Military Review

Defexpo 2014. Aircraft carrier for sale!

86
Defexpo 2014. Aircraft carrier for sale!

"Military Parity" informs

At the Defexpo 2014 exhibition, the French shipbuilding company DCNS will present the model of the DEAC aircraft carrier (DCNS Evolved Aircraft Carrier, in the photo), the project of which is based on the design and aircraft fleet of the atomic aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle", February reports defenseworld.net 3.


On a prospective aircraft carrier, it is possible to operate all types of ejection take-off aircraft, including DRLO aircraft. It is equipped with all modern technologies, the latest conventional power plant, a ship hull stabilization system, the possibility of basing unmanned aerial vehicles.

In addition to the aircraft carrier, the company offers “individual technology transfer” and services for the creation of home infrastructure (including the construction of a naval base and technology for material and technical services).

The complex offered for sale is an aircraft carrier based on the Charles de Gaulle type. Among the aircraft carriers of other countries, it is the fourth largest (after the aircraft carriers of the USA, Russia (“Admiral Kuznetsov”) and Great Britain).



Key features (from Wikipedia):
Type - DEAC, prototype "Charles de Gaulle".
Displacement - 42000 tons (full).
Length - 261,5 m.
Width - 64,36 m.
Height - 75 m.
Engines - two water nuclear reactors K15.
Travel speed - 27 nodes.
Swim autonomy - 45 days.
Crew - 1200 people. (team) + 600 people (air group) + 100 people. (command).


weaponry
Aviation Group:
- up to 40 aircraft: Super Étendard, Rafale M, E-2C, SA-365;
- 36 fighter-bomber "Super Etander" or "Rafale-M";
- 2-3 of the Aircraft Depot E-2С “Hokai”;
- X-NUMX search and rescue helicopter AS-2 MB "Panther".

For the take-off of the aircraft are two steam catapults C-13F, manufactured in France under the American license. Aerofinists are able to take one plane every 36 with. Submission of aircraft from the hangar to the flight deck is carried out by two elevators located on the starboard side. A characteristic feature of the air group is the predominance of strike aircraft and the absence of anti-submarine squadrons. For comparison, American aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type with a displacement of about 100000 t carry 48 fighter-attack aircraft and 8 anti-submarine helicopters.

Electronic weapons include:
- BIUS “Zenith 8” (Senit Combat Management System, Model 8), capable of simultaneously accompanying up to 2000 targets on the surface, in the air and on the coast and automatically controlling the “Aster 15” system. The system can play the role of a hub of a communication network of 50 nodes, including ships, aircraft and ground command posts;
- Radar detection of airborne targets DRBJ-11В;
- 3-coordinate radar detection of air and surface targets DRBV-15D;
Radar early warning airborne targets DRBV-26D;
- 2 navigation radars DRBN-34 (Decca 1229);
- Radar flight control Racal-1229 and NP / BP-20A;
- Radar fire control radar Arabel;
- optical-electronic station for detection of air and surface targets DIBV-I Vampir.

The data transmission systems (NATO standard Link-16 and Link-11 systems) allow you to transfer information about the tactical situation from the Hokai AEW aircraft to the ships and aircraft of the compound.

The air defense systems installed on the ship are designed exclusively for self-defense, which corresponds to the American concept of assigning the air defense of the compound to escort ships.

The ship has a Satrap stabilization system, which supports roll within ± 0.5 ° and allows aircraft to be raised and received during an 6-point storm.

There are also electronic warfare systems ARBR-17 and ARBR-33, 4 AMBL 2A Sagaie system launchers (two on each side) for launching dipole reflectors at a distance of 8 km and infrared interference at a distance of 3 km) and SLAT protection system. .

Cost (estimated):
- with nuclear SS - 3,3 billion. USD;
- option with conventional power plant - 2,2 billion.

So, an interesting offer: you can not buy (where to put a comma?)
As potential buyers, apparently, are considered India, China, Russia ...

If we consider the purchase in relation to Russia:
"pros":
- tested and used in operation type,
- purchase of technologies and equipment: catapults, airborne early warning systems, UAVs, BIUS;

"minuses":
- imposed restrictions on the use of technology against the seller (NATO, USA) - do not apply;
- not entirely successful experience in the use of the prototype, more than half of 20 years of operation - standing by the pier and only one conditionally successful trip;
- risks, political and financial. Surely a generation of "cowboys" will try something to fuck with it - to veto the supply of E-2, catapults ...

On the other hand, the experience of buying Mistral (1,12 billion euros for two helicopter carriers) suggests the possibility of reaching an agreement and acquiring technologies. At the same time, the same purchases ate a possible disposable budget that could be used on aircraft carriers. At least a couple. One assembly in France, for example, and the other in our shipyards ...

On the third hand, maybe not in a hurry yet ...

For example, the Chinese (and we too) will introduce ballistic long-range anti-ship missiles to combat duty, you see, the prices of aircraft-carrying technologies will fall. Wait and see. Time is the best arbiter.
Author:
86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. sds555
    sds555 7 February 2014 07: 45
    +3
    If you decide to cooperate with France, then it would be better to give up on an aircraft carrier than on the Mistral, IMHO of course
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. invisibility
      invisibility 7 February 2014 08: 21
      +15
      If you want to be a great sea power, be nice to build your ships.
      Place orders at foreign shipyards, but only because you don’t have time for yours ...
      1. Ataman
        Ataman 7 February 2014 11: 26
        +4
        "Charles de Gaulle" is the most unsuccessful aircraft carrier in the entire history of the fleet. France abandoned the construction of a second such aircraft carrier. Now they are looking for suckers to suck in the trough.
        1. Rustam
          Rustam 7 February 2014 12: 19
          0
          Charles de Gaulle "the most unfortunate aircraft carrier in the entire history of the fleet. France refused to build a second such aircraft carrier. Now they are looking for suckers to suck in the trough."


