Military Review

Do we need aircraft carriers? At this stage, Russia is losing the naval race

34

Over the past five years, the Russian military, defense industry managers and members of the expert community have been engaged in heated debate over the construction of domestic aircraft carriers. There are two main, absolutely polar points of view: Naval the fleet Russia does not need aircraft carriers at all, and, on the contrary, without the inclusion of aircraft carrier groups in our Navy, it will be impossible to ensure reliable protection of Russian maritime borders during a future war.


We add that the problem is seriously aggravated by the time factor: the naval race preceding a possible new world war has already begun de facto, and at this stage Russia is losing it.

As is known, the only aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy was and still remains TAKR (heavy aircraft carrying cruiser) "Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov", which is obsolete in its tactical and technical characteristics.

Initially, it was clear that the time of aircraft-carrying cruisers, as a class of warships, had passed. However, the confusion arose right on the stage of the initial determination of the appearance of new ships.

Even 27 July 2008, the then commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, issued a statement that the fleet command "decided to build not just aircraft carriers, but naval aircraft carrier systems." “Everything should work in the system, including aircraft carriers. We called it the Marine Carrier System (MAS), which will be based on the Northern and Pacific Fleets. The construction of such systems will begin after 2012 of the year, ”the future aircraft carrier ships described the commander in chief of the Navy. It was assumed that from the conventional fleets of autonomous aircraft carrier groups in foreign fleets, Russian MAS will differ in linking with the air defense-EKO grouping.

However, on October 13, 2008, the Supreme Commander of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, while visiting the Admiral Kuznetsov TAKR, voiced the exact opposite point of view, instructing the Ministry of Defense to develop a program for the construction of new aircraft-carrying cruisers. “It is necessary to restore the very base for the creation of aircraft-carrying cruisers and, in fact, the entire Navy. The aircraft-carrying cruiser is being built on average for about five years; by the year of 2013 – 2015, we will be able to get the first results if we count down five years from the decision, ”Medvedev stressed.

After a few months, the idea of ​​reviving aircraft-carrying cruisers quietly sunk into oblivion.

On June 25, 2009, Navy Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Vysotsky unequivocally declared that Russia would build in the future "sea aviation complexes, since the creation of standard ships of this type (aircraft carriers) has become unpromising today. ” In particular, Admiral Vysotsky made an important clarification: the naval doctrine provides for the construction of new aircraft carriers, but these should not be just carriers of aircraft - the fleet will receive marine aviation systems, which will include “space component, aviation, marine and advanced technologies in other areas. " That is, the Navy Commander-in-Chief continued the advancement of the somewhat rewritten idea of ​​“marine carrier systems”.

The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) spoke against the conceived by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy "project MAS-MAK". The USC insisted on the need to build a classic aircraft carrier. Vice-Admiral Anatoly Shlemov, head of the USC State Defense Order Department, emphasized: “All ship designs must be designed for the basing and flying of airplanes that are themselves carriers of weapons. There will be no cruise missiles on the aircraft carrier, as it was practiced on Soviet and Russian aircraft-carrying cruisers, since it will perform only its intended functions. ” From the point of view of shipbuilders, the Russian aircraft carrier of the new generation will have to have the following characteristics: displacement 60 thousand tons, full autonomy, the ability to carry on board 60-70 combat aircraft. In addition, Admiral Shlemov proposed the inclusion of reconnaissance and shock drones in the composition of deck aircraft.

Further, the situation developed in a standard way - neither side wanted to yield. The commander-in-chief of the Navy continued to insist on the creation of a ship that "would have to act in all environments, that is, be multi-media." USC, through the words of its general director, Roman Trotsenko, defended the idea of ​​a classic project. At the end of June 2011, Trotsenko defiantly announced that the construction of an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 80 thousand tons would begin in Russia in 2018 and be completed five years later. The outcome of this conflict was predictable. 12 May 2012 was followed by a categorical statement by Anatoly Serdyukov: “The Russian Ministry of Defense does not intend to begin building aircraft carriers for the Navy in the near future. There are no such plans. ”

And only when all three main participants of the epic described above — Serdyukov, Vysotsky, and Trotsenko — were retired, was the question of building aircraft carriers again raised to the appropriate level.

