Military Review

European Carriers: From Costly Traditions to Low Cost Uniformity

36

Photo: weapons.technology.youngester.com

Aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle"
nuclear power plant (R91), France

The naval powers of Europe, having or having once had classic strike aircraft carriers in the fleets, are gradually abandoning this type of ships in favor of smaller, but multifunctional ones. For large players, such as the United Kingdom and France, this process is either painful or has not started yet. Countries with more limited financial resources have already reoriented their shipbuilding programs towards combining the strike aircraft carrier with the universal landing craft, since building and maintaining both of them is too expensive. The inclusion of most European powers in the affiliate program for the supply of American F-35 fighter jets will allow equipping these combat units with an acceptable strike potential.

European aircraft carrier forces: picture and dynamics

The state of the aircraft carrier forces of Europe was significantly influenced by two factors: the gradual withdrawal from the European fleets in the 2000-ies of aircraft carriers of the old construction (even physically outdated and having the potential for limited use or modernization) and the extremely small introduction of new combat units instead same profile.

So, Great Britain got rid of two of its three Invincible type aircraft carriers:



head Invincible was decommissioned fleet in August 2005, Ark Royal - in March 2011. The remaining Illustrious in the same 2011 was deprived of Harrier II type attack aircraft and converted into a helicopter carrier. Currently, the British Navy does not have a single carrier ship for carrier-based aircraft.

France removed both Clemenceau aircraft carriers from the fleet:



in 1997, Clemenceau itself was bred; in 2005, Foch (sold to Brazil). In 2010, the fleet left the helicopter carrier Jean d'Arc. Instead, only one ship Charles de Gaulle (2001) was introduced.

Spain in February 2013, due to financial difficulties, removed the Principe de Asturias aircraft carrier from the fleet,

European Carriers: From Costly Traditions to Low Cost Uniformity


built only at the end of the 1980's. As a result, the Spanish fleet has only one large aircraft carrier, the Juan Carlos I, taken into service in the autumn of 2010.

Against this background, Italy looks like an exception, which, despite the military budget cuts that were repeatedly announced in 2012 and the beginning of 2013, still retains the aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi as part of the fleet.



In 2009, the fleet was replenished with a new multi-purpose aircraft carrier Cavour.



Britain: “cheap imperialist politics”, second edition, abbreviated


Photo: www.buquesdeguerra.com
Aircraft carrier Juan Carlos I (L-61)

Currently, the aircraft crew includes approximately 40 aircraft, including X-NUMX multi-role fighter F-12B Lightning II, multi-purpose helicopters Merlin HAS.35 (AW.1), Wildcat (AW.101) and helicopters of the radar patrol Sea King AEW .159.

The most interesting in the project is the evolution of its weapons. In 2002, the British military, choosing the version of the deck fighter, stopped at the F-35B, which is made according to the STOVL scheme (“short takeoff, vertical landing”).



However, around 2009, discussions began about equipping ships with an electromagnetic catapult to launch “full-fledged” deck-based aircraft, including those that could be replaced by F-35 in the future. As a result, in 2010, the military reoriented from the F-35B version to the F-35C version, which the US navy intends to order to replace the F / A-18 multi-purpose fighter jets.

It should be noted that version C has better flight and performance characteristics than version B, in particular, a larger combat radius (1140 km versus 870) and a wider range of combat load. In addition, the F-35C is somewhat cheaper both with the purchase and in operation, which can provide significant savings when operating with a fleet of several dozen aircraft.

However, the limiting factor here is the readiness of the British budget to incur additional costs for re-equipping ships. While in 2010, the cost of re-equipping one ship was estimated at 951 million pounds, while in 2012, the military department already called the figure of 2 billion pounds.

As far as can be judged, it is this factor that played its role against the background of the growing financial difficulties of the British budget. The problem was added by the shift in the time of commissioning of the ship - approximately until 2020. Recall that by that time Britain had already withdrawn the aircraft carrier Ark Royal from the composition, and the military would hardly have accepted the increase in the terms of the construction of the Queen Elizabeth. As a result, in May 2012, the military department returned to the purchase of F-35B, and Queen Elizabeth will receive a springboard for a shortened take-off of these aircraft.