          For starters, you compare the performance characteristics of de Gaulle and this trough is a trough, as you said, was born thanks to the use of de Gaulle, and DCNS made conclusions
    3. aktanir
      aktanir 7 February 2014 08: 47
      +6
      In principle, it is possible, without looking back at the frantic cries of cheers-patriots, to consider with France the possibility of acquiring a conditional pair of such aircraft carriers. At the moment, our shipbuilders are loaded with orders (including cutting money). There is no talk of building domestic aircraft carriers even in the long term. Some assumptions that do not have an official basis (even the project - and that at the initial stage).
      And at the moment, our fleet is better off having at least something than nothing. Poor Kuznetsov has long been in need of modernization.
      I am more than sure that if the government and our military begin to study the possibility of acquiring such a ship for the Russian army, then it will naturally be adapted to our conditions, our weapons, and our systems. THEREFORE DO NOT HAPPEN ANYTHING!
      But the fleet will be equipped with combat units. And not in ten to twenty years, but in the foreseeable future. You need to consider the idea of ​​buying and everything should be calculated.
      1. alex56
        alex56 7 February 2014 08: 52
        +1
        aktanir, fully support)
        Better a tit in a hand than a crane in the sky!
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. invisibility
        invisibility 7 February 2014 09: 39
        -1
        Quote: aktanir
        without looking back at the frantic cries of cheers patriots

        Are you tired of hanging labels?
        Maybe you are a cheer-traitor, if you offer to feed Western shipbuilders?
        Are you sure that NATO countries will sell high-quality weapons to Russia?
        Do you know that we are potential opponents?
        1. Retx
          Retx 7 February 2014 10: 13
          +2
          They will sell us a rope, on which we will hang them later. Marx did not read?
        2. Rustam
          Rustam 7 February 2014 12: 23
          +2
          Are you sure that NATO countries will sell high-quality weapons to Russia?



          I look at you here recently and missed a lot, especially on our Mistrals.

          invisibility
          Maybe you are a cheer-traitor, if you offer to feed Western shipbuilders?


          And who are you? VPK lobbyist who cuts the budget and does not offer anything innovative
          And yes, they announced the amount for the future aircraft carrier of 250 billionnot even having a catapult - offering a springboard
          1. invisibility
            invisibility 7 February 2014 13: 32
            +1
            Quote: Rustam
            I look at you here recently and missed a lot, especially on our Mistrals.

            Do not miss. I don’t understand, do you propose to admire the Mistral transaction? This is a question, not sarcasm.
            Quote: Rustam
            And who are you? VPK lobbyist who cuts the budget and does not offer anything innovative

            No, I'm the lobbyist of all Russian. You somehow strangely argue, in my opinion. The military-industrial complex does not offer anything innovative, so let's buy from France.
            And where is the data that does not offer? Maybe our state does not want to take?
            Well, maybe it is better to produce and modernize the BDK of Soviet projects in order to develop technologies, train personnel, and receive taxes? Or is it better to immediately be super innovative, but western? Is this cheers patriotism? Why are you yourself a lobbyist?
            1. Rustam
              Rustam 7 February 2014 14: 04
              +3
              invisibility
              Do not miss. I don’t understand, do you propose to admire the Mistral transaction?


              My position on our UDC is known to all

              Well, but it may be better to produce and modernize the BDK of Soviet projects


              First you ask where they were built and what dviglo there is. Yes, at the same time find out how much Ivan Grenn is already being built with dvigl which place in the museum outlandish products in Yantar in 5000 tons

              Or is it better to immediately be super innovative, but western?


              It is true that the innovation is based on it, and based on it, the Soviet Union did not hesitate to do this, extract technology and street where it was possible

              Why are you yourself a lobbyist?


              No, I just want the army and navy to be modern.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. invisibility
                invisibility 7 February 2014 15: 02
                0
                Quote: Rustam
                It is true that the innovation is based on it, and based on it, the Soviet Union did not hesitate to do this, extract technology and street where it was possible

                So why don't you agree with me?
                The Soviet Union imported technology and factories, as they say in bulk! To its territory, for its workers.
                I note that this all happened against the background of a much more alarming situation.
                And created a powerful Navy!
                And now, anyone who stands up for the construction of ships (and not only) at our shipyards is assigned the label "hurray-patriot" or a lobbyist of the military-industrial complex. Although I do not mind, yes I am a patriot, hurray - go ahead - for the homeland - but whatever. And I'd rather be a lobbyist for our military-industrial complex than for the western one.
                1. Rustam
                  Rustam 7 February 2014 15: 16
                  +1
                  invisibility
                  So why don't you agree with me?


                  Partly I agree, but it is necessary to build with technologies and certain systems that we don’t have, and if we can’t buy and build production and updates of the same shipyards on the basis of them

                  for technology, see my posts on Mistral below and on cooperation with France
                  Yes, now, just like that, no one will transfer technology, you need to order something from the seller, you must understand this

                  Although I am not opposed, yes I am a patriot, cheers - forward - for the homeland - yes, whatever


                  It bears you and you confuse concepts. All here are patriots, but basically different approaches
                  First, it is necessary to clean up the VPC and make them work as Taburetkin did
                  there are those who want to work and issue modern solutions, but there are those who are beating in the chest and trying to shove three roads on old solutions

                  Regarding the aircraft carrier - if we can’t build ships of 2-4 tons and this stretches for years? Acre probably 11356
                  But on the other hand, we want to build a fool without catapults and drills — without technology or systems — and this will stretch for at least 15 years
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. invisibility
                    invisibility 7 February 2014 16: 00
                    -1
                    Interesting conversation. Thank you
                    Quote: Rustam
                    Yes, now, just like that, no one will transfer technology, you need to order something from the seller, you must understand this

                    Not when, nor who will just give up technology! It’s just that the state needs a desire to have these technologies, either its own or its own. As it was during the USSR, they took advantage of the crisis and acquired licenses, technologies, factories with equipment, and specialists did not end there. Something bought, something not.
                    Quote: Rustam
                    You carry and you confuse concepts

                    Well, no, it doesn't carry me! And I do not confuse concepts.
                    Those answer to the question, have we ever had an ocean fleet? Have we ever created a diesel engine, gas turbine, nuclear power plant? What does cheer patriotism consist of? That in my opinion we are able to build an ocean fleet?
                    And about the aircraft carriers, it’s not yet clear to me how this fits into our tactics and strategy for the use of the Navy.
                    1. Rustam
                      Rustam 7 February 2014 16: 30
                      0
                      Interesting conversation. Thank you


                      stand in solidarity

                      As it was during the USSR, they took advantage of the crisis and acquired licenses

                      but it was in the 30s, and after the 50s they mined everything that is possible and on the basis of this they did it, learned to excuse us somewhere, somewhere they

                      Have we ever created a diesel engine, gas turbine, nuclear power plant?


                      created and did, and it was on the rise, but at the same time they did not fight in the chest but bought Finnish Wärtsilä for the USSR Navy and on their basis dorobatyvat theirand nobody said that it’s cuts and kickbacks By the way, they are standing on our Mistral, so when Rogoza once squealed that the lubricant in the Mistral is not the same system, I was lying under the table with laughter

                      As for the aircraft carriers, it’s not yet clear to me how this will fit into our tactics and strategy for using the Navy.


