Military Review

Aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy: opportunities, suggestions and suggestions

198
On the morning of November 26, the new Indian aircraft carrier R33 Vikramaditya of the 1143.4 project left the waters of the Sevmash plant (Severodvinsk) and headed for Murmansk. There the ship will stay for several days, after which it will go to the place of service in India. It took a little less than ten years to repair and modernize an aircraft carrier that previously had the name “Admiral Gorshkov”. So, the contract was signed on 20 on January 2004 of the year, and the transfer of the ship to the customer took place on 16 on November 2013. Despite the relatively long duration of work, the implementation of this project has received mostly positive reviews from both the Russian and the Indian side. In recent months, an interesting opinion has been featured in the media, expert statements and numerous discussions. According to him, the successful completion of the repair and modernization of the aircraft carrier Vikramaditya shows the capabilities of domestic shipbuilding. This means that the Russian defense industry is able to build new aircraft carriers.


Aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy: opportunities, suggestions and suggestions


Indeed, in the course of the implementation of the Russian-Indian contract, the domestic industry carried out a lot of complicated work, which can be considered a kind of indicator of readiness for the construction of aircraft carriers. However, in the near future, the navy of Russia will not receive ships of this class. The current state armament program, calculated up to 2020 of the year (GVV-2020), does not provide for any design or construction of aircraft carriers. Deputy Minister of Defense Y. Borisov recently noted that the lack of a program to build aircraft carriers in the LG-2020 is primarily due to the country's financial capabilities. At the same time, Borisov did not rule out that in the second half of the current decade or in the twenties, the military would again consider the creation of new aircraft carriers.

Soon after the transfer of the R33 Vikramaditya to the customer, Russian Deputy Prime Minister D. Rogozin made several statements regarding both the contract with India and the prospects for building such ships for the Russian Navy. According to Rogozin, now the presence of new aircraft carriers is not a matter of defense, but is associated with geopolitics. Thus, while the Russian fleet does not need ships with aviation over the next few years, the only available aircraft carrier “Admiral Kuznetsov” will be enough for him as a group.

As we see, the leadership of the country and the military department still does not see the point in immediately starting work on creating new aircraft carriers, although it does not exclude the implementation of such plans in the future. It is worth noting that this point of view did not appear today and not yesterday. For example, almost a year ago, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral V. Chirkov, spoke about the possible start of the construction of aircraft carriers after 2020, as part of the following state armament programs. According to the admiral, the potential should be increased in the next decade. fleet due to the construction of fourth-generation multipurpose nuclear submarines, modern warships of the near, distant sea and ocean zones, as well as promising aircraft carriers as part of the aircraft carrier complex. It was noted that the experience of local conflicts of recent years, in which the carrier-based formations were actively involved, was in favor of a similar strategy for the development of the Navy.

A modern aircraft carrier, acting as part of a naval compound (other methods of combat work of such ships have not been considered practical for a long time), should solve several tasks at once. These tasks are directly related to the presence of an aviation group on board, including a mixed train (fighter-bombers, airborne early warning aircraft, anti-submarine helicopters, etc.). The modern aircraft carrier is designed to provide air defense of the naval connection by the forces of the air group; to provide air strikes on ships or ground targets of the enemy; and also to cover areas in which there are submarines with strategic missiles. From this one should make a start in determining the appearance of a prospective ship, taking into account the peculiarities of hypothetical conflicts in which it should take part.

In July of this year, the discussion of a promising Russian aircraft carrier flared up with a new force. The reason for this was the layout presented at the IMDS-2013 exhibition, created by the FSUE “Krylov State Research Center” (formerly the Krylov Central Research Institute). Employees of the research center are working on a project of a promising aircraft carrier, and in accordance with this project a model was assembled. Naturally, so far this project is only one of the versions of what a promising Russian aircraft carrier will look like, but one cannot but admit that it is consideration of several options that will allow choosing the best one.

The proposed project involves the construction of a heavy aircraft carrier with a displacement of about 80 thousand tons. The ship is proposed to equip the launch pad and arresting gear, which makes it look like the aircraft carrier currently in use "Admiral Kuznetsov." The new aircraft carrier is supposed to be equipped with a non-nuclear power plant capable of providing maximum travel speed to 30 nodes. Air group declared in 40 airplanes and helicopters of several types. For self-defense, the ship must receive several anti-aircraft missile systems.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the project is its intended financial component. The total cost of the development and construction program is estimated at 400 billion rubles, 80 of which will go directly to the construction of the ship. Thus, a promising domestic aircraft carrier is about three times cheaper than the last American ships of the Nimitz project. At the same time, however, it should be noted a noticeable loss both in size and in the number of aircraft and helicopters.

As we see, in the near future a similar project cannot be implemented for financial reasons. A program worth about 400 billion rubles - even if the allocations are divided and “stretched” for several years - will make a tangible hole in the defense budget. So far, our country is not ready for such spending, especially in the light of the incomprehensible role of a promising aircraft carrier in the modern structure of the navy.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to continue to work further, shaping the appearance of a promising aircraft carrier. In this way, you can find the necessary design and technological solutions that will allow in the future to develop and build an aircraft carrier that fully meets modern requirements. In the meantime, due to the lack of a single view on the appearance of aircraft carriers of the future, you can make your own forecast. A correct assessment of the current state of the fleet and industry, as well as a competent analysis of the prospects, can lead to a fairly accurate assumption about the appearance of a new aircraft carrier.

Most likely, the new Russian aircraft carrier will be significantly larger than the existing Admiral Kuznetsov spacecraft. The proposal of the staff of the former Central Research Institute. Krylov looks viable and logical. Therefore, the displacement of a promising aircraft carrier should be estimated at 70-80 thousand tons. Domestic designers are likely to actively use the existing experience, but they will have to apply several new solutions that will make the new aircraft carrier different from Admiral Kuznetsov. First of all, this power plant. Over the past decades, the world has spread the view that a modern aircraft carrier should have a nuclear power plant. This view is supported by a number of technical and operational arguments. Among other things, a nuclear reactor will get rid of large fuel tanks, as well as reduce the volume allocated to the various elements of the power plant.

The growth of the internal volume of the hull, which can be achieved not only by increasing the ship, will increase the size of the air group and the volume of fuel or weapons for it. Recalling the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov", it is worth noting that there is no need for anti-ship missiles. As shown by calculations and practice (including the experience of foreign countries), it is enough for an aircraft carrier to carry only anti-aircraft weapons. To fight with the enemy ships must aircraft or escort ships. The refusal to equip the aircraft carrier with anti-ship weapons will allow the release of additional volumes inside the hull.

It is early to discuss the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the aviation group of a prospective aircraft carrier. If the construction of such a ship starts only at the beginning of the next decade, then plans for the types of aircraft and helicopters that are supposed to be based on it can change several times. In such a context, the model of an aircraft carrier looks like an interesting one, authored by the Krylov State Research Center, on which models of the hypothetical deck-based version of the T-50 fighter were observed. Perhaps by the end of the construction of a new aircraft carrier such aircraft will be ready, but still it cannot be excluded that during the first years of service it will be a floating airfield for existing MiG-29K. Accordingly, without knowing the type of the proposed technology, it is impossible to talk about its quantity. Probably, an aircraft carrier, the appearance of which we are now trying to guess, will receive an air group of at least 40-50 airplanes or helicopters.

Such an alleged appearance of a promising aircraft carrier resembles the 1143.7 project, according to which the Ulyanovsk ship was built in the late eighties, but it has a number of differences. "Ulyanovsk" was larger and heavier than "Admiral Kuznetsov", had a larger air group, but at the same time had to carry about the same weapons, including anti-ship missiles "Granit". Due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, an unfinished aircraft-carrying cruiser was dismantled on a slipway. Some of the nuances of the 1143.7 project are still relevant, which is why a number of developments on this project can be applied in the future.

The current program of procurement of new weapons and military equipment is designed to 2020 year, and there is no room for a new aircraft carrier. Nevertheless, in such programs of the future, corresponding points may appear, thanks to which in the next decade the Russian Navy will be able to receive a new aircraft carrier or even several ships of this class. In the meantime, domestic shipbuilding has other tasks, the implementation of which will allow in the future to begin the construction of aircraft carriers. Over the next few years, the Navy should receive 14 frigates of 22350 and 11356 projects, 15 corvettes of 20380 and 20385 projects, as well as 8 small rocket ships of the 21631 project and a number of boats, auxiliary vessels, etc., not counting submarines . Thus, in the coming years, defense industry enterprises are loaded with existing orders and stocks for aircraft carriers can only be released in the distant future. Because of this, the military and the designers have a considerable amount of time to determine the requirements for a promising aircraft carrier and the subsequent creation of the project.


On the materials of the sites:
http://lenta.ru/
http://vz.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
http://flot.com/
Author:
198 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 28 November 2013 07: 32
    10
    According to Rogozin, now the presence of new aircraft carriers is not a matter of defense, but is associated with geopolitics. Thus, while the Russian fleet does not need ships with an aviation group, and in the coming years it will be enough for the only available aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. request -ALL ! Rogozin’s opinion determines the strategy of our armed forces ... fellow
    1. karal
      karal 28 November 2013 07: 52
      -13 qualifying.
      Perhaps Ragozin is thus trying to lull the vigilance of the NATO bloc. Ships of this class in Russia are needed, at least 4 pieces for each fleet.
      1. SPLV
        SPLV 28 November 2013 08: 56
        39
        Young man! 16 x 400 000 000 000 = 6 400 000 000 000 rubles. I hope you can do it? Now tell me how much time you need to invent the elixir of immortality in order to collect the necessary amount. And one more thing: how will aircraft carriers be operated in the Black Sea Fleet if the passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles is closed? Yes, and what should they do there ??? Four !? A total of 16 pieces! Americans have fewer aircraft carriers. I am sorry, but the Flag needs to be replaced - a person cannot write such nonsense for at least 23 years old.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 09: 04
          20
          Quote: SPLV
          Young man! 16 x 400 000 000 000 = 6 400 000 000 000 rubles.

          Quote
          The total cost of the development and construction program is estimated at 400 billion rubles, of which 80 will go directly to the construction of the ship

          Those. not 16 * 4 billion comes out, but 320 + 16 * 80 = 1,6 trillion.
          4 software for the fleet is, of course, fantastic, but you need to count it correctly
          1. Canep
            Canep 28 November 2013 10: 05
            10
            Calculate better how many submarines you can build on half this money, and housing for the waiting list in the second half. At a price of 40 per boat, 000 nuclear submarines and 000 square meters of housing are obtained at a price of 000 per square meter, or 20 apartments of 26 square meters. There you have it.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 10: 15
              +7
              Quote: Canep
              Calculate better how many submarines you can build on half this money

              We take 1,6 trillion or 53,3 billion dollars, divide in half - a total of 26,7 billion dollars. Given that the cost of the 885 project tends to 1,5-1,8 billion dollars - about seventeen nuclear submarines. Well, you did 20. Instead of 8 aircraft carriers? :)))))
              1. Canep
                Canep 28 November 2013 11: 00
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Well, you got 20. Instead of 8 aircraft carriers? :)))))
                You tried to lower the cost of aircraft carriers forward, and now in the same way overstate the cost of nuclear submarines. From Wikipedia:
                K-329 Severodvinsk: 47 billion rubles. [1]
                Kazan: 47 billion rubles. [2]
                Ash-M: ~ 30 billion rubles. [3]

                Ash-M, as you can see, is already cheaper 1.5 times
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 11: 04
                  +5
                  Quote: Canep
                  You tried to lower the cost of aircraft carriers

                  Took a quote from an article
                  Quote: Canep
                  and now in the same way overstate the cost of nuclear submarines

                  I took your data.
                  Quote: Canep
                  Ash-M, as you can see, is already cheaper 1.5 times

                  I do not see. I don’t see Ash-M either. But the requirements to raise the value of Ashen to 1,9 billion - I remember perfectly
                  1. Canep
                    Canep 28 November 2013 12: 54
                    +5
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I do not see. As I do not see and Ash-M

                    80 billion aircraft carriers are also not visible either on the horizon or beyond.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 13: 57
                      +3
                      Yes, no question, take the American calculations - they have Virginia, according to various sources, from 1,8 to 2,5 billion dollars, the construction (excluding R&D) of the newest aircraft carrier Ford (if we also take it without R&D) costs 8,1 bln. Thus, we can safely say that a full-fledged aircraft carrier (100 thousand tons, nuclear, with electromagnetic catapults) costs about 4 nuclear submarines. Well, here we are talking about a non-nuclear, catapultless aircraft carrier, which is also smaller in size. Obviously, its cost in submarines will be significantly lower - no more than 2-2,5 nuclear submarines.
                      1. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 28 November 2013 15: 01
                        +3
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Obviously, its cost in submarines will be significantly lower - no more than 2-2,5 nuclear submarines.

                        On the question of the "too high cost" of an aircraft carrier in comparison with a nuclear submarine. Some amerskoe aircraft carriers have been in service for 50 years, and they are not yet going to be decommissioned. And in 50 years we have had THREE generations of nuclear submarines! So figure out what and who actually came out cheaper. For me, a couple of normal aircraft carriers are better than a dozen nuclear submarines. It is clear that two AUGs are much more powerful and multifunctional than ten of the best submarines. An aircraft carrier can do everything that its aircraft can do. And his aircraft can do much more than submarines yes
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 15: 08
                        +4
                        Quote: GSH-18
                        So estimate what and who really came out cheaper. For me, a pair of normal aircraft carriers is better than a dozen nuclear submarines.

                        I’m about the same thing - especially since both of them should complement each other, and not compete :)
                      3. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 28 November 2013 15: 24
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        from and estimate what and who really came out cheaper. For me, a pair of normal aircraft carriers is better than a dozen nuclear submarines.

                        I’m about the same thing - especially since both of them should complement each other, and not compete :)

                        I completely agree with you yes
        2. Shur
          Shur 28 November 2013 22: 45
          0
          Yes, with this money you can already think about an underwater aircraft carrier;)
      2. Oden280
        Oden280 29 November 2013 08: 29
        0
        Why 16? We only have two fleets, they can be fully used.
      3. SPLV
        SPLV 29 November 2013 12: 57
        +1
        Thank. He wrote quickly, carelessly using the information. They simply infuriated the 4 of the Black Sea aircraft carrier.
    2. karal
      karal 28 November 2013 10: 07
      0
      Young man, read the article carefully and delve into: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/12683
      there are all the answers to your questions.
    3. timer
      timer 28 November 2013 22: 46
      0
      What karal wrote is bullshit. So when the ruble becomes the world currency, then you might think.
      As for the aircraft carriers, I am categorically against it! We don’t have any infrastructure, personnel, money, capacities! But the main thing isn’t the main strategic justification for the construction of these bridges. You all write about the need to build them based on current world realities. And who do you said that after 20 years this alignment will continue? What did TARK do not please you with? They are quite universal, the construction mechanisms are worked out, there is infrastructure, design developments, they are cheaper. I am for them. And last, you can come up with a preventive and cheap answer against the AUG (for example, long-range cruise missiles, or weapons based on new physical principles).
  2. duke
    duke 28 November 2013 10: 31
    +9
    "Russia needs ships of this class, at least 4 pieces for each fleet."
    And I’ll tell you sir - in order to have at least 1 piece for each fleet, a developed coastal infrastructure should be created there to serve not only ships of this class, but also guard ships and auxiliary ships, submarines, aircraft, helicopters - ( harbors, raids, moorings, docks, shipyards, airfields, hangars, repair shops, fuel bases, warehouses, arsenals, roads, means and forces for monitoring, security, defense, space communications, logistics, and so on and so forth. e. the whole complex) residential towns for crews, control centers, training, navigation, hospitals ... Such ships should not hang out at sea, otherwise after 5 years they just need to be decommissioned and crews cannot live all the time in the sea, on ships. ..When they bought the Mistral, someone thought about this? This is the case when it’s not a sin to adopt from the Americans, British, French, all the best that they do in this area. For example, the U.S. Navy base San Diego, Norfolk, Pearl Harbor, North Island ... If you want to delve into the topic, inquire -http: //navoine.ru/us-naval.html
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 1 December 2013 08: 29
      0
      Quote: duke
      "Russia needs ships of this class, at least 4 pieces for each fleet."
      And I’ll tell you sir - in order to have at least 1 piece for each fleet, a developed coastal infrastructure should be created there to serve not only ships of this class, but also guard ships and auxiliary ships, submarines, aircraft, helicopters - ( harbors, raids, moorings, docks, shipyards, airfields, hangars, repair shops, fuel bases, warehouses, arsenals, roads, means and forces for monitoring, security, defense, space communications, logistics, and so on and so forth. e. the whole complex) residential towns for crews, control centers, training, navigation, hospitals ... Such ships should not hang out at sea, otherwise after 5 years they just need to be decommissioned and crews cannot live all the time in the sea, on ships. ..When they bought the Mistral, someone thought about this? This is the case when it’s not a sin to adopt from the Americans, British, French, all the best that they do in this area. For example, the U.S. Navy base San Diego, Norfolk, Pearl Harbor, North Island ... If you want to delve into the topic, inquire -http: //navoine.ru/us-naval.html


      You are right. I will add. There is nothing to provide combat training for the crews of these ships.
  3. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 28 November 2013 10: 35
    +5
    Quote: karal
    Perhaps Ragozin is thus trying to lull the vigilance of the NATO bloc. Ships of this class in Russia are needed, at least 4 pieces for each fleet.


    And urgently to build a thousand destroyers!
    Your impulse is very touching, but an aircraft carrier is not a toy, it is a very complex and labor-intensive product of the hard work of the economy of the whole state that costs a lot of flights! Ships of this class of Russia are certainly needed, but only in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet and not in such quantities, by and large, given the existing and under construction ship composition of these fleets of Russia, three ships of this class will be enough, one per fleet + one to reserve.
    To have an aircraft carrier is just a means of maintaining the combat stability of a ship’s air connection, which in turn protects an entire fleet (squadron).
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 28 November 2013 15: 23
      +1
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      Your impulse is very touching, but an aircraft carrier is not a toy, it is a very complex and labor-intensive product of the hard work of the economy of the whole state that costs a lot of flights!

      1,4 trillion rubles entered the Olympiad! And for aircraft carriers, then no ?! A couple of aircraft carriers for the country are much more important and significant in all senses than one Olympiad yes
      And we still have the World Cup on the way ...
      1. Sakhalininsk
        Sakhalininsk 28 November 2013 17: 02
        +6
        Quote: GSH-18
        Quote: Sakhalininets
        Your impulse is very touching, but an aircraft carrier is not a toy, it is a very complex and labor-intensive product of the hard work of the economy of the whole state that costs a lot of flights!

        1,4 trillion rubles entered the Olympiad! And for aircraft carriers, then no ?! A couple of aircraft carriers for the country are much more important and significant in all senses than one Olympiad yes
        And we still have the World Cup on the way ...