The weak point of the British carrier forces is the situation lighting system. Neither the CVF nor the previous ships of the Invincible type have the capacity to operate a full-fledged long-range radar detection and control aircraft. Such a chance existed if the British military chose an ejection version of the CVF, but at the moment it is lost. Sea King's AEW.2 and ASaC.7 radar patrol helicopters can hardly be considered an equivalent replacement.



The fate of the second ship of the program, the construction of which was begun in 2011, is not clear (the first metal was cut for hull structures). The final decision on completion will be made after 2015.

Thus, by the beginning of the 2020-s, the UK will have, at best, two new multi-purpose aircraft carriers with F-35B aircraft. The following commissioning dates are realistic: Queen Elizabeth - not earlier than 2020, Prince of Wales - a few years later. However, in case of further growth or at least preservation of budgetary problems, the second aircraft carrier, if it is completed, can be sold literally from a shipbuilding plant (the most likely buyer is India) or its construction will be stopped altogether.

The second option is fraught with payment of penalties. According to British officials, the ship is more profitable to complete than to pay shipbuilders for abandoning it. In 2011, this was explicitly stated by British Prime Minister David Cameron.

The situation is increasingly reminiscent of the interwar period, when Great Britain, gradually losing world leadership, went to reduce the fleet and, more importantly, to limit its construction during the Washington Maritime Agreements 1922, to save money. In the 1930s, this behavior was called “cheap imperialist politics. "

France: a special path at the fork


Photo: digilander.libero.it
Light multipurpose aircraft carrier
Cavour (C550), Italy

France for a long time hatched the idea of ​​building the so-called “second aircraft carrier” - Porte-Avions 2 (the nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is considered the first). However, in April, 2013 in the White Paper on defense issues published by the French Defense Ministry, in the section on the look of the armed forces in 2025, only one aircraft carrier was listed.

There were no official comments, from which two conclusions can be drawn: either the project of the “second carrier” was canceled (or postponed indefinitely, which is the same in current conditions) or the French military, realistically assessing the possibilities of the state budget and shipbuilders, decided that even with the immediate start of work to get the ship ready through 12 years will not work. Even if we take the financial question out of the brackets, the epic with Charles de Gaulle is indicative - it was 12 years from the moment of his laying down to the final commissioning, and in much better economic conditions. It should also be noted that the technical appearance of Charles de Gaulle was generally developed at the end of the 1970-ies, i.e. approximately 10 years before the bookmark, while the final technical aspect of the Porte-Avions 2 is still not defined.

Nevertheless история The evolution of the French “second aircraft carrier” project deserves attention and can be instructive. According to the initial calculations, the ship’s displacement was to be 65 thousand tons, then it was increased to 74 thousand and finally reduced to 62 thousand tons. It was assumed that the aircraft carrier would be a gas turbine, as the unfinished nuclear power plant Charles de Gaulle became real "Headache" in operation. The air group should have included the Rafale 32 fighter, three E-2C Hawkeye long-range radar detection and control aircraft and five NH-90 helicopters.

It should be noted here that the consideration of CVF and Porte-Avions 2 programs in conjunction with each other is more than meaningful. The fact is that in the early stages of the French project (2005 – 2008) the future contractor (the Thales Naval and DCNS consortium) planned to work together with the British shipbuilders from BAE Systems. Moreover, the project was supposed to be so close to the British CVF, that at first even the CVF-FR marking (“French”) was used. However, the project subsequently “expanded”, including in terms of displacement, and in the implementation of the British program, no signs of particular activity were observed.

As a result, France de facto abandoned the CVF-FR project, and the White Book of 2008 had an interesting caveat: “changing economic conditions from 2003 requires new research to choose between classical and nuclear power plants”. Thus, the nuclear version of the Porte-Avions 2 is again accepted for consideration, which seems logical, since the UK does not build nuclear ships, and if the project has finally sold out with the CVF, then you need to weigh all the pros and cons.

Attempts by the UK to find an answer to the question of where to attach, if necessary, the second aircraft carrier of the CVF program, in principle, bring back the idea of ​​ordering the Porte-Avions 2 based on the British project. However, France does not purchase F-35 and focuses on the use of Rafale aircraft as a deck, which will immediately require equipping the ship with catapults (steam, like Charles de Gaulle, or electromagnetic, as assumed for CVF).

