Military Review

Dmitry Rogozin: The task of building an aircraft carrier in Russia is not worth it

110
On Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that at the moment Russia has no task of building an aircraft carrier.

Dmitry Rogozin: The task of building an aircraft carrier in Russia is not worth it


“An aircraft carrier is a geopolitical decision, not a military-technical one. In the military-technical sense, we proved on November 16 last year that the Russian Federation for the first time acquired the competence to create aircraft carrier ships fleet"- quotes his words RIA "News".

Earlier, representatives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reported that the question of building an aircraft carrier would be considered no earlier than five years later. While in the state armament program before 2020, this is not provided.

“There will be such a task - it will be fulfilled. But so far this task is not worth it, ”Rogozin said.

Meanwhile, it was previously noted that the contract with the French side on the Mistral helicopter carriers involved obtaining appropriate technologies and experience in building aircraft carriers of this class.

At the moment, the Russian Navy has one aircraft-carrying cruiser, the Admiral Kuznetsov.
Photos used:
http://ria.ru/
110 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Angro Magno
    Angro Magno 11 September 2014 08: 21
    +24
    Tired of these conversations about the aircraft carrier. He was not needed in the USSR, and now even more so. There is where to spend the money.
    1. alex-s
      alex-s 11 September 2014 08: 22
      +19
      I agree. Enough for us and the Crimea.
      1. Fear
        Fear 11 September 2014 08: 25
        +5
        An expensive business is servicing an aircraft carrier. In the US there are 10 to 3000 people each. Dress, feed, arm ... and so on ad infinitum. No wonder they have the largest public debt in the world.
        1. Letun
          Letun 11 September 2014 08: 35
          +10
          Quote: Strah
          An expensive business is servicing an aircraft carrier. In the US there are 10 to 3000 people each. Dress, feed, arm ... and so on ad infinitum. No wonder they have the largest public debt in the world.

          That's where the dog is buried! The United States has the largest public debt because it has 10 aircraft carriers! Thank you so much, you just opened my eyes lol
          By the way, the maintenance of the Army must also be abandoned, or hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and they must be armed, arm and so on ad infinitum! Horror !! 11
          1. fridge
            fridge 11 September 2014 13: 13
            +5
            Let's compare the incomparable "Abrams" versus "Fagot" for the price. So an aircraft carrier has all the eggs in one basket. In the USSR, they built a "weave" to fight aircraft carriers. To navigate the seas, aircraft carriers and bases are needed all over the world. We don't have them. States, as a rule, use them against countries that do not have air defense. Suppose Russia has 10 of them, against whom should they be used? States from all over the world collect loot through central banks to maintain power. We only have our own mate. and fin. opportunities to use. So he can think about how their (USA) capabilities in a cheaper way to neutralize the threat.
            1. g1v2
              g1v2 11 September 2014 13: 32
              +3
              Exactly . Amers need aircraft carriers since the zone of their possible hostilities is the whole world, and from their territory they, for example, cannot control naval forces and other regions of interest to them. Our zones of possible conflicts are located at our borders and are quite reachable from our territory. These 10 aircraft carriers are mobile bases that the Americans are pulling to where they want to fight. Well, in the case of a big war, but NATO’s war with the Russian Federation will not be different, they will be destroyed, for example, tiao. In principle, tiao can be detonated even at a distance from aug and from it, little remains. So if you build an aircraft carrier, then there is only one - for prestige, although it is painfully expensive and not very effective for our military doctrine.
        2. 00105042
          00105042 11 September 2014 08: 36
          +16
          If you want to ruin a country, give it an aircraft carrier. The fleet itself is very expensive, and aircraft carriers are extremely expensive. In theory, it would be more logical to bring to mind * Kuznetsov *, provide him with a worthy escort like AUG, and let him show his muscles in the right places .
        3. goose
          goose 11 September 2014 09: 40
          +2
          Not a single modern US aircraft carrier goes to sea with a crew of less than 4500 people, often it exceeds 5200 (including full-time marine corps).
      2. Boris55
        Boris55 11 September 2014 08: 27
        +11
        Air forces are needed to advance their interests around the world, to protect the regimes loyal to us in other states.
        In the future, such a need will be relevant, but for now - we will strengthen our defense.
        1. VICTOR-61
          VICTOR-61 11 September 2014 09: 00
          +8
          I completely agree with you we need an aircraft carrier, but then
      3. Nevsky_ZU
        Nevsky_ZU 11 September 2014 08: 32
        +5
        Throughout history (with the exception of Alaska), Russia has expanded by land. It is necessary to continue. All Eurasia is our aircraft carrier)))) good
      4. lelikas
        lelikas 11 September 2014 08: 37
        +8
        Quote: alex-s
        I agree. Enough for us and the Crimea.

        It remains to resolve the issue with the transfer of it, if necessary, to the Mediterranean and the Atlantic!
      5. VICTOR-61
        VICTOR-61 11 September 2014 08: 58
        +2
        Yes, and we will lag behind Ukraine. We will not let anyone manage the mattresses there. Loyal politicians should stand there and not this fascist government.
      6. Kulakov_Dmitry
        Kulakov_Dmitry 11 September 2014 10: 16
        +3
        Crimea is our aircraft carrier!
    2. Denis
      Denis 11 September 2014 08: 26
      +13
      Quote: Angro Magno
      aircraft carrier. He was not needed in the USSR

      And what about the aircraft-carrying cruisers and the nuclear-powered Ulyanovsk? (see the layout in the photo)
      The fleet is not only the Baltic and the Black Sea
      1. tomket
        tomket 11 September 2014 09: 41
        +1
        Quote: Denis
        nuclear "Ulyanovsk"?

        Was Ulyanovsk also with a springboard? I thought it had catapults. Or one does not interfere with the other?
        1. aleks 62
          aleks 62 11 September 2014 10: 52
          +1
          The catapults could not be made ..... Yes, and the steam consumption for them is very large ..... So they did it with a springboard ...
          1. Denis
            Denis 11 September 2014 11: 36
            0
            Quote: aleks 62
            steam consumption on them is very large

            Is it really a big problem with an atomic propulsion device?
        2. Denis
          Denis 11 September 2014 11: 22
          +1
          Quote: tomket
          Was Ulyanovsk also with a springboard? I thought it had catapults. Or one does not interfere with the other?

