Military Review

Russian fleet goes under water

252

Aircraft carrier "Gerald R. Ford" at the shipyard "Newport News Shipbuilding"



Usually so called articles on the plight of our fleet. However, today is about something else. The aircraft carrier was deleted from the military shipbuilding program until 2020, but they left the project 885 nuclear submarines (nuclear submarines). So the Russian fleet is on the familiar road of the Soviet fleet. Once again, the main strike force will be nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (CR), which are also called nuclear submarine missile cruisers (APRK). The submarine fleet will not fail, and the aircraft carrier, as Leonid Ilyich used to say, - weapon capitalist aggression and therefore, as Sergey Gorshkov sang along with him, he was alien to the Soviet naval doctrine. It turns out that the main shock force of our fleet goes under water. Blame - immersed. Hence the name of the article.

There is no need to explain that an aircraft carrier is extremely valuable in case of the so-called asymmetric threats, that is, in those conflicts in the perspective of which there is no doubt in the XNUMXst century. In contrast to the aircraft carrier, the APRK is not effective in such conflicts. He cannot support the landing of an inspection team, the release of hostages or the landing of a landing on the beach; he cannot be as effective as the deck aviation, control shipping and are not able to protect our ships from attacks by pirates or from air bombardments.

These are truisms, therefore, domestic fighters against aircraft carriers entrenched in the leadership of the Navy, apply a different argument. Namely: the weak combat stability of the aircraft carrier and the relative cheapness of the APRC.

They argue that an aircraft carrier is effective only in the fight against a weak adversary; in a serious war, an aircraft carrier is too large a target and will be sunk at the beginning of the conflict. Everything, as in Soviet times, while the commander in chief of the Navy, Sergei Gorshkov, also believed that aircraft carriers were useless in a third world war, and would not participate in local conflicts of the USSR Navy. So it turned out that an aircraft carrier is a weapon of capitalist aggression against weak countries, useless in the fight against the world's first state of workers and peasants. And the most effective means of deterring carrier-based strike groups (AUG) by the criterion of efficiency – cost is APRC. It is on these arguments, legs and there is a colossus, crushing any carrier-based encroachments in the Russian fleet. But is it not clay feet?

LEG No. 1

Let's see how much the APNG of the 885 project is needed to kill Nimitz. Since the calculations of the combat effectiveness of the 885 project are hidden under the heading of “secret”, we are left with only a way to independently calculate this efficiency. We take the combat effectiveness of the 949 project, the ancestor of the 885 project, as the starting point of our calculation. So dive in history...

Extensive efficiency studies began to be conducted in the Soviet Navy only at the end of the 70-s, when electronic computers appeared. Studies conducted by several organizations have shown that in order to ensure the destruction of one aircraft carrier from AUG, it was necessary to launch 100 – 150 Granit-type missiles in a volley. If all the missiles had nuclear warheads, then the number of missiles would be reduced almost 1,5 times. Thus, to solve the problem by the APNC of the 949 project alone, they required an average of six.

Let it not surprise a large number of missiles with nuclear warheads. In order for at least one nuclear missile to break through to an aircraft carrier, it is necessary to “sacrifice” as many missiles as it can shoot down the AUG air defense system. At the beginning of the 80, the AUG air defense could knock down the 70 – 120 Granit or X-22 rockets, depending on the tactical situation. It also follows that for the sinking of the American aircraft carrier, up to 30 it was necessary to hit Granit or 10 - 12 missiles to disable it.

Now let's turn to Onyx. In Onyx, as in Granita, penetrating warhead (PBC), but three times smaller in mass, but the mass of the rocket (it must also be taken into account when calculating the striking potential of a supersonic rocket) is only twice as small. Therefore, “Onyx” to destroy an aircraft carrier is necessary approximately two to two and a half times more - we take as the average 25 value of “Onyxes” hits for decommissioning an aircraft carrier. Of course, there will immediately be critics who will blame the author for not knowing that Onyx is equipped with a more advanced homing head (GOS), and, therefore, the missiles will hit the aircraft carrier pointwise: one to the aerofinisers and another four to the catapults. Total: only five "Onyxes" - and "Nimitz" is unarmed. Well, if you shoot at a Chinese frigate, or even better at an Afghan aul, then you can not only get into the arresting machine, you can get out the window, and even into a specific bed, where an international terrorist peacefully snores, and none of his wives and concubines were hurt. Wow, already captures the spirit that modern precision weapons can! But there is a snag. All these wonders of precision are achieved only in the absence of electronic countermeasures (REB). An aircraft carrier is not an aul for you, it’s not up to the aero-finisher, you would get into a ship.

Now we define the value of the "victim", that is, how many "Onyxes" can bring down the air defense of the modern AUG. The air defense consists of two components: the first is fighter aircraft, the second is the anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) of ships.

Consider the first component. From 2006, the aircraft wing of the American aircraft carrier includes up to the 60 F / A-18E “Super Hornet”, performing equally well the role of attack aircraft and fighter. AUG can constantly hide behind four locking F / A-18E. Each Super Hornet carries AIM-10 AMRAAM 120 missiles and is capable of shooting down Onyxes 5 – 6. Total: AUG air patrol will knock down Onyx 22.

Now the second component. And here, of course, we will talk about Aegis. Ah, we know, we know, he cannot knock Mosquito down, and X-15 is too tough for him, and Granit hardly beats him, but where can he go to Onyx! Indeed, it does not knock ... If you still live in 80, and if, like me, in 2013, it knocks, and how knocks! About "Aegis" we have little to write, but in vain. We'll have to fill a little gap. Since the newspaper is not a magazine and certainly not a book, the story will be brief and devoted only to the air defense system to the Aegis component.

The Aegis complex has two radars: SPY-1 (general detection and "rough" guidance) and SPG-62 (final guidance). The SPY-1 radar (four phased antennas) constantly operates in general detection mode and monitors air targets from 250 to 300. These targets can be either enemy missiles or their own Standard-2 missiles. The flight of the Standard-2 is monitored and periodically adjusted from the ship. When the “Standard-2” is at a distance of 10 km from the target, SPG-62 comes into play (there are four on Ticonderog, three on Arly Burke), they irradiate the target, and the semi-active GOS Standard-2, having captured it, it flies on to the reflected signal without adjusting the Aegis. Since one and the same station accompanies its own missiles and general target detection, Aidzhis has the ability, by reducing the number of accompanied targets, to increase the number of accompanying Standards-2 and vice versa. Hence, the striking "multi-channel", theoretically, to 100 shelling targets.


Nuclear submarine missile cruiser project 949A "Antey"


But there are no perfect solutions, of course. The element base of the beginning of the 80-x did not allow to create a perfect air defense system from the "Ajis". Combining the general detection and targeting in one radar, the Americans were forced to sacrifice both the detection range and the targeting accuracy. As a result, "Aegis" could not shoot down low-altitude supersonic ("Mosquito") or aeroballistic (X-15) goals. But why did the Americans go this way? For the sake of perspective. As time went on, Aegis improved, in 90, he learned to beat Mosquitoes and X-15, and in 2000, he reached out to space, becoming the world's first naval air defense / missile defense complex. Domestic shipboard SAMs, created by the 80-x ideology, no matter how modernized, but will not be the "Aegis". Therefore, we have one way - to create your Aegis. In the meantime, "Aegis" reigns in splendid isolation and beats every conceivable record of longevity.

But back to the main topic of this article. I did not write by chance - theoretically, it can simultaneously fire at 100 targets. In life, everything rests on the rate of fire of the universal vertical start-up of the installation (UVPU) Mk41. It will be decisive in our calculation. Since Tikonderogi gradually go down in history, we will continue to consider only Arly Burk. In the nose cellar of “Arly Burke” 4 MK41 (32 cells), in the aft - 8 Мк41 (64 cells). The rocket launch rate from the 1 cellar, sec., From two cellars in total - two rockets per second. It turns out that for the first 32 seconds. Arly Burke will launch 64 Standard-2, and the remaining 32 rockets will be released in 32 seconds. It is impossible to determine how many Americans will load anti-aircraft missiles, and how many drums. She is also a universal TLU, so as not to bind the admirals hands. Unlike us, Americans can like to change the range of missile ammunition. Therefore, we will have to accept the following assumption: since the conflict will begin in a threatening period, the Americans, fearing in advance our anti-ship missiles (RCC), will increase their anti-aircraft ammunition, hence assume that the 32 "Standard-2" is in the bow cellar, and in the stern cellar there are 48 "Standards -2 ”and 16“ Tomahawks. ” It turns out that in 48 seconds, Arly Burke will release 80 Standards-2.

Now we determine the reflection time of the attack. If the submarine of the 885 project can sneak up to AUG on 100 km, then Onyxes will go at low altitude. Then Aegis will find them at a distance of 35 – 32 minus 2 km — the dead zone for Standards-2, and it turns out that Onyxes will be under fire for 28 km. Onyx will cover this distance in 37 seconds, and Arly Burk will release 69 Standards-2 during this time. But that's not all. It is unlikely that the 885 submarine's rate of fire is higher than that of the 949 submarine, that is, less than one second, then the 885 submarine of the project will need 31 seconds more to launch the remaining missiles, which, in turn, will allow the Arly Berk to release the remaining "Standards-2".

It turns out that one "Arly Burke" will release 80 "Standards-2" and, with a probability of hitting 0,7 (example, the average 0,65), will knock down the 52 "Onyx". And how many "Arly Berkov" in the composition of the AUG? The composition of the AUG of the US Navy usually includes the 5 – 6 Ticonderog and Arly Berkov. So we’ll assume that Arly Berkov is attacked by the AUG 5. If the attack is made from a distance of 100 km, that is, at a low altitude, and from one direction, then only Arly Burka's 3 can take part in the attack. In this case, the escort ships shoot down the Onyx 156. But this scenario is unlikely.

As early as the end of 70, the leadership of the Soviet Navy made it clear that it was impossible to guarantee that several APRKs could reach the 50 – 60 distance from AUG. Therefore, the APRK of the 661 project with long-range (operational assignment) anti-ship missiles replaced the APRK of the 670 and 949М projects. Yes, of course, the boats of the 885 project are much more secretive than the boats of the 949 project, but the American anti-submarine defense (PLO) does not stand still. Therefore, we will be honest and recognize that the attack will have to start from the maximum shooting distance and, therefore, "Onyxes" will fly at high altitude (5 – 6 thousand meters). In this case, Aegis will begin to repel the attack from the 250 km distance, and Arly Berki, shooting up, will not be constrained by neighboring ships and will be able to take part, without exception, in repelling the strike. In this case, they will shoot down the Onyx 260.

Now we summarize the number of “Onyxes” received, which is necessary to bring the aircraft carrier out of action: 25 + number knocked down by an air patrol, 22 + number knocked down by escort ships (260), total: 307. Therefore, a joint launch of the 10 APRK of the 855 project is necessary for the guaranteed disabling of the aircraft carrier from the AUG. Not a small amount, but even more than was previously required for the XRUMX APRK project. It may be objected that new hypersonic RCCs are already being created and they will arm the boats of the 949 project. Soon, PR affects, but not soon the product is done. What is now called hypersonic RCC is not yet hypersound. The promised 885-4М (M is the Mach number, or the ratio of the flow velocity at a given gas flow point to the local sound propagation velocity in a moving medium) is only the threshold beyond which the real hypersonic velocity begins. In the meantime, they promise us only to approach, and not to cross the threshold. But such "hypersonic" goals and our "Fort-M" and "Aegis" are being shot down now. To overcome the "Aegis", you need 5M, but also to maneuver during the attack, otherwise "Standard-10" will hit the target on 3M. And to such a PKR still oh, very far. So, the proposed 10 APNC for the construction of the 10 885 can be scary only one out of ten American AUGs. But this danger Americans can easily avoid. They only need to double their AUGs, and the 10 APRK of the 885 project will not do anything to this connection.

LEG No. 2

So, we have crushed the first leg - the weak combat stability of an aircraft carrier. Now we turn to the second leg - the relative cheapness of the APRK. In the domestic press, including electronic, there is still a popular opinion that the 949 submarine is cheaper than the Nimitz aircraft carrier by a factor of 10. A classic example of the evidence base is the following: “As of the middle of the 80-s, the cost of one boat of the 949 project was 226 million rubles, which at par was only 10% of the cost of the Roosevelt multipurpose aircraft carrier (2,3 billion dollars without value his aviation wing) ”.

What is the denomination? Where it comes from - go and figure it out. For example, if you recalculate the average wage, then in the US in 1986, it was 1444 dollars, and in the USSR - 206 rubles. Then it turns out, the dollar against the ruble in purchasing power can be 7 to 1. In this case, Roosevelt is only 1,5 times more expensive than the 949 project. But this is also wrong, because the dollar is a freely convertible currency, but there is no ruble, and there was no real market in the USSR, and it was not enough to have money for a car or an apartment, it was also necessary to have the right to purchase them. Well, how in this case, consider the "nominal"? If you do not take into account the socio-economic model of the state, then it turns out that the most effective military-industrial complex in the world is in the DPRK, where AK-47 will be collected for a bag of rice. But I firmly believe that those who read with admiration, and those who write about the “cheapness” of the 949 project, will not even work as a janitor for a bag of rice or for 100 dollars.

But this article is not about the charms of socialism or capitalism, so let’s dwell on the fact that you cannot determine the relative cost of the 949 project and Nimitz. And even now, when in Russia, more or less, but capitalism and the ruble are freely convertible into a dollar, you cannot derive the cost ratio. Example: the cost of the last “Nimitz” - “George Bush” 6,2 billion dollars (2009 year), and the cost, according to the contract, of the second boat of the project 885 “Kazan” - 47 billion rubles, or 1,45 billion dollars. four times cheaper, but at the expense of what? Is it due to wages? So, the average wage of a worker, net of taxes, on Sevmash 1100 dollars, and on Newport News, after paying taxes, 3250 dollars. Felt the difference? Of course, they can tell me that, they say, medicine is more expensive for them, but I will say that they have food, clothes and housing cheaper, and in general “Sevmash” is the north, and Newport News is a warm south. I didn’t hear that they were going to work at Sevmash from all over Russia, but the Newport News was the American “working Mecca”.


The dream of Russian sailors is an atomic aircraft carrier. The project of heavy aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk.


So how then to determine the relative cost of the APRK and the nuclear multi-purpose aircraft carrier? There is only one correct way - to compare the relative cost of a nuclear boat and an aircraft carrier in the same country, and thereby obtain the desired ratio. For example, the cost of an aircraft carrier project 11437 "Ulyanovsk" in 1989 was estimated at 750 million rubles, and boats of the project 949А in the same year - at 300 – 320 million rubles. That is, in the USSR, the cost of an atomic aircraft carrier was equal to the 2,4 APRK.

Now an American example. Only need to find the right analogues. The Nimitz is comparable to the Ulyanovsk, the first, however, more in displacement, but the second has more sophisticated electronic and rocket weapons. But to find an analogue of the 885 project or the 949 project is more difficult. “Virginia” is clearly too small and simpler, and it should be compared with the boat of the 971 project, but “Seafulf” is quite comparable in complexity with the boat of the 885 project. So, the construction of the second building of Siefulf (Connecticut) in 1998 cost 2,4 billion dollars, and the cost of construction of Gary Truman (the eighth Nimitz) in the same year amounted to 4,5 billion dollars. It turns out, 1,9 "Sifulfa" is equal to one "Nimitz". And here it should be noted that if Ulyanovsk were designed as a real multi-purpose aircraft carrier, and not as a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser (TAKR), that is, it would not have sophisticated radio-electronic and especially strike missile weapons, then its construction would be cheaper by about 100 million rubles. And the ship project 11437 would cost two APRK. So, the ratio that the two APRKs are equal in value to one nuclear aircraft carrier can be considered proven.

I foresee indignation, they say - the aircraft carrier itself is not a weapon, it needs aircraft and escort ships, and this is the main item of expenditure. But this “anti-avianos” argument is the weakest. Not a single modern ship, nor even a nuclear submarine, can be "one warrior in the field." The Soviet Navy had a submarine orientation, but was forced to develop a surface fleet, and by 1991 it had more than 100 1 and 2 rank ships, which would be more than enough for 15 AUGs. Similarly, present-day Russia has about 30 of such ships, which is enough for 5 AUGs. And that's not counting the construction of corvettes and frigates 12.

