Military Review

Russian aircraft carriers: 6 forgotten projects

103
Russian aircraft carriers: 6 forgotten projects

In August 1953, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Nikolai Kuznetsov, presented to the Minister of Defense of the USSR Nikolai Bulganin a report in which he outlined his views on tasks and development fleet, and also formulated proposals for the construction of new warships. The report emphasized that "in the post-war conditions, without the presence of aircraft carriers in the Navy, the solution of the main tasks of the fleet cannot be achieved."


Since that time, more than 50 years have passed, and as part of the national fleet there is the only understaffed aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, and the life time of the Russian military fleet on the high seas in the event of a real war is calculated in minutes. On the tragic fate of the domestic aircraft carrier fleet, Popular Mechanics was told by the chief designer of the 1160 project's atomic aircraft carrier project, deputy chief designer of the aircraft carrier of the 1153 project and heavy aircraft carrier cruisers Arkady Morin.

Sunset battleships

Appearing in the 20-ies of the last century, aircraft carriers were initially considered solely as a means of supporting combat operations of the main striking force of the fleet - battleships. That was until 7 December 1941, when the Japanese carrier fleet sank the American battleships at Pearl Harbor. Immediately after the attack, the Americans laid a series of 24 aircraft carriers of the Essex type - such a large series of such large warships in stories world shipbuilding was neither before nor after. Seventeen aircraft carriers from the series managed to enter service during the war and allowed the United States to win the battle in the Pacific. It is noteworthy that the most powerful of the battleships ever built, the Japanese Yamato with nine 457-mm guns, which was not able to cause serious damage to the enemy ships during the entire war, was sunk in April 1945 by aircraft from American aircraft carriers.

After the war, it became clear to all countries that new undivided owners — aircraft carriers — appeared in the open sea. Everyone except the USSR. However, Nikolai Kuznetsov, an ardent supporter of the new type of ships, the flagship of the 2 fleet of the Navy, appointed in April 1939 of the Navy Commissar, was in our country. Thanks to his efforts, the plans of the third five-year plan of 1938 – 1942 included the laying of two aircraft carriers, one each for the Northern and Pacific fleets. However, as early as January 1940, the naval plan was cut in half, and there were no aircraft carriers in it. Stalin had an inexplicable passion for huge battleships, and few dared to object to him. But Kuznetsov did not let up - on his instructions in the TsKB-17 under the direction of V.V. Ashika continued development of aircraft carriers. The work was carried out in two directions: a large aircraft carrier with a two-tier hangar on an 62 aircraft (72 project) and a small one-level on an 32 aircraft (71 project). The deck fighter was planned to be replaced by the ship modification of the famous Yakovlev fighter Yak-9K, the Tupolev Design Bureau was to develop the PT-M71 ship torpedo bombers. The main way to take-off aircraft from aircraft carriers was a free run on the flight deck, the use of catapults was provided only with a maximum take-off mass and adverse weather conditions.

Created by Kuznetsov at the beginning of 1945, the commission for choosing the necessary types of ships for the post-war fleet formation came up to the need to create two types of aircraft carriers first: squadrons (large) - for the Northern and Pacific fleets and small - for the Baltic and Black Sea. Based on the findings of the commission, the Main Marine Headquarters, when drafting proposals for a prospective plan for post-war development of the Navy, provided for the construction of nine large aircraft carriers (six for the Pacific and three for the Northern fleets) and six small for the Northern fleet. When considering the number of aircraft carriers in the government reduced to four, and Stalin summed up: "Well, let's build two small pieces." But they also disappeared from the final version of the plan: the leaders of the Narkomsudproma stated that “they are not yet ready to build such fundamentally new ships”. The paradox was that without such ships, the construction of others lost all meaning. So in the USSR began to build a meaningless fleet.

Low cost aircraft carrier

According to the plan of the great strategist, during the ten post-war years it was planned to build four heavy and 30 light cruisers, and in the 1953 – 1956 years to lay three more heavy and seven light cruisers. At the same time, Stalin intended to continue the construction of one of the three battleships of the 23 project that had been laid before the war, and to begin building two more on the more advanced 1955 project in 24. All over the world such plans would be considered as idiotic, in the USSR they were called brilliant.

In this regard, work on the 72 squadron aircraft carrier project ceased, and instead the indefatigable Kuznetsov approved a new technical task for the development of a small squadron aircraft carrier that could perform in the coastal zone the tasks of anti-aircraft defense of the formation, participation in anti-submarine defense, deploying convoys and support the landing of the landing force.

Such a "budget" aircraft carrier had to carry 30-40 aircraft in hangars. To facilitate the launch, it was planned to install one catapult in the nasal extremity. As an option, the completion project was considered as the aircraft carrier of the heavy cruiser Kronstadt or the completion of the captured German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin. Kronstadt was in low technical readiness (10-15%), its completion required about five years, and as a result, it was scrapped. A German aircraft carrier could have been completed in less than three years, but the allies, in whose area of ​​responsibility there were a lot of ready-made equipment and weapons for "Count Zeppelin," strongly opposed the implementation of this plan and insisted on the destruction of equipment. Negotiations of the tripartite commission did not lead to anything, and the "Count" was shot as a floating target aviation and the fleet on August 16, 1947. Even before that, in January 1947, Kuznetsov was dismissed by the false commander of the Navy for false denunciations, and work on aircraft carriers in the USSR ceased again.

Very small aircraft carrier

In 1951, Kuznetsov was again appointed naval minister of the USSR, and he again revives the aircraft carrier theme. But all his reports have no success either before or after Stalin’s death. The only thing he managed to achieve was to save a light aircraft carrier (project 85) in terms of ship design for 1955 – 1960 years.

Meanwhile, the era of jet aircraft. The projected light aircraft carrier had to carry 40 fighter jets, two helicopters, have a standard displacement of 24 000 t and a cruising range from 5000 miles. But the creation of such a ship required the pooling of resources not only from the Ministry of Food Industry and Mintyazhmash, but also from Minaviaprom, which sabotaged the project. In April, 1955, Kuznetsov, directly addressed Khrushchev with a request to involve Yakovlev, Mikoyan and Sukhoi in the project. This was Kuznetsov’s last attempt to save an aircraft carrier — a month later he collapsed with a heart attack, and then was removed from his post by Defense Minister Zhukov “for poor naval management” and demoted. Only after 14 years after the death, the talented naval commander was returned to the rank of Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union.

Carriers were left without protection. The new commander in chief of the Navy, Admiral Gorshkov, was completely absorbed in the only task - to keep his own seat (and he succeeded - he remained commander in chief for exactly thirty years), so he preferred not to quarrel with anyone. And when Khrushchev rocket came into vogue weapon, which was designed to solve almost all tasks - from the destruction of enemy ships to air defense. Work on aircraft carriers was interrupted, but instead TsKB-16 was entrusted with the development of an air defense missile ship (project 81), which, by the way, was also not built. The military shipbuilding program developed by Gorshkov for 1958 – 1965 provided for the protection of ships from enemy aircraft in the ocean with rocket weapons only. The military-ignorant program was brilliant in terms of career — Khrushchev was crazy about missiles. The word "aircraft carrier" fell into the category of taboos.

The underground

Nevertheless, there were people who understood that without aircraft carriers, the fleet was nowhere. In 1959 – 1960, TsKB-17 (now Nevskoye PKB), on behalf of the State Committee for Shipbuilding, carried out a design study of the “fighter aircraft’s floating base” (PBIA), since it was easy to lose work by using the term “aircraft carrier”. The operation of the PBIA was to be paired with the air defense ship, mutually complementing each other. The base with a displacement of about 30 000 T carried 30 fighters, four aircraft of the radar patrol and two helicopters and performed the following tasks: search for connections of enemy ships, destruction of enemy aircraft on long-range approaches, detection of low-flying targets over the horizon. However, the study had no support from related industries and rather served as a trainer of design personnel for further work on aircraft carriers, the appearance of which most naval experts had no doubt. But they underestimated Gorshkov - this prominent strategist in his publications smashed aircraft carriers as a “weapon of aggression”, inflating, on the one hand, their exorbitant cost, and on the other, attributing to them imaginary vulnerability from missiles, including ballistic ones. The main stake in his doctrine was made on the underwater strategic fleet and naval strategic aviation.

Unlucky Boat Hunters

15 November The 1960 of the year, on its first combat patrol, was the nuclear submarine "George Washington" armed with the 16 nuclear ballistic missiles Polaris A1, the first in the eponymous series of American missile-carrying submarines. Given the short range ("Polaris A1" - 1200 miles, "Polaris A3" - 2500 miles) flight of missiles, patrol areas were in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean. To fight with them, according to Gorshkov's idea, search and attack groups were created consisting of patrol ships, submarine hunters, and missile destroyers whose task was to protect the patrol ships. Gorshkov’s special pride were the 58-series rocket destroyers - “Grozny”, “Admiral Fokin”, “Admiral Golovko” and “Varyag”, the will of the commander-in-chief renamed to “cruisers”, which gave the right to declare the creation of “the first and the world of missile cruisers who had no foreign analogues ". By the way, the American destroyers 1970-x surpassed our cruisers in displacement almost twice. But this is not the main thing - the patrol did not cope with their task chronically.

By this time, Khrushchev replaced Brezhnev and Andrei Grechko became Minister of Defense. Gorshkov immediately changed his course to 180 degrees and returned to the ideas of Kuznetsov to create an ocean-going fleet, albeit in a peculiarly truncated version. In 1967, the Black Sea Fleet was replenished with the next “unparalleled in the world” creation of Gorshkov - the anti-submarine cruiser (ASM) “Moscow”, the anti-submarine defense ship of the remote zone with group-based helicopters. The underdeck hangar accommodates 14 helicopters that coped with the tasks of finding submarines much more efficiently than patrols. The main task of “Moscow” was the round-the-clock search for boats, for which four helicopters were constantly in the air, at a distance of 50 km from the ship. A year later, the flag was raised on the same type of anti-ship missile "Leningrad". The very first long hikes of “Moscow” and “Leningrad” showed that these ships were not able to counteract American submarines due to the increased combat qualities of the latter. In addition, the American aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean Sea behaved extremely arrogantly, defiantly performing flights over the very deck of our helicopter carriers, and even provoking direct collisions of ships.

