Do it yourself

64


Our shipbuilding research centers and design bureaus have developed projects for a new aircraft carrier, a destroyer and a large landing craft, as well as a whole range of civilian marine equipment - from drilling ships to oil and gas platforms for work on the Arctic shelf. Their launch into production will allow almost completely to abandon imported analogues.

Three months ago, in the largest Russian research organization in the field of civil shipbuilding and military shipbuilding - the Krylov State Research Center (KGNC) - was replaced by the general director. The place of Anatoly Aleksashin, who retired, was taken by Vladimir Nikitin, who until recently headed the Zvezdochka shipyard in Severodvinsk, where almost the entire submarine nuclear fleet of our country was built and repaired. Now the new head of the KGNC will have to develop the existing scientific and technical reserve and create a new one for the implementation of two state programs at once - military and civil, including for the development of the Arctic zone of Russia. And there is something to develop. Most recently, the KGNTs completed the design of a small icebreaker and defended its technical design. Just recently, the center received an export passport for one more new development - an aircraft carrier with a displacement of almost 100 thousand tons, which are already interested in India and China. Vladimir Nikitin spoke about what projects the Krylov Center is working on and what tasks it faces and our shipbuilding industry, in an interview with Expert.


Vladimir Nikitin, General Director of KGNTs, considers the lack of modern construction sites for large tankers and gas carriers to be the main problem for our shipbuilding industry.


- What are the challenges you put in front of industry leaders?

- The main task is the improvement and development of the scientific and technical reserve in all the most important areas of military shipbuilding and shipbuilding. This is necessary in order to ensure the technical appearance of the naval weapons and marine technology at the highest world level. At the same time, it is also necessary to conduct thorough and omnidirectional monitoring of scientific and technical directions in order not to miss anything significant and valuable. The solution of these tasks is possible through the correct and optimal interaction of the scientific and technical council of our center with leading enterprises in the industry.

- How will the development strategy of KGNC change?

- The strategy will not undergo any fundamental changes. We, as before, will focus on forecasting the development trends of the world military shipbuilding and civil shipbuilding, creating an advanced scientific and technical reserve. Nevertheless, adjustments are possible and even necessary. For example, it is already clear that much more attention will have to be paid to such problems as the full electric propulsion of ships, mathematical modeling using supercomputer technologies, an increase in the volume and number of research directions for new composite materials, and import substitution.

- What promising projects in military shipbuilding are currently being implemented by the KGNC?

- Of course, the most important work in this area, performed by our center in cooperation with other enterprises of the industry, are the advance projects of multifunctional aircraft carrier and squadron destroyer ships. According to the main characteristics, they will not yield to the best foreign ships. For example, an aircraft carrier project 23000E “Storm” with a displacement of 95 – 100 thousand tons will be equipped with an integrated command and control system. This ship is able to host a multi-purpose air group that includes up to 90 aircraft for various purposes, including strike fighters and helicopters. Two take-offs and two electromagnetic catapults are provided for their take-off, and an aero-finisher for landing. This was achieved, including through the special shape of the hull. It is designed to reduce the water resistance by almost 20 percent. In this case, the take-off of aircraft and helicopters on such a ship will be possible even in a storm.

As for the destroyer, then it is a question of the 23560E “Flurry” project. This ship with a displacement of 15 – 25 thousand tons will be able to solve a wide range of combat missions, including strategic ones. For this purpose, it is provided for its equipment with a powerful armament complex for various purposes and the possibility of basing two multi-purpose helicopters.

- When can we expect the appearance of these ships in the metal? And what is the export potential of these projects?

- In the case of a positive decision on the inclusion of these ships in the shipbuilding program before 2050, we can expect them to be built for the 2025 – 2030 years. They differ from foreign analogues by an optimal hull shape, which ensures a reduction in hydrodynamic resistance, the presence of a balanced fleet of aircraft, and the original design of power plants and other systems. The new aircraft carrier differs in principle from the previous domestic aircraft carrier ships. In fact, this is the first domestic classic aircraft carrier.

There are no technical obstacles to the construction of these ships. Domestic shipbuilding is almost ready for the implementation of these projects, there are no import dependence problems in them. Their export potential is huge. You can talk about the presence of interest in at least four countries.

- In our Navy there are not only full-fledged aircraft carriers, but also large aircraft-carrying amphibious assault ships (BDK), such as the French Mistral, which France does not want to deliver to us. Can we create them ourselves?

- This opinion is erroneous. Domestic military shipbuilding, in particular the Neva PKB, has experience in designing such ships. Several such projects have been developed. Therefore, difficulties in the construction of such ships on domestic projects does not exist. Without a doubt, our shipbuilding science and industry are able to design and build the most modern aircraft carriers, as well as ships of the Mistral type. Moreover, recently heading the Naval Shipbuilding Directorate, Vladimir Tryapichnikov, at the laying of the BDK “Pyotr Morgunov”, said bluntly that in the next five years the construction of large amphibious assault ships will be deployed, several times superior to those already existing and under construction. Their appearance is already formed. These ships will be able to carry on board a reinforced battalion of marines and several helicopters for various purposes. So the new generation of our large amphibious ships will definitely surpass the French Mistrals. Our center, for its part, is ready to perform the appropriate amount of scientific and experimental research.

- What are the main trends in the world military shipbuilding?

- The main trends are based on the theory of the so-called network-centric wars at sea. They are well known and associated with the design and construction of multifunctional, unified on the concept of military platforms: surface and underwater. Another trend is the creation and adoption by the military of a multitude of uninhabited aircraft, uninhabited underwater and surface vehicles, which can perform not only reconnaissance missions, but also be carriers of various weapons.