The sole reason for the resumption of the development of the long-suffering project was the launching ceremony of the first aircraft carrier of the Chinese Navy "Liaoning" that took place on 25 on September 2012 in the port of Dalian. In the Russian press flashed an article titled: "China has overtaken Russia in the construction of aircraft carriers." Add that the head of the Chinese State Shipbuilding Corporation Hu Wenming said: China plans to put into operation new, more powerful ships of this class by 2020. Another significant circumstance should be mentioned: after very lengthy ups and downs with the modernization of the aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya", during which the very limited capabilities of the Russian shipbuilding industry were clearly demonstrated, India decided to build the first aircraft carrier for its Navy on its own. Thus, it became obvious that Russia is losing the naval race in the most important strategic position. Therefore, the statement of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy Viktor Chirkov, sounded by 19 of May of this year, cannot be considered accidental: “Work continues on creating a promising appearance of a new nuclear aircraft carrier for our Navy. We need an aircraft carrier, not yesterday and not today, but a really promising ship, surpassing all existing ships of this class. This is our strict requirement for the industry and we will not refuse it. ” The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy has determined the approximate dates: the serial construction of new aircraft carriers will start from 2021.

Nevertheless, the ambitious plans of China and India to create powerful aircraft carrier groups as part of their fleets did not at all convince many Russian military, defense industry leaders and experts in the possibility of similar steps to build the capacity of our fleet. For example, Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov, Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper, said: “We are not building any aircraft carriers. The case is limited only to declarations, despite the fact that the start dates are declared the most diverse - from 2015 to 2030 of the year. ” An even more skeptical point of view was expressed on the pages of the Svobodnaya Pressa online edition by Alexander Surpin, an expert at the Weapon of the 21st Century Information and Analytical Center, captain of the 2 rank: “Due to the paucity of financial resources, Russia cannot maintain such ships. Only his (Admiral Kuznetsov TAKR) elementary service costs several million dollars a year. ”

A military columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Viktor Litovkin, made a definitive conclusion - the construction of aircraft carriers in Russia is impossible: “Indeed, there is no place to build aircraft carriers in our country. There is no corresponding base for this. Shipbuilding plants in Russia for the construction of aircraft carriers are not adapted - neither St. Petersburg, nor Kaliningrad, nor Komsomolsk-on-Amur, nor even the Severodvinsk "Sevmash". There are no corresponding docks, slipways, a proper number of highly skilled specialists. Our naval leadership still does not agree on conceptual issues. In particular, what kind of aircraft carriers we need - with a catapult system of take-off of deck fighters or with a horizontal one, as has been built so far. But besides the aircraft carriers themselves, ships of a multi-purpose aircraft carrier group — cruisers, frigates, corvettes, support ships, shipborne long-range radar patrol and detection aircraft are needed. ”

Some experts agreed in general that Russia does not need aircraft carriers at all.

Thus, Alexander Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, believes that aircraft carriers can be really replaced by “improved Air Force and Air Defense”: “The only conceivable use of aircraft carriers in the event of a“ big ”war (with NATO or China) is to push the air defense and DOT limits to a few hundred miles from their shores. This problem is much cheaper and more efficiently can be solved by developing and improving the Air Force, Air Defense, coastal SCRC and submarine fleet. Especially given the fact that aircraft carriers with such a variant of their use will be "disposable products." There remains the option of using aircraft carriers for "raiding" operations in the countries of the "third world". It's hard enough to understand why we need it. We do not need to seize other people's resources, to keep ours ”.

However, the most original arguments in favor of the complete freezing of the program for creating aircraft-carrier groups of the Russian Navy were expressed by the analyst of the Military Review publication Alexander Samsonov: “There is a moral aspect to the situation with the construction of aircraft carriers. The possession of aircraft carriers puts our state in the category of "hostile", engaged in conducting military special operations abroad. As an example, consider the United States, whose naval forces include 11 aircraft carriers that are actively involved in armed conflicts around the globe, including the war in Libya. But Russia has always declared its defense strategy and refrains from participating in military operations outside its own territory. ”

This brings to mind the famous phrase of Marshal of the Soviet Union Grigory Kulik, said shortly before the start of the Great Patriotic War: “We don’t need automatic machines. Automatic - a weapon of gangsters and police.