        Dear, why confuse the long with the soft :) Olympics, the Universiade, the APEC Summit, the World Cup in football are long-term investments in the infrastructure of the regions, providing work for a huge number of people. We are still using facilities built for the Olympics 80. All these objects are long-term and work both on self-sufficiency and on the prestige of the state. An aircraft carrier, like any other military facility, is a priori an extremely expensive thing for the economy since there is no profit from it, and the costs are constant and very high, but not the point. The construction of full-fledged aircraft carriers requires full-fledged bases in which it is possible to carry out the full cycle of a given ship. Can you name at least one really functioning base in which you can operate two aircraft carriers?
        In addition, now our country first of all needs to modernize and update the demiator from any aggression, and this is the strategic nuclear forces. And now they are throwing into the renewal of these forces not badly, only Boreas are worth something. In my opinion, this is right first you need to hide from serious threats and then build a big pussy, which then actually measured in the ocean sandbox with the Junkers.
        1. aksakal
          aksakal 28 November 2013 22: 43
          0
          Quote: Sakhalininets
          In my opinion, this is right first you need to hide from serious threats and then build a big pussy, which then actually measured in the ocean sandbox with the Junkers.
          - laughing laughing Well said laughing I’m not going to read below, this phrase has already said something with which I absolutely agree. Although it would be nice to Kuznetsov a couple, another aircraft carrier, that is, at least to send to where there are dwarf states that can not get rid of the bad habit of beating foreign ambassadors. A kind of teacher from bad habits.
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 29 November 2013 00: 26
          0
          Quote: Sakhalininets
          a carrier carrier, like any other military object, is a priori an extremely expensive thing for the economy since there is no profit from it, and the costs are constant and very high, but not the point.

          In peacetime, aircraft carriers just work for the economy (this is not for you tanks with nuclear missiles, etc.) How it works, ask amers, they have a lot of experience lol (by adjusting the policies of the surrounding states in their favor). In addition, an aircraft carrier, as a floating airfield, will provide many jobs both on its board and on the shore.
          Quote: Sakhalininets
          In my opinion, this is right first you need to hide from serious threats and then build a big pussy, which then actually measured in the ocean sandbox with the Junkers.

          They've been putting it off many times. No further. Already India and China have acquired. And we do not even have a normal outline design. Yes, building a carrier fleet is always expensive, long and difficult. Tomorrow will not be easier. It will become more difficult. We need to start now, just a little, with the elaboration of projects, all kinds of preparations and preparations. We still can’t get away from this.
          1. desava
            desava 30 November 2013 09: 06
            0
            Quote: GSH-18
            Tomorrow will not be easier.

            I will support.
            Why is the construction of an aircraft carrier considered extremely costly? And if you look at this problem systemically? For its construction, a powerful investor is needed, which by definition will be the state. In any situation in our country, this is the most reliable source, whatever one may say. For the rise of industries, this will be a powerful impetus comparable to nuclear energy. If counterparties and third-party enterprises have guaranteed demand for products, then they will be invested and developed in the direction of production of components and equipment for an aircraft carrier. This is a shipyard. Not even a whole plant with a shipyard (or rather a large dock). If such a plant is created with budgetary funds, he will be able to pay for himself with civilian orders. The need for specialists will lead to the need for quality education. Tens of thousands of jobs. I will not say anything about the mediocre benefits Russia will derive in the political arena, having such a powerful argument. Yes, much more will be useful from such a shipbuilding program. You can list endlessly. But all this will not be possible without the personal interest and competence of the state apparatus. Total control over financing and quality of the adopted program.
    2. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 1 December 2013 10: 03
      0
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      Quote: karal
      Perhaps Ragozin is thus trying to lull the vigilance of the NATO bloc. Ships of this class in Russia are needed, at least 4 pieces for each fleet.


      And urgently to build a thousand destroyers!
      Your impulse is very touching, but an aircraft carrier is not a toy, it is a very complex and labor-intensive product of the hard work of the economy of the whole state that costs a lot of flights! Ships of this class of Russia are certainly needed, but only in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet and not in such quantities, by and large, given the existing and under construction ship composition of these fleets of Russia, three ships of this class will be enough, one per fleet + one to reserve.
      To have an aircraft carrier is just a means of maintaining the combat stability of a ship’s air connection, which in turn protects an entire fleet (squadron).


      The aircraft carrier is, first of all, its crew led by an authorized experienced commander. And the aviation connection with its command. Where to get them at the reduced naval and aviation schools and academies. Nobody writes about this very main problem and does not publicly speak out. Mistral bought , and the crew still can’t be equipped with command personnel. It is the same with the helicopter air force. It is not.
  4. GSH-18
    GSH-18 28 November 2013 11: 23
    +5
    Quote: karal
    Perhaps Ragozin is thus trying to lull the vigilance of the NATO bloc. Ships of this class in Russia are needed, at least 4 pieces for each fleet.

    Russia does not need such a large number of aircraft carriers. We do not have frank aggressive claims on anyone's property (which is reflected in foreign policy). However, in order to provide air cover for ship formations and submarines, to gain dominance in the target water area and air, and mainly to position forces in key regions of the world, Russia must have at least THREE aircraft carriers with ship groups. yes
  5. GSH-18
    GSH-18 28 November 2013 11: 42
    +3
    Quote from the article: "The proposed project involves the construction of a heavy aircraft carrier with a displacement of about 80 thousand tons. The ship is proposed to be equipped with a launch ramp and aerofinishers, which makes it similar to the aircraft carrier" Admiral Kuznetsov "currently in operation. The new aircraft carrier is supposed to be equipped with a non-nuclear maximum power plant capable of providing speed up to 30 knots. "
    ================================================== ============
    The article contains confusion (substitution of concepts) aircraft carrier cruiser (TAKR) and aircraft carrier.
    The USSR and the Russian Federation never had aircraft carriers, and they still do not! "Admiral Kuznetsov" is an aircraft-carrying cruiser (combination of a small air group with ship-based anti-ship missiles, lack of a nuclear power plant, a short take-off deck compensated by a springboard that limits the ability to take off only in this direction, and makes takeoff impossible if the springboard is damaged). Russia does not need aircraft-carrying cruisers, but needs normal long aircraft carriers with a standard (and not cut-down) air group fully equipped with all types of aircraft!
  6. rolik2
    rolik2 28 November 2013 13: 34
    0
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    According to Rogozin


    And the Cossack is mishandled laughing
    1. nov_tech.vrn
      nov_tech.vrn 28 November 2013 14: 44
      +2
      Isn’t you shooting Rogozin for a symbolic poplar planting near NATO headquarters?
  7. URAL72
    URAL72 28 November 2013 14: 10
    +4
    I suppose you had in mind the ocean fleets, because in the Baltic and the Black Sea an aircraft carrier is an elephant in a china shop (it’s ridiculous to even imagine). Then I agree - the optimal amount, given the needs. But if you take into account the possibilities, then there are enough 3 ships on the Northern Fleet (one under repair), their main task in the event of a big war, should be to control the air and surface (together with other fleet forces) space beyond the reach of tactical aviation of the Air Force, while the carrier group must be in the zone of reliable cover (radius of flight without refueling, plus 20-30 minutes of battle / barrage) TA. This is approximately 1000-1500 km west of the airfields of the Kola Peninsula. The probability of a collision at the European Theater in the next 40-50 years is extremely small, which can not be said about the Asia-Pacific region. It is the Pacific region that today becomes the center of economic and military power, it is here that there are a lot of territorial claims, including on the shelf, and in the future, the division of resources and neutral waters will begin. We are obliged to participate in this, while defending the Arctic. There are 4 ships here - this is the minimum, given the inevitability of even scheduled repairs. Therefore, 4 Mistral will not interfere, in case of defensive actions, they will easily turn into anti-submarine aircraft carriers with a search and rescue group on board, which will increase the number of fighters on heavy aircraft carriers, removing these functions from them, + a reserve headquarters ship. The main problem is the geographical location of the Pacific bases - it is easy to block them, and 100% of air defense does not exist. In addition, the main opponents - China, Japan, Korea, are close enough, it makes sense to base aircraft carriers in Kamchatka, for a bypass strike east of the Kuril Islands, both in Japan and Taiwan or southern China, where it is difficult to get aviation from continental bases. So, everything for the Motherland, everything for Kamchatka! At the same time, we’ll cover the Bering Strait, otherwise the Chinese will frequent something, icebreakers are building ...
    1. Hitrovan07
      Hitrovan07 29 November 2013 11: 44
      -1
      In the North, aircraft carriers are not needed - there are a lot of squadrons, and now the Ministry of Defense is restoring a network of airdromes there - easier and more reliable.
      1. Hitrovan07
        Hitrovan07 4 December 2013 09: 07
        0
        Funny minus. Yesterday there was information that after Kotelny Island the airfield network will be restored on the islands of Novaya Zemlya, Frnatsi Iosif and other places in the North of Russia. So Russia is "changing" your aircraft carriers to aviation and infrastructure.
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 30 November 2013 02: 07
      0
      Quote: URAL72
      I suppose you had in mind the ocean fleets, because in the Baltic and the Black Sea an aircraft carrier is an elephant in a china shop (it’s ridiculous to even imagine).

      Dear, you think with strange criteria. According to your aircraft carrier does not fit in size in the Black Sea ?? belay Or won't he be able to turn around there? Or maybe you mean that the Russian (future) aircraft carrier should protect the Russian Black Sea gas pipelines in the Pacific Ocean? Or to intimidate the American 6th Fleet (stationed in the Mediterranean on a permanent basis as part of the aircraft carrier "Enterprise") from the Laptev Sea? what
      Aircraft carrier a priori should be in the center of world events. Otherwise, it makes no sense. The areas of responsibility of Russian aircraft carriers: the Barents Sea, the Pacific theater of operations, and the Mediterranean Sea (the nearest base port is Sevastopol). yes
  8. Ivan Petrovich
    Ivan Petrovich 28 November 2013 14: 42
    +1
    and they fell asleep ...
  9. Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 28 November 2013 16: 08
    +2
    Russian aircraft carriers are completely unnecessary! Tell me, what tasks will he perform? Americans use the AUG for aggression, swam up and blasted a small state that can’t answer with anything. Russia, I believe, needs rocket troops, but more, of all stripes, medium, long, short range. Especially pieces of 50 regiments C500 does not hurt.
    1. skiff-xnumx
      skiff-xnumx 28 November 2013 22: 12
      +1
      The United States uses aircraft carriers to make the fleet more combat stable, reconnaissance, display a flag, etc., but not for aggression. They have cheaper and more efficient means and development of a network of bases for this. Name at least one conflict where the aircraft carrier made a significant contribution to the victory except WWII
      1. Max_Bauder
        Max_Bauder 29 November 2013 09: 17
        +2
        Is the aircraft carrier just entering the navy, or have you ranked them as the air force?

        He (an aircraft carrier) is an integral part of the US Navy, as well as the Marine Corps, not a single local conflict could do without it (Kuwait, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) due to its following qualities described in the wiki:

        The tasks of aircraft carriers are: air defense of naval formations on the march, anti-submarine defense of naval formations, air support of ground forces in the coastal zone, destruction of enemy air defense, ensuring air superiority in a given area, destruction of enemy ships.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 30 November 2013 02: 27
        0
        Quote: skiff-1980
        Name at least one conflict where the aircraft carrier made a significant contribution to the victory except WWII

        Yes, there are plenty of such examples! Amers in all their military campaigns (of which they have spent more than two hundred since World War II!) Used AUGs. For example, in Iraq, for the destruction of the Iraqi Navy and the application of massive missile and bomb strikes against ground targets, SEVEN aircraft carriers were used in the form of two aircraft carrier formations (Roosevelt, Ranger, Midway, Saratoga, D.F. Kennedy, "America", "Forrestal").
        Here is an authoritative reference: http://gazetam.ru/no140401/st02.htm
  • theadenter
    theadenter 28 November 2013 08: 01
    +6
    It’s not enough to build an aircraft carrier - you also need its good cover. And this is an additional long time for planning and building its support as well. Sensitive times - it’s probably better to wait with aircraft carriers. First you need to build up the main fleet, it is more necessary.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 28 November 2013 08: 17
    20
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    EVERYTHING ! Rogozin’s opinion determines the strategy of our armed forces ...
    Rogozin only voiced someone's opinion from above. All the extremes, "The total cost of the development and construction program is estimated at 400 billion rubles, 80 of which will go directly to the construction of the ship", what, there is no alternative to this corrupt arithmetic, who thought so, how and why? The main thing is, why are they looking for reasons not to build, and not opportunities for building? The Soviet Union gained experience, created personnel, the construction of even one "training" aircraft carrier, this is the development of the industry, the creation of experienced personnel, especially since such a ship will be built for 10-12 years, during this time much can be changed for the better. The old people will leave, both engineers and foremen, workers that they knew and were able to, in twenty years there will be no one to return to the topic, not the Chinese to ask ... We must build and start building now, otherwise we will be left with only memories of past opportunities and greatness.
    1. strannik595
      strannik595 28 November 2013 09: 41
      11
      Deputy Minister of Defense Yu. Borisov recently noted that the lack of a program for the construction of aircraft carriers in GPV-2020 is primarily due to the country's financial capabilities
      ..... let the TFR force the first ten FORBES of Russia to shake and three or four aircraft carriers will be by 2030 already .... then the Russian people will squeakily agree with the amnesty according to the results of the 90s privatization
    2. duke
      duke 28 November 2013 10: 45
      +5
      I don’t think that Rogozin does not see the need for such ships, or the development of the fleet, he just understands that it’s nowhere to keep such ships and keeping them in the sea is unprofitable and stupid ... Such projects do not come up in a year ... This because a whole range of problems, when everything is destroyed and sold out, remember at least a recent story, how Spurdyukov with concubines (the ladies whom he brought with him from the tax, hence the people maliciously called them concubines) sold the design institute or the largest oil base of the Northern Fleet ... not so simple ...
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 28 November 2013 11: 30
      +4
      Quote: Per se.
      It is necessary to build, and start building now, otherwise we will remain with only memories of past opportunities and greatness.

      I support +!
      But Russia doesn’t need TAKRs (in your picture, with a springboard, flawed configuration of the take-off deck, compensation of short lengths), but normal, long (even-deck) aircraft carriers with a displacement of 80 tons!
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko 28 November 2013 15: 40
        +4
        Quote: GSH-18
        But Russia doesn’t need TAKRs (in your picture, with a springboard, flawed configuration of the take-off deck, compensation of short lengths), but normal, long (even-deck) aircraft carriers with a displacement of 80 tons!

        Ideas about aircraft carriers at lunch will be 100 years old.
        It is necessary to look into the future based on the experience of the past.

        Why is this project not good?
        Or you need something similar to:

        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 28 November 2013 16: 02
          +1
          Project 1143,7 is quite suitable for us wink
      2. Assistant
        Assistant 28 November 2013 20: 04
        +4
        and normal, long (flat-deck) aircraft carriers


        And how will planes take off from them? Steam catapult at low temperatures is not applicable, and electromagnetic has not yet been invented.
        Perhaps, in order for the Russian aircraft carrier to perform its functions, among which a very important role is given to real-time reconnaissance and target designation (since a large number of anti-ship weapons were invented), you first need to develop an electromagnetic catapult and a carrier-based AWACS?
        Which, of course, does not require abandonment of the construction of an aircraft carrier as such, rather even intensifies it. But you need to understand that an aircraft carrier is not primarily a ship, but a way to do what other ships would like, but cannot.
        1. iConst
          iConst 28 November 2013 22: 12
          +2
          Quote: Assistant
          And how will planes take off from them? Steam catapult at low temperatures is not applicable, and electromagnetic has not yet been invented.

          Hire migrants - they will pull a special winter gum-catapult. Business! laughing
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 29 November 2013 00: 40
          +1
          Quote: Assistant
          And how will planes take off from them? Steam catapult at low temperatures is not applicable, and electromagnetic has not yet been invented.

          In the same way as with Amer! A springboard is evidence of lightness. A short take-off deck is compensated by a springboard, otherwise the aircraft will fall into the sea. This is a losing version of the layout (takeoff is possible only in the direction of the springboard). Compare Soviet TAKRs and Amer aircraft carriers. TAKR 30-35 aircraft, aircraft carrier up to 100! feel the difference. A long airfield does not need a springboard.
          About the catapults. The EM catapult is not only already invented, but from it in the test version Amer planes will start. It’s just that now we don’t have any at all. The issue of accelerating an aircraft on deck can be solved in any way, let the engineers scratch their minds.
          1. Assistant
            Assistant 29 November 2013 19: 19
            -1
            In the same way as with Amer!


            From Ameri aircraft carriers in the northern latitudes, where ice formation on the deck, superstructure and antennas is possible due to low temperatures, aircraft do not start. Generally.

            A short take-off deck is compensated by a springboard, otherwise the aircraft will fall into the sea.


            And I always thought that a modern jet plane with a 300- / 350-meter horizontal run would not take off ... It wouldn’t take off from anyone, neither from the Americans, nor from the Russians (Su-47 could, theoretically, make indulgence but we don’t take it because of its existence solely as an unarmed prototype). This is if from side to side to disperse. This is still not take AWACS aircraft.
            So at the current stage of aviation development, it is not the "deck with a springboard versus a straight deck" dilemma that is being solved, but the "deck with a springboard against a catapult" dilemma. By the way, from the catapult you can only take off in the direction of the catapult (the installation angles of several catapults can be slightly divorced).

            It’s just that we don’t have any now. The issue of accelerating an aircraft on deck can be solved in any way, let the engineers scratch their minds.


            So I led to the fact that the aircraft carrier, of course, needs to be built, but before building it, you need to develop a way to launch aircraft from it. Otherwise, it will be a spherical aircraft carrier in a vacuum.
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 30 November 2013 01: 34
              0
              Quote: Assistant
              And I always thought that a modern jet plane with a 300- / 350-meter horizontal run would not take off ... No one will fly, neither the Americans, nor the Russians

              Before writing this, you first compare the dimensions (deck lengths) of the TAKR and the Carrier. But since you were too lazy to do this, I will say that the Amer aircraft carrier is ALMOST twice as long! That is why there is no springboard on it. yes
              The deck with the diving board is defective (I wrote why).
              Quote: Assistant

              So I led to the fact that the aircraft carrier, of course, needs to be built, but before building it, you need to develop a way to launch aircraft from it. Otherwise, it will be a spherical aircraft carrier in a vacuum.

              Calling to reinvent the wheel?
              Quote: Assistant
              By the way, you can take off from the catapult only towards the catapult (the installation angles of several catapults can be slightly divorced).

              What is impossible for a springboard. And landing on the springboard deck is also possible in only one direction. If the springboard is damaged, pilots may go to drink coffee. There are several catapults on an aircraft carrier.
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 30 November 2013 01: 45
                0
                Trampoline decks were used at the dawn of shipbuilding aircraft carriers, and they were long ago abandoned as ineffective. So why should we use inefficient technologies in aircraft construction, which everyone has long abandoned ?? belay
              2. Assistant
                Assistant 30 November 2013 22: 24
                0
                Before writing this, you first compare the dimensions (deck lengths) of the TAKR and the Carrier. But since you were too lazy to do this, I will say that the Amer aircraft carrier is ALMOST twice as long! That is why there is no springboard on it.