Turbolets

In July, an amazing device was shown at the air show at Domodedovo Airport in July, which was first seen not only by ordinary citizens, but also by many military men - the Yak-1967 vertical take-off and landing aircraft, the successor of the 36’s experimental “turbo-guns.” Initially, the Yak-1950 was developed as a front-attack attack aircraft, which could provide support to troops in the conditions of destroyed front-line airfields, taking off directly from the forest glades. The aircraft did not satisfy the army aviation, and Yakovlev tried to attach it to the fleet, since even in 36 the pilot Bill Bralford made a vertical landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier “Arc Royal”, which plied the waters of the L-aircraft, on an experimental Hawker Siddeley P.1963. Manche. Yakovlev was supported by Dmitry Ustinov (at that time deputy chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers), and Gorshkov could not resist - the construction of the third ship of the Moscow series (they had already begun to cut the metal under him) in Nikolaev was suspended. Instead, it was decided to start the construction of the 1127 "Kiev" series of missiles with vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL). Moreover, six launchers of the P-1143 "Basalt" giant anti-ship missiles were provided to scare away American aircraft carriers. The technical project of the new ship was made as soon as possible by April of the 500 of the year, and in December of the 1970 of the year “Kiev” was launched. Gorshkov invented a new ship and a new name - a heavy aircraft carrier, TAVKR. Needless to say, the USSR created the world's first TAVKR. And in the summer of 1972, this TAVKR with five combat serial VTOL Yak-31976M and one training Yak-36MU made the transition around Europe to the place of its deployment in the Northern Fleet. The first Yak-36M flights outside the USSR took place in the Mediterranean Sea near the island of Crete. The Americans this time kept away from the ship - they were warned that there might be special combat units for the "Basalts".

Three years later, a twin went to the Pacific Ocean bypassing Africa - TAVKR “Minsk” with more advanced aircraft - the Yak-38. Flights in the tropics finally dispelled the myths about the aircraft VTOL - in conditions of high temperature and humidity of the air lift engines stopped running. And even when they were launched, they could only fly with the weapon removed and incomplete refueling. Nevertheless, the construction of these expensive ships continued: in the 1982 year, the Novorossiysk TAVKR was launched, and in Baku, the 1987. Only Ustinov’s death in 1984 and the resignation of the great naval commander Gorshkov, which followed a year later, led to the cessation of the production of TAVKRs, the Soviet miracle ships.



1927 year. The project of conversion of the training ship "Komsomolets" into an aircraft carrier

Back in 1925, the command of the Naval Forces of the Red Army proposed to convert the unfinished battle cruiser Izmail and the battleship Poltava into aircraft carriers. However, for the post-war country, this was not possible. The ship was supposed to carry in the hangar and on the flight deck to 42 fighters and bombers. The project remained on paper.

The 71 aircraft carrier project on the basis of a light cruiser. In February 1938, the Navy General Headquarters approved the requirements for a future Soviet aircraft carrier to operate on the open sea and off the coast of the enemy with reconnaissance, bomber and anti-aircraft targets. He had to carry 45 fighters and light bombers, eight 130-mm guns and eight twin anti-aircraft guns. For these TTX TSNII-45 has prepared a draft small aircraft carrier 71.


Light cruiser aircraft carrier 71 project

In February 1938, the Navy General Headquarters approved the requirements for the future Soviet aircraft carrier for operations on the open sea and off the coast of the enemy with reconnaissance, bomber and anti-aircraft targets. He had to carry 45 fighters and light bombers, eight 130-mm guns and eight twin anti-aircraft guns. For these TTX TSNII-45 has prepared a draft small aircraft carrier 71.

1942 year. German aircraft carrier "Graf Zeppelin" Founded at the end of 1938, the German aircraft carrier was quite different from its counterparts. The ship had a “cruising” armored deck with bevels, the constructive inclusion of the flight deck in ensuring the overall strength of the hull and a lengthy vertical reservation of thickness along the hull. The launch of deck vehicles was supposed to be carried out exclusively with the help of two polyspast-pneumatic catapults located in the forward part of the flight deck.


1942 year. German aircraft carrier "Count Zeppelin"

Founded at the end of 1938, the German aircraft carrier was quite different from its counterparts. The ship had a “cruising” armored deck with bevels, the constructive inclusion of the flight deck in ensuring the overall strength of the hull and a lengthy vertical reservation of thickness along the hull. The launch of deck vehicles was supposed to be carried out exclusively with the help of two polyspast-pneumatic catapults located in the forward part of the flight deck.

1944 year. The 72 aircraft carrier projectThe heavy aircraft carrier project was developed by the TsKB-17 in the middle of the war, taking into account the performance of serial 1943 front-end machines for the fighter and foreign counterparts for the deck-mounted torpedo bomber. In the role of a fighter, a modification of the Yak-9K was planned, and the PT-M71 ship torpedo bomber was to develop the Tupolev design bureau. A two-tier hangar would allow an 62 aircraft to be placed on the aircraft carrier.


1944 year. Project aircraft carrier 72

The project of a heavy aircraft carrier was developed by the TsKB-17 in the middle of the war, taking into account the flight characteristics of serial 1943 front-line aircraft for fighter aircraft and foreign counterparts for the deck torpedo bomber. In the role of a fighter, a modification of the Yak-9K was planned, and the PT-M71 ship torpedo bomber was to develop the Tupolev design bureau. A two-tier hangar would allow an 62 aircraft to be placed on the aircraft carrier.

1945 year. Conversion into an aircraft carrier of a heavy cruiser project 69Even in the middle of the war, the Naval Academy analyzed fleet operations at sea, making recommendations for the development of domestic shipbuilding. Proceeding from them, the Scientific and Technical Committee proposed to complete the heavy cruisers of the Kronstadt type, which had been built in 1939, as aircraft carriers. The proposal did not meet with support.


1945 year. Conversion to the 69 heavy cruiser aircraft carrier

Back in the middle of the war, the Naval Academy conducted an analysis of naval operations at sea, making recommendations for the development of domestic shipbuilding. Proceeding from them, the Scientific and Technical Committee proposed to complete the heavy cruisers of the Kronstadt type, which had been built in 1939, as aircraft carriers. The proposal did not meet with support.

1143 cruiser “Baku” The third heavy aircraft carrying cruiser of the 1143 project was laid in 1975 under the name “Baku”, continuing the tradition of naming aircraft carriers in honor of the capitals of the Union republics. However, later, at the suggestion of the Minister of Defense Grechko, the cruiser was renamed “Novorossiysk” in honor of Leonid Ilyich’s book “Malaya Zemlya”. The ship, created under the new aircraft Yak-41, at the time of delivery were forced to staffing outdated Yak-38. In 1983, the Yak-38 was discontinued, and the new Yak-41 never appeared. As a result, the ship served its term in the Pacific as a simple helicopter carrier. The last launch of Novorossiysk in the sea took place in May 1991.


Cruiser 1143 "Baku"

The third heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of the 1143 project was laid in 1975 under the name “Baku”, continuing the tradition of naming aircraft carriers in honor of the capitals of the Union republics. However, later, at the suggestion of the Minister of Defense Grechko, the cruiser was renamed Novorossiysk in honor of Leonid Ilyich’s book Small Land. The ship, created under the new aircraft Yak-41, at the time of delivery were forced to staffing outdated Yak-38. In 1983, the Yak-38 was discontinued, and the new Yak-41 never appeared. As a result, the ship served its term in the Pacific as a simple helicopter carrier. The last launch of Novorossiysk in the sea took place in May 1991.


One of the most interesting trophies of the Soviet troops is the practically completed German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin. During the storming of Stettin in April 1945, where this ship stood in the roadstead, the Soviet troops did not manage to prevent its undermining by German sappers. Competently placed charges made the aircraft carrier unsuitable for recovery.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.popmech.ru/
103 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim 19 July 2013 08: 07 New
    +7
    Oh such ships, such plans were. recourse
    1. Civil
      Civil 20 July 2013 08: 32 New
      +1
      Well, there is no money for the aircraft carrier, no!
      1. Comrade1945
        Comrade1945 29 July 2013 03: 16 New
        0
        Of course!
        Of course there is no money for large ships, as long as so many yachts and castles in England are ownerless.
        I am sure that as soon as so. Well, you understand ...
  2. SIBIR38RUS
    SIBIR38RUS 19 July 2013 08: 29 New
    +6
    Until now, we can’t get to the aircraft-carrying cruisers. But I think that in the near future. It will not be otherwise. A couple, a triple must be built ... everything will be! it takes time and money.
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 19 July 2013 12: 39 New
      +1
      Quote: SIBIR38RUS
      Until now, we can’t get to the aircraft-carrying cruisers.


      Do we need to get to them? There are exactly the same number of advantages with them.
  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 July 2013 09: 14 New
    24
    All would be nothing - but the collision with Gorshkov is completely incomprehensible.
    By this time, Khrushchev was replaced by Brezhnev and Andrei Grechko became Minister of Defense. Gorshkov immediately changed his course to 180 degrees and returned to Kuznetsov’s ideas for creating an ocean fleet - albeit in a peculiarly truncated version. In the 1967 year, the Black Sea Fleet was replenished with the next "unparalleled in the world" creation of Gorshkov - anti-submarine cruiser (RCC) "Moscow"

    The author might have noticed that “Moscow” was laid in the year 1962. Accordingly, its development took place even earlier. And Khrushchev, if anything, left the post of General Secretary in 1964.
    In general, the author, not understanding it, scolds Gorshkov for what he needs to sing horn for - Gorshkov managed to shove under Khrushchev a "huge" ten-thousand-ton ship, and even an aircraft carrier! What it cost to Sergei Georgievich - one can only guess, especially when you consider that Khrushchev, at one time, was AGAINST even the cruisers of the 58 project. They, you see, were too big for Khrushchev. Speaking of birds
    Gorshkov’s special pride was the 58-series missile destroyers Grozny, Admiral Fokin, Admiral Golovko and Varyag, which were renamed “cruisers” by the decision of the commander in chief, which gave the right to declare the creation of “the first and world missile cruisers” not having foreign analogues. " By the way, the American destroyers 1970's surpassed our cruisers in displacement by almost half.

