Ships of Armageddon. Heavy aircraft carrier cruisers project 1143


Reading the article "The most absurd ships in stories naval fleet”, Which came out of the pen of the respected Oleg Kaptsov, I was surprised to find that the Soviet heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1143 were included in the list of nominees for“ naval absurdism. ”This article is an attempt to figure out how appropriate our TAKR is in this rating.


Oleg Kaptsov writes:
The Americans were afraid of Soviet submarines, and they mocked TAKRs, calling them the surrogate creations of Admiral S.G. Gorshkov. And there was something to laugh about. The hybrid of a missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier turned out to be completely ineffective as a cruiser and completely inefficient as an aircraft carrier.


It’s hard to disagree. Indeed, ships of the "Kiev" type are clearly untenable in the role of cruisers, for this they were excessively large, but under-armed. And even more so, the TAKRs were not suitable as aircraft carriers - because of the inability to receive horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, they did not receive an adequate wing, capable of performing the whole variety of tasks of a fighter, assault and reconnaissance deck aviation. But is this enough to recognize them as useless or even absurd? In order to answer this question, let's look at the circumstances of the birth of project 1143.

The firstborn of the Soviet aircraft fleet were the ships of the 1123 project: "Moscow" and "Leningrad", representing a kind of anti-submarine helicopter carrier with good defensive armament.


They appeared as “our response to Chamberlain” on US nuclear submarines equipped with Polaris A1 ballistic missiles. For that time it was very formidable. weaponbut, in order to use it, the US submarines should have come closer to the coastal line of the USSR, because the launch range of such missiles at that time did not exceed 2200 km, and not all of their targets were located on the coast. For example: in the north, the start of "Polarisov" was expected directly from the waters of the Barents Sea.

At the same time, the Soviet acoustics were still not too good, and it would be possible to organize an effective search for enemy SSBNs if, in addition to the anti-submarine ships, to deploy search equipment on airplanes and helicopters. So, the construction of a specialized anti-submarine helicopter carrier seemed to suggest itself - and, contrary to popular opinion, the helicopter carrier was to act not in the world ocean, but in close proximity to its native coast. As a matter of fact, this is directly indicated by the HTA, in which Russian and white say that the main task of the 1123 anti-submarine cruiser is: “search and destruction of high-speed nuclear-powered submarines in the remote anti-submarine defense zones in a group of ships in cooperation with PLO aircraft” . In other words, the “far zone of the PLO” was understood not as an ocean, but a distance from the coast where ships could operate together with land-based PLO planes (there were no other PLO planes at that time in the USSR). Interestingly, originally it was planned to fit an anti-submarine helicopter carrier into a displacement of only 4000-4500 tons, while the air group was supposed to make 8 helicopters, and the speed - to reach 35 nodes. But it soon became clear that it would not be possible to create a helicopter carrier in such sizes, and besides, calculations showed that in order to ensure round-the-clock search, no less than 14 vehicles should be based on the ship. With great difficulty, it was possible to achieve permission to increase the displacement first to 8 thousand tons, then to 9,6 thousand and finally to the final 11 920 tons. In an effort to reduce the mass of ships under construction, such "interesting" requirements "over" as a radical reduction of the crew, the refusal to duplicate technical means and combat posts, the reduction of living space up to the standards of submarines, etc. (fortunately, most of them managed to get out of it).

But where did this craving for minimalism come from? And why in general did the creation of aircraft carriers in the USSR begin with helicopter carriers vulnerable to the attack of carrier-based aircraft of the United States and NATO, if (at least theoretically) at that time Soviet industry could well create full-fledged aircraft carriers?

Multipurpose aircraft carrier as a means of war at sea is preferable to anti-helicopter carrier. It has much greater functionality, and in terms of anti-submarine warfare, an aircraft carrier noticeably wins a helicopter carrier due to its ability to ensure combat stability of the units, since it can not only search for enemy ballistic missile submarines, but also cover anti-submarine ships, deck helicopters, PLO aircraft based on him fighter aircraft.

Alas, in those years, with the help of Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, everything in the fleet that was not a missile or submarine was subject to universal condemnation and early extermination: large surface ships were considered remnants of the past as targets for anti-ship missiles. As for the largest of them - aircraft carriers - so those were generally branded weapons of aggression, which in the Soviet fleet was not and could not be.

But the Soviet sailors have long realized the need for aircraft carriers! For the first time, ships of this class “surfaced” in promising construction programs for Soviet naval forces before the war. After its completion, in 1945, Kuznetsov established a commission to select the necessary types of ships, and she also justified the creation of aircraft carriers. The main naval headquarters included nine large aircraft carriers (six for the Pacific and three for the Northern fleets) and six small ones for the Northern fleet in the long-term plan for building the USSR Navy. True, all of them, as a result, were crossed out from there by I.V. By Stalin.

But Navy Commander Kuznetsov did not give up. In August, 1953 of the year he presented a report to the Minister of Defense of the USSR Bulganin, which emphasized that "in post-war conditions, without the presence of aircraft carriers in the Navy, the solution of the main tasks of the fleet cannot be ensured." Kuznetsov fought to the end for aircraft carriers, but his removal from the post of commander-in-chief of the Navy in 1956 put an end to his ideas, because the new commander-in-chief of the Navy S.G. Gorshkov for a long time did not speak about aircraft carriers.

It is difficult to say why this happened. Perhaps the new commander-in-chief initially underestimated the role of carrier-based aviation in the Navy, but rather, he simply understood that you could not overplay the butt with the whip, because at the end of 50, the beginning of 60, the political situation was such that aircraft carriers could only dream of (but not out loud). However, some aircraft carriers were needed by the Soviet fleet - at least for the development of experience, and the industry was strong enough to create them. And, apparently, the anti-submarine cruisers of the 1123 project just became a compromise between the desired and the politically possible. Having justified the need to build helicopter carriers in an understandable and therefore acceptable for the country's leadership concept of “combating enemy missile submarines”, the fleet at the end of the 60-s received its first aircraft-carrying ships. The absence of fighter aircraft on them was to some extent offset by the presence of decent air defense and the fact that these ships were supposed to be used in the near sea zone, within the radius of action of ground-based aviation.

However, by the time Moscow and Leningrad entered the Soviet fleet, there were a number of events that greatly influenced the further development of aircraft-carrying ships of the Soviet Navy:
The first. In the USA, the next generation of ballistic missiles for submarines was developed, their range increased to 4600 km. Now the American SSBNs no longer needed to approach the shores of the USSR — operating in the same Mediterranean Sea, the US atarins held many important targets on the territory of our country. Therefore, by the end of the 60s, there were no longer any Soviet airborne US-based SSBNs, and where they were now, surface forces and NATO carrier-based aircraft prevailed. Of course, sending a few Soviet search groups that were not covered from the air to the deployment areas of the SSBNs at the time could not end well. However, the fleet had nothing to do except to charge the newly built ships of the 1123 project with a suicidal task - the search and destruction of SSBNs in remote areas, including in the Mediterranean.

The second. The Yakovlev Design Bureau demonstrated the Yak-36 experimental vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL).

Third. Mighty df Ustinov, at that time - the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in the defense industries, believed in the great future of VTOL. He assumed that after mastering the near-sonic VTOL aircraft, Yakovlev would have supersonic fighters, and thus the VTOL aircraft could become the “asymmetric” response of the power of carrier-based wings of the United States. For the sake of justice, I note that I have no idea how much DF. Ustinov had a hand in Yakovlev himself.


Fourth. 28 December 1967 of the USSR Council of Ministers adopted a resolution on the creation on the basis of the experienced VTOL Yak-36 of a light deck attack aircraft Yak-36М and more advanced Yak-36МФ, which was to become a fighter-interceptor of the fleet and a front-line fighter of the Air Force.

I would like to especially note that in 1967 there was a radical change in priorities in the field of naval aviation: not only the leadership of the Navy, but also the leaders of the country (Ustinov, and the Council of Ministers after him) fully realized the need of the fleet for deck aircraft. From now on, the dispute between the sailors and their land leaders was not whether or not to be an aircraft carrier: both recognized the need for aircraft carrying ships, but the land crews believed that VTOL aircraft would cope with the tasks of deck aircraft, while the seamen dreamed of aircraft horizontal take-off and landing. According to eyewitnesses, the idea of ​​the deck VTOLT did not come from the fleet, but from D.F. Ustinova - while the Navy wanted to develop and build classic aircraft carriers with aerofinisers and catapults, he was urged to create all the same helicopter carriers adapted for the basing of VTOL.

And here the commander-in-chief of the Navy takes a rather strange, at first glance, decision. He does not argue with Ustinov about the creation of new heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of the VTOL aircraft, and, moreover, “rolling up its sleeves” takes up the case - this is how the history of the creation of 1143 ships begins. But at the same time S.G. Gorshkov continues to insist on the creation of full-fledged aircraft carriers, and initially he even seemed to succeed: the Council of Ministers already in 1969 adopted a resolution on the development of aircraft carrier advance projects (1160 Orel project) and deck airplanes. In 1969-1972 Nevsky PKB carried out the "Order" - a research work on the military-economic rationale for the creation and operation of an aircraft carrier. In total, 8 variants were designed with different GEMs and a displacement from 40 to 100 ths. Tons, with the nuclear carrier in the 80 ths. Tons being the most developed. Advance projects of aerofinisers, steam catapults, emergency barriers were carried out, but, alas, by the decision of D.F. Ustinova development pr. 1160 was discontinued in favor of the development of the project 1143 with VTOL.

S.G. Gorshkov did not give up, and in 1977, following the results of the meeting with the Commander-in-Chief, Nevsky PKB was entrusted with developing a technical proposal, while the NII Navy and Air Force were responsible for the technical requirements for an aircraft carrier ship with catapults, airborne-guns and airplanes with horizontal takeoff and landing. This time S.G. Gorshkov sought to “grow” an aircraft carrier from the 1143 project, since the frontal attacks resulted in nothing ... Subsequently, it was his initiative that ended in a half-hearted, but still success - with the construction of the Admiral of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov fleet in the Russian Navy.

Based on the foregoing, we can safely say that S.G. Gorshkov did not agree with D.F. Ustinov didn’t believe in the evaluation of the VTOL aircraft that VTVP carriers would be able to replace the ejection aircraft carrier. However, as mentioned above, promoting the idea of ​​a full-fledged aircraft carrier, the commander-in-chief of the Navy did not protest at all against the VTOL aircraft and, moreover, made every effort to create heavy 1143 aircraft-carrying cruisers.


Because of this, many today blame SG Gorshkov, seeing conciliation in his actions, and even frank careerism and unwillingness to quarrel with his superiors. But, considering the current situation, you come to the conclusion that the commander in chief simply had no other way out. How could S.G. Pots to refuse imposed on VTOL To do this, he had to either prove the complete futility of the VTOLS as the main carrier-based aircraft, or else to declare that the fleet did not need any deck. But if DF Ustinov was confident in the bright future of vertical take-off planes, how could SG SG convince him? Pots? But to announce the uselessness of carrier-based aviation to the fleet AT ALL, the commander-in-chief could not have, all the more so, because then he would have had to abandon the ejection aircraft carriers too!

Most likely, the commander-in-chief reasoned this way - the chances that it will turn out to “push” the construction of classic aircraft carriers are now slim, and the fleet needs deck aircraft. Therefore, let it be for the time being there will be TAKR carriers of VTOL, especially since the construction of these ships, which Ustinov favors so much, will go without a hitch, and there will be work for them.

It is also possible that S.G. Gorshkov also considered such a “Makiavelevsky” plan: based on the results of operating the 1143 TAKR project, ground the discrepancy between the tasks of an aircraft carrying cruiser and the capabilities of its wing. In any case, it should be taken into account that the tasks that were formulated in 1968 for the TAKR of the 1143 project could not be solved by the air group with VTOL and SG Gorshkov could not know about it. The list of these tasks:
- cover of shipborne formations against air strikes, their anti-submarine and anti-hacking support;
- ensuring the military stability of strategic missile submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
- ensuring the deployment of submarines;
- cover for naval missile-carrying, anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircraft in the zone of reach of ship-based fighter aircraft;
- search and destruction of enemy missile submarines as part of groups of heterogeneous anti-submarine forces;
- defeat groups of surface ships of the enemy;
- ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.
Exhaustively describes the functionality of a full-fledged aircraft carrier and, of course, to solve them, a powerful air group of horizontal take-off and landing aircraft was required. You should also pay attention to the fact that the next "assault on aircraft carrier heights" is the creation of a technical assignment for an ejection carrier, undertaken by S.G. Gorshkov a year after the launch of the Northern Fleet of the first-born project 1143 - heavy aircraft carrier "Kiev".

It was in such very difficult conditions that the heavy aircraft carrier cruiser of the VTOL aircraft of the 1143 project was designed and built. Its tactical and technical characteristics look, at least, strange, and moreover, they cast doubt on the responsibility of those who designed this ship. But if we for a moment refuse Zadornovsky “Well, stupid !!!” and take as a hypothesis that:
1) The fleet wanted full-fledged aircraft carriers, but could not insist on their construction.
2) The VTOLV, which he did not want and which he did not believe in combat capabilities, were imposed on the fleet as deck aircraft.
3) The fleet did not have a plausible excuse to abandon VTOL carriers, without discrediting the very idea of ​​carrier-based aircraft, which the fleet categorically did not want to do.
4) In the conditions specified above, the fleet tried to create a large and useful ship for the Navy of the USSR capable of performing important combat missions.
Then we will look at the 1143 project with completely different eyes and many solutions that seem illogical and ill-conceived will appear before us in a completely different light.

After all, what was the 1143 project TAKR?

This is the ideal antisubmarine helicopter carrier that was desired, but which, because of its small displacement, was not received in the 1123 project (“Moscow”). The ship, capable of carrying 22 helicopters (of which 20 anti-submarine), was able to provide around-the-clock presence in the air of two or three such machines, and even a little bit beyond that. The island superstructure of "Kiev" did not hinder the helicopter take-off and landing operations, as it was on the anti-submarine cruisers of the 1123 project, in which the superstructure created significant air turbulence.


But why did the Soviet Navy need this “ideal” helicopter carrier? As mentioned above, after increasing the range of American ballistic missiles of the sea-based, their "city killers" had no reason to deploy in the near-sea zone of the USSR. And to follow them into the ocean, where our anti-submarine groups could not cover the land fighters, would be a sophisticated form of suicide.

And, nevertheless, the tasks for the Soviet helicopter carriers could well be found, and even what! The fact is that at the end of 60, the USSR was on the threshold of a small military-technical maritime revolution, and in 1969, it was completed - tests began (and quite successfully) of a sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile, which later received the P-29 index. The very first modifications of this "ballista" had a range of 7 800 km, so that from now on the newest Soviet strategic submarines - the carriers of the Р-29 - did not need to go into the world ocean. They could make their contribution to the nuclear Armageddon, located in the seas adjacent to the USSR - the Barents, White, Kara, Norwegian, Okhotsk, Japan.

Accordingly, one of the most important tasks of the fleet in a full-scale nuclear-missile conflict was the organization of “protected combat areas” in the adjacent seas, in which the secrecy of our strategic missile submarines (SSBN) was guaranteed by a whole set of measures, such as: mine barriers, deployed multi-purpose submarines boats, land-based naval aviation and, of course, surface ships. And the heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of the 1143 project could well become the backbone of the defense of such areas - operating in the near-sea zone, they superbly supplemented the actions of ground-based anti-submarine aviation. And the absence of fighters on them was to a certain extent compensated for by the presence of the most powerful ground-based aviation in the USSR, capable if not to cover the detachments of surface ships in the adjacent seas, then at least to deliver the strongest blows on AUG deployed off our coast.

The value of the 1143 TAKR project in a full-scale nuclear-missile conflict could turn out to be very high - during a period of escalation of tension (when the whole world was expecting war, but there was no war yet) TAKR-s-helicopter carriers were able to reveal the location of enemy submarines - the terrible enemy of the submariner) and squeeze them out of the "protected areas", or else quickly destroy those with the beginning of the conflict. Of course, enemy carrier strike groups could crush our TAKRs and the ships assigned to them (if they themselves had not been destroyed before by naval rocket-carrying aircraft), but so what? The Soviet surface fleet in the “protected areas” was hardly expected to win, its task was to hold out enough time not to hurt the SSBN while they were launching a nuclear missile strike. And our 1143 project ships were quite capable of accomplishing this task - it’s not for nothing that our anti-submarine helicopter carriers were equipped with very powerful air defense for that time.

By the way, it will be said, the statement that the “Kiev” air defense system has quickly become outdated due to the advent of C-300, in my opinion, is not quite true. First, the official adoption of the C-300F offshore version occurred only in the 1984 year, so that if the “storms” are outdated, then not quickly. And secondly, the undoubted advantages of the C-300F did not at all make the Storm-M worse than it was, and it was a very formidable air defense missile system. In other words, the Kalashnikov assault rifle is great, but because of its appearance, the trilinea did not kill worse.

But back to the use of helicopter carriers TAKR-s as support ships of "protected combat areas." What could the American and NATO Navy oppose to this tactic? Not too much. Early deployment of as many as low-noise submarines in the Soviet seas could no longer be considered a panacea, but what else? In a period of tension to introduce into the Soviet "protected areas" carrier strike groups? But to drive the AUG into the Barents Sea or the Sea of ​​Okhotsk before the outbreak of the war meant to condemn them to almost inevitable death. Discovered and tracked back in peacetime aircraft carriers in our internal seas would inevitably become difficult, but still legitimate prey of Soviet surface, submarine and air forces.

Of course, one could try to conduct an antisubmarine search by deck aircraft and helicopters from aircraft carriers maneuvering at a certain distance about the “protected area”, since the combat radius of the deck antisubmarine aircraft completely allowed this to be done, but ... Many unflattering words were said about the presence of ah heavy missile weapons - anti-ship missiles "Basalt".


