Military Review

Boxing by correspondence, or Once again about the post-war fleet

49
Boxing by correspondence, or Once again about the post-war fleet


When I was preparing my articles in the NVO (“We will build our old fleet,” “Hunters for missile carriers and the killers of“ floating airfields ”,“ Naval Reserve ”), I, of course, suspected that I would still have to return to this topic, but did not expect it for just such an occasion. I will not hide, I am also interested in vanity, and therefore, after the publication of my articles, I glanced at the forums to read what they were writing. And here is an almost literal review from one of the forums: “The author is a militarist and Stalinist,” after a dozen comments, another commentator: “The author is a liberal for the destruction of the army.” In a similar vein, unfortunately, most of the comments. From this I established myself in the opinion that I heard more than once from others that people on the Internet, with rare exceptions, are divided into readers and commentators. The first read the information, analyze, but do not spend time on comments. The second - comment, not wasting time reading. It could not be otherwise, since in days only 24 hours. And everything would go on as usual, if not for the review of Maxim Klimov on my article, published in the same newspaper "NVO" ("Once again about the myths of post-war shipbuilding"). From this review, I was inspired by the spirit of Internet forums. And here I decided to answer the printed word on the printed word.

DISPUTES ABOUT ROCKETS AND MANIES

In his article, Maxim Klimov first of all criticizes the book of my father Vladislav Ivanovich Nikolsky, written in collaboration with Vladimir Petrovich Kuzin. This scientific work is well known in the narrow circle of those interested in the Soviet Navy and does not need to be protected. Agreeing that not only the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the economy, but also the army was sick in a sick Soviet state, this book was pulled apart for a long time for quotes. Therefore, I turn immediately to the protection of their own dignity.

To begin with, Maxim Klimov writes: “First of all, I would like to dispel the myth of“ Khrushchev’s rocket-attack ”, which, as stated (A. Nikolsky), has damaged the progressive development of the Russian Navy.” Talking about the “Khrushchev rocket mania” in my articles, I do this not so much for criticizing Khrushchev, as to show that those who then criticized Khrushchev for rocket attacks during the Khrushchev era praised his military genius as well as 10 over the years pleased Stalin with the rationale for building battleships.

Reading the “scientific” confirmation of his ideas, the leader sincerely believed that he was right. A society transformed into uncomplaining sheep gave birth to ram leaders, and rams bred sheep. So close the circle. By the way, today it does not look like anything? As for Klimov’s assertion about the lack of an alternative to mass rocketization, I would like to remind you of the golden mean and that “Khrushchev rocket attack” means not flights into space and not the creation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (for which we are grateful to Khrushchev), but the hope that the complex (SAM) will be replaced by the fighter, and the cruise missile is a bomber, which I wrote about. And if we praise Khrushchev, then first of all, not for rocketization, but for his conversion and attempts to increase the output of consumer goods.

Another place.

Maxim Klimov writes that the Volna air defense system could, especially in experienced hands and taking into account modernization, shoot down low-flying targets, and also on the BN of the 61 project there were two AK-726 gun mounts, and AK-230 and AK-X gun guns on the Soviet ships 630. And, therefore, my assertion that the Soviet ships in the 60-e - the beginning of 70-s did not have adequate protection against low-flying targets (below 50 m), is untenable. However, my opponent somehow forgot to bring the year of modernization of Wave, and meanwhile I wrote about it: the modernized Wave-M appeared only in 1976, when the United States already had Harpoon. The same applies to AK-630. AK-230 was not put on either the 61 project or the 1134 project.

As for the AK-726, then she had a problem of a different kind. It is effective when it uses projectiles with a radio fuse, but it was impossible to use them just for the purpose below 50. It was not by chance that AK-1962 knocked down targets at a height not lower than 726 m on tests in 500. So, you have to use a contact fuse, but you can really achieve a direct hit on the transonic target, and even maneuvering, if only in a horizontal plane. from the distance 4 km. That is why artillery systems designed to destroy low-flying targets have an effective range of 2 – 4 km and a small caliber - 20 – 40 mm.

Skyhawk passes 4 km in 14 seconds, during which time two AK-726 managed to fire 80 shells, which, according to calculations, allowed to shoot down one, at most two aircraft. Therefore, four Skyhawk were enough to ditch any of our ship. Here I have to apologize, because in the previous article, chasing spectacularity, I cited only the option of attacking four Skyhawk, since it was reminiscent of the Falkland War. In fact, the Americans had a less effective, but safer for pilots attack method. First, four F-4s — and these are 64–48 bombs with a caliber of 227 kg — come out flying at an altitude of 25 m to a distance of 5–6 km, turn on the automatic (using the radar data of the aircraft) bombing system with cabling and achieve guaranteed three to four hits into a target the size of a destroyer. This number of hits is enough for the destroyer to lose its ability to resist. After that, Skyhawk finish off the unfortunate ship. Therefore, the Americans did not need until the mid-70s aviation anti-ship missiles (RCC), because they already destroyed our ships if they were removed from the cover airfield beyond 100 km.

THIRD DIMENSION

There are people who fully share the doctrine of the Soviet Navy. There are people who criticize this doctrine. I belong to the latter. But my opponent offers a third way, which I have not yet met. He argues that everything written in the closed literature about the doctrine is only an ideological cover. Namely - that tracking the enemy SSBNs was not planned in reality.

It turns out that headquarters, research institutes (SRI) and other smart institutions engaged in imitation, solving the problem of tracking SSBNs? To declare this, we need solid evidence, but their opponent does not. There is only an indication that the task of tracking is impracticable, and therefore no one seriously and was not engaged. About the fact that this task is impossible, there is no dispute, I wrote about it in my article, but didn’t they deal with impracticable tasks in Soviet reality? Building communism is like? And where is socialism more successful - here or in Sweden? And how many millions have we ruined, now to be the country of the second, if not the third world?

"We were not going to start the war first." This is the opinion expressed by Maxim Klimov, and I fully share it. However, he, taking my sentences out of context, makes me a kind of Zbigniew Brzezinski, accusing the USSR of the desire to unleash Armageddon. I will briefly try to explain what I had in mind (for more details, in my articles mentioned above in the NVO).

At the beginning of the 70-ies with the filing of Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov, in the 1976 year appointed to the post of Minister of Defense of the USSR, a new concept of the third world. Ustinov believed that the war will consist of two phases: the first is the limited use of only tactical nuclear weapons and unlimited use of conventional weapons; the second - if it was not possible to reach an agreement during the first phase of the conflict, then the thermonuclear end of mankind. There were two scenarios for starting a war: we strike the first blow, or they strike the first blow. The air force and the army were doing well in any of these scenarios. At the naval fleet it turned out well only if we beat the first. If the USA treacherously attacked us, then all our tracking by single ships and single aircraft was covered with a copper basin. Therefore, it was beneficial for Gorshkov to start the war first. That's just what I had in mind.

In my articles, I explain that the well-known disregard for ship repair and the training of naval personnel fits into the Soviet concept of a fleeting nuclear war. Denying this, Maxim Klimov writes: “The thing is that the realities of the USSR economy, many of whose plans were not fulfilled (and could not be fulfilled), and ultimately led to the emergence of a“ bias ”in the ratio of shipbuilding in the 1980-ies and ship repair, which was planned to be repaired already in the 1990-ies with the commissioning of a sharply increased volume of ship repair complexes. " Again, as in the case of “Wave”, dates are distorted, only then Klimov hid the dates, and now he falsifies them. "Skew" did not occur in the 1980-x, but in the second half of the 60-x. But the situation at the end of 80's began to be corrected not because “the time has come”, but because management has changed. In 1985, Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev finally retired 75-year-old unsinkable Sergey Georgievich Gorshkov because of Chazhma. He was replaced by a more sane Vladimir Nikolaevich Chernavin, plus “detente,” and, finally, the third last change of the concept of the beginning of the third world war. Now the idea of ​​reasonable sufficiency and the absence of ideological opposition prevailed and, as a result, recalled ship repair. It is no coincidence that it was then, relying on the American experience, in the 1 Central Research Institute, research began on extending the life cycle of a ship. But the yard was already 1989 year ...

