Military Review

Long arm in the sea. Do Russian fleets need aircraft carriers?

228
Long arm in the sea. Do Russian fleets need aircraft carriers?Alexander Mozgovogo’s conclusion in the article “Carrier pruritus” (“NVO” No. 8 from 08. 03.13) sounds categorically as a sentence, combining courage and sharpness of judgment with a fairly high degree of certainty in some moments: “We do not know how to build aircraft carriers”.


We really can't build aircraft carriers. And not only now, at a bad time for the Nevsky Design Bureau and the decline of national shipbuilding in general. Let this be some consolation, but we did not know how to do this before, during the heyday of the defense industry. However, can this circumstance, as well as the others, at first glance, no less significant, serve as a serious motivation not to revive a fleet worthy of Russia, dispensing with its obviously "lake version" or the option of a "mosquito fleet? However, it is already encouraging that the image of the fleet in the public mind is increasingly linked precisely with aviation and the continued construction of nuclear submarines.

The construction of aircraft carriers is not a straightforward and ordinary task to mindlessly resort to analogies with the process of building other classes of warships. After all, in addition to creating a carrier ship, its equipment and technical conditions for its effective combat use are created.

Thus, even initially, the task, in addition to its technological complexity, is characterized by a particular organizational complexity. This is due at least to the fact that the construction of aircraft carriers is in the sphere of influence of two completely different departments: the shipbuilding industry and the aircraft industry, where, in turn, is divided into tasks of a specific aircraft industry and equipping the carrier with original ship equipment.

If you go further, the tasks of the combat use of the aircraft carrier are directly related to the use of aircraft in the open sea, and at a level of significantly higher operational-tactical and flight quality than in the air force.

It is particularly necessary to highlight the problem of equipping an aircraft carrier with unique equipment, such as catapults, aviofinishers, aircraft lifters, landing equipment, which are technologically unique products exclusively produced by the United States. But the presence of a combat-ready aircraft carrier on the naval theater of military operations (theater of operations) is the foundation of the operational and tactical viability of the naval forces (naval forces) that own it.

MILITARY PLANS AND ECONOMIC REALITY

So is Russia to build a large fleet when it does not know how to build aircraft carriers? The intention to build a modern fleet must comply with the technological viability of the domestic defense industry. But there are already problems. They are superimposed by the lack of a clear idea of ​​the military itself, what kind of aircraft carrier they need, and behind this - understand what kind of fleet is needed. That is, objectively, there is no concept of building and using the fleet.

With all the tragedy of the situation in this remark is nothing offensive for the sailors there. After all, this is a problem from the field of strategy, while the fleet has not had an appropriate body in the management structure for 60 for years, and there is no access to strategy. But it is not possible to engage in a strategy on a voluntary basis, all the more so to hand over the question to the industry, as has sometimes happened. We have already raised this problem several times, however, it was inaccessible for understanding to those to whom it was intended.

When there was a question of building or radical renewal of the fleet, Russia did not stop at a single historical breakdown in the technological lag: neither under Peter I, nor with the start of mass steam shipbuilding and rearmament after the Crimean War, nor at the stage of equipping the fleet for the needs of the Far East before the Russian-Japanese war, neither with the start of dreadnoutilization, nor later, during the years of Soviet power. If there was a state will to build a fleet, it was built, and technology turned out to be secondary. Samples of new ships and technologies, mechanisms and weapons were being sought, and they were acquired abroad. We quickly mastered the new technique, technology, reproduction, and even improved them. From there, torpedoes, diesel engines, steam turbines, gyroscopic direction indicators, range finders, radars, sonars, landing ships, self-guided torpedoes, and much more, were once born, and the fleet could not be considered modern.

The head was turned over by the 60 – 90 period of the last century, when the successes of the military-industrial complex in the construction and armament of the fleet created the impression of national priority and self-sufficiency. Of course, success was enormous and hard to overestimate. The Navy became the second fleet in the world, making the leap from third-rate to the most powerful and modern fleets. However, it was mostly submarine fleet like the German one during the Second World War. The viciousness of long-term reliance on such an unbalanced fleet became apparent during the Soviet period. The problem required bold and extraordinary decisions, but after Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Sergei Gorshkov there was no one to take them, none of his successors had the same authority and influence in the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. They did not have the will and courage not only to solve the priority tasks of building the fleet, but also to keep it from rapidly collapsing.

By the beginning of 90's, the problem was not only chronic but also painful: in comparison with the likely adversary, despite the constant renewal of its personnel, the Navy was increasingly lagging behind in development.

The current position of a country intending to build a modern fleet contains only one advantage: almost with nothing (apart from one’s own delusions) you don’t have to be painfully parted, since there is practically nothing left from the former fleet. And one of such misconceptions is to build the future fleet, not thinking about aircraft carriers, as we are kindly, but Alexander Mozgovoy strongly recommends.

FRENCH THING

I will try to disprove the arguments of Alexander the Brain. I will begin with the categorical statement that no one but the Americans today can build aircraft carriers. There is no doubt that if the project of the French “Charles de Gaulle” was completely successful (the creators abused the economy), it would become a masterpiece of the Paris polytechnic school and world shipbuilding.

Indeed, with a displacement of one third of the American one, according to experts, it claimed 0,6–0,75 of the combat effectiveness of the latter. Moreover, the design and implementation take into account all current trends in the development of forces and means of armed struggle at sea. In particular, it is armed with full-fledged AWACS aircraft, has catapults, and a balanced air wing. A stands with aviation armament is five times cheaper than the last American. And then, the French in shipbuilding and aircraft building have such a serious engineering reputation that there is no doubt that they and optimal negative experience will be put into business and will create another technical masterpiece in the near future.

Technical continuity works for the French. Their old aircraft carriers, Foch and Clemenceau, built 60's (aircraft carriers generally build, relying on the 40 – 50-year life cycle) they exploited for more than three decades, modernized and sold to third countries in good condition and sold to third countries (as aircraft carriers) , and not for scrap metal, like us), receiving in return a new atomic one.

There is no doubt that the British, completing the 9-year-long design cycle for Queen Elizabeth, now known as the Euro-Avian carrier, took into account not only their rich experience in building these ships, but meticulously investigated all the errors revealed in the design of the atomic French aircraft carrier. It is not by chance that France connects its future in aviation with the borrowing of a successful and constructively non-over-stressed (as Charles de Gaulle has turned out) English project. Moreover, as is known, they had different approaches with the British to the choice of the main power plant (GEM), methods of raising and subsidence of carrier-based aircraft, and much more.

In the context of the expected technical decisions of the French side on the choice of a GEM for a new aircraft carrier, Alexander Mozgovogo’s statement about the obsolescence of steam power plants on aircraft carriers sounds, to put it mildly, very strange and looks premature. Especially considering what percentage of the steam output on aircraft carriers with the traditional method of lifting aircraft is designed to operate catapults. Instead of burying steam power plants, we should deal with the boilers on the former Gorshkov, now Vikramadity. The “disease” of the boilers is old and stretches for all the domestic combat NKs built by 60 – 80-s, including the one known on our only aircraft carrier, the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov.

What is impossible to disagree with, Alexander Mozgov, is that when starting to design an aircraft carrier, you need to understand what we want to have: a combat-ready aircraft carrier or, again, a "floating exhibition of the achievements of the military industrial complex".

The project of a new aircraft carrier can only be unique, which have not yet been in our practice. It should give rise to unprecedented relations and principles of work in our practice, become a testing ground for new relationships and approaches to work: economic, design, technological, and organizational.

Let us turn to the English experience, which Alexander Mozgovoy so defiantly said, stating that the British had lost the ability to build aircraft carriers. In particular, his attitude towards aircraft carriers of the so-called intermediate type (“Illustrires”), which he doesn’t count as aircraft carriers due to the small number and imbalance of the air group, is remarkable.

Adherents of such an opinion would be nice to recall the phenomenon of the mobilization deployment of the Royal Navy in the spring of 1982, when the basic idea is not tailored to fit the carrier ship, but rather, ships and everything else adapts to the ideas of aviation. And then the calculation is not from thousands of pounds per ton of carrier displacement, but from how each ton of displacement works for the combat effectiveness of the aircraft carrier. Suffice it to recall that it was these aircraft carriers that ensured the British victory in the battle for the Falklands.

The cost of a new euro-avian carrier, now queen in all its versions, is not comparable to American costs and amounts to 2 – 2,4 billion dollars. Its French version of RA-2 (Porte-Avions 2) costs 2 – 2,9 billion dollars

The format of a Euro-avian carrier is reasonable carrier sizes, reasonable sizes and composition of the wing, reasonable money. Borrowing the best European experience is the best reference point, and perhaps even an option for our designers.

NO MONEY EXTINGUISHED

We will not assess the economic situation so straightforwardly: there is no money - there is no large fleet either, money has started - we are starting to build a fleet. There is no extra money, so the situation must be viewed from the classical premises.

On this side, the classical prerequisites for the construction of a large fleet, an indispensable attribute of which are aircraft carriers, there seems to be no reason either. Neither the level nor the pace of economic development, or in terms of visible prospects. Dangerous hang on the hook food addiction. We do not know how to jump off the oil needle. The main employment item is state and law enforcement agencies. Small business, the agricultural sector to engage in business is unprofitable. The fleet, which in peacetime is right to defend free trade, is deprived of the semantic and ideological prerequisites for development.

Meanwhile, the aviation industry and the shipbuilding industry, within the framework of the objective needs of the shipbuilding program, would have been able to claim at least 1,7 – 2,3 million jobs. And in the sector of high-tech activities!

At the same time, with the “tears of tenderness” nostalgic for the Soviet period, we forget about the expressive negative lessons of that period. From 70 to 85% of the volume of domestic shipbuilding of that period accounted for military shipbuilding. And where is our tanker fleet? We did not know how and do not know how to build supertankers. We do not know how to build gas carriers. Therefore, we are not able to build aircraft carriers.

What is common is that supertankers, modern gas carriers, superbakers and other vessels, like aircraft carriers in the Navy, are the largest naval targets. It is their presence, their ability to build and exploit the most vividly reflect the national economic, technological level and, ultimately, the foreign political weight of the state.

It turns out that building a large navy with aircraft carriers in the absence of a significant merchant and fishing fleet is a clear bias towards militarization. Then the question involuntarily arises: maybe Alexander Mozgovoy is really right? But it is impossible not to build!
The specificity of building an aircraft carrier as a combat system deserves to dwell on it in more detail. Especially since so far misunderstanding and deliberately incorrect consistency of actions have prevailed in this matter.

In the ocean zone, aircraft carriers as a part of factions are usually regarded as the real basis for ensuring combat stability, the basis for conquering and retaining domination in operationally important areas.

Ensuring the combat operations of an aircraft carrier presupposes the presence of several long-range radar aircraft (DRLO) aircraft, electronic warfare (EW), and rescue and transport helicopters. Modern concepts of war at sea suggest the inclusion of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the air group. None of these machines we have yet.

At first glance it may seem that the situation is better with helicopters. However, in reality, we chronically do not have a heavy sea helicopter capable of “guarding” enemy submarines over the ocean or dragging heavy loads, nor a light helicopter ready to “ride” the decks of literally all new ships. A heavy naval helicopter is badly needed by amphibious forces, which we, without even realizing it, are starting to acquire with the entry into the Navy "Mistral".

The presence in the aircraft armament of aircraft with a take-off weight of more than 40 tons, a legitimate desire to provide deck attack aircraft and fighters with a tactical radius of at least 800 km with an unconditional desire to have all modern weapons in service with the aircraft clearly indicate the inevitability of the aircraft carrier version with a catapult.

The idea of ​​avifinisheran in the domestic fleet has been worked out and can be used after it has been modified for a specific project. It remains to understand the ship’s boiler room installation, aircraft lifts, the fleet ACS, believing that such a ship cannot but claim to be the flagship of a large separate and remotely operating operative connection. Catapult, our industry is not ready to offer an automated control system, as well as the problem with boilers for a promising ship has not been completely solved.