          A springboard and two steam catapults were designed. They are visible in the section.
          Maybe they thought after replacing with electromagnetic
        3. Denis
          Denis 11 September 2014 11: 29
          +1
          Quote: tomket
          Was Ulyanovsk also with a springboard?

          There was an 1160 project without a springboard, it was later abandoned in favor of the 1143.7 project
          The development of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of the Ulyanovsk 1143.7 project, which was to become the flagship of the Navy, began in the Nevsky Design Bureau in 1984 under the leadership of L. V. Belov (later it was replaced by Yu. M. Varfolomeev). When designing, the experience of developing the 1160 project was taken into account. Ulyanovsk was planned as the first of four ships of the same type

          On the fodel of an aircraft carrier of the 1160 project - on the deck there are models of MiG-23K fighters and Yak-44 RSLD aircraft
      2. goose
        goose 11 September 2014 09: 43
        0
        Kuznetsov in the SF is not needed, he only acceptable to swim in the Far East. The northern type has not yet been created. At a minimum, it should be larger, at least as Ulyanovsk. And remove all weapons, maybe even for self-defense. All options are exclusively for flight support. Radar can be modest, without transcendent capacities. Anyway, the flying radar sees further.
    3. MSA
      MSA 11 September 2014 08: 27
      +2
      Francois Hollande, like a dog in the manger, had already made a decision, would have kept these Mistrals and returned the money with forfeit, and Putin would have directed them in the right direction, and at the same time Hollande would have flushed the toilet ...
      1. MAX2014
        MAX2014 11 September 2014 09: 40
        0
        I agree with you. If France breaks the contract, it will return the money for the ships + penalty. This is enough for another ash-able to sink at least 30 Mistral.
    4. Giant thought
      Giant thought 11 September 2014 08: 33
      -4
      That's right: it is not yet needed, and if the task is set, then we will build it.
      1. Demon0n
        Demon0n 11 September 2014 14: 46
        0
        Quote: Giant thought
        That's right: it is not yet needed, and if the task is set, then we will build it.


        Please do not confuse necessity (problem-task-method), opportunity (availability of necessary resources) and rationality (general assessment of the effectiveness of solving a problem relative to the resources expended) with expediency (correspondence of a method to a task and a problem to a problem).
    5. lelikas
      lelikas 11 September 2014 08: 33
      +8
      Quote: Angro Magno
      He was not needed in the USSR, and now even more so

      Their construction plans and enclosed buildings hint at the opposite.

      In the military-technical sense, we proved on November 16 last year that the Russian Federation for the first time acquired the competence to create aircraft carrier fleet ships - Rogozin - speak Russian - it is unclear after all!
      1. Good cat
        Good cat 11 September 2014 08: 43
        0
        In, in, I also did not understand what he wanted to say
        1. Serg 122
          Serg 122 11 September 2014 09: 28
          +6
          In, in, I also did not understand what he wanted to say

          He probably spoke about the transfer of the ship to the Indians. The one whose name with the drunk FIG pronounce immediately laughing
      2. zvo
        zvo 11 September 2014 09: 04
        +3
        November 16, 2013. The aircraft carrier Vikramaditya (Almighty), which completed the modernization at the Sevmash enterprise, was solemnly admitted to the Indian Navy in Severodvinsk on Saturday.
        1. lelikas
          lelikas 11 September 2014 09: 53
          +2
          Quote: zvo
          November 16, 2013. The aircraft carrier Vikramaditya (Almighty), which completed the modernization at the Sevmash enterprise, was solemnly admitted to the Indian Navy in Severodvinsk on Saturday

          Yes it is, I just know, but why couldn’t I say Russian?
          What competence and from whom did we acquire, and if we built ourselves, did we ourselves acquire, or if the ship was Soviet-built - then from the union, and where did the money go ......

          The Chernomyrdin laurels do not seem to let Rogozin sleep peacefully.
      3. Evil Pole
        Evil Pole 11 September 2014 09: 09
        +2
        Quote: lelikas
        For the first time, the Russian Federation acquired the competence of creating aircraft carrier fleet ships — Rogozin — speak Russian — it’s not clear, after all!

        That is, it means that if we need to urgently we will build it and there is everything for this. In the meantime, we go to the French:
        1. goose
          goose 11 September 2014 09: 46
          0
          Question: Is Mistral capable of mooring on its own?
        2. goose
          goose 11 September 2014 09: 48
          0
          Question: Is Mistral capable of mooring on its own?
          1. Russ69
            Russ69 11 September 2014 10: 08
            +3
            Quote: goose
            Question: Is Mistral capable of mooring on its own?

            It is capable of not only mooring, but also spinning in place. He has a screw in a separate unit and a rotary and still shunting board ...
          2. aleks 62
            aleks 62 11 September 2014 10: 54
            0
            ..... Maybe .... Ships of this class have active thrusters ... hi
        3. lelikas
          lelikas 11 September 2014 10: 00
          +1
          Quote: Evil Chorus
          That is, it means that if we need to urgently we will build it and there is everything for this. In the meantime, we go to the French:

          At the expense of everything, there is an obvious search - there are no catapults, there are no AWACS aircraft, there is no slipway, and I almost forgot - there is not even a project! Despite the fact that all this is in the future, and taking into account the fact that it will take about five years to work on the ROC, then about 8-10 years for construction, then another two more years for the delivery of the fleet - a conclusion - I will not see it recourse
          1. Fornit
            Fornit 11 September 2014 12: 25
            0
            Well, the slipway, let's say there is - at the Baltic Plant ... And the technologies are appropriate ...
            There they are now starting a series of new large-capacity icebreakers with nuclear power plants.
            And this "lzhzhu" - not without reason ... (our answer to the Canadian "Chamberlain")
    6. dr.star75
      dr.star75 11 September 2014 08: 40
      +9
      The USSR needed it! Ask: where does Kuzya come from, the Chinese have lianhren, and the Indians have adhremantinya! And how much was simply cut for scrap metal? And we need it! Well, the country has no such money yet. And in your opinion, and nuclear weapons do not need? Why? Expensive, service, jerk, and generally never "banged". Only without yao we would have been rolled out long ago. Ditto for aircraft carriers. We need, we will have money, we will master production, etc.
      1. Serg 122
        Serg 122 11 September 2014 09: 39
        +1
        We need it, there will be money, we will master production, etc.

