Military Review

It's hard to part with the dream of aircraft carriers

163

Russian admirals and shipbuilders do not part with the dream of creating aircraft carriers for the Navy and even aircraft carrier strike groups (AUG), and not one, but two or three, but, of course, five is more desirable. This painfully obsolete topic was once again the subject of an article by shipbuilding engineer Alexander Nikolsky "The Russian fleet is going under water" ("NVO" No. 41, 08.11.13). The author of the article, with specific figures in hand, proves, as twice two is five, and not four, that instead of 10 nuclear submarine missile cruisers (APRK) for the same money, you can build five aircraft carriers - one aircraft carrier every two and a half years. And 250-270 multipurpose carrier-based fighters for new ships should be taken from the Air Force without prejudice to combat readiness. Paradoxically, but this fantastic idea, completely divorced from life, aroused a warm response and approval of some naval specialists, including among the designers of nuclear submarines. Although they are just the least of all should be interested in the transfer of priorities in shipbuilding from the submarine fleet to the surface one. But the ways of designers are inscrutable.


However, let us return to real life and try to understand this problem, especially since the answers lie on the surface.

So, let's start with the question: where to build? In the Soviet Union, aircraft-carrying cruisers (“main caliber” of cruisers — rockets, and aircraft carriers — aircraft, it turned out not at all) were built only in Nikolaev. And now the Nikolaev shipbuilders and the Ukrainian government will not refuse such a seductive order. Here are just experts at the shipyard left with Gulkin nose.

If we build on Sevmash in Severodvinsk, then this means paralyzing the fulfillment of all other orders for several decades. In the workshop where the four hulls of nuclear submarines fit, there will barely be one aircraft carrier hull. And to block the gates of the shop for many years, through which ships take out to the outbuilding pool, means taking the workshop out of the production cycle for as long as the future aircraft carrier is being completed in the fresh air in the drained pool. Remember the example of the Vikramaditya, which for almost 14 years was locked up in this workshop by a civilian ship built to a commercial order.

Let's go further. Collect five deck regiments aviation they couldn’t have been in the Soviet Union. According to the technical passport, the aircraft carrier “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov” can be based and serviced 16 aircraft Yak-41M, which were never on it, and 12 Su-27K, as well as more than two dozen helicopters Ka-27RLD (radar patrol), Ka-27PLO (anti-submarine defense) and Ka-27PS (search and rescue). Instead of helicopters, one would have to have long-range radar patrol and anti-submarine defense aircraft. But they were not there.

The 279 of the Su-24 aircraft (Su-33K) was part of the 27-th separate naval fighter aviation regiment; by the end of 2005, 22 remained. One aircraft lost in the 17 crash of June 1996 of the year and one in the 5 crash of September 2005 of the year. In reality, the Kuznetsov set off for combat service, having even fewer aircraft in its hangar.

Defenders of aircraft carriers offer to reduce orders for "land" promising aircraft MiG-29, Su-35, T-50, and instead order the deck. Tukhachevsky also proposed to mechanize the army at the expense of the technology of Ochakov's times and the conquest of the Crimea. He ended badly. For the five aircraft carriers there is not and will not be, because in the next 10 – 20 years it is necessary to replace the aircraft with more modern ones in the Air Force. The Navy will wait.

The proposal to transfer the pilots of the Russian Air Force to deck-based aircraft does not hold water. Today in Russia there are fewer deck pilots than astronauts. This is a "piece" specialist. It must first be grown, and then throughout its entire service, its flight training must be maintained and improved. He, as a doctor, must study all his life. And for this, too, need airplanes, training complexes - in a word, training infrastructure on the coast.

Carriers also need bases for parking and maintenance. For Kuznetsov, they built something similar to such a base in Vidyayevo - with a jetty, a boiler room (to provide the floating city with a ferry), an electrical substation. But the Kuznetsov stood there for long. In addition to steam and electricity, experts are also needed. And they traveled to Vidyaevo from Murmansk, or rather Rosta, where the 35 shipyard is located, more than 100 km away. Therefore, they thought and thought in the fleet and transferred the “Kuznetsov” to Growth - it turned out cheaper and more convenient for everyone.

In Soviet times, the main slogan of Glavpur (Main Political Directorate of the SA and Navy) was “First of all ships, and moorings later.” Under the berths meant the entire coastal infrastructure. Since then, I have not heard that somewhere built a new base with the latest technology and technology. So, for aircraft carriers it is necessary to create new bases. These are the costs that the initiator of the change does not envision: ten submarines per five aircraft carriers.

Now about the AUG itself. Alexander Nikolsky rightly remarked that the American grouping usually contains five or six escort ships: Ticonderog type missile cruisers and Arly Burk type squadrons.

The Russian Navy has one heavy nuclear missile cruiser, three non-nuclear missiles, the cruiser Moscow has been in service for 30 years, and four destroyers. That is, military escort ships are not recruited even for two aircraft carriers. So you have to build.

Well, now, the most important thing. No country in the world, except Russia, has experience in operating aircraft carriers in northern latitudes. You can not take off and sit on the icy deck. You can not prick the ice with a stem. A lot of things can not, even if you really want. It is known that aircraft carriers are weapon attacks, not defenses. And we have no one to attack. Neither in the southern latitudes, nor in the middle. And for the protection of our oil-producing platforms in the Arctic, for which, as suggested by military experts, a serious struggle will soon unfold, they are clearly not suitable.

So it remains to be guessed at the coffee grounds, who really need these aircraft carriers: shipbuilders - for the sake of profitable orders, but so far they cannot build a tanker fleet. Or today's captains of rank 1 - for the sake of getting admiral epaulets in the future. Here they are cruelly mistaken in their calculations - they will be fired into the reserve by age earlier than the first aircraft carrier is launched.

The bottom line is the dissatisfied feeling of a Russian patriot: the Americans have 12 aircraft carriers, and we have only one and the half cruiser. It's a shame.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
163 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. AVV
    AVV 14 December 2013 14: 46
    47
    You just need to build priorities and really assess your financial capabilities! And in the priority plan, we first need rocket ships, the ocean zone, to protect. Russia's economic interests are primarily in the northern seas and oceans, where there is already fuss now! !! Frigates, corvettes, BOD, as well as submarine missile carriers such as Yasen, Borey, until we saturate the fleet with these ships, the next stage, the construction of destroyers, and the restoration of existing cruisers, the modernization of Moscow, Lobov, Peter the Great !!! And after these works, it will be possible to talk about aircraft carriers !!!
    1. sledgehammer102
      sledgehammer102 15 December 2013 08: 15
      16
      Quote: AVV
      Frigates, corvettes, BOD, as well as submarine missile carriers such as Yasen, Borey, until we saturate the fleet with these ships, the next stage, the construction of destroyers, and the restoration of existing cruisers, the modernization of Moscow, Lobov, Peter the Great !!! And after these works, it will be possible to talk about aircraft carriers !!!


      I agree, while the Russian Federation is not going to become a world hegemon, we do not need these AUGs. Does it want to fight with all the oil countries, but it’s bad luck, all of them across the ocean, and not fight with Mexico, really? That's built.
      We have enough land borders, but the ships just above must deal with the sea.
      By the way, as for the airplanes, one important point, during all their operations in Iraq or Libya, aircraft carriers took off from the aircraft, if I am not mistaken, 20-30% of all flights, that is, the main load was still on airfields on land in some sort of SA .
      1. A.YARY
        A.YARY 15 December 2013 09: 38
        -5
        sledgehammer102 AVV
        I'm just amazed at the existence of such "strategs" as you. Although the years of fooling were not in vain.
        For especially zealously "pressing the brakes"at the word, an aircraft carrier, THE NAVAL DOCTRINE OF THE COUNTRY NAMING THE "GREAT" and "MARINE" cannot but include aircraft carriers.AND IT WILL NOT BE DENIED BY ANYONE AS SO THE USSR - WAS A REALLY GREAT MARINE POWER!
        And the current Russian fleet has been relegated to an ordinary country like the same France, the current is below it (we buy from them !!!!). And all the conversations like - "We don't need to" - funny excuses.

        Aesop- "Fox and Grapes"

        In the meantime, "Chinese aircraft carriers will be built in Dalian and Shanghai" CHINA GREAT MARINE POWER!
        This topic was a little earlier and I already said-
        The one who can, will
        And the one who cannot, he calms himself, “I feel so good” - Of course, you feel good, as well as the Papuans, they just don't care about all this.
        1. almost demobil
          almost demobil 15 December 2013 10: 25
          -7
          Instead of aircraft carriers with cruisers, we were asked, without asking us, to amuse the world with the Winter Olympics, worth about 50 billion US rubles. Long live the GDP - the great and terrible builder of the monument to himself. stop
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. sledgehammer102
            sledgehammer102 15 December 2013 17: 33
            27
            Quote: almost demobilized
            without asking us to amuse the world with the Winter Olympics worth about 50 billion US rubles


            Probably specifically for the 80 Olympics,% of this money was invested in the infrastructure of the Krasnodar Territory and Sochi in particular.

            Why the Olympics
            1) tens of kilometers of sewer pipes
            2) over 367 km of road bridges and roads
            3) over 480 km of gas pipelines
            4) over 201 km of rail
            5) over 550 km of high voltage power lines
            6) 690 km of engineering networks
            7) power plant with a total capacity of 1,2 GW

            And of course, all this will surely fall apart immediately after the 2014 year, as everything after the APEC collapsed, and bridges, roads, and sewers broke through, and the airport ... But this is written by the leader of the liberals, PRAVDOR Mr. Navalny ....
            1. alone
              alone 15 December 2013 17: 54
              +2
              Quote: sledgehammer102
              1) tens of kilometers of sewer pipes
              2) over 367 km of road bridges and roads
              3) over 480 km of gas pipelines
              4) over 201 km of rail
              5) over 550 km of high voltage power lines
              6) 690 km of engineering networks
              7) power plant with a total capacity of 1,2 GW


              as a person who is involved in construction, I can say that this list looks pretty impressive. Is there any information about how much was spent on this and how these works were done? It would be very interesting to know about it.
              1. sledgehammer102
                sledgehammer102 15 December 2013 18: 03
                10
                Quote: lonely
                Is there any information about how much was spent on this and how these works are done?


                as you understand the list is far from complete, I mean infrastructure. But its share in total costs in the region of 80%, some sources say about 60%.

