Military Review

Aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy: a scale model and future plans

154
One of the most popular topics of recent times has again come to the fore. Over the past few days, statements by officials and other “news stories” have appeared in the media regarding the possible construction of new aircraft carriers for the Russian naval fleet... Unfortunately, while in the news there was no date for the start of the construction of such ships or their commissioning, but now it is possible to make some estimates and conclusions.


In the last days of June, Deputy Defense Minister Y. Borisov spoke on a promising Russian aircraft carrier. As he told on the radio station "Echo of Moscow", in the current state armament program, providing for the re-equipment of the armed forces before 2020, the construction or even the creation of a new aircraft carrier project does not appear. At the same time, the absence of such plans within the framework of the current state program does not preclude their appearance in the future. According to Borisov, the start of work on the aircraft carrier project is worth the wait in the next state program. The probability of this event is high and in the future the Russian Navy may receive a new aircraft carrier.

Aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy: a scale model and future plans



However, the carrier program has a number of characteristic controversial features. First of all, Borisov noted the high cost of such a ship. One aircraft carrier will cost tens of billions of rubles, which requires paying special attention to the financial side of the project. According to the Deputy Minister of Defense, in some cases it is more correct and more expedient to build not one aircraft carrier, but several frigates and corvettes that will strengthen a certain compound in the composition of the Navy. The aircraft carrier, in turn, itself needs to be accompanied by other ships. And yet, the Russian shipbuilding industry has the capabilities necessary for the construction of aircraft carriers. Therefore, before the start of implementation of such projects, it is necessary to evaluate financial capabilities and make an informed decision. Borisov noted that a return to aircraft-carrier topics is possible in the period from 2015 to 2025.

It is worth noting that Yu. Borisov himself is a supporter of the opinion on the need for aircraft carriers. Speaking about the potential of such ships and the reasons for their sympathy for them, he recalled the experience of the United States. The mere appearance of American aircraft carriers in the region can influence the policies of local countries. In addition, aircraft carriers can effectively carry out combat work in the context of local conflicts characteristic of recent times. Perhaps, in the future, while discussing the need to build aircraft carriers for the Russian fleet, Borisov will defend his point of view and defend a promising project. However, such disputes in the highest circles of the Ministry of Defense will begin only in the future, when preparations for a new state armament program start.

Just a couple of days after the speech of Y. Borisov, his statement about the possibilities of domestic shipbuilding was confirmed by one of the USC leaders. Director of the State Defense Order Department of the United Shipbuilding Corporation A. Shlemov assured the public that the Russian defense industry enterprises are ready for the execution of such a complex project. As evidence of their readiness, Helmets cited recent work on the repair and refurbishment of the aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Gorshkov, now bearing the name Vikramaditya. In the coming months, this ship will pass the remaining stages of sea trials and go to the duty station, to India.

Shlemov noted that the question of the need for aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy is conceptual in nature. Leading countries either have or are building an aircraft carrier fleet, and this clearly indicates current trends in the world. As for aircraft carriers for the Russian fleet, Shlemov referred to the numerous opinions of experts, according to which our country needs such ships, and in the amount of several units. They must serve in the Northern and Pacific Fleets. At the same time, the decision to start such a complex and expensive project should be made at the state level, but not by the fleet or the Ministry of Defense independently.

Defense ministry officials and leaders of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, who have raised the topic of aircraft carriers in recent days, agree that the aircraft carrier ships are needed by the Russian navy, but their construction should be carried out only in the foreseeable future. But despite the absence of aircraft carriers in the current state armament program, some scientific and design organizations have already dealt with the subject of promising aircraft carriers. The first results of this were shown just yesterday.

In the course of the International Naval Salon, currently operating in St. Petersburg, the FSUE Krylov State Research Center showed the representatives of the Ministry of Defense and the press their own version of a promising ship. The commander-in-chief of the Navy, Admiral V. Chirkov, and the Deputy Minister of Defense, Yu. Borisov, were shown a model of a new aircraft carrier created by the Scientific Center. For obvious reasons, this project is still of a sketchy nature and does not pretend to immediately begin the construction of the finished ship. Nevertheless, the shown model and the declared characteristics of the project look quite interesting and allow to draw some conclusions.

The model shown has a characteristic wide and long flight deck with a springboard in the bow and four take-off positions. On the starboard side of the model are two relatively small superstructures. The declared displacement of the ship is 80 thousand tons, which gives grounds for assumptions about the size of the ship. Approximately the same full displacement was supposed to have an unfinished nuclear aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk. Thus, we can conclude that a promising aircraft carrier from the Krylov State Research Center will have a length of more than 300 meters and a maximum width of the flight deck of at least 70-75 meters. The ship, allegedly, should be equipped with a conventional power plant, allowing it to accelerate to speeds around 30 nodes. Other details were not disclosed.

On the deck of the model shown were miniature copies of two types of fighters. These were the mock-ups of MiG-29K ship fighters and the model of the as yet non-existent (at least, it has not yet been officially announced) deck version of the fifth generation T-50 fighter (PAK FA). The total number of aircraft models is about 25-30 units. Based on this, we can draw some conclusions about aviation a group of a promising aircraft carrier, but its dimensions directly speak of much greater possibilities for the transportation and operation of aircraft.

It is not necessary to remind that the project of a new aircraft carrier presented on IMDS-2013 is far from construction. Before laying a promising ship, engineers and the military will have to determine the mass details of its appearance. Moreover, before the appearance of the ship will have to discuss the very fact of the need for aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy. Judging by the statements of the management of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, our industry is able to cope with the construction of aircraft carriers. But will she be assigned such a task? The final resolution of this issue is with the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the country.


On the materials of the sites:
http://itar-tass.com/
http://vz.ru/
http://flotprom.ru/
Author:
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ivan79
    Ivan79 5 July 2013 08: 29
    +1
    I wonder why there are two add-ons? One exclusively for the flight control point?
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 5 July 2013 10: 09
      15
      A strange view of the photo with the layout. Eyes broke. Can’t you take a picture normally?
      And the layouts of aircraft on the T-50 look like something.
      1. Jin
        Jin 5 July 2013 10: 18
        +5
        Quote: klimpopov
        And the layouts of aircraft on the T-50 look like something.


        “On the deck of the model shown there were miniature copies of two types of fighters. These were mock-ups of the MiG-29K naval fighters and a model of a still non-existent (at least not officially announced yet) carrier-based version of the fifth generation T-50 (PAK FA) fighter. "
        1. Capt.stryker
          Capt.stryker 5 July 2013 15: 36
          -3
          Quote: klimpopov
          layouts of aircraft on the T-50 look like something.

          Quote: Jin
          and a model that does not yet exist (at least, it has not yet been officially announced) the deck version of the fifth generation T-50 fighter (PAK FA)

          The T-50 in its present form, in principle and by definition, cannot be decked! There is nowhere to place a hook on it.
      2. theadenter
        theadenter 5 July 2013 10: 18
        +1
        So apparently the deck PAK-FA and they want to place there.
        But all this causes a smile. If they buy 4 aircraft per year, they will soon equip the aircraft carrier.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 5 July 2013 10: 19
          0
          So where is the aircraft carrier built? In Nikolaev? wassat To do this, Ukraine must be included wassat Vobschem fantasy.
          1. theadenter
            theadenter 5 July 2013 10: 22
            0
            If they still begin to re-equip existing (in Russia) shipyards, it will drag on for even longer.
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 5 July 2013 10: 28
              +2
              In general, new build, and this is even more fantastic in the current realities ...
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 5 July 2013 11: 02
            +7
            Quote: klimpopov
            So where is the aircraft carrier built? In Nikolaev?

            At Sevmash it is possible in Severodvinsk.
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov 5 July 2013 11: 03
              -7
              Will pull? Oh ...
              1. doktor_alex
                doktor_alex 5 July 2013 11: 50
                +6
                Quote: klimpopov
                Will pull? Oh ...


                Pulls where we go. Gorshkov was pulled, and on it 1,5 pieces of iron from the entire steamer remained their relatives, smart-Indians increased their appetites every day, as a result, in the fall they would receive 90% new ship.

                Z.Y. there are some misunderstandings in the article, the starting position on the gas shields counted 3 rather than 4, although maybe one hid on the glazing edge, and I see the take-off markings from distant starting positions both on the springboard and on the spanson, so there must be catapults.
                1. klimpopov
                  klimpopov 5 July 2013 12: 46
                  -1
                  Then of course buzzing. Still would the will to build.
              2. old man54
                old man54 5 July 2013 13: 51
                +3
                Quote: klimpopov
                Will pull? Oh ...

                and Nikolaev will pull? :)) There has long been only the wind walks on the stocks!
              3. rolik
                rolik 5 July 2013 17: 13
                +3
                Quote: klimpopov
                Will pull? Oh oh

                If they give you time to prepare, we'll do it. We have mastered Prirazlomnaya and we will make this ship. The main thing is to prepare for technology.
            2. Per se.
              Per se. 5 July 2013 11: 53
              +4
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              At Sevmash it is possible in Severodvinsk.
              In any case, there is already experience in altering the Gorshkov. During the war, the need forced the same Americans to convert cruisers and civilian ships into aircraft carriers. For example, the light aircraft carrier "Independence" was converted from a cruiser (class "Cleveland"). To increase stability, the ship was equipped with boules, they also strengthened the protection of the sides. In general, most aircraft carriers, light and heavy, before the Second World War, are converted ships. Who is stopping us, or is it better to have nothing? Everyone strives to cut the two remaining Orlans, is it really impossible to convert at least one of them into a light nuclear-powered helicopter carrier? After all, it is necessary, very necessary to have a safety net "Kuze". If you wanted to, you did it, you don't have to wait a hundred years.
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 5 July 2013 17: 06
                +2
                Quote: Per se.
                During the war, the need forced the same Americans to convert cruisers and civilian ships into aircraft carriers.

                70 years ago, the dimensions and landing speeds of aircraft were several times smaller
                1. old man54
                  old man54 5 July 2013 17: 46
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Quote: Per se.
                  During the war, the need forced the same Americans to convert cruisers and civilian ships into aircraft carriers.