    Of course, I understand that against the background of the anti-avian hysteria of some authors, the pendulum can swing in the other direction, but so what for? The cruisers of the 58 project were magnificent warships that really had no analogues in the world due to the missile system installed on them. The creation of these advanced ships in all respects certainly strengthened the fleet. Hit a displacement ... Firstly, the ships were planned by destroyers. Secondly, when our RKR “Grozny” fleet was being built, the US fleet commissioned Kuntz destroyers. These ships were smaller (4167 tons of standard displacement against 4340 tons of cruisers of the 58 project) had one launcher for Terrier missiles (and I would not say that it is fundamentally better than our Waves, but they can be considered approximately equal) 8 RCC Harpoon "which, firstly, were not installed immediately, but only during modernization, and secondly, against the background of our P-35, in combination with the Ka-25T AWACS helicopter, they looked, to put it mildly, a little more than faded. The torpedo armament of the 58 project cruiser had a range greater than the 324-mm torpedoes of the American EM and its ASROK. And the chance to destroy the 533-mm torpedo and the 324-mm torpedo is slightly different ... The next series of American destroyers ("Charles Adams") had 4,5 thousand tons of displacement (standard) and about the same composition of weapons.
    As for the American cruisers - peers of our RKR of the 58 project - this is the Belknap series. having a slightly larger (5,4 thousand tons) displacement (in 1,25 times but by no means twice) the best air defense (two launchers of the Terrier missile launcher) but ... not carrying shock weapons. At all.
    After the belt knapsacks, “Legs” were built in total of 5,1 thousand tons of displacement ... and only in 72 was the first Spruance commissioned, whose displacement was 7,4 thousand tons - but the question is - why compare ships with a ten-year difference? At that time, in our fleet, the fleet included BODs of the 1134B project under 7 thousand tons in weight.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 July 2013 09: 14 New
      11
      Thus, as the RKR of the 58 project, do not name it, but there were no analogues to it either among the destroyers or among the US cruisers. And again - why portray the commander in chief with such a tyrant? "I can’t beat him like that! I want it - I’ll call it a cruiser, I want it - a destroyer!" The author is not aware that the caperang was not supposed to command the destroyer, well, this is not a first-ranking ship. And if Khrushchev did not want to build large surface ships, only artillery cruisers of the Sverdlov type remained ... And where did the caperangs, then familiar with modern technology, come from?
      The author does not understand that you cannot beat a whip with a whip. Of course, Gorshkov could have rebelled against Khrushchev, demanded large ships and aircraft carriers — and resigned, and in his place would have come another who obediently looked in his mouth and fulfilled the will of the Party ... Only then we would have rather In all, a larger missile boat of surface ships would not have remained at all. Gorshkov stayed and fought as best he could.
      And therefore - it is worth having respect for the admiral, and not engage in juggling
      By this time, Khrushchev was replaced by Brezhnev and Andrei Grechko became Minister of Defense. Gorshkov immediately changed his course to 180 degrees and returned to Kuznetsov’s ideas for creating an ocean fleet - albeit in a peculiarly truncated version

      Quite the contrary, after Khrushchev left, Gorshkov’s hands got loose and ...
      Yakovleva was supported by Dmitry Ustinov (then deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR), and Gorshkov could not resist - the construction of the third ship of the Moscow series (metal had already begun to be cut under it) in Nikolaev was suspended. In exchange, it was decided to begin construction of the PKR of the 1143 Kiev series with vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL).

      And here is how the same events interpret the sources
      In our country, the idea of ​​using VTOL aircraft as a deck aircraft, according to eyewitnesses, came from D.F. Ustinov, at that time secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU for defense industries. He was convinced of the promise of a new direction in the development of aviation technology and that the domestic aircraft industry, after mastering transonic VTOL, could also create more advanced supersonic fighters. Behind all this was what we would call today an “asymmetric response” —the hope, with less than the probable enemy’s costs, of creating our own carrier ships.
      For the Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy, Admiral of the Fleet S.G. Gorshkov limited the ability of VTOL were not a secret, but he did not object. The prospect of the fleet receiving carrier ships even with a relatively small displacement was quite satisfactory, since there was a real opportunity to create the much-needed naval aircraft based on ships. And personal control over the progress of work by D.F. Ustinova guaranteed their implementation on time.

      Generally speaking, the chances of the appearance of full-fledged aircraft carriers as part of our Navy appeared only in the 1967 year, when Grechko became Minister of Defense. Gorshkov, enlisting the support of Butoma (Minister of the Ministry of Industry and Industry) moved the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier to the masses and already in the 1968 year (i.e., in parallel with the development of the TAVKR project 1143), Morin set about developing an analogue of the Nimitz state - the 1160 project.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 July 2013 09: 15 New
        16
        Gorshkov was a rather subtle politician. He understood that an aircraft carrier cannot be built so easily that development of the most complicated units such as catapults and carrier-based aviation is needed ... Therefore, having the support of Ustinov, he provided a fleet of at least VTOL aircraft. and simultaneously moved the work on the classic aircraft carrier.
        I am already silent about the struggle that Gorshkov led until the last for normal aircraft carriers for our fleet in the last years of his life.
        In a report presented to the CEC of the CPSU and the USSR Ministry of Defense in 1973, ministers of the aviation and shipbuilding industries, Air Force and Navy Commanders-in-Chief recommended the creation of atomic AB in 80 thousand tons. One can imagine how much effort Gorshkov put in to organize such an aircraft carrier lobby But Ustinov, being the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, rejects it. But Gorshkov does not lay down his arms and in the 1976 year a government decree was issued on the construction of the 2 nuclear aircraft cruisers of the 1153 project, the first to be laid down in 1978 year and both were supposed to join the fleet by the 1985 year.
        The 1153 project is a slightly reduced 1160 (not 80 but 70 thousand tons). Everything, we can already assume that the Soviet Navy received its first aircraft carriers.
        And here in 1976 Mr. Grechkov and Butoma die. Everything. Ustinov is seeking the cancellation of the project (for which there was a huge engineering reserve) and we are returning to the construction of the TAVKRs.
        Therefore conclusion
        Only the death of Ustinov in the 1984 year and the subsequent resignation of the great naval commander Gorshkov a year later led to a halt in the production of TAVKRs - Soviet miracle ships.

        Only a person who is completely unfamiliar with the history of the Russian fleet can do it.
        Gorshkov fought until the very end for the aircraft carriers, and only by his efforts in the end (not by washing like skating) he is trying to slowly grow a full-fledged aircraft carrier from TAVKR. In 1978 a project was created similar to the TAVKR of the Kiev type, but only with a catapult and the ability to base the Su- 27 and Mig-29 - which eventually transformed into Kuznetsova
    2. Su24
      Su24 20 July 2013 03: 45 New
      0
      Frantic article.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. vitek1233
    vitek1233 19 July 2013 09: 21 New
    0
    in this situation, in order to build several modern aircraft carriers, you have to sacrifice a lot. Are we ready for this? What do you think forum users?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 July 2013 09: 22 New
      +5
      Quote: vitek1233
      in this situation, to build several modern aircraft carriers, you have to donate a lot

      Why?
      1. little man
        little man 19 July 2013 10: 41 New
        +1
        They probably think there is no money. I think the problem is different. Where and who will build?
        The unfortunate Gorshkov, and even this is not enough.
        1. dustycat
          dustycat 19 July 2013 18: 03 New
          +3
          Quote: man
          They probably think there is no money. I think the problem is different. Where and who will build?
          The unfortunate Gorshkov, and even this is not enough.


          Reduce a couple of thousand "effective managers" and it will go.
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 19 July 2013 18: 00 New
      +4
      Quote: vitek1233
      in this situation, in order to build several modern aircraft carriers, you have to sacrifice a lot. Are we ready for this? What do you think forum users?


      What is it to "many"?
      GDP, DAM, and a couple of hundred Forbes oligarchs?
      Small loss.
      Russia will quite survive this.
      And the "political elite" .... the "political elite" of the "effective managers" is someone sorry here ?!
    3. AVV
      AVV 19 July 2013 19: 35 New
      +2
      It’s unlikely at this time stage! And in the long run, everything can be !!! First of all, we need nuclear submarines of various modifications now! Frigates, corvettes, the near zone, then destroyers and auxiliary ships, and after saturation of the Navy with these ships, it will be possible think about something more grandiose as aircraft carriers !!! This is my opinion !!!
  6. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 19 July 2013 09: 32 New
    +8
    The new commander in chief of the Navy, Admiral Gorshkov, was completely absorbed in the only task - to keep his own chair (and he succeeded - he remained commander in chief for exactly thirty years), so he preferred not to quarrel with anyone.
    The author is probably new to the biography of S.G. Gorshkov, I propose to follow this link (http://flot.com/history/personalities/gorshkov.htm) and read for general development, so as not to denigrate the person. It was with him that the fleet became oceanic! Eternal memory to real people, patriots of their country! hi
  7. ed65b
    ed65b 19 July 2013 09: 41 New
    +4
    AUG Russia sounds beautifully. But I think that at this stage of development, this is now her most important thing. Let CB draw tracing while we need to restore everything that has been destroyed over the past years, complete the entire unfinished building, re-equip and modernize the existing one.
  8. Xroft
    Xroft 19 July 2013 10: 11 New
    -6
    Well, how did you get sick of it with your aircraft carriers .... 100 times already wrote about it then they are not needed at the moment, only money down the drain.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 19 July 2013 12: 08 New
      +5
      Who wrote? Sofa experts? For some reason, all countries that can afford it are building, and they believe that they are needed ... how so?
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 19 July 2013 20: 47 New
        +1
        The same as you (well, me too) Oleg Kaptsov (with full respect for the by-product of his jihad against aircraft carriers - articles on the history of the fleet laughing ) Americans are developing aircraft carriers because they are sawing, well, "... stupid ..." ((c) Zadornov), and the rest - because they are just "... stupid ..." and the tzatsks are buying admirals laughing laughing
      2. Denis
        Denis 21 July 2013 00: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: patsantre
        Who wrote? Sofa experts?
        Even those such nonsense are rarely allowed:
        in January 1940, the Navy’s plan was reduced ... It was planned to replace the carrier-based fighter with a ship modification of the famous Yakovlev Yak-9K fighter
        Although even from the sofa you can, if you wish, find out:
        Yak-9 Developer: Yakovlev Design Bureau
        Country: USSR
        First flight: 1943

        And not a word about Ulyanovsk
        Graphomania and only
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 19 July 2013 12: 49 New
      +2
      Quote: Xroft
      zadolbali with their aircraft carriers .... 100 once already wrote about it then they are not needed at the moment, only money down the drain.
      Not to the wind, but to the strengthening of our fleet. Is Russia really weaker and poorer than the same Italy, which commissioned the Cavour aircraft carrier, which has become the flagship of its Navy since 2007? It is now easier to name countries that do not have aircraft carriers; more or less significant fleets have acquired them or plan to build them. Probably, they are not doing this because of stupidity. For clarity, the image of "Cavour" (clickable).
  9. indiggo
    indiggo 19 July 2013 10: 25 New
    -3
    until there is an escort, it makes no sense to build an AB.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 19 July 2013 13: 03 New
      +4
      An escort appears when there is someone to escort, be it an aircraft carrier or a prime minister, and not vice versa.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 July 2013 13: 06 New
      +9
      If we decide to build an aircraft carrier now, (Putin woke up right today and suddenly thought to him - why not take it and not build an aircraft carrier?) Then we can lay it down in three years. This is if I was not deceived by respected members of the forum with the readiness of the corresponding construction facilities in the North. If you cheated - then, perhaps, even later.
      Because you still have to do a lot of work until the bookmark. At a minimum, we need a project that is simply not there yet. And a bunch of any other preparation. Well, taking into account that the money for the armament program has already been planned, most likely it will be possible to lay it down even in a year of commercials in 2018-2020.
      And we will build it for 10 years minimum. Americans build their Nimits for 5-7 years, (although there have been cases, and managed for 4, “John Stennis” is an example for this - but this is already serial) Head Nimitz built 7 years. So a dozen is still very, very optimistic.
      And then he will reach a combat ready state for a couple of years - with new carrier-based aircraft, crew training, and so on. So if we decide to build an aircraft carrier today - years through 13-15 we will have it. During this time, it is quite possible to build any escort.
      In essence, the modernized nuclear Nakhimov + a couple of new destroyers, the main one of which they promise to lay in 2016, as well as supply vessels, and a couple of Ashenes - that’s AMG ready
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 19 July 2013 20: 48 New
      +1
      until there is an escort, it makes no sense to build an AB.