In assessing the real practical significance of the above arguments, it is necessary to recognize that with regard to the problems of the production and technological plan, much of what was said by the opponents of the program to create an aircraft carrier fleet is really fair. Yes, we have no experience in building aircraft carriers and we will have to create such an experience from scratch. The existing production capacities of Russian shipbuilding enterprises are not enough to build ships of such enormous displacement and difficult in terms of technological "stuffing" of ships. It is also true that during the years of the complete collapse of the defense industry of the 90-s period and the fake "stability" of the zero-period period, the most valuable personnel of specialists were lost - from designers and marine engineers to highly skilled workers. This personnel shortage is the most serious problem not only for the shipbuilding industry, but for the entire Russian defense industry as a whole. Since an aircraft carrier is the most technically complex type of military equipment, the problem of a huge range of components required for the commissioning of this ship — navigation equipment, special radar systems, engines, and so on — raises to its full height. Many of these components are produced in Russia in very limited quantities or not at all. A separate problematic issue is deck-based aviation: the Su-33 or MiG-29 KUB maritime fighters currently available are in all respects obsolete. That is, it is necessary to create from scratch not only aircraft carriers themselves, but also deck aircraft on board. Finally, even with the successful construction of an aircraft carrier, there will instantly be a problem of special bases for these ships (there are no such facilities at present) and their provision of adequate infrastructure. As a result, the total expenditures from the state budget within the framework of solving all these tasks will reach numbers, which the opponents of the aircraft carrier program call completely unaffordable for our country.

First of all, note that in stories Russia more than once and not twice happened when we had to start building the navy from scratch. And we coped with this task. In other words, experience, production facilities, human resources, financial resources - this is all a matter of mainly political will.

We urgently need to overcome the deadly skepticism that has become the norm everywhere and is knitting us hand and foot. Why is India or China, still scientifically and technologically inferior to Russia, capable of building aircraft carriers, and we are not?

Leave this question open.

Objections against the formation of aircraft carrier groups, as such, deserve closer attention. But in this case, the truly significant arguments are de facto missing. The same Khramchikhin, contrary to his own opinion, asserts: “The very fact that China commissioned a ship that is not a full-fledged aircraft carrier and cannot serve as a prototype for new ships clearly indicates that China attaches great importance to the development of its naval forces. and is going to build an aircraft carrier fleet. Otherwise, he would not need a training aircraft carrier. ” Both the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, and Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees the defense industrial complex, have repeatedly stressed: the Asia-Pacific region is the sphere of the most important strategic interests of our country. The simple question is: is the navy a tool for securing these interests or not? If the United States, India, China, in order to ensure their interests in the Asia-Pacific Region, are taking urgent measures to build up aircraft carrier groups as part of their fleets, then what actions should Russia take?

We emphasize that Soviet military science once gave an unequivocal answer to this question. Thus, a professor of the Naval Academy of the USSR Navy, Captain 1 of the rank of V.D. Dotsenko, in his work “History of Naval Art”, wrote: “In 1972, a research work was performed under the code“ Order ”, the conclusion of which was:“ Aviation support for the Navy is of paramount, urgent task, as it raises issues of maritime strategic nuclear forces; without air cover under the conditions of the domination of anti-submarine aviation of a potential enemy, we will not be able to ensure not only the combat stability, but also the deployment of our submarines with both ballistic missiles and multi-purpose, which are the main striking force of the Navy; without a fighter cover, the successful operation of coastal-launched naval missile, reconnaissance and anti-submarine aviation — the second most important strike component of the Navy; without fighter cover, more or less acceptable combat stability of surface ships is impossible. " Thus, four decades ago, our naval theorists formulated an axiom: counteraction to an aircraft carrier fleet without its own sea-based aviation is unpromising. The result of this research work was the decision of the country's leadership to build a series of heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers.

At present, the level of technology of the naval war has become much higher. The quantity and quality of the carrier forces of the leading fleets of the world is only increasing. The development of aircraft carrier programs are engaged in countries that have not yet possessed not only aircraft carriers, but also significant naval forces in general. Contrary to the popular opinion of opponents of the program of formation of aircraft carrier groups, who believe that the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier as the main means of fighting at sea, has developed during the Second World War, the role of ships of this class does not become less significant. First of all, it can be seen from the development trends of the naval potential of the dominant power in the World Ocean - the United States. The US Navy has the ability to make more than 3000 sorties per day and continues to improve the efficiency of its aircraft carrier forces.