                  70 years ago, the dimensions and landing speeds of aircraft were several times smaller

                  Comrade without thinking and without knowing the issue wrote. request
                  1. Per se.
                    Per se. 6 July 2013 00: 08
                    0
                    Quote: old man54
                    Comrade without thinking and without knowing the issue wrote.
                    If you come to me, then I always think before I say anything, comrade. With a cruiser length of 250 meters, with a stern overhang and a springboard installed, the length of the flight deck of the ship will be commensurate with the same aircraft carrier Vikramaditya. Finally, it can be a purely helicopter carrier, both in anti-submarine version and with KA-52 helicopters. 70 years ago, and the dimensions of the Cleveland-class cruisers were much smaller, and they did not have a nuclear power plant.
                    1. old man54
                      old man54 6 July 2013 15: 06
                      0
                      Quote: Per se.
                      With a cruiser length of 250 meters, with the installation of a stern overhang and a springboard, the length of the flight deck of the ship will be commensurate with the same aircraft carrier Vikramaditya

                      You haven't estimated the cost of a complete rebuilding of the ship? Or is it little things. Now the question of its possible reconstruction, without changing the architecture of the superstructures, is discussed very skeptically and very carefully, but you ... To even make a VTOL aircraft carrier out of it, you need to create hangars for the aircraft, demolish the existing superstructure almost all, strengthen the level of the main deck. since you will have to strengthen it several times for the arrival of VTOL aircraft. "Admiral Gorshov" was specially built as an aircraft carrier, and that's how many hemorrhoids they got! fellow
                      Finally, it can be a pure helicopter carrier, both in the anti-submarine version, and with KA-52 helicopters

                      Well, this is wherever else went, I agree, in principle it’s acceptable, but you wrote about the aircraft carrier in your first post! So the answer would be appropriate.
                      1. Per se.
                        Per se. 6 July 2013 16: 03
                        +1
                        Quote: old man54
                        but you wrote about the aircraft carrier in your first post!
                        I said "helicopter carrier-aircraft carrier", if you recall my post. I think that speaking about cost, one should take into account not only the mercantile side of the issue, but also the need for such a ship. Have you heard the saying - the way is a spoon for dinner? We really need this "spoon" now, it is unforgivable to wait 50 years before receiving new aircraft-carrying ships. We lost the possibility of converting into an aircraft carrier another nuclear-powered ship of project 1941 "Ural", which had a nuclear installation and suitable dimensions (length 265 meters). The United States put a lot of effort into destroying our fleet, in fact, sabotaging our military development and lobbying for America's interests does not stop even now. This is GOOD, I must say to those thieves and traitors who sawed the army and navy. And from "Orlan" it is quite possible to make a nuclear aircraft-carrying ship, the same Italian "Cavour", you can take it for comparison. Yes, and the topic of VTOL aircraft should be returned, and not in 50 years, but now, in the wake of the Yak-141.
                      2. doktor_alex
                        doktor_alex 6 July 2013 18: 29
                        +2
                        Your proposal lacks common sense. The fact is that in order to remake an eagle, or even a cruise liner, into something an air / helicopter carrier, it will be necessary to complete the amount of work, well, if purely on the spot, then probably 1,5 times the amount of work on the design and construction of a ship of this class from scratch. When it is assumed that only the shell will remain from the steamer (and your proposals imply that this is exactly what) then I assure you that it is easier to build from scratch, the guys at Sevmash rivet the hulls very quickly, I'm not even afraid to say that at the European level, so you shouldn't climb into such an unpleasant process as "changing the class of the ship." Trust me as an engineer who "modernized" the pot.
                      3. Per se.
                        Per se. 6 July 2013 23: 07
                        0
                        Quote: doktor_alex
                        Your suggestion lacks common sense.
                        Then why in World War II were engaged in the alteration of warships and civilian ships? Agree, we now have a situation for a toast - I have a desire to build a supercarrier from scratch, but I do not have the opportunity. I have the opportunity to remake the finished ship, but I have no desire to fuck ... How soon will our desires coincide with our capabilities?
                      4. doktor_alex
                        doktor_alex 7 July 2013 03: 06
                        +3
                        I explain:
                        The mass and landing speed of an aircraft of the time of the Second World Supermorin type spitf about 2-2,5 tons, the landing speed is about 150 km / h, the mass of the Mig-29 type aircraft is about 11 tons, the landing speed is about 250 km / h. So, the kinetic energy of a body is equal to one-half of the product of mass by the square of the speed, so with increasing speed the kinetic energy grows in a quadratic progression, and then the mass is 5 times more. Why am I doing this? Probably to the fact that the escort aircraft carriers were made very simply, another deck was stupidly built on top, if you look at the photo, it mainly consisted of light structures, one channel and a beam with a wooden flight, due to this, a hangar and a flight deck were obtained, and all this is quite withstood a relatively small kinetic energy during the landing of the aircraft of those years. No questions, cheap and cheerful. But if you try to plant a mig-29 on such a structure, the result will be tragic. I foresee your question: "Why not build on this hangar and flight more solidly then?" Yes, it's easy, but the steamer has such a parameter as "Stability", and if you pile 10 meters above its standard deck (Mig29 height is about 4,5m + 5m for crane beams in the hangar that will serve it) a certain number of thousands of tons of iron, then there is every chance of turning over even without leaving the wall. Then you may ask: "Why then not make a flight approximately to the level with the previous deck, and deepen the hangar into the ship's hull?" Probably because, as I already wrote, you will have to redraw the entire ship, leaving 10% of it. What for? Understand, we have no problems in the country in terms of "building a building", we have problems with how and with what to saturate it. And the building will be ready in 2-3 years, there would be desire and money.
                      5. Per se.
                        Per se. 7 July 2013 13: 49
                        +1
                        Quote: doktor_alex
                        The mass and landing speed of an airplane of the times of the Second World War type supermorns spit around 2-2,5, the landing speed of the order of 150 km / h, the mass of the MiG-29 type aircraft of the order of 11, the landing speed of the order of 250 km / h.
                        Thanks for the clarification, but, you have bypassed the use of the ship for helicopters here. It is clear that a change in the metacentric height is fraught, but do not forget that some of the weapons from the cruiser will be removed from the ship, stability can be increased by installing boules (which was done even during the Second World War). Speaking of the restructuring, I meant the superstructure of the flight deck - the roof, without a significant reshaping of the ship. If we consider that we need aircraft carriers, and we need them now, even obtaining such ersatz helicopter carriers (or light aircraft carriers) is a blessing, and perhaps more than the Mistral, with its stability and modest capabilities. Regarding the hull, you, after all, understand that you can speak here if you now take Ulyanovsk as a basis, and make its hull, making improvements in further construction over these 2-3 years, but our thinkers need a cool multimedia "space carrier" , which must wait a hundred years, remaining for this time without ships at all. I will not argue, but, in my opinion, even a "training" or "ersatz" aircraft carrier is much better than nothing.
  2. Ross
    Ross 5 July 2013 11: 09
    0
    Prior to this, they discussed the project of an atomic aircraft carrier with catapults. What about the carrier-based AWACS?
  3. Vladyka
    Vladyka 5 July 2013 11: 18
    +6
    In Nikolaev you will not build an aircraft carrier ... crying Everything has already finished, nothing ... request
    1. vostok1982
      vostok1982 5 July 2013 12: 28
      +4
      Almost all normal specialists from Nikolaev are already in Kaliningrad or St. Petersburg. Almost no one left. And what are they supposed to do here? Collect boxes for Norwegian barges?
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 5 July 2013 15: 15
        +1
        Quote: vostok1982
        Almost all normal specialists from Nikolaev are already in Kaliningrad or St. Petersburg

        According to some information from 36 thousand workers in Nikolaev 2 thousand remained.
  4. Evgeniy46
    Evgeniy46 5 July 2013 11: 43
    +8
    Sevmash re-equipped the far from small "Gorshkov". This time. And in the Far East a dock is being built for ships up to 350000 tons displacement. These are two. So the need for Nikolaev to build an aircraft carrier is a moot point.
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 5 July 2013 14: 15
      0
      And where? Can be more?
  5. old man54
    old man54 5 July 2013 13: 49
    -1
    But Severodvinsk is no longer ours, not Russian land or something ??? :( Strange to think. Somehow one-sided. what
  6. Capt.stryker
    Capt.stryker 5 July 2013 15: 46
    10 th
    Quote: klimpopov
    So where is the aircraft carrier built?

    And why is a Russian aircraft carrier needed? Defend overseas allies (read - colonies), or spread authoritarian-dictatorial ideology around the world?

    Quote: klimpopov
    In Nikolaev?

    And what! This is an option! For a free supply of oil and gas, we and you will build an aircraft carrier - there is experience!

    Quote: klimpopov
    Vobschem fantasy.

    ... the need for aircraft carriers for Russia
  • Evgeniy46
    Evgeniy46 5 July 2013 11: 41
    0
    Quote: theadenter
    But all this causes a smile. If they buy 4 aircraft per year, they will soon equip the aircraft carrier.

    vice versa. Does it make sense for us to purchase 10-15 MiG-29K per year if we have only one TAVKr?
  • little man
    little man 5 July 2013 10: 19
    +1
    On the deck of the model shown were miniature copies of two types of fighters. These were models of MiG-29K ship fighters and models that do not exist yet (at least it has not been officially announced yet) of the deck version of the fifth-generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA). The total number of aircraft models is about 25-30 units. Based on this, it is possible to draw some conclusions about the aviation group of a promising aircraft carrier, but its dimensions directly indicate much greater possibilities for the transportation and operation of aircraft.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 5 July 2013 10: 20
    +1
    Quote: Ivan79
    I wonder why there are two add-ons?