                Without denying the corruption component and outright gagging in the construction of some facilities, I can say with confidence, and I hope you will agree with me that the money was not wasted. This applies to APEC and SOCHI, by the way, Kazan is a very good prier in this regard. It was also probably the most expensive Universiade in history, but when I visited the city before and after, I had no feelings except joy for my country and its citizens. Sorry for arrogance
                1. alone
                  alone 15 December 2013 18: 14
                  +6
                  Quote: sledgehammer102
                  Sorry for arrogance


                  there is no need to apologize. If all this is done, then the money was really spent in vain. this is a huge job. The Olympics will end, and this will remain for the common people. It’s still better than pulling these 80% out of the country and appropriating hi
                  1. A.YARY
                    A.YARY 15 December 2013 18: 58
                    -6
                    Lonely

                    The Olympics will end, and all this will remain for the common people.

                    You are so naive. laughing
                    Everything is already "assigned" to the new owners for the future.This time.
                    But prices there will be such as they think forget it about the "common people"!
                    Of course no new "bar" will be as a "charity" to do "matinees" for the poor. And significant invite some kind of school for that only to make fun- "There we are."
                    1. sledgehammer102
                      sledgehammer102 15 December 2013 19: 04
                      +6
                      Quote: A.YARY
                      Everything has already been "assigned" to the new owners for the future. This time.


                      In particular, they (the new owners) are assigned sewerage with all the crap, which now, by the way, does not merge into the sea, as it was a year ago.
                      Also, all automobile and railway roads, bridges, station, airport, ski slopes, etc. are assigned to them. After all, it took 60-80% of all funds.

                      But the fact that they stole a lot there is obvious, but not always easy to punish ...
                      1. A.YARY
                        A.YARY 15 December 2013 19: 28
                        -6
                        Are you near or what?
                        Will the "new owner" not use this? Only "for residents and guests of the resort"?
                        Well, it’s just impossible to make a toll road?
                        Raise the tariffs? Oh yes, we do not raise tariffs and conduct experiments with the social norm, sorry, I forgot!
                        Stop talking nonsense. angry
                        and again lies
                        does not merge into the sea, as it was a year ago.

                        You are lying because I know that you are lying and where the shit is being poured, I know for certain, I myself once laid the "points" on the bottom, there was such a "hack".
                      2. sledgehammer102
                        sledgehammer102 15 December 2013 19: 46
                        +4
                        Quote: A.YARY
                        Are you near or what?
                        Will the "new owner" not use this? Only "for residents and guests of the resort"?
                        Well, it’s just impossible to make a toll road?
                        Raise the tariffs? Oh yes, we do not raise tariffs and conduct experiments with the social norm, sorry, I forgot!
                        Stop talking nonsense

                        That's when after the Olympics there will be a toll road (you yourself know that you won’t appear) or a sewage system, then we’ll talk about a paid entrance to the train station and airport, but for now, these are all your smart dreams, I’m not far from yours))

                        By the way, living in an energy-deficient region is probably generally pleasant, especially for investors to invest, not far off
                      3. A.YARY
                        A.YARY 15 December 2013 20: 17
                        -1
                        PAUL
                        By the way, live in an energy-deficient region

                        This is so, but not entirely, its own power plant in Krasnaya Polyana, and it was not built by the current primier-experimenter over the people, but by this very people.
                        I’ve been fond of skiing since childhood, I went to Krasnaya Polyana every winter, before this craziness, but now there’s no way — PRICES however!
                        Where before there was everyone how much hosh-teper without a bag of money, no, no.
                        And I feel like talking to you is empty.
                2. alone
                  alone 16 December 2013 00: 31
                  0
                  I hope someday, when they will chase these owners by the collar, they will not take it all by themselves lol maybe then something will go to ordinary people what

                  everyone is dreaming. some are throwing about an aircraft carrier, others about AUG. I just dreamed about it once, they immediately called me naive laughing
        2. almost demobil
          almost demobil 17 December 2013 17: 24
          0
          Quote: sledgehammer102
          what about the olympiad
          1) tens of kilometers of sewer pipes
          2) over 367 km of road bridges and roads
          3) over 480 km of gas pipelines
          4) over 201 km of rail
          5) over 550 km of high voltage power lines
          6) 690 km of engineering networks
          7) power plant with a total capacity of 1,2 GV

          Previously, there was enough electricity for the Sochi people, who could know that the winter Olympics would be held in the southern city? Now they are sitting without light and water. But this is nonsense, right? But what hotels, fireworks, casinos, tracks ... Excellent cut! Sochi was probably no town at all, probably there was no canalization at all, and there was nothing at all! In your opinion, it’s just a great coincidence - and to hold the Olympics and fix the city, where in general it was not bad for an ordinary Russian . Yes, it was easier to put the Olympic village out of the blue, since we have no other places in the country to hold such an event. Better stop this worthless polemic, I already stop, all sane citizens of the country understand the problem of this greatest theft correctly.
      2. Hitrovan07
        Hitrovan07 15 December 2013 23: 05
        -2
        Yes, even if at least 100 billion - but name it as in the same time frame as the preparation for the 2014 Olipiada Russia would have built at least one aircraft carrier (it needs about the Indian one - it was not built from scratch - the hull was already there, but in terms of time it was there generally sad). A modern frigate (project 22350) at a good shipyard (for Russia, of course) has been building for 7 years. Therefore, I think you can find fault with whatever you like - but you should evaluate it by the results. And the GDP is the same "manager" as the rest of the leaders of states - and if we judge by the deadline, it suits the "shareholders" completely laughing .
      3. Hitrovan07
        Hitrovan07 15 December 2013 23: 05
        -1
        Yes, even if at least 100 billion - but name it as in the same time frame as the preparation for the 2014 Olipiada Russia would have built at least one aircraft carrier (it needs about the Indian one - it was not built from scratch - the hull was already there, but in terms of time it was there generally sad). A modern frigate (project 22350) at a good shipyard (for Russia, of course) has been building for 7 years. Therefore, I think you can find fault with whatever you like - but you should evaluate it by the results. And the GDP is the same "manager" as the rest of the leaders of states - and if we judge by the deadline, it suits the "shareholders" completely laughing .
      4. bif
        bif 16 December 2013 02: 09
        +3
        Quote: almost demobilized
        Long live the GDP - the great and terrible builder of the monument to himself.

        - Why are you not happy with Putin?
        - It is difficult to find work without experience, prices are rising, rents are rising ...
        - Was it better in 90?
        - No problem. In the kindergarten I had breakfast, played and sleep! ..
    2. Fin
      Fin 15 December 2013 10: 55
      21
      Quote: A.YARY
      I'm just amazed at the existence of such "strategs" as you. Although the years of fooling were not in vain.

      Did you read the article? It says in black and white that they have nowhere to build, and indeed it is. And from the fact that you throw slogans - nothing will change.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 15 December 2013 11: 32
        +9
        So you need to build a new shipyard with the appropriate capabilities.
        1. APASUS
          APASUS 15 December 2013 14: 37
          11
          Quote: Dart2027
          So you need to build a new shipyard with the appropriate capabilities.

          After all, it is said in the article that we can’t collect not only an aircraft carrier, but also a full-fledged AOG. It is quite possible to pay attention to missile technologies to destroy such AUGs. So to speak, a symmetrical answer
      2. A.YARY
        A.YARY 15 December 2013 11: 40
        10
        UV Sergey
        During the existence of this power, NOTHING was built.
        Neither CVD nor SRH.
        For example, one "YugRybpromrazvedka" had a tonnage many times greater than the entire Russian fleet.
        And I say this with great sorrow!
        In the world's fleets, the "Fregat" was considered a unit only when counting pennants, but the ship (in this case) was not considered a coastal zone, alas.
        Assurances about the "jerk" already look like a fakir's pipe, but the reality is that it will remain a pipe.
        The stolen budget funds are many times larger than the budget itself, but thieves are not being planted, what does this tell you?
        The tax press on the people is increasing, but there are no real cases - what does this tell you?
        The budget of the holy of holies (in Soviet times) is being stolen by the Ministry of Defense, but what it is not able to realize, what does this tell you?
        And does all this tell you at least something?
        1. Fin
          Fin 15 December 2013 13: 09
          +7
          Quote: A.YARY
          The stolen budget funds are many times larger than the budget itself, but thieves are not being planted, what does this tell you?

          Andrew! Read the topic title again. I share your thoughts and pain for the country, and I would put "+" in the relevant topic. Come back to reality, I also want aircraft carriers to be, but there is nowhere to build, especially to the detriment of other classes.
          Quote: A.YARY
          In the world's fleets, the "Fregat" was considered a unit only when counting pennants, but the ship (in this case) was not considered a coastal zone, alas.

          According to our classification, the frigate corresponds to TFR. And he was never a coastal man.
          1. A.YARY
            A.YARY 15 December 2013 13: 19
            0
            SERGEI
            According to our classification, the frigate corresponds to TFR. And he was never a coastal man.

            Once, one madame told me that my husband is almost consistent with her jujul.
            And there is also a correspondence (some) of cellular and analog communication, and you can further enumerate similar "correspondences".
            There are maritime traditions in the gradation of ships, and in their and our relation to them.
            Let's stick to the rules of the fleet and not newfangled comparisons. The fleet is a conservative thing.
            There are cruisers are ships.
            There are aircraft carriers are ships.
            And other things, sorry, please-retinue (the right thing) but not the king at sea.
            1. Fin
              Fin 15 December 2013 14: 06
              +3
              Quote: A.YARY
              Let's stick to the rules of the fleet and not newfangled comparisons. The fleet is a conservative thing.
              There are cruisers are ships.
              There are aircraft carriers are ships.
              And other things, sorry, please-retinue (the right thing) but not the king at sea.