We can confidently assume that the war on the sea in the 21st century will be a clash of aircraft carrier groups.

Of course, the specifics of the Russian maritime doctrine differ from the American one. It is against this fact that the opponents of the formation of the carrier groups of the Russian Navy are particularly concerned. But at the same time they forget that Russia is a country with the most significant length of maritime borders. Even to a non-specialist, it is obvious that a fleet devoid of aircraft carriers is pressed to the coast line, since it can receive air cover only from coast-based aircraft. Accordingly, if there is a long coastline, the advantage will be on the side of the enemy aircraft carrier group. Being on the operational field, the enemy will be able to freely choose targets for strikes, without entering the zone of destruction of coastal assets and the coastal fleet, remaining under the protection of their aircraft and submarine forces. Another important point: the removal of the line of defense of the sea frontiers farther from the coast with the help of its own aircraft carrier forces is much cheaper and more efficient than an equivalent strengthening of coastal defense and coastal fleet. Thus, to ensure a strategic presence in the oceans and reliable protection of the maritime border of Russia, it is necessary to create powerful aircraft carrier groups. Otherwise, our fleet will be obviously weaker and more vulnerable for the potential enemy fleet.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/
34 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. GreatRussia
    GreatRussia 10 July 2013 07: 31 New
    12
    At this stage, Russia is losing the naval race

    How can she lose her if she has not taken part in it for almost 20 years?
    1. Chuck-norris
      Chuck-norris 10 July 2013 12: 28 New
      +4
      We have devoted a lot of substantiation and discussion to the need for the composition of our fleet of aircraft carriers. Recent days have brought some news that allows us to hope for the appearance of these ships in the fleet.

      Last week, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that Russia could return to the question of creating a new domestic aircraft carrier in the 2015 – 2025 period. He emphasized that “the appearance of an aircraft carrier project in the state armament program is highly likely to be considered,” and “Russian industry has the potential to create them.”

      The readiness of the industry was confirmed on Monday by Anatoly Shlemov (director of the department of state defense orders of the United Shipbuilding Corporation). He said that the experience of such work, which the Russian industry simply did not have, and the Ukrainian one had long lost, was gained during the construction of the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier for India. Sevmash, which used to be the flagship of underwater shipbuilding, successfully completed this work. And now he is ready for similar orders for the domestic fleet. In addition, the Indian order made it possible to re-create cooperative ties and production chains at a specific job. They existed in the USSR, which built ships of a similar class until the 1991 year. But for Russia, it was actually work done from scratch. This groundwork cannot be scattered.

      As well as experience in the operation and use of carrier-based aviation, obtained at the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR. Now we have our own school of flying from the deck, ready-made specialists and pilots who must pass on their experience. Near Yeysk, a ground-based training complex NITKA is being built, on which pilots and technical specialists can be trained. This is what we already have. And many other countries (such as China, India, and in the future others too) will have to spend many years to accumulate this experience. And as Shlemov rightly remarked, "we must save a whole kind of naval forces - carrier-based aircraft."

      The fleet has always understood the need for carrier-based aviation, primarily for the combat stability of units and formations of ships. Recall that back in 1972, a comprehensive research work was carried out under the code "Order". She modeled various uses of the Soviet Navy, and her conclusions were as follows:

      “The aviation support of the Navy is a paramount, urgent task, since it affects the issues of naval strategic nuclear forces; without air cover in the conditions of domination of a probable enemy by anti-submarine aviation, we will not be able to provide not only combat stability, but also the deployment of our submarines, both with ballistic missiles and multi-purpose ones, which are the main striking force of the Navy; without fighter cover, the successful operation of coastal missile-carrying, reconnaissance and anti-submarine aviation, the second most important strike component of the Navy, is impossible; without fighter cover, more or less acceptable combat stability of surface ships is impossible. ”
      1. Chuck-norris
        Chuck-norris 10 July 2013 12: 28 New
        +1
        continued:

        Another thing is that throughout almost the entire history of our country, not the fleet, but the state made decisions in the field of military development. The wishes of the fleet and its understanding of its development is one thing. And the state’s capabilities are different. And the fleet was always ready to proceed from what they were given, fulfilling its combat missions in any conditions. However, without ceasing to hope for the best. Last year, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Viktor Chirkov showed a model of a promising Russian aircraft carrier standing on his desk (screenshot).