They say that a floating airfield of a rocket is not needed, its function is to ensure the operation of its air group, and it is for this task that the design of the ship should be “sharpened”. All this is true - for the aircraft carrier. But for our TAKR-s, the presence of "Basalts" to a certain extent guaranteed the absence of enemy aircraft carrier groups within 550 radius of kilometers from the ship. So that today's analysts wouldn’t say there, but even in peacetime, the Americans tried to keep their AUG out of the reach of the Soviet long-range anti-ship missiles.

Of course, you can reason like this: why put the anti-ship missiles on a helicopter carrier, it is better to make it smaller and cheaper, and let the missiles be carried by specially designed missile cruisers, both surface and submarine. But there is a nuance - in the USSR neither in 70-ies, nor later was there at all the abundance of heavy ships capable of carrying long-range anti-ship missiles "Basalt" / "Granit". And the idea to make a high-quality airfield for 22 helicopters, and then increase it a little more and deliver the Basalt is not bad at all - it is easier and cheaper than building a separate ship for the 8 RCC launchers installed on the 1143 TAKR-s. Therefore, it turns out quite interesting - the author certainly agrees that RCC are not needed on aircraft carriers, but regrets that the TAKRs of the 1143 project carried the entire 8, and not, say, the 16 of the “Basalt” launch vehicles - on “Basalts” were quite appropriate for them.

As a result, during the prewar deployment of the TAKR project, the 1143 was still a “surprise” - its helicopters were able to control the underwater situation for hundreds of kilometers, not letting our submarines be offended, but at the same time no enemy ship was closer than in 550 KM did not feel safe. AUG, of course, could strike a carrier-based aircraft from a distance of 600 and 800 km and destroy the TAKR, but the time it would take the aircraft carrier to deliver such a strike, and then the exit to the “protected area” and the search for our SSBNs was too long to hope to destroy our "strategists" before they launch ballistic missiles.

There was another place where the 1143 TAKRs could bring tangible benefits - the Mediterranean Sea, the patrimony of the US 6 fleet. It is well known that our 5 OPESK, which is constantly present in this region, had a completely suicidal task in the best traditions of the Japanese “divine wind” - kamikaze. Under no circumstances could the OPNEC 5 ships survive the war — in the absence of bases and the superiority of NATO’s Mediterranean fleets, they could only die in an unequal battle. But before death, they had to inflict the most severe, unacceptable damage to the forces opposing them and the NATO-launched SSBNs deployed in the Mediterranean, exchanging their lives for the US 6 fleet, which was of strategic strategic importance. In the open ocean, the connection led by TAKR with VTOL was certainly losing the battle of AUG, but the peculiarity of the Mediterranean theater is that it is relatively small and in many places, located in the middle of the sea of ​​TAKR, covered it with “Basalt” from the European to the African coast. Here, the 5 OPEC really had the opportunity to follow the AUG of the 6 fleet and, in the case of Armageddon, deliver its first and last strike. Here, on the eve of the war, TAKR helicopters could “carry on” enemy submarines or control the operations of ship formations, and with the start of the war, heavy anti-ship missiles would be very useful. Even the use of VTOL aircraft had some chance of success, if tracking the enemy forces was carried out from a distance of 80-120 kilometers or closer.


Interestingly, for the tasks of tracking AUG in the Mediterranean, our 1143 TAKRs might have been even better suited than classic aircraft carriers. Watching the enemy on the eve of a nuclear apocalypse could have been a little worse, because in order to carry out round-the-clock surveillance from relatively short distances, it is not necessary to have DRLO planes, helicopters will also come off if there are enough of them (there were just as many of them as needed). Under the conditions of the overwhelming NATO superiority in the air, our air groups in any case could not have defended the 5 OPESK, and would have been destroyed, here the qualitative advantage of horizontal take-off aircraft from the ejection aircraft carrier could hardly help. At the same time, the 1143 TAKR project was much cheaper than an aircraft carrier — having a standard displacement in 30,5-32 thousand tons, our three TAKRs weighed about the same as the one American Nimitz and hardly exceeded it at a price.

Of course, the logic is horrible: “He will still die, so let it be at least cheaper!”, But the very concept of 5 OPESK, which was supposed to die, in the process mutilated the enemy ... What can you say? Only that the prowess of our crews, who took up combat duty, being doomed to death in the event of a conflict, deserves all the respect and memory of grateful descendants.

Summarizing the above, we can state: of course, much of what a multi-purpose aircraft carrier with horizontal take-off aircraft could do was inaccessible to our heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers, but still the 1143 TAKRs did not become useless ships and, moreover, significantly strengthened the power of the Soviet Navy in case of a full-scale nuclear-missile conflict. The TKRs of the 1143 project were also useless in peacetime - the fleet finally got some kind of carrier-based aircraft and began to develop new weapons for itself, thereby gaining invaluable experience.

Instead of a postscript, I would like to note that the rate on VTOLS, which DF made. Ustinov, unfortunately, did not justify himself at all, and the Yakovlev Design Bureau failed miserably with the task entrusted to him by the Party and the Government. The decision to create a vertical take-off and landing interceptor was made in 1967, but even after 24, the surviving three Yak-141 general designers were still not ready for the series. And this is despite the fact that in its performance characteristics it was much inferior not only to the deck interceptor Su-33, but even to the MiG-29. Of course, it would have been possible to spend a lot of time on fine-tuning it, but at the time when the Su-30 was created and the work on fifth-generation machines was going on, such a decision could hardly be considered any reasonable.

The article used materials:
1. V.P. Zabolotsky "heavy aircraft carrier" Kiev "
2. S.A. Balakin "Anti-submarine cruiser" Moscow ""
3. A. Grek "Russian aircraft carriers: 6 of forgotten projects"
4. V.P. Zabolotsky "Heavy aircraft carrier" Admiral Kuznetsov ""
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

210 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mamont5 15 October 2015 06: 50 New
    • 42
    • 0
    +42
    Well, decent work. It is quite intelligible. Thank.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 07: 24 New
      • 29
      • 0
      +29
      You are welcome:)
      1. Silhouette 15 October 2015 14: 11 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the very concept of 5 OPESK, which was supposed to die, mutilating the enemy along the way ... What can I say? Only that the valor of our crews, who took up combat duty, being doomed to death in the event of a conflict, is worthy of all respect and memory of grateful descendants.


        The same applies to the 7th OPECC of the Indian Ocean and all Pacific Fleet ships that carried military service in its composition.


        I also want to note that for the creation of TAKRs a large group of admirals and designers received the State Prize. But for the creation of such a masterpiece as 1134B - no.

        I would also like to note the numerous useless anti-submarine weapons of this under-missile cruiser and useless AK-76 crackers. It is difficult to imagine the situation of using RBU-6000. In my opinion there were also torpedo tubes, which is generally nonsense for both an aircraft carrier and a missile cruiser. Well, the sonar station, which never heard anyone.
        1. Serg65 15 October 2015 15: 16 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: Silhouette
          In my opinion there were also torpedo tubes,

          Yes, in the bow there were two 5-pipe apparatuses, and between them a tennis table.

          Quote: Silhouette
          But for the creation of such a masterpiece as 1134Б

          "Bukari" it was a song and not ships !!! The only "Kerch" was left and it seems they were going to put on needles sad . There is no way to make the Trinity Museum and leave it to the descendants for a long memory ....
          1. Talgat 15 October 2015 20: 15 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Thank you, Andrey, for an interesting analysis!

            Indeed, depending on the condition of the theater of war, an asymmetric answer may be cheaper, but complete the task

            Right now, the same Caspian RTOs with Caliber - not Arly Berke - but they can fulfill the task - and part of Europe and BV are under attack
        2. maximghost 15 October 2015 18: 05 New
          • 9
          • 0
          +9
          It is difficult to imagine the situation of using RBU -600

          As anti-torpedo protection.

          In my opinion there were also torpedo tubes, which is generally nonsense for both an aircraft carrier and a missile cruiser.

          Through torpedo tubes you can launch rocket torpedoes ...

          useless crackers "AK-76"

          Which can also be used as air defense, albeit not bad ...
          1. maximghost 15 October 2015 19: 01 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            I’m wondering if I wrote something wrong in the message above, since I got a minus?
            1. Boa kaa 16 October 2015 20: 34 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: maximghost
              I’m wondering if I wrote something wrong in the message above, since I got a minus?
              MAX, you wrote it right! But the site always has Bad Boys who don’t like something, starting with the fact that they were born! I put you * + * (twice!): Don’t * fool *, write in essence ... Why would not?
          2. Boa kaa 16 October 2015 20: 28 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: maximghost
            Through torpedo tubes you can launch rocket torpedoes ...
            I remember there in 1977 there were already USET-80, which seems impossible, but it was just that! On the ship there were 49 experimental samples of O&BT that were not officially adopted by the Navy.
          3. Scraptor 17 October 2015 05: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: maximghost
            Through torpedo tubes you can launch rocket torpedoes ...

            you can even launch combat swimmers through torpedo tubes wink
            but only with a sports category in diving from the tower. what

            "+" was set, then "-" was not mine ... laughing From TA launch RT with nuclear submarines. Or on NK it should not be completely TA.
            1. maximghost 18 October 2015 16: 10 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3


              Here is an example run.
              1. Scraptor 18 October 2015 16: 46 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                it’s possible, of course, with a nuclear submarine because they will start from TA ... and train saboteurs from TA NK in diving.
        3. gray 15 October 2015 21: 18 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Azov is a large anti-submarine ship of project 1134BF. PU SAM "S-300F".
          1. SAILOROLD 17 October 2015 19: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Unfortunately, Azov stuck out his best ship years at the training ground near Feodosia ... It was because of the "Fort"
        4. Boa kaa 16 October 2015 20: 19 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Silhouette
          It is difficult to imagine the situation of using RBU-6000.
          RBU-6000 was the most effective PTZ tool at that time.
          Quote: Silhouette
          Well, the sonar station, which never heard anyone.
          And here, sir, you have never guessed! TAKR "Kiev" from the military service in 1979 brought a record of range (I-DZAO --48 km!) Of the detection and long-term maintenance of a / a contact of the baseline GAS "Orion". Read the memoirs of the members of the first crew of Kiev - a fascinating reading I will report to you! yes
      2. saturn.mmm 15 October 2015 22: 07 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You are welcome:)

        The Americans have 70 years of experience using aircraft carriers, and suddenly intensifying work on convertiplanes and F-35s. It is not clear why?
      3. Aqela 17 October 2015 10: 58 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Thank! Useful, interesting, thoughtful article! yes good
        Now, when a “caliber” strike against ISIS targets, confirming the substantial power of Kyrgyz ethics and the possibility of installing them on rather small carriers, many assessments of the capabilities of the USSR and Russia fleets require revision. soldier
    2. Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 33 New
      • -24
      • 0
      -24
      Everything was written for the sake of the conclusion - the last paragraph, where again (interspersed with text) slander on the Yak-41.

      Therefore, the article is a minus. In addition, changeable logic is sometimes really terrible with stuffing only one casing (well, there is a separate cram there with 16 or more anti-ship missiles and not 8). As for 1123, the helicopter does not need a large ship at all, and not only a large superstructure is unnecessary.
      The Yak-41 was ready back in 1978. To Falkdend, where even subsonic English cars allowed to complete all 7 unnumbered items from the "task list".
      After 25 years, the F-35 copied from it is not ready.
      1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 08: 00 New
        • -15
        • 0
        -15
        Oh, already 3 "duty Lokhidovites" put in the red ... lol
        Anyhow? good
        It is interesting that the Taoist will answer your trolltelli? winked
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 08: 01 New
          • 15
          • 0
          +15
          Yes, yes :))) There are all Lockheed engineers.
          Just sometimes you need to think about what you write. Then there will be no cons
          1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 08: 05 New
            • -3
            • 0
            -3
            Rather, hirelings from their PR ... bully
            But essentially?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 08: 16 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Scraptor
              But essentially?

              But in essence - answered below.
              1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 08: 42 New
                • -7
                • 0
                -7
                But essentially - no ...
                1. Army soldier2 15 October 2015 19: 04 New
                  • 9
                  • 0
                  +9
                  Scraptor, 4604 comment for 180 days. You are just like Pasha Angelina. Where are your thoughts?
                  1. saturn.mmm 15 October 2015 21: 45 New
                    • -1
                    • 0
                    -1
                    Quote: Army 2
                    Scraptor, 4604 comment for 180 days. You are just like Pasha Angelina. Where are your thoughts?

                    Let's answer for yourself about thoughts.
                    Where are your thoughts?
                    1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 02: 35 New
                      • -3
                      • 0
                      -3
                      He has statistics ... wink
                    2. Scraptor 16 October 2015 05: 11 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      -20 at the first comment
                      -12 at the second ... yes there are no so many engineers with Russian knowledge in Lockheed ... lol
              2. avt
                avt 15 October 2015 09: 17 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But essentially

                In general, a solid article is quite a plus. There are two points with which I do not agree.
                The TACR value of Project 1143 in a full-fledged nuclear missile conflict could turn out to be quite high - during an escalation of tension (when the whole world expects war, but there is no war yet) TAKR helicopter carriers were able to reveal the location of enemy submarines (whatever one may say, but a helicopter - a terrible enemy of the submariner) and squeeze them out of the "protected areas",
                To open these ships, the positions of the submarine, even with escort ships, could only be done by means of spacecraft fixed from space, or by any other means of their death. In the presence of amers only AUG covering these same areas. Chasing single instances of “Elk” ...... Andrei is clearly overestimating the capabilities of helicopter anti-aircraft defense, and even limited by the technical parameters of a floating airfield. I haven’t seen it, well, except for the brave reports that the boats from the turntables were caught. The second point is actually a continuation of the first, as a confrontation with the classic USAG USA, the approach of which put the Navy on the ears
                Of course, one could try to conduct an antisubmarine search by deck aircraft and helicopters from aircraft carriers maneuvering at a certain distance about the “protected area”, since the combat radius of the deck antisubmarine aircraft completely allowed this to be done, but ... Many unflattering words were said about the presence of ah heavy missile weapons - anti-ship missiles "Basalt".
                That's what, but not ,, Basalt "was going to meet for sure, it's just based on the practice of peacetime and the number of strike aircraft used in the days of the USSR specifically for the destruction of the AUG. So the car pretty accurately outlined the history of the creation of these, neither mice nor the frog, and the little animal is unknown, "and from the feeling of nostalgia that I completely share, I myself cut out the" Spark "color photo from Kiev, trying to somehow justify the effort spent on building frankly weak ships. But they carried their representative function properly! good They served honestly and thank God that they didn’t really have a chance to clash in the same Mediterranean Sea. And one of them still serves as a full-fledged aircraft carrier, without basalt, but ..... not with us ... Alas!
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 21: 10 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  Greetings, dear avt!
                  Quote: avt
                  There are two points with which I do not agree.

                  Which is completely normal. The article is divided into 2 parts - factual and - my guesses and considerations, interpretation of the facts. It is clear that not everyone will agree with my reasoning and conclusions.
                  Quote: avt
                  In the presence of amers only AUG covering these same areas.

                  It is strictly about our areas in which the entrance is ordered. It’s hardly possible to look for PALB scalps, but protecting your own SSBNs is another matter
                  Quote: avt
                  Chasing single copies of “Elk” ...... Andrei is clearly overestimating the capabilities of helicopter anti-aircraft defense, and even limited by the technical parameters of a floating airfield. I haven’t seen it, well, except for the brave reports that the boats from the turntables were caught

                  Let's think together. We have an SSBN, there is a deployment area that needs to be covered. There are surface ships (with not too good acoustics), there are quite noisy nuclear submarines, and there are PLO aircraft. Which of these can work better than an anti-submarine ash-carrier?
                  1143 - the tool is probably not ideal, but there are no best ones.
                  Quote: avt
                  That’s what they were going to meet with, precisely, but not Basalt, it’s just based on the practice of peacetime and the number of strike aircraft used in Soviet times to destroy the AUG.

                  The idea is that getting closer to TARK near 550 km in the pre-war time may be unhealthy. For it may fucking. And if no one climbs, then there will be no use of RCC, of ​​course.
                  Quote: avt
                  and from the feeling of nostalgia that I completely share, I myself cut out from the “Spark” color photo of Kiev, trying to somehow justify the effort spent on building frankly weak ships

                  Maybe so. Your point of view has the right to life no more and no less than mine.
            2. inkass_98 15 October 2015 08: 23 New
              • 19
              • 0
              +19
              I didn’t set minuses, so I won’t hire :)
              Essentially - a sensible article, Kaptsov’s reasoned answer.
              The Yak-141 wasn’t brought to mind, after the failure of state tests (the plane was ruined because of curvature, and not because he was not ready, as Kaptsov wrote, the pilot put him at too high a speed, landing gear pierced the hull and tanks , which led to the fire and the death of the plane) they simply “forgot” about it, and generously shared the documentation with the Americans.
              About the presence of our ships in the Mediterranean Sea is all true. And the Americans really were afraid to come close to these ships.
              1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 08: 52 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                The ICG were not according to Yak (already completed), but on the compatibility of the Ship with him. The pilot flew on it the first day and put on the ship a second time. To provoke an accident, he was forced to land the aircraft in a narrow, in violation of the instructions exactly the opposite (on the leeward side, on the tank, on the starboard side)
                The plane did not crash - it was rebuilt and stands in one of the museums near Moscow.
                The article is another compilation "on the topic" of which "Academician Yakovlev" and his plane are bad. Just reread her last paragraph. In the course of the text, the lapsus still occurs both in tactics and in SQUWP. One or two was indicated.
                You write about pr.1143, write about pr.1143 and not about the Yak-141. Together with Oleg, they regularly smear this car, as if arguing with each other on different topics ...
                1. srelock 15 October 2015 14: 03 New
                  • 10
                  • 0
                  +10
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  ... You write about pr.1143, write about pr.1143 and not about Yak-141. Together with Oleg, they regularly smear this car, as if arguing with each other on different topics ...
                  Respected Scraptor, on this site (and not only) there really is a place to be a regular "sketch" of the national scientific and engineering school from these persons. The reason for this is probably the audience and the desire to earn extra money (in the end). However, the deeper reason is that in our country freedom of speech is allowed without any responsibility for it. Therefore, if you have experience, time and desire, you can also write an article and “smear” everyone you want fellow

                  My opinion on the "vertical":
                  VTOL always and in all directions (from cost and performance characteristics to combat use) loses and will lose to the "classics".
                  Modern combat aircraft is systematically moving towards reducing the take-off / mileage. This is facilitated by progress in the field of aerodynamics and engine building, and already the 4th generation can be operated from field airfields.
                  For the fifth generation, even stricter requirements are imposed. Ideally, they want to bring operational capabilities to about this level:
                  1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 22: 27 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: srelock
                    on this site (and not only) there really is a place to be a regular “draft” on a national scientific and engineering school from these persons.