              Have you come up with this pun yourself or what? And what are the rules on the fleet, according to the classification of ships? As I understand it, do you write something on the principle of maintaining a conversation?
              1. A.YARY
                A.YARY 15 December 2013 14: 12
                0
                Sergey Probably you are acrimonious in the matter in view of the impending urges to exacerbate?
                Classification was introduced sooo long ago by monitors.
                And the most beautiful frigate has only 5 rank.
                From SW.
                PySy. By the way, you yourself perfectly compared with SKR, and his tasks in the sea are the protection of ships to which, by definition, he is attached, independently, alas, he is not a fighter.
                1. Fin
                  Fin 15 December 2013 14: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: A.YARY
                  Classification was introduced sooo long ago by monitors.
                  And the most beautiful frigate has only 5 rank.

                  You are fond of sailboats, they are no longer at sea, with the exception of training.
                  Classification http://flot.com/publications/books/shelf/chainikov/5.htm
                  1. A.YARY
                    A.YARY 15 December 2013 14: 46
                    +3
                    I understand that you just do not care what to answer.
                    The USSR Navy did not have the concepts of corvette and frigate very clearly: bpk-mpk-mrk, cruiser, destroyer ... Moreover, the bpk and um were of the 1st and 2nd ranks ...
                    And now, just according to Our accepted classification, he is somewhere between MRK and IPK, but it’s a shame to advertise such a breakthrough in shipbuilding, and they’ll call me corvettes and frigates
                    Now a personal question, are you naval?
                  2. Fin
                    Fin 15 December 2013 15: 29
                    +2
                    Quote: A.YARY
                    And now, simply according to Our accepted classification, it is somewhere between MRK and IPK,

                    Andrey, well, at least go to the TTX Wikipedia, see the IPC and TFR. I'm already tired.
                    Quote: A.YARY
                    Now a personal question, are you naval?

                    Yes.
                  3. A.YARY
                    A.YARY 15 December 2013 15: 57
                    +2
                    And as I understand it, they served in Russia and not in the USSR?
                    And let's not wikiki and other riffraffers-dislike.
                  4. Fin
                    Fin 15 December 2013 16: 16
                    +1
                    Quote: A.YARY
                    And as I understand it, they served in Russia and not in the USSR?

                    I understand that they looked. So what's with the frigates, the coastal man, or what?
                  5. A.YARY
                    A.YARY 15 December 2013 16: 31
                    0
                    So what's with the frigates, the coastal man, or what?

                    I already answered you.
                    The frigate is not our concept, this Schaub did not jar and for the sake of "brotherly NATA" - our language is dark for them.
                    If we are talking about SKR, then (I translate) the Guard ship — security tasks in a group of ships or the border service (rarely)!
                    He has no prospects for action on his own. Go to the library, preferably in Kronstadt.
                    If you get knowledge, then in the first person. I can remember, but this is not good.
                  6. A.YARY
                    A.YARY 15 December 2013 16: 40
                    +1
                    Pysy
                    Do not find that we have deviated from the topic of conversation - I gave an example with a "frigate" for a clearer understanding of how small the fleet becomes under the current "leaders".And even if you do not take aircraft carriers (greatness and power) then what are they building? at least something similar to the Soviet fleet with them is not waiting for us.FACT!
                  7. Fin
                    Fin 15 December 2013 17: 45
                    +4
                    Quote: A.YARY
                    If we are talking about SKR, then (I translate) the Guard ship — security tasks in a group of ships or the border service (rarely)!
                    It has no prospects for action on its own.

                    Andrew! You, as I understand it, from the moon !! And now again look for SKR Zadorny, Hot, Easy, Brisk, Permanent, Worthy ... went around the world, including alone. Maybe after that it finally comes to the conclusion that they are not coastal workers and similar frigates too. Whether this is our concept or not, what difference does it make? The main thing is to have more.
                    Quote: A.YARY
                    at least something similar to the Soviet fleet with them does not wait for us. FACT!

                    I answer again: CANNOT yet !!!!
                2. Fin
                  Fin 15 December 2013 16: 52
                  0
                  Quote: A.YARY
                  If you get knowledge, then in the first person. I can remember, but this is not good.

                  I immediately wrote to you frigate - TFR.
                3. avg
                  avg 15 December 2013 18: 10
                  +1
                  Dear, your argument has grown into an “uncompromising argument, for the sake of argument”. Everything is relative in our fast-paced world. Currently, the destroyer is considered to be the main, universal ship, but frigates, who so far cannot compete with them in autonomy, cruising range, etc., are rapidly catching up with them by the power of weapons. So, it is better to compare ships according to specific capabilities, and not according to a rather conditional classification. By the way, during the Union, NATO members called our BOD frigates. yes
                4. A.YARY
                  A.YARY 15 December 2013 19: 14
                  0
                  laughing And try in the English language say quickly: Large anti-submarine ship laughing
                  And so that you understand correctly, they will think that you order pizza. laughing
                  Yes, and for now you will say the northern animal will knock on board. wassat
                5. avg
                  avg 15 December 2013 20: 01
                  0
                  Quote: A.YARY
                  laughing And try in the English language say

                  ASW ship wink
              2. Fin
                Fin 15 December 2013 20: 05
                +2
                Quote: avg
                Dear, your argument has grown into an “uncompromising argument, for the sake of argument”.

                Yes, if it was a dispute. Andrey Yary decided to adjust the classification and began to talk a little (rank 5, between the IPC and RTOs, coastal ...). And now I decided to get out, but somehow somehow awkwardly, I will remember Jujulu, the leaders are bad, now I quickly pronounced BOD to him in English. And towards the end of the day already started to put emoticons. What is it for?
                Andrey, well, if you didn’t freeze, admit it !!!
              3. A.YARY
                A.YARY 15 December 2013 20: 42
                -1
                Uv Sergey
                Your generation "froze". So it froze that the chills will still break through, this time.
                Second, learn a little manko for a reasoned conversation, on the books of those who created the USSR Navy, and not on articles in tyrnet.
                Third, I have no reason to "get out", I'm right.
                For sim everything.
          2. A.YARY
            A.YARY 15 December 2013 18: 51
            0
            Again, either not knowledge or forgetfulness is felt.
            Solo swimming is undertaken for a number of reasons in the overwhelming advantage to the combat use of having no relationship.
            And if you are a naval officer, you are obliged to know this.
            Let's take a little rest in our argument - it’s hard for me to type text with one hand.
        2. Setrac
          Setrac 15 December 2013 22: 25
          +2
          Quote: A.YARY
          The frigate is not our concept, this Schaub did not jar even for the sake of "brotherly NATA"

          You already somehow decide. Then your frigate is not a ship at all, it’s so tidy with oars, and when you were poked with your nose, you decided to ignore this concept, like a frigate is not ours, ugly.
  2. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 15 December 2013 23: 43
    +1
    Quote: Fin
    Classification http://flot.com/publications/books/shelf/chainikov/5.htm

    Sorry, I went through the link. This is not a classification but eclecticism at the amateur level. There is no division according to the FORCES of the fleet: underwater - surface. Further: ROCKET_ARTILERY ships (near the surface), ATOMIC SUBMARines WITH BALLISTIC R-TAMI ON THE BOARD (plarb-rpkSN) and so on each branch ... If you wish, look at the structure of the modern Navy, they still adhere to the classification. Good luck.
  3. Fin
    Fin 16 December 2013 09: 26
    0
    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
    Sorry, I went through the link. This is not a classification but eclecticism at the amateur level.

    Yes, I threw him the first one that came so that he would not leave the watchdogs from the time of the war. But still useless.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 15 December 2013 23: 28
    +3
    Quote: A.YARY
    Classification was introduced sooo long ago by monitors.

    And as a marine, you must admit that she was constantly improving until she came to the modern look: 1 -4 rank.
    Quote: A.YARY
    And the most beautiful frigate has only 5 rank.

    there's no such thing. If you are interested, then this is the ships of the FAR SEA. Yes, not oceanic (D float more than 5000 nautical miles), but the far zone.
    "Project 22350 frigates - project (type) of a multipurpose frigate far sea zonedesigned for the rearmament of the Russian Navy. "http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/22350
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 15 December 2013 12: 42
    +7
    Actually, they are planning to build shipyards in the Far East with the Koreans, and somewhere near St. Petersburg.
    So far, Russia is undergoing relaxation, but if nothing is done then in ten years any middle-state state will put Russia on all fours. And then there are no planes, ships have nowhere to build, and if you build frigates for 10 years and submarines for 20, it’s time to wake up already, the world is moving forward, all the issues cannot be resolved with oil and gas. They survived, they can’t make a gun for a frigate.
    1. typhoon7
      typhoon7 15 December 2013 16: 26
      +2
      I subscribe to your words.
    2. avg
      avg 15 December 2013 17: 44
      0
      Quote: saturn.mmm
      So far, Russia has gone through a slack, but if nothing is done then in ten years any middle-state state will put Russia on all fours ... They have survived, they cannot make a gun for a frigate.

      So let's sabras, help. At least make a gun on a frigate. wink
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 15 December 2013 20: 07
        +2
        Quote: avg
        So let's sabras, help. At least make a gun on a frigate.

        But Motovilikhinsky factories and Arsenal will do what?
        We are making our contribution to the defense, and have not yet heard any complaints.
  • knn54
    knn54 15 December 2013 14: 26
    +3
    -Fin: it says in black and white that there’s nowhere to build them ...
    And to serve SOME.
    Today, the service life in the Russian Navy is 1,5 years. This time, according to the military, is CATASTROPHIC enough for the training of a sailor - the only way out of this difficult situation is to transfer the entire crew on a contract basis.
    From 1993 to 2007, a significant drop in the birth rate was observed in Russia - by 750 thousand people per year. And the number of students with deferrals from the army is growing. Therefore, a massive shortage of not only draftees, but also contract soldiers.
    PS I think that the Yankees have the same problems (demographic). But China and India do not.
    1. Fin
      Fin 15 December 2013 14: 41
      +3
      Quote: knn54
      Today, the service life in the Russian Navy is 1,5 years.