And on the deck aircraft will not have to spend extra. Our ship planes are only modernized land. And the fifth-generation T-50, as announced, will be made in both land and deck versions. This means that you just need to redistribute the order for new aircraft to 2020 year. It is necessary to reduce the order for land versions of the MiG-29, Su-35, T-50 and enter the order for the ship. Flight and technical staff can be taken from the Air Force. With such a redistribution of the air defense resource, Russia will not suffer, since, unlike the APRK cruise missiles, the deck aircraft can operate not only from the deck, but also from the airfield. And if needed, decked-wing aircraft will immediately relocate to coastal airfields and, having passed into the command of the Air Force, will turn into front-line aviation.

It follows from the above that, instead of 10 APCS, Russia can build five full-fledged aircraft carriers and form five AUGs from them.

LEG No. 3

So, the second leg - the relative cheapness of the APRK in comparison with the aircraft carrier, we also crushed. But oh, a miracle! The colossus does not fall, why? The fact is that while we were crushing his legs, a third leg was substituted for him, which earlier, for ideological reasons, could not be. And this leg is stronger than the previous ones, because they put it not only the anti-avian lobby, but also the supporters of the aircraft carrier. The bottom line is that Russia has neither a place to build an aircraft carrier, nor the appropriate technologies. And, therefore, the very discussion that it is better to build an APRK or an aircraft carrier loses all meaning. Disassemble this leg.

Where did the opinion come from that we have nowhere to build an aircraft carrier? Find on the Internet the telephone of the receiving director of Baltiysky Zavod and mock him with this statement. Yes, the discharge weight of the Nimitz is too big for the plant, but the body of the aircraft carrier, comparable to the Enterprise, is real. And the plant can lower such cases every 2,5 of the year. Not enough plant capacity for quick completion and construction of the lead aircraft carrier will be delayed? And who prevents to arrange cooperation and transfer the lowered hulls to other plants? The Chinese "Varyag" in tow across the world held, what are we worse? Just to stop the construction of a series of boats of the 855 project, the Sevmash capacity will be released, and then the Baltiysky Zavod will assemble the hulls, and the Sevmash will finish building. So we have a place for construction, there would be a desire.

I foresee, of course, indignation, they say, the frames have been lost - there is no way for Vikramaditya, and nothing good will come of it. And where are we not lost? Epopee with "Bulava" forgotten? And "Kazan", which for more than a year can not pass? And by the way, Kazan, I remind you, Sevmash is building - the main specialist in the construction of nuclear submarines, and still some flour. Why are there new types of weapons, you will remember the Algerian shame with the MiG-29, and with what disgrace the USC, the 1159 project guard, for the same Algeria last year repaired! The list goes on. With us wherever you throw - everywhere a wedge, and now - sit back? Yes, we will build the lead aircraft carrier in the throes of the 10 years, but he is the leader, and there is nothing to fear.

What are the key technologies necessary aircraft carrier, we do not have? It turns out that we have already lagged behind China and India, since they can build aircraft carriers there, but we can’t? But this is obvious nonsense. For the answer, we turn to the leadership. In 2011, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Vladimir Vysotsky, stated that the domestic shipbuilding industry can only offer an outdated version of the 90-s aircraft carrier, while the United States is building a fundamentally new aircraft carrier, Gerald R. Ford. That is, if for India and China an aircraft carrier of the 90-x level is an achievement, then for Russia it is a shame. And what does Russia need? And the answer to this question can be found at the same commander in chief. Russia needs a "multi-media" IAC! What kind of beast? We rummage in the press, turn to the informants. An informant for ARMS-TASS from the military-industrial complex said that the IAC will be atomic in 80 thousand tons with a powerful missile system, a complex of compound control and 80 combat aircraft. I wonder how it all fits on it? The informer from USC explained that the MAC, at the request of the Navy, would not have a powerful missile system, but it would have full electric propulsion, electro-catapult and powerful radar to control near space. There is other information from which it can be concluded that the leadership of the Navy itself does not know what it wants.

But what all sources agree on is that the IAC must surpass "Gerald R. Ford", the Navy does not agree to anything less! Our naval commanders cannot understand that an aircraft carrier is primarily a floating airfield, and secondly, and thirdly, a floating airfield. The modernity of an aircraft carrier is determined only by its ability to ensure the basing of the modern wing. The rejection of the “Nimitz” and the transition to “Gerald R. Ford” is associated only with the introduction of new technologies and, as a result, the cheapening of operation. If we evaluate the capabilities of the basing of aviation, the "Gerald R. Ford" is not much different from the "Nimitz". And since we do not have new technologies yet, the aircraft carrier 90's will fit, the main thing is that T-50 can be based on it, the rest is husk. Why don't our admirals understand this? This requires separate narration.

DREAMS

Ah, if I were a king, well, or at least a president, then instead of a program to build an APRC, I would start building aircraft carriers. I am not against nuclear submarines, but Russia still has 24 multipurpose nuclear submarines (projects: 949, 945, 971), which by the main criterion - stealth - are superior to all the submarines built and planned for construction in France, China and India. Our submarine fleet is second in the world and second only to the US. The construction of 10 "Ash" will not lead us to the first position. But our surface fleet is completely devoid of aircraft carriers, is able to fight only with Somali pirates and is not able to protect our tourists from the next Arab spring. It is necessary to impose a temporary moratorium on the construction of nuclear submarines and to release the released resource on aircraft carriers. These funds will be enough for the construction of four aircraft carriers and the transformation of the Kuznetsov from the TAVKR aircraft carrier.

Only aircraft carriers need to be built without the "excesses" of the TAKR. Catapult must be available. It is necessary to forget about the springboard as a terrible dream. To begin with, let it be steam, then replace it with electromagnetic. Also, complete electric movement is required, which will give an inexhaustible reserve for modernization for the next 50 years. Aircraft carriers will be gas turbine, nuclear or diesel - not fundamental. In the presence of catapults, high speed is not necessary, and you can limit 25 – 27 to knots, as the French and the British did, which will significantly reduce the cost of building and operating an aircraft carrier and allow the use of technologies already mastered in USC in electric propulsion. Five aircraft carriers, these are five AUGs, of which four in a threatening period can be in service. Four AUGs are 250 – 270 multipurpose fighters. This amount is enough to gain air superiority over most countries of the world. Only a limited circle of great countries and Israel can not be afraid of such power.

And to this part of the article there will be critics, and the toughest are skeptics. "What 10" Ash ", what a defense order for 2020 year, all stolen, so that neither 10 APRK, nor the five aircraft carriers of Russia can not be seen as their ears." I will tell them this: before starting to redraw the defense order, I will appoint a special person to the position of chairman of the Accounts Chamber. Now believe that everything will work out?
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
252 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Cormorants
    Cormorants 12 November 2013 08: 00
    -1
    It will be cheaper for us to install constantly on-demand missile systems wherever on the ocean floor. No one will pass!
    1. Andrew-88
      Andrew-88 12 November 2013 13: 31
      41
      An aircraft carrier is a floating airfield. Its task is to deliver aviation far from its shores.
      By and large, what are Russian aircraft carriers for?
      1. To protect the sea borders ???
      Russia has the longest maritime border - the Arctic Ocean. Using AUG there is inexpedient. Icing, icebergs, extremely low temperatures. Most of the time the ocean is icebound. The aircraft carrier will either stand or go to other seas. But what will the aircraft carrier designed for the north do there ???
      The north is better protected by submarines that can fire from under the ice. Other coastal waters are not so long. And to gain superiority in the sky, you can use continental airfields. At sea - surface and submarine ships.
      2. To fight with other AUG ???
      Well, if it comes to this, then quite different weapons will most likely be used there ... An aircraft carrier is a weapon of large states. This means we will be fighting a "nuclear" state. There, the question of survival will be dominant. So the nuclear submarine looks much more preferable.
      3. To protect their interests in other regions ???
      Take Syria for example. Here our aircraft carrier has sailed. So what? Will Russian planes fly over Damascus? And on what basis will they fly there ??? This is interference in the affairs of other states (the UN will not give permission). Plus, who will give the order for our soldiers to fight in other countries ??? To defend our interests, we have a MTR. But they don't need AUG. If necessary, they will have a large landing craft and other fire support ships. And in general, such operations are carried out "on the quiet".
      4. The most important thing!
      Our doctrine is defensive in nature. We do not need an airfield off the coast of others to conduct defense. AUG is good if you go to capture coastal states. We don’t need someone else!
      Maybe we need the AUG ... but it’s preferable in a large-scale war - the nuclear submarine.
      1. Delta
        Delta 12 November 2013 13: 37
        +2
        Quote: Andrew-88
        Well, if it comes to this, then quite different weapons will most likely be used there ... An aircraft carrier is a weapon of large states. This means we will be fighting a "nuclear" state. There, the question of survival will be dominant. So the nuclear submarine looks much more preferable.


        If this other weapon is used, then nobody needs a submarine. They will shoot their nuclear missiles along with ground-based carriers, wipe the world into powder and live submariners for a couple of months longer than the rest of the world's population. It makes sense? if we talk about the use of nuclear weapons, then any ships are not needed

        Quote: Andrew-88
        Our doctrine is defensive in nature. We do not need an airfield off the coast of others to conduct defense.


        If Russia only defended its entire history, it would now be much smaller in size. This is even if you do not recall the size of the USSR
        1. Andrew-88
          Andrew-88 12 November 2013 13: 57
          +6
          I agree. In the case of nuclear explosives, before they strike, they will think: what will they answer to me? AUG may try to block, neutralize. Poplars will fly so far, you can also try to neutralize. But the submarine, maybe located in the Gulf of Mexico, right next to it :)
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 13 November 2013 02: 09
            0
            And who will let them go there in a menacing period.
            1. Andrew-88
              Andrew-88 13 November 2013 10: 36
              +5
              Nobody! At the very beginning of the threatening period, at the stage of diplomatic "polemics", they will be ordered to move to the shores of the United States. Or maybe they are now in the Gulf of Mexico.
              Remember, recently there were a couple of scandals with Russian submarines, which only allowed themselves to be discovered when they left the Gulf of Mexico ??? Moreover, letting themselves be discovered, they repeated the same thing in a few months. And nothing, were able to sneak a second time :)
              And who will guard them off the coast of America? If there is a war, the vast majority of the US Navy will be in combat areas. And how many ships and submarines will guard the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific coast, the Atlantic coast ??? It is clear that ours will also be in the areas of hostilities. But with Us, the entire territory is land, which has military units, air defense, etc. Are there many such military bases in the United States throughout the United States ??? Their war is a war on a foreign continent. Therefore, it will be much easier for us to break through their "continental" defenses. Almost all of their bases are foreign bases. And almost all of their air defenses and other paramilitaries are not in the United States.
              The most important. The American Doctrine states that if the number of losses of the US Armed Forces exceeds 20%, then this war is impractical, because these losses are critical for the United States. This we are fighting on our territory, and the war we have to the last drop of blood, to the last soldier. This is our homeland. And they will fight, to hell on the puffs! To replenish the reserve, they need to sail to the base and replenish the reserves. It is long and inefficient.
            2. mixxlll
              mixxlll 13 November 2013 17: 07
              0
              And who will understand that they are nearby?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. T-100
        T-100 12 November 2013 14: 39
        +6
        Russia has the longest maritime border - the Arctic Ocean. Using AUG there is inexpedient. Icing, icebergs, extremely low temperatures. Most of the time the ocean is icebound. The aircraft carrier will either stand or go to other seas. But what will the aircraft carrier designed for the north do there ???
        The north is better protected by submarines that can fire from under the ice. Other coastal waters are not so long. And to gain superiority in the sky, you can use continental airfields. At sea - surface and submarine ships.


        And you did not indicate about the Pacific Ocean, at least you need to have an 3 aircraft carrier.
        Japan is not a friendly country for us
        China - good today, tomorrow it’ll stick a knife in the back
        Well, and how could I forget about the Yankees. That's where the AUG really needs to be.
        1. Andrew-88
          Andrew-88 12 November 2013 15: 59
          17
          1. About the Pacific Ocean.
          Maybe .. but only one. Will float around the world and show the "muscles" of Russia. Now to Venezuela on a friendly visit, then to the Mediterranean Sea to the shores of Syria, in order to intimidate the adversaries.
          An aircraft carrier is needed only when the range of aviation from its airfields is insufficient to conduct combat operations. In the Pacific Ocean, we have no remote islands to which our aircraft cannot reach.
          Most importantly, aircraft carriers were not used for naval battles, but for ground operations outside the radius of their aerodromes. The Americans have AUG, but they are fighting in other countries, and not on their territory. Moreover, they are used against states that cannot answer them. Remember: Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Plus, the use of aircraft over the sea is a disastrous thing. Each ship has a huge number of air defense equipment. Missile systems will cope better with ships.
          2. About Japan.
          Japan is fully covered by the range of aviation from our airfields. Against their ships we have coastal complexes - "Bastion", surface and submarine ships and large landing ships.
          3. About China.
          China is a continental country. If he wants to attack, he will do it by land. With their fleet as well as with Japan.
          4. About the Yankees.
          The radius of the AUG (for ground operations) is limited by the combat radius of the aircraft. Russia is a continental country. They could fly to Vietnam from an aircraft carrier completely. There is a different situation. While their planes will fly to land, we will arrange for them such a wall of fire and metal that they will ... collapse.
          Russia needs aircraft carriers only if it intends to conduct ground operations very far from its borders.
          1. Delta
            Delta 12 November 2013 17: 16
            0
            Quote: Andrew-88
            An aircraft carrier is needed only when the range of aviation from its airfields is insufficient to conduct combat operations.


            The range of US base aviation is huge. Why do they need aircraft carriers?

            Quote: Andrew-88
            aircraft carriers were used not for naval battles, but for ground operations outside the radius of their airfields.


            battles of aircraft carriers (and involving aircraft carriers) in the Pacific in WWII were exclusively ground operations ??

            Quote: Andrew-88
            The Americans have AUG, but they fight in other countries, and not on their territory


            submarines should also not fight on their territory. The only exceptions are diesel people. And in general, "one's own territory" is the territorial waters of one's state?

            Quote: Andrew-88
            China continental country

            what do you call a continental country? Explain what you mean by this concept. And why the USA is not a continental country.

            Quote: Andrew-88
            Russia needs aircraft carriers only if it intends to conduct ground operations very far from its borders.


            I wrote to you above about the history of Russia and its territorial acquisitions
            1. Andrew-88
              Andrew-88 12 November 2013 21: 44
              +4
              1. The range of US base aviation is huge. Why do they need aircraft carriers?
              I agree about long-range aviation, but it is very long and not economical. For war, the United States needs an airfield and preferably closer to the fighting. Therefore, aircraft carriers are building. But we are not them! We are not going to conduct full-scale hostilities on foreign territory. Moreover, to wage war with a state that is not our neighbor. The USA is fighting for resources. Russia is the richest country on the planet (in terms of natural resources). We do not need military expansion to other countries. There is diplomacy and MTR :)
              2. Battles of aircraft carriers (and with the involvement of aircraft carriers) in the Pacific Ocean in WWII were exclusively ground operations ??
              No, not exclusively terrestrial. But after the Second World War, aircraft carriers were used to support the US armed forces in ground operations.
              3.Submarines should also not fight on their territory. The only exceptions are diesel people. And in general, "one's own territory" is the territorial waters of one's state?
              Yes. "Its territory" is the territorial waters of its state. After all, we are talking about which is better: PL or AUG. The Americans are using the AUG for war on foreign soil. The task of our Armed Forces is to protect the integrity of our borders and retaliate against the enemy's Armed Forces or its territory by the forces of the Nuclear Triad.
              4. What do you call a continental country? Explain what you mean by this concept. And why the USA is not a continental country.
              Maybe not quite correctly put it ... By a continental country I mean a country that is located on a continent and has long land borders with other countries. These countries have potential adversaries: Russia-China, Syria-Jordan-Saudi Arabia, etc. They need to have strong ground forces. The United States is a continental country, but it has only allies on the continent. Therefore, in order to defend its "parasitic" interests, it needs to overcome the oceans. That is why it needs floating airfields.

              AUG is a weapon of a major war. They are good against small states, and even when there are several allies. In a war with a strong state ... here "the grandmother wondered in two" ... Submarines look more attractive. Yes, and AUG - this is when we sailed and are fighting there. And where should we sail ??? And for what??? From the United States it is clear: there are no enemies on the continent, they are sailing for resources to small oil countries. Where are we going ??? Will we sail to the shores of the United States and will cover 1000 km by aircraft ?? Or terrorize Britain ?? If we go to war with the United States or Britain, then it will not reach the aircraft carriers there. AUG has many more disadvantages to a major war than AUG. And the most important thing! The nuclear submarine has a significant plus - it is a weapon of "retaliation". She is a deterrent weapon.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 13 November 2013 00: 50
                +1
                Quote: Andrew-88
                But we are not them! We are not going to conduct full-scale hostilities on foreign territory.