                    And why does the administration and the editors skip such articles? I tried it once already on a different topic (the Soviet-Japanese War and the War in Korea), the Editor referred to punctuation errors and gave a shit pointing to the forum (instead of pointing to these errors or letting them be fixed).

                    Quote: srelock
                    My opinion on the "vertical".
                    VTOL always and in all directions (from cost and performance characteristics to combat use) loses and will lose to the "classics".

                    Justify! fellow
                    So far, lost to Argenin in the classics.

                    Is this fifth generation biplane jet? winked Almost the entire 4th generation flies from concrete or at least from asphalt like the JAS-39, except for the MiG-29. In real life, this was achieved half a century ago at SEC.
                    1. srelock 16 October 2015 16: 25 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      And why does the administration and the editors skip such articles? I tried it once already on a different topic (the Soviet-Japanese War and the War in Korea), the Editor referred to punctuation errors and gave a shit pointing to the forum (instead of pointing to these errors or letting them be fixed).
                      It is difficult for me to judge the competence of the site editor, I have not seen the article.
                      Justify!
                      So far, lost to Argenin in the classics.
                      Argentina lost even at the planning stage of the Falkland operation, and the point here is not at all the type of aircraft used, but if you want, let's look at some case or plane at your discretion.
                      Almost the entire 4th generation flies from concrete or at least from asphalt like the JAS-39, except for the MiG-29. In real life, this was achieved half a century ago at SEC.
                      Moreover, the fifth and sixth generations will also fly from the "concrete". The fact is that when operating in the field, the aircraft’s resource is reduced and restrictions on take-off mass are added.
                      The heyday of the VTOL aircraft fell on the period of 2-3 generation jet aircraft and this has its own logic, because airplanes of that time were extremely dependent on the runway and vertical lines looked an acceptable alternative.
                      Today in the world there is a huge number of places suitable for take-off and landing, and the fate of VTOL aircraft is to expand the strike capabilities of helicopter carriers.
                      1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 18: 35 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Here the point is that due to spelling and punctuation, articles are submitted for correction and they are corrected by themselves, and not rejected completely and irrevocably.

                        She lost her clean air battles, so you can take any. Better is the first one where 2 Mirage 2 were lost, and another one where 6 * 2 losses were 5 Daggers out of 6 - the last one was covered with duck holes, sucked into the tanker, and flew by. This six was brought in with AWACS. In both cases, the battle was started by the Argenin.

                        SKVVP betonka (or a large ship) is not needed. In battle, the resource is the tenth thing, the very possibility of using an aircraft from asphalt (MiG-29 maybe, JAS-39 maybe, Su-27 can not) or primers (only MiG-29 and Su-17/22) is important. Concretes tend to end quickly ... They are large, located where, and still.
                        Harrier or Yak-36/38/39 is this generation?
                        Harrier, as it is now, flies when the 5th flies. Only Su-27 can shoot it down (F-22 cannot).
                      2. srelock 17 October 2015 02: 09 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        She lost her clean air battles, so you can take any. Better is the first one where 2 Mirage 2 were lost, and another one where 6 * 2 losses were 5 Daggers out of 6 - the last one was covered with duck holes, sucked into the tanker, and flew by. This six was brought in with AWACS. In both cases, the battle was started by the Argenin.
                        Here is what I managed to find on this issue (http://coollib.com/b/282283/read)
                        On April 30, 16 hours and 10 minutes, two fighters (call sign “Dart”) found an English air patrol on the way to Pebble Island. Pilots of Mirage III attempted to make a U-turn and go to the peak to find themselves in the rear hemisphere of the Sea Harriers, and then launch the Magic missiles. The enemy turned out to be more agile, the increased maneuverability of British aircraft affected. As a result of a short battle at opposing courses, the British hit both Argentinean aircraft with Sidewinder missiles. The first Mirage immediately lost control and fell, its pilot managed to eject. The second fighter was seriously damaged, but was still able to fly. Later it was shot down by its own air defense when trying to land on the cores. The pilot died.
                        The reason for the defeat of the Argentine aircraft is the underestimation of distance and the lack of all-angle rockets.

                        On the same day, 16 hours and 40 minutes, the Dagger M-5 intercepted two Sea Harriers approaching the island from the northeast. Taking advantage of the advantage in altitude, the Argentine pilot, going into a shallow dive, was the first to attack the enemy, firing a Shafrir missile at him, but missed. Coming out of attack at maximum speed, the Dagger M-5 was shot down by the Sidewinder missile launched after him. The pilot died.
                        The reasons are the same.

                        On May 24, the Skyhawk A-4C link, the group call sign Jaguar, flew out of San Julian at 10 o’clock. An hour and a half later they were over the Falkland Strait. Following the course of 190/220 °, the Argentines attacked the frigate Arrow. A total of six bombs were dropped on the ship. Subsequently, Argentine pilots claimed to have made several hits in the Arrow, but the British did not confirm this.
                        During the attack, the Skyhawks came under very dense anti-aircraft fire. Everything that could shoot, small arms from the decks of ships and landing units from the shore joined the missile and artillery complexes. All three Argentine aircraft suffered serious damage, but managed to get out of the enemy anti-aircraft guns. Behind each of the Skyhawks a train of lost fuel stretched. Saving fuel, the pilots gained height. Suddenly, the last aircraft of Lieutenant X. Bono crashed into a peak and crashed into water. This happened north of King George Bay, the pilot died.
                        For the two pilots who continued the flight, there was a danger of repeating the fate of their comrade. Both Skyhawks continued to lose fuel. To save them, the Argentinean command took a non-standard move. It was decided to risk one of the two tanker aircraft. Hercules KS-130 set off for a point 60 miles west of the islands. In the immediate vicinity of the war zone, the Hercules simultaneously docked with two Skyhawks at once. In this position, continuously transferring fuel, all three aircraft flew to the continent. 30 miles before San Julian there was undocking. At 13 o'clock the Skyhawks made a safe landing.


                        All other victories of the “Harriers” took place over opponents who were unable to respond. Unless of course they managed to catch up with the goal wink
                      3. Scraptor 17 October 2015 09: 46 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You have the opposite in that link. Both Mirages were carried on a missile with a radar seeker - these are all-angle long-range / medium-range missiles. They shot them and as always did not hit. Then they went into close combat to use infrared rockets ... There, maneuverable harriers hit them in the tail and shot down - IK-Sidewinder rarely ran into oncoming courses, then it was too easy to evade.
                        Dagger just jumped forward when the Harriere pilot applied dynamic braking (VIFF, similar to Cobra Pugachev but not that), deflecting the nozzles down and lifting his nose (the nozzles look forward and down), so he was shot down.

                        In the last episode about the Harriers, not a word and there were skyhawks. This is not about the battle of 6 Daggers and 2 Harriers.

                        Having dived from a U-turn (if there was a reserve of height) the Harriers were catching up, while he was able to reach Mach 1,3.
                      4. srelock 17 October 2015 12: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I have given descriptions of only those air battles that had a result. There was another incident involving the Mirages and the Harriers, but they had no result.
                        April 30 at 16 hours 15 minutes in the sky over Port Stanley the first air battle took place. Two Mirage III fighters, taking advantage of speed and altitude, attacked two Sea Harriers: from a distance of about 4 km, the Argentines fired Matra rockets and left the battle at supersonic speed. The British pilots managed to perform a missile defense, but were forced to abandon the mission.
                        All aerial fights are limited on 30.04.82/XNUMX/XNUMX. One day was enough for the Argentines and they did not enter the air fights anymore. It should be noted that in almost all cases, the Mirages and Daggers had an advantage in speed and altitude, and using this, they attacked first, but outdated missiles reduced this advantage to zero. In the future, when performing strike missions, the Argentinean Skyhawks and Daggers (and even the civilian Liara Jet) more than once used this advantage to evade the interception.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        ... and another one where 6 * 2 losses were 5 Daggers out of 6 - the last one was full of holes in the leaks, sucked into the tanker, and flew by.
                        In the last episode about the Harriers, not a word and there were skyhawks. It's not about fighting 6 Daggers at 2 Harrier
                        I did not find a description of this case, but I found it very similar to 24.05.82. with the participation of the Skyhawks and without the participation of the Harriers.
                        Having dived from a U-turn (if there was a reserve of height) the Harriers were catching up, while he was able to reach Mach 1,3.
                        Some piston aircraft, in a dive, also went to supersonic.
                      5. Scraptor 17 October 2015 16: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        But not everyone who had a result,
                        And one was not about air combat at all.

                        Mirages were often allowed to do so at the supersonic sound of the RVV with the GSN radar and its range was 34 and not 4 km. Until they’re tired of overshot and they have not climbed into close combat
                        Quote: srelock
                        All aerial fights are limited on 30.04.82/XNUMX/XNUMX.

                        Before that they wrote about 01.05.82/XNUMX/XNUMX ...
                        the Argeninians had a week or two to understand that there were no options. and then they didn’t climb, but they didn’t even ask them.
                        Gotcha - that's it.

                        If you search as you should find. For the “May Day” 2 mirages, and that Dagger went.

                        From the battle did not hear. Paratroopers - I heard. In the stratosphere and before its discovery.
                      6. srelock 17 October 2015 22: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        But not everyone who had a result,
                        And one was not about air combat at all.

                        Mirages were often allowed to do so at the supersonic sound of the RVV with the GSN radar and its range was 34 and not 4 km. Until they’re tired of overshot and they have not climbed into close combat

                        Before that they wrote about 01.05.82/XNUMX/XNUMX ...
                        the Argeninians had a week or two to understand that there were no options. and then they didn’t climb, but they didn’t even ask them.
                        Gotcha - that's it.

                        If you search as you should find. For the “May Day” 2 mirages, and that Dagger went.
                        I think it’s time for you to present your version of events with an indication of the source yes
                        From the battle did not hear. Paratroopers - I heard. In the stratosphere and before its discovery.
                        Studies of phenomena associated with transonic speeds began precisely with military cases.
                      7. Scraptor 18 October 2015 09: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Events have already been written about, links will probably be later. This is not a version, but the only possible option for tactics and aerobatics. According to the techniques of air combat, the British do not write, the Argentines sparingly write.
                        When where what (but not how) it was, relatively correctly can be found in Russian, but better in English.
                        In those Russian-language links that you cited, there is a systemic misinformation with the exact opposite, even according to WB techniques and the specifics of using RVV - no one in the opposite courses with only 2 AIM-9 and surpassing the enemy in maneuverability (except for the element of surprise) will not let them , it is guaranteed to strike even in the rear hemisphere.
                        At least a third of Argentinean planes were hit by cannon fire because Harrier was hanging on his tail (which is not typical for a jet era starting directly from Korea, where almost everything was already converging), they cherished missiles in order to intercept the enemy at the limit of the interception radius if they didn’t overtake him in a dive (exit at 1,3 M) to the distance of opening cannon fire, or if the enemy in a group battle ensued tried to get out of it with supersonic afterburner (only one succeeded because the missiles ran out or missed). To do this, right before the war, AIM-9 increased range. Also, like the Igla, it was less conducted on infrared traps.
                        Further, after interception from the regime of barrage, they sometimes went up to the height again in order to dive from there (if they were near the aircraft carrier or the advanced airfield in San Carlos after landing), or went to the gas station at these basing points. The bird on which they called the plane is hunting.
                        Few people know all this, so consider this as the author’s text. Documents and instructions on this subject are secret in full even in English. Yes, none of them will tell. A professional, and so it should be clear if only the political leaders "do not work on it."
                        Therefore, if you are a pilot, then it should be clear to you all, especially having developed into a scheme.
                        Nobody will leave the battle due to lack of fuel at the risk of getting a rocket, they will fight to the last and eject, especially over their "own" islands, so about the "radius limit" for the Argentineans is all for the boys. Although the psychological factor certainly crushes. But they shot them down much earlier than they even ran out of the limit allotted for battle, and not it was dry in the tanks.

                        Transonic is not supersonic.
                      8. Scraptor 18 October 2015 10: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        ... But they were shot down (by Argentine planes) much earlier than they even ran out of the limit allotted for battle, and not it was dry in tanks. Minutes for one and a half after entering a close maneuver battle, no later.
                        When meeting with the enemy it’s even possible to drain the fuel (especially on the Su-27) in order to reduce the mass of aircraft and achieve greater thrust-weight ratio over the enemy at the time of the battle.
                        Harrier used to go out there with two AIM-9s and two PTBs. That is, there were only two missiles and they had to be protected. Radar missiles for long-range combat (and therefore all-perspective) began to be installed on them only since 1985. 3 years after these events.
                      9. srelock 18 October 2015 16: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        In those Russian-language links that you have cited, there is systemic disinformation with the exactness of the opposite ...
                        You understand that this bold statement simply needs to be supported by something.
                        Harrier used to go out there with two AIM-9s and two PTBs. That is, there were only two missiles and they had to be protected. Radar missiles for long-range combat (and therefore all-perspective) began to be installed on them only since 1985. 3 years after these events.
                        The British used the all-aspect ("all-aspect") AIM-9L. She went into series since 1977.
                      10. Scraptor 18 October 2015 18: 26 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It was detailed in the text. The only truth on the links you provided was:
                        "The enemy turned out to be more agile, the increased maneuverability of British aircraft affected."
                        For example:
                        Quote: srelock
                        16 hours 10 minutes two fighters (call sign "Dart") on the approach to the island of Pebble found an air patrol of the British. Pilots of Mirage III attempted to make a U-turn and go to the peak to find themselves in the rear hemisphere of the Sea Harriers, and then launch the Magic missiles. The enemy turned out to be more agile, the increased maneuverability of British aircraft affected. As a result of a short battle at opposing courses, the British hit both Argentinean aircraft with Sidewinder missiles

                        Disinformation-1
                        The fight didn’t begin with this! First, as always, they fired at the British with long-range R.530 long-range missiles from a semi-active seeker radar from afar, and as always they did not achieve hits.

                        Disinformation-2
                        Quote: srelock
                        at 16 hours 15 minutes in the sky over Port Stanley the first air battle took place. Two Mirage III fighters, taking advantage of their speed and altitude, attacked two Sea Harriers: from a distance of about 4 km, the Argentines fired Matra rockets and left the battle at supersonic speed. The English pilots managed to make a missile defense maneuver,

                        It was written 4km, actually with 34km. Again Matra R.530 with semi-active radar seeker. There were several such useless shellings. If they wanted to shoot the R.550 with IR-GOS, as it was after the decline in the first quote, they would have been shot down just as well.
                        At Pebble (in the first citation) Mirages were shot down on May 1. not the 30th of April.

                        Quote: srelock
                        The British used the all-aspect ("all-aspect") AIM-9L.

                        It was also about this (and about IR-traps), as well as why it is not worth it to put it on the forehead in such conditions. The Argentines on Mirages used the all-perspective R.530 with the active radar seeker radar and non-all-perspective R.550 with the infrared seeker but they captured and held the target much better. Matry has less detector sensitivity but much better automation.
                        The Daggers did not have radar and missiles with a radar seeker, and instead of the R.550 there were usually Israeli Shafrir.

                        The audience is constantly waving at the nose with the versatility of AIM-9L, although the Argentines had all-aspect and much more long-range R.530 radar radars, and on the contrary, the RVV with the GSN radar were not on the Harriers, whom they tried to shoot from afar.
                        The audience is constantly waving in the face of their nose that the AIM-9 was shot in the head, while they were almost always hit in the tail because the collision angle is too likely to miss and "increased maneuverability of British aircraft." Allowed them to easily go into the tail, since the interception turned into a maneuvering battle.
                        In addition, they simply should be taken care of as the Argeninians had a tenfold numerical superiority, airplanes might have appeared, there might not have been enough time to catch them, and those with which the battle had already begun usually usually got out of two quick-firing cannons from a short distance. And it would be better to save the AIM-10L in order to get the Argenin Mirage / Dagger who was lucky enough to break away in the afterburner in order to get out of the battle for the range of fire from the cannon.
                      11. srelock 18 October 2015 20: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor

                        Disinformation-1
                        .
                        Disinformation-2
                        .
                        Scraptor, You have been confused for days now to convince Me that the link provided (http://coollib.com/b/282283/read) is misinformation. Even if we assume that this is so, and the whole truth is still under the heading and there can be no proofs, a logical question arises: How do you know this?
                        The audience is constantly waving at the nose with the versatility of AIM-9L, although the Argentines had all-aspect and much more long-range R.530 radar radars, and on the contrary, the RVV with the GSN radar were not on the Harriers, whom they tried to shoot from afar.
                        The audience is constantly waving in the face of their nose that the AIM-9 was shot in the head, while they were almost always hit in the tail because the collision angle is too likely to miss and "increased maneuverability of British aircraft." Allowed them to easily go into the tail, since the interception turned into a maneuvering battle.

                        The first radars with radar heads had a very low probability of hitting. The modern ones are not far from them, especially for missiles with ARGSN. In order to ensure a probability comparable to the ICGSN, a multi-channel guidance system is required, i.e. continuous correction from the side of the carrier in combination with its own active or semi-active head (especially at long distances) and all the same, accuracy is worse than that of the IR and to compensate, you have to increase the warhead mass, and behind it the entire missile with all the consequences. Cryostatic IR heads have a sensitivity of 45-30mK and less. They are absolutely "purple" from which side to approach the aircraft, you can even direct missiles to distant galaxies in the presence of good optics and weather wassat. Of the minuses, we can note the lack of all-weather and the need to constantly maintain a temperature of 77 / 80K.
                        As for the application, just an attack on the forehead with such missiles will be more effective, both from the energy point of view (the stock of kinetic energy of the rocket to compensate for possible maneuver of the target), and from the tactical (the enemy does not have all-angular IR) points of view.