ABOUT TREATY AND PATRIOTISM

Very extravagantly refuted by my opponent in the issue of the causes of accidents. In short, I believe that the accident rate of the Navy was higher than in the Navy of the NATO countries because of weak coastal infrastructure, which implies not only ship repair, but also the lack of available training centers for submarine crews and complete lack of industry - "quantity instead of quality." But in response, Maxim Klimov writes: “As for the talk about the accident rate of the Navy, including in comparison with the Western fleets, it can only be conducted from the standpoint of a detailed analysis of the circumstances and causes of accidents and catastrophes, rather than ideological cliches that often slip in the materials under discussion. " And that's all, and nothing more, that is, I am wrong only because I am an adherent of ideological cliches, but at the same time Klimov himself does not give his version. Well, let's wait until Klimov studies the topic; I advise the following authors to help him: B.A. Karzhavin, E.D. Chernov, D.A. Romanov, V.D. Ryazantsev and others. In the meantime, I remain unconvinced.

Maxim Klimov - a supporter of the slogan of the Soviet military-industrial complex "Quantity to the detriment of quality." Here is what he writes: “I would like to separately stand up for the boiler-turbine destroyers. So, A. Nikolsky claims that "the Navy wanted to abandon the boiler-turbine installations (KTU) on warships, but this went against the opinion of the industry." However, the reason for choosing a KTU on the destroyer of the 956 project is well known to specialists: the domestic shipbuilding program was not provided by the production of gas turbine units (GTU), which were also needed to repair existing ships, so the choice of KTU was not due to “opinion”, but real possibilities MIC ".

Firstly, I also wrote that the choice of the KTU was due to the possibility of the MIC. Secondly, Klimov considers the construction of destroyers with a KTU to be a forced, but the right measure, I am not. The Cold War differs from the hot one in that countries are measured not by the number of destroyers, but by the attractiveness of ideology. The construction of 14 destroyers of the 956 project did not save the USSR in any way, but the Russian shipbuilding industry was harmed. For the production of obsolete weapons does not develop, but it also slows down the civilian sector of the economy. If the destroyers construction program had been reduced, there would have been funds for building a new GTU plant (at that time they considered the option of building a plant in Izhevsk).


The Yak-141 vertical take-off and landing aircraft never hit the fleet


Eh, now I’ve again been unpatriotic on the Internet. But Klimov is a patriot. Here is how he spreads my skepticism about the endless single voyages of our ships (for more on this, see my articles in NVO): “However, by their presence, tracking the enemy, they ensured effective deterrence of the“ opposing side ”from the escalation of crisis situations, that is were quite effective impact tool. Including in local conflicts. ” This often has to be read on the Internet. However, the writers, like Klimov, do not give examples when we were able to stop American aggression. Something did not work out for us either to save Grenada, to drive the US fleet away from Vietnam, or to protect our valiant Gaddafi (in the 80s, of course). Our fleet has never participated directly in this local conflict. Yes, we landed troops in Egypt, but in the rear, west of Alexandria, so that the Israelis did not accidentally hit us with a bomb. We participated in the demining of the Suez Canal in Bangladesh, but after the conclusion of peace. On the rights of complete neutrality, escorted vessels in the Persian Gulf. And this is all that we were really capable of. Compare this with the US Navy. Well, where is the effectiveness of our fleet in local wars? Where is the vaunted deterrence? And what then restrained? It is known that. Strategic nuclear forces. It is worth recalling that it was not the pathetic attempts of our fleet, but the fear of a thermonuclear strike did not allow the seizure of our ships during the Caribbean crisis. So if anyone is given the Nobel Prize for Peace, it will be Oppenheimer and Kurchatov. It was their efforts that global war became meaningless. Otherwise, there would be no cold war, and we, unfortunately, would have analyzed the lessons of the third world war today, preparing for the fourth, if not the fifth.

WEAPONS OF AGGRESSION

Maxim Klimov devotes a significant part of his article to aircraft carriers. Where without them, damn it. I'll have to talk about them too, although I like the airships more.

My opponent begins a story about aircraft carriers with direct insults to my father and VP Cousin, calling them "the creators of the popular stories construction of an aircraft carrier fleet ". Klimov refers to the opinion of nameless specialists of an unnamed TsNII. It is called in the people OBS - "one grandmother said." So, this “grandma” declares: “As it later became obvious, the concepts of the ANC, 1160 and 1153, could not be correctly formed then due to the fact that an objective thesis was adopted as a fundamental postulate: during the construction of the USSR aircraft carrier should repeat what was done in the USA, approaching the characteristics of American aircraft carriers, as far as technical capabilities allow ... As a result, firstly, the domestic fleet for some reason had to solve the task of striking surface targets twice, as it were Stormtrooper deck again, and the second - missile "ship-to-ship."

Unlike Klimov, my father and his coauthor “held a candle” at the time of conception of at least the last three of our aircraft carriers - the Five, the Seven and the failed Eight. And they wrote about aircraft carriers back in the 90-e years, when the control bodies were not so fierce and some acting officers wrote in the marine journals, which at that time were very much in the maritime capital. And no one then called the story described by my father lubochnaya. The reason for the nonsense with a double strike (aircraft, and then - ships) was described by my father more than once or twice, and it is connected with the cover-up struggle around the birth of the Soviet aircraft carrier. I also wrote about this. Obviously, my opponent inattentively reads articles for which he writes reviews.

In short and in my transcription, the situation looked like this. The times were no longer GULAG, the people grew bolder and learned to grumble. The illegal “carrier party”, which at one time was headed by Rear Admiral B.A., was ripe, primarily in the depths of the 1 Central Research Institute. Kolyzaev. The members of the “party” (exactly how - we, probably, will no longer recognize), bypassing Gorshkov, managed to convey their ideas to the Minister of Defense Andrei Antonovich Grechko. The result of this was a memorable meeting on the approval of the 1160 project ship, when Grechko said: “Do not be clever, do it like at Nimitz.” And - oh, horror! - with his own hand he struck out all the anti-ship missiles from the armament of TAVKR, turning it into an aircraft carrier. Those present recalled that Gorshkov had just turned white. Being an experienced courtier (it’s no joke to sit around the four general secretaries), he never respected the opinions of his subordinates, but did not argue with his superiors and therefore resorted to hidden sabotage. He began to push the concept of a double strike, turning the idea of ​​building an aircraft carrier into insanity, and at the same time extolled the developed “miracle weapon” called “Granit-Antey”, which, together with the “miracle” of Academician Yakovlev, supersonic VTOL, was to revolutionize in a sea battle.

When the miracle did not work and it became clear that the engineer, even if a member of the Communist Party, was not a magician, the “carrier party” again went for an attack and again, bypassing Gorshkov, went directly to the new defense minister, D.F. Ustinov. The latter, having familiarized himself with the colorful description of the infirmity of “Kiev” in 1981, ordered to start building aircraft carriers. Again, Gorshkov began to arm aircraft carriers with anti-ship missiles, and while he was in power, it was possible only to minimize this evil. So, on the 11435 project, he demanded to install 20 – 30 RCC, converged on 12; on the 11437 project - already 60 – 80 RCC, broken on 16. And only when Gorshkov left, they managed to agree on a project of a real aircraft carrier - the 11438 project, without a springboard and anti-ship missiles, but for obvious reasons they could not even lay it off. So it was not difficult to work out a normal concept of an aircraft carrier, if it had not interfered with Gorshkov.