                      Honestly, too, but here everything is screaming loudly that we need our own Wunderwaffe - without catapults and many systems
                      although we can’t even build corvettes and frigates normally and we killed the project destroyers 956 to the end

                      But it’s not easier to order from them without nuclear warheads and get technologies and systems like air defense systems, radar systems, electronic warfare systems, other equipment — the same catapults (the Americans are tied up with them) to build at an updated shipyard with these systems (which we will do with us) )

                      But these are dreams — and unreal because lobbyists will never allow this to happen — they squealed through the Mistrals under Serdyukov

                      so don't lick your lips
              3. PSih2097
                PSih2097 7 February 2014 23: 46
                0
                Quote: Ataman
                "Charles de Gaulle" is the most unsuccessful aircraft carrier in the entire history of the fleet. France abandoned the construction of a second such aircraft carrier. Now they are looking for suckers to suck in the trough.

                Quote: Rustam
                My position on our UDC is known to all

                Regarding the UDC, I agree with you, in principle, the Tarawa of project 11780 could have been built in the same France, but for some reason they chose the "mistral".
                Quote: Rustam
                Quote: Ataman
                "Charles de Gaulle" is the most unsuccessful aircraft carrier in the entire history of the fleet. France abandoned the construction of a second such aircraft carrier. Now they are looking for suckers to suck in the trough.


                For starters, you compare the performance characteristics of de Gaulle and this trough is a trough, as you said, was born thanks to the use of de Gaulle, and DCNS made conclusions

                Regarding De Gaulle, I agree with you, you can buy one complete set, at least for training DRLO planes, and put MiGs in the wing, it’s not enough for Dryers ...
              4. The comment was deleted.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2014 14: 26
            +2
            Quote: Rustam
            And yes, they announced the amount for the future aircraft carrier in 250 billion, even having a catapult - offering a springboard

            Excuse me, how did you get the information that the aircraft carrier will not have a catapult (by the way, not for 250 billion, as you wrote, but for 100-250 billion, depending on the weapon systems installed on the AB)? This is the first. The second is the aircraft carrier Vlasov talks about http://warfiles.ru/show-47578-nazvana-stoimost-perspektivnogo-rossiyskogo-aviano
            sca.html is actually the same atomic as DEAC but it has a displacement of not 42-50, but 85 kilotons, which is a little (almost twice, well, who counts them for you) more than that of a Frenchman.
      4. VseDoFeNi
        VseDoFeNi 7 February 2014 19: 29
        +1
        It is better to revive the Nikolaev shipyards in Ukraine. Anyway, they’ll go crazy soon. Not long to wait. We are Ukrainians brothers, the French are not even neighbors ...
        1. Mista_dj
          Mista_dj 7 February 2014 20: 02
          +1
          Of course, the thought is sound!
          People where to get to these shipyards?
          A third of the city is trading in the plan, the rest is not concerned with ships.
          There is a miserable bunch of fans left
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 7 February 2014 23: 57
            0
            Quote: Mista_Dj
            People where to get to these shipyards?

            In the same place where the Eagles were built, Nikolaev shipyards will have to be restored, and restoration is usually more expensive than building from scratch, and whoever works there will be ...
          2. The comment was deleted.
    4. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 7 February 2014 09: 21
      +2
      They sell junk, they mess with their De Golem, they don’t know what to do with it, they’re going to write off it, but now they decided to sell the project ... it didn’t pay off, apparently they decided to look for a richer richer and more ambitious!
      1. AVV
        AVV 7 February 2014 09: 45
        0
        ShturmKGB
        They sell junk, they mess with their De Golem, they don’t know what to do with it, they’re going to write off it, but now they decided to sell the project ... it didn’t pay off, apparently they decided to look for a richer richer and more ambitious!

        We’ll need it, we’ll build it ourselves !!! Adapting systems will cost a pretty penny, and they’re not offering the latest, but we are not so rich that we would buy retro !!!
        1. Rus2012
          7 February 2014 10: 41
          +1
          Quote: AVV
          We’ll need it, we’ll build it ourselves !!! Adapting systems will cost a pretty penny, and they’re not offering the latest, but we are not so rich that we would buy retro !!!

          ... in my humble opinion, negotiations on the purchase should begin, sluggish, with an eye on the situation:
          - the financial and economic crisis continues, the hotstuff frogs survive for at least something
          - anti-aircraft technologies are being improved (BPCR for example ...)
          Proceeding from this and think ...
        2. Rustam
          Rustam 7 February 2014 12: 29
          +2
          AVV
          We will need it, we will build it ourselves !!


          I see how we build it ourselves? Gorshkov when they should have passed in the 9th year?

          Yes and not the newest offer


          And what an old chtol)))

          and we are not so rich that we would buy retro !!!


          And we are not so rich that we can pump in 250 billion rubles without having the normal construction of frigates and corvettes and support vessels, without any catapults or drills
          1. Don
            Don 7 February 2014 14: 59
            0
            Quote: Rustam
            having neither a catapult nor drlo planes

            In Ulyanovsk, they were going to put two Mayak steam catapults, and Yak-44 AWACS. So everything is there.
            1. Rustam
              Rustam 7 February 2014 15: 20
              0
              In Ulyanovsk, they were going to put two Mayak steam catapults, and Yak-44 AWACS. So everything is there.


              Why make 2 comments?

              Where are these catapults of the proletarian plant? Where is this yak-44?

              First, you probably need to arrange the construction of frigates and corvettes, and then already dream of AB with YaU

              Where to build there? In Nikolaev? Loaded sevmash? even begin hastily this utopia will be built about 15 years?

              Isn’t it easier with the French and on the basis of this is it already dancing?
              1. Don
                Don 7 February 2014 16: 27
                +1
                Quote: Rustam
                Why make 2 comments?

                Why is it copied, I wanted to delete the second one, but it did not go away. Admin advised to change the browser.
                Quote: Rustam
                Where are these catapults of the proletarian plant? Where is this yak-44?