    The model presented by the FSUE "Krylov State Research Center" is nothing more than a model of the British aircraft carrier under construction of the "Queen Elizabeth" type
    1. Jin
      Jin 5 July 2013 10: 24
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The model presented by the FSUE "Krylov State Research Center" is nothing more than a model of the British aircraft carrier under construction of the "Queen Elizabeth" type


      No, not him. It looks simple. smile In any case, the layouts of our aircraft there, I will not argue, in short ...
      1. old man54
        old man54 5 July 2013 14: 08
        +1
        Quote: Jin
        No, not him. It looks simple. smile In any case, the layouts of our aircraft there, I will not argue, in short ...

        but what doesn’t look like something, Eugene! Of course, no one at this level will copy (shine through) someone else’s drawings over a lamp with glass, like negligent students at universities, but the basic conceptual scheme is identical! Well, the displacement is greater; than the Britons, the GEM in the form of a vocational school is different from the AEU on Elizabeth (which is pure stupidity in my opinion). And the rest: a system of add-ons, the number and placement of elevators for aircraft and more.
        1. bddrus
          bddrus 5 July 2013 19: 10
          0
          it seems only that the add-in is divided into two and that's it!
    2. theadenter
      theadenter 5 July 2013 10: 54
      +2
      The form is still slightly different. Although they could and how to take it.
    3. patsantre
      patsantre 5 July 2013 12: 25
      +1
      If only I had bothered to take a closer look ... in general they only have 2 settings.
    4. old man54
      old man54 5 July 2013 14: 00
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The model presented by the FSUE "Krylov State Research Center" is nothing more than a model of the British aircraft carrier under construction of the "Queen Elizabeth" type

      Good afternoon, Oleg! He got ahead of me with the thought of a direct conceptual plug-in from the British "Queen Elizabeth", well done. I, too, as soon as I looked at the photo of the layout, I thought at all that we, on VO, like suckers, are pushing a photo of a Briton like our development! Well, yes, apparently, the people in our leading design bureaus of the fleet have completely crumbled, if they can't think of anything better, how to rip off a copy from other people's developments. negative Sad recourse
    5. Gans1234
      Gans1234 8 September 2014 05: 37
      0
      I, too, first noticed a similarity - especially the principle of two separate towers with bridges - this garbage is definitely from the British
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 5 July 2013 11: 04
      +1
      I didn’t read the article here yesterday, well, there was nothing about the T-50 yet - just a layout. I thought copy-paste. Well, that's okay. In the end, these are still dreams and plans in general, which are not completely defined ...
      the model does not yet exist (at least, it has not yet been officially announced) the deck version of the fifth generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA).

      Again, all the same, this is another plane ...
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 5 July 2013 12: 57
    +2
    Quote: klimpopov
    A strange view of the photo with the layout. Eyes broke. Can’t you take a picture normally?
    And the layouts of aircraft on the T-50 look like something.


    Fotkali from the mobile phone by the arm, such as Shpien photos. Apparently the layout is considered secret.

    I wonder why the power plant is ordinary, such as bulk oil - will we burn without an account?
    1. old man54
      old man54 5 July 2013 14: 13
      +1
      Quote: Geisenberg
      Fotkali from the mobile phone by the arm, such as Shpien photos. Apparently the layout is considered secret.

      Are you kidding me? If YES, then it’s funny. laughing
    2. loft79
      loft79 5 July 2013 15: 56
      +1
      I was also interested in this question. Why not a nuclear power plant?
      This means again without steam catapults. With one springboard like on Kuz?
      Or ours have forgotten how to design reactors. Unclear(
  • cdrt
    cdrt 5 July 2013 10: 17
    0
    It seems like they came to two islets ideologically back in 196X (naturally, the British, as probably all of the aircraft carriers who came up with). But then their program of new aircraft carriers was turned off. Now with the double island will be Queen Elizabeth. It seems that the advantages were the separation of take-off and landing control posts closer to the corresponding zones
  • w.ebdo.g
    w.ebdo.g 5 July 2013 11: 21
    +9
    Putin took on the central bank
    The president ordered the central bank (which is very poorly subordinate to the president) to reduce the refinancing rate within two weeks, so that enterprises can use Russian loans and not withdraw profits abroad.
    He tried to do this back in 2001, but they did not give him.
    He worked on this for 12 years !!! that’s what patience the president needs to have ...
    with a decrease in the refinancing rate, the economy will begin to develop precisely in the production sphere in order to get as far as possible from dependence on the sale of the country's resources.
    many will say - why didn't he do it before? So there were good reasons. It was first necessary to change the ministers in the government, subjugate the army and navy (remove Serdyukov), weaken the NPOs, overcome the beginnings of the Orange Revolution, finally change the head of the Ministry of Finance ... and much more, while not paying attention to all the attacks and bullying from Western and their own politicians.
    Putin well done! he is a real STRATEG.
    1. w.ebdo.g
      w.ebdo.g 5 July 2013 11: 40
      +6
      President Putin, as promised, took on Russian banks that tormented the economy with expensive loans.
      The change of leadership of the Bank of Russia - on June 23, Elvira Nabiullina will replace Sergei Ignatiev - will take place against the backdrop of a large-scale attack on Russian banks that the Kremlin launched. The claims of President Vladimir Putin - he scolded bankers several times, claiming that they inadequately assess the risks in the Russian economy and put too much margin on lending rates for business - are now exposed in his formal assignment: by June 19, the government and the Central Bank should come up with, how to lower these rates.

      there are already a lot of articles on the Internet from pro-Western media that Putin’s decision is stupid and shortsighted ... So the President is doing the right thing!
      if Westerners have voted (and what is the matter to them at all? Let them figure it out), and our liberals-means we are going the right way, comrades)))

      And what did you do to help the president free the country from the invaders?
      Have you signed up for volunteers?
      1. old man54
        old man54 5 July 2013 14: 18
        -2
        But why is this your agitation here, on a branch about dreams about a new Russian aircraft carrier ?????? You generally read the article, or do you care about what it says ?? And kka topic of the article combined with your posts ??? This is inappropriate. time to understand! negative
      2. loft79
        loft79 5 July 2013 16: 07
        +1
        At us Putin just did not undertake. He took up corruption, took up housing and communal services, and reduced the rank. the apparatus was taken (though it turned out the opposite) ,, .... ,,.
        Even helped the cranes)

        But for now these are all words. So it turns out.
    2. old man54
      old man54 5 July 2013 14: 15
      -1
      Quote: w.ebdo.g
      Putin took on the central bank
      The president obliged the central bank (which reports very poorly to the president) ...

      He worked on this for 12 years !!! that’s what patience the president needs to have ...

      Putin well done! he is a real STRATEG.

      You big and bold minus from me!!!!!!!
  • w.ebdo.g
    w.ebdo.g 5 July 2013 11: 48
    0
    good news from Peter:
    In Kronstadt, migrant janitors were replaced by Russians


    In Kronstadt, migrant janitors were replaced by Russian citizens, the head of the district administration, Terenty Meshcheryakov, said on his Twitter page.

    “Wipers were replaced in two sections of the housing and communal services of Kronstadt. Instead of migrants, Russian citizens are now working, ”the official wrote.
    the experiment will last 2 months and according to the same scheme they will first transfer Kronstat, and then certain districts of the city of St. Petersburg.
    1. 755962
      755962 5 July 2013 12: 21
      18
      See the root ...
      1. altman
        altman 5 July 2013 12: 44
        0
        you can’t say better !!!
    2. Dangerous
      Dangerous 5 July 2013 13: 21
      0
      What does the article about the aircraft carrier comment about janitors ???
      1. Diamond
        Diamond 5 July 2013 15: 29
        0
        more reminiscent of French PA2
        1. Gans1234
          Gans1234 8 September 2014 05: 39
          0
          The Frenchman has no springboard
    3. lelikas
      lelikas 5 July 2013 17: 36
      0
      Now, no one will clean up there either - if migrants are afraid of snow at first, then ours will score nothing and nothing.
    4. 12061973
      12061973 5 July 2013 17: 37
      0
      in the elderberry garden, in Kiev, uncle. laughing
  • Capt.stryker
    Capt.stryker 5 July 2013 15: 33
    -4
    Quote: Ivan79
    why two add-ons?

    Again stole someone else's idea! In a specific case, the British.
  • starshina78
    starshina78 5 July 2013 21: 06
    0
    The decommissioned "Kiev", "Minsk", and others for the transition period would be useful. And there you look and new ones came up. So no, everything was destroyed.
  • Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 5 July 2013 08: 37
    +8
    "First of all, Borisov noted the high cost of such a ship. One aircraft carrier will cost tens of billions of rubles, which requires special attention to the financial side of the project. According to the Deputy Defense Minister, in some cases it is more correct and expedient to build more than one aircraft carrier, but several frigates and corvettes that reinforce a particular compound in the Navy."

    One aircraft carrier will be expensive, so you need to build not several frigates and corvettes, but several aircraft carriers, serial goods are always cheaper than piece goods, in addition, you can always take into account all the shortcomings of the lead ship and fix them.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 5 July 2013 10: 18
      +2
      Eeehhh, where is Oleg Kaptsov to curse and anathema the very idea of ​​building aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation laughing
    2. sevtrash
      sevtrash 5 July 2013 11: 16
      -1
      The economy will not pull, the total number of R&D (which probably have not been carried out in full or at least minimalist scope) and the construction will be out of place.
      For some reason, they forget about R&D, but in Russia there is no spent production of aircraft carriers, schools for the production of various components need to be created and maintained - catapults, for example, Americans are switching to electromagnetic catapults, but we did not have steam. And this is one problem out of hundreds, probably. And the creation of the AUG? And support, service - someone thought how many billions?
      How many institutions, groups it is necessary to create, how much time and money only for R&D, only for service! And here they say - to build, as if this is only one problem.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 5 July 2013 11: 31
        13
        Quote: sevtrash
        in Russia there is no spent production of aircraft carriers, it is necessary to create and maintain schools for the production of various components

        It is necessary. But this is not just direct costs, but INVESTMENTS in the development of high-tech industries, i.e. exactly what the Russian Federation needs to get away from raw material dependence. Science, design bureaus, new production, coastal infrastructure. Those. just what is required now and will come in handy more than once. And - to the whole country. This is not a summer residence in Cyprus or a football club in Britain, it is NECESSARY to invest in it, so as not to remain a raw materials appendage to foreign economies
        1. sevtrash
          sevtrash 5 July 2013 13: 27
          -2
          Quote: Misantrop
          and INVESTMENT in the development of high-tech industries

          Yes, this is correct in principle. But with reference to the aircraft carrier, and more precisely to the AUG, including aircraft, support, service - it will be too expensive the final toy. More expensive military machine than an aircraft carrier doesn’t seem to exist? Estimate how much you will need to spend on the maintenance of the entire AUG, the coastal base, aviation, personnel. They can do aviation in Russia, there are still schools, we need to finish the MC 21, Superjet and try to promote and sell them, as well as the PAK FA. And to create, if not from scratch, then almost from scratch, practically the most costly and voluminous complex of weapons is a risk to the country.
          The economy is primary, the experience of the USSR seems to have already shown this.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 5 July 2013 13: 50
            +2
            Quote: sevtrash
            to create, if not from scratch, then almost from scratch, practically the most expensive and voluminous complex of weapons - a risk for the country.