        What about time? When will they be needed, how long can it be built? With our sloppiness and recoil system? And most importantly: The enemy will sit and wait quietly ?!
    7. Alexander
      Alexander 11 September 2014 09: 13
      +5
      How was it that the USSR did not need it? And the construction of "Varyag" according to the updated project, which in fact turns it into a full-fledged aircraft carrier, not a cruiser? And the construction of Ulyanovsk, the first fully-fledged nuclear aircraft carrier? The USSR just understood the need for an aircraft carrier. Also, do not distort the stories out of ignorance.
    8. Professor
      Professor 11 September 2014 11: 27
      +3
      Quote: Angro Magno
      Tired of these conversations about the aircraft carrier. He was not needed in the USSR, and now even more so. There is where to spend the money.

      All permanent members of the UN Security Council have aircraft carriers. This is the status.
  2. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 11 September 2014 08: 25
    +3
    In the Black Sea, for example, we have a Crimea-unsinkable aircraft carrier. laughing
    1. massad1
      massad1 11 September 2014 08: 29
      +7
      on which, mind you can also grow potatoes laughing
    2. Good cat
      Good cat 11 September 2014 08: 43
      +4
      The Black Sea, then, is not one with us!
  3. Loner_53
    Loner_53 11 September 2014 08: 25
    +2
    No doubt, we will have to do it! wink
  4. qwert
    qwert 11 September 2014 08: 26
    +9
    China will soon have -5 aircraft carriers, Great Britain- 2. The French said something about the atomic .... If we do not build aircraft carriers, then at least we need to build submarines such as Kursk, imprisoned for the killing of aircraft carriers and force the development of hypersonic anti-ship missiles.
    1. 00105042
      00105042 11 September 2014 08: 40
      0
      the French have long had an atomic aircraft carrier, by the way with outstanding combat capabilities. Yes, it has eternal problems with engines, but in fact a very successful project.
      1. MAX2014
        MAX2014 11 September 2014 09: 44
        +3
        Successful!? It costs more to repair than turning on the engines and especially goes on long trips.
    2. DAYMAN
      DAYMAN 11 September 2014 08: 50
      -1
      .... or space platforms with ballistic weapons soldier
    3. Eggor
      Eggor 11 September 2014 08: 53
      +3
      Quote: qwert
      China will soon have -5 aircraft carriers

      Only one training ship (for aircraft carrier crews) among the Chinese, the size of a mistral:

    4. inkass_98
      inkass_98 11 September 2014 08: 57
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      China will soon have -5 aircraft carriers, Great Britain- 2. The Frenchmen said something about the atomic ...

      Yesterday there was an article about the fact that the Britons have 2 aircraft carriers. The question is who will have whom in terms of what will need to be spent on equipping them with aircraft, ammunition, on maintaining and servicing the ship itself and its crew, etc. etc. If the money has nowhere to go, then you can spend it on it. Of course, prestigious, effective, but we do not have expeditionary troops, and the doctrine is defensive. It would be nice to have a replacement to replace Kuznetsov (for the period of repairs), but in general, there is no particular sense. And our seas are mostly freezing, why should they stand at the pier in winter or on a float barrel?
      1. Eggor
        Eggor 11 September 2014 09: 16
        +5
        Quote: inkass_98
        Yesterday there was an article about the fact that the Britons have 2 aircraft carrier.

        They don’t have yet, but they are building two such prodigies under the deck F-35 which are not there yet (or maybe they won’t):


        And they are building with the help of a Chinese crane:

        And here China could not do without ...
      2. donavi49
        donavi49 11 September 2014 09: 47
        +8
        The British are all very cunning. Now they have 0 aircraft carriers and 0 aircraft for them by the way. They are building the Queen and the Prince, but there is only one ambush for exploitation money. Also, they will not be able to purchase 2 air groups, again there is no money. And that was before Scotland, by the way.

        Current plan:
        The commissioning of Lisa, running on her air group, testing and training.
        Commissioning of the Prince - transfer of sailors from Lisa and the air group to Prince.
        Preservation of Lisa after 3 years after the introduction of operation.

        There was an alternative plan - to make Lisa the core of the EU fleet. However, europushka has no money. The French with their miracle and they do not need someone else. The Germans have no money for such imperial toys. The rest and even more so, only the Poles, Belgians, Danes, and Greeks, and the latter, with an EU loan, agreed to allocate there, agreed wassat . Total, then this idea was buried. However, now, all of a sudden, they wanted to play boats and tanks in Europe. Therefore, it is possible to revive the idea of ​​the EU Fleet with Lisa at the head.
        1. Eggor
          Eggor 11 September 2014 10: 03
          +3
          Quote: donavi49
          The British are all very cunning.

          Besides:
          no catapults and air finishers
          no AWACS aircraft (like only helicopters)
          for the fleet plan to purchase all 48 F-35B
          shipyards scottish ...

          He does not pull on the core.
    5. Fornit
      Fornit 11 September 2014 12: 35
      +1
      Well, in fact, the new vaunted British queens and princes are the same Mistral ... A little bigger - nothing more. And awesomely expensive, by the way.
  5. Revolver
    Revolver 11 September 2014 08: 27
    0
    In Russia it’s not worth it. But in China it’s worth. And taking into account the fact that they consider the Far East to be selected by the kings from the Middle Kingdom, using temporary weakness, the picture in the Pacific Ocean is not the most pleasant.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 11 September 2014 08: 58
      0
      Quote: Nagan
      And taking into account the fact that they consider the Far East selected by the kings from the Middle Kingdom,

      And why the heck are China aircraft carriers for this land border, or something not enough.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 11 September 2014 09: 20
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Quote: Nagan
        And taking into account the fact that they consider the Far East selected by the kings from the Middle Kingdom,

        And why the heck are China aircraft carriers for this land border, or something not enough.

        And why the heck yet, not to butt with the "Nimitz"? "Nimitz" against the Chinese aircraft carrier, both existing and promising, is like a heavyweight boxer against a teenager, and even with myopia somewhere in the "-8" and without glasses. Without a catapult and, accordingly, AWACS planes, this former "Varyag" will not even understand where it came from.
        And again, in America, China does not pretend. But the Far East, and Siberia, they consider the original Chinese lands.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 11 September 2014 09: 29
          +7
          Quote: Nagan

          And why the heck yet, not to butt with the "Nimitz"?

