Military Review

Aircraft carriers can not do

126
Today, the Russian Navy needs at least four modern ships with a full-fledged air group


The debate about whether to build aircraft carriers to Russia does not stop throughout the entire period of the existence of this class of ships. An impartial analysis shows that in the future the Navy will not be able to effectively accomplish important tasks assigned to it in the far sea and ocean zones, if there are not at least one aircraft carrier in its groupings, possibly with a nuclear power plant, with 70 – 90 aircraft on board . The optimal number is at least two for each of the ocean fleets.

In almost all countries of the world, the answer to this question was unequivocal: some that focused on land wars abandoned such ships, others, seeking to expand their sphere of dominance in the world, built up as part of their fleet the number of aircraft carriers as the main military tool for pursuing their foreign policy.

And there were no aircraft carriers

As part of the Imperial Russian fleet aircraft carriers appeared almost simultaneously with other countries of the world - during the First World War. In the Black and Baltic Seas, two merchant ships were converted into hydro-vehicles. After the October Revolution, the concept of a small war was adopted in the Soviet fleet, in which aircraft carriers found no place. However, by the end of the 30-s, there was an understanding of the need to have aircraft carriers in the composition of the USSR Navy.

In accordance with the shipbuilding program, by the end of the 40s, aircraft carriers were to be part of the ocean fleets. Moreover, at the end of 30, the Soviet government made attempts to buy in Germany an unfinished aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin. However, Berlin refused the deal. Nevertheless, this particular ship became the first Soviet aircraft carrier. In accordance with the agreement on the division of the fleet of Germany "Grap Zeppelin", who was in 92-percent readiness for commissioning, was transferred to the USSR and officially enlisted in the fleet. Its use would allow the formation of your own aircraft carrier school. This ship was also of great interest from an engineering point of view, since German shipbuilding at that time was one of the most advanced in the world. Under the influence of various undercover currents, contrary to the opinion of the leadership of the Navy, a political decision was made to destroy this ship. From then until the middle of the 60-s, the attitude towards aircraft carriers in the USSR was negative. Officially, they were considered weapons aggression.

With the release of the Soviet Navy into the ocean, it became clear that without aircraft carriers it is very difficult to ensure the implementation of an active foreign policy in the far regions of the world. Yes, and fleet groups at large distances from their bases to withstand massive aviation strikes without fighter cover will be very problematic. The design of full-fledged aircraft carriers began. However, incompetent, but very influential people intervened again, who achieved the construction of some hybrids - aircraft-carrying cruisers, combining the qualities of missile cruisers and carriers of vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

Aircraft carriers can not doThese were the ships of the project 1143, which built four units. And the latter was significantly different from the first three weapons, especially radio-electronic. The composition of the air group was the same - 36 aircraft. Including one squadron of vertical take-off and landing Yak-38 or Yak-38М, squadron of anti-submarine helicopters Ka-27PL and several search and rescue helicopters. The experience of their operation has shown the inefficiency of such aircraft in the modern war at sea.

Therefore, it was planned to build a series of aircraft carrying ships with “normal” take-off aircraft. In total, judging by the materials of the open press, they were supposed to be built at least four. Of these, two with a conventional power plant. These are the “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov” and “Varyag”. And the other two - with atomic, the first of which was founded under the name "Ulyanovsk". "Kuznetsov" in 1990 year adopted by the Navy of the USSR and sent to the Northern Fleet. And the rest were not completed due to the collapse of the country.

Since the restructuring against the development of aircraft carriers in our country has been launched a campaign in the press. A number of low-competence people in naval problems imposed on the population and politicians the position that our country does not need aircraft carriers. One of the first to destroy the aircraft carrier cruisers inherited by Russia from the USSR. By 1993, only two of five ships of this class remained in our fleet. After India sold the aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Gorshkov to the Russian Navy, there is only one such ship, the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov.

Today, judging by the materials of the open press and the statements of prominent military and political leaders, there is still no unequivocal opinion on whether aircraft carriers are needed in the Russian fleet. Only for the period from 2007 to 2012 year, the views were reversed twice.

Peacetime Scenarios

Without going into details, all the tasks of the Russian Navy can be reduced to the main ones — defense of state interests by military means in peacetime, including support for Russian diplomacy and one’s own citizens, and repelling aggression from sea directions — in wartime.

The geography of Russia's interests, primarily economic, is very extensive and extends over most of the World Ocean. These are the development of economic relations within the framework of the BRICS, the extraction of seafood, including areas remote from our shores, the mining of minerals and energy resources on the sea and ocean floor, the transportation of cargo and much more.


Among the main tasks requiring the involvement of aircraft carriers for their effective solution should be noted participation in peacekeeping operations, protection of Russian citizens in zones of military conflicts and their evacuation from them, as well as from areas of man-made and natural disasters. Allocated to solve these problems, especially in zones of military conflicts, fleet groupings should be able to repel the limited surprise attacks of small groups and individual boats or small warships and submarines, as well as combat aircraft and missiles. This may be required in the interests of the defense of the naval units, the protection of civil aircraft of Russian or foreign origin and various ground targets, to ensure the safety of Russian citizens from attacks by hostile military formations (mostly irregular) in the evacuation process.

The latter can be carried out either directly by boarding ships and ships in the port or from an unequipped coast, or by air - by helicopters and transport aircraft. Their security will also need to be ensured both from the threats of ground-based air defense systems and from possible attacks by fighters. Without the participation of military aviation, these tasks cannot be solved in principle, especially those related to the resistance of aviation and ground forces in the depth of a foreign territory over several kilometers.

To cover the evacuation of Russian citizens, the defense of ship formations, the protection of civil aircraft of Russian or foreign origin and various ground targets from the sudden attacks of individual combat aircraft and missiles or small groups, patrolling by pairs and fighter jets of the defended area together with one or two DRLO and U aircraft will be required Depending on the distance of the patrol area from the aircraft carrier, round-the-clock fighter aircraft and from four to eight are needed from 12 – 15 to 24 – 30 AWACS planes, and W.

Under unfavorable conditions, the possibility of large groups of aviation attacking, especially against connections of surface ships, especially important objects or a large mass of people, cannot be ruled out. The number of such groups can reach 30 units. To reflect them, it will be necessary to allocate an appropriate number of fighter aircraft — 12 – 18 machines and, possibly, an additional DRLO and U aircraft.

To control the underwater environment in the area where the ship group is located, in the interests of the timely detection of submarines before they are launched into an attack by short-range missiles or torpedoes, at least two to four helicopters will be needed in threatened areas. To do this, it will be necessary to have at least 12 helicopters in the aircraft carrier's air group.

To counteract the groups of ground forces and irregular formations also need naval aviation. The actions of small groups of irregular formations that inflict sudden blows are fended off only by the timely guidance of aviation groups on them from the position of their duty in the air. The sudden attacks of small groups of boats, especially missile ones, are similarly reflected. Therefore, at least one strike group of naval aviation of two to four aircraft must patrol airspace. Force outfit is also from 12 – 15 to 24 – 30 aircraft.

Emergency evacuation of citizens from the danger zone in the depth of the territory may require the involvement of a dozen or more transport helicopters. Under adverse conditions, they are provided with fighter and strike aviation groups of four to eight vehicles. In addition, support planes are needed - one or two - EW and at least one - DRLO and W. In the absence of such a cover, the solution of these tasks may require great diplomatic efforts, be accompanied by considerable material and political losses, and perhaps even great casualties impracticable.

Thus, for the safe implementation of Russia's foreign policy in peacetime, a sufficiently powerful aircraft carrier is required as part of our fleet.

During the war

One of the most important tasks of the Russian Navy will be to defeat the enemy carrier strike and missile groups. The main combat areas of the latter are sections of the distant sea and ocean zones remote from our coast on 400 – 600 kilometers. From here they will strike at objects in the territory of our country and ships at sea and at bases.

It is well known that the superiority of the sea is impossible without achieving air superiority. The modern confrontation of ship groups is carried out almost exclusively in the air. The strikes of anti-ship missiles and strike aircraft are reflected by fighters and anti-aircraft fire weapons of ships. Small groups and single surface ships are attacked by two to four cruise missiles or airplanes. In strikes against large connections of surface ships, 30 – 40 and more anti-ship missiles from rocket ships and submarines or to 40 – 50 of deck or tactical aircraft can be used.

Only ship-based air defense systems, no matter how powerful they are, are almost impossible to repel such strikes. Especially if the means of air attack are suitable almost simultaneously, they hide behind EW airplanes and the strike of anti-ship missiles is preceded by the actions of fire attack aircraft.

Fighter aircraft not only destroys part of the enemy’s attacking aircraft, but also disarms their attack. As a result, the latter is stretched out in time - the means of air attack are suitable for relatively small groups, which the ship's air defense successfully destroys. The target distribution in the strike group of the enemy is violated, his attempts to cover up their means of air attack with electronic interferences and to suppress shipboard air defense with anti-radar missiles are thwarted.

It is the disorganization of groups of attacking aircraft that is the main contribution of fighter aircraft to the air defense of ship formations in repelling the attacks of the enemy’s tactical and deck aircraft.

They can make a notable contribution to the air defense of ship-borne formations by fighters even when repelling cruise missiles, destroying the most dangerous targets beyond the reach of the ship’s air defense weapons.

To reflect large groups of tactical aviation or carrier-based aviation, you will need to allocate fighter aircraft from 24 to 32, most of which will operate from the watch position at the aerodrome (on deck) while they are controlled from DRLO and U aircraft. Outside 100 – 150 miles from coast is only possible with the aircraft carrier.

In addition to the largest ship groups, there are small groups and single ships solving various supporting tasks in the battle formation of the strike formation. For their cover, fighter aircraft are also needed, which will be able to cover them from sudden attacks by small groups of air attack weapons, mainly from the airborne alert position.

It has a number of advantages compared with cruise missiles and the use of naval aviation for strikes against large enemy surface ships. Surpassing cruise missiles in range (800 and more kilometers against 450 – 500 for long-range missiles), the naval aviation group, having in addition to EW strike, reconnaissance, DRLO and U aircraft, as well as fighters, are capable of providing higher reliability identifying designated targets and hitting them. The success of a breakthrough to the target of attack aircraft and their missiles is achieved by suppressing the enemy’s air defense system and repelling the attacks of its fighters.