            An even greater risk IMHO - is NOT to create such a complex of weapons. For if, in the event of a warming, the northern sea route opens up for more or less normal navigation (and there are chances for this in the not-so-distant future), Russia risks staying with the wild extent ANYTHING not covered by the border, building and maintaining stationary aerodromes, border guards, roads to them, supply routes, etc. will be much more expensive. Again, all of these design bureaus, factories, and coastal infrastructure are not at all highly specialized; the possibilities for applying force for them are much wider than it might seem at first glance. And this is a very significant number of stable jobs for young people, and highly educated. What is also important, youth is not in vain howling about their lack of demand
            1. sevtrash
              sevtrash 5 July 2013 14: 16
              -6
              Well, yes - Russia needs to build an aircraft carrier and fall apart. The less worst option is to stand by the wall, like Kuznetsov, and the rest of the fleet will look at it.
              There should be expediency in everything. Build an aircraft carrier at the cost of developing the rest of the fleet and, more likely, on the basis of costs, of all the armed forces? Not to mention the economic development of a country where spending should be consistent with income.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 5 July 2013 14: 46
                +1
                Quote: sevtrash
                Not to mention the economic development of a country where spending should be consistent with income.
                Only the figures of the annual outflow of capital indicate that the country still has income. But their distribution is another question. With managers such as the past Minister of Defense, money and a six-yal cash would not be enough. The whole problem of Russia IMHO is not the lack of money, but the disgusting quality of control over their distribution. Tales that the USSR collapsed due to lack of funds, having torn in an arms race, let’s leave the children. Let us recall at least the country's gold reserves at the time M. Gorbachev came to power. But at the moment when he was shoved, WHAT did he spend them on? Disposable syringes and chicken legs? There, at a 100-meter thickness, a layer over the entire surface of the country would be enough. And what about the current Olympic construction site? Do you really think that all those objects are so much worth it?
                I see a similar "construction of the century" in Simferopol. Reconstruction of the road to Pobedy Avenue. It has been going on for 20 years and is still not finished. Several units of road equipment and have never seen more than a dozen workers. And even then not every day. But on the other hand, at least 10 million hryvnias per year are "mastered" at this facility (not counting one-time expenses). It would be noticeably cheaper to lay out the entire roadbed with gold sheet.
                1. rolik
                  rolik 5 July 2013 17: 29
                  +2
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  With managers such as the past Minister of Defense, money and a six-yal cash would not be enough.

                  And this is a 100% hit. The main thing is not to save money, but to distribute them correctly. What we always had a problem with.
                2. sevtrash
                  sevtrash 5 July 2013 17: 32
                  0
                  Yes, they steal, definitely. Do you think the embezzlement of liquidation? It suits everyone who is in power. Kickbacks, interest. This will continue, especially with such a system of power - either a dictatorship, or democracy, a middle or a half.
                  And there are incomes. From the rest. Well, so are the costs, too. Including the necessary ones for education, health care, maintenance of infrastructure, pensions, etc., etc. This is apart from Rusnano, Skolkovo, the Olympics with their wild kickbacks, etc.
                  And you still want to start creating the most complex system - an aircraft carrier and all that they need? This is not a primary goal even for the Navy. Corvettes and frigates are needed. The war in Abkhazia showed that there is no modern control system, communications, drones. This is really important.
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 5 July 2013 22: 06
                    +1
                    Quote: sevtrash
                    no modern control system, communications, drones.

                    And what next, to run to the foreign market, clutching a wallet in a sweaty palm? Or produce a bunch of small KB-shek (because, as always, there is no money for large ones)? From the same thrice-damned Americans, General Electric "produces a fucking mountain of various military equipment of the widest assortment. And due to the size and power of the market grimaces are not particularly important and critical to it, having lost on one, it will take on a dozen other orders. The Soviet system of training engineers implied the training of specialists of a WIDE profile.This is easy to verify by reading the list of developments of any military designer of the Soviet era: Today - a pistol, tomorrow - an aircraft cannon, the day after tomorrow - a can for home canning (Makarov, if anyone does not know). Collect a POWERFUL design bureau with a plant attached to it, and then they will earn their living (and for the country too)
                    1. sevtrash
                      sevtrash 5 July 2013 22: 29
                      -1
                      Yes, you just need to identify the necessary and possible. Yes, everything is only for the aircraft carrier - and a balm for the soul of any patriot, and the projection of power. But there is a reality in which Russia is not the United States or China with its financial capabilities and officials. Can you imagine such a defense minister as Serdyukov with his harem in the USA, China?
                      As for the specialists of a wide profile who today do one thing, and tomorrow - another and everything at the highest level is a different reality.
                      1. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 5 July 2013 22: 42
                        +3
                        Quote: sevtrash
                        Can you imagine such a defense minister as Serdyukov with his harem in the USA, China?

                        And what's next, build paper boats from an old newspaper? Or is it cheaper and easier to plant Smerdyuk to sew mittens? And about "harems" scandals all over the world go jamb, Taburetkin is by no means unique in this regard.
                        Quote: sevtrash
                        As for the specialists of a wide profile who today do one thing, and tomorrow - another and everything at the highest level is a different reality.
                        I still found this "other reality", having shoulder straps on my shoulders, and in my hand - an engineering diploma. And such US - even to hell (and not senile yet). The country will call - we will do it, no problem
        2. rolik
          rolik 5 July 2013 17: 25
          +2
          Quote: Misantrop
          and INVESTMENT in the development of high-tech industries,

          Absolutely right. It is necessary to develop, move forward from simple to complex. Otherwise stagnation and regression. In the 90s they all saw it very well. We must set ourselves big tasks and not small goals.
          As our general says:
          - Set yourself big goals, it’s harder to miss them)))
          When Prirazlomnaya was launched, there was also nothing serious, neither technology nor experience. And now everyone understands that they did the right thing by deciding to build it. Now we have experience and original solutions that our neighbors do not have. We need to master the production of large aircraft carriers. Let "Kuznetsov" and "Gorshkov" serve as the first step in the development of new solutions and technologies.
      2. bugagich
        bugagich 15 July 2013 07: 42
        0
        Quote: sevtrash
        catapults, for example, Americans are switching to electromagnetic catapults, but we didn’t have steam.

        catapult (officially booster device), as well as aerofinisher designed and made The proletarian plant, having worked out the basic questions of principle on a scale model at a scale of 1:10. In mid-1983, began the production of a full-scale sample for installation at the landfill ...
        On August 7, 1986, the first idle launches of the catapult were carried out, on August 29, with the crib. During the tests, all systems were worked out, calibration by weight and speed was carried out, all the required characteristics were achieved in terms of cyclicity, warm-up time, maximum overloads, etc., corresponding to the technical specifications. (c) A.S. Pavlov - Birth and death of the seventh aircraft carrier.

        so the fact that the catapults did not stand on our branches does not mean that nothing was done. they were not posed for various reasons (here you can argue a lot), but not because they could not or did not.
        another question is in what condition is the Proletarian plant now ...
    3. w.ebdo.g
      w.ebdo.g 5 July 2013 11: 59
      +2
      Very good news:
      The prosecutor's office asks for six years of imprisonment for Navalny, five years for Ofitserov and a million rubles fine for both.


      The representative of the KOGUP "Kirovles", which is the injured party in the case of theft of property, in which oppositionist Alexei Navalny and entrepreneur Pyotr Ofitserov are accused, supports the charge of imposing a guilty verdict with a real term of imprisonment for the defendants, the RAPSI correspondent reports from the hall of the Leninsky court of Kirov

      According to the investigators, working as an adviser to the governor of the Kirov region, in May - September 2009, Navalny entered into an agreement with the director of the Vyatka forest company Peter Ofitserov and the general director of Kirovles Vyacheslav Opalev and organized the theft of more than 10 thousand cubic meters of forest. For "organizing the embezzlement of someone else's property on an especially large scale," Navalny could face up to ten years in prison.
      1. malikszh
        malikszh 5 July 2013 17: 15
        +1
        American spy Navalny was trained as Sakashvili and Tymoshenko in the USA
  • Santa bear
    Santa bear 5 July 2013 08: 42
    +3
    hmm .. takeoff ramps? Are they not planning to install steam catapults? seems to be the most effective way to "help" take off a carrier-based fighter with FULL tanks and ammunition?
    1. Tuzik
      Tuzik 5 July 2013 08: 49
      +6
      if you put a catapult, it’s electromagnetic, and the steam has already shown its drawbacks, a limitation on the number of take-offs in a period of time and a decrease in the course during operation of the catapults. Yes, and the springboard is cheaper to operate and easier =) And our aircraft, unlike the western ones, can take off from the springboard.
      1. Skiff
        Skiff 5 July 2013 09: 11
        14
        At first glance, the springboard really has enormous advantages - it is cheap, does not require steam production installation, maintenance and repair, useful volumes are saved, in the end, weight, and therefore the displacement and cost of the ship itself.

        However, all these advantages of the springboard pales in comparison with its shortcomings. The first and most important advantage of a catapult is its lower threshold for sensitivity to take-off conditions. Roughly speaking, an aircraft carrier with a catapult can continue to take off operations with more stringent parameters of pitching, wind, waves, etc. (within certain limits, of course) than a ship equipped with a springboard.

        The second major advantage of the catapult is the higher rate of aircraft launch. Let us assume that there is a situation in which the maximum number of fighters must be lifted into the air as soon as possible. The American aircraft carrier can maintain the rate of launching aircraft into the air from its four steam catapults for about one aircraft every 15 seconds. "Kuznetsov" has only three starting positions, and from two nose planes can take off not with full takeoff weight (!). With a full combat load, fighters from Kuznetsov can only take off from a single position located much more aft of the midship - that is, in this case, the plane should scatter almost over the entire flight deck! The launch rate during a springboard takeoff slows down at least twice as compared to a catapult launch.

