Military Review

With sadness on aircraft carriers

167
With sadness on aircraft carriers



One of the outcomes of the Second World War in the development of naval armaments was the unconditional confirmation for aircraft carriers of the status of the main striking force in sea (ocean) theaters of military operations. At the same time, few people remember that in Russia the idea of ​​creating such a class of warships as an aircraft carrier arose at the dawn of the last century.

FLOATING AERODROMES

One of the first to create a warship designed to base aircraft on it was proposed back in 1909 by Lev Matsievich, captain of the Marine Engineers Corps and one of the first Russian aviators. According to his plan, a promising ship, an aircraft carrier, was supposed to have a hinged flight deck and provide for the base of 25 aircraft on it. However, this and a number of other proposals were ignored due to the increase in coastal capabilities. aviation in the Baltic and the Black Sea.

As a result, Great Britain became the trendsetter on aircraft carriers in the First World War, and the United States in the Second World War. And if, to its beginning, the USA, Great Britain, Japan and France had aircraft carriers before 20, then during the war years it was built, taking into account the aircraft carriers that were completed in the first post-war years, around 200. In the USSR, during the aforementioned period, it was not up to the construction of ships of this class, although the Navy command, in its 1944 considerations of the year regarding the shipbuilding program for 1945 – 1947, proposed to complete the design of aircraft carriers for ocean fleets.

It was believed that only for the North fleet six large and six escort aircraft carriers will be required. However, at the end of 1945, the Council of People's Commissars approved the “Ten-Year Military Shipbuilding Plan for 1946–1955,” declaring the proposal to build eight aircraft carriers premature. Only in 1975-1987 did the four naval vessels of the Kiev type enter the USSR Navy, capable of carrying not only helicopters, but also vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL), with a nominal total number of all aircraft (LA) of 30–35 units.

In the second half of the 1980-s in the USSR, two practically identical heavy aircraft carrier cruisers (TAVKR) were built: “Admiral Kuznetsov” (11435 project) and Varyag (11436 project) with a displacement of 60 thousand tons, capable of carrying up to 50 aircraft. Springboard and aerofinishers allowed the use of aircraft with the usual method of take-off and landing. The first ship in the 1990 year became part of the Navy of the USSR, the second one entered the 2013 year in the Chinese Navy.

After the normalization of the economic situation in Russia and the growth of spending on national defense, the command of the Russian Navy once again began to think about the development of aircraft carrier forces. So, in the 2005 year, the press reported that our naval commanders were planning to build four multi-purpose aircraft carriers; in 2007, we were already talking about six aircraft carriers — three each for the Northern and Pacific fleets. However, later the dates of their entry into the fighting composition moved significantly, and then the question completely hung in the air. However, while money for aircraft carriers and is not expected. On the other hand, it is obvious that the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) is interested in aircraft carriers, since the construction and repair of ships of this class as part of a stable shipbuilding program promises a guaranteed and permanent income for the next 50 – 70 years. It is equally obvious that the NNS 2020 leadership will not have the year to carry out any long-term program for the integrated construction of aircraft carrier strike groups, since the main efforts are focused on replacing old strategic missile submarines with new ships and on building and repairing ships. The general-purpose naval forces needed by the fleet in the first place. Consequently, there is time to think about whether aircraft carriers are needed for Russia and which ones. In this case, usually refer to the experience of other countries.

SHOCK FLEET FIST

Today, there are nine countries in the world that have aircraft carriers, and the United Kingdom will soon join them again. The United States has the strongest and most numerous aircraft carrier forces — they outnumber the rest of the world’s “aircraft carrier” countries of the world by the number of aircraft on their aircraft carriers. The aircraft carrier is involved in the struggle of the "fleet against the fleet" of the enemy and in the fight of the "fleet against the coast" of the enemy. Since the US Navy does not currently have a decent enemy at sea, the struggle of the "fleet against the coast" has become the main one. Therefore, for aircraft carriers and carrier strike groups (AUG) as a whole, the task of winning air and sea domination in the coastal area of ​​the AUG maneuvering, gaining air superiority in the combat zone, attacking the coast, supporting ground forces (ground forces and working together with them, the marines) prevail over the tasks of providing landing, blockade or escort actions.

In 1998, at a hearing in the US Congress, a vivid description of the American atomic multipurpose aircraft carrier was given. The ship is designed to take part in 200 major crises and in three major conflicts. During 50 years, 500 will provide thousands of aircraft / helicopters take off / landings, spend 6 days at sea during this time, and 3 million will pass during this time. miles In the sea, an aircraft carrier is one-third of its life, an average of 10 thousand aircraft departures a year from it.

The capabilities of an aircraft carrier are primarily determined by the number of sorties and the number of targets hit during a certain period of time. Here are the results of a training experiment conducted with the Nimitz aircraft carrier as early as 1997. For four days, its air wing made a 1001 departure, of which 80% fell to F / A-18 fighter-attack planes, F-14 interceptor fighters and EW-EANXX e-fighters, and E-6 anti-aircraft, anti-aircraft S-20 aircraft and C-2 transport. It turned out that flights at this rate could continue for two more days. To some extent, this experience came in handy after a year during a four-day military operation against Iraq.

It should also be noted that as of the end of the twentieth century, naval experts of the United States believed that from an aircraft carrier per day for a twelve hour period of time with a cycle of one and a half hours in eight waves with 15 – 17 aircraft in the wave can be safely performed using 120 – 130 departures (with five or six flight days and with one or two days to restore combat capability per week). When creating a new generation of aircraft carriers such as "Gerald Ford" (CVN 78) expected to increase the usual rate of departures to 160, and around the clock - to 270 departures per day.

What is the actual performance of the American aircraft carriers?

The following figures were officially announced: before 1975, an aircraft carrier could hit a day at a distance of 370 km of 23 coastal objects, in 1991 - 162, in 1994 - 680 and in 2007 - 1080 objects. And if earlier several planes were assigned to one target, now one plane is striking, using high-precision weaponseveral goals. A report by the Congressional Budget Office of November 2013 of the year said that a Nimitz type aircraft wing could make 95 departures every day to use weapons using four nine hundred hundred kilograms aerial bombs on each aircraft (apparently, they were using these high-precision guided bombs in combat radius of airplanes about 1th. km).

Why is the performance calculation of the aircraft carrier carried out by senior officials at a distance of 370 kilometers? 50% lives in the urbanized world more than 370% at a distance of 75 km from the shores of the oceans and seas, and at a distance of 925 km - 95% of the total population. Thus, the aircraft carrier protects the interests of the United States in areas where almost 75% of the world's population live from the threat of destruction of the enemy with conventional (non-nuclear) weapons on the first day of 1080 objects, for the first four days 4320, etc. He can act on the areas of residence and 95% of the world's population, however, with less intensity. And since aircraft carriers create a “swarm” before the regional war (five or six AUGs are combined into one AUS — carrier strike force), these figures increase accordingly, allowing naval commanders to count on a victorious conclusion of the military conflict for 30 – 45 days.

It is useful to remember about the possibility of returning nuclear weapons to aircraft carriers, which was on board American aircraft carriers from 1950-s to 1992 year and was intended for use by the USSR and its allies in accordance with the strategic and regional plans of the United States and NATO. After the removal of nuclear aircraft bombs from aircraft carriers and the ability to keep aircraft carriers stored in 1993, the carrier-based aircraft to carry nuclear bombs provided for the possibility of returning nuclear weapons to aircraft carriers and airplanes for a period of three years from the date of the decision. Judging from the reports of British sources 90-s, in case of return, 200 nuclear bombs were reserved. And since the new F-35A fighters of the US Air Force will be able to carry nuclear weapons from 2021, they will probably also be armed, if necessary, with the F-35В / С aircraft of the Navy and the USMC.

Why are Americans passionate about aircraft carriers with a large displacement?

First, the area of ​​the hangar and flight decks increases, which allows you to place more aircraft on them. The large dimensions of the flight deck provide the ability to place three aircraft lifters, four steam catapults, providing take-off from the nose and corner sections of the deck of the aircraft carrier at a rate of three aircraft per minute, and an aerofinishing device that allows you to land at an aircraft carrier at a rate of one aircraft per minute. The ability to land one aircraft every minute in conjunction with the duty in the air of tanker aircraft allowed and allows, if necessary, to carry out an urgent ascent into the air to 30 – 35 aircraft.

Secondly, a longer period of time between replenishments of fuel and ammunition on the go is ensured. It is believed that AVMA can have up to 8,5 – 9,5 thousand tons of fuel and lubricants and 1,6 – 2,6 thousand tons of ammunition. With the average daily consumption of 380 tons of aviation fuel, fuel and ammunition are replenished on the fly every six to seven days (F / A-18E / F spends on average 7,3 tons, F-35 - 6,7 tons, and E-2 - 5,4 tons to fly out ).

Thirdly, with increasing displacement, the ship’s ability to use its aircraft in difficult weather conditions increases. It is argued that the flight operations from the aircraft carrier can not be carried out when rolling a side more than five degrees and when pitching more than one degree. There are restrictions for take-off / landing due to wind speed. According to the research it was found that the US Navy aircraft carriers can carry out flight operations in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans 90% of the total time, while aircraft carriers of a lower displacement, about 60 thousand tons, - only 58%. There are no estimates of the use of aircraft carriers in the Arctic Ocean, although in 2009, the command of the US Navy noted the need to equip ships with deck heating and air conditioning facilities, as well as the feasibility of having ice-class ships.

DEAR PLEASURE

Now let us turn to the aircraft wing of an aircraft carrier, which is one third of the time at sea and two thirds of the time ashore. A typical wing includes 65 – 75 airplanes and helicopters. Its strike core consists of four squadrons of fighter-attack aircraft (each with 10 – 12 machines of the F / A-18 family), one squadron of EW planes (four or five EA-18G) and one multipurpose helicopter squadron (up to 8 – 10XXXXXXXXXXX 60R). Their actions are provided by one squadron of early warning aircraft (four to five E-2C), one helicopter squadron of combat support (up to 8 – 10 MH-60S) and one detachment of transport aircraft (two C-2А).

In the wing of the aircraft carrier, fully combat-ready (capable of performing all the tasks - FMC) 44 – 81% of all aircraft and helicopters. The combatant (capable of performing the main task - MS) up to 91% fighter-attack aircraft, helicopters and up to 80% DRLO and EW aircraft. Duty forces can be in readiness for takeoff via 5, 15 and 30 minutes after the order is given, the rest of the forces - in hourly and lower readiness. The presence of 44 – 48 fighter-attack aircraft on an atomic aircraft carrier makes it possible to have six to seven vehicles in the air for continuous combat action (with a ratio of airborne to the number of regular 1: 6 – 7). Each tactical aviation aircraft has an 1,54 crew. A monthly raid on the crew of tactical aviation is provided for in 17,6 – 18,8 hours.

F / A-18 pilots are required to perform the 18 tasks for which this machine is intended. Aircraft life - 6 thousand hours. - extended for AD modifications to 8600 hour. and will be increased for E / F modifications to 9 thousand hours. The latter circumstance would allow aircraft of the last two modifications with an annual 350 raid on the car up to the 2040 year. An interesting fact. When forming the F / A-1992E / F creation program in 18, it was planned to build 1080 machines with 45% distribution to combat squadrons, 11% to training units, 11% to replace aircraft sent for repair, and 33% to replace losses . To date, the program has been cut in half and completed with the purchase of an X / NUMX F / A-552E / F aircraft (the purchase of the 18 EA-135G is completed). Machines of modifications AD and E / F for each hour of flight require 18 and 20 hours, respectively. service. The feature of the aircraft of the last two modifications is that they can be quickly delivered (and also quickly removed) equipment for refueling in the air with an additional internal tank. The combat radius without refueling exceeds 15 thousand. Km.

What are the costs of an aircraft carrier?

In the American weekly Defense News in 2003, on the occasion of the entry into service of the fleet of the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, designed for 50 years of service, data were presented on its full value in 1999 prices of the year: purchase - 4,6 (16,7%); - 13,21 (47,9%), operation - 9,2 (33,4), recycling - 0,55 (2%), and in just 50 years - 27,56 billion dollars. If you look at media reports in 2012 – 2013 years on the lead aircraft carrier of the “Gerald Ford” type it turns out that the cost of R & D was 3,6 billion dollars, and the cost of design and construction ozrosla with 5,1 2008 in the year to over $ 8 billion., reaching to the year 2014 12,8 billion dollars in total. (the total value of the head of the English medium aircraft carrier "Queen Elizabeth" is close to half the value of the US aircraft carrier). It is noteworthy that the cost of recycling AVMA "Enterprise" in 2013 – 2018 is estimated at 1,4 billion dollars, and a major overhaul with recharging the core of ABMA “Abraham Lincoln” reactors at 2013 – 2016 will cost 4,6 billion dollars.

In one analysis of the contract for the aircraft carrier, it was reported that the profit of the plant, calculated from the cost of the contract, will be 13% if the work is done qualitatively and ahead of schedule, 11% if the work is done qualitatively and on time, and 9% if there is a delay from surrender (elimination of deficiencies due to the plant). Americans assume that 11 aircraft carriers such as "Gerald Ford" can be in service at least 2094 year, and during this time will be replaced by several generations of aircraft and helicopters deck aircraft.