It remains to add that the optimum displacement of a promising domestic aircraft carrier should be 65 – 70 thousand tons, the speed of the 30 – 32 node; the length of the flight deck 275 – 285 m, width 64 m, draft 8,5 – 9 m. Aircraft 45 – 50 aircraft and helicopters.

It is not difficult to assume that the project should have at least status as a state program. The primacy of the conceptual strategic side of the project is obvious: without it, we again risk building a “steam train”.

The problem of building an aircraft carrier is not only in its extraordinary cost and technological complexity, and perhaps most importantly, in an absolutely non-standard organization of the process that requires integration, in scope and depth for today's Russia, unprecedented; so that its level is able to literally test the state for maturity.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
228 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sewer
    Sewer 26 October 2013 12: 22
    32
    We need it, but first on earth you need to put everything in order!
    1. asadov
      asadov 26 October 2013 12: 25
      18
      and not only on the ground (NE), but also on the air (Air Force). Since without a good hitch with the Air Force, aircraft carriers are not effective.
      1. Sewer
        Sewer 26 October 2013 12: 33
        14
        I mean, Russia is rich in land, and as long as you correctly noticed the Air Force the other troops, the same Navy that can properly protect the aircraft carrier, will not be normal, they will be easily vulnerable! And the aircraft carrier, in my opinion, is part of classification of the offensive plan! Yes, to show the strength that we’re what they are, and there is such a thing! But first we need to completely cover what is called land, our homeland!
        1. nazgul-ishe
          nazgul-ishe 26 October 2013 14: 49
          17
          You can even cover your homeland off the coast of a potential adversary. As the coast of Cuba at one time did not have enough good air support.
          1. zennon
            zennon 26 October 2013 18: 51
            +1
            off the coast of Cuba at one time there was not enough good air support.

            Well, that wasn’t enough! A clock separated us from the nuclear war ...
            1. Basarev
              Basarev 26 October 2013 20: 52
              +4
              But it would be very convenient to put an end to imperialism forever.
              1. Very old
                Very old 26 October 2013 22: 08
                +6
                Never. One dies, another empire arises. And there are always applicants for the supreme title HEGEMONA. To defend the Homeland one must always be in readiness.
            2. GSH-18
              GSH-18 27 October 2013 00: 00
              +1
              Quote: zennon
              At that time, the Cuban regions did not have enough good air support.

              Well, that wasn’t enough! A clock separated us from the nuclear war ...

              It's just bad. All this fuss with nuclear weapons began, among other things, because of the amerskiye "Polaris" missiles that were deployed in Turkey. And in contrast to them, Khrushchev took the missiles to Cuba. Ours were removed from Cuba in exchange for the withdrawal of "Polaris" from Turkey. And if there was at least one small Soviet aircraft carrier in the Black Sea at that time, Polaris would not even appear in Turkey! Accordingly, our nuclear weapons in Cuba too. yes
              1. Rus2012
                Rus2012 27 October 2013 00: 21
                +2
                Quote: GSH-18
                And if in the Black Sea there was at least one, a small Soviet aircraft carrier at that time, the polaris in Turkey would not even have appeared!

                And no one told you that rockets in Turkey and Italy (by the way Jupiter, and not Marine Polaris in any way) were under the gun of the Soviet P-12 and P-5?
                1. GSH-18
                  GSH-18 27 October 2013 23: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Rus2012
                  And no one told you that rockets in Turkey and Italy (by the way Jupiter, and not Marine Polaris in any way) were under the gun of the Soviet P-12 and P-5?

                  And didn’t anyone tell you that there were much fewer of these r-12 and r-5 than the Amer deployed in Turkey?
                  Perhaps I was mistaken with the name of the rocket (polaris). But the general meaning is the same.
                  1. Rus2012
                    Rus2012 28 October 2013 19: 18
                    0
                    Quote: GSH-18

                    And didn’t anyone tell you that there were much fewer of these r-12 and r-5 than the Amer deployed in Turkey?
                    Perhaps I was mistaken with the name of the rocket (polaris). But the general meaning is the same.


                    Ehhh dear colleague !?
                    Before writing this, it would be worth asking. For example, at least the history of the Strategic Missile Forces.
                    To those events ...

                    Deployed by the 1962 year of P-12 - 458, P-14, at least 24PU, total-522 !!!!
                    So, all the more or less significant targets in all of Europe, Turkey, Israel, Japan, even Alaska (from "Portal") ... and eats and eats within a radius of 2000-4500 from the deployment sites of missile regiments were reliably (three times) hit !! !!
                    The ICBMs were much smaller, but even that - up to 4 dozens of P-7 (4PU) and P-16 (near 36PU) would have routed the potential enemy. This does not include P-12 and P-14 from Cuba in total - 36. And to 100 front-line cruise missiles FKR-1 and atomic bombs with IL-28

                    No need to belittle the country below the baseboard!
              2. spravochnik
                spravochnik 27 October 2013 01: 05
                +4
                Polaris stood on American nuclear submarines, so they could not be in Turkey (this is like a submarine in the steppes of Ukraine).
        2. Su24
          Su24 26 October 2013 22: 49
          +3
          Quote: Sewer
          We need it, but first on earth you need to put everything in order!

          Quote: asadov
          and not only on the ground (NE), but also on the air (Air Force). Since without a good hitch with the Air Force, aircraft carriers are not effective.

          Quote: Sewer
          I mean, Russia is rich in land, and as long as you correctly noticed the Air Force the other troops, the same Navy that can properly protect the aircraft carrier, will not be normal, they will be easily vulnerable! And the aircraft carrier, in my opinion, is part of classification of the offensive plan! Yes, to show the strength that we’re what they are, and there is such a thing! But first we need to completely cover what is called land, our homeland!


          Absolutely incorrect and uncritical opinion. You, apparently, think that the Navy, army and aviation are some completely separate and independent structures. And that the success of the strategy on land has nothing to do with naval forces.
          You can even cover your homeland off the coast of a potential adversary. As the coast of Cuba at one time did not have enough good air support.


          But this is absolutely true.
        3. GSH-18
          GSH-18 26 October 2013 23: 53
          +4
          Quote: Sewer
          But first you need to completely cover what is called land, our homeland!

          While we will cover the couple there first (it is not known how long it will take and still will not be 100% effective), the Americans and the Chinese, who already have aircraft carrier strike groups, will drive us out of the oceans. I emphasize that aircraft carriers, and not aircraft carrying cruisers, should in the future become the nucleus of aircraft carrying ship groups of the Russian Federation. I think 2-3 aircraft carriers with shipping groups for the Russian Federation will be enough to adequately defend national interests anywhere in the world. soldier
          1. Sewer
            Sewer 27 October 2013 14: 30
            +3
            We don’t have money right now! How many have been crushed and still crushed, to the Football Championship, it would be better if they invested this money in the army!
      2. AVV
        AVV 26 October 2013 22: 35
        +9
        Russia itself is the largest aircraft carrier! Right now, first of all, they restore airfields throughout the country, create new ones for strategic and tactical aviation! When this process is completed, then it will be possible to think about such projects as an aircraft carrier, and now Yaseney and Boreev are chronically short , frigates, corvettes, destroyers and cruisers of the ocean zone, you must be consistent and move progressively from small to large !!!
        1. Su24
          Su24 26 October 2013 22: 52
          +3
          Quote: AVV
          Russia itself is the largest aircraft carrier! Right now, first of all, they restore airfields throughout the country, create new ones for strategic and tactical aviation! When this process is completed, then it will be possible to think about such projects as an aircraft carrier, and now Yaseney and Boreev are chronically short , frigates, corvettes, destroyers and cruisers of the ocean zone, you must be consistent and move progressively from small to large !!!


          Here's how to write this? After all, it is absolutely clear that you just need to think about aircraft carriers right now, so that you can quickly start building. And why do you propose to build destroyers and cruisers of the ocean zone without aircraft carriers? Is this such a new tricky tactic, or what?
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 27 October 2013 00: 24
          +2
          Quote: AVV
          Russia itself is the largest aircraft carrier!

          Only for some reason she is anchored all the time laughing No way to fit America does not work!
          1. zvereok
            zvereok 28 October 2013 11: 03
            0
            Quote: GSH-18
            Quote: AVV
            Russia itself is the largest aircraft carrier!

            But for some reason, for some reason, it’s always anchored laughing. It’s impossible to bring America to America!



            According to the assurances of scientists, we swim a little there, see a year.

            PS: All this is good, but when will they put Serdyukov?
    2. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 26 October 2013 13: 14
      28
      Quote: Sewer
      We need it, but first on earth you need to put everything in order!


      "Golden words Yuri Venediktovich!" (c) ... I hope I did not offend and did not offend with this remark, but order must and must be restored to the sea, because the fleet is the front line of our defense, and we still have horns and legs from it ... thanks to Marked Judas and to the Marasmic drunk, and even now there is still a lot of dust in the eyes, and not business.
      In general, aircraft carriers are needed, but they are needed only if there is infrastructure and the corresponding escort, and if we scrape through all the fleets we will collect only one full-fledged strike force led by the half-dead Kuzma. In general, for a full presence in the sea, Russia needs at least one grouping, headed by a normal aircraft carrier in the North and the Pacific Ocean + 1 grouping in reserve.
      1. Sewer
        Sewer 26 October 2013 13: 30
        12
        So no one is against it! But money has its own time! And aircraft carriers are very expensive, they must be maintained later, which costs a lot of money!
        1. Vladimir.z.
          Vladimir.z. 26 October 2013 14: 01
          +9
          Sewer You are right for any overseas things our answer should be simpler and cheaper hi
          1. Botanologist
            Botanologist 26 October 2013 15: 01
            38
            Quote: Vladimir.z.
            for any overseas things our answer should be simpler and cheaper


            It seems to me that our national disease is to seek "the answer to overseas tricks." This puts us in advance in a situation where we are planning based on the current state of the enemy fleets. Just imagine - tomorrow the US fleet is reduced, the country goes bankrupt, and “unexpectedly” appears before us a completely different fleet - China or Japan. Without AUG, but very serious and with traditional ships, with a large number of "mosquito" ships. And we will begin to realize that our concept has become insignificant in a month. And what, again run after the locomotive?
            Russia, I think, needs to build a fleet that will be able to meet the country's needs not yesterday or tomorrow, and by 2030-2050. And it will certainly not be the fleet that should scare the United States. Maybe it will be a fleet with platforms for UAVs, with ships - "mothers", launching dozens of torpedo and missile boats in the Yellow Sea, with "mosquito" outposts, the total salvo of the air defense missile system which will be many times greater than on any cruiser.
            In general, you should not copy today for tomorrow, you need a strategy and threat assessment, and on this basis - the construction of the required fleet. And we, as usual, have a socialist competition "who has a shorter muzzle."
            1. Xroft
              Xroft 26 October 2013 15: 52
              +8
              Absolutely agree! the fleet should be universal for the concept of our country (land power) for which the fleet is primarily a line of defense. Therefore, the Eagles will now restore and make a modern air defense system on them.
            2. Aleksey_K
              Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 19: 20
              +4
              Well, you fantasized about China! If you have to fight with him, then only with nuclear weapons, because Russia will not stand against the 400 million army. Nuclear weapons drown mosquito ships very well!
              1. 222222
                222222 26 October 2013 20: 13
                0
                "If you have to fight with him, then only with nuclear weapons," .. 10% of the human genome is classified .... And the stuff is there ???
              2. ATATA
                ATATA 26 October 2013 21: 57
                +5
                Quote: Алексей_К
                Well, you fantasized about China! If you have to fight with him, then only with nuclear weapons, because Russia will not stand against the 400 million army. Nuclear weapons drown mosquito ships very well!