                Length is the greatest:

                TAKR "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" - 306,45 m
                Project 1143 TAKR - 272-273 m, and the length of the runway is less than the length of the ship.
                CVN-68 Nimitz - 333 m
                CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford - 333 m

                So not 2 times. CVN-68 compared to 1143 - I agree, but 1143 is never an aircraft carrier for horizontally taking off aircraft ... And between Kuznetsov and CVN-68 the difference in length is 11%.
                But that is not the point at all.
                The take-off length of some aircraft (specifically, data on ship modifications were not taken, since they are often given only for take-off from a springboard / catapult):

                MiG-29 - 700 m (260 m with afterburner)
                MiG-35 - 600-700 m (260 m with afterburner)
                Su-25 - 550 m (on concrete runway)
                Su-39 - 550 m (on concrete runway)
                Su-27 - 450 m (with afterburner)
                Su-35 - 450 m (with afterburner)
                Su-34 - 1260 m
                Su-47 (unarmed prototype) - 90 m

                F-15C - 274 m
                F / A-18 - 430 m
                A-10 - 1152 m

                So, from a smooth CVN-68, only MiG-29 and MiG-35 afterburners will take off (theoretically!) From Russian planes.
                You can, of course, ensure the take-off of all of the above-mentioned Russian aircraft from the horizontal deck, but for this it should be 1260 meters long (well, let’s drop the Su-34, 550 meters). And accelerate from edge to edge. And without the right to make a mistake.
                Just too heavy modern aircraft, designed to fly at too high speeds.
                You can, of course, create a deck aircraft based on the Su-47. If he doesn’t lose all his positive sides in combat and gets rid of the negative ones, which he does not really believe in, since he lost the T-50 concept.

                The deck with the diving board is defective (I wrote why).


                In this opinion, I agree with you. I do not agree in the argument. I consider the springboard deck to be defective, because I do not know of any production AWACS aircraft capable of starting from a springboard.
            2. desava
              desava 1 December 2013 08: 24
              0
              Quote: Assistant
              need to develop a way to launch aircraft from it

              Methods by American (or rather, even English initially) engineers have already been developed. So it really will be a bike. The take-off run of the aircraft is limited by the ability of the pilot to withstand overloads (despite even the pilot's overload suit) and less than a hundred meters does not work. Build a plane with a low takeoff and landing speed has also passed - damage to the characteristics of the aircraft as a combat unit. The same F-14 with a variable wing geometry has large disadvantages in the form of weight from its design - an impermissible luxury for a fighter.
            3. The comment was deleted.
      3. spravochnik
        spravochnik 2 December 2013 23: 36
        +1
        Stop writing nonsense about a short flight deck. Compare the size of Kuzi with the Americans and the French Degol. Kuzya is quite normal A.V. The only thing he lacks is catapults.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 28 November 2013 09: 58
    +3
    This is not Rogozin’s opinion, but the opinion of our president voiced by Rogozin.
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 28 November 2013 11: 32
      +2
      With this phrase, Rogozin invited the political leadership to decide.
      He has an opinion, he expressed it more than once what is needed, just as it would be nice to make an analog of the Buranov. Because the aircraft carrier and its construction is a moot and very serious and expensive question, the decision is passed to its leader. And vsgeo something.
      1. Paleontologist
        Paleontologist 28 November 2013 19: 08
        0
        Analogue of "Buranov"? And that there were many of them?
        And why are they needed? Remember what blow the "Buran" project inflicted on the USSR. And the US abandoned the shuttles. And the "younger" space countries (China. EU) are in no hurry to move in this direction.
        The future, of course, is with reusable complexes. But they will only make sense with fundamentally new engines. Cheaper to operate.
  • Genry
    Genry 28 November 2013 12: 19
    +1
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    According to Rogozin, now the presence of new aircraft carriers is not a matter of defense, but is associated with geopolitics.

    This is an excuse. In fact, given the progress in the development of air defense systems (especially MANPADS), efficiency, mobility, cost, it turns out that the aircraft carrier aircraft will be easily destroyed.
    The Americans already wanted non-nuclear intercontinental missiles.
  • Rus2012
    Rus2012 28 November 2013 18: 01
    +1
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    According to Rogozin, now the presence of new aircraft carriers is not a matter of defense

    To start the construction of AUG Russia, you need to decide on the following questions:
    1. Opening and maintenance of foreign naval bases and supply bases in different countries and parts of the world. To maintain and maintain AUGs, the United States has tens and hundreds of naval bases and supply bases around the world (including aerodromes for basing carrier-based aircraft).
    2. Determine the appearance of the main types of UAVs, which will be based on aircraft carriers. Up to 70%, UAVs can remove the routine tasks of military aviation, including at the Navy. What do our corbel builders think about this?
    3. At one time in the USSR, a groundwork (theory, technology) was created and a "long arm" was implemented - ballistic anti-ship missiles capable of firmly "nailing" foreign AUGs to their home ports. Operating range: from 900 to 2000 km and up to 9000 km. Almost unlimited range. China is currently implementing this system. What do GSh, MO think about this? M. b. when such BKR are on duty, will the AUGs leave the scene of force projection? In any case, the projection of power with the help of the AUG will go into oblivion on the advanced technological countries and their allies. And on "Papuans" - will it be inexpensive? Or m. AUGs will become heavy weapons for the UN international gendarmes?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 18: 06
      +4
      Quote: Rus2012
      In its time in the USSR, a backlog (theory, technology) was created and a "long arm" was implemented - ballistic anti-ship missiles capable of firmly "nailing" foreign AUGs to their home ports.

      Were not created. R-27K had practically no chance to hit AUG at sea.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 28 November 2013 19: 05
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Were not created. R-27K had practically no chance to hit AUG at sea.

        Where did the information come from? :)

        Once again, I repeat - A HIT was created (THEORY, TECHNOLOGIES, APPROBATION) !!!
        If the whole complex of warning, target designation and means of destruction was not enough, or it worked unreliably, this does not mean that "it was not created" ...
        No need to belittle the country and system developers.
        In addition to R-27K - there were also systems ...
        All this relates to the reserve !!!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 07: 14
          +2
          Quote: Rus2012
          Once again, I repeat - A HIT was created (THEORY, TECHNOLOGIES, APPROBATION) !!!

          Did not have. P-27K had PASSIVE radar guidance, i.e. could get into a standing ship or not too far from a moving ship under one single condition - if the radar will operate on this ship.
          In other words - for the AUG, the question is solved as follows: they spotted a warhead in the upper atmosphere — chopped off the radar in the order, turned on the radar of an AWACS aircraft in the air or of a radar patrol ship. Everything. Under no circumstances will a missile enter the order.
          But the most important thing - the accuracy of hitting a moving target was lower than low (because the last correction was carried out in the transatmospheric section, after which the warhead went along ballistic), therefore it was possible to hit enemy ships only with vigorous warheads of increased power. Those. R-27K - originally an UNCONVENTIONAL weapon. And in the nuclear-missile armageddon, the usefulness of the AUG is not so great.
          Quote: Rus2012
          No need to belittle the country and system developers.

          Denying that Russia is the birthplace of elephants is not belittling Russia.
          Quote: Rus2012
          In addition to R-27K - there were also systems ...

          Did not have. After the development of P-27K, the work went further, but was stopped.
          Quote: Rus2012
          All this relates to the reserve !!!

          The most important problems that hindered the transformation of the "ballista" into a normal anti-ship weapon - the active guidance system and the correction of the trajectory in the atmosphere - have not been resolved.
          And if you are saying that "there is no need to belittle" - do not belittle our admirals, who abandoned the R-27K in favor of cruise missiles such as Basalt and Granit.
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 29 November 2013 11: 32
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And if you are saying that "there is no need to belittle" - do not belittle our admirals, who abandoned the R-27K in favor of cruise missiles such as Basalt and Granit.

            Yes, it’s not possible to argue with you!
            They say - IS, in response - no, and not reasoned ...
            As for the P-27K.
            For example, if the AUG in Akiyan performs an active air process, it intensively launches and lands airplanes with an interval of 3-5 minutes. It "shines" with all landing radio systems, long-range drives, "hangs" in dialogue with the satellite constellation, relaying messages to the aircraft. And at the last moment they spot the UBB in the atmosphere (when the head has already captured and remembered the target and dives). What will he do? Will "chop the cables" into radio silent mode? But what about the landing devices on the last drops of fuel, where are they going?
            About -
            do not belittle our admirals, who abandoned the R-27K in favor of cruise missiles such as Basalt and Granit.

            And what about "Sotka" kaG? Also "unpromising"?
            By the way, admirals just did not make such a choice. There are rumors that everything was done from above ... and not in such a configuration ...
            Esteem here - http://topwar.ru/36200-protivokorabelnye-ballisticheskie-rakety-dalnego-deystviy

            a.html
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 12: 03
              +1
              Quote: Rus2012
              Yes, it’s not possible to argue with you!

              Naturally, for I to some extent own a materiel. I'm not sure about you
              Quote: Rus2012
              They say - IS, in response - no, and not reasoned ...

              The argument was generally laid out more than. That the rocket was NOT accepted into service is not an argument for you. That passive guidance with transatmospheric correction does not provide for the defeat of the target - this is not an argument for you. That the P-27K was initially honed solely under YaBCH - you have no argument either.
              And then what is your argument?
              Quote: Rus2012
              For example, if the AUG in Akiyan performs an active air process, it intensively launches and lands airplanes with an interval of 3-5 minutes. "Shines" by all landing radio systems, long-range drives, "hangs" in dialogue with the satellite constellation, relaying messages to the aircraft

              Nothing happens, because in order for the UBCH to perform the correction, the radar signal must be strong enough to be read outside the atmosphere. None of the above will give you such a signal
              Quote: Rus2012
              What will he do? Will "chop the cables" into radio silent mode? But what about the landing devices on the last drops of fuel, where are they going?

              How anxious is the concern for boarding planes :)))))) Do not worry, the tens of seconds left before the warhead fall, the planes will somehow hold on :) They have a special fuel supply for this, untouchable :)
              Quote: Rus2012
              And what about "Sotka" kaG?

              "How" is spelled with a "k" at the end. Or do I still need to teach you an express course of the Russian language?
              And about a hundred - I do not know what you mean. T-4 "product 100" of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, or what?
              Quote: Rus2012
              By the way, admirals just did not make such a choice. There are rumors that everything was done from above ..

              Rumors don't interest me too much.
              Quote: Rus2012
              Read here

              Thank you, but I would rather re-read the original source "SKB-385 KB Mechanical Engineering SRC" KB named after Academician V.P. Makeev "" from which that article was copied to a large extent.
              And there it is clearly stated that the development of effective "ballista" met with major design problems that have not been resolved
              1. Rus2012
                Rus2012 29 November 2013 12: 43
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The argument was generally laid out more than. That the rocket was NOT accepted into service is not an argument for you.

                A FIVE years of trial operation is not an argument? A study of UR100, P36 and others like them is not an argument ???
                The fact that Sotka and BKR were not normally adopted in service and worked out in the future, only proves the thoughtlessness of some and the excessive lobbying activity of others.

                The main thing, the more far-sighted and large-scale, returned to them and continue to actively work out!

                As for your knowledge, materiel is also uncertain. Even if only they worked in Miass. In any case, I did not know you among them .. NL
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 13: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: Rus2012
                  A FIVE years of trial operation is not an argument?

                  Not an argument. For all the "5 years" we got into a barge, which was laid up with the radar station on. All.
                  Quote: Rus2012
                  A study of UR100, P36 and others like them is not an argument ???

                  Not an argument, because in the end, the problems of atmospheric guidance did not solve
                  Quote: Rus2012
                  As for your knowledge, materiel is also uncertain.

                  For God's sake, no question. Refute 2 statements that I made above?
                  1. Rus2012
                    Rus2012 29 November 2013 13: 17
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Not an argument. For all the "5 years" we got into a barge, which was laid up with the radar station on. All.

                    And what do you think they should have done under those conditions?

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Not an argument, because in the end, the problems of atmospheric guidance did not solve

                    In what sense is not resolved?
                    Is the guidance principle not known?
                    -or test system failed?
                    -or "Legend" didn't work reliably? Has not been deployed enough.
                    What is your reason?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 13: 58
                      +1
                      Quote: Rus2012
                      And what do you think they should have done under those conditions?

                      Hit a moving target
                      Quote: Rus2012
                      In what sense is not resolved?

                      In direct.
                      Quote: Rus2012
                      Is the guidance principle not known?

                      It was not known how to implement this principle. It became clear that the existing AGSN does not want to work in the plasma formation mode, which is unknown how to protect the antennas from thermal and mechanical influences. Moreover, all these key issues (without solving which it’s ridiculous to talk about AGSN on warheads) ... how to say this ... they did not even manage to start solving them at all. They just determined that this is a problem.
                      Quote: Rus2012
                      Or the system has not been tested?

                      There was no system that could pass such a test. The work was stopped at a stage when there was not a prototype — there was not even a THEORETICAL understanding of how this prototype should work. Faced with the fact that the AGSN will not be able to work in the super-temperatures that occur when the warhead enters the atmosphere, they planned research work on this topic - but they did not have time to start it, because project closed.
                      Quote: Rus2012
                      -or "Legend" didn't work reliably? Has not been deployed enough.

                      The legend also did not fully meet the requirements of the missilemen. In fact, our "Basalts" and "Granites", in theory, could also be guided by the "legend", but in practice this regime could not be realized
                    2. Rus2012
                      Rus2012 29 November 2013 14: 52
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      It was not known how to implement this principle. It became clear that the existing AGSN does not want to work in the plasma formation mode, which is unknown how to protect the antennas from thermal and mechanical influences. Moreover, all these key issues (without solving which it’s ridiculous to talk about AGSN on warheads) ... how to say this ... they did not even manage to start solving them at all. They just determined that this is a problem.


                      The problems of radar and optical homing were solved back in the early 80s. In detail - "On guided / homing missile warheads" - http://topwar.ru/36683-ob-upravlyaemyh-samonavodyaschihsya-boevyh-blokah-raket.h
                      tml
                      Moreover, research and development work was successfully completed. And even samples were created that went through trial operation.
                      Currently, the systems created on those backlogs are being developed on a wide front for adoption ...
                      See the comments of the reputable Ascetic in the same place.
                    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 15: 06
                      +1
                      Quote: Rus2012
                      The problems of radar and optical homing were resolved at the beginning of 80xx.

                      Only here Makeevtsy something do not know :)
                      Quote: Rus2012
                      In detail - "On guided / homing missile warheads"

                      Read first what you give. You do not see the difference between UBB and the block with AGSN? ALL that UBB can do is fly to a target whose coordinates are known to him IN ADVANCE. It just does not fly along a ballistic trajectory. Those. the point is that in the head of the UBB even before the launch lies the point at which the UBB should fall. But he does not fly to this point along a ballistic arc, but changing the trajectory
                      Naturally, there is no AGSN on UBB. He cannot find goals on his own.
                      And the Makeevites, as part of the defeat of the aircraft carrier, had the task of placing the radar on the combat unit. This radar was supposed to somehow turn on and detect enemy ships. HERE THIS has become a stumbling block - first of all, the plasma cocoon, which is formed when the warhead enters the atmosphere, simply prevents radiolocation. Secondly, there were no materials from which it would be possible to make a radar array and capable of withstanding wild temperatures when the warhead enters the atmosphere (at a speed measured in kilometers per second). Don’t you know what coverage the Shuttle has? Or Buran? And then you need to place a radio antenna on top of the warhead body! How? Of what?
                      UBB all this did not fall sideways - she has NO need for AGSN. She doesn't need a radar. All she needs to do is maneuver so that she ends up in a predetermined place.
                    4. Rus2012
                      Rus2012 29 November 2013 15: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You do not see the difference between UBB and the block with AGSN? ALL that UBB can do is fly to a target whose coordinates are known to him IN ADVANCE. It just does not fly along a ballistic trajectory. Those. the point is that in the head of the UBB even before the launch lies the point at which the UBB should fall. But he does not fly to this point along a ballistic arc, but changing the trajectory
                      Naturally, there is no AGSN on UBB. He cannot find goals on his own.
                      And the Makeevites, as part of the defeat of the aircraft carrier, had the task of placing the radar on the combat unit. This radar was supposed to somehow turn on and detect enemy ships. HERE THIS has become a stumbling block - first of all, the plasma cocoon, which is formed when the warhead enters the atmosphere, simply prevents radiolocation. Secondly, there were no materials from which it would be possible to make a radar array and capable of withstanding wild temperatures when the warhead enters the atmosphere (at a speed measured in kilometers per second). Don’t you know what coverage the Shuttle has? Or Buran? And then you need to place a radio antenna on top of the warhead body! How? Of what?
                      UBB all this did not fall sideways - she has NO need for AGSN. She doesn't need a radar. All she needs to do is maneuver so that she ends up in a predetermined place.

                      God is your judge, if you cannot understand what is written:
                      There were also several radar stations: a homing system with its own large antenna, a motion correction system with a side-scan radar with a synthesized aperture, and a three-beam radio altimeter.

                      As you know, the UBB or homing BB is given preliminary target designation (over-the-horizon radar, "Liana", its future functional analogue or aviator). Further, he himself identifies the goal. From the media - at present, the Strategic Missile Forces are equipped with re-targeting systems already in flight ...
                      "Aerophone" - functioned perfectly in the last century. It is enough for him to increase the efficiency of the transmission of preliminary target designation (output to the target funnel) and indicate from memory the contours of a particular aircraft carrier or transfer fresh images ...
                    5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 16: 11
                      +1
                      Quote: Rus2012
                      God is your judge, if you cannot understand what is written:

                      God YOU judge.
                      Before entering the upper atmosphere, the on-board computer calculates the necessary orientation of the combat unit and executes it. Approximately in the same period, sessions of determining the actual location with the help of radar are held, for which a number of maneuvers must also be done. Then the locator antenna is shot off, and an atmospheric section of movement begins for the combat unit.

                      Is it really not clear that UBB radar is used in the EXTRA-SPHERAL flight segment? Or will your UBB correct the movement in the atmosphere? Guided by the indicators of the shot antenna?
                    6. Rus2012
                      Rus2012 29 November 2013 18: 47
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Is it really not clear that UBB radar is used in the EXTRA-SPHERAL flight segment?


                      Yes ... this is not being treated ...
                      For you, the concepts of scientific and technical groundwork, job search, research and development work, as I understood the empty space.
                      Simple questions:
                      1. As is known, the initial boundary of plasma formation is 70km. the lower limit of exit from it is approximately 30km. In how many seconds will UBB overcome this range at a speed of about 7-5km / s? And where can a huge aircraft carrier manage to dodge in these seconds (or rather deviate from the motion vector)?
                      2. The UBB planner may well have an optical comparison beyond the lower boundary of plasma formation. Who prevents him from pairing if there is an error?
                      Moreover, we read the comments of the respected Esket if:
                      PCB flight took place at the atmospheric boundary due to kinetic energy so that the aerodynamic forces were sufficient for flight and maneuver, and plasma formation did not impede sighting.