        Nevertheless, there is no aircraft carrier in the current State Arms Program. And after the 2015 – 2025 years, we are only going to return to the consideration of this issue. Why?

        Firstly, as Yuri Borisov rightly remarked, “this is a very expensive pleasure”, and the question of timing is first of all “a question of our financial capabilities”. Anatoly Shlemov also said the same thing, emphasizing that "... the task is extremely difficult, extremely costly, very time-consuming and will require the efforts of the entire Russian defense industry, since an aircraft carrier is probably the most complex system of naval weapons."

        Secondly, we don’t need “any” aircraft carrier. If we take up such work, then its result should at least correspond to the needs of the fleet. It should be clarified: despite the fact that the armament program does not provide for the construction of such a ship, this does not mean at all that work on it is not carried out at all. The program for creating the Marine Aircraft Carrier Complex (IAC) already has its own history. And the system integrator of design work in this area (Central Research Institute named after Academician A.N. Krylov) last year already submitted several advance projects to the fleet for consideration. But the fleet management had objective claims to the appearance of the submitted works.

        First of all, they concerned the composition of the air group. It should, firstly, be quite large. This is required by the experience gained during the development of options for the use of carrier-based aircraft from the Admiral Kuznetsov TVKR. Secondly, the air group must include an aircraft radar patrol (RLD). He is simply not there yet. But it should be provided even at the design stage of the carrier ship.

        In addition, the fleet wants to have electromagnetic catapults on board the aircraft carrier. This is not a whim. The fact is that the presence of catapults seriously accelerates the process of launching (and, accordingly, landing) aircraft. But the use of steam catapults has difficulties in our Arctic latitudes. So this requirement cannot be considered unreasonably overstated.

        Well, another circumstance did not allow last year to submit for consideration projects that would have a deeper study. Central Research Institute Academician A.N. Krylova, chosen as a system integrator of work on this topic, does not have her own experience in designing such ships. He is forced to use the achievements of the Nevsky Design Bureau (which developed all Soviet projects of aircraft carriers). These developments are, and they even have their own development. But we need not updated projects of the Soviet era (even if they are so serious as the unrealized project 11437 - Ulyanovsk). We need to create a new ship. And here, perhaps, it is required to transfer the full responsibility to those who are able to cope with such work.

        For such a major maritime power like Russia, the issue of owning its own carrier-based aircraft is not a matter of prestige or ambition. This is a matter of the quality of the sea’s power of the state, a question of the fleet’s ability to fulfill its tasks and ensure the country's security and defend its interests in modern conditions. Therefore, we will not be able to get away from a qualitative renewal of the fleet, which is impossible without our own “wings over the sea”. The industry is ready for such work. The fleet has long been waiting for her.
      2. vladimirZ
        vladimirZ 10 July 2013 17: 41 New
        +3
        On the issue of creating Russian aircraft carriers
        Unfortunately, now the situation in Russian shipbuilding is like in the toast of the film "Prisoner of the Caucasus:
        "I have the desire to buy a house, but I have no opportunity. I have the opportunity to buy a goat, but I have no desire. So let's drink to our desires always coinciding with our capabilities."
    2. strange and pretty meaningless
      strange and pretty meaningless 10 July 2013 12: 31 New
      +3
      The weapon must smash ALL adversaries with ONE shot. So that the enemy, sweating and bleeding bile, perishes from convulsions only after learning about its existence.
    3. strange and pretty meaningless
      strange and pretty meaningless 10 July 2013 12: 37 New
      +2
      "It is safe to assume that the war at sea in the XNUMXst century will be a clash of aircraft carrier groups."
      Is the branch naval? NAVY !!! YOU CAN RUN A CAR! WELL EVERYTHING, Mlyn, I CARRY. Lie down AUGi ...
  2. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 10 July 2013 07: 34 New
    +8
    It has long been proven that a super expensive club called AUG is needed only by countries that plan to seize world domination, and also against not very strong opponents. The aircraft carrier itself will not sail, so dozens of security ships must be tied to it right there. So it turns out that even those ships that could perform tasks on their own will be spinning in the AUG. The density of the AUG construction is such that even one nuclear missile that has broken through will destroy the entire group. what is such a benefit here, I do not understand. In peacetime, construction and maintenance will cost such an amount. Someone really wants to drag Russia into an intolerable race. Only a person with little knowledge of the economy can argue hoarsely about the need for aircraft carriers for Russia.
    1. ABV
      ABV 10 July 2013 07: 47 New
      0
      Reminiscent of "Reagan's Tales" -SOI - Star Wars ...
    2. GreatRussia
      GreatRussia 10 July 2013 08: 06 New
      +5
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Only a person with little knowledge of the economy can argue hoarsely about the need for aircraft carriers for Russia