Ship fighters are also extremely important for covering up the actions of strike groups of long-range (sea-based missile-carrying) aviation against aircraft carrier and other large enemy ship formations in the far sea and ocean zones. Accompanying them with ship fighters will, if not eliminate the threat from enemy deck and coastal fighters, then at least minimize losses from their actions to an acceptable level. At the same time, the effectiveness of our aviation will significantly increase.

Perspective appearance

The Russian Navy groupings will have to solve tasks both in peacetime and in wartime, far beyond the reach of coast-based fighter and bomber aircraft. Is it possible to solve these tasks without the support of coast-based aviation, primarily fighter and assault? With aircraft carriers - yes. They are not a whim of sailors, but an urgent need.

The analysis shows that the air group of the Russian aircraft carriers should be quite numerous. To complete the entire range of tasks in its composition, it will be necessary to have at least 40 – 60 aircraft capable of fighting surface and ground targets, as well as an air enemy, including cruise missiles. In addition to them, the air group must have four to eight DRLO and U aircraft, two to four EW aircraft and two to four reconnaissance aircraft, as well as at least 12 anti-submarine and two search and rescue helicopters. Total 70 to 90 aircraft. That is, it is a large class aircraft carrier with a full displacement of 75 – 85 thousand tons, possibly with a nuclear power plant. Its air defense system should include self-defense means capable of reflecting small groups of air defense systems (up to four units) in interference conditions. To do this, the air defense system on each side should have at least eight target channels of a short-range air defense system and two to four channels of small-caliber artillery.

In addition, in the complex of ship self-defense means it is necessary to provide means of anti-torpedo protection and EW that can suppress the GOS of anti-ship missiles.

The CICS and other radio-electronic equipment as the most important requirement should provide the ability to solve the tasks of managing operational connections, shipboard and associated aviation to the full depth of its use in the interests of the shipboard connection.

Such ships must have at least two on each of the oceanic fleets of Russia. This will make it possible, in view of carrying out planned repairs and other measures to maintain these ships in a combat-ready state, to have at least one combat-capable aircraft carrier in each of the ocean theaters.
Author:
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Igor39
    Igor39 9 October 2013 07: 34 New
    +5
    Yes, one question, when will they be built?
    1. waisson
      waisson 9 October 2013 07: 48 New
      10
      I think the project will be born by 2020
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 9 October 2013 07: 56 New
        +8
        Well, they’ll only give birth by 2020, and then how much will they build? laughing
        1. Canep
          Canep 9 October 2013 07: 59 New
          +7
          I suspect that by 2020 it will be too late.
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 9 October 2013 11: 37 New
          +5
          Quote: Igor39
          To live to see laughing

          For many years you certainly, but it is unlikely to surprise you. No.
      2. Civil
        Civil 9 October 2013 08: 02 New
        +6
        There is no money in the budget, even without corruption, Borozza must be greedy and incompetent .... and you're talking about aircraft carriers
        1. little man
          little man 9 October 2013 12: 25 New
          +9
          There is money, there is! They can not be.
          Oil, gas swing? - download. Gold, diamonds, wood ...
          So the money for 3 - 4 aircraft carriers is easy enough. But to build only to whom? After all, only managers and lawyers remained in the country.
          Can the French order?
          1. silver_roman
            silver_roman 9 October 2013 13: 58 New
            +7
            т
            Can the French order?

            Sarcasm in the subject.
            1. Rus2012
              Rus2012 9 October 2013 20: 56 New
              0
              Quote: silver_roman
              Can the French order? Sarcasm in the subject.


              It’s good, of course, to be rich and healthy ... laughing
              But the De Gaulle version is not at all a luck. One conditionally successful campaign in 19 years of discord and failure ...
              Therefore, therefore, it is necessary to practice for a long time on the "Kuza", and then eventually build a second one on a nuclear thrust.
              In the meantime, to design a long-range anti-aircraft missile system, like RSD, RDD with a homing warhead, accepting preliminary target designation with an aerospace component.
              Of course, the AUG is first of all pathos and show-offs, that’s okay :) Walk, for example, through the middle-earth with a drum beat to the howl of an air turbine, oh how sweet the heart will pinch!
              But, everything has its time, God forbid!
              When considering AUGs from amers, you always need to weigh them with coastal infrastructure bases around the world. Without them, AUGs are blind, deaf and weak ...
          2. dimon-media
            dimon-media 9 October 2013 18: 44 New
            +2
            I also think if my life is enough to see the new aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy? Something I doubt .. if there is a project by 2020, then I will be 40 years old. 15-20 years will be built and then it is still not known how much to test and adopt, taking into account all the bureaucratic delays, our carelessness and negligence during assembly, troubleshooting and repeated testing .. May God live. If you are a realist, before the 2030th year, you should not wait ..
            2Kuzi "we can say we no longer have it. I read here an article about the fact that it is being overhauled. What will be the terms of the repair, I can imagine. There is nothing in exchange for Kuzi.
          3. Nick
            Nick 9 October 2013 21: 43 New
            0
            Quote: man
            So the money for 3 - 4 aircraft carriers is easy enough. But to build only to whom?

            First you need to calculate the cost of these aircraft-carrying gadgets, then you can talk about our financial capabilities ...
          4. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 10 October 2013 04: 05 New
            +1
            who of their money from gas and oil unfasten the ships then?
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 9 October 2013 08: 05 New
      14
      Quote: Igor39
      when will they build?
      If a multimedia "space carrier" is created, then the finished project will have to wait for many years, and, perhaps, for a flight to Mars, the spacecraft will be built earlier than we have this supercarrier. There is a need, the problem must be solved now, not after. There are no ships for the ocean zone, convert suitable civilian ships to auxiliary cruisers. Modular weapons have already been created, which are complemented by radar, deck helicopters. Such a "cruiser" could chase the same Somali pirates, create the presence of the Andreevsky flag in the ocean, be also a training for training crews, everything is better than nothing. There was a ready-made project for the atomic "Ulyanovsk", so build it, even as a "training" aircraft carrier, but now! If possible, than to dispose of "Eagles", use the hulls for conversion into light nuclear aircraft carriers, or look for other possibilities. Yes, it's easier to postpone everything until better times, or, in general, do nothing. There will again be "infantrymen" with the eternal question, why do we need aircraft carriers, we are a "land country", or those who like to prove that an RPG is cheaper than a tank. The fleet is not built in one day, it needs to be created without wasting time.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 9 October 2013 15: 31 New
        +2
        than to dispose of "Eagles", use hulls for conversion into light nuclear aircraft carriers

        Hmm ...
        1. There were similar examples, and clearly showed that in this way aircraft carriers are inferior
        2. From the same experience - the cost of re-equipment is quite comparable with the cost of building a new
        3. AB at 30 thousand tons is only for VTOL, which we don’t have and will not be good in the next 10-15 years, but now there are none at all, neither good nor bad
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 9 October 2013 22: 19 New
          0
          Quote: cdrt
          There were similar examples, and clearly showed that in this way aircraft carriers are inferior
          What are some examples? Virtually all heavy aircraft carriers that entered World War II were converted from battle cruisers and battleships, during the war they were supplemented by many light aircraft carriers based on light cruisers, and escort aircraft carriers converted from civilian ships. The Pearl Harbor pogrom was done by the Kaga and Akagi, a former battleship and battle cruiser. The length of our nuclear "Eagles" is 250 meters, the French "Charles de Gaulle" is 261 meters. With the installation of the bow springboard and stern overhang, the total length of the flight deck will be commensurate with the Vikramaditya converted for the Indians, as well as the aircraft armament from the MiG-29K. What is the problem? Is the conversion cost commensurate with the new one? So the fact of the matter is that a spoonful for dinner is expensive, at least one backup "Kuza" is needed, and we cannot build a new aircraft carrier now. It's no longer about money, but about need and time. The picture shows the American aircraft carrier Saratoga, which the Yankees converted from a battle cruiser before the war, and not built from scratch.
    3. experienced
      experienced 9 October 2013 09: 24 New
      30
      Quote: Igor39
      Yes, one question, when will they be built?

      The article touched me. Let's imagine the abstract Ivanov family (Russia), which has just got out of the debt crisis, the husband does not have a permanent job, but somehow they make ends meet and the head of the family, on every occasion, does not miss the opportunity to declare that: “The Ivanov family is without Ferrari is indispensable. "
      It's not enough to build an aircraft carrier, you need to build an infrastructure for it, build escort ships and maintain them for a long time ... Modern Russia is not ready for this! As in its time the arms race destroyed the USSR, so today the construction of an aircraft carrier can be that straw that "breaks the hump of a camel." IMHO hi
      1. Nitup
        Nitup 9 October 2013 09: 46 New
        20
        Quote: seasoned
        How the arms race ruined the USSR in due time

        I agree that the USSR did not approach military spending very wisely, but the arms race did not destroy the USSR. He was ruined by the betrayal of the leadership and citizens of the USSR, who, giving in to propaganda, did not defend the country or even went out (about half a million people in Moscow) for the collapse of the USSR. In the USA, the economic situation in the late 80s was much worse than in the USSR, but for some reason they did not fall apart.
        1. xxxMYSTICxxx
          xxxMYSTICxxx 9 October 2013 11: 19 New
          -4
          What are you talking about, remember the empty shelves in grocery stores, the total shortage of everything. The country could no longer feed itself, they borrowed in foreign markets to buy food, but it was precisely the "unspoken" conditions for obtaining these loans that were precisely the collapse of the army and navy, the surrender of positions on key issues, such as the unification of Germany etc. The people are tired of all this, but I will agree, there was also a betrayal of the elites, eager to seize power. The USSR's mistake was that the technologies were secret, in the end we had the best fighters and tanks, with a decent vacuum cleaner they could do it ...
          1. Nitup
            Nitup 9 October 2013 11: 31 New
            +9
            Quote: xxxMYSTICxxx
            What are you talking about, remember the empty shelves in grocery stores, the total deficit of everything. The country itself could not feed itself, borrowed on foreign markets to buy food