                There are projects, and if there is, then you can always create. As an engineer, I can tell you that this is real.
                Quote: Rustam
                First, you probably need to arrange the construction of frigates and corvettes, and then already dream of AB with YaU

                I agree with that.
                Quote: Rustam
                Where to build there? In Nikolaev? Loaded sevmash?

                And why in Nikolaev it is impossible? In addition, where you can build there.
                Quote: Rustam
                Isn’t it easier with the French and on the basis of this is it already dancing?

                I just do not mind, especially since $ 3,3 billion is not a big amount for the Russian Federation.
                1. Rustam
                  Rustam 7 February 2014 16: 49
                  0
                  Don
                  There are projects, and if there is, then you can always create. As an engineer, I can tell you that this is real.


                  Agree to start production for the sake of 2 AB, when you can buy - it is unreasonable
                  problem They have a development based on the American. By license.
                  To put it simply, a shortened version of Nimitz's.


                  Although, with great desire, the French and ours can rivet on their knees themselves

                  And why in Nikolaev it is impossible? In addition, where you can build there.

                  Against unequivocally, we need our own shipyard based on French construction technologies or the modernization of Sevmash + a new shipyard to it

                  I just do not mind, especially since $ 3,3 billion is not a big amount for the Russian Federation.

                  No one will allow, they will bury him alive. Then the sum of 250 billion dollars at stake is building a fool with YaU
                  1. Rustam
                    Rustam 7 February 2014 17: 08
                    0
                    Don
                    I just do not mind, especially since $ 3,3 billion is not a big amount for the Russian Federation.


                    A more careful one with such statements, they can write in the fifth column and in the enemies of the people + they will say that you are for Taburetkin, that is, for kickbacks and cuts and looting of our homeland.
                    1. Don
                      Don 13 February 2014 17: 22
                      0
                      Quote: Rustam
                      A more careful one with such statements, they can write in the fifth column and in the enemies of the people + they will say that you are for Taburetkin, that is, for kickbacks and cuts and looting of our homeland.

                      I don’t know where they will write me, but I don’t see anything wrong with some purchases abroad. For example, I was not opposed to the purchase of the Mistral. Sometimes their opponents simply marveled at some opponents, who completely did not understand their functions, shouted why we needed them all the more so at the Pacific Fleet, as if Russia had no islands in the Far East. Or the type - yes, that these Mistral can against the Navy of China or Japan. So I am therefore not against the purchase of an aircraft carrier, all the more we can build our own in principle, but God knows how long it will take to develop the project and the construction itself.
                  2. Don
                    Don 13 February 2014 17: 15
                    0
                    Quote: Rustam
                    Agree to start production for the sake of 2 AB, when you can buy - it is unreasonable
                    problem They have a development based on the American. By license.
                    To put it simply, a shortened version of Nimitz's.

                    Although, with great desire, the French and ours can rivet on their knees themselves

                    In principle, I agree. Personally, my opinion. Now I consider it necessary to have at least one aircraft carrier in the Pacific Fleet. If it’s not necessary anymore, it’s better to build a French light aircraft carrier at the French shipyard together with the participation of the Russian Federation. Especially weapons and aircraft will be on it of Russian production. If, nevertheless, they decide that 3-4 more are needed, in addition to the already existing Kuznetsov, then again you can order one from the French, they will build it for 3-4 years, during this time you can design your own, based on, for example, Ulyanovsk, with using part of the technology of the French. It’s just that I don’t think you can completely buy everything abroad. You still need to have your own project. Then not only themselves could be built, but also China or India.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Don
            Don 7 February 2014 14: 59
            0
            Quote: Rustam
            having neither a catapult nor drlo planes

            In Ulyanovsk, they were going to put two Mayak steam catapults, and Yak-44 AWACS. So everything is there.
      2. Retx
        Retx 7 February 2014 10: 15
        +3
        We don't have such "junk" either.
      3. Rustam
        Rustam 7 February 2014 12: 26
        0
        ShturmKGB
        They sell junk, they mess with their De Golem


        Once again I say look at de Gaulle and this project is completely different things
        Yes, look how many problems with Kuznetsov


        apparently decided to look for a fool richer and more ambitious!


        And who told you that we’ll buy it-hmmm the arms lobby will never let this happen-on the horizon of 250 billion rubles and even more than +15 years of construction

        ETOGES can be provided for your great-grandchildren.
      4. Mista_dj
        Mista_dj 7 February 2014 17: 22
        +1
        I fully support!
        The French themselves about DeGoll - not a very high opinion, source: DeGoll air wing pilot.
        However, about our Kuz - they have the same reviews (with a condescending smile).
        It is not serious to expect that together with the hull, they will sell us the BIUS and the technology of AWACS - not seriously, Mistral is a clear proof of this.
        Another thing is that if we really needed the technologies of the landing helicopter carrier (there was nothing like this and was not foreseen), then in the case of an aircraft carrier, the situation is fundamentally different.
        And about nuclear power plants - even listening is ridiculous!
        The French in these matters are children!
        It’s just right for them to buy these pieces of iron from us, so, htosh will sell something !?
        1. Rustam
          Rustam 7 February 2014 17: 37
          -1
          Mista_dj
          The French themselves about DeGoll - not very high opinion, And about nuclear power plants - even to listen is ridiculous!


          It is without EI you do not read the post but figure it out and pread it tth below this post -there is no uh the author of the article stupidly typed in Vic de Gaulle and reposted it TTX-not understanding, specialists


          Mistral to that is a clear proof.


          For more details, see below for my post on Mistral and what they tell us there.
          1. Mista_dj
            Mista_dj 7 February 2014 17: 49
            +1
            Details of what?

            That nobody will ever sell us anything really worthwhile.
            The "based" project will most likely inherit the fundamentally unsolvable problems of the "parent": where a small displacement is not the most offensive.
            1. Rustam
              Rustam 7 February 2014 18: 01
              -1
              Mista_dj
              that no one will ever sell us anything really worthwhile


              You mentioned our udk Vladivostok and Sevastopol, so they didn’t sell to us, please, in more detail?

              If you say something and then stupidly drive off, and you don’t know what to say inappropriately
              1. Mista_dj
                Mista_dj 7 February 2014 18: 36
                +1
                First of all, do not be rude, especially to strangers!
                And then they will go stupidly - you won’t be glad.

                We read the letters, wiseacre: the French did not sell ANYTHING, as for the BIOS and AWACS.