                        PS. I continue to wait for the proofs ... recourse
                      12. Scraptor 19 October 2015 04: 32 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I didn’t read the whole link, it was based on quotes if they were from there.
                        With the contents of Disinformation, what's wrong?

                        There are lots of links where everyone wants to and writes about that war. They have about the battle 6 * 2 and about the arming of opponents. Almost everywhere different. The fact that Mirage-3 carried and carries the R.530 with the GSN radar and they fired at them from the perspective of the Harriers from a distance is also there, but it is even more difficult to find in Russian. The fact that he simply carries them is Wikipedia. With one R.530 radar and two R.550 infrared radars, they went to Harier intercepts. Walking without it is illogical, most of the Mirage’s radar is lost in long-range weapons. On the contrary, the Mirage radar becomes just a burden. Climbing into close combat with her without firing this healthy radar missile for such an aircraft is again illogical. It is not in vain that she will interfere only with him (she should fly far). It’s like I / B bombs cannot be dropped anywhere before the battle if they were intercepted. And here it is better in advance with benefit. Moreover, they themselves were looking for a battle.

                        AIM-7 beat very well, better than IR AIM-9, R.530 even better.
                        An infrared rocket doesn’t care, it has a directional pattern, just like the target has an IR signature.
                        I do not think that it will be brought into the light of distant stars and galaxies in the afternoon ... In addition, the AIM-9 shakes off easier than almost any other rocket. Moreover, it is easier to shake off if it is allowed on a collision course due to the addition of rocket speeds and targets.

                        The meaning of such links? There, too, someone wrote something, as here, the question is whether it is right ... That's where Mr. Tatarkov got this all-powerful? What and how did you check? How do you critically evaluate (if at all)? And what didn’t he write about, and what didn’t everything write about, and how did he write wrong? (as was the case in misinformation)
                        Well, for fun, in addition to what has already been written about aerial combat - army pictures: "The British troops began preparations for the assault on Port Stanley, the capital of the Falkland Islands." And there is an Englishman there and is laughing at the prisoners of arrest of Argentine conscripts !!!
                        And for all this time he corrected him or the editor or someone else who? If corrected, then everything is still ...
                      13. srelock 19 October 2015 04: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Scraptor, Russian What is your native language?
                      14. Scraptor 19 October 2015 05: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Is it imperceptible? And yours?

                        or is it also needed some kind of evidence?
                      15. Scraptor 19 October 2015 16: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        in addition to numerous blunders with photos and “wrecked ships” (did the author play a naval battle? Or did he play the one who translated the subscript under the photographs), we open further the book of Mr. Tatarkov by reference and see this:

                        The twin brother of the first container ship, Atlantic Causeway, was also converted for the transport and maintenance of aircraft, namely helicopters. Unlike the Atlantic Conveyor, a hangar of 12 containers equipped with a steel ceiling was equipped on it in the bow. Fuel tanks were installed along the walls. A fuel tank was formed under the main deck in cellular holds from six containers welded together into a stack.

                        Next, go to the English Wikipedia and type in: "Atlantic Causeway" and compare ...
                        something about Mr. Tatarkin is all about helicopters and about tanks, and not a word about the Harriers and the "ski jump" (springboard) for them:

                        She was converted to be able to carry and operate helicopters, and was also fitted with a ski jump to enable her to operate Sea Harriers. [1]
                        .
                        She had received around 4,000 helicopter landings and refuelled about 500 aircraft


                        that is, it was a conversion aircraft carrier, and not an airline, like another lost container ship ...

                        The link Disinformation is (or passes) in a complex throughout this conflict - both on land, and on water, and in the air ...

                        Well, something like this!
                      16. srelock 20 October 2015 01: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Is it imperceptible? And yours?
                        or is it also needed some kind of evidence?
                        Then you should understand that I believe Mr. Tatarkov much more than you and you haven’t done anything yet to fix this.
                        The meaning of such links? There, too, someone wrote something, as here, the question is - is it right
                        Have you noticed that you contradict yourself?
                        If all the links are lying, and you are writing the truth, then how do you know it?
                      17. Scraptor 20 October 2015 02: 13 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Apparently the point is that you believe him, but do not check for him.
                        Maybe you haven’t seen a lot of things? There was a detailed situational debriefing, not only strange captions for photographs, and the comparison of the device and destination "Atlantic Causeway", with an English source readily available.

                        In my opinion, not yet. There below this quote
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        The meaning of such links? There, too, someone wrote something, as here, the question is - is it right

                        it was immediately written that for example it was wrong with him. As before and after this.

                        They do this in several ways, and from knowledge of the subject.
                      18. srelock 20 October 2015 03: 24 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        In general, to continue further discussion on the topic of air battles over the Falklands, proofs are required on this topic (no matter what language).
                        I understand that it’s too lazy to search and all that, but I had to spend a lot of time searching, reading and analyzing different versions of events, so I owe you yes
                        PS. Https: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
                        confirms the two episodes described by Tatarkov on 30.04.82/XNUMX/XNUMX.
                      19. Scraptor 20 October 2015 04: 32 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And why do not you want to critically consider the comments on the inconsistency of Tatarkov’s quotes to the fact that the Radar Mirages armed with long-range all-perspective R.530 radar from the GSN radar used them against the Harriers? Before starting a melee or evading it.

                        Wikipedia by your link does not confirm Tatarkov, it does not write about the battle where the Mirages were shot down in detail and points to May 1 and not to April 30.
                        (Escalation of the air war, 3rd paragraph)
                        About Canberra with Dagger it is written in the same section where about the raids of groups on May 1 (in the second paragraph).

                        I’ll look for links. First of all, where it was 6 by 2 (at least about this fact itself and what happened as a result).
  2. srelock 17 October 2015 02: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    SKVVP betonka (or a large ship) is not needed. In battle, the resource is the tenth thing, the very possibility of using an aircraft from asphalt (MiG-29 maybe, JAS-39 maybe, Su-27 can not) or primers (only MiG-29 and Su-17/22) is important. Concretes tend to end quickly ... They are large, located where, and still.
    But asphalt is optional, well-packed snow will do.
    Harrier or Yak-36/38/39 is this generation?
    Harrier, as it is now, flies when the 5th flies.
    Harier, from the point of view of the LTX, is a fighter of the 1st jet generation, and in the current conditions it is an attack aircraft. Yaki - similarly.
    Only Su-27 can shoot it down (F-22 cannot).
    Why can't others?
  3. Scraptor 17 October 2015 09: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    These are straight sections of concrete asphalt [on the freeways and they know where. MiG-29 can take off directly from the rolled soil, which is why it is called "front-line".

    It is strange that the 1st generation shot down 1,2 and 3rd and 20 dozen without loss.
    The current demotion of all Harriers to attack aircraft in what?
    Are supersonic Yaks also attack aircraft?

    Quote: srelock
    Why can't others?

    Because the harrier is more maneuverable. Such a "maneuverable attack aircraft", and even with a thrust-weight ratio of more than one.
  4. srelock 17 October 2015 22: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    Because the harrier is more maneuverable. Such a "maneuverable attack aircraft", and even with a thrust-weight ratio of more than one.
    It depends on what and how to compare.
    A feature of the Harrier is an engine with a very high (for fighter) bypass ratio and static thrust. This, in theory, should provide high acceleration characteristics at low and ultra-low speeds, and rotary nozzles with jet rudders - good controllability in these modes, but only on them, because the nozzles are not adjustable, there is no afterburner and it is not known how much gives the OT. The wing profile (by eye) is optimal up to a speed of ~ 0,9 M, advanced mechanization ... It is very likely that at speeds of 500-600 km / h and average altitudes, the Harier surpasses the Mirage III / Dagger in the maneuverability but at higher speeds, the absence of afterburner, nozzle, and airborne forces should affect.
    I already wrote that the aircraft of the 2nd generation focused on achieving the highest possible speeds, but at the same time they suffered from severe water damage. The situation was somewhat corrected for 3rd generation fighters. The four strengthened and improved the result, and now there are many reactive fusion vehicles / light attack aircraft that are not inferior in anything to the maneuverability of the “Harier” and seriously surpass it in other performance characteristics.
    The current demotion of all Harriers to attack aircraft in what?
    Are supersonic Yaks also attack aircraft?
    Yes. Now, both “Harier” and Yaki, are best suited to the definition of a light attack aircraft, and rather mediocre.
  5. Scraptor 18 October 2015 08: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A feature of Harrier is simply a turbofan engine with OBT.
    Optimized for near subsonic. Therefore, he does not need the fast and the furious, as well as the adjustable nozzle.
    At maximum speed, due to the larger midsection and the fact that the fan does not pull on it, it is even inferior to the transonic Yak-38 by 100 km / h.
    But, the point is that maneuverable aerial fights are conducted up to 900+, overload will spread further.

    For the possibility of short intercepts, he walks at altitude (both Harrier and Yak-38), reaching 1,3 M to intercept low-flying transonic targets in a gentle dive.
    Naturally, Harrier is not able to do high-altitude intercepts.

    All this is in practice and not in theory.

    Good handling at high speeds is provided by a large negative V wing
    On small (taxiing) with jet rudders, and dynamic braking of OBT (Cobra, not Pugachev, without dynamic casting).
    Small dynamic zauros could do another F-14 but it does not pull on Cobra.

    An adjustable airspace is needed at speeds above 1,8 M (even on the F-18 it is not).
    Harrier has a slot subsonic VZ adjustment.

    Mirage good performance. This is a 2-3 generation aircraft with the purest aerodynamics. But worse than Harrier’s sonic, where the battles are fought.
    UPH, given the fact that Harrier is an SQUI, it is clear that Harrier has the best.

    Subsonic Yak-38 is a ground attack aircraft.
    Supersonic Yaks are fighters (41,43) or fighter-bombers (141).
    Narrier-FA is a fighter
    Narrier-GR aka AV-8B is an attack aircraft, although the location of the cockpit also indicates the functions of a fighter.
    Harrier's only flaw is the lack of supersonic. On Yak, this problem was resolved.

    In a duel subsonic battle with Harrier, any aircraft other than the MiG-29 and Su-27 will be shot down (with the MiG-29 it is a draw due to its departure to a height where the Harrier fan does not pull).
    The Su-27, on the contrary, is the plane that is now knocking down everything without options, including Harrier and Gripen (Su-30).
  6. srelock 19 October 2015 00: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For not having accurate data, you have to "by instruments" ... wassat
    If you take a turbofan engine (ratio 10-14 units) with a 7-8 speed turbine, then yes, the main draft is generated from the fan. Pegasus 11-61 / Mk.107 engine, 1,4 bypass ratio; compression ratio 14; 2x2 turbine High and low pressure. The approximate distribution of thrust in statics is from 0.8 / 0.2 to 0.7 / 0.3 between the rear and front pair of nozzles, respectively. Since the nozzles are single-mode, with increasing flight speed, their thrust gradually decreases and at some point all the remaining thrust falls only on the rear pair, located behind the center of mass closer to the focal point. Therefore, turning the nozzles down at speed will give rise to a dive moment. Indirectly, My version is confirmed by the absence of recorded cases when the “Harrier” performed dynamic braking. At least, I could not find reliable evidence.
    About the OT and nozzles. The main thrust of a jet engine is formed during the expansion of gas in the nozzle, except for turboprops and turbofans. The greater the pressure in front of the critical section of the nozzle, the faster the expansion behind it, the higher the flow rate and the higher the thrust. Those. there is a direct dependence of traction on pressure before cr. section. The air intake helps increase pressure even before entering the engine. It works at all non-zero speeds. Adjustment of the airspace, and with it the critical cross section and expansion of the nozzle allows you to achieve the maximum possible engine thrust at all modes and flight speeds. At supersonic control, the airflow control is also needed because the flow rate at the compressor inlet must always be subsonic.
    The total static thrust of the Mig-29 engines in the afterburner exceeds unity at normal take-off weight and, thanks to the presence of adjustable air propellers, nozzles and good engine throttle response, remains the same even at supersonic. We will not take aerodynamics into account.
    The chances of “Harier” to win the match with 4th-generation fighters are the same as those of other TCBs or attack aircraft. It is also worth remembering that, in principle, even the unarmed An-35 has a certain (albeit near-zero) chance of victory over the Su-2 bully
  7. Scraptor 19 October 2015 03: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If closer to practice, then the handle is taken over, the propeller pulls the Tu-95 up to 975 km / h, and on the Su-27 when performing dynamic casting (generally without front nozzles) for the time being no diving moment occurs.

    If again closer to practice, then
    Maneuverable battles at supersonic sound are not conducted.
    The thrust-weight ratio of the MiG-29 at the start is less than one.
    Subsonic aerodynamics that you do not take into account is better. Harrier has OBT.
    He shot down attack aircraft and TCBs just like the third generation. Of the fourth, he has a draw only with the MiG-29 and possibly with the JAS-39, and a defeat from the Su-27.
    F-15/16/18/22 if they engage in maneuverable combat (except possibly F-15I), they will be shot down without any options.
    All aircraft except the Su-27 should shoot him only from afar.
    They will converge with the MiG-29 and disperse, the MiG-29 will be able to go to a height. But he will not be able to attack him from there, or will do so unsuccessfully, as Mirage-3 did. Below Harrier on the MiG-29, too, can not do anything.
  8. srelock 20 October 2015 01: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, if practice, let it be practice.
    The MiG-29 surpasses the Harier in maneuverability and overclocking performance over the entire range of heights and at speeds faster. stall.
    Harier cannot use the fire-fighting equipment and the jet rudder system for combat maneuvering due to structural limitations and the absence of self-propelled guns.
    Can you reasonably dispute? hi
  9. Scraptor 20 October 2015 02: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Only somewhere with 10 thousand. It is also inferior in cruising speed (but not as much as Mirages).
    Harrier used - he does not need self-propelled guns (emf), he is a statically stable aircraft.
    Did I have something unreasonable above?
  10. srelock 20 October 2015 03: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    Only somewhere with 10 thousand. Also inferior in cruising speed (but not as much as Mirages)

    Are you talking about that?
    Harrier used - he does not need self-propelled guns (emf), he is a statically stable aircraft.
    Did I have something unreasonable above?
    Well, once applied, then there should be evidence, and self-propelled guns are needed not only for statically unstable vehicles.
  11. Scraptor 20 October 2015 04: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    About the height that the MiG-29 must go to in order to get out of the maneuvering battle with Harrier, and then have time to go in the afterburner so as not to get AIM-9 in the tail.

    There is plenty of such evidence - Harrier piloting was shown at an air show.
    For which, what self-propelled guns and why?
  12. srelock 21 October 2015 00: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    There is plenty of such evidence - Harrier piloting was shown at an air show.
    For which, what self-propelled guns and why?
    Well, let's demonstrate laughing
    About the height that the MiG-29 must go to in order to get out of the maneuvering battle with Harrier, and then have time to go in the afterburner so as not to get AIM-9 in the tail.

    Look, at least the load on the wing and on the available thrust (accelerating characteristics) ... It’s better not to meet the Harier with the Mig-29 laughing
  13. Scraptor 21 October 2015 09: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    So about the self-propelled guns you started from you and asked.
    Show on YouTube and a lot of interviews in English. Doubt that he can make a bell and VIFF?