            And it didn’t occur to you that a commodity shortage can be organized on purpose, without releasing products from warehouses, etc. in order to accelerate the collapse of the country? And then it would be somehow strange: everything is fine everywhere, but power is ruining the country
            1. xxxMYSTICxxx
              xxxMYSTICxxx 9 October 2013 13: 18 New
              +2
              I'm afraid it’s not so simple, empires collapse only because of internal factors, even if betrayal played a role, it is far from decisive. This requires soil, people's discontent, a crisis of worldview, but you can’t do all this for 1 a day, problems have been accumulating for years, but they preferred not to notice them. These are problems with the consumer sector, and with food, and with the structure of the economy, when e was again tied to oil. As soon as the states beat the Saudis to increase production and bring down oil prices, the house of cards collapsed. But betrayal and power sharing were later, the foresight was short-sightedness and, as a result, problems in the economy
              1. Nitup
                Nitup 9 October 2013 15: 09 New
                +4
                Quote: xxxMYSTICxxx
                As soon as the states beat the Saudis to increase production and bring down oil prices, the house of cards collapsed

                And why was nobody interested in the price of oil in the 41st when the situation was critical? The country has not collapsed. Because there was a tough central leadership that knew how revolutions were made and held in the capitals formations to prevent any protests and unrest.
                I agree that there were problems with the economy. The USSR took the wrong path after the death of Stalin (or rather, after the assassination of Stalin). Khrushchev carried out these reforms. He did a lot of harm to our country.
              2. Ulan
                Ulan 9 October 2013 15: 24 New
                +7
                The USSR did NOT have such problems that could not be solved.
                We experienced much worse times and the country did not fall apart. Only then patriots and not traitors stood at the helm of the country.
              3. common man
                common man 9 October 2013 18: 34 New
                +1
                Firstly, the total deficit began under the rule of the humpbacked, who began to move away from socialism towards capitalism. Remember the cooperatives. Buy at government prices, sell at market prices.
                The second one. They finally ruined socialism in order to legalize the stolen goods. Think of cotton as a small example of the size of theft. And to legalize such huge capital, private ownership of the means of production is needed. A cooperative apartment and a car are not enough here.
                Well, the Union was destroyed to please the local "princelings", so as not to get in the way. Plus to smudge the West.
                PS I do not argue, the reasoning is rather primitive, but generally true.
          2. alicante11
            alicante11 9 October 2013 11: 54 New
            +4
            What are you talking about, remember the empty shelves in grocery stores, the total deficit of everything.


            Isn't this liberal nonsense enough? Well, the people who lived in the USSR are still alive. All this is the activity of the same liberals during "perestroika". If she is not okay. I remember all these problems. Only their time was after the 89th year somewhere. And it was in the midst of the 91st that all types of humanitarian aid cards for the holiday fell.
            1. xxxMYSTICxxx
              xxxMYSTICxxx 9 October 2013 13: 29 New
              +2
              I’ve never been a liberal, I just prefer to face the truth. Where do you think all these problems came from, didn’t ask this question? Changes were needed for a long time, they were late for ten years, which led to what we have, but here's how they conducted this separate conversation, to put a little crooked idio to the wall ....
              1. alicante11
                alicante11 9 October 2013 15: 45 New
                +2
                I’ve never been a liberal, I just prefer to face the truth. Where do you think all these problems came from, didn’t ask this question? Changes have been needed for a long time, they’ve been ten years late with them,


                And I don’t say that you are a liberal. I do not know you. But you repeat liberal nonsense. The USSR completely fed itself. Yes, Canadian wheat was eaten in the Far East. But no one is to blame that even the Altai was brought to us more expensively by rail than Canadian by sea.
                And so - everything that was not there was built. Already the language has dried up to give an example. In the late 70s, there was a problem with chicken in Khabarovsk, in the early 80s, TWO poultry farms were built and began to feed chicken meat to a Jewish woman and the Amur region. By the way, the same feature was in Kamchatka at the same time. Once a taxi driver who was taking me to the airport from Petropavlovsk told me. We refused to eat red fish here. And today my wife took a bag of salmon from the supermarket - 700 rubles, and there was less than a kilogram along the way. And put it back. And our simple chum salmon cannot be found in the afternoon with fire. Although the very move ... Caviar for 1300 liters is offered as a "pull". Although earlier they were transported from Nikolaevsk by air during the season. Enough, I say, it was all set up specifically to destroy the country.
            2. dimon-media
              dimon-media 9 October 2013 19: 01 New
              +1
              Remembering the cards, I feel sick. I am generally surprised at our Russian patience. survived such times. Kilometer-long queues, general deficit .. inflation with a geometric progression, delayed salaries for six months. Quiet horror.
          3. GDP
            GDP 9 October 2013 12: 19 New
            10
            Could the country feed itself? - Bullshit! The state fully complied with all its social obligations, and even so that the United States never dreamed of. There was a shortage of imported goods due to the closed borders, but each was provided with absolutely everything necessary, and in reality, and not on paper ... Each year my father and I flew an airplane twice from the European north to the south and to Siberia this in no way affected our well-being. Try to fly like this for a salary in 15-20 000 ... What money was allocated for sports, education and science? How many products did we produce? After the fall of the USSR, GDP fell several times. The country did not fall because there was nothing. but because Muscovites didn’t have enough American jeans, Coca-Cola and Marlboro ... Well, and also because of the banal betrayal.
            1. Ulan
              Ulan 9 October 2013 15: 28 New
              +3
              One example: In the 80th year, I was the foreman of the student team of guides.
              There were several flights to Vorkuta. And there in Vorkuta I saw an interesting picture. There was a train of several platforms and on them there were cars - "Volga", "Zhiguli" and people nearby. Cars with numbers. I asked the station attendant what kind of an interesting train, and he replied that the miners are going on vacation to the south. They rent a railway. platforms, they are hooked up to trains and they ride with their cars to the south.
              And in the same way back.
              Those. the miner's salary allowed to rent a railway platform and from the north go to sea to relax.
          4. Ulan
            Ulan 9 October 2013 15: 20 New
            +4
            A simple question, do you remember that for sure? I remember well. The stores were empty and the markets ?.
            The void in the shops was organized artificially.
            I well remember how the directors of the bases refused to accept products from collective farms and state farms, how the products were dumped in the forest.
            But what was brought to the shops was immediately sent to the markets and there was everything on the markets. And raw smoked sausage and meat and fish and butter. Everything was there, but at a price several times higher than the fixed store price.
            Who stuffed the pockets? Then they were called speculators, and today are intermediary businessmen.
            Remember, once Gaidar released the prices, the store shelves filled up almost instantly. During the week. Is it that this week they produced so much product? Or in a week they brought meat from Argentina?
            So no famine threatened the country, there were enough products and fairy tales of shit that they saved the country from hunger, leave it for impressionable young ladies and dumb townsfolk.
            And they took loans to plunder. Remember when they asked Yeltsin where 4 billion from the IMF, he spread his hands and blurted out - and who knows where they went.
            I would ask Chubais, he explained to him in whose pockets they settled.
        2. Vovka levka
          Vovka levka 9 October 2013 11: 58 New
          -4
          Quote: Nitup
          Quote: seasoned
          How the arms race ruined the USSR in due time

          I agree that the USSR did not approach military spending very wisely, but the arms race did not destroy the USSR. He was ruined by the betrayal of the leadership and citizens of the USSR, who, giving in to propaganda, did not defend the country or even went out (about half a million people in Moscow) for the collapse of the USSR. In the USA, the economic situation in the late 80s was much worse than in the USSR, but for some reason they did not fall apart.

          In the United States in the early 80s there were certain problems in the economy, but in the late 80s everything was fine there, and Reagan owes a lot to this. Yes, Reagan, the Hollywood actor, no matter how strange it may be, but it is a fact.
          And what about the betrayal of citizens of the USSR? No, it doesn’t color you.
          1. Nitup
            Nitup 9 October 2013 12: 58 New
            +5
            Quote: Vovka Levka
            No, it doesn’t color you.

            Well, this does not apply to me personally, since I was only 91 years old at 3.
            Quote: Vovka Levka
            And what about the betrayal of citizens of the USSR?

            Well, what do you call it? Imagine 41 years old, the Germans are advancing, dropping leaflets with the following content: "Russians, we are coming to you not as conquerors, but as liberators. We will free you from the oppression of the Jewish-Bolshevik clique," etc., etc. And if the citizens of the USSR were led to this, what would it be called? But in 85-91, in fact, the same thing happened, only without a single shot. People were told: "Russians, free yourself from the power of the party bureaucracy, you will have democracy, you will be free." I'm not saying that there were no problems in the USSR of the 80s, they exist in absolutely any country. And it is on these problems that external opponents are trying to play. It is known that the population of the USSR was very literate, well-read, but I do not understand why it could not recognize a banal deception. Apparently, I read the wrong books.
            1. GDP
              GDP 9 October 2013 13: 12 New
              +3
              The forbidden fruit is sweet ... The province did not think to support these traitors, but Moscow and the Baltic states, where it was - well nearby, well close, so alluring and mysterious, but inaccessible - seduced ... We thought that everyone would live like millionaires and painted everything in black and white. As they say there is good, where we are not ...
              1. Ulan
                Ulan 9 October 2013 15: 31 New
                +3
                In the provinces, they didn’t understand what was happening. It was the USSR, but became the CIS. Most understood so that nothing had changed, but only the name was changed.
            2. Vovka levka
              Vovka levka 9 October 2013 13: 30 New
              +1
              Quote: Nitup
              Well, this does not apply to me personally, since I was only 91 years old at 3.

              Well then, why philosophize on this subject a young man?
              Circus and only.
              1. Nitup
                Nitup 9 October 2013 15: 00 New
                +6
                Quote: Vovka Levka
                Well then, why philosophize on this subject a young man?
                Circus and only.