      Service life 1 year.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 15 December 2013 14: 39
    +6
    China has an egg in a vice, we don't. Having built aircraft carriers, we will leave something more needed without resources. The USSR had practically no aircraft carriers, it had floating batteries of air defense missile systems like the "eagles" and "Atlantes". Before bombing someone in Africa, it would be nice to assemble the country at least as a part of Ukraine without the West and Belarus, plant your people in Central Asia, enslave Poland and the rest of the Euro bastard, ...
  • sledgehammer102
    sledgehammer102 15 December 2013 17: 21
    +5
    Quote: A.YARY
    THE NAVAL DOCTRINE OF THE COUNTRY NAMING THE "GREAT" and "MARINE" cannot but include aircraft carriers.


    You are not being told that we do not need them at all, but in the situation in which we found ourselves after the slogans of the all-fledged 1991 ala "75 years to nowhere" we cannot build the AUG and the main infrastructure for it and escort ships in a short time.

    This is called prioritization. The choice is
    1) kill a lot of money and build the first AUG for 10-15 years, while abandoning nuclear submarines, frigates and missile cruisers

    2) Build an effective means of destroying enemy AUGs, while increasing the underwater and surface ship composition. And already from this moment, or slowly, in parallel with the process of rearmament, to begin the construction of a shipyard, infrastructure and the development of the project of the first real aircraft carrier.
  • doctor.75
    doctor.75 15 December 2013 21: 32
    -1
    Correctly. This is from the category of utterances of the early 90s: why do we need space if we didn’t eat sausages to the full? Nonsense and heresy, but the opinion is still very widespread. Alas!
  • Basarev
    Basarev 15 December 2013 21: 57
    -2
    No, we need noses! Only non-defective floating airfields like Invisibles, which have only three anti-aircraft guns in their armament. We need carrier cruisers capable of fighting a whole squadron alone
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Hitrovan07
    Hitrovan07 15 December 2013 22: 57
    +1
    Please specify, where do you think Russia can use its aircraft carriers?
    Just not about "showing the flag" and "great sea power" - but the real protection of the state. Because the current fleet is clearly not naval and, accordingly, Russia cannot compare itself with America and China (although by the number of ships) (I hope that "still", not "already") YET cannot.
  • standby
    standby 16 December 2013 01: 17
    +1
    Of course your patriotic impulse is inspiring! I also propose to be realistic! The USSR was a superpower spending the lion's share of the budget to strengthen its defense capabilities, and therefore could project its strength anywhere in the world’s oceans. Russia has a budget deficit and extremely low economic growth rates, millions of low-income people, an undeveloped social sphere and a bunch of other urgent problems, the solution of which requires money! We are not popuars, of course, God willing, we will never become them, on the contrary, we will continue to produce weapons, and much more to sell to them! But we must live within our means! What is included in the defense order now is urgent measures, and is it worth it to project power on the far shores, it is the United States that brings democracy to the world, their economy depends on it very much! And we would have to sort out our problems. I propose to refrain from comparing with China because our GDP and economic growth rates differ significantly, and this directly affects defense costs!
  • bif
    bif 16 December 2013 02: 08
    +1
    Quote: A.YARY
    THE NAVAL DOCTRINE OF THE COUNTRY NAMING THE "GREAT" and "MARINE" cannot but include aircraft carriers.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 16 December 2013 23: 05
      0
      If I am not mistaken, the ships of Project 1144 were just planned to be used for escorting the aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk". Four super-powerful multipurpose ships plus a full-fledged air group equals a US Navy nightmare.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 15 December 2013 16: 21
    -4
    You dear, like the author of the article, turn the situation upside down.
    I have not heard that Russia is giving up its role as one of the poles of influence in the world !!! I'm not saying that nuclear submarines are not needed, especially since I am not saying that aircraft carriers are not needed. The strategy and even more so the tactics of using "slightly" differ! And this is the main advantage of the aircraft carrier !!!
    1. VAF
      VAF 15 December 2013 17: 30
      +4
      Quote: Forestman
      The strategy and even more so the tactics of using "slightly" differ! And this is the main advantage of the aircraft carrier !!!


      The advantage of an aircraft carrier is its combat capabilities, which are due to:

      1. Unlimited stay in the database area.
      2. The presence of an aviation wing that allows solving problems:
      - on air cover.
      -to destroy objects at sea.
      -to destroy objects on land.
      - availability of trained flight personnel.

      We do not have a single one of the above items, as a result of which we, in the present period of time, REALLY cannot carry out any B.Z.
      Is that .. Somali pirates .. "drive" soldier
  • Locksmith
    Locksmith 15 December 2013 19: 41
    0
    Quote: sledgehammer102
    while the Russian Federation is not going to become a world hegemon

    whatever it is according to Hegel ... Russia is your mother, not just what you have to, but you have to respect .... (C)
    Since there is an interest in Russian capitalists, they will build Stopudovo, it was the USSR that could not take a steam bath, not our bathhouse wink , and all the reasons were sharpened on the economical destruction of the aggressor, and now the "aggressor" = this is a "companion", do not dare to offend laughing , but in a simple way, I hope they know and figured out how much easier and cheaper just to become "your own" in the region = look at the work of our Chinese "brothers" = they completely copy the work of the USSR, and very successfully belay
  • Basarev
    Basarev 15 December 2013 21: 54
    +2
    But the Brazilians, without further ado, simply built a naval combat aircraft platform to protect the oil field. Cheaper and more versatile. The runway length is significantly greater than any flight deck - as far as I remember, the length of the runway on the Brazilian platform is more than 1300 meters. And this allows you to base much more heavy aircraft.
  • pahom54
    pahom54 15 December 2013 10: 23
    14
    for AVV
    Totally agree with you. Here you can still recall the example of Nazi Germany - not battleships that did not play almost any significant role in the 2nd World War, namely the powerful submarine fleet, which gave both Amers and Britons a request.
    We will have a powerful submarine fleet - there will be a powerful counterargument to the Amer AUG.
    I myself would be happy to learn that Russia suddenly had not only aircraft carriers, but also everything that was left, that is, AUGs, but I understand perfectly well that today Russia will not be able to bear this overwhelming economic burden, so that the development of the submarine fleet will be more effective - then frigates-SKR - BOD - and only then, God forbid, we get to the construction of aircraft carriers and the formation of the AUG.
    1. alone
      alone 15 December 2013 11: 45
      +5
      Admirals are also people. And they also have the right to dream. 5 AUGs! Why not 7?
      If a schoolboy had such dreams, I would understand. Can it be that the admirals don’t know that creating these 5 AUGs requires a huge amount, and now the economy is not able to do this.

      Effective managers did their best to keep 5 AUGs a dream.
  • S_mirnov
    S_mirnov 15 December 2013 11: 41
    +8
    Quote: AVV
    You just need to set priorities and really assess your financial capabilities! And in the priority plan, we first need rocket ships, the ocean zone, to protect. Russia's economic interests are primarily in the northern seas and oceans, where there is fuss now! !!

    The main thing is who needs it! So you and Russia need rocket ships, and the leadership needs the World Cup and the Winter Olympics in the southern city of Sochi, for which we will buy snow machines in Israel and Mistral ships, which is also more necessary than domestic shipbuilding.
  • Airman
    Airman 15 December 2013 11: 51
    +7
    Even Kozma Prutkov said: "You cannot embrace the immensity," and therefore our state needs a clear and clear military doctrine, what we want and what we give priorities. And now there is only shuffling from side to side: nuclear submarines without missiles (Bulava cannot fly), the Strategic Missile Forces are taking out old missiles, but no new ones, etc. The government, together with the guarantor, chews snot, instead of making tough organizational conclusions. We need aircraft carriers, but, in my opinion, we have not grown to them (our industry) and therefore, rather than 10-15 years to build one aircraft carrier, it is better to have more nuclear submarines with "flying" missiles.
    1. S_mirnov
      S_mirnov 15 December 2013 12: 09
      +3
      Quote: Povshnik
      and therefore, our state needs a clear and clear military doctrine of what we want and what we give priority to.

      This is what our leadership has been saying and talking about for many years, and will continue to speak for a long time until oil and gas can be pumped from Russian land. And it will do completely different! Because there is no one to ask them, there is no responsibility of the president and the government to the people of the Russian Federation !!! Steering wheels as you want!
    2. Onyx
      Onyx 15 December 2013 23: 47
      +1
      Quote: Povshnik
      Strategic Rocket Forces old missiles decommissioned, but no new ones

      Is Yars not a missile for the Strategic Missile Forces?
  • major071
    major071 15 December 2013 12: 46
    10
    If the concept of warfare does not include the use of aircraft carriers, and priority is given to other means, then why spend money on this now? Let's first restore what we lost in 20 years of crap and liberalism. During the USSR, we had no aircraft carriers, but Western "friends" trembled when they heard the word "Navy". Therefore, first the completion of the nuclear submarine, the repair of existing ships and the commissioning of new ones. soldier
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 15 December 2013 22: 42
      -2
      But the Soviet naval doctrine saw in the carrying cruisers a means of ensuring the combat stability of nuclear submarines. It’s no secret that the main enemy of submarines is aviation of all stripes, and away from the coast only a carrier cruiser can protect underwater missile carriers with its carrier-based aircraft. So we need carrier cruisers if we want our boats to reach the distance of launching anti-ship missiles to American AUGs.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. maxcor1974
        maxcor1974 15 December 2013 22: 46
        0
        From the North Pole, the ICBM approach time to New York is 30-35 minutes. Why is there an aircraft carrier?
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 15 December 2013 23: 33
          0
          ICBMs and anti-ship missiles are not the same thing
        2. Onyx
          Onyx 15 December 2013 23: 48
          +1
          Quote: maxcor1974
          From the North Pole, the ICBM approach time to New York is 30-35 minutes. Why is there an aircraft carrier?

          from there the time is about 20 minutes no more
  • Nick
    Nick 15 December 2013 22: 42
    +2
    Quote: AVV
    You just need to prioritize and really evaluate your financial capabilities!

