Military Review

Named the cost of a promising Russian aircraft carrier

66
Named the cost of a promising Russian aircraft carrierThe price of a promising Russian aircraft carrier can range from 100 to 250 billion rubles, said the general director of Nevsky PKB, Sergei Vlasov.


“I have once said that in the recent past the American aircraft carrier cost 11 billion dollars, that is, 330 billion rubles. Today it costs already 14 billion dollars. Our aircraft carrier will, of course, be cheaper - from 100 to 250 billion rubles. If it is equipped with different weaponsthen the price will increase dramatically, if you put only anti-aircraft systems, the cost will be less, "said Vlasov, RIA"News».

He noted that there may be two versions of the project of a promising aircraft carrier - nuclear and non-nuclear. “The first will be more and more expensive, the second - a little less and cheaper. We are ready to design both of them, ”added Vlasov.

If the future aircraft carrier has a nuclear power plant, then its displacement will be 80 – 85 thousand tons, and if it is non-nuclear, then 55 – 65 thousand tons, the general director of Nevsky PKB explained.

“In addition, there is a conditional norm that one aircraft can be placed per one thousand tons of displacement. Based on this, if there are 65 thousand tons, then 50–55 aircraft can be based, if 85 - about 70 different aircraft. We are talking about aircraft, which by then will be able to create aviation industry, ”he stressed.

The leadership of the Navy has long been talking about new aircraft carriers for fleet as a necessity. At the end of last year, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, announced that serial construction of promising aircraft carriers would begin in Russia after 2020, as part of the following state armament programs - GPV-2025, etc.

“During the 2021 – 2030 period, the buildup of the combat capability of the general-purpose naval forces should be achieved through the serial construction of promising aircraft carriers as part of the naval aircraft-carrying complex, multi-purpose fourth-generation submarines, multi-purpose ships of the ocean, far and near sea zones,” said Chirkov.
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. morpogr
    morpogr 4 February 2014 10: 07
    +7
    Is the ice really breaking. Or is it a trial ball about whether or not they agree on the price.
    1. sledgehammer102
      sledgehammer102 4 February 2014 10: 11
      +19
      Quote: morpogr
      Is the ice really breaking. Or is it a trial ball about whether or not they agree on the price.


      He set off for a long time, but in any case, they will speak substantively on this subject by the end of this decade with a good economic situation.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 4 February 2014 10: 48
        +5
        Quote: sledgehammer102
        He set off for a long time, but in any case, they will speak substantively on this subject by the end of this decade with a good economic situation.


        Till - "Return to the world ocean. The Russian Navy must correspond to the level of economic development."
        http://vpk-news.ru/articles/18657
        message - "according to Senka and a hat ..."
        It is reasonable ...

        And then two dreamers dreamed -
        http://vpk-news.ru/articles/18748
        Konstantin Sivkov, 1-th Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Economics:
        - Can you, in the roughest approximation, say what composition our fleets should have in order to be able to solve the whole range of tasks assigned to the Navy?

        Vladimir Komoedov, Admiral, retired Commander of the Black Sea Fleet:
        - Of course, in the roughest approximation of need can be defined as follows.

        Northern Fleet: 12 – 16 missile submarines, 20 – 25 multipurpose nuclear missiles, 10 – 12 missile submarines (??? We did not understand this ...) and 30 – 35 non-nuclear submarines, two medium or large class aircraft carriers, 20 – 25 ocean-going and 140 surface ships (including up to 30 strike, including missile boats, up to 40 anti-submarine and up to 50 mine-sweeping) near sea zones, up to 15 large landing ships, two naval aviation regiments, one regiment of coastal fighter, reconnaissance and anti-submarine aircraft, anti-submarine and transport and combat helicopter regiments, skadrilya Marine attack aircraft regiment coastal missile and artillery troops, the regiment or a battalion of marines.

        Pacific Fleet: up to 20 nuclear multipurpose, 10 – 12 missile (apparently, SSBNs?) and 20 – 25 non-nuclear submarines, two medium or large class aircraft carriers, 20 – 25 ocean surface ships, and up to 160 (including up to 40 strike, including missile boats, to 60 anti-submarine and to 60 mine-sweeping) near sea zones, 20 – 25 large landing ships, two naval aviation regiments, one regiment of coastal fighter, reconnaissance and anti-submarine aviation, anti-submarine and military transport helicopter regiments, regiment fruit drink th assault aviation regiment of marines, two regiments of coastal missile and artillery troops.

        Baltic Fleet: 10 – 12 non-nuclear submarines, up to 20 strike (including missile boats), up to 20 anti-submarine and up to 40 mine-sweeping surface ships of the near sea zone, 10-12 large and medium landing ships, fighter aviation regiment, separate reconnaissance squadrons and reconnaissance anti-submarine aircraft, anti-submarine and military transport helicopter regiments, naval assault squadron, battalion or regiment of the marine corps, two regiments of coastal missile and artillery troops.