                And in the open sea (in the Ocean)? The main task of the fleet is the destruction of SSBNs and the destruction of important enemy military and administrative centers. Both tasks without air cover are a failure. Our boats will not be able to force continuous fields of RSLBs controlled by the enemy PLO and PLC.
                Quote: Andrew-88
                We are talking about what is better: submarine or AUG.

                These are versatile quantities "made" for different tasks. There are several types of submarines: RPKSN, PLARK, PLA, NAPL, etc. Aircraft carriers were also previously classified as "many-sided". Therefore, in order for the Com of the fleet to be free in choosing the tool for solving the assigned tasks to the fleet, the latter should be "balanced", i.e. contain forces in the necessary proportions to solve its inherent problems, starting with the AVU and ending with the art boat. But the main striking force m. atomic submarines of various classes and MRA with anti-ship missiles, as it was at the time of ONA.
                Quote: Andrew-88
                The nuclear submarine has a significant plus - it is a weapon of "retaliation". She is a deterrent weapon.

                Anglo-Argentine conflict. On May 2, 1982, it was torpedoed by the British nuclear submarine Conqueror. With a torn off bow and a destroyed engine room, the cruiser sank within 20 minutes after the torpedo attack. 323 sailors became victims of the incident. The cruiser did not enter the 200-mile zone of the naval blockade; she did not manage to fire a single shot. What is "retribution"? aggression in the nude!
                1. Andrew-88
                  Andrew-88 13 November 2013 10: 46
                  0
                  The arguments are weighty. But where are you going to fight ??? Where should our aircraft carrier sail ??? I'm interested in the place. and how will he go there ???
                  1. Delta
                    Delta 13 November 2013 12: 37
                    0
                    Quote: Andrew-88
                    The arguments are weighty. But where are you going to fight ??? Where should our aircraft carrier sail ??? I'm interested in the place. and how will he go there ???


                    and where should "Peter the Great" sail? Where should the submarine sail? or are they created to protect Russia's territorial waters?
                    1. Andrew-88
                      Andrew-88 13 November 2013 13: 54
                      0
                      Where they will order. Yes, they are created to protect the country's borders.
                      And please tell me the probable opponent of our AUG ??? Country and war zone ???
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 13 November 2013 00: 06
            +2
            Quote: Andrew-88
            aircraft carriers were used not for naval battles, but for ground operations outside the radius of their airfields.

            The second MV. DB in the Pacific. Battles of aircraft carriers: in the Coral Sea, at the Mariana Islands, in Leyte Gulf, for about. Midway ... And of course Pearl Harbor.
            Quote: Andrew-88
            Russia needs aircraft carriers only if it intends to conduct ground operations very far from its borders.

            And for that too. But for now, in order to meet the AUG to the boom of aviation. This is a fleet operation involving all forces: submarines, missile ships, if there are aircraft-carrying ships, CP units, long-range and naval aviation, Strategic Missile Forces, if there are not enough forces of their own. AUG is very serious and extremely dangerous for the forces of the fleet.
            1. Andrew-88
              Andrew-88 13 November 2013 11: 10
              0
              1. About WWII I Agree. But after the Second World War, the main task of the ACG was to cover the US ground forces. Japan is an island nation. Destroying her fleet, she became unarmed. and they bombed her. We are going to fight against the island states ??? We are not aggressors !!!

              2.On our ships there is such a quantity of air defense that not a single American turkey will take off from the deck of an aircraft carrier. In the confrontation of the enemy AUG and our ships (which are currently available), the aircraft of the enemy AUG is ineffective, it will be knocked down by our missiles.
              And against whom should our aircraft carrier apply ??? Against small countries without allies ??? They do not pose such a big threat to us. Russia enters another league. China, the USA, Japan, India and others hang out in this league. But many countries are members of NATO. You touch one, the others catch up. In this league the war will be world.
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 13 November 2013 19: 00
                +1
                Another dreamer.
          3. Basarev
            Basarev 28 May 2014 13: 19
            0
            So I say - you need to build battleships. I remember that there were old Soviet drawings of guns who fired freely at 150 km. And for more distant shooting, projectiles were developed "with correction". That is, we already have 180 kilometers, even without any modernization of these eerily ancient projects. With intelligent modernization, that is, improvement of the drawing, construction using the most modern technologies and materials, then you can easily get 200 km. And the ultra-modern MSA will allow at such a distance to hit with a projectile not even into a specific window - it will be easy to hit a specific person. And now imagine such an atomic ship, completely protected from all existing and promising anti-ship missiles, carrying 16 406-mm guns on board, shooting with ease at distances over 200 km ... This is where the real, and not speculative power!
        2. alex popov
          alex popov 12 November 2013 21: 57
          +2
          Well, and how could I forget about the Yankees. That's where the AUG really needs to be

          What for ? To measure AUG? Who will defeat whom? ) "And our AUG and AUG adversaries converged on the high seas" ... the Americans are printing bucks, but not us, don't forget.)
        3. mixxlll
          mixxlll 13 November 2013 17: 09
          0
          you immediately need an excursion, but no nuclear submarines.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 13 November 2013 19: 05
            +1
            By and large, nuclear submarines also need an escort (shock anyway). Because, how will these nuclear submarines begin to press anti-submarine aircraft, how can they respond? And here (in the Russian Navy) aircraft carriers become such an escort.
      4. ssergn
        ssergn 12 November 2013 20: 35
        +3
        In the north, we have an unsinkable aircraft carrier. O. New Earth laughing
    2. TRex
      TRex 12 November 2013 17: 45
      0
      "It will be cheaper for us to install permanent rocket systems anywhere on the ocean floor. Nobody will get through!"
      Baklanov! How do you install your "cheap rocket systems" at the bottom? Drown, damn it, missile cruisers and missile submarines at the same time? What? Cheap and cheerful! And "no one will get through." There is only one question left: advise - where are we going to heat? If it is deeper and more reliable, there are no better options than the Mariana Trench!
    3. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 12 November 2013 19: 13
      0
      Quote: Cormorants
      It will be cheaper for us to install constantly on-demand missile systems wherever on the ocean floor. No one will pass!


      Do you need to do anything? All this AUG is divided into zero by one S-300 division. They will palat like r in the hole outside the reach of air defense and try to shoot towards the air defense with something like tomogawks ...

      In the article, everything is turned upside down. AUG is an instrument of aggression, it will never stand and wait when 150 missiles fall on it ...

      Again, who said that they would shoot rockets at an aircraft carrier? The same ash will do and give a full salvo of torpedoes from 10 kilometers ...

      Yes, in general, within 20 kilometers, a 100-kiloton nuclear bomb will simply explode, all this famous AUG will be washed off on the surface of the water and all that remains is to block supply ships and surrender themselves.
      1. Pajamas
        Pajamas 12 November 2013 19: 34
        +5
        Quote: Geisenberg

        Again, who said that they would shoot rockets at an aircraft carrier? The same ash will do and give a full salvo of torpedoes from 10 kilometers ...

        well, if Ash is clear, the stump will come closer, it will emerge and personnel weapons will erase the entire AUG, or it will just pop up inside the Aircraft Carrier and grab it, or it will dive with it and emerge in Severodvinsk and do not need to build anything - a freebie.
        1. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 13 November 2013 00: 41
          -2
          Quote: Pajama
          ... the stump is clear ...


          You are our clear, practically a beacon. Change the grass, you can immediately inside yourself ...
      2. Delta
        Delta 12 November 2013 19: 37
        +4
        Quote: Geisenberg
        Yes, in general, within 20 kilometers, a 100-kiloton nuclear bomb will simply explode, all this famous AUG will be washed off on the surface of the water and all that remains is to block supply ships and surrender themselves.


        and the United States of America apparently only a note of protest get off in this case.
        1. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 13 November 2013 00: 42
          0
          Quote: Delta
          Quote: Geisenberg
          Yes, in general, within 20 kilometers, a 100-kiloton nuclear bomb will simply explode, all this famous AUG will be washed off on the surface of the water and all that remains is to block supply ships and surrender themselves.


          and the United States of America apparently only a note of protest get off in this case.


          Oh, I beg you ...
      3. spravochnik
        spravochnik 13 November 2013 02: 18
        0
        Dreaming, dreamer. Just like Nikita Sergeevich.
        1. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 13 November 2013 18: 54
          0
          O_o srach lit up.
          AUG air defense in the early 80s, depending on the tactical situation, could bring down 70-120 Granit or X-22 missiles. It follows from this that for the sinking of the American aircraft carrier it took up to 30 hits of missiles "Granite" or 10 - 12 to disable it.

          Now let's turn to Onyx. Onyx, like Granite, has penetrating warheads (LHBs), but three times less in mass, but the mass of the rocket (it also needs to be taken into account when calculating the attack potential of a supersonic missile) is only half. Therefore, the Onyxes to defeat an aircraft carrier need about two - two and a half times more - take as the average value of 25 hits "Onyx" to incapacitate an aircraft carrier.

          Crawled under the table laughing
          Che author smoked ??? wassat request
          To incapacitate an aircraft carrier, one NURS is enough. Checked. 3,14ndos will not let you lie! good The main thing is to fly.
      4. Basarev
        Basarev 28 May 2014 13: 30
        0
        And rightly so - the basis of the AUG strike power is carrier-based aviation. Meanwhile, even the slightly outdated S-300 is still the absolute champion in defense against air attacks. Our cruiser Peter the Great is afraid of NATO, like the British Tirpitz. After all, it’s absolutely impossible to beat him from the air. This is impossible even theoretically. After all, just two deck S-300s and a bunch of other air defenses defend the cruiser. What can we say about the current S-400 and the S-500 under development ... Meanwhile, without aircraft, the bearer is an exceptionally weak ship, devoid of any offensive weapons. For this, the American Puppies came up with AUG to protect a completely defenseless nose.
    4. Zabvo
      Zabvo 20 November 2013 21: 10
      0
      http://warfiles.ru/show-19035-atomny-tyazhelyy-avianesuschiy-kreyser-proekta-114
      38-borodino.html is one of the multi-media AV vapiants ....
  2. Canep
    Canep 12 November 2013 08: 00
    18
    Only aircraft carriers need to be built without the "frills" characteristic of TAKR. Mandatory should be the presence of catapults. You should forget about the springboard as a nightmare. First let it be steam,
    How does a car imagine the work of a steam catapult in winter in the northern seas? For American aircraft carriers, this ocean is closed.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 12 November 2013 09: 03
      +8
      By the way, on the new aircraft carrier, they no longer delivered a steam catapult but an electromagnetic one. Getting ready?
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 12 November 2013 10: 17
        +1
        Where did the firewood come from?
      2. Canep
        Canep 12 November 2013 10: 44
        10
        Quote: klimpopov
        By the way, on the new aircraft carrier, they no longer delivered a steam catapult but an electromagnetic one.
        The stripes still need to finish building this "peacemaker", test it and transfer it to the fleet, and then we talk about Russian aircraft carriers, and we don't even have a draft design of this catapult.
        Quote: klimpopov
        Getting ready?
        And then how. The division of the Arctic began, not far off the division of the Antarctic.
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 12 November 2013 11: 46
          +4
          Quote: Canep
          The striped ones still need to finish building this "peacemaker", test and transfer it to the fleet, and then we talk about Russian aircraft carriers, and we don’t even have a conceptual design of this catapult.

          And it’s not even known when it will be. And in the USA they are already working on it and will do it!
          So I personally think we do not need 5-aircraft carriers? A sufficient minimum of 3!
          Two in work, one in repair! And will we succeed?
        2. Danilka
          Danilka 12 November 2013 12: 53
          0
          Give the penguins shit democracy! wassat
      3. 1c-inform-city
        1c-inform-city 13 November 2013 01: 29
        0
        All the noise around this descent is an advertising PR. The USA is simply silent about the fact that before the launch of this ship ten years can pass and this type of aircraft carrier can repeat the fate of Zamvolt (when instead of 32 units, only 3 will be built).
        But the thing is, the three main systems (for which it was started) do not yet exist in real life, namely:
        1 Turbo-electric landing system (not even a working prototype and real tests)
        2 Electro-magnetic catapult (Exists in the form of a ground model that doesn’t come close to the working version. Now even Indians are trying to involve in development since the British abandoned this topic.
        3 Two-band radar. There is no working option. Because of this, Zamvolt has lost it.
        So while it’s just a big and expensive trough, it just won’t be able to finish it quickly. In general, the situation is somewhat reminiscent of some of our long-term construction projects only on a larger scale. For example, replacing the first two positions with something from the existing one simply will not work.
        1. Pajamas
          Pajamas 13 November 2013 02: 22
          0
          Quote: 1c-inform-city
          Electro-magnetic catapult (Exists in the form of a ground model which is not close to the working version. Now even the Indians are trying to involve in the development since the British abandoned this topic.



          1-2 June 2010: Successful launch of a T-45 Goshawk at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst.
          June 9–10, 2010: Successful launch of a C-2 Greyhound at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst.
          December 18, 2010: Successful launch of a F / A-18E Super Hornet at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst.
          September 27, 2011: Successful launch of an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst.
          November 18, 2011: Successful launch of a F-35C Lightning II.
    2. Col.
      Col. 12 November 2013 11: 23
      17
      Quote: Canep
      How does a car imagine the work of a steam catapult in winter in the northern seas?


      I agree, the author has "mistakes". For instance:
      You must forget about the springboard as a nightmare

      With catapults, high speed is not necessary, and you can limit yourself to 25 – 27 nodes,


      The springboard was not invented by chance. You really cannot do without it in the North. And you can even take off "on the stop", i.e. no aircraft carrier move. The thrust-to-weight ratio of our deck aircraft allows this. This was regularly practiced at NITK in Saki. In addition, the springboard is many times cheaper than catapults and the probability of its "failure" is much lower.
    3. Wedmak
      Wedmak 12 November 2013 11: 39
      +2
      How does a car imagine the work of a steam catapult in winter in the northern seas?

      What's the problem? There is a nuclear reactor; it is not a problem to heat water to a state of steam. Deck heating can also be done. The second question is that of a pair of reactors, one will only work for heating.
      1. Canep
        Canep 12 November 2013 11: 56
        +8
        Quote: Wedmak
        What's the problem?

        Not a single aircraft carrier with a steam catapult ever entered the Arctic Ocean. The Americans catapult is covered with a thick layer of ice when launching aircraft at the latitude of the Aleutian Islands. And then you forget about the pair that came out of the catapult and did not cover it with ice, everything that is behind the catapult in the direction of the ship’s movement will be in a cloud of steam, which will form ice on EVERYTHING: on antennas, superstructures, the deck, aircraft elevators, and on them airplanes. Can the F-18 take off with a covered layer of ice? I think the pilot is not a suicide, the ejection seat can also freeze and fail if the launch is unsuccessful. A nuclear power plant will have to warm up not only the catapult but the rest of the ship and a couple of kilometers of air behind the ship. Landing planes will also fall into a cloud of steam.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 12 November 2013 12: 01
          +2
          No, I thought about steam. When the deck is heated, the water will simply evaporate and leave this steam in the ocean. On a dry deck, nothing will freeze. But about the add-ons yes .... you can not attach to each battery. Although ... the Americans have a lot of money, they can put a couple of meters of nichrome into each antenna.
          1. Canep
            Canep 12 November 2013 12: 18
            +3
            In Ekibastuz there is a power station GRES-1, near it there is a lake from which water is taken to cool the steam in the station’s condensers and hot water (not steam) is discharged into the same lake. So, in winter, this lake is almost invisible because of the steam, that it does not freeze, this is by itself. The size of the lake is 4x6 kilometers.
            1. ssergn
              ssergn 12 November 2013 20: 47
              +1
              In this case, the physics is different. In the north, the metal surfaces of the ship are cooled, and if steam gets in, I think there is no need to explain the result?
              And how should the deck be warmed up so that the water evaporates?
      2. Strezhevchanin
        Strezhevchanin 12 November 2013 13: 35
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        The second question is that of a pair of reactors, one will only work for heating.