The strengths of the AVMA / AUG lie in their strike power (the combat radius of the wing without refueling is over 1 thousand km, the range of missile cruisers and destroyers is up to 2500 km), maneuverability (500 or more miles per day), balance (by the number of types of aircraft and ship classes, by the number of aircraft and ships). All this allows successful combat operations against enemy air, ground, surface and submarine forces. The weak sides of aircraft carriers include their high fire and explosion hazards, insufficient booking, greater metacentric height, dependence of deck aviation use on sea state, wind speed, air temperature, vulnerability of the flight deck landing section, etc.

It should be particularly noted that aircraft carriers with nuclear power plants have never been exposed to fire in a real battle, but only burned from the explosions of their own ammunition. So, the level of their combat stability and floodability is judged by theoretical calculations. The results of the "shooting" and drowning in 2005 of the decommissioned conventional aircraft carrier "America" ​​with a displacement of 80 thousand tons were not made public. It is possible that, with favorable results on flooding, there would certainly be an information leak in the media with an “advertisement” of the combat stability of the aircraft carrier.

RUSSIAN DILEMMA

This is the case with aircraft carriers "they". And what is being done with us?

If you rely on scattered information in the media, it turns out that for three and a half years you can design an aircraft carrier and develop working design documentation, in 2018, lay the first aircraft carrier, and in 2022, transfer it to the fleet. It is alleged that the ship will be with a nuclear power plant, with electromagnetic catapults, and with a displacement of 80 thousand tons will carry up to 80 LA. It is believed that in the year 2060 we will have six aircraft carriers. To evaluate this information, it is necessary to revert to foreign experience.

For the construction of the first six AVMA type "Nimitz" Americans needed 24 year. In order for the lead ship of the Gerald Ford type aircraft carrier to begin its first 22 deployment to the advanced areas in 2018, it was necessary to start preparatory work in 2001, to activate its development in 2003, to begin cutting steel for the hull in 2005, to conclude contract for detailed design and construction in 2008, lay the ship in 2009, carry out its launch in 2013, and schedule the ship transfer to the fleet at the end of 2016.

Consider our situation if we worked on the American timelines. So, in our 2060 year - six aircraft carriers, the first of which goes to military service in the 2038 year. The fleet then needs to be handed over to the 2036 year, the descent of the aircraft carrier should be done in the 2033 year, and its bookmark should be sent to the 2029 year. In this case, the construction contract must then be concluded in 2028, cutting began in 2025, and design work on the ship began in 2021.

In addition, by the year 2036 it is necessary to have time to design, produce and transfer in sufficient numbers the first aircraft necessary for the aircraft carrier aircraft (deck fighter aircrafts, EW and DRLO helicopters, PLO helicopters, combat and rear support aircraft, reconnaissance and attack unmanned aerial vehicles) and necessary for AUG warships and support vessels. By this time, a system should be established for training highly paid personnel of the ship specialists for the aircraft carrier and the flight technical staff for its air group.

As a result, by the year 2025 it is necessary to decide on a mass of mutually related issues. What class of aircraft carrier do we need “within our means”: heavy, medium, light or, as the Americans suggested in 90, aircraft carrier-catamaran with a displacement of 30 KT; aircraft carrier on an airbag weighing 9 KT with two dozen short take-off and vertical landing aircraft; ice or normal class; with nuclear, steam-power, diesel, gas turbine or combined power plant, with full or partial electric propulsion; equipped with a springboard, steam or electromagnetic catapult; with regular take-off and landing aircraft or with short (vertical) take-off and vertical landing aircraft; with an air group capable only of defending its forces or performing all the tasks of fighting the enemy’s air, sea and land forces; with basic functions such as flag demonstrations, protection of the exclusive economic zone, fisheries and the continental shelf, the fight against terrorism, piracy and poaching, or with the main function - to fight and win with its deck aircraft, acting as part of the AUG along with coastal fleet forces.

You should also decide how we will build (sections at different plants with assembly on one or build entirely on one plant) and where we will build (only in our country or with the involvement of not only our own, but also foreign factories for building sections), how many new production areas and equipment for the construction and repair of aircraft carriers are required. Where can we buy high-strength lightweight steel, kevlar armor and composites? Where will we build equipped berths for aircraft carriers and create coastal infrastructure for carrier-based aviation? All this is required to calculate in order to know in advance the direct and indirect costs of creating and maintaining the carrier fleet of the Russian Navy.

HIGHLY NON-FRIENDLY FUTURE

However, the future of the sea giants in the long run is not at all as cloudless as they see it today. It is likely that by the turn of the 2050 – 2060 years, such high-precision long-range missile systems will be created that will put aircraft carriers at risk of existence. It is no coincidence that the Americans are building surface warships in series in more than 50 (corvettes) and 70 (destroyers) units with a displacement of 3 and 9 thousand tons.

In addition, there is another nuance. Our naval commanders believe that without the cover of an aircraft carrier, the Russian RPFs lose their combat stability already on the second day after leaving the base, because aviation is the main opponent of these boats. The logic of such statements should be understood as follows: the basis of our armed forces are strategic nuclear forces; the basis of the Navy are RPFSN; these RPFs will be protected if aircraft carriers cover them at sea; therefore, "give aircraft carriers!".

But then why did the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR leave our RPLSN unguarded, going “on cruises to warm seas”? Maybe because, in its current form, it does not meet the “cost-effectiveness” criterion for an aircraft carrier (the giant ship carries a dwarf air group; compared with the Americans it spends little time at sea, and its air group flies a little from an aircraft carrier, and and does not have DRLO and EW aircraft, without which it is less effective) and more like a raider than a means of winning air and sea supremacy?

There is another circumstance. For Americans, aircraft carriers are an offensive weapon, the long arm of an expeditionary fleet capable of operating force from the sea in almost any region of the world. In the Russian fleet, aircraft carriers, if built, will be defensive weapons. And in the absence of aircraft carriers, this role can be successfully fulfilled by the naval coastal aviation provided by a sufficient number of tanker aircraft.

Let's look at the development trends of military equipment. Observation and reconnaissance systems of the major powers of the world have reached a level in the medium and long term, at which large surface warships will be monitored continuously, despite the concealment and misleading measures they use. The development of non-nuclear high-precision weapons (for example, regional-range hypersonic missiles, global-range hypersonic planning missiles, anti-ship armored land-launch vehicles and air-defense missiles) and their targeting systems will put large ships in bases and at sea to the brink of survival.

Already, the experience of US military operations shows that neutralizing the runways of air bases and airfields, achieved by the use of long-range precision weapons, leads to the fact that combat aircraft with ordinary take-off and landing aircraft becomes a witness rather than a participant in military operations. Considering these circumstances, instead of concentrating the fleet's airpower on six vulnerable large displacement aircraft carriers, it is advisable to focus on separating the maximum possible number of aircraft and high-precision missiles of various range and speed (ship and aircraft) with the maximum possible number of surface combat ships of about 3 – 10 thousand displacement. It also requires powerful coastal aviation with a sufficient number of manned and unmanned aircraft, including short take-off and aircraft ikalnoy landing (capable of acting under the scrapping of the stationary airports).

The cruel prose of life requires parting with ambition, sadness for aircraft carriers, and illusions about the need and usefulness of ships of this class for the Russian Federation in the age of revolution in military affairs. The fleet could and could do without aircraft carriers, but is not able to conduct successful combat operations without strong coastal aviation and a significant number of warships of the main classes armed, including manned or unmanned aircraft. It remains only to hope for the revival in the shortest possible time of the strike power of the naval aviation of our country with its continuous subsequent updating of the corresponding time with military equipment.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
167 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 23 March 2014 07: 37
    +20
    I am afraid that for a long time we will not have time for aircraft carriers. But I do not agree with the author, the aircraft carriers "will not die", they will change, but they will still be ... I think that the promising aircraft carrier will carry both shock and anti-submarine and reconnaissance UAVs ...
    1. W1950
      W1950 23 March 2014 07: 52
      +19
      For the aircraft carriers we would like to say "thanks" to Humpbacked and Blue-nosed, who destroyed even what was. Only "Kuzya" remained.
      1. hrych
        hrych 23 March 2014 09: 59
        +39
        A colleague, the aircraft carrier itself is a floating airfield hangar. If you put it into operation, then an AUG is created, which includes submarines to control the underwater situation, destroyers that control air defense, immediately the supply ship plows most of all, etc. Ie. a whole team works for one player (sports analogy), and this is always a flawed concept. When ours created the Kuzyu, they initially made it not a helpless overgrown, which the servants take care of, right up to wiping their ass, but a completely self-sufficient ship with an air defense system, strike missile weapons, etc. And they boldly called it a cruiser. So our ship, unlike theirs, is an independent combat unit, but with the ability to strike the enemy with aviation. Its only drawback is the absence of a nuclear power plant, which affects autonomy. And yet, or even one big ship to lose in the ocean or to conduct a whole AUG. If we really need a pair of aircraft carriers, then only in the form of aircraft carrier cruisers, such rubbish as AUG, which is covered with one nuclear charge at once, we do not need unequivocally. This is necessary for the colonialists and is a dead-end path.
        1. voliador
          voliador 23 March 2014 12: 15
          +5
          I share your opinion. Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser with a displacement of 80 - 85 thousand tons, 60-65 aircraft (3-4 electronic warfare aircraft, 4 AWACS aircraft, 4-5 anti-submarine helicopters, 3-4 MI-24 type, and steel - attack aircraft - Su-34 , MiG-35, Su-35, although I was already planning the possibility of using the T-50), 12-16 anti-ship missiles of the P-1000 type, short- and medium-range air defense systems and, of course, a nuclear power plant. First of all, such a ship (or better two) is needed in the Pacific Ocean. And a missile cruiser with fifty Kh-55 type missile launchers, ten Caliber-type anti-ship missiles and an increased fuel supply are paired with it. Here it will be a couple!
          1. hrych
            hrych 23 March 2014 12: 28
            +7
            I would even reduce the number of aircraft, in favor of missile weapons. We do not need massive bombing, rather, the performance of special tasks, plus of course the air cover of our ships and objects in the coverage area. And gigantomania is not our method, we must try to make the displacement even less than 50 thousand. Although our strategists have debated for many decades, they have not yet come to the right conclusion. But I know one thing, with what the United States trades, we definitely do not need it. And certainly apesity must be ruled out. As a typical example - a space shuttle. They did it later, refused earlier, tens of years have passed and now only the Korolevskaya scheme is flying again. It was necessary for political bureaucrats to understand with their collective farm heads that the optimal scheme was made with us and it was impossible to surpass it, and not waste resources.
            1. voliador
              voliador 23 March 2014 15: 42
              +2
              Reduce is not necessary. Aircraft can not only conduct air combat or work on land, but also carry air-based anti-ship missiles, which increases the range of anti-ship missiles by 800-1000 km. So just right.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 23 March 2014 15: 46
                +2
                Quote: voliador
                but also carry air-based anti-ship missiles, which increases the range of anti-ship missiles by 800-1000 km.

                You can increase the range of RCC, without the participation of aircraft.
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 23 March 2014 17: 14
              +2
              Quote: hrych
              I would even reduce the number of aircraft, in favor of missile weapons.

              Love RO - make a super rocket battleship atomic speed. By the way, there were even such projects. But if you were sent to the sea without air cover (like the Bismarck), I would see what you would sing after the ZURA would run out. And to better imagine this, watch the film "I Follow My Course" - about the breakthrough of the leader of the EM "Tashkent" to Sevastopol.
              Quote: hrych
              plus of course the air cover of our ships and objects in the area of ​​effect.

              Sorry, but you, the line above, wanted to reduce the number of aircraft !!! Why did it suddenly require "air cover for our ships and facilities" when missile battleships were deployed all around? You really decide: "how fast to hang in grams !?" You don't need aircraft carriers.
              1. hrych
                hrych 23 March 2014 17: 28
                +3
                The main load on US carrier-based aircraft falls on the work on targets on land (in potential conflicts of the Russian Federation, this is not necessary for the spirit), airplanes cope with the number of air cover, like fingers on one hand. One aircraft can handle AWACS. And in general, nefig to drive this ship into the zone of active operations of enemy aircraft. Such a captain on the yard. All other tasks are perfectly solvable by other means of the Air Force, Navy and Strategic Missile Forces. I emphasize that the colonialists need an apparatus of intimidation, with punitive functions, which has been demonstrated in recent conflicts with the enemy, even theoretically unable to put this trough into fish feed. And it is not for nothing that "Kuzya" is assigned to the Federation Council, because there is his place.
              2. hrych
                hrych 23 March 2014 17: 41
                +5
                About the ended ZURA, it is not very correct there should be as many of them for how long the combat operation is designed for. I had the opportunity to watch a doc.filmets about their AUG, so there the supply and support ships are unfortunate only rustling back and forth, with their fuel, boxes of preziks, etc. The aircraft carrier has even more problems, from the need to stupidly refuel a bunch of planes, which also have why - then the ammunition runs out, which in a real conflict can be critical, before the pilots and thousands of service personnel are fed popcorn. According to the reference data, the crew of the "G. Bush" is 3200 people + 2480 people of the air wing. Here, if you don’t figure out the latrine and toilet paper in time, you can simply choke on your own shit.
            3. Mainbeam
              Mainbeam 23 March 2014 19: 17
              +1
              Quote: hrych
              then what the United States trades for, we definitely do not need

              I support your point of view. If the Russian Federation does not plan aggressive wars on long shores, or at worst military support for Cuba or Venezuela, then bulky AUGs are not needed. Carriers are attack forces on underdeveloped countries that do not possess, for example, hypersonic missiles of regional range, hypersonic gliding missiles of global range, anti-ship BRMD and BRRS.