KEYBOARD

In the last part of his article, Klimov no longer criticizes anyone, but explains how, from his point of view, the Soviet Navy should have been. Well, now I criticize him.

My opponent believes that it was necessary to develop long-range anti-ship missiles and arm the triad with them: submarines (submarines), surface ships (NK) and naval missile-carrying aircraft (MRA). The main role was to be played by the MRA, and success was achieved with a concentrated massive missile strike. Whoever is in the subject will immediately understand that Klimov invented the bicycle. Since his idea corresponds exactly to the views of Gorshkov. Despite Gorshkov's jealousy for the pilots and the insane love of submariners, he understood that the MPA in the fight against aircraft carriers was the queen. All the rest and do not pull on the boat. Therefore, more funds were spent on the MRA than on nuclear submarine missile cruisers (APRC). And the single blow was also worked out. At the same time, the problems of the P-700 and X-22 missiles, described by Klimov, had no effect on the concentrated strike, since the carriers did not launch missiles simultaneously, but according to the distance and flight time, so that the triad missiles fly up to the aircraft carrier at the same time. I wrote in detail about the triad and pointed out the main problem - the effective defense of the American aircraft carrier, which was never fully cracked. I described in detail what this is connected with, but Klimov, who had criticized me before, now simply doesn’t notice my words.

Also, my correspondent opponent singing the air defense aircraft carrier, which is also an old song, long ago rejected and recognized as erroneous. The fact is that Gorshkov did not want to admit that carrier aircraft do not need assistants and she alone can cope with the task without any triad, and therefore demanded that deck aircraft not in any way deal with percussion tasks, but only ensured domination in the air. The result was a stupid picture: the deck aviation was to seize air supremacy, after which, instead of hanging up the impact weapons, to finish off the US fleet deprived of air cover, our pilots had to sit down to drink tea. That is why while the Air Force was already equipped with multi-purpose aircraft (MiG-29), the Navy ordered itself only a single-purpose aircraft - Su-33, and only after Gorshkov’s resignation also decided to acquire a multi-purpose aircraft, but did not have time.

Once again, I am convinced that Maxim Klimov did not read my article well, on which he wrote a review. After all, I wrote not only about the problems of the triad, but also about the system of maritime space reconnaissance and target designation (MKRTS) with US-A and US-P satellites. If my opponent does not agree with my conclusions, then where is his refutation? Since he does not write, it means that he did not read again. If simply, the problem MKRTS looks like. Only very long-wave radar can be placed in a spacecraft. It can only detect an object no less than an aircraft carrier, and in a narrow sector against the horizon. The second problem: to classify the target - an aircraft carrier or a tanker - the radar could not. And if we add to this the low reliability, poor protection from interference, the high cost and danger of nuclear US-A, then it becomes clear why after Gorshkov’s resignation, the program was quickly turned off. Therefore, Klimov’s hopes that the MKRTS could have been “limited by DRLO” are not consistent. And his indication that there was nevertheless a certain person who could turn the MKRTS into DRLO, but unfortunately, the man died in 1981 and the work was forever stopped reminds of the famous story about the loss of the heather’s honey recipe the last medovar and repeat the recipe is beyond the power of any mortal.

Since Klimov finishes his article with the recipe of the correct Navy, then, according to the law of the genre, I will have to do the same. To cope with US aircraft carriers (and only the recipe for solving this problem gives Klimov), we must understand that the search for a cheap way to destroy aircraft carriers is akin to finding a workaround on the hundred-meter mark. There is no reception against scrap, so you have to construct the same scrap.

So, the first method (relevant since 70-ies): change the MRA. Before the advent of the Su-27, we could only take a number, so instead of the 200 of the Tu-22 / 22М aircraft, we acquired the 750 MiG-23. We work on refueling in the air from 250 Tu-16. We also attract Tu-126 for management and also 100 Tu-16 as RPC carriers. Long-range anti-ship missiles are not needed, since MiGs will cope with air cover, which means that anti-ship missiles will become lighter and one Tu-16 will take more missiles. Funds for the development of airfields are obtained by abandoning the construction of APRC and RKR. We get for the same money that was spent on the triad, the air hammer, which is guaranteed not to allow aircraft carriers closer than 1500 km. The main difference between this hammer and the triad is that it can act not only over the sea, but also over land, and, of course, freedom of maneuver between theater operations.

The second method (relevant with the advent of the MiG-29 and Su-27): we completely abandon the MRA and acquire the 960 decker aircraft and 120 tankers Il-78 for the released funds. Instead of building APRS and excessive SSBNs of the 941 project, we build 15 aircraft carriers. In addition, it is not necessary to build ships of escort, since the already large surface ships were sufficient at that time. The second method is more costly, but on the other hand, the country acquires a force instrument on any third world country, plus the fleet provides protection for SSBNs in patrol areas from US PLO aircraft. Carriers are divided between the Northern and Pacific fleets (six per fleet, plus three - in long-term repair). If we step on the Federation Council, aviation with the Pacific Fleet is being deployed near Murmansk and is used as a reinforcement of the deck aircraft of the Federation Council. At the same time, it is possible to deliver a joint strike at a depth of up to 2500 km with aircraft of the Northern Fleet (from aircraft carriers) and aircraft of the Pacific Fleet (from coastal airfields) that are refueled from IL-78. If the main strike is delivered by the Pacific Fleet, then we act in the same way, only fleets are interchanged. And, of course, deck aircraft can help the army, which is difficult for the APRC and RKR.

What will the Americans answer? They will have to spend money on strengthening aircraft in Norway and Japan and build additional aircraft carriers. That is, to spend much more money than in the case of confrontation with the triad. And since the Cold War is a special war and the main thing here is to exhaust the enemy, not starting a war, military and economic success is evident.

The third method (my favorite): according to the testament of Ostap Bender - we collect more saliva and spit in the direction of the American aircraft carriers. Then we roll up our sleeves and begin to restore order in the country. By putting things in order, I do not mean the Stalinist version and not the Andropov version, but the liberal one. But not according to Gorbachev, but according to Deng Xiaoping. Quietly we turn off the ideological and military confrontation and begin to measure economy, not quantity tanks. Then the Union would be preserved, and our economy would be at least second after the United States. Well, we can’t drown one aircraft carrier now, and what did they attack after the Crimea? Let them swim, the sea is common, we do not mind. We are a continental country, the main thing for us is the army and the Air Force, and the fleet is needed to protect economic waters from violators and so that banana states do not offend our ships. And for this, border ships and 3-4 aircraft carriers with 15-20 destroyers (frigates) of protection are needed, more is not necessary.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2015-07-17/12_flot.html
49 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. Silhouette
    Silhouette 19 July 2015 08: 36
    +2
    I fully agree with the author of the article. Everything about the case. backed by arguments. Bravo!
    1. Sergey S.
      Sergey S. 20 July 2015 00: 37
      +3
      Quote: Silhouette
      I fully agree with the author of the article. Everything about the case. backed by arguments. Bravo!