        But is there a starting plate where it’s warming up to white or is the plate only with a springboard? I do not remember what
    4. Arberes
      Arberes 12 November 2013 11: 39
      +6
      Quote: Canep
      How does a car imagine the work of a steam catapult in winter in the northern seas?

      I want to add a little. If aircraft carriers are built with steam catapults, then they must be atomic! Only Y. U can produce enough steam.
      We need to think about electro-magnetic! Well, if of course it comes to aircraft carriers?
      And catapults are needed to launch AWACS aircraft !!!
    5. StolzSS
      StolzSS 12 November 2013 13: 02
      10
      In my opinion, the author is a stupid dreamer. Interestingly, has he ever been to Kuze ??? What excesses did he find there ??? We really need multipurpose nuclear submarines. They have everything, but what is missing can be completed. But the Aircraft Carrier is still a heavy project because we don’t have support ships and we don’t have an ideology for using aircraft carrier connections yet ...
      We would have to modernize Kuzya, and only then lay down a new aircraft carrier project and hand it over by the 30th year, it will be normal there we will already be visible. If you make a strong base aviation and 5-10 air bases around the world, then aircraft carriers will not be very flexible and will need ....
      1. Delta
        Delta 12 November 2013 13: 40
        +1
        Quote: StolzSS
        If you make a strong base aviation and 5-10 air bases around the world, then aircraft carriers will not be very flexible and will need ....


        perfect if. There are no such bases. And will ... By the way, the States have both bases and aircraft carriers
    6. Pajamas
      Pajamas 13 November 2013 01: 15
      0
      Quote: Canep
      How does a car imagine the work of a steam catapult in winter in the northern seas?

      Here the whole epic is painted
      http://takr-kiev.ucoz.com/forum/89-164-1109-16-1310457772
  3. andru_007
    andru_007 12 November 2013 08: 10
    14
    Aircraft carriers are certainly needed, but one or more wunderfalls will not solve all the problems of the fleet. Before their construction, it is necessary to disperse the infrastructure, rebuild escort and support ships, and so on. And most importantly, before "projecting power", you must first secure your shores!
  4. mark1
    mark1 12 November 2013 08: 11
    23
    Do we need aircraft carriers?
    Yes, they are.
    Will we be able to create, by 2020, at least one full-fledged AUG (as the king knows, the retinue is making) where, by the way, should the ICAPL enter?
    No we will not, the long-suffering frigate "Gorshkov" is a confirmation of this.
    Well, why, then all this chatter? After all, no one refuses to build aircraft carriers, but immediately by 2020 we are not physically able to take out and lay out a full-fledged AUG (all the more without harming the development of other components of the Navy).
  5. Irbis9
    Irbis9 12 November 2013 08: 16
    +6
    I foresee indignation, they say - the aircraft carrier itself is not a weapon, it needs aircraft and escort ships, and this is the main item of expenditure. But this “anti-avianos” argument is the weakest. Not a single modern ship, nor even a nuclear submarine, can be "one warrior in the field." The Soviet Navy had a submarine orientation, but was forced to develop a surface fleet, and by 1991 it had more than 100 1 and 2 rank ships, which would be more than enough for 15 AUGs. Similarly, present-day Russia has about 30 of such ships, which is enough for 5 AUGs. And that's not counting the construction of corvettes and frigates 12.

    It follows from the above that, instead of 10 APCS, Russia can build five full-fledged aircraft carriers and form five AUGs from them.

    And how much money do you need to create escort ships ??? Our fleet has "a little" less ships than the Soviet Navy ... Or does the author suggest removing ships from all fleets?
  6. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 12 November 2013 08: 21
    26
    Author enchanting dreamer

    The rate of rocket launch from the 1 cellar is sec., Total from two cellars is two rockets per second. It turns out that in the first 32 seconds Arly Burke will release 64 Standard-2, and the remaining 32 missiles in another 32 seconds.

    But nothing that the Aegis destroyer system is capable of correcting the simultaneous flight of MORE than 18 ... 20 missiles on the marching section and xnumx missiles at the terminal stage (according to the number of radar, Standerd-2 uses a semi-active guidance method according to the data of the AN / SPG-62 radar, of which there are only 3 pieces on board Burke - one of them works on the bite corners, two on the feed corners)
    1. Canep
      Canep 12 November 2013 08: 58
      18
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      nothing that the Aegis destroyer system is capable of correcting the simultaneous flight of MORE THAN 18 ... 20 missiles on the marching section and 3 missiles at the terminal stage

      This is without interference, but in a real battle with the active use of interference? And then these destroyers will also be on the target, and what missiles will be priority for the destroyer commander, those that fly on an aircraft carrier or those that hit the destroyer?
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 12 November 2013 10: 11
        26
        I especially liked this pearl -
        Studies by several organizations have shown that for guaranteed destruction one aircraft carrier from AUG it was necessary to launch 100-150 missiles of the Granite type in a salvo. If all missiles would have nuclear warheads, then the number of missiles would decrease by almost 1,5 times.
        The author sees a high fever, and he has read American propaganda. In the event of the explosion of even one missile with a nuclear weapon near the AUG, at least half of the electronics on the ships will bark, further development of events will already be superfluous. Article- Nonsense, except for the thought of the need for our fleet of aircraft carriers. fool
        1. Col.
          Col. 12 November 2013 11: 30
          -9
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          In the event of the explosion of even one missile with a nuclear weapon near the AUG, at least half of the electronics on the ships will bark, further development of events will already be superfluous.


          The author writes not about the decommissioning of the ship’s REO, but about the destruction of the aircraft carrier. Do you understand the difference?
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          The author sees a high temperature

          First measure your temperature.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 12 November 2013 11: 46
            +8
            Quote: Colonel
            The author writes not about the decommissioning of the ship’s REO, but about the destruction of the aircraft carrier. Do you understand the difference?

            In your failure of the REO does not affect the safety of the ship? A ship without REO is an injured beast that you just need to finish off. Can't see the relationship?
            P.S. I measured the temperature, 36.6. What will be the further recommendations?
            1. Col.
              Col. 12 November 2013 12: 08
              +1
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              A ship without REO is an injured beast that you just need to finish off. Can't see the relationship?


              This is another question. First: who will finish off and with what? UG MRA or plARK have already used up the BC and left. Secondly: how do you know how "the beast is wounded" and whether it is wounded at all? Will they tell you on TV? But for this there are GKRU - groups for monitoring the results of the strike, consisting of several reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft in providing the GDD (demonstration action group). Only the GKRU, even in the days of the USSR, could not always be formed, and now it is not at all from anything - there is no strength and means!
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 12 November 2013 12: 16
                +3
                Quote: Colonel
                First: who will finish off and with what? HS MRA or PlaRK have already used up the BC and left.

                Well, why did you decide that everyone shot back and left? Why should the scenario develop like this? Like in a joke about hunters, are you for me or for a bear?
                1. Col.
                  Col. 12 November 2013 12: 22
                  0
                  Quote: Ingvar 72
                  Well, why did you decide that everyone shot back and left? Why should the scenario develop like this? Like in a joke about hunters, are you for me or for a bear?


                  I didn't decide it. This is the operational art and tactics of the Navy, as well as the requirements of combat documents (NPVBD, Decisions of commanders on the database, Operations plans, Plans by type of BO, etc.). There is no word "script" in the military lexicon at all. And I am not for a bear, and not for a hunter, I am for truth, objectivity, science and practice as a criterion of truth.
                  1. Ingvar 72
                    Ingvar 72 12 November 2013 14: 11
                    +1
                    Quote: Colonel
                    This is the operational art and tactics of the Navy, as well as the requirements of combat documents

                    Quote: Colonel
                    HS MRA or PlaRK have already used up the BC and left.
                    Well then, you should know that this cannot be. An attack, like a defense, is being echeloned, and the first wave of attack must be followed by another, or strikes must be made in parallel, from different carriers. The tactics of the Navy you mentioned do not rest against certain dogmas.
              2. report4
                report4 12 November 2013 14: 13
                +1
                Quote: Colonel
                Quote: Ingvar 72
                A ship without REO is an injured beast that you just need to finish off. Can't see the relationship?


                This is another question. First: who will finish off and with what? UG MRA or plARK have already used up the BC and left. Secondly: how do you know how "the beast is wounded" and whether it is wounded at all?

                Finish a silly, deaf and uncontrollable pile of scrap metal)? Yes, let it float for itself) And to destroy it, the USSR submarine fleet had the means to defeat the AUG even in working condition, disabled people are destroyed even easier.
              3. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 13 November 2013 01: 13
                +2
                Quote: Colonel
                who will finish off and with what? HS MRA or PlaRK have already used up the BC and left.

                The submarine is also armed with a torpedo weapon. Therefore, if a combat order contains the task of "destroying" the AVU, the commander will carry it out as long as there is a weapon on board. Perhaps with a breakthrough of security, perhaps with a D salvo, it will throw 53-65K into the wake jet and start a post-salvo evasion maneuver - this is a matter of luck, skill, circumstances ... But that the plARKs will be redeployed on the AUG route - do not even doubt. An aircraft carrier always carries nuclear weapons, which makes it the # 1 target for our ships.
          2. sanych
            sanych 12 November 2013 12: 53
            +4
            Colonel - "The author writes not about the destruction of the ship's electronic equipment, but about the DESTRUCTION OF THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER. Do you understand the difference?" ...
            It turns out that 70-100 missiles with nuclear warheads are needed to destroy an aircraft carrier? Sorry, but this is not possible and unnecessary! Impossible - because there is simply no such ammunition for nuclear missiles on current boats (100% of missiles were never loaded into a boat with nuclear warheads), unnecessary - because such a quantity is excessive. As Ingvar 72 correctly noted, the very first nuclear explosion will leave the AUG "blind", burning all the electronics. After that, afloat will be just a bunch of useless iron, unable not only to attack someone, but also to protect themselves from subsequent blows. And during a war (after all, in the article is the scenario of a nuclear war, if nuclear weapons are mentioned?) This strike will follow in a few minutes after the first. Who will survive from the AUG after that?
            ps Yes! And why are only nuclear submarines taken into account? In fact, to destroy the AUG we also have long-range aircraft, why did they forget about the Tu-22M3? After all, this is one of the main tasks for these aircraft! In naval aviation, missile carriers were intended for this very purpose. Yes, they cut the naval aviation, but the Tu-shki remained! Yes, and Su -34 can carry anti-ship missiles!
            1. Col.
              Col. 12 November 2013 13: 19
              +2
              Quote: sanych
              So, to destroy an aircraft carrier, you need 70-100 missiles with nuclear warheads? Sorry, but this is impossible and unnecessary!


              I completely agree here. Well, I wrote above that the author has mistakes yes
              1. Onyx
                Onyx 12 November 2013 18: 21
                0
                Studies conducted by several organizations have shown that to guarantee the destruction of one aircraft carrier from the AUG, it was necessary to launch 100-150 Granite missiles in a salvo
                I'm sorry, I didn’t quote it. I wanted this:
                to drown an American aircraft carrier, up to 30 hits of Granit missiles were required
          3. Onyx
            Onyx 12 November 2013 15: 40
            +2
            Quote: Colonel
            First measure your temperature.

            Well, the author’s temperature also doesn’t stop checking:
            Studies conducted by several organizations have shown that to guarantee the destruction of one aircraft carrier from the AUG, it was necessary to launch 100-150 Granite missiles in a salvo

            That's bullshit. And you yourself wrote yesterday:
            According to calculations, the destruction of an aircraft carrier requires at least 10-11 (!) Hits of anti-ship missiles from the OBC

            About RCC with YABCH I generally keep quiet.
    2. Col.
      Col. 12 November 2013 10: 56
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Author enchanting dreamer


      Oleg, here you are going to argue that 10-12 hits of anti-ship missiles needed to destroy the avma are "nonsense", as you wrote yesterday? But we didn’t come to terms with the author of this article ... (he generally has a figure of 30, though for Granites).
      By the way, I added something else to your comment yesterday, read it at your leisure.
      1. jjj
        jjj 13 November 2013 01: 49
        +1
        From a full salvo of 949A Ave., two missiles fall into the main ship. This was considered enough to stop the combat mission.
        1. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 13 November 2013 19: 05
          0
          Oleg, here you will also argue that 10-12 hits of anti-ship missiles required to destroy an avma is "nonsense",

          repeat I wanted to ask here .. Lope RCC hit the "Forrestal" ?? repeat
  7. sergey261180
    sergey261180 12 November 2013 08: 27
    +8
    We need to build aircraft carriers. Aviation is the main striking force in any war. When they say that it’s expensive, we won’t pull it, it’s bullshit! At the Olympics, various championships and summits, tens of billions of dollars are stolen and squandered annually. At the Olympiad alone, there were 35 Orly Berkovs. So we have either sheep or pests in our leadership.
    1. Zerstorer
      Zerstorer 12 November 2013 08: 59
      +3
      Of course, I apologize, but it’s easier for an aircraft carrier to reach land from missile carriers. + Missile carriers are a more mobile and flexible tool. And an aircraft carrier ... well, yes, to demonstrate the flag, but to bring aircraft (and even a little) to the area where we have no bases (for example, to Syria).
    2. calocha
      calocha 12 November 2013 09: 15
      13
      There are sheep and pests in the manual, anyone just not professionals. Cleaning ranks is required. The best minds should be engaged in state defense, there should be accountability for every penny invested. Work on the result with maximum responsibility and constant control by the government.
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 12 November 2013 10: 22
        +2
        "Hurray, comrades, the revolution has come !!"

        It is clear that you know the subject matter best of all, and the state is bullshit, because it did not appreciate your talent as it deserved. But why call people?
    3. Onyx
      Onyx 12 November 2013 15: 50
      +1
      Quote: sergey261180
      We need to build aircraft carriers. Aviation is the main striking force in any war. When they say that it’s expensive, we won’t pull it, it’s bullshit! At the Olympics, various championships and summits, tens of billions of dollars are stolen and squandered annually. At the Olympiad alone, there were 35 Orly Berkovs. So we have either sheep or pests in our leadership.

      Let's not do anything at all, otherwise they will be plundered anyway. You argue, just like "our" liberals (their mother). A lot of funds have already been allocated to the armed forces.
  8. malikszh
    malikszh 12 November 2013 08: 39
    -4
    the state does not have money and accept this too if they had both underwater and aircraft carriers built up !!!
    1. Horla
      Horla 12 November 2013 12: 07
      +1
      There is money, even a lot, but they are stolen. | example olympiad, St. Petersburg stadium, oboronservis, etc. |
  9. saag
    saag 12 November 2013 08: 45
    +1
    According to the text, the aircraft carrier is needed "... to support the landing of the inspection group, the release of hostages or the landing of troops on the shore, cannot as effectively as the carrier-based aircraft control shipping and is unable to protect our ships from pirate attacks or air bombing. "
    Imagine how at the Pacific Fleet to chase the AUG for poachers, and this landing on the coast, on which shore are you planning to land? To control shipping, you also need AUG, or something to drive pirates? There is no task for him, a weak spot, since everything is tied to him
    1. malikszh
      malikszh 12 November 2013 11: 48
      +5
      the author is simply an oppositionist to any decisions of the Ministry of Defense, if they would reduce the Submarine, he would write figuratively why do we need an aircraft carrier, etc.
  10. Su-9
    Su-9 12 November 2013 08: 47
    10
    I love aircraft carriers very much. Dreamed to fly with them - failed.
    But why Russia needs AUG - I can't understand. For what tasks? (This is even if we discard the "little things" with funding, manufacturing complexity, technology ...)
    For prestige - yes, the argument is serious.
    For the projection of power - UDC is suitable. The same is not beloved Mistral.
    But I don’t see strategic military tasks.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 12 November 2013 09: 09
      +7
      Quote: Su-9
      But I don’t see strategic military tasks.

      For you hi
      1. Petrix
        Petrix 12 November 2013 10: 13
        11
        Aircraft carrier is a powerful weapon, but remember the Second World War. To win, you need a lot of inexpensive T-34s, and not some perfect Tigers and Panthers. The biggest drawback of an Aircraft Carrier is its cost. It is advantageous for the enemy to bind Russia with an expensive, well-known project. Symmetric projects are put in a losing position in advance.
        ACG is needed to maintain order in partisan countries, to demonstrate force, to provide air cover for the fleet far from its shore. If Russia is going to fight far into the sea, then an aircraft carrier is needed. But today, IMHO, the lack of strength to cover their shores.
        1. e3tozy
          e3tozy 12 November 2013 23: 02
          +2
          Why far away. In the Pacific Fleet, ACG is needed as air, in the Mediterranean Sea, without options.
        2. little man
          little man 13 November 2013 00: 10
          0
          Petrix
          Well, by analogy, an aircraft carrier is a mobile air base. A threat to the tanks? Even some!
          Tell me - nuclear deterrence? The triad is no longer ... How much more fuse do we have for modernization, which they do not.
          And an aircraft carrier, like space, is an objection to science and progress.
          1. Firstvanguard
            Firstvanguard 13 November 2013 19: 08
            0
            A threat to the tanks? Even some!