Moreover, in the framework of naval cooperation, which involved the creation of single Franco-British aircraft carrier units and the “alternate” use of ships for mutual tasks (such an initiative was put forward in the second half of 2000), the French were still ready to allow the use of F-35C, but not the F-35B. And more importantly, they were not satisfied with the lack of launching catapults on Queen Elisabeth and Prince of Wales.

The fate of Porte-Avions 2 remains, perhaps, the main intrigue of European aircraft carrier programs. However, it is quite obvious that if this ship is built, it will become almost the only new strike ship in Europe with a full-fledged air group, and not with aviation short take-off. In fact, for the next 10–20 years this is Europe’s only chance to build a new “clean” aircraft carrier.

European type of aircraft carrier: unification and wide opportunities


Photo: Suricatafx.com
Comparison of modern decked
fighters

At this stage, we have to state three characteristic points.

First, the main aircraft carrier states of the EU - the United Kingdom and France - were actually left without a carrier fleet, even to the limited extent they had until the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Operational readiness of Charles de Gaulle remains quite low, and Britain today does not have a single carrier ship deck aircraft. New ships of full readiness will be able to appear at the earliest in Britain’s 6 – 8 years or in the second half of the 2020s in France.

Secondly, the powers of the “second echelon” (Spain, Italy) are now actually catching up, and in some ways they are superior to the leaders, for example, in the number of combat units of this profile, especially when you consider the use of strike aircraft. However, this is not due to the active implementation of shipbuilding programs, but naturally. However, given the growing financial difficulties of Italy and Spain, it is obviously premature to expect from them in the medium term further growth or even maintain the number of active aircraft carrier units in the fleets.

Thirdly, there is a clear shift in the needs of fleets from the actual strike aircraft carriers to relatively light multipurpose aircraft carrier ships, often performing amphibious assault missions. Such a ship may carry strike aircraft (short take-off aircraft) or may not carry (as a matter of fact, being a helicopter carrier). But in any case, it has a wide range of capabilities for the transportation of amphibious units. In its philosophy, such a combat unit is closer not to classic attack aircraft carriers (for example, the American Nimitz type, the French Charles de Gaulle, the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov, the Chinese Liaonin or the Indian ships), but rather the American universal landing craft of the Wasp type.

As an example of the application of this approach in shipbuilding, one can cite the French “expeditionary force ships” of the Mistral type (three units),



as well as the previously mentioned Spanish Juan Carlos I and Italian Cavour.





It should be noted that these are new ships built during the last 4 – 9 years and reflecting the current views of naval headquarters on the priorities of military shipbuilding.

Air groups of new ships follow a pan-European approach: earlier ships carried mostly vertical-takeoff and landing aircraft like Harrier,



while the new ones (and the same old ones after the upgrade) are the future US carrier-based fighter F-35B.



The traditional exception is France, which used its own aircraft in the fleet: first Super Etendard, now Rafale.






Thus, the creation of a multipurpose, relatively cheap ship with mandatory landing and landing capabilities becomes a common place in the European construction of aircraft carriers. As an alternative to amplification for “second-tier” powers, the empowerment of these ships with the ability to use F-35B short take-off aircraft is considered, which actually turns them into “strike ersatz aircraft carriers”.

France and the United Kingdom, who are trying to carry the burden of their own carrier power, will apparently continue to be, as far as the state of the economy allows them, to strictly separate the strike aircraft carriers themselves and the aircraft carrier landing ships. And if the British can always unify the all-European type in tight budget conditions by switching to a single type of airborne assault ship, then France, which does not have its own short take-off aircraft, will have to at least request a niche F-35B in the United States. Given the prevailing naval traditions and traditions of military procurement, this can cause serious complications.

New "gunboat diplomacy"

Everything that is happening can in principle be called the final bringing of the military fleets of the European NATO countries to the new military-political situation that has arisen after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The likelihood of a major continental conflict in Europe (read - with the participation of Russia) has greatly decreased since the end of the 1980-s, which necessitates a restructuring of the armed forces. A new set of challenges is associated, in particular, with the expansion of the role of expeditionary forces in joint NATO operations (for example, in Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011), and in the independent actions of the European powers to stabilize the situation in the explosive regions of the third world (for example, the French operation in Mali at the beginning of 2013).

On the one hand, this situation does not impose any exorbitant requirements on the level of military expenditures under the threat to the existence of the state (for the fleet, this means a strict limitation of the number of operational ships, and, consequently, increases the requirements for their universality). On the other hand, it shifts the emphasis in the fleet's task system from purely shock functions in a full-scale naval war to providing combined air-sea operations of the armed forces in low-intensity conflicts.