- Now the priority of the development of the country has become the Arctic. This and transport corridors like the Northern Sea Route, and the production of hydrocarbons on the shelf. What kind of vessels, platforms and similar equipment we need to create in order to effectively develop the Arctic?

- Creating an appropriate marine technology for the Arctic is one of the main directions of the state program "Development of shipbuilding and technology for the development of offshore fields in the 2015 – 2030 years." The stage of marine exploration in the Arctic seas requires the creation of geophysical vessels and exploratory drilling tools adapted for operation during the period of prolonged navigation. This is very important, since the “ice window” in the Arctic on a significant part of the promising license areas ranges from two to five months. The use of traditional seismic survey vessels providing 3D exploration when using multiple seismic mowers in ice conditions is in principle impossible. Therefore, it requires the development of exploration technology, effectively working on the basis of alternative methods.

As for drilling ships and platforms, it is necessary to ensure their operation during the period of melting ice and the beginning of freeze-up in order to complete the drilling of exploration wells during the field season to the required design elevations. Further. According to the results of geological exploration, oil and gas companies are moving to the arrangement and practical development of the Arctic fields. This will require operational platforms and support vessels operating year-round. Considering the significant differences in operating conditions (water depth, ice loads), the number of required sizes of offshore platforms and the ships serving them is already in the early stages of development in dozens.

There are virtually no developments of marine technology in the world in such difficult conditions that required us to solve complex scientific and technical problems from scratch. We have developed conceptual designs of ships and other marine equipment for specific fields. For example, we have a draft of a new drilling vessel with various types of power plants for operation in the Arctic in the deepwater areas of the continental shelf. It can operate in areas remote from supply bases. There is a conceptual design development of a self-elevating floating drilling rig for drilling on the shallow shelf, where the depth is from three to 21 meters. It is supposed to be used in the ice-free period in the southeastern part of the Pechora Sea, in the Kara Sea near the Yamal Peninsula and in the Ob-Taz Bay. We also have a project of an air-cushion drilling rig for drilling at a depth of 3,5 kilometers.

- That is, there is no need to worry about drilling in the Arctic. And what about the transportation of hydrocarbons?

- The solution of the transportation problem involves the creation of marine transport and technological systems for the export of products from offshore and onshore Arctic oil and gas fields. The basis of such systems are large-tonnage vessels - tankers and gas carriers, as well as Arctic icebreakers, ensuring uninterrupted year-round pilotage of such vessels. We have begun the first stages of designing new nuclear-powered icebreakers - offshore, which provides for the operation of offshore fields located in harsh ice conditions in shallow water, and an icebreaker-leader with more than 110 megawatts designed for navigating ships in the most difficult ice conditions in the eastern Arctic. All this creates good prerequisites for the implementation of a comprehensive plan for the development of the Northern Sea Route.

As for the practical development of the Arctic zone of our country, including transit along the Northern Sea Route, it will require the creation of a branched infrastructure that provides for the construction of structures for hydrometeorological, navigational-hydrographic, emergency rescue and other support. We are now commissioning a landscape wind tunnel, which will allow us to solve the problems of refining the architecture of complex offshore structures installed on the shelf at a qualitatively new level, optimizing the location of berths and other hydraulic structures of Arctic ports and bases fleet. Thus, all necessary conditions will be created for the effective use of the unique logistic and transport advantages of the shortest sea route connecting Europe and Asia.

- What kind of marine equipment for the Arctic can we develop and do on a global level? And where do we first need to replace imports?

- Sophisticated marine equipment of arctic use (icebreakers, research vessels of ice navigation, ice-resistant offshore platforms of various types) is a priority for the development of domestic shipbuilding. And in this segment of the world market, Russia has every chance to take a leading position. First, it meets the primary needs of our country. Secondly, it is here that we have created a leading scientific and technical reserve, developed a number of "ice" technologies that have no analogues in the world. Thirdly, the construction of complex, highly-equipped vessels and marine equipment to the greatest extent corresponds to the historically established structure of domestic shipyards. No country in the world has an atomic civil fleet. Almost sixty years ago, life forced us to begin the development of civilian civil shipbuilding and shipping. The entire nuclear power cycle on board the Russian industry does completely: reactors, turbines, generators, cruise engines. And this product is quite competitive. For example, the Central Research Institute SET, a branch of the Krylov Research Center, defeated the German concern Siemens in a tender for the supply of an electric propulsion system worth over a billion rubles for a new atomic icebreaker. At the same time, we feel a lack of competence in the design and construction of marine technological complexes for the preliminary and in-depth processing of extracted resources, in the construction of technological transport ships. Shipbuilding machinery remains a bottleneck. Import substitution is also needed in the field of ship equipment, ship power engineering, and civil engineering instruments.

“But the main barrier preventing us from creating supertankers and gas carriers is the lack of construction sites in Russia. That is, large shipyards with a dry dock are more than 60 meters wide and more than 300 meters long.