        We must not forget that starting from a springboard causes high requirements for the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft: the engines are set to "full afterburner" (or "extreme afterburner") before the start of the takeoff run, which leads to premature depletion of their resource and increased fuel consumption. In addition, the lower rate of the air group's ascent into the air dictates the condition of a longer waiting at the assembly point, which also leads to excessive fuel consumption, a decrease in the combat radius, etc.
        1. 1c-inform-city
          1c-inform-city 5 July 2013 11: 13
          +1
          This is Kuznetsov’s three positions, and the one we are discussing 4.
          The steam catapult just limits the number of takeoffs and landings per unit time. The Americans did not start developing an electromagnetic one from a good life. In addition, it is supposed to use promising aircraft that have different thrust-weight ratio. In bad weather conditions there are pitching dampers. And if they are very bad, the weather means non-flying and the catapult will not help in this. All problems in the operation of American aircraft carriers are usually associated with catapults. And it does not matter if it’s steam or em. If em fails for a long time.
      2. Skiff
        Skiff 5 July 2013 09: 13
        +9
        In this regard, the issue of designing an electromagnetic catapult that is more promising than a steam catapult is very relevant. It should be noted that work on the creation of such a device began in our country back in the 1980s, much earlier than in the United States. Then at the Institute for High Temperatures of the Academy of Sciences (IVTAN) together with TsAGI named after Professor N.E. Zhukovsky and A.I. Mikoyan in the framework of the research project "Shampoo" laughing (lasting almost 15 years), research and experimental work were carried out on an electromagnetic take-off and landing system for aircraft designed for promising aircraft carriers, as well as for land-based mobile airfields.

        It should be noted that such equipment belongs to the category of energy-intensive ones, which means that an aircraft carrier equipped with such a catapult (as well as an electromagnetic landing device) must have significantly more powerful electric generators, which facilitates the possibility of switching to a fully electric power plant. Recall that the first large surface combat ship with full electric propulsion - EM D-32 Daring (total displacement of 8010 tons) - entered the British fleet on November 10, 2008. Until 2012, it is planned to transfer another five such ships to the English Navy. And the French engineers of the THALES Corporation came close to creating the aircraft carrier-electric ship. Incidentally, it was their creations that Vladimir Vysotsky, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, was very interested in, who visited the campaign stand at the international exhibition of naval equipment
        1. Cat
          Cat 5 July 2013 09: 24
          10
          Quote: Skiff
          You forgot to mention the main drawback of the springboard: problems with the launch of AWACS and refueling aircraft - without which the capabilities of the air group are sharply reduced.
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 5 July 2013 09: 54
            +5
            Quote: Cat
            problems with launching AWACS aircraft

            There are not just problems, but the inability to launch the same Yak44 using a springboard.
        2. cdrt
          cdrt 5 July 2013 10: 25
          +1
          Hmm ... well, the French seem to have one success in creating power plants - their nuclear submarines. For aircraft carriers - the ordeals of Sh. De Gaulle
      3. cdrt
        cdrt 5 July 2013 10: 21
        0
        The whole USSR was able to make the first project of the STEAM catapult, in my opinion only by 1988, they were doing about 20 years. The electromagnetic RF will be doing about 50 years ... Moreover, it will require a power plant with full electric movement ... It will also work out for 20-30 years.
        IMHO of course, but you need not to show off, but to put what has already been worked out.
        Well ... what kind of jumps are there in FIGs - there will be no AWACS again? Then really why build an aircraft carrier of this size? It would be possible to do with light freaks.
        Well, the launch pace will be 1 plane per minute.
        Catapult - large, springboard - small wink
    2. Gato
      Gato 5 July 2013 10: 16
      0
      But will a conventional EU pull four electromagnetic catapults?
      1. fero
        fero 5 July 2013 11: 15
        +3
        IMHO, to provide even one EM catapult, you will have to install a reactor instead of a conventional installation. The EM catapult is theoretically more "quick-firing" ... if only the personnel had time to prepare the aircraft for departure winked
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • fzr1000
    fzr1000 5 July 2013 08: 45
    +1
    Size hoo. How and where to build such a colossus?
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 5 July 2013 10: 25
      0
      So I wrote about the same thing above ... Maybe they were going to buy, then finish building at home. In general, nothing is clear. The only place was in Nikolaev. Now Ukraine with all the consequences.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 5 July 2013 11: 37
        +1
        Quote: klimpopov
        The only place was in Nikolaev

        On the NSR, increase the dock, and especially its entrance gate. To build block in the 55th workshop (where three Sharks were built)
        1. fero
          fero 5 July 2013 12: 00
          0
          Is it impossible to build a new shipyard "Zvezda" in Vladik? ... What are the dimensions of a dry dock and a slipway?
        2. bugagich
          bugagich 15 July 2013 08: 09
          0
          it is possible, at the same time, to dock the sections on the slipway deck of the docking chamber ...

          in Nikolaev everything was modernized under the modular large-block method. on smp it is necessary for this to make serious movers.
          so, IMHO, it is necessary to carry out a serious modernization on smp ...
  • ramsi
    ramsi 5 July 2013 08: 47
    -3
    Somehow, I don’t see any real problems for the aircraft carrier that the Orlans could not cope with, although a couple of the three, of course, would not have prevented. However, with the current corral of the submarine fleet ... In my opinion, not to fat
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 5 July 2013 09: 22
      +3
      Quote: ramsi
      Somehow, I don’t see any real problems for the aircraft carrier that the Orlans could not cope with, although a couple of the three, of course, would not have prevented. However, with the current corral of the submarine fleet ... In my opinion, not to fat

      Something you are all in a bunch: aircraft carriers, Eagles, submarine fleet. How do the tasks of aircraft carriers and Orlanes overlap?
    2. 11 black
      11 black 5 July 2013 09: 28
      +6
      Quote: ramsi
      Somehow, I don’t see any real problems for the aircraft carrier that the Orlans could not cope with, although a couple of the three, of course, would not have prevented. However, with the current corral of the submarine fleet ... In my opinion, not to fat

      For example, covering strategic submarines from enemy aircraft in the far sea zone - the aircraft carrier's air group can close the sky for all Poseidons, the main enemies of SSBNs, while the cover zone will be much larger than what the Orlan can provide.

      and also - if you have an aircraft carrier as part of the Ship warrant - such an order can attack the enemy with its air group at distances much exceeding the launching distance of anti-ship missiles, that is, the advantage of the "first shot" will be in the warrant with the aircraft carrier, therefore, the absence of the aircraft carrier in the order puts it in a losing position against the warrant with the aircraft carrier (how many times do you think enemy aircraft will be able to attack the Orlan before it reaches the launch range of the anti-ship missile system, if they do not destroy it, they will wear down the air defense / missile defense systems, and when the anti-ship missile system "exchange" occurs, ours will be in a losing position) so there are enough tasks for an aircraft carrier ...
      1. fero
        fero 5 July 2013 12: 09
        +2
        ramsi "... Horses, people, mixed in a heap .." (c) Lermontov "Borodino"

        The ships you named have different tasks)
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 5 July 2013 16: 03
          0
          the first task is to ensure defense capability (SSBN)
          the second task is ensuring border security (frigates, corvettes)
          the third task - moral-political, such points of power in their own and foreign seas (cruisers)
          aircraft carriers - in addition to moral and political ones, these are more than some abstract games in a non-nuclear war at foreign borders; and two or three already obviously will not get off. Hypothetically, in the entire history of the USSR, we probably had only one situation where they could come in handy - the Caribbean crisis. However, even without them, we then completely ruined everything quite well
  • igor36
    igor36 5 July 2013 08: 47
    0
    Of course, I would like to get at least 2 each for the Northern and Pacific Fleets, but based on the realities of the economy, this is possible in 20 years.
    1. kris
      kris 5 July 2013 10: 03
      +1
      Quote: igor36
      but based on the realities of the economy, this is possible years through 20.

      what nonsense are you talking about? what realities?
      3.14 would have been less Putin’s, 10 pieces would have been built!
  • Blad_21617
    Blad_21617 5 July 2013 08: 52
    +4
    would save on the Olympics would build 2 aircraft carriers ...
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 5 July 2013 08: 56
      +6
      Quote: Blad_21617
      would save on the Olympics would build 2 aircraft carriers ...

      One Olympics for a country means much more than two aircraft carriers - not for money, but for the value of this country in the world, the world consists not only of superpowers and aircraft carriers
      1. Andy
        Andy 5 July 2013 09: 41
        +3
        Quote: Ruslan67
        One Olympics for a country means much more than two aircraft carriers - not for money, but for the value of this country in the world, the world consists not only of superpowers and aircraft carriers


        there would be such kickbacks and cuts! and then at the Olympic venues we will be trading chebureks. here for this we are respected in the world wassat
      2. mogus
        mogus 5 July 2013 10: 23
        0
        ostentatious authority and reality are actually different. Well, we’ll stand in Sochi, we will hold games - but can a lot of people from the remote places come to see? Will the remaining problems in the country be solved with the game wire? This will stop the outflow of people from Siberia and the Far East? This will increase the average real z.p. 10-15t.r.?
      3. Misantrop
        Misantrop 5 July 2013 11: 45
        +2
        Quote: Ruslan67
        One Olympics for a country means significantly more than two aircraft carriers - not for money but for the value of this country in the world

        No offense, but WHAT IS THE Olympics for the country SO critical? I understand that if this country had MORE nothing to boast about. With this professional sport everyone has already gone crazy. He has not had any relation to physical education and the health of the nation for a long time, he is spending significantly more on it than he is earning, WHERE is such a stir? Young people who really can’t connect two words without a mat, cramming the results of matches of their favorite team for a dozen years, as if all of her future life depends on it ... what
  • sys-1985
    sys-1985 5 July 2013 08: 59
    -1
    The price is reduced by unification or series, because unification is practically impossible here, the series should save the budget.
    1. Russ69
      Russ69 5 July 2013 09: 09
      +3
      Quote: sys-1985
      the series should save the budget.

      Carriers themselves are piece goods. How many of them can be built for us, 1 or 2. We just can’t pull it anymore (and whether it is necessary), their operation is also expensive.
    2. volkodav
      volkodav 5 July 2013 09: 24
      +2
      sys-1985 SU  Today, 08:59 AM


      Price is reduced unification
      just everything is solved - two aircraft carriers and five based on the same trough of tank carriers wassat with magnetic catapults equal to the number of tanks in the company wassat and we drive this miracle to the shores of the mattress and the teachings
    3. sashka
      sashka 5 July 2013 09: 31
      -1
      Quote: sys-1985
      the series should save the budget.

