russia has a strategic nuclear forces

          Unfortunately, this is just a theory, the further, the more, I tell you about SNF! :(
          Do you know the history of the battleship Novorossiysk? And this is 1957, the nuclear weapons of the USSR have been there for 8 years! And what is the result? :(
          2000, Russia, times of GDP, Kursk nuclear submarine ... I will not repeat myself, I hope that you, Oleg, as a sane person, do not particularly listen to the official conclusions (for the crowd) of the official state commission investigating this emergency !? And so, they were very scared of the strategic nuclear forces and our flag? And right in our guards, under the nose of the main naval fleet of the Russian Federation! Or am I wrong in something?
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 20 June 2013 16: 28 New
            0
            Quote: old man54
            And this is 1957, the nuclear weapons of the USSR have been there for 8 years!

            But there were no means of guaranteed delivery

            The USSR was hanging by a thread - it was only the US’s general reluctance to wage war (meaning? Bomb 100 Soviet cities ... and what's next? How to capture 1/6 of the world than control a vast territory? Concrete benefits from the war? THERE WASN'T !!!) because there was no war)

            In the mid-1950s, any American aircraft could easily fly to anywhere in Russia
            The US Air Force was so emboldened that it decided to carry out the Home Run operation - from March 21 to May 10, 1956, jet B-47s made 156 deep incursions into the airspace of the USSR ...
            Parity appeared only with the development of ICBMs
            Quote: old man54
            Do you know the history of the battleship Novorossiysk?

            So what?
            the ship died in the base - most likely, the old "bookmark" from the Italians, revenge for their shame in 1943


            Carriers of nuclear weapons B-47 Stratojet - in the event of a war of the USSR, as a state, there would be an end
            1. old man54
              old man54 20 June 2013 19: 16 New
              +2
              someone doesn’t love you dearly, Oleg, 2 hours after you went in and you’ve already got the minuses!
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Quote: old man54
              And this is 1957, the nuclear weapons of the USSR have been there for 8 years!

              But there were no means of guaranteed delivery

              why would it be Oleg? Tu-4, especially with a dispenser on the ice of the North Pole, so in principle I would scan for this. I heard from DA pilots that on a special assignment we sometimes flew across the pole right up to the Great Lakes, and neither of which, nor anyone, detected them. Tu-16, of course I couldn’t sit on the ice, the landing speed was not the same and the specific pressure on the ground, but with very strong desire and a “one-way ticket” from the Kola Peninsula to New York, I could get it. Not particularly formidable of course, but from this alone they squeezed a point so that the needle did not crawl! I’m not talking about the British islands at all, in the 50s a special operation was carried out when the English module of the defendant “friend / foe” obtained by the intelligence was installed on the Tu-4 and it flew over half of England and didn’t even catch it. :))
              The USSR hung in the balance - it was only the USA’s general reluctance to wage war that saved (meaning? Bomb 100 Soviet cities ... and then what?

              You are a pissimist, Oleg! And our Air Force and Air Defense IA are no longer counting? :) It was after the war in Korea that the United States realized that the chances of carrying out their Shot Shchot plan were negligible. With the saturation of the high-altitude B-36, their chances increased of course, but the thought of a retaliatory strike greatly cooled them (through the pole). If we hadn’t nuclear weapons, we would have looted them like Hiroshima in the 45th and wouldn’t even have a bow!
              In the mid-1950s, any American aircraft could easily fly to anywhere in Russia

              Well, why are you so, unfounded then? In 1956, the S-25 air defense missile system was on duty; Moscow was deaf to them. Here, in VO, there is an article about it, read it, I don’t want to repeat it.
              the ship died in the base - most likely, the old "bookmark" from the Italians, revenge for their shame in 1943

              bookmark "lying" 10 years? :))) it is strange that you are not in the know. :( The epicenter of the explosion was under the bottom of the ship, under the bow artillery cellar, the edges of the casing in the area of ​​the hole in the hull are concave inward !! The battleship has just come from the sea, Sevastopol fell into place, on a barrel in the internal naval raid of the Navy. He returned after maneuvering against the NATO squadron in Black, where NATO, their exercises, and Turkey were held. Later, near his anchor barrel, at the bottom, a huge explosion funnel was discovered But she was not alone, the other barrel was the same, on which the cruiser was supposed to stand (it seems pr.68bis), but for some reason it either lingered or stood in another place (I don’t remember already). Several special-purpose munitions for the main caliber were stored in the 1st artillery cellar of the battleship. evidence of infection, infect Nye bay, also a possible accusation of the USSR in the inability to keep nuclear weapons and the danger of its fleet in this regard! Later, it became known that in a closed behind-the-scenes setting, several officers of saboteurs of divers of the British Navy were awarded military magrads in 1958, although at that time she did not wage war.