        Black Sea Fleet: to 15 non-nuclear submarines, to 30 attack ships and boats, 15 – 25 anti-submarine and to 30 mine-sweeping surface ships of the near sea zone, seven to ten large and medium landing ships, a fighter aviation regiment, separate reconnaissance, anti-submarine and naval assault squadrons aviation, anti-submarine helicopter regiment and transport and combat helicopter squadron, marine battalion, regiment of coastal missile and artillery troops.

        As part of the center's forces, it is advisable to have a division of naval rocket-bearing aviation, one regiment of reconnaissance aviation of the ocean and near-sea zone, anti-submarine aviation, naval attack aviation, a division of marines and one or two coastal missile and artillery regiments.
        1. sledgehammer102
          sledgehammer102 4 February 2014 11: 21
          +5
          Quote: Rus2012
          And then two dreamers dreamed -
          http://vpk-news.ru/articles/18748


          This article also came out here, I also had the idea that it was time for this "admiral" to stop giving advice))
      2. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 4 February 2014 13: 39
        +3
        Quote: sledgehammer102
        Quote: morpogr
        Is the ice really breaking. Or is it a trial ball about whether or not they agree on the price.


        He set off for a long time, but in any case, they will speak substantively on this subject by the end of this decade with a good economic situation.


        Well at least not now. In general, I believe that the ice has broken not quite in the right direction. All this resembles a crocodile during the mating season - it clicks its teeth and blows bubbles.
    2. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 4 February 2014 10: 15
      +16
      Quote: morpogr
      Really the ice has broken.

      Yes, nothing has been touched yet, just an article with numbers that do not have anything for themselves. There is no finished project, then what figures can we talk about ?????
      I myself can write this, but the point is.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 4 February 2014 10: 21
        +15
        "Our aircraft carrier will, of course, be cheaper."

        Why is this "obviously"? Amers have them on stream, and ours will do, in fact, from scratch.
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 4 February 2014 10: 54
          +6
          Quote: Vladimirets
          Why is this "obviously"? Amers have them on stream, and ours will do, in fact, from scratch.

          laughing
          ... well so it is known:
          "to swallow a finger ... then bite off to the elbow"

          The main thing is not even to build - but to put into operation with all the necessary infrastructure. And this will increase the cost of commissioning the complex by orders of magnitude.
          And God forbid, it turned out like "Charles de Gaulle" - over 20 years in continuous repairs and standing at the pier ... with one conditionally successful military campaign during all this time ...
        2. yehat
          yehat 4 February 2014 12: 16
          +3
          Americans do not have all the aviks on the stream.
          the latter is brand new and has a price tag on him!
      2. Papakiko
        Papakiko 4 February 2014 11: 05
        +4
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Yes, nothing has been touched yet, just an article with numbers that do not have anything for themselves. There is no finished project, then what figures can we talk about ????? I myself can write this, but the point is.

        But why the hell did the administration skip such another slaughter to fill the air?
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 4 February 2014 11: 23
          +3
          Quote: Papakiko
          But why the hell did the administration skip such another slaughter to fill the air?

          Well, who decided to post the article on the site, that’s it.
        2. Retx
          Retx 4 February 2014 11: 30
          0
          Boyan? Fresh interview http://ria.ru/interview/20140203/992456922.html
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko 4 February 2014 11: 38
            +2
            Quote: RETX
            Boyan? Fresh interview http://ria.ru/interview/20140203/992456922.html

            And what?
            There the technical task was discussed and work on cutting metal in Severodvinsk for the ship was shown?
            No.
            More comparisons between Forge and Vikran discussed.

            Hence the conclusion - BOYAN!
      3. Tersky
        Tersky 4 February 2014 11: 40
        +4
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        just an article with numbers that do not have anything for themselves.

        Sasha, this is just a reminder to the people of the meaning of the saying about the halva and the state in the taste buds after repeatedly voicing the name of the confectionery product by ear. That would, so to speak, not relax in terms of salivation. wink
    3. Vitaly Anisimov
      Vitaly Anisimov 4 February 2014 10: 24
      0
      In the period from 2021–2030, the buildup of the combat potential of general naval forces should be ensured through the serial construction of promising aircraft carriers as part of a marine aircraft carrier complex

      If you calculate and plan it is already not bad (but expensive of course) ..
      1. velikoros-xnumx
        velikoros-xnumx 4 February 2014 11: 05
        +8
        Quote: MIKHAN
        If you calculate and plan it is already not bad (but expensive of course) ..