The physical reduction of aircraft carrier fleets, which is unpleasant for the prestige of major powers, can also be viewed from the angle of effectiveness of the use of the remaining or under construction ships. In this sense, a country that possesses universal aircraft-carrying ships with airborne landing functions, for less money, gets more opportunities to use the fleet in the modern version of “gunboat diplomacy”.

Therefore, the reduction of classic strike aircraft carriers in Europe in favor of universal ships with short take-off aircraft should be qualified not only as a compression of the naval potential of the EU powers (at least quantitatively obvious), but also as a reasonably sufficient response to the new challenges facing naval forces in XXI century.

Sources:
http://russiancouncil.ru/inner/?id_4=2302#top
http://korabley.net
Author:
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Canep
    Canep 12 September 2013 08: 19 New
    -4
    Again an article about aircraft carriers, don't you get tired of arguing? To the point of these disputes - "zero", if there is a serious war, then everything will fall into place by itself.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 12 September 2013 08: 38 New
      +6
      Quote: Canep
      if there is a serious war, then everything will fall into place by itself.
      Carriers, as well as strategic nuclear deterrence weapons, are for this purpose necessary, in addition to everything, to deal with prevention from a major war. If a big thermonuclear war breaks out, there will be much that will not be needed there.
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 12 September 2013 15: 48 New
        -1
        Quote: Per se.
        Quote: Canep
        if there is a serious war, then everything will fall into place by itself.
        Carriers, as well as strategic nuclear deterrence weapons, are for this purpose necessary, in addition to everything, to deal with prevention from a major war. If a big thermonuclear war breaks out, there will be much that will not be needed there.


        Aircraft carriers are needed so that the United States can impose independent states with impunity at the beginning of the Iron Age. This is a medical fact, like a seized tripper. Only the United States needs such ships and those who are trying to be like the United States, well, those who, by misunderstanding, are equal to them.
        1. Fofan
          Fofan 12 September 2013 20: 15 New
          -1
          Quote: Geisenberg
          Only the United States needs such ships and those who are trying to be like the United States, well, those who, by misunderstanding, are equal to them.

          unfortunately, there’s a half-forum of such thirsty
          1. patsantre
            patsantre 14 September 2013 00: 15 New
            +2
            Unfortunately, there is a half-forum who does not understand that aircraft carriers are needed not only for bombing.
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 12 September 2013 15: 45 New
      -2
      Quote: Canep
      Again an article about aircraft carriers, don't you get tired of arguing? To the point of these disputes - "zero", if there is a serious war, then everything will fall into place by itself.


      Rather, it will "go to the bottom" rather than "fall into place".
    3. Civil
      Civil 12 September 2013 19: 32 New
      0
      it’s really a bit tired of arguing about aircraft carriers.
  2. Per se.
    Per se. 12 September 2013 08: 34 New
    +2
    "Therefore, the reduction of classic strike aircraft carriers in Europe in favor of universal ships with short take-off aircraft should be qualified not only as a contraction of the naval potential of the EU powers (evident at least quantitatively), but also as a reasonable-sufficient response to new challenges facing the naval forces. in the XXI century ". Do not forget here, speaking of Europe, that she has an Uncle Sam with attack aircraft carriers, to which the States and their universal ships do not forget to build, take the same UDC of the "America" ​​type, which supplemented the ships of the "Tarawa" type.
    1. washi
      washi 12 September 2013 14: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      "Therefore, the reduction of classic strike aircraft carriers in Europe in favor of universal ships with short take-off aircraft should be qualified not only as a contraction of the naval potential of the EU powers (evident at least quantitatively), but also as a reasonable-sufficient response to new challenges facing the naval forces. in the XXI century ". Do not forget here, speaking of Europe, that she has an Uncle Sam with attack aircraft carriers, to which the States and their universal ships do not forget to build, take the same UDC of the "America" ​​type, which supplemented the ships of the "Tarawa" type.