                Comrade!
                Mosk turn on when you write.
                This army of 400 lyamas, not only machine guns with bullets is not enough, but most importantly food and machinery. As well as others and others.
                Please calm down again.
            3. Dart2027
              Dart2027 26 October 2013 21: 49
              0
              In fact, China is building its own aircraft carrier, and the recently launched destroyer helicopter carrier in Japan may well be re-qualified as a light aircraft carrier.
            4. Shuriken
              Shuriken 27 October 2013 03: 12
              +1
              You can "Bastion" stumble on this case on the coast of TO
          2. Very old
            Very old 26 October 2013 19: 37
            +2
            With any "for" and "against" (against is an economic component), we need to work today, ahead of the 30-50s. We will not live, but YOU need
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 27 October 2013 00: 11
          0
          Quote: Sewer
          So no one is against it! But money has its own time! And aircraft carriers are very expensive, they must be maintained later, which costs a lot of money!

          Ahh .. Well, if it's expensive, then it's better not to build them. And then suddenly there isn’t enough which of the stolen officials to grab! Anyway, these new-fangled aircraft-carrying groups are very expensive to maintain later .. belay We’ll better keep Amer’s when they moor to our berths! wassat
          State security is more expensive than money soldier
          1. Sewer
            Sewer 27 October 2013 14: 33
            +2
            I did not say that they do not need to be built, you must first create something that will protect them, because an aircraft carrier is a tin can. Well, there are a lot of them!
        3. Shuriken
          Shuriken 27 October 2013 03: 09
          +3
          Duck to shoot 15 people and take their assets, that's for you and the AUG of the Russian Navy !!
    3. varov14
      varov14 26 October 2013 19: 24
      +1
      If only in order to learn how to build large ships, it is better to build some gas carriers. The aircraft carrier in my opinion is not professional, and his entire guard is a very vulnerable thing. The main thing is to include the head in order to do this.
      1. Very old
        Very old 26 October 2013 22: 15
        +3
        So, rummage in your head somewhere there is a thought: AUG is control over a huge sea space
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 27 October 2013 00: 16
          +1
          Quote: Very old
          AUG is control over a huge sea space

          I absolutely agree with you! I support. drinks
    4. Van
      Van 26 October 2013 20: 08
      +7
      Dangerously hanging on the hook of food addiction. We don’t know how to get off the oil needle.


      They’ve already worked it out, this term just starts to enrage me "Oil (needle) or Gas" was invented in the West and infected our brain with this, if any of you thinks so, then it also affected you. After all, even there, at the head of their predatory activities, first of all, they place bets on the regions possessing the "Oil and Gas Needles", which are misused by local aborigines.

      The fact is that Oil and Gas are the same resource as iron, coal, gold, etc. Given to us by nature itself and calling it a needle or addiction is at least stupid and reckless, but you just need to use these resources wisely and for the benefit of the development of their state, and not a bunch of fattening oligarchs and their monopolies ... hi
    5. starshina78
      starshina78 26 October 2013 20: 11
      +5
      Did the USSR build aircraft carriers? They were never built and they never were in the ranks of the USSR Navy. There were aircraft carrier cruisers! And this is a big difference! An aircraft carrier is a platform from which they take off, and that's it, no weapons, but we have had and still have full-fledged warships with missile, artillery weapons, and air defense systems. And Russia needs an aircraft carrier! At least in order to guard the borders in the North due to the lack of bases on the coast. At one time, the Kolar Si aircraft carrier blocked the entire coast of North Vietnam, and our aircraft carrier will guard our northern coast, participate in actions, such as supporting Syria. I think so . Someone thinks differently.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 26 October 2013 21: 50
        +1
        They began to build one ("Ulyanovsk"), but did not have time.
        1. Fornit
          Fornit 28 October 2013 15: 56
          0
          Oh, come on ... (C) At the Hive, the anti-ship missiles were also "sealed." Incl. except for catapults and power plant - the same aircraft carrier bully
      2. ATATA
        ATATA 26 October 2013 22: 01
        +5
        Quote: starshina78
        At one time, the aircraft carrier Kolar Si blocked the entire coast of North Vietnam

        So what?
        Strongly helped?
        1. starshina78
          starshina78 27 October 2013 18: 56
          0
          You know, yes! This was at a time when US troops began a war with North Vietnam. While the USSR did not begin to help Hanoi, he was, to put it mildly, in one place located below his back. Only after open military assistance to Vietnam, the USSR, then the victories began, shot down aircraft appeared, and so on. You need to know the story better.
      3. Rus2012
        Rus2012 26 October 2013 22: 26
        +4
        Quote: starshina78
        At least in order to protect the borders in the North in view of the lack of bases on the coast.

        ;) and how will we fly in the polar night from icy decks and with a frozen (- 60 degrees) catapult?
        1. starshina78
          starshina78 27 October 2013 19: 00
          0
          And the development of technical thought, progress, are not accepted? When they start building aircraft carriers in our country, the pundits, based on the tasks that the aircraft carriers under construction will be targeting, will foresee everything. Maybe what they think up so that the catapults will not freeze (and why there are no catapults on Kuznetsov, for example), the deck will not be covered with ice, and instead of pilots, a robot will sit on the plane.
    6. Very old
      Very old 26 October 2013 22: 01
      +1
      IN THE HEADS! A complete confusion of opinion. As always, we forget: it is necessary and enough!
    7. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 27 October 2013 04: 01
      +1
      I watched an interview with a 1st class pilot on a TU-22M3. The reporter asked him, “How many boards of this class will be needed to destroy the AUG?” This was followed by the answer, “About 50.” But this machine is a semi-strategic its performance characteristics are close to B-1V. Officially, we have 356 of them. Well, in fact, there are no more than a hundred workers. If you count it primitively, this is 2 AUG, and almost all our medium-range aircraft are destroyed. This is mathematics, everything will be clear. to develop differently. Therefore, the unequivocal answer is that aircraft carriers are needed! .1. As a powerful combat unit. 2. As a means of blocking significant enemy forces. 3. In the 21st century, aviation is not present on the ocean, it is suicide.
      1. loisop
        loisop 27 October 2013 08: 50
        0
        Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
        Well, actually, there are no more than a hundred workers. If it is primitively considered, this is 2 AUGs, and almost all our medium-range aviation is destroyed. This is mathematics, clear pepper will all develop differently. Therefore, an unambiguous answer is that aircraft carriers are needed !.

        Powerful conclusion! It turns out the AUG is needed to destroy the enemy AUG! Something new!
        And I thought that AUG is necessary to suppress all kinds of coastal to a considerable depth.
        [went to rub bald ashtray contents]
        1. Reasonable, 2,3
          Reasonable, 2,3 27 October 2013 10: 17
          +1
          It is necessary to read carefully. I did not draw such a conclusion.
          1. loisop
            loisop 27 October 2013 12: 07
            0
            What about ?!
            Your thesis number 1:
            Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
            I watched an interview with a 1st class pilot on the TU-22M3. The reporter asked him, “How many aircraft of this class will be needed to destroy the AUG?” This was followed by the answer, “About 50 ″.

            Your next thesis number 2:
            Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
            But this semi-strategic vehicle, in terms of performance characteristics, is close to B-1B. Officially, we have 356 of them. In fact, there are no more than a hundred workers.

            From here derive Mathematically correct):
            Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
            .If primitively counting is 2 AUG, and almost all of our medium-range aviation is destroyed

            And right after that:
            Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
            . Therefore, a definite answer, aircraft carriers are needed !.


            Here kill me if I understand your logic.

            You say that the existing aircraft will be swept away by 2 AUGs, we won’t have enough for the rest of the aircraft. So you need not planes, but AUG? Unclear!

            By the way, my personal opinion is that in order to destroy any AUG, only 1 submarine is needed. For warranty, let it be 2 wink
            1. old rocket man
              old rocket man 27 October 2013 12: 24
              +2
              Quote: loisop
              By the way, my personal opinion is that in order to destroy any AUG, only 1 submarine is needed. To guarantee, let it be 2 wink

              Reply Quote Report Abuse


              It was smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines.
              One submarine in the sea is not a warrior, rather an ambush hunter with a single-barrel, and AUG is a pack of wolves, the rest is at the mercy of your imagination.
              1. loisop
                loisop 27 October 2013 14: 33
                -1
                Well, let a single-barreled hunter.
                Imagine that you are this same single-barreled hunter. In an ambush somewhere in the forest. Through this forest, like a drunken moose, I break. In the hands of the KPVT, behind two M6s, across the Tomahawk belly, all in bandolier bands, pockets full of grenades. Moreover, I know that somewhere in the forest you are. The truth is I do not know exactly where.
                What fate awaits me when I reach the distance of your shot? Who then will shoot out of all this (above) junk?
                1. maxcor1974
                  maxcor1974 27 October 2013 19: 27
                  0
                  Yes, you can see about satellite intelligence you have not heard my dear. Moscow Region monitors the slightest movement of the USAG; do you think they will not do the same? AUG is not a needle; you cannot conceal its movement. About the hunter, you are crazy nonsense. Think about what harm American AUG can do to our country if we have a full-fledged nuclear triad. The result will always be one: inflicting unacceptable damage on the states that is incompatible with life. The submarines need more, Boreev, and then, as now, the American AUG will continue to scare the Papuans.
                  1. loisop
                    loisop 28 October 2013 20: 00
                    0
                    Quote: maxcor1974
                    About the hunter, you are crazy nonsense.

                    About the hunter - not my nonsense, but
                    Quote: old rocket
                    A nuclear submarine is not a warrior, rather an ambush hunter with a single barrel