              about Kursk, as I understand it, agree with me, Oleg?
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 21 June 2013 00: 37 New
                +1
                Quote: old man54
                Tu-4, especially with a dispenser on the ice of the North Pole

                piston bomber in the age of supersonic vehicles?
                no chance
                Quote: old man54
                Tu-16 ... with very strong desire and a “one-way ticket” from the Kola Peninsula to New York, I got it.

                no chance
                moreover, the Yankees had F-102 Delta Dagger interceptors with air-to-air missiles - squadrons covered the entire north of the continent + radars and interceptor bases in Greenland (Tula)
                + F-89 missile interceptors with nuclear missiles for air combat
                + thousands of jet Sabers and Thunderjets
                + by the end of the 50s there was a CIM-10 Bomarc air defense system with a firing range of 500 km (UBC was used)

                Andrey, everything is quite obvious here - there will be no retaliatory strike
                Quote: old man54
                in the 50s, a special operation was carried out when the English module of the defendant “friend / foe” obtained by the intelligence was installed on the Tu-4 and it flew over half of England and didn’t even catch it. :))

                But this is really interesting. Never heard
                Quote: old man54
                And our Air Force and Air Defense IA are no longer counted?

                Quote: old man54
                Well, why are you so, unfounded then?

                1. The battle over the Kola Peninsula, 1954 Link - http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/xussr/airfight/airfight.html
                2. Operation "Home Run", 1956 - 156 incursions into the sky of the Urals and Siberia in a week
                3. during the period from July 4 to 9, 1956 high-altitude scouts carried out 5 breakthroughs up to 150-350km deep. on the routes: Grodno-Minsk Vilnius-Kaunas-Kaliningrad; Brest-Pinsk-Baranovichi-Kaunas-Kaliningrad. In 1957 Canberra flew unhindered to Baku in 1958. scouts of the same type appeared in the sky of Ukraine, including over Kiev.
                4. The flight, phenomenal in its impudence, took place on April 29, 1954. Then a group of three reconnaissance aircraft carrying mixed Anglo-American crews made a daring raid along the route Novgorod-Smolensk-Kiev
                5. On May 1, 1955, NATO reconnaissance aircraft appeared over many cities in the European part of the USSR, including over Kiev and Leningrad.
                Quote: old man54
                In 1956, the S-25 air defense missile system was on duty; Moscow was deaf to them.

                In addition to Moscow, the Union had other cities, industrial centers and strategically important facilities
  20. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 18 June 2013 16: 09 New
    +4
    Let me learn the minuses. But I think Russia does not need aircraft carriers.
    1 All seas washing our country freeze!
    2 Modern weapons can destroy an aircraft carrier before it is used as a combat unit.
    3 Develop rocket technology, which is our priority.
    1. vitek1233
      vitek1233 18 June 2013 16: 34 New
      0
      in the nuclear are definitely not needed
    2. mark1
      mark1 18 June 2013 16: 37 New
      +7
      For 1c-inform-city I must say that you have a Stalinist view of the role of the fleet for Russia. During the discussion of the post-war program for the construction of the Navy, he deleted aircraft carriers from the list of ships planned for construction, with the motivation as follows: "... we need a fleet to protect our coast and there is enough coastal aviation here, especially since the acquisition of the Kuril Islands allows airfields are far into the sea, and aircraft carriers are weapons of aggression. Now if we were going to go to the shores of America ... "
      In the current situation, for the defense of the coast of the Russian Federation - aircraft carriers really are not needed, but if we are going to eat on the coast of Syria, Libya and other jimacheri ... well, you understand this is another matter.
      1. old man54
        old man54 18 June 2013 19: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: mark1
        For 1c-inform-city I must say that you have a Stalinist view of the role of the fleet for Russia.

        And what was so bad in Stalin, excuse me? What early aviation began to write off? He simply was aware of promising innovative developments of anti-ship missiles in the USSR, and in those years any NK was defenseless before them. And the aircraft carrier is so in the first place because of its excellent radar signature. And the cost of an aircraft carrier hoo, that one. He understood this and therefore was against it. Somewhat hasty of course, but the same trends took place in the USA in those years, and so what?
        1. mark1
          mark1 18 June 2013 21: 40 New
          0
          Quote: old man54
          And what was so bad in Stalin, excuse me?