                Nothing that will be applied (as a BIUS, and AWACS technology) in the next 5-7-10 years in the three Fleets of the Russian Federation.
                And you have to spin, yourself.
              2. Rustam
                Rustam 7 February 2014 19: 11
                0
                Mista_Dj (
                First of all, do not be rude, especially to strangers!
                And then they will go stupidly - you won’t be glad.


                Oh we are already on you? Why put in the black list so that it was impossible to answer your nonsense?


                We read the letters, wiseacre: the French did not sell ANYTHING, as for the BIOS and AWACS.


                about (BIUS) Zenith-9 heard? Apparently not. AWAC - from where on Vladivastok AWAC? do you even know what drl is?


                Mista_dj
                In the next 5-7-10 years in the three Fleets of the Russian Federation.


                actually we have 4 fleets and one flotilla! Yes, one more minus put me wink Yes chtol read a book for general development.

                All the best.
    5. Rustam
      Rustam 7 February 2014 13: 13
      0
      the author of the article does not need to compare this project with Charles de Golem, and then the people are already scared




      The main characteristics of the export aircraft carrier DEAC (DCNS Evolved Aircraft Carrier).

      Length (on flight deck): 272 m
      - Width (flight deck): 67,5 m (37,5 m at the waterline)
      - Displacement: 52000 tons
      - Cruising range: from 5000 to 9000 nautical miles
      - Stock autonomy: 35 days
      - Speed: 27 knots
      - Crew + flight crew of the air group: 900 + 650 people
      - Additional staff: 220 people

      - COGAG or CODLAG power plant with 2 shaft lines

      Aviation group (30 to 40 aircraft, such as Rafale, Hawkeye, NH90 or equivalent):

      - Flight deck area of ​​13700 m2
      - 2 x 90 m steam catapults
      - Three-way aerofinisher
      - emergency barrier
      - Area of ​​the hangar 4800 m2
      - 2 aircraft lifts

      - ASBU SETIS

      RES and armament (composition can be changed to customer requirements)
      - 3D multi-function early warning radar
      - 3D medium-range multi-purpose radar
      - EW system
      - UVP for medium-range missiles 8 cells
      - CIWS based on short-range SAM or ZAK small / medium caliber.
  2. Old_kapitan
    Old_kapitan 7 February 2014 07: 49
    +6
    it would be better to have waved to an aircraft carrier than to Mistral
    Given de Gaulle's sad experience, I don't think this is a good idea. Of course, IMHO. wink
    1. sds555
      sds555 7 February 2014 08: 19
      +1
      If you wish and the availability of funds, you can also make candy out of De Gaulle, the more he was a pilot, all the children's sores were opened on it and during the construction of the next they will be eliminated, and progress does not stand still
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2014 08: 27
        +2
        Quote: sds555
        If you wish and the availability of funds, you can make candy out of De Gaulle

        Nope. Too small.
        Quote: sds555
        and during the construction of the next they will be eliminated, and progress does not stand still

        Even if you try to assemble a nuclear carrier on the new and most modern technological base - in 42 thousand tons. It’s almost impossible to keep fit. And the French have old reactors and the same old catapults.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 7 February 2014 08: 47
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Even if you try to assemble a nuclear carrier on the new and most modern technological base - in 42 thousand tons. It’s almost impossible to keep fit. And the French have old reactors and the same old catapults.

          On a fig atomic? 42000 certainly not enough, but until 50000t. really raise, for the wing in 60 machines should be enough.
          1. aktanir
            aktanir 7 February 2014 08: 57
            0
            The calculation is: a thousand tons per unit of aircraft, respectively: 50 thousand tons - 50 cars.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 7 February 2014 09: 00
              0
              Quote: aktanir
              The calculation is: a thousand tons per unit of aircraft, respectively: 50 thousand tons - 50 cars.

              Which is also not enough.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2014 09: 14
              +3
              Quote: aktanir
              The calculation is: a thousand tons per unit of aircraft

              You forgot that in this calculation the first thousand tons begins with the sixteenth :))) That is an aircraft carrier in 85 thousand tons will carry up to 70 aircraft, and 50 thousand tons - respectively 35 aircraft.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2014 09: 12
            +2
            Quote: Nayhas
            On a fig atomic? 42000 certainly not enough, but until 50000t. really raise, for the wing in 60 machines should be enough.

            To be honest, hardly. See for yourself - on the 38 kiloton Vikramaditya of the standard displacement, the air group fell short of 30 aircraft. The British are building their 65-kiloton Queens for an air group of 40 aircraft. On our "Kuznetsov" according to the project, even more than 50 aircraft were not installed.
            And then - all the aircraft carriers I have listed do not have catapults. A pair of steam catapults is about 3-3,5 thousand tons of weight + more powerful power to give steam generators energy. In general, it seems to me that an aircraft carrier in 50 kilotons and without catapults will pull on the strength of the 40-45 LA, rather even less.
          3. Rus2012
            7 February 2014 10: 50
            +1
            Quote: Nayhas
            for the wing in 60 cars should be enough.

            Do you need 60? laughing bully
            Conduct an assessment in total:
            - the number of deployment of wing
            - the sum of the tasks to be solved and their need
            - accident rate depending on concentration
            If this front-drum passage scares the Papuans (who arrested our fishermen there?)
            I don’t think they’ll have to conquer something like the Fonklands, at least in the near future
            And UN operations - please!
            Conditional blocking of the make-believe coast of Georgia and the like - please
            Demonstrative support for Cuba-Venezuela and the cover of Tu-160 routes from the Kulumbi drug dealers - by itself ...
            Yes, and dousing Greenpeace fragile little vessels with slops is elementary!laughing bully
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 7 February 2014 08: 43
      +1
      Quote: Old_Kapitan
      Given de Gaulle's sad experience, I don't think this is a good idea. Of course, IMHO

      If we take with the classical GEM, i.e. a couple of powerful gas turbines, then there should be no problems.
      1. Rus2012
        7 February 2014 10: 58
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        If we take with the classical GEM, i.e. a couple of powerful gas turbines, then there should be no problems.