                To philosophize is to talk about the meaning of life, but I don’t do this, but I talk about the reasons for the collapse of the country, I’m generally interested in politics. Maybe if more young people in the USSR were interested in her, the Union would not have broken up.
                1. matross
                  matross 9 October 2013 16: 02 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Nitup
                  Maybe if more young people in the USSR were interested in her, then the Union would not have broken up.

                  Everything is exactly the opposite.
                  But you are a plus. Just for interest in politics and indifference hi
          2. teleset
            teleset 9 October 2013 14: 36 New
            +5
            In the 70-80s in America, manufacturers of goods discovered the Chinese market. And they quickly got over there, and Reigon and his team began to think how to live on, because if all production moved to China, it would be very bad in the 80s nation of America and became a nation of consumption. That is, the growth of the economy has since been protecting loans. And since 2000 and this crisis began, which continues to this day; here is the merit of Reigon and his team.
            1. matross
              matross 9 October 2013 16: 12 New
              +2
              Quote: teleset
              protects

              It’s better. Or light laughing
        3. POBEDA
          POBEDA 9 October 2013 13: 10 New
          -2
          It's right! But still, it was necessary to approach the procurement of weapons more wisely. Why was it necessary to build and maintain 50000 tanks? Why was it necessary to throw out money for the construction of the Buran, for which there were no necessary tasks? The same colossal money wasted! It would be possible to make the light industry and the auto industry work normally, and then in 91, satisfied and provided with jeans and normal cars, he would go out to defend the Union, telling the authorities - are you stunned!
        4. cdrt
          cdrt 9 October 2013 15: 37 New
          -1
          I agree that the USSR did not approach military spending very wisely, but the arms race did not destroy the USSR. He was ruined by the betrayal of the leadership and citizens of the USSR

          About the betrayal of citizens delivered laughing
          Citizens do not betray their state, they felt they needed (or wanted) something else - they got it.
          The only correct formula for the relationship between the people and the state is "we, the people, have decided ..."

          Well ... the explanation as a whole, compare - "what happened to the boat - it drowned."
          Bullshit is complete when, under the guise of an explanation, the fact itself is spoken out.

          The country really lost the arms race, the people wanted to live richer, and not fight for the socialist system and empire in Eastern Europe.
          As soon as the majority lost the desire to fight, the system immediately began to rot from the inside.
          The leadership of the end of the USSR is simply the result of this decay, and not the cause.
          1. Nitup
            Nitup 9 October 2013 16: 06 New
            +1
            Quote: cdrt
            About the betrayal of citizens delivered

            Well, albeit not a betrayal of the state, but definitely a betrayal of their ancestors, who created this country later with blood and defended in the most difficult times with weapons in their hands. It may sound arrogant, but it is. Whatever the deficit of what is not there, this is not a reason to ruin the country. It was necessary to carry out reforms, political and economic. You just need to understand everything that happened in 91 and 17 and in no case to repeat such mistakes in the future in the hands of our enemies.
            1. xxxMYSTICxxx
              xxxMYSTICxxx 9 October 2013 18: 32 New
              0
              Tell me, what then to call the collapse of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20 century?
              1. Nitup
                Nitup 9 October 2013 19: 47 New
                +1
                Quote: xxxMYSTICxxx
                Tell me, what then to call the collapse of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20 century?

                Yes, also call
      2. matross
        matross 9 October 2013 12: 43 New
        +7
        Quote: seasoned
        : "The Ivanov family cannot do without a Ferrari."

        The analogy is not visible at all. Ferrari is a luxury item. An aircraft carrier is a necessity. They will not be built for prestige, but for effective defense, re-read the article. Is there no money in the country? This is not even funny.
        1. GDP
          GDP 9 October 2013 13: 22 New
          +1
          The Russian Federation had a military doctrine of an exceptionally defensive character as well as the Soviet Socialist Republic had — A large clumsy land engine with blackjack in its pocket in the form of a powerful submarine and strategic missile forces group.
          Therefore, we have powerful artillery, air defense, a weak surface fleet and aviation.

          In the USA, it is actually offensive, which implies the presence of a powerful surface and underwater fleet and a large number of AUGs, landing ships. many military bases outside the United States and many marines.
          1. Nitup
            Nitup 9 October 2013 15: 19 New
            +3
            Quote: GDP
            Therefore, we have powerful artillery, air defense, a weak surface fleet and aviation.

            Was it in the USSR a weak surface fleet and aviation? You're wrong. Our fleet was smaller than that of the Anglo-Saxons, but also very powerful. Our aviation was also in no way inferior.
            Quote: GDP
            In the USA, it is actually offensive, which implies the presence of a powerful surface and underwater fleet and a large number of AUGs, landing ships. many military bases outside the United States and many marines.

            It is not even a matter of doctrine. The geographical location itself dictates to them. The maritime power must first of all have a powerful fleet.
      3. silver_roman
        silver_roman 9 October 2013 14: 10 New
        +3
        I completely agree. and what's more, the USSR was right about aircraft carriers. this is even reflected in the article:
        From then until the mid-60s, the attitude towards aircraft carriers in the USSR was negative. Officially, they were considered weapons of aggression.

        We would at least defend to build our own borders, and then we might even think about an attack.
        8 aircraft carriers, 2-3 destroyers (which by the way are still not, but it seems that things are moving there), 1-2 cruisers and 1-2 nuclear submarines. I think "Ash" would be great.
        and Togo we have: 1 aircraft carrier - at least 2 billion dollars;
        1 destroyer - 500 - 800 million dollars;
        1 "Ash" - 1 billion dollars;
        1 cruiser - ???? (even there is no project nearby, the Eagles are unlikely to be redesigning new ones).
        and Considering how much dough is being cut, the amounts are astronomical.
        It goes without saying that I have taken all these figures at a glance. Amers have a much higher price tag. Like "George W. Bush" flew into 4 billion dollars.

        so it's silly to even think of such vessels.

        Americans are building them for one reason: they are confident in their own impunity. They even during the Cold War understood that there would be no bombing of the USSR cities of Syshia. their metro is at the level of our underground passages, and our metro was considered as a bunker.
        From the point of view of military damage that could be potentially inflicted on the enemy, aircraft carriers do not pose a great threat to a serious enemy. Much more dangerous are the same Ohio with 100 odd volumes of GAFs ...
        so that all these plans are in the furnace. The country needs to be built, not ruined. My subjective opinion!
        1. Nitup
          Nitup 9 October 2013 15: 28 New
          +2
          Quote: silver_roman
          1 cruiser - ???? (even there is no project nearby, the Eagles are unlikely to be redesigning new ones).

          And who has it? Cruisers as a class cease to exist. The destroyers Sarych, which we belong to ships of the 1st rank, as well as the cruiser 1144 and 1164 will still serve after the repair and modernization. But only destroyers will build new ones, because the promising destroyers are comparable in strike and defensive power to the current cruisers. This is due to the fact that the current ship electronic systems and other equipment due to the development of electronics is much more compact than the previous ones and there is more space on the ship for direct weapons
      4. cdrt
        cdrt 9 October 2013 15: 32 New
        0
        The article touched me. Let's imagine the abstract Ivanov family (Russia), which has just got out of the debt crisis, the husband does not have a permanent job, but somehow they make ends meet and the head of the family, on every occasion, does not miss the opportunity to declare that: “The Ivanov family is without Ferrari is indispensable. "
        It's not enough to build an aircraft carrier, you need to build an infrastructure for it, build escort ships and maintain them for a long time ... Modern Russia is not ready for this! As in its time the arms race destroyed the USSR, so today the construction of an aircraft carrier can be that straw that "breaks the hump of a camel." IMHO hi



        On the other hand - the cost of modernizing one Orlan - will probably be up to $ 1,5 billion (I would like to make a mistake - wait and see).
        Instead of modernization 3, you can build 1-2 AB. Together with Kuznetsov there will already be 2-3
      5. Nick
        Nick 9 October 2013 23: 10 New
        0
        Quote: seasoned
        It’s not enough to build an aircraft carrier, you need to build infrastructure for it, build escort ships and maintain them for a long time ... Modern Russia is not ready for this

        Unfortunately, you are, in principle, right. Now Russia can not afford 4-5 AUG. According to experts, an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 80 thousand tons will pull 80 billion rubles, it seems inexpensive, but the whole AUG is estimated at 400 billion, and that’s already other money ... If you stretch the building for 10 years, then of course a country will pull one AUG, but five units is hard ...
    4. alone
      alone 9 October 2013 11: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: Igor39
      Yes, one question, when will they be built?


      Well, if one landing ship that is capable of landing 5 armored personnel carriers was built in three years, then you can guess about the aircraft carrier yourself.
    5. Deniska
      Deniska 9 October 2013 11: 51 New
      0
      The situation is such that there are aircraft carriers, I hope that the design will be launched by the age of 15-16, the first model will be in 23-24;)
    6. Airman
      Airman 9 October 2013 12: 04 New
      +4
      Quote: Igor39
      Yes, one question, when will they be built?

      And how much will it cost to create one AUG? Aircraft carrier is not yet AUG. And how many divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces can be rearmament for new missiles with this money? And how many S-500 complexes to put in the troops? After all, the budget is not rubber, and Bolivar can not stand two.
      1. Nitup
        Nitup 9 October 2013 13: 05 New
        +3
        Quote: Povshnik
        And how much will it cost to create one AUG?

        AUG pair is probably still necessary for Russia, but this is certainly not a question of today. Now you can slowly take up research activities in this matter, thoroughly work out all the construction issues, at the same time start building production capacities, training personnel, and start building directly after 2020
      2. Vovka levka
        Vovka levka 9 October 2013 13: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: Povshnik
        And how many S-500 complexes to put in the troops?

        The French at one time also hoped for the Maginot Line.
        How many complexes are needed to cover the country? In military affairs there is such a concept as concentration of power and maneuverability. And how to achieve this with air defense?
        Aviation must be developed and not engage in nonsense.
    7. Rustam
      Rustam 9 October 2013 12: 20 New
      +7
      Aircraft carriers can not do


      Again 25, yes, some gentlemen from our military-industrial complex-USC directly dream of getting this contract-because you can provide for yourself and your great-grandchildren So such custom-made articles are born about the urgent need of a new aircraft carrier, without regard to the real situation in our shipbuilding industry.