      Thanks, Cap laughing
  10. RBB
    RBB Television 19 July 2013 11: 16 New
    +2
    Well, "Glory to God" - another "great" naval commander (he is also a brilliant shipbuilder) appeared in the country - Alexander Grek. Now it’s clear that everything “except for Greek” is complete “.......”, the author is a genius. Interestingly, but did the author see the “ship” near?
  11. indiggo
    indiggo 19 July 2013 11: 17 New
    +5
    I don’t understand people who just put cons, do you think that I would be against if a full-fledged AUG appeared in Russia? just to build an AB this does not need escort ships, but now ask yourself the question do we have them? I answer you no. the maximum is 1144, 1164, I do not consider BOD.
    We need atomic destroyers. with a collective air defense system. 1 such will be laid no earlier than 2016.
    1. Retx
      Retx 19 July 2013 11: 23 New
      +1
      I slapped you +, for correctly say - there is nothing to cover.
      But I don’t agree on nuclear power plants, what’s the advantage over conventional power plants?
    2. little man
      little man 19 July 2013 11: 27 New
      0
      A couple of frigates are the same escort, and an escort, or maybe one who forbids him, i.e. depending on what the task is. In general, it would be something to escort.
      1. Retx
        Retx 19 July 2013 11: 34 New
        +1
        Frigates will not provide sufficient cover; in AUG, destroyers like Arly Burkam and Type 45 are needed.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 19 July 2013 20: 57 New
          0
          Hmm ... AUGs were effective when they covered themselves with Sprouts / Knoxes / Leagues. And even when they covered themselves with TKr / LKr / Fletchers, too ... Why do I need to wait for the wunderwafel to escort?
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 19 July 2013 20: 49 New
      0
      And how do you, like escort ships 1155 +, still live 956 do not suit you?

      We need atomic destroyers. with a collective air defense system. 1 such will be laid no earlier than 2016

      Sorry - who needs it? You and a couple of admirals? It seems, thank God, the reasonable (IMHO) opinion prevails so far that it is better to have more ships cheaper than the "two whole" super espinists made of pure gold.
      Most of the tasks of the Russian Navy are sort of like the North Atlantic, the Pacific Ocean not so far from Kamchatka, well, maybe the Mediterranean. For all of this, a nuclear power plant is optional. Well ... all the same autonomy of AUG, KUG will not exceed 90 days, AEU in any way is excessive
  12. Taoist
    Taoist 19 July 2013 11: 34 New
    +5
    Article minus - not in meaning but in content. a lot of factual errors.

    Well, this is generally a pearl:

    "The third heavy aircraft carrier of the 1143 project was laid down in the 1975 year under the name" Baku ", continuing the tradition of naming aircraft carriers in honor of the capitals of the Union republics. However, later, at the proposal of the Minister of Defense Grechko, the cruiser was renamed in Novorossiysk in honor of Leonid Ilyich’s book" Small land. ”At the time of delivery, the ship created for the new Yak-41 aircraft was forced to equip the obsolete Yak-38. In 1983, the Yak-38 was discontinued, and the new Yak-41 did not appear. As a result, the ship served its term for T Hamster Ocean as a simple helicopter. Last Exit "Novorossiysk" at sea in May 1991 years. "

    as they say "more need to be brushed."
    1143 project cruisers - they were actually built not by three, but by four.

    Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk and Baku. (The last, fourth Baku was renamed to adm. Gorshkova sold to India modernized under the 29 MiG and under the name Vikramadya is undergoing testing). The 38s were put into reserve in the 1992 year.
    In general, not a phrase is a mistake.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 19 July 2013 13: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      1143 project cruisers - they were actually built not by three, but by four.
      More precisely, there are seven projects in all - the 1143.5 project "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov", 1143.6 "Riga", was renamed to "Varyag", the 1143.7 project is atomic "Ulyanovsk". For some reason, the author ignored the last three ships. Unfortunately, like the interesting 10210 Khalzan project, where on the basis of the Kapitan Smirnov container carrier-roller-skater, an aircraft-carrying ship was received - an amphibious helicopter carrier, and its consequence, the UDK 11780 project "improved" to the dimensions of Kiev. All of these ships could carry or take to the deck of VTOL type YAK-38 (or YAK-41 / Yak-141).
  13. indiggo
    indiggo 19 July 2013 12: 00 New
    +2
    Quote: RETX
    But I don’t agree on nuclear power plants, what’s the advantage over conventional power plants?

    if you take Russian reality, then there is an advantage. since this is primarily autonomy. Americans have bases around the world, plus a clear development strategy for the Navy, and support ships, vast experience. and what about us? there is nothing. I think so. how many people how many opinions ...
    1. Retx
      Retx 19 July 2013 12: 16 New
      +2
      But what about the flip side of the autonomy of nuclear power plants? Ships with nuclear power plants are not allowed into many territorial waters. In the Russian realities of the lack of overseas bases, this is not a profitable option.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 19 July 2013 18: 13 New
        0
        Quote: RETX
        But what about the flip side of the autonomy of nuclear power plants? Ships with nuclear power plants are not allowed into many territorial waters. In the Russian realities of the lack of overseas bases, this is not a profitable option.

        And what should they do in a 200-mile zone with a range of 1000?
        Nefig to do there. And then it's easier to fight off attacks.
        While the winged anti-ship missiles these 200 miles from the shore will be probing, it will be pretty time to detect and remove it.
        And RCC carriers in the 200 mile zone are easier to identify.
        It makes sense for an aircraft carrier to approach the shore at a distance of less than 200 miles only when it is known for certain that nothing worse than a spear or arrow with a stone tip will arrive from the shore.
  14. patsantre
    patsantre 19 July 2013 12: 14 New
    +8
    By the way, to the squad about aircraft carriers. Mr. Kaptsov can arbitrarily prove how insignificant their role was in delivering land strikes ... And the rest of the all-knowing forum users unanimously declare that Russia, unlike the United States, is not going to bomb. but why did everyone forget that carrier-based aviation does an excellent job of destroying enemy ships and covering its own group? Including submarines, both strategic and multi-purpose. I generally poorly understand what today they are going to provide missile defense systems for calibers and Onyxes away from ours Shores. What? The AWACS aircraft, based on the same aircraft carriers, would perfectly cope with this task, and in combination with fighters, you can shoot any ship or their group with impunity.
  15. indiggo
    indiggo 19 July 2013 12: 21 New
    +1
    Quote: RETX
    But what about the flip side of the autonomy of nuclear power plants? Ships with nuclear power plants are not allowed into many territorial waters. In the Russian realities of the lack of overseas bases, this is not a profitable option.

    they don’t let me in because they’re not afraid yet)) they let the Americans everywhere, as soon as we renew the fleet they will let us in, and if they don’t let us in, we will go without demand, let them try to stop us))
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 19 July 2013 21: 02 New
      +1
      Those who are afraid of Americans and do not let them (Iran, DPRK, Syria, etc.).
      Let-allies. And most of them today are completely voluntary allies. Friendship with the strongest empire is usually beneficial. When we have so many allies - and they will let us everywhere. Recall - the base in Vietnam, Cuba, India, Somalia, the Cape Verde islands (in my opinion there), Angola, etc. They didn’t let them in because they were afraid, but because they helped the ally.
  16. barbiturate
    barbiturate 19 July 2013 13: 24 New
    +4
    Quote: patsantre
    By the way, to the squad about aircraft carriers. Mr. Kaptsov can arbitrarily prove how insignificant their role was in delivering land strikes ... And the rest of the all-knowing forum users unanimously declare that Russia, unlike the United States, is not going to bomb. but why did everyone forget that carrier-based aviation does an excellent job of destroying enemy ships and covering its own group? Including submarines, both strategic and multi-purpose. I generally poorly understand what today they are going to provide missile defense systems for calibers and Onyxes away from ours Shores. What? The AWACS aircraft, based on the same aircraft carriers, would perfectly cope with this task, and in combination with fighters, you can shoot any ship or their group with impunity.


    I always talked about this)

    the article, in my opinion, is interesting and the author diluted a little anti-aircraft hysteria) I read the comments of the forum users, where and how I corrected the author, I learned a lot or remembered (thanks), there is reason to still read, because the topic of aircraft carriers is interesting
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 19 July 2013 21: 03 New
      +1
      Well, hysteria is here only with Oleg Kaptsov.
      It seems to me that judging by his ardor, his dream of a lifetime was not fulfilled - to become an aircraft carrier laughing
      It hurts a lot of emotions - something personal laughing
  17. shpuntik
    shpuntik 19 July 2013 16: 43 New
    +2
    It seems to me that we’ll build one like this:
    http://shipbuilding.ru/rus/articles/khomutovky/
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 19 July 2013 18: 16 New
      0
      For now, Russia would have to build a monocorpus of such sizes.
  18. Xroft
    Xroft 19 July 2013 18: 04 New
    +2
    Having ready-made Orlanes which you only need to restore and improve weapons, spending on imperial ambitions in the form of aircraft carriers is simply not logical (about dwarf countries with their * pre-aircraft carriers * already wrote an article) Sense in them? when on eagles there is the best air defense system (with a possible upgrade) and the best anti-ship systems. We are a land power and not a colonial one. We already bought Mistral, we don’t have to do another long-term construction with a bunch of dough. We must optimally use the resources we have. The Orlans perfectly perform the main functions of containment / presence, and we have the opportunity to add such a ship to each fleet.
    Ps just do not need hysterical minuses. Objectively approach the situation.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 July 2013 20: 24 New
      +3
      A hysterical minus - can I? :)
      What is the Eagles - these are huge ships, the modernization of which will fly to such a penny that .... And the exhaust? Sorry, but the first of them - "Kirov" - was commissioned in 1980. He was already the age of Christ. Well, we will modernize for at least three more years (the volume is such that it is easier to build a new one) - and then what? Fuck a bunch of dibs - and after 10 years to a dump? What about Frunze? A little younger - 1984 years, now he is 29 years. And also - the amount of work is such that it is easier to build a new one.
      Orlanov’s air defense is outdated (besides Peter they have the old “Fort”), we’re no longer producing Granit missiles, we need to install new ones. About other systems - generally I am silent, everything needs to be redone there
      So forgive me if it were the 1995-99 ships, I would be the first to pound my heel in the chest and demand that they be included in the fleet. And now...
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 19 July 2013 21: 05 New
      0
      Something from the history of the modernization of the Big Ships says that the modernization of the 1,5-2 Orlan will cost exactly like an AB wink
      And how do you see the Eagles in the Baltic and the Black Sea Fleet? This is comparable to a speech by Zhirinovsky (in Nikolsky’s book quote), which the Estonians wanted to frighten with the roar of Russian aircraft carriers ... wink
  19. shpuntik
    shpuntik 19 July 2013 19: 39 New
    +1
    Staff Sergeant
    Xroft RU Today, 18:04 New
    With ready-made Orlanes which you only need to restore and improve weapons, spending on imperial ambitions in the form of aircraft carriers is simply not logical
    Ps just do not need hysterical minuses. Objectively approach the situation.