          Did I give an assessment of the activities of Stalin? I noted the similarity of views - for me it’s more like a compliment
      2. i.xxx-1971
        i.xxx-1971 30 June 2013 10: 03 New
        0
        What does not suit you the opinion of an intelligent person and an outstanding statesman? In my opinion, his decision is relevant for Russia to date. It is enough for us to have two strong fleets: the North and the Pacific and control the Arctic. The Black and Baltic Seas will be our inland seas - they are shot through. It is enough to have strong air defense there. We cannot build aircraft carriers today, and probably we will never be able to. It is necessary to build multipurpose nuclear submarines and submarines. As much as possible while there is time. And in no case to reduce the strategic nuclear weapons and especially tactical nuclear weapons.
    3. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 19: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Let me learn the minuses. But I think Russia does not need aircraft carriers.
      1 All seas washing our country freeze!

      even though I put a plus for you (for the first 1 sentences), but ... can you talk about some other Russia? Or is it your personal perception of Russia from the southern Black Sea part of Ukraine? :) Who told you that all the seas of Russia are freezing? I’m embarrassed to ask, is the Baltic Sea also freezing? What about the Sea of ​​Japan? I don’t ask about the Black Sea. :)
      3 Develop rocket technology, which is our priority.

      here I am of the same opinion, this would be an asymmetric answer, but ... it’s almost lost, time is lost. :( And if there weren’t the 91st and betrayal of the “elite”, mother of them, then hell knows what I’d have invented and embodied over these 20 years! The aircraft carrier is certainly very vulnerable, I agree with you. I will say more, back in the early 60s, before the war in Korea in the United States, a strategy was developed to develop their aircraft at the level of the Joint Headquarters Committee, where it was admitted that the aircraft carrier, and the Navy as a whole, had already outlived themselves, and in a future war, aviation would decide everything, primarily strategic, but also ground - tactical! Point! Then there was the “admiral's riot”, then the Korean and Vietnamese wars, and after the latter, only the leadership of the US Armed Forces, recognized that for their global national doctrine without ACG, no where! Here's something like that.
      1. mark1
        mark1 18 June 2013 21: 47 New
        0
        Quote: old man54
        Who told you that all the seas of Russia are freezing? I’m embarrassed to ask, is the Baltic Sea also freezing? What about the Sea of ​​Japan? I don’t ask about the Black Sea. :)

        And you can find out what to do the aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy in the Baltic or Black Seas? And in the Sea of ​​Japan we have Sakhalin.
        1. old man54
          old man54 19 June 2013 17: 41 New
          +1
          Quote: mark1
          And you can find out what to do the aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy in the Baltic or Black Seas?

          It seems to me that you began to distort me a little, my dear. :) Did I say somewhere in the post above, and in general, said that Russia needs aircraft carriers on the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet? Then why this awkward question? I was simply amazed at the “knowledge” of a comrade from Ukraine in geography and in the temperature regime and ice conditions of the seas mentioned by him. Want to debate, write essentially!
          And in the Sea of ​​Japan we have Sakhalin.

          Of course there is, there is also Kamchatka and the islands of the Kuril ridge! So what? Do we have islands in the Indian Ocean? And in the Quiet Oken? And how to cover NK in the distance from the bases in these oceans? Although my mention of the Sea of ​​Japan in this post is again due to its "ice" obstruction and ice cramming (according to the forum member with an independent).
    4. dustycat
      dustycat 18 June 2013 20: 46 New
      0
      1. So we need nuclear-powered icebreakers capable of navigating aircraft carriers along the Northern Sea Route. "Svyatogor" was also built to lead, not traders, but armadillos.
      2. A single aircraft carrier without a multi-purpose strike force is simply a big target. Not America.
      3. The development of missile defense in Russia suggests that missile weapons have too many vulnerabilities. And although the Yankees have not yet been able to achieve the result of the USSR of the 1960s, but they are trying. The same "Iron Dome" in Israel. The success is clear. A little more to finish the file.
      1. mark1
        mark1 18 June 2013 21: 30 New
        0
        Everything is fine, fantasy is at the level - the 3rd item “Iron Dome” is designed to intercept the low-speed NURSs of militants and is not suitable for real missile defense tasks, the “Tor” is 2 heads higher, so you need to work not with a file but with a sledgehammer
  21. Odysseus
    Odysseus 18 June 2013 17: 30 New
    +2
    In fact, if China would invite Russia to participate in the creation of its own nuclear carrier, our managers from the military-industrial complex would be simply happy, but they were in no hurry to offer something smile
    And by the way, the J-11 is a completely licensed copy of the Su-27. Our license was pushed back in 1996.
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 22 June 2013 17: 05 New
      0
      Quote: Odyssey
      our managers from the military-industrial complex would be just happy. But they are in no hurry to offer something