            One delivery channel with the author of the article? wassat RPG-7 will not be easier ??
      2. Su-9
        Su-9 12 November 2013 19: 49
        +1
        wink

        No, with such glasses you don’t see anyway. Even these will not help.
    2. mark1
      mark1 12 November 2013 09: 35
      +3
      An aircraft carrier is a universal warship, its main task is to increase the combat stability of the diverse forces of the fleet brought together (squadron) and operating far from their bases and airfields (providing air defense PLO, etc.). One aircraft carrier can control maritime traffic on a vast stretch of the ocean (either completely stop it or cover it). The role of an aircraft carrier in conducting landing operations is great, but it is not intended to solve strategic tasks, such as the complete destruction of the enemy state.
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 12 November 2013 10: 24
        0
        What doctrine?
        1. mark1
          mark1 12 November 2013 10: 34
          +5
          Quote: Evgeny_Lev
          What doctrine?

          With any. An aircraft carrier is just a universal ship, but whether it will be an instrument of aggression or defense - this depends on the doctrine.
          1. Evgeny_Lev
            Evgeny_Lev 12 November 2013 10: 53
            -1
            Well, yes, it is so "universal" that for one of them, in our turbulent times, there was no other task than to be sent to the Philippines "to help" the victims.
            1. Delta
              Delta 12 November 2013 13: 44
              +1
              Quote: Evgeny_Lev
              Well, yes, it is so "universal" that for one of them, in our turbulent times, there was no other task than to be sent to the Philippines "to help" the victims.


              that is, if our Tu-22s were used both in forest fires and during floods, this is normal, and the aircraft carrier should only fight. Moreover, continuously
      2. saruman
        saruman 12 November 2013 17: 57
        +2
        I will express seditious thought.
        Our fleet really doesn't need a universal combat ship in the form of an aircraft carrier. Well, in no way the AUGs do not fit into our naval doctrine. Remember how many aircraft carriers were built and used in the US WWII. But just which ones? Most of them were not huge monsters, and they were called "escort aircraft carriers", intended primarily for the protection of combat and transport connections of ships. Modern American AUGs are primarily a means of attack, and to a greater extent against land targets. This fact also confuses us.
        From here a simple conclusion - we do not need AUGs, we need escort aircraft carriers, small in displacement of 25-45 thousand tons, with an air group of 20-35 light fighter-bombers like MIG-29K. Such an escort aircraft carrier can give combat stability to any operational formation, and even amphibious forces. To build such aircraft carriers is simpler, faster, and in number of 4-6 pieces it will not be so burdensome, such as Nimitsov’s analogues ...
        And AUGs - no, not needed !!!
      3. mark1
        mark1 12 November 2013 18: 07
        +1
        Quote: mark1
        Aircraft carrier is a universal combat ship, its main task is to strengthen the combat stability

        I apologize for the carelessness sustainability
      4. Old_kapitan
        Old_kapitan 12 November 2013 20: 39
        0
        its main task is to enhance the combat stability of the diverse forces of the fleet brought together
        What, what? what And how do you see it? Will they be put together in a heap, will come up on both sides and will support? Or are you talking about stability are you talking
    3. Arberes
      Arberes 12 November 2013 12: 13
      +5
      Quote: Su-9
      For the projection of power - UDC is suitable. The same is not beloved Mistral.

      Mistral is good at submarine enemy joke. UDC and Mistral have no striking power and will not cover their ship grouping far from their coast!
      What is the projection here ???
    4. Zabvo
      Zabvo 12 November 2013 12: 27
      +7
      “But I don’t see any strategic military tasks” ... Covering the deployment areas of Boreyev # 1! The distraction of the enemy to our AUG, perhaps to the landing of the assault force # 2! Again, domination in the air, for our "Ash" to reach the effective range of anti-ship missiles # 3! Covering your landing (this is generally a sore subject) # 4! The opportunity to "calm down" some particularly arrogant sponsors of the war in a friendly country (I think everyone understands who they are talking about). Another thing is how to build and how much it will cost (considering our fucking corrupt officials) and of course a clear clear naval doctrine. But this is all possible only when there is order in the authorities, and when all sorts of defenders' rights "shake" the rights of the devils, we will finish building the frigate for another 5 years ...
      1. Col.
        Col. 12 November 2013 13: 40
        +3
        Quote: ZABVO
        Covering the deployment areas of "Boreyev" No. 1! The distraction of the enemy to our AUG, perhaps to the landing of the assault force # 2! Again, dominance in the air,


        Let me correct it a little. You put the task in the first place correctly. Only it sounds like this: "Ensuring the combat stability of the RPKSN". The second task is wrong. The third task is incorrect, moreover, "domination" is at sea, and in the air - "superiority". But that's it, the details ... repeat
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 13 November 2013 19: 37
          0
          "Dominance" in the air can also be, only it does not shine for us.
      2. Su-9
        Su-9 12 November 2013 20: 15
        +1
        By tasks:
        "Covering the deployment areas" Boreyev "# 1!"
        - Boreas unfold either in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk or in the Kara Sea / Laptev Sea. From the north to any likely enemy, the flight time of Borea is 20 minutes. Both there and there, the tasks of aircraft carrier aircraft are more effectively accomplished by ground-based aviation.

        "Distracting the enemy to our AUG, rather than the landing of the assault force №2!"
        Landing where? On kudykiny mountains against a strong adversary - in FIG not necessary, this is not a strategic task, but a propaganda one.
        Near Russia, the landings are remarkably supported by ground aviation.
        Away from Russia - against banana republics (like Seychelles) - there is enough UDC.

        "Again, air supremacy, for our" Ash "to reach the effective range of anti-ship missiles # 3!"
        Firstly, this task cannot be strategic - it is a tactical task, and if you need to drown the adversary, then the problem can be solved in different ways. If the task is to heat in the area of ​​Easter Island, then of course, it is better to use PKRami and AUG. But you can send a dozen Tu-160s in one direction. It’s just like the pilots that AUGs so far from the coast are suicide bombers. In order to do this, parity with the AUG states at least is needed, and this will ruin the country.

        "Covering your landing (this is generally a sore subject) # 4!"
        - about the landing - see goal number 2. Having AUG is very good, but first you need to understand where to land it

        "The opportunity to" calm down "some particularly arrogant sponsors of the war in a friendly country (I think everyone understands who they are talking about)."
        - I don't. Unclear. Are you talking about the states? The USSR has already tried to calm them down, remember how it went? On our Tbilisi and 4 Kiev (which, in principle, were not aircraft carriers), the amers had 20 full-fledged AUGs.
        - If you are talking about countries like Georgia, then again, ground aviation will do just fine.
        "It's another matter how to build and how much it will cost (taking into account our fucking corrupt officials) and of course a clear clear naval doctrine. But this is all possible only when there is order in power, and when all sorts of defenders 'rights" shake up "the devils' rights and we will finish building the frigate for another 5 years ... "
        - Let's say you can return Stalinism and fix it. AUG will not have strategic goals.
    5. air wolf
      air wolf 12 November 2013 12: 53
      +2
      He also studied as a marine pilot, a decker, but Elzin dispersed us all or created the conditions for the people to drink and disappear. That's why combat pilots are building commercial real estate today or working for their uncle so as not to starve to death am
      And the presence of AUG for Russia today should be, due to the absence of our bases abroad, 3-4 units based on aircraft-carrying cruisers with a nuclear power plant, the same Kuzi (modernized), armed with I-141 and helicopters AWACS, PLO and PS.
      1. Col.
        Col. 12 November 2013 13: 32
        +2
        Quote: air wolf
        Also studied as a marine pilot, deck


        Who studied? You? Doubtful. Firstly, only the village ignoramuses say "he studied to be a pilot" (sorry). Secondly, not everyone can make a mistake in the word "aircraft" lol . Thirdly, I-141 (probably, meant Yak-141) - this, sorry, no way! They were abandoned a quarter of a century ago!
  11. ed65b
    ed65b 12 November 2013 08: 53
    +1
    That's right, we do not need them, there is little sense much more effective submarine with a vigorous missile off the coast of America. Nobody knows where she is and this makes her even more dangerous. And aUG natives chase the palm trees. Does the author seriously think that two nuclear powers grappling into a mortal battle, the decisive role will be played not by the shots of the Minutemans and Topols, but by the ephemeral air force and navy? This is stage 2. which will no longer be. When causing unacceptable damage to the United States, the AUG is only useful for placing civilians in the "floating city".
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 13 November 2013 19: 44
      0
      Does the author of this post seriously think that off the coast of America "no one knows where she is"?
    2. Zabvo
      Zabvo 20 November 2013 21: 06
      0
      Estimate the power of the C-3 "Viking" in the amount of 100 pieces. and covered with 100 Hornets ... (let's say). RLO within a radius of 1000 km. covered.
      There is no clear missile defense against our anti-ship missiles, since there is no means of accurately overcoming a destroyer or AB missile defense ... One AB will not be able to stand up against the Russian Federation ... PLO, who is electronic warfare, who is IS, who ... can dealers and cannot fully solve as their "earthly brothers" tasks. But!!! The PLO aircraft will not take off without the FA10 clearing the sky, which in the case of the SU-1000 may be a different strategy.
  12. Stinger
    Stinger 12 November 2013 09: 17
    +2
    "To make an intelligent choice, you must first of all know what you can do without." I. Kant's golden words. But it takes a lot of work to find out. In our case, to assess what is achievable with the current state of the industry and available financial opportunities. When preparing an armament program for the next period, the needs of the armed forces, including the navy, in armament and military equipment are assessed to complete the assigned tasks in full, in the minimum required volume and in the amount of allocated financial resources. The state and capabilities of the industry are also assessed. Typically, these resources are below the minimum required. Therefore, it is necessary to determine priorities, which is accompanied by discussions of issues like those given in the article. This I mean that, apparently, the supporters of the Avinos failed to prove their point of view.
  13. Walking
    Walking 12 November 2013 09: 36
    +4
    I also don’t see the special need for an aircraft carrier in the Russian Navy, except at the Pacific Fleet so that the Japanese do not bully their heads. But an aircraft carrier + an air group + security ships + ground infrastructure is very expensive and, depending on the system with its kickbacks, officials in uniform and without uniform will be even more expensive. For submarines, there are bases and a crew training system and plants that can fulfill the order.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 12 November 2013 10: 17
      +6
      Quote: Hiking
      But an aircraft carrier + air group + security ships + ground infrastructure is very expensive

      If you do not invest petrodollars in the economy of the same USA, there will be enough money for this, and much more.
    2. vadson
      vadson 12 November 2013 19: 14
      +1
      Quote: Hiking
      I also don’t see the special need for an aircraft carrier in the Russian Navy, except at the Pacific Fleet so that the Japanese do not bully their heads. But an aircraft carrier + an air group + security ships + ground infrastructure is very expensive and, depending on the system with its kickbacks, officials in uniform and without uniform will be even more expensive. For submarines, there are bases and a crew training system and plants that can fulfill the order.

      everything is right, throwing a dozen bucks of current bucks on the aircraft carrier (research and development, construction) + security, air wing, infrastructure, maintenance - there will still be the same amount. meaning? we don’t have any Falklands. and for the whales of Europe and Europe, there is one very good and cheap blow to the arrogant red face - withdrawal from the agreement on medium and short-range missiles. everyone will be under the gun.
      Of course, an aircraft carrier is needed, but first you need to decide what it NEEDS for? we now have no free capacities for him, but how does the author suggest to drop everything and hit the aug? Sorry author full ram.
      as an option, you can cost for export :-) but not to the detriment of your own defense capabilities. and still need an effective means of combating aug. target designation, delivery vehicles and defeats, this will raise the prestige of the Russian Federation more than the aug itself, if only the Russian Federation can destroy the aug, huh? What is the political weight?
      1. Was mammoth
        Was mammoth 12 November 2013 20: 07
        0
        Quote: vadson
        Of course, an aircraft carrier is needed, but first you need to decide what it NEEDS for?

        wink Smiled.
        Since the last millennium, it is known that iron is lighter than polystyrene and does not sink in water wink Only therefore, the aircraft carrier will not sink. wink
        I am a layman in the maritime business. I do not understand why it is absolutely necessary to drown it. Although it is desirable, because if you only slightly poke its deck, it will immediately turn into a regular transport. And, as they say, "time is money."
        For now, I agree with the opinion that aircraft carriers in their pure form are "a baton for the Papuans." Although high-tech. It was not for nothing that the USSR took a slightly different path. I like the definition - "asymmetric response"
        Quote: vadson
        Sorry author full ram.

        Are you not cool wink
  14. Azzi
    Azzi 12 November 2013 09: 39
    +9
    At one time, one Tirpitz fettered a significant part of the British fleet. A couple of full-fledged AUGs will change the rules of the game for many. And it’s just nice to stand near the Baltic states, celebrate with a salute on May 9, swim in the Far East, take a look at the disputed islands. Anyway, in the household, such a thing is more than necessary.
  15. My address
    My address 12 November 2013 09: 56
    10
    Author:
    1. According to the air defense, the AUG took ideal opportunities. And if at ten meters 12 of the Kyrgyz Republic goes simultaneously with 12-azimuths, through 30 degrees, which is problem-free, then where should I put Ajis with Standards?
    2. On the second leg - I read the average salary and realized that I could not read further and did not begin to read. Everything is far-fetched. In the USSR, housing was given free of charge and paid at the level of 50%. And the tram for three pennies? Did the rest of the US government pay? That is, the author is weak in economics.
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 12 November 2013 10: 49
      13
      And with us it’s always like this - they compare the struggle of 1 submarine with the whole AUG - and lo and behold, the AUG wins!
      It was not customary to remember that a whole complex of ships, boats and aircraft had to fight with him.
      1. Delta
        Delta 12 November 2013 12: 19
        0
        Quote: lelikas
        It was not customary to remember that a whole complex of ships, boats and aircraft had to fight with him.


        and where is the complex of warships? if the orientation of the Soviet fleet was and is now in the Russian - underwater. And where to get enough aviation if there are no bases, like the United States and there are no aircraft carriers?
        1. lelikas
          lelikas 12 November 2013 18: 20
          +1
          And here is a joke about mice and an owl -
          You guys don't bullshit me. I am engaged in strategy.
          If there are no ships, let them build more, rebuild airfields and build new aircraft.
          The orientation of our fleet was and is - littoral. And the boats perform the main "shock" function. Nobody seriously considered the possibility of one "baton" to fight alone with the AUG.
          We are the land carrier.
  16. vthrehbq
    vthrehbq 12 November 2013 09: 59
    +1
    The arguments that aircraft carriers are needed are very weak. For starters, are we going to wage war on other continents? NO!!!
    1. Delta
      Delta 12 November 2013 12: 20
      +2
      Quote: vthrehbq
      For starters, are we going to wage war on other continents? NO!!!


      never got together. Why do we need long-range aviation in this case?
  17. igorra
    igorra 12 November 2013 09: 59
    +6
    But the Cossack was sent up. What other shores we wouldn’t lose our own. The article is utter nonsense, calculated on the cheers of the patriots. AUG is a purely offensive weapon, the author was going to fight with whom? Ask grandfather and grandmother that this is a war? for such, then our guys die in all corners of the planet.
    1. mark1
      mark1 12 November 2013 10: 17
      +2
      Maybe you think that the Mediterranean squadron is not needed, or does anyone need watch on the Strait of Hormuz? I repeat - the aircraft carrier is a universal weapon and its main task is to ensure the combat stability of the squadron located far from its naval base.
      And aren't you the same Cossack?
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 12 November 2013 10: 25
        +4
        Quote: mark1
        And aren't you the same Cossack?