                      Can not answer. Everything is so clear ...
  • Paleontologist
    Paleontologist 28 November 2013 19: 19
    +1
    Of course, it is necessary to revive, expand, create new foreign bases of the Russian Navy and Air Force. Syria, Vietnam, Cuba (or Venezuela), Africa.
    And about AUG - this is not only a way to conquer the Papuans. It is also an opportunity to effectively protect the interests of the Russian Federation in other regions. How many fields LEGALLY developed by Russian companies in Asia and Africa have been transferred to American and British corporations as a result of the Arab Spring, the capture of Iraq, etc.? If there were Russian troops nearby, they would not have been so frankly moved.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 28 November 2013 20: 55
    +3
    Quote: Rus2012
    when such BKR are on duty, will the AUGs leave the scene of force projection? In any case, the projection of power with the help of the AUG will go into oblivion on the advanced technological countries and their allies. And on "Papuans" - will it be inexpensive? Or m. AUGs will become heavy weapons for the UN international gendarmes?
    Power projection will never disappear into oblivion, moreover, the role of power projection will increase. All that you list is a global nuclear war, which will begin if we are previously squeezed out and weakened in "peace" time by this projection of force, to which we will have nothing to answer. Bringing the matter to war is already an indicator that a potential aggressor has achieved a prelaunch advantage on the "first shot" over a victim weakened and besieged from all sides. It is unlikely that you will have to count on epic naval battles, when radioactive tsunamis will go through the oceans without a BPCR. Aircraft carriers are not needed against the Papuans, it is easier for us to prevent a global war by pushing through and protecting our interests with 3-4 AUG duty officers than to try to win with at least 1000 nuclear submarines later. This is never taken into account by the advocates of the "cheap" answer, being obsessed with old ideological clichés. The role of the fleet is enormous, both in the preparation of aggression and in the neutralization of threats, now whoever wins in the "prelude" of war will be the winner. His Majesty the Aircraft Carrier, here is the main figure at sea, which is worth paying attention to.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 28 November 2013 21: 16
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      It is unlikely that one will have to rely on epic sea battles when radioactive tsunamis without the BKPR will go across the oceans. Carriers are not needed against the Papuans, it’s easier for us to prevent a global war by squeezing and protecting our interests with the 3-4 on duty AUGs, than trying to win with the 1000 nuclear submarines later.

      To begin with, in the Pacific, the radioactive tsunami from Fukushima is nailed to the west coast of the authors of this reactor design ...

      Our opponents have long been preparing non-nuclear equipment for ICBMs. What, will we catch up again ?!
      Or will we still make super-weapons with UBB, and non-nuclear equipment, on the abandoned backlogs of the USSR, and force the oppov to moor their AUGs?

      If you try to answer symmetrically, you need to take into account a number of factors not taken into account by the augophiles. The creation and construction of the AUG is just one of the stages of the functioning of the weapon system. In addition to them, we need: ports, bases, organization of supplies, navigation, communications, the creation of meteorological support for the earth. Moreover, not only at the points of national terrorism, but in most cases at the allies. Do we have them in the required quantity and in the required manner distributed? That we will conquer foreign territories for bases? In addition, a whole nautical strategy is required, which the Anglo-Saxons have been doing for centuries. Or do you suggest "once and for all"?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 28 November 2013 23: 30
        +2
        Quote: Rus2012
        Or do you suggest "once and for all"?
        No, I'm not suggesting, neither in the king, nor in the gop-stop. Do you want to say that "ports, bases, organization of supply, navigation, communications, creation of meteorological support around the globe. Moreover, not only at the points of national terrorism, but in most cases at the allies" are needed only by aircraft carriers? By your logic, not only our AUG have nothing to do in the sea, but in general to surface groups. Yes, all of the above must have, plus a space "umbrella", and if there is little or no, then you need to restore or create anew. The poor and the poor have no decent place in the sun. You don't need to win back anything, you need to think with your head and have the political will so that desires are commensurate with possibilities. The same Cyprus could be bought with giblets, or at least take advantage of the situation to your advantage. There is Syria, Vietnam, India, Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries where our bases or friendly ports may be. "Besides that, a whole nautical strategy is required," and how would you like to have a fleet without a strategy? Do you think that the "symmetrical" answer is rivalry with the United States and its allies in the number of aircraft carriers? So we can't build as many boats as they have or can have, maybe for an "asymmetric" answer we will give up submarines, after that we will count the tanks, we will again get less. The point is not to measure with pipirks, the fleet must be full-fledged, then it will be able to solve its tasks. For us, this is 3-4 AUG at sea, and 1-2 repair-reserve, plus all other components of the Navy, including submarines and support vessels. Of course, armament development priorities are needed, but "super-weapons with UBB" are not an alternative to aircraft carriers, but a supplement.
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 29 November 2013 01: 38
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          For us, this is 3-4 AUG at sea, and 1-2 repair-reserve, plus all other components of the Navy, including submarines and support vessels. Of course, armament development priorities are needed, but "super-weapons with UBB" are not an alternative to aircraft carriers, but a supplement.

          One question - when "3-4 AUG at sea, and 1-2 repair-reserve"? If you say "today or tomorrow" (within 5 years, for example), then you can be called a spender who has no connection with reality. If within 30-50 years, I would rather agree.
          BUT, ICBMs with UBB - need tomorrow! And when they enter the database, most likely, all AUGs will be joked. In any case, they will go to sea "by agreement" with the owner of these devices, or far (beyond the range) they will bypass our and allies' shores ...
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 29 November 2013 06: 53
            +1
            Quote: Rus2012
            BUT, ICBMs with UBB - you need tomorrow! And when they step on the database, most likely, all AUGs will be joking
            Even with "Bulava" everything is not so simple yet, and you speak of "ICBMs with UBB" as a fait accompli, but it does not exist, and whether it will be in the foreseeable future is a question. However, even if this system would already be in service, the AUGs will not stand up, as no one will disband their armies just because there are ICBMs. Your patriotic optimism pleases, but the enemies "will bypass our shores and our allies" when they are opposed by our fleet, in their daily combat duty, their presence at points of aggravation, in neutralizing local conflicts, preventing them from escalating into global ones, and not from the presence of anti-ship ICBMs. Ships are not immediately built, especially aircraft carriers, the "today-tomorrow" AUG will not appear, but if today or tomorrow you do not start doing this, then it will be too late. Khrushchev had already tried to replace the Navy and Air Force with missiles alone, nothing good came of it. There is no need to be original here, the fleet, like the army, is a single organism in which each class of ships arose not from someone's whim, but in the process of developing weapons. I will repeat once more, as long as aviation is needed, aircraft carriers and their carriers will also be needed.
            1. Rus2012
              Rus2012 29 November 2013 11: 37
              0
              Quote: Per se.
              you speak on "MBR with UBB" as a fait accompli,

              We read here - http://topwar.ru/36683-ob-upravlyaemyh-samonavodyaschihsya-boevyh-blokah-raket.h
              tml
              for information ... On guided / homing missile warheads ... what happened, what will happen ...
              Topol-E is in flight, a new "maneuvering head" is being developed
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 07: 19
        +1
        Quote: Rus2012
        Our opponents have long been preparing non-nuclear equipment for ICBMs.

        Abandoned the project
        For one single reason - the launch of ICBMs with conventional warheads is indistinguishable from ICBMs with nuclear warheads. Too great a chance to arrange armageddon from scratch
        Quote: Rus2012
        Or will we still make super-weapons with UBB, and non-nuclear equipment, on the abandoned backlogs of the USSR, and force the oppov to moor their AUGs?

        You struggle to do it. First of all, you need to FIND AUG in the ocean. Believe it or not, this is a big problem. And the deployment of the space "Legend" could not pull even the USSR.
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 29 November 2013 11: 17
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Abandoned the project

          Where is the off-failure at all times?
          Or closed one of the projects due to failure?

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You struggle to do it. First of all, you need to FIND AUG in the ocean. Believe it or not, this is a big problem. And the deployment of the space "Legend" could not pull even the USSR.

          Come on!
          Liana and naval reconnaissance systems with active satellites -
          http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%81-%D0%A1
          In the courtyard of 21 for centuries, new low-power REI ... junkers with foam at the mouth prove that PGRK are easily found in our open spaces :) and here is a whole AUG.
          See the photo - all ships are at a glance throughout 18km of Gibraltar. The satellite, by the way, is from the "Legend". Then they could, all the more so ...
          Or does not mean to do for you?
          Then it is not necessary to reduce the potential potential of the Yankee AUGs to axioms and the heavens ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 12: 25
            +1
            Quote: Rus2012
            Where is the off-failure at all times?

            There is such a laziness to look for. Simply put, they closed the topic because the launch of ICBMs with nuclear warheads cannot be distinguished from the launch of ICBMs with conventional warheads.
            But here's the thing - no one ever intended to hit ICBMs with non-nuclear parts MOBILE targets :)
            Can you confirm the opposite? :)
            Quote: Rus2012
            Come on!
            Liana and naval reconnaissance systems with active satellites -

            (heavy sigh) In general, you don't know ANYTHING about satellite reconnaissance, about the Liana and Legend systems.
            Quote: Rus2012
            See photo

            Kindergarten. I look, so what? The legend was a hefty detective radar. Since radar needed energy, the satellite was equipped with its own atomic reactor. And since the radar from deep space does not agree to work too much, it was necessary to launch these satellites into low orbits. Where did they fall a few years after the launch.
            On average, the satellite sees one point of the zemshara within minutes so 20 - half an hour, because the movement in orbit around the earth. You can calculate how many satellites of the Legend were needed to control the oceans :)))
            in 18 years of USSR launches, it was possible to make 27 successful launches, the number of satellites in orbit at the same time did not exceed 5. And their cost ... Perhaps the US carrier fleet is still cheaper.
            I’m silent about the fact that the accuracy of determining the coordinates for the P-27K using US satellites was + -25 km.
            1. Rus2012
              Rus2012 29 November 2013 12: 47
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              (heavy sigh) In general, you don't know ANYTHING about satellite reconnaissance, about the Liana and Legend systems.


              Kindergarten. I look, so what? The legend was a hefty detective radar.


              Yes, and your knowledge, dear opponent, stuck in the last century ... do not you find? smile
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 13: 12
                +1
                Quote: Rus2012
                Yes, and your knowledge, dear opponent, stuck in the last century ... do not you find?

                And in this century, dear opponent, the Americans are planning to deploy Discovery 2 - a system of 42 satellites that can reduce the time from target detection to target designation as much as one hour :)
                1. Rus2012
                  Rus2012 29 November 2013 13: 43
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  And in this century, dear opponent, the Americans are planning to deploy Discovery 2 - a system of 42 satellites that can reduce the time from target detection to target designation as much as one hour :)

                  What have you led to this "flow of knowledge"? For "multi-letters"?
                  Or do you want to say that in the plans of the Russian Federation a similar system is not on the agenda?
                  Enough, dear. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Not a great honor.
  • karal
    karal 28 November 2013 07: 50
    +4
    On the morning of November 26, the new Indian aircraft carrier R33 Vikramaditya of project 1143.4 left the water area of ​​the Sevmash plant (Severodvinsk) and headed for Murmansk. There the ship will stay for several days, after which it will go to a duty station in India

    I just wanted to shout to him: "Come back, dear !!!"
    1. 10kAzAk01
      10kAzAk01 28 November 2013 11: 13
      +2
      I just wanted to shout to him: "Come back, dear !!!"

      Yes, if only they wouldn’t burn once again ....
  • Sirs
    Sirs 28 November 2013 07: 50
    +8
    We need it as air, if not the goal itself, but as a tool for the development of industrial engineering and instrumentation, it will give a kick for the development of gray fluid in people. (the main thing is not to become a mega project to steal money).
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 28 November 2013 08: 04
      +7
      Quote: Sirs
      but as instrument for the development of industrial engineering and instrumentation, he will give a kick for the development of gray fluid in humans

      How about building an auto and civil aircraft industry?
      The development of the country's road network?
      Creation of domestic samples - a mobile phone, computer, tablet ...
      Building a promising destroyer?
      Finishing up the T-50 - after all, the PAK FA before reaching the performance characteristics stated in the advertising booklets - with a full range of serial avionics, a "second stage" engine and an uninterrupted cockpit canopy - like cancer from Moscow to Beijing
      Development of a new manned spacecraft similar to the American "Orion"

      Assembly line F-22. Will we have such a production soon? Or will we continue to bring the Su-34 panels to the design form with a mallet?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 08: 13
        +9
        Our pipe production workshops look more impressive http://fishki.net/32154-cheljabinsk-vysota-239-72-foto.html
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 28 November 2013 08: 46
          +2
          No fresher examples? 5 is clogging the information space with this height for years
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 09: 00
            +6
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            No fresher examples?

            Oleg, F-22, if anything, 2001 is being done, and they are clogging the information space with at least a quarter of a century
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 28 November 2013 20: 57
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Oleg, F-22, if anything, 2001 is being done, and they are clogging the information space with at least a quarter of a century

              Andrey, F-22 is a symbol of US scientific progress and technical excellence.

              All that 239 does is make pipes to drive oil over the hill.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 07: 28
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Everything That Height Does 239

                Oleg, do not skip. We talked about equipping workshops :)
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 29 November 2013 12: 16
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  We talked about equipping workshops :)

                  So that's the point!
                  What equipment is required for the production of the Raptor and its systems? And what does the process of bending a sheet for pipe production look like - ordinary hot production. Glamorous facade and glass elevator still do not say anything
                  1. postman
                    postman 29 November 2013 18: 53
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Glamorous facade and glass elevator still do not say anything

                    Isho as "say"
                    The construction of the workshop was started even before the crisis, and in order not to “freeze” the project for several years, they attracted loans with the help of state guarantees. Investments in the construction and equipment of the "Height 239" workshop are estimated at 21 billion rubles. However, the reason for pride was not ingenious financial schemes, with the help of which the workshop was still able to be completed, and a set of innovative solutions implemented at "Altitude 239".


                    Large diameter hole
                    http://kommersant.ru/pda/kommersant.html?id=1951611
                    ChelPipe Group is on the verge of bankruptcy due to "Height 239"
                    http://www.dostup1.ru/economics/economics_40946.html
                    Andrei Komarov’s appeal (the company asked for 30 r) for help with creditors) assistance from the Russian government, sent to the government on May 000. The next day Industry Minister Denis Manturov asked First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov to instruct the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Finance and the Industry and Trade Ministry with the participation of Sberbank to prepare and submit to the government a decision on the allocation of state guarantees to ChTPZ in the amount of up to 30 billion rubles.
                    =====================================
                    The main shareholders of ChTPZ OJSC: MOUNTRISE LIMITED Limited Liability Company (Cyprus) - 54,42%OJSC “Pervouralsk Novotrubny Zavod” - 32,938%.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 29 November 2013 19: 17
                      0
                      Thanks, as always interesting
                      1. postman
                        postman 29 November 2013 22: 36
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Thanks, as always interesting

                        you are welcome.
                        Threat.
                        Why do you / I have three stars, and a guy from Chelyabinsk has 4 !!!
                        ?
        2. klimpopov
          klimpopov 28 November 2013 09: 37
          +1
          It looks like a kindergarten)))
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 10: 51
            +2
            There is a little :)))) But this is not a kindergarten at all :)
          2. postman
            postman 29 November 2013 18: 55
            0
            Quote: klimpopov
            It looks like a kindergarten)))


            For 21 then rubles
            --------------------------
            Vladimir Putin, who attended the opening of the workshop, compared it to Disneyland,

            expressing his admiration for the unexpectedly bright design for an industrial facility.
            In essence, the rough production was equipped with the most modern equipment, which made it possible to call it “white metallurgy”. Chelyabinsk Pipe-Rolling Plant has become a must-see point on the excursion route of VIP-guests of the cityAt the same time, almost anyone can look at the miracle of domestic industry: excursions for schoolchildren, students and all inquisitive citizens are practiced in the workshop.
            ---------------
            "find 7 differences" ???
            http://karibiya.ru/akvazona/fotogalereya/
        3. postman
          postman 29 November 2013 02: 08
          -2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Our pipe production workshops are more impressive.

          What a stupid thing. It is wistful to observe such a waddling of the mind, and a complex of ambitions.

          DEUTSCHE EDELSTAHLWERKE (DEW) and Wuppermann AG laugh at 1/2 fools probably.

          http://www.wuppermann.de/fileadmin/content/videos/tec/Wmann_TEC_DE_klein.mp4

          the poor Mannesmann brothers inventing in 1890 stitched Kosovolkovy rolling, and even did not assume most likely that the production of pipes can be turned into a circus show
          ================================================== ==============================
          ======
          glamorous little, for complete happiness
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 07: 28
            +1
            Quote: Postman
            DEUTSCHE EDELSTAHLWERKE (DEW) and Wuppermann AG laugh at 1 / 2 fools

            They really laugh at 1/2 fools - this is common. But the Germans do not laugh at Vysota 239 - I assure you that as a person who is intimately familiar with those who constantly met German delegations at ChTPZ and wandered to Germany during the construction of Vysota
            1. postman
              postman 29 November 2013 13: 37
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              ... But the Germans do not laugh at "Height 239" in the least -

              YES?
              The cost (ChTPZ) of one LDP is comparable to the cost of a car - about $ 30 000.

              The cost (Nippon Steel, JFE and Sumitomo, German Europipe, Italian ILVA) of one LDP up to $ 1000 per ton of LDP,LOGISTICS ACCOUNTED (transportation and customs payments)
              If you
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              wandered to Germany during the construction of "Heights"
              then you must know the weight of the DB pipe.

              reference EN TN VED TS 7304110003 -7304110008 TP rate from 11,3% to 15% + RMS (risk $ / kg)
              CLEAR WHY LAUGH?
              Your "height" resembles:

              Find the 3 differences?



              For reference:
              The owners of the ChTPZ group are the former senator from the Chelyabinsk region Andrei Komarov (the main owner, 90%)

              (Successful call into metallurgy led to the creation of the ChelPipe group - the second largest pipe company in Russia - and made Komarov a billionaire. )

              and Chairman of the Board of Directors of ChelPipe Alexander Fedorov (10%)

              Question (was asked) to Komarov: - How did your story start with ChelPipe? Where did the young entrepreneur get $ 2 million to buy the first package - 10% - of the Chelyabinsk Pipe Rolling Plant (ChTPZ), which subsequently became a key asset of the ChTPZ group?
              There is no concrete answer and never will be.
              It certainly has nothing to do with this glamorous production. DIRECT! This is just a "hint". But here's the curve:
              -explain about the costs?
              - Compare the cost of the Nord Stream gas pipeline across the territory of the Russian Federation and the territory of Germany? / and OFFIGATE


              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I assure you as a person who is most familiar with those who constantly met German delegations

              1. I haven’t met anyone and am not going to meet, however, I worked in Germany for 8-9 years (I don’t remember the Sami)
              2. I supply (l) there is no LDPE, but DB spiral thin-walled pipes (Dorstroy) and corrugated metal structures (Dorstroy) from Viacon and from Hamco Dinslaken Bausysteme GmbH, steel from Wuppermann AG.
              === THE WHOLE spectrum of products is CHEAPER or equal to RUSSIAN COST, with EXCELLENT QUALITY, even taking into account TP and transport costs

              --------------------------------------------------------------------
              you can plant everything (at ChTPZ) with laurels, lawns, plant a secretary in kokoshniks, and security in zipuns, etc., etc.
              But is it necessary (it’s the same as in the MBT to lay carpets and hang muslin on the NVD)? Here's what I had to say
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 14: 15
                +1
                Quote: Postman
                The cost (ChTPZ) of one LDP is comparable to the cost of a car - about $ 30 000.