        The question is, does Russia need aircraft carriers? I am not an expert, but nevertheless Oleg Kaptsov's position on this issue is close to me. Why, we are not going to fight the natives. The basic concept of our military doctrine is defensive, continental. To confidently ensure our security and sovereignty, isn't it better to strengthen the strategic nuclear forces in all components (especially the submarine component of SSBNs, something like "SKIF"), increase the number of attack submarines (both nuclear and diesel) armed with cruise missiles, modernize the "perimeter "and" teach "it to respond not only to a nuclear, but also to a non-nuclear massive strike with high-precision weapons, To strengthen air defense and missile defense, to take strike weapons into space (an extreme measure), to launch controlled" killer "satellites into space, to create on the basis of Iskander a tactical complex with a range of 1000 - 1500 km (naturally, having withdrawn from the INF Treaty) and place these complexes wherever possible. In terms of finance, it will be cheaper than the creation and operation of 3, 4 full-fledged AUGs (almost all of us understand that 3-4 single aircraft carriers are kamikaze) together with the creation and maintenance of the corresponding infrastructure, and in terms of defense efficiency it is much higher, i.e. to. AUG in terms of defense will give little. Correct if I'm wrong.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 4 February 2014 14: 56
          +2
          Quote: velikoros-xnumx
          create on the basis of Iskander a tactical complex with a range of 1000 - 1500 km (naturally, having left the agreement on limiting the INF) and place these complexes wherever possible.

          CR is already being made under it with a range of 2 km (as I understand it on the basis of RK-000), plus there is Caliber-NK, which is transported in containers ...
          1. velikoros-xnumx
            velikoros-xnumx 4 February 2014 21: 52
            +1
            Quote: PSih2097
            CR is already being made under it with a range of 2 km (as I understand it on the basis of RK-000), plus there is Caliber-NK,

            I heard about CR, but I would like to maneuver the BR (excuse me if I made a mistake in the definition) as the initial one due to high-speed advantages (delivery time + potential invulnerability (a target flying at a speed of 6-7 M with modern air defense systems is difficult to shoot down))
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. demon184
          demon184 4 February 2014 15: 44
          0
          In the Mediterranean, it would not even hurt to have an aircraft carrier group now.
        4. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 5 February 2014 02: 08
          +2
          Quote: velikoros-xnumx
          Correct if I am mistaken.

          Everything is correct and logical ... Here is just a question: what are you going to do with the sea power? Tanks? And if the fleet (I am silent about the composition for now), then it is necessary not to create a new situation with the Varyag, but to prepare for Navarin. And this requires a balanced fleet, which includes an aircraft-carrying component. Expensive? - Yes, it's expensive. But, if our main enemy is a maritime superpower, then it needs to be opposed with something in response. Asymmetric, parallel, perpendicular, even in a box, but to neutralize the threat from the sea is necessary. "From the sea against the shore" - have you heard about such a concept for the development of the US Navy? The Sumvold was built, new UDC of the America type (under the F-35) are being built, and all of you are dew.
          Tell me what you will do when 10-12 AMGs come up to the tervods and conduct maneuvers in the waters. And your boats are tracked, and many do not get in touch (as an option). And where are their Ohia and Virginia - you do not know, because where they are walking the PLO forces have nothing to cover, and their search capabilities without aviation are hundreds of times more modest. And so you can "shed tears" for a long time. Aircraft carriers are needed for the fleet.
          But we can only build new AVUs when our economy and a new shipbuilding base allow us to do this (A new dry dock will be built under Peter, a new shipyard in the Far East, together with the Koreans). Therefore, the Defense Council and revised the terms of construction of the AVU, moving them closer to 2025-30gg. And the fleet’s money is now spent on the purchase of other military equipment.
    4. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 4 February 2014 13: 38
      +6
      Quote: morpogr
      Is the ice really breaking. Or is it a trial ball about whether or not they agree on the price.


      The roof started off, not the ice. For the cost of this useless construction of intimidation, you can build several really necessary units.

      Instead of catching up with the 314ndos in their insane desire to project power wherever needed and would not need to be dealt with, design and build missile cruisers and air defense missile defense destroyers.
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko 4 February 2014 15: 11
        0
        Quote: Geisenberg
        build missile cruisers and air defense missile defense destroyers.

        Considering the modern size of destroyers (for example, the Japanese "Hugo"), the need for cruisers is highly doubtful (especially if in comparison with battleships 100 years ago)
        But the destroyers of the Okiyansky zone did not stop them from ripping.
        1. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 4 February 2014 15: 58
          +2
          Quote: Papakiko
          Quote: Geisenberg
          build missile cruisers and air defense missile defense destroyers.

          Considering the modern size of destroyers (for example, the Japanese "Hugo"), the need for cruisers is highly doubtful (especially if in comparison with battleships 100 years ago)
          But the destroyers of the Okiyansky zone did not stop them from ripping.


          I repeat once again - it is inappropriately to catch up with the madmen running to the edge of the abyss. there is a clear definition of what is a destroyer what is a cruiser.
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko 4 February 2014 20: 44
            0
            Quote: Geisenberg
            there is a clear definition of what is a destroyer what is a cruiser.

            Of course there is someone arguing Komrad.
            But look at the sizes
            "sumvolt" -14 long tons (full).
            "hugi" displacement: 13 tons (standard) 950 tons (full) and ...
            EM project 956, displacement: 6500 tons standard, 7904 tons full.
            "Admiral Chabanenko" - BOD project 1155.1, displacement: standard - 7700 tons, full - 8900 tons.
            "mistral" UDC - displacement 21 tons (full) 300 tons (maximum).