      In principle, one can agree with this. But such a "static aircraft carrier" is definitely a good solution:

      Cyprus allowed the Russian armed forces to use the air base

      "Andreas Papandreou" in Paphos. The parties came to an agreement during negotiations between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his Cypriot counterpart Ioannis Kasoulidis at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, which ended yesterday. The Cypriot newspaper Filelefteros reports.

      This agreement extends the existing agreement between Moscow and Nicosia, which allows Russian ships to call for refueling in Limassol.

      It is reported that the agreement will be formally ratified during the next meeting of the Presidents of the Russian Federation and Cyprus, Vladimir Putin and Nikos Anastasiadis.

      The topic of negotiations between the Russian and Cypriot sides in the framework of the economic forum was also the issue of restructuring the debt of the island state to Russia.

      We add that in early 2012, media reported that Israel was interested in opening the air force base in Paphos. However, these rumors subsequently did not materialize.

      http://top.rbc.ru/politics/23/06/2013/863003.shtml






      From Cyprus to Syria a little more than 200 km!
      From Cyprus to Turkey less than 100 km!
      Israel is just over 250 km away!

      http://maps.yandex.ru/?text=%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F sll=36.318483%2C33.467927&ll=37.263755%2C34.274717&spn=10.327148%2C4.641567&z=7&

      l=map&rl=32.55061988%2C34.73401592~3.37280273%2C0.07252564


      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 10 July 2013 09: 19 New
        +2
        If even with Cuba, an agreement to sign is generally fine, and hundreds of times cheaper
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 10 July 2013 10: 41 New
          +3
          Quote: vladsolo56
          If even with Cuba, an agreement to sign is generally fine, and hundreds of times cheaper