      This is not fret viburnum. Just the industry will not bend .. People will have something to do. It’s just that each time it’s just one model, then just words ..
    4. little man
      little man 5 July 2013 10: 28
      -1
      Duc and for sale will not work, India and China, and then only bought the case.
  • ramsi
    ramsi 5 July 2013 09: 00
    0
    Quote: Ruslan67
    One Olympics for a country means much more than two aircraft carriers - not for money, but for the value of this country in the world, the world consists not only of superpowers and aircraft carriers

    I would believe if we lived in the USSR
  • Selevc
    Selevc 5 July 2013 09: 02
    +7
    Russia is a wonderland - more than half of your fleet is ships that have long served their time !!! Here recently there was an article about the Pacific Fleet, so according to the stories of servicemen, in general, almost only ancient troughs remained ... What kind of aircraft carriers? I should have called the article "Dreams of Aircraft Carriers" !!!
    But what about the nuclear submarine construction program? And simultaneously pull the construction of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers? And why then simply do not build your own helicopter carrier? This is easier and, on the other hand, will raise the construction of Navy vessels to a new level ...
    As always, someone at the top will blurt out some heresy - and they went for a walk around the country !!!

    And in general it is not clear - why sell Gorshkov to the Indians if they themselves need aircraft carriers? Vobschem country of mysteries and wonders !!!
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 5 July 2013 09: 24
      +4
      Quote: Selevc
      Russia is a wonderland

      With its paradoxes, she is scary. wink
      1. Gato
        Gato 5 July 2013 10: 20
        +1
        With its paradoxes, she is scary

        Unfortunately, to myself.
    2. volkodav
      volkodav 5 July 2013 09: 28
      0
      potting aircraft cruiser
      1. old man54
        old man54 5 July 2013 23: 06
        0
        Quote: volkodav
        potting aircraft cruiser

        and what of this ??? Gorshkov, if he had not been deliberately ruined, gave odds to his classmates to many Europeans!
    3. volkodav
      volkodav 5 July 2013 09: 30
      +7
      Ukraine is generally a country of exemplary logic and consistency hi
    4. Misantrop
      Misantrop 5 July 2013 21: 57
      +1
      Quote: Selevc
      you have a large half of the fleet, these are vessels that have long served their term !!!

      And most of them are in a fully operational state. Including the "Commune", which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. As far as I can see, Ukraine cannot boast of anything similar. Was the magic wand worn out? Or did one of the deputies stole it, privatizing all the miracles only for themselves? wink
  • Andy
    Andy 5 July 2013 09: 46
    +1
    to build such (80000 tons) tub for the sake of 25-30 aircraft ??? the target is good, but the possibilities are about zero. for comparison, amers have more than fifty strike aircraft. Simultaneously, they will have more aircraft in the air, and there will be the possibility of "waves". and what our miracle will answer, will create "trains" of 5 aircraft ??
    1. Russ69
      Russ69 5 July 2013 09: 56
      +1
      Quote: Andy
      to build such (80000 tons) tub for the sake of 25-30 aircraft ??? the target is good, but the possibilities are about zero. for comparison, amers have more than fifty strike aircraft. Simultaneously, they will have more aircraft in the air, and there will be the possibility of "waves". and what our miracle will answer, will create "trains" of 5 aircraft ??

      The appearance of the aircraft carrier has not yet been determined. It is too early to judge what else is not even on paper.
      1. Cat
        Cat 5 July 2013 10: 02
        +2
        Quote: Russ69
        The appearance of the aircraft carrier has not yet been determined. It is too early to judge what else is not even on paper.

        at least the fact that an ordinary power plant is planned for such a fool itself speaks of the "value" of the project. And it's not about the power and speed, and not even about the cruising range - but about the huge amount of fuel that will be stolen from the air group.
        1. Russ69
          Russ69 5 July 2013 10: 06
          +3
          Quote: Cat
          at least the fact that an ordinary power plant is planned for such a fool itself speaks of the "value" of the project. And it's not about the power and speed, and not even about the cruising range - but about the huge amount of fuel that will be stolen from the air group.

          The keyword is "planned". You can plan anything. Before you start praising or criticizing, it is still worth waiting for the approved project. Although for me, of course, it would be better to make it atomic.
          1. Cat
            Cat 5 July 2013 10: 13
            +1
            Quote: Russ69
            The keyword is "planned". You can plan anything. Before you start praising or criticizing, it is still worth waiting for the approved project. Although for me, of course, it would be better to make it atomic.

            that's what I don't understand - why plan something that even with a big hangover can hardly be called optimal? According to the principle - "don't care what, just to be in time for the exhibition", not otherwise ...
          2. Andy
            Andy 5 July 2013 10: 16
            +1
            Quote: Russ69
            The keyword is "planned".


            strange, but the plan is TK, according to which they will be embodied in metal.
            they will use a nut with a right or left thread, they will decide during detailed design, but it must still correspond to the technical assignment (plan). or do you think that the constructor is first created by different spindles, and then they are assembled from them what happens with the words "they say it was just a plan" ???
        2. old man54
          old man54 5 July 2013 23: 11
          0
          Quote: Cat
          at least the fact that an ordinary power plant is planned for such a fool itself speaks of the "value" of the project. And it's not about the power and speed, and not even about the cruising range - but about the huge amount of fuel that will be stolen from the air group.

          and not only that, but an aircraft carrier with a vocational school in the form of a power plant is a ship of the Norwegian Sea theater of operations (based on KSF). Or constantly carry a tanker with fuel oil and have a haemorrhage in the form of bunkering in the sea, and if the war is even better then it's fine. stop
    2. Gato
      Gato 5 July 2013 10: 22
      +3
      to build such a (80000 tons) pit for 25-30 aircraft ???

      I counted 27 aircraft on the model only on the flight deck. Do you think that there are still hangars?
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 5 July 2013 20: 45
      0
      Well ... I remember the analysis of air battles over the sea / from the sea in WWII showed that the strikes succeed with the superiority of the attacking forces of naval aviation in one strike 1.5 times over the defenders. If the AB will have 36 combat plus AWACS / tankers / rescuers / PLO / EW, then the wing strike of one American AB can be sustained. In response, only with the support of the DA and the loaves / ash-trees brought forward for suicide. Suicidal - because I remember back in 198X at the end of the US Navy they were sure that the strike of our PLACR from a long range would be easily repelled, but a small one -40-50 km was considered practically irresistible at volley launch (I remember the year 1988 as ZVO)

      True, we must remember that in a crisis, the American strategy involves the creation of 1-2 AUSs of 3-4 AB each - one in the North Atlantic, one between Japan and Guam (well, or rather, there was a strategy like this when they seriously prepared to fight the USSR)
  • Russ69
    Russ69 5 July 2013 10: 02
    +5
    Another device pinned me from the exhibition. smile good
    1. Cat
      Cat 5 July 2013 10: 04
      +5
      such a normal pepelats: frigate in front, and a yacht in back. At least for the war, even with the girls on a cruise =)))
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 5 July 2013 10: 05
      +6
      Quote: Russ69
      Another device pinned me from the exhibition

      New yacht of Abramovich?
    3. NOMADE
      NOMADE 5 July 2013 10: 10
      +1
      ))) Class. This is probably a project of an elite "frigate yacht" for sheikhs or Abramovich;)
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 5 July 2013 20: 50
        0
        I think this is a yacht project for extreme yachtsmen who like to go to the Horn of Africa, well, or off the coast of Nigeria wink
    4. little man
      little man 5 July 2013 10: 31
      +1
      A scientific company will be located in the stern.
      Students programmers need comfort!
    5. Jin
      Jin 5 July 2013 10: 32
      0
      Quote: Russ69
      Another device pinned me from the exhibition


      And what, about this project, experts comment on something? What is it?
      1. Russ69
        Russ69 5 July 2013 10: 47
        +2
        Quote: Jin
        And what, about this project, experts comment on something? What is it?

        Probably not having time to realize the project Serdyukov. laughing
  • PSih2097
    PSih2097 5 July 2013 10: 04
    +6
    The model shown has a characteristic wide and long flight deck with a springboard in the bow and four take-off positions. On the starboard side of the model are two relatively small superstructures. The declared displacement of the ship is 80 thousand tons, which gives rise to assumptions about the size of the ship. Approximately the same total displacement was supposed to have an unfinished nuclear carrier “Ulyanovsk”.

    On the deck of the model shown were miniature copies of two types of fighters. These were models of MiG-29K ship fighters and models that do not exist yet (at least it has not been officially announced yet) of the deck version of the fifth-generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA). The total number of aircraft models is about 25-30 units. Based on this, it is possible to draw some conclusions about the aviation group of a promising aircraft carrier, but its dimensions directly indicate much greater possibilities for the transportation and operation of aircraft.

    Ulyanovsk Air Group was to include 70 aircraft. The following composition was planned:
    Su-27K fighter - 24 pcs.
    MiG-29K fighter - 24 pcs.
    Aircraft RLDN Yak-44RLD - 4 pcs.
    Anti-submarine helicopter Ka-27 - 16 pcs.
    Search and rescue helicopter Ka-27PS - 2 pcs.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 5 July 2013 10: 07
    +5
    Regardless of the "news" itself.
    In the USSR, aircraft carriers simply built. People argued over space, who was the first to be on Mars, whose rockets are better, whose astronauts are cooler. Now even just launching a satellite is not very successful, people are arguing for the construction of not the largest ship. Somehow everything fades.
    1. True
      True 5 July 2013 10: 40
      +4
      It can be seen where its rulers lead the country. Probably not long left. Soon, many of us will cease to be compatriots. Alas.
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 5 July 2013 20: 57
      0
      By the way, the argument for aircraft carriers came to mind.
      KOH in the US AB is up to 0,5 in peacetime.
      One AV RF in the Mediterranean will require actually 3-4 US AV, i.e. actually half the available AB. The USA did not start a single war without creating the core of the Navy from 3-5 AB. In fact, this means that they can start any war ONLY with the direct permission of the Russian Federation ... In other words, the presence of 3 AB in the Russian Federation ensures that interests are taken into account in a conflict situation affecting our interests (well, 3, as we, as the United States, hold on to KOH we do not know how - God forbid to withstand 0,33 with titanic efforts).
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 5 July 2013 10: 13
    +8
    It won’t go beyond the layout.

    comparative sizes of "Nimitz", "Admiral Kuznetsov", nuclear submarine 941 "Akula" (the biggest boat in history) and small diesel-electric submarine "Varshavyanka"

    The construction period of Varshavyanka according to the already READY project, developed even during the USSR, is on average 3-4 years. Aircraft carrier in today's realities, we will design 10 years and build 30-40 years
    1. Andy
      Andy 5 July 2013 10: 19
      +6
      I agree. sadly but the fleet is not replenished even by destroyers. and the launch of the raid boat is presented as a breakthrough. One aircraft carrier in the sea has nothing to do ...
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 5 July 2013 14: 31
      +2
      IMHO this is better than a draft design:
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko 5 July 2013 16: 41
        +1
        Quote: PSih2097
        IMHO this is better than a draft design:

        It seems this is a "hard licked" mattress project of the head under construction in a new series of "troughs".
        But categorically +++ for such a look.
      2. bugagich
        bugagich 15 July 2013 09: 22
        0
        Quote: PSih2097
        IMHO this is better than a draft design:

        was rejected for ephemeral reasons ... IMHO, for artificially strained
    3. doktor_alex
      doktor_alex 5 July 2013 15: 07
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The construction period of Varshavyanka according to the already READY project, developed even during the USSR, is on average 3-4 years.