    In my opinion, the Argentines also looked somewhere in the wrong direction, or didn’t notice something there.
    The MiGu’s slightly better rigidity will allow it to get out and leave. But do not bring down.
    Harrier-2 in the version of the fighter has a specific load greater than that in the version of the attack aircraft.
  14. srelock 21 October 2015 11: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Flight through wires" allows for the complex interaction of control elements (deflectable wing socks, flaps, flaperons, moving parts of horizontal and vertical tail, etc.) in accordance with the specified parameters of the aircraft movement (RUS, ORE, pedals) and actual conditions ( information from roll sensors, pitch, slip, angle of attack, aircraft speed, etc.) All of this, together, simplifies piloting, improves maneuverability, does not allow the aircraft to reach supercritical modes, allows you to enter a large number of controllable elements (in t .h. OVT), allows to realize the so-called over-maneuverability and much more.
    My advice to you, Scraptor, write less and read more. In the public domain is a huge variety of technical literature including current teaching aids for specialized universities. Believe me, this is much more interesting and useful than trolling on the forums ... However, you decide hi
  15. Scraptor 21 October 2015 13: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    ATP for the information ... there are (and is necessary) self-propelled guns on the MiG-29? Flying over wires is just an electrical system. It allows, but does not implement. A statically unstable machine cannot fly without a computer. Harrier does not need it (although there is a warning about something there, but he gets out of the corkscrew even faster than falling into it, though with a slight loss of height and speed, which can only be on hand). Yaks and Su-27 are needed.
    The entry-level self-propelled guns in your understanding appeared even on the FW-190, though it controlled more through the channel of throttle and PVD, a screw and an engine.
  16. srelock 22 October 2015 09: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It so happened that under the expression "fly by wire" in the west now mean SPGs. Self-propelled guns are required for statically unstable aircraft, for stable - in different ways. Piston "aerobatics" - of course not, a modern "passenger" - yes, no options.
    On MiG-29M / K / 35 self-propelled guns are available, at earlier - no, fur is used. traction with boosters and a limit on the angles of attack (EMNIP up to 23 degrees). The easiest way to distinguish the shape of the influx. If rounded - most likely not, if pointed (like the Su-27) - is.
    The voice informant does not apply to self-propelled guns and can be bolted (together with a set of sensors) to any aircraft.
  17. Scraptor 23 November 2015 12: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It so happened that with the same EMF for a statically unstable aircraft like on the Su-27 they didn’t succeed (on the X-29), therefore, based on "marketing considerations", they put a completely different meaning in this word ... lol
  18. Boa kaa 16 October 2015 21: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: srelock
    Today in the world there are a huge number of suitable for take-off and landing places

    It is in peacetime when airfields and highways are intact. And in the military?
    And then, no one forbade with a single dvigla, like Hayer and F-35, to take off normally (in an airplane), and to land vertically. And the gain in the performance characteristics and independence from the 1-2 category of GDP.
    Well, if you carry 2 tons of cargo worthless in flight in the form of an AP, then yes, such an aircraft has no future.
  19. maximghost 16 October 2015 21: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And then, no one forbade with a single dvigla, like Hayer and F-35, take off normally (in an airplane)

    If we are talking about the F-35B, then there is a fan that is less efficient than the PD, with the harrier too, not all, thank God, but the traditional version of take-off in any case and with any layout will allow the verticals to take a large mass of weapons ...
  20. srelock 17 October 2015 03: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Boa kaa, Under the word a place, I meant not only the existing highways and airfields, but all the rest suitable for the organization of airfields places. Stocks of concrete slabs 6x2m in the warehouses of "Rosrezerva" - state secret bully
  21. Scraptor 17 October 2015 18: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    They are heavy ... and put slowly.
  22. srelock 18 October 2015 01: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Wangyu reduction in prices for concrete products 6x2m in a few years due to sales from storage laughing
  23. Scraptor 17 October 2015 05: 26 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Where did they get 2t? That he himself could then drag barely lol Is it nothing that the F-35 fan weighs more? And because of his Harrier even inferior to the Yak-38 in speed at 100km / h? But the truth is in flight, he then comes in handy.
  • Dart2027 15 October 2015 19: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Scraptor
    To provoke an accident, he was forced to land the aircraft in a narrow, in violation of the instructions exactly the opposite

    Can a source be invented or again immediately
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 22: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Watch her video again ...
      1. Dart2027 15 October 2015 23: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Whose "her"? Again nothing to say?
        1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 12: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          "Accidents", a misunderstanding ...
        2. Dart2027 16 October 2015 18: 14 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Something I can’t find any accident here.
        3. Scraptor 19 October 2015 05: 50 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, yes, the road is already being laid here, and there was a jet biplane flying. But also yellow, which is typical ... lol
        4. Dart2027 19 October 2015 19: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So what to watch?
        5. Scraptor 20 October 2015 03: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          That's what they themselves asked.
        6. Dart2027 20 October 2015 19: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So where is the link to the video?
        7. Scraptor 21 October 2015 07: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          In google and on youtube! Where else are they usually?
        8. Dart2027 21 October 2015 19: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          That is, it is not?
        9. Scraptor 22 October 2015 02: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Go there and find the words yourself related to the topic.
        10. Dart2027 22 October 2015 19: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          According to relevant, you can find a lot of things. What exactly?
        11. Scraptor 23 November 2015 13: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          That link to what was asked.
  • Boa kaa 16 October 2015 21: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Scraptor
    The pilot flew on it first day and put on the ship second time.
    Do you even read what you write?fool
    A pilot cannot, without having passed a run on a * spark *, be allowed to fly on his own with a boarding ship, and even in conditions constrained for maneuvering. This time.
    Quote: Scraptor
    To provoke an accident, he was forced to land the aircraft in a narrow, in violation of the instructions exactly the opposite (on the leeward side, on the tank, on the starboard side)
    Well, my friend, you give !!!
    To provoke an accident he was forced ...
    No pilot compel He can’t: they can advise and command, but only he decides whether to board or leave for the Severomors-3 coastal airfield.
    The second one. When flying to the UPC, there are two guidance navigators, a flight manager, deputy KK for aviation. And you want to convince us that all these officials conspired at the end of the service (all at least major lieutenant colonels!) To sit in the zone?
    On the leeward side? Is this the ship’s commander who was landing in the wind when landing? In your opinion, he, in violation of the instructions for receiving aircraft on the fly, decided to join the aviators on the bunk? And why are you sending him there?
    To the tank, from the starboard side, Impossible to land: the pilot - wants to live and sit on a 12-ton crane, the gas chimneys of the bow "Storm", PU * Basalt * he will not agree with a gun (not only that of good will!)!
    Quote: Scraptor
    The plane did not crash - it was rebuilt and stands in one of the museums near Moscow.
    If you are talking about the Yak who got on the news feed, then it was successfully burning on the deck of TAKR ... The reason is indicated in the comment above.
    1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 13: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Google on "spark + Yak-141" gives "0" hits.

      1. he was told to sit down like that.
      2. It was tested how the plane will endure (supposedly).
      3. he passed over and fell into turbulence
      How many “landings” were there from one nuclear power plant?

      Quote: BoA KAA
      If you are talking about the Yak who got on the news feed, then it successfully burned on the deck of TAKR ... ... The reason is indicated in the comment above.

      Well, he was restored after that. It has not been decommissioned.
      There are too many comments above ...
  • Severomor 15 October 2015 13: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: inkass_98
    And the Americans really were afraid to come close to these ships.

    What is it like? Hopefully figuratively? ))))
    If not, then it’s a pity there are no pictures, as they snooped in the Mediterranean, under the nose. And their planes with helicopters did not differ in gallantry.
    1. Serg65 15 October 2015 15: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Severomor
      their planes with helicopters did not differ in gallantry.

      Especially over the auxiliary angry
      1. Severomor 15 October 2015 16: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        yes if only above them

        A helicopter hung over “Kiev” almost above the flight, well, I don’t know ..... “by eye” 50-100 meters, or even less.

        In the summer, on a boat, parachute flew over the sea, they say somewhere around 160m., It seemed well, very high, but here they are the "aggressors" .... with a stone
        1. Serg65 15 October 2015 17: 30 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Severomor
          and here they are "aggressors" .... with a stone

          Gibraltar walked by, the Angles hovered over the deck and let's throw garbage, so all boats with nuts and bolts were stolen for their slingshots (an irreplaceable thing against gulls)
        2. Boa kaa 16 October 2015 21: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Severomor
          A helicopter hung over “Kiev” almost above the flight, well, I don’t know ..... “by eye” 50-100 meters, or even less.
          And it was like that. But the helicopter was from an English frigate. They shot at him from a rocket launcher with flare guns. They received a note of protest from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of small-shavens. And this is also a fact.
    2. Starina_hank 15 October 2015 17: 17 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      The aircraft carrier simply didn’t allow the TAKR to reach the distance of launching missiles, thanks to the advantage in speed.
    3. Starina_hank 15 October 2015 17: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The aircraft carrier simply didn’t allow the TAKR to reach the distance of launching missiles, thanks to the advantage in speed.
    4. Scraptor 15 October 2015 22: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      After their appearance, they began to differ, especially since they themselves did not have such machines.
    5. Boa kaa 16 October 2015 21: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Severomor
      What is it like? Hopefully figuratively?

      No colleague, this is true without idle talk.
      Middle-earth. AVU Ford raised the AWACS and when it was discovered that Kiev with a nodal move reaches the distance provided by a volley, it turned 30 * and made a full turn, not letting the TAKR closer than 180km. The race was about an hour. It is a fact.
  • Scraptor 17 October 2015 18: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yeshe thought and wrote about your last paragraph, which is the essence of the lie:
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Instead of a postscript, I would like to note that the rate on VTOLS, which DF made. Ustinov, unfortunately, did not justify himself at all, and the Yakovlev Design Bureau failed miserably with the task entrusted to him by the Party and the Government. The decision to create a vertical take-off and landing interceptor was made in 1967, but even after 24, the surviving three Yak-141 general designers were still not ready for the series. And this is despite the fact that in its performance characteristics it was much inferior not only to the deck interceptor Su-33, but even to the MiG-29. Of course, it would have been possible to spend a lot of time on fine-tuning it, but at the time when the Su-30 was created and the work on fifth-generation machines was going on, such a decision could hardly be considered any reasonable.

    A. There were no “failed miserable tasks,” etc. The people "from the Party and Government" even received prizes.
    B. The mission to the Yak-141 was received much later. In 1967, the mission was received on the Yak-38, after showing 3 years as the finished Yak-36.
    B. For several years, the finished and finished Yak-141 was shown in Farnborough. And before that in Paris. At that time, the Yak-43 was almost ready (a completely different airplane with twice the take-off mass with an engine from Tu-160 and not from a fighter).
    G. Yak-141 was ready for the series. And at the factory about which he wrote "Taoist" in one of his few articles. It just didn’t follow the release order, that’s all. Perestroika was already ...
    D. The MiG-29 has its own niche, the Yak-41 has its own. The latter is inferior to the first only at maximum speed, surpassing it in almost everything else, even in radius. If a melee occurs between them, the MiG-29 will be shot down with the Yak-43. Just like even subsonic Harriers (aka subsonic parody of a combat aircraft), without a single loss, they stuffed supersonic Mirages, etc. for 20 pcs.
  • 27091965 15 October 2015 09: 04 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: Scraptor
    In addition, changeable logic is sometimes really terrible with stuffing only one casing (well, there is a separate cram there with 16 or more anti-ship missiles and not 8).


    At that time, there was a theory of "pair". One ship is searching, another is guarding it. Economically, the USSR could not afford such a thing; too many ships had to be built. Two projects 1143 and 1144 came out of this theory. The far-field PLO ship was reinforced with the Bazalt strike complex. As they say, "life made."
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 11: 54 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Life or theory? ... Ships of smaller displacement are easier and cheaper to build.
      1. 27091965 15 October 2015 12: 37 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Scraptor
        ..Ships of smaller displacement are easier and cheaper to build.


        Such ships were built, project 1134, but they carried only 4 anti-ship missiles and 1 helicopter. They were intended to accompany the ships of project 1123. But it was required to constantly find a connection in the Mediterranean Sea. For this, ships with greater autonomy and impact power were needed. Also, do not forget that we have more than one fleet. This required a ship that combines more potentials in the project, plus the country's economic capabilities.
        1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 14: 00 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          And it was necessary in one type of 8-16 anti-ship missiles, and in the other 2-3 revolvers, and pr.1123 did not build at all. Why assemble 14 helicopters in one big pile? They can fly and fly from small ships.
          Conventional aircraft carriers were built large because they needed a lot of free space to land a plane horizontally and have time to brake it by a cable. Helicopter does not need all this.
          And there is no need to base them like that because they become vulnerable and for a long time it diverges into the "veil" from one point.
          1. 27091965 15 October 2015 16: 36 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Scraptor
            And it was necessary in one type of 8-16 anti-ship missiles, and in the other 2-3 revolvers, and pr.1123 did not build at all. Why assemble 14 helicopters in one big pile? They can fly and fly from small ships.



            According to the tasks of that time, it was assumed that round-the-clock patrolling by 2-3 helicopters for the entire campaign would be carried out. This requires ongoing maintenance of the air group. On small ships this is difficult to do. In bad weather, displacement is of great importance for takeoff and landing.
            To attack an enemy carrier group, a salvo of 16 anti-ship missiles was required. Just imagine how many small displacement ships you need to build. Therefore, projects appeared 1143 (with an air group and anti-ship missiles) and 1144 (with anti-ship missiles).
            1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 03: 38 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Why then on small ships helicopters if there are such technical difficulties? By the way, they have stabilizers for helicopter platforms.

              For RCC - so much with total displacement.
              1. Boa kaa 16 October 2015 22: 02 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Scraptor
                Why then on small ships helicopters if there are such technical difficulties? By the way, they have stabilizers for helicopter platforms.

                As far as I know - NO! If you have other data - share, plz! (but chur, with reference to the source, bitte!)
                1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 05: 34 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And what are the fundamental difficulties in them?
          2. Army soldier2 15 October 2015 19: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Scraptor, have you ever been to an American aircraft carrier?
            1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 03: 40 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Is this a duty question? What did you want to know?
        2. Silhouette 15 October 2015 17: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: 27091965i
          Such ships were built, project 1134, but they carried only 4 anti-ship missiles and 1 helicopter. They were intended to accompany the ships of the project 1123.


          1134 is a miscarriage of Soviet shipbuilding. The most unsuccessful project. They did not have time to make anti-submarine missiles and delivered anti-ship missiles. So BOD became a missile cruiser. The freak still turned out.
          The Varangian, having a lower displacement, carried twice as many missiles and was a truly successful missile cruiser with a displacement of a destroyer. It could also reload at sea.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Boa kaa 16 October 2015 20: 40 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Scraptor
    As for 1123, the helicopter does not need a large ship at all ...
    This is true only for single-base vehicles, but not for group-based helicopters. Where, for example, will you place 18 units of airborne depth charges with SBP carried by Kiev? Fuel, oils, gases (argon, nitrogen, etc.) spare parts, cabins for pilots, etc.
    So, the axiom: A LARGE SHIP has more features!
    1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 05: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Where the helicopters are.

      Axiom in the dispersal of manpower and equipment. As much as the main weapons allow.
      The next “Titanic”, “Sinano” or “Bismarck” did not lean on.
      1123 is more than a strange ship, and 1143 is better, because the plane could be on a sloping deck sits in the emergency barrier or in the aerofinisher or take off with a short take-off. At 1123 it was possible to sit down only vertically.
  • Veps 17 October 2015 18: 10 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Intelligent review, comrade! Omitted the most important goal of aircraft carrier formations. This is the most important means of psychological pressure. Therefore, TACRs were built in our country as a means of qualitatively strengthening the fight against the aircraft-bearing groupings of ship-based potential adversaries (hence the active use of long-range and ultra-long-range anti-ship missiles). For a potential adversary, this is a bet on the use of aviation for use against purposes that are poorly protected by air defense systems. Compare the performance of the US Navy sorties for the period of active use from the war with Iraq in 1990-1991 (there were three military operations "Desert Shield", "Desert Fox" and then "Desert Storm") before the Libyan war in 2011-2012. And compare it with the performance indicators of Tomahawk-type cruise missiles at the same time. Purely to the note, over the past wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Libya, the US Navy "shot" at targets about two thousand cruise missiles of various calibers (mainly, of course, the advertised "Tomahawks"). Therefore, missile weapons at times has greater combat effectiveness than naval aviation. Aircraft carriers with a cloud of airplanes look much more intimidating than three dozen brisk corvettes (small cruisers) with three hundred guided missiles. But in reality, as marine active operations in coastal waters have shown (in open waters for a long time no one expects to fight a squadron for a squadron), anti-ship missiles and other missiles, including cruise missiles with competent tactics, carry any squadron to a state of incapacity. Look, when the Iraqi military used 1990 French-made anti-ship missiles of one of the US Navy frigates, so the whole group sailed from the gulf to the Indian Ocean for a month in a day, until they completely crushed all aviation and air defense. Then the Americans worked exclusively from air bases in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. And we also need to understand the specifics of our aviation in the VKS and Navy in comparison with the aviation of the US Navy. The US Navy does not have heavy aircraft weighing more than 25 tons. We have them all for 30 tons. Front-line bombers such as SU-24M and Su-34 (the main carriers of tactical nuclear weapons) from aircraft carriers do not take off, and do not even land. TAKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" the ship is not very small (displacement of 75 thousand tons), for comparison - aircraft carriers of the Enterprise type (the lead ship of the series) have the same displacement. New projects of the Gerald Ford type have a displacement of more than 100 thousand tons. However, with them, both the FB-111 did not take off, and will not take off (although, they were originally designed specifically for aircraft carrier-based). Let me remind you that the FB-111 is an American analogue of our Su-24M.
  • Yak28 15 October 2015 07: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    An interesting article. Now Russia would need an aircraft carrier to increase the obviously insufficient number of aircraft in Syria. I understand that due to the lack of aircraft carrier ships in Russia, the creation of VTOL aircraft is not in demand
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 07: 29 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Quote: Yak28
      As I understand it, in connection with the absence of aircraft carrier ships in Russia, the creation of VTOL aircraft is not in demand

      There, a rather different question arose - VTOL during vertical take-off has a small payload, so they began to practice shortened take-off when VTOL takes off from a short horizontal take-off. However, modern 4th generation fighters (the same MiG-29) do not require a big run :) At the same time, the MiG-29 is much more serious than the same Yak-141. So it turns out that even if you make a small aircraft carrier without catapults, it’s easier to put the same MiGs on it than VTOL
      1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 38 New
        • -9
        • 0
        -9
        Does MiG-29 (at least like the Yak-36) land vertically?
        And to bring down Harrier?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 07: 58 New
          • 15
          • 0
          +15
          Quote: Scraptor
          Does MiG-29 (at least like the Yak-36) land vertically?

          Why would he land vertically on an aircraft carrier? Air finishers work great.
          Quote: Scraptor
          And to bring down Harrier?

          The British pilot, to the question "What will you do when you meet the MiG-29 in battle," replied: "Eject"
          And so - the harrier is generally unfit against the MiG-29
          Quote: Scraptor
          Everything was written for the sake of the conclusion - the last paragraph, where again (interspersed with text) slander on the Yak-41.

          Will you deny the obvious? Nude Nude.
          You can love Yak, no one forbids, but the fact that he loses to the deck Su and MiG is completely pointless to deny. And that the fleet needed aircraft carriers back in the 60s, and Yak was not ready in the 90s, too.
          Quote: Scraptor
          As for 1123, the helicopter does not need a large ship at all

          Epic Fantasy Again
          Quote: Scraptor
          Yak-41 was ready back in 1978

          And absolutely incompetent against the Tomcat and the Hornets.
          Quote: Scraptor
          To Falkdend, where even subsonic English cars allowed to complete all 7 unnumbered items from the "task list".

          fool They were there and one - the cover of the British squadron from the air - failed to complete.
          1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 08: 42 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Why would he land vertically on an aircraft carrier? Air finishers work great.
            And then what is not an aircraft carrier.
            Why don't the Harriers even sit on them in the Taraws? Or on Atlantic Causeway?

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The British pilot, to the question "What will you do when you meet the MiG-29 in battle," replied: "Eject"
            And so - the harrier is generally unfit against the MiG-29

            Name and part number? He must have been joking ... laughing Harrier now can only be shot down with the Su-27.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Will you deny the obvious? Nude Nude.
            You can love Yak, no one forbids, but the fact that he loses to the deck Su and MiG is completely pointless to deny. And that the fleet needed aircraft carriers back in the 60s, and Yak was not ready in the 90s, too.