      Hence the conclusion: Soviet aircraft carrier projects were optimal. Provided air defense, possessed shock and anti-aircraft weapons
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 12 September 2013 20: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: Vasya
        Soviet aircraft carrier projects were optimal.
        At that time, I suppose, yes. However, it should be remembered that up to "Ulyanovsk" inclusive, it was assumed that VTOL aircraft of the YAK-141 type were also used. Now, if we return to the topic of European aircraft carriers, most of them should use VTOL aircraft, without them the topic of universal aircraft carriers does not appear. Conclusion and moral, if we look back at European trends, firstly, we must not forget that Europe has the US fleet in its allies, where there are strike aircraft carriers, and secondly, without returning to the Yak-141 theme, there is nothing to dream of compact aircraft-carrying ships.
  3. moremansf
    moremansf 12 September 2013 09: 08 New
    +4
    Russia is also not in the best position. The only aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" requires major overhaul and modernization ... This type of ships is more subject to political pressure and the solution of territorial issues with a demonstration of force, as is now happening off the coast of Syria ... unfortunately we have nothing special to oppose to the NATO strike group in the Mediterranean ... TAVKR "Admiral Gorshkov" after significant modernization was sold to India (See link. http://stv-online.ru/weektopic/1753-vikramaditya-v-deystvii.html) The issue of a great sea power, now closely is associated with aircraft-carrying ships, which can significantly expand the zone of strategic influence in the naval theater ... The Mistral-type DKV purchased in France will not solve the issue of the presence of the Russian Navy in the oceans ...
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 12 September 2013 15: 56 New
      -3
      Quote: moremansf
      The issue of a great maritime power is now closely connected with aircraft-carrying ships, which can significantly expand the zone of strategic influence in the naval theater ... The Mistral-type DKV purchased in France will not solve the issue of the Russian Navy's presence in the oceans ...


      Not so. The zone of strategic influence can be kept with a competently selected order and reasonable equipment of the fleet. Keeping unthinkable, monstrous ships like aircraft carriers is fun for posters like the USA. An order from a missile cruiser, 2x universal air defense destroyers + anti-aircraft missile destroyers will be rolled away without loss by an aircraft carrier and cut off from its security order. In the end, even if it doesn’t break off, the price of the issue is not commensurate, there are two planes with 100 reactors and about 7.000 people against three ships standing cheaper than the air wing of a crew sunk from 500 people. Dumb friend arithmetic.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 14 September 2013 00: 20 New
        +3
        Quote: Geisenberg
        An order from a missile cruiser, 2x universal air defense destroyers + anti-aircraft missile destroyers will be rolled away without loss by an aircraft carrier and cut off from its security order.

        Enough to carry nonsense, the AUG has only more guard ships than in the warrant you cited, and the aircraft carrier itself allows you to drown this entire group without loss.
  4. svskor80
    svskor80 12 September 2013 09: 28 New
    +1
    The question is really erased. To maintain its image and weight, Russia needs 3-4 aircraft-carrying groups as one of the leading countries in the world. I think we’ll come to this, and if a big war happens, I think the aircraft carriers will not play a major role in it, but will hide in the ports of registry or somewhere deeper.
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 12 September 2013 16: 00 New
      0
      Quote: svskor80
      ... I think the aircraft carriers will not play the main role in it, but will hide in the ports of registry or somewhere deeper.


      At the bottom they will lie. Weapons should be suitable for the task. A tank is destroyed by a cannon or ATGM, an airplane is shot down by an air defense missile or another aircraft, a nuclear bomb finally restrains the aggressor from rash actions, and an aircraft carrier destroys those who cannot repel an air raid, that is, civilians whose camps do not have air defense and a nuclear bomb. That is, an aircraft carrier is a baseball bat in the hand of a gopnik.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 12 September 2013 20: 32 New
        +4
        Quote: Geisenberg
        The tank is destroyed by a cannon or ATGM, the plane is shot down by an air defense missile
        You have an interesting logic, according to it it turns out that both the tank and the aircraft are the same "anachronism" as an aircraft carrier. If you exaggerate a little here, then a trained special forces soldier, in an expensive package, will be taken from around the corner by an unwashed gopnik with the same baseball bat, and there is no need to spend money on expensive toys. What would they do in Abkhazia at 08.08.08 if there were only nuclear bombs? What would Great Britain do without aircraft carriers in a war for the Falkland Islands with only nuclear bombs? Apparently, you have your own opinion, this is your right, we can be wrong, it is worse when people like Khrushchev begin to spread rot on the fleet and our aviation, according to their "agrarian" ideas of a "land" country.
  5. Ulan
    Ulan 12 September 2013 10: 14 New
    +3
    It’s not only a matter of image. Ship groups need air support. The same squadron in the Mediterranean, if it is of course there.
    Without air support, its capabilities will be significantly reduced.
  6. Firstvanguard
    Firstvanguard 12 September 2013 10: 30 New
    -3
    They are preparing for the LGBT assault landing with the provision of aviation support for the final democratization of evil countries.
  7. tlauicol
    tlauicol 12 September 2013 10: 42 New
    +6
    A superhornette is such a little one on the background of Su33, and the bomb load is impressive!
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 13 September 2013 01: 20 New
      +2
      Quote: Tlauicol
      A superhornette is such a little one on the background of Su33, and the bomb load is impressive!