- Indeed, the lack of modern construction sites is the main problem of the industry. But she is solved. We hope for the speedy completion of the construction of the new Zvezda shipyard in the Far East, where large tankers will also be built. Another important point is the need for advanced technological re-equipment of the industry, including the shipbuilding enterprises of St. Petersburg. If the Northern Shipyard is modernized and a large dry dock is built, then the capacity of our shipbuilding industry to build large offshore facilities will increase significantly.
64 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 52
    +3
    11 July 2015 04: 56
    All this is promising and wonderful. But for all the years of Soviet Power, our shipbuilding industry has not fully completed a single program. Hopefully, now "huge plans" and reality will be better combined. I really hope.
    1. +14
      11 July 2015 10: 26
      First you need to restore the entire production cycle, and then build. We buy nuts and needles.
      1. +3
        11 July 2015 11: 27
        But before that, to raise the economy to such a level to withstand such economic pressures, in such a difficult time.
        And indeed, if you believe the progress, then in the era of railguns and lasers - what will be the role of large ships?
        1. +3
          11 July 2015 13: 24
          Quote: RedDragoN
          But before that, to raise the economy to such a level to withstand such economic pressures, in such a difficult time.
          And indeed, if you believe the progress, then in the era of railguns and lasers - what will be the role of large ships?

          And how to place energy-consuming devices on a small ship? Power-consuming weapons require powerful, and therefore large, energy sources
        2. +6
          11 July 2015 23: 43
          Quote: RedDragoN
          in the era of railguns and lasers - what will be the role of large ships?

          The same as today - a platform for weapons. Even in the era of intergalactic flights, a platform will not be enough.
    2. +1
      11 July 2015 11: 38
      I hope the word is what. Will be. The asterisk is following the plan, they will solve everything normally. And after that it will be possible to take seriously the rest of the shipyards without spraying such modest means. Nobody canceled the program adopted in Vladivostok. I believe the President he never throws words. He said we can do it, we can do it.
    3. +1
      11 July 2015 13: 21
      Quote: 52gim
      All this is promising and wonderful. But for all the years of Soviet Power, our shipbuilding industry has not fully completed a single program. Hopefully, now "huge plans" and reality will be better combined. I really hope.

      One program was ruined by the War, another Khrushchev, the next collapse of the country.
      Anglo-Saxons do not like competition.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. 0
      11 July 2015 20: 39
      And where will we build the engines?
      1. +2
        11 July 2015 23: 55
        It seems that NPO Saturn has set such a task:
        The United Engine Corporation (UEC, part of the Rostec State Corporation) took part in the International Naval Salon, which was held in St. Petersburg from 1 to 5 on July. Within the framework of the exposition, industrial marine power plants and units developed by the holding enterprises were demonstrated.
        UEC is currently implementing an import substitution program for offshore gas turbine engines. It includes three key areas: a series of development work on the creation of offshore gas turbine units (GTA) with Russian engines; technical re-equipment of production capacities of NPO Saturn OJSC, as well as the construction of an assembly and testing complex for gas turbine engines (GTE) and gas turbine units (GTA).
        UEC has a full set of technical documentation for the developed engines - M75RU with power 7000, M70FRU with power 14000, and M-90FR with power 27 500 horsepower.
        (http://www.npo-saturn.ru)
  2. +10
    11 July 2015 05: 12
    Alas. Anyone can design our design bureaus. But there are problems with the construction.
    1. 0
      11 July 2015 05: 28
      Do not be so sad! Sirdyuk time is over. Already a new minister and all the more reasonable.
      1. Fox
        Fox
        0
        11 July 2015 07: 38
        Quote: tronin.maxim
        Already a new minister

        Minister of what ??
    2. +3
      11 July 2015 12: 58
      Quote: VadimL
      Alas. Anyone can design our design bureaus. But there are problems with the construction.

      And how is the matter with personnel - highly qualified shipbuilders?
  3. +6
    11 July 2015 05: 45
    Aircraft carriers, "destroyers" of 25 tons ... What kind of manilovism? Even the USSR could not build enough of these monsters. Americans somehow manage with Berks 000 tons, and they know how to design and build and count money.
    1. +5
      11 July 2015 06: 12
      25000 tons is most likely a mistake. Such a displacement is just right for a heavy cruiser, and not for a destroyer.
      But 15000 tons - for a modern destroyer - is quite acceptable, given that it has a nuclear power plant. In the case of using a conventional power plant, the displacement of a similar ship would be 13500-14000 tons.
      For comparison, the Ovsk Zumwalt has a total displacement of 14500 tons.
      In fact, in the last 10-15 years, the main classes of ships have grown significantly "fatter". But what to say, if some countries "fed" their frigates up to 6000 tons and more. 40 years ago they would have been called destroyers, but now they are frigates.
      1. 0
        11 July 2015 09: 28
        Why destroyer nuclear power plant?
        1. +1
          11 July 2015 12: 40
          Quote: THE_SEAL
          Why destroyer nuclear power plant?

          There is nothing else at hand. From despair.
          1. +3
            11 July 2015 15: 48
            There is nothing else at hand. From despair.


            And besides, in terms of functions and displacement, this is not a destroyer, but an honest missile cruiser.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +1
      11 July 2015 23: 34
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Aircraft carriers, "destroyers" of 25 tons ... the Americans somehow manage with Berks at 000 tons, and they know how to design and build and count money.

      You are right in many ways, but not in all. To ensure their interests, the United States needs a hundred ships of the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga types. And then, of course, you will involuntarily count every thousand tons. But for us, the maximum series of destroyers is a dozen, and here you can walk around a little in displacement, well, not by 25 kilotons, of course, but ...
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Even the USSR could not build enough of such monsters.