          And why not. Old man, you kind of live in the USA, wrote a freak. You begin to turn into a real American slowly. I saw an aircraft carrier and on an instinct level, but not a mind you see a threat. A madman will go to the seaside from the sea. There, the old one who has not yet been completely dismantled by the patriots will strengthen the region. the land side of taiga and a couple of roads.
          As for the Varangian, this is not the main striking force of Russia. His conclusion will not solve anything in the confrontation. Even theoretically.
          Quote: Nagan
          . But the Far East, and Siberia, they consider the original Chinese lands.

          At least one statement by the Chinese authorities to the studio! You don’t need to post pictures of cranks with maps. Any schoolchild will draw a map of Russia with all of America.
          1. Second
            Second 11 September 2014 11: 02
            0
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            At least one statement by the Chinese authorities to the studio! Pictures of cranks with cards do not need to be posted.

            The Wehrmacht at 41 approached Moscow without any statements. Does history teach anything? You will wait for the statements of the Chinese from Khabarovsk, Magadan and Krasnoyarsk when they are already there ...
          2. Revolver
            Revolver 11 September 2014 16: 29
            0
            Quote: Alexander Romanov

            At least one statement by the Chinese authorities to the studio! You don’t need to post pictures of cranks with maps. Any schoolchild will draw a map of Russia with all of America.

            Oh well.
            Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
            In July 1964, Mao Zedong, in a meeting with a Japanese socialist delegation, stated that Tsarist Russia had stripped China of vast territories in Siberia and the Far East as far as Kamchatka. Mao announced that China still had not presented a bill for this list.

            Translation:
            "In July 1964, Mao Zedong, at a meeting with a delegation of Japanese socialists, declared that tsarist Russia had robbed China of its vast territories in Siberia and the Far East all the way to Kamchatka. Mao said that China has not yet billed for this."And then there was Damansky.
            It's been in Russia since Khrushchev. am Stalin's word is nothing. And in China, the will of Mao is still subject to rigorous execution and implementation.
        2. donavi49
          donavi49 11 September 2014 09: 35
          +5
          China has the 1 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 3 program for aircraft carriers.

          1 - Varangian
          1 - your Varangian with changes and improvements
          1 - aircraft carrier of a new project, possibly with nuclear power plants and precisely with catapults.
          3 - serial aircraft carriers of an improved new project with nuclear power plants and catapults.
          3 - new generation aircraft carriers.

          Here is a model of the third building (which is with catapults and nuclear power plants) at the shipbuilding institute:


  6. Leviton
    Leviton 11 September 2014 08: 28
    +1
    A big, big target with dubious combat capabilities ... is necessary only for offensive operations to seize territories, and we care primarily about defense.
    1. lord
      lord 11 September 2014 08: 36
      -4
      Quite right, an aircraft carrier is a means of carrying strike aircraft far beyond the borders of the country, which is typical for the United States and Great Britain, essentially island states that are fighting far from their borders. Why is it for Russia? We have other goals (defense), and accordingly other means.
      1. dr.star75
        dr.star75 11 September 2014 08: 48
        +6
        Is it possible to win football playing only in defense? "An aircraft carrier is a means of carrying strike aircraft far beyond the borders of the country" - everything is correct: spearhead! Attack - defense success.
        1. Bombardier
          Bombardier 11 September 2014 09: 59
          +2
          Americans with 10 aircraft carriers (standing against the wall) are forced to put together a coalition of AOE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar (using their airfields, and possibly an air wing) and others to bomb on thugs in Iraq.
          I do not presume to say that we do not need aircraft carriers (just, I would be proud of the power of the Russian fleet), but it is too expensive ....
  7. Tuzik
    Tuzik 11 September 2014 08: 31
    0
    conflicts in the Middle East (Iraq, Libya ..) showed not the effectiveness and high cost of aircraft carriers, but also danger. Italians still find bombs in the sea after Bosnia.
  8. zheka
    zheka 11 September 2014 08: 37
    +2
    Drowning aircraft carriers is a pleasure) Let the amaricos build more)
    1. oblako
      oblako 11 September 2014 09: 23
      +1
      Here, as well as on land, if the enemy is strong with tanks, then the defense must be saturated with anti-tank weapons. If the enemy has AUG and aircraft carriers, then, in accordance with our doctrine, means must be developed that can overcome the air defense convoy and deprive the AUG strike assets. Of course, I am not a war advocate and not a jingoist, but to reduce American geopolitical ambitions, it would be great to develop an operation and accidentally drop one aircraft carrier to the bottom during Obama's promised airstrikes on Syria and on radical Islamic militants. War is like war. Americans need to feel it. And then figure it out, as with the Boeing ... Who shot it down ... whether terrorists ... separatists or someone else ... It depends on the courage of the commission ... They have not answered for Kursk yet. Sorry for orthodox thoughts ...
  9. VadimL
    VadimL 11 September 2014 08: 40
    +4
    For now, building aircraft carriers is somewhat premature. At present, Russia does not have an electromagnetic catapult, a carrier-based AWACS aircraft, or a naval group for escorting and supporting an aircraft carrier.
  10. Ivan Denikin
    Ivan Denikin 11 September 2014 08: 40
    +3
    Carriers are needed, whatever one may say. Why will we launch planes in the Pacific, Atlantic or Indian Oceans from a catapult? The fact that they are expensive to maintain is the cost of the military budget. Military bases are no cheaper than the Army. So you need to think about it: a base or an aircraft carrier. I think that the conclusion suggests itself, of course, the latter, the more potential, resources and desire are. Give domestic AUG !!!
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 11 September 2014 09: 52
      +7
      Quote: Ivan Denikin
      Carriers are needed, whatever one may say. Why will we launch planes in the Pacific, Atlantic or Indian Oceans from a catapult? The fact that they are expensive to maintain is the cost of the military budget. Military bases are no cheaper than the Army. So you need to think about it: a base or an aircraft carrier. I think that the conclusion suggests itself, of course, the latter, the more potential, resources and desire are. Give domestic AUG !!!