      It is impossible to completely agree with the author. For openly discussing the issues raised does not make sense at all.
      Not everything is the case. Our fleet in local conflicts acted very actively - at least in accordance with the available forces. And the fact that the Americans were not able to organize an opposition speaks of the reality of approaching parity or almost parity. Even during the Vietnam War, our help was delivered to Haiphong by sea.
      Arguments, unfortunately, from the OBS. These stories are interesting and instructive. But ... Kuzin and Nikolsky wrote the book as employees of 1 research institute of the Moscow region, the book passed the appropriate examination, and, as they said, was intended for publication abroad.
      With a high degree of probability, along with valuable materials on the history of the Russian fleet, it contains not quite correct facts regarding what may be relevant to modern events. So we will not be able to know the true strength of the Soviet Navy. And there is nothing to neglect the fleet, which had no defeats.
      And for S.G. Gorshkov would like to intercede. His "mistakes" have not been proven by reality. The arguments of his opponents have not been verified by reality. So there are too many cock attacks on the Commander-in-Chief, who in various ways, but managed to gnaw out resources for the fleet in the conditions of exclusively overland thinking of the absolute majority of our leaders.
    2. mine
      mine 17 February 2016 04: 52
      0
      Miracle, you generally read the previous article (to which this half-drunk vyser Nikolsky "fell out of the closet")?
    3. mine
      mine April 2 2017 18: 47
      0
      Quote: Silhouette
      I fully agree with the author of the article. Everything about the case. backed by arguments. Bravo!

      Are you psaka?
  2. free
    free 19 July 2015 09: 11
    +11
    Quietly we turn off the ideological and military confrontation and begin to measure ourselves by the economy, and not by the number of tanks.


    But would the author give us to measure economy? I think not!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Danik_Rok
      Danik_Rok 19 July 2015 09: 19
      -13
      Who's in the way? Themselves driven into confrontation, and others are to blame. It’s just that the authorities can’t do anything other than “keep otvetka” and threaten them with their fists.
      1. Xergey
        Xergey 19 July 2015 16: 52
        +1
        But no, how are you going to accept the whole military rabble, which is ready to get citizenship anywhere and do anything, in addition, they do not respect you on your land, crap and parasitize, but you think it’s good if only to harm Russia, so that I’d rather stand in the corner and try to get out of this situation than how you grovel in front of the amers. (The Baltic states reminds me of the Mowgli cartoon and in the role of jackals it’s just your country, nothing personal)
    3. kord1215
      kord1215 19 July 2015 11: 21
      +9
      If the author’s statements regarding the Navy are controversial, but they deserve attention, his reasoning about economics and liberalism betrays absolute ignorance in this area.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 19 July 2015 14: 27
        +5
        Quote: kord1215
        then his arguments about economics and liberalism betray absolute ignorance in this area.

        It is unlikely that he is so stupid. Rather a standard grantosos. Fortunately, not dangerous. The second time, convincing the majority of society of the goodness of "liberal reforms" and the elimination of confrontation with the West will fail.
        Such a frontal method will not work for Western agents of influence, but unfortunately among them there are much smarter and more dangerous people. Well, and most importantly, the current authorities (absolutely bourgeois and just carrying out "liberal reforms") themselves contribute to the activities of these people.
    4. Drummer
      Drummer 19 July 2015 12: 13
      +1
      Quote: free
      But would the author give us to measure economy? I think not!

      For some reason, they give the Chinese with the Indians ...
      1. Hell's Angel
        Hell's Angel 19 July 2015 16: 27
        0
        The Chinese are not given. Hindu give yet.
        Carried away by the confrontation with the USSR, then with Russia, the West "blinked" China. Hindus do not pose any threat to the West yet. India has enough problems with Pakistan and China. And we don't even have to talk about the standard of living in India.
        But China has recently become a lot of "smut" both in the economy and in the military. USA again "climb" into South - East Asia. Moreover, tightly and brazenly.
        But "exporting" both Russia and China together may "untie the navel". Hence, there are a lot of oddities in the relations between the USA and China.
  3. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 19 July 2015 09: 23
    +16
    The second method (relevant with the advent of the MiG-29 and Su-27): we completely abandon the MRA and use the freed funds to purchase 960 deck aircraft and 120 Il-78 tankers. Instead of building an APRK and unnecessary SSBNs of Project 941, we are building 15 aircraft carriers.

    By the time these aircraft were adopted (MiG-29 - 1978, Su-27 - 1981), the USSR was hopelessly behind the United States in terms of the development of the shipbuilding industry, which did not allow the simultaneous construction of more than 2-3 large warships (size more cruiser), and the construction time was far from optimal. By the time the ship (deck) versions of the above fighters appeared (the Su-27K made its first flight on August 17.08.1987, 29, and the MiG-23.07.1988K on July 15, 3), the Soviet Union (or rather its leadership) had already completely lost its political will and to a large extent influence in the world. You can not talk about the economy of the USSR. The construction of 4 aircraft carriers the Soviet Union would not have pulled in any case. Unless, of course, stretch the deadlines for laying new ships for an indefinite period. At the same time, the United States would build XNUMX-XNUMX of its own aircraft carriers for each of our aircraft carriers, without particularly straining. In this race of aircraft carriers, the USSR economy would have ordered a long life, not withstanding the strain.
    The option with the liberalization of politics and economics in the style of Deng Xiaoping I like more. However, there is one big BUT - the USSR is not China. The economic development of China fully unfolded after the collapse of the Union due to financial injections of the USA and Western Europe, as well as the transfer of advanced technologies. Such economic and financial injections did not threaten the Soviet Union in any case. We would not be allowed to develop the economy. Because, unlike China, the economically developed and independent policy of the USSR posed the greatest threat to the United States. Years passed, but the situation did not change one iota - Russia is not the USSR, and is not an ideological opponent of mattress, but as soon as Russia began to develop its economy and pursue an independent foreign policy without looking at Faitington, their African-American president immediately declared Russia a threat to the Western world No. 1, more dangerous than IG and Ebola.
    So neither the second nor the third options are for the USSR. I won’t even discuss the first option - for each MiG-23, Americans and NATO will deploy 5-6 of their fighters (which is not a problem to manufacture for the developed western aviation industry of the 70-80s with gigantic military expenses of that time).
    I have the honor.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 19 July 2015 09: 30
      +6
      Quote: Aleksandr72
      but it was worth Russia to start developing the economy

      How, in what areas?
    2. bayard
      bayard 19 July 2015 15: 13
      +3
      Quote: Aleksandr72
      So neither the second nor the third options are for the USSR. I won’t even discuss the first option - for each MiG-23, Americans and NATO will deploy 5-6 of their fighters (which is not a problem to manufacture for the developed western aviation industry of the 70-80s with gigantic military expenses of that time).
      I have the honor.

      Quote: Aleksandr72
      So neither the second nor the third options are for the USSR. I won’t even discuss the first option - for each MiG-23, Americans and NATO will deploy 5-6 of their fighters (which is not a problem to manufacture for the developed western aviation industry of the 70-80s with gigantic military expenses of that time).
      I have the honor.

      Here you have two mistakes: it was proposed to use the MiG-23 against carrier-based aircraft, and its number on an aircraft carrier is limited, moreover, it is possible to lift no more than 12 air from the deck at the same time, well, a maximum of a squadron (24 pcs.) And then in violation of flight safety rules , in order to raise it takes time (taxiing to the original, "charging catapults"). That is, with a massive attack with an approach to the target at an extremely low level and the presence of its own AWACS aircraft in the air, an overwhelming preponderance of forces in the air is easily created, in addition, the MiG-23 was the carrier of both light anti-ship missiles and anti-radar missiles - this is to suppress air defense ships. As for the aircraft building capacity (5-6 aircraft per one of ours), you are fundamentally wrong, in this we just had full parity, as evidenced by the approximate equality in the number of tactical aviation. Another thing is that this is a purely defensive doctrine - not to let the enemy's fleet come closer than 1500 km.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 19 July 2015 23: 44
        +1
        1
        Quote: bayard
        Here you have two mistakes: it was proposed to use the MiG-23 against carrier-based aircraft, and its number on an aircraft carrier is limited, moreover, it is possible to lift no more than 12 air from the deck at the same time, well, a maximum of a squadron (24 pcs.) And then in violation of flight safety rules , in order to raise it takes time (taxiing to the original, "charging catapults"). That is, with a massive attack with an approach to the target at an extremely low level and the presence of its own AWACS aircraft in the air, an overwhelming preponderance of forces in the air is easily created, in addition, the MiG-23 was the carrier of both light anti-ship missiles and anti-radar missiles - this is to suppress air defense ships. As for the aircraft building capacity (5-6 aircraft per one of ours), you are fundamentally wrong, in this we just had full parity, as evidenced by the approximate equality in the number of tactical aviation. Another thing is that this is a purely defensive doctrine - not to let the enemy's fleet come closer than 1500 km.
        Reply Quote Report Abuse