            You deny the obvious. These are the results of the Falkland and Balkan wars, especially in the air battles.
            In the 60s were needed in the late 70s already.
            And can you use both types - Su-33 and Yak-141?
            MiG-29 on the ship does not belong. This is a plane for front-line primers; therefore, it loses a lot to the heavy and deverted Su-33. Its radius is even less than that of an even more super-maneuverable than Su, Yak (at least there was at that moment).

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Epic Fantasy Again

            It is a fact - helicopters are even based on corvettes. Which is better in terms of dispersal of an air wing to reduce its vulnerability to defeating an anti-aircraft carrier, as well as to deploy an anti-submarine curtain on the front.
            Andreiko - You are in the looking glass ...

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And absolutely incompetent against the Tomcat and the Hornets.

            Explain ... The radius is almost like that of a Hornet, and in melee Tomket will suffer the same fate as the Argentinians. Or is their loss against even subsonic Harriers an “epic fantasy”?

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            They were there and one - the cover of the British squadron from the air - failed to complete.

            The tonnage of sunken Argentine warships, which almost immediately hid in bases outside the database zone, exceeds English. And the losses of the Argentinean Air Force that flew like Okinawan suicide bombers are generally longing ... Both have achieved more.

            Write about aircraft carriers, like Ooeg Kaptsov about battleships or about armor. Or about windjammers (they are also big and beautiful). No need to crap on planes and climb into something that you do not know. The site may eventually be "offended."
            1. Falcon 15 October 2015 09: 38 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Quote: Scraptor
              And then what is not an aircraft carrier.
              Why don't the Harriers even sit on them in the Taraws? Or on Atlantic Causeway?


              But why? Helicopters can also land a lot ...

              Vertical line with 2 tons of load - wow terrible machine ...

              Quote: Scraptor
              And can you use both types - Su-33 and Yak-141?

              You can go backwards, but why? If Yak-141 1000kg lifted during vertical take-off? Thunderstorm mary damn, how many sorties he needs to do? A su-xnumx xnumx tons.

              Quote: Scraptor
              MiG-29 on the ship does not belong. This is a plane for front-line primers; therefore, it loses much to the heavy and super-maneuverable Su-33.


              BUT?? Primers ??? those. Mig-29 takes off from the ground in your opinion? belay

              Loses in maneuverability Su-33 yes, right? Where and how did he suddenly lose to him?

              Quote: Scraptor
              Its radius is even less than that of an even more super-maneuverable than Su, Yak (at least there was at that moment).


              The radius of the Yak is 900 km with PTB and as a result of the remaining 2-I suspension points.
              Radius instant-29k 1050km with one PTB and 8 th suspension points.

              Quote: Scraptor
              Harrier now can only be shot down with the Su-27.


              What? Is it true ??? But nothing that the harrier is a stormtrooper at all ???
              And nothing was set on it except aim-9. Until you put AN / APG-65 on the latest modifications ??? Even Mig-23 can bring him down.

              Harrier is not intended for air combat at all.
              1. maximghost 15 October 2015 12: 33 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                The radius of the Yak is 900 km with PTB and as a result of the remaining 2-I suspension points.

                The 141 yak has 5 suspension points: 4 under the wings for weapons and 1 under the fuselage specifically for the PTB, so there are always 4 free pylons.
              2. Scraptor 15 October 2015 13: 28 New
                • -2
                • 0
                -2
                Quote: Falcon
                But why?

                Well, so that like helicopters, do not fall into the water ...
                Imagine - yes, but much more is possible.

                Quote: Falcon
                You can go backwards, but why? If on the Yak-141 1000 kg with vertical take-off lifted?

                And with non-vertical? Why are Americans walking around (yes, still subsonic)?

                Quote: Falcon
                BUT?? Primers ??? those. Mig-29 takes off from the ground in your opinion?
                Loses in maneuverability Su-33 yes, right? Where and how did he suddenly lose to him?

                And didn’t you know? For example, Cobra does not know how to do, because it is statically stable.

                Quote: Falcon
                Radius

                Yak - 1060, MiG - 1030 or less, Wikipedia is constantly corrected by "friends of the people."
                Yak somehow has a big one engine, and he doesn’t need a thick heavy durable glider like on the MiG-29, because it sits softly and without a hook.


                Quote: Falcon
                What? Is it true ??? But nothing that the harrier is a stormtrooper at all ???
                And nothing was set on it except aim-9. Until you put AN / APG-65 on the latest modifications ??? Even Mig-23 can bring him down.
                Harrier is not intended for air combat at all.

                lol Read about its combat use and warfare over the years on Wikipedia. Even with some guns, Mirage-3,5 shot down radar and radarless.
                1. Falcon 15 October 2015 14: 48 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  And didn’t you know? For example, Cobra does not know how to do, because it is statically stable.


                  And you did not know:
                  Quote: chief pilot of OKB im. Mikoyana Valery Evgenievich Menitsky
                  Here is how he describes the battle: “For the first one and a half minutes of battle, we moved along the trajectory, leaving the place we needed for the attack in all possible ways. We rather quickly managed to create an advantage for ourselves to reach the attacking targets, we sat on the Sy-27 tail and spent the rest of the battle without getting down from it. We must pay tribute to the pilot Sy-27, he piloted well, but we still won the battle.
                  1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 01: 49 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    see below...
                2. Falcon 15 October 2015 15: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  And didn’t you know? For example, Cobra does not know how to do, because it is statically stable.


                  And you did not know:
                  Quote: chief pilot of OKB im. Mikoyana Valery Evgenievich Menitsky
                  Here is how he describes the battle: “For the first one and a half minutes of battle, we moved along the trajectory, leaving the place we needed for the attack in all possible ways. We rather quickly managed to create an advantage for ourselves to reach the attacking targets, we sat on the Sy-27 tail and spent the rest of the battle without getting down from it. We must pay tribute to the pilot Sy-27, he piloted well, but we still won the battle.


                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Yak - 1060, MiG - 1030 or less, Wikipedia is constantly corrected by "friends of the people."


                  Fuel mass Miga 4500
                  Fuel mass of the Yak 4400

                  Empty weight

                  Quote: Scraptor
                  don't need a thick heavy rugged glider like on the MiG-29


                  Mass instant 12500kg
                  Yaka 11650kg

                  Yes, a very heavy glider at an instant ... Cast-iron ...

                  15800 vertical take-off weight kg.
                  those. like a full tank, or weapons.

                  The maximum speed of the Yak 19500, with a full tank and NOT vertical take-off, is the mass of 3450 weapons.

                  Maximum speed Miga 24500. there is a difference?

                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Radarless Mirage-3,5 shot down

                  2 generation aircraft lol Well, against Mig-21 he also has a lot of chances, I do not argue lol

                  Quote: Scraptor
                  what vertical can not do what can he do?


                  Well, for example, it should be easier, otherwise it will not take off vertically.
                  For example max overload Yak-141 7g and MIG-29 8g.
                  or F-35A: + 9 G
                  F-35B: + 7 G

                  It should carry a useless hoisting motor (fan).

                  Funny load of weapons.

                  More fuel, so vertical take-off is very costly.

                  Less engine life - longer afterburner hours.

                  The design complexity of the deflected thrust vector is not adding maneuverability.
                  1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 01: 44 New
                    • -3
                    • 0
                    -3
                    It seemed to me, or in the quotes from the chief pilot, it was about the Su-27 (which Cobra knows how to do) and not about the MiG-29?

                    For starters, you compare deck versions on Yak and MiG, and for the same years, and does the MiG-29 constantly fly on the same engine? bully

                    Mirage-3 is the third generation ... MiG-21 long-range RVV GSN did not carry. By the way, what generation of Harrier, who felled 3rd? lol

                    And Mirage-3 was even easier ... (overload). And the MiG-21e somehow shot down ...

                    Interested in their weight? Especially non-fans?
                    With a broken runway, an airplane without them will become useless and will also be broken or lost because it cannot land.

                    How long does vertical take-off take, is it so expendable?

                    How often is afterburner used in combat, or when flying in supersonic sound?

                    She very much adds maneuverability. And she adds not one.

                    What other examples of incompetent impudent prejudice will be? ... If now all the same they return to reality, then what results do we see even using subsonic air defense systems in terms of the ratio of losses in air battles?
                    1. Falcon 16 October 2015 08: 36 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      For starters on Yak and MiG comparing deck versions, and for the same years

                      What kind of nonsense? Class argument. I am comparing deck versions. Or decided to do sophistry for lack of arguments?

                      Quote: Scraptor
                      Does the MiG-29 fly constantly on one engine?


                      Do cows run at the racetrack for speed? wassat

                      But can a Yak sit down if one engine fails? And with vertical take-off, what will happen if the engine fails? negative

                      A moment - take off ...

                      Quote: Scraptor
                      It seemed to me, or in the quotes from the chief pilot, it was about the Su-27 (which Cobra knows how to do) and not about the MiG-29?


                      Well, is that not even funny? "got on the tail - it’s not in the sense of the pilot got on the tail, but in the sense of instant-29 got it! And 80 won% of battles. Let's read it first and then comment.

                      All his life, Mig was the most maneuverable aircraft, before the advent of UVT. It’s as if in parts and not on the wiki.

                      Quote: Scraptor
                      Mirage-3 is the third generation ...


                      Is it really so ?! This is where such a classification on the wiki is probably?
                      I’ll tell you a terrible secret, having a military aviation college, all the time the Mirage 3 was considered as the 2 generation. The aircraft 60's technology level analogue of the Su-9, Su-11, Mig-21 ...

                      Quote: Scraptor
                      MiG-21 long-range RVV GSN not carried


                      And R.530 is it like a long-range RVV GSN? Yes super rocket. The harbinger of death is literally.

                      Quote: Scraptor
                      How long does vertical take-off take, is it so expendable?


                      ??? But nothing that the take-off of the SVPP is carried out due to engine thrust, and not due to the lifting force of the wing? Write such nonsense. Compare the consumption of a helicopter and an airplane ...

                      Quote: Scraptor
                      What other examples of incompetent impudent prejudice will be?


                      Oh, sorry. The guru is competent. crying Then there really is no point in throwing the beads ...
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. Scraptor 23 November 2015 14: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Deck versions for the same year?

                        If it’s outboard, it’s able ... A moment on one from the deck will not take off. He sits vertically does not know how, in principle.

                        Su-27 has always been maneuvering all his life.

                        Truth. A mirage like a Phantom is a 2-3 generation, closer to 3mu. In later versions, exactly the 3rd.

                        R.530 at that time was the best.

                        This is only with vertical take-off, and without accelerators.

                        Who would forgive you ... Especially this one, "having a military aviation system." lol
            2. alexej123 15 October 2015 11: 39 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              I am a small specialist, but the statement that Mig-29 cannot bring down the “Harrier” is “strong”. Superiority in speed, maneuverability, on-board equipment, in armament and "can not bring down"? In my opinion, they tried to “annoy” the author with this comment.
              1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 11: 50 New
                • -4
                • 0
                -4
                Melee battles are conducted on the sound. All launches of the Argenin Air Force with long-range / medium-range missiles with radar seeker ended to no avail.
            3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 20: 01 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Scraptor
              And then what is not an aircraft carrier.

              Why should our MiG board a non-aircraft carrier? :) Because the British, because of the hopelessness and absence of aircraft carriers, were forced to remake the cargo ship into a combat ship? And go to battle on the trough? Should we repeat?
              Quote: Scraptor
              Why don't the Harriers even sit on them in the Taraws?

              And you don’t know? :) Well, I’ll have to do some educational work again: the VTOL aircraft were based because the US Marines became interested in Harriers. Which was impressed by the attack aircraft, capable of operating from an unequipped airfield, which does not need a runway. The United States, with its two hundred thousandth Marine Corps, listened to their wishes. In other words, the VTOL was never considered by the Americans as a Navy aircraft. Only for ILCs, only for operations on land and only for unequipped coasts. Attention, a question. What kind of happy naval infantry is such a happy VTOL need for, if in the years of the USSR there were 12 thousand EMNIPs and were not going to land any tactical assault forces with it?
              Quote: Scraptor
              Name and part number? He was probably joking.

              No, it just was aware of the results of training battles with MiGs inherited from the GDR :)))
              "Farnborough International 98" (SBAC Collection dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Farnborough Air Show), p. 81: "For the Western Air Force, it was a big shock when the F-16 armed with SIDEWINDER missiles (AIM-9M - D.S. .) compared in the tests (apparently in the same Germany - DS) with the MiG-29 armed with the P-73. Of the 50 fights against the P-73, the AIM-9M won only one. with the AIM-15M and MiG-9 with a helmet-mounted sight and the R-29 showed that the Mig can capture targets in airspace 73 times larger in volume than the F-30. "
              Quote: Scraptor
              Harrier now can only be shot down with the Su-27.

              Harrier can be knocked down from anything, since this subsonic parody of a combat aircraft is uncompetitive to any 4th-generation fighter from the word "NO."
              Quote: Scraptor
              You deny the obvious. These are the results of the Falkland

              In which the Harriers completely merged the air defense task of uniting the British, as a result of which the Argentinean NUR aircraft and free-falling bombs severely wind up English ships. And probably, they would completely defeat the squadron if the Argentines had better-quality bombs (did not explode). And what have done some relatively modern Super Etandars with Exocets ...
              Quote: Scraptor
              And can you use both types - Su-33 and Yak-141?

              Can. But it is not necessary, because there is not a single combat mission that the Yak-141 can handle better than the Su-33 or MiG-29.
              Quote: Scraptor
              MiG-29 on the ship does not belong. This is a plane for front-line primers; therefore, it loses much to the heavy and super-maneuverable Su-33.

              You need to learn the materiel. MiG-29, firstly, is still a station wagon (unlike a clean fighter), and secondly, the Su-33 is still too heavy even for Kuznetsov, and this is 55 thousand tons.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 20: 04 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Scraptor
                It is a fact - helicopters are even based on corvettes. Which is better in terms of dispersal of an air wing to reduce its vulnerability to defeating an anti-aircraft carrier, as well as to deploy an anti-submarine curtain on the front.

                “Brilliant” Nothing that 22 corvettes (which are much more expensive than the TARK) are needed to provide the base for 22 TARK helicopters? Anything that corvettes cannot provide the same intensity of use of helicopters as TARK? And about such "little things" as autonomy and the ability to lift helicopters during a commotion, I generally keep quiet.
                Quote: Scraptor
                Andreiko - You are in the looking glass ...

                As always, the level of your communication culture gushed over the edge, right on your shoes, then wash them off ...
                Quote: Scraptor
                Explain ... The radius is almost like that of a Hornet, and in melee Tomket will suffer the same fate as the Argentinians. Or is their loss against even subsonic Harriers an “epic fantasy”?

                Besides Wikipedia about Harriers in the Falklands, have you ever read anything?
                The Harriers had good rockets for the time - the Argentines did not.
                Harrier pilots were much better prepared (before going out, by the way, they conducted training battles with mirages and ethandars, that is, they had the opportunity to develop tactics against them), the Argentines did not have anything like that.
                The Harriers had superior radar (the Argentines either did not have it at all, and those that had poorly seen targets in the background of the water)
                Harriers had infrared traps, even something EW-like. Argentines have a STR at best.
                Harriers entered the battle with fuel superiority - the Argentines had so little fuel that they could neither turn on the afterburner nor conduct a maneuverable battle.
                Against this background, a common quote
                Finding an Argentine fighter or a rocket launched into its tail, the Harrier pilot changed the engine's thrust vector, thereby sharply braking

                Looks like a mockery of the Harriers - having all the conceivable advantages, they still let the Argentines in their tail ?!
                None of the above advantages have the Yak-141 against Tomcat. Tomcat has advantages in avionics and speed, which gives him the opportunity to engage in battle in a position that he considers to be the best. And its "adjustable" wings to a large extent do not level the advantage of Yak in the BVB.
                Moreover, Tomcat at the time of the appearance of Yak was already leaving the stage - if the USSR had been preserved and a new carrier-based interceptor would have risen onto the decks of aircraft carriers, it is quite possible - based on the Raptor.
                In addition, the comparison of Yak with Tomcat is “a bit” incorrect. We did not have Tomcat. We had the MiG-29 and Su-33. It is with them that Yak must be compared, since we had a choice - to build aircraft-carrying ships for Yaki or Su / MiG.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 20: 05 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  The tonnage of sunken Argentine warships, which almost immediately hid in bases outside the database zone, exceeds English. And the losses of the Argentinean Air Force that flew like Okinawan suicide bombers are generally longing ... Both have achieved more.

                  It's even funny to refute. Google banned you, or what? Do you know the list of losses of the British fleet from Argentinean aviation? But they fought on the Skyhawks and Daggers, with free-falling and unexploded bombs - against destroyers and frigates of URO ...
                  But when the Argentines had weapons that corresponded to the British in technological level - what about the 2nd squadron with its 5 Super Etandars and 5 anti-ship missiles Eszoset, from which the British lost the destroyer and the Atlantic Convair? How many Etandars brought down the Harriers? How much, how much? Well, not shot down, but maybe they tried to intercept? At least climbed to intercept?
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Write about aircraft carriers, like Ooeg Kaptsov about battleships or about armor

                  What would I do without your prompts!
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  No need to crap on planes and climb into something you don’t know

                  Do you seriously believe that you own a subject better than me? laughing
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  The site may eventually be "offended."

                  Take offense. I do not mind, and in general - they carry water to angry
                  1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 09: 08 New
                    • -2
                    • 0
                    -2
                    It looks like Google banned you. The total lost tonnage on warships among Argentines exceeds British.

                    In aerial combat, they lose 20+ aircraft with 0 (zero) British casualties.

                    Yes - it’s funny: you’re on “Skyhawks and Daggers with free-falling and unexploded”, then “on Super-Ethandars and Mirages with Exocet ...”
                    British URO ships were anti-submarine, from the Faroe’s line, with weak air defense. There were 10 times less subsonic Harriers than Argentines (half of which were supersonic). Therefore, their cover was only 3/4 in place and time.
                    Nevertheless, the total lost tonnage of the Argentinians exceeds the British, although the Argentines almost immediately hid in bases on the continent and therefore were not under fire.
                    Losses in sailors exceed even more so because container ships are almost "uninhabited".