      Oh, Vanya, whatever one may say, the aircraft carrier needs a base! And besides the base, he also needs security ships, at least 8 pieces! Yeah, these ships are also needed by the nuclear submarines to cover deployment areas, and the enemy’s anti-tank and anti-missile defense units, the escort of convoys and landing troops, the protection of fishing and oil fields, and the ASW ships are needed, both the mines and the auxiliary fleet, and the raid support vessels. And all this is urgently needed, but the production facilities and, most importantly, the financial resources are so lacking. Aircraft carrier ... an aircraft carrier machine is of course curious and necessary, but ... subject to the availability of a full-fledged ocean fleet!
    2. goose
      goose 11 September 2014 10: 03
      0
      An electro-magnetic catapult is not as expensive as a steam catapult in operation, and it does not require a nuclear boiler. In addition, the installation of such a catapult is much easier. But ... the number of starts per minute should be expected to be almost 2 times less than that of the steam counterpart. EMC also needs critical technologies, which so far are only in theory. Industry has not yet mastered.
  11. RUSOIVAN
    RUSOIVAN 11 September 2014 08: 40
    0
    We are peaceful people, but our armored train is where it should be!
  12. Andy
    Andy 11 September 2014 08: 40
    +5
    an aircraft carrier is needed. to cover their ships and submarines, to search for "friendly" submarines. just now, the "land" air forces do not have the required number of aircraft. it all comes down to finances
    1. albi77
      albi77 11 September 2014 08: 49
      0
      Usually, other ships are used to cover the aircraft carrier, and not aircraft carriers to cover someone.
      1. Afinogen
        Afinogen 11 September 2014 09: 00
        -3
        Quote: albi77
        Usually, other ships are used to cover the aircraft carrier, and not aircraft carriers to cover someone.


        These foreign aircraft carriers must be covered, without cover they are doomed, and our "Kuznetsov" does not need to be covered, he is fully armed, he himself will cover whoever he wants and can act alone. The only drawback is fuel, fuel must be transported, therefore, it is necessary to build a nuclear one.
        1. Severomor
          Severomor 11 September 2014 10: 25
          +3
          For both aircraft carriers and aircraft-carrying cruisers, both ours and non-ours, solo sailing is a thing of the past. A modern ship of such a plan cannot fully support itself in terms of PLO and air defense.
      2. Andy
        Andy 11 September 2014 09: 57
        +2
        Quote: albi77
        Usually other ships are used to cover an aircraft carrier, and not aircraft carriers to cover anyone

        why on an aircraft carrier fighters and attack aircraft, anti-aircraft helicopters? Yes, he needs an escort, but they complement each other. And you just won’t enter the area of ​​his aviation, this is the cover. do not be like Kaptsov and do not confuse peacetime when they do not shoot with war. Aircraft carriers can famously drown only on the VO website.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Andy
        Andy 11 September 2014 10: 02
        +1
        chasing after albi77.
        Kuznetsov, in essence, is not an attack aircraft, but an escort aircraft carrier. the presence of granites, fighters, helicopters PLO.
  13. Afinogen
    Afinogen 11 September 2014 08: 51
    +1
    It would be better instead of these wretched Mistrals money was spent on one full-fledged nuclear aircraft carrier. But why do we need Mistrals, it's not clear what their purpose is?
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 11 September 2014 21: 00
      0
      Quote: Athenogen
      It would be better instead of these wretched Mistrals money was spent on one full-fledged nuclear aircraft carrier. But why do we need Mistrals, it's not clear what their purpose is?

      Well, at least so that to break the penalty from the French for failure to fulfill the contract wassat
  14. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 11 September 2014 08: 52
    0
    In general, while we need well-armed powerful icebreakers with helicopters on board.
  15. bmv04636
    bmv04636 11 September 2014 08: 54
    0
    And let's, in order to cut sharks, make of them carrying transport nuclear submarines that could transport new DEP, "Lasharik" and unmanned aerial vehicles.
  16. Pazifist87
    Pazifist87 11 September 2014 08: 54
    +4
    Actually, in the USSR, aircraft carriers were considered as a means of air defense and missile defense missile cruisers. From here comes the very characteristic composition of aviation weapons. Those. do not confuse TAKR with the US strike aircraft carrier, which is the core of the strike aircraft carrier group, a completely independent combat unit. TAKR Ulyanovsk, was supposed to provide air cover for the atomic cruisers 1144, which were the main striking force.
    So for a large ocean fleet aircraft carriers are very necessary.
    1. Severomor
      Severomor 11 September 2014 09: 48
      +1
      I disagree. How does one cruiser support the other? On "Kiev" 8 "Basalts" (I doubt that they will reload after a salvo of 8 more) on "Kirov" 20 "Granites. And that cruiser and that one comes out in the order of ships (BOD, SKR, EM). They can interact, but
      Quote: Pazifist87
      TAKR Ulyanovsk, was supposed to provide aviation cover for atomic cruisers 1144
      - hypothetically, maybe, but 16 Granites were planned for Ulyanovsk. Where is the logic?
      1. Pazifist87
        Pazifist87 11 September 2014 11: 19
        0
        By the way, there was a lot of controversy about this when creating the project. It all boiled down to the fact that the cruiser should have both aviation and missile weapons, because he is a cruiser anyway. A kind of multi-purpose, which, incidentally, has become rather a disadvantage. The same applies to the Orlan, whose armaments are very diverse, as a result of which the displacement is obviously too big even for an atomic cruiser. Perhaps when compiling the TTZ there was not yet a clear vision of the application concept. But the fact that Ulyanovsk were supposed to interact with the Eagles as part of one group just explains the choice of a nuclear power plant on an aircraft carrier.
        1. Severomor
          Severomor 11 September 2014 11: 52
          +2
          Quote: Pazifist87
          But the fact that Ulyanovsk were supposed to interact with the Eagles as part of one group just explains the choice of a nuclear power plant on an aircraft carrier.
          Well, I don’t know, is there a description of such an interaction? I'm not against :). It’s just that both cruisers themselves are heads of orders, flagships. In other words, such a group can number up to 15 ships ..... although ... why not, but a bit too much