        1. In general, I think that the option with "additional" MiG-23s and a large number of Tu-16 tankers is really the most reasonable scheme for countering the AUS threats operating in the Norwegian Sea
        2. However, it is worth recalling the conclusions of WWII - the AUS always takes the initiative in the confrontation with coastal aviation.
        3. Hence the conclusion - to build 4-5 AB projects 1160, instead of all APR 941, 705, loaves. Of the nuclear submarines - only one type - for example, 971, no Kirovs. It was then, in combination with coastal fighters, with coastal Tu-16s with anti-ship missiles having 2 ABs each in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, it was quite possible to ensure the impossibility of the AUS in the Norwegian Sea and near Kamchatka. Actually, more was not required from the Navy. But ... the key condition for this option is Gorshkov’s departure and the appearance of a man like Kuznetsov at the head of the USSR Navy in the second half of 1960.

        4. Well ... citizens are surprised, claiming that nobody would have let the USSR develop the economy. When Khrushchev cut the sun and the cost of weapons. Under Brezhnev - stupid, judging by the results, the leadership was drawn into the arms race with the United States and NATO. Naturally lost, because the size of economies is not comparable. It was worth abandoning the idea of ​​a tank run to the English Channel, relying only on strategic nuclear forces, and defense spending could be 1,5-2 times lower than it was in reality.
  4. sevtrash
    sevtrash 19 July 2015 09: 42
    -1
    The economy is primary, everything else is a derivative of the success of economic development / welfare. You can talk for a long time about the effectiveness / inefficiency of aircraft carriers in military operations / projection of force, but so far the fact is that they are needed, since those who have money for aircraft carriers and the need for projection of force are the same aircraft carriers.
    In a limited budget, we can only talk about remote projects and concentrate on the main thing - nuclear deterrence weapons.
  5. fomkin
    fomkin 19 July 2015 10: 00
    +13
    When such titans hammer each other with a printed word, it is somehow inconvenient to intervene. But what is surprising is such vast knowledge on the subject under discussion and untenable conclusions. There is a logic of things. You can know the subtleties of the principle of operation and the design of a product, but absolutely not petrify the overall design of the world order. And it is such, weak in accordance with the theory of natural selection are allowed to grub. Stalin knew this well and strove to create a powerful ocean fleet. He knew the principle that the construction of an EXPENSIVE ship is an investment in a peaceful future. And it’s bad that at the helm of Russia there were often figures who did not see beyond their nose. And what should be the fleet specifically. This formula has been derived for a long time. Academician Krylov said at the beginning of the last century: - The fleet must be balanced.
  6. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 19 July 2015 10: 31
    +4
    Once upon a time, a good friend of mine served on a Project 266 minesweeper. He told me that this minesweeper somehow took part in a type of exercise, guarded the exercise area and so on. So, it turned out during these exercises such an embarrassment - one of the cruise missiles that imitated the enemy's attack was either damaged, or something happened in her "brains", but she abruptly changed her direction of flight and flew to side of the coast. It so happened that a minesweeper was on her way, where my friend served. Several ships tried to shoot down the rocket, but failed. Some panic began. The rocket flew very low, almost touching the surface of the water and inevitably approached the shore. The minesweeper noticed her visually and also tried to shoot down. The minesweeper was armed, if my memory serves me AK-230M, these installations could not target the missile with a radar and the missile was already very close. Then the "bull" himself intervened - he just graduated from the school and did not forget his business yet - he used the optical path of manual guidance of these installations and, having fired several short bursts, still hit the rocket - it flew by inertia for some more distance and fell into the water. The minesweeper's crew, like, received gratitude and valuable gifts, well and all that ...
    1. vkfriendly
      vkfriendly 19 July 2015 10: 47
      +2
      It seems that the rocket flew at the speed of a bicycle.
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 19 July 2015 11: 19
        +13
        This is a common naval bike. Although, oddly enough, it has a real basis. In practice, of course, everything was not there, and the outcome was completely different: the Pacific Fleet conducted training firing of the Osa-M shipborne SAM systems against the Malachite anti-ship missiles (aka P-120, aka 4K-85) with a high-explosive cumulative warhead weighing 500 kg and an APLI-5 on-board control system with thermal and radar homing heads. On April 16, 1987, by order of the head of the exercises, Rear Admiral Leonid Golovko, with the Vikhr MRK (project 1234) launched the Malakhit P-120 anti-ship missile system, which was used as a target. However, homing on the rocket for some unknown reason was not turned off and the rocket aimed at the Monsoon MRK, which was located at a distance of 21 km from the launch site of the target rocket. "Monsoon" managed to fire two anti-aircraft missiles "Osa-M" at the P-120 anti-ship missiles and fire a burst of automatic weapons from the AK-725 artillery mount (two-gun 57-mm caliber). Both missiles exploded in the anti-ship missile strike zone and, in theory, should have brought it down, but it did not even deviate from the course, from the AK-275 they did not hit it even once. As a result, the P-120 got directly into the main command post of the Monsoon. Although the rocket had an inert warhead, the rocket engine continued to work, propellant flared up and as a result of its hit, the MRK burned for several hours and at 23:30 sank at a depth of 2900 m, 33 miles from Askold Island. Of the 76 crew members on board, 39 died. As far as I know, there have been no proceedings on this matter, and if there were, their results were not made public. Although there were all sorts of rumors in the Navy. This is how stories are born according to the "deaf telephone" system.
        PS - However, what is the P-120 rocket! After a rupture in the zone of guaranteed defeat of two missiles, she continued to fly directly to the MRK and, being in inert equipment, sank it. And if you imagine an Orly Burke and a P-120 missile not in inert equipment but with a warhead weighing 500 kg in place of the Monsoon MRC - what will happen to the enemy ship in case of a direct hit is a rhetorical question. We knew how to make weapons, and I hope they still know how.
        I have the honor.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 19 July 2015 14: 25
          +2
          "However, what is the P-120 rocket! After a rupture in the zone of guaranteed destruction of two missiles, it continued to fly straight to" ////

          Therefore, the Americans and recently began to intercept direct
          hit (much more expensive), and not an explosion with a fragmentation.
        2. cdrt
          cdrt 19 July 2015 23: 48
          0
          Quote: Aleksandr72
          And if you imagine some Orly Burke and a P-120 missile not in inert equipment but with a warhead weighing 500 kg in place of the Monsoon MRK - what will become of the enemy ship in case of a direct hit - a rhetorical question


          Well, Burke still has no Wasp :-)
          Yes, and specialization just specifically against the Malachites and the like. Would bring down
  7. Hammer
    Hammer 19 July 2015 10: 37
    -2
    the author is Russophobe and takes this propaganda vyser with seriousness, at least stupidly.
    1. Rodin Igor
      Rodin Igor 24 July 2015 11: 34
      0
      He hated Soviet power for giving him everything ...
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 24 July 2015 16: 34
        0
        ... and for some reason the USSR did not have a single aircraft carrier under this power. Yes, and now really no.
  8. BMW
    BMW 19 July 2015 10: 54
    +7
    Yes Gorshkov for the Navy, that Gorbachev for the USSR. The author’s concepts of using the aircraft are one-sided and primitive. And the possibility of using ekranoplanes, and long-range missiles. Wash the creation of long-range hypersonic missiles, our chance to maintain parity at sea.
    Aircraft carriers are certainly needed, but we can do without them, if we could put the heads of the government and generals in their place.
    From the article, I understood only one thing, that the concept of using the Navy we did not have, is not and is not expected. And not because of the weakness of the military-industrial complex and shipbuilding, but because of internal showdowns and the clarification of personal relations among those who should deal with the theory of development, combat use and ensuring the combat stability of what is.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 19 July 2015 23: 49
      +1
      Quote: bmw
      Yes Gorshkov for the Navy, that Gorbachev for the USSR


      It seems that the last high-level commander in the USSR was Kuznetsov. But it’s a pity, in 1960-80 they could create such a fleet, candy.
      1. Sergey S.
        Sergey S. 20 July 2015 00: 45
        0
        Quote: cdrt
        It seems that the last high-level commander in the USSR was Kuznetsov. But it’s a pity, in 1960-80 they could create such a fleet, candy.