            Someone, somewhere grandmother is clearly shaggy.
            That is why I called it "Okiyan zone destroyers". hi
    5. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 4 February 2014 14: 04
      +1
      Let the project on paper at least be. And they are already about the cost. There is money, but an aircraft carrier is not a fact.
      1. VAF
        VAF 4 February 2014 18: 07
        +3
        Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
        .And they are already about the cost. There is money


        So that's the whole thing .. "tsimus" wassat The main thing is .. "to master", but the result ... well .. "I couldn't" crying
    6. AVV
      AVV 4 February 2014 15: 11
      0
      Quote: morpogr
      Is the ice really breaking. Or is it a trial ball about whether or not they agree on the price.

      By year 20, prices may change !!! And the task for the project is likely to change !!!
      1. alone
        alone 4 February 2014 20: 13
        -1
        The price of a promising Russian aircraft carrier can range from 100 to 250 billion rubles, said the general director of Nevsky PKB, Sergei Vlasov.

        “I already once said that the American aircraft carrier in the recent past cost 11 billion dollars, that is, 330 billion rubles. Today it costs $ 14 billion. Our aircraft carrier will, of course, be cheaper - from 100 to 250 billion rubles. If it is equipped with various weapons, then the price will increase sharply, if you put only anti-aircraft systems, the cost will be less ”,


        To be honest, I don’t understand anything. To create an aircraft carrier that is tantamount to an American, you need not 100 billion, but all the same 330 billion rubles. If the aircraft carrier is weaker than the American, then why do you need it? No.
    7. Armata
      Armata 4 February 2014 21: 44
      +3
      Quote: morpogr
      Really the ice has broken.
      ROOF TURNED OUT. Are they quite sure that the price will decrease from 250 to 100? So garbage if there were zeros of ohrenilions behind her.
  2. jjj
    jjj 4 February 2014 10: 08
    +8
    By the way, progress has been made in Severodvinsk on Nakhimov. Pontoons are cooked so that, having started them, raise the ship out of the water by two meters. Then "Nakhimov" will be brought directly to the Sevmash filling basin for work. As for the repair, it is still known that some of the pipelines, cables, and electronics will be replaced. About the power plant - silence. The modernization of weapons systems is still called insignificant. The documentation for the repairs from St. Petersburg has not yet arrived
  3. PavelOPG
    PavelOPG 4 February 2014 10: 10
    +5
    a simple chatter. as usual...
  4. Same lech
    Same lech 4 February 2014 10: 11
    +5
    Well, and where do we need to move this aircraft carrier, anyone has any sensible suggestions, justify.
    This is a very costly affair, and I believe there is no need for it at the moment.
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 4 February 2014 10: 17
      +15
      Maybe my opinion is wrong but at this stageRussia must do emphasis on the creation of weapons to counter aircraft carriers. Less expensive and troublesome.
      As they say, action is equal to counteraction.
      1. Fornit
        Fornit 4 February 2014 10: 43
        +6
        Such "experts" as this fat cat can only reason ... Not only is the "reasoning" diluted with pictures pulled from the ceiling (instead of our TAKR - a photo of "Coral Xi", instead of the Chinese "Liaoning" a layout of some kind), so he doesn't even know anything about the Yamato ... Out of laziness he confused him, it seems, with the Shinano, because it was not sunk by aircraft ... In general, this is bullshit with numerous reservations ... Who is this I wonder if he was awarded the title of "expert"? The impostor is definitely !!!
        As before, no one is responsible for the "bazaar" ... Here it is freedom !!! I just don't understand what ...
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 4 February 2014 11: 08
        +2
        Quote: Apollon
        emphasis on the creation of weapons to counter aircraft carriers. Less costly and troublesome.

        China breaks through ... 3,14 dos are already groaning -
        "China is developing an" anti-aircraft "BR DF-26 with a hypersonic warhead
        http://topwar.ru/39230-kitay-razrabatyvaet-anti-avianosnuyu-br-df-26-s-giperzvuk
        ovoy-boevoy-chastyu.html
      3. velikoros-xnumx
        velikoros-xnumx 4 February 2014 11: 49
        +2
        Quote: Apollon
        Maybe my opinion is wrong, but at this stage, Russia should focus on creating weapons to counter aircraft carriers. Less costly and troublesome.

        I support. This is not only less costly and troublesome - it is faster and more effective in terms of defense.
    2. little man
      little man 4 February 2014 11: 03
      0
      There are many justifications on the site. On the subject of aircraft carriers a lot of articles. And to arrange here another srach is no longer fun.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Llirik
      Llirik 4 February 2014 11: 16
      +1
      Well, it’s good that at the moment there is no need for it! ..
      If he is needed but not him - this is really a disaster.
      In the meantime, it’s all a pitchfork on the water: whether it will be, or not, or atomic, or non-nuclear, or with offensive weapons, or only with air defense ... Questions, some questions
      1. little man
        little man 4 February 2014 11: 20
        +6
        ..atomic and non-atomic. “The first will be bigger and more expensive, the second - a little less and cheaper
        This is a classic about crayfish smile
    5. The comment was deleted.
  5. Russ69
    Russ69 4 February 2014 10: 14
    +2
    Quote: morpogr
    Is the ice really breaking. Or is it a trial ball about whether or not they agree on the price.