                Wow :) Price here?
                Quote: Postman
                Cost (Nippon Steel, JFE and Sumitomo, German Europipe, Italian ILVA) of one LDP up to 1000 $ per ton of LDP

                With external and internal coating? Price, pliz.
                Quote: Postman
                then you must know the weight of the DB pipe.

                Pipe weight 239 heights - with a length of 18 m, a diameter of 1420 mm and a wall thickness of 38 mm - 23,3 tons roughly.
                Quote: Postman
                CLEAR WHY LAUGH?

                Nope. Let's price, laugh together. Only chur - do not offer imported pipes WITHOUT internal and external coatings.
                1. postman
                  postman 29 November 2013 14: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Wow :) Price here?

                  $ 30000 was voiced by Mr. Komarov ("about"), you can request a price list.
                  The request will be from "serious" - get an answer.
                  The answer will be from 35000 to 44000 $
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  With external and internal coating? Price, pliz.

                  All the same (nomenclature) as ChelPipe. But this is not important?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  23,3 tons roughly.

                  Everything was written .. Around 25000 $ including logistics (delivery and 15% TP, I am silent about VAT there rein reinto (-19% MwST), here + 18% VAT

                  Here is your answer about the glamor and chuckles (okay "behind the back") over 1/2 idiots.
                  "Costs" of production and production costs.
                  1. For metal rolling production, this is nonsense
                  2. For any production related to metal, this is nonsense.
                  3. I can send LIVE photos from Hamco Dinslaken Bausysteme GmbH (Well or Viacon) - more cool from the contrast
                  4.SIE: GLAMOR, KOSHNIKI, GLASS, LAVRA can be afforded by a manufacturer who has a guaranteed MONOPOLY, with the support of the state for the sale of its products, and the state (Gazprom in its person) can "afford" itself to buy at such a price only if it is thoroughly corrupt and provides protectionism (TP).
                  5. In the market, such an enterprise will fly into the pipe, for a year, if not earlier
                  ------------
                  Remarkable in this regard is the situation in 2008-2009, when American automakers threw a statement to the Senate: "the crisis, help, the national industry is dying, the market is flooded with cheap stuff from Japan, China, Korea, IMPORT ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON imported cars"
                  Answer (followed): "GO nah, WORK BETTER, REDUCE COSTS" ...
                  let's go work.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Only chur - do not offer imported pipes WITHOUT internal and external coatings.

                  I don’t know if such are in production? Mb small diameter for garden plots, how to backup?
                  -----------
                  For the entire duration of my stay, I NEVER had a shutdown of hot water, heating (when powered from citywide networks), cold, gas, sewage, NEVER.
                  I see Avot in my PETER:
                  EVERY YEAR is changed by the FAT from the northern CHP, and the heating is turned off REGULARLY every 1 in 2 weeks
                  ==========================
                  Not well, of course the gas is probably "not so" ... let's see
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 15: 10
                    +1
                    Quote: Postman
                    $ 30000 was voiced by Mr. Komarov ("about"), you can request a price list.
                    The request will be from "serious" - get an answer.
                    The answer will be from 35000 to 44000 $

                    Those. you have nothing to confirm your words?
                    1. postman
                      postman 29 November 2013 17: 53
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Those. you have nothing to confirm your words?


                      A "good" provocative formulaic (I would say) question to DEVUE the opponent (and joy for 1/2 fools who rush to bet +/-), but he (and price lists) have nothing to do with the SUBJECT OF THE TOPIC (About what a little below)
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Those. you have nothing to confirm your words?

                      What do I need to confirm?
                      the words of Komarov (the owner of ChTPZ) about "about $ 30000)?
                      Or do you insist on a price list? Well, here you are:
                      http://kayp.ru/product,13681
                      http://www.rodos74.ru/price/
                      At least that's enough?
                      Dazu raw materials
                      http://www.metaltorg.ru/cources/russian/

                      Request a price list from Europipe or ILVA?
                      Of this
                      Quote: Postman
                      Cost (Nippon Steel, JFE and Sumitomo, German Europipe, Italian ILVA) of one LDP up to $ 1000 per ton of LDP, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT LOGISTICS (transportation and customs payments)

                      not enough?
                      at the rate of TP 15% and VAT 18%, the cost of importing TT TT 0,359 + 5-7% is the profit of the importer + up to 14% (hollow pipe!) for transport = GET the EXW (FAS) PRICE of the manufacturer.
                      WHAT DO YOU WANT TO PROVE TO WHO A PRICE LIST?
                      now about
                      Quote: Postman
                      What about a little lower
                      :
                      1. Kaptsov cited as an example the production workshops of Lockheed (F-22), you are arguing for the clownery of ChTPZ (which is more reminiscent of AQUAPARK in Turkey, or a shopping center like "Mega")
                      So, in the manufacture of F-22 and rivets with multi-colored varnish, the tool is also highlighted and this is due to TECHNOLOGY and ACCESSORIES (number), there (in the shops) there are also excess internal shop pressure, lock chambers, slotted vacuum cleaners, water filters, air ionizers, etc.
                      DOES ALL THIS NEED AT CHTPZ?
                      1. postman
                        postman 29 November 2013 17: 54
                        0
                        weiter 1

                        2. Any engineer technologist (and not a technologist) associated with metal rolling will tell you: it is EXCESSIVE (gently), IT IS ABSURBED AND STUPID (which is closer to reality).
                        3. Any businessman who is not a member of the pool of proxies and does not use preferences will tell YOU: I’m such an absurdity, and I WILL NOT do it at my own expense, and I won’t miss these (such) costs, I won’t accept them, and I’ll sell the goods I can’t (in the MARKET!), with such costing. And it’s even more expensive to keep such a VILLAGE.
                        4. But if all this babble to "cut", "hide", "take away", and even at ANYONE'S ACCOUNT (money), and even with MONOPOLY and the government actually blocking the alternative ... THEN YES, this is and contests (paint the pipe, the best office) are the same.
                        -ChTPZ asks for state guarantees for 30 billion rubles to avoid default
                        - Until the end of 2012, ChelPipe needs about 39 billion rubles to service loans. with a projected EBITDA of RUB 21,5 billion. In total, according to a Kommersant source, the ChTPZ group owes almost 107 billion rubles, the main payments for which fall on 2012-2014 (in 2013 - 21,5 billion rubles, in 2014 - 38 billion rubles). The main creditors are Sberbank, Gazprombank, Bank of Moscow and Alfa-Bank, they account for more than 60% of the company's debts
                        -ChTPZ's competitors have a better financial position. The ratio of net debt to EBITDA at the end of 2011 for ChTPZ, according to Kommersant, was 6,3, for TMK, according to the company, 3,4, for MMK - 3 (OMK does not disclose the figures). Worst of all, ChelPipe has more than half of its short-term debt, while its competitors have short-term debt less than 30%. Meanwhile, in May, OMK received state guarantees for 21 billion rubles. for a project worth 50 billion rubles. for the production of seamless pipes and slabs. MMK, which during the crisis implemented two large projects - mills 5000 and 2000, does not plan to ask for state guarantees
                        .
                        Well, and so on.
                        Alexander Litvin from TKB BNP Paribas Investment Partners believes that the state will most likely help ChTPZ, because the company was building a workshop for the production of large-diameter pipes under promises of large orders from Gazprom, which never materialized - the monopoly never started construction of a gas pipeline to China
                        ==========================================
                        I’m surprised that in general a swimming pool (path) was not built along the central glass pipe (where laurels grow in tubs), as well as an obesity area, Formula 1 highway, airport, and so on ...
                        --------------------------------
                        Therefore, I wrote (for your example):

                        What a stupid thing. It is wistful to observe such a waddling of the mind, and a complex of ambitions.

                        No, of course, as a mating coloring (male or female) to attract a partner will do. And one can feel "vulgar": the subject, sometimes called the "iPhone", probably made an impression, on + Co the same way.
                        Guided tours are provided for everyone. To do this, just write to the management of the plant.

                        For 21 rubles ... in principle, not bad.
                        BUT STUPID
                        Maybe not in the subject, but "who did you (Komarov) want to surprise ...."
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 23: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: Postman
                        But if all this petty, to "cut", "hide", "take away", and even at ANYONE'S ACCOUNT (money), and even with MONOPOLY and the government's actual blocking of the alternative ... THEN YES, this is the very same contests

                        Epic fail. Okay, as one admiral of the northern fleet said: "It's not a shame to dig in shit. It's a shame to enjoy it."
                        What good thing is the ChelPipe monopoly? :))))) They QUARTERLY do not produce Russian products. Monopolists, yeah.
                        What's someone else's account? Ie you think that you can take money from the bank - and it will be "someone else's" money? Which kindergarten are you writing this from?
                        Quote: Postman
                        ChelPipe asks for state guarantees for 30 billion rubles to avoid default

                        Have you ever received a state guarantee? Do you even understand what will happen to you if you substitute the state and it will have to pay the loan for you?
                        Quote: Postman
                        Until the end of 2012, ChTPZ needs about 39 billion rubles to service loans. with a projected EBITDA of RUB 21,5 billion. In total, according to a Kommersant source, the ChTPZ group owes almost 107 billion rubles, the main payments for which fall on 2012-2014

                        THIS is in your opinion - drank dough? Have you ever worked in production?
                        Quote: Postman
                        Alexander Lytvyn from TKB BNP Paribas Investment Partners believes that the state will most likely help ChTPZ, because the company was building a large-diameter pipe production workshop under promises of large orders from Gazprom, which never materialized

                        It would seem clear even to the full felt boots - the state once again traveled through industry. The height was built under large Gazprom contracts - but these large contracts were covered with a copper basin. And the enterprise - invested in production, made an excellent workshop - but there will be no contracts, the promised and planned sales volumes will not survive as you wish.
                        Quote: Postman
                        ChelPipe's competitors have a better financial situation.

                        Naturally. Because they did not carry out such large and complex investment projects.
                        Quote: Postman
                        I’m surprised that a swimming pool (path) wasn’t built along the central glass pipe (where laurels grow in tubs),

                        All these paths and beauty cost about 0,1% of the amount spent on the Height.
                        I frankly get along with whoever owns ChTPZ, I don't even want to comment. Now almost half of the business owners in Cyprus and other foreign campaigns - the holders of shareholdings start - Volga Investments and so on. But an unknowing person will be impressed - "they have campaigns in offshores and they have billions in Cyprus ... the mafia bared its teeth! The lion jumped! They steal with triliens !!!"
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 23: 19
                      +1
                      Quote: Postman
                      but he (and price lists) are not related to the essence of the topic

                      No, my dear man. You here decided to advertise the German pipe, and said that they say the Germans are selling their labor, similar to the one that is produced at "Height 239" at prices significantly lower. This is your argument that it turned out that they say height 239 is nonsense. It is this argument of yours that I ask to confirm with links. And what do you give?
                      Quote: Postman
                      Or do you insist on a price list? Well, here you are:
                      http://kayp.ru/product,13681

                      The first link is 2005 price of the year Do you even know what year the "Height 239" earned? If you have forgotten, then I will remind you - JULY 2010 of the year.
                      The second price - you give the company-reseller (the site worked for this site at least at the end of 2012, although it seems to be out now) What relation can the prices of the reseller to the prices of ChTPZ - allah knows.
                      The next question is how much does your imported pipe cost? Instead of the price list, you give a link to a composite index of pipes for several companies. What for? You are not aware that it is necessary to compare pipes of the same type and brand?
                      Quote: Postman
                      WHAT DO YOU WANT TO PROVE TO WHO A PRICE LIST?

                      Only one thing - you, dear person, are not responsible for your words. tell tales here about your work experience, but are not able to provide prices for the current products of the largest pipe suppliers.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 28 November 2013 08: 38
      +1
      I fully support. Unless the list of what needs to be developed can go on for a very long time
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 08: 44
      +4
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      How about building an auto and civil aircraft industry?

      Auto - and so already factories in bulk, air - well, in one superjet state investment amounted to 16 billion dollars. Http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/534956/ In an aircraft carrier, if anything, 13,5 billion is required
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Road network development?

      Which Russian Federation is going to send 285 billion dollars in the next decade? http://inosmi.ru/politic/20110531/170075295.html
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Creation of domestic samples - a mobile phone, computer, tablet ...

      Nuuu, Chubais’s tablet was already. How much does RUSNANO cost us?
    4. ben gun
      ben gun 28 November 2013 08: 56
      +4
      No need to mix flies with cutlets, following the same logic, you need to add to the list of pensions, salaries to state employees, expenses for SCIENCE and anything else up to the flight to Alpha Centauri.
      First of all, after the finances of the approved ship project and personnel for the construction of an aircraft carrier, you need an aircraft / helicopter AWAC capable of taking off / landing on the deck of this ship.
      To use the aircraft carrier and far ahead of it the "victim" ship of the head radar patrol - from the category "pike bezrybe and cancer".
    5. leon-iv
      leon-iv 28 November 2013 10: 11
      +5
      How about building an auto and civil aircraft industry?

      Auto has found its niche. Slowly integrating into the global auto industry.
      The development of the country's road network?

      And they also build it like that
      Creation of domestic samples - a mobile phone, computer, tablet ...

      How they are being developed, and how the whole world releases them in China.
      Finishing up the T-50 - after all, the PAK FA before reaching the performance characteristics stated in the advertising booklets - with a full range of serial avionics, a "second stage" engine and an uninterrupted cockpit canopy - like cancer from Moscow to Beijing
      Development of a new manned spacecraft similar to the American "Orion"

      And this is where they are completely different people. And yes, PAK FA lives normally.
      Assembly line F-22. Will we have such a production soon? Or will we continue to bring the Su-34 panels to the design form with a mallet?

      Well, it's really fat. We have exactly the same conveyor. And it’s like the Be Su-34 is lumine and the F-22 is composite, since it’s not fashionable to bring composites like hammers. Well, yes proofs about hellish mallet. And my Muscovite technologist does not understand how to bring the desired shape with a mallet.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 28 November 2013 21: 01
        +1
        Quote: leon-iv
        Auto has found its niche. Slowly integrating into the global auto industry.

        What are you saying))
        Quote: leon-iv
        And they also build it like that

        at the price of 50 million / km?
        Quote: leon-iv
        How they are being developed, and how the whole world releases them in China.

        In China, they produce equipment using Western technologies, using Western equipment. that’s the difference between the West and the Russian Federation, where they like to repeat - everything is done in China.
    6. sergey72
      sergey72 28 November 2013 10: 12
      +5
      the sixth I’ll leave the hospital, I’ll go to the 43 workshop, I’ll ask a mallet - maybe I’ll be lucky ....
    7. Avenich
      Avenich 28 November 2013 10: 39
      +2
      Assembly line F-22. Will we have such a production soon?


      So after all, this one is not an assembly line shown, but a beautifully drawn wide-angle. When you always take a picture of the "fish eye", such a beautiful trick comes out.
      1. postman
        postman 29 November 2013 22: 25
        0
        Quote: Avenich
        and a beautifully drawn wide-angle. When you take pictures on the "fish eye"

        Yes?

        This is "everything in the same place"









        It started like this:


    8. duke
      duke 28 November 2013 15: 48
      +1
      yes, a beautiful line for the F-22, but in my opinion it’s not intended to use them on the aircraft carriers, but the F-35 ... get away from the topic ... hi
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 28 November 2013 21: 02
        +1
        Quote: duke
        but in my opinion on aircraft carriers it is supposed to use not them, but F-35.
    9. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 28 November 2013 21: 17
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Assembly line F-22. Will we have such a production soon?

      Yes, in Russia, probably drunken old-age bears collect airplanes, it was interesting, personally for me, it was 19 minutes.
  • duke
    duke 28 November 2013 10: 56
    0
    gee-gee-gee, as the neighbors behind the Dnieper say, he’s a zist, so what can you give him? Ah darling, with your lips yes honey ... only honey is non-expensive and not enough ...
  • engineer74
    engineer74 28 November 2013 08: 09
    +2
    I have no idea how useful the aircraft carrier is from a military point of view. But the construction of such an arms complex will show the maturity of the domestic defense industry. These are new technologies, jobs, experience of intersectoral cooperation and much more. I don’t know what to compare with the atomic project, with the space program? At least we’ll be sure that the military-industrial complex has been restored to full functionality. And the ship itself can be sold favorably if the fleet does not need it. IMHO
    1. SPLV
      SPLV 28 November 2013 08: 59
      +2
      Already built and sold. Few?
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 28 November 2013 09: 11
        +3
        The fact of the matter is that they built in the USSR, and we TEN years repaired and refined.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 08: 10
    +6
    Everything is complicated here.
    The proposed project involves the construction of a heavy aircraft carrier with a displacement of the order of 80 thousand tons. It is proposed to equip the ship with a launching spring and aerofinisher, which makes it look like the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov currently in operation

    Most likely the reason is that
    model created by the Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Krylov State Scientific Center”

    was made in Bolshoye Popykh, moreover, by people who had never designed aircraft-carrying ships before. The design of aircraft-carrying cruisers, if sclerosis is not lying to me, was the responsibility of the Nevsky PKB. It is clear that the wild 90s and languid 2000s were not wasted for the designers, so when they were asked to design a promising AB, the guys were able to issue a slightly modernized (or maybe not slightly) but still - "Ulyanovsk". AB, I must say, is not bad, although not Nimitz definitely.
    This didn’t suit the naval commanders - give them a multi-carrier aircraft carrier wassat
    And who will design it? They gave it to the Krylovites. Well, they rolled out something very simple (no catapults, no nuclear power plant) and somehow suspiciously very much reminiscent of the British "Queen Elizabeth", which is now under construction.
    In the end, it seems that both projects did not suit anyone and decided to make a new project, slowly and tastefully. What will come of this and when - no one knows. Therefore, the immediate laying of AB does not shine for us, and this is not a financial issue.
    1) We are not ready for the project
    2) Our industrial capacities categorically disrupt the program of naval rearmament until 2020 - especially in terms of frigates and nuclear submarines of project 885. We have 2014 on the bow, and instead of 8 or there 10 nuclear submarines of this type we have already "Severodvinsk", laid down in 2009 "Kazan" and "Novosibirsk", RF, founded in 2013 + effective management of the entire country - this is not the Soviet Union even once, which was able to build nuclear submarines in 2,5-3 years. "Kazan" is supposed to be commissioned in 2015. If we take the construction time of one "Ash" in 6 years, then by the beginning of 2015, in order to get at least 8 nuclear submarines of this type, it is necessary to lay down another 5 nuclear submarines of this type. I do not believe.
    The total cost of the development and construction program is estimated at 400 billion rubles, of which 80 will go directly to the construction of the ship.