                    , I just unfolded the proposed allegory.
                    By the way, I disagree with his thesis, and if you didn’t cling to the remarks taken out of context, in the middle of a conversation, and bothered to take a little interest in the dialogue itself, you would see that my position is almost identical to yours — we don’t need AUG, we need a nuclear submarine, and more.
            2. Reasonable, 2,3
              Reasonable, 2,3 27 October 2013 18: 55
              0
              I read your comments. How do you like to teach people, to explain to people how narrow and uneducated they are. You know who teaches others, that ....... Further you know. I spoke only about TU22M3.Aircraft carriers are needed also because what they require from the enemy to divert large means of attack, my thesis is No. 2. Yes, they forgot about the 3rd. Some sort of logic. And if you do not understand my logic, then I understand yours perfectly. Do you work as a teacher at school?
              1. maxcor1974
                maxcor1974 27 October 2013 19: 54
                +1
                Dear, Russia's withdrawal from the agreement on limiting short- and medium-range missiles would be ten times more effective than the 5-10 AUG. Just the launch of poplar 3 a day ago on 3 thousand km. made so much noise that the Yankees still can’t recover. And the achievements on these missiles are still superior to NATO for a decade. And cheaper AUG is an order of magnitude. You have to go your own way, and not copy someone else's ...
                1. Reasonable, 2,3
                  Reasonable, 2,3 27 October 2013 20: 14
                  -2
                  And here "your way" and "copying". In a nuclear-free, with the use of high-precision weapons, victory will be for aviation. Population does not fit here. Let's punish Qatar. The aircraft group will be just right here.
                  1. maxcor1974
                    maxcor1974 27 October 2013 20: 38
                    +3
                    Excuse me, are you okay? How do you see a nuclear-free war of adversaries with the Russian Federation? Qatar planes bomb Stavropol, Rostov-on-Don, Moscow, and our valiant AUG strikes back? Or are you jealous of the States for their role as world policeman? Do you need to punish Qatar? What is so shallow? Immediately, Turkey + UAE + KSA! Yes, and Israel to the bottom !!! Give 10 AUG !?
                    You old man with such plans in the ward to the Macedonian, Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin is time ...
                    1. Reasonable, 2,3
                      Reasonable, 2,3 27 October 2013 21: 04
                      -3
                      Well then, to Peter 3.
                2. loisop
                  loisop 28 October 2013 20: 22
                  0
                  A primitive race is not an option, but a loss. We need the notorious asymmetric solutions, like a truck with nails.
    8. timer
      timer 28 October 2013 01: 18
      0
      Firstly, any military construction is carried out according to a specific plan called the state strategy, designed for, say, 50 years in advance.
      Secondly, here you are all talking about the fact that aircraft carriers are what is needed. And who told you that in the future, they will be an optimally effective tool for protecting Russia's global interests?
      Thirdly, we all the time weave for the United States in the role of catching up - they have it, they have it, and we rush to copy, spending giant funds without thinking about the fact that they also make mistakes, while we ruin ourselves.
      Fourth, if Russia has specific interests in the vast oceans of the world, according to the military-political strategy, we need to make such an engineering move that it is unique (unique), efficient and low-cost (in addition to the fleet, there are also ground forces, etc. e). To copy from us, and not us from someone. As an example, a project of ekranoplanes (yes, you never know how many projects can be found for evaluation). And lastly, I have a question for specialists - what is the difference between aircraft-carrying cruisers and aircraft carriers? We have worked out this topic quite well.
    9. air wolf
      air wolf 28 October 2013 07: 10
      -1
      And I say that they are not needed, in the form like that of the Americans, but like Kuznetsov, yes, only with a nuclear installation, And the Yak-141 aircraft, Ka-31 and Ka-27PL, Ka-29 AWACS. And no catapults, no finishers and all that. VTOL future! They are more efficient and safer. And all this will be cheaper!
  2. Russ69
    Russ69 26 October 2013 12: 32
    11
    Carriers are a necessary business, both for political and strategic goals. But today, we can’t master it. In addition to the construction of the ship itself, you need to develop and a bunch of different things necessary for the full operation of the ship. Yes, and coastal infrastructure must be created from scratch. Money, everything will have to be threatened ....
    First you need to solve the priority tasks, and then think about the aircraft carrier.
    It seems that at today's prices, the construction of an aircraft carrier and all that is needed for it was estimated at 400 billion rubles. Given the appetite of our officials, the price is likely to increase decently.
    1. Sewer
      Sewer 26 October 2013 12: 35
      +1
      Here we are about the same!
    2. nazgul-ishe
      nazgul-ishe 26 October 2013 15: 03
      +2
      Everything counts and appetite can be severely tempered, it's a pity there is no one yet. Experience is a gain, we borrowed a lot, if not everything, or "tyrili" altered it for ourselves and it turned out not bad.
    3. tank74
      tank74 26 October 2013 19: 45
      +1
      And who said that an aircraft carrier is not a primary goal. E is decided by India, China, Brazil, Japan, etc. And we all think and argue
      1. varov14
        varov14 26 October 2013 20: 37
        0
        The aircraft carrier "Troy" can be at war for 10 years, or it can be sent to Poseidon at once, there would be a desire. Head-to-head war surprises me, especially at sea, so many fantasies.
    4. gingerbread man 59
      gingerbread man 59 26 October 2013 20: 40
      +2
      I agree, there’s a good option, but for this you need a strong, brutal authority to gather all the billionaires and take their place at a time and each carrier from 2-3 billions each, and tax breaks will be granted on their own, and after 5-10 years you will have 30 aircraft carriers
      1. ATATA
        ATATA 26 October 2013 22: 05
        +2
        Quote: Gingerbread Man 59
        and all in 5-10 years we will have 30 aircraft carriers

        Do you have a car?
        How much does it cost to maintain?
        And if you have 30 cars, do not go broke?
        Are you in school in Iceland?
        And your dad is not the billionaire you need to take for your ass for the construction of an aircraft carrier?
      2. Walker1975
        Walker1975 27 October 2013 00: 14
        +1
        And who will take them? At the expense of whom did they earn these yards?
    5. ruton
      ruton 26 October 2013 21: 07
      +4
      We are not up to aircraft carriers. we have an olympiad on the nose. it’s more important and money is easier to write off. Before this sports day in Kazan, then there will be the World Cup in 2018. We are not up to the fleet, we have more important things to do.
      1. Botanologist
        Botanologist 27 October 2013 00: 43
        +1
        Quote: ruton
        We are not up to aircraft carriers. we have an olympiad on the nose.


        It seems that in your head only one thought fits. What does the Olympics have to do with it? We have all shipyards occupied by ships until 2020. Do you want to send another trillion to USC that they won’t be able to master?
        Another "all-propolipolymer". Let's go on the topic, dear.
    6. maxcor1974
      maxcor1974 27 October 2013 21: 00
      +3
      FOR RUSS69
      Officially 400bn. But the real amount, taking into account the costs of Aviators for the development of a deck aircraft, will increase to 1 trillion. For this money, it is possible to resume production of short- and medium-range missiles for promising Soviet projects with their modernization in response to the deployment of the American missile defense system in Europe. And the resumption of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium production. And I dare to assure you that no AUG can become a counterweight against such an argument.
      If someone doesn’t know: during the Cold War the world was saved not by the presence or absence of aircraft carriers (this is a tactical weapon), but by the presence of a nuclear triad. The General Staff of the USSR did not bother to build a mass of strategic bombers — they would not reach the United States, but stimulated the development of promising missile technology with multiple warheads that could bypass the enemy’s air defense. Currently, these developments still cool the ardor of American hawks. But they are running out. After the sale of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium in the United States in the 1995 in the United States, their reserves at our place are estimated at 500kg.
      And people like you, seeking to catch up with and overtake America in the construction of aircraft carriers, play into McCain’s hands and companies, diverting the state’s not so big financial resources to dubious adventures. Instead of more effective and cheaper use in rocket science.
  3. Sewer
    Sewer 26 October 2013 12: 38
    +1
    Why put the minus article then?
    1. nazgul-ishe
      nazgul-ishe 26 October 2013 15: 08
      0
      Minus those who think "with a cloth snout in a Kalashny row".
  4. patriot2
    patriot2 26 October 2013 12: 42
    +7
    Unfortunately, the problem is one - there is no clear strategic line for the development of not only the Navy, but also on other issues ...
    There is a process of maneuvering and solving short-term tasks that cannot be solved ...
    The article hooked on one of the main problems of our state machine.
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 26 October 2013 12: 56
      +6
      Quote: patriot2
      Unfortunately, the problem is one - there is no clear strategic line for the development of not only the Navy, but also on other issues ...

      I don’t know how on other issues, but the Navy’s development strategy has been formed: topwar.ru/32766-viktor-chirkov-razvitie-vmf-nevozmozhno-bez-vzglyada-v-dalnyuyu-
      perspektivu.html
      Another thing is that there are problems with the staff, and with the production base, with the appetites of some leaders. These problems need to be addressed more actively.
  5. Glory333
    Glory333 26 October 2013 12: 45
    12
    Seven times measure cut once.
    To understand whether the fleet needs aircraft carriers, one must first determine the tasks of the fleet, if coastal protection is not needed, aircraft carriers are not needed, if large military operations are in remote areas of the globe, then aircraft carriers must be built.
    Only expensive is a pleasure, American aircraft carriers are now worth about 6 billion. dollars a piece, let's say Russia will be able to build for 3 billion. it’s still very expensive, you can sink such a miracle with the known luck of 1 rocket.
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man 26 October 2013 15: 32
      +9
      Quote: Glory333
      you can sink such a miracle with the well-known luck of 1 rocket.

      You can sink everything, and now nothing to build but boats?
      The radius of action of our fighter bombers allows enemy ships to operate on our shores, being out of their reach, aircraft carriers are needed, especially in the Pacific Ocean and the Northern Fleet, just for the effective defense of our shores, our sailors-heroes, this was shown by the Second World War, BUT HOW MUCH I CAN FIGHT THEIR BLOOD ?, it is necessary to deprive the enemy of his overwhelming advantage at sea.
      1. common man
        common man 26 October 2013 16: 50
        +1
        Quote: Old Rocketman
        The range of our bomber fighter allows enemy ships to operate on our shores, being out of their reach

        I didn’t understand how this could be. Please explain.
        1. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 19: 27
          +2
          Yes, everything is simple, a tactical aircraft still needs to return to base. So range = 1000 km. And the most obsolete Tomahawk missile overcomes 2500 km. The plane does not reach the aircraft carrier!
          1. common man
            common man 26 October 2013 19: 44
            +1
            I do not understand what has to do with the tomahawk, if the conversation is about aircraft carriers and aircraft operating from them. And than. Has anyone already canceled the air-to-ship missiles that increase the aircraft's range? And why tactical and not TU-22M? And further. A-50 loitering over its territory sees "friendly" AUGs for 400 km. And it may well direct both aviation and anti-ship missiles.
            1. old rocket man
              old rocket man 26 October 2013 21: 53
              0
              Quote: man in the street
              I do not understand what has to do with the tomahawk, if the conversation is about aircraft carriers and aircraft operating from them. And than. Has anyone already canceled the air-to-ship missiles that increase the aircraft's range? And why tactical and not TU-22M? And further. A-50 loitering over its territory sees "friendly" AUGs for 400 km. And it may well direct both aviation and anti-ship missiles.

              Do not cling to centimeters, dear Andrei, the naval aviation airports are not at all near the water edge, times. For an aircraft carrier and escort ships to hit the coastal infrastructure to a depth of 1500 km from the shore, it’s enough to go a distance of 1000 km, two. About TU-22M, try remember how many of them we have, and at the same time figure out how many of them will return, so I say that it’s enough to fight with the blood of personnel, we need to build up equipment.
              1. common man
                common man 26 October 2013 23: 06
                +4
                Do carrier-based aviation have a range of 2500 km? Is there less land? It might be better to build a hundred or two TU-22s (more precisely similar ones) than one aircraft carrier. Understand that we will not be able to equal the number of aircraft carriers with the Americans (at least not in this life). And one, two aircraft carriers in the event of war will be the number one contenders for drowning. And to prevent this from happening, they will be standing at the bases, like the Germans did Tirpitz, under the protection of the coastal anti-aircraft defense. And prove that it is not.
                1. Walker1975
                  Walker1975 27 October 2013 00: 21
                  +1
                  +1 At that, how much it will cost and without a normal cover group no one will risk them
      2. tank74
        tank74 26 October 2013 19: 47
        0
        Golden words hi
      3. maxcor1974
        maxcor1974 26 October 2013 21: 55
        +5
        The range of our bomber fighters allows enemy ships to operate on our shores, being out of their reach, aircraft carriers are needed, especially in the Pacific Ocean and the Northern Fleet, just for the effective defense of our shores, our hero sailors, this was shown by the Second World War

        Do we have any rockets left? Bullshit write my friend. And about the Second World War too: if we were ready for June 22, the aircraft carrier would most likely go to the bottom of the sea on the first day of the war. Let me remind you that the presence of aircraft carriers in England did not affect the battle for England.
        Where are you planning to fight? In America, Australia, India? So far, there are no such plans. The AUG approaching Russia should be destroyed by missile weapons, including aircraft carriers. There will be nowhere to return to the planes taking off from them. What danger do you see directly from the territory of Russia for the AUG, given the range of the planes that took off from them, even when the carrier is closest to our shores? Or do we not have an air defense system?
        The conclusion from all this is that first it is necessary to ensure the security of the direct territory of our country of air defense and missile defense, plus modernize and improve the strategic nuclear forces (which are at the end of their operational capabilities), and not spend already not unlimited funds on the construction of an initially vulnerable and extremely unwieldy monster. In the sense of deterrence, it has zero value: it is unlikely to be suitable for intimidating the States, and it is too expensive a pleasure to ostracize the “Papuans”. I would like to note that the money proposed for this project could provide full coverage of the entire country with modern air defense systems, and it will remain in the strategic nuclear forces. And in general, the need for our country to withdraw from the treaty on the limitation of short- and medium-range missiles has long been ripe (the United States has withdrawn from the ABM). In this situation, in the presence of such missiles, the entire American aircraft carrier fleet will be under such pressure that it will force it to stay away from our shores and reduce its value to zero (as well as any other fleet and the army of any potential enemy).
      4. Glory333
        Glory333 26 October 2013 23: 10
        +4
        For some reason, it seems to me that ground-based aviation can have a much larger range than AUG aviation - all the same, large heavy planes will not take off from aircraft carriers, and if they take off, they will not land back :)
        Well let’s say the AUG will come to our Far Eastern shores — they will sink it and that’s all, and without any aircraft carriers. There, the Argentines in 1982, the English fleet almost melted away by blanks.
        Yes, it is better not to build large expensive surface ships for the defense of the country in the conditions of the appearance of such effective anti-ship missiles. Destroyers there missile frigates are still possible but aircraft carriers, cruiser heavy in no way.
      5. Rus2012
        Rus2012 27 October 2013 00: 47
        +2
        Quote: Old Rocketman
        The range of our bomber fighters allows enemy ships to operate along our coasts, being out of their reach,

        This is not a fact at all, even in the current conditions!
        AUG, in order to act along the coast to a depth of 500km, you need to stand no further than 500km. The combat radius of its carrier-based aircraft is not more than 1000km in favorable weather (!!!)
        At the same time, he is already a corpse (Tu-22 will be covered before AUG has time to approach this distance). This is so, cabinet discussions ...
        In practice, this will never happen.
    2. Nick
      Nick 26 October 2013 16: 00
      +2
      Quote: Glory333
      To understand whether the fleet needs aircraft carriers, one must first determine the tasks of the fleet, if coastal protection is not needed, aircraft carriers are not needed, if large military operations are in remote areas of the globe, then aircraft carriers must be built.