        ... I also think the same
        On the other hand, "to inscribe" your own compact nuclear power plant, too, there are no special problems ... In any case, with the second one - which is to collect nuno on its own stocks ... laughing
    3. Rus2012
      7 February 2014 10: 43
      0
      Quote: Old_Kapitan
      Given the sad experience of "de Gaulle"

      This is the trump card in the negotiations! laughing
      On the other hand, to demand the elimination of stocks and the adoption of measures ...
  3. kagorta
    kagorta 7 February 2014 07: 54
    +1
    First you need to work out the electromagnetic catapult yourself (which the Chinese are already doing). As the French with conventional GEM steam catapults are going to use. Not really enough power?
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 7 February 2014 08: 48
      0
      Quote: kagorta
      As the French with conventional GEM steam catapults are going to use. Not really enough power?

      Why not? There are two catapults.
      1. kagorta
        kagorta 7 February 2014 10: 06
        +1
        Energy costs are too high. There is too much steam needed. Therefore, amers have atomic carriers. And two catapults are not four like amers. So I don’t know. Even the British idea about Queen Elizabeth with VTOL is better in my opinion. In short, an aircraft carrier for colonial countries, such as expensive beads.
        1. Rus2012
          7 February 2014 11: 00
          0
          Quote: kagorta
          . Even the British idea of ​​Queen Elizabeth with VTOL

          ... this we have already passed ...
  4. alex56
    alex56 7 February 2014 07: 58
    0
    Of course, subjective, and why not?
    Our shipyards, of course, need to be loaded and developed. However, until our industry "grows" to aircraft carriers, it will take a long time (no matter how regrettable). And the aircraft carriers are needed now !!! There will be something to replace "Kuznetsov" with when it is sent for repair. Yes, and for training carrier-based aircraft will not hurt. Well, don't forget about technology.
  5. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 7 February 2014 08: 02
    +9
    Some kind of inferiority in relation to yourself. Third world countries are chasing our weapons, we are trying to buy something abroad (the same steamers "Mistral"). Although we ourselves perfectly cope with technological hunger, and sometimes we surpass the West vaunted by the liberals in many ways. There is a certain base in the aircraft manufacturing industry - upgrade, develop, get up off your knees. Nooooo ... All the same, "the West is getting better, but we are pygmies."
    In the Union there was an ideology of superiority over the enemy and we zealously developed and moved forward. And today where will we come with slavish worship of the West? That's the same. Therefore, it is less necessary to look at these finished Western projects (and at least Serdyuk would be led) and it is better to invest in the development of our own school of shipbuilding. The initiative is already there, it goes somewhere in the Mediterranean. soldier
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 7 February 2014 08: 23
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      All the same, "everything is better in the West, but we are pygmies."
      In the Union there was an ideology of superiority over the enemy and we zealously developed and moved forward. And today where will we come with slavish worship of the West?

      Andrei, this is all right, only in some positions the gap is very large, in my opinion, you can do everything in parallel, develop your own, while purchasing the best in the West.
      1. Konsmo
        Konsmo 7 February 2014 10: 19
        +1
        When the gap is large, you need to see if the leader is on the same road. bully
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 7 February 2014 10: 29
      +1
      The General Nevsky Design Bureau disagrees with you:

      - 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 delivery of the main engines, now the first has already been installed, the second is being assembled. Yantar shipyard insists on renegotiating the contract with new financing. Today the plant does not formally have a valid contract with the Navy, everything is in the process of being reissued. Nevertheless, we continue to work on this project, 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 aft platform. 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.
      The configuration of the 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. The creation of such a ship will take 7-8 years, 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.
    3. Rus2012
      7 February 2014 11: 02
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Some kind of inferiority in relation to yourself. Third world countries are chasing our weapons, we are trying to buy something abroad (the same steamers "Mistral").

      ... at the same time, the yankers of the same thing are taking from abroad. The same chips ... metalwork ... power units.
      We even ordered a platform for the radar ...
  6. samoletil18
    samoletil18 7 February 2014 08: 02
    +5
    As I saw the title of the article in the announcements, I was frightened a little: I thought the Indians decided to push "Vikramaditya". And so it was relieved.
    Regarding the article: how many escort ships do you need for 1 aircraft carrier? And how much with "Kuznetsov" in the Mediterranean? And 4 "Mistrals. As long as the situation allows, Russia will have time to develop its own project, build (there are Soviet developments on catapults), test, train aviators and put them into operation.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 7 February 2014 10: 32
      0
      With Kuzey:
      TARK Peter the Great
      BOD Levchenko

      But if necessary, would be:
      RKR Moscow (now in Sochi)
      RKR Varyag (now he left home from SM - because he is not needed, but he was driven as an amplification, when it could really break out, even the 100 anniversary of the Australian Navy ignored where he was declared).
      TFR / BOD - 1-2
  7. Takashi
    Takashi 7 February 2014 08: 12
    0
    eh .. I would buy if there was money. :(
  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2014 08: 15
    +8
    Nope :) Not our choice
    Firstly, a project based on de Gaulle. What is de Gaulle? Victim of economy, and after all, the wise warned - do not shove unpickable. I do not know what was finalized / reworked there, but only the displacement is scanty, the air group has not undergone any changes in terms of the number of changes, but one cattopult was added. And a cattopult is a heavy thing, together with communications and steam generators, it can pull out a couple of thousand tons. So this DEAC does not look reliable, also taking into account the fact that France has reactors ... not that, in general. They had problems with de Gaulle reactors.
    The author writes
    If we consider the purchase in relation to Russia:
    "pros":
    - tested and used in operation type,
    - purchase of technologies and equipment: catapults, airborne early warning systems, UAVs, BIUS;