    Alas, we do not know what is included in this amount. If this is the cost of developing and building ONLY a ship (20 billion for R&D, 80 billion for construction and 300 billion for a drink) then this is one thing. But if we are talking about an aircraft carrier with an air group (40 PAK FA even at a price of 100 million dollars per unit - this is 120 billion only for 4 a dozen birds, but the marine PAK FA still needs to be developed and this is also money) Plus helicopters. And the infrastructure for basing? And if at this price - the development of electromagnetic catapults, yes aircraft AWACS? Hardly, of course, but who knows.
    In general, I would still start building AB until 2020. Let it not be as chic as I fantasized here http://alternathistory.org.ua/borodino let, say, “just” an atomic analogue of Kuznetsov, but we would get two aircraft carriers - at least so that the deck pilots always have a deck under their feet (while one is being repaired, the other is serving)
    1. True
      True 28 November 2013 09: 47
      +4
      Then Ulyanovsk. Why do we need a second pre-bearer?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 10: 03
        +5
        Quote: True
        Then Ulyanovsk. Why do we need a second pre-bearer?

        The question is mainly in catapults. If we have the opportunity to build steam catapults (there was a project, and working samples at NITK), then it is very easy. If, for some reason, we now have to deploy the creation of steam catapults from scratch, then we should think about it - we still need electromagnetic catapults in the future, so is it worth investing in steam now? On the other hand, I’m afraid that waiting for electromagnetic cat-racks is to spend 10 more years of time.
        Well, purely technical aspects - atomic AB, even without catapults, is now for us just a huge step forward for our industry. I understand very well how much the combat capabilities of AV will be reduced by the absence of cat-guns, but if you have to choose, build now, but without catapults or years through 25, but good, then it’s better to build bad first, then good :)
        1. Paleontologist
          Paleontologist 28 November 2013 19: 37
          +1
          As it were, common sketches for EM catapults probably already exist in the Russian Federation. And I think the special services will be able to get approximate characteristics of Western developments.
          Why not revive the Ulyanovsk project? Of course, modernizing it. And build it without catapults, but with tabs in the hull for placing catapults during the subsequent modernization of the ship?
          A transitional aircraft carrier could be obtained, which would give Russian designers and shipbuilders the experience necessary to create a new modern aircraft carrier in the future from scratch.
          I think reviving "Ulyanovsk" is more promising and more realistic than the miracle that one design bureau exhibited six months ago.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 07: 36
            +1
            Quote: Paleontologist
            As it were, common sketches for EM catapults probably already exist in Russia.

            I do not know. Maybe yes, maybe no. Therefore, I write carefully. In addition, from the first drafts to the working unit, the path is very long and long.
            Quote: Paleontologist
            Why not revive the Ulyanovsk project? Of course, modernizing it.

            It is far from the fact that it is better to have 2 catapults and a springboard like Ulyanovsk, and not 4 catapults like "Nimitz" But I cannot answer this question - there is not enough information. "where necessary" - they know. Second, Ulyanovsk was designed for the Su-27 and Mig-29, we should plant a good PAK FA. Third, the atomic reactors are certainly needed for others. Fourth - equipment, devices - everything is outdated in Ulyanovsk. We need new radars, BIUS and so on and so on. Revision of non-aviation weapons. The use of stealth technologies to reduce the EPR at least a little. It is clear that the aircraft carrier will not work, but optimization is still possible. And what remains of Ulyanovsk? I'm afraid nothing
    2. duke
      duke 28 November 2013 11: 01
      0
      Excuse me, but where is Big Poppy?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 13: 12
        +6
        North of the Small Popykh, 7 versts and all the forest ...
        1. duke
          duke 29 November 2013 00: 43
          0
          available, now it’s clear where to look ...
  • Sirs
    Sirs 28 November 2013 08: 23
    +4
    Stop stop stop, stopped thinking, prepared a project, prepared a base for production i.e. handed out directives, transferred finances, updated production facilities (and meanwhile KB is finalizing project details) they built, tested, refined, tested again, immediately upgraded computer systems, tested. And now the new aircraft carrier is ready. And already on this base, they embarked on a new aircraft carrier project. How many years will pass, how many new engineers will sharpen their teeth about him - school.
    And we want from a day nursery at once to a university.
  • shurup
    shurup 28 November 2013 09: 37
    -1
    It is necessary to build a round aircraft carrier with a diameter of 500 m. It will not pump much, and in order not to rust, build from reinforced concrete.
    It’s better to build a headroom near Moscow to practice technology and training. Subsequent - in the right places.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 09: 45
      +5
      Quote: shurup
      It is necessary to build a round aircraft carrier with a diameter of 500 m.

      The Death Star?
      1. True
        True 28 November 2013 10: 50
        +1
        Or, in general, just link several barges at sea. Airplanes fly from the ground, and at these "airfields" they only refuel and replenish their ammunition. The event ended, uncoupled and resolved. Well, or something like that. Cheap and cheerful.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 10: 54
          +5
          Quote: True
          Or in general, just hook a few barges into the sea.

          laughing It's rolling in the sea, actually. Imagine, you fly as a passenger of the flight "Moscow - Volgograd" in a Boeing 737, come in for landing - and suddenly the runway begins to walk in meter waves ... laughing
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 28 November 2013 11: 46
            +2
            And this is special, so that in case of capture in a locked state, vorogs could not use it.
            Not for nothing: "What Russian doesn't like driving fast?" I will add: "And bumpy".
            wassat
        2. PSih2097
          PSih2097 28 November 2013 17: 08
          0
          Quote: True
          Or, in general, just link several barges at sea. Airplanes fly from the ground, and at these "airfields" they only refuel and replenish their ammunition. The event ended, uncoupled and resolved. Well, or something like that. Cheap and cheerful.

          Similar has already been proposed by the Americans ...
          This is called a combat aircraft carrier ...
          (something like that)
          1. True
            True 28 November 2013 19: 37
            +2
            Yes, no, it's really a death star. Easier, without docks. It’s stupidly 2 corps, and between them it’s hard to put it in. Like a catamaran. And deliver airplanes there by high-speed transporters, like mattresses.
      2. Sirs
        Sirs 28 November 2013 11: 29
        +1
        Piz-a life.
      3. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 28 November 2013 11: 43
        +2
        The death star will turn out if to a round 500-meter also "rays" - a runway for a kilometer to attach radially
        wassat
    2. Mairos
      Mairos 28 November 2013 10: 08
      +4
      Thick trolling is the way to the dark side of the Force !! am
    3. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 28 November 2013 11: 42
      +2
      Then it’s bulk. From boulders and gravel. Only this will not be called an aircraft carrier.
      laughing
      Near Moscow - where is it? Floating design 500 meters across.
      what
      1. shurup
        shurup 28 November 2013 22: 17
        +2
        In Skolkovo, of course. And dig a pool for him - let people bathe in warm water in summer and winter, train and fill in kayaks.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 28 November 2013 10: 02
    +3
    Putin said the submarine means the submarine. All point.
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 28 November 2013 10: 13
    +2
    Here is a great post and discussion
    http://sandrermakoff.livejournal.com/372282.html
  • tchoni
    tchoni 28 November 2013 10: 31
    -6
    The fleet once devoured Russia - at 17 m. They set up battleships for the Baltic and the Black Sea - and what to do with them was already invented by the Soviet government, which could only be established thanks to the budget undermined by military orders (and the battleship played the first violin) (the government robbed the people in order to replenish it) and due to the presence of a solid armed contingent of sailors hovering from idleness near the capital, among whom it was so convenient to conduct propaganda.

    I believe that Russia is a great land power. And it is better to build them for sale instead of aircraft carriers "for themselves" and invest the proceeds in the construction of roads and the development of the Strategic Missile Forces.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 10: 39
      +2
      Quote: tchoni
      The fleet once devoured Russia - in 17 m. We set up battleships for the Baltic and the Black Sea

      Read here http://alternathistory.org.ua/k-voprosu-o-sootnoshenii-byudzhetov-morskogo-vedom

      stva-i-voennogo-ministerstva-rossiiskoi-imperii-v
      And do not write what you do not know. For starters, at least a little bit to study the question.
      The budget of the Russian fleet in 1907-1914 was from 8,7 to 19,9% of the total costs (depending on the year) for the military power of the Empire.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 28 November 2013 13: 41
        0
        Judging by the article, the author is very heartbreaking, including the cost of plants in the cost of producing rifles and other army ammunition.
        Then include in the cost of the dreadnoughts the cost of the factories for their construction (preferably with the cost of special workshops in steel plants for the production of armor).
        So this question still needs to be explored dear!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 07: 45
          +1
          Quote: tchoni
          Judging by the article, the author is very heartbreaking, including the cost of plants in the cost of producing rifles and other army ammunition.

          Firstly, the question is not about the cost of rifles, but about Russia's allegedly "unaffordable" costs of the fleet. And secondly, the author does NOT do this. He analyzes 2 options - either money is spent on the construction of dreadnoughts at existing factories, or money is spent on the production of rifles, but then it is necessary to first build factories where the rifles will be produced.
          Quote: tchoni
          Then include in the cost of the dreadnoughts the cost of the factories for their construction (preferably with the cost of special workshops in steel plants for the production of armor).

          Around 30 Million
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 28 November 2013 16: 13
        0
        And one more thing - from the age of 14, allocations to the fleet begin to increase sharply.
    2. ben gun
      ben gun 28 November 2013 11: 42
      -1
      Quote: tchoni
      the Soviet government, which was able to establish itself only thanks to a budget undermined by military orders (and the battleship played the first violin) (the government robbed people in order to replenish it) and due to the presence of a solid armed contingent of sailors, clamoring from idleness, among whom it was so convenient to conduct propaganda.

      Generally speaking, the Soviet power came from mediocrity and, to put it mildly, the "shoals" of Kerensky's Provisional Government and the company in the first place. If, instead of the Provisional Government, there was at least the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire, the Bolsheviks would be shot or hard labor. There would not have been a trace of a coup (October Revolution). Study the history of the good gentleman.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 28 November 2013 13: 44
        0
        Exactly. Only the minds of agitating the army and navy, playing on the aspirations of the common people, were enough only among the Bolsheviks.
    3. Paleontologist
      Paleontologist 28 November 2013 19: 41
      +2
      It is not customary in the world to buy weapons from a country that itself has not accepted it and has no experience of using it in the troops.
  • runway
    runway 28 November 2013 10: 57
    +4
    If the likely adversary has some type of weaponry, we should have the best. This is a military point of view. All other talk is in favor of the poor. You can talk for a long time about whether we are a continental or sea power. But to be able to create in the shortest possible time in a certain strategic direction at the expense of aircraft carrier groups a significant superiority of forces in their favor, to be able to inflict (except strategic missiles) a blow under the breath of the enemy in any part of the world is worth a lot. Speak expensive? Do not cheat. Now count how much our (your) defective managers steal annually from the treasury, add meaningless projects here, spend on various games, get drunk - partying, palaces and castles of oligakhs, salaries of bred officials .... For this money you can not only raise the fleet and army , but also education and medicine worthy to contain. Still worthy housing for our veterans and retired.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 28 November 2013 13: 30
      -1
      Where is this direction? Tell me at least the probable!
    2. tchoni
      tchoni 28 November 2013 15: 49
      +1
      Well, uncle, well, please, tell me where you are the carrier groups, and most importantly, what are you going to deploy.
  • Aeneas
    Aeneas 28 November 2013 11: 06
    +5
    If it weren’t for the sale or needles in the 90s of aircraft-carrying cruisers Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk, Russia could have (or carry out repair and refurbishment work) three wikramaddies, to the heap with Kuznetsov. And today, or even in the future, it should be recognized that there will be no aircraft carriers in Russia. Perhaps there will be quasi aircraft carriers based on the Mistrals, following the example of Korean Dokdo, or Japanese destroyers. But for this it is necessary to have a plane with vertical take-off and landing, tobish to reanimate the Yak-141. Which is also problematic, because there will be no series, the aircraft will be expensive, although the Chinese may be of interest.
    1. Sirs
      Sirs 28 November 2013 11: 31
      0
      Everything will be))) both bad and good.
    2. Nexus 6
      Nexus 6 28 November 2013 12: 32
      +1
      Yes, at least quasi-aircraft carriers, they will occupy their niche and work out! And by the way, on the Internet, I did not find anything about modern VTOL developments (except for the F-35). They are not at all? Can anyone enlighten? Indeed, for VTOL aircraft carrier without catapults, runways, etc. , well, yes these are obvious things, I am sure they have already discussed them here.
      It is not at all realistic, in the foreseeable future, to make a VTOL aircraft, similar in characteristics to a conventional aircraft ??
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 13: 46
        +3
        Quote: Nexus 6
        And by the way, on the Internet, I did not find anything about modern VTOL developments (except for F-35). They are not at all?

        They do not exist at all, and indeed they are not needed by anyone.
        The thing is that VTOL aircraft during vertical takeoff can carry a minimum of ammunition. Therefore, VTOL aircraft are used with a short run - so that they can take more bubbling gifts. And here it has no advantages over the same MiG-29K - 4th generation aircraft have sufficient power-to-weight for takeoff from a short takeoff run + springboard. In other words, both for a VTOL aircraft and for a conventional aircraft you still need a battleship with a large flight deck, but the VTOL aircraft will still and will always be inferior in performance characteristics to a conventional aircraft. So why does a goat need a button accordion if she is already funny? It is easier to create ships like the Vikramaditya and put full-fledged fighters on them. The cost of the ship does not really matter here - now the air wings of modern aircraft will cost more than the ship on which they are based
        Well, you need to remember that such ersatz aircraft carriers without catapults are deprived of the opportunity to use AWACS aircraft and, accordingly, lose to catapult aircraft carriers a little more than completely
        1. Nexus 6
          Nexus 6 28 November 2013 14: 53
          0
          Thanks for the answer! So I wondered why: "The VTOL aircraft will still and always be inferior in performance characteristics to a conventional aircraft." I guessed about the plug with AWACS aircraft with the concept of "quasi". On the other hand, there is Osprey, capricious, beating, but a start has been made. This is me raving about VTOL AWACS, because I am an amateur. Possibility without aerodrome takeoff, because it could be useful not only at sea, but also "On the hills of Manchuria" ... And for heavy UAVs. I know about technical issues that worsen performance characteristics ("extra" engines, rotors, gluttony). But, is it really impossible to overcome them in the future by developing modern technologies (for example, a controlled thrust vector), without the invention of any "gravity")
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 15: 07
            +1
            Quote: Nexus 6
            I know about the technical issues that worsen the performance characteristics (extra motors, rotors). But, is it really impossible to overcome them in the future by developing modern technologies (for example, a controlled thrust vector), without the invention of any "gravity")

            Apparently, not at our level of scientific and technological progress. The Americans won out with their F-35 ... the penguin turned out :) Perhaps in the distant future. I envy the descendants - they will learn so many interesting things laughing
        2. not good
          not good 28 November 2013 15: 09
          +1
          For information. The YAK-44E aircraft was designed with a springboard take-off approach in mind. The version of the PLO with the same take-off and landing requirements was also developed. The YAK-44E was even tried on Kuzyu, but it didn’t go further and it seems it won’t work.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 15: 19
            +1
            Quote: Negoro
            The YAK-44E aircraft is designed based on the springboard takeoff

            The first time I hear this. Could you refer to the source? And then everyone writes that without a catapult he could take off only with gunpowder boosters, like the bad memory of Challenger
        3. krpmlws
          krpmlws 28 November 2013 15: 22
          0
          I wonder if it is possible to make an AWACS aircraft on the basis of the Su-30K (Cube) or MiG-29K fighter? Let it lose some of its capabilities, but in the end we will get an aircraft that can take off from a small deck with a springboard. : "in the light of the not entirely clear role of a promising aircraft carrier in the structure of a modern fleet." What kind of Russian aircraft carrier fleet is needed? It must reliably cover surface ships, be the center-forming link in the overall planning of the construction of surface ships, so that it is possible to create full-fledged AUG. At least six aircraft carriers are required, two each for the Land Forces, TF and Black Sea Fleet. One aircraft carrier is guaranteed in service, the other passesrepair and modernization. Where to get the money? They are, it is enough to stop buying amerovskie bonds, there are also a lot of other ways, some were mentioned above. Based on the current situation (without indulging in fantasies about money rain), it is extremely necessary to build an aircraft carrier now, albeit of limited displacement, Naturally, without anti-aircraft missiles and with a reduced anti-aircraft complex. Such an average aircraft carrier with a displacement of 40000 tons must be built in the amount of 2 pieces for the World Cup. In the future, it will be necessary to build full-fledged aircraft carriers of 80000 tons for the Northern Fleet and TF, with a catapult and full-fledged AWACS aircraft. If we want Russia to have fleet, it is necessary to build aircraft carriers now, there is no other way.
    3. Per se.
      Per se. 28 November 2013 13: 17
      +3
      Quote: Aeneas
      But for this it is necessary to have a plane with vertical take-off and landing, tobish to reanimate the Yak-141. Which is also problematic, because there will be no series, the aircraft will be expensive, although the Chinese may be of interest.