              American-made aircraft carriers are temporary. While they are such arrogant ones, aircraft carriers help them. Otherwise, aircraft carriers are not needed, and if desired, easily flooded.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 23 March 2014 16: 58
            +2
            Quote: voliador
            I share your opinion. Heavy aircraft carrier cruiser with displacement 80 - 85 thousand tons,

            Yeah ... It’s a pity, of course, that the leadership of the Russian Navy does not share your opinion, as it has long come to the conclusion that an aircraft carrier should be an aircraft carrier, not a hybrid. By the way, the Yankees came to this conclusion at the beginning of the 2-th World War.

            This is the AV Lexington, a former unfinished battle cruiser. photo of 1931.
        2. Genry
          Genry 23 March 2014 13: 42
          +4
          Carriers in squadrons are needed, but not strike. For shock functions, it is better to use missiles (from carrier vessels), as an advanced version of unmanned strike aircraft.

          The main function of such an aircraft carrier will be the carrying of reconnaissance, anti-submarine, attack and transport aircraft.
          Runways with a length of about 350m, with a long finisher and a catapult (small overloads).
          To reduce the size and displacement, the aircraft carrier should NOT have deck superstructures (increases the width and can be located on a separate flagship) and heavy weapons.
          An internal dock with a length of 100m, for a pair of small vessels (for transporting goods and personnel between squadron ships, coastal points, fire fighting, towing) or serving escort submarines (~ 90м).
          Aircraft. (BE-?) Can be used a single specialized type of marine subsonic aircraft (direct, folding wing, with high fuel efficiency), with different replaceable equipment and the possibility of emergency landing (and take-off?) On water (selection using an auxiliary vessel with a winch and with mowed or submerged feed). The cost of developing such an aircraft pays off by sharpening it for survivability and profitability.
          Helicopters Rescue, anti-submarine and ship communications.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 23 March 2014 19: 38
            +2
            Quote: Genry
            Carriers in squadrons are needed, but not strike.

            Actually, what kind of aircraft you land, such functions will be performed by the AVM. By "percussion" you probably mean AB's ability to work along the shore? So it is now that all carrier-based aircraft can (except for specialized ones, and even then anti-ship missiles are attached to the UUV), so they are produced in the F / A (fighter-attack aircraft) variation.
            Quote: Genry
            Runway length of the order of 350m, with a long finisher and catapult

            And the rest of 3 where do you order the children? I got it! The rest will start from under the water !!! Then you can keep the pace for 20 seconds.
            Quote: Genry
            To reduce the size and displacement, the aircraft carrier should NOT have deck superstructures (increases the width and can be located on a separate flagship) and heavy weapons.

            What a pearl! Amers superstructure in the projection of the deck, beyond the limits. This is our Ulyanovsk, they decided to put the island on the spun on the right along, so as not to eat up the area of ​​those positions.
            No deck superstructures? And where is the UPC? put in a nasal bulb? Well, well ... But on a separate flagship - how is it? on television or what? But what about heavy weapons? about heavy missiles and bombs for AB? or all about the same hybrid like TAKR? So their time has passed.
            Quote: Genry
            An internal dock with a length of 100m, for a pair of small vessels (for transporting goods and personnel between squadron ships, coastal points, fire fighting, towing) or serving escort submarines (~ 90м).
            Well, this is no longer a combat aircraft carrier, but a supply barge and amphibious assault dock!
            Yes, I forgot to ask: are your boats not flying? -- not? It's a pity! And then there were such projects!
            Quote: Genry
            A single specialized type of marine subsonic aircraft can be used.
            This is strong! Especially in an aerial battle with supersonic Hornets breaking through to the OBK! They certainly pile on them: after all, subsonic means self-confident! he has nowhere to hurry! he still didn’t have time! And attempts to achieve supersonic cruising speed for 5 generation fighters are a whim of unreasonable aircraft designers, because they don’t know that a subsonic plane is a force! He doesn’t need speed - he will defeat everyone, ... uh, by the power of thought ! Here!
            PS Excuse me for gibbling over your "propositions", but if not in the subject, then it is better to learn the mate part, in order to at least understand the trends in shipbuilding for the next 20 years. There are trendsetters. After all, it very rarely happens that you alone go the right way, and all other countries go wrong.
        3. petrT
          petrT 23 March 2014 15: 10
          +1
          In addition to the Kuzi, the Baton of the 949 series was also nicknamed the killer of aircraft carriers. No matter how rotten it sounds, but exchanging a submarine for an aircraft carrier group, this exchange is terrible. And in fact, Russia does not have a clean outlet to the oceans, everything is everywhere it is necessary to crawl out the "gap"!
        4. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 23 March 2014 16: 25
          +3
          Quote: hrych
          the whole team works for one player (sports analogy), and this is always a flawed concept.
          Sorry, but this is rather a flawed approach to assessing the situation. In the case of AUG, one should rather see SYMBIOSIS and the multiplication of the efforts of different types of forces of the Navy. Deck aviation in its entirety and interconnection with other types and branches of the Armed Forces is the main weapon of such a formation. Let me explain my idea with examples. The air and surface (partly underwater) sphere of detection, detection, destruction of the enemy in the AUG is 3-4 times greater than that of a simple OBK (KUG, KPUG, RUG). When using carrier-based aircraft, the AUG has many times (up to 10 times!) More means of influence on the enemy's NK than the NK armed with anti-ship missiles. 20 F-18C / D will take 4 "Harpoons" (D = 280 km) and at a distance of 1650 km will arrange a counter battle with the OBK. (As for the tsifir - do not hesitate: it is checked, the newsletters do not lie!) AVU is able to raise up to 6 such waves. TOTAL: 20x8x6 = 960 anti-ship missiles. You're right - it's not real! I think 200 is enough!
          At the same time, the 2x2 F-18D (E) air patrol, at a distance of 400km from the warrant core and upon hovering the AWACS aircraft, will be able to meet anti-ship missile systems (they go at an altitude of 10-12km!
          What we did to deprive them of the advantage of fighting at long distances. We "clung" to the AUG at D = 400-500 km. They did not allow us any closer. They ran away vulgarly on a course opposite to our course of rapprochement.
          Quote: hrych
          So our ship (TAKR), unlike theirs, is an independent combat unit, and with the possibility of striking an enemy with aviation.

          TAKR ave. 1143 had 12 anti-ship missiles R-500 (700) with D = 800km. and the order of 30 units SU-33 with b / radius 750km.
          avu "Nimitz" - what is it, a defenseless lamb, brought out to sea for slaughter. Read more at http://forums.airbase.ru/2005/04/t32952,4--linkor-dlya-rossii-esse-pereslegina.h
          tml, everything is chewed in detail here.
          Quote: hrych
          such rubbish as AUG, which is covered at once with one nuclear charge, we do not need unambiguously.

          It is immediately felt ... a man fought in nuclear conflicts. For only a "seasoned" strategist can freeze such (sorry) stupidity. Navy officers know that ships in orders are always built taking into account the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the enemy. This is the so-called "ANTI-NUCLEAR ORDER", in which the ships are spaced apart from each other on the safe D. Calculated based on the power of nuclear warheads (usually 10-50 kt) and design features of the ship class. R without. = approximately 3,6-4,0 km for a frigate-class ship. For our Grenade (P-700) R hit = 1200m, for a standard nuclear warhead. (The data from the forum may be inaccurate). So one SBP can be guaranteed to sink one NK, and it's good if it is an AVU, and not a guard ship.
          1. hrych
            hrych 23 March 2014 23: 14
            +2
            Colleague, let's start with where such an AUG can approach our shores, where it can threaten our military, political and economic centers, so I will upset you - nowhere. For all the enormity of the Russian Federation, neither in the puddles for aviation in general, such as the Baltic and the Black Sea, nor in the Arctic, where they did not poke or stick, and there is no need for them to go there yet, except for scaring polar bears, there is one place - the Sea of ​​Japan, and then I'm afraid that they have nothing to do there again, there is an unsinkable aircraft carrier, etc. About the USSR and its foolishness in confrontation in the World Ocean, what you were talking about, forget and do not remember, we will never do such nonsense again, such nonsense is needed for the world Comintern, which, thank God, Russia has long abandoned. Well, it was not even planned to confront "Kuzya" "Nimitz" even in the minds of the Politburo. If you are a specialist, then you know that the AUG is covered with nuclear weapons on the principle of hitting the center, i.e. itself and this is no longer AUG, on the rest, as it were, it is. But our most important task now is to confront the AUG, as with the elusive Joe, we don't need him. Of the US Navy, we should only care about "Ohio", everything else is floating somewhere in the distant Atlantic and Indian Oceans, where we have no interests. Naval battles between the United States and the Russian Federation about which you hypothesized here, I will upset you, there will be no showdown, the showdown will be limited to the exchange of ballistic missiles. I am even afraid of aviation not where to clash, because the Tu-160 should not enter the air defense zone according to his position, but that he can now be accompanied, loudly in their press calling it an interception flight, so this is only in peacetime, moreover, such flights are special nearby with some Norway, in order to fix radars, reaction speed, etc. Here the PRC is going to challenge, so the flag is in his hands, and we have wells at home on the continent. Here, the PRC is diligently building aircraft carriers, but experimenting with ballistic missiles capable of hitting AUG, they say successfully, although they may be lying slanting. Let the "Kuzya" cover the exit of our boats and let the Norwegian Fisheries Inspectorate run in the North, and that will be enough.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 March 2014 11: 48
              +1
              Quote: hrych
              Colleague, let’s start from where such an AUG can come to our shores, where it can threaten our military, political and economic centers, so I’ll upset you - nowhere

              Рњ-РґСЏ ...
              A couple of AUGs off the coast of Norway (from Harstad) are capable of gouging with aviation even Murmansk, even Severodvinsk. AUG maneuvering near Oslo (without calling on the Baltic Sea, pay attention) can launch air strikes around St. Petersburg. I’m silent that the destroyers from the AUG are covered in the 3 layer by carrier-based aircraft, which have the ability to refuel at ground airfields, can be made floating arsenals of cruise missiles
              AUG, approaching the Dardanelles (without entering the World Cup), can strike along the entire Black Sea coast and beyond.
              Quote: hrych
              one place is the Sea of ​​Japan and I’m afraid that there’s nothing to do there again, there is an unsinkable aircraft carrier there, etc.

              Where did you find it, this unsinkable aircraft carrier? Look at the same time the location of our four naval air bases. For the whole Far East, yes. Then estimate the combat radius of our aviation. When you see how much we can really cover from at least one aircraft carrier, you will hardly have the desire to say something about "unsinkable aircraft carriers"
              Quote: hrych
              About the USSR and its stupidity in the confrontation in the oceans, what you were talking about, forget and don’t remember, we’ll never do such nonsense again

              Read the concept of the domestic Navy :))) In short - we will :)))
              1. hrych
                hrych 25 March 2014 18: 10
                +2
                Colleague Andrei, why bomb the Peter and the AUG if there are quite enough NATO airfields and planes there, the number of which is on the deck, if you can’t tell a damn? Also, there, as a rule, the weather is not ice, it is not a warm Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean. An unsinkable aircraft carrier is Japan, where, again, there is enough conventional aviation. The main problem they have is that we have to beat Washington and London directly for the dirty tricks of the AUG, and thank God there is something to cope with. All opuses of the defenders of aircraft carriers are reduced to a threat from them to us. So, as you suggest, build your AUG and fight with their AUG to fight at sea? So this is a complete figure. If there is a threat from them, it is necessary to craft the means to eliminate them (like the Sinies, with a ballistic missile on a maneuvering ship, although they should not be trusted), and not build our own, which we simply do not need, we do not have such tasks in the ocean. Which long-range aviation will quite decide and no need to drag the airfield.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 23 March 2014 17: 52
        +1
        Quote: "The Navy could and can do without aircraft carriers."
        ================================================== ==============
        laughing laughing The author burns! Let him tell this tale to the Iraqi admirals, who had the opportunity to test the "correctness" of this statement on themselves! And they are not the only ones.

        Quote: "but unable to conduct successful combat operations without strong coastal aviation and a significant number of combat ships of the main classes, including armed manned or unmanned aircraft."
        ================================================== ===============
        The naval doctrine of the USSR is gone for 23 years, as well as the USSR itself. And the approach of some authors of articles to the use of the Russian fleet remains extremely unshakable. And it’s a no brainer that if the Russian Federation wants to take the place it deserves in the world community, then it must have a modern fleet capable of performing missions anywhere in the world. The author proposes to revive the "coast guard fleet" of the times of the USSR! request
    2. maks-101
      maks-101 23 March 2014 08: 06
      +9
      I am afraid that for a long time we will not have time for aircraft carriers. But I do not agree with the author, the aircraft carriers "will not die", they will change, but they will still be ... I think that the promising aircraft carrier will carry both shock and anti-submarine and reconnaissance UAVs ...
      it is not known what will happen in 50 years and how far the technology will advance, maybe tomorrow such robotic torpedo submarines will come up like drones and aircraft carriers will generally lose perspective.
      1. sledgehammer102
        sledgehammer102 23 March 2014 09: 36
        +14
        One of the outcomes of World War II in the field of the development of naval weapons was the unconditional confirmation of the status of the main striking force on naval (oceanic) theaters of military operations.