      I repeat the post and I feel the need to repeat once


      Rustam  September 16, 2013 16:46 | The aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya" completes sea trials. What does this mean for our fleet

      Sergh-Guys !!! Wikromadia is the last century, it is time to build more modern, advanced, technological.

      Naturally, this is the last century, only now the construction of a new aircraft carrier will completely bury the entire failed OSK shipbuilding program, and it will eat down the entire Navy budget

      -There would arrange the construction of ships in 2-4 tons, infrastructure, berths, bring to mind AL (Mace) and DL, think about naval aviation (upgrade), upgrade equipment in the Marine Corps, learn how to use and maintain future French UDC - this is the first and primary concern

      -design and start building new destroyers in exchange for 956 (although 956 can be restored and repaired, excellent ships)

      -when these tasks are solved, and the shipyard is built or updated, technologies (catapults, etc.) are received, the AWACS aircraft are created, you can think (just think and weigh everything) about the construction of a new Aircraft Carrier

      - the reference is the USA and their creations - especially the future CVN-78 "Gerald R. Ford (The aircraft carrier, numbered CVN78, represents the first design of the US aircraft carrier since the 1960s. The ship will have a smaller crew than previous ships, and will receive new technologies, including an electromagnetic aircraft launch system, an improved aerofinisher and a dual-band radar

      And the fantastic construction dates were laid in 2009, the transfer to the Navy in 2015 is 6 years, a fool of 100000 tons, we will not say anything about our long-term construction projects.

      PS-What is the most annoying is said and lobbied by those who shout that the new UDCs that will soon be part of the Navy are unnecessary to us, they have no tasks, no shutdowns, etc., which means the aircraft carrier has everything?

      I always thought, and if the Mistrals were developed purely with us and built-would he be idolized?
    8. Tot-enot
      Tot-enot 9 October 2013 12: 54 New
      +3
      It’s not sad, but it’s utopia, now even corvettes are built in single copies and for several years, several AUGs if Russia has it, then very soon sad
      1. Aryan
        Aryan 9 October 2013 13: 02 New
        +3
        ss

        even 1000500 aircraft carriers cannot replace one Zvezda of Death!
        KNEADING PAINFUL PEOPLE !!! angry
    9. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 9 October 2013 13: 45 New
      0
      Quote: Igor39
      Yes, one question, when will they be built?


      The main question is why ???
    10. knn54
      knn54 9 October 2013 15: 13 New
      +2
      -Igor39: Yes, one question, when will they be built?
      And who. The ships will not even pull the cruiser, unless they modernize the Soviet. And even for the flagship of the SF there is no place. Again hysterical impulses ...
      PS The Fleet leadership does not even have a clear doctrine.
    11. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 10 October 2013 04: 02 New
      +1
      blah blah blah .... no matter how you say Halvah! -will become sweeter in your mouth ...
  2. nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe 9 October 2013 07: 45 New
    +3
    Without air cover, it would be difficult for the marines.
    1. Canep
      Canep 9 October 2013 07: 57 New
      +8
      Where, it’s interesting to know, did you decide to land an assault that our ground-based aviation would not be able to fly there?
      1. Troy
        Troy 9 October 2013 09: 36 New
        +3
        Tierra del Fuego laughing
        1. dimon-media
          dimon-media 9 October 2013 19: 19 New
          0
          Much further, through the Strait only Antarctica)) laughing
  3. diver1977
    diver1977 9 October 2013 07: 58 New
    10
    Given the lack of naval bases in the Russian Federation, how to carry out material and technical support for 4 aircraft carrier groups? The presence of a nuclear power plant implies a certain cruising range, right? And near the coast, their feasibility is doubtful, especially considering their cost. With that kind of money, it's easier to build stationary airbases.

    And besides - where and to whom to threaten these monsters?
    1. both s69
      both s69 9 October 2013 08: 29 New
      +6
      Hello Tolegen! Who is India going to threaten? After all, she also almost got our aircraft carrier. wink Or has Russia miraculously made so many friends in the world lately? In my opinion, this is not so. Although, maybe I misunderstand something? ..winked My opinion: aircraft carrier formations (maybe not as monstrous as in the USA, more mobile, or what) for Russia are not just needed - they are needed. The only question is their quantity - here, as they say, there are different opinions. My view is as follows. hi The struggle for future resources (drinking water, for example) is just beginning.
      1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
        GELEZNII_KAPUT 9 October 2013 09: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: both-with 69
        The struggle for future resources (drinking water, for example) is just beginning.

        It continues, not begins, it has been and will always be! hi
      2. Memorandum
        Memorandum 9 October 2013 12: 13 New
        +2
        the struggle for drinking water will not be in the oceans, but on the sinful earth. And here Baikal will need to be protected ...
    2. Algor73
      Algor73 9 October 2013 09: 53 New
      +2
      Well, Russia is a very tidbit so that there are no envious people. You just loosen the defense, so right away and see who needs to threaten these monsters.
      1. dimon-media
        dimon-media 9 October 2013 19: 33 New
        -1
        Right. We won't need AUG in the near future. It is better to use these funds to develop the Strategic Missile Forces, Air Defense Forces and the Air Force. The main thing for us now is to close all the "holes" in the sky of the S-400, to build another radar (of the Voronezh type, because in some places there is a gap), after all, the early warning system of a missile attack is an important aspect in the country's defense. It is also very important to launch the Bulava as soon as possible (otherwise we will not need the Boreas) and launch it back in mass production of PAK-FA. It is also very important to place OTRK on our western borders (Iskander operational-tactical missile systems to suppress enemy missile defense). These are the most important points that we must adhere to. We need a defensive doctrine. And only after achieving all this can we "churn out" offensive weapons. We are not an aggressor, we have nothing to attack, but we have something to defend.
        1. dimon-media
          dimon-media 9 October 2013 19: 57 New
          +1
          I forgot to add: Why was the new "NITK" built? Or another "drank", "cut" was it?
    3. Ejik_026
      Ejik_026 9 October 2013 10: 25 New
      +1
      I would say more.
      Cover aircraft carriers will be with the usual engines. Yes, and the range on grub and water is still limited. One plus from nuclear installations is energy for EM catapults.
      And in my opinion it is easier and cheaper to build with additional generators for them than to suffer with a nuclear installation.

      And besides - where and to whom to threaten these monsters?

      +1
      To threaten to eat a submarine.
      One will pop up near the statue of liberty and you look at the guys brains will fall into place.
  4. both s69
    both s69 9 October 2013 08: 02 New
    +3
    I am a non-military man, but I still think that a state applying for the status of a world-class power, washed by the seas entering the waters of three (!) World oceans, must necessarily have an aircraft carrier formation as a counterargument! Another thing is how much AUG Russia will be able to maintain on a long-term basis without prejudice to other military branches? Here is a question for specialists. I - for, in general! wink
    1. Fofan
      Fofan 9 October 2013 08: 52 New
      +3
      Quote: both-with 69
      I am a non-military man, but I still think that a state applying for the status of a world-class power, washed by the seas entering the waters of three (!) World oceans, must necessarily have an aircraft carrier formation as a counterargument! Another thing is how much AUG Russia will be able to maintain on a long-term basis without prejudice to other military branches? Here is a question for specialists. I - for, in general! wink
      in order to claim the status of a world-class power, it is necessary that the budget was not filled from the sale of resources abroad.
    2. GDP
      GDP 9 October 2013 12: 33 New
      0
      It seems to me that enough 3 aircraft-carrying cruisers to carry out specific local operations and support fleet groupings.
      2 is required. In the North Sea and the Pacific
      3-th - in the waters of the Black and Mediterranean Sea ....
      Everything else is superfluous ...
      Well and 4-6 helicopter carriers ...
  5. Odysseus
    Odysseus 9 October 2013 08: 43 New
    25
    The author seems to live in some beautiful parallel universe.
    Our mace does not fly, Severodvinsk cannot be built for 20 years, the Pacific Fleet will simply cease to exist without renewal in 5 years, and it is dreaming of aircraft carriers.
    IMHO what the fleet needs
    1) Personnel
    2) Updating bases and ship repair industry.
    3) New SLBMs with reliable missiles.
    4) New submarines
    5) DPL with non-volatile engines
    6) Destroyers with the ability to attack ground targets with powerful missiles (for the Pacific Fleet)
    Until these tasks have been solved (and not one of them has been solved), talking about aircraft carriers is simply ridiculous.
    1. arutun
      arutun 9 October 2013 10: 27 New
      +1
      I completely agree with you, we need destroyers with powerful weapons so that 2-3 destroyers could destroy a carrier group in one gulp, i.e. the ammunition of the Kyrgyz Republic should be at least 300-500 for three destroyers. We also need a new project of submarines, not expensive, not large and high-speed (5 points), capable of carrying 20-40 KR.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 9 October 2013 11: 56 New
        0
        Well, you bent the floor, one hundred anti-ship missiles per ship. Even on "Petruha" there is not so much. Do you want EM ...
      2. GDP
        GDP 9 October 2013 12: 38 New
        0
        Then it’s not destroyers, but missile cruisers. Destroyers do not have such reserves of missiles, and they will not fit the AUG most likely, unlike the same cruisers ...
        And if we talk about economy, then from the surface group we need corvettes and frigates with yachts on board - a purely defensive option. To counter a serious enemy only under the protection of land bastions and s-400 ...
        And of course, the nuclear submarines - where without them?
      3. Odysseus
        Odysseus 9 October 2013 19: 51 New
        0
        Quote: arutun
        we need destroyers with powerful weapons so that 2-3 destroyers can destroy a carrier group with their salvo

        Against the AUG, it is nevertheless more expedient to use new nuclear submarines, and near the coast of a nuclear submarine. In addition, the AUG does not pose a direct threat to Russia (at least until the appearance of the X-47C). The threat to the Kuril Islands from Japan is more urgent. A non-nuclear deterrence weapon is needed.
        Quote: arutun
        those. the ammunition load of the Kyrgyz Republic should be at least 300-500 for three destroyers

        Great idea, but I'm afraid it will not fit in so much.
        Quote: arutun
        We also need a new project of submarines, not expensive, not large and high-speed (5 points), capable of carrying 20-40 KR.