    In general, so. But the other day, there was a "day of naval aviation", it seems to me they will not forgive, at least one, but we need yes .
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 19 July 2013 21: 15 New
      -2
      I remember here one commentator wrote that in the USSR the composition of the fleet was scientifically substantiated ...

      Well, well ... sheer voluntarism. Yes, even with a good touch of idiocy of senior management.
      Of course I knew about the pre-war plans for the construction of the LK, but the LK in 1957 when planning the end of 1940? - this, as they say, is beyond good and evil wink

      In short, the RF was unlucky with politicians - builders of the fleet in the 20th century.
      Either a series of LCs, missile destroyers, or anything but an AB, just to make the fleet ugly unbalanced ...
      Well, throwing every 10 years ...

      The correct recipe is how to spend as much as the United States (Nikolsky), but provide them with an "overwhelming advantage" ...
      1. shpuntik
        shpuntik 20 July 2013 02: 41 New
        +1
        Maj.
        cdrt RU Yesterday, 21:15 p.m. ↑
        I remember here one commentator wrote that in the USSR the composition of the fleet was scientifically substantiated ...

        Now, unfortunately, I could not find an article on the balance of forces of the Navy of Russia and NATO, I read about 5 years ago. Over time, she will catch my eye, then I will give you, for information. There we are talking about the concept of the fleet in the new conditions.
        Thanks for the tip on Nikolsky, I read several articles, I have not heard about him before.
        Well, what can I say: "borosopisets." He writes in collaboration, apparently his main bread. Who pays the salary? Considering that he is burying the submarine fleet with aircraft carriers, I won’t be surprised if this is some kind of NPO.
        You check it, he is a professional, but not our mill pours water, IMHO.
        As an example, I will cite his words:
        “Many experts were outraged by this attitude towards the Pacific Fleet, but they could not answer a number of questions. For example, the following:“ Don’t you know that the war with Japan is a war with the USA? ”“ China is our strategic ally or not ? "." The industry of the Far East, with a population of only five million people, can serve a large fleet or not? "

        More: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/9055
  20. Xroft
    Xroft 19 July 2013 20: 51 New
    0
    the Amers Enterprise sailed from 1960 to 2012 and it didn’t bother anyone, fulfilled its duties (moreover, it managed to hunt pirates in full operation) But our ships are almost zero. Rogozin himself has already given the answer that the Eagles will modernize and that’s right a choice.
    ps I hope the money will not be thrown onto the aircraft carrier, but battle groups in each fleet will make frigates / destroyers.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 20 July 2013 00: 51 New
      0
      And what about Enterprise? What can radically become obsolete on an aircraft carrier? Equipment? CIUS? Replacing them is not a problem. The main weapon of AB is its air group, and it can also consist of absolutely any modern deck aircraft, it’s clear. Only the design itself is wearing out. And modern the projects of their aircraft carriers, the same Nimitz, are not much different from the Enterprise in fact. In essence, the Enterprise could stand still for decades and remain the same formidable force.
  21. bublic82009
    bublic82009 19 July 2013 21: 19 New
    0
    Why are aircraft carriers needed at all? During World War II, practice showed aircraft carriers needed strong cover. can we cover it with the appropriate grouping of ships? and also support this entire group with infrastructure. To this group, how much fuel is needed for food, water, etc. we do not need aircraft carriers. we don’t want to capture anything. or want?
  22. bublic82009
    bublic82009 19 July 2013 22: 35 New
    -1
    we should not be afraid of NATO aircraft carriers. they can approach the shores of Iraq or Ethiopia at a safe distance. modern coastal assets are capable of hitting ships over a long distance. in the Black Sea they will not be in the Baltic either. there’s nothing to do in the Arctic Ocean. only the Far East remains. there is danger to us. the American fleet has bases in South Korea, Japan and Alaska nearby. there you should be afraid of aircraft carriers. carrier-based aircraft can operate from a ship up to 1000 km. maximum is their limit. at such a distance they can be knocked out (if any) by long-range cruise missiles. in addition, it is possible to create ballistic strategic missiles capable of hitting aircraft carriers from outer space with conventional warheads. True, this requires reconnaissance and command satellites. we will solve this problem kapets will be aircraft carriers.
    1. anomalocaris
      anomalocaris 20 July 2013 00: 41 New
      +1
      The Chinese are already making an anti-ship ballistic missile warhead. As for ours, I don’t know.
      I am a man exclusively land, so I can not reason on this issue with good reason, but in my humble opinion, AUGs like the American are unnecessary for us. The only possible use for these monsters is to hit the coast anywhere in the world in order to approve the policies of a particular state. Very powerful, very beautiful, very expensive. However, in the event of a collision with a more or less equivalent enemy, the very first and very large goal for RCC.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 20 July 2013 00: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: anomalocaris
        The only possible use for these monsters is to strike along the coast anywhere in the world in order to approve the policies of a particular state.

        And the cover of his fleet and the destruction of enemy ships? What prevents them from doing this?
        1. anomalocaris
          anomalocaris 20 July 2013 01: 34 New
          +1
          For cover, in my opinion, specialized air defense ships and escort aircraft carriers will be much more effective, and monsters like Nimitsa are redundant for this task. Destruction of the enemy fleet is provided by ship and aircraft-based anti-ship missiles, as well as strike submarines. Attacks of carrier-based aircraft on enemy ships (I repeat, more or less equal) - this is from the history of the Second World War.
          1. patsantre
            patsantre 20 July 2013 14: 52 New
            0
            Quote: anomalocaris
            For cover, in my opinion, specialized air defense ships and escort aircraft carriers will be much more effective, and monsters like Nimitsa are redundant for this task.


            It’s the Germans that may be redundant, only other existing aircraft carriers are not enough, because they are not able to base on themselves AWACS aircraft, which greatly increase the potential of the air group and the entire AUG.

            Quote: anomalocaris
            Attacks of carrier-based aircraft on enemy ships (I repeat, more or less equal) - this is from the history of the Second World War.


            I didn’t notice something among those with whom the Americans of the decent fleet fought. I think we would see these attacks if the USA had a chance to collide with the USSR.
        2. papik09
          papik09 20 July 2013 05: 54 New
          +1
          Conventional warships are enough to cover their fleet. Why for this aircraft carriers? It is possible and how during the Caribbean crisis, when our transport ships accompanied diesel submarines and we did not touch them, they were afraid. Somewhere around here. laughing
          1. anomalocaris
            anomalocaris 20 July 2013 08: 16 New
            +1
            Still, it is tempting to have your own aircraft in the squadron. But as I already wrote, not monsters for a hundred airplanes, but something more modest and universal. However, this is not a task of paramount importance.
            The task of our fleet is to protect our shores, and not to spread "democracy" around the world. And for this, the strike aircraft carrier is slightly less than useless.
          2. patsantre
            patsantre 20 July 2013 14: 53 New
            0
            Quote: papik09
            Conventional warships are enough to cover their fleet. Why for this aircraft carriers?


            Then, that the enemy, who will have such an aircraft carrier, ceteris paribus, this very fleet will be buried in silt.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 20 July 2013 00: 56 New
      0
      The coastal defense has a range of several hundred km ... the Tomahawks have 1500 km.
      1. anomalocaris
        anomalocaris 20 July 2013 01: 24 New
        +2
        And you dare that the coastal complex will not stand alone on the shore? And that it is generally mobile, and BGM 109 is not able to hit mobile objects, in principle? In addition, take a look at how a pair of missile cruisers will survive the AUG volley, and then maybe we'll talk.
        1. papik09
          papik09 20 July 2013 05: 57 New
          +1
          100% right! +++ hi
        2. patsantre
          patsantre 20 July 2013 13: 09 New
          0
          Quote: anomalocaris
          BGM 109 is not able to hit mobile objects, in principle?

          Isn’t it like that? It’s still in a state, just the same. TV guidance, the ability to retarget in flight, its own seeker designed just to hit mobile targets - how else can they. They have now taught tactical tomahawks to navigate ships, and this, if anything, is also a moving target.

          Quote: anomalocaris
          In addition, take a look at how a pair of missile cruisers will survive the AUG volley, and then maybe we'll talk.


          Oh, they killed me. I would have understood if they had said something about the nuclear submarines, and these missile cruisers would be sunk by aviation, and all that the cruiser sees is RCC.
          1. anomalocaris
            anomalocaris 20 July 2013 13: 44 New
            0
            Yes, that’s true. BGM 109 C / D guidance system combined inertial + terrain correction (TERCOM) + electron-optical correlation (DSMAC). Also during the upgrade, some missiles received a GPS module. This set of equipment does not allow hitting mobile ground targets. BGM 109 B / E is an exceptionally anti-ship vehicle with a launch range of 550 km. It has an inertial system + active RSSH. Applicable exclusively against marine purposes. Due to the low speed, the need for correction to gain considerable height and the inability to perform anti-aircraft maneuvers, these missiles are extremely vulnerable to air defense systems. Attempts to stick a television head on the Tomahawk, as well as attempts to create a control system in flight, were unsuccessful. There are no such missiles in service with the US Navy.
            Why didn’t the missile cruisers please you? In the old days, a couple of these constantly grazed near the AUG, which made the Americans quite a bit nervous. To drown, they will drown them, only it will not stop launched missiles, and taking into account the characteristics of 3M80E, 3M45, 4K80 and other units, the survival of the AUG even after the drowning of these cruisers is extremely doubtful, especially considering that a couple of missiles can carry a special charge.
            Learn materiel and do not carry nonsense
            1. patsantre
              patsantre 20 July 2013 14: 48 New
              0
              Quote: anomalocaris
              Why didn’t the missile cruisers please you? In the old days, a couple of these constantly grazed near the AUG, which made the Americans quite a bit nervous. To drown, they will drown them, only it will not stop launched missiles, and taking into account the characteristics of 3M80E, 3M45, 4K80 and other units, the survival of the AUG even after the drowning of these cruisers is extremely doubtful, especially considering that a couple of missiles can carry a special charge.


              When the cruisers grazed near the AUG, then you could still throw their hats here, and now we have several of these cruisers and they are not engaged in the pursuit of the AUGs. So, if, purely hypothetically, the amers would decide to attack us, these cruisers would quickly dip , appear in the zone of activity of the AUGs. Now, granites and mosquitoes simply have nothing to give an elementary TSU.