    The economy is primary. A powerful economy is a powerful state budget. And with a strong budget, you can pull the submarines, cruisers, and aircraft carriers. Only liberal Gaidarites should be driven out of the government and attract business executives, production organizers, strong economists such as Glazyev for example ...
  • sub307
    sub307 16 December 2013 01: 34
    0
    In my opinion, absolutely true.
  • makarov
    makarov 15 December 2013 08: 07
    +2
    Truth is born in a dispute, but as long as this dispute continues on the pages of the magazine, it remains only words. For anyone, the decision to BE, OR NOT BE, is taken by the TOP. Do they read the opinions of ordinary commentators and publicists (?), I do not know, then why break spears in disputes ?????
    1. Just Vasilich
      Just Vasilich 15 December 2013 11: 17
      +4
      Makarov: For anyone, the decision to BE, OR NOT BE, take the TOP. Do they read the opinions of ordinary commentators and publicists (?), I do not know, then why break spears in disputes ?????

      Your words can be attributed to almost any topic raised on the site. But nevertheless, you come here for some reason? And leave comments? You can drink a vodka in your kitchen, and talk ??? recourse
  • andrei332809
    andrei332809 15 December 2013 08: 09
    +3
    Russian admirals and shipbuilders do not part with the dream of creating aircraft carriers for the Navy

    it’s hard to give up any dream. and it’s almost impossible with such a thing. Yes, and admirals can be understood, absolutely legally and justifiably do not want to be in the oceans in the second, and even in the third roles
  • ziqzaq
    ziqzaq 15 December 2013 08: 25
    13
    Need aircraft carriers or not ?? Yes, of course we need !!!! It’s just that they won’t be there until a handful of homosexual thieves-liberals (you understand) who have dragged our Motherland in their pockets, will not be removed from power ... That's when Abramovichs, Deripaska and others like them will not buy yachts, football clubs in the west, to withdraw money from the country, then all issues can be resolved with infrastructure (berths), and with construction (shipyards), and with an air wing ..... And as long as these helminths manage the economy, all the talk about aircraft carriers, normal education, decent medicine, and the other, and the other will remain talk ...
    As the saying goes: Sea pass - a pair of bellum .......
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 15 December 2013 08: 52
    +5
    Quote: So it remains to speculate on the coffee grounds, who really needs these aircraft carriers: shipbuilders - for the sake of profitable orders, but they still cannot build a tanker fleet. Or today's captains of 1 rank - for the sake of getting admiral epaulets in the future.

    If the author speaks about the construction of aircraft carriers with such sarcasm - do not expect objectivity in his reasoning.
    I wonder who thought to plan the construction of 5 aircraft carriers at once. Even the US cannot afford it. Or is it the notion of the author himself? It turns out some kind of shyness in maximalism! Or he might think and build one aircraft carrier for the Far East. And continue the nuclear submarine construction program. You cannot treat such a serious matter so superficially.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 15 December 2013 09: 04
    +2
    I wonder what the author tried to prove? the fact that now Russia has few ships and it is not up to aircraft carriers? Well, of course, the economy is weak, although it contains cruisers of 30 thousand tons of displacement and even plans to introduce more after modernization. The fact that the USSR could not be built is also extremely doubtful, it was simply not the will of the leadership to do this, but the will of the leadership appeared and the USSR quite safely built the nuclear submarines with two! titanium! strong cases with a displacement of 50 !! thousand tons. Could a surface ship of 70-80 thousand tons not be mastered? It’s a rhetorical question, they just decided to build no less expensive apl, simultaneously deploying an even more expensive space target designation system, how much it all cost no one really points out, but they love to bring the price of an aircraft carrier, striking the layman with billions of bucks.
    1. A.YARY
      A.YARY 15 December 2013 10: 10
      +5
      The fact that the USSR could not build is also extremely doubtful


      Эit’s not doubtful but a blatant lie!
      All sold and sawn except for the miraculously survived "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" SOVIET AIR CARRIERS !!! it would be if it were not for the humpbacked and not his singers like this author!








      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 15 December 2013 19: 24
        -1
        Quote: A.YARY
        All sold and sawn except for the miraculously survived "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" SOVIET AIR CARRIERS !!! it would be if it were not for the humpbacked and not his singers like this author!


        Totally agree good
      2. Basarev
        Basarev 15 December 2013 22: 45
        +1
        I absolutely agree. The soul just hurts, remembering the fate of the magnificent carrier cruisers like Kiev ...
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 15 December 2013 13: 14
      +2
      Quote: barbiturate
      Premier League already with two! titanium! strong cases with a displacement of 50 !! thousand tons

      If you mean pr.941 then they were steel, someone wrote the wrong on the wiki.
      I completely agree with you all the rest.
      The Ulyanovsk hull was assembled, catapults developed, ship planes too, but perestroika came ....
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 15 December 2013 22: 48
        +2
        There was also a very similar story about the remarkable VTOL aircraft named Yak-141. It did not even stop perestroika, 4 serial aircraft were built, tests were successfully carried out, but then the USSR collapsed and the most advanced VTOL aircraft in the world collapsed with it ... Yakovlev Design Bureau did not survive this blow
  • Stinger
    Stinger 15 December 2013 09: 33
    14
    Do not be like Ellochka the cannibal and her struggle with the American billionaire of 12 chairs.
    “Two hundred rubles that her husband received monthly at the Elektrolyustra plant was an insult to Ellochka. They could not help the grandiose struggle that Ellochka had been waging for four years, the struggle was waged with a full exertion of strength. She absorbed all the resources. Ellochka four years ago noticed that she has a rival overseas. Mr. Schukin, who had long cherished the dream of buying a new drawing board, was somewhat depressed. The next issue of the fashion magazine included portraits of the damned rival in four forms: 1) in black and brown foxes, 2) with a diamond star in the forehead, 3) in an aircraft suit (high boots, a very thin green jacket and gloves, the trumpets of which were encrusted with emeralds medium) and 4) in the ballroom toilet (cascades of jewelry and a little silk).
    Elochka mobilized. Papa Schukin took a loan at the mutual assistance fund. He was not given more than thirty rubles. A new powerful effort fundamentally undermined the economy. I had to fight in all areas of life. Photos were recently taken of Miss at her new Florida castle. Ellochka also had to get new furniture. ”
    God forbid, restore the fleet, and then engage in manilism.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 15 December 2013 17: 10
      +5
      Quote: Stinger
      God forbid, restore the fleet, and then engage in manilism.

      The Russian airbag in the amount of about half a trillion dollars lies in American banks at 0,5% per annum and to some extent does not allow the American economy to collapse, which has an annual military budget of approximately 650 billion, while Russian banks lend to industry at 12%.
      Here is a portrait in black and brown foxes.
  • Lyokha79
    Lyokha79 15 December 2013 09: 35
    12
    Do Russia need aircraft carriers or not? A moot point. There are plenty of opponents and supporters and you can argue until hoarseness. The decision will be made by the government and the military. The main thing is that it would be balanced and calculated by 100%. The author correctly identified the problems that will have to be solved if a decision on construction is made. I express my opinion, at the moment Russia does not need aircraft carriers. These colossal funds can be spent on the construction of surface (non-aircraft-carrying) and submarines, the development of the Air Force, the rearmament of the ground forces, and the development of new types of weapons.
  • svp67
    svp67 15 December 2013 10: 10
    +2
    Having resolved the issue of re-equipping the army and air force with new weapons, we must carefully approach the re-equipment of the fleet, and what and how to do this should be decided by specialists ...
  • scorpido
    scorpido 15 December 2013 10: 15
    +4
    I am for any investment in the fleet, whether it be a submarine or an AB, this is at least beneficial for Russia, and if everything ends with projects and conversations ... Billions fly away abroad, settle in bureaucratic pockets ...
  • maxcor1974
    maxcor1974 15 December 2013 10: 25
    10
    Quote: A.YARY
    I'm just amazed at the presence of such "strategs" as you. Although the years of fooling were not in vain. For especially zealous "pressing the brakes" at the word-aircraft carrier

    Andrey, take a good look at the state of our economy today, the lack of prospects for its growth in the near future, the lack of the Cabinet of Ministers even an understanding of how to revive it. In such a situation, throwing billions of dollars into projects that are dubious in terms of ensuring their defense capability and implementation time, to the detriment of the real prospect of renewing the strategic nuclear forces is insane. 1-2 AUG will not ensure the maintenance of the country's defense as a whole, it is still an offensive weapon. It is the strategic nuclear forces that cool the ardor of the most ardent supporters of "democratization" in Russia. Besides, judge for yourself, our "friends", if we have a developed infrastructure for the construction of aircraft carriers, in response to the construction of 1-2 aircraft carriers in our country, during this time they can build 5-7. This is a hopeless race, we are initially in unfavorable conditions. Those who advocate the construction of an aircraft carrier fleet are doing a great service to the State Department, I can imagine how they will be delighted with such a decision.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 15 December 2013 11: 39
      +4
      Quote: maxcor1974
      1-2 AUGs will not provide support for the country's defense as a whole, it is still an attack weapon.

      1-2 AUGs will provide cover when the SSBN enters combat duty areas and provide cover for aircraft PLOs during the search for enemy submarines.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 15 December 2013 11: 59
        0
        Quote: PSih2097
        1-2 AUGs will provide cover when the SSBN enters combat duty areas and provide cover for aircraft PLOs during the search for enemy submarines.