        I’m not quite sure that a small submarine can accommodate 40 CR. But this is a question for submariners.
  6. Fofan
    Fofan 9 October 2013 08: 50 New
    +9
    aggravation again. how much is the name 4.5 billion dollars? this is with already developed projects, with all the debugged infrastructure, with the created connections in production. Without infrastructures, the cost will increase two-three times. add kickbacks, we get at best billions of 15 dollars per ship. multiply by 4 ships, get 60 billion dollars will cost 4 ships without an air group. 60 billion dollars is about 2 trillion rubles. defense spending we have 2 trillion.
    the author suggests spitting on the Strategic Missile Forces, on missile warning, the re-equipment of aviation, on armature in the end and build 4 useless boats? if you want aircraft carriers, well, buy a model and run in the bathroom. Well, why drag your pipe dreams into other people's heads?
    1. GDP
      GDP 9 October 2013 12: 49 New
      +1
      The final cost of Vikramadity and which we will supply to India is 2,3 billion dollars, according to some estimates - 5 mlr. This includes all our expenses + profit, kickbacks and cuts ...
      Without cuts and theft would be 1,5 - 2 mlr dollars.
      Are you talking about 15-20 mlr?
    2. GDP
      GDP 9 October 2013 15: 09 New
      +1
      For comparison, the Turkish Navy surpasses the Russian Black Sea Fleet by 4 times. Only in recent years they have spent on the re-equipment of the fleet alone - 27 billion dollars - count somewhere 10-12 aircraft carriers of Wikramadity cruisers :))
      1 cruiser, 1 bpk, 3 frigates (watchman,) 4 corvettes (RTOs), 2 dpl and several boats of Russia are confronted by:
      18 submarines, 20 frigates, 8 corvettes and other trifles. With more than half - new ...
      Germans and Americans armed them, more than half were built on their own Turkish shipyards.
  7. My address
    My address 9 October 2013 09: 00 New
    10
    Perhaps they are needed. Perhaps the fleet without them is like ground troops without tactical missiles. But where is the money, Zin? Where are shipyards, frames, bases? Where are the ships escort?
    So far it has been decided to hold olympiads, summits, EXPO ... It is easier than raising industry. It is extremely expensive, terribly thievish, but effectively.
  8. Stiletto
    Stiletto 9 October 2013 09: 17 New
    +3
    Having aircraft carriers is better than not having them - such ships will certainly not be redundant. Another question is a very, very expensive pleasure, which we can not afford yet. Neither their construction nor content. Before scattering forces in different directions, it is necessary to fully implement the existing plans for modernization and rearmament, while conducting R&D in the right directions, training personnel and tightening technology. And if we get rich, then we will certainly need to build it. Otherwise, we will not help China build such Pepelats to build, but we ourselves will be in their wake. What is not good in principle.
  9. Nayhas
    Nayhas 9 October 2013 09: 27 New
    +8
    Well, as if the arguments had already been given to me, but I would like to supplement the list of Comrade Odysseus:
    - a shipyard is needed on which aircraft carriers could be built and the big question is where to build it.
    -the coastal infrastructure is necessary for basing the aircraft carrier, but we and Kuznetsov could not create it, and lives at the plant.
    So it's time to leave these stupid dreams.
    P.S .:
    One of the first to be destroyed was the aircraft-carrying cruisers inherited from Russia from the USSR.

    Of course, the author will not hear the question, but nevertheless: And were they needed for hell? Ships of absolutely incomprehensible purpose having eaten the resource of their mechanisms on raids since they did not build places for their parking, having lost their under-planes which in the best of times did not constitute any benefit, why save them?
  10. xxxMYSTICxxx
    xxxMYSTICxxx 9 October 2013 09: 29 New
    +4
    The topic is partly provocative, since on a regular basis we discuss this on average once a month, and there are NO new arguments either from one side or the other. But seriously, I am in general for the construction of aircraft carriers, but as always there are several huge BUTs: 1) we do not have shipyards suitable for the construction, and the capacities that are available are overwhelmed with current orders. Therefore, it is necessary to build modern shipyards (there was information in the press about the decision to build / modernize the Zvezda shipyard in the Far East, but unfortunately not aware of the current status of the project) 2) to create a combat capable AUG, we need escort servants, but they simply do not exist, Now the construction of frigate corvettes and support vessels is underway, there was information about the destroyer projects and the beginning of the development of the aircraft carrier project, so do not rush things, everything is in order, just give time. And finally 3, but most importantly! Before doing anything, we need to decide on our development strategy and set tasks for the fleet, how and where we will use these AUG, but then that’s all, we need political will and a sequence of actions))) I am an incorrigible optimist and I am sure that everything will be fine with us, just give me a time limit, but the most important thing is to think first and then do it !!!
  11. Russ69
    Russ69 9 October 2013 09: 41 New
    +5
    Quote: xxxMYSTICxxx
    I am an incorrigible optimist and I’m sure that everything will be fine with us, just give me a deadline, but the most important thing is to think first and then do it !!!

    I agree, we are not ready now for the construction and maintenance of aircraft carriers.
    Today there are other priority tasks that need to be completed, and only then think about aircraft carriers ...
  12. Double major
    Double major 9 October 2013 10: 05 New
    +6
    The whole question is how we are going to use the fleet. If, like the United States, we conduct operations away from our bases, carry, so to speak, "democracy" around the world, then we cannot do without aircraft-carrying cruisers (namely, cruisers, not aircraft carriers, who understands the difference). Although ... The US experience shows that the main work is done, nevertheless, by conventional aircraft and missiles. If our fleet is for the defense of our own and friendly lines, in countries ready to provide their airbases, we do not need these tubs: it is expensive, and there is little sense ...
  13. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 9 October 2013 10: 14 New
    0
    Build heels of small and cheap aircraft carriers, for lovers of this business - not hard. Tru it for 15 years to bear plans for a super-duper of something there that has no analogues. Then build 20 years, then find out that by this time the miracle had turned into a small and cheap aircraft carrier. Well, then it begins - what they built was not labor, how did it happen, Stalin was veny. And a new one on the old rake.
  14. Xroft
    Xroft 9 October 2013 10: 34 New
    +2
    How do admins allow such topics? it's just to write, go * argue until you lose your pulse *, they already wrote 1000 times about everything. And we know the rearmament plan until 2020 (there are no aircraft carriers there)
  15. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 9 October 2013 10: 40 New
    -1
    But in general, it would not hurt to have a couple of 100 atomic airplanes for demonstrating the flag!
  16. lotar
    lotar 9 October 2013 10: 47 New
    +5
    Suppose that aircraft carriers are built in the amount of four pieces. To ensure that they are not light targets, support ships, the number of which lies within the 10-15 ships, as well as submarines from 2 to 4 pieces, are required. Now imagine how many financial, material, human means for their construction and commissioning, as well as their further maintenance and much more. I am afraid that then the current state armament program will need to be increased by 2-3 times, and that is not a fact. So, in reality, the construction this ehniki bleed over at least a decade.
  17. alicante11
    alicante11 9 October 2013 10: 47 New
    +8
    Why does our fleet need an AB? What tasks cannot be accomplished without it?
    In defense of the coast, an AB is not needed, since its air group is much smaller than land aviation can set (of course, an attack force of several ABs also steers in this case, but the USSR could not pull them, not to mention the Russian Federation). And the AWACS and We have land aircraft. Therefore, to reflect the landing and raids of enemy aircraft on our shores, we may well without aircraft carriers. It is enough to deploy a network of airfields. Moreover, as practice shows, pre-fortified long straight sections of highway roads may well be used as such. For example, on the road between Khabarovsk and Komsomolsk there is at least one such section. Again, riding on it is a pleasure. And RP infrastructure can be made mobile for transfer, if necessary, to other ersatz-runways. You can also use dual-purpose airfields such as the Peter and Paul Airport and Artem in Vladik. Again, plus the development of aviation, without which you can’t get far at such distances as in Russia. Those. the money will be spent not only for the armed forces, but also for the people.
    It seems that Russia is not going to civilize the “savages” or “carry democracy”. Evacuating Russian citizens from hot spots is, of course, a good thing, but for that, helicopters and VTOL aircraft with appropriate carriers are quite enough. It is too expensive to build huge atomic AB for this. At the same time, our fleet has a large number of excellent anti-ship missile systems to destroy enemy surface ships. And to combat submarines, helicopters based on anti-submarine ships and destroyers can be used. Therefore, a Russian aircraft carrier can have two main purposes. Representative service and cover of naval groups with the help of fighters. With this task, "Kuzya" can quite cope, which can (could?) Blast the enemy with missiles. Its only serious disadvantage, as we have already found out here, is the absence of a carrier-based AWACS aircraft. This is due to the lack of a catapult launch. But, theoretically, these problems can be solved by organizing air refueling of ground-based AWACS and escorting them with the help of ground-based fighters, first, and then taking off from AB.
    In such a situation, it is quite enough for us to have two aircraft-carrying cruisers. One of the aircraft carriers will be based on maintenance with the goal of operating in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. And the second can be located in the Northern Fleet, where repairs and modernization can take place, taking, if possible and necessary, participation in operations in the Atlantic, North Ossetia and Middle-earth. Considering that these ships will be used as air defense as part of missile cruiser groups, their security will be the same as those of these groups.
  18. shitovmg
    shitovmg 9 October 2013 10: 48 New
    +1
    I am for a reasonable approach, yes, it is necessary! Only without forcing events, in compliance with priorities. And money, they are always in short supply ...
  19. nikcris
    nikcris 9 October 2013 11: 00 New
    +4
    The article was written in the chamber number 6. Enchanting nonsense!
    I even remembered another similar unfortunate militarist - Tukhlachevsky.
  20. poccinin
    poccinin 9 October 2013 11: 01 New
    0
    eh PETER 1 no. he would have found money and shipyards where to build. 1. RUSSIA is washed by 3 Oceans. 2. they will build in Severodvinsk. They have experience. They built it for India. 3. it is not necessary to convert container ships into aircrafts. It’s not solid for the country, everyone will laugh. And then they’ll say, “and that there are planes. There is something on the ship I need more. "4. I need to take Abramovich's house, so I bought a house in America for 75 million dollars. to buy deputies-oligarchs. and then you watch on TV what mansions are being built and "WHERE IS THE MONEY ZIN" AVIANOSETS-- is needed and if you talk. In any country there are problems, and what to do with money. Too. is there no problem in CHINA or INDIA? but now he is needed off the coast of SIRI. but he is not.
    1. fon_Stierlitz
      fon_Stierlitz 9 October 2013 23: 41 New
      0
      Yes, yes, and he also found a couple of million peasants who would be forced to work like a draft horse.
      No, if you for the sake of Great Russia With Aircraft Carriers, Blackjack And Whores are ready to get two, or even three jobs, eat doshiraki, and transfer the entire salary to the state and manage to somehow make another 100 million people live, then we have indeed, aircraft carriers will appear, and 20 destroyers in each fleet, and infrastructure. And now Russia does not have such a powerful economy that it can afford all this splendor, and there are enough worries without aircraft carriers.
  21. zmey_gadukin
    zmey_gadukin 9 October 2013 11: 04 New
    0
    Hmm, if Russia wants to be a World Power, then it needs them, but if it is a "raw material base", then you can do it ...
  22. marder4
    marder4 9 October 2013 11: 11 New
    +1
    a good idea, but expensive is "pleasure" ...
  23. avg
    avg 9 October 2013 11: 19 New
    +6
    I read the article and got angry, to which the author stubbornly plays on subtle feelings. As if the mother-in-law is annoying: "the Abramovich’s got a new" Mercedes ", and you have an" old Lada "." And all the arguments that I serve, and he steals, her drum. But pleased with the balanced position of the forum participants. On this occasion - a famous toast: "Let's drink so that our desires coincide with our capabilities." Alaverdi: "Constantly increasing opportunities!"
  24. nikcris
    nikcris 9 October 2013 11: 21 New
    +6
    In the Moscow region in the villages there is no gas. All strategic aviation is in a row along a single strip. There is no permanent duty on the submarine.
    But we will wipe the snot, we will change our socks to footcloths and build in spite of the adversary a crystal bridge from the outskirts of the village of Gadiukino to a distant pasture.
  25. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 9 October 2013 11: 36 New
    +3
    Ready to spit in your address but what for us these pellets of the moroman ?? Enough with us and TAKR, our submarine is everything, well, we are not an oceanic power on our coast all the main lines, so Ajis would not hurt us.
    1. little man
      little man 9 October 2013 13: 41 New
      -2
      Ocean, still like the ocean!
      Where recently Greenpeace climbed? What to protect the Arctic, eastern islands with? Yes, in general, marine resources. Compared to them, aircraft carriers are a penny.
      Tell me the destroyers and pl? Yes, they will sink their wing without straining.
      After all, the power of the "pelvis" is not in size, but what they carry. And fifty planes are a very formidable thing!
      And the fact that the budget does not allow - the aircraft carriers are not to blame. It is necessary "to correct something in the conservatory"
      1. Pablo_K
        Pablo_K 9 October 2013 14: 50 New
        +1
        Quote: man
        What to protect the Arctic, eastern islands with?