    The fact of the matter is that the "type" has not proven itself in operation, well, absolutely and in any way. Maybe "De Gaulle" turned out to be better than "Kuznetsov", but if you compare how much money was invested in the development of "De Gaulle" ... we probably did not receive so much of the entire Navy :))) So the type is frankly unsuccessful.
    As for the purchase of technology and equipment ... First, the French are selling the AIRPLANER. And not the air wing to him. Therefore, there can be no question of any E-2C "flying radars" (which, of course, are not produced in France, these are US-made aircraft) or UAVs (I wonder what kind of UAVs the French Navy got ?!). Here are the deck Rafals - yes, if we ask them, they will sell them, but why do we need Rafal, if our Mig-deck is in general a car of the same class? And about BIUS - it's even somehow funny. We bought the BIUS together with the "mistralks", has the author forgotten? :))) I will not laugh at the very idea of ​​combining the French BIUS and our technology, but be that as it may, the fact is that we have already bought it and why do we do it a second time? :)
    And what else? Antediluvian French K15 reactors with which the French themselves grabbed problems at De Gaulle? Or cat remote control, damaged from American steam of the last century?
    Aircraft carrier a small, promising deck aircraft (based on the PAK FA) will not fit there. And Mig-29K is today. Everyone is a good plane, but today tomorrow will be yesterday ...
    In general, thanks, no laughing
    The only option is that if we don’t even lay our own AV in the near future, then it may be worth considering the option to buy one of these in the cheapest configuration, just as a training ground for pilots of Russian carrier-based aviation, because Kuznetsova doesn’t want to do this - he needs repair it's time, and - many years
  9. timhelmet
    timhelmet 7 February 2014 08: 20
    +2
    Quote: samoletil18
    As I saw the title of the article in the announcements, I was frightened a little: I thought the Indians decided to push "Vikramaditya". And so it was relieved.
    Regarding the article: how many escort ships do you need for 1 aircraft carrier? And how much with "Kuznetsov" in the Mediterranean? And 4 "Mistrals. As long as the situation allows, Russia will have time to develop its own project, build (there are Soviet developments on catapults), test, train aviators and put them into operation.

    You speak. We will grow ourselves. Ours (if there is one), then a cut above and "steeper", while their nimties with heads will already start to rake to the impoundment parking lot. Its own it is somehow calmer.
  10. Zubr
    Zubr 7 February 2014 08: 24
    +1
    Quote: samoletil18
    In addition to the aircraft carrier, the company offers “individual technology transfer” and services for the creation of home infrastructure (including the construction of a naval base and technology for material and technical services).


    lol Well, I look at all this ..) I'm laughing ..) All this reminds me of a paintball gadget store. wink Every whim for your money.. smile You have fun, rattle your weapons! And we will create any weapon for you. smile Or for example, we can sell a thermonuclear bomb or missile and licensed maintenance for the next 30 years. lol Sorry for sarcasm for God's sake .. smile
  11. ikken
    ikken 7 February 2014 08: 31
    +1
    You can take as a training. In the cheapest configuration. And the half-hull was built in order at our shipyards - then it will be easier to build your normal one.
  12. Nitarius
    Nitarius 7 February 2014 08: 32
    0
    Quote: kagorta
    First you need to work out the electromagnetic catapult yourself (which the Chinese are already doing). As the French with conventional GEM steam catapults are going to use. Not really enough power?

    THERE IS NO TIME TO GIVE THE MILITARY TECHNOLOGY OF THE FLIGHT - UFO!
    THERE ARE THERE ... THE QUESTION WHEN IN THE MILITARY WILL GIVE THEM!

    Published Mar 28, 2012
    In Italy, an eyewitness managed to shoot on the phone as two planes accompanied a UFO
  13. crazy_fencer
    crazy_fencer 7 February 2014 08: 33
    +5
    There is a good saying: "If you want to ruin a country, give it an aircraft carrier." No, guys, you only have to build such things yourself. And so - Zubr is absolutely right: any whim for your money. Especially regarding the basing infrastructure, it delivers ...
  14. Old_kapitan
    Old_kapitan 7 February 2014 08: 39
    +3
    And the hull was built to our shipyards
    And, forgive, what half we will build - left, or right?
    1. VadimL
      VadimL 7 February 2014 09: 26
      +1
      Quote: Old_Kapitan
      And, forgive, what half we will build - left, or right?

      Lower. laughing
  15. Nayhas
    Nayhas 7 February 2014 09: 15
    0
    Gentlemen, this project was not in vain brought to India. Those. This project is proposed specifically to the Indians. Why for them? Pros:
    -will be built in India;
    -In India, it is planned to produce Rafali, so the Indians can do the ship version at home;
    -India produces powerful gas turbines under the license of GE, four of them are installed on the Wikrant aircraft carrier, therefore, if the aircraft carrier is in the non-nuclear version, there will be no problems with the power plant;
    - Aircraft AWACS India can buy from the United States, they themselves suggested to buy E-2D.
    Those. there are no obstacles to the project, the question is money.
    Currently, the process of taking measurements from the genitals between India and China is in full swing, taking into account news from China, where it seems like they are building a full-fledged aircraft carrier and work is underway on an EM catapult, the probability that the Indians will decide is quite high.
    PS: It is surprising that the Americans openly slapped the moment, although in terms of aircraft carriers, they got the most out of hand.
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 7 February 2014 15: 41
      0
      Nayhas Gentlemen, this project was not in vain brought to India


      This project was shown at EVRONAVALE-2012, and the photo (layout) was actually shot from there

      it is for your overall development
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 8 February 2014 08: 05
        0
        Quote: Rustam
        This project was shown at EVRONAVALE-2012, and the photo (layout) was actually shot from there

        it is for your overall development

        Thank. I am developing!
  16. Duke
    Duke 7 February 2014 10: 06
    +1
    The Baltic Shipyard made the first part of Mistral by 20% and the second ship by 40%. Our shipbuilders are restoring their former skills. So you can reach the aircraft carrier, the experience in building nuclear ships at the Baltic plant is huge.
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 7 February 2014 12: 43
      +3
      Duke
      The Baltic Shipyard made the first part of Mistral by 20% and the second ship by 40%. Our shipbuilders are restoring their former skills.


      You do not express such stupidity and naivety anymore, but you are forgiven
      once and for all I will tell you about the UDC Vladivostok and Sevastopol


      It’s just a case, they dealt with the fact that with the French (pedantic) there are specific deadlines in the contract and for any delay fines, that’s why they worked at the Balt plant in 3 shifts, maybe if they want

      But again but

      The construction of UDC Vladivostok and Sevastopol is a click on the nose of our clowns with USC

      -This is exemplary indicative work with subcontractors and the work of equipping the ship inside in record time (which we can only do in a dream)

      It’s one thing to build a dummy case, lay all the systems, the product range is thousands (from cables and switches to main diesels) —and do it in such a record time.