    This is just an assessment of the project from the PCB. Yesterday they also announced a Russian Mistral-type large landing craft and estimated it at 20 billion rubles and the term of creation is 7-8 years. Until 2020, new aircraft carriers will not be built, they are not in the program and they are unlikely to change it, it is too expensive a pleasure.
    1. Associate Professor
      Associate Professor 4 February 2014 12: 45
      +3
      Quote: Russ69
      Until 2020, new aircraft carriers will not be built, they are not in the program and are unlikely to change it, too expensive a treat.

      If you stop financing the United States, you can pay three more such programs
  6. jjj
    jjj 4 February 2014 10: 15
    +1
    There are still two places where you can build steamboats of such tonnage - the Baltic Shipyard and Sevmash
  7. Aydar
    Aydar 4 February 2014 10: 27
    +8
    In order to defend their economic and political interests in the world of Russia, aircraft carriers and ships of new construction are needed.
  8. vark1979
    vark1979 4 February 2014 10: 30
    +5
    Where to build, there may be places. But where are the bases for them? In the north we have only the wall of the 35th plant and the Severomorsk raid smile Are there such places in the Far East? A fleet without basing places (where there is everything necessary to prepare for all the tasks) is not a fleet. There is no need to build something that you cannot competently and correctly exploit. It's like having a salary of 30 thousand rubles. buy yourself a vip-class royce royce. Either go broke or it will rot. Who was on the lower decks and will understand under floorboards wink Look at how many berths where there is still no electricity and they spend their diesel fuel on a diesel engine and they spend a diesel fuel. Bases need to be built, not mythological creatures! fool
    1. demon184
      demon184 4 February 2014 15: 48
      0
      In Greece, it would be nice to park 1 aircraft carrier with a support group.
  9. shitovmg
    shitovmg 4 February 2014 10: 30
    +2
    Nikolaev is on the horizon ... (sad joke).
  10. gladysheff2010
    gladysheff2010 4 February 2014 10: 31
    +2
    Money in the state is not the last thing and very much depends on the economic situation, which no one can predict for the next year or two, what can we say about the prospects after the 20th year. What our shipbuilders think is good, and then the cards will fall .
  11. Tol.Skiff
    Tol.Skiff 4 February 2014 10: 45
    +2
    Complete nonsense !!! By that time, while we are designing and building ... It will be yesterday already !!!
  12. morpogr
    morpogr 4 February 2014 10: 46
    +1
    Of course, it’s better when there is news about the laying of the Russian aircraft carrier, but so far only talk.
  13. Wiruz
    Wiruz 4 February 2014 10: 55
    +5
    I, of course, am an amateur in this matter, but an aircraft carrier should be atomic in any way, and it should be an aircraft carrier, not an aircraft-carrying cruiser - in place of cruise missiles, let it be better to place fuel tanks. Anyway, a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy can be built on the basis of the unrealized Ulyanovsk, only without a springboard. And I would like to see up to 90 aircraft in the air wing.
  14. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 4 February 2014 10: 56
    +1
    There is an interesting interview, the issue of the BDK was also discussed. It's a pity whoever posted the interview here omitted this part. It's also very interesting there. Gene. the director said that the plant is ready to build "Ivan Gren" in series, but there is no order yet. Our promising large landing complex will look more like a mistral, it will cost almost the same (200 billion rubles, and it is clear that during the construction process the price will climb), and it will take 8-9 years to build.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 4 February 2014 11: 12
      0
      550 million dollars and 7-8 years said. And not to Mistral, but he talked more about moving the superstructure forward - that is, a large single helicopter deck at the back. Like on Rotherdam.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 4 February 2014 14: 57
        0
        Yes, I attributed one superfluous toe, litter. Shifting the add-on is one option, but the landing principle itself will be similar to the mistral. Those. front gates are likely to be removed and will be planted by boats and helicopters. It’s not very clear why the garden is to be fenced if the agreement seems to provide for the construction of two mistrals at our shipyards.
  15. Scandinavian
    Scandinavian 4 February 2014 10: 56
    +4
    Country, let's throw ourselves together on an aircraft carrier, with the world on a thread, from the oligarchs on a ball ....
    1. askort154
      askort154 4 February 2014 13: 15
      +3
      Scandinavian ... Country, let’s throw ourselves together on an aircraft carrier, with the world on a thread, from the oligarchs on a ball ....