        build a network of airfields, restore old abandoned airfields that can still be restored
      2. nikcris
        nikcris 9 October 2013 17: 16 New
        +1
        Yes bl ... Aircraft carriers in the Arctic is the place. It is necessary to ice them in the icebreaker version with the super-duper YaU - the ice at 30 knots was opened. And in addition to them the same super-duper destroyers. And in addition to the destroyers, the same super-duper tankers. The author then ate too much, and what did you smoke?
      3. pr 627
        pr 627 10 October 2013 22: 07 New
        0
        One submarine with a thick torpedo from Gadzhiyevo can arrange a scuffle for the entire AUG, and the Americans have to pay the Murmansk Atomflot to navigate through the ice. Only the thick torpedoes were removed from our nuclear submarines, that's the trouble!
    2. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 9 October 2013 15: 33 New
      +1
      and + and -

      On the one hand - YES, not oceanic. We are a land civilization.

      And on the other hand, without the development of the marine, oceanic component (of course, not to the detriment of the non-marine component), we will not be able to compete effectively with the enemy.
  26. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 9 October 2013 11: 48 New
    +3
    Chased on a new one?) How long was the break for two or three months on this topic?)
    1. Kibalchish
      Kibalchish 9 October 2013 13: 47 New
      +3
      This topic is very beneficial for Srach and is an indestructible source of food for all sorts of trolls. Why deprive everyone of pleasure?
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 10 October 2013 02: 21 New
        0
        I don’t know - I’ve been sucked a dozen times from all sides from our clear, non-military look.
        For me it looks like sweetie - tasty, but after she jumped out of the fifth time, I'm sorry, I don’t want to take her ass and suck it.
  27. avg
    avg 9 October 2013 12: 35 New
    +1
    During the war

    One of the most important tasks of the Russian Navy will be to defeat the enemy carrier strike and missile groups. The main combat areas of the latter are sections of the distant sea and ocean zones remote from our coast on 400 – 600 kilometers. From here they will strike at objects in the territory of our country and ships at sea and at bases.

    It is well known that the superiority of the sea is impossible without achieving air superiority. The modern confrontation of ship groups is carried out almost exclusively in the air. The strikes of anti-ship missiles and strike aircraft are reflected by fighters and anti-aircraft fire weapons of ships. Small groups and single surface ships are attacked by two to four cruise missiles or airplanes. In strikes against large connections of surface ships, 30 – 40 and more anti-ship missiles from rocket ships and submarines or to 40 – 50 of deck or tactical aircraft can be used.

    Have you tried to take off from coastal airfields?
  28. Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 9 October 2013 13: 14 New
    +2
    I am glad that there are so many sane people on this resource. Plus for everyone. About any 4 AUG out of the question. The country simply will not pull them.
    READ OUT. The economy is in stagnation. A recession is about to begin. And we have the Olympics, the World Cup and the tattered Far East !!! The author is raving. Let him really set himself on the computer wallpaper with AV and does not bother others from living. My opinion is this: in the current economic situation for Russia, even one AB is a great luxury.
    Here we become a rich country, then we can think about AB.
    1. GDP
      GDP 9 October 2013 13: 24 New
      0
      Now they are not needed, but in the future they will be needed in a limited version ...
      1. Kibalchish
        Kibalchish 9 October 2013 13: 40 New
        +2
        Given the stable economic growth, as we have before the 2008 year and the growth of the welfare of the people - yes, we can think about aircraft carriers. In the meantime, not to fat.
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. runway
    runway 9 October 2013 14: 37 New
    +3
    The topic is not new. And no matter how much we discuss here - how many fleets do aircraft carriers need? - we will not increase them. And the author’s conclusions on their required number are too primitive. About the protection of (our?) Minerals on the Arctic shelf by aircraft carriers, also from the realm of fantasy. Even from a stationary aerodrome, flights beyond the Arctic Circle are on the verge of heroism. Do you want the pilots to work there with aircraft carriers?
  31. Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 9 October 2013 14: 55 New
    +2
    Maybe I will express an seditious thought - and foreign military bases will not help the father of Russian democracy? After all, returning the base is cheaper and easier than building this whole crap. Especially in the current political realities. For each ocean, two, three. Yes, the plans certainly should be, not today. Naval, with a good runway, preferably away from cities. Bases, boys, bases - yes.
  32. Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 9 October 2013 14: 59 New
    +1
    Aircraft carriers are building the whole world for Americans.

    That is, while engineers and designers are designing an aircraft carrier, while metallurgists are melting steel, while IT specialists are writing programs and developing "hardware", while power engineers are producing electricity for the construction of an aircraft carrier and lighting housing and communal social facilities of all involved in construction and maintenance, while sellers sell food, clothing, electronics and so on to all those involved in construction and maintenance, while sailors, pilots and technicians study and serve, AND NOT ONLY ON AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, BUT ON ALL AUG SHIPS, they all need to be fed, dressed, heated, illuminated, they must drive cars, and cars have to refuel, they have to watch some kind of TV and so on and so forth ... Edim snobs everyone and serves the rest of the world. How it's done:

    Americans printed dollars.
    For these dollars bought everything you need.
    The governments of countries that sold everything America needed to America bought dollars for their local currency.
    The dollars were brought back to America and invested in debt obligations of the American government and various funds.
    As a result, America received resources for colored paper, and it, in turn, was brought back to America and frozen.

    So America is supplied with everything the world needs (except Cuba and South Korea).

    Therefore, America can also beg for itself to build and maintain aircraft carriers with all the attendant atribours.

    Attention question:

    At the cost of what all of this will Russia do?


    And this is not a rebuke towards Russia. Doge of the USSR was able to pull only a few truncated versions of aircraft carriers. What is right. It is necessary to spend money not on mega projects, but on real, effective in terms of price / quality ratio, means to ensure their own security - submarines, strategic nuclear forces, aviation, air defense, airborne troops, and ground forces. We will unite everything that has cracked / cracked, we will tighten the rest - and then aircraft carriers can be built.
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 9 October 2013 15: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      At the cost of what all of this will Russia do?