      This is because the picture is not to scale


      Here is their real scale:
  8. dzvero
    dzvero 12 September 2013 11: 15 New
    +5
    article plus. A good illustration of the role of aircraft carriers in modern conditions. For myself, from all this heated discussion, I deduced the following:
    1. the image of the country - to have your own AUG today, if only to have a full-fledged linear squadron in the past;
    2. Covering the deployment area of ​​submarines - relevant only for the United States and Russia, and to some extent for China;
    3. aviation support of the ship group;
    4. Airborne support of the landing force during "police" operations after crushing enemy defenses;
    and that’s it. yes, you can recall the opinion of the American admiral that the US fleet at the moment consists of submarines and surface targets. therefore, for Russia, it seems to me optimal to have two, maximum three full AUGs. why: in the first half of the twentieth century who owned the windows owned the world. from the 40s who owned the air owned everything. It seems to me that in the near future the world will be owned by the one who owns space and has a powerful submarine fleet. so you should not spend resources on AUG, but on space and the submarine fleet.
  9. Alexey Prikazchikov
    Alexey Prikazchikov 12 September 2013 12: 51 New
    0
    Damn, can we do the same, huh? On the basis of the same mistral no matter what. Well, we are not very rich either. And for a good fleet, for us it is by no means the basis of defense capability.
  10. poccinin
    poccinin 12 September 2013 13: 07 New
    +3
    why when somewhere there is a crisis. the US President asks: "WHERE IS OUR NEAREST AIRCRAFT CARRIER" and RUSSIA WHAT. NOT A SEA POWER? KING PETER. In vain did he create a fleet? RUSSIA should have. 6 aircraft carriers. 3-NORTH FLEET. 3-PACIFIC. 4-at sea 2-based.repair.service.etc.
    1. washi
      washi 12 September 2013 14: 29 New
      +2
      Quote: poccinin
      why when somewhere there is a crisis. the US President asks: "WHERE IS OUR NEAREST AIRCRAFT CARRIER" and RUSSIA WHAT. NOT A SEA POWER? KING PETER. In vain did he create a fleet? RUSSIA should have. 6 aircraft carriers. 3-NORTH FLEET. 3-PACIFIC. 4-at sea 2-based.repair.service.etc.

      Where are our specialists? Why still have not quietly removed the Saudis?
      Where are our Soviet developments in space?
    2. Alexey Prikazchikov
      Alexey Prikazchikov 12 September 2013 14: 59 New
      +1
      why when somewhere there is a crisis. the US President asks: "WHERE IS OUR NEAREST AIRCRAFT CARRIER" and RUSSIA WHAT. NOT A SEA POWER? KING PETER. In vain did he create a fleet? RUSSIA should have. 6 aircraft carriers. 3-NORTH FLEET. 3-PACIFIC. 4-at sea 2-based.repair.service.etc.