        And created.
        This is understandable especially now that we no longer have that Great Fleet.
  9. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 19 July 2015 11: 29
    +5
    The concept of application ... The fact is that the fleet is an extremely expensive "pleasure", especially in modern conditions and the most important thing in a modern "fleet" is precisely what ensures its stability, development, types of ships and their number. ..infrastructure. That is, the basic coastal component, the availability and possibility of coastal control and impact on the situation at sea, for the fleet, is now the most important thing. There is no point in a huge number of ships without an appropriate coastal base. Moreover, the coastal base means not only what is located on the coast, but also means of control and tracking, operational and tactical intervention, which are on the seabed or in the sea on platforms, etc. and are "tied" to the coast. Likewise, space satellites working for the fleet are also a "coastal" component. Aviation working for the fleet is also a "coastal" component. Fleet ships and boats are just a component, and not the most expensive in all modern sea power. It is foolish to build ships without developing the coastal component. The "coast" should develop in the first place, and then, based on the capabilities of the coast, the fleet is built. The Americans understood this long ago from here and their "basic" policy and strategy proceeds.
  10. AZB15
    AZB15 19 July 2015 14: 22
    +1
    Well, so I waited !!!
    At least one sane pro wrote that we do not need ocean squadrons of dozens of large NKs, and five (i.e., 2-3 are constantly in service) aviks with security ships so that all sorts of limotrophs are not spoiled.
    We need powerful aircraft covering the North and the Chinese direction and tanks to mix Europe on, on, on, or on ...
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 19 July 2015 17: 57
      0
      Quote: AZB15
      At least one sane pro wrote that we do not need ocean squadrons of dozens of large NKs, and five (i.e., 2-3 are constantly in service) aviks with security ships so that all sorts of limotrophs are not spoiled.

      Yes, but the guard ships - this will turn out to be the very notorious squadron. 3-5 normal destroyers per aircraft carrier.
      Again, judging by the author's concept, SSBNs are not needed, and this is the worst "scarecrow" for the Yankes.
      The fact that we can’t drown an aircraft carrier right now is unprovable, because no one checked.
      About the economy - the Yankees do not have to strain - they have everything built.
      The fact that no one was following the Yankees and, all the more, did not intend to, is also not entirely true.
      Although by the balance, it seems to me, two main fleets are needed - three aircraft carriers, 15–20 destroyers, eight SSBNs, and 15 multi-purpose ones.
      Well, other ships and support vessels. This will allow ships to be at sea, base and repair without problems, as well as, if necessary (and without loss of defense) to create a consolidated squadron in the desired region of the oceans.
      True, only there is no money and power for all this splendor yet.
      Although, if you put the aircraft carrier out of brackets, everything else is a question of ten years, a maximum of fifteen.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 20 July 2015 00: 00
        0
        Quote: lelikas
        Although by the balance, it seems to me, two main fleets are needed - three aircraft carriers, 15–20 destroyers, eight SSBNs, and 15 multi-purpose ones.


        Who is less laughing
        The ocean fleet really needs no more than 3 AB, 3 TKI Kirov, 3 KR Slava, 12-15 EM, 20 FR, 15 SSBN, 25 nuclear submarines / PLAKR, 3 amphibious compounds from UDC and several BDKs (so that each could have 1,5- 2 thousand people to land).
        All this will make it possible to have KMG in the Mediterranean Sea, 1-2 ships in the Indian Ocean and one AUG for the SF and Pacific Fleet, 2 amphibious compounds for the Pacific Fleet.
        Actually, in cooperation with the Tu-95, Tu-22, Tu-160 and 1-2 coastal regiments of the Su-30 in each fleet, this will allow there to be an existential threat to even thoughts of using the AUS as an instrument of influence on Russian policy.
        And to drive the Papuans around - AB is not needed - we have our own Papuans, our neighbors: Ukraine, Georgia, Afghanistan with the Taliban and the Islamic State. So our Papuans need to be driven by boats, gunboats, corvettes, diesel-electric submarines and BDK / KFOR
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 19 July 2015 23: 51
      0
      Quote: AZB15
      five (i.e. 2-3 constantly in the ranks) of Aviks with guard ships, so that all sorts of Limitrophs are not scored


      So this is a quote from his dad’s book laughing
      There, at the end of the book, he just wrote - 5 aircraft carriers, 1 under repair, 2 on the ocean laughing
  11. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 19 July 2015 14: 59
    +1
    The conclusion from the article is as follows - until "ENERALS" stop pulling the blanket (money) over to themselves, we will not be adequate to the situation soldier balanced navy and air force! It is necessary to think about the country, and not about its privileges, but for that reason in state-ve the main head is the GKO (State Defense Committee)!
  12. kvs207
    kvs207 19 July 2015 16: 27
    0
    Quote: fomkin
    The fleet must be balanced.

    But what is a balanced fleet for Russia? And what tasks should he solve? In my opinion, this argument is endless. It was before the First World War, after the Civil War, after the Patriotic War and has not ended to this day.
  13. xomaNN
    xomaNN 19 July 2015 17: 29
    +2
    An interesting pick. With arguments. I would also like to hear the opponent - Mr. (t.) Klimov in response.
    And it would be nice that the General Staff of the Navy also THINKED more when defining concepts, shipbuilding programs, etc. And then here is the anecdotal example with the scandalous purchase of the Mies franco-barge makes you often speak obscenely bully
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 20 July 2015 00: 03
      0
      Quote: xomaNN
      And then here is an anecdotal example with the scandalous purchase of the Mies free barge


      About thinking this is not for our naval leaders.
      Mistral, maybe it was a 100% political decision, but as the core of the airborne assault, each of them would be very welcome, but the screams about the fact that we put long-range missiles on them, and criticism - like they can’t be under the assault to land, they say that there will not be a normal balanced fleet in the Russian Federation for a long time, because it will not be enough to create such a brain.
  14. strannik1985
    strannik1985 19 July 2015 22: 50
    +2
    Quote: bmw
    Yes Gorshkov for the Navy, that Gorbachev for the USSR. The author’s concepts of using the aircraft are one-sided and primitive. And the possibility of using ekranoplanes, and long-range missiles. Wash the creation of long-range hypersonic missiles, our chance to maintain parity at sea.
    Aircraft carriers are certainly needed, but we can do without them, if we could put the heads of the government and generals in their place.