      In the USSR, aircraft-carrying cruisers with a total weight of under 200 thousand tons of standard displacement were built, and the six "victory of technology over reason" - "Sharks", project 941.
      1. +2
        12 July 2015 00: 19
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        you can lightly walk around on the displacement, well, not at 25 kilotons, of course,

        1144 had a displacement of 25800t. If the Leader will have a nuclear power plant, then, taking into account the life-cycle plant, it will do just that. And on such a carrier, weapons are already pushed - right up to the concept of an "arsenal ship". Our fleets / crews will do their best, be sure! Vaughn V.V. Chirkov is already talking about strategic tasks for the Leader ...
        About the construction of AVU. It is necessary first to practice on the "cats" (Operation Y), and only then to cut and hack the metal. And then nothing larger than "Gorshkov" was built from scratch, and bills for 100 thousand tons are already being issued ... Manilovs, home-grown!
        1. +1
          12 July 2015 01: 37
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          144 was a displacement of 25800t. If the Leader will be with the nuclear power plant, then, taking into account the ZhVZ, this is exactly what will come of it.

          Still, I'm not really sure - first, I heard out of my ear about the development of relatively compact reactors, and if this is true (but I am still ready to believe the atomprom), and also on the condition that they do not shove additional EI like on TARKRs, then the displacement will be much less. This is the first :))) The second is that the new UKSK and all sorts of Redoubts there are much more compact and lighter than the S-300F and Granites. Well, and still the nomenclature of radio equipment will probably be more modest.
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          About construction of AVU. It is necessary first to practice on the "cats" (Operation Y), and only then to cut and hack the metal. And then nothing larger than "Gorshkov" was built from scratch, and bills for 100 thousand tons are already being issued ... Manilovs, home-grown!

          As I understand it, this is a pure Krylov schiz, who have never been involved in AB. In a hurry, they made something vaguely similar to an aircraft carrier (guided by the pictures of British Queen Elizabeth ") and put up a model.
          I believe that the real projects of our AV will have nothing to do with this "miracle"
          1. +1
            12 July 2015 15: 51
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Still, I'm not really sure - first, I heard out of my ear about the development of relatively compact reactors, and if this is true (but I am still ready to believe the atomprom), and also on the condition that they do not shove additional EI like on TARKRs, then the displacement will be much less. This is the first :))) The second is that the new UKSK and all sorts of Redoubts there are much more compact and lighter than the S-300F and Granites.

            good I agree!
            But ...
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, and still the range of radio equipment will probably be more modest.

            I think that modesty is not entirely appropriate here! The fact that, conditionally, with the same performance characteristics, or of course even the best, the mass-dimensional characteristics of the avionics of the future EM will be significantly less, is a fact! Yes here. wink
            Best regards, hi
            1. +1
              12 July 2015 18: 00
              Quote: old man54
              I think that modesty is not entirely appropriate here! The fact that, conditionally, with the same performance characteristics, or of course even the best, the mass-dimensional characteristics of the avionics of the future EM will be significantly less, is a fact! Here yes

              Greetings, dear old man54!
              I’m thinking something like this - that a specialized radar for detecting low-flying a-la tackles during doping is not necessary. again, the S-300F control radar turns out to be superfluous, and on TARKR-ah there are 2 of them.
              Somehow drinks
        2. 0
          12 July 2015 15: 47
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          It is necessary first to practice on the "cats" (Operation Y), and only then to cut and hack the metal. And then nothing larger than "Gorshkov" was built from scratch, and bills for 100 thousand tons are already being issued ... Manilovs, home-grown!

          Alexander, drinks
          I agree with you! I personally, in general, categorically proitv construction in the near future, even a light AV for the Russian Navy! Let them first substantiate a real military-political doctrine (and not one that has been sucked out of thin air). And then this is their "desire to build AV" is very much like the desire to get rich on the state order, and then ... "at least the grass does not grow"! angry
          Best regards, hi
      2. 0
        12 July 2015 04: 03
        Even the best ship cannot be in two places at the same time.
        1. 0
          12 July 2015 09: 34
          Why would he be in two places? He needs to be where he is needed
      3. 0
        19 July 2015 18: 25
        Sharks ... some rotten at the piers of the Navy, some sawed! And the Soviet TAKR- Heavy Aircraft Cruiser ... one after years of laborious repairs of the Russian Federation finally handed over to India, a couple ,, sold ,, to China for needles in the 90s, and one in the Russian Federation ... which needs major repairs.
      4. 0
        19 July 2015 18: 28
        Aircraft carriers are not only a projection of power in ANY corner of the planet, but above all a projection of a STRONG ECONOMY! it’s one thing to build (13 billion!) It also needs to be maintained! and when you consider that you need to build more than one aircraft carrier .... then this venture is not affordable for the Russian budget!
  4. 0
    11 July 2015 06: 01
    Dry dock, Zaliv plant 360 \ 60 \ 13.2 meters. Served by two gantry cranes with a lifting capacity of 320 tons each! Build there!
    1. +10
      11 July 2015 08: 31
      A modern aircraft carrier is built from sections up to 1000 tons. Even the mistral and the one in sections xnumx tons.

      Crushing tons in 300 tons is a significant cost to the project. And there is already not a very big difference in money between 300 and 220 tons.

      Ah, and the dry dock is not working now. The bolts are mending. Plus, the roof in half of the shops is only on paper.

      In the near future, the dry dock water seal will be replaced. According to the general director of the plant Andrei Zherdev, a new three-section water seal has already been manufactured. The section enlargement process is underway, the contractor is being determined, which will dock. The replacement had to be done due to the fact that the old water seal is almost in emergency condition. Work is ongoing in parallel with restoration of the main facilities of the enterprise.

      In the main workshops where the production is being conducted, it is re-closed 80 thousand square meters of roofs.