        It could be in World War II, but then there were no Bastion-type missiles or those on Peter that turn an aircraft carrier into a floating coffin, so in the current format, aircraft carriers are needed for:
        1) Wars with the natives
        2) Raising Your Own ChSV (a sense of self-importance)
        3) Demonstrations of force (this role is played by the Tu-90 strategists and nuclear missile carriers)
        4) In the USA it also drank dough.
        1. raven75
          raven75 23 March 2014 09: 50
          +7
          Exactly, I watched a documentary recently, what modern American aircraft carriers turned into because of simple accidents. After all, an aircraft carrier is a floating barrel with fuel and ammunition. What will happen to him after the impact of RCC?
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 23 March 2014 19: 54
          +1
          Quote: sledgehammer102
          so in the current format, aircraft carriers are needed for:

          Pavel, the Navy Group of Companies believes that we need aircraft carriers to give combat stability to naval formations and ensure the deployment of our strategic submarines.
          Do you disagree with him? So you have a different view on our use of AVM? If it's not a secret, tell me - maybe this is a new word in the combat use of the arms of the Navy! And we don’t know ...
      2. lelikas
        lelikas 23 March 2014 11: 06
        +2
        Quote: maks-xnumx
        it is not known what will happen in 50 years and how far the technology will advance, maybe tomorrow such robotic torpedo submarines will come up like drones and aircraft carriers will generally lose perspective.

        And with them, tanks and planes and machine guns with guns — the defense marshal, sitting in the Kremlin, will change the landscapes of neighboring continents with an effort of thought.
      3. predator.3
        predator.3 23 March 2014 12: 59
        -1
        The cruel prose of life requires parting with ambition, sadness for aircraft carriers, and illusions about the need and usefulness of ships of this class for the Russian Federation in the age of revolution in military affairs. The fleet could and could do without aircraft carriers, but is not able to conduct successful combat operations without strong coastal aviation and a significant number of warships of the main classes armed, including manned or unmanned aircraft. It remains only to hope for the revival in the shortest possible time of the strike power of the naval aviation of our country with its continuous subsequent updating of the corresponding time with military equipment.

        I agree with the author's conclusions, the progress of technology does not stand still, with the development of aviation and rocket weapons, the aircraft carrier will go down in history, as the battleships and battleships left. After World War II, aircraft carriers participated in wars against "banana" countries, that is, they did not have met serious opponents for 2 years now, except perhaps the Falklands conflict, and if the Argentines had more modern anti-ship missiles, it would have ended.
        1. arane
          arane 23 March 2014 13: 58
          +4
          Argentina had 5 Exocet anti-ship missiles. Sunk Sheffield and supply transport. Very effective.
          Still, an aircraft carrier is a weapon for expansion, "democratization" of the recalcitrant, etc.
          We need to develop the TAKR class and for him, for the company, frigates, destroyers and cruisers of the URO, carrying both anti-ship anti-ship systems, and providing powerful anti-ship defense systems for ships, as well as anti-submarine defense. Simply put, our strike ship group must tear down any connection of enemy ships, including the AUG! By the way, it is not necessary to destroy an aircraft carrier (it is believed that about 10 torpedo hits are necessary to destroy an aircraft carrier), it is enough to cause damage to it associated with damage to the take-off deck or the formation of a roll-trim. After which aviation cannot be used
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 23 March 2014 20: 13
            +2
            Quote: arane
            We need to develop the TAKR class

            Completeness! We have already recognized this branch of development as a dead end. And to begin with, we cut out the cellar RO No. 1 for the "Kiev" takr in order to increase the hangar by 12 units. And on the rest, RCC was left only in CT. But the "Gorshkov" was rebuilt for the Indians without anti-ship missiles. A clean aircraft carrier with a springboard.
            Quote: arane
            our strike ship group must tear down any connection of the enemy’s ships, including the AUG!

            This is if you go to D salvo, secured. Let me explain: this is 0,7 from D max RK. We consider: 500x0,7 = 350 km. Now tell me: which AVM will allow you to reach such a distance in a real battle if they are practicing oncoming battles with our "Kuzma" at D = 1650 km? There is only one way out: hero submariners, or an orbital attack. Alternatively, a strike with anti-aircraft ballistic missiles is possible. And about competing with NK X AVM is a dead number. Therefore, the operation to defeat the enemy AUG is an operation of the FLEET, and not a ship formation, as it seems to someone. In this case, the forces and means of the Supreme Command are involved.
      4. Setrac
        Setrac 23 March 2014 15: 59
        +1
        Quote: maks-xnumx
        it is not known what will happen in 50 years and how far the technology will advance, maybe tomorrow such robotic torpedo submarines will come up like drones and aircraft carriers will generally lose perspective.

        The range of frontline aviation may increase dramatically, or in general a sixth generation aircraft may prove to be aerospace.
      5. GSH-18
        GSH-18 23 March 2014 18: 00
        0
        Quote: maks-xnumx
        it is not known what will happen in 50 years and how far the technology will advance, maybe tomorrow such robotic torpedo submarines will come up like drones and aircraft carriers will generally lose perspective.

        It is also likely that such planes and UAVs with such missiles and torpedoes will be invented that the use of an underwater fleet will become impossible! We will continue to guess on the coffee grounds and waste time ??! When the adversary already in Ukraine put the pro-Western government. Amer build new aircraft carriers and do not worry about the need / no need! The only question is, at this particular moment in time, what can WE counterpose to a hostile military force other than nuclear weapons ??
    3. Tumbleweed
      Tumbleweed 23 March 2014 09: 33
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      I'm afraid that for a long time we will not be up to aircraft carriers.

      I absolutely agree, and therefore I think that the site administration should introduce a moratorium on posting articles about Russian aircraft carriers on the site. It’s the same as showing impotent naked beautiful girls laughing
      Why poison the soul and sprinkle salt on the wound? All comments are already on this topic, those who have been on the site for more than 2 months already know by heart and "scribble" without hesitation, on autopilot wassat
    4. lelikas
      lelikas 23 March 2014 11: 03
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      I am afraid that for a long time we will not have time for aircraft carriers. But I do not agree with the author, the aircraft carriers "will not die", they will change, but they will still be ... I think that the promising aircraft carrier will carry both shock and anti-submarine and reconnaissance UAVs ...

      I agree, the second half of the article is generally unreadable, again the on-duty plaque plak — they emitted polymers — where to get everything else.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 23 March 2014 16: 04
        -2
        Quote: lelikas
        I agree, the second half of the article is generally unreadable, again the on-duty plaque plak — they emitted polymers — where to get everything else.

        The meaning of the article is the desire to draw Russia into the next arms race. At the same time, it is forgotten that even in the American Navy, aircraft carriers are the most important component. Destroyers and fleets and the submarine fleet have a more important role in the US Navy.
    5. valerei
      valerei 23 March 2014 12: 35
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      I am afraid that for a long time we will not have time for aircraft carriers. But I do not agree with the author, aircraft carriers "will not die", they will change, but they will still be ...


      The article is efficient. But, let's remember the beginning of the 20th century, and then battleships ruled the sea, on which money (then) was spent, comparable to the cost of aircraft carriers (current). The creation of the "Dreadnought" by the British at once made all fleets of the world obsolete, incl. and English. Everyone rushed to build "dreadnoughts". However, the wars of the mid-20th century showed that the age of battleship battleships was over. Thank God that the USSR, due to lack of funds, could not build its battleships. And how did the whole thing end? Battleships, having an exorbitant value, existed for only a few decades, and then, either they were cut into ferrous metal, or were adapted for other needs, often not related to their direct purpose. And this adaptation required money. This is where the analogy with aircraft carriers can be traced. The US has already begun to build "dreadnoughts", a little more, maybe a couple of decades, and the means of destruction will nullify these aircraft carrier colossus. Of course, against some "Cape Verde Islands" these AUG will do. The most important thing is that the aircraft carriers do not need to be drowned - any major fire (and there is something to burn there!) And the AUG is spent on long-term repairs, which may raise the question of its very expediency. And what about Russia, our territory from the Baltic to the Pacific Ocean is the most unsinkable aircraft carrier in the world.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 23 March 2014 18: 29
        0
        Quote: valerei
        Thank God that the USSR, due to lack of funds, could not build its battleships.

        Do not carry nonsense. We had enough battleships. They remained in the fleet (in particular the Northern Fleet) until 1983! How did we then fight in your opinion? On pies and sailboats? lol
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. witch
      witch 23 March 2014 13: 54
      +5
      not the topic of course, but still the people of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION
      please buy goods only produced in our country, that is, RUSSIAN. or at least as little as possible produced in Europe and America. thereby you support our producer. and reduce the outflow of capital over the hill.
    8. Army1
      Army1 23 March 2014 14: 57
      +2
      We need aircraft carriers, but not in the amount of 10 pieces, I won’t explain why, because I’m tired, I don’t impose my opinion on anyone.

      Exercise Joint Task Force Exercise 06-2
      During the exercises, in December 2005, the Swedish Gotland NPL was deployed, the submarine was able to conditionally sink the aircraft carrier and still not be noticed. smile This is for the mood.
      1. Army1
        Army1 23 March 2014 14: 58
        0
        Enjoy.
    9. dmitrich
      dmitrich 23 March 2014 15: 07
      -1
      aircraft carriers are good in peacetime, in case of war they will quickly sink.
  2. delfinN
    delfinN 23 March 2014 07: 44
    +11
    As min for each fleet, one AUG would not hurt
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 23 March 2014 07: 52
      +14
      For each definitely not necessary. AUGs are needed on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet + 1 reserve, and in the Black Sea and Baltic puddles which are shot from shore to shore, AUGs are not needed.
      1. Fregate
        Fregate 23 March 2014 14: 04
        +4
        Well, on the BF it may not be necessary, but on the Black Sea Fleet it is possible. All the same, not only the Black Sea, but also the Mediterranean.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 23 March 2014 18: 44
          0
          Quote: Fregate
          Well, on the BF it may not be necessary, but on the Black Sea Fleet it is possible. All the same, not only the Black Sea, but also the Mediterranean.

          Not only possible but absolutely necessary! The Black Sea Fleet holds the entire Mediterranean basin. In which the states constantly keep their sixth operational fleet led by the aircraft carrier Dwight Eisenhower. By the way, in Soviet times, the Black Sea Fleet had two small aircraft-carrying vessels.
          From Sevastopol at the time of the collapse of the USSR and the fleet, "Admiral Kuznetsov" left for Severomorsk.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 20: 22
      +1
      Quote: delfinN
      As min for each fleet, one AUG would not hurt

      I have always considered dolphins to be our brothers in mind! One clarification: the Baltic donates its AVM to the Northern Fleet - there it is needed more! And the Black Sea residents "prescribe" their AVM in the Mediterranean. (It's warmer there! And it smells like spring!) IMHO.
  3. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 23 March 2014 07: 46
    +1
    If you develop aircraft carriers, then with a thorium power plant.
    It is necessary to choose a promising direction in the energy sector, including in military applications.
    1. Orc-xnumx
      Orc-xnumx 23 March 2014 10: 50
      +1
      Reliability is needed, not experimentation!
      1. Ivan Tarasov
        Ivan Tarasov 23 March 2014 11: 12
        0
        That's why you should not rush.
        First work out the power plant.
  4. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 23 March 2014 07: 48
    +4
    The salary and equipment of a combat swimmer will be millenn times cheaper. American aircraft carriers benefit only to their creators because of the huge profit. What do we have nowhere to spend money. Enough one kuzi in case of emergency.
    1. ZU-23
      ZU-23 23 March 2014 07: 57
      +2
      That's for sure. Really no one could ask the Americans about why they are aircraft carriers, if we don’t attack anyone, we almost don’t have them, but we have to have aircraft carriers because Americans can attack any country.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 23 March 2014 18: 52
        0
        Quote: ZU-23
        if we don’t attack anyone, we almost don’t have them,

        We have almost no aircraft carriers, but simply do not and never have! It is a fact. TAKR "Kuznetsov" is not an aircraft carrier. It just looks like it. And the performance characteristics differ from the performance characteristics of a real flat-deck nuclear aircraft carrier, like heaven and earth. We really need normal aircraft carriers (about three or four, no longer needed) and escort groups for them. The old Soviet fleet does not correspond to the modern doctrine of the Russian Federation and the new global challenges and threats.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 08: 57
      +7
      Quote: FC Skif
      The salary and equipment of a combat swimmer will be millenn times cheaper.

      Imagine your battle swimmer trying to find an aircraft carrier in the ocean. Or trying to catch up with an aircraft carrier going at a speed of 20 knots.
      "Torpedo" like Papanov and "Diamond Hand" will he have?
    4. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 20: 30
      +2
      Quote: FC Skif
      Enough of one kuzi in case of emergency.

      And if Kuzma gets up for repairs? What to do with decks? Put on a thread and so fly until the end of the repair Kuzma? And what if the mess again in the Mediterranean? Onshore aviation, is it about to call in 2 hours to fly to the air cover of our attacked ships? As the author of the article suggests.
  5. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 23 March 2014 07: 50
    +5
    better when they are ...
  6. Coffee_time
    Coffee_time 23 March 2014 07: 56
    0
    Well, they will bomb them in 30-45 days, which is still a big question, and then .... the ground forces need to be launched ... this is where the catch can come out.
  7. Grenz
    Grenz 23 March 2014 08: 04
    +1
    Or maybe it is better to attend to the "Flurry" and its carrier, so that since we do not have powerful AUG, then in case of a conflict they will not.
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 23 March 2014 18: 58
      0
      Quote: grenz
      Or maybe it is better to attend to the "Flurry" and its carrier, so that since we do not have powerful AUG, then in case of a conflict they will not.