      So far it turns out like this: with the world on a thread - an oligarch on a ball (yacht).
  16. Jogan-xnumx
    Jogan-xnumx 4 February 2014 11: 00
    +7
    Dashing trouble is the beginning, as our ancestors used to say. The length of the sea borders of the Russian Federation is larger than land and leave them under the supervision of some guard ... what In addition, a full-fledged strike fleet is needed, one defensive doctrine is indispensable. Yes, and Russia has air bases only on the territory of Russia; if necessary, you won’t be able to fly away. In a word - it's time.
  17. abc_alex
    abc_alex 4 February 2014 11: 18
    +2
    Complete nonsense. Especially in the matter of price. Does the author take into account the costs of developing, for example, a carrier-based AWACS aircraft (or systems replacing it) and an electromagnetic (steam is doubtful for high latitudes) catapults? And the construction of bases? Does he take into account the cost of training wing wing pilots?

    The total cost of the "Russian Nimitz" program will be very, very large.

    Well, the "project" of Komoedov generally gives off a light madness. I apologize, but even the United States cannot afford to simultaneously maintain and develop an aircraft carrier fleet and a strategic naval missile and attack aircraft. :)
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. donavi49
    donavi49 4 February 2014 11: 20
    +1
    There is a great interview and forgotten several important points that should have been added to the article:

    - Because of what the transfer of the large landing ship "Ivan Gren" to the Russian Navy has once again shifted to 2015?
    - This ship was a little unlucky - the fleet changed the terms of reference for it three times, and financing was unstable. There was a significant delay in the supply of main engines, now the first has already been installed, the second is being mounted. Yantar shipyard insists on renegotiating the contract with new financing. Today, the plant formally does not have a valid contract with the Navy, everything is in the process of re-registration. Nevertheless, we continue to work on this project, and develop operational documentation.
    Now the building of "Ivan Gren" is ready, it is being saturated. Ship readiness is 50-60%. Financing will begin, work will go more actively. It’s hard to say how many ships will be in the series.
    There are no fundamental differences between "Ivan Gren" and the ships of the 775 project. Perhaps only the presence of a helicopter at the stern. The design is the same, just the new BDK has a slightly larger displacement.
    - Will the next BDK project be radically different from "Ivan Gren"?
    “Yes, of course.” It will be a more versatile ship for equipment based on it, landing methods. We have achievements, we reported them to the Navy Commander at a conference at the Kuznetsov Naval Academy, but so far there has been no further progress.
    Configuration of a promising "paratrooper" will be about the same. Perhaps outwardly it will look more like the Mistral, or its superstructure will move towards the bow, and the stern will be open. The options can be different, depending on what characteristics are set by the fleet. It will take 7-8 years to create such a ship, it all depends on the size, funding and the availability of cooperation. Such a ship will cost about 20 billion rubles.

    That's it - http://ria.ru/interview/20140203/992456922.html

    According to Gren - in September the first engine was shipped, and under the Christmas tree the second. By the way, the designers thanks a lot for this, they entered the new assembly of the GEM near Gren, which is piece-wise and is assembled literally by hand (since there is no series).

    According to the new BDK / DKVD / UDC, whoever said there Mistrals are not needed, WE WILL BUILD IT ourselves. So you the person who will design the ship clearly says:
    7-8 years to build and 550 million dollars per ship. In this case, most likely we are talking not about 20kt ships, but about smaller ones with a continuous flight deck such as San Gusto NG or with a shifted superstructure and aft deck Rotterdam.
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 4 February 2014 12: 57
      +2
      Quote: donavi49
      with offset superstructure and aft deck Rotterdam.

      I naively thought and believed that these projects were anachranism (negative feedback from helicopter pilots about WILD eddies and turbulence) worked out on the "Moscow":
      And over time, it turns out that neither Che nor anyone turbulence-turbulence created by the add-in is no longer confused.
      You can correct me everyone, but there are certain conclusions in general about the concept. belay
      And the conclusions are clearly in favor of the Mistral (like the UDC).
  20. mountain
    mountain 4 February 2014 11: 20
    0
    Watch the program "Military Secret" on the seventh channel from 03.02.2004. It shows how our planes were almost destroyed several times, amaki. aircraft carrier. It is dear to see and the myth disintegrated. In the same program, it is said that our military has been working since the 70s on the topic of floating islands and knows not badly all the vulnerabilities.
    1. Platov
      Platov 4 February 2014 13: 23
      +2
      "Watch the program" Military secret "on the seventh channel from 03.02.2004. It shows how our planes were almost destroyed several times, amaki. Aircraft carrier" In peacetime, the aircraft carrier has nothing to threaten, so they train in the distant detection of our planes and submarines ... Count who destroyed how much. Photos of the deck of sailors rushing about in the excitement of the show are not worth much.
      1. mountain
        mountain 4 February 2014 21: 19
        0
        I apologize, I was mistaken with the source, but in fact the comment is all right. And yet, I would agree to the account of peacetime, if not for the cost of the ship itself, the crew, equipment and the sudden appearance of our aircraft and barrage over karma itself. And this is not all, accompanied by security ships and submarines. Then I’ll tell you it wasn’t laughing, plus their negotiations were published. In a word, panic and horror. Not a single plane rose from the deck and the security service did not work. And this is not the first time this has happened. And, in wartime, we will call them with a warning, they say fly out, get ready, otherwise you will get into the sack.))))
  21. Altona
    Altona 4 February 2014 11: 27
    +5
    Quote: Scandinavian
    Country, let's throw ourselves together on an aircraft carrier, with the world on a thread, from the oligarchs on a ball ....