      Well, we already have one task for the AUG, the protection of the patrol areas of our SSBNs. IMHO, the presence of our AUGs in these areas would significantly increase the combat stability of our sea-based strategic nuclear forces located on combat duty there.
    3. patsantre
      patsantre 26 October 2013 17: 19
      -1
      1 rocket does not sink.
    4. Walker1975
      Walker1975 27 October 2013 00: 19
      +1
      Firstly, an aircraft carrier will not cost 3 billion. You don’t even have to dream. Even if you remove the huge amounts of kickbacks, without which nothing is done in the CIS, there are still many problems: the lack of infrastructure for the aircraft carrier (a shipyard for construction, repair docks, berths for basing), the absence of a support group, without which the aircraft carrier would be a tidbit purpose, the absence of an air wing for carrier-based.
  6. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 26 October 2013 12: 48
    13
    The aircraft carriers are still far away; we have problems with the construction of corvettes and frigates
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 19: 29
      +2
      This does not mean that you do not even need to plan. Just for the future and we must start now.
    2. tank74
      tank74 26 October 2013 19: 48
      +2
      And you have to try
  7. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 26 October 2013 12: 52
    14
    It seems to me that a ballistic missile solves issues much faster away from our shores. In addition, a lot of them can be built for the price of an aircraft carrier.
    1. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 26 October 2013 13: 02
      13
      I don’t understand the desire of some people to throw trillions of rubles into the AUG, just to demonstrate the flag of Russia. We have nowhere to put money? With that kind of money, you can create a full-fledged strike force, rather than a representative one. There are currently no strategic objectives for AUG. Not only is the AUG built, but it needs to be maintained, and this is also millions, hundreds of millions of rubles. In the defensive doctrine, the use of AUG does not exist at all.
      1. ivshubarin
        ivshubarin 26 October 2013 13: 09
        11
        The Desert Storm experience has shown that the contribution of AUG is very small. And we have more submarines to deal with them
        1. Glory333
          Glory333 26 October 2013 13: 26
          +7
          Yes small because the Americans had allies in the region and could deploy aircraft at their bases.
          In the Falkland War, almost all the British sorties on the account of aircraft carriers, but the Argentines could well do without aircraft carriers acting from their air bases.
          1. maxcor1974
            maxcor1974 26 October 2013 22: 44
            +1
            Who do you want to capture away from your bases?
        2. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 19: 40
          +1
          And you watch again the video about the beginning of the Desert Storm. That AUG and started. Only huge ships can send thousands and thousands of missiles with impunity over vast distances.
          1. Genry
            Genry 26 October 2013 23: 57
            +4
            Quote: Алексей_К
            And you watch again the video about the beginning of the Desert Storm. That AUG and started. Only huge ships can send thousands and thousands of missiles with impunity over vast distances.


            In fact, the Americans had only about 700 tomahawks aimed at Iraq.
            In the first 14 hours of the war, about 114 tomahawks were released (air defense shot down 29).
            They were launched from ships and submarines from different places (and not just AUG).
            The aircraft carriers, in these launches, did not play a role (and they played a scanty role in air strikes).

            And off the coast of Syria, as soon as Russian air defense ships were deployed, the aircraft carriers of the "friends" were blocked.

            The use of aircraft carriers is very inefficient regarding their cost. They are also useless against ships with modern air defense.
            With the development of missile weapons, unmanned reconnaissance and guidance systems, for a massive attack on the enemy, it is possible to completely abandon the AOG guzzling resources in wartime and peacetime. It is more economical to have a stock of missile systems (ballistic and winged, on ships and submarines) for delivering attacking heads, reconnaissance and communication devices (albeit disposable, of limited duration).
            AUG is a small city, by population, requiring constant supply and maintenance. And rockets do not create problems, since they do not require food, circuses, licking.
            The issue with the pilots for the AUG is generally very complicated and expensive. Due to the hard landing on the deck, professional diseases quickly arise (100% - if you don’t leave on time, like the tank crews), early retirement with medical care in the hospital (again expenses and a lot of people). And pilot training is not only a long and expensive training period, but also tough selection (almost like in sports: everyone runs, but, in official competitions, there are only a few).

            Carriers, not only an expensive piece of iron for which there is no extra money, but also a large expenditure for qualified personnel connected directly and indirectly (a multi-tiered pyramid of performers, right up to the taxpayers).
      2. tank74
        tank74 26 October 2013 19: 52
        +3
        Does the aircraft carrier perform shock functions? In the shock group is just his place. And they wouldn’t beat the ambassador in Qatar, and Kenya wouldn’t arrest the sailors, and Syria would buy our weapons and railway. transport, be at their shores a modest aircraft carrier carrying peace.
        1. maxcor1974
          maxcor1974 26 October 2013 22: 47
          +2
          What does Kuznetsov not suit you? Why not start using it first. And then there is an aircraft-carrying cruiser, but there is no combat use of it. Do you have extra money for another?
    2. I do not care
      I do not care 26 October 2013 20: 08
      +2
      I agree on 100%. It’s easier and cheaper to come up with a means to destroy AUGs than to build floating monsters that require a constant escort for their own sake. Construction price + R&D + escort + maintenance costs with the possibility of drowning with 50 aircraft on board. And I, although not a big specialist In the history of combat use of aircraft carriers, the Yaps at Pearl Harbor had the greatest success. There are practically no epic or less effective cases of using augs. If I am mistaken, please correct.
    3. maxcor1974
      maxcor1974 26 October 2013 22: 32
      +2
      I fully support you. Yes, and Americans are inclined to the same. Most of their aircraft carriers are fun, and the service is too expensive. It’s difficult to scare even Papuans. Short- and medium-range missiles would be more necessary for us now. It was not without reason that the Americans were worried when the day before yesterday the poplar leaves only a thousand flew away on 3! This hype was raised. One of its launch on AUG can change the balance of forces on any theater.
  8. Edward72
    Edward72 26 October 2013 13: 11
    +6
    In some ways, yes, aircraft carriers are needed, but it seems that they are not. Considering that aviation can now hang in the air for days. I completely agree with Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov, who at one time said that the fleet needed to be built balanced.
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 26 October 2013 13: 45
      +6
      What does balanced mean? This does not mean that every tenth ship should be a frigate, every fifteenth aircraft carrier. For each country, this balance is different, based on the geopolitical and economic location. In our case, we need a submarine fleet, especially since it has always been our strong point, so let's restore it first, make sure that the missiles all the same get to the right place, so that the same submarines meet the characteristics that they must meet, we will establish its constant presence in the oceans with normal service (right now I’m not talking about one boat a year, but about the normal presence, as it was in the Union), and only then, you can think about a couple of aircraft carriers.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 19: 41
      0
      Where did you see fighters hanging in the air for days? Even America does not have this and we do not!
  9. ZU-23
    ZU-23 26 October 2013 13: 39
    +5
    Carriers are needed for anyone, why do we need to repel someone’s attack, if we can cut down on the root attempts to attack any country with the help of aircraft carriers, plus maintain calm in many not calm regions.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 26 October 2013 13: 55
      +2
      Quote: ZU-23
      in the bud hack attempts to attack any country with the help of aircraft carriers,

      I wonder what countries, dear colleague?
      USA?...
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 19: 50
        +1
        Your memory is short. In 1961, missiles were deployed in Cuba. Forgot how the Americans managed it! Because Russia without planes could gouge America in 5-10 minutes of approach. AUG is the same Cuba, only floating. America must be backed up! By the way, the prophecy of Wanga mentioned that NATO would attack Russia in the Arctic Ocean, but would be forced to retreat because of the threat of total destruction and could not destroy Russia.
        1. loisop
          loisop 26 October 2013 21: 41
          +3
          Quote: Алексей_К
          In 1961, missiles were deployed in Cuba.

          What rocket did the USSR have at 61m? (I mean range)
          Now, according to the wiki (to look in more detail and more respected - laziness), ALL carriers of our strategic nuclear weapons have a range of at least 10 thousand km. For comparison, we take the extreme points of Seattle (west coast of the USA) and New York (east):
          Moscow time - Seattle: 8,5 thousand km
          Moscow-New York: 7,5 thousand km.
          Chukotka - Seattle: 3,5 thousand km
          Chukotka - New York: 6,5 thousand km
          Yes, the approach time is an important but not always crucial parameter.

          Quote: Алексей_К
          Vanga’s prophecy mentioned that NATO would attack Russia in the Arctic Ocean, but would be forced to retreat because of the threat of total annihilation and could not destroy Russia.

          Eeee ... Remind me that I forgot something, Wang is the name of the chief of the general staff of which state? What rank? What is the leading combat experience?
  10. Leader
    Leader 26 October 2013 13: 43
    +4
    Annoying pretentiousness: "A fleet worthy of Russia ..."
    And now, then, unworthy - without such a trough?
    The Germans in WWII on the Black Sea got by with planes, boats and barges - and drove the Black Sea Fleet.
    The head must be fought, not a number! Lovers of gigantomania ...
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 19: 52
      +3
      So when the mess begins, I will personally write to the Minister of Defense that you will protect us with your head.
    2. tank74
      tank74 26 October 2013 19: 57
      +3
      to pierce the head with aircraft carriers? In the Black Sea, the German aviation was working. Well, of course the barges dispersed our fleet angry
  11. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 26 October 2013 13: 43
    16
    By the nature of his military activity, he often had to communicate with officers of the Navy. It was in the distant 80-th years of the last century. So, in conversations and discussion of episodes of sea voyages, which were always accompanied by contacts with the US Navy, the sailors sighed sadly: how we lack aviation support in the oceans! Therefore, for sailors there is no other alternative: Russia needs aircraft carriers ..
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 26 October 2013 13: 58
      +1
      Quote: Ivanovich47
      how we lack aviation support in the oceans!

      I understand them perfectly ...
      At the very friend capereng, commander of the submarine ...
      But, even then, we could not provide the AUGs with a fleet ...
      We’ll be stronger, turn around ... maybe ... then, YES! By all means!
      1. Army1
        Army1 26 October 2013 15: 05
        +3
        Quote: Rus2012
        But, even then, we could not provide the AUGs with a fleet

        Could, only built at first TAVK, later there were projects of full-fledged aircraft carriers "Ulyanovsk" project 1143.7. but alas, DECAY, I think we would have no less now. Yes, and Russia needs aircraft carriers! And by what criteria is the USSR Fleet put on the 2nd place, because of the aircraft carriers? He could pile on the Yankees so that mom does not cry. It's just that the economic and geographical position of the United States (2 oceans) is more convenient for the fleet.
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 26 October 2013 15: 34
          +6
          Quote: Army1
          Just the economic and geographical position of the USA (2 ocean) is more convenient for the fleet.