      Welding facilities for the most part do not work:
      We put the oxygen station, revised stations of argon, carbon dioxide, propane, currently they are being restored. A draft gasification of the enterprise has been prepared, which will allow us to resolve issues not only industrial but also domestic - will be heating workshops, hot water
      1. +1
        11 July 2015 21: 30
        Quote: donavi49
        Crushing tons in 300 tons is a significant cost to the project. And there is already not a very big difference in money between 300 and 220 tons.

        Koreans collect their mega-ships from sections of 300-400 tons and ahead of the rest.
  5. +2
    11 July 2015 06: 11
    http://topwar.ru/77995-sdelaem-sami.html эта же статья была опубликована 04.07 в разделе "Флот".
  6. +8
    11 July 2015 08: 00
    Again about the aircraft carrier !!! Well, what the ... The new general and immediately about AB.
    Give the concept of the use of the Navy - stupid people !!!
    There is nothing, no concept, no personnel, no shipyards (Zvezda, yes, in the Far East? And this general knows the cost of transporting goods from the center to the Far East, a freak from Nizhnegotagil). And the basing? Bl .... there are no words!

    We are building "Corvettes" in 2500 for 10 years, this frame is going to bang the avik with nuclear EM, and paratroopers. The navel will be untied, there is no money in the country, but this one ...
    1. +2
      11 July 2015 12: 37
      Quote: AZB15
      Again about the aircraft carrier !!! Well, what the ... The new general and immediately about AB.

      So he answered questions of the correspondent!
      Quote: AZB15
      Give the concept of the use of the Navy - stupid people !!!

      And with this, the problem has been going on for a century ....
      Quote: AZB15
      the country is stupidly no money, but this ...

      Even when they are, everything goes as it goes.
    2. 0
      11 July 2015 14: 36
      Quote: AZB15
      Again about the aircraft carrier !!! Well, what the ...

      This is for the hype as in the illustration to the article. About drilling platforms, there will be less people. Such a micro example
  7. 0
    11 July 2015 08: 01
    Why repeat the article of July 4th? For those who did not have time to speak out?
  8. -1
    11 July 2015 08: 16
    (I wanted to write "aha" and a smiley face with a smile - the censorship did not allow it because of the shortness). Yes, of course, precisely for the expression of additional opinions, and thoughtful reasoning about the crazy ambitions of the newly appointed leaders to government positions!
  9. +3
    11 July 2015 08: 22
    Construction by the year 25-30? Hmm ... Is there anything that a good group of ships will retire by then? And before the age of 25, what can I replace them with? 10 years without a new destroyer! And the aircraft carrier was about to build. what do we think?
    You can talk about the construction of an aircraft carrier as much as you like, but there is no shipyard, and I think that everything is not rosy with the specialists either. And in this vein, BY NUKE, we can talk about building a death star.
    Pure water empty chatter.
    1. +3
      11 July 2015 09: 08
      They are not able to build frigates, they failed the rearmament program of the Navy, and they are already dreaming of destroyers and aircraft carriers, maybe they can build it before 2050, but not before 30 years.
      1. 0
        11 July 2015 09: 34
        Quote: Vadim237
        They are not able to build frigates, they failed the rearmament program of the Navy, and they are already dreaming of destroyers and aircraft carriers, maybe they can build it before 2050, but not before 30 years.

        Yeah. That's for sure. I do not understand such patriots who shout about aircraft carriers. This project can ruin us without any war. And Russia does not need it in the existing doctrine. Maybe only if the Indians buy.
        1. +3
          11 July 2015 12: 03
          If we recall the story with the aircraft carrier Vikromandia, the Hindus after it, for sure, will not order any large warships from us.
          1. +2
            11 July 2015 12: 39
            Quote: Vadim237
            If we recall the story with the aircraft carrier Vikromandia, the Hindus after it, for sure, will not order any large warships from us.

            If we recall that 90% of the hemorrhoids were due to the Indians themselves - that's for sure.
            1. +1
              11 July 2015 14: 43
              No, this is just our shipbuilder's deadlines.
      2. 0
        11 July 2015 09: 34
        Quote: Vadim237
        They are not able to build frigates, they failed the rearmament program of the Navy, and they are already dreaming of destroyers and aircraft carriers, maybe they can build it before 2050, but not before 30 years.

        Yeah. That's for sure. I do not understand such patriots who shout about aircraft carriers. This project can ruin us without any war. And Russia does not need it in the existing doctrine. Maybe only if the Indians buy.
      3. 0
        11 July 2015 13: 26
        Quote: Vadim237
        They are not able to build frigates, they failed the rearmament program of the Navy, and they are already dreaming of destroyers and aircraft carriers, maybe they can build it before 2050, but not before 30 years.