                    In tactics for interacting with aviation, you are also a complete ZERO, because in that scenario, interception could only be from a position in the air (barrage). lol

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    What would I do without your prompts!

                    This is not a question for me; I’m not trying to do it for you at all.

                    They will not carry on me. Can you be its owner?
                  2. Falcon 16 October 2015 10: 45 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Do you seriously believe that you own a subject better than me?


                    Looks like a comrade, he doesn’t own the subject at all. Classic couch general. I read you here and he threw me some more arguments wassat

                    There is nothing left to whing except:
                    fighters from the ground take off wassat
                    attack aircraft defeats all fighters in the WB, wassat
                    Argentina has distant RVV, wassat
                    vertical take-off does not consume much fuel, wassat
                    Su-33 station wagon - since it’s bigger in size, wassat
                    F-15 knocks down Mig as the gun is faster wassat
                    Mig-29 not maneuverable wassat

                    This is a diagnosis, wasting time ...

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    As always, the level of your communication culture has been whipped over the edge


                    He is simply not there. Immediately sofa battle, it is necessary to prove who will express themselves better.
                    Where else if not here, in another place and in the face they can give wassat
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2015 12: 18 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      Quote: Falcon
                      Looks like a comrade, he doesn’t own the subject at all.

                      I’m thinking of making a “comrade” byak - take it and write an article about VTOL :) An explosion from overwhelming emotions is guaranteed to our “opponent” :)
                      1. Serg65 16 October 2015 13: 44 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I’m thinking of making a “comrade” byak - take it and write an article about VTOL :) An explosion from overwhelming emotions is guaranteed to our “opponent” :)

                        laughing Andrey, how little is needed to get you out of hibernation and return to creative work !!!!
                      2. Scraptor 16 October 2015 13: 56 New
                        • -4
                        • 0
                        -4
                        Creative byak? Something completely smelled of the udafkom ...
                    3. Scraptor 16 October 2015 13: 45 New
                      • -2
                      • 0
                      -2
                      Looking at your fragile attempts on this topic in the 2,5 paragraph here?
                      I think Kaptsov will do better ...
                    4. Serg65 16 October 2015 19: 26 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      Looking at your fragile attempts on this topic in the 2,5 paragraph here?
                      I think Kaptsov will do better ...

                      My dear, I’m unlike you and Mr. Kaptsov. I’m not engaged in fantasy and self-harming of the cerebral hemispheres. bully
                    5. Scraptor 17 October 2015 02: 14 New
                      • -2
                      • 0
                      -2
                      you answer for yourself - your semi-childish comments are clearly visible here ...

                      Kaptsov at the expense of the reservation for "caboters", right.
                2. Falcon 16 October 2015 15: 04 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  I’m thinking of making a “comrade” byak - take it and write an article about VTOL :) An explosion from overwhelming emotions is guaranteed to our “opponent” :)


                  Make an article for everyone. good

                  For such useless. Him here: http: //www.modo-novum.ru/help/help3.htm

                  The second time I find myself thinking that it should be ignored.
                  "Shit does not stink will not stink."
                3. Scraptor 16 October 2015 15: 57 New
                  • -3
                  • 0
                  -3
                  Does he teach you anything good?

                  Well, you don’t strain yourself, bottle, if you don’t catch up and are wrong, and you won’t have to check the buckle every time ...

                  Where did such an experience of servicing in expensive metropolitan clinics come from? Grandmas have a blow right away in Sweden, there the medicine is cheaper, combine the necessary with the inquisitive, here you go:
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TYG4VdvNlE
                  laughing Or even both of you ... laughing
            4. Scraptor 23 November 2015 15: 25 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Su-7 even took off from the ground

              see the results of the Falkdend clash

              for so much time you can’t burn it; with a vertical take-off, it simply does not undermine.

              Because it’s a station wagon, in which it didn’t suddenly a station wagon - a container is hung quickly

              From a quick-firing gun it’s much easier to shoot down

              Su-27 is more maneuverable, it is statically unstable.

              Well, whimper more ...
        2. Scraptor 16 October 2015 08: 40 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Maybe a maximum of 10? Have you heard about stabilizers for helicopter platforms?

          Breathe deeper ... And it was written in what connection? Or is there no objection to the rest?

          And again, you systematically repeat the jagged lie:
          Harriers didn’t have RVV with GSN radar, Argenins had
          The Argeninians had pilots trained by the Israelis, the British did not.
          Harriers had a radar on half of them, and it was inferior to those that were on the Mirages and part of the Skyhawks, so the search against the background of the surface was done visually
          Harriers had no better traps than Argentines,
          The Harriers did not have the afterburner at all (he is therefore subsonic).
          Harriers entered the battle with the same remnant of humpback because they also acted at the limit of their radius, until they had an advanced lawn in San Carlos Bay. and the battles for air superiority by this time have already been over for 2 weeks (that's why the landing happened).

          Harriers had simply better maneuverability. lol And if you take your mind off your Zampolitical training manual, you will read about it on any foreign-language bourgeois resource, especially Argentinean or British.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Looks like a mockery of the Harriers - having all the conceivable advantages, they still let the Argentines in their tail ?!

          And why the "Pugachev cobra"?

          As soon as Tomket gets involved in the battle even with Harrier (not like with the Yak-41), then after 1,5 minutes the same thing will happen to him as with the Mirage.
          MiG-23 his "adjustable wings" would also not help.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Moreover, Tomcat at the time of the appearance of Yak was already leaving the stage - if the USSR had been preserved and a new carrier-based interceptor would have risen onto the decks of aircraft carriers, it is quite possible - based on the Raptor.
          lol there was already an answer from another comrade, and from me too.
          I added just at the time of the appearance of the Yak-41 (not Farnborough), Tomket was only 4 years old, and he did not go anywhere.
          We had a MiG-23
          Compare in the weight category MiG-29 with Yak-41, and Su-33 with Yak-43.
          We don’t have to confront us with a choice - build a plane for front-line primers for the Su-33 (MiG-29), and the Yaks can fly from any ship. If a Su-33 can fly from some ship, then Yak can fly from it, moreover, he will then be able to quickly fly to the beachhead (MiG-29 is not so fast, it will be necessary to look for a rink on the shore lol ).
      2. Scraptor 16 October 2015 09: 49 New
        • -4
        • 0
        -4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Why should our MiG board a non-carrier? :)

        What other severe mental distortions from you will this site see today?
        There are no aircraft carriers in life in some other country, even such ...

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And you do not know? :)

        You are not aware that the ILC is all the same part of the Navy (subordinate to it). And in fact, the aircraft is used with ships that sail on water. This is the question of educational program lol And in Afghanistan, where even the railgun is not available. This is a question about the MP of the USSR or the Russian Federation which the Yak-38 used there too.
        It landed landing troops, and the "tactical" I understand in your uncomplicated political consciousness before the first slope of the hill ... where the enemy is no longer visible (which means he is not lol ) and where the artillery is missing.

        So there F-16 fired with MiGs, or Harrier?
        If that Harrier F-16go also knocked down ... request

        You are a parody here ... Harrier can only be shot down with an even more super-maneuverable Su-27.
        The MiG-29 will be shot down from the F-15 with twice as much racrs because of a four-speed gun, so no Western contractor will land on this MiG.

        Here you are lying severely and systematically again, because the Harriers were 5-10 times less in number than the Argentines and therefore, due to the lack of numbers, they covered both naval groups (amphibious and aircraft carrier) only by 3/4 in place and time. In addition to interceptions, they also had to conduct reconnaissance and cultivate the Argentines on the ground.

        The Argentines responded with “exosets” even less than with bombs.

        An interesting lack of logic! Explain why this is so, and is there at least one task that the MiG-29 can handle better than the Su-33 laughing The latter, by the way, can fly only from concrete blocks - there are none, immediately there is no Su-27/33
        The Yak-41 aircraft carrier is not needed. Therefore, you do not need it. Therefore, you are here ... Systematically lying on this machine, on Yakovlev Design Bureau, and twice as the hero of social labor, laureate of the Stalin and Lenin awards, academician and colonel general A.S. Yakovleva.
        Compared to that, you definitely are a complete insignificance ...

        No need to learn the materiel of others ... Has Kuznetsov already landed an overclock from landing the Su-33? It will be more universal MiG - more space for any different avionics.
  • Assistant 15 October 2015 10: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    They were there and one - the cover of the British squadron from the air - failed to complete.


    However, the Argentines were unable to establish a full-fledged search for submarines in the ocean between the mainland and islands using aircraft. And as a result of this, the English submarine frolicked there, like a fox in a chicken coop.
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 11: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The Harriers themselves also attacked surface targets with might and main.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 23: 06 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Assistant
      However, the Argentines could not establish a full-fledged search for submarines in the ocean between the mainland and the islands using aircraft

      Why should they? They did not dare to arrange a naval battle, took the fleet. What are they British submarines?
      Second - and by what means would the Argentines seek a nuclear submarine? Would you fly on a plane and look down through the porthole? They had virtually no anti-submarine aircraft, and intelligence was at such a level that civilian aircraft had to be involved. Well, the quality of the VTOL aircraft was so "good" that they could not even remove non-military scouts from the sky.
      1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 04: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And then so that the armored nuclear submarine “Belgrano” would not drown! The Argenin fleet hid in the base precisely after this and a number of “maneuvers”.
        Everything they had ... and better than the British (except for the nuclear submarines and Harriers). And AWACS and PLO, and RVV with radar seeker.

        Non-military scouts from the sky simply did not remove.
  • Taoist 15 October 2015 17: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    29 and 41 are almost identical in terms of performance characteristics and were practically identical in terms of REO. At the same time, you can lift the 41x group into the air much faster and for their take-off and landing, finishers and jumps are not needed.
  • Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 43 New
    • -5
    • 0
    -5
    You got it wrong again lol
    1. inkass_98 15 October 2015 08: 24 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Scraptor
      You got it wrong again

      What is wrong here? What is the question, is the answer.
      1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 09: 02 New
        • -3
        • 0
        -3
        Everything is wrong. Both the question and the answer.
  • Alex_59 15 October 2015 10: 37 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Scraptor
    The tonnage of sunken Argentine warships, which almost immediately hid in bases outside the database zone, exceeds English. And the losses of the Argentinean Air Force that flew like Okinawan suicide bombers are generally longing ... Both have achieved more.

    And where does the tonnage and loss of the Argentine Air Force? The fact is that the anti-aircraft defense of the English compound could not PREVENT the aiming strike on its own. Harrier pilots can roll up personal accounts of downed Argentine falcons and put it into their own ... The goal is to disrupt the performance of a combat mission by Argentine airplanes NOT FULFILLED!
    Quote: Scraptor
    MiG-29 on the ship does not belong. This is a plane for front-line primers; therefore, it loses much to the heavy and super-maneuverable Su-33.
    The Indians do not know, that's the trouble! And since what year has Su-33 become SUPERMANEUVERED?
    Quote: Falcon
    If Yak-141 1000kg lifted during vertical take-off? Thunderstorm mary damn, how many sorties he needs to do? A su-xnumx xnumx tons.

    There is a problem. If we take reality, then with Kuzi he can take off with such a load only from a distant starting position and with a very limited fuel supply. Actually, from the first position they took off with a load of about 1 tons (4хР27 + 2хР-73) and with a normal (not maximum) fuel supply. However, this problem is not so much drying as Kuzi.
    1. Falcon 15 October 2015 11: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      There is a problem. If we take reality, then with Kuzi he can take off with such a load only from a distant starting position and with a very limited fuel supply. Actually, from the first position they took off with a load of about 1 tons (4хР27 + 2хР-73) and with a normal (not maximum) fuel supply. However, this problem is not so much drying as Kuzi.

      I agree. The problem of the lack of a catapult. Well, at least he can do it. and there’s no vertical.

      In general, I do not understand even earlier, not now with F-35, why mess with vertical lines. Stillborn technique in advance. like a suitcase without a handle
      1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 12: 56 New
        • -4
        • 0
        -4
        what vertical can not do what can he do?

        Did not try to search from the other side? request Another pen (which starts its fan in the right direction) could probably remain in the USSR ... lol
        1. Dart2027 15 October 2015 19: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Scraptor
          what vertical can not do what can he do?

          Take off in the normal way.
          1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 04: 37 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Does she lack an airplane landing gear? lol
            1. Dart2027 16 October 2015 18: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Scraptor
              Does she lack an airplane landing gear?

              There are no systems from which the battle is useless in sense, but without which it will not rise from the deck.
              1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 15: 02 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                So is there a wheeled chassis at the SCVVP, or is it skid?
                Without them, he will not fall vertically. Do you know anything about the performance of air defense missile defense helicopter maneuvers in combat?
                1. Dart2027 17 October 2015 16: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  So on SCVVP there is a wheeled chassis

                  Present.
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Do you know anything about the performance of air defense missile defense helicopter maneuvers in combat?

                  No enlighten?
                  1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 16: 42 New
                    • -1
                    • 0
                    -1
                    It must be replaced with a sled.

                    Let the one who enlightens me educate and give you pluses.
                    1. Dart2027 17 October 2015 19: 58 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      Let the one who enlightens me educate and give you pluses.

                      That is, they came up again on the go?
                    2. Scraptor 17 October 2015 20: 03 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      So will you change for the sleigh?
                    3. Dart2027 18 October 2015 18: 09 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      So will you change for the sleigh?

                      No, why?
                      And what are helicopter maneuvers?
                    4. Scraptor 19 October 2015 00: 57 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      What was meant by?
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      Take off in the normal way.


                      Then, to better perform helicopter maneuvers. lol
                      Any ...
                    5. Dart2027 19 October 2015 19: 34 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      What was meant by?

                      Quote: Dart2027
                      there are systems from which zero sense in battle

                      As a payment for the ability to dispense with the catapult, the complication of the design, which is compensated by the radius of action or weapons.
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      Any

                      Nesterov’s loop?
                    6. Scraptor 20 October 2015 05: 12 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      These systems relate to vertical landing and in battle give an advantage greater than the usual ATS.
                      Reduced range from their installation 5-10%

                      Any helicopter, since it can freeze.
                    7. Dart2027 20 October 2015 19: 22 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      Any helicopter, since it can freeze.

                      Turning into a beautiful target, straight from the shooting range. Are these the benefits?
                    8. Scraptor 21 October 2015 08: 29 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      To shoot down a helicopter from an airplane is very difficult.
                    9. Dart2027 21 October 2015 19: 15 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      To shoot down a helicopter from an airplane is very difficult.

                      Truth? Then why doesn’t anyone use helicopters as a means of combating enemy aircraft, and for some reason do fighters all do it?
                    10. Scraptor 22 October 2015 02: 37 New
                      • -1
                      • 0
                      -1
                      Because helicopters usually cannot fly so fast as to catch a fighter.
                    11. Dart2027 22 October 2015 19: 01 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      They don’t know how to fly so fast as to catch a fighter.

                      who takes advantage of speed, maneuverability and armament to shoot a helicopter from a long distance.
                    12. Scraptor 23 November 2015 13: 53 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Which due to its too high approach speed will miss.
                      The advantage is in the maneuverability of a helicopter, which will evade an attack by any maneuver in any direction, and at the same time will handle the attacker ...
  • Scraptor 15 October 2015 12: 30 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Quote: Alex_59
    And where does the tonnage and loss of the Argentine Air Force?

    Despite the fact that the war was ...
    And it was necessary to prevent with 100% probability and with 5-10 the multiple excellence of Argentines in numbers?
    You are something indulged in Hollywood movies. After the WWII, they only hit the shore in the American Navy half-time (and horrible), and on the contrary yielded it by the number of times 3 times, and taking into account satellite countries - several times.

    Quote: Alex_59
    Indians do not know

    Their problems ... Maybe they, like you, still do not know that the Su-27 is also super-maneuverable, like the Su-33, which is based on it?

    Quote: Falcon
    If on the Yak-141 1000 kg with vertical take-off lifted?

    And if the Yak-141 - not vertically, but shortened? ... And how many flights do you need to make Tu-160? Compare their take-off masses ... And can the Su-33 even take off vertically, and even more so, land? All problems resolved both with him and with Drying. But the MiG-29 on the ship has nothing to do - it differs from Sushka in that its LTH sacrificed the possibility of basing on the front rolled primers. In addition, he can’t do anything with his gun, unlike the Su-27.
    1. Falcon 15 October 2015 15: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Scraptor
      There is nothing for the MiG-29 to do on the ship - it differs from Sushka in that its LTX sacrificed the possibility of basing on front rolled primers.


      What other primers? What is it, where do you get it ??? wassat

      At least once in a lifetime, Mig-29 took off from the primer ???

      Or how does he land on it with such a chassis ??
      1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 13 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Rolled on the field with a road roller, as always ...
        It was with such a chassis that he sits on it as did the Su-17/22. But the Su-27 does not land.
        The MiG-29 also has gill slits on top and overlapping air intakes to prevent stones and sand from being sucked into the engine. On the Su-27 this is not.
        On the Su-17, the air intake is high and ahead, so that all this does not fly into it from under the nose wheel.
        1. Falcon 16 October 2015 08: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Scraptor
          Rolled on the field with a road roller, as always ...


          And when always? Maybe at least one example of the Mig-29 take-off from the ground.

          Quote: Scraptor
          The MiG-29 also has gill slits on top and overlapping air intakes to prevent stones and sand from being sucked into the engine.


          In general, they are closed during the pre-flight preparation.

          Look at the practical aerodynamics of the MIG-29 take-off and landing only from the runway, even from the road is not allowed. I just had the honor of serving it a couple of times.

          Of course you can sit down. With empty tanks and without pendants. And pray that the front desk does not burrow.
          1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 14: 12 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            Quote: Falcon
            I just had the honor of serving it a couple of times.