      The squall shoots at 11 km. It is absolutely unrealistic to approach the submarine at such a distance because of the tight control of space by aircraft carrier aircraft and escort ships. Do not forget that the "squall" is an unguided rocket-torpedo.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 20: 47
      +1
      Quote: grenz
      Or maybe it's better to attend to the "Flurry" and its bearer,

      Missile-torpedo "Shkval" (VA-111) unguided, with a cruising range of 10 (13) km, with nuclear warheads with a capacity of 150 kt, was removed from service in the early 90s. The carrier at the moment of the VA-111 launch completely unmasks itself. Since the position of the volley db is inside the AMG order, then the chances of breaking out are negligible.
  8. Gennady1973
    Gennady1973 23 March 2014 08: 10
    +2
    Personally, I also want to change the car and change the apartment to the cottage, but there is a desire and there is no possibility. But while we do not pull it ... no doubt we need it. Now we need to think about the means of their elimination = 100%, and to build a dozen of our own by now.
  9. barbiturate
    barbiturate 23 March 2014 08: 10
    +4
    Russia may not even need aircraft carriers, there is no clear concept of their application, because with a purely defensive strategy, ground airfields are really much better. True, then, it becomes incomprehensible the operation (and modernization with the subsequent commissioning) of nuclear cruisers in the Russian Navy, why then do they? Or set up (or modernize and put into operation) a bunch of expensive huge ships with both nuclear power plants and conventional ones (destroyers) and send all this to the sea without air support? The USSR also understood this obvious stupidity, tried to fix it, but for political reasons did not succeed. The ocean fleet undoubtedly needs an aircraft carrier (and not one), but it’s not yet clear what kind of fleet our homeland wants to build.
    But Americans can reduce the number of aircraft carriers, with the clear dominance of their fleet and fleets of allies in the oceans, the threat to their fleets from the air is negligible, and if we add to this the presence of a huge number of bases around the world and allied bases, then global reach is ensured and without carrier aircraft.
    This is if we talk only about Russia and the United States.
  10. Semenov
    Semenov 23 March 2014 08: 10
    0
    Aviation with UAVs is cheaper. And over the deployment areas in advance to "hang" a grouping of aircraft with refuelers and everything necessary, such a heavenly fist.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 20: 53
      +1
      Quote: Semenov
      And over the deployment areas in advance, "hang" the grouping of aircraft with refuelers and everything necessary,

      You can’t imagine the best service for amers! By doing this, you deprive the rkSNs of their main tactical advantage - stealth. It’s the same as hanging a bell on a boat’s neck when playing a blind man's boat.
  11. andrei332809
    andrei332809 23 March 2014 08: 14
    +5
    I have a double attitude towards aircraft carriers. on the one hand, it’s expensive, but this is the status of a power. on the other hand, it’s still an attack weapon, and we shouldn’t be the aggressor. But the aircraft carrier cruiser is what we need. a fairy tale, not a ship.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 08: 59
      +5
      Quote: andrei332809
      But the aircraft carrier cruiser is what we need. a fairy tale, not a ship.

      Yeah, and not a cruiser or a carrier, a huge incomprehensible thing.
    2. Manul
      Manul 23 March 2014 10: 48
      +2
      Quote: andrei332809
      on the other hand, it’s still an attack weapon, and we shouldn’t be the aggressor.

      But hypothetically, let’s imagine that we were declared a war. We withstood the enemy assault, fought off attacks, missiles - it’s time to counterattack ... But what? How to ensure the landing of troops in hostile territory for surrender of the enemy? Defensive tactics are good only until the moment when he himself comes to the necessity to go on the offensive.
    3. Russkiy53
      Russkiy53 23 March 2014 13: 47
      -1
      Agaga:))))) !!! because someone squeezes the nerds-phones and a coin, because boxing is for aggressors, but the intellectual does not need it :)))) !!! here’s walking without a mobile phone: ))) !!!
    4. GSH-18
      GSH-18 23 March 2014 19: 10
      0
      Quote: andrei332809
      I have a double attitude towards aircraft carriers. on the one hand, it’s expensive, but this is the status of a power. on the other hand, it’s still an attack weapon, and we shouldn’t be the aggressor. But the aircraft carrier cruiser is what we need. a fairy tale, not a ship.

      The aircraft carrier is not a fairy tale, but a Solomon solution. By the way against any amerskoy aircraft carrier is a TARGET! The minimum number of aircraft on a healthy "barge" with a gas turbine engine. Language can hardly turn to call this ship a combat unit. In the USSR, there was a project of the full-tonnage aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk". We cut funding, got stumps of aircraft carrier. Even Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov, said that aircraft carriers are more important for the fleet than cruisers and submarines combined! Someone wants to argue with him? wink
    5. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 20: 58
      +1
      Quote: andrei332809
      An aircraft carrying cruiser is what you need. a fairy tale, not a ship.

      This is a dead end branch of development to which we agreed, as there was no catapult and normal deck aircraft. Therefore, in order to protect ourselves and our Yak-38 with a radius of 150 km, we were forced to put the P-500 at pr 1143. Now there is no need for this. Therefore, this is the question of the construction of the AVU normal scheme.
  12. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 23 March 2014 08: 14
    +21
    The future belongs to smart weapons based on the concept of a "smart swarm", for example, a hybrid of a cruiser and an aircraft carrier, carrying 500-600 universal jet mini UAVs capable of performing the entire range of tasks at distances of up to 1000 km, which will be potentially consumables like today's anti-ship missiles, for example. A formation of 3-4 ships can carry a strike group of a couple of thousand units of such a "locust".

    1. Hunting for fighters on the principle of "pack of hounds for a bear", with the calculation of 20-30 UAVs with all-aspect missiles for 1 fighter. (Which will turn manned fighter aircraft, even though super-maneuverable, into an anachronism)

    2. Attack on ground targets, 100-150 UAVs with cheap guided mini-air bombs, and capable of becoming kamkaze drones against particularly important or tactically urgent targets, such as radar. (Today's long-range AA defenses will be defenseless as a hunter with an elephant against a swarm of bees; a new swarm versus swarm AA concept or laser AA will be needed.)

    3. Hunting ships, for example, 50-60 UAVs, I attack a ship from all azimuths simultaneously, with banal ATGMs of high accuracy at key nodes - cutting, radar, weapon units, and then finish off a couple of dozen hits on the waterline.

    4. Destruction of submarines - the same 50 UAVs drop robotic torpedoes into a given area, where they search for the submarine with active echolocation, regroup and attack it at the same time as a flock of piranhas.

    This is a forecast for 2030-2040m year ... and maybe earlier.
    1. pts-m
      pts-m 23 March 2014 09: 43
      +1
      indeed this is the most Prudent decision! Russia has always been different from other countries in the adoption of SIMPLE and EFFECTIVE decisions! I agree with the author 100%
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 23 March 2014 21: 18
        +1
        Quote: PTS-m
        Russia has always been different from other countries in the adoption of SIMPLE and EFFECTIVE decisions!

        I agree! The entire flight of drones will be instantly calmed down by the "Knapsack-E" type microwave combat generator. It's a thing of the past, but Peter once used something like that ... Pylykiy searched for the remains of the aircraft for 3 days.
        So not everything is as bad as it might seem at first glance.
    2. SPACE
      SPACE 23 March 2014 10: 16
      +11
      Quote: And Us Rat
      The future belongs to smart weapons based on the concept of a "smart swarm", for example, a hybrid of a cruiser and an aircraft carrier, carrying 500-600 universal jet mini UAVs capable of performing the entire range of tasks at distances of up to 1000 km, which will be potentially consumables like today's anti-ship missiles, for example.

      Israelis adherents of UAVs, came up with UAVs, came up with the concept of future use, well, that's right, advertising is the engine of progress and the bank account)
      UAVs are required to fly there and return, there is no need to talk about any serious parameters of speed, range, combat load, and even more so in mass numbers. Therefore, you are right, and almost exactly repeated the 30-year-old concept of the creators of the "wolf pack" of Granit missile systems. Earlier on this site, I have repeatedly argued that a classic returnable UAV is useless for any serious large-scale combat functions and said that an automatic rocket is the same UAV, only one-time, which means that it does not need basing aircraft carriers! As a result, we come to the conclusion that the UAV and the AIRCRAFTER are anachronisms and practically lose their relevance in the future. In turn, the concept of using disposable UAVs i.e. missiles leads us to the expediency of using NUCLEAR MISSION CRUISERS OF THE ORLAN TYPE! The nuclear reactor is needed to power the ZGRLS, rumored to be designed by NIIDAR, to equip the Orlans. Orlan is the future carrier of disposable UAVs. And the Americans continue to indulge in their useless and bespontov toys. In a solo voyage, in the presence of hundreds of three or four different types of attack / defense UAV missiles, it is able to control an area of ​​up to 500-1000 km radius in the most rational way.
      Z.Y. It is surprising how far Russian designers looked from the distant 1970 year.
      1. And Us Rat
        And Us Rat 23 March 2014 13: 54
        0
        Quote: SPACE
        Therefore, you are right, and almost exactly repeated the 30-year-old concept of the creators of the "wolf pack" of Granit missile systems.

        The concept is true, and with today's and tomorrow’s technology, it can reach a new level.

        "Granite" is still expensive for disposability, but if you need patrolling? And if you need multiple blows? The whole trick in my forecast is reusability, that is, the same "wolf pack", but reusable.
        As an example - "Granites" flew, dumped their warheads on the target and returned to the ship for new ones, even if they lost 10-15% of the flock during a raid, this is still better than 100% (simpler and cheaper ammunition is spent), especially in case of incomplete defeat of the target. And there is no need for "different types" - the secret is in a universal carrier for different weapons, MODULARITY. So the "classic" UAV is not going anywhere, it is evolving into cheaper (potentially consumable), smarter, faster, versatile and smaller. It is the reusable UAV that is the core of the "swarm" concept.

        Future battles will be "swarm" on "swarm" - whoever lost his "swarm" first is the one and the corpse.
        Air defense will be laser, microwave (burn out "locusts" in large quantities), electromagnetic pulse for short distances.
        And as a bonus - railguns, which will allow you to conduct an art duel with hypersonic adjustable ammunition for a range equal to the radius of action of your "swarm".

        In the distant future (70-100 years), the carrier ships will also leave the scene or become fully automated, without a crew, it will be possible to "lower" the "swarm" from orbit, or to give it an intercontential range. In 100 years, the "man of the soldier" will leave the scene, only the special forces will remain, which will rather resemble a cross between spies of infiltrants with hackers and operators of various robotic "evil spirits", personal weapons such as a rifle will become an anachronism, like a bow and arrow today.
        1. SPACE
          SPACE 23 March 2014 16: 42
          +1
          Quote: And Us Rat
          Granite "is still expensive for disposability

          I think the cost can be reduced, a UAV can be any aircraft, for example a deck f-18 having decent characteristics in range and bomb load, taking into account maintenance, hanging ammunition, take-off and landing modes will cost no less. A rocket has been in a mine for years at any time and is ready to take off in one gulp.
          Quote: And Us Rat
          and if you need patrolling?

          Vertically taking off unmanned reconnaissance plus space.
          Hopefully people will get smarter in the future.
          The future you draw in the form of a mass of small drones rests on the energy sector, fuel is required to provide the required ranges and combat load, which means it will be big, expensive and, again, the problems of successive take-off and the implementation of a massive strike. Yes, I agree with you that the future belongs to robots, and for shock missions, missiles have not come up with anything and will not come up with anything better. Solving energy problems will make it possible to create reusable, multi-mode unmanned aerial vehicles, something in the form of an airplane rocket.
          I see the future as monitors in the form of the 941 project nuclear submarines with a set in mines of all types of missiles of ballistic, cruise, anti-aircraft, torpedoes with retractable radars, a powerful dimming in connection with the satellite constellation ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Signaller
          Signaller 23 March 2014 18: 07
          0
          Yes .. The youth's hopes are nourished. Railguns ??? They still need to bring. Where.????? This is the same shell or bullet. The same Dagger will be several orders of magnitude better and most importantly smaller in size. But the ship is not the only such installation. Yes, and microwave radiation - ??? It is the same where it should be directed. Sight, tip-response time. Which will not be. Everything is much more complicated than you think.
          1. And Us Rat
            And Us Rat 24 March 2014 00: 50
            0
            Quote: Signaller
            Yes .. The hopes of a young man feed ...