        But you won’t fight. laughing Aircraft carriers are certainly needed, in the Mediterranean first. Still in Kamrani to restore the base, and there would be useful. But in the Cuban region, the very place of the nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers there will be superfluous. hi And the article really looks like a custom one.
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 12 November 2013 13: 49
          +3
          Finally, following Putin’s visit, an act will be signed to transfer Vietnam to the first of six Varshavyanka Project 636 diesel-electric submarines. It will go into service with the Vietnamese Navy. The amount of the contract is about $ 2 billion. In addition, the SRV will receive from the Russian Federation in 2016 and 2017 two new patrol ships, the Cheetah-3.9. Earlier, Vietnam had already purchased two Cheetahs for its navy.
          The submarine will be delivered to the Vietnamese port of Camran at the end of December. A base will be created for the maintenance and repair of submarines. One part of the port will be used for military-technical purposes, the other for the implementation of business projects, the President of Vietnam said during his visit to Moscow.

          “In fact, we are talking about the return of the Russian fleet to Kamran after a 10-year hiatus, although the Vietnamese authorities prefer allegories so as not to provoke a surge of emotions in the United States or China,” says Vladimir Kolotov, head of the Department of History of Far Eastern Countries at St. Petersburg State University.

          During the Cold War, Camran was in the forefront of the military confrontation between the USSR and the USA. During the Vietnam War, the port was the rear base of the United States. In 1979, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam transferred Kamran to the USSR for a period of 25 years for use as a logistics point of the Soviet Navy at no cost. Later, Hanoi demanded to pay annually $ 300 million for the rental base. Moscow refused, and in 2002 the Russian military left Kamran.

          Experts clearly link the order for the construction of six submarines in Russia and the return of the Russian military to Kamran with the territorial claims of China

          to part of the islands of the Spratly archipelago and the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. In the early 1990s, oil and gas were found on the coral islands of Spratly and Paracela. Since then, Vietnam, China, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia have disputed their right to use them. Some of these countries raised their national flags on the disputed islands. But a particularly tough territorial conflict is developing between Vietnam and China. It has repeatedly come to armed clashes.
        2. Walker1975
          Walker1975 12 November 2013 16: 22
          +3
          And the conversation went into a circle. It’s good to have an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean and a couple in the Pacific ... But there are none and is not yet in sight. Therefore - you must first discuss the marine doctrine, and then under it - the ships.
      2. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 12 November 2013 10: 40
        +1
        What will quickly fall into place of the need for an AUG or a strategist?
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 12 November 2013 11: 20
          +3
          Ideally, the SS-18. You’re not comparing the categories. Strategists and aircraft carriers have different goals.
          1. Evgeny_Lev
            Evgeny_Lev 12 November 2013 13: 28
            0
            Oh oh ?

            Why are they then RCC?
            1. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 12 November 2013 14: 21
              0
              Quote: Evgeny_Lev
              Oh oh ?
              Why are they then RCC?

              I understood you. You have a mistake in the comment
              Quote: Evgeny_Lev
              AUG or strategist

              AUG is an aircraft carrier strike group. Do you mean the submarine?
    2. Delta
      Delta 12 November 2013 12: 22
      0
      Quote: igorra
      The article is utter nonsense, designed to cheer patriots.


      Hooray-patriots, just an article minus. It was unpleasant to read, apparently about the real state of affairs. AUG is an offensive weapon? no problem. And who was going to fight with Italy, France, Great Britain?
      1. igor36
        igor36 12 November 2013 13: 36
        +4
        Quote: Delta
        And who was going to fight with Italy, France, Great Britain?

        Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan - does not mean anything? And how many more countries in the world have not known the charms of Western democracy ...
        1. Delta
          Delta 12 November 2013 13: 47
          +2
          Quote: igor36
          Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan - does not mean anything? And how many more countries in the world have not known the charms of Western democracy ...


          In the countries you have listed, everyone who has aircraft carriers fought ??? and Russia has everything that it has so far received from heaven? grew on trees? I mean territory, not to mention interests beyond my borders
          1. vadson
            vadson 12 November 2013 19: 28
            -1
            Nuka, my dear, what territories of the USSR and the Russian Federation were recaptured with the help of aircraft carriers? but with the help of the t-34 they even fought
            1. Delta
              Delta 12 November 2013 19: 42
              +1
              Quote: vadson
              Nuka, my dear, what territories of the USSR and the Russian Federation were recaptured with the help of aircraft carriers? but with the help of the t-34 they even fought


              firstly, not harnessed to "nuk". Learn a culture of communication. To this and "dear". Secondly, where did I talk about the conquests of the USSR and Russia "with the help of aircraft-carrying ships"? I spoke about expanding borders and other interests of Russia and the USSR. It was the one who constantly claims the supposedly exclusively defense doctrine of Russia.
    3. air wolf
      air wolf 12 November 2013 13: 01
      0
      A banal example of the situation today in Libya, Syria? Our outposts were there.
  18. 3935333
    3935333 12 November 2013 10: 02
    +5
    The submarine fleet will not let you down, and the aircraft carrier, as Leonid Ilyich used to say, is a weapon of capitalist aggression, and therefore, as Sergei Gorshkov sang along to him, it is alien to the Soviet naval doctrine. So it turns out that the main striking force of our fleet goes under water. Guilty - immersed.
    - By the way, the USSR built the same aircraft-carrying cruisers, so I realize that it will come to them, now we focus on the submarine fleet (a deterrent) and the protection of the water area (corvettes, frigates), but are we planning to destroy the destroyer? We will design and build, we will build their time and ships of rank 1 and 2 in sufficient quantity to scare the natives and geyropecsev later.
    Yes, and the author forgot to mention that the AUG is still necessarily a multi-purpose submarine.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 13 November 2013 20: 44
      0
      Stop lying about Gorshkov repeat. Gorshkov spent the entire term as commander of aircraft carriers, though with varying degrees of success. Read the history of domestic aircraft carriers.
  19. avt
    avt 12 November 2013 10: 44
    +2
    Oleg’s campaign is like-minded competitor in the virtual struggle with aircraft carriers as a class. You look, they will create a pariah against aircraft carriers and during the class struggle the hated aircraft carrier fleet will fall! laughing
  20. lelikas
    lelikas 12 November 2013 10: 45
    +4
    Quote: Petrix
    To win, you need a lot of inexpensive T-34s, and not some perfect Tigers and Panthers

    Well, this is not a fact, if we started our production of 44ki a year and a half earlier, you will see and the losses would have been less. I don’t think that breaking through the last 2000 meters to the Tigers, our tankers were glad that their tanks were inexpensive.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 12 November 2013 11: 53
      +2
      Quote: lelikas
      I don’t think that breaking through the last 2000 meters to the Tigers, our tankers were glad that their tanks were inexpensive.

      Price issue. At that time, the question of time and number of tanks was acute, and people were cheaper. Unfortunately. But if we were carried away by the production of more expensive and safer toys, the outcome of the war could be different.
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 12 November 2013 18: 26
        +1
        By the end of 43, there was no longer a critical impossibility to suspend or slow down the production of 34 ki in connection with the transition to a new machine.
        With a series of KV, KV1S, KV-85, IS1, IS-2 and IS-3 there were no problems in this regard.
  21. Marconi41
    Marconi41 12 November 2013 10: 45
    0
    Someone tell me how to drop the video from your computer?
    1. Canep
      Canep 12 November 2013 14: 03
      +1
      Put it in social networks (classmates, VKontakte, soap, etc.) and give a link to it here.
  22. Wedmak
    Wedmak 12 November 2013 10: 56
    12
    How many copies were broken, and again about the same thing! Dear Alexander Nikolsky seriously believes that only submarines will go to destroy the AUG? It is really impossible to break through the AUG perimeter if you use any one component of the fleet. A couple of "Peter the Great", maximum, can scare and demolish a couple of escort ships. A couple of "loaves" can do the same, no more. The Tu-22M3 regiment will probably demolish all Arleigh Burkeys, but it will remain there itself.
    AUG is a complex combat complex. Aircraft carrier itself, security ships, escort submarines. All this controls a zone with a radius of 600 km. And only a comprehensive attack, with distracting maneuvers, an ambush and a massive salvo (or even two or three waves) can destroy the AUG.
    In reality, having determined the location of the AUG, it will simply be destroyed and put out of action with a pair of tactical nuclear charges. No Aegis will hit the warheads of Topol and Yars. This is the best option.
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 12 November 2013 16: 28
      +2
      Quote: Wedmak
      AUG is a complex combat complex. Aircraft carrier itself, security ships, escort submarines. All this controls a zone with a radius of 600 km. And only a comprehensive attack, with distracting maneuvers, an ambush and a massive salvo (or even two or three waves) can destroy the AUG.

      Still, the Chinese go the right way when they create anti-ship ballistic missiles. We need to take an example from them. Equip such missiles with multiple warheads.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 12 November 2013 18: 35
        +1
        Still, the Chinese go the right way when they create anti-ship ballistic missiles.

        YES, but I hardly believe in the exact hit of a ballistic missile in a moving target. The warhead speeds are huge, the number of warheads is limited, per millisecond maneuver. Although if it gets ... avik will thoroughly flash how to drink, even explosives are not needed.
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 13 November 2013 21: 01
        0
        Actually, the Chinese are taking an example from us. In the USSR, back in 1975, the D-1 complex with the R-5K (27K-4) missile with a launch range of 18 km was adopted (albeit only 1100 submarine). The missile had a non-nuclear warhead with an optical or radar seeker. By the end of the 80s, it was planned to adopt a similar version of the Pioneer rocket.
  23. ed65b
    ed65b 12 November 2013 11: 03
    +5
    In the USSR, no suckers were sitting, and probably took into account different options. once they decided to focus on the Premier League, it was the only possible answer to the adversary. And to sit on a large, beautiful aircraft carrier with the goal of simply having some fun and it’s not clear to anyone that we can prove it by putting money into it immensely, stupidly. To develop the nuclear submarine component to the minimum size of the USSR. and then you can chat about AUG. especially since the Ministry of Defense has closed the topic for the next 50 years. Why break spears?
    1. Pajamas
      Pajamas 12 November 2013 11: 47
      +5
      Quote: ed65b
      In the USSR, no suckers were sitting, and probably took into account different options. once they decided to focus on the Premier League, it was the only possible answer to the adversary. And to sit on a large, beautiful aircraft carrier with the goal of simply having some fun and it’s not clear to anyone that we can prove it by putting money into it immensely, stupidly. To develop the nuclear submarine component to the minimum size of the USSR. and then you can chat about AUG. especially since the Ministry of Defense has closed the topic for the next 50 years. Why break spears?

      Oh really ? and TAVRK “Moscow”, “Kiev”, “Minsk”, “Novorossiysk”, “Admiral Gorshkov”, “Admiral Kuznetsov”, unfinished in the USSR “Ulyanovsk” - sawn up by Ukraine, “Varyag” completed with Chinese money.
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 12 November 2013 14: 15
        +1
        Quote: Pajama
        Quote: ed65b
        In the USSR, no suckers were sitting, and probably took into account different options. once they decided to focus on the Premier League, it was the only possible answer to the adversary. And to sit on a large, beautiful aircraft carrier with the goal of simply having some fun and it’s not clear to anyone that we can prove it by putting money into it immensely, stupidly. To develop the nuclear submarine component to the minimum size of the USSR. and then you can chat about AUG. especially since the Ministry of Defense has closed the topic for the next 50 years. Why break spears?

        Oh really ? and TAVRK “Moscow”, “Kiev”, “Minsk”, “Novorossiysk”, “Admiral Gorshkov”, “Admiral Kuznetsov”, unfinished in the USSR “Ulyanovsk” - sawn up by Ukraine, “Varyag” completed with Chinese money.

        Well, this is not a pure aircraft carrier. Half-breed smileAnd do not compare the resource base of the USSR with modern Russia.
        1. Pajamas
          Pajamas 12 November 2013 15: 11
          +2
          Quote: ed65b
          Well, this is not a pure aircraft carrier. Half-breed smileYes

          Forgive me, but it was ugly from the beginning to assert that the aircraft carriers are not in our doctrine and, in general, everyone in the USSR allegedly abandoned them, but to assert that the TAVRK is a half-breed, the TAVRK project 1143.7 Ulyanovsk, planned for construction in the USSR, had an aviation group of 70 units. "Varyag" -60, it is less than the "supercarrier" of the United States with 120, but a more versatile unit carrying 16 SCRC, for example, on "Peter the Great" 20KRC. So imagine this tandem entering the Mediterranean Sea, an ideal weapon for regional conflicts.
          Quote: ed65b
          And do not compare the resource base of the USSR with modern Russia.

          Resource in terms of finance? so if you didn’t know, Russia recently had more gold and foreign exchange reserves than in the USSR, and in terms of production we get a vicious circle, we don’t build because there aren’t enough capacities, we don’t increase the capacities because there is nothing to build. An order for an Aircraft Carrier or TAVRK would solve the problem, support science, defense industry, education.
          1. vadson
            vadson 12 November 2013 19: 42
            0
            this is on which yankee aircraft carrier 120 aircraft. if the memory doesn’t betray about 40-50 stuck-on electronic drills and helicopters
            1. Pajamas
              Pajamas 12 November 2013 20: 23
              0
              the aviation group is not only airplanes, the indicated aviation group, about which in black and white, read that this could be the maximum layout on the CVN 78/79 project. Now something in the region of 90 at "Gerald R. Ford" - http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 13 November 2013 21: 13
                0
                And the French "Charles de Gaulle" - 50 LA. And the new British are about the same.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 13 November 2013 21: 09
      +1
      Exactly, in the USSR they were not suckers. That is why, since the 20s of the 0th century, they have been trying to begin building the AB for the Russian Navy. But it was precisely such comrades, like you like me, who were saying in decisive leading positions that said: why, if we can’t, it’s expensive.
  24. Isk1984
    Isk1984 12 November 2013 11: 43
    +1
    Everything is true. The USSR was not going to fight with third countries, and in the event of a similar Soviet Navy, it could fulfill any local tasks ... Gorshkov understood everything correctly, and ideology was not in last place ... All movements of Aug were controlled by a legend, and correctly noted no one regiments of carcasses would not send to the AUG would hit a couple of charges and all there is no AUG
  25. Isk1984
    Isk1984 12 November 2013 11: 49
    +3
    And today, the success of the ACG in the modern world and their demonstration of strength, this lack of a counterweight in the form of the USSR, that under the USSR it was possible to allow the defeat of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan ... one note of protest of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the ACG unfolds back to norfolk, and somewhere I came across a study where American analysts themselves recognized the confrontation with the USSR and began to bend the United States and the appearance of Gorbachev saved them in every sense, in those days the Fed would not have been allowed to work ...
  26. Pajamas
    Pajamas 12 November 2013 11: 53
    +2
    Everyone in the USSR understood correctly and aircraft carriers were going to build, Varyag and Ulyanovsk were laid in Nikolaev, after the collapse, they sawed one, built another China.
    How can you wish for the status of a superpower and project military actions only on your own territory, and if you wave a nuclear cudgel like that, well, by God, it's ridiculous that it is real, because of Syria, Iran, Egypt, to use nuclear weapons, HA-HA-HA, in any non-nuclear conflict, in a regional war, AUG will be needed, 08.08.08 would not have happened at all. We are friends with Venezuela and the chickens (from the US coat of arms) laughing 2 strategists to prove that they are still flying or that we will drop a "bomb" on Colombia ? Here is "Peter" there was this case. Have you forgotten how our ambassador in Qatar received "cabbage soup"? If the AUG were in the Gulf of Aden, neither Somalia nor Qatar would exist.
    1. ed65b
      ed65b 12 November 2013 14: 21
      +4
      [/ quote] There would be no Somalia or Qatar in the Gulf of Aden. [/ quote]
      Deeply unsure of this. I would get it for cabbage soup both with AUG and without AUG. And without AUG it was possible to crush Qatar to dust and the USSR would do that. But there is no GDP. Business. And in Holland they put all the cancer for the ambassador of the USSR but no GDP. Spirit is needed, not AUG.
  27. Alexey
    Alexey 12 November 2013 12: 08
    +5
    AUG, a vital part of a strong fleet. The question "Is AUG needed in the Navy?" is equal to the question "Do you need a strong fleet?" For those who like to speculate that it is better to build submarines, or, for example, missile boats, I propose to speculate that sniper rifles or tanks are better. This way of posing the question is essentially absurd. A strong fleet is a well balanced fleet.
  28. bulvas
    bulvas 12 November 2013 12: 09
    +1
    And why do Russia need a carrier fleet? Especially at this stage.
    We need airships and powerful railways in order to develop the North, East and Siberia. What do we need in the ocean?
    1. Alexey
      Alexey 12 November 2013 12: 14
      +1
      Geopolitics, you know. The point is that only by being "externally" and "internally" strong will we be able to develop both the North and Siberia and the East ... one without the other is possible only when we are surrounded by honest friends. Our "partners", alas, are not like that
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 12 November 2013 18: 29
      0
      How will airships travel by rail?
  29. doktor_alex
    doktor_alex 12 November 2013 12: 23
    +4
    I stopped reading right after the masterpiece conclusions that the AUG would fire a volley of 120 missiles without any problems, and in order to drown an American tin, at least 30 hits are needed ..... The further "value" of the material is beyond doubt.
    1. Alexey
      Alexey 12 November 2013 12: 30
      +2
      But I agree with the main conclusion of the article, but I am haunted by the idea that the author came to him by accident. Evidence base at the student level. There are many pearls, in almost every paragraph. A lot of the campaign "I thought of it myself." Alas.
    2. Col.
      Col. 12 November 2013 13: 16
      +4
      Quote: doktor_alex
      The further "value" of the material is beyond doubt.