          Plus, according to the science of Geopolitics, Yankees are Atlanticists, that is, a sea power initially, we are continental, land. And everything that is significant on the globe - it happened on the Eurasian continent. And the amers always had to "sail" ... We just had to cover our lands, defend ourselves from the sea invasion. Break off their "long arms". We are self-sufficient here on our earth. They are not at home.
          They needed to go to the seas ...
          So right now our task has not changed much - first of all, the defense of our lands. Restoring order on your continent. What we did periodically when the half-mad neighbors invaded the war. And we occupied their capitals and strictly reminded - who is who (Berlin, Paris and etc :)))
          And already in the second - to go out to sea to foreign shores. Although we can regularly "upset" their lives from our shores — the Strategic Missile Forces and Nuclear Forces — that's the guarantee.
          1. Aleksey_K
            Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 20: 25
            +4
            As a result of such savings, Russia refused to protect Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. Without an oceanic nuclear fleet, we can easily be locked up in the Gulf of Finland, on the Black Sea and the Kuril Islands. And Arkhangelsk and Severo-Dvinsk are freezing ports. And we will remain without a fleet at all. You argue as a traitor, as Stalin - they say we have a non-aggression pact with the Germans. And they locked our Black Sea and Baltic fleets. And only the Northern Fleet, due to the fact that it was dispersed over the vast expanses of the ocean, remained combat-ready and rebuffed the Nazis. As a result, the Germans occupied only a few tens of kilometers on the Kola Peninsula. They were not allowed close to Murmansk, not like near Moscow. The fleet must constantly be on operational open spaces and move, so that they could not instantly destroy!
            1. common man
              common man 26 October 2013 21: 29
              +1
              Quote: Алексей_К
              And they locked our Black Sea and Baltic fleets. And only the Northern Fleet, due to the fact that it was dispersed over the vast expanses of the ocean, remained combat-ready and rebuffed the Nazis

              I agree about the Baltic, but it was locked up as a result of ground forces, occupying the entire Baltic. reached Peter. About the Black Sea - in more detail. And on what open spaces was the Northern Fleet dispersed? There, the largest ship was the destroyer, if not forgotten. And the fact that they didn’t let Murmansk go was the whole merit of the fleet in helping the Marine Corps, and for this we are forever grateful to them.
        2. 77bob1973
          77bob1973 26 October 2013 18: 28
          0
          It’s just that in 30 years the USSR built about 300 submarines, of which 150 are nuclear, and the USA only 45. Here you have the balance of the fleet.
          1. loisop
            loisop 26 October 2013 18: 36
            +2
            Well, actually any fleet is divided into 2 parts:
            1. Submarines.
            2. Targets.
            © NATO captain PL
          2. Denis_469
            Denis_469 26 October 2013 22: 32
            +1
            It seemed to me all my life that only 62 moose were built in the USA. And it turns out that it turns out - only 45 boats were built in the United States. Hmm ... a bad case.
      2. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 20: 11
        +1
        In the Mediterranean Sea in the Syrian region there was an incindet with the Americans. The submarine was underwater and the Americans were hunting for it. There was a forced ascent. And the frigate at this time went in full swing across the hull of the boat. Only an urgent dive saved the boat. The commander gave the order to torpedo the frigate. Like a cow tongue licked. They did not even have time to send a radiogram. So they remained missing for America.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 20: 04
      -1
      Really needed! Once in a hospital, a captain of the first rank told me about an incident with the Americans. Amerikosy got on their planes from one aircraft carrier to bomb our units on the territory of Syria. The commander of the air regiment, without agreement with the Ministry of Defense, raised the regiment by links and, flying over water, bombarded the deck of the aircraft carrier with missiles. All aircraft on deck and superstructures were demolished. But the aircraft carrier did not drown. There was a terrible scandal between America and the USSR. But the Americans also stopped bombing Russians and Syria. The regiment was summoned to Moscow, they thought they would shoot it, and they were awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union because the Americans had managed and stopped! And where to get planes in other regions? There are no bases!
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 26 October 2013 20: 14
        +4
        Did you understand what you wrote?
      2. alex86
        alex86 26 October 2013 20: 48
        +5
        Alexey K - Something with your imagination ... Sorry, of course, but in this situation we would already be blissful in paradise (well, or in accordance with the fact that "everyone will be rewarded according to his faith", I would there was nowhere - "there is darkness, silence and nothing", but you don't know - you know better) ...
      3. pl675
        pl675 26 October 2013 22: 38
        +3
        hi comrade, you need peace.
        sleep.
        do not carry crap.
      4. Igor39
        Igor39 26 October 2013 23: 12
        +6
        Please specify which hospital you were in?
  12. Rus2012
    Rus2012 26 October 2013 13: 46
    +1
    ... about5 twenty-five!;))))
    Again from the series - how nice it would be to be rich and healthy ...
    Again from Liberian HBO!
    Today, when the country is straining all the remnants of industry in order to be able to at least somehow equip itself and arm itself, after the 20-year-old anarchist rampant of the liberal market, the Liberian HBO is again trying to channel the funds in an unscheduled direction!
    The comrades are right in asserting that we must first put things in order with what we have.
    And then ... and then Mona and the aircraft carriers.
    In peacetime after the war ...
    For show-offs ... After all, the AUG is primarily show-offs, when, with a drum battle and the roar of all turbines, the naval forces pass near foreign coasts, causing terror and awe to the enemy population, admiration and pride for the allies!
    And when the weather is 70% a year, when the aircraft wing is tethered on the deck, and God forbid the fate of the aircraft carrier "Charles De Gaulle", out of 19 years of service - one conditionally successful military campaign - we need it ?!

    States say they have ... Yes they have! But ... their coastal structures around the world are scattered that even without the use of aviation from decks they can cover with the same coastal aviation from scattered airfield bases anyone who they don’t like.
    Look at the map...

    Yes, a carrier fleet is needed! The structure of 1..2..3 attack aircraft carriers with nuclear warheads, 20-30 attack aircraft, several reconnaissance aircraft. Desirable a lot of drones ...
    But, first of all - long-range anti-ship systems, over 1000km ... and up to 5-10tys.km! :)))

    Cut the idea: maybe we will get these AUGs for free after the war? And you don’t have to build ... wassat
  13. Stinger
    Stinger 26 October 2013 13: 54
    0
    They were not needed before, and even more so now. Need fighter aircraft carriers
    1. nazgul-ishe
      nazgul-ishe 26 October 2013 15: 16
      +6
      It does not interfere. Aircraft AWACS in the right place a good help.
  14. indiggo
    indiggo 26 October 2013 14: 04
    +5
    I agree with many here, but I would like to add that if we want to develop in the direction of AUG,
    it’s necessary to think over this issue now. since in our realities we can get AB no earlier than 25-30g. but in general AUG is a necessary business, this is evidenced by world practice, at least 2 per ocean fleet ...
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 27 October 2013 10: 30
      0
      Quote: indiggo
      but in general AUG is a necessary business, this is evidenced by world practice, at least 2 per ocean fleet ...

      And what kind of practice testifies to this? In the 20th century there was the only clash of more or less equivalent opponents with AUGs ... And I want to note that one of the parties (Japan) lost almost all of its aircraft carriers in a matter of hours ... That is, the enormous funds spent on building aircraft carriers were delayed literally instantly, and thereby lost the entire strategy of warfare in the Pacific Ocean and in the future they were only fighting off the Yankees ...

      And in the Falkland War, despite the presence of Britons aircraft carriers, the Argentines did what they wanted from the islands - they flew there on some miserable planes bombed, drowned English vehicles and destroyers ... It's amazing where the British AUG was at that time and what was it doing? Indeed, according to the stories of many here on the AUG site, they are so powerful that the Argentines in theory should have been quietly sitting on their continent ... But life, on the contrary, shows the opposite ...
      1. svp67
        svp67 27 October 2013 10: 37
        0
        Quote: Selevc
        And in the Falkland War, despite the presence of Britons aircraft carriers, the Argentines did what they wanted from the islands - they flew there on some miserable planes bombed, drowned English vehicles and destroyers ... It's amazing where the British AUG was at that time and what was it doing?

        Well, firstly, the planes of the British air group, not quite full-fledged aircraft, but nevertheless they were able to provide significant support to their troops during the landing and during the battle on the islands.
        And secondly, are you sure that the losses of the British would not have been much greater if they had not been an aircraft carrier?
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 27 October 2013 11: 30
          -1
          In my opinion, the point is not that the Aivanos helped the British in the Falkland War - they certainly somehow helped it undeniably ... But the main conclusion from those events is obvious - even a country that does not have modern powerful aviation, does not have a powerful Navy, does not have aircraft carriers, and has a scanty number of anti-ship missiles was able to inflict significant damage on an enemy who had aircraft carriers, aircraft and missiles ...
          If Argentina had a country with the Navy and aviation at least at the level of Spain, the British fleet would have ended up in the same deep place with all its aircraft carriers and other military equipment ...
  15. voliador
    voliador 26 October 2013 14: 12
    +3
    What we ourselves can’t do yet, let intelligence get it. The secret of the atomic bomb was stolen and the documentation for the aircraft carrier can!
    1. indiggo
      indiggo 26 October 2013 14: 28
      +1
      here the question is not the project but the shipbuilding infrastructure.
  16. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 26 October 2013 14: 29
    +3
    WIG ..! and ekrankontsy (base) Good walking was in Soviet times! a .. Aircraft carriers last century (at current hypersonic speeds) It seems to me like that ..
    1. Yura
      Yura 26 October 2013 15: 03
      +2
      Quote: MIKHAN
      WIG ..! and ekrankontsy (base) Good walking was in Soviet times! a .. Aircraft carriers last century (at current hypersonic speeds) It seems to me like that ..