      The Chinese are not necessary, it is better then the Indians. We have already interested and are interested in the Chinese in many ways, in their production of clones and the desire to have military technologies for world hegemony. The theme of VTOL aircraft and the theme of aircraft carriers always intersect, okay, their fools, and the "friends" overseas here put their paws. It doesn't matter what their code plan for the destruction of the aircraft carrier fleet of the USSR was called, "Salochka for Ivan" or "Dead Albatross", but they still successfully goats to us, in the theme of reviving the fleet, and first of all the aircraft carrier. They find millions of reasons, with verbiage and demagoguery, creating the necessary public opinion against aircraft carriers and VTOL aircraft. The army and navy, not a freebie "oil and gas", do not bring profits, if you wish, all modern weapons can be trolled here, as devastating the country, as goods stolen from the people, and push more weapons for export, making a profit, making money. Sooner or later, but aircraft carriers and VTOL aircraft will have to be dealt with, but time will be lost when the Ulyanovsk project and Yak-141 could still be revived and adapted to modern times, and given them further development. It would also be possible to cooperate with Little Russia here, reviving shipyards in Nikolaev.
      1. Aeneas
        Aeneas 28 November 2013 14: 55
        +1
        in this case, the Chinese can help not only with money, but with an engineering and technical base. After all, the dvigun from the Yak-141 was already sold to them in the 90s. They have a program for the development of an aircraft carrier fleet, and planes are also needed. The Indians are unlikely to be able to help with anything, besides money, since they are far behind the Chinese in scientific and technical terms (in most industries). Besides, the Indians are already abandoning Russian in aircraft construction, towards the American and European. Americans and Europeans will sell even advanced models to India, and are ready to "hover" the F-35 to the Indians, while the Amero-Europeans will not sell advanced equipment to the Chinese, because they see the reality of military contact in the Pacific region. Yak-141 Russia is unlikely to pull, it will divert the forces and resources of other projects. But in a compartment with the Chinese, most likely it is possible, only to make money on exports here will no longer work.
  • pr 627
    pr 627 28 November 2013 11: 53
    +1
    Finally. You can put an end to and not discuss the topic of aircraft carriers for the Russian fleet, and return to it after 20 years.
  • funt12
    funt12 28 November 2013 12: 04
    +1
    Even if a miracle happens and they find money for the project and then for its implementation, how long will the construction of such a huge and complex ship take if the usual frigate takes more than 5 years?
  • stoqn477
    stoqn477 28 November 2013 12: 15
    0
    It would be nice to have at least two such ships. But the first time you need to saturate your fleet with new and modern ships of smaller types, such as destroyers. However, an aircraft carrier is a good target if you are alone. You have submarines, but if you are building an aircraft carrier, it will not be enough.
  • USNik
    USNik 28 November 2013 12: 57
    +1
    Now there is a large-scale rearmament of the Russian army for new types of weapons, and the budget will not pull up the program for the construction of aircraft carriers. It is better to follow the example of the states and acquire unsinkable aircraft carriers, i.e. bases where possible. Airfields in Greece, Syria, Venezuela will cost less and fulfill their role no worse than floating cities.
    1. Aeneas
      Aeneas 28 November 2013 15: 03
      +1
      Quote: USNik
      Now there is a large-scale rearmament of the Russian army for new types of weapons, and the budget will not pull up the program for the construction of aircraft carriers. It is better to follow the example of the states and acquire unsinkable aircraft carriers, i.e. bases where possible. Airfields in Greece, Syria, Venezuela will cost less and fulfill their role no worse than floating cities.
      the budget will pull ... Industry will not pull. Gorshkov’s repair and modernization took 10 years, and Orlan’s repairs and modernization were next in turn. Kuznetsov is no longer strong, and his overhaul and modernization was postponed for an unknown amount of time. Russia has lost its competence in the construction of large surface ships; it does not even purchase sophisticated Mistrals from France. It is possible to restore this competence, but it takes a lot of time to restore the personnel of industry, science, new shipyards, or modernization. The process has begun, but the creation is long and the prospects are vague.
      1. doktor_alex
        doktor_alex 28 November 2013 15: 51
        +5
        Repair and modernization of the pot has been going on for 10 years because:
        1) from the "pot" there are 2,5 bolts left
        2) repair is more difficult than building again
        3) a significant part of the equipment manufacturers remained outside the borders of the Russian Federation, and it was not that they died completely right there, but part of the equipment had to be purchased and sent for repair through third parties
        4) good brothers, Ukrainians, and to be precise, their government did not forget to periodically put sticks in the wheels, transfer any CD, even to stupid, unnecessary ShTS for pipes (connections), ONLY WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE! And the goods designed by PKB "Progress" in Nikolaev were enough on the ship, and there were no drawings of this good even in the NPKB.
        5) Everyone who designed this steamboat at NPKB either quit in the 90s or died of old age.

        ZY Sevmash has not completely lost its "potency", give projects, they will build. But if in our state they do not realize that an engineer should receive more cleaning women at McDonald's, then Sevmash will soon sleep out, because only either stupid or uninitiated ones remained to work at the plant, the rest all left, $ 500 a month, after that how did you study for 5 years ... no thanks ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 16: 02
          +1
          Thank! They explained everything very clearly.
        2. samoletil18
          samoletil18 29 November 2013 12: 36
          0
          Quote: doktor_alex
          Repair and modernization of the pot has been going on for 10 years because:
          1) from the "pot" there are 2,5 bolts left
          2) repair is more difficult than building again
          3) a significant part of the equipment manufacturers remained outside the borders of the Russian Federation, and it was not that they died completely right there, but part of the equipment had to be purchased and sent for repair through third parties
          4) good brothers, Ukrainians, and to be precise, their government did not forget to periodically put sticks in the wheels, transfer any CD, even to stupid, unnecessary ShTS for pipes (connections), ONLY WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE! And the goods designed by PKB "Progress" in Nikolaev were enough on the ship, and there were no drawings of this good even in the NPKB.
          5) Everyone who designed this steamboat at NPKB either quit in the 90s or died of old age.

          ZY Sevmash has not completely lost its "potency", give projects, they will build. But if in our state they do not realize that an engineer should receive more cleaning women at McDonald's, then Sevmash will soon sleep out, because only either stupid or uninitiated ones remained to work at the plant, the rest all left, $ 500 a month, after that how did you study for 5 years ... no thanks ...

          Put +, but not enough optimism. But on business.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 28 November 2013 14: 47
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The question is mainly in catapults. If we have the opportunity to build steam catapults (there was a project, and working samples at NITK), then it is very easy. If, for some reason, we now have to deploy the creation of steam catapults from scratch, then we should think about it - we still need electromagnetic catapults in the future, so is it worth investing in steam now? On the other hand, I’m afraid that waiting for electromagnetic cat-racks is to spend 10 more years of time.

    Well, actually, electromagnetic catapults do not yet exist in nature. the Americans lowered the aircraft carrier’s hull, but the catapult has not been worked out, there’s not even a working model, only a model. And many in America believe that this ship will not be commissioned very soon. Moreover, if the electric does not work, then you can’t put a steam on it.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 November 2013 14: 53
      +2
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Well, actually, electromagnetic catapults do not yet exist in nature. Americans lowered the aircraft carrier’s hull, but the catapult has not been worked out, there’s not even a working model, only a mock-up

      But for some reason, the planes have already started from this "model" more than once.
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      And many in America believe that this ship will go into operation very soon.

      Everything can be. It is possible that the e-catapult will still drink blood from them. But in general, this is not the first and not the last ship launched, while there is no part of the equipment.
    2. Delta
      Delta 28 November 2013 15: 06
      0
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Well, actually, electromagnetic catapults do not yet exist in nature. Americans lowered the aircraft carrier’s hull, but the catapult is not worked out


      what does it mean - "not worked out"? its tests began in 2010. And successful acceleration of deck ships to takeoff mode. Here, in fact, she is at the airbase. Something doesn't attach the image .....
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 28 November 2013 18: 19
        0
        Quote: Delta
        Here, in fact, she is at the air base.

        However, she says she is not ready for the intended use. Those. in plain language - exploratory and research work has been carried out, performance has been confirmed. However, OCD - not finished, serial samples - not worked out ...
  • kaper
    kaper 28 November 2013 14: 54
    0
    "left the water area of ​​the Sevmash plant (Severodvinsk) and headed for Murmansk" - at least he got there.
  • air wolf
    air wolf 28 November 2013 15: 10
    0
    I repeat, our fleet needs 3 aircraft carriers of the modernized Kuzi type and that's it. In the emergency case, you can remake Mistral for them. And aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing of the SVPP Yak-141M and fellow Everyone will be happy. It is a pity the Varangians drank enemies.
  • indiggo
    indiggo 28 November 2013 15: 36
    0
    I need AB, 2 in the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, in the Baltic and the Black Sea Fleet I think is not reasonable and stupid, the most important question in my opinion is what will be the future AB for Russia, all the time there is information in the media that the designed AB has 80 thousand tons, not will not be enough? 1000 thousand tons in my opinion is ideal for us, the second moment is
    escort. while we have for full export all fleets have 1 Orlan project 1144. 3 1164. that's all. 1155 is hardly suitable for an escort since it has a lot of air defense systems (I don’t take a dagger into account), in the future you can use 22350 for an escort. And of course we will wait for new destroyers ...
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 28 November 2013 16: 13
    -3
    Quote: karal
    Perhaps Ragozin is thus trying to lull the vigilance of the NATO bloc. Ships of this class in Russia are needed, at least 4 pieces for each fleet.


    Why, say, a young man, Russian aircraft carriers, and even in such numbers? You need to read more books on naval topics and comprehend what you read. If there are any ambiguities, ask, even on the Internet.
  • tomich
    tomich 28 November 2013 16: 30
    -5
    another fan of the aircraft carriers article
  • karal
    karal 28 November 2013 16: 42
    0
    Quote: Sakhalininets
    [An aircraft carrier is not a toy, it is a very complex and labor-intensive product of the hard work of the economy of the whole state, which costs a lot of trainings!

    What are you saying, but I naively thought that building them is like two fingers on asphalt laughing
  • The comment was deleted.
  • karal
    karal 28 November 2013 16: 45
    0
    Quote: rubin6286
    Quote: karal
    Perhaps Ragozin is thus trying to lull the vigilance of the NATO bloc. Ships of this class in Russia are needed, at least 4 pieces for each fleet.


    Why, say, a young man, Russian aircraft carriers, and even in such numbers? You need to read more books on naval topics and comprehend what you read. If there are any ambiguities, ask, even on the Internet.

    Well, let’s do this: I read books on military subjects, and you read on geopolitical ones. I will say right away that successful geopolitics of Russia is impossible without a strong and modern army and navy.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 28 November 2013 17: 13
      0
      Please. fans of the floating islands for planting planes. Well, tell me where Russia can use them in the next 10 years ...
      And do not stupidly minus and drive about the greatest importance of the fleet in the history of Russia. Just tell me. Where. for what tasks. Where the bases can be located. What goals will pursue the use of an aircraft carrier.
      Yes, at least indicate the sphere of interests of Russia at the moment.
      1. clidon
        clidon 28 November 2013 18: 10
        +1
        Where to use it is understandable - in the oceans to fulfill the strategic tasks of the fleet. From a power demonstration (which we tried to demonstrate in Syria), to direct threats to the enemy on land and at sea with the help of attack aircraft.

        Another thing is that under the current money some sort of sane group in the foreseeable period will not be able to build. Therefore, I believe that priority should be given to submarine forces. And keep the aircraft carrier to develop skills and experience.
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 28 November 2013 18: 52
          +1
          Quote: clidon
          Another thing is that under the current money some sort of sane group in the foreseeable period will not be able to build. Therefore, I believe that priority should be given to submarine forces. And keep the aircraft carrier to develop skills and experience.

          Reasonable words! A bold plus!
          But the first part of poorly thought out, well, what kind of confrontation with the AUGs states? And the threat of his territory to them? In the same way, their AUGs are against us, even without aircraft carriers on our part ...
          Here BPCR against them will already be enough!
          And AUGs are only against those who do not have such missiles ... :)
          Only a little expensive however ... But if we get rich, by all means, there will be AUGs and everything else !!! :)
          1. clidon
            clidon 28 November 2013 21: 32
            +2
            The confrontation with the States (NATO and not only) can have different scenarios and the presence of aircraft carriers makes it possible to balance all the ocean forces of the fleet, which need full aviation support for a full confrontation.
            BPCR (as I understand it, Ballistic RCC) is not a child prodigy that has dotted everything above surface i. It’s just another system, besides it’s not clear from what area is a real weapon or semi-fantasy.
            1. Rus2012
              Rus2012 28 November 2013 22: 05
              +1
              Quote: clidon
              Confrontation with the States (NATO and not only) can have different scenarios and the presence of aircraft carriers makes it possible to balance all the ocean forces of the fleet, which need full aviation support to fully confront it.

              "Who in what, and we will play chess in spite" (c) not mine :)))))))))))))))
              Yes, NATO and the United States even AUGs to confront the Russian Navy are not needed on the Atlantic-Pacific theater of operations, they will get it from the shore!
              1. clidon
                clidon 29 November 2013 05: 27
                +1
                From the shore? Excuse me, why and specifically whom? If strategic nuclear options are excluded.
                1. Rus2012
                  Rus2012 29 November 2013 13: 24
                  0
                  Quote: clidon
                  From the shore? Excuse me, why and specifically whom? If strategic nuclear options are excluded.

                  Please take the trouble to research this issue yourself ...
                  In extreme cases, they will declare a blockade and starve, for they are nearer to their shores than to ours (just kidding).
                  1. clidon
                    clidon 29 November 2013 17: 57
                    0
                    So I know the question quite well. Therefore, it is not necessary to send "to Google". You will explain more or less clearly what you mean.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 28 November 2013 18: 11
        -4
        Quote: tchoni
        Please. fans of the floating islands for planting planes. Well, tell me where Russia can use them in the next 10 years ...
        And do not stupidly minus and drive about the greatest importance of the fleet in the history of Russia. Just tell me. Where. for what tasks. Where the bases can be located. What goals will pursue the use of an aircraft carrier.
        Yes, at least indicate the sphere of interests of Russia at the moment.


        AUGomaniac and minus throwers, like capricious toddlers in children's toy stores, saw something shiny, howling, with a drumbeat, everything here - "hatsu and that's it !!!"
        And for what, what is the use, will the parents' budget be sufficient - they do not care and do not know - "hachu, hachu, hachu !!!" and cry in three streams ...

        Above wrote -
        To start the construction of AUG Russia, you need to decide on the following questions:
        1. Opening and maintenance of foreign naval bases and supply bases in different countries and parts of the world. To maintain and maintain AUGs, the United States has tens and hundreds of naval bases and supply bases around the world (including aerodromes for basing carrier-based aircraft).
        2. Determine the appearance of the main types of UAVs, which will be based on aircraft carriers. Up to 70%, UAVs can remove the routine tasks of military aviation, including at the Navy. What do our corbel builders think about this?
        3. At one time in the USSR, a groundwork (theory, technology) was created and a "long arm" was implemented - ballistic anti-ship missiles capable of firmly "nailing" foreign AUGs to their home ports. Operating range: from 900 to 2000 km and up to 9000 km. Almost unlimited range. China is currently implementing this system. What do GSh, MO think about this? M. b. when such BKR are on duty, will the AUGs leave the scene of force projection? In any case, the projection of power with the help of the AUG will go into oblivion on the advanced technological countries and their allies. And on "Papuans" - will it be inexpensive? Or m. AUGs will become heavy weapons for the UN international gendarmes?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 07: 55
          +1
          Quote: Rus2012
          Above wrote -

          Sometimes it's better to read than to write
          Quote: Rus2012
          Opening and maintenance of foreign naval bases and supply bases in different countries and parts of the world.

          The Russian Federation, if you don’t know, is climbing over to get this chain of foreign bases. There, in the news article hangs http://topwar.ru/36655-okeanskie-ambicii-v-luzhe-vozmozhnostey.html
          Quote: Rus2012
          Determine the appearance of the main types of UAVs, which will be based on aircraft carriers. Up to 70% UAVs can remove the routine tasks of military aviation

          Fantasy According to the Americans, who today have probably the largest experience in using UAVs
          Quote: Rus2012
          At one time in the USSR, a groundwork (theory, technology) was created and a "long arm" - ballistic anti-ship missiles was implemented

          About which I answered you above
          Quote: Rus2012
          Please. fans of the floating islands for planting planes. Well, tell me where Russia can use them in the next 10 years ..

          What to talk about with this person? Argumentation on the tasks of AB was expressed 100500 times. If a person did not want to get acquainted with the argumentation of opponents at all, then why discuss with him at all?
          Not for the debate, but still - let a person take a map of the world, look at our Far East, climb into the Internet, find out where we have air bases there and how many such bases can take planes, what is the reach radius of these planes, and what from these bases can be covered. And then - let him dig deeper into the internet and find out how much it costs to build one airbase and how much it will cost to build a NETWORK of airbases so that the Far East is covered from AUS raids from a pair of AUGs. And compare them with the cost of building aircraft carriers. After that, I suppose the questions will disappear by themselves
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 29 November 2013 13: 30
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: Rus2012
            Please. fans of the floating islands for planting planes. Well, tell me where Russia can use them in the next 10 years ..
            What to talk about with this person? Argumentation on the tasks of AB was expressed 100500 times. If a person did not want to get acquainted with the argumentation of opponents at all, then why discuss with him at all?
            Not for the debate, but still - let a person take a map of the world, look at our Far East, climb into the Internet, find out where we have air bases there and how many such bases can take planes, what is the reach radius of these planes, and what from these bases can be covered. And then - let him dig deeper into the internet and find out how much it costs to build one airbase and how much it will cost to build a NETWORK of airbases so that the Far East is covered from AUS raids from a pair of AUGs. And compare them with the cost of building aircraft carriers. After that, I suppose the questions will disappear by themselves

            Mr. good, probably worthy, bother pliz, specify whose phrase it was. And do not answer to a third party with another in mind ...


            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            About which I answered you above

            Your answers are not meaningful, not reasoned, never! So a set of general phrases, such as "Long live ...", without methods of analysis and synthesis using brain processes ...
            It’s useless to argue with you, you don’t perceive other people's arguments, T.ch. Sorry, NL
      3. gispanec
        gispanec 28 November 2013 19: 13
        -2
        Quote: tchoni
        Please. fans of the floating islands for planting planes.

        Well pliz fans (patients) explain to me where you are going to use nuclear weapons ??? let's remove it ... or it’s standing in the mines ... it will rust ... then we throw it out ... well, where do you want to use chemical weapons ??? ... let's destroy it ... otherwise we will be poisoned due to old age
        Well, where do you want to use bacterological weapons ?? ..... let's destroy it ... otherwise it will break out of old age and destroy the whole world ....
        and the last troll you are ours .... in what conflicts are you going to use our armed forces ?? .. uh ... well, with kepm you are going to fight the bloodthirsty you are ours ..... let's fire everyone .... and SAVE and cheap slave power
        conclusion you are a Troll and an opponent of the interests of Russia ... all .... explained where to apply?
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 29 November 2013 09: 54
          0
          NF performs the functions of strategic deterrence It is thanks to the presence of this type of weapon that the state becomes a power. And he has one task - the containment of large-scale aggression.
          What can not be said about carrier groups. The presence or absence of which is not a deterrent to land wars.
          The only one where the aircraft carrier is appropriate is the Pacific Fleet. And then ten times you need to think about how much and which ones ... And do not talk about 4 aircraft carriers in the fleet.
          Well, what tasks will the AUG solve in the Black or Baltic Sea? Tell me please.
          And about "Who to fight with?" I will answer like this: And skem we fought the last thirty years? AND?
          Do you think Chechnya calmed down and everything is fine?
          There is also the Republic of Tatarstan, where the Islamic-Wahhabi currents are very strong, there are Buryatia - with the same problem. There are all sorts of Georgia - turned away - a piece was torn off. So, regarding Troll and the adversary of the interests of my country, I have served her enough, thank God. And I perfectly understand where these interests lie. And they are not about dying inexplicably where and do not understand why, but about living in a rich and safe country. So regarding the aircraft carriers suggested that they are better to build for sale because In this case, several areas of Russian interests are observed at once. don't believe - see:
          1) Budget income from foreign investment - times;
          2) Jobs in the SCIENCE sector of the economy - two;
          3) As a consequence, the preservation of SCIENTIFIC POTENTIAL - three;
          4) Political dividends in the form of good relations with the countries of the buyers (read the bases, etc. the opportunity to influence the politics of the region of the country of the buyer indirectly through diplomatic and intelligence services) - four;
          5) Saving the military budget - five.
          In the case of the construction of aircraft carriers "for ourselves", we will only obtain compliance with 2) 3) points of directions of OUR interests, + Strengthening of the fleet - a negative attitude on the part of possible countries of buyers and other neighbors.