          As for the Kirov, then: “However, there is unverified information that the NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Organization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) considered the Soviet squadrons, led by the cruisers of the 1144 Orlan project, as very dangerous rivals for their aircraft carrier formations. exercises for the destruction of such a squadron were exhibited groupings of four aircraft carriers, of which only one was supposed to stay afloat. The air groups of three aircraft carriers were supposed to be almost completely lost. "
          1. Pazifist87
            Pazifist87 11 September 2014 12: 00
            +1
            Unfortunately I can’t find the link, but I read a study and comparison of the effectiveness of the fight against the AUG of NATO, surface squadrons from 1144 at the head and submarines. Like PLARK 949a, were more effective at lower cost. Although if you apply everything at once, then it will probably be more effective smile
            The fleet needs an ocean fleet, with the whole complex of both surface and submarine ships ... But for now, everything is only in dreams.
            1. Severomor
              Severomor 11 September 2014 12: 21
              +1
              Quote: Pazifist87
              The fleet needs an ocean fleet, with the whole complex of both surface and submarines ... But for now, everything is only in dreams
              +100500
              Dreams Come True :)
  17. shitovmg
    shitovmg 11 September 2014 08: 56
    +5
    Quote: VadimL
    For now, building aircraft carriers is somewhat premature. At the moment, Russia does not have an electromagnetic catapult, a carrier-based AWACS

    As far as I know, for Ulyanovsk, and DLRO aircraft were developed, and the Yak-141, and catapults (true, steam)! And an aircraft carrier like Ulyanovsk is really needed to demonstrate the flag! They say that it is useless to turn a blind eye to financial backwardness in this matter.
  18. fridge
    fridge 11 September 2014 08: 57
    0
    Everything is correct Dmitry Olegovich! Let's better think about how to multiply enemy aircraft carriers in an instant. So to speak, align opportunities.
  19. nimboris
    nimboris 11 September 2014 08: 58
    +3
    Around Russia, and so full of unsinkable aircraft carriers, if clockwise, then these are "Crimea", "Novaya Zemlya", "Novosibirsk Islands", "Kuril Islands", "Sakhalin", lowered some smaller aircraft carriers))) hi
  20. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 11 September 2014 09: 13
    +3
    And I would still have built a couple about the race with the Americans, you should not think, but at least something should be, even the British have it and they are building a couple more ...
  21. Alexander
    Alexander 11 September 2014 09: 19
    +3
    Great Britain is building 2 aircraft carriers for itself, and we are still arguing whether we need to build aircraft carriers at all. Remember history and think - why the heck Peter built ships, if Russia is such a "land" country, as some far-sighted strategists here say!
  22. Rigla
    Rigla 11 September 2014 09: 19
    +5
    There is no money for an aircraft carrier, but there is money for the 2018 World Cup! am
  23. kill the fascist
    kill the fascist 11 September 2014 09: 21
    +1
    eternal dispute shield or sword. I think that today an aircraft carrier is very expensive for Russia. in the future, to create nervousness from the camp of our distant "friends", aircraft carrier ships may come in handy ... although a Russian submarine that has emerged to the surface near the shores of the United States (ask the fishermen for a light and let the crew smoke in the air) will bring "friends" no less joy than an aircraft carrier group of ships.
  24. Alexander S.
    Alexander S. 11 September 2014 09: 33
    -5
    And thank God! I hope the aircraft carrier will not be built for another 20 years. Here, people complain about salaries with pensions .. and they also have an aircraft carrier, and it’s absolutely useless, give it to me. It is needed for war ... and not for beauty (an example is the war in Yugoslavia and Iraq .. World War II) (let the British ruin themselves with show-offs). Here we have Kuznetsov ... and what ... what good is it? there’s not even a normal support group with him ... the war will begin .. and that’s all .. there isn’t him. And we have no one to attack. Defensive Doctrine. It’s better to build ash for this money ... yes, destroyers at last .. we don’t have any.
    1. Severomor
      Severomor 11 September 2014 10: 37
      +3
      Everything is simple here - if you want peace, prepare for war. It is not possible to have a one-sided fleet (only submarine). Here, just like in the army, you won’t fight with tanks alone.
      1. Alexander S.
        Alexander S. 11 September 2014 11: 48
        -1
        Good. We will build two aircraft carriers. We will fight with America. Again, let's say that conventional weapons (which is unrealistic in the presence of nuclear weapons). They have the largest fleet in the world. 10 aircraft carriers (or how many are there) ... and ours will naturally squeeze their nests in the Barents (there aren’t any full-fledged ones .. you’ve spent all the money on these two engines) and they will live there not for long. But this doesn’t matter ... the main thing is that we have them stupidly. Not only Americans are so cool. What arms race has the Soviet Union brought to? no need to repeat the mistakes of the past. We need to build only what we really need .. and for the money that we have. and the war on the territory of America .. this is still a dream .. unfortunately
        1. Severomor
          Severomor 11 September 2014 12: 34
          0
          Quote: Alexander S.
          Good. We will build two aircraft carriers.

          Oh dreams, until the 20th year we probably will not build it for sure. Why is it necessary to fight? That we have no interests in the Mediterranean? 100 years did not go to Cuba. Let them serve. An empire, if it wants to be called that, must sometimes shake its muscles. Why immediately fight? And yes, war at sea is always AUG against AUG, PLA against PLA, BOD against BOD?
          Quote: Alexander S.
          What arms race has the Soviet Union brought to?

          this is not so, the USSR did not fall apart from this. And with proper planning and coherent (and adequate) TTZ costs can be much less
          1. Alexander S.
            Alexander S. 11 September 2014 13: 15
            0
            but isn’t it easier to send a couple of boreas to the shores of America. and more secretive .. and more efficient. and just rattle .. type .. look ... we are here .. fear us ... uh .. uh .. There are many other ways .. including non-military ones ... to to have an impact on other countries .. You need to be more pragmatic.
            1. Severomor
              Severomor 11 September 2014 13: 24
              0
              Much easier. Let me tell you a secret, our carrier formations were needed only for SSBNs to pass through Gibraltar through them.
              1. Alexander S.
                Alexander S. 11 September 2014 13: 42
                0
                when developing supersonic missiles capable of overcoming the need for this, it will disappear .. yes, and in general in aircraft carriers. and the future leads to this. so that it is necessary to find an adequate .. or even rather a proactive answer ... and most importantly, the best quality-price ratio and the result. Again .. do not forget ... our doctrine is defensive. At our level of development, we need to adhere to it for at least 50 years.
    2. Demon0n
      Demon0n 11 September 2014 15: 18
      0
      Quote: Alexander S.
      And thank God! I hope the aircraft carrier will not be built for another 20 years. Here, people complain about salaries with pensions .. and they also have an aircraft carrier, and it’s absolutely useless, give it to me. It is needed for war ... and not for beauty (an example is the war in Yugoslavia and Iraq .. World War II) (let the British ruin themselves with show-offs). Here we have Kuznetsov ... and what ... what good is it? there’s not even a normal support group with him ... the war will begin .. and that’s all .. there isn’t him. And we have no one to attack. Defensive Doctrine. It’s better to build ash for this money ... yes, destroyers at last .. we don’t have any.