            These are not my thoughts, but military analysts, there are definitely no youths among them. laughing
  13. shinobi
    shinobi 23 March 2014 08: 19
    +12
    They pulled up with their aircraft carriers. All their effectiveness is reduced to naught by the possession of the ship by anti-aircraft systems. Skeptics! Look closely at the chronicles of attacks on the AUG by Japanese aviation. Against modern Russian-made anti-ship missiles, they are generally defenseless. There is also a torpedo armament of the Kit series, a nightmare of all naval commanders. AUG is good against banana republics and those whose military is more concerned about their Western bank accounts. The future belongs to submarines and missile cruisers!
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 09: 05
      +6
      Quote: shinobi
      Bullied with their aircraft carriers. Their entire effectiveness is negated by the possession of a ship anti-aircraft systems

      You are from the category of analysts such as Tukhachevsky who calculated naval anti-aircraft artillery according to the scheme one barrel, one plane.
      Quote: shinobi
      Against modern Russian-made anti-ship missiles, they are generally defenseless

      Defenseless carriers of anti-ship missiles in front of aircraft carrier aircraft.
      Quote: shinobi
      There are also torpedo weapons

      Similarly.
    2. 77bob1973
      77bob1973 23 March 2014 09: 22
      0
      Now the plane is almost like a corvette, in addition, it grew out of an aircraft carrier and this leaves its fingerprints on operation and combat effectiveness. 1000 departures in four days is generally unattainable, with the best scenario, 190 departures per day.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 21: 40
      +1
      Quote: shinobi
      torpedo armament of the Whale series, the nightmare of all naval commanders.

      If you mean "thick" 650mm torpedoes, then they are out of service. So the nightmare 0 is DONE. Rather, it is replaced ...
      Quote: shinobi
      The future belongs to submarines and missile cruisers!

      The future belongs to orbital battle stations!
  14. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 23 March 2014 08: 23
    +1
    We now have for the Black Sea Fleet an unsinkable aircraft carrier Crimea. Why bother? drinks
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 23 March 2014 08: 34
      0
      Our interests are not limited to one sea ...
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 09: 05
      +4
      Quote: VNP1958PVN
      We now have for the Black Sea Fleet an unsinkable aircraft carrier Crimea. Why bother? drinks

      Let's get him to CTOF!
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 23 March 2014 13: 44
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Let's get him to CTOF!

        There at KTOF there is one of them, called Sakhalin plus the Kuril ridge, and so that Alexander 2 would not have drunk Alaska with the Aleutian Islands.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 23 March 2014 14: 32
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          There at KTOF there is one of them, called Sakhalin plus the Kuril ridge, and so that Alexander 2 would not have drunk Alaska with the Aleutian Islands.

          Oh me! Sory, I completely forgot!
  15. saag
    saag 23 March 2014 08: 31
    0
    Quote: maks-xnumx
    maybe tomorrow such submarines will come up with torpedoes, robots of the type of drones, and aircraft carriers will generally lose perspective.

    have already come up with, though in a prototype 400 km have surfaced, surfaced ammunition is one of the branches of the future weapon
  16. KBPC50
    KBPC50 23 March 2014 08: 36
    0
    Quote: maks-xnumx
    I am afraid that for a long time we will not have time for aircraft carriers. But I do not agree with the author, the aircraft carriers "will not die", they will change, but they will still be ... I think that the promising aircraft carrier will carry both shock and anti-submarine and reconnaissance UAVs ...
    it is not known what will happen in 50 years and how far the technology will advance, maybe tomorrow such robotic torpedo submarines will come up like drones and aircraft carriers will generally lose perspective.
    Most likely it will be so, digital communication systems will provide the highest degree of coding and communication security, and radar operation will most likely be carried out at ultra-low power (under noise). The polymer coating will ensure absolute invisibility of both aircraft and underwater vehicles. The propulsion system of the submarine will also change. Most likely there will be no propeller or screws.
  17. diff
    diff 23 March 2014 08: 36
    +2
    Today it would be more promising to spend such money on creating a powerful space grouping.
    From space, we will, roughly speaking, do not care where and how much AUG. The creation of powerful electric guns can put any attack from the sea to zero.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 09: 07
      +2
      Quote: diff
      From space, we will, roughly speaking, do not care where and how much AUG. The creation of powerful electric guns can put any attack from the sea to zero.

      Using the energy of black holes?
  18. vladim.gorbunow
    vladim.gorbunow 23 March 2014 08: 55
    0
    What will happen if a couple of hundred PTAB 2.5 kg of the 1943 model is poured onto the deck of an aircraft carrier? That was quite capable of one IL-2.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 09: 09
      +11
      Quote: vladim.gorbunow
      What will happen if a couple of hundred PTAB 2.5 kg of the 1943 model is poured onto the deck of an aircraft carrier? That was quite capable of one IL-2.

      Damn, where do you just get it? As you still did not remember about the Greek fire ...
      1. vladim.gorbunow
        vladim.gorbunow 23 March 2014 15: 46
        0
        Let it be



        RBC-500 single bomb cartridge with anti-tank aircraft bombs PTAB-1M. with 200 mm burning armor. Will the deck be suitable for operation?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 23 March 2014 20: 03
          +1
          Quote: vladim.gorbunow
          Let it be
          RBC-500 single bomb cartridge with anti-tank aircraft bombs PTAB-1M. with 200 mm burning armor. Will the deck be suitable for operation?

          It remains only to fly over the deck of an aircraft carrier with impunity at an altitude of about 500 meters ... You are from the same cohort of analysts for whom it’s not at all difficult to kill a bear with an awl in the ear, the question of whether the bear will passively observe your manipulations doesn’t really bother you ...
          1. vladim.gorbunow
            vladim.gorbunow 24 March 2014 16: 23
            0
            Getting there is another question. Perhaps a combined attack of ballistic and cruise missiles with multiple guided warheads to cover the area. For the classic missile defeat of an aircraft carrier, precise guidance is a problem.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 23 March 2014 16: 35
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Damn, where do you just get it? As you still did not remember about the Greek fire ...

        Why do we need exoskeletons if the Greek phalanx has proved its effectiveness?
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 23 March 2014 11: 10
      +3
      Quote: vladim.gorbunow
      What will happen if a couple of hundred PTAB 2.5 kg of the 1943 model is poured onto the deck of an aircraft carrier? That was quite capable of one IL-2.

      If they are poured onto the deck, they will roll along it and fall overboard, the rest will be collected by the deck crew and thrown away. hi
      1. vladim.gorbunow
        vladim.gorbunow 23 March 2014 15: 54
        +1
        Well no. Cumulative bombs will burn 200 holes with sloppy sharp craters. Will pilots take a chance to take off - landing?
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 21: 49
      +1
      Quote: vladim.gorbunow
      That was quite capable of one IL-2.

      How could he, poor fellow, get to the goal ... And so for sure! One IL-2 will defeat any American AVM! It’s a pity, there aren’t enough cucumbers, before and the eggplant ... is ending.
      1. vladim.gorbunow
        vladim.gorbunow 24 March 2014 16: 17
        0
        Getting there is another question. Perhaps a combined attack of ballistic and cruise missiles with multiple guided warheads to cover the area. For the classic missile defeat of an aircraft carrier, precise guidance is a problem.
  19. serega.fedotov
    serega.fedotov 23 March 2014 09: 14
    +1
    Attack aircraft carriers, numerous planes will not save a dozen small, cheap boats from a salvo, and the effectiveness of carrier-based aircraft against a state with normal aircraft and air defense systems, it’s easy to lift heavy missile carriers such as Tu22, Tu95 from coastal aerodromes, which will work without going into the air defense zone of the ship
    I can recall the 80s Soviet Tu22 "lost its way" flew over the American squadron in the Mediterranean Sea, the Yusovites understood the hint - the squadron immediately left
    Although pieces 4-5 come in handy, but build like the Americans: more and more inappropriately
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 09: 25
      +3
      Quote: serega.fedotov
      Aircraft carriers-weapons of attack, numerous planes will not save a dozen small, cheap boats from a missile salvo

      And how will these notorious boats find an aircraft carrier in the sea? How they will slip UNMISSIBLE ship guard consisting of destroyers and cruisers? What seaworthiness (this is the criterion that determines its ability to safely sail, depends on the height of the wave and wind strength) should these boats have? And the cruising range?
      Quote: serega.fedotov
      the effectiveness of carrier-based aircraft against a state with normal aircraft and air defense systems, it’s easy to lift heavy missile carriers such as tu22, tu95 from the coastal aerodromes, which will work without going into the ship’s air defense zone

      There are doubts about the ability of the anti-ship missile carriers you listed to independently detect an aircraft carrier before they are discovered first. Cases of overflight in peacetime are due to the fact that they could not be shot down; in wartime, "ma-example tu22, tu95" would have been shot down long before they detected the target.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 23 March 2014 14: 20
        +2
        Rather, the ability of AUG to go unnoticed to the boundary of LA's rise is doubtful. This armada will shine in all ranges.
        And so yes, of course, the same backfires should get the central control from the ground and hide behind their fighters.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 23 March 2014 21: 59
          +1
          Quote: sivuch
          the ability of AUG to go unnoticed to the line of LA rise is doubtful. This armada will shine in all ranges.

          In radio mode, silence to the threshold of the rise of aviation. Or in SBD mode, through space. And everything is quiet and calm!
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 24 March 2014 09: 28
            0
            So AB will not lift Hokai, and will it turn off the OVC radar along with the drives for the aircraft?
            There will be grace
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 23 March 2014 16: 36
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        And how will these notorious boats find an aircraft carrier in the sea?

        Voooot !!! For this, we need an aircraft carrier with AWACS aircraft, and not for shock functions
  20. Mercenary
    Mercenary 23 March 2014 09: 18
    +2
    Aircraft carrier is primarily a weapon of aggression. efficiency against the Papuans 100%. against countries with good air defense 17%. + high cost + vulnerability of the aircraft carrier itself. So, we need to think hard whether we need them. maybe a couple and come in handy but no more.
    1. snalegaev
      snalegaev 23 March 2014 12: 56
      0
      You are right in asserting that such expensive toys for Russia are not practical, and it is necessary to focus on aspects of the defensive strategy, focusing primarily on bringing the quality and quantity of naval aviation to the appropriate level, replenishing fleets with universal ships in the required quantity, and building up submarine forces, the creation of arsenal ships for ocean fleets. The above tasks are today, literally, priority and very costly in all respects.
  21. 77bob1973
    77bob1973 23 March 2014 09: 37
    +1
    Some see aircraft carriers as a panacea.
  22. poccinin
    poccinin 23 March 2014 09: 41
    +4
    strange people. RUSSIA washes the waters of THREE OCEANS !! Aircraft carriers are building. INDIA AND CHINA. Why do they need them? they are stupid people, probably there’s nothing to do with it. RUSSIA MARINE POWER HOLDERS. AIRCRAFT SHOULD BE. THE BEST IN THE WORLD. These are POLITICS and INFLUENCE. aircraft carriers are capable of performing many tasks at sea. Arguing on the topic, it is necessary and not necessary to get to the point where we don’t need a fleet at all. We only need to put rocket boats. But they will shoot far. And how 150 boats will rush into an aircraft carrier, as soon as 300 missiles are launched, that's all.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 23 March 2014 16: 38
      0
      Quote: poccinin
      trance people. RUSSIA washes the waters of THREE OCEANS !! Aircraft carriers are building. INDIA AND CHINA. Why do they need them? they are stupid people, probably there’s nothing to do with money.

      For the sake of justice, it should be noted that China and India, and some other countries, but not Russia, depend on the supply of resources from abroad, which are carried out by sea, for them it is critical, for Russia - not.
  23. Sergey S.
    Sergey S. 23 March 2014 09: 52
    +3
    Strange article.
    Put a minus.
    To talk about the prospects for the development of fleet ships, it is necessary to evaluate the tasks that the entire fleet solves. And then it will be ponchtno, what ship has advantages in what conditions and what is its combat effectiveness.

    Creating aircraft carriers back in the USSR, since 1979, it was not without mistakes. The result - no matter what the ship - is the adjustment of the project. But "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" turned out to be a very good ship. Special. considering what kind of aircraft learned to fight with him at sea.

    Prior to this, the soshniks for aircraft carriers created special aircraft, which were always inferior in their combat qualities to air force aircraft. Our naval MiGs and Dryers were clearly stronger than any aircraft carrier aircraft.