    Unfortunately, the author's concept of application is the only correct one. The naval ekranoplanes were abandoned and rightly so, missiles need the Central Control Center at the Union for this, they fenced the SMRKTs (at the Ocean-75 exercises, accuracy for a large convoy of 67-136 miles), the SMRTS "Success". AWACS, PLO aircraft / helicopters, IS and others.
  15. Seventh
    Seventh 19 July 2015 23: 02
    -1
    For TsU..ZGRLS "Volna" GP-120, for "work" on the aircraft carrier..the "overwhelmed" Iskander-m is placed in a suitable submarine shaft .. if only there were enough necessary submarines .. and only business ..) ))
  16. strannik1985
    strannik1985 19 July 2015 23: 09
    +1
    [quote = Aleksandr72] [quote] One can not speak about the economy of the USSR. The construction of 15 aircraft carriers the Soviet Union would not have pulled in any case. Unless, of course, stretch the deadlines for laying new ships for an indefinite period. At the same time, the United States would build 3-4 of its own aircraft carriers for each of our aircraft carriers, without particularly straining. In this race of aircraft carriers, the USSR economy would have ordered a long life, not withstanding the strain.
    I have the honor. [/ Quote]
    According to Kuzin and Nikolsky, the USSR spent 1,5 times more money on the creation of the fleet than the United States. For example, only on the creation of anti-aircraft forces in 1961-1990 was spent 10 billion rubles, which is equal to 20 "Kuznetsov" with 1 aircraft or 000 "Ulyanovsk" without aviation (14 million rubles for construction and 800 million rubles for the air group).

    The only thing I want to add is that there is nothing to do AB in the Far East, the NATO Navy will still be stronger, it is better to keep forces in the North, and in the event of an aggravation of the situation with Japan or China, the fleet can be driven.
  17. Seventh
    Seventh 19 July 2015 23: 26
    +1
    And if the submarine is not in suit, but it is necessary to "love" the gringo-aircraft carrier ..)) then to the control center from the ZGRLS and the "Persona" satellites ... you can buy land "Pershing" or Dong Feng-21D ... or you can do it yourself make something like that ..))
  18. strannik1985
    strannik1985 20 July 2015 06: 54
    0
    Quote: Seventh
    For TsU..ZGRLS "Volna" GP-120, for "work" on the aircraft carrier..the "overwhelmed" Iskander-m is placed in a suitable submarine shaft .. if only there were enough necessary submarines .. and only business ..) ))

    And that ZGRLS provides detection, selection and target designation for RCC?
    Wounded Iskander, what kind of beast is this?
    The Chinese said only about the defeat of the target imitating the deck of the AB (a single successful test, about means of counteraction, hitting the target in motion, there are no problems).
    1. Seventh
      Seventh 20 July 2015 21: 19
      +1
      Quote: strannik1985
      Quote: Seventh
      For TsU..ZGRLS "Volna" GP-120, for "work" on the aircraft carrier..the "overwhelmed" Iskander-m is placed in a suitable submarine shaft .. if only there were enough necessary submarines .. and only business ..) ))

      And that ZGRLS provides detection, selection and target designation for RCC?
      Wounded Iskander, what kind of beast is this?
      The Chinese said only about the defeat of the target imitating the deck of the AB (a single successful test, about means of counteraction, hitting the target in motion, there are no problems).