      I absolutely agree with the above. It is such a financial system that is built in today's world, on which the United States and some others are parasitic.
      Maybe we could build aircraft carriers and everything else, we don’t even need, like America, to rob the whole world, it’s enough to get out of this system, which we entered during the Soviet Union and untie the ruble from those who came from international trade in the country dollars, and also start trading with other countries in their goods and raw materials exclusively in rubles.
  33. Clueless
    Clueless 9 October 2013 15: 50 New
    0
    the problem is not even money, but the fact that how slowly they build, they will build an aircraft carrier, and the remaining escort ships will build another 15 years

    it seems easier to buy country governments and build our military bases with airfields from them
  34. Avenger711
    Avenger711 9 October 2013 15: 52 New
    0
    The USSR planned aircraft carriers solely as a means of air defense of fleets, to solve problems in peacetime, an aircraft carrier is as redundant as a 20 mm F-22 cannon against Somali pirates (there was such a justification for its need). For strike missions, 4 aircraft carriers in a pair of fleets are extremely few, especially since one will be in service.
  35. netishunUA
    netishunUA 9 October 2013 16: 25 New
    0
    Russia has always been a land power. Why AUG Russia? To impose democracy on the fraternal people of Nicaragua? It restrains the aggressor of nuclear weapons. Even in the same Syria, obviously the Americans laid down bricks not because of a couple of boats.
  36. nikcris
    nikcris 9 October 2013 17: 37 New
    0
    STO in general for psychosis with these aircraft carriers? The author meant for them the task of rescuing hypothetical refugees from, for example, Somalia. It is on the conscience of the author. I want to understand the motives of the cheers-patriots - how do they represent the meaning of the existence of the AUG in Russia? Just swim and show the flag? Hurray-patriots can organize a fundraiser and chip into the whole world for the construction of four squadrons - it's easy (I doubt only that at least the aircraft carrier dreamers will list a penny - they differ from bulk only by vector).
    The impression that I’m in a kindergarten, and around the elves are fighting with a team of snakes Gorynycha.
    1. nikcris
      nikcris 9 October 2013 19: 36 New
      0
      about!!! Minus appeared! It can be seen from the patriot who is ready to take milk from his own child for the sake of looking at the box of take-off drying (instant) from the deck of the Russian aircraft carrier (namely, this is practiced in relation to our cruiser). But he will not give beer to anyone!
  37. regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 9 October 2013 18: 17 New
    +2
    I don’t know whether or not we need aircraft carriers in this period of time, but the fact that it kills them is very necessary and more more
    1. pr 627
      pr 627 10 October 2013 21: 49 New
      0
      Ja, ja naturlich! More thick and long torpedoes and nuclear submarines pr971.
  38. Ivan Sirko
    Ivan Sirko 9 October 2013 18: 20 New
    +2
    What for do you need it? You, what else the aircraft carriers did not sink?
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 9 October 2013 19: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Ivan Sirko
      What for do you need it? You, what else the aircraft carriers did not sink?

      This is a threat?
  39. nikcris
    nikcris 9 October 2013 20: 10 New
    0
    Russian aircraft carriers as a goat button accordion. Even if they suddenly materialized, for free, then in this case it is easier to sell them to freaking states than to maintain.
    In WWII, aircraft carriers showed their strength. I do not argue. But at what theaters of war?
    After the war, they showed themselves something - anyone can google what and how they were disabled for the months of Enterprise, Eisenhower and so on. Indians - yes, you can drive. With breaks for repairs.
  40. understudy
    understudy 9 October 2013 21: 04 New
    0
    "During the war...
    One of the most important tasks of the Russian Navy will be to defeat the enemy's strike aircraft carrier and missile groups. "(C)

    Judging by the theme of all the exercises, the government has long ago decided on the need for aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy. We are "at war" exclusively with terrorists ... So, until the roasted cock pecks in the ass, the authorities will not scratch themselves. It's a pity.
    1. nikcris
      nikcris 9 October 2013 21: 15 New
      0
      Shake out the mat and everything will work out. (C)
      We are not fighting yet with the terrorists at sea. Well, and so on and so forth - I continue to go nuts on the ingenuity of individual citizens and citizens. If you have what to say for their protection, I look forward to it with pleasure.
  41. Hitrovan07
    Hitrovan07 9 October 2013 21: 17 New
    0
    Again, aircraft carrier nonsense. Russia is a great land power. To "put" out of place the overseas labors - there are ballistic missiles. To control the economic maritime space - there are corvettes, frigates, submarines, there are coastal missile and artillery systems. To control the airspace there are Voronezh stations, A-50 AWACS - that's precisely why it is not necessary to build super-expensive toys, but to raise aviation, air defense systems - to restore northern and eastern airfields, to purchase equipment for them - the benefit is at least to produce serial steel. And there will be another penny after you can play "toys" wink
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 9 October 2013 22: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Hitrovan07
      Russia is a great land power. To "put" out of place overseas labors - there are ballistic missiles.
      Russia became a great power only after Tsar Peter created a fleet. There is no "land power" fleet, either there is a fleet or it does not exist, and the fleet is either full-fledged and strong, or weak and flawed. As long as aviation is needed, aircraft carriers will also be needed, of course, priorities are needed, but it is not necessary to save pennies in the fleet, billions are flowing out of the country and billions are being plundered.
  42. nikcris
    nikcris 9 October 2013 22: 41 New
    0
    Quote: nikcris
    Shake out the mat and everything will work out. (C)
    We are not fighting yet with the terrorists at sea. Well, and so on and so forth - I continue to go nuts on the ingenuity of individual citizens and citizens. If you have what to say for their protection, I look forward to it with pleasure.

    What worries only the quick-witted pleasure of these citizens, and partly not the citizens at all. For example, I would have been careful not to have contacts with the victorious monotheism who won the world over. I would send everyone away and stay in the bushes until the reasons were clarified. Occasionally shooting in passing villagers. WOOO! I would become a leader and fables would write about me !!!
  43. nikcris
    nikcris 9 October 2013 22: 56 New
    0
    Quote: nikcris
    Quote: nikcris
    Shake out the mat and everything will work out. (C)
    We are not fighting yet with the terrorists at sea. Well, and so on and so forth - I continue to go nuts on the ingenuity of individual citizens and citizens. If you have what to say for their protection, I look forward to it with pleasure.

    What worries only the quick-witted pleasure of these citizens, and partly not the citizens at all. For example, I would have been careful not to have contacts with the victorious monotheism who won the world over. I would send everyone away and stay in the bushes until the reasons were clarified. Occasionally shooting in passing villagers. WOOO! I would become a leader and fables would write about me !!! typo the nightingale sits on a bitch and makes you bored
  44. DAOSS
    DAOSS 9 October 2013 23: 02 New
    +1
    Blah, blah, blah about anything again!
    And if you expose a picture or graph with data, then try to make it readable !!!!!!!! Otherwise, what for this photo with aircraft carriers if you can’t read anything there !!!
  45. nikcris
    nikcris 9 October 2013 23: 04 New
    -1
    And so, even in a small account, I forgive all those offended. Even those who have not been harmed. And you forgive me.

    That I’m bending out of me at night rushing and I can’t do anything ...
  46. pr 627
    pr 627 10 October 2013 00: 36 New
    +1
    Another carrier nonsense, especially regarding the evacuation of Russian citizens from conflict zones. Any tension does not arise spontaneously, to track its work by diplomats and intelligence. Therefore, evacuation can be done on a donkey, enough time. More importantly, it is the protection of its economic zone in the seas and its territory. , but here, an aircraft carrier is a dummy that will not solve the task. It needs layered defense from strikes by sea-based long-range missiles; torpedo and multipurpose nuclear submarines in the far zone. The closest one is covered by submarines, MPCs, RTOs, parts of the ARB and air defense. Protecting your fishing in areas of ocean fishing or in the economic zones of Africa, Asia and Latin America is a task for the KDK, SKR, BOD, nuclear submarines, vessels Provisions. A variant of the conflict without the use of nuclear attack means, if with them all theories of the use of fantasy fleet forces, is considered.
  47. Manul
    Manul 10 October 2013 01: 12 New
    +1
    There was a bunch of dough on the Mistral. What was initially discussed was about four (!) Units. But when the people were once again close to the riot, the topic was immediately softened - we’ll buy a couple, and then we will produce it. Yes, who needs it this noodle? It was great to buy technology and modify it, because with such - no weapons, these pelvis are easy prey for any missile, if there are no mass escort ships. Any warship should have powerful air defense. It seems to us not even for our ships everyone has it properly implemented. A couple of aircraft carriers - oh how you need. And you can find money if you stop the flow of easy money to ministers and not milk people again. We think about the country. We live and discuss. The feudal lords only have a sweet life they don’t need anything. There are corroded Hari under any regime. But when their fatness is to the detriment of the country's defense ... Sorry, but if you shoot anyone, then the traitors of the Homeland. xia. We all remember.
  48. AZB15
    AZB15 10 October 2013 05: 48 New
    0
    It ... In the article and on the very issue of a heavy aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy, there are two MADNESSES:

    1. The very need for a heavy aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy, he (AB) him (Navy) neither in pussy nor in the Red Army;

    2. The attack of the US AB air groups, well, or "Chakri Narubeta" on the territory or ships of Russia.

    Given that this topic matching has already gotten
    one x ... nothing will be built over the years 20.
  49. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 10 October 2013 11: 14 New
    -1
    In delirium, they started with the aircraft carriers and finished the USSR. Yes, you were full of jock that you completely lost your memory. As soon as the mattress covers brought oil prices down, we went down the drain. How much grain, food, zavazali come to your senses. Kamunyaki fucked this country twice in 1917 and 1991. Another question is that it was possible to save the country by serious and most importantly smart efforts. But morons and traitors did not need this. And the aircraft carrier needs to be built, it is clear, but for a start I think at least the destroyers of corvettes and frigates need to be adjusted as much as necessary, "Bulova" not on paper but in life to teach to fly, "Severodvinsk" and "Borey" a dozen at least two.
  50. Manul
    Manul 10 October 2013 20: 36 New
    0
    The questions are - why do we need an aircraft carrier lasting indefinitely. Everything is unprofitable, not profitable and does not make sense. But when the Admiral Kuznetsov approached the coast of Syria, the mood turned out completely different for us and the States. It can be argued that we do not need ballistic missiles -Never the same, there can be no nuclear war. But when we have it, they reckon with us in a completely different way. And if there are 1-2 more aircraft carriers, this will also add political weight. Yes expensive. Yes it’s difficult. I’m not saying that tomorrow they must be laid. But to deny the need is absurd!
    1. pr 627
      pr 627 10 October 2013 21: 10 New
      0
      Is this when he approached the coast of Syria? For many years now, it has been tied at the wall of the 35th plant in Murmansk, and on board there are thousands and a half thick-necked loafers with a salary of up to 100000 rubles. Whom and from whom will this trough protect?