      Do "our managers from the military-industrial complex" speak Chinese properly, do they know the terminology, can they explain the subtleties of technology to their Chinese colleagues, do they know these subtleties. Are you ready to answer for the consequences of their mistakes under Chinese laws?
  22. xomaNN
    xomaNN 18 June 2013 18: 48 New
    -1
    Well, the cunning Chinese will try to drag away from the CD that they probably stayed at the shipyard in Nikolaev for a small bribe. Though scattered documentation, but the hull is in metal already embodied shipbuilders.
  23. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 18 June 2013 19: 16 New
    +2
    I would like to draw attention to a few posts in quotes,
    yes the cry breaks from the soul - HOW MUCH CAN YOU SELL EVERYTHING ?? !!!
    Okay, the finished equipment, but why do you need production licenses ?!
    We need to raise our industry, factories,
    to grow skilled labor.
    Sell ​​only READY PRODUCTS and level up
    customer service.
    This is the rise of their industry and
    raising the qualifications of YOUR workers!
    And selling licenses for a penny is a natural betrayal
    their engineers, designers and workers -
    they don’t get ANYTHING from licenses!
  24. 77bor1973
    77bor1973 18 June 2013 21: 13 New
    0
    It’s easier for the Chinese to develop their fleet than Russia, we need to divide all the built ships by at least 4. I consider the association of shipyards in the USC a mistake is the mountain that gave rise to the mouse.
  25. xtur
    xtur 18 June 2013 21: 33 New
    0
    Of course, we have to agree - we’ll give you the technology, you’ve built a ship based on them, which you can then bring on your own to equip
    Two ships are better
  26. xtur
    xtur 18 June 2013 21: 35 New
    0
    Of course, we must agree - technologies in exchange for a couple of ships that need to be equipped if necessary
  27. valokordin
    valokordin 19 June 2013 08: 42 New
    +1
    It is necessary to cooperate with Ukraine and to build a joint aircraft carrier in Nikolaev
    1. old man54
      old man54 19 June 2013 11: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: valokordin
      It is necessary to cooperate with Ukraine and to build a joint aircraft carrier in Nikolaev

      we will build ourselves, if desired, in Severodvinsk!
  28. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 22 June 2013 16: 47 New
    0
    China is trying to solve the problem with US hegemony, a worthwhile matter.
    Where the world leads the West and the United States can be seen on TV, or simply by looking out the window, and what it ends with China is not yet known. By the way, apparently this is our only neighbor with whom there was no "big" war. The whole West helps the United States, and we would need help with a good China. Although you can of course insert sticks into the wheels, and then suddenly "they are going to take our Siberia." By the way, some especially stubborn representatives of the "indigenous" population of America still consider the territory of the United States "their" land, ridiculous. They would at one time unite and together the Europeans in the ocean, so after all, no, let's "be friends" against each other, solve problems. "The Iroquois want to take our crooked stream away from us, this land is watered with the blood of our ancestors, we were the first to come there. With the help of our new pale-faced friends, we great Algonquins, we won’t let them do that !!!" They solved the problems, as they say with all the money. A historical analogy, so to speak.
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. Watchman
    Watchman 22 June 2013 18: 53 New
    +1
    After the sale of the Su-35 to China, nothing surprises me. It remains to sell only the S-400 and then you can even dry the oars.
  31. Gans1234
    Gans1234 8 September 2014 22: 22 New
    0
    Yes, they would do barter.
    We give them the technology, and in return they build the hull of a new aircraft carrier at our shipyards - and we will deal with the filling ourselves. This would save a bunch of attendants, and most importantly, the time to build the ship.
    With the current state of affairs, the Russian Federation will not receive a new aircraft carrier before the 2030 of the year, and China will one way or another build a nuclear aircraft carrier.