        Preliminary "extinguishing" of the AUG foes with ballistic RDDs with UBB will nullify all attempts at cover, don't you think?
        Moreover, air cover by fighters (SU for example) on an 1000 mile from the base of the SSBN exit is elementary provided ...
  • ReifA
    ReifA 15 December 2013 10: 30
    11
    Russia does not need foreign territories; it would be proper to master its own. Therefore, aircraft carriers are needed last. Now we would have missile destroyers, icebreakers and more submarines.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 15 December 2013 10: 47
    +8
    You need to live within your means and wisely. Put in order what is. So that this would go on hikes and not rot at the berths and be only on paper. Make sure that the submarine was built not for 10-15 years, but as in Soviet times 2, for a maximum of three years.
    But Abramovich’s and Deripaska’s family could be planted only because they bought football clubs and yachts from the country. The Greek millionaire Averov built a cruiser with his own money, now a natsgeroy. And these heroes because they put shoes on their own country. How many ships could would build on their money? FLEET!!!
    Including large toys - aircraft carriers.
    Further, we need shipbuilding facilities for this, we need training centers for training crews. When all this will function well, then build aircraft carriers in accordance with the doctrine. And now even the same "Kuznetsov" goes to sea every other time and then in a group with a tanker and one APC ...
    Live within your means and wisely.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 15 December 2013 10: 47
    +5
    Everything is written correctly. The aircraft carrier is the top of the pyramid. But without the underlying layers, this pyramid is fragile. First, there are maintenance and repair bases, then a "retinue" of defense and support ships. And only then the aircraft itself.
  • shurup
    shurup 15 December 2013 10: 53
    +3
    The dream will be over after the instant and absurd death of one of the newest American aircraft carriers at its base and in calm weather.
    But I am a supporter of nuclear-powered ice-class helicopter carriers that can already be built in the Baltic.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 15 December 2013 22: 08
      0
      Another special has appeared.
      I’m a supporter of the icebreaker class nuclear-powered helicopter carriers Firstly, not the ICE CLASS, but the ICE CLASS or the ICE-TYPE. And secondly, how and why you are going to use them.
  • bubla5
    bubla5 15 December 2013 10: 58
    12
    Someone really wants Russia at this stage to dive into the abyss of the AUG construction, abandoning the construction of other important tasks
    1. Ihrek
      Ihrek 15 December 2013 11: 10
      +7
      My colleague completely agrees. We need AUG last. For this money, you can solve many other, more important problems. There is a saying, "If you want to ruin the country, give it an aircraft carrier." This could be afforded by the Americans who were furious with fat in their time and, as we can see, they achieved it. We need to go in a less costly and no less effective way.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. maxcor1974
      maxcor1974 15 December 2013 22: 10
      0
      The most sensible thought. Probably someone wants to warm their pocket on its development and construction.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  • Boris55
    Boris55 15 December 2013 11: 17
    +1
    It's hard to part with the dream of aircraft carriers

    This weapon is not for defense, but for the promotion and protection of their interests around the world.
    You also need to think about this, but first you need to put things in order at home - get away from dependence on $ US.
    Only then will we have our own interests in the world and the need to protect them.
  • Arkan
    Arkan 15 December 2013 11: 23
    +1
    Dreaming is not harmful; it is harmful not to dream. We must live within our means, but having outlined the goal, 5 AUGs, we must do everything to achieve it.
  • MstislavHrabr
    MstislavHrabr 15 December 2013 11: 28
    +4
    Americans are launching drones from under the water. And we have "Sharks" without missiles ... What are not aircraft carriers ... That would be where the means and design genius to apply ...
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 15 December 2013 11: 40
      +4
      Quote: MstislavHrabr
      And we have "Sharks" without missiles ...

      This is a question for our leadership, which closed the Bark project of the Design Bureau named after Makeeva did not want to come to an agreement with YuzhMash ...
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 15 December 2013 12: 22
        +3
        Quote: PSih2097
        did not want to agree with YuzhMash ...

        On the subject of what did not agree, dear colleague?
        After all, Ukrainians, receiving sovereignty, have signed before the whole world that they will not be a nuclear and military-rocket-producing country. It is unacceptable to even negotiate with them on this topic ...
        1. Cristall
          Cristall 15 December 2013 14: 10
          +2
          engines could help. After all, work with Satan was going on. As for me would do ..
          By the way, the question is ... since our "great country" the Nikolaev shipyards cannot afford it ... is it possible to buy them out and build the buildings there? I'm afraid they are finishing the queen's legacy.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 15 December 2013 22: 13
      -1
      Yes, and also teach the "Sharks" to fly. laughing
  • stranik72
    stranik72 15 December 2013 11: 33
    +4
    Yes, we have strained both with cruisers and destroyers, so what about aircraft carriers?
    Moreover, there are matters and more importantly, for example, education and healthcare, when when we reach the level of the USSR even in these matters then we can dream about aircraft carriers.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 15 December 2013 11: 45
    +1
    Quote: Boris55
    It's hard to part with the dream of aircraft carriers

    This weapon is not for defense, but for the promotion and protection of their interests around the world.
    You also need to think about this, but first you need to put things in order at home - get away from dependence on $ US.
    Only then will we have our own interests in the world and the need to protect them.

    So, after all, our military doctrine is defensive and, according to it, the fleet provides protection for the territory of our country. 90% of the seas in our country are covered with ice and the operation of aircraft carriers in the winter is impossible or very difficult. Something is not visible to the amers in the Barents and Okhotsk seas, not to mention the Kara and others.
  • AlexA
    AlexA 15 December 2013 12: 00
    +2
    Quote: A.YARY
    The budget of the holy of holies (in Soviet times) is being stolen by the Ministry of Defense, but what remains to be realized, what does this tell you? And does all this tell you at least something

    Comrade Ardent. In your indignation, of course, you are right. But this is about another problem. She needs to be addressed. But by other means. The author of the article under discussion draws attention simply to the real problems of the TODAY'S state of shipbuilding. And offers to make decisions based on realities. And it offers quite reasonable views.
    And if the problem of political will is solved (?), It will be possible to think about changing the shipbuilding strategy. Why not?
  • Rus2012
    Rus2012 15 December 2013 12: 16
    +4
    The author of the article correctly "painted" the untimely idea of ​​building aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy.
    Perhaps he overlooked, or left unattended, only one aspect, namely, modern means of combating AHG are able to put them to the root to rot.
    Not without reason, the GDP said about these components: ground-space communications, reconnaissance and target designation, new equipment for warheads for long-range missiles. And he said that in this direction we will move ...
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 December 2013 12: 17
    10
    The author’s position is clear, the argument - alas, let us down.
    If you build on Sevmash in Severodvinsk, this means paralyzing the execution of all other orders for several decades

    This is "a little" wrong - Sevmash was building nuclear submarines in parallel and deeply modernizing Vikramaditya
    But the funniest thing is - imagine that Joseph Visarionych would start "stretching his legs over his clothes" and make plans for the growth of the USSR economy on the basis of the tsarist industry at his disposal ... Hitler would have taken Vladivostok in 1941.
    If we don’t have something - workshops, workers, equipment, etc. - then we need to build a workshop, create equipment, and train workers. The state has money for this, you just need to abandon deliberately idiotic projects like the Olympics, scattered, skolkovo ... And a little clean up among those who spend state money. And it is not in vain that the expression has already become winged - as soon as the state starts to implement the project for a billion, one billionaire in Russia immediately becomes more.
    Government orders are a great driving force of the economy. F.D. Roosevelt precisely by expanding the state order saved the United States from the "Great Depression" (not only to them, but to them too) Investing in the same aircraft carriers will become a huge contribution to industrial construction (the same works on a workshop and a swimming pool is not a nine-story building) machine-tool industry (it is clear why) chemistry and composite materials, aviation industry, radar, (program for the creation of AWACS aircraft) + a legion of related subcontractors. I'm not even talking about electromagnetic catapults - here is science, and the dual purpose of technologies and so on and so forth.
    Workers - it is placing orders that is the best way to speed up the attraction and training of working specialties - when they say to a person, you come, get a specialty, work + more or less decent salary.
    Instead, we invest in guest workers in Sochi.
    Defenders of aircraft carriers offer to reduce orders for "ground" promising MiG-29, Su-35, T-50 aircraft, and instead order deck ones.

    Well, let's count. In order for the fleet to constantly have at least one aircraft carrier, at least two of them are needed. At the same time, even if now we lay down the second aircraft carrier, then it will be good to expect its commissioning, if so in 8 years, or even all 10. By this time, Kuznetsov will have to be sent for major long-term repairs, even if the average they will still make repairs to him (which I strongly doubt)
    In general, the situation when we see TWO aircraft carriers in the fleet at the same time is a matter of a VERY distant future, even if you start doing it right now. I guess years through 15.
    Well, after these 15 years we will need 2 air wings, one to Kuzyu, the second to new ABs. By the way, Kuzya already ordered Migi. An increase in aviation capacities so that in 15 years it would be possible to build 4 a dozen new aircraft - is this an unsolvable task of the Century that will tear the Russian budget? Oh, Vissarionitch is not on you ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 December 2013 12: 18
      +5
      The aircraft carrier’s wing (while the aircraft carrier is under repair, let’s say) can quite perform the tasks of naval aviation - actions on the coastal flank, covering the coast and coast, air defense, and finally, not distract the Air Force
      In general, a very far-fetched problem
      The proposal to transfer the pilots of the Russian Air Force to deck-based aircraft does not hold water. Today in Russia there are fewer deck pilots than astronauts. This is a "piece" specialist. It must first be grown, and then throughout its entire service, its flight training must be maintained and improved. He, as a doctor, must study all his life. And for this, too, need airplanes, training complexes - in a word, training infrastructure on the coast.

      Yeah. But the Air Force pilot doesn’t need all this - 8 hours of flying time at the flight school and into battle, right? am
      The Air Force pilot is for the author to know, ALSO a piece specialist.
      Well, now, about the most important thing. Not a single country in the world, except Russia, has experience operating aircraft carriers in the northern latitudes.

      But do we have that? So what do we need other countries for? And DV, if anything, at our service
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Volkhov
    Volkhov 15 December 2013 12: 25
    +2
    The article is dull pragmatism, and the authorities demand creativity and put forward various slogans, when combined, the aircraft carrier fleet will be born:
    - troops created in the Arctic will capture a flat iceberg
    - migrants arrested in Biryulev crowbars will give him the form of an aircraft carrier
    - tugboats delivered to the fleet will drag him to storm America along the Titanic highway
    - airplanes of all types prohibited for operation in the Russian Federation will fly to an iceberg and scare the whole world
    - drillers trained on Prirazlomnaya directly from the iceberg will be drilled to oil and will always refuel tugs, planes and an iceberg refrigerator!
    More optimism!
  • Ross
    Ross 15 December 2013 12: 33
    +5
    Quote: A.YARY
    For especially zealous "pressing the brakes" at the word "aircraft carrier", the NAVAL DOCTRINE OF THE COUNTRY NAMING "GREAT" and "MARINE" cannot but include aircraft carriers.