    --------------------------
    Maybe it makes sense to equip Abramovich’s yacht with an air wing and appropriate equipment, the size allows, and is it based in bourgeois harbors? request laughing
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 4 February 2014 12: 12
      +1
      Quote: Altona
      Quote: Scandinavian
      Country, let's throw ourselves together on an aircraft carrier, with the world on a thread, from the oligarchs on a ball ....

      Quote: Altona
      Maybe it makes sense to equip Abramovich’s yacht with an air wing and appropriate equipment, the size allows, and is it based in bourgeois harbors?

      Well-posed cry and question!
      I probably would have thrown myself off ...
      I always wanted to ask such a question -
      QUESTION AUG-manam - and you, dear ones, would agree to take off-give up to the last shirt (cars, cottages, apartments ... and much more) in order to get hold of this armada?
      After all, all the money of the oligarchs, taken together and taken away and launched for the construction of such an armada - is not enough. We tried in the USSR - it did not work, alas ...
      What would you do?


      Indeed, on subscription fees and "surplus confiscations" - the aircraft carrier ODYN (!) May be able to be built, of the "Kuzya" class,
      BUT!
      promising with catapults and a nuclear reactor + infrastructure for operation + foreign bases - definitely will not work ...
      For the alegarchs' fortunes are not in savings in the bank, but in shares / "ablications" / shares, etc. - you cannot withdraw ...
      Then it’s better to condescend to "quilted jackets and bunks in the barracks" for the entire population - is the game worth the candle?
  22. Horn
    Horn 4 February 2014 11: 33
    +1
    The cost of an aircraft carrier = the cost of several Serdyukovs. Or football teams. Or Abramovich’s yacht-planes with other Potanin-Deripaska. What do you need, country?
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 4 February 2014 12: 19
      0
      Quote: Horn
      the cost of several Serdyukov. Or football teams. Or yacht planes Abramovich with others

      ..there are only tens and hundreds of millions of liquid assets and savings, and yards and trilliards of free investment are needed ...

      There would be a "printing press" like the Fed - mona would have and maintain at least 5AUG and others like that, at the expense of 11% of robbery from the turnover of the rest of the world, and live happily ...
  23. Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 4 February 2014 12: 59
    0
    Well here again. Didn’t they smash copies? Or did they bring fresh spears?
    Now, excuse me, what are they needed? Who are we going to attack? Or where is such a "zone of vital interests" where there is simply no way without air locks?
    This constant jerking like "All-and-at once" will lead to the fact that there will be new weapons in the army, but only a little bit everywhere.
  24. Nick_1972
    Nick_1972 4 February 2014 12: 59
    +1
    Reading this kind of interview, one wonders about the competence of these figures. Recently, an article about Nakhimov’s repair plans was posted on this resource. The cost of the work was estimated at around 50 billion rubles. And now I have to believe that a promising aircraft carrier will cost only twice as much? They’ve got a plan there.
  25. project sity
    project sity 4 February 2014 13: 10
    0
    America is spent on the military power of the state! At the same time, this is correct, but no one can afford such costs as they do. The Chinese have generally minimal costs: | Let’s hope that Russia also doesn’t budge)) Hurry up already, otherwise it’s absolutely deplorable that such a large Russian empire has a small army) You can keep silent about China)))
  26. Platov
    Platov 4 February 2014 13: 39
    +2
    An aircraft carrier without naval bases around the world is of no value if we do not want to occupy a banana republic. We sunk a tanker with fuel and the whole group turned into one non-moving target.
  27. JonnyT
    JonnyT 4 February 2014 13: 47
    0
    The carrier is needed! In order to scare off state puppets if necessary ..... so that countries sponsoring terrorism do not feel safe!
  28. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 4 February 2014 14: 45
    +3
    In order for the Saudis to have enough corridor from Iran to get a dozen Tu-160s is enough, and for this loot it is better to stuff a dozen or two Severodvinsk nuclear submarines and think about the Granit anti-ship missile system and their modernization, otherwise I understand it as Granita they want to retire. Who in the course, clarify.
    PS I am not against aircraft carriers, but now we need modern multi-purpose submarines like air. Maybe I'm wrong I don’t know.
  29. Bene valete
    Bene valete 4 February 2014 14: 51
    +4
    In general, another empty chatter ... aircraft carriers, space intergalactic stations, laser swords ...)))