        There are stupidly not enough workers. Can master the working specialties and can., ...
        1. 0
          11 July 2015 14: 47
          I have my own business in production, repair, calculations and orders and shipbuilding, I will not deal with.
        2. -1
          12 July 2015 01: 20
          And I was repeatedly engaged in the conversion of ships. But in civilian courts. And then he went out to sea at them. So if they pay normally, then I can consider an option.
    2. -1
      11 July 2015 12: 16
      But in vain Dear. You need to read better leading design. It is also necessary. and we will build what we need. Putin never spoke as an aircraft carrier. No, his requirement is tough and very logical. To build and create a compact group of surface ships of about 20 can be a little higher able to independently solve all the issues of defense and destruction of the enemy. Already, new ships are equipped with such systems that they always dreamed of. That's the first nuclear cruiser went for modernization .A remember the requirement that it was put forward before such a ship embarked on modernization. To begin modernization only as new weapons are ready. Only new. Now think how much sweat and experimental work has been invested by those unknown scientists and system designers who made it possible to start this difficult business. We can only guess what will happen there. Besides, he is the first to go under the newest systems that have not yet been in the Navy and this demand of the Moscow Oblast. The President constantly meets with scientists and designers and production workers. And the military also takes part. And we have long known that he holds meetings knowing the details and details of the issues and problems that arise there. We do not need the huge Fleet P the resident always said that. The Navy has other tasks and new opportunities. And the main requirement is to repulse any enemy first. We proceed from this.
      1. +2
        11 July 2015 17: 09
        What new opportunities can the fleet have if new warships are units? - count the fingers of one hand enough.
  10. +2
    11 July 2015 08: 27
    But why do we need an aircraft carrier? What is the goal? Will Russia be able to create a full-fledged aug? How are they going to use it? After all, enough and cheaper alternatives we recall the Malvinas operation of arrogations there cost quite a container ship and now by reanimating the 141 project it is quite possible to create an aviation coal group capable of being based on civilian ships and able to solve most of the tasks of aircraft carrier connection. An aircraft carrier is an expensive toy and they need several and not always costs that correspond to the tasks.
    1. dyksi
      +2
      11 July 2015 13: 43
      Your probable enemy is the United States, which has about twenty aircraft carriers, you can build hundreds of corvettes, frigates, but you won't even approach them within the range of your missile launch, and add here dozens of Berks, seventeen Ticonderogs, you won't even notice how they will crush you. An aircraft carrier is not only the weapon of the aggressors, is it a banal cover for the fleet grouping, or do you think the Union developed an aircraft carrier fleet from nothing to do, or from an excess of money? An aircraft carrier raises the combat power of a grouping of ships by an order of magnitude and, with its large size, makes its use much more flexible. We need both aircraft carriers and destroyers like air, otherwise in fifteen years our tankers and dry cargo ships will be banally arrested at sea lanes, and you can't wave a nuclear baton here. There are no powers without a good fleet, the Americans at the moment dominate the sea thanks to their all-round-developed fleet, no matter what nonsense they write about it and they won the war at sea thanks to their aircraft-carrying fleet. Who does not want to feed their army ..., the same can be said about financing, We need these ships like air, otherwise even Japan does not see us in its rivals and considers expansion to our Far East a matter of time, since we do not have even for them an equivalent fleet, what can I say about the United States.
    2. 0
      11 July 2015 16: 01
      Why do you need an aircraft carrier? What is the purpose?


      Information support for all types of ships and submarines (through long-wave communication stations with them) with real-time information on the position of ships and submarines of a likely enemy in areas in which the operation of coastal-based air defense and early warning aircraft is difficult due to their remoteness.

      can Russia create a full-fledged aug?


      Yes, she would have to withdraw a full-fledged squadron for variety in the sea, and not a trio of a cruiser - a tanker - a tug.

      recall the Malvinas brazen operation there quite cost a container ship


      Unfortunately, the country of football players is not considered the likely opponent of Russia.

      it is quite possible to create an aviation coal group capable of being based on civilian ships and capable of solving most of the tasks of aircraft carrier formation


      Recent history has shown that those who have enough money for modern weapons have enough money for the means of their deployment. An example is the club rockets. No matter how advertised their placement in standard shipping containers, the Indians did not go for it - they had enough money to get hold of warships for these missiles.
      1. -1
        11 July 2015 16: 18
        Honestly speaking, I can’t imagine not a nuclear war with the SGA and NATO bloc, any collision with them sooner or later will end in a strike if it’s most likely too early. It would take a full-fledged squadron for variety to the sea, and not a trio of a cruiser - a tanker - a tugboat. So the answer is we will not pull aug.
        1. 0
          12 July 2015 09: 40
          Honestly speaking, I can’t imagine not a nuclear war with the SGA and NATO bloc, any collision with them sooner or poznno end in a blow supposedly probably early.


          In modern conditions, an aircraft carrier is a weapon of peacetime. The AWACS and PLO planes constantly hanging over the SLBM deployment areas will cool hotheads planning a surprise strike on Russian sea-based nuclear carriers. In the event of war, large and clumsy AWACS and PLO aircraft located far above the ocean will naturally be quickly carried out. Their task is to make war less likely by their very presence.
    3. +5
      12 July 2015 01: 57
      Quote: apro
      Now, having revived the Yak141 project, it is quite possible to create an aviation coal group capable of being based on civilian ships and capable of solving most of the tasks of aircraft carrier formation.