      The aircraft carrier is not useless at the moment. Depending on the problems, it can solve a fairly wide range of tasks (increasing the stability of military units of formations and groups, combat strike effectiveness, general opposition to the deployment and deployed aircraft and naval forces by the enemy, air support for amphibious operations, etc.). It is worth noting that combat operations have a stage, conditionally, preparatory (when the deployment of formations for delivering and repelling a strike is in progress: not! Aggression! Or! Self-defense!, But a DB element). There is a similar principle in the political arsenal. This means that the use of weapons is not necessary, and the winner of a hypothetical conflict can be determined without a database. Additionally, it is worth noting the factor of the ability to protect their interests or a hypothetical ally (this political element already has an indirect impact on the economy in the context of globalism). Not only "bomb the Papuans" ...
      However, there are factors that call into question the rationality of solving problems with aircraft carriers in our country at the moment. In particular, in addition to economic, - the advanced development of weapons, "awareness", etc. Those. the perspective of the method / complex of methods "aircraft carrier" and its parameters are not entirely clear (which, by the way, can be observed on other types of warship projects).
      Therefore, in my opinion, it is advisable to choose a wait-and-see attitude at least for some time (sufficient to solve economic problems and complete the range of case studies, after which it will be possible to reconsider / make some decision).
      1. Alexander S.
        Alexander S. 11 September 2014 16: 05
        0
        I agree with that. about which he said about 20 years. the fact that it is useless to us for the coming decades is for sure. and then, in my opinion, probably too.
  25. jekasimf
    jekasimf 11 September 2014 09: 34
    +2
    Well, if you build airbases on the Kuril Islands, restore it in the Crimea and take into account what is being built in the Arctic, then probably yes. This is better than spending money on underwaffles.
  26. Grbear
    Grbear 11 September 2014 09: 38
    +1
    I never understood the controversy surrounding the creation of AUG in Russia what ... For an attack on an air defense-free country, it is suitable and effective if hammered every six months to increase payback. But where to get so many "victims"? And then, if we estimate the efficiency by people (total / flight crew) or by payload - the efficiency of costs constantly tends to zero with increasing peacetime.

    It is enough for Russia to form a non-flying and non-floating five hundred-mile zone along the border and guaranteed destruction of the command post of any NATO allies in the same zone. The rest, if necessary, will be completed by nuclear weapons. And why do we need an "iron island"? Support allies? So they are still so allies that they would start large-scale wars. And even those are on the continent of Eurasia. For that matter, you can zhahnut on the "hut" of the initiator of the conflict, and it is within reach from land.

    One sixth of the land is AUG itself, but not an aggressor. I would like to master my own.
  27. MAX2014
    MAX2014 11 September 2014 09: 47
    +1
    Well, right, we don’t need these troughs. If you compare with the American aircraft carriers, then they fought with the unarmed. I would look at their clash of the Russian Navy.
  28. arjiev
    arjiev 11 September 2014 09: 50
    +2
    More with 400 !!! no less than 500 of the newest aircraft as well as long-range missiles to them !!! And there they get tired of chasing their aug around the ball and sit on the fat fifth point something like that.
  29. richchernov
    richchernov 11 September 2014 09: 55
    0
    Rocket ekranoplan "Lun" https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D1%83%D0%BD%D1%8C_%28%D1%8D%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%
    B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%29
    , naturally in a revised version.
    I think the division in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, the rest of the regiment. And so many issues can be resolved without aircraft carriers.
  30. Severomor
    Severomor 11 September 2014 10: 14
    +4
    The issue of building aircraft carriers is very, very difficult. What is expensive, no one doubts this. But! With the construction of the aircraft carrier fleet, a powerful infrastructure must be built to provide ships and escort ships (PLO, air defense). And this is the development of the fleet.