      What is your knowledge and experience in this area? For example, having served 29 years in the Naval Aviation, graduated from the Naval Aviation Academy (back in Soviet times, when I studied there for 3 years), having experience of service in the "upper" headquarters and experience of participating in operational-strategic exercises, I CONFIRM the correctness of the figures above which you make fun. If you do not believe the professionals, then continue to be in the captivity of illusions caused by ignorance and impressions from reading glossy magazines and publications of "feather sharks".
      1. doktor_alex
        doktor_alex 12 November 2013 14: 52
        0
        Those. you confirm that the US avianos warrant will be able to hit about 20-25 air targets per minute, besides losing some of its strength in the process (after all, at least something will break through their air defense or is everything so bad with us?).
      2. ran nearby
        ran nearby 12 November 2013 22: 05
        +2
        In no way doubting your knowledge and combat experience, I allow myself to doubt the figures given in the article. Of course, it was possible at the headquarters for each AUG and laid one hundred-plus RCC. Well, so for sure. But the reality is completely different.
        In order to disable an aircraft carrier for a long time - up to six months, ONE sidewinder missile is enough bully
        and in order to smash the Atlantic Conveyor helicopter carrier nafik it took only TWO Exocets, and one did not explode. The Argentines carried out the launch from the minimum distance and minimum height, and this was during the fighting.
  30. air wolf
    air wolf 12 November 2013 12: 42
    -6
    author -> author -> author - "mattress" is corrupt, torpedoes 65-76 "Kit" have not been canceled, Varshavyanka alone will cope with this task, it will be difficult, but will cope.
    1. saag
      saag 12 November 2013 16: 01
      0
      Canceled after Kursk
  31. bulvas
    bulvas 12 November 2013 12: 50
    +2
    Kindergarten
    The country is going to introduce criminal liability for calls for separatism (it’s ripe, really necessary), and someone is going to send aircraft carriers to the ocean.
    You must first put the country in order, then think about the presence in the ocean
    Aircraft carriers are not needed to protect the coast; coastal systems and aviation are enough
    1. Pajamas
      Pajamas 12 November 2013 13: 16
      +6
      Quote: bulvas
      You must first put the country in order, then think about the presence in the ocean

      By ordering the construction of an aircraft carrier, the state will support its own engineering and science, education.
      And how are you going to put things in order, in the Olympiads? More hotels and resorts, sports facilities? After all, the country needs maids and waiters, porters, pool cleaners, souvenir sellers.
      Maybe roads? Of course, yes, 2 billion rubles per kilometer in Moscow, and that 150 km is still a ring, instead of 10 MPLATRK of the Yasen-M project that they want to build before 2020.
      How are you going to raise, through the Ministry of Culture? Or for a new exam?
      Only an order through engineering will raise education and science, the military-industrial complex is the last frontier, and so half of the capacity has already been lost, not to mention the research institute. Now for AUG there are no capacities, time will pass and this will not remain.
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 12 November 2013 13: 33
        0
        Yes, the roads. Railway road. BAM to expand, reduce transit time from China to Europe. What is a bad project?
        1. Pajamas
          Pajamas 12 November 2013 13: 58
          +1
          And how will this help the country, which will give an increase in China-Europe trade turnover, further boost the Chinese economy. But we are not Ukraine, as with gas, it will not work to bite off the floor of the car. Faster raw materials to sell? Which sectors of the economy will raise? What is the profit that high-speed trains will design, build and launch? Who, apart from manufacturers of rail sleepers, will rise? The project may not be bad, it has its advantages in the long run. But it makes sense to drink Borjomi when the kidneys fail.
          1. Walker1975
            Walker1975 12 November 2013 16: 29
            0
            But the Far East does not need to be raised?
            1. Pajamas
              Pajamas 12 November 2013 17: 59
              0
              and that he drowned, or is he an alternative to everything, or the Far East, or everything else?
          2. igor36
            igor36 13 November 2013 00: 15
            0
            Quote: Pajama
            which will increase the turnover of China-Europe,

            If you aren’t in the know, you can earn money by shipping. Infrastructure development is one of the basic principles of accelerating economic development. Improving transport accessibility leads to lower production costs and, accordingly, an increase in the competitiveness of the economy. Of course, there are no problems with cars and railway transport in St. Petersburg, but the residents of Siberia and the Far East need this.
            1. Pajamas
              Pajamas 13 November 2013 02: 40
              0
              Quote: igor36
              Infrastructure development is one of the basic principles of accelerating economic development. Improving transport accessibility leads to lower production costs and, accordingly, an increase in the competitiveness of the economy.
              Do not tell me, the total number of people in the BAM, production capacities around the road, well, what would reduce their costs, if you didn’t notice, I wrote that the task for the future is important, but now besides reducing the cost of Chinese goods and completely burying domestic production, nothing will, we give them raw materials, they give us goods, what is the profit?
    2. Alexey
      Alexey 12 November 2013 13: 16
      +1
      But the presence of a squadron off the coast of Syria does not contribute to the protection of the country? Oh dear? A country cannot be put in order without a strong army and navy; they will not allow it. Since it is beneficial only to us, who consider Russia to be their homeland. Kindergarten pulls from you.
      1. bulvas
        bulvas 12 November 2013 13: 37
        +1
        In fact, the blow to Syria was stopped not so much by ships as by politics.
        Ships, of course, were also, but they did not determine the result.

        Unrealistic projects can only undermine the country's economy, with all the ensuing consequences.
        1. Walker1975
          Walker1975 12 November 2013 16: 30
          0
          Quote: bulvas
          Unrealistic projects can only undermine the country's economy, with all the ensuing consequences.


          Well ... The Winter Olympics in Sochi for 50 lard dollars will do this rather than building an aircraft carrier.
          1. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 12 November 2013 16: 42
            +1
            Quote: Walker1975

            Well ... The Winter Olympics in Sochi for 50 lard dollars will do this rather than building an aircraft carrier.

            Yes, Russia is a rich country and can afford the Olympics. No need to consider other people's money.
            1. little man
              little man 12 November 2013 22: 47
              +1
              Alexander, this is a long ruble (in a good way).
              Aircraft carrier construction - attracting cool techies, not migrant builders and service staff
            2. Corsair
              Corsair 13 November 2013 04: 12
              0
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              Yes, Russia is a rich country and can afford the Olympics. No need to consider other people's money.

              That's right, but with a slight caveat, the Olympics should still at least
              It’s good to have sports, political, and infrastructure infrastructures, but nobody canceled the economic factor either ...

              Therefore, we hope that the holiday of sports will also be profitable.
          2. bulvas
            bulvas 12 November 2013 18: 17
            +1
            Quote: Walker1975
            Well ... The Winter Olympics in Sochi for 50 lard dollars will do this rather than building an aircraft carrier.


            You need to look wider
            Russia needs projects for the image of the country, we are not going to sit in the ass until the end of the century.

            In addition, the city, especially the resort built to the highest class, will soon begin to give returns both as a tourist center (Sochi can work all year round in this regard) and as a showcase of a country in which there is not only vodka, balalaika and felt boots. The Olympic Games are first of all a super global advertisement for Russia and Sochi
            1. Pajamas
              Pajamas 12 November 2013 19: 54
              +4
              Quote: bulvas
              In addition, the city, especially the resort built to the highest class, will soon begin to give returns both as a tourist center (Sochi can work all year round in this regard) and as a showcase of a country in which there is not only vodka, balalaika and felt boots. The Olympic Games are first of all a super global advertisement for Russia and Sochi

              Have you been to Sochi? who will go there? Showcase of what? Advertising of what? 30 nuclear submarines surfaced in the Gulf of Mexico - a showcase, and a springboard in Sochi for 7 billion - a disgrace. What is the return? To whom? But what if all this didn’t fall apart and you’ll have to subsidize, you think, the Germans and Shavers will go ice skating in Sochi or compatriots will stretch from the Urals, don’t tell any Turkey and Egypt will be cheaper and more comfortable.
            2. Walker1975
              Walker1975 12 November 2013 20: 11
              -2
              Yes ... closed Olympic venues will be a special advertisement. Because their only power supply, Sochi will not have enough of the city budget. Use as intended - so you need to take such a rent that even the national team will not pull.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 12 November 2013 20: 16
                0
                Why close what income brings?
                1. Pajamas
                  Pajamas 12 November 2013 20: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Spade
                  Why close what income brings?

                  The fact of its existence? If the objects are on the balance of the Ministry of Sports, then this is the budget, if private, then what kind of profit are they talking about?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 12 November 2013 20: 33
                    +1
                    And what, private traders do not pay taxes? Turkish and Swiss resorts don’t make deductions to the Russian budget, I know for sure. And the fact that tourism development within the country will not bring revenue to the state is a discovery for me. More?
                    1. Pajamas
                      Pajamas 12 November 2013 21: 17
                      0
                      What kind of tourism are you planning to develop at the Olympic venues? For example, on a springboard, bobsleigh, skilleton tracks, biathlon tracks and shooting ranges, the operation of these complex technical facilities in the conditions of the subtropics is not cost-effective, holding international competitions once a year will only increase costs. Now about theoretically cost-effective Olympic facilities - the ski slopes of Krasnaya Polyana, the operating conditions are temporary - 81 days a year, snow cover in Krasnaya Polyana (http://sochi.meteoinfo.ru/climate#54), I think for months to guess, the question is what is the point I have to go there from Moscow or St. Petersburg at a room rate for 1 person from $ 70 per day, I'm sorry In the Alps, Tatras, where you can fly anywhere. The number of people visiting ski slopes in Sochi will not increase, who will fly in Sochi and who will not fly will not, what kind of profit increase are we talking about? Sochi does not have a hockey team; the ice palace will at best become a platform, now there are 2 ice arenas for games in the summer, and these facilities will be able to bring money to the Kirkorov, Galkin, Mikhailov, God forbid that they had enough tax to maintain the palaces the remaining half a year.
                      Now, about tourism within the country, how long have you been "tourists" around the country, so what would you like to be a tourist if you have canned food and a boiler with you, people gather to Turkey and Egypt, but to Patay from Goa, a mass tourist is not to Kamchatka with Baikals.
                2. Walker1975
                  Walker1975 12 November 2013 20: 52
                  0
                  And where will the income come from? Can you imagine how much it costs to maintain a large ice stadium in Sochi? How much electricity should be spent on supporting ice? And who will play hockey in Sochi? Train? And how often is it that the rent, at least the work of the freezers, pays for itself?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 12 November 2013 20: 58
                    +2
                    Quote: Walker1975
                    Can you imagine how much it costs to maintain a large ice stadium in Sochi?

                    In one or two concerts of someone like Fili Kirkorov per month. They do it all over the world, why is it not allowed for us?
              2. Alexander Romanov
                Alexander Romanov 13 November 2013 03: 57
                0
                Quote: Walker1975
                Because their only power supply, Sochi will not have enough of the city budget. Use as intended - so you need to take such a rent that even the national team will not pull.

                Don’t worry, dear, we have enough money. We are no longer running around the world in search of loans tongue
        2. lelikas
          lelikas 12 November 2013 18: 33
          +2
          Quote: bulvas
          Ships, of course, were also, but they did not determine the result.

          "A kind word and a colt can achieve much more than just a kind word" - and everyone immediately understood this.
          They opposed the war in Yugoslavia, but only with a kind word.
        3. Alexey
          Alexey 13 November 2013 08: 37
          0
          Oh, naivety. The squadron is one of the factors, and at one point one of the most important factors that helped to solve the matter politically.
        4. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. little man
      little man 13 November 2013 01: 24
      0
      Peter 1, or they told him - Swing at the big one, and beat the little one, only beat off your hand (C).
      Coastal complexes, etc. IMHO - "drive yourself into a corner"
  32. alex56
    alex56 12 November 2013 13: 03
    0
    I can’t understand why the author parses only the RCC attack.
    But what about torpedoes? Or are they not suitable for this purpose? Unfortunately, in this industry is a layman, and therefore I am interested.
    As for aircraft carriers, maybe you should pay attention to the light aircraft carriers (such as the recently launched "America") and vertical take-off aircraft (such as Jacob)? Is such a tandem viable?
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 12 November 2013 20: 03
      0
      Are you planning to approach the AUG with impunity for a torpedo shot?
  33. rudolff
    rudolff 12 November 2013 13: 14
    10
    The creation of the Bulava-Borey complex for many years eaten away a huge gap in the defense budget, completely depriving the Navy of funding for many years. The creation of an aircraft carrier, coupled with the carrier-based PAK FA, AWACS, PLO, electronic warfare aircraft, tankers, etc., will strip the army and navy to their cowards. Perhaps we can build some kind of De Gaulle or even Nimitz, but these will be the only ships in our fleet with an order of boats and tugs. Look at the articles of the last days. Discussed the poor modernization of the T-72 with bald patches DZ, the supply of BTR-82 to the Airborne Forces instead of combat vehicles, the refusal to purchase Vienna, Sprut-SD, BMP-3M / F, T-90MS ... No money. And there are problems with opportunities too! Not able to finish building the frigate, we can’t start building a destroyer in any way, the Bulava is "buggy", there is still no VNEU ... We must still somehow measure our capabilities against our desires. Today's Russia is just a faint shadow of the former might of the USSR and it is foolish to try to compete with the Americans on "their field." For now, anyway. We are not a global hegemon and are unable to provide a naval presence in all parts of the world's oceans. At most, it is the Asia-Pacific region, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. And if we need aircraft carriers, they are unsinkable. But we ourselves have abandoned them. Although, having restructured the debts, we could have had free bases in Vietnam, Cuba, and in the Mediterranean for another half a century. Full-fledged bases, and not this parody in Tartus with a couple of floating berths!
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 12 November 2013 13: 46
      0
      Finally, following Putin’s visit, an act will be signed to transfer Vietnam to the first of six Varshavyanka Project 636 diesel-electric submarines. It will go into service with the Vietnamese Navy. The amount of the contract is about $ 2 billion. In addition, the SRV will receive from the Russian Federation in 2016 and 2017 two new patrol ships, the Cheetah-3.9. Earlier, Vietnam had already purchased two Cheetahs for its navy.
      The submarine will be delivered to the Vietnamese port of Camran at the end of December. A base will be created for the maintenance and repair of submarines. One part of the port will be used for military-technical purposes, the other for the implementation of business projects, the President of Vietnam said during his visit to Moscow.
      “In fact, we are talking about the return of the Russian fleet to Kamran after a 10-year hiatus, although the Vietnamese authorities prefer allegories so as not to provoke a surge of emotions in the United States or China,” says Vladimir Kolotov, head of the Department of History of Far Eastern Countries at St. Petersburg State University.
      During the Cold War, Camran was in the forefront of the military confrontation between the USSR and the USA. During the Vietnam War, the port was the rear base of the United States. In 1979, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam transferred Kamran to the USSR for a period of 25 years for use as a logistics point of the Soviet Navy at no cost. Later, Hanoi demanded to pay annually $ 300 million for the rental base. Moscow refused, and in 2002 the Russian military left Kamran.
      Experts unequivocally connect the order for the construction of six submarines in Russia and the return of the Russian military to Kamran with the territorial claims of China on a part of the islands of the Spratly archipelago and the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. In the early 1990s, oil and gas were found on the coral islands of Spratly and Paracela. Since then, Vietnam, China, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia have disputed their right to use them. Some of these countries raised their national flags on the disputed islands. But a particularly tough territorial conflict is developing between Vietnam and China. It has repeatedly come to armed clashes.
      SRV is in dire need of Russia as a counterweight to China, says Ilya Usov, a senior fellow at the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies. In addition, based in Kamran will allow Russia to monitor in strategically important areas of Southeast Asia, in particular in the South China Sea. “Selling submarines to Vietnam is a defense of Russian and Vietnamese investments,” adds Kolotov. The sale of submarines will partly restore a disturbed balance of power in Southeast Asia. “Russia, like China, is not interested in destabilization in this region, and the strengthening of military power will help sober up hotheads in Beijing,” Kolotov said.