    But seriously, it is necessary to modernize the Russian ports or military bases, and this is the first and most important thing ... Although we will keep it longer and the new one will be in order.
    And what then, what is now to the wooden, dilapidated berth of the submarine (for millions of dollars) on the "rope" is tied, and from the coastal connections the wire for 220 ..) How many series rotted, Alpha 705 sorry for a pancake (((
    And remember our helicopter carriers, one might say they died in infancy, the entire resource of the "machine" at the berth was not worked out, and the hulls were also not covered with the "factory skin" everywhere. They would run now modernized and the Black Sea Fleet and the TF.
  30. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 4 February 2014 15: 55
    +1
    One gets the impression that someone needs to distract us from discussing something more serious and important for the country. And under the smokescreen of empty polemics, do some dirty trick! Or am I wrong? After all, there are more important things and tasks, but someone really wants to take us aside! Instead of analyzing the true state of affairs in the military-industrial complex and spending budget funds allocated on the revival of the fleet, we are forced to discuss another "Manilovism"! All this is very, very strange, if not suspicious!
  31. 120352
    120352 4 February 2014 15: 55
    0
    And what was the cost of the never-built stadium on Krestovsky? I don’t remember the exact numbers, but it is commensurate, and an aircraft carrier, if it is not made the same pump for kickbacks, is much more useful to the Fatherland and more needed!
  32. Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 4 February 2014 16: 01
    0
    This is not the aircraft carrier developed by FSUE Krylov State Scientific Center, also known as TsNII im. acad. AN Krylov ".
    The "premiere" of the layout of which took place on July 4 this year at the International Maritime Defense Show (IMDS-13) at a private display to the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy Viktor Chirkov and Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov.
    Description:
    Type - heavy strike aircraft carrier.
    Scheme - CATOBAR.
    Displacement - approx. 80 KT
    The power plant is non-nuclear.
    Travel speed - at least 30 nodes.
    Armament - 4 air defense systems of the "Polyment-Redut" type - 4 x 2 x 8 VPU
    Cost Planned:
    programs - approx. 400 billion rubles
    ship construction - approx. 80 billion rubles i.e. OK. $ 2,4 billion. For comparison, the cost of building ships of the "Nimitz" type is approx. $ 4.5-5 billion (the most expensive, the last - CVN-77 "George HW Bush" approx. $ 6.2 billion).
    Air group - "up to 40 aircraft".
    The layout shows the MiG-29K and the deck version of the PAK FA. On the "deck" of the layout - 21 T-50K and 8 MiG-29K. There are no other aircraft (in particular, AWACS) on the layout, as well as helicopters, although the basing of the latter is obvious - at least the search and rescue Ka-27PS. If it is confirmed that the aircraft carrier is not equipped with catapults, the basing of the Ka-31 AWACS helicopters is also seen as necessary. A large helicopter spot is marked aft.
    Three aircraft lifter.
    Design features:
    The first and most important point with which you need to decide - the way to start.
    Judging by the markings and the position of the aircraft, the ship, like most analogs, has an 4 launch.
    The first two definitely lead to the big springboard. Further - more difficult.
    According to the first published photo, one could quite definitely consider that we are dealing with the reincarnation of the combined STOBAR + CATOBAR scheme of "Ulyanovsk" - two starts lead to the springboard, two starts located on the angular landing deck were equipped with catapults. The absence of catapults somewhat reduces energy consumption (which is important since the ship of large displacement is planned to be non-nuclear) and simplifies the design, as well as explains the absence of AWACS aircraft models on the deck.
    Nevertheless, the very idea of ​​a supercarrier not equipped with catapults, and instead of them with two jumps, is very ... unusual.
    http://sandrermakoff.livejournal.com/372282.html#



  33. kelevra
    kelevra 4 February 2014 17: 27
    0
    Expensive, there is no dispute, but these ships are needed! Moreover, they do not need hundreds, even dozens, one for each fleet will be enough. The main thing is that these were not just conversations, but actions!
  34. bubla5
    bubla5 4 February 2014 19: 09
    +2
    At this stage, it’s dangerous for our country to rush into an arms race (building an AOG), it’s not easier to fixate on the destruction of these groups and delivery vehicles
  35. Leshka
    Leshka 4 February 2014 19: 57
    0
    I think Shaigu will make the right decision
  36. istemis
    istemis 4 February 2014 20: 59
    0
    I would pay 250 billion rubles for an aircraft carrier flying through the air (as in the movie "The Avengers" from MARVEL), but not like for an aircraft carrier floating on water, which will be morally and technologically obsolete for now (amers will have an aircraft carrier from MARVEL LOL) and will swell up in price like our Olympics.
  37. voliador
    voliador 5 February 2014 00: 27
    +2
    At first they would think over the concept of its application, and then they would talk about construction! And then, why the hell ... we need him - we don’t know yet, but let's build! Better a few missile cruisers of the ocean zone, with mixed missile weapons.
  38. Tol.Skiff
    Tol.Skiff 5 February 2014 00: 48
    -1
    I’m scared to even think about what they want ...