    Take our aircraft carrier cruisers pr 1143. TAKR “KIEV” - 10 combat services, it seems not bad, but !!!! In Severomorsk, the ship stood on a barrel. There was no berth. With a storm of readiness two, he almost always went to sea. Going out to sea for combat training is definitely needed, but not 2-3 times a week for half a day. Standing on a barrel - increased resource consumption. So, there could have been more military services. Bottom line: a hotel in China. (of course, not only this, but also liberal traitors, and just thieves, had their hand in it).
  31. Kulakov_Dmitry
    Kulakov_Dmitry 11 September 2014 10: 23
    +3
    Yes, we’ll build our own aircraft carrier, there’s no problem at all, we would have money for that. But now they’ll drop the oil again, and let's go plant potatoes together for the winter!
  32. siberalt
    siberalt 11 September 2014 10: 39
    +1
    Russia has Crimea, Kamchatka, archipelagos in the Arctic Ocean and the entire Kuril ridge island. Enough? To master and master.
  33. Semenov
    Semenov 11 September 2014 10: 40
    +1
    The Indians seem to be testing the Bramos hypersonic missiles. Aircraft carriers, perhaps, with "Brahmos" will be superfluous. And if there is also space target designation.
  34. Pazifist87
    Pazifist87 11 September 2014 11: 33
    0
    It’s interesting, but does it make sense from the AUG, except for the American use case, like an airfield in any part of the world, subject to low opposition? Indeed, at a much lower cost, nuclear-powered submarines with cruise missiles (SSBNs) are superior in effectiveness (hardly detectable, difficult to submerge) to AOG when attacking coastal targets. Also in the fight against surface forces of the enemy (the same AUGs, for example), the SSGN pr. 949a is much more effective not only than the AUG, but also the connection of missile nuclear cruisers. About strategic attacks on the remote strategic goals of the AOG are generally almost useless, unlike SSBNs.
    Maybe the AUG for Russia will prove to be too expensive and not particularly effective toy? Isn't it better to spend more on creating new types of submarines and upgrading old ones?
  35. runway
    runway 11 September 2014 11: 39
    +2
    From a military point of view - AUGs are necessary.
    From the economic - expensive.
    The program of rearmament of our Armed Forces until 2020, despite the assurances of our leaders, is decreasing every year. And with the devaluation of the ruble it takes on a very frivolous form in comparison with the cost of the rearmament program of our "partners" in NATO.
    Therefore, "Po Senka and a Hat" - NATO has 15 aircraft carriers, we have ....
    With the allegations that Crimea is our aircraft carrier, I would agree if Crimea could be easily moved to any zone of military conflict ....
    Take Rogozin's words seriously - do not respect yourself.
    Yesterday, he convincingly argued that it was profitable for us to buy foreign military equipment. Today, it’s just as convincing that you need to build your ...
    Yesterday, he said that we are able to build aircraft carriers, and they are already being designed. Today he says that they are no longer needed ....
    The country's ability to build carrier ships is not only a demonstration of its economic and military power, it is also a demonstration of its high scientific and technological achievements, a high level of production capacity.
    1. Pazifist87
      Pazifist87 11 September 2014 11: 48
      0
      I agree, but does it make sense to build a separate aircraft carrier?
      A complex and united ocean fleet will not do without aircraft carriers of various classes, including strike ones. But due to terrible economic problems in Russia, this is unlikely.

      And by the way, what is Russia's military doctrine now? In theory, rearmament should be planned on the basis of it.
  36. Wiruz
    Wiruz 11 September 2014 11: 41
    0
    Russia does not need an aircraft carrier yet. We must first build destroyers!
  37. Eggor
    Eggor 11 September 2014 12: 07
    +1
    Off topic, but really interesting:

    The first serial sample of the 130-mm universal shipborne automatic artillery mount A-192M, delivered to JSC "Shipbuilding plant" Severnaya Verf "for installation on the lead frigate of project 22350" Admiral of the Soviet Union Fleet Gorshkov. "St. Petersburg, September 2014 (from ) SiegHard / forums.airbase.ru

    Meanwhile, as reported on the web resource forums.airbase.ru, at the end of August in the main power plant of the frigate "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" one of the two gas turbines M90FR produced by the Nikolaev GP NPKG "Zorya" - "Mashproekt", which may again postpone the launch of the ship to the factory sea trials. http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
  38. Sergei1982
    Sergei1982 11 September 2014 12: 51
    +1
    Quote: Angro Magno
    Tired of these conversations about the aircraft carrier. He was not needed in the USSR, and now even more so. There is where to spend the money.

    A flotation carrier is certainly needed, but not now or tomorrow there are more immediate problems: restoring the air force of the navy (coastal), submarine fleet, providing the fleet with other ships, and then you can think about an aircraft carrier.
  39. Alexander S.
    Alexander S. 11 September 2014 13: 19
    0
    here many write .. that Russia needs aircraft carriers. but no one wrote ARGUMENTED reasons .. why do we need them. Not USA .. Britain, etc. .. and us?
    1. Pazifist87
      Pazifist87 11 September 2014 16: 20
      +1
      To ensure the protection of Russia's interests and the defense of maritime borders, a large ocean fleet is needed. As a part of which aircraft carriers are needed, both strike and anti-submarine, landing, etc., which will greatly increase the capabilities of the fleets in the ocean and sea theater of operations. smile

      There is always a need in general, but the possibility is unlikely.

      This, I think, is an argument.

      Z.Y. The Ocean Fleet is capable of competing quantitatively and qualitatively with the fleets of NATO countries across all oceans and seas. Different types of aircraft carriers need not two or three, but much more. But so far the Russian Federation cannot afford anything even close to this.
      1. Alexander S.
        Alexander S. 11 September 2014 17: 53
        0
        I agree .. relatively. In the meantime, we must first build and replace for the defense at least ... and then think about it. And not as it is now .. we provide aug..and to other fleets for training .. lowering their capabilities. And by the way .. we are building frigates for 4-5 years ... the aircraft carrier will build at least 15-20 years .. this is not serious. So that the next 30 years and nothing to think. seas would cover their own.
      2. Severomor
        Severomor 11 September 2014 20: 04
        +1
        So if you do not do this, then nothing will happen. A rolling stone gathers no moss. Medium-range missiles (I don’t remember what they called) unnecessarily drank at Mechnenyi, how much to restore? Ballistic missile trains, where? TAKR - hotels in China
        1. Alexander S.
          Alexander S. 11 September 2014 20: 55
          0
          So you must first restore what is closer .. and what is easier. Shipbuilding debug. And this can’t be done in a couple of years. And how will these same 20-30 years pass ... so there maybe the aircraft carriers will sink into oblivion ... or maybe vice versa will become very necessary ... there is already one guessing ... who knows where science will turn it. It only remains to make assumptions .. But nevertheless, it is better to do what we have .. and what's faster
          1. Severomor
            Severomor 11 September 2014 22: 08
            +1
            So no one calls to build 2 Nimitz during the year and spit on expenses. You just don’t need to lose what has been studied and built + learn from the world shipbuilding experience (take the best, if you can’t buy sleep).
            Again, only adequate TTZ, no crazy projects like catching up and overtaking, and essno budget control.

            And of course, what does the Navy want? What is the development of 1-2-5-10-20 years? If carriers, then what kind of support ships, what kind of aircraft. If the aircraft carrying cruisers - then again in what form (plz just not Mistral wink )
  40. Manul
    Manul 11 September 2014 19: 42
    0
    But is it really impossible to consider an aircraft carrier not only as a means of attacking a certain land area, but as a means of counteracting the enemy’s ACG and other naval formations? It seems to me (when the time comes of course) that during the construction of our aircraft carrier it is necessary to lay such parameters. And to develop compact AWACS and anti-submarine deck-based search aircraft, and aircraft for the destruction of ships and submarines.