              I wonder why you are considering early modifications of tomahawks?
              1. anomalocaris
                anomalocaris 20 July 2013 15: 03 New
                0
                Give the characteristics of the "latest" modifications BGM 109. I do not forbid you.
                Not very respected, while someone will try to cut out our fleet, the answer will fly just from a place not far from my habitat. And such that aircraft carriers or their absence will not play a role.
      2. papik09
        papik09 20 July 2013 05: 56 New
        0
        Also say that the Tomahawk cannot be detected and intercepted. fool
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 20 July 2013 13: 15 New
          0
          It’s possible ... but if a couple of them fly in at once, what will we do? Yes, and you know, far from all of us, not all objects are covered by air defense, and some are covered by a radar field at high altitude, but near the ground at an altitude of 30 meters only a small part of the territory can be seen behind the radio horizon, and I deeply doubt that high-altitude radars completely solve this problem. Here we need to be interested in air defense specialists.
          What does this mean? This means that they can "drive up" to a distance of 1000 km to the coast, remaining inaccessible to us, with impunity to peel tomahawks on infrastructure and any objects poorly protected by air defense.
          1. anomalocaris
            anomalocaris 20 July 2013 13: 56 New
            0
            It will not work with impunity. No way.
            Low-altitude air defense systems have been developed since the late 60s. Now these are very effective complexes.
            1. patsantre
              patsantre 20 July 2013 14: 39 New
              -1
              And how will we get them when they, having cut out our fleet, will be fired with tomahawks from an inaccessible distance for coastal complexes?
              What is generally "low-altitude air defense systems", do not bother to explain?
              1. patsantre
                patsantre 20 July 2013 14: 55 New
                0
                Wang, that you now recall our coastal aviation ... and I really would like to hope that she would be able to break through their fighter aircraft. And again, the problem with target designation. In our aircraft, the AWAC, the cat burst into tears, and they will hold out in the air very much very short time.
                1. SPACE
                  SPACE 20 July 2013 19: 00 New
                  0
                  Quote: patsantre
                  We have AWACS airplanes, the cat wept, and they will last in the air for a very, very short time.

                  ... "In terms of the complexity of the scientific problem and the methods of solving it, over-the-horizon radar, according to many experts, is on a par with space exploration. Nevertheless, in modern Russia they have realized the importance of ZGRLS for defense capability.
                  Already follows the aircraft carrier groups of the US Navy in the Far East ZRLLS "Wave" GP-120 chief designer Fedor Evstratov. At ranges of more than 3.000 kilometers, it discovers and escorts foreign ships, planes, and missiles in the vast region in the interests of the Pacific Fleet. Obviously, this does not exhaust the energy potential of this radar. On the Kamchatka Peninsula, an experimental low-potential surface-wave radar system “Taurus” was built to detect ships at a range of up to 250 kilometers and over-the-horizon, long-range search for aircraft and missiles. In total, five ZGRLS will be deployed in the Far East, which will conduct reconnaissance of aerospace targets in the interests of state defense capability. There is no doubt that Franz Kuzminsky and his associates Yuri Grishin, Valentin Strelkin, Efir Shustov and thousands of other scientists and designers made a decisive scientific and technical contribution to the creation of this superweapon. The feat of the pioneers is not forgotten.
                  For the first time in the world, NIIDAR developed the theory and practice of over-the-horizon location, which makes it possible to solve the problems of detecting air and sea targets in the entire range of heights and at long ranges.
                  Over-the-horizon radars of the "Wave", "Sunflower" and "Container" types are being created for the first time in our country. They aroused a certain world interest "...
                2. Denis
                  Denis 21 July 2013 00: 25 New
                  +2
                  Quote: patsantre
                  We have airplanes AWAC something cat wept
                  They did not release for lack of relevance
                  Yak-44 - Deck aircraft radar patrol, guidance and control (RLDNU / DRLOiU) and electronic countermeasures (EW).
                  Designed by OKB. A. S. Yakovleva in the mid-70s. The prototype of the Yak-44 (Yak-44RLD) aircraft was selected American E-2 "Hokai". The aircraft was supposed to be based on the atomic aircraft carrier of project 1143.7 Ulyanovsk.
                3. Raven1972
                  Raven1972 21 July 2013 13: 39 New
                  0
                  For the sake of interest: the target’s detection / defeat height at the same S-300 is from 10 m if you don’t know + Tunguska + Torah + Buk-m2 + Carapace - there are enough low-level air defense systems as you can see ... In addition, the Tomahawks are subsonic - they have 870 cruising km / h, so on her and Shilka for the eyes will be hi
          2. SPACE
            SPACE 20 July 2013 18: 37 New
            0
            Quote: patsantre
            and some are covered by a radar field at high altitude, but near the ground at an altitude of meters in 30 because of the radio horizon only a small part of the territory is visible, and I deeply doubt that high-altitude radars completely solve this problem.

            Wave (GP-120) - over-the-horizon radar of the far zone. Designed to detect surface and air targets at a distance of 3000 km. The station uses two principles of the horizon-based location: a surface beam (diffractive surface propagation) in the near zone and a spatial beam (reflected from the ionosphere) in the far zone. An antenna with a phased array is the emitter and receiver at the same time. Antenna size: length 15 meters, height 5 meters. Modern passive technologies to reduce radio stealth (the so-called "stealth") practically do not change the EPR of the object in the short-wave range.
  23. rudolff
    rudolff 19 July 2013 23: 05 New
    +2
    Among the named ships, unfortunately I did not see my beloved. The Kamran project. All-weather, round-the-clock, unsinkable, with the base of aviation of any type and always located in the right place! Sorry to write off! good
  24. Mikola
    Mikola 20 July 2013 18: 01 New
    0
    It is interesting why Russia does not consider the possibility of restructuring two nuclear-powered cruisers of the Kirov class, which are rusting, into aircraft carriers. The length of the ships, with the increase of bullets along the sides to broaden the hull and increase displacement, the nuclear installation has this. Ships were built in Russia, so their restructuring should not cause difficulties. At the same time, in order to reduce the cost, only cheap defensive systems can be installed at the initial stage, of course, the ship’s project restructuring should have a reserve for building up armaments. But the main weapon of aircraft carriers - fighters are already there. A nuclear installation still makes it possible to introduce a catapult. Such a restructuring would give Russia the experience of building atomic aircraft carriers, strengthen the fleet, and because the Far East and the Northern Fleet have the infrastructure for operating nuclear cruisers in problem areas, they would significantly strengthen the fleet, although I consider the Far East the main problem of Russia.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 July 2013 18: 11 New
      +3
      The idea is good, but alas - utopian :))) For a number of reasons.
      I’ll name one - Kirov - 1980 year of birth, Frunze - 1984 g, so even if you build something from them, it takes 5-7 years later from strength. the game is not worth the candle
      1. Mikola
        Mikola 20 July 2013 19: 12 New
        +1
        Ships of large displacement age slowly - the atomic cruiser Long Beach, the carrier Midway, the battleships Marat. The main thing is in what condition they are, the more they have not developed their resource and they wanted to put them into operation recently again.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 July 2013 20: 51 New
          +3
          Quote: Mikola
          Large displacement ships age slowly

          This is true, but everything has a limit. Long Beach was commissioned in 1961, removed from the fleet in 1995 i.e. served 34 of the year. Midway has served 47 years. "October Revolution" - 42 of the year. Kirov is now 33 and he is in a disgusting state. Even the repair will drag on for 3 for a year, and even if it can pass like Midway, it's only 11 years.
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 20 July 2013 21: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The idea is good, but alas - utopian :))) For a number of reasons.
        Let me disagree with you, dear Andrei, I will explain why. Do you, of course, remember the story of the unprecedented modernization of four old Italian dreadnoughts such as "Conti di Cavour" and "Duilio"? So, at the time of that, he had an order of 20 years (for example, Giulio Cesare was laid down in 1910, and went into operation in 1914, modernization began in 1934, completed in 1937. According to the design by Francesco Rotundi, only ships were left the hull with the armor and metalwork of the GK tower artillery mounts is approximately 40% of the initial mass. Such changes are commensurate with the change in the class of the ship. This was justified in time, where in three years they actually received a new battleship, and in price, the price of the alteration corresponded to the cost of a new light cruisers. We are now to build a new ship of this size “a hundred years”, but you can remake it, the Americans and WWII still store the ships, and they break it when there is already a replacement for the same “Long Beach” or “Midway.” I here agree with Mikola, you can’t break these cruisers, but you can and should redo them, into helicopter carriers or light aircraft carriers .. It’s a pity that those in power do not read the posts, and, sorry, I don’t agree with you.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 20 July 2013 23: 35 New
          +1
          It’s easier to build a normal new aircraft carrier than to remodel an age-old ship that will still be out of service for a long time, and this alteration is so specific that it will result in the cost of the same new ship.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 21 July 2013 01: 00 New
            0
            Quote: patsantre
            it won’t be easier to build a normal new aircraft carrier.
            I would gladly agree with you, and I would be with both hands for the new aircraft carrier, if we could lay it right now by building years through 6-8. Alas, patsantre, we will only design these new 6-8 years aircraft carrier, and our children or grandchildren will wait for the finished ship. About the time and cost of alterations, I already said above, the technical principles are the same. There are selfish interests of monopolists, which are not profitable to do cheaply, there are sabotage and the lobby of our "friends" who didn’t spend their money on the destruction of our aircraft carriers so that we could quickly revive them. Finally, the current state of the industry is such that the construction of new warships of a similar tonnage is probably in general questionable for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is better to have what is real, if Kuzi needs an understudy and safety net, and this is necessary now, not after, it is necessary to remake at least one of the atomic Orlanes into an aircraft carrier. There is experience with Gorshkov, if you look for opportunities, not reasons, then a second aircraft carrier (nuclear aircraft carrier) can be obtained in a relatively short time. And time is very expensive now.
            1. patsantre
              patsantre 21 July 2013 01: 06 New
              0
              I agree with you in the sense that a normal aircraft carrier is still dreaming, and if we see it, then soon.
              As for the alteration, my IMHO
              1) The Orlan corps are far from new, for a long time this alteration in the ranks will not last, they have entered and will soon be written off. There is no question of any benefit.
              2) A normal AB cannot be obtained from the VI cruiser 25 kilotons. It’s good if the AWACS plane at least takes off from it.
              3) the alteration is so large-scale that it will be essentially a new ship with some spare parts from the old one, therefore its cost will be close to a new ship of the same kind. Is it worth investing such money in a ship that will not be in service for a long time (see p .1)?
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 21 July 2013 10: 45 New
                0
                Quote: patsantre
                .And is it worth investing such money in a ship that will not be in service for a long time (see paragraph 1)?
                What can I say, it all depends on how much the "spoon-to-dinner" path is now, if you really need it, when the choice is only between a relatively quick alteration "here and now, all at once", and between "nothing" and vague prospects. In general, we would have less rockets with satellites falling, more money left. Our sincere concern for saving the military budget after Serdyukov’s “reforms”, and with hundreds of billions of dollars flowing away from Russia in waves, is very touching. Finally, the condition of the cruisers and the prospects for their repair or alteration should be evaluated by independent experts who are rooting for our fleet, as well as the real cost and rational plan of such work.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 July 2013 01: 03 New
          +3
          Dear Per se!
          Quote: Per se.
          According to the project of Francesco Rotundi, only the hull with armor and metal structures of the GK tower gun mounts remained from the ships, approximately 40% of the initial mass

          This could not be in any way - the total mass of the hull, armor and towers was more than 15 thousand tons http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/BKM/Kavur/09.htm I understand that you rely on the phrase
          It was planned to dismantle with the subsequent replacement of about 60% of the original structures

          from the same book, but I doubt very much what the mass meant here :)))
          Quote: Per se.
          This was justified in time, where in three years they actually received a new battleship, and in price, the price of the alteration corresponded to the cost of a new light cruiser.