      And the fact that our UDC will be equipped with the latest systems is not an indicator of confidence between the two countries of France and Russia, the level of automation and innovation for our fleet is simply fantastic

      Let me remind you 160 people of the team on a fool of 21000 tons -that is why the most serious attention should be paid to crew training

      And the latest systems that will be cherished on our UDC-in the current situation can only give France -type VAMPIR NG (used on surface ships of various classes in the naval forces of Australia, Italy, Korea and France-including the flagship of the French Navy -the aircraft carrier Charles de gol) and others from Thales-Sagem (Safran) - is this not a sign of trust between countries


      here is a video to have an idea - from the same EOMS-NG line


      PS-sums up, our lobbyists will never allow this deal to happen, never, such a cow is needed by yourself! and if anyone in the Moscow Region even thinks, his fate will be unenviable (there is a compromise on everyone)
      Although to build one of them and we have updated the shipyard on the basis of their technologies, to build a new base and so on -and in just 5 years

      Yes, under the Soviet Union, the Soviet Navy was chasing after all the know-how and development in the West through the purchase, exploration and construction -and there it was not considered a betrayal


      And now clowns with USC are building ships for us for 10 years wringing unrealistic price tags
      1. Rus2012
        7 February 2014 14: 16
        +1
        Quote: Rustam
        And the fact that our UDC will be equipped with the latest systems is not an indicator of confidence between the two countries of France and Russia, the level of automation and innovation for our fleet is simply fantastic


        ... for this trust went long 20let.
        I remember 90-91 ...
        Exhibition something called "Aviation", also at VDNKh (flight unit in Zhuk)
        We just started with chips ... then - digital FADEC with our logic and software, thermal imagers ... joint MLRS ... and now we got to UDC laughing
        Typical modern representatives of electronic control equipment with full responsibility of FADEC, and even ours were 5-10 times larger ...
        1. Rustam
          Rustam 7 February 2014 14: 58
          +1
          .. for this trust went a long 20 years.


          It’s true that we have been working with the same Sagem (Safran) and Thales since 1993 and the trust is tremendous and most importantly they are ready to transfer innovative technologies. That's why I always said that France is that key for us in terms of obtaining innovations and new technologies

          Look at the same udk - they give us everything, unlike the dummy doco (80% of American systems) that offered to build the USC

          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2014 15: 10
            +1
            Quote: Rustam
            True, we are working with the same Sagem (Safran) and Thales since 1993 and the trust is colossal and most importantly they are ready to transfer innovative technologies.

            So let them convey, WHY why should the aircraft carrier also buy technology? :)
            1. Rustam
              Rustam 7 February 2014 15: 27
              0
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              So let them convey, WHY why should the aircraft carrier also buy technology? :)


              It would be gorgeous, but there are no fools. Order and we will give you

              This is a world practice both with us and with them.

              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2014 15: 31
                +2
                Maybe I don’t know what, but I don’t see new technologies for which it would be worth buying an aircraft carrier.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  17. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 7 February 2014 10: 15
    0
    This is by accident not the aircraft carrier that came out after the repair, made a circle and back for repairs?
  18. Wiruz
    Wiruz 7 February 2014 11: 24
    0
    ABOUT! Must take! Just in addition to the Mistral. Then you look and go to Raphael! (golem sarcasm) But seriously, why Russia does not sell ships. Well, seriously, not aircraft carriers, of course, you have only to dream of them, but at least MRK or corvettes. And the plants will not stand idle (although now, thank God, they’re not worth it) and the country's image is plus.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2014 11: 37
      +1
      Quote: Wiruz
      But seriously, why Russia does not sell ships

      uh ... still how to trade. Vikramaditya bargained, 6 talwar frigates, submarines of the "Varshavyanka" type to Vietnam and others and so on. Your fleet would be like that!
  19. svp67
    svp67 7 February 2014 12: 08
    0
    Aircraft carrier for sale!
    ... A characteristic feature of the air group is the predominance of attack aircraft and the absence of anti-submarine squadrons ...
    ... The air defense systems installed on the ship are intended solely for self-defense, which corresponds to the American concept that assigns air defense connections to escort ships ...

    Which is GENTLY, simply INCREDIBLY suggests that THEN it is necessary to buy ships for PLO and air defense ..., for BALANCE. yes
  20. Mista_dj
    Mista_dj 7 February 2014 17: 38
    +1
    I think Russia should not be considered as a (even) potential buyer.
    It’s more likely for the French to learn from us ...
    And India - yes, all the same, no matter how they tried, but after Vikra - the sediment remained ... and not small.
    A yellowish - God himself commanded. They, whatever they buy now for Aviks - all progress!
    Their current state: for anything, Pshyk everywhere!
    They can’t build a cabinet or a filling worthy for them, they can’t!
    I am silent about the air wing.
    They still have little guts to compete with mattress mats at sea, but to be rude to Taiwan, even such rubbish as the "self-powered" deGolle will be just right!
  21. alone
    alone 7 February 2014 20: 13
    +1
    having an aircraft carrier is still half the battle. You still need to create an escort group, preferably from modern ships.
    1 aircraft carrier does not solve anything.
  22. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 7 February 2014 20: 17
    +2
    Quote: Rus2012
    ... at the same time, the yankers of the same thing are taking from abroad. The same chips ... metal structures ... power units. Even the platform for the radar - we ordered ...

    This is all good. But we need to take precisely what we really cannot create. Further, what we take should not adversely affect the country's defense capability. This mainly concerns radio electronics, so that it would not work out like in Yugoslavia, when at the moment of truth the connection based on Western technologies disappeared. It is necessary to take for comparison with domestic technologies for the further improvement of their products of the military industry. And this applies primarily to the level of material processing, the chemical industry, physics of alloys, optics, engine building, sopromat, and further in this vein. And do not take something as a whole, because it is pointless. Take the finished product in order to gut it and see the filling? But the filling is adapted to the finished product and separately may not be of interest. And something to pull out of the sample for implementation in its own can only mean that its will be an analogue of the sample. And not the fact that it is better.
    And my opinion is that not everything is so cloudless in our industry. It’s just that sometimes you need to connect and approach the brain to solve some problems creatively. Then we will go to different exhibitions only in order to laugh at their advanced technologies in our hearts and say that we have passed this long ago and you guys live yesterday repeat
  23. aleksandrs95
    aleksandrs95 7 February 2014 22: 08
    0
    I don’t want to offend anyone, but as said at the most competent level. We regained competence in building aircraft carriers after a very serious refurbishment and modernization of Gorshkov. So the question of buying or building is not worth even in theory. The only thing about electro-magnetic catapults, but and here our science has already stated that some models are available and it’s the matter of financing this development. The question is about 8-10 years. But we’ll get an absolutely more sophisticated system than the French. I don’t even have to dream, the Frenchman will not work for our military, very is weak.
  24. The comment was deleted.