    You are absolutely right. And this must be sought.
  • Ross
    Ross 15 December 2013 12: 38
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    If we don’t have something - workshops, workers, equipment, etc. - then we need to build a workshop, create equipment, and train workers.

    That is exactly what China is doing! Take a look, all from scratch! It just needs the will and desire and strategic thinking.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 December 2013 12: 43
      +2
      Quote: Ross
      It just needs the will and desire and strategic thinking.

      Here I am about the same. The road will be overpowered by a walker.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • AZB15
    AZB15 15 December 2013 12: 48
    -5
    AGAIN and AGAIN, beaten, about the Racean aircraft carrier !!!
    AGAIN the next autoshka is numbed, from a calories material I slap an article. AGAIN I will get minuses for my opinion about these articles about our fantastic aircraft carrier, but when will this calendaring about AV RF end?
    This is not even science fiction, it’s mirages ... on the basis of picking in one place ....
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 15 December 2013 12: 53
    +1
    aircraft carriers are weapons of attack, not defense. And we have no one to attack. Neither in the southern latitudes, nor in the middle

    Not entirely correct. For example, the mentioned cruisers of Project 1164 are also exclusively offensive weapons, so what. "Fleet in being" is still relevant, which is confirmed by the development of events around Syria. And the more powerful the fleet, the more it influences events in the world. In addition, perspective must not be forgotten. The appearance of these very aviation regiments for AB without the AB themselves is not possible. And the absence of targets for attack now does not mean that they will not appear in the future.
  • Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 15 December 2013 13: 01
    0
    I put the article "minus". Again for whining that we do not need to attack and there is no one, that we have nothing to do in the southern latitudes, but in the northern latitudes we need to chop the ice with a bow. The question is, why should we always defend and not attack, why our interests should remain off the coast of Russia, and not extend to the entire planet, why, if we are a great country, we should look at someone, ask for something, explain something to someone. It feels like we should always make excuses to everyone, apologize. But this is the position of cowards, and cowards are either beaten or lowered in full.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. maxcor1974
      maxcor1974 15 December 2013 18: 18
      -1
      My dear, voice who you are going to attack? We have 150 million people and a huge territory that no one can develop, why do you need someone else?
      If you are ready to spend a billion in bucks on an 1 aircraft carrier, you should take care of creating a doctrine of its application. At the moment she is not.
      Otherwise, such cheers-patriotism as yours is probably well paid from the State Department, because the construction of an aircraft carrier will suck out a lot of money from the defense budget, and this is at a time when even the strategic nuclear forces on our lower border are permissible and require updating.
      It is not the presence of aircraft carriers that keeps the "friends" from exerting force on us, but their understanding of receiving unacceptable damage as a result of a "retaliation strike" against any attempt at forceful action. Maintaining a combat-ready state of the strategic nuclear forces, their improvement is the priority that should come first before the state. They support our independence. Then the systems of air defense, missile defense, ground forces, air force, navy (nuclear submarine). And the aircraft carrier is a large, beautiful, vulnerable target, which no one is afraid of, but which, like an expensive Rolls-Royce, requires huge funds for its maintenance.
      The Reagan administration managed to drag the USSR into a knowingly losing arms race. You can not step on the same rake a second time.
      1. Fornit
        Fornit 19 December 2013 15: 13
        0
        Quote: maxcor1974
        If you are ready to spend a billion in bucks on an 1 aircraft carrier, you should take care of creating a doctrine of its application. At the moment she is not.

        Yeah, but forgiving billions of Soviet debts is a trend ...

        PS - the article put MINUS - nagging and juggling ...
  • Altona
    Altona 15 December 2013 13: 05
    +4
    In the Soviet Union, as I understand it, aircraft carriers were built on the Black Sea shipyards, shipbuilding capacities of Ukraine, which had all the capabilities and specially trained people for this ... Now this tab can be done conditionally-theoretically ... I don’t know the capabilities of Russian shipyards and what size ships there you can lay ...
    Second, an aircraft carrier is a means of projecting its forces in any oceanic region and the basis for building up a strike force in case of a possible attack ... Also, an aircraft carrier requires a convoy of a large squadron of ships and ships of various classes, in fact, a whole fleet ... Does Russia have such opportunities now and to whom will we demonstrate our shock capabilities and for what purpose? We have practically no sea allies ...
    In general, you need to answer such questions. to determine the need for ships of this class ... And building a steam-turbine cruiser with a small air group, of course, is still not an analogue of a nuclear-powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with two power plants (Gerald Ford in the future) ...
  • Andrey Ulyanovsky
    Andrey Ulyanovsky 15 December 2013 13: 09
    +5
    "Tukhachevsky also proposed to mechanize the army at the expense of technology from the times of Ochakov and the conquest of the Crimea."
    Truth? The author personally referenced the selected works of Mikhail Nikolaevich: http://militera.lib.ru/science/tuhachevsky/index.html Do you need quotes? You are welcome:
    “The new engines are being sought in the form of a diesel, which will give more reliable action, eliminate magneto and the possibility of exposure from the ground, and also eliminate the flammability of the aircraft and facilitate long-distance flights due to the very economical consumption of fuel [182]. The Junkers aircraft diesel engine is large an achievement in this regard.
    In addition, intensive work is underway to design aircraft turbines, both gas and steam.
    Finally, a highly secret but intensive work is underway to create a jet engine. "
    "... If the country prepares itself for the widespread production of airborne landing forces capable of seizing and stopping the enemy's railways in decisive directions, paralyzing the deployment and mobilization of its troops, etc., then such a country will be able to reverse the previous methods of operational actions and give the outcome of the war a much more decisive character. The strongest in a future war will be the country with the most powerful civil aviation and aviation industry. "
    "It can be said without error that modern warships are not yet prepared to fight a powerful air enemy. And this air enemy is growing into more and more power ..." (1928 !!!)

    And a few words from the Preface:
    "The idea expressed in this report by MN Tukhachevsky about the procedure for protecting the line fleet from attacks from the air, which found application during the Second World War, deserves attention. [14]
    “The protection of the linear fleet,” wrote M. N. Tukhachevsky, “from air attacks should be entrusted to special vessels bearing:
    a) aviation capable of taking off at any moment to repel enemy attacks. "

    This is 1928. Dear author, do not you think that at least your phrase, indicated at the beginning of the comment, deserves a revision of the position?
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 15 December 2013 13: 20
    +2
    The question is whether AB is needed to demonstrate the flag or for a real confrontation with China and the United States. In the case of the real, nuclear weapons may very well come into play. Judging by the articles on this site, work has been carried out on managed and homing units and quite successfully. I think these works continue according to modern information. But a nuclear warhead is not necessarily a direct hit, just a few kilometers and all ships will turn into coffins with a slow death from for induced radiation. The first warhead is detonated at a distance and cripples the entire air defense for 20 minutes (due to electromagnetic radiation and strong ionization of the atmosphere), there is no interference to the rest, but this is of course in a direct collision and the subsequent beast with blue fur. neither in understanding the application nor financially.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 15 December 2013 14: 49
      +2
      Any direct confrontation with the United States or China will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons.
  • Russ69
    Russ69 15 December 2013 13: 49
    +3
    Of course, hottsa a couple of new aircraft carriers, as the saying goes: "Let it be."
    But still, today they are not a priority. First you need to upgrade conventional weapons, and only then think about such expensive toys as an aircraft carrier.
  • saag
    saag 15 December 2013 14: 01
    +1
    Quote: Volkhov
    - troops created in the Arctic will capture a flat iceberg

    This does not meet the military doctrine of landscape changes, to protect the Arctic from encroachments from Sochi, ice-making machines will be brought and icebergs will be made
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 15 December 2013 15: 23
      +1
      No, all Sochi refrigerators are used to freeze the Bosphorus blockade - even under the Tsar there was a special art corps in Odessa, the polar explorer Kolchak was preparing the landing for the 1st World War, and now there are refrigerators.
  • dpurpur
    dpurpur 15 December 2013 14: 11
    +2
    I’m certainly not an expert, but I don’t understand why an aircraft carrier is in the North, where there is ice around. Yes, and with whom there to fight the aircraft. In the Baltic, he has no maneuver, he is just a target. In the south, in order to fully use it, it is possible only after the capture of the straits from the Turks. It turns out only the Pacific Fleet. Or away from their native coasts by the seas and oceans, but then bases with a powerful infrastructure are needed, but they are not. They almost kicked out of Syria. It is probably better to invest in modern ships: cruisers, destroyers, submarines.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 15 December 2013 14: 15
    +3
    What, however, is an inexhaustible topic - to be or not to be a Russian aircraft carrier. But everything is clear - for the construction and maintenance of the ACG, a breakthrough of funds is needed, and the state of the economy is not similar to the USA and China. Nuclear deterrence forces and their modernization are vital, especially in connection with the development of American missile defense. Drones are needed. Cyber ​​military. We need funds for special services and a lot, the internal threat has not even gone away at all.
    Talking about Skolkovo, Rusnano - well, all the same, these are attempts to revive the economy, it is clear that with all kinds of kickbacks, who knows, there may be an effect, at least somehow doubtful.
  • Andrey Ulyanovsky
    Andrey Ulyanovsky 15 December 2013 14: 33
    0
    An aircraft carrier is an airfield, mobile, protected and saturated with aviation, not a flagpole for "displaying the flag". And these airfields are needed in all fleets.
    And by type they are at least not one. And by the way, there were no aircraft carriers in the USSR — there were TAKRs — completely independent ships with powerful missile weapons.
  • Genry
    Genry 15 December 2013 15: 00
    +3
    Many commentators, just a woman's whine, like: "I want panties from Saint Laurent."
    Carriers, in the long run, like dreadnoughts, are doomed to degeneration.
    Very quickly developing air defense. She can already fight with high-speed missiles, and planes are just seeds. It is expected the emergence of laser weapons that can neutralize any aircraft.
    For the destruction of aircraft carriers, precision-guided weapons systems have been developed that allow the warhead to precisely hit the desired target.
    Cranes to aircraft carriers! There will be no benefit from them.
  • nik6006
    nik6006 15 December 2013 15: 04
    +2
    Wasteland I’m not a sailor, but it’s clear that there is no money for aircraft carriers, but there are a lot of other problems. In order to start building the AUG first, at least it is necessary to develop AWACS planes, build the bases, and do a huge bunch of everything, and this despite the fact that you need to have time to solve both current and problems in the short term. Moreover, for every non-Russian AUG there are a couple of nuclear answers, as a last resort.
    So we will build aircraft carriers, but when we need it, in 30 it may be years when the 1 ruble will weigh much more than the 1 roll of green toilet paper. We must be patient and work, work, work.
  • saag
    saag 15 December 2013 15: 06
    0
    Quote: nik6006
    at least develop AWACS aircraft