    Our aircraft-carrying cruisers were called so in order to be not aircraft carriers, but cruisers in international treaties. By the way, this idea is excellent. At a time when there was still no comic coverage of the theaters of possible military operations, it was the aircraft-carrying ship that had the maximum possibility of using our long-range cruise missiles (the Basalt complex), because aviation provided reconnaissance and tracking of targets, which a ship without aircraft at distances of hundreds of kilometers can do can not.
  24. bubla5
    bubla5 23 March 2014 09: 54
    0
    And they push us to build expensive aircraft carriers, such an opinion, so far it is necessary to raise the machine tool industry, and then it will be visible, I think in the future they will invent something new and these expensive coffins will be a thing of the past
    1. Sma11
      Sma11 23 March 2014 09: 59
      +1
      It does not interfere. In our history, defense objectives have stimulated the development of other industries. If proceeding is profitable, not profitable, then we must forget about space.
  25. Sma11
    Sma11 23 March 2014 09: 54
    0
    "Very desirable for any serious nation,
    That walks the earth on its own way
    Have some ship aviation
    And peasants such as Melnikov Seryoga "
    (Mikhail Kalinkin)
  26. Quantum
    Quantum 23 March 2014 09: 57
    +3
    It’s better to intensify the process of decomposition of the US economy, then these troughs
    will not be able to fulfill the role of offensive means.
    1. Cossacks
      Cossacks 23 March 2014 10: 25
      +1
      Well, if they attach Medvedev, Chubais, Serdyukov and further on the list
    2. Cossacks
      Cossacks 23 March 2014 10: 25
      +1
      Well, if they attach Medvedev, Chubais, Serdyukov and further on the list
  27. V1451145
    V1451145 23 March 2014 10: 02
    -3
    RUSSIA HAS A LOT OF ADEQUATE ANSWERS FOR EXAMPLE: 949 ANTEY. • K-150 “Tomsk.” • K-139 “Belgorod”. K-148 Krasnodar • K-173 Krasnoyarsk • K-132 Irkutsk • K-119 Voronezh • K-410 Smolensk • K-442 Chelyabinsk • K-456 Tver • K -266 "Eagle" and this is only boats of the same subclass. More for example cat series
    State Unitary Enterprise “PO“ Sevmash enterprise ”K-480“ Ak Bars ”• K-317“ Panther ”• K-461“ Wolf ”• K-328“ Leopard ”• K-154“ Tiger ”• K-157“ Vepr ”• K -335 "Cheetah" Plant them. Lenin Komsomol K-284 “Shark” • K-263 “Barnaul” • K-322 “Sperm whale” • K-391 “Bratsk” • K-331 “Magadan” • K-419 “Kuzbass” • K-295 “Samara” • K-152 “Nerpa” Not talking about BOREAU, DOLPHINS AND DIESEL PLATES WHICH DIFFICULT WILL BE OUT OF ACCOUNT.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 11: 26
      +4
      Quote: V1451145
      RUSSIA HAS A LOT OF ADEQUATE ANSWERS FOR EXAMPLE: 949 ANTEY. • K-150 “Tomsk.” • K-139 “Belgorod”. K-148 Krasnodar • K-173 Krasnoyarsk • K-132 Irkutsk • K-119 Voronezh • K-410 Smolensk • K-442 Chelyabinsk • K-456 Tver • K -266 "Eagle" and this is only boats of the same subclass. More for example cat series
      State Unitary Enterprise “PO“ Sevmash enterprise ”K-480“ Ak Bars ”• K-317“ Panther ”• K-461“ Wolf ”• K-328“ Leopard ”• K-154“ Tiger ”• K-157“ Vepr ”• K -335 "Cheetah" Plant them. Lenin Komsomol K-284 “Shark” • K-263 “Barnaul” • K-322 “Sperm whale” • K-391 “Bratsk” • K-331 “Magadan” • K-419 “Kuzbass” • K-295 “Samara” • K-152 “Nerpa” Not talking about BOREAU, DOLPHINS AND DIESEL PLATES WHICH DIFFICULT WILL BE OUT OF ACCOUNT.

      If you use Wikipedia, then at least read what is written there.
      K-150 “Tomsk” fire during the repair in September last year.
      K-148 "Krasnodar" fire when cutting to metal, just six days ago.
      K-173 Krasnoyarsk, pending cutting.
      K-132 "Irkutsk" in the infinite expectation of repair since 2008, corruption scandals.
      K-442 "Chelyabinsk" in an endless wait for repairs since 1999, "in reserve".
      K-266 "Eagle" under repair.
      K-139 Belgorod never descended.
      How else have you Kursk not dragged here ...
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 23 March 2014 16: 40
        -1
        Quote: Nayhas
        If you use Wikipedia, then at least read what is written there.

        A similar list can be written for the fleet of any country; recently, an American ship in the Black Sea has run aground, despite all electronic means.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 23 March 2014 20: 05
          +1
          Quote: Setrac
          A similar list can be written for the fleet of any country; recently, an American ship in the Black Sea has run aground, despite all electronic means.

          between ran aground and burned out during cutting for scrap probably there is a difference?
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 23 March 2014 11: 28
      +3
      Tomsk is under repair - not operational, Belgorod is unfinished, Krasnoyar is already being cut, Krasnoyarsk - is waiting for disposal, Irkutsk - is under repair - not combat ready,
      Voronezh - OK, Smolensk - OK, Chelyabinsk - OK Tver- OK Orel - in repair.
      What do you want to scare AUG?
  28. w2000
    w2000 23 March 2014 10: 05
    0
    Carriers are a weapon of aggression and colonial expansion. Our army is created and tuned to the defense of the country and possible military operations with neighboring states. Why do we need aircraft carriers? Even if we had 3-4 of them cruising off the coast of the United States, this would not have changed anything in the strategic alignment of forces. They do not represent a real threat to a powerful nuclear power, and we do not have overseas territories for the control and intimidation of which they are really suitable. Our fleet needs more strategic and strike submarines.
  29. bulvas
    bulvas 23 March 2014 10: 06
    +3
    While we will catch up with aircraft carriers, the world will go further and we will not have anything to do with our aircraft carriers.
    The future belongs to space, UAVs and underwater vehicles.
  30. smith7
    smith7 23 March 2014 10: 11
    +3
    Well, nafig, these AUG ... To invest in the first place is necessary for the development of production of means of production. We ran out of the machine tool industry, yesterday's technology on obsolete equipment - this is our destiny. The United States 25 years ago, almost from scratch, designed and launched the first SeaWolf, a very modern nuclear submarine, from the very beginning. All thanks to the merger of computer technology with processing technology, mathematical modeling of physical processes to reduce the volume of field tests. Time is expensive ... We may not have time.
  31. Delink
    Delink 23 March 2014 10: 14
    0
    We also have a submarine fleet. They will sink the air cruiser and have to land in the water and get home swimming. Let them think how to attach oars to the wings. You will need to row something.
    2-3 cruisers for any need. We are not going to swim only near our borders.
  32. rubin6286
    rubin6286 23 March 2014 10: 17
    +2
    The article is informative and interesting. You can still write a lot of such articles and exaggerate the topic of aircraft carriers, given the level of readership, but is it necessary? Tell us in an accessible form what AUG is, what its composition is, where the ships are based, and what coastal infrastructure is, how combat training and warning personnel are organized, equipment repair and maintenance, ammunition storage, logistics support in the base and at sea, what is the schedule days at the melt of the crew, pilots and technicians, how much does it cost to enter the sea of ​​AUG,
    It will immediately become clear to everyone that our country today simply does not "pull" the construction of aircraft carriers, and even more so their operation, repair and maintenance. Nothing that is required for this has never been and is not now. American ships sail in the ocean. and ours only sometimes "go out" there. We do not have such naval bases as in the United States and have never been on our territory, not to mention the coast of friendly countries. Do these countries exist now and why are they friends with us? In Soviet times, the production base was different, but even then it could not be compared with what the United States had. But now what? Science and technology do not stand still. Until we reach the current level of the American aircraft carrier fleet, our "partner" will go even further in this matter. Today we need an asymmetric response guaranteed by economic ones. scientific and production capabilities of the country, fast and efficient. I think that our design bureaus, military-industrial complex enterprises, state authorities and the corresponding military bodies are working on this.
    1. snalegaev
      snalegaev 23 March 2014 13: 10
      +1
      Quite right, I really hope that in the near future we will already see significant steps in a reasonable and only right direction.
  33. yurik
    yurik 23 March 2014 10: 21
    0
    we don’t need aircraft carriers, we need to create a huge infrastructure for them, additionally build ships to protect them, and as a result, it will simply ruin the country by exorbitant expenses for the maintenance of all this, it’s much more efficient to build modern nuclear submarines that can send all these American tanks to the bottom and cost cheaper to maintain and operate.
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 23 March 2014 13: 29
      +2
      The fleet must be balanced, i.e. capable of solving in modern conditions the tasks of protecting the country from aggression, proceeding from the real level of military threats and in accordance with the existing military doctrine. It should include, first of all, ships of those classes that are really capable of ensuring the country's freedom of navigation and withstanding the enemy in an attack from the sea. There is no need to "fixate" on submarines and exaggerate their capabilities.
  34. Cossacks
    Cossacks 23 March 2014 10: 22
    +3
    The construction of large warships is seen as an investment in a peaceful future or something like that. Roughly speaking, military losses will be immeasurably greater. And money is a bit of arithmetic; the Olympic Games in Sochi, according to some reports, cost 51 billion green, and the cost of an aircraft carrier like Nimitz - 5 billion. and the last pelvis like Bush 6.5. Now the rhetorical question is, what is more prestigious and safer for the country than the suffering of the girl Lyuba about Nabokov, which soon and no one will remember or a dozen aircraft carriers. What do you think in the Crimea there was no bloodshed frightened by our medalists or the army.
  35. kot8028
    kot8028 23 March 2014 10: 23
    +2
    Carriers are needed, and not one or two! Is it a bit old have raised this topic ?! It takes years to create them, and they need them now!
  36. upasika1918
    upasika1918 23 March 2014 10: 32
    0
    There is a McCain for every aircraft carrier. Where is he now, Forrestal? Where am I, McCain? I'm alive and well, edreona stick!
    1. Aleks21
      Aleks21 23 March 2014 11: 33
      0
      C'mon, repeat the fun of Komsomolskaya Pravda - a missile from 410 hit 405, and Maken sat next to 416.
      http://www.balancer.ru/society/2013/10/t85772--avianosets-forrestol-szheg-senato
      r-makkejn. 4422.
      I think at least the edge of suspicion would be to my grandfather or anything but a mop after the service was not trusted.
  37. saag
    saag 23 March 2014 10: 33
    0
    Quote: SPACE
    UAV is required to fly there and return

    During the war, this is not required; it flies in one direction with a ticket and performs one task
    1. SPACE
      SPACE 23 March 2014 11: 10
      +2
      Quote: saag
      During the war, this is not required; it flies in one direction with a ticket and performs one task

      That's right, then why not have an aircraft carrier, and disposable UAVs turn into cruise missiles, in the end we come to the UPV on a cruiser and missiles.
  38. runway
    runway 23 March 2014 10: 42
    +1
    I liked the style of writing the article - everything is laid out "on the shelves".
    The author is certainly a plus.
    But I do not agree with the conclusions of the author. What does he base his assumptions on in the absence of the need for Russia to have AUGs? On what, in his opinion, the means of destruction will be in 30-50 years, and AUGs, at the same time, he froze in static immobility .... Everything changes and develops and, as we know, in a spiral. The fact that the aircraft carriers are needed is noted by the author himself, mentioning the long arm and the fact that our submarine fleet is in dire need of air cover. Expensive, speak? Do not be cheap. Now we are locked off our coastline. After 50 years, our children will see completely new aircraft carriers near their shores. Under whose flag?
    PS In the ranks of the United States 21 or 22 aircraft carrier?
    1. pr 627
      pr 627 23 March 2014 11: 25
      -1
      The AB exit reveals the fleet's intentions to intensify the activities of the marine component of the nuclear deterrence forces. The deployment areas of the RCCN are located in the area of ​​ground aviation operations; therefore, the value of AB for this task is doubtful.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 11: 49
      +1
      Quote: piston
      PS In the ranks of the United States 21 or 22 aircraft carrier?

      Only ten accepted by the fleet, one USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is being completed and tested, the second USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) in construction.
      USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) - under repair in Norfolk until November 2014.
      USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) - under repair with core replacement since March 2013.
      USS George Washington (CVN-73) - under repair with core replacement since February 2014.
      The last two are out of order for about three years.
  39. common man
    common man 23 March 2014 11: 10
    +3
    We are told: "Everything is correct in the USA, we must do as they do." So that's it. The ratio of destroyers to aircraft carriers in the US Navy is 10: 1. Therefore, let's build a dozen modern destroyers of 9-11 thousand tons with a displacement, and then we will begin to build an aircraft carrier. We have Kuzya hanging out on the seas alone, without security. Is this the case? And when operating along the coast against more or less developed countries, the AUG, in addition to coastal aviation, also has a strong enemy, diesel submarines. Cheap, low noise, and very effective when organizing "packs of wolves". Not everything is so simple.
  40. shelva
    shelva 23 March 2014 11: 23
    -1
    At the current pace of technological development in 2030, all modern projects can simply become outdated. The emphasis should not be placed on dimensions but on the effectiveness of weapons. This is more useful for the technological development of the state, and less burdensome for industry. Russia has such aircraft carriers as Kronstadt, Crimea, Sakhalin, and in the Arctic Ocean there are a lot of such aircraft carriers - you only need to arm them well. This will be cheaper.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 22: 43
      +2
      Quote: shelva
      Russia has such aircraft carriers as Kronstadt, Crimea, Sakhalin, and in the Arctic Ocean there are a lot of such aircraft carriers

      I agree. But, please remind me of our aircraft carrier on the Faroe-Icelandic anti-submarine boundary? -- I'm sorry, what? I can not hear!
      Good, but in the Mediterranean? What is deaf here too !? Well then, my friend, you balobolka repeating hackneyed conventional wisdom for suckers.
      Quote: shelva
      It will be cheaper.

      It’s cheaper not to have a fleet at all. But then you have to feed someone else's army.
  41. fktrcfylhn61
    fktrcfylhn61 23 March 2014 11: 31
    0
    In my opinion, it makes sense to develop a submarine fleet! In the maximum variety of species, and a huge amount of ammunition! And secretly and tangibly!
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 12: 16
      +2
      Quote: fktrcfylhn61
      In my opinion, it makes sense to develop a submarine fleet! In the maximum variety of species, and a huge amount of ammunition! And secretly and tangibly!