          In the event of another Caribbean crisis, the States will introduce a 200-mile, and maybe much larger (good modern fleet allows) quarantine zone and Cuba will be in a very unenviable position with our Air Force base if it is deployed there. They will put AUG at the entrance to the Gulf of Mexico and our aircraft will be powerless! The question is, why do we need to have a base that we cannot even defend in the event of a real threat? To protect their remote bases and allies, a Fleet is needed and preferably aircraft carrier!
      2. Retx
        Retx 10 July 2013 11: 44 New
        +1
        It’s just a great place, and the neighbors are good: 2 motorized infantry battalions, a British helicopter squadron, and 11 Turkish army corps for sweets, along with the security forces of Northern Cyprus.
    3. Retx
      Retx 10 July 2013 09: 23 New
      +2
      You are not quite right. AUG is used by maritime powers with overseas territories. The USSR had aircraft carriers with experience in combat use.
      And then the meaning of the entire fleet after the start of the use of "vigorous loaves"?
      1. A-50
        A-50 10 July 2013 16: 21 New
        +1
        Start of application
        Quote: RETX
        "vigorous loaves"
        does not at all mean the end of the fleet - and, in general, the beginning of the end. Do you really think that with the first "mushroom" you will only have to pray?
  3. makst83
    makst83 10 July 2013 07: 42 New
    +1
    Aircraft-carrying ships can be built in cooperation with the Nikolaev shipyard, as it was during the Soviet Union ..... provided that Ukraine will have an "adequate", friendly-minded power towards us!
    1. Dart weyder
      Dart weyder 11 July 2013 05: 53 New
      0
      fear God - who is there to connect !? already tried under Yusch - and what did you get !? NATA said no - and that’s it, and it didn’t matter to him that he couldn’t sell the production - but to raise the people to work, the country’s profit - they gave him his pocket - he refused, you don’t have a circus with An-70 !? - also a joint project .... in Russia, they cut the loot - so that they don’t know how to catch it, - and in cooperation with Ukrainian colleagues - there will not be any money at all ... as long as there is courage for the trough and Europe to fight - it makes no sense .... although it was b not bad, and united b ...
  4. shamil
    shamil 10 July 2013 08: 18 New
    +4
    A modern navy should have aircraft carriers, and not to gain world domination, but to protect the interests of Russia and its vast territory
  5. igor36
    igor36 10 July 2013 08: 29 New
    +3
    First you need to restore and improve the system of basing points (BMB) without talking about a full-fledged influence using the Navy is pointless !!! Syria, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. Grouping the Navy in any composition without full support is nothing.
  6. strange and pretty meaningless
    strange and pretty meaningless 10 July 2013 08: 52 New
    +3
    We needed a nuclear trio-bunch "Anchar" - "Orlan" - "Ulyanovsk" accompanied by multipurpose nuclear submarines. The wing did not protrude "long arms" - but supplemented the air defense of the formations and the Orlanov missiles. Plus an underwater sword. They would be the masters of the seas. Did not make it...
    Now the possibilities are not the same - first, Ukraine needs to be connected in order to rivet floating airfields. It is necessary to build up the underwater component - "Ash", repair titanium 945s, re-equip the "loaves" and master anaerobic power plants on "stirlings", it is possible to hybridize them with compact reactors (the main source of noise - GTZA - to exclude). Well, the shock component - "Boreas". Superbatteries of "lionfish" from "Sharks" would be very useful, but it seems they have already tried.
    On surface ships - capital "Eagles" and rivet destroyers.
    AND - STAR TARGET INDICATION and EXPLORATION.
  7. dojjdik
    dojjdik 10 July 2013 08: 58 New
    0
    We do not need these "floating airfields" - with a good air defense system, you can shoot down 80% of the carrier-based aircraft of any aircraft carrier. after which the AUG itself turns into an unnecessary "floating toilet" which does not need to be heated at all, let it float
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 10 July 2013 10: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: dojjdik
      We do not need these "floating airfields" - with a good air defense system, you can shoot down 80% of the carrier-based aircraft of any aircraft carrier. after which the AUG itself turns into an unnecessary "floating toilet" which does not need to be heated at all, let it float

      Listen to you, so it can generally refuse ships of the first rank, rivet ships of the littoral zone (though in which case they will of course "fight" a lot), and cover the deployment areas of the same Boreans and dolphins, MPLATRK and SSGN from PLO aircraft and nuclear submarines of hunters (such as virginia, si-wolf) what will you be, coastal air defense and its own aviation? or do you offer them to shoot from the pier?
  8. Sharingan
    Sharingan 10 July 2013 09: 19 New
    +1
    Do you need aircraft carriers or not, let the military experts decide. But the fact that Russia is technologically, economically, and personnel unable to build a ship of this class is very depressing.

    PS You can, of course, buy from the French and the whole short-lived.
    (bitter irony) sad
    1. A-50
      A-50 10 July 2013 16: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: Sharingan
      You can, of course, buy from the French

      ...French Kiss. But without the mediation of the state treasury. Serdyukov and Vasilyeva can do without a "yacht".
  9. Xmypp
    Xmypp 10 July 2013 09: 36 New
    +1
    I understood from the article that I would grow old and die faster than I would see an aircraft carrier.
    It may already be chipped to everyone in the country for 5 pieces, otherwise they will never be built, they will feed everyone breakfasts.
  10. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 10 July 2013 10: 15 New
    0
    And we have never been a leader in the construction and use of aircraft carriers. Either they were behind, or they went their own way. A quality race could have been made if Ulyanovsk had been built.
  11. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 10 July 2013 11: 22 New
    +2
    The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy continued to insist on the creation of a ship that "would have to operate in all environments, that is, be multi-media."