      Money?
  11. USNik
    USNik 12 September 2013 16: 39 New
    0
    Photo: Suricatafx.com
    Comparison of modern decked
    fighters
    Some incomprehensible picture, deck f-22, steroid Su-33, expensive f-35 (236mln!?) ... negative Plus, the article could tell, once again, about the project of our aircraft carrier:
  12. smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 12 September 2013 16: 43 New
    +2
    Due to the small composition of strike aircraft and the lack of refueling with a normal AWACS, it is difficult to fully accomplish the tasks of air strikes, but giving combat stability to operational naval units (that is, strengthening / guarding) is just the thing: to repel reconnaissance aircraft and ward off airplanes and from boats a horde of helicopters and missiles to shoot and radars on board the enemy’s not worthless range to detect on the approach and the complex of their own space communications.
    Comparative dimensions of flight decks of existing and prospective aircraft carriers (picture clickable)
  13. Sergey_K
    Sergey_K 12 September 2013 17: 01 New
    0
    Those. we had 3 aircraft carriers. Two sold, one rots. So?
    1. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 12 September 2013 17: 16 New
      +2
      Initially, we had one aircraft carrier in service (Admiral of the Fleet Kuznetsov), and it remained, since they managed to overtake it in December 1991 to the Northern Fleet, there were 4 more heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1143 with VTOL Yak-38, of which two were "Kiev" and "Minsk", used in China as attractions, "Novorossiysk", towed to South Korea, where it was dismantled for metal. the same fate befell two Project 1123 helicopter-carrying cruisers ("Moscow" and "Leningrad"). The last ship of the series - "Baku", was renamed "Admiral of the Fleet Gorshkov", then sold to the Indians, renamed "Vakramapidya", converted into a real aircraft carrier for takeoff and landing MiG-29K, and on November 15 should be transferred to the Indian Navy. The second ship of the series of project 1143.5 "Varyag", built to 80%, was sold by Ukraine to China, completed, entered into the Chinese Navy and is now called "Liaoning". the third ship of the Ulyanovsk series with a nuclear power plant and a steam catapult, built by 20%, was dismantled at the shipyard in Nikolaev. Something like that...
      Aircraft carrier Vikramaditya on tests in the White Sea
  14. xomaNN
    xomaNN 12 September 2013 18: 39 New
    +3
    Good informative article. Maybe the Russian path to the aircraft carrier fleet, even perhaps a very peculiar one, becomes clearer. Let's start with something half-hearted? With "Mistrals", for example?: wink
    1. Fofan
      Fofan 12 September 2013 20: 19 New
      0
      Quote: xomaNN
      Good informative article. Maybe the Russian path to the aircraft carrier fleet, even perhaps a very peculiar one, becomes clearer. Let's start with something half-hearted? With "Mistrals", for example?: wink

      easy, only their construction and maintenance will be deducted from your salary.
  15. andron352
    andron352 12 September 2013 23: 09 New
    +2
    easy, only their construction and maintenance will be deducted from your salary. [/ quote]
    It’s better to introduce a tax on bribes. Then enough for aircraft carriers and much more.
  16. Assistant
    Assistant 13 September 2013 00: 11 New
    +1
    And why is the F-35 more than one and a half times more expensive than the Raptor (picture with a comparison of carrier-based aircraft)?
    1. Do not care
      Do not care 13 September 2013 00: 30 New
      0
      Because these are the prices of the experimental batch of last year,
      This year, prices for A / B / C - 153/196 / 199M
      By the beginning of large-scale production in 2019
      F-35A: $ 83,4 million
      F-35B: $ 108,1 million
      F-35C: $ 93,3 million
  17. Mikola
    Mikola 13 September 2013 11: 54 New
    +3
    It can be assumed that NATO countries will return to the idea of ​​a single type of aircraft carrier, which will make them cheaper and simplify the use of the combined forces. For example, one each in the UK, France, Spain, Italy, possibly Germany. These 4 (5) in the ACG will be an impressive force that will be able to resolve issues in Europe, Africa, the Middle East without the participation of the United States.
    1. CARBON
      CARBON 23 September 2013 02: 06 New
      0
      "Seven nannies have a child without an eye."
      And the AUG rainbow flag is very modern and tolerant.
      But seriously, a good aircraft carrier cannot be cheap. Britain has ceased to be Great (Britain) at sea because it has ceased to build normal aircraft carriers, and is engaged in nonsense. We were tormented with the Invisibles, and now they again started the construction of Queen Elizabeth for vertical take-off aircraft. Again, cheaper, but less and more versatile, you get a big trough, chase camel drivers and Toyota jeeps. Ex- "Admiral Gorshkov" paired with the new Indian "Vikrant" look more solid than one "Queen"
  18. jekasimf
    jekasimf 18 September 2013 14: 08 New
    0
    Gentlemen. Question of the amateur. Is it possible to change Mistral, under an aircraft carrier? Or, as an option, the construction of two more, but with a change under an aircraft carrier?
  19. Woldemar
    Woldemar April 8 2014 15: 44 New
    0
    Of course it’s possible, only where do we have vertical take-off planes?