      You don’t pour here about 3-4 years then. For 3 years, according to the ALREADY READY AND DEVELOPED PROJECT, the BDRM type nuclear submarines were built and INPUT into the Navy. And the Warsaw women in the USSR riveted in a year and a half, and now we can rivet if the loot and counterparty equipment are on time and in good condition.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 5 July 2013 17: 03
        0
        Quote: doktor_alex
        And Warsaw women in the USSR riveted in a year and a half

        CCCR ... it was such an ancient highly developed civilization, now it is being studied in history lessons
        along with the civilizations of the Sumerians and Babylon
        Quote: doktor_alex
        and now we can rivet if the loot and counterparty equipment are on time and in good condition.

        this is the whole joke
        1. doktor_alex
          doktor_alex 5 July 2013 18: 40
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          CCCP ... it was such an ancient highly developed blah blah blah .....


          You respected your gaps in information and knowledge are now trying to shut up with mediocre quality humor (more than once noticed reading your posts), sometimes it's better to chew than talk.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 5 July 2013 20: 17
            +1
            Quote: doktor_alex
            You respected your gaps in information and knowledge are now trying to shut up with mediocre quality humor (more than once noticed reading your posts), sometimes it's better to chew than talk.

            Rudeness, unanswered, chokes on itself
            1. Andy
              Andy 5 July 2013 21: 33
              0
              Excuse me, are you talking about yourself now?
    4. bugagich
      bugagich 15 July 2013 09: 17
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The construction period of Varshavyanka according to the already READY project, developed even during the USSR, is on average 3-4 years.

      at admiralty shipyards 1,5-2 years by the time of transfer to the customer, i.e. with all moorings, suspension, etc. etc.
      and then 2 years, if the order is "delayed" for transfer to the next in the series, so to speak "wholesale" ...
  • ed65b
    ed65b 5 July 2013 10: 13
    +3
    The deck version of PAK-FA will be the dream of the Chinese. Oh, and they’ll break copies to get him.
    1. kris
      kris 5 July 2013 10: 16
      +3
      Quote: ed65b
      The deck version of PAK-FA will be the dream of the Chinese. Oh, and they’ll break copies to get him.

      Putin bargain for a look. cheeks about national security and ...
      SELL!
    2. Zerstorer
      Zerstorer 5 July 2013 10: 29
      0
      Quote: ed65b
      The deck version of PAK-FA will be a dream of the Chinese

      In my opinion, such a heavy car (and the ship version gets heavier) has no place on the deck.
  • Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 5 July 2013 10: 19
    +1
    "The ship, it is said, must be equipped with a conventional power plant" - I wonder what these scientists and statesmen had in mind? Steam boilers? Gas turbines? Diesel? Nuclear power plant? What is "common" in their understanding?
    1. antonio
      antonio 5 July 2013 11: 36
      0
      perhaps steam, judging by the development of our economy
  • morpogr
    morpogr 5 July 2013 11: 37
    0
    If there is talk from the lips of such people, moreover, interested departments like the Ministry of Defense and the OSK, it’s not casual.
  • Vtel
    Vtel 5 July 2013 11: 38
    0
    Yes, it’ll work out, and there’s still a bunch of escort ships. All the same, the submarine will somehow be more reliable.
  • Sirs
    Sirs 5 July 2013 11: 46
    0
    Better late than never, the main determinant with the concept and future role of an aircraft carrier and build.
    While we will build young engineers will grow up to train.
    It is necessary to build and urgently. how much not for the fleet how much because of prestige and experience for the young.
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 5 July 2013 11: 52
    +4
    As not a specialist in aircraft carriers, I will allow myself to ask a "stupid" question "but what the hell are they, aircraft carriers, Russia needs now. Perhaps 40-50 years ago, they would have been in place as a power tool for ensuring the national interests of the USSR in the regions of the World Ocean remote from the USSR, And now what is the reason for them. Compete with the US aircraft carrier fleet is unlikely to succeed, and for economic and purely technical reasons, and there is nothing to compete for. Those who have the main task of controlling the sea routes of supplying the US and its allies with resources and, above all, oil in peacetime Moreover, in the event of a war, the US will have enough of its own internal resources, while the allies have enough of their own resources, while Russia has enough resources both for peacetime and in case of war. moreover, in the event of a major war, all these aircraft carriers are sunk, if not elementary, then without any particular difficulties. Moreover, for this it is no longer necessary to involve several regiments of the Navy aviation for one aircraft carrier as previously planned. It will be enough to have a few ballistic and cruise missiles equipped with multi-sensor target reconnaissance and homing heads as well as missile coordination systems in a raid similar to the one that was developed for the Granit anti-ship missile system and the skiff aircraft carrier. Such missiles, by the way, are already being developed without much fuss in the United States and China. Perhaps in Russia too. More interesting is now the concept of underwater aircraft carriers on which both manned and unmanned "lethal" vehicles can be based. And this is not only a concept but also real developments in the same China and the USA. And given that in some of the largest nuclear submarines, Russia has long been ahead of the rest of the planet (remember Shark "), why not take advantage of its experience and make such aircraft carriers the first and not lag behind those who made surface aircraft carriers in large quantities even before the 2nd world
    1. Simple
      Simple 5 July 2013 12: 26
      0
      In 20 years, ice on the North will be completely bad.
      It will come in handy there. IMXO
  • Selevc
    Selevc 5 July 2013 12: 50
    0
    When designing and building aircraft carriers, it is necessary to take into account the experience and mistakes of the USSR ... Instead of building full-fledged aircraft carriers, the Union built cheaper options for aircraft carriers — is it generally not clear whether these are truncated aircraft carriers or advanced cruisers? In general, it seems that we had our own aircraft carriers, but against the backdrop of the US Navy they looked somehow pale and imperceptible ...

    In my opinion, over such a period of 20-25 years of building Russia, it will be difficult to keep up even with China, but there’s nothing even to think about the USA ... To build aircraft carriers, you need to clearly understand what tasks they are needed for and whether the investment of enormous funds will be justified ???
    1. urich
      urich 5 July 2013 14: 18
      +2
      In the USSR, aircraft carriers were built not only because they are cheaper than aircraft carriers. By and large, the same Kuzyu can be called an aircraft carrier, not TAKR. Carriers built in Nikolaev. In order to enter the world, they had to leave the Black Sea through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. International treaties prohibit the passage of aircraft carriers through these straits. In order to get around this collision, the USSR came up with the idea of ​​calling aircraft carriers aircraft-carrying cruisers. And vice versa. Even if they build an SCA aircraft carrier in Severodvinsk (for example) they will still call it TAKR so that it can enter the Black Sea, otherwise nothing.
  • alex shnajder
    alex shnajder 5 July 2013 12: 53
    +1
    Well, I don’t know, here you need to seriously think about whether an aircraft carrier is needed, where to use it, with frail escort as it is now a white elephant. At least once it was used for its intended purpose?
  • ded10041948
    ded10041948 5 July 2013 13: 00
    +3
    I understand that this "scale model" with its declared characteristics was made to depict the vigorous activity of the mind of the developers and in common with what will turn out in "metal" will have only one thing - the classification: "aircraft carrier"! In the meantime, this is all window dressing at the level of "Yudashkin's form". Displacement, the number of the aviation group, its equipment, the power plant of the ship. its speed, etc. as if pulled from different technical specifications. And this "vinaigrette" was called a prospect for the development of the Navy?
  • Dangerous
    Dangerous 5 July 2013 13: 20
    +1
    Honestly, the seriousness with which this layout is discussed here is surprising. Dimensions, add-ons, the number and composition of aircraft ... They did it in a modern way, put the T-50 beautiful and fashionable now, so everyone is delighted right here. In general, it may happen that while we build this aircraft carrier, already 6th generation aircraft will fly ...
  • Tuzik
    Tuzik 5 July 2013 13: 23
    0
    The development and construction of a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy may cost the state budget 400 billions of rubles. This was reported by the Central Naval Portal with reference to a representative of the Krylov State Scientific Center, the developer of the concept project of a promising ship. The cost of the aircraft carrier itself is estimated at 80 billion rubles.

    A model of a marine aircraft carrier complex with a displacement of about 80 thousand tons was presented at the International Naval Salon, held in St. Petersburg. According to the publication, the ship will receive two springboards and four catapults, and the air group of the aircraft carrier ship will include up to 40 multipurpose combat aircraft: a deck-based version of the T-50 fighter (PAK FA) and MiG-29K / KUB. The concept project provides for the installation of a non-nuclear power plant on an aircraft carrier.

    According to preliminary data, the design features will allow the ship to reach speeds of up to 30 knots, despite its large size and displacement. It was previously reported that the design of a new aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy will be completed in 2018, four years later than the planned date. In the same year, it is planned to begin the construction of the ship.

    The development and construction of an aircraft carrier are not included in the current Russian armaments program for 2011-2020, but it is expected that funding for this project will be included in the new armaments program for 2016-2025. This document is expected to be presented to the President of Russia in 2015.