          Sorry, but I can’t believe it.
          First, about the cost — a similar modernization of the same British Warspite pulled out £ XMNX million - despite the fact that heavy cruisers like Kent did not reach 2,5 million pounds. And therefore it is very strange for me to hear about the "cost of a light cruiser", in my opinion something is wrong here :)
          Well, about the novelty of the battleship ... sorry, but I can’t call these ships modern. What was modern in them?
          Armor? Basically, the old one remained, only a little was put on the new deck. The battleships of the WWII had improved armor compared to the times of the WWII, about 15-20 percent. Artillery? Well, the GCs were improved, although the Italians still couldn’t even reach the Dunkirk cannons. The ships never got a good air defense. Speed? Yes, in tests already 28 nodes, but by the beginning of the war - no more than 26, and a year later, Cesare with difficulty 24 developed. PTZ-? So they were even embarrassed to give boules to them, only Puglieze of doubtful value ... In general, with modern ships - no comparison.
          In other words - a lot of money was slaughtered, the ships certainly became better than they were, but they did not shine as good battleships.
          But if the Italians did not bother with their modernizations, by the beginning of the war they would have had the first pair of Vittorio Veneto ready, and soon the second. And THIS could have influenced much more on the outcome of the battles ... Who knows how the Italians would behave in Calabria if they had a couple of the latest Littorio instead of Cesare?
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 21 July 2013 01: 26 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But if the Italians did not bother with their modernizations, by the beginning of the war they would have had the first pair of Vittorio Veneto ready, and soon the second.
            I do not argue with this, although Musolini would not have been in a hurry to enter the war, as the Japanese, until the mid-end of the 1941 year, with the completion of new battleships, things would have been better. Maybe I sympathize with Italian ships too much, but the modernization of the old dreadnoughts undoubtedly made them stronger than the German "pocket" battleships, and the boring of 305 mm guns under 320 mm gave a mass of HA in 5250 kg against 4480 kg in the French Dunkirk. You must admit that for our fleet, Novorossiysk (Giulio Cesare) remained the strongest ship. Modernized Italians would be more correct to consider linear or, even, heavy cruisers, which were very good for their time and class.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 July 2013 13: 08 New
              +2
              Quote: Per se.
              Maybe I sympathize with Italian ships too much, but the modernization of the old dreadnoughts certainly made them stronger than the German "pocket" battleships

              I agree, but they were even stronger before modernization. True - not faster, but stronger - for sure.
              Quote: Per se.
              and the bore of 305 mm guns under 320 mm gave a mass of HA in 5250 kg versus 4480 kg in the French Dunkirk

              This is certainly true. But the armor penetration of the French guns was still better (the muzzle energy is more by 17%, while the heavier French shell is still slower than the Italian one) The main armored belt of Dunkirk was 225 mm thick, but taking into account the best quality of armor it was equivalent to about 260 -270-mm Italian reservation. But after the modernization, the 250-mm belt of Italians was under water, leaving only the second 220-mm belt outside ... The French armored belt was also inclined, so that, taking into account the best strength, it gave approximately 320-330 mm the equivalent of Italian armor. If the Italians had an 220-mm armored bulkhead behind the 80-mm belt, then the French had the 50-mm bevel (inclined) So even in comparison with Dunkirk it is difficult to see parity, and the second - Strasbourg - had 283- mm armor where Dunkirk had 225 mm ..
              And the main thing - the French ships much more powerful horizontal reservation.
              Quote: Per se.
              Agree that for our fleet, Novorossiysk (Giulio Cesare) remained the most powerful ship

              yes, but this is not the merit of Cesare :))) This, alas, is the result of the deplorable state of our post-war fleet
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 21 July 2013 15: 35 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                yes, but this is not the merit of Cesare :))) This, alas, is the result of the deplorable state of our post-war fleet
                Unfortunately, Andrei, the state of our fleet now only brightens up the legacy of the Soviet Union - nuclear submarines, without nuclear missiles, we are now rated weaker than the tsar’s fleet after Tsushima. Therefore, in my opinion, it’s not worth rushing to cut your fleet “into needles”. “Kuzya” miraculously survived, “Eagles” were still alive, the last three “Sharks” were not destroyed ... All these ships could be built by the USSR, this is the crown of the power of our fleet, and it is they who are constantly being tempted to destroy, under “good” pretexts. Present-day Russia will not soon be able to build such ships, and, even more so, the construction time is excessive even for corvettes. Returning to the topic of modernization of Italian battleships, I must say that the Italians then had a choice, quicker and cheaper with the modernization of the old ones, but with a slowdown in the construction of new battleships such as Vittorio Veneto, or, throw all your strength into new ones, remaining practically for some time no battleships at all. I think the Italians acted logically. Now we don’t have such a choice, if we don’t modernize, don’t repair, in return, there’s silence, nothing for many years, there aren’t even ready-made projects, and, most importantly, the awareness of what needs to be done and done urgently (I won’t ironic "spaceman").
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 July 2013 18: 04 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Per se.
                  Unfortunately, Andrey, the state of our fleet now brightens up only the legacy of the Soviet Union

                  Ummm ... so it’s not that brightens up, our fleet - this is the legacy of the Soviet Union! We built almost nothing of ours. crying
                  Quote: Per se.
                  without nuclear missile weapons, we are now rated weaker than the Tsar’s fleet after Tsushima

                  Well, why? After Tsushima, we went to second-tier powers - the USA, France, Germany, not to mention England, were stronger. Even Japan turned out to be stronger. Well, now, except for the United States, we, perhaps, will not yield to anyone.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  Present-day Russia will not soon be able to build such ships, and even more so, the construction time is excessive even for corvettes

                  With the construction is really not very good. There is a more or less bright spot - the construction of Talvar frigates for India - but even those are built according to 4-5 years.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  I think the Italians acted logically.

                  I would still not bother with the second pair in their place, but I agree - it was difficult to guess there.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  Now we don’t have such a choice, if we don’t modernize, don’t repair, in return, there’s silence, nothing for years to come, not even ready-made projects, and, most importantly, awareness of what needs to be done and done urgently

                  You see, I would agree with you, but Kuzmich is also a veteran, it has been a year since the commissioning of 22. And if we are now loading the industrial capacities with the repair of the Eagles for the next ten years, then at some point we risk being left without an aircraft carrier at all, and this bothers me.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  (I will not be ironic about the multimedia "spaceman").

                  Yeah ... The personal of His Imperial Highness Prince Kearnu of the four golden banners of the name "Mountain Eagle" bombing nervously smokes on the side :))))
  25. Mike_v
    Mike_v 20 July 2013 23: 16 New
    0
    I would like to ask a question to the forum users. Is there a difference in the use of a springboard and catapult on an aircraft carrier? Why aren’t the Americans using the springboard, but the catapult? If anyone owns the information, then he is grateful in advance.
    1. anomalocaris
      anomalocaris 20 July 2013 23: 31 New
      +1
      There is a very substantial one. The catapult allows you to lift significantly heavier aircraft into the air than a springboard. But the catapult requires a very powerful steam generator. Suffice it to say that at the same Nimitsa, with the maximum pace of launches, up to a third of the steam generated by six reactors is spent on catapults.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 20 July 2013 23: 41 New
      +1
      The catapult allows you to launch heavier planes. Therefore, American aircraft carriers have AWACS aircraft that dramatically increase the capabilities of the air group and the entire AUG. Kuznetsov’s trampoline not only does not allow the launch of AWACS aircraft, it also prevents the Su-33, which is now based on it, from flying , with full combat load.
      Also, the catapult allows you to take off during the pitching and bad weather conditions.
      Of the advantages of a springboard, an unlimited number of sorties can be noted. The catapult has such a limitation, the Nimitsy have about 150 sorties per day (in principle, enough for mass combat operations). Gerald Ford series aircraft carriers will have electromagnetic catapults, which significantly increase this figure.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 July 2013 01: 08 New
        +2
        Quote: patsantre
        he also does not allow the Su-33, which is now based on it to fly, with full combat load.

        Sorry, but how long can this bike be repeated? Can Su-33 take off in full combat, and took off repeatedly. Even with a hundred
        Quote: patsantre
        Of the advantages of a springboard, an unlimited number of sorties can be noted. The catapult has such a limitation, Nimitsev has about 150 sorties per day

        I doubt very much that the catapult is the limiter here
        Well, it’s worth adding that the catapults provide a high speed of lifting the air group
    3. Per se.
      Per se. 21 July 2013 00: 36 New
      +2
      We can say that the springboard was a product of the Harrier VTOL, the British specially used it on their light aircraft carriers (Invincible, Illastries and Ark Royal) for these aircraft. Currently, the springboard is used on many foreign aircraft carriers, involving the use of F-35 VTOL aircraft. In our fleet, the springboard began to be used because of the ability to use the high thrust-weight ratio of MIG-29 and SU-33 fighters, technical problems with the development of the catapult, and political reverence in the understanding of aircraft carriers ... Speaking about catapults, the following should be noted from their advantages: - a lower threshold for sensitivity to take-off conditions (for example, take-off with a stronger roll), a higher rate of launch of aircraft, the ability to launch aircraft with low thrust ratio (for example, such an important aircraft for the fleet as aircraft D LO). The disadvantages of catapults include the need for a powerful threshold-generating installation, which is more successfully solved on nuclear aircraft carriers.
  26. Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 21 July 2013 06: 28 New
    +1
    First, we need a clear military doctrine, with whom and against whom we are going to be friends, and on this basis we must decide what we need for this.
  27. Dronza
    Dronza 21 July 2013 13: 15 New
    0
    And yet, for the development of production aircraft carriers must be built, at least a couple of pieces.
  28. yakisam
    yakisam 12 March 2019 18: 58 New
    0
    I ask you not to be offended, but this is a rare idiotic article
    The list of facts is presented as a "basis" for statements that the reader should perceive as conclusions ... Bullshit
    It is not clear from the whole article why this author decided that the USSR Navy needed to create an aircraft carrier fleet — not to build an aircraft carrier or several, but to create an aircraft carrier fleet — a fleet built “around” aircraft carriers and to solve those tasks for which only aircraft carriers
    The "experience" of the United States, and it is precisely the experience of World War II - is presented as the basis for believing that aircraft carriers have become the "main" ... what? The US carrier fleet was created only by the United States, and precisely because dozens of such ships were built during the war and the “tradition” of thinking of American naval sailors was set, and because the aircraft carriers were suitable for the American “strategy” - occupying the whole world and waging war against weak states.
    In what way and against whom was the USSR supposed to use aircraft carriers? Against US carrier forces? Bullshit ... Military science proceeds from the fact that for an effective fight against specific types of weapons, a different weapons system is needed, and not the same.
    It is especially funny to read about the psyche of Stalin and his decisions, which the author does not analyze at all - but simply characterizes them in mocking tones. Probably, the author himself would build the hundred of the largest aircraft carriers and ... interestingly, what would he do with them?
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 12 March 2019 19: 04 New
      0
      For example, on the basis of the research work "Order" 1969-1972
      1. yakisam
        yakisam 12 March 2019 19: 19 New
        0
        A more specific? For this I scolded the article - for juggling facts as if the ideas of the author follow from them - but they do not follow. Now, if the author indicated the specific tactical and operational role of the carrier fleet in relation to the specific political goal set by the USSR, and further showed why the construction and operation of the carrier fleet would be more beneficial than other ways to achieve this goal, then this would be interesting.