      Typical fallacy. Yes, the submarine has many advantages, but also many disadvantages.
      For example:
      Stealth of movement. Modern submarines and submarines can move so stealthily that they merge with the natural noise background. This allows you to go unnoticed by passive detection tools.
      BUT! Such secrecy is achieved only when moving under water at a speed of up to 6 knots, i.e. no more than 10 km / h. While the movement speed of the AOG is from 20 to 25 knots, it is simply unrealistic to catch up with it as you understand, you need to go to a speed exceeding the speed of the AOG, thereby giving out your location to enemy detection means.
      Further. In addition to passive detection tools, there are active ones from which it is difficult to hide in the open sea.
      Further. Detection range. Nuclear submarines, and especially NPLs, are practically blind, the detection radius of surface ships with the help of a light aircraft is small, no more than 50-60 km. For example, the same reconnaissance aircraft with the help of radars are capable of detecting ASGs at a distance of 500 km., I.e. an order of magnitude more. Those. using only their hull at the nuclear submarines, the chances of finding an enemy aircraft carrier are not many.
      Also, do not forget that the main opponent of the submariners is aviation, and AUG has a lot of it. The range of detection tools is large, omitted and towed ASG, active and passive RSL, while it is very difficult to hide from such an enemy, he is always faster and always more informative.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 23 March 2014 22: 56
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Detection range. Nuclear submarines and especially NPLs are practically blind; the detection radius of surface ships with the help of a hull is small, not more than 50-60km.

        Eugene, I fully share your position on a balanced fleet. Only you are a little wrong about the D detection of the submarine - NK. Of course, a lot depends on the hydrology of the sea. but with type 1, our last submarines hear NK at D = 320 km. At such a distance, it is difficult (almost impossible) to determine the main target in the order, but it is quite possible to launch a "flock" of RCCs. On the principle of "shoot - forget". Next, a dash to the position of applying TO, or a new position of the salvo
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 24 March 2014 05: 48
          +2
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Of course, a lot depends on the hydrology of the sea. but with type 1, our last submarines hear NK at D = 320 km. At such a distance, it is difficult (almost impossible) to determine the main target in the order, but it is quite possible to launch a "flock" of RCCs. On the principle of "shoot - forget". Further, a dash to the position of applying TO, or a new position of the volley.

          Of course, I’m not a submariner and I base my opinion on the literature I read very well that often manufacturers of systems both here and here give the result achieved under ideal conditions as constantly achievable, ours are also inclined to attribute the data from the technical specifications to the characteristics of the product, while having The act allegedly guarantees these characteristics. I believe that the military should not rely on the fact that the situation with the same hydrology will be ideal in the right area, the right temperatures, the right depth, the absence of interference from the civilian fleet, and even more so set tasks based on ideal conditions.
  42. shurup
    shurup 23 March 2014 11: 43
    0
    A computer simulator can be made and debugged in a few years.
    Let the admirals and all comers train with or without aircraft carriers.
    BIUSs and toys are written by the same specialists, who, unlike aircraft carriers, we already have.
    That's where you need to invest.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 23: 18
      +1
      Quote: shurup
      A computer simulator can be made and debugged in a few years. Let the admirals and all comers train with or without aircraft carriers.

      Screw, and you have an avatar - marine. Therefore, I cannot forgive you this stupidity.
      EACH SEAFARER KNOWS THAT VICTORY IN THE SEA DEPENDS ON THE EXTENT OF CREW EXERCISE, ESPECIALLY SUBMARINE!
      Quote: shurup
      That's where you need to invest.

      EXACTLY! So far no one has come up with a better study than a camping trip (autonomy).
  43. supertiger21
    supertiger21 23 March 2014 11: 59
    0
    I read the article and put a "plus" good I agree with the opinion of the author!
    An aircraft carrier is usually an offensive weapon, so the Yankees have already released 11 of them. At any necessary moment, when someone needs to "bring democracy", these giants will first of all float to the conflict zone. therefore, their role as an air guard is secondary. This proves again that the AUG is needed for aggression and not for defense. Since we "do not spread democracy", therefore, we do not need this type of ship. As the author said, the coastal aviation of the Navy is enough for protection ...
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 23: 33
      +2
      Quote: supertiger21
      AUG - needed for aggression and not for defense.

      Yes, what task you set, it will carry out this.
      Quote: supertiger21
      Navy coastal aviation will be enough for protection.

      Yeah, especially after the application of the BSHU on the airfield and the runway incapacitation. The aircraft carrier can "run away", but the stationary air hub is chained by coordinates to the "permanent base", known up to a meter before the start of the database.
      I wrote above about the actions of aviation "on call", I will not repeat myself.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 24 March 2014 11: 34
        +1
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Yes, what task you set, it will carry out this.


        It’ll do it, it’s just how successful it is. Coastal aviation will be better off with protection.

        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Yeah, especially after the application of the BSHU on the airfield and the runway incapacitation. The aircraft carrier can "run away", but the stationary air hub is chained by coordinates to the "permanent base", known up to a meter before the start of the database. I wrote above about the actions of aviation "on call", I will not repeat myself.


        And why is the Avionetz better in defense ??? GDP is possible to restore, but the ship is not. There are more opportunities from land than from the sea.
  44. Zomanus
    Zomanus 23 March 2014 12: 01
    0
    Bring Legend-Liana to mind. Convert all ships with promising anti-ship missiles of various ranges, with the ability to work in a pack like Onyx. The same goes for maritime aircraft. Increase the number of AWACS assets, including light aircraft like Hokai, with the ability to target and direct missiles at the target. To work out the issue of ballistic anti-ship missiles, with the possibility of destroying an order, not one ship. And in general, it will be possible to forget about the Navy, as a means of war between powerful powers. I understand that it sounds like fierce nonsense, but I want it that way.))
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 23 March 2014 23: 53
      +2
      Quote: Zomanus
      To work out the issue of ballistic anti-ship missiles, with the possibility of destroying an order, not one ship.

      What is it like? A nuclear explosion, or what? At one time, the Strategic Missile Forces proposed that the fleet boil all the oceans, but destroy the AUG. The idea didn’t work at that time, but took root ... Then the fleet got the 8K14-1 missile with the Aerofon warhead. What is difficult for colleagues to say now ...
  45. spymaster
    spymaster 23 March 2014 12: 06
    0
    The USSR has always relied on the submarine fleet, and the United States on aircraft carriers ... as a result, the submarines were much more efficient, especially considering their main characteristic - HIDDEN. The boat is not much, but still cheaper in construction and maintenance, although it is more complicated in design and filling. Having destroyed or damaged one carrier, the carrier-strike group (AUG) already loses or temporarily (depending on damage) makes it difficult to fulfill its main mission ... the boat in most cases acts alone, and it will be replaced much faster by another (not God forbid, of course). You can recall that there are submarines whose main purpose is to monitor AUG (and AUS) and destroy them. A boat, unlike an aircraft carrier, does not need escort of several URO, destroyers and auxiliary vessels. Although I acknowledge the considerable strength of the ACG (and even more so the ACS), I remain a supporter proven back in the twentieth century and theory and most importantly practice, namely: "The development of the submarine fleet is much more efficient, faster and less costly than the aircraft carrier. Moreover, the experience of our enterprises in the field of submarine shipbuilding is much higher than that of the aircraft carrier." This does not mean that there is no need to build aircraft carriers. This means that you first need to build underwater shield RUSSIA (well, or an insurmountable sea line - to anyone as you like).
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 23 March 2014 12: 20
      +2
      Quote: spymaster
      in the end, the submarines were much more effective, especially considering their main characteristic - HIDDEN.

      Let me repeat: Stealth movement. Modern submarines and submarines can move so stealthily that they merge with the natural noise background. This allows you to go unnoticed by passive detection tools.
      BUT! Such secrecy is achieved only when moving under water at a speed of up to 6 knots, i.e. no more than 10 km / h. While the movement speed of the AOG is from 20 to 25 knots, it is simply unrealistic to catch up with it as you understand, you need to go to a speed exceeding the speed of the AOG, thereby giving out your location to enemy detection means.
      Further. In addition to passive detection tools, there are active ones from which it is difficult to hide in the open sea.
      Further. Detection range. Nuclear submarines, and especially NPLs, are practically blind, the detection radius of surface ships with the help of a light aircraft is small, no more than 50-60 km. For example, the same reconnaissance aircraft with the help of radars are capable of detecting ASGs at a distance of 500 km., I.e. an order of magnitude more. Those. using only their hull at the nuclear submarines, the chances of finding an enemy aircraft carrier are not many.
      Also, do not forget that the main opponent of the submariners is aviation, and AUG has a lot of it. The range of detection tools is large, omitted and towed ASG, active and passive RSL, while it is very difficult to hide from such an enemy, he is always faster and always more informative.
    2. Russkiy53
      Russkiy53 23 March 2014 13: 31
      +1
      The development of aviation detection means is such that submarines simply cannot reach the range of impact ...
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 23 March 2014 16: 43
        +1
        Quote: Russkiy53
        The development of aviation detection means is such that submarines simply cannot reach the range of impact ...

        You are dreaming.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 23 March 2014 20: 07
          +1
          Quote: Setrac
          You are dreaming.

          Everything is quite real. To list all the means and systems of the US anti-submarine defense, we need a separate detailed article, you won’t tell. Do you think submariners are just so afraid of aviation more than the Sivulfs and Virginia and the Elk are?
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 24 March 2014 00: 07
        +2
        Quote: Russkiy53
        The development of aviation detection means is such that submarines simply cannot reach the range of impact ...
        Whether oh! Remind me of Operation Atrina or will you read it yourself?
        And then, the distance of the blow is growing more and more.
        But aviation remains (along with submarines) the main threat to our boats.
  46. Artem1967
    Artem1967 23 March 2014 12: 08
    0
    I agree with the author of the article. The USA has unlimited access to the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. In this regard, the US Navy must be sufficiently navigable and autonomous for long ocean crossings and warfare at a considerable distance from their native shores. The developed naval system in the world, of course, makes it easier for them to complete tasks, but nothing more. The geostrategic position of Russia is completely different, and this determines the priorities for the development of the fleet. A balanced fleet with powerful coast-based aviation, an ocean-going submarine fleet, and means to support the deployment of underwater missile carriers at positions are needed. Then we can effectively respond to any challenges of a potential adversary by spending less budget funds. Dreams of powerful aircraft carriers are better left - we won’t pull.
  47. Rupor
    Rupor 23 March 2014 12: 12
    0
    Quote: svp67
    I am afraid that for a long time we will not have time for aircraft carriers. But I do not agree with the author, the aircraft carriers "will not die", they will change, but they will still be ... I think that the promising aircraft carrier will carry both shock and anti-submarine and reconnaissance UAVs ...

    Do not be afraid my friend! New systems are being designed for vertical take-off and landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Lifting engines are disposable, reset after takeoff, and landing engines are solid fuel, with a short pulse and reusable. This will allow you to take off and land almost anywhere.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 24 March 2014 00: 22
      +2
      Quote: Rupor
      Lifting engines are disposable, reset after takeoff, and landing engines are solid fuel, with a short pulse and reusable. This will allow you to take off and land almost anywhere.

      Well, about the PD in the form of Starters - you can still "chew", although it's hard to believe (The weight of a modern jet deck is 30 tons!) But about landing - a bullet! It is necessary to extinguish the horizontal speed to zero, and, hanging on the jet stream, sit on the deck. Therefore, a short impulse will not work here. The laws of aerodynamics have not been canceled.
  48. Nikich
    Nikich 23 March 2014 12: 16
    0
    The author claims that we are supposed to build aircraft carriers for a long time. Need documentation, etc. But relatively recently, a year ago, we did finish building an aircraft carrier for India. Therefore, we have the documentation and the necessary technologies.
  49. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 23 March 2014 12: 16
    -1
    If the Eagles are restored, then obviously there will be new escort AVs. Without them, normal raider squadrons will not work. This is what Kuznetsov was for. Two 1144, one 1143, escort, here is a ready-made squadron for any task, even the defeat of the AUG, even the duty in Srdz. sea. Give two squadrons two Mistrals = capture of Iceland, or Hawaii. And drums AB, yes, in general we don't need nafig, it's easier to build up the grouping with another escort AB.
  50. Nikich
    Nikich 23 March 2014 12: 18
    0
    Quote: spymaster
    The USSR has always relied on the submarine fleet, and the United States on aircraft carriers ... as a result, the submarines were much more efficient, especially considering their main characteristic - HIDDEN. The boat is not much, but still cheaper in construction and maintenance, although it is more complicated in design and filling. Having destroyed or damaged one carrier, the carrier-strike group (AUG) already loses or temporarily (depending on damage) makes it difficult to fulfill its main mission ... the boat in most cases acts alone, and it will be replaced much faster by another (not God forbid, of course). You can recall that there are submarines whose main purpose is to monitor AUG (and AUS) and destroy them. A boat, unlike an aircraft carrier, does not need escort of several URO, destroyers and auxiliary vessels. Although I acknowledge the considerable strength of the ACG (and even more so the ACS), I remain a supporter proven back in the twentieth century and theory and most importantly practice, namely: "The development of the submarine fleet is much more efficient, faster and less costly than the aircraft carrier. Moreover, the experience of our enterprises in the field of submarine shipbuilding is much higher than that of the aircraft carrier." This does not mean that there is no need to build aircraft carriers. This means that you first need to build underwater shield RUSSIA (well, or an insurmountable sea line - to anyone as you like).

    Given that in the USSR they could build 10 submarines in 5 years, and now we are building 5 submarines for 10 years