      1. The Yankees took the Yak-141 as the basis and made the Penguin. And now they are engaged in permanent sex and do not know how much it will cost to bring it to mind.
      2. Air group on civilian ships. Can you even imagine what the shipboard service of the aircraft consists of? What gases and what purity are needed to purge the fuel system, support fuel tanks, how much kerosene and oil, storage requirements, and ammunition? and reconciliation and repair of avionics avionics? what about food and rest for pilots? And fire safety, and tolerances for pitching, roll during take-off? It turns out that you are ready to take the dry cargo ship and re-equip it under the carrier of the aircraft (VTOL), having made the same pre-aircraft carrier. A normal, specialized AVU does not suit you. Yes, the guardian’s original approach for air cover of fleet ships in the far sea zone, you can’t say anything!
      3. Feeling your serious preparation in this matter, I advise you to turn to the site’s aviators with the question: Combat capabilities of the Nimitz air wing, and at what distance does it work out the oncoming battle with our Kuzya.
      4. Open WIKI and look at the list of tasks of an aircraft carrier. And then answer only one question out of a dozen: How many converted bulk carriers need to be pulled to the area of ​​operation to ensure the conquest and retention of dominance in the airspace over the water area of ​​the fleet operation.
      Good luck, colleague! hi
      1. 0
        12 July 2015 03: 56
        1 The fact that the way Americans have sex is their problem, if they had brought the project to mind in Russia, then today there would be a combat-ready air complex.
        2 Insoles in the North Atlantic in not very simple climatic conditions for container ships completely coped with maintaining the combat readiness of an air wing, here the main issue price is an order of magnitude higher, it is clear that a surrogate aircraft carrier is somewhat inferior in capabilities, but using mobresource it is possible to quickly increase aviation grouping in threatened directions.
        3 It is clear that comparing the capabilities of a full-fledged aircraft carrier with a surrogate is incorrect, but a direct clash with amers is beyond the scope of science fiction, the most likely aircraft carrier connection is a designation of presence in threatened areas against a weak enemy.
        4 The list of tasks depends on economic opportunities, before that they somehow coped with the tasks. A large overseas operation involving aircraft carriers where today or in the foreseeable future can Russia carry out? Will Russia be able to maintain the aircraft carrier group in overseas battle theaters for a long time in operational condition? .To have a full-fledged aug, Russia should not have the economic power of the SGA, but at least the PRC. But for a one-time, not intensive action, the surrogates would do the vertical thing and the complex would be ready.
        1. 0
          12 July 2015 16: 01
          Quote: apro
          2 Impudent in north atlantic in not the most simple climatic conditions for container ships, they completely coped with maintaining the combat readiness of the wing

          all the same in the North Atlantic, or maybe in the South yet? wink
          hi
        2. 0
          20 December 2015 12: 54
          It was completed. And not one. And even shown in the flight program at two international air shows.
          Subsonic English defeated the not weak supersonic aircraft without having their losses in air battles.
      2. 0
        20 December 2015 12: 09
        This is a Yankee problem in the USSR everything worked.

        The British somehow managed this in a few days

        If on the Kuz super-maneuverable Su-33, then he will drown the American, so they are removed and replaced by a non-super-maneuverable MiG-29 with a smaller combat radius.

        As much as it takes - Atlantic Causeway was like that, not a word about him in Wikipedia, unlike his sistership in Russian. lol
  11. 0
    11 July 2015 08: 37
    Quote: apro
    But why do we need an aircraft carrier? What is the goal? Will Russia be able to create a full-fledged aug? How are they going to use it? After all, enough and cheaper alternatives we recall the Malvinas operation of arrogations there cost quite a container ship and now by reanimating the 141 project it is quite possible to create an aviation coal group capable of being based on civilian ships and able to solve most of the tasks of aircraft carrier connection. An aircraft carrier is an expensive toy and they need several and not always costs that correspond to the tasks.


    "Just like that" you cannot be based on civilians. Besides, there are practically no (civilian) ones left, all go under the "flag of convenience". And about the 141st, that's it, kirdyk!

    Why do we need Avik? A Somali pirates scam hto? Well, or wash off the wake of the Limitrophs in the Baltic.
    1. +1
      11 July 2015 09: 54
      Just to chase Somali pirates, you just need an aircraft carrier with support ships, and even Baltic tigers to be scared so that they get wet, with the pirates, if all of their boats are assembled, then they will cost like one sortie.
  12. +5
    11 July 2015 08: 46
    In the end, after bright prospects, we will be pleased with the launching of the next boat.
  13. BMW
    +7
    11 July 2015 10: 59
    When a new person comes and says that everything will be fine with me and a great revival of the industry is coming, we will be world leaders. This causes very poor associations. It smells of the next cuts and the resolution of what is already (or still remains).
    In my opinion, the leader should do something, and then talk. Very similar to the show-off and deflection in front of those who appointed.
  14. +1
    11 July 2015 11: 23
    Another castles in the air. This must be 25000 tons of EM! "The Russian elephant is the largest elephant in the World!" And then what displacement cruiser and where to shove "innovative nano-technological projects about the war of drones" ?! Rather than print nonsense and hang noodles on the ears of the people, it would be better to develop a sane naval doctrine and a real shipbuilding program for it. To make it clear - these "Wishlist" (preliminary projects, etc.) cost a lot of money - by the way, taxpayers of our money! And they go into well-known pockets - by the way, not ours.
    1. 0
      11 July 2015 12: 07
      Judging by the fantasies of designers about the displacement of a destroyer of 25000 tons, the mass of the cruiser will fit into the calculation of the mass of the battleship - 50-60 thousand tons.
  15. +1
    11 July 2015 12: 14
    Why do Russian aircraft carriers? having such a territory is it really not easier to build a network of aerodromes along the coast to which, if necessary, the air regiment (s) can be relocated
  16. +1
    11 July 2015 12: 33
    Everything can be actually more interesting and ours involve the projection of power in the Mediterranean, African and Central and South Americas. Then we need both an aircraft carrier and a DVKD.
    1. 0
      11 July 2015 17: 11
      We now have priority in the ground forces.
  17. 0
    11 July 2015 17: 46
    We need a "naval development doctrine", we need (and this is being done now) to act and develop the fleet from the "coast", that is, the farther and more efficiently we discover and warn about the enemy's intentions, the better, then the possibilities for deterrence (except under boats with nuclear weapons), that's the answer, we don't need an aircraft carrier in the classical sense, we need "station wagons" of different classes, capable of conducting the whole range of operations, from reconnaissance to destruction, plus ships with the ability to perform tasks in northern latitudes, so airfields come out onshore with a mixed crew are more efficient than an aircraft carrier
    1. +5
      12 July 2015 02: 45
      Michael! Imagine the picture:
      Complete radio silence, suddenly a powerful noise (I think sighting too) interferes with the radar screens of the Far Eastern Military District. And at this time, harpoons and tactical Tomahawks go up from the horizon and quickly increase in size, go on a ship with a zero parameter.
      There will be 20-30 pieces (though, 12x4 = 48).
      This is one of the options developed by the F-18 aircraft carrier of the Yankees when attacking ships * orange *.
      No one will meet them before the turn of the task (launch of anti-ship missiles), no one will notify in time of the attack from the missile-dangerous direction, no one will knock down the jammer, will not remove the AWACS aircraft ... There is no aircraft carrier, there is no one to solve these problems. In vain did the ships go so far out to sea ...
      And what is there? Oh yes this is PLO aviation (Basic patrol and ship helicopters) sow a buoy field on a likely deployment route for our submarines. ABOUT! one buoy worked, the second ... And now the aircraft torpedo is already flying into the water ... What a strong explosion! And here household rubbish with the remains of fuels and lubricants appear on the surface of the sea ... Interesting: and whose submarine was going to go to the Atlantic? Is it really Chinese?
      And here is Orly Burke (planned 93 units) lined up in the missile defense shield, ready to work out SM-6 on our ICBMs ... And no one will scam them, no one will send to the bottom, because due to the dominance of the Yankees in the air, the ships snuggled up to the shore, under the cover of coastal air defense. And the missile-carrying aircraft still at the coastline are met by the Phoenixes with the F-18E.
      This is what the absence of an aircraft carrier means, and what it means is that there is no air cover for the NK and submarines at sea.
      Now decide whether we need an AVU or not.
      1. 0
        12 July 2015 08: 05
        Then you have a respected question: why are we now building submarines of two types 1) precisely killers of aircraft carriers 2) submarines with nuclear weapons, and we are not throwing all our forces (which are not) on the construction of aircraft carriers? will give one AUG? Keep it in Mediterranean? So there and NATO with enough means to destroy it together with the warrant, I agree in the future it may and will be required, but now we need submarines and once again I will repeat "universal ships"
      2. 0
        12 July 2015 10: 19
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        In vain did the ships go so far out to sea ...