    What really trifles then. To create, so to create.
    1. strange and pretty meaningless
      strange and pretty meaningless 10 July 2013 12: 59 New
      +3
      Quote: Trapper7
      The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy continued to insist on the creation of a ship that "would have to operate in all environments, that is, be multilateral

      laughing Raising the topic to a LONG height, it should be SEPTEMBER, that is, be able to change the temporal fabric of the universe (in short, cancel Mondays). Kernel-loaf - miserable show off Indians. Our MONSTER buit to shoot Higgs bosons. Brenn Beer Road !!! The eight-footed sevenuruk. Fear the enemy - tremble sworn friend. We are going!
  12. VadimSt
    VadimSt 10 July 2013 11: 22 New
    0
    Weird question! The answer was given immediately after Russia announced that it intends to renew its presence in the oceans.
  13. Nayhas
    Nayhas 10 July 2013 12: 01 New
    +1
    The topic of the upcoming super-space aircraft carrier so amuses the pride of kvas patriots ... Even the fact that there is nowhere to build them, that there are no basing places, that there are no escort ships does not bother anyone ... Not to mention the fact that there is no money for this trouble. ..
  14. alicante11
    alicante11 10 July 2013 12: 19 New
    0
    Percussion AB we do not need. Given the enemy’s strong air defense presence and the presence of strong missile armaments in our ships, even 50-60 aircraft will not make the weather. Some of them will be intercepted by the enemy air wing, part destroyed by its air defense system. And this is an unnecessary loss of both people and aircraft, while the remaining vehicles obviously will not be able to qualitatively increase the impact on enemy ships. Therefore, we need air defense carriers whose fighter aircraft will cover the actions of land aircraft and strengthen air defense connections at remote borders. Therefore, the TAKR, which has 3 of a dozen fighters and powerful strike missile weapons, is what we need. And floating airfields - this is true for amers.
  15. Mhpv
    Mhpv 10 July 2013 13: 03 New
    0
    Well, if Russia still decided to attack America (in order to return Alaska, or for something else), and the Americans have 11 aircraft carriers, then following the logic, you can answer with the words EBN:

    An aircraft carrier is a uterus that is guarded, accompanied and fed by a whole anthill. Too expensive a pleasure for the whole anthillhi
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 11 July 2013 11: 06 New
      0
      In any case, we will have to create a couple of aircraft carriers ... At least to maintain the technological level and military design thought. It just SHOULD be just in case. Although they can also influence the geopolitical situation. And if the governments of any countries begin to "wag", then you can send an argument to reason ...
  16. ovgorskiy
    ovgorskiy 10 July 2013 15: 13 New
    +3
    We emphasize that Soviet military science at one time gave an unambiguous answer to this question.
    It was precisely Soviet science that once admitted that aircraft carriers similar to the American USSR could not be built, neither financially nor technologically advanced. And this despite the fact that modern Russia does not need to be compared with the entire USSR. To counter the American AUG, you need not one aircraft carrier, but a dozen. Everything else, just money down the drain, and what kind of money! Cheaper and more efficient measures are needed. In my opinion, it would be more reasonable to build ships, such as heavy nuclear missile cruisers. If we admit that our country is not going to attack anyone, but to create an effective defense, then it is they who can perform this task more cheaply and push the defense line as far as possible and, of course, strengthen and improve coastal defense and air defense. The motto should be the same: "2 missiles are much cheaper than 1 aircraft," and competing with the Americans in the number of aircraft carriers is a stupid and unpromising undertaking. IMHO.
    1. Master Taiga
      Master Taiga 10 July 2013 19: 03 New
      0
      That's right. Aircraft carrier was like building a millionaire city from scratch. Even the USSR did not pull. And technologically and even more so.
  17. Master Taiga
    Master Taiga 10 July 2013 18: 49 New
    -1

    Russian aircraft carriers in general Not needed. They are too expensive and vulnerable.
  18. Odysseus
    Odysseus 10 July 2013 19: 01 New
    0
    We need to focus on ocean fleets that have real combat missions.
    North-SSBN, nuclear submarines and ships of the near zone.
    Pacific Fleet submarine and frigate / destroyer ships.
    Plus bases and personnel (especially for Pacific Fleet)
    While this is nothing, talking about aircraft carriers is simply ridiculous.
  19. Dimka off
    Dimka off 10 July 2013 19: 52 New
    0
    Of course, I am not an expert in marine affairs, but as for me, they are needed but in the amount of 3-4 units. And it is not necessary to carry more than a hundred aircraft on board - it is better to give them powerful missile weapons. And the main forces of the fleet are TARKR-type ships Peter the Great, and a powerful submarine fleet. And I agree with Rogozin that letting as many weapons as possible on ships — from the smallest to the largest — be better than more than a dozen large aircraft carriers.