      It seems to me that way too, and when we know that they are exactly needed and for what purposes and for what purposes, then Russia will build them no doubt about it. Time moves as before, and science and technology evolve so fast that sometimes it seems time stops. It may affect that very soon the relevance of most of the current weapons will come to naught, it’s right in the air, a breakthrough is just around the corner and I personally am very concerned about it.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 20: 32
      -2
      We have some kind of agreements with Venezuela. Imagine if they ask us for military protection. We have nothing to help them at such a distance. Even TU-160 do not fly without refueling. And on AUG only troops can be up to 10000 people. and all weapons are unmeasured.
      1. loisop
        loisop 27 October 2013 09: 04
        +2
        Rave, dear.
        There are 2 options for requesting military assistance (Venezuela is exactly XNUMX (we assume that in both cases we fit to the maximum that is adequate to the situation):
        1. Peaceful time, Venezuela asks to strengthen its military. We calmly carry, relatively speaking, C300 (and even "bamboo batons"), in any quantity. Stupidly dry cargo ships. Or barges.
        2. The state of war (with them). They ask for military help. Here, one must think that help is needed not so much with weapons / materials / humanitarian aid (although this too), but actually with military operations against the enemy. And here it is no longer important wherever we carry out our activities, even from Chukotka! Damage to the enemy is important.
  17. negeroi
    negeroi 26 October 2013 14: 32
    +9
    Yes, they won’t let us build anything new and complicated now. Like they didn’t give France. China and India started their construction with the purchase of ours. And they did it right. The position of an aircraft carrier is not building a new ship. This is building a new military unit, creating a new kind of troops with all the consequences. And given that new generations of missiles and drones are being created, the task of constructing a remote-based aircraft missile is a mythical task for us, due to both the lack of strategy and, first of all, the lack of personnel, namely engineers and mainly proletarians quality and training. Tactical weapons of aircraft carrier formations make our strategic weapons not so strategic. The United States and Britain, by building such weapons systems, will not allow competitors to launch similar weapons in any way or way. We cannot build aircraft carriers now because the technology is outdated, or there is little money (although this is also the case), but because NEKOMU. Stalin solved the problem of industrialization and rearmament using well-known methods. Who is ready to work for the good of the Motherland? Tajiks and Kyrgyz? Where is the Russian proletariat? Where are the working specialties needed mainly labor migrants. Where to get the builders of aircraft carriers? All shipyards are overwhelmed with work, ships are being built for us almost all over the world, our shipyards (those that remain) are unable to cope. Proletariums begin with vocational schools, like aircraft carriers.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 26 October 2013 20: 37
      +2
      If a person writes the Russian proletariat, then there is no one to arm our Motherland for sure! And remember the story. Many countries worked for Germany, as she had no right to have a military industry. Almost all of Europe helped unleash this war, even we taught the Germans to fly and sold food cheaply.
      1. loisop
        loisop 27 October 2013 09: 21
        +1
        Please specify how specifically Germans were trained from the USSR? Total? And yet, in which period (years).
        How many pilots were there when attacking the USSR in 41m?
  18. SkiF_RnD
    SkiF_RnD 26 October 2013 14: 34
    16
    To build an aircraft carrier is dozens of aircraft, and another level of shipbuilding, new deployment bases, for ships of this class, a new destroyer \ cruiser air defense, and by no means in a single copy, many MPLATRK cover, for operations in remote regions, a developed supply network on a scale oceans (there is hope for Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, India, Syria, but there you still need to create the necessary conditions for basing the fleet), again, supply vessels, forces sufficient to protect their fleet supply bases abroad, in which case. Another level of training for pilots is to get rid of a couple of sorties a year at the Moscow Region. Money to make up for the operational losses of carrier-based aircraft during constant flights, to achieve the operational speed of building fleet warships, as well as their repair and modernization.
    And the point is to build an aircraft carrier, "equip" with planes, give it a couple of escort ships before the company and moor it to the pier so that every three years it goes out to sea for a Pacific Fleet exercise and scares the gulls. Better to build "Ash".
    Frankly, I do not believe in the ability of my country today to ensure the proper level of combat readiness of large aircraft carriers. To build an aircraft carrier in order to build it is, excuse me, nonsense.
  19. runway
    runway 26 October 2013 14: 39
    +5
    Let's drink to ensure that our desires coincide with our capabilities! And the article is like that jellied fish from a famous movie .... It is especially impressive that of all the specialists in this field, only the author turns out to know what kind of aircraft carriers Russia needs .... Well, a complete tryndets ....
  20. Sadikoff
    Sadikoff 26 October 2013 14: 58
    +5
    How much does construction cost, but how much is the content and meaning of this expensive toy-demonstration of power to whom? To China? USA? NATO? The third world mankind can not stand. And lokalka-helped the United States the presence of US aircraft carriers in the Syrian issue? Because countermeasures are much cheaper, everything that works on electronics can be successfully cut down by all kinds of electronic warfare systems.
    Strength should be in allies and partners, in the development of electronic warfare type Krasukh-4,5, and beyond.
  21. Deadman
    Deadman 26 October 2013 15: 12
    +2
    Yes, a lot of opinions on this matter and money and infrastructure, and priorities. It seems to me everything has its time .... Just recently, we remembered about the fleet that we generally have it, and here the aircraft carriers smile...... build))
  22. sxn278619
    sxn278619 26 October 2013 15: 29
    +3
    I agree with the author. First, it is necessary to build supertankers, modern gas carriers, superbalkers and other vessels, and then, based on the experience of their construction and the profits received from their operation, to build at least one aircraft carrier.
  23. 222222
    222222 26 October 2013 15: 43
    +5
    "Rabbits are not only valuable fur, but also dietary meat .." or "Does the Russian Navy need aircraft carriers?"
    1. The adoption of aircraft carriers will testify to the strategic strengthening of Russia.
    2. With the plans for their adoption, the strategic documents of the state, and especially the military doctrine, should be substantially changed.
    3. The ground-based infrastructure of their base and the system of their support at sea have been built
    4. Created a system for the formation of AUG due to the diverse forces of the fleet.
    5. Changed guidelines for the use of naval forces in peacetime and wartime.
    6. Training at all levels.
    The emergence of Russian AUGs in the oceans will compete with the dominance of the "sea" powers and, above all, the United States, and thus will help to strengthen Russia's foreign policy on the world stage.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 26 October 2013 15: 59
      +4
      Quote: 222222
      "Rabbits are not only valuable fur, but also dietary meat .." or "Does the Russian Navy need aircraft carriers?"

      But can we solve these problems in another way?
      IMHO yes!
      That is, the protection of our allies on the distant shores (Cuba, Venezuela ...) through their military bases and covering them with a nuclear umbrella. And everything else depends on perseverance and a demonstration of determination ...
      Over time, Mona get hold of the AUGs. Moreover, the structure and communications on other banks will urgently require. Only then...
      Wait, the question is not so acute. Mona practice on the Kuza. Slowly build a friend for him, for a couple ....;)
      1. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 26 October 2013 20: 21
        +4
        Quote: Rus2012
        Mona practice on the Kuza. Slowly build a friend for him, for a couple ...

        wink better friend ... For a couple then! And let them multiply and multiply ... repeat
    2. Fornit
      Fornit 28 October 2013 16: 28
      0
      Strong! But, maybe, forward all the same, the Yankees printing press should be broken? Or buy back? winked
      1. loisop
        loisop 28 October 2013 19: 38
        0
        bully We will rent! These same candy wrappers and pay for the rent, by the way. wassat
  24. AZB15
    AZB15 26 October 2013 15: 56
    0
    You know, men, what I want to say about this (AB for the Russian Navy) ... It's time for the moderators of offshore sites not to accept articles on this topic at all. It seems that if you write neh, well ... the author is digging, this finger will suck and an opachka little article about the Russian aircraft carrier .... and the comments went the same for the hundredth millionth time. Coexistence about science fiction (I'm talking about an article), beat ...
  25. Migari
    Migari 26 October 2013 15: 57
    +2
    Yes, we do not have aircraft carriers now, but this does not mean that they cannot be in the future, our shipbuilding now already has enormous difficulties, the construction of those projects that were started 10 or more years ago is progressing very slowly. And of the air carrier cruisers, only Admiral Kuznetsov, Project 1143.5 Krechet remained, but the fleet is reviving, flight tests of new MiG-29K / KUB carrier-based fighters intended for the Russian Navy are underway, give time, we will have everything.
    1. AZB15
      AZB15 26 October 2013 16: 04
      +3
      Let it be, of course, years through 30. Only whether it will be AB in the current sense, and whether they will be needed at all as a class, that is the question.
      And our fleet, both the past-present and the future, of the US-type AV are not needed and will never be needed (except that if we conquer B. East).
      1. Yura
        Yura 26 October 2013 17: 50
        0
        Quote: AZB15
        Only whether it will be AB in the current sense, and whether they will be needed at all as a class, that is the question.

        Quote: AZB15
        except that if we conquer B. East)

        The Middle East can be controlled from the Black Sea, although Russia does not need it in principle. For the rest, I think the same.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 26 October 2013 17: 55
        0
        Quote: AZB15
        years through 30

        ... if we survive in integrity and safety :)
        By that time, the Yankees will safely barricade themselves on their continent, if the worst does not happen.

        We will have two aircraft carriers with China;))) Well, even the Indians have 2 for example. Well, we will "project power" (certainly with drums and howling of turbines off the native shores) on the dull ones in turn. Nobody will seriously fight each other from this trio. All the same, understanding nations and neighbors are common;))) everything else in the Customs Union and Eurasian will be. And let the Okraintsy walk by! Once they didn't want it in time ... :)))
        Well, about the equipment of the AUG. It seems to me that all kinds of UAVs will make up the basis: reconnaissance, target designation, demonstrative, strike ... Well, there are several manned. To keep the flight crew skill ...
  26. gregor6549
    gregor6549 26 October 2013 16: 03
    +5
    Does the Russian Navy need aircraft carriers? The question, of course, is interesting, but the answer depends on what tasks the leadership of the country and the armed forces poses before the fleet. If one of the tasks is the task of counteracting potential adversaries in areas remote from Russia, then, of course, aircraft carriers are needed, because without air cover, all other types of ships will not last long against enemy aircraft, even if each of them is armed with modern air defense systems. And against low-flying anti-ship missiles anti-aircraft defense is practically powerless. Such anti-ship missiles are best detected and hit from above. Further, if, for the reasons stated above, aircraft carriers are needed, the construction of aircraft carriers as well as the creation of all the stuff they need is defined as a priority task among other tasks for the creation of military equipment and weapons and to provide the solution to this problem with the necessary funding, personnel, etc. But even if all this is ensured, you need to understand that it will take at least 10 and even 15 years before you can launch a full-fledged aircraft carrier, and so that there are at least 5 pieces, then all 30 years. And even with 5 units, it is unlikely to compete on an equal footing with NATO's carrier fleets. And if so, then why fence the garden and try to catch up with those you cannot catch up with anymore.
    Someone may argue that China is building aircraft carriers. But China is building them mainly to cover the transportation of oil to China from the Middle East, if such cover is needed. To combat the US aircraft carrier fleet in the waters that China considers its own, China is creating completely different weapons, in particular ballistic missiles capable of independently detecting AUG, identifying aircraft carrier-type targets in them and hitting these targets independently or in cooperation with anti-ship missiles. At the same time, China initially did not set itself the goal of starting the creation of aircraft carriers from scratch. He, as always, took the path of borrowing everything that could be borrowed (bought or stolen) from everyone who allowed him to do such borrowing. It must be admitted that China has pretty much succeeded in this.
    And capitalism in China is very seriously controlled by the state. If the private owner of the enterprise is told to do this or that, those who wish to object, as a rule, are not. Therefore, returning to Russian reality, we can assume that the idea of ​​building aircraft carriers, even if this idea will be approved at the very top, will lead to nothing but squandering multibillion-dollar funds. It would be more reasonable to direct these billions to places where serious groundwork is already in place. For example, for the construction of new and modernization of existing submarines, aircraft and helicopters, artillery, tanks, precision weapons, command and control equipment, etc. to what without which the Armed Forces of Russia could turn out to be Armed Weakness if a probable adversary becomes a real adversary and not in 15 30 years, but much earlier.
  27. kaktus
    kaktus 26 October 2013 16: 09
    +3
    confiscate stolen goods - you can build an aircraft carrier for each fleet
    1. AZB15
      AZB15 26 October 2013 16: 12
      +2
      Yeah, especially a couple of "Nimitz" for the BF and Black Sea Fleet (I kind of joked about it) ....
      So that they flooded the wake of the "limitrophes", to ....., well, or ....
      1. kaktus
        kaktus 26 October 2013 16: 29
        0
        well something like that laughing
  28. Avenger711
    Avenger711 26 October 2013 16: 14
    +2
    It is enough to recall that it was these aircraft carriers that ensured the British victory in the struggle for the Falklands.


    The fight of two paralytics is not an indicator.

    Where is our tanker fleet? We did not and cannot build supertankers. We do not know how to build gas carriers. Therefore, we are not able to build aircraft carriers either.


    Of course, we don’t know how to build what we don’t need, and there isn’t any special technological complexity in a huge floating barrel with a couple of dozen people on board, dig a bigger dock and business. Supertankers are building everything and sundry, but far from everyone can build even a cruiser.