        This is clear. But how many aircraft carriers do we need? One or two will not help against 20. To catch up with NATO in terms of numbers is utopia.
        It is necessary to fix those areas where there is an advantage or parity. Far from the coast - they have an advantage, but they will not come close to our shores.
        It is more promising to develop space - it embraces the ocean. And if you need to capture America, then through the North Pole and the bridgehead in Alaska, Russia has an advantage there.
        It is easier to observe Russian interests across the ocean by agreeing with allies. Making aircraft carriers for export is very promising, but only for export.
  18. +1
    11 July 2015 19: 13
    First, the country's leadership needs to formulate the very concept of the need for our Navy aircraft carriers - are they needed or not.
    Secondly, do not forget, comrades and gentlemen, that building an aircraft carrier is only half of what needs to be done. And the infrastructure - a mooring complex, fuel and lubricant warehouses, food, nuclear fuel, weapons (including for the air group)? All this also needs funds, and oh, what are not small. Add the cost of maintenance, repair, etc.
    So first the concept of application, and then we shout "give it!"
    1. 0
      11 July 2015 20: 06
      Warehouses will not be needed for nuclear fuel of an aircraft carrier, since this fuel will be in the reactor for the entire life of the aircraft carrier - in the USA they already do that. Now the aircraft carrier is not needed, maybe in 20 years it will be needed.
  19. 0
    11 July 2015 21: 22
    As they say - it remains to start and end.
  20. +1
    11 July 2015 23: 47
    If you look at the picture, then a strange aircraft carrier is drawn. Landing strip crosses the starting position. You can’t sit down if someone is stuck there, stalled at the start. A springboard at the end of the runway can hit the wheels in the event of an interrupted landing, if the plane, having touched or not, goes into flight with a horizontal section.
  21. +1
    12 July 2015 14: 59
    Let's suppose that the project for the construction of an aircraft carrier received the necessary "encouragement", which will take at least a year and was accepted for implementation.
    For the development of a set of drawings for such an aircraft carrier and its technological equipment, it will take at least 5 years. The production process, running and other tests, fine-tuning after testing, acceptance tests and adoption into service will take another ten years. And this is only for one aircraft carrier. And they will need to be built at least one for each fleet. Those. it will take years 20 with hook to build the entire series, where hook still 5 ... 10. And this is provided that everything that is needed for an aircraft carrier already exists at least in prototypes. In reality, neither the catapults, nor the AWACS and U-deck aircraft, nor many other special equipment are available yet and it is not known when it will appear. And it will appear not on paper but in the iron that has passed all kinds of tests. I don’t mention the money needed for all these processes. These are billions and billions of rubles. Next, you will need to create ships that provide, together with aircraft carriers, the creation of a balanced AUG force and means. What is now part of the Navy is not always and not in everything suitable for the creation of such AUGs. Next, the question arises of creating the infrastructure providing the military service of the AUG. And this again is years and billions. Moreover, most of the most combat fleets are based where the creation of such an infrastructure will cost several times more than under normal conditions. And with the personnel, as shown by the construction of the Vostochny cosmodrome in such remote places, some problems arise. And for the sake of what all this garden to fence and when to use it will be possible so far a big question.