      Vietnam’s entry into the free trade zone with the Customs Union is more of a geopolitical game, Usov said. “The turnover between Russia and Vietnam is scanty, such an alliance will not cause harm, and moral dividends are possible. Russia shows the whole world that it is in the wake of the global trend - it is deepening economic integration, ”says Usov. The Russian Federation will expand its sales through SRV, enter Vietnam through the free trade zone market of ten countries - ASEAN members and China, which is 2 billion consumers, Kolotov explains.
  34. Pajamas
    Pajamas 12 November 2013 13: 17
    +1
    Quote: Pajama
    Quote: bulvas
    You must first put the country in order, then think about the presence in the ocean

    By ordering the construction of an aircraft carrier, the state will support its own engineering and science, education.
    And how are you going to put things in order, in the Olympiads? More hotels and resorts, sports facilities? After all, the country needs maids and waiters, porters, pool cleaners, souvenir sellers.
    Maybe roads? Of course, yes, 2 billion rubles per kilometer in Moscow, and that 150 km is still a ring, instead of 10 MPLATRK of the Yasen-M project that they want to build before 2020.
    How are you going to raise, through the Ministry of Culture? Or for a new exam?
    Only an order through engineering will raise education and science, the military-industrial complex is the last frontier, and so half of the capacity has already been lost, not to mention the research institute. Now for AUG it does not have enough capacity, time will pass and this will not remain.
  35. Ruslan Bear
    Ruslan Bear 12 November 2013 13: 17
    +1
    Quote: air wolf
    author -> author -> author -> author - "Mattress" is corrupt, torpedoes 65-76 "Kit" have not been canceled, only Varshavyanka will cope with this task, it will be difficult, but will cope.

    and how Varshavyanka will catch up aug? and how many torpedoes would she need for an aircraft carrier to sink? Did he understand what he wrote?
  36. GHG
    GHG 12 November 2013 13: 20
    +4
    Some kind of crazy calculations ... what is it worth
    It also follows that the sinking of an American aircraft carrier required up to 30 hits of Granit missiles, or 10–12 to incapacitate it.

    In order to disable an aircraft carrier, 1-2 pieces are enough, guaranteed destruction of 4-5 pieces.
    At the expense of operating costs, compare the content of 5000 people with 100 (+ 100 reserves) of nuclear submarines. In addition, fuel for the air group, the cost of operating the entire wing. I can write until the evening, but lunch is short. laughing
  37. silver_roman
    silver_roman 12 November 2013 13: 23
    +4
    The article put a minus, because It is based on pure performance characteristics of complexes and runs counter to practice.
    But practice is not grateful.
    For example, the phrase that to defeat an aircraft carrier needs 5-6 onyxes. And what. if onisk gets into the annex or even better into the control room? or does the author think that the Yankees sitting in their pepelats without batting will continue to water our 885 of all the guns?
    the case was particularly evident when the phalanx with or tikanderogi, or the berka flashed the British (if I am not mistaken) frigate. This case was almost point blank.
    It is extremely stupid to draw conclusions and calculate something without real facts of application. If we proceed from the theory of the use of weapons, then the war would take place with lightning speed. Several fleets sailed against each other, in 80 seconds they spit out all the ammunition, got onto boats from the wrecked ships and sailed home! Of course it’s wildly exaggerated, but I’m sure that on a global scale this article looks no less ridiculous.
    I always remember the coolest over-secret armor of Chopham ... it seems like there was a case when the latest challenger sentenced RPG-7 to the forehead. RPG - 7 .. yes yes ...
    so the theory remains on paper and no more ... it is good for submitting an application to Congress for the next budget cut by building new ships!
    And again, all this nonsense with the destruction of our anti-ship missiles may have looked a little plausible, given that we say the whole AUG unit is knowingly informed of an impending attack, all the fu-18s are in the air, MK41 is in salvo state, etc. etc. If the intentions of the attack are revealed, then it can obviously be considered a failure.
    Again, no one will fight the Yankees in the open sea. This is obviously pointless. they are a sea power and their fleet has always been their pride and main power. And near the coast, no one canceled naval aviation, coastal anti-ship systems, saboteurs, etc. At one time, the Amer general proved that the AUG is a floating disaster, when the forces of boats and saboteurs sank a rural compound.
    P.S. by the way, it’s almost impossible to raise all the links of the aircraft: until the last one takes off, the first hornet will need refueling ... shorter beard !!!

    pp I will always be happy to debate on this subject!
  38. alexbg2
    alexbg2 12 November 2013 13: 47
    +4
    Now we summarize the number of Onyxes needed to incapacitate an aircraft carrier: 25 + the number brought down by an air patrol, 22 + the number brought down by security ships (260), total: 307. Therefore, for a guaranteed incapacitation of an aircraft carrier from the AUG, it is necessary joint salvo 10 APRK project 855.

    Maybe the calculations are correct, but why aim all the missiles at the aircraft carrier? Probably in a real situation, the first missiles will hit the air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships, to disable them it will be enough to hit 1-2 Onyxes on the ship, and the next ones will go to the aircraft carrier through a weakened grouping of escort ships.
    1. Pajamas
      Pajamas 12 November 2013 14: 17
      0
      As I understand it - the whole chip in the salvo, if exaggerated then launching one at a time, not a single one will fly, and in the salvo, including, targets may be guarding ships. For guaranteed defeat, only the guard needs the same number of missiles.
      1. alexbg2
        alexbg2 12 November 2013 15: 52
        0
        Let’s take the author’s calculations conditionally as true (25 hits of Onyxes in an aircraft carrier for incapacitation), then to defeat an aircraft carrier, taking into account downed missiles, according to the author’s calculations, a salvo of 307 Onyxes is needed.
        To disable air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships, it is necessary to break through only 5-10 missiles, which is significantly less.
        This is of course a purely hypothetical calculation, but the advisability of targeting the first wave or the first missiles in a salvo specifically to the guarding ships is quite logical. Moreover, for the suppression of air defense and anti-aircraft defense by the ship, it is possible to use the entire variety of delivery vehicles and the variety of the means themselves, which increases the chances of neutralizing and destroying the entire AUG.
    2. Walker1975
      Walker1975 12 November 2013 20: 07
      +1
      And will you all shoot and shoot ... first, you will demolish all the guards, and then the aircraft carrier, and the Americans will look at it and change the ports?
      1. alexbg2
        alexbg2 12 November 2013 21: 19
        0
        Quote: Walker1975
        And will you all shoot and shoot ... first, you will demolish all the guards, and then the aircraft carrier, and the Americans will look at it and change the ports?

        Actually, I’m not talking about firing, but about the author’s calculations, proceeding from the fact that all missiles fly to an aircraft carrier, and the security ships knock them down like a dash. In reality (God forbid!) The air defense and anti-aircraft defense will be suppressed, respectively, the above calculations are incorrect.
        And my personal opinion is that no American AHG can threaten Russia in any way, Russia is a continental country, well, not into the Black Sea or the Baltic Sea, and therefore I don’t see a special need to fight them. The local war between America and Russia is absolutely ruled out, and aircraft carriers are weapons of local wars.
        1. Pajamas
          Pajamas 12 November 2013 21: 36
          0
          That is, the United States can drive the Papuans for their purposes, but we no-no. That we have no interests or where.
          Everyone surrenders, I'm an imperialist, I don’t want the ambassadors of my country where I’m nonsense ...
  39. dart_noos
    dart_noos 12 November 2013 14: 15
    0
    Who knows why the Indians bought an aircraft carrier from us?
    1. saag
      saag 12 November 2013 15: 57
      0
      In order to increase its significance in the region, on the one hand, Pakistan, on the other, China
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 13 November 2013 12: 53
        0
        It seems that Pakistan has nothing to do with it, because it is significantly removed from the coast of the Indian Ocean.
        First of all, the acquisition of an aircraft carrier is associated with competition against the backdrop of China.
        Also in India there is its own program for the construction of an aircraft carrier, although it faces a huge number of technical problems. And so with the acquisition of Vikramaditya, both the operation of the ship will be worked out, as well as part of the experience will be adopted for the further commissioning of their ships. It goes without saying that the timing is not even this decade. In those. plan they are far behind!
  40. ed65b
    ed65b 12 November 2013 14: 29
    +2
    We must submariners speak with us. explain to opponents and defenders of the ACG the point of view of submariners. By the edge at least.
    1. Delta
      Delta 12 November 2013 14: 37
      +3
      Quote: ed65b
      We must submariners speak with us. explain to opponents and defenders of the ACG the point of view of submariners. By the edge at least.


      Remember how at school, each of the teachers spoke about the importance of his subject? there is nothing like leather.
  41. Drosselmeyer
    Drosselmeyer 12 November 2013 14: 30
    +6
    Vague doubts about a hundred nuclear warheads for the destruction of an aircraft carrier torment. It is believed that after one nuclear bun, no one will fly away from an aircraft carrier.
    1. alex popov
      alex popov 12 November 2013 21: 46
      0
      Undermining a nuclear munition at an altitude of 10 km creates an electromagnetic pulse that destroys the entire electronics within a radius ... (depending on the power of the munition). With all the consequences. Of course, backup systems will be involved, but ... do not care where there is one nuclear weapon, there are all the others ...
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 12 November 2013 21: 51
        +1
        Undermining a nuclear weapon at any height creates an electromagnetic pulse. However, oddly enough, the entire it does not disable electronics. The presence of aviation nuclear bombs clearly testifies in favor of this.
  42. Stasi
    Stasi 12 November 2013 14: 55
    +2
    If you create an aircraft carrier, then only for the Pacific Fleet. In the Black and Baltic Seas it will be just crowded. An aircraft carrier is not needed in the Northern Fleet. The purpose of an aircraft carrier is to be an ocean ship. Also missed another point. Helicopter carriers were manufactured in the USSR, and a naval helicopter, using modern technology, although it cannot be compared with a military fighter jet, it can also be used for fire support of naval assault and as an anti-submarine hunter. We need to create helicopter carriers.
    1. igor36
      igor36 13 November 2013 00: 50
      0
      Quote: Stasi
      We need to create helicopter carriers.

      one in France has already been launched.
  43. Pajamas
    Pajamas 12 November 2013 15: 14
    +2
    [quote = ed65b] [/ quote] If there were no Somalia or Qatar in the Gulf of Aden, there would be no Qatar. [/ quote]
    Deeply unsure of this. I would get it for cabbage soup both with AUG and without AUG. And without AUG it was possible to crush Qatar to dust and the USSR would do that. But there is no GDP. Business. And in Holland they put all the cancer for the ambassador of the USSR but no GDP. Spirit is needed and not AUG. [/ Quote]
    It’s debatable that you have an AUG at your side, and are you an ambassador to the cabbage soup? In the presence of ACG and rhetoric in politics would be different.
    1. ed65b
      ed65b 12 November 2013 16: 12
      +1
      In Libya, not only for the cabbage soup they gave, but in general they took their lives and what did the USA do?
      1. Pajamas
        Pajamas 12 November 2013 18: 06
        0
        They arranged this whole mess, do not confuse cause and effect.
  44. IOwTZ
    IOwTZ 12 November 2013 15: 21
    0
    Quote: calocha
    There are sheep and pests in the manual, anyone just not professionals. Cleaning ranks is required. The best minds should be engaged in state defense, there should be accountability for every penny invested. Work on the result with maximum responsibility and constant control by the government.


    Imagine a government headed by Medvedev, which "works for results with maximum responsibility and constant control" for the good of Russia. Someone will say - "how hard it is for our president to work in such conditions."
  45. The comment was deleted.
  46. saag
    saag 12 November 2013 15: 51
    0
    Quote: Stasi
    We need to create helicopter carriers

    As if they create three pieces, one at the Pacific Fleet will definitely have a Ka-52 strike, please drive poachers, you need something to drive American boats from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk
  47. moremansf
    moremansf 12 November 2013 16: 01
    +2
    “At present, the Russian Federation does not have an enterprise dedicated to the construction of aircraft carriers, there is no technology, there is no system of agents and contractors, and finally, there is no funds to create giant ships. Russia, which considers itself a maritime power, is not able to modernize even one aircraft carrier , not to mention the construction of an aircraft carrier division.
    Our American partners are convinced that the aircraft carrier must live several lives, going through a certain period of time, repair and modernization. Across the ocean, it is believed that it is economically more profitable for a country to upgrade old ships than to build new ones. In the United States they know how to count money. The oldest US aircraft carrier was in the combat structure of the fleet for about 50 years. During this time he went through four upgrades.
    "Vikramanditiya", aka "Admiral Gorshkov", aka "Baku", as a mirror of the modern shipbuilding industry in Russia, gave an answer to those who, in a Manilov way, are making plans for the quick creation of an aircraft carrier formation: guys, it's too early. We have some strength, but, alas, it is not enough for the construction of such goliaths as an aircraft carrier. This, in fact, proves to us the fate of "Gorshkov." "Vladimir Gundarov." Independent Military Review "
    I myself am for aircraft carriers, by the nature of my service I had to visit all TAVKRs, except for "Minsk", but unfortunately, thanks to the "far-sighted policy" of the leaders in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, Russia lost almost 50% of its shipbuilding industry, everything went to Ukraine. Our Slavic brothers were not able to wisely dispose of the shipbuilding giants that they inherited, as a result of which all the technologies for building ships of this class were lost. The version of the modernization of "Gorshkov" almost ended in a scandal and the loss of a strategic partner in the person of India. It is sad to say about it, but we are not yet ripe, it is easy to destroy, but it is more difficult to restore. The submariner himself, 20 years directly on the "iron", with the "Kuznetsov" passed all the tests, I think that we just need ships of the ocean class, and first of all at the Pacific Fleet, but we do not pull in life ... In any case, the article is a plus and thanks to Alexander Nikolsky for this topic.
    1. pr 627
      pr 627 12 November 2013 22: 42
      +1
      Can you talk more about the tasks for ocean-going ships? I would like to evaluate how Kuznetsov tested the strength of the RF budget for the last 20 years standing at the wall of the 35SRZ in Murmansk. One to Mediterranean, one to the North Atlantic. In Mediterranean, in calm weather, they flew from the deck with one flight, in the Atlantic a storm hit the muzzles of a homegrown AUG, aviation was not raised. That's all the achievements. Therefore, the last two sentences in the comments from the series " let's dream, "and the rest is harsh reality, your assessment is fair.
  48. koralex
    koralex 12 November 2013 16: 02
    +1
    And what does the aircraft carrier and northern latitudes. What should he do there? Standing on the take-off deck in the snow and depicting a stationary target? Steam catapults are a very useful thing and we did not have it but in working condition. Minus its mass, but it allows you to raise the aircraft faster than from a springboard. AUG of course we need a thing, I think and hope that it appears.
  49. vardex
    vardex 12 November 2013 16: 26
    +2
    I don’t need my own carriers, I don’t need aircraft carriers ... For this, the author in the article, well, let's say I smoked good grass, I made a fool out of Gorshkov, but this man built a Soviet modern fleet.
    1. Delta
      Delta 12 November 2013 16: 32
      +1
      Quote: vardex
      But this man then built a modern Soviet fleet.

      that "flotik" people built
      1. vardex
        vardex 12 November 2013 17: 28
        0
        The people themselves will not build anything without proper guidance ,,,
        1. Delta
          Delta 12 November 2013 18: 21
          +2
          Quote: vardex
          The people themselves will not build anything without proper guidance ,,,


          where did the leadership come from? from another planet deliver? from the same people
  50. bddrus
    bddrus 12 November 2013 17: 15
    +1
    And I like to count money)) Our economy is equal to 1/2 of the US economy ??? No. And this is not counting the entire composition of the fleet, but only a dozen of their aircraft carriers and the proposal of the "expert" to us to have 5 pieces, then there are also Arlie Burke's hummingbird destroyers - about 30! and other things! we have a defense budget of 10 !!! times lower than amerovsky! can we reduce the army to 5 aircraft carriers?