      Waterlogged is thus tuned mine .. for its carriers, SSBN, SSBN. Yes, ZGRLS provides both detection and selection and target designation for BR or aero-BR ..
      Defeat of the target in movement does not present a big problem for the opti-electronic head of the same .. Iskander, she works on a shot of the target .. and the target moves or stands still for it unprincipled ...
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 24 July 2015 19: 12
        0
        Excuse me, could you name the materials on the basis of which you write?
        As far as I know ZGRLS is incapable of such.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 24 July 2015 21: 25
          0
          They are Chinese for this for the DF-21 and are being built.
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 25 July 2015 17: 43
            0
            For this or for SPRN?
            So far, that the Chinese ballistic missile hit a fixed target-deck AB and nothing more. In parallel, China bought Varyag and is going to build 4 more AB.
  19. Alex_59
    Alex_59 20 July 2015 12: 01
    +1
    I agree with the author with one exception. No need to build 15 aircraft carriers. Useless spending. We do not need them anyway, we do not have ocean communications that need to be protected in the conditions of the world war. And to force peace, the 2-3 aircraft carrier is enough - no more. But the funds that were not spent on 12 aircraft carriers are better spent on arranging ground-based infrastructure and a basing system. I want Polyarny to look as colorful and well-groomed as the Norwegian villages!
  20. Article 2 of the article
    Article 2 of the article 20 July 2015 14: 51
    -1
    If the military doctrine of our state does not foresee an attack on other countries, it can do without the construction of new cruisers, frigates, destroyers. Aircraft carrier is still fun!
    1. Seventh
      Seventh 20 July 2015 21: 23
      0
      I'm afraid that in 7 years the countries advanced in the military theme will be able to "endure" with a high probability ... cruisers, frigates and destroyers with aircraft carriers .. ballistic missiles of various ranges and basing types
  21. Scraptor
    Scraptor 23 July 2015 01: 42
    0
    Surely it was necessary to yakut on the Yak-141? Behind this miracle, Air Force General (and Academician) Yakovlev has 12 records. It took place, and allows, based on ships of any size, to carry out a massive attack from a large American aircraft carrier from afar using bombs according to the scheme described in the article, and to destroy everything in it at once with the loss of only a few of its vehicles. The duty officer and another link that managed to take off will also have nowhere to go, even if they survive in aerial combat.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 24 July 2015 19: 32
      0
      Yeah, if they’re allowed to get closer. An air attack without your own AWACS aircraft (it won’t fit on any carrier, you still need a full-fledged AB), under the enemy’s control of airspace for 600-1000 km? Don't you think that you are exaggerating a little?
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 24 July 2015 21: 30
        0
        And the F-4 in the article will come nearer what will it give?
        Aircraft AWACS subsonic, it climbs on a tiltrotor or high-speed helicopter.
        In addition, even AWACS are interfered with or burned out completely.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 24 July 2015 22: 17
          0
          Like what? I do not know the radio horizon of shipborne radars, the convertoplane-AWACS, the Ka-31 in the AWACS version, a highly specific vehicle for targeting anti-ship missiles, there were statements about the development of an AWACS helicopter to provide air defense, but the results are unknown to me. In any case, the capabilities of such a machine will be worse than that of a conventional AWACS aircraft. The point is to initially take the worst option (just from the possibilities of placing the radar on board), to develop, even in theory, no one but the fleet does not need a VTOL aircraft (and in real life and the fleet), instead of adapting the MiG-29 / Su-27 for the tasks of carrier-based aviation? Again, the "national" way-to spend more money and get weapons worse than the enemy?
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 24 July 2015 23: 16
            0
            The tiltrotor-DRLO is the same Osprey, it is narrowly specific that the same antenna is suspended under any helicopter and this pushes away the radio horizon.
            In any case, the capabilities of the ship are the same - look at the maximum speed of Hokai. In addition, a helicopter or tiltrotor is more difficult to bring down even over the sea.
            Why did you get the idea that SKVVP does not need anyone else except the fleet? England had more than half of the Harriers in the Air Force. And in their fleet they appeared 15 years later.
            The combat radius of the Yak-141 was greater than that of the MiG-29.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 25 July 2015 05: 24
              0
              Well, well, compare the Ka-31 and the Yak-44, the target detection range is shorter, the patrol duration is shorter, the ceiling is lower, and the patrol range is shorter. How can defense capabilities be worse if the helicopter / tiltrotor LTX is worse, the radar is weaker? For defense, 2-4 fighters are attached to the aircraft.
              The British Navy was imprisoned for anti-aircraft defense, their combat stability was provided by the Americans. For that, by the way, and paid in Falklands, the British suffered the main losses outside the patrols of the Characters, the same Sheffield was in the RLD, without air cover.
              Now the British plan to have on their new AB F-35.
              As far as I know (Aviano Panorama 6-1997 magazine) 650 km-range at an altitude of 10-12 km of an empty plane, the corresponding combat radius at low altitude is less.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 25 July 2015 05: 42
                0
                Where are you from? The ceiling is not important there. The capabilities of radar systems limit much more. For defense, these fighters can be given to at least someone.
                The English Navy PLO at Falkland almost never practiced. The Argentineans had a plane AWAC by the way. It was possible to pick up a DRLO helicopter from Sheffield, just when a missile was launched on it, one witch called from London, and all defensive systems were turned off because they interfered with the signal going to the American satellite to chat with her. bully
                There were simply too few harriers there, he was in their radius. Like Konkoror drowned Belgrano at the limit of their radius, so the Argentinean PLO did not fly there.
                It is one thing to plan - it is another to have them in the F-35C / B versions will not. Compare this radius with that of the Soviet Yak from which he was torn.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 25 July 2015 10: 13
                  0
                  airwar.ru
                  Higher altitude, further horizon.
                  That's right, this is their task as part of the NATO Navy, after the Falklands, the British began to plan tasks for projecting force for their Navy.
                  Yeah, it was. The ancient Boeing 707 and S-130 were enough. It is for such cases that there is a regular patrol from Hokai-Detection, Growler (EW) and 2-4 fighters.
                  What to compare with? The combat radius is less, the load is less, so this is based on NATO conditions, they have a support in the form of American AB, we have a different situation - "help yourself."
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 25 July 2015 12: 46
                    0
                    As if a repeat - The capabilities of radar in range limit much more than the ceiling.
                    What is right? They didn’t plan the Argentineans butchered under the nut, with the conversion of merchant ships into escort aircraft carriers for 3 days?
                    even more ancient Neptune flew to the islands and worked successfully and not the B-707
                    Did Falkland have an American AB support? Who would help Argentina against these "less or less" ... wassat
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 25 July 2015 16: 09
                      0
                      So here the aircraft has an advantage in weight / overall characteristics of radar.
                      Argentina is a banana republic after the coup, and England, albeit a secondary, but a world power. The same France, consisting of NATO, quietly fought in Indochina and Algeria.
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 25 July 2015 18: 14
                        0
                        It depends on which plane. At the deck - no. The plate is the same, if not less.
                        Argentina was then a candidate for joining the 7-ku. In aviation, the small British squadron was 5 times superior in the conflict area (and she had it for the most part, unlike the Harrier supersonic)
                        France left Algeria, and in Indochina it was generally defeated.
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 25 July 2015 19: 49
                        0
                        Compare the characteristics of the Yak-44 and Ka-31 in detecting surface and air targets, I cited them. In the VKP variant, there are fewer options — 2 operators versus 4-6 on an airplane.
                        And you do not compare iron, but the intensity of its use. 2376 sorties (only "Harrier" and "Sea Harrier"), of which 282 at night. Each plane made 3-4 flights a day, spending up to 10 hours a day in the air. The number of pilots per aircraft started from 1,2, later increased to 1,4 per aircraft. Against 500 sorties of Argentina's combat aviation (of which 262 ended in non-fulfillment of the combat mission). Typical problems are the lack of tanker aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft, poor training of flight technical personnel, a small number of it - the usual situation in a third world country, there is iron, but for one reason or another it cannot be used 100%.
                      3. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 25 July 2015 22: 21
                        0
                        It seems to you that something has already been answered?
                        DRLO is DRLO and not DRLOU
                        And you compare the result, which comes from the same iron. The Argentines had everything, and aircraft-AWACS and pilots and specialists (including Israeli ones with fresh combat experience) and refueling aircraft, and all-angle missiles from the radar seeker and supersonic fighter-bombers. This was almost not the case with small Britain, except for the subsonic Harrier with only guns and Sidewinders. And what was the result of losses from fighting in the air?
                      4. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 26 July 2015 17: 31
                        0
                        And the same Hokai can play the role of the CPSU, does this not increase the possibility of connection?
                        And what about the loss? Incidentally, less than the Admiralty expected (up to a third in ships and manpower).
                        Which air group would better cover a compound — from VTOL or conventional aircraft?
                      5. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 26 July 2015 23: 59
                        0
                        It does not increase - when something flies into the air finishers on an aircraft carrier, or a fire starts from one cluster bomb, then he will have nowhere to even sit, and that "helicopter" AWACS will roll its grill and sit on any ship that has left.
                        And what about the loss in the air?
                        In terms of ship tonnage, excluding the Atlantic Conveyor trade, Argentina lost more.
                        Mixed, or from supersonic VTOL. Subsonic amphibious group because of its remoteness from the aircraft carrier was covered only by 3/4 in directions and time.
                      6. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 27 July 2015 10: 36
                        0
                        Aha-aha, 8-10 anti-ship missiles in ordinary equipment. The normal AB air group is more likely to prevent such a development of events.
                        What about air? 34 aircraft (UK) versus about 100 aircraft (Argentina).
                        I never saw the better the VTOL aircraft, albeit a supersonic, normal deck aircraft, except for better maneuverability in close combat.
                      7. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 28 July 2015 07: 32
                        0
                        Enough and one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuni_(rocket)
                        At the expense of losses in it. Especially in aerial combat.
                        And why is it worse? ... Everyone is better, except on average 9/10 of the combat radius when used correctly, (although the Yak-41 is even higher than the MiG-29).
                        I don't think that https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IIIV has better maneuverability than a normal (and not normal) Mirage, but it also has some "wrong" numbers in the index. wassat
                      8. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 29 July 2015 08: 28
                        0
                        But no one will lay the standard for the "golden hit", hence 8-10 hits by anti-ship missiles in AB and up to 70-100 anti-ship missiles in the launch at AUG.
                        And?
                        Did I miss something? Have we moved from the discussion of the Yak-141 and Su-27 / MiG-29 to Mirages?
                      9. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 29 July 2015 08: 40
                        0
                        When there are many of them, then it will be. What is anti-aerodrome cluster munition do you know?

                        It seems that yes, we missed it ... Mirage is also "vertical".
                      10. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 29 July 2015 11: 24
                        0
                        And when was it going to bullet data from the TSA on AV?

                        So what? The discussion began with the Yak-141, why drag the Mirage here?
                      11. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 29 July 2015 11: 40
                        0
                        Always.

                        It was worthless to drag in the Yak-141 with its 12 records (and even with a picture) and twice the hero of Social Labor, Air Force General-Academician A.S. Yakovleva to your squabbles
                        Mirage-IIIV is also "kind of vertical", but
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        better maneuverability in close combat.

                        he doesn’t, that's what.
                      12. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 29 July 2015 11: 53
                        0
                        All clear. Thank.
  22. leon1204id
    leon1204id 27 July 2015 23: 40
    0
    And what’s so dry for aircraft carriers? This is a tactical maximum weapon, and even if there are nuclear carriers. And what does it mean we cannot destroy an aircraft carrier? It’s enough for a rocket like Iskander to get this target and that’s all. There are charges and non-nuclear ones that will clear the deck so that there there will be nothing left and will not be able to take off and land. Of course, the article is an analyst, but you can get it. lol
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 28 July 2015 07: 35
      0
      This is what gives aviation over the sea ... Iskander does not travel everywhere and flies not far (and you are not going to fight alone with your Iskanders on land, where airfields are motionless by the way, although less combustible), but of course there are some options. sad To sing Marseillaise, for example, as during the campaign of three Oktyabrsky destroyers in the Black Sea in the Second World War. Because all that at least somehow threatens the American AUG (even not quite promptly) in the ocean right away somewhere under the agreement or without the agreement.