    It was something like the An-38, at least I saw such a picture, but then it didn’t go
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 15 December 2013 22: 32
      0
      Not based on the An-38, but an independent Yak-44 project.
      1. nik6006
        nik6006 16 December 2013 23: 01
        0
        An excellent aircraft would have come in handy, but alas, they did not manage to do it. This topic can be continued, there is a reserve, and with a new elemental base.
  • indiggo
    indiggo 15 December 2013 15: 12
    0
    well, it’s not bad to dream, there’s still not decided on Kuzya, and you’re already making plans, if they start building no earlier than 18 years. there’s simply nowhere, as many here noted, even there are no pilots and this is true.
    there are a lot of unsolved problems, and it’s not clear what’s happening in the heads of admirals, in general the situation is not the most rosy, but it’s not worth dusting your head with ashes. a lot depends on project 22350. if everything goes according to plan, then they will be the basis of the fleet and the basis of the escort for future AB ...
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 15 December 2013 18: 18
      0
      Kuzey was fully decided 10 days ago ... and therefore an article about the uselessness came out.
      Six months later, an article will be published somewhere in London or Miami that the Russian Federation was not needed ...
  • pr 627
    pr 627 15 December 2013 15: 14
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    So you need to build a new shipyard with the appropriate capabilities.

    Can you throw some money out of your pocket?
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 15 December 2013 19: 43
      +4
      First, there is money in the country. The main problem with personnel who "decide everything" is that we need workers and engineers, not lawyers and economists.
      I myself am a design engineer.
      Secondly, do you have anything against the construction of shipyards "for an aircraft carrier" as such? If necessary, such a shipyard will be able to safely build other ships, the same cruisers and destroyers.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 15 December 2013 15: 21
    11
    I am also neutral about the idea of ​​building aircraft carriers for the simple reason that, for a number of reasons, no aircraft carriers will be built in the foreseeable future, I am simply not loaded with unnecessary fantasies. But there is a question for the supporters "immediately", "more", "we cannot continue to live without them." The Indians bought a decommissioned ship from us, invested money and, using our own efforts, turned it into candy. We financed the development of the deck and at the time of the transfer of the ship, at the very least, they already have an air wing. They form a full-fledged strike group. We don’t need to buy anything, no matter what, but we have an aircraft carrier that is significantly superior in potential to the Indian flagship. Can we have our own AUG based on it and today? Let it be inferior to the American one, but we can. Do we have? No! Why are we not able to finally bring it back to God's form, why can't we overhaul it, remove the design jambs, modernize it? Why does his KTU manage to fail with almost all boilers immediately after supposedly scheduled repairs? Why did we immediately find shipyards, specialists and technologies for the Indians and for their money? Why is there still no decent base, besides the factory wall? Why do we groan so much about our lack of carrier-based aircraft AWACS, PLO, electronic warfare, but they didn’t touch a finger to create something, or at least buy? Why has not a stable grouping of escort ships, united by a single control system, been created so far? It's also good when, on a cruise next to Kuznetsov, at least some kind of BOD, or even without escort, in a company with tugs, tankers, support vessels. What has prevented and is preventing us from doing all this? Or do we not play on trifles and we only need atomic "a la Nimitz", then we will solve all the problems at once? It won't be so. Until our fathers-commanders begin to think with their heads and continue to engage in silly window dressing like "sudden" checks of the combat readiness of everyone and everything, or sending a half-killed ship on a long voyage, and the new (!) Aircraft carrier will have the same fate as Kuznetsov. Ready for cons.
    1. VAF
      VAF 15 December 2013 17: 54
      +4
      Quote: rudolff
      Ready for the cons.


      Only +! soldier drinks
    2. Arberes
      Arberes 15 December 2013 18: 24
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      Ready for the cons.

      And here we take it and put it on! Yes, you write everything right, My friend! hi
      The next 20 years is just a dream! But striving for possession of such ships is necessary. For the state, in the historical context of 20 years - nothing, but you need to think for decades to come! I strongly disagree with my colleagues claiming that aircraft carriers will soon die out, as a class? No, they will not die out and for a long time they will be a significant trump card in the hands of politicians and the military! If only there was a will, the rest would come with time.

      Vaf Only +!
      And immediately!
      vaf (1)hello friend! hi
  • washi
    washi 15 December 2013 15: 51
    +3
    Comrade suckers.
    First, go on an excursion to the village of the Pacific Primorsky Territory, and then talk about aircraft carriers.
    There, both "Lazarev" and "Ural" were killed.
    Build aircraft carriers as much as you want.
    Just go serve them yourself. And maintain their combat readiness on them.
    For submarines in Kamchatka, at least they built life.
    If you are in Texas (Pacific village), ask to spend in Pavlovsk.
    There were based pl.
    It’s easy to write any garbage.
    Try to serve.
    1. Fornit
      Fornit 19 December 2013 15: 29
      +1
      Quote: Vasya
      Try to serve.

      Tried ... 8 years - normal flight. The parameters are normal, no comments.
      Don't be too scary to catch up. Yes, the ship is complex, but, with the appropriate approach, it is quite tough. Again, I will repeat somewhere - all the troubles of "Kuznetsov" are due to the fact that the industry has forgotten how to design large ships. Here the problem of quantity directly translates into quality. I can't cover all the "byak" - the forum will not be enough, but if we take into account the experience of building and further operation of the "Kuznetsov" everything should work out ... I think that the presence of even one ship, even in the form of a training airfield for deck pilots, is already worth the candle. .. By the way, it is my deep conviction that "Kuzya" survived only thanks to the support of the pilots. yes
  • Tetros
    Tetros 15 December 2013 15: 57
    0
    Russian army to defend the country, not an attack. And all the construction goes in line with this strategy. For protection, a 100% retaliatory strike and counteraction at sea requires nuclear submarines. What shall we protect them? Who to attack? And most importantly, how much do we need to build them to defeat at least some states? And where are the pilots to take so much? Our officers in 2008 led the troops by mobile, and here we are thinking about the AUG ...
    1. coserg 2012
      coserg 2012 15 December 2013 17: 17
      +1
      Respected! To defeat the United States, we need to settle in their territory, but for this we need a huge number of IP. Otherwise, suffocate from the stench that they will frighten when we appear. And so that we do not (missiles, ships, planes) win which will not. Personally, I do not want to win (read to seize the territory), but I want to shut up and not come to me with my homo-lesbian, etc. democracy.
  • Altona
    Altona 15 December 2013 16: 27
    +2
    Quote: pahom54
    Here you can still recall the example of Nazi Germany - not battleships that did not play almost any significant role in the 2nd World War, namely the powerful submarine fleet, which gave both Amers and Britons a request.

    --------------------------------------------
    And in modern history, our submarine was exactly under the belly of an aircraft carrier during the "Desert Storm" in 1991 and was just waiting for an order to organize a disastrous kick for the American squadron ...
    In World War II, the ever-memorable Tirpitz performed only frightening functions, militarily turned out to be a Cyclops with awkward power, which was very expensive to use in comparison with the targets being killed ...
  • Harmony
    Harmony 15 December 2013 16: 43
    +2
    I agree, sea airfields (aircraft carriers) are needed. Someone must cover our marine connections in the oceans from the air. Air direction is one of the most dangerous. The fact that it is difficult to do it now is understandable. But, you need to do !!! At least now it is necessary to conduct scientific and technical research on how and how many aircraft carriers need to be built. Where and how they will be made, how much it will cost. And how to do it all faster, cheaper and more efficiently, and even so that they are head-ahead in terms of prospects ahead of the US. Because while we build ...
  • cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 15 December 2013 16: 46
    +7
    Oh brothers, I read everything, - "I shed a tear." Of course, I really want AIR CARRIERS in the Russian fleet to have not two or three, but neither money, nor the ability to build, operate, equip them with aviation and highly professional personnel, unfortunately NOOOOOO !!! and in the next 20-25 years will not. At least kill, at least minus. sad
  • Taoist
    Taoist 15 December 2013 17: 22
    +6
    I agree with the author. For the same reasons:

    1) There is nowhere to build and no one (the question can be solved but it will require huge resources and a lot of time - you won’t learn specialists in a year)

    2) Such ships have nowhere to be based. The sad fate of the 1143 project is an example of this. The basing situation has not improved since then.

    3) Today the Navy does not have tasks for which such ships are required. And if we talk about the prospect, first you need to clearly define the concept of the combat use of the fleet. This is also not yet.

    If we talk about the revival of ships with aircraft weapons, then first of all it is worth understanding what kind of aircraft weapons are required. Personally, I would first of all consider not the strike forces but the capabilities of anti-aircraft defense, air defense, as well as reconnaissance and target designation. To solve such problems it is not at all necessary to build full-fledged aircraft carriers.
    1. VAF
      VAF 15 December 2013 17: 59
      +3
      Quote: Taoist

      If we talk about the revival of ships with aircraft weapons, then first of all it is worth understanding what kind of aircraft weapons are required. Personally, I would first of all consider not the strike forces but the capabilities of anti-aircraft defense, air defense, as well as reconnaissance and target designation.


      Almost completely agree, +! soldier Only about the Percussion, not in the first place, in my opinion, you are in vain.
      Since I consider the total "destruction" of the MPA to be a direct betrayal! soldier