        and the R&D Order was just because it was completed because the inefficiency of all available approaches to aircraft carrier ships was established in the conditions of constantly improving weapons. Although such a conclusion could have been made without a three-year “brainstorming”. Not to mention the fact that it was launched 24 years after the war ...
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 12 March 2019 21: 43 New
          0
          Specifically, the R&D Order, 24 years after the war, confirmed the simple truth-dominance at sea = dominance over the sea, that is, surface ships, and MRA needs fighter aircraft to organize air defense.
          The carrier fleet, by the way, is nothing more than a big name, the French, British, Chinese, etc., until recently, Brazilians, Argentines also build (built) their fleets around aircraft carriers.
          1. yakisam
            yakisam 13 March 2019 11: 50 New
            0
            Sorry, I didn’t want to start a dispute without a goal
            I just wanted to say that for the abstract "fleet" and "dominance of the sea" (by the way, the term of the bourgeois theorist Mahan), that is, the Tassolocracy - of course, all types of weapons are needed, more than the enemy’s, and better quality. This is an obvious truth for every warrior - mine must shoot further, more accurately and more destructively, and I myself must be invulnerable ...
            Therefore, if you conduct some kind of research with the goal of “how to win,” the result will be programmed — you need to dominate the battlefield (theater of operations) in order to freely use your weapon without the risk of its destruction. Such R&D costs nothing - in the sense, they are very expensive, but do not produce ANY useful results. And if the question is posed - WHAT to build aircraft carriers, then the answer will be obvious - these are such, and the question - whether aircraft carriers are needed "by chance" is not considered. R&D "Order" posed the question - how to ensure the combat stability of nuclear submarines in the ocean in the conditions of the presence of an enemy ASG with means with advanced anti-aircraft missile systems, so the answer was programmed even without scientific research - it was necessary to cover the limited areas of nuclear submarine patrolling by aviation ... Brilliant conclusion ...
            If you familiarize yourself with this research, you will see that a group of specialists from SCP them. The Komsomol has worked out a feasibility study to increase the stability of nuclear submarines through the development of nuclear submarines themselves. That is, it was found that within the costs of creating an aircraft carrier fleet (aircraft carriers, air groups, basing ports, training bases, dock facilities by 100.000 tons, etc.), it is possible to increase the number of nuclear submarines by more than 7 times, which will lead to such a saturation of the theater of operations of nuclear submarines, which also differs from the AUG in secrecy, maneuverability and economy, that even the promising 14 AUG of the NATO combined fleets (and at that time there were 6 AUG in service) will completely lose their value. In other words, the presence of about 200 nuclear submarines in the ocean at the same time will lead to the fact that the entire ocean will become a "patrol area", and regardless of the presence or absence of air cover, they can simultaneously destroy the entire surface fleet of all opponents ... Where did you share this piece of research? They were excluded from the “dissenting opinion” in favor of the Ministry of Industry and Industry, which really wanted to build aircraft carriers instead of civilian ships ... It’s clear that the nuclear submarine flotilla has more striking power and “combat stability” than the aircraft carrier group, but costs a lot less. This was obvious to everyone, therefore, in the USSR, all aircraft-carrying ships were essentially experimental.
            I earnestly ask you to think about whether you came across studies (with calculations) that would compare the value and cost of types of naval weapons in relation to the DEFENSE of our country, and not to naval rivalry. And turn to the same research in the USA, which at the end of the 60s came to the conclusion that AUG (even in the form of CVN with the cover of URO ships - CG, CGN, DLG, FFG) urgently needs to be removed from the fleet and disposed of, because the combination of SSBNs + nuclear submarines in the ocean and nuclear submarines + KRL in tracking AUGs leads to the fact that AOGs are disabled before the wing takes off ... BUT: the aircraft carriers were saved in order to ensure the conduct of occupation wars ("quick reaction forces" ), which they still serve.
            Sorry.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 13 March 2019 13: 53 New
              0
              Do you know such a thing as KOH? For 1981, KOH = 0,23. That is, in order to launch 200 RPLs simultaneously into the ocean, there must be many times more of them. It seems to me that this "dissenting opinion" was not included so that people would not be dishonored.
              1. yakisam
                yakisam 13 March 2019 14: 52 New
                0
                I understood you
                All this is familiar to me by SCP. Komsomol
                The construction and operation of serial nuclear submarines of the 971th, 949th projects is about 10 times cheaper than the TAVKR of the 1143rd project, and this is EXCEPT the infrastructure for their base - only docks for 50.000 tons are worth ....
                Let me remind you that in 1971, the rate of ADMINISTRATION on the nuclear submarine was 12 hulls per year - this is simultaneously with the deployment of the surface fleet - projects 1143, 1144 and 1146, not to mention the 956th and 1134th projects, were laid down in it's the same time. Therefore, the construction of about 300 nuclear submarines was nothing impossible, as well as the supply of their replaceable crews, which was in the construction program of the Navy.
                The “dissenting opinion” was officially published as The results of scientific research were the subject of consideration both at the military-industrial complex of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers, and at the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and the "special opinion" was assessed as "considered to be absolutely correct for long-term planning for the development of the Navy." Therefore, no one "disgraced" anyone, and the creation of the Tavkr was "pushed" by the Ministry of Industry and Minaviaprom, and not by military sailors. If interested, then look at the memoirs of Egorov (Comflot KSF) about “Kiev” - the Navy command did not know what tasks the ship should solve when it was finally completed and sent to the KSF.
                And so as not to torture anyone else, I will say ONCE AGAIN - the matter is not in the necessity or unnecessaryness, the "good" or "bad" of aircraft carriers - the thing is, for what task are they needed? To “cover” the patrol area of ​​the SSBN, a minimum of 4 aircraft carrier GROUPS are needed - 2 in patrol, 1 in transit, 1 in repair — that is, at least 12 ships of rank 1, about 35 2nd rank, supply ships, 4-6 submarines and all this should be provided by mine-sweeping forces and basing points, ship repair, reconnaissance along the crossing route, etc. .. That is, "covering the patrol area of ​​the SSBN" requires naval personnel of 50 warships in total from 650.000 tons of displacement, 24000 personnel per ships ... This is for "cover," you see? And our “Navy” had 4 such “districts”, except for the ice-cold KSF ... And the transitions to these areas - from 5000 miles only “transition”, that is, without the task itself - what is the price? But you still need to provide these transitions with additional forces and means, including basic aviation, etc. That is, to have "forces to protect the forces at the transition." Now, if you have 4 AUGs and amphibious forces, then you can easily capture Nicaragua or Chile, yes ... But the USSR could not have such goals.
                That is why this “idea” was not even designated as a goal, and there was no construction of aircraft-carrying ships in the USSR to “cover the patrol area”.
                Let me remind you that 650000 tons of displacement is 100 nuclear submarines, and 24000 crew members are 100 nuclear submarines with two crews, so it’s stupid to spend 5 times more resources on “cover” than “undercover” forces.
                If what I said is not clear, I will be happy to delete my comments.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 13 March 2019 15: 17 New
                  0
                  Sorry, but with KOH 0,23 RPL should be much more than 300, in the region of 700-800, despite the fact that there were 86 of them in 1981.
                  According to V. Nikolsky’s Handbook “Warships of the World” in 2011, the cost of the RPL pr.971 212,5 million rubles in 1980 prices, TAKR pr.11435 550 million rubles, ATAKR pr.11437 800 million rubles. Can you find out your sources?
                  1. yakisam
                    yakisam 13 March 2019 15: 47 New
                    0
                    I understand you, I think you need to delete the scribble ...
                    I am familiar with the thoughts of Mr. Nikolsky that took place in the 2000s ... :)
                    Naturally, they have nothing to do with real "prices" and "costs" in the USSR economy, because in the USSR no one traded arms with their own state. For example, I can say that the planned cost of titanium alloy 48-OTZV and shipbuilding steel AK-30 was about the same, and the shortage of the first was not determined by the "price", but simply by the capacity of production and mining ....
                    I hope you understand that the construction of a ship of 75.000 tons, which is equipped with fighting posts for 1200 personnel, differs from the ship of 7500 tons with 120 fighting posts - about 10 times in terms of material and labor costs? As A.V. said Suvorov, "tell your empress that my soldiers do not eat money." Therefore, the "cost" characteristic of a ship means very little - unless it needs to be bought in the literal sense of the word. For the construction of the ship, the quantity of materials, equipment productivity, labor costs ...
                    But if someone wants to play with the "prices", then I can say that in the USA the cost of an attack aircraft carrier without an air wing was 3-4 times more than SSBNs, and SSBN was 2 times more than SSBNs. that is, 1 aircraft carrier = 8 SSGN. Plus the construction period ...
                    about KOH:
                    KOH can be increased by increasing the level of seriality of units and assemblies, the transition to inter-passage APPR (aggregate scheduled preventive maintenance), reducing the number of crews (example 705-1 project with 26 fighting posts and 32 crews), and the introduction of 3 crews for each corps - 2 combat and 1 reduced basic operational, then CPC approaches 0.75 .... all these are long-worked topics.
                    Sources is a good topic. I advise you to take the primary of the 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, it’s so easy to find it in gloss and Google ... Try to start with the magazine “Sudostroenie” of the 70s, so that the language is simpler, there are rich links and go further on them ...
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 13 March 2019 16: 49 New
                      0
                      Ie you do not have sources, believe the word. Good.
                      Using your analogy, the cost of building ATAKR pr.11437 800 million, pr.971 212 million, i.e. 1 ATAKR = 3,7 SSBNs, which corresponds to your declared value.
                      It's funny, and Yu.V. Vedernikov claims that in the 80s, KOH was raised to 0,35, and this was due to exhausting human and material resources.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. yakisam
                        yakisam 13 March 2019 18: 27 New
                        0
                        You are absolutely right
                        I wish you good luck in analyzing the "sources" of the 2000s, as well as in building aircraft carriers, calculating their "prices" in rubles, in "covering patrol areas" and everything else.
                        Sorry if I disturbed you with my comments, and believe me, I regret that you cannot "believe" with "word of mouth", but I am glad for you that your faith in other "sources" is strong and certainly justified.
                        I am convinced that you will be able to write an article on how exactly the AMB forces should make the SSBN “combat stable” and convincingly show the cheapness of this decision on the EXAMPLE of a fleet in any country.
                      3. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 13 March 2019 18: 40 New
                        0
                        That is, a shock aircraft carrier / SSBN and US SSBN can be compared in dollars, but their Soviet counterparts in rubles can not be compared. Thank. I have no more questions.
                        I apologize for doubting your words and asking for evidence. Good luck.