          And you say I'm Troll? AND YOU?
  • SIBIR38RUS
    SIBIR38RUS 28 November 2013 17: 23
    +1
    Well, that’s all :) they decided on that: 2 at the Pacific Fleet 2 at the SF. Tomorrow morning we begin to collect, by 8:00 do not be late :) :) :) .............. It is difficult for us unfortunately for now .. one would pull. while we finish building, Kuzya will have to change time .. BUT, the main thing is not to despair! not such times in the 90s, our Armed Forces survived when they threw the army to the mercy of fate. LIFT UP! Moscow was not built in a day.
  • Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 28 November 2013 18: 09
    0
    Not a strategist in the Navy, but I see the future T-50M aircraft carrier of an ice class. Atomic. "Red tent" - what is your name?
  • Walking
    Walking 28 November 2013 18: 11
    0
    As many people forget that the Indian aircraft carrier was not built from scratch, it was an upgrade of the already built ship. So there is not any experience in building an aircraft carrier in Russia so far, unfortunately.
    1. doktor_alex
      doktor_alex 28 November 2013 18: 46
      +1
      As I already wrote above, there is not so much left of the pot in vikramaditya, the case and that one is redrawn in order, the manufacture of the case is, by the way, no more than 20% in terms of labor costs, the rest is its saturation, and with the manufacture of cases we have just no no problem. What is most interesting, the paradox of the current situation is that we now have experience in building an aircraft carrier, but we do not have experience in designing such a ship entirely. Those. There is someone to build, there is no one to design, I don’t see who in our country could do it now, at least at a decent level, if suddenly tomorrow they say “start”, everything will go very tight and with a creak.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 28 November 2013 18: 27
    +2
    If you do not take into account the banter in the comments and everything that has already been said on the topic "New Russian aircraft carrier", really, this idea will be embodied in hardware well, if by 2025-30. The tasks that are more urgent for the Navy are frigates, destroyers, nuclear submarines ... The Soviet fleet was cut quickly in the 90s, and building a new one is a long way.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 28 November 2013 18: 56
      0
      Quote: xomaNN
      in iron, this idea is embodied well, if by 2025-30 year

      ... oh ...
      We would, as the initiates say, win the war ...
      And there it will be seen ...
      Maybe you don’t have to build ...
      Or get the trophy :)))
  • pv1005
    pv1005 28 November 2013 18: 57
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Yes, no question, take the American calculations - they have Virginia, according to various sources, from 1,8 to 2,5 billion dollars, the construction (excluding R&D) of the newest aircraft carrier Ford (if we also take it without R&D) costs 8,1 bln. Thus, we can safely say that a full-fledged aircraft carrier (100 thousand tons, nuclear, with electromagnetic catapults) costs about 4 nuclear submarines. Well, here we are talking about a non-nuclear, catapultless aircraft carrier, which is also smaller in size. Obviously, its cost in submarines will be significantly lower - no more than 2-2,5 nuclear submarines.


    There are 38 parrots or 8 monkeys or 4 baby elephants. What else do we consider RUSSIAN SECURITY?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 08: 05
      +2
      Quote: pv1005
      What else will we consider SAFETY OF RUSSIA

      What’s this all about?
      And so, for a change - what are you going to consider the security of Russia, if not in submarines, aircraft carriers and other weapons systems? At the level of ChSV United Russia? The number of gay men on 100 000 people of the male population, adjusted for the distance to Alpha Centauri, integrated into the price of services of MNCU 1998 of the year?
  • bddrus
    bddrus 28 November 2013 19: 00
    +2
    but I still count money - that’s how our GDP and budget of the Moscow Region will be at least not 10 times smaller, but 3 times less than Amer’s, then you can think of aircraft carriers in the amount of 3 pieces (respectively, three times less)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 08: 10
      +2
      Quote: bddrus
      this is how our GDP and budget of the Moscow Region will be, at least not in 10 times less, but in 3 times less than Amer’s, then you can think of aircraft carriers in the amount of 3 pieces

      Yeah. Now, let's go see the US and Russian GDP. USA - 15,5 trillion dollars. Russia - 2,5 trillion. dollars. This is an IMF estimate, but according to the World Bank, Russia's GDP is 3,3 trillion. But let's say only 2,5 trillion. Total - 6 times smaller than the United States.
      And where are my 2 AUG, I ask you? laughing
      1. bddrus
        bddrus 29 November 2013 19: 37
        0
        here I am about the same - your 2 aug, although I talked about aircraft carriers, just in the area of ​​our Kuznetsov and the two mistrals that are being built
  • homosum20
    homosum20 28 November 2013 19: 35
    +2
    Someone will not like it.
    We are poor.
    The United States and NATO pulled out all the juices from us as reparations for the loss in the Cold War (the last batch of 2 tons of weapons-grade uranium signed by Yeltsin left Peter 500 weeks ago. 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium = 20 Russia's GDP. And this is a trifle)
    We are defending ourselves. At the near borders - aggressively. In the far - scare.
    Large funds are needed for this (tagged and drunk destroyed 386 boards of the Navy. They need to be restored)
    We do not have money for aircraft carriers. It is necessary to keep a facial expression.
  • cayman
    cayman 28 November 2013 19: 49
    +1
    The article is definitely a plus. Quote from an article: “A modern aircraft carrier is designed for ... .. as well as for covering areas where submarines with strategic missiles are located.” That's it! The most important function of an aircraft carrier is to cover strategic submarines. From a military-political point of view, we need to have six full-fledged aircraft carriers. Two each in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans so that there would be three AUGs in continuous patrol.
    Rogozin’s statement that the issue of aircraft carriers is a geopolitical issue is, of course, stupid. Geopolitics is a category from a completely different opera. And the need for aircraft carriers for the Russian State is obvious, because it is a matter of our national security. Each time a topic arises about aircraft carriers for Russia, the hustle and bustle of NATO agents immediately begins, followed by our Russian idiots. The arguments are standard: 1. Russia has no enemies, and therefore, aircraft carriers are not needed 2. Aircraft carriers are useless troughs. 3. Carriers are very expensive. 4. We do not have technologies and we are not able to build them anyway.
    The arguments are rotten. I answer in order. On the first. What national security does not threaten Russia or anyone? Against whom is the United States arming itself and why is the NATO bloc not self-dissolving? Surely for those who are against the creation of a powerful Russian fleet, NATO and the United States are not enemies. I am sure many of them write to the site from NATO countries.
    The second one. Are aircraft carriers useless as a weapon? If they were useless, then they would not be built. Strategic submarines are the most important and indispensable part of the nuclear triad, but they themselves are absolutely defenseless, without cover. How without AUG to provide such cover? What destroyers alone? In a real war, this is not possible. By the way, opponents in all forums prove useless for Russia and large destroyers too. If you listen to them, then we need only boats.
    The third. Carriers are expensive, where is the money? And why does not anyone calculate how much money flows irrevocably every year abroad into offshore? Seventy billion dollars a year, how is it? The fact that the Rabinovichi build yachts at the cost of a good frigate does not bother you. The fact that eight billion dollars (the price of one aircraft carrier) have already been spent on the drum for the Sochi Olympics. But the construction of an aircraft carrier for Russia outrages you - expensive, expensive. They do not save on national security! Where is the money? Over the hill, on the accounts of the elite.
    Fourth. Can we build? Will the state will be able to! Another thing is that there is no such state will in Russia today and cannot be. But how could it be otherwise, if the whole so-called elite has long been (in soul, body and money) there, in the west. Will Russian state dignitaries truly ensure the national security of our country if their children study and work abroad, their daughters give birth in the USA (therefore, grandchildren are in fact American citizens) and do wives own real estate in Miami? The answer is clear. And we will definitely build aircraft carriers and destroyers, but only when national power is finally established in Russia.
  • Paleontologist
    Paleontologist 28 November 2013 19: 51
    0
    Amateur Question:
    Does anyone know - is a draft ship modification of the Yak-130 being worked out? Perhaps an interesting light strike aircraft could be obtained.
    1. clidon
      clidon 28 November 2013 20: 31
      +1
      Why do we need an underplane on an aircraft carrier? There is little space for normal cars. Su-25UTG on Kuznetsov was not kept from a good life.
  • Leshka
    Leshka 28 November 2013 20: 44
    +1
    walks built
  • EdwardTich68
    EdwardTich68 28 November 2013 20: 56
    +1
    There is simply no money now, and the threat is from the south and not from the sea, and so, for the future, pieces 4 are necessary.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 28 November 2013 22: 50
    +1
    during the implementation of the Russian-Indian contract, domestic industry carried out a lot of complex work
    Overhaul and a small alteration of the serial AV cruiser, the most difficult work. That is, the construction of a new unprecedented epic feat?
    I like the arithmetic of the question. 400-80 = 320 billion rubles or 10 billion dollars only development. 20 Mistral price list however, I think on such an amount will also give a discount. That is, 5pcs. 4 fleets at the price of developing the AB, even in a project weaker than the standard American previous generation. Maybe you shouldn’t develop it for that kind of money. It can upgrade according to the results of Kuznetsov’s exploitation and build the same one, it’s not necessary to develop a benefit. Judging by the numbers, the savings will turn out to be completely mad, with the same effect.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 08: 13
      +2
      Quote: chunga-changa
      10 billion dollars only development

      no one knows what is included in this figure. And it can enter
      1) The cost of an air wing (this could stretch by 150-200 billion)
      2) Cost of modernization of production (a number of work needs to be done at Sevmash so that aircraft carriers can be built)
      3) Creating an infrastructure for an aircraft carrier
  • AlexP47
    AlexP47 28 November 2013 23: 11
    0
    In short, everything is very clear:

    1. Russia already has 1 aircraft carrier - "Kuznetsov". This is enough to maintain prestige and deck flight school. The ship can be repaired, upgraded.
    2. There is no clear concept of its use and probably will not be (due to the natural geopolitical position of the country). And until the admirals clearly substantiate the need for this type of weapon, it makes no sense to even spend money on pre-sketch projects. References to "they have it and we need it" are not accepted.
    The times of Midway, Okinawa and Tarawa are long gone. Now we just do not need a large ocean fleet.
    3. History shows that in the event of a sudden political crisis in Russia, the largest ships become the most vulnerable: in the early 90s, 6 aircraft-carrying cruisers from 7 with a large remaining resource were withdrawn from the fleet and 2 more remained unfinished.
    4. What aircraft will be based on an aircraft carrier? Deck counterparts T-50? And does such a design have such capabilities? Yes, and very wasteful to get it. Even America did not allow herself that. And in the F-35 class, we don’t even have a project.
    5. Finally, we now just stupidly have no financial opportunities. And we still need the Olympic Games in Sochi and the World Cup 2018 to survive.)))

    Conclusion: The construction of aircraft carriers at this historical stage is not advisable for Russia.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 08: 18
      +2
      Quote: AlexP47
      Russia already has 1 aircraft carrier, Kuznetsov. This is enough to maintain prestige and deck flight school.

      To maintain the prestige and the deck school this is NOT enough. Now, in good condition, the ship should be repaired - and not childishly, but for at least 3 years (came across five-year grades) And where did the pilots come from at that time? THREAD is not a panacea, even close.
      Quote: AlexP47
      And while the admirals do not clearly justify the need for this type of weapon

      They justified it in the USSR, because fight with enemy AUGs without the support of their own aircraft carriers was recognized as much more costly than with aircraft carriers
      Quote: AlexP47
      What kind of aircraft will be based on an aircraft carrier? Deck counterparts T-50? And does such a design have such capabilities?

      Su-27 - altered, Mig-29 - altered, Su-25 - altered, but T-50 can not be altered in any way?
  • fumanchu
    fumanchu 28 November 2013 23: 30
    0
    I think the decision to abandon floating airfields is very correct.
    In the existing configuration with catapults and horizontal padding, they are too expensive toys. Not only during construction, but also during maintenance. Etozh the whole city afloat. For such money it’s better to build 20 cruisers.

    It is necessary to develop acceptable vertical launch aircraft that would be able to take off from the same mistral.
    I don’t know how it was with the Yak-141, but you must definitely move in this direction. And this gigantomania is simply show off.
    From a strategic point of view, only the Papuans bomb. For with normal air defense, these two or three dozen aircraft are enough for 1-2 hours of battle. And then a new aircraft carrier needs to be tuned.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 08: 32
      +1
      Quote: fumanchu
      For such money it is better to build 20 cruisers.

      Sorry, the calculator banned you, or what? Cost AB Is Known? It is known. Nimitz is worth 6 billion, Ford (only construction without R&D) - 8,1 billion. While the destroyer Arly Burke is within 1,8 billion, and their newest Zwolvt is of the order of 2,5 billion or more. Where did you manage to count 20 cruisers?
      Quote: fumanchu
      It is necessary to develop acceptable vertical launch aircraft that would be able to take off from the same mistral.

      M-dya. Those. Instead of just modifying an already designed airplane (changing glider materials, reinforcing the design, providing a kag for capturing aerofinishers, providing electronics for takeoff and landing operations from the ship), you suggest developing a new airplane.
      You, apparently, are not aware that the cost of developing the F-35 (more than $ 56 billion) EXCEEDS THE COST OF ALL NIMITZ-TYPE NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN THE US Navy !!! am
      In general, you have no idea what you are writing
      Quote: fumanchu
      For with normal air defense, these two or three dozen aircraft on the 1-2 hours of battle are enough.

      laughing To learn materiel, urgently
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 29 November 2013 00: 10
    0
    Tell me, experts, what is remarkable about an aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" type? Oh yeah, it has a bloody cloud of planes on it, they are the weapon of this monster. Now tell me, experts, what is this bloody cloud doing? Yes, it threatens, yes it does bomb, yes, it knocks down other aircraft and other water and submarine means. Why can't drones do this, especially since an aircraft carrier is like the ass of Aunt Masha's neighbor to the bully Gosha for a global conflict? The era of unmanned aerial vehicles came in the same way as planes once violated the strategies of pedestrian generals. I believe that a modern aircraft carrier is a team of desk pilots + amphibious vehicle, armed) (with a lot of unmanned pilots + С400. A very small, cheap and numerous means of enforcing peace. What am I wrong? repeat
    1. fumanchu
      fumanchu 29 November 2013 00: 58
      +1
      The UAV is somehow off topic. The question is about aircraft carriers, which are needed to base both a UAV and a pla.
      Will there be pilots, will it not be up to the bulb. they must take off from far away.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 November 2013 08: 43
      +1
      Quote: Asan Ata
      Why drones can't do it

      Because drones simply can’t do this. They don’t know how, alas. The Americans themselves admit this - with a minimal threat of some kind of air defense, UAVs must be equipped with supervised aircraft for surveillance.
      UAVs have not yet come close to the capabilities of manned aircraft
      Quote: Asan Ata
      I believe that a modern aircraft carrier is a team of desk pilots + a floating vehicle armed) (with a cloud of baspilots + С400. Very small,

      A UAV needs the same flight deck, the same catapults - in general, the same Nimitz. Their run / takeoff run is no better than manned aircraft.
  • Mikola
    Mikola 29 November 2013 00: 53
    +2
    Hmm, sadly it all looks from the outside. There will be no full-fledged aircraft carriers in Russia. Rogozin's statement simply and clearly buries this matter. The statement does not even hint at the development of a full-fledged project, not to mention converting one of the Orlans into an experimental aircraft carrier with a reactor and a catapult to test the technology. Suddenly, even having a project, a series of aircraft carriers cannot be built, an intermediate aircraft carrier is still needed to develop technologies. It can be seen that the author is a patriot of his country, who wants the integrated development of the fleet and he offers a compromise, an aircraft carrier without a catapult and not atomic. But without a catapult on an aircraft carrier, AWACS aircraft of the E-2x type, which have the main eyes and ears of the AUG, will not be able to base, and without an atom in the North, the aircraft carrier will be limited and it is desirable that the aircraft carrier have icebreaking lines and a reinforced hull, but these are only wishes ... By the way, the strategy of Ryabov's articles can be compared with the other, all "well-known" author of the "correct" patriotism of the fleet, Kaptsov, whose articles FULLY coincide in meaning with the opinion in the Kremlin, what is his last ode to the Mistals))) Which suggests that Kaptsov is a propagandist regular. Ryabov is broader in his views, but alas ... With this approach to business, one can already state that by 2040-50 aircraft carriers will not develop in Russia, which means that the Indian success is the last ... As in the USSR, politics in Russia now affects the looping of the development of the fleet, and distortions have been and will be, it is not the admirals who determine the development of the fleet, but politicians far from the fleet. By the way, this has already happened in history in Great Britain at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, and this vicious practice was stopped by Drawing. But history is remarkable in that it teaches nothing.
    1. Mikola
      Mikola 29 November 2013 01: 09
      0
      discontinued by Churchill
    2. fumanchu
      fumanchu 29 November 2013 01: 15
      0
      What is the point? Have a $ 5 billion trough? Well, what’s the point if, after 5-10 years, viable concepts of vertical take-off and landing aircraft appear? And this is a universal base and any trough will do. The possibilities will appear endless.

      The concept of aircraft carriers in a modern form was created by amers. Because they don’t look at money and the aircraft carriers really work out this money. For they have undermined the banal gop stop and blackmail.
      I do not remember that they would ever be used in a real greater conflict as the main striking weapon. So the little things against the Japanese. And now, if everything is done seriously, then they will not be enough.
      1. Mikola
        Mikola 29 November 2013 01: 30
        +2
        on a full-fledged aircraft carrier, and full-fledged aircraft - they will have radis of action and combat load ALWAYS have more vertical bars (such is physics))))), and the springboard also does not solve the problem of a full combat load. In the effectiveness of a warship, money is not the first position. This is the basics.
        1. fumanchu
          fumanchu 29 November 2013 02: 26
          -3
          Okay. More so more. But the last word in the development of engines has not yet been said, and I think it's too early to bury vertical lines.
          Wars are won not by a small advantage in the combat effectiveness of equipment, but by large resources and the mass of their application.
          Well there will be 2 verticals as one horizontal to fight. But the possibility of their use and replenishment of combat losses is many times higher. Here, for example, they will kill an airfield 2000 km from the coast and horizontal airplanes. And this, by the way, is very real.

          Well, the aircraft carriers were not made for a big war. Destroy them in the first minutes with such a piece availability. And in a small one you can do without them.
      2. Paleontologist
        Paleontologist 29 November 2013 10: 33
        0
        "in 5-10 years, viable concepts of vertical take-off and landing aircraft will appear"
        In order for such airplanes to appear in five years, flight tests of the prototype must already be carried out now. But I have not even heard about the design of combat VTOL aircraft for a long time. Do you know of such projects?
        1. fumanchu
          fumanchu 29 November 2013 15: 04
          0
          It's not about the plane itself, but about the engines. The turbojets have exhausted their potential in this direction and there is no point in waiting for something new.

          BUT. Not so long ago in Russia they tested a pulsating detonation engine. And I think that in just 5 years there will be a real engine for which you can build a more effective VTOL aircraft.
          And it was not written with a pitchfork on water, but it is absolutely certain that the development of VTOL aircraft based on this engine or in combination will be launched. Because logic is such an unforgiving thing. Do not use this opportunity and not show the amers a mule, just silly. They then dream that Russia at a loss still built a pair of aircraft carriers. So that there was not enough money for a normal fleet.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 30 November 2013 23: 04
    0
    Since the article got 234 comments, there is only one conclusion - Russia needs aircraft carriers.