    The rest of the article verbal diarrhea in principle bypasses the meaning of the existence of aircraft carriers.
  29. ran nearby
    ran nearby 26 October 2013 16: 23
    +3
    As for me, the RF aircraft carriers and tries are not needed. The Russian Federation itself is like a large, UNSMILLED submarine. The entire periodic table underground, the largest territory.
    Well, why are Russian aircraft carriers? Who to scare? You can even go overland to Alaska by land. Conquer Australia? But you must? Has Australia gotten very far across the road?
    The USSR was able to build submarines and air defense systems, and they need to be developed.
    And Yankesov's AUGs should be drowned by combat ekranoplanes-missile carriers of the "KM" type. It is clear that they were made according to new projects, with normal protection and good engines. An ekranoplan is more effective than any ship.
    And from the flock of anti-ship missiles with a number of 20 or more per unit of watercraft, no AUG will dodge.
    1. AZB15
      AZB15 26 October 2013 16: 47
      -1
      H.Z. about 20 anti-ship missiles, there was a funny little article about the capabilities of our remaining anti-ship missiles and nuclear submarines against the "foe", in the sense of an order of even one group ... But once in a joint drunkenness the "grandfather" of one of our "Sverdlovs" told me that they walked in the Mediterranean in line of sight to AB, and in which case they should have it with their caliber .... And the effectiveness of this method, I repent, is much more effective. Try to shoot down the shell at close range. True, and ours in the same place .... And in today's times, whom they are afraid of with this, they do sho want ... Yes, and any volley is a war, if our EVERY point is not compressed with fear.
  30. deman73
    deman73 26 October 2013 16: 34
    +1
    we need both aircraft carriers and land bases with airfields
  31. KazaK Bo
    KazaK Bo 26 October 2013 16: 36
    +2
    There is such a saying - "IF YOU WANT ANOTHER PLACE TO DISRUPT THE STATE WITHOUT WAR, GIVE HIM AN AIR CARRIER!" Yes! It is very expensive to have aircraft carriers in service. But nevertheless they have ... new ones are being built ... the camp of those wishing to have them is only expanding ... Who has aircraft carriers - these are states that have both economic (first of all - investments and conquered sales markets) and geopolitical, sometimes even imperial, interests in all parts of the world (the need for support of both vassals and friendly governments and other political forces, which provides support for imperial conquests, makes it possible to keep the armed forces of a potential enemy in suspense and shackle his aggressive activity in other theaters ... and etc.). And to solve these strategic goals and objectives, not only military bases located around the globe, but also, to no less, AUG, help! These ... by no means defensive means of armed struggle, provide the necessary and effective force component of the upcoming policy of the metropolis ...
    Maybe it is time for RUSSIA to stop blushing and embarrassed, like a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl at the sight of a sausage stick, and boldly declare that we also have strategic interests in all the azimuths of world politics ... the economy! Do we not need to protect our investments ... loans issued ... to support our supporters ...? Only active and offensive work to protect the interests of the state on all continents will allow us to live peacefully and successfully develop. And for this we really need AUG !!! To build them, you need only political will ... Technically, this is a solvable task both at the expense of our engineering minds, intelligence minds, and the purchase of necessary technologies. In my opinion, there is already a political solution ... for a single carrier cruiser in Yeysk they wouldn’t build a training complex ....
  32. Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 26 October 2013 16: 42
    +2
    Any weapon can be used, whether it be a boat or an aircraft carrier. But now we definitely can’t afford it. Americans are already reducing their aircraft carriers. Why do we need them? To tear financially?
  33. cocktail46
    cocktail46 26 October 2013 16: 50
    0
    Or he could come up with a ship to build an air defense ship ...
  34. indiggo
    indiggo 26 October 2013 17: 15
    0
    Quote: cocktail46
    Or he could come up with a ship to build an air defense ship ...

    to build single-profile ships for Russia is a step back. we need universal destroyers and frigates for escort.
  35. common man
    common man 26 October 2013 17: 18
    +1
    We'll build 20-30 new destroyers, then you can take on aircraft carriers. In the meantime, our "squadrons" on long voyages consist of "one BOD, (version of the RC), one tanker, and one tug, what kind of AUG can we talk about? What is more important off the coast of Syria, one aircraft carrier without cover or heels of destroyers (or RC) ?
  36. loisop
    loisop 26 October 2013 17: 33
    +1
    [media = http: //www.zoomby.ru/watch/45532-priklyucheniya-kapitana-vrungelya]
    Watch from 06:25 to 07:10

    And from 04:46 - the whole episode hi
  37. Vlad_Mir
    Vlad_Mir 26 October 2013 17: 33
    +2
    To decide whether Russia needs aircraft carriers, just look at the map! The second aspect is power projection! In the modern world it is impossible without this. "Love" only the strong and the rich!
    1. tank74
      tank74 26 October 2013 20: 06
      +1
      you will not be strong, and you will not be allowed to become rich.
  38. zheleznyack
    zheleznyack 26 October 2013 17: 44
    +2
    Aeroliga 66, but no one will build anything. The bugs were blown away to the Universiade, the World Cup, the Olympiad (along the mattress mattresses they spoiled it with Russia), to the Ognya relay race (they didn’t resort to you in the cellar with Ogne?). Gazprom. In short, there is no money, what kind of conversation ...
  39. Augustswsw
    Augustswsw 26 October 2013 18: 00
    +1
    Carriers are needed. And everyone understands this. Chinese, Indians, British, French and others. An aircraft carrier is not primarily a striking force capable of destroying a country, although in some cases this too. An aircraft carrier is the nucleus of the fleet that can protect from air, give missiles target designation, detect enemy forces at a long distance, and many more important auxiliary functions without which the modern fleet is blind, defenseless and not combat ready.
    An aircraft carrier for the country is a locomotive for the reindustrialization of practically the entire industry, both heavy and electronic, as well as many related fields.
    We can, of course, "we will wait" when everyone from oligarchs to pensioners will start gorging themselves on black caviar, but without the rise of Russian industry, such a path has been ordered, i.e. if we wait, and only then we take up the aircraft carrier, then this will never happen.
    The only important point that gives a real opportunity to implement an aircraft carrier idea is tough and cruel control over the process, up to and including repressive measures.
  40. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 26 October 2013 18: 19
    +3
    Again the fairy tale about the "white bull" Needed, not needed. First, we need to deal with the economy and industry. And at the same time with the geopolitical interests of the country. Based on this, it is determined in what form (TAVKR, floating airfield, or whatever) and in what quantity.
  41. Shaman 21101973
    Shaman 21101973 26 October 2013 18: 55
    +1
    Maybe we do. It all depends on the military doctrine of the state. If you want to become the world's "policeman" - then, without an agreement, yes. Really where to get the money? And do we need it.?
    If you want to save what is left (but there is still something to save), then it is better to spend money on missile defense systems, aviation, precision weapons, strengthening borders, communications, space forces, Strategic Rocket Forces, submarines, reconnaissance and counterintelligence .. And before that, you should deal with domestic problems in the country.
    To preserve and strengthen the country, from Kaliningrad to Sakhalin, aircraft carriers are not needed. Well, a very expensive "toy". Previously, we were respected even without aircraft carriers. !!!!!
    And if at the moment and in the near future everyone in the world has an interest in the Arctic. That it is necessary to develop both in the military and economic sense, our north and north-east of the country.
    Well, well, we bought two Mistrals, and for what? What can they do? Against our potential enemy.
    We can’t catch up with and overtake the USA in the number of aircraft carriers. NEVER.
  42. Mikola
    Mikola 26 October 2013 19: 15
    +3
    Mdaaa. It can be stated that the level of discussion on aircraft carriers has risen a notch in this article. Are Russian aircraft carriers needed, because the United States may go bankrupt, while China and Japan do not have an AUG now?
    Well, firstly, even if the United States becomes bankrupt, the aircraft carriers will remain in the Navy there, in the crisis of the 30s they built aircraft carriers and the fleet was not sawn into metal. Secondly, China has publicly announced its intention to build nuclear carriers and more than once, Japan is quietly but confidently moving towards the creation of a classic aircraft carrier. What are the challenges for an aircraft carrier? The answer is unequivocal - the Far East (count on which border of Russia the largest army is the answer for choosing the doctrine of the development of the fleet). The vulnerability of ground airfields in cases of forced China to fraternal sharing of the resources of Siberia and the East is obvious to everyone. In addition, China publicly states that he is interested in the fossils of the Arctic Ocean !!!. No money - this is not a problem for the strategic development of the fleet. Aircraft carrier and the entire system suddenly cannot be built under it. and the culture of building large ships is supported only by the construction of new ones. Therefore, to design an aircraft carrier and develop new technologies (having Kuznetsov at hand and the possibility of restructuring the Eagles into a small nuclear aircraft carrier) you can and should do it now .... Lack of production capacity - order the construction of an aircraft carrier body in Ukraine, you can include a free rental complex in the contract Thread and transfer with an amd payment of an unfinished Atlant class cruiser. It will be beneficial to everyone. There are options - there would be a desire)
    1. Saburov
      Saburov 26 October 2013 21: 43
      +1
      The long arm of AUG only works against those who have nothing to chop it off with, no more, no less.
  43. tomich
    tomich 26 October 2013 19: 35
    0
    I have long noticed that the same topics are used to procrastinating on the site, just to embed the article. Well, Russia has no aircraft carriers, so they do not need it !!!!!
    1. Mikola
      Mikola 26 October 2013 19: 57
      +2
      by analogy in Russia there is no production of processors, so you also do not need computers?
    2. Volkhov
      Volkhov 26 October 2013 20: 01
      +1
      Carriers are needed, not just now, but yesterday, in the Russian-Japanese one, and they need to be built not now, but tomorrow, when we get rich and not like the Americans, but those who from tomorrow can fall into yesterday — flying and with a temporary circuit. ..and we have one - this is the Moon and even wolves know about it - the Valkyrie mistresses are called from there ...
      There, Germans are scratching on the surface right now, but inside Russians are just sleeping, probably ...
  44. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 26 October 2013 20: 01
    +1
    AUG is an offensive topic, so first you need to change something ... in the "conservatory", i.e. in the POLICY of the country ...

    And only then:
    - create infrastructure
    - build aircraft carriers
    - and SURPRISE the world ...
  45. Augustswsw
    Augustswsw 26 October 2013 20: 04
    +2
    By the way, yes, the idea "no, and we don't know how, so we don't need it" - in my opinion we smell like all-divinity. No? Does this mean that it is not necessary? When someone doesn't have a car, does that mean he doesn't need it? or has he just failed to make money on it yet?
    We don't know how? Is this a reason not to do it? If someone does not know how to drive a car, shouldn't he learn to do it? On the other hand, of course, if he doesn’t learn to drive, then he doesn’t need to buy a car, and the freed money can be stupidly spent on chips and beer while sitting on the couch - "to solve problems in the economy and social sphere." Good, correct reasons!
  46. Chukcha
    Chukcha 26 October 2013 20: 07
    0
    When I read the article, then the following IMHO thoughts gradually arose:
    1. AUG we need first of all at the Pacific Fleet. There are China, Japan and the USA. A pair of three will not interfere in any way.
    2. An aircraft carrier, as a rule, is perceived as "aircraft-carrying", but why not assign the AUG the task of supporting nuclear submarines of different classes? Something like a mobile submarine base. Perhaps this has a military-strategic meaning.
    Everything else is a matter of economics and technology.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 26 October 2013 23: 52
      -1
      Quote: Chukcha
      to assign to AOG the task of supporting nuclear submarines of different classes? Something like a mobile base submarine.

      To "light up" and hand over the submarine fleet in advance? laughing
  47. indiggo
    indiggo 26 October 2013 20: 13
    0
    I’m talking to moderators right now, is there an opportunity to put a poll? finally put an end to the eternal dispute wink
  48. coserg 2012
    coserg 2012 26 October 2013 20: 17
    +1
    Once I heard the arguments of adults about the release of the first "Zhiguli". Everyone praised the "Muscovite" and "Zaporozhets" and mercilessly spread rot VAZ. The article does not say that tomorrow we will start laying the aircraft carrier. Just by the 30th year and start. Now we need to In the 7th squadron of the Northern Fleet in 1978 with the aircraft carrier "KIEV" from all three brigades, only three ships could work (according to the parameters of the GAS). Everything should be integrated in all systems, then the crew will perform the tasks clearly and beautifully.
  49. crambol
    crambol 26 October 2013 20: 20
    +2
    The need for aircraft carriers has been debated for a long time. However, the concept of their use is absolutely not worked out. Therefore, they do not build them. Till.
  50. AIR-ZNAK
    AIR-ZNAK 26 October 2013 20: 36
    +2
    To design something new, you need to clearly understand: will it be built for money? and what are we actually designing and building, whether the new ship will respond to the goals and tasks of ships of the class that will be changed by the time it is completed, what will it be-1. content 2. weapons. 3. combat use, 4 support ships. And much more. For this, good analytical work is needed, at least in the Moscow Region they started from this. Justified. And they went to the government for bookmarks to start funds for research and development. And further down the chain. The problem is at least a decade. But you need to decide ahead of time. And do not assemble the SSJ-100 from imported components and pass it off as a major success for Sukhoi and the entire defense industry as a whole.