    At the end of 2011, Vladimir Vysotsky, then commander of the Russian fleet, said that by 2027, the Northern and Pacific fleets would include one carrier attack group.
    lenta.ru
  • Selevc
    Selevc 5 July 2013 13: 41
    -2
    And this same Vladimir Vysotsky asked his grandson - would he want to live in the country in 2027 with wooden huts and aircraft carriers ??? :))))))))))))
  • pilot-mk
    pilot-mk 5 July 2013 13: 48
    0
    I think a country with the fifth economy in the world can afford several aircraft carriers.
    1. Dangerous
      Dangerous 5 July 2013 14: 04
      0
      The fifth economy in the world, inflation for 2012 is 6,6%, blah blah blah that's all. The commodity economy, to which ours belongs, can burst at any moment, depending on energy prices. What, forgot the crisis of 2008-2009? By the way, as it was presented to us that Russia is supposedly the only country that is building up social programs, while others, on the contrary, are cutting back. And what really is? The RTS index fell 5 (!) Times compared to the pre-crisis level! In simple terms, business has become 5 times more difficult and worse. In the USA, the drop was less than 50%, from 12 thousand points to 7. Yes, and instead of supporting and stimulating demand, they took and lifted up loans. And you say the fifth economy can afford several aircraft carriers.
      1. arnulla
        arnulla 5 July 2013 16: 23
        -3
        Quote: Dangerous
        The fifth economy in the world, inflation for 2012 is 6,6%, blah blah blah that's all. The commodity economy, to which ours belongs, can burst at any moment, depending on energy prices. What, forgot the crisis of 2008-2009? By the way, as it was presented to us that Russia is supposedly the only country that is building up social programs, while others, on the contrary, are cutting back. And what really is? The RTS index fell 5 (!) Times compared to the pre-crisis level! In simple terms, business has become 5 times more difficult and worse. In the USA, the drop was less than 50%, from 12 thousand points to 7. Yes, and instead of supporting and stimulating demand, they took and lifted up loans. And you say the fifth economy can afford several aircraft carriers.

        The RTS index fell 5 times? Come on, fill it. In 2008, it was approaching 1500, now it's about 1280 somewhere. It seems like this ...
        1. Dangerous
          Dangerous 5 July 2013 17: 16
          +1
          It seems not so at all. In the summer of 2008 it was 2500, and at the peak of the crisis it became 500
  • uizik
    uizik 5 July 2013 18: 12
    +1
    Quote: klimpopov
    So where is the aircraft carrier built? In Nikolaev? wassat To do this, Ukraine must be included wassat Vobschem fantasy.

    By 2016, it will either fall apart or add on, or it can be auctioned off!
  • old man54
    old man54 5 July 2013 18: 19
    +2
    I put the article "-"! Empty delirium of dealers from domestic shipbuilding, who probably do not sleep at night, and all the time have been dreaming of getting contracts for a project and then for building a full-fledged aircraft carrier. It's funny and you want to cry at the same time from this stupidity! crying We have been building frigates for 10 years, with a displacement of up to 3500 tons, and here ... :))) Mr. Kaptsov is right, we will probably build it for 50 years, if we can even handle the project. But this plane-model model of an aircraft carrier that the young modellers, for an exhibition on their knees, blinded for several nights, at the request of a shipbuilding concern, should not be taken seriously seriously! stop The article was clearly ordered, even contrary to the words of the same Borisov, who quite clearly said (in the article itself) that until 2015, no one even thinks of TTZ to develop, let alone a project ... But the rippers from convulsions really want to "unwind" budget for this big money. And they do not care that they are most likely unable to cope, today, given the current state of personnel in the industry and the state of this industry itself. And the fact that escort and escort vessels in the far zone in the entire Russian Navy today remain within 20 units, and in total for all 4 fleets, so who among them is interested in this.: ((
  • georg737577
    georg737577 5 July 2013 18: 50
    +2
    Quote: w.ebdo.g
    Putin well done! he is a real STRATEG

    So name the future aircraft carrier in the name of your strategist. Of the present. Then the loot for the construction will be found immediately. And surrender to the birthday ...
  • tupolev22m3
    tupolev22m3 5 July 2013 19: 04
    0
    Quote: Ivan79
    I wonder why there are two add-ons? One exclusively for the flight control point?

    pu yas
  • rudolff
    rudolff 5 July 2013 19: 33
    +2
    The second superstructure, as well as the aircraft parking spaces on the port side, as well as the availability of a springboard and the absence of a nuclear power plant, appeared purely due to the fact that the author of this model didn’t think twice about copying the British Queen Elizabeth. It is a pity that the copy turned out in the form of a parody!
    1. old man54
      old man54 5 July 2013 20: 28
      0
      Quote: rudolff
      the absence of a nuclear power plant appeared purely due to the fact that the author of this model did not really think twice about copying the British Queen Elizabeth.

      only now on "Queen Elizabeth" nuclear power plant is planned as the main one. I don't know about the reserve one.
  • Conepatus
    Conepatus 5 July 2013 19: 42
    +1
    The layout was photographed from a "bad" angle. Either the normal photographers were extinct, or the designers themselves are ashamed of their project and do not allow a normal photo to be made.
  • Grieg
    Grieg 5 July 2013 20: 18
    0
    Another PR duck, covering up the complete inactivity of the rearmament of the Russian army and navy.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 5 July 2013 21: 04
    +1
    Old man54, I’m not guaranteed to assert, the ship is not ready yet, but as far as I know, Queen Elizabeth was refused from the nuclear power plant due to the high cost of the installation itself and the relatively small displacement of an aircraft carrier of 65 tons. There will be two Rolls-Royce gas turbines as a power plant. Plus 000 diesel engines and two electric motors for screws. They also refused a catapult launch, including on the second Prince. Both will have jumps. However, some changes in the project are still possible due to the not-so-clear situation with the deliveries and adoption of the F-4. The project will be further modified in the French version.
    1. Conepatus
      Conepatus 5 July 2013 21: 50
      +1
      England can afford to build aircraft carriers according to a simplified project. They have pindos behind them, with a bunch of aircraft carriers. And Russia can only rely on itself. Therefore, a Russian aircraft carrier must initially have a "full stuff". IMHO
    2. old man54
      old man54 5 July 2013 23: 27
      0
      Quote: rudolff
      The old man 54, I can’t guarantee I’m not sure, the ship is not ready yet, but as far as I know, Queen Elizabeth was refused from the nuclear power plant due to the high cost of the installation itself and the relatively small displacement in the 65 000 tons for an aircraft carrier.

      Hmm ... I didn’t hear, but everywhere it appears that Elizabeth AEU will be the main one. I won’t argue either, we’ll see. wink But 65t.tonn is not so small for the ship. They have experience in creating their own ship nuclear power plants, even for nuclear submarines. In addition, the Britons have bases everywhere, and in the Middle East and in the Indian and Atlantic. They can use Amerovsky, if that. Maybe that's why they decided so.
  • krpmlws
    krpmlws 5 July 2013 21: 58
    0
    Where is the pipe? ... It looks like the aircraft carrier will be atomic))).
  • mihasik
    mihasik 5 July 2013 22: 02
    0
    It is worth noting that Yu. Borisov himself is a supporter of the opinion about the need for aircraft carriers. Speaking about the potential of such ships and the reasons for their sympathy for them, he recalled the experience of the United States. One appearance of American aircraft carriers in the region can affect the politics of local countries

    This is all good, but the will and pressure on local countries are still needed, not only by military, but also by economic, political leverage, but for now we only have gas and oil. Yes, and my esteemed GDP is not immortal. And what will happen after him?
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 5 July 2013 22: 31
    0
    QUOTE: "The model shown has a distinctive wide and long flight deck with a diving board in the bow ..."

    And why on a modern aircraft carrier - a springboard? It seems that they do not know the word CATAPULT ??
  • Naval
    Naval 5 July 2013 23: 12
    +1
    The only “narrow” niche in which modern aircraft carriers can be used is the air defense of a squadron in the open ocean. But to solve defensive tasks, the power of "Nimitz" is redundant. To ensure the air defense of the ship’s connection, a light aircraft carrier with a pair of fighter squadrons and DRLO helicopters is sufficient. Without any nuclear reactors and complex catapults. (A real example of such a system is the British aircraft carriers like the Queen Elizabeth being built).
    So why spend so much money? It is better to upgrade and develop the nuclear submarine fleet.
    1. RPD
      RPD 5 July 2013 23: 37
      0
      I completely agree, I wouldn’t live to fat
    2. Snow
      Snow 7 July 2013 01: 07
      0
      I agree!
      I remember the old article "Revelations of the restricted person" http://www.obretenie.info/events/russia/ali_sher.htm
      Aircraft carriers are beautiful, cool, cool. But to achieve parity with the United States, you need to build the same number! From one or two, they won't even lead their ears. What are 30 planes? - these are 100 ground-to-air missiles! GIVE AN ASYMETRICAL ANSWER!
      Instead of 3000 people in the AUG, you need only 300 on board the cruiser. A missile cruiser with 5000 KR on board in 15 minutes will destroy any European state.

      Moreover, it is clear that 30 aircraft from an aircraft carrier will never take off at the same time. In the best case, 20. But 5000 KR will start as nefig do
  • Assistant
    Assistant 7 July 2013 03: 51
    0
    I am absolutely not an expert in matters of modern aircraft carriers, and when I read the article, or rather, when viewing photos, a number of questions arose. Maybe someone from those present will be able to give answers to them?
    Why are planes located on both sides of the landing strip on the model?
    Why is the landing strip so narrow (a little more than 2 times wider than the fighter)?
    Why does the landing strip go straight to the start points of acceleration?
    I would be grateful for the clarification.
  • roma-belij
    roma-belij 7 July 2013 13: 05
    +1
    I answer. The aircraft on the layout are arranged in a marching manner, not for flights. The landing strip enters the runway because the aircraft carrier does not land and take off at the same time. And as for the width, everything seems to be by standards.
    As for the similarity with foreigners, I personally did not notice anything similar. If it were not for 2 control towers, the spitting image of "Ulyanovsk" unrealized in the 80s. The ship was built according to our traditions.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 7 July 2013 14: 12
    +1
    Roma, the planes are in the hangars under the upper deck. Above, only the duty link of fighters, reconnaissance aircraft / drlo, bad, and even then not always. As shown in the mock-up, aircraft can only be deployed when it is necessary to provide a high rate of departure and if the release of the entire air wing or a significant part of it is expected. In addition to the two superstructures, the difference from Ulyanovsk is also the presence of parking spaces on the flight deck on the left side of the model. In Ulyanovsk, one of three elevators was located there. The difference is also in the configuration of the starting positions. The two extreme right on the springboard must ensure takeoff simultaneously with the landing. When large groups of aircraft return, as well as in adverse weather conditions, there may be tankers waiting for the launch.