            "On the grief-grief of the Republic!" lol
            Or are you here trying to foreign intelligence brains soar that it does not fly from the ground? It is useless - they know ...
            They are closed by the pilot before being taken off, the air goes through the upper "gills", the plane takes off, the air intakes open.
            Ren-TV has long been shown to everyone in the pictures, contact there.
  • Alex_59 15 October 2015 13: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    Despite the fact that the war was ...
    And it was necessary to prevent with 100% probability and with 5-10 the multiple excellence of Argentines in numbers?

    Well, you yourself wrote that they (Harriers) successfully completed all 7 points. Those successfully completed the task of covering from the air the ship’s compound. When they write to you that they haven’t done it, you go to the side and begin to recall the losses in the naval composition of Argentina and the losses of the Argentine Air Force. The fact of the matter was that there was a war, and the Argentine planes had to be shot down not as a whole, but specifically where it was needed. What the British could not do. Yes, someone somewhere they shot down there. Hartman also knocked out 300 and why? The British won the war, but certainly not thanks to the Harriers.
    Quote: Scraptor
    Maybe they, like you, do not yet know that the Su-27 is also super-maneuverable, like the Su-33, which is based on it?
    I know that the term "over-maneuverability" was first applied in the 90-ies to the Su-37, which is equipped with engines with OBT. Aircraft without ATS are not so called. If you put in the concept of "super maneuverability" the meaning that applies to the Su-33, then both the F-16, the MiG-29, and many more aircraft can be considered super-maneuverable.
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, they all completed them successfully. Despite the fact that they were 5-10 times inferior to the Argentines in terms of number. In war, unlike cinema, on the contrary, with such superiority, there is absolutely no loss.

      Specifically, where it was needed and it is possible the Argentines did not go once - they were intercepted and shot down. From under the nose of Harrier, only one was able to get into the landing boat; he was immediately shot down by them. The rest are short-lived. Just because of the lack of Harriers in the expeditionary force, cover was carried out by 3/4 in the directions of approach or in time. At the beginning there were 20 of them, and only half were in the version of a fighter.
      It is not possible with such forces to completely cover both tactical groups (amphibious and aircraft carrier) 24 hours a day in a sector of 160-180 degrees (or more) each. If there were more of them, 1/4 or 1/3 of the cover would be complete. It only became that way when the Atlantic Causeway arrived.

      Su-27 and JAS-39 are only two serial statically unstable aircraft, so they are super-arrogant even without ATS.
  • Alex_59 15 October 2015 07: 07 New
    • 17
    • 0
    +17
    Great article! A plus.
    I’ll add a little from myself. Practice has shown that the idea of ​​driving submarines with surface ships and aircraft in itself is not a means of guaranteeing the detection and destruction of submarines. A lot of uncontrollable factors, such as the state of the sea and so on. The time of real contact with the submarines was short for most of our NKs and even for IL-38 (for example: A. Artemyev "IL-38 against nuclear submarines", M.2002). In the near zone, there are still chances, due to the massive use and high density of means of searching for submarines, but in the ocean ... And in this sense, the Americans may have made the right choice by switching to stationary means of detecting submarines in a limited water area - this is SOSUS. If we deployed the same system, but not on the Faroe-Icelandic border, but in the Barents, Okhotsk, Japan and other seas, it would probably be cheaper than burning tons of fuel when patrolling water areas by airplanes and NK.
    And further. 1143 ships were very much harmed by the underdevelopment of the basing system. They did not have full-fledged piers, they were based on a raid, wasting the power of a power plant and burning fuel. And this is a huge jamb. It would be better not to build 4, but 2 ships, and the remaining funds spent on capital construction. And until recently, it was scary to look at the housing stock of Severomorsk, even for us, residents of the Urals, accustomed to the relative dullness and gloom of city landscapes.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 07: 32 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Alex_59
      If we deployed the same system, but not on the Faroe-Icelandic border, but in the Barents, Okhotsk, Japan and other seas, it would probably be cheaper than burning tons of fuel when patrolling water areas by airplanes and NK

      An interesting idea, it should be considered :)
      Quote: Alex_59
      And further. The ships of 1143 were very much harmed by the underdevelopment of the basing system

      That's for sure.
    2. Silhouette 15 October 2015 14: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In 1983, Minsk made its first and last trip to the Indian Ocean, where it "wrestled" with the atomic Enterprise, thereby proving its complete uselessness and the absurdity of its existence. I couldn’t get close to the aircraft carrier even at a volley distance, while the Americans worked as a dash to strike with their own aircraft with the “Harpoons” without even entering the zone of destruction of ship’s air defense systems. The Enterprise went for a week at a speed of 30 knots, and Minsk could afford such a speed for only a few hours. There was a nuclear boat with us, but it was visually visible in the Indian Ocean at working depth during the day due to the transparency of the water and the black copus, which even in soft blue our strategists did not bother to repaint. Long-range aviation also arrived from Engels, but it was shot down over Pakistan, where the Americans had an air force base. Well, from Qatar too. In general, frolic for glory. But the commander of the campaign received the order.
      More in the far ocean zone, these miracle ships did not meddle. And rightly so.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 15: 05 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Silhouette
        In 1983, Minsk made its first and last trip to the Indian Ocean, where it "wrestled" with the atomic Enterprise, thereby proving its complete uselessness and the absurdity of its existence.

        You are mistaken :) The first and last trip of Minsk to the Indian Ocean proved the futility and absurdity Finding "Minsk" in the open ocean:))
        Quote: Silhouette
        The Enterprise went for a week at a speed of 30 knots, and Minsk could afford such a speed for only a few hours.

        Well, escort of the Enterprise could also walk 30 knots for a week? :)
        1. Silhouette 15 October 2015 15: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You are mistaken :) The first and last trip of Minsk to the Indian Ocean proved the futility and absurdity of finding Minsk in the open ocean :))


          Not at all. What am I wrong about? Project 1143 ships are anti-submarine ships of the far ocean zone equipped with strike weapons. In the far ocean zone, they turned out to be useless for anti-submarine warfare and insolvent for delivering an anti-ship weapon strike. And to use in the near zone, the distant ship is also not comme il faut, but a necessary necessity.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Well, escort of the Enterprise could also walk 30 knots for a week? :)


          But the Americans are not fools. They knew very well that besides Minsk and three anti-submarine “toothless handsome men” from Africa to Australia, there was no enemy and would not be seen. A minimum of a month. There are only 3 roads - through Suez, through the Strait of Malacca and around Africa. So he ran alone in the Indian Ocean in perfect safety. No escort. There you go.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 23: 44 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Silhouette
            Project 1143 ships are anti-submarine ships of the far ocean zone equipped with strike weapons.

            I guess that is not the case. How justified my assumption is is another question, I set out my reasons in the article, but I doubt very much that someone would send TAKR-s for the scalps of submarines.
            Quote: Silhouette
            And to use in the near zone, the distant ship is also not comme il faut, but a necessary necessity.

            And no one says that 1143 was an ideal ship. Useless - yes, but no more.
            Quote: Silhouette
            So he ran alone in the Indian Ocean in perfect safety. No escort. There you go.

            In the event of an exacerbation - I would not run, but quietly and quietly sneaked a small white mouse with a large escort :)))
            1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 01: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In the event of an aggravation, the base in Pakistan and Qatar would not be ...
        2. Scraptor 16 October 2015 01: 57 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You are mistaken :) The first and last trip of Minsk to the Indian Ocean proved the futility and absurdity of finding Minsk in the open ocean :))

          Is he worse than the Illastries?
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • tchoni 15 October 2015 07: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The article is not bad in itself, but the name should be changed to "Why did it happen all the same?"
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 41 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Because aviation over the sea should be only in the country - HEGEMON, and everyone else should go there (for loot now or through an foreign tourist then) for chewing gum and grated jeans.
      1. Dante Alighieri 15 October 2015 16: 45 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        A good article, deservedly received a positive rating from readers, including me.

        However, you know, after reading the previous article by Oleg and your Andrey, I wanted to notice one small detail. Both opponents, in my opinion of a completely land person, make one big mistake - they live in the past and this is clearly visible when the authors go deep into the thoughts about the composition of the air wing (I will describe in more detail below). It seems to me that one should proceed not from how and why the decision to build just this class of ships was tested, but from the fact that these ships were built, the state’s resources and time spent on them were expended. Then the question of necessity or not need disappears by itself. If we treat them as a fait accompli, then we will move into a completely different category - the category of utilitarianism (that is, utility). Namely: what should be done so that these ships continue to benefit the state, thereby replenishing the expended resources. It is clear that this issue is not relevant today because all the ships of this project belong to anyone, but not Russia. However, let's imagine what would happen if these ships continued to be part of the Russian Navy.

        Oleg Kaptsov, with his theses, shows that this class would be dead weight (read ballast) on the shoulders of the fleet. Andrei from Chelyabinsk says the opposite. Each side gives its arguments and arguments, proving its truth. And both sides argue in terms of the past day. Let’s take, for example, the stumbling block issue of air connection. All the arguments boiled down to "+" and "-" Yakov, however, being the ships of the 1143 avenue today in service, what is the likelihood that the Yaks would continue to be based on them? I think this is increased, tending to zero. The likelihood that the air wing would basically consist of helicopters is much higher. But here the argument of one of the commentators is relevant that today helicopters, as a means of detecting enemy submarines, are morally obsolete (I admit this as well), besides Oleg’s thesis that they are not capable of resisting enemy aircraft in the event of a threat, thereby strengthening Air defense of the ship also has the right to objectivity. I will add from myself (without claiming to be true) that the size of the take-off and landing deck of 1143 Ave., for the needs of exclusively helicopters, will be clearly excessive. However, nothing stands still, the class of unmanned aerial vehicles that appeared relatively recently could well have turned out to be the very middle ground between striking power and reconnaissance for ships of the 1143 Ave. Having equipped these ships with drones, we could significantly strengthen the air component of the ship without losing detection range and making maximum use of the infrastructure of rooms and superstructures: in particular, it seems that having a take-off and landing deck length would be optimal for UAV take-off (especially if we take into account possible installation of a powder catapult), and for its landing, which you will agree planes that are not equipped with vertical take-off and landing systems, I can not afford, due to the banal lack of length zlotnoy band.
        1. Dante Alighieri 15 October 2015 16: 46 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Another thesis of Oleg Kaptsov regarding the insufficient armament of the ship, sufficiently dispelled by Andrei, also needs to be clarified. Yes, no doubt, RK Granite is a powerful weapon, but its quantity seems insufficient even for Oleg’s opponent. However, the replacement of granite, for example, with the same RK Caliber, can solve this problem without resorting to significant changes in the design of the ship and without overloading it. Yes, to some extent, we reduce the range of firing at sea targets and (presumably) the power of the warhead, however, we increase the number of carriers at times, which, according to the law of large numbers, should provide a greater chance of overcoming the air defense system of a potential enemy. As for the air defense of the 1143 ships themselves, it seems that due to the more compact arrangement of the air wing (nevertheless, the UAV does not exceed the fighter in size) and, as a result, the release of additional volumes inside the hull, it becomes possible to install on board air defense systems in the class C-300F and C-400F (if the latter someday still appear). Thus, the capabilities of our Navy to counter enemy air targets would be greatly enhanced, because instead of the 3 or 4 ships, which currently have their own full-fledged air defense, and therefore are not able to fully fulfill the tasks of covering naval naval formations , we would receive, respectively, a grouping of ships twice the current performance and this is without taking into account the UAV, which can also be considered as an element of air defense (with the appropriate level of technology and armament nno).

          As a result, we would get a full-fledged support ship for naval naval formations, capable of performing a wide range of tasks, with a full-fledged air defense system, with a full-fledged air wing and powerful missile weapons. In the future, such a class of ships could become the founder in the future, especially the AOG class, capable of both delivering strikes, both with the help of automated aircraft and missile weapons, as well as being a powerful air cover tool for naval ships deprived of their own air defense.

          Unfortunately, this will remain only dreams, but I would look with interest at a similar modernized ship of the 1143 project as part of our Navy. And maybe then our country could become a legislator not only in tank building.
          1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 03: 02 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Maybe something else was forgotten there to burn out or drown all at once (even though you are in a gas mask)? A hospital, an aquarium with fighting dolphins and swimmers, a fish processing factory, tanks, gas holders, ICBMs and a big top theater? ... you are so brilliant, dull and kind. repeat
            Air defense missile defense and carrying anti-ship missiles provided by an escort.
            In general, the list of absurd ships was to be led by Nimitz, because four of his catapulds in good condition, together with his air wing, had to be scattered in two (two) or four (one) hulls.
        2. Scraptor 16 October 2015 02: 47 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Dante
          however, being the ships of Project 1143 today in service, what is the probability that the Yaks would continue to be based on them? I think this is increased, tending to zero.

          So you assume that they would buy F-35 in the USA? winked
          Quote: Dante
          Equipped with drones

          Equipped with pilots ...
          Quote: Dante
          especially considering the possible installation of a powder catapult

          Atu-atu! Forget this "powder catapult"; the backward Chinese invented it! Better for a steam burn diesel fuel ... laughing
  • Per se. 15 October 2015 07: 44 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    I read the article with interest, with many opinions coincide, except, - "Instead of the postscript, I would like to note that D.F. Ustinov, unfortunately, did not justify himself at all, and the Yakovlev Design Bureau bitterly failed the task entrusted to him by the Party and the Government. The decision to create a vertical takeoff and landing fighter-interceptor was made in the 1967 year, but even after the 24 year, the Yak-141 survivor of the three general designers was still not ready for the series."It is unlikely that the Yakovlevites" failed "the task, a serial VTOL was created in the USSR, just like the Yak-141 supersonic VTOL was created for the first time in the world. Of course, it’s stupid to argue when comparing a classic airplane and VTOL in contrast, but it’s not at all silly if VTOL should not be regarded as a kind of “antagonist,” but as a complement to the traditional planes. The appearance of VTOLs, like the first appearance of airplanes, the arrival of aviation at sea, the creation of aircraft carriers, all this is a consequence of the evolution of weapons, scientific and technological progress. much more later than “ordinary” airplanes, but they will develop, improve, occupying their niche, having their own advantages.I personally am very sorry that they hacked the Yak-141, as well as its further development, the Yak-141M and the Yak-43, we were the leaders in this topic, and now it’s desirable to giggle over the Yankees, who did not have their own VTOL aircraft, of such experience, using the British’s experience on the Harrier first, after having captured our Yak-141, while creating the F-35. As for the ships of the 1143 project, nothing After that, it did not hinder to modernize them, remake them into full-fledged aircraft carriers (like the Gorshkov for Indians). During the collapse of the USSR, nothing prevented them from cutting or selling, like aerial carriers of a cruiser, and full-fledged aircraft carriers, be they built. What happened, what happened, we need to live on, we need to think about how and with what to defend our homeland at sea, and for this we need a strong, balanced fleet, for which we need different ships and aircraft, including both classic planes and helicopters, as well as new, convertiplanes and VTOL.
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 56 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      "Yesterday" was another custom article from SWEET_SIXTEEN about the F-35 vs, Yak-141 on that topic ...
      Harrier from the British, they also "raped", as well as developments on the CL-84 tiltrotor from the Canadians, HEGEMON he is such a hegemon ...
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 08: 45 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Per se.
      It is unlikely that the Yakovlevites “failed” the task; a serial VTOL was created in the USSR, just as the first-ever supersonic VTOL Yak-141 was created

      Dear Per se, the problem is different. From Yakovlev Design Bureau, they were expected to be able to create an VTOL aircraft, which in its performance characteristics would become a competitive opposition to American wing wings. And Yakovlev did not cope with this task completely and in any way. In his position, it was best to honestly say that it would not be possible to create such a VTOL aircraft, instead he "pulled rubber", and for a quarter of a century the fleet was left without capable carrier-based aircraft.
      Quote: Per se.
      Personally, I am very sorry that they hacked the Yak-141, as well as its further development, the Yak-141M and Yak-43, we were leaders in this topic, and now we gratefully chuckle over the Yankees

      F-35B probably became the main reason for the financial (and maybe not only financial) collapse of the F-35 program, since the attempt to make VTOL and a conventional aircraft on the same base required extremely large R&D and compromises in the aircraft performance characteristics and led to the United States itself, it seems, the F-35 is slowly ceasing to be seen as a fighter.
      From this point of view, I HAPPY that we sold US documents on the Yak-141. In fact, if the Americans had not bought them, the documentation needed to be presented. Or even pay extra for the US to use it laughing
      The point of view, of course, is controversial, I do not pretend to the ultimate truth, but I think so :)
      1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 09: 09 New
        • -3
        • 0
        -3
        Well, they, led by the academician and General Yakovlev, twice a hero of social labor, a laureate of the Lenin and Stalin Prizes, created ... You can’t handle your lies here.
        Rubber pulled your Partigenigenoss in high circles. For example, they forced to remake the plane three times, and then "lost interest".

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        From this point of view, I HAPPY that we sold US documents on the Yak-141.

        Of course...

        The main thing is that they would not start trading at retail or under a license because then they would have had money at the design bureau, and in the Air Force / Navy looking at foreign customers (Lockheed) such aircraft. Then, also from there, the Yak-130 to the Italians went unintelligible, and even the Yak-3 from the collection ...
      2. Per se. 15 October 2015 09: 43 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        From Yakovlev Design Bureau, they were expected to be able to create an VTOL aircraft, which in its performance characteristics would become a competitive opposition to American wing wings.
        Dear Andrey, simply, by definition, VTOL could not be a full-fledged competitor to the Yankee decks, just as our aircraft carrier cruiser US nuclear carrier could not be a full competitor, even then create such a super VTOL Yakovlevites. The fact that our fleet was left for a quarter century without full aviation ... I have already noted that the grief is not that instead of the classic aircraft carriers, they started with aircraft carriers, but that the Soviet Union was lost. If we had “full-fledged aircraft carriers”, it’s not the fact that they would not have been cut or sold under Yeltsin. In the United States, paranoia on our fleet, on its destruction, is still being lobbyed, sabotaged and simply kiddied in every way, and often quite effectively. Had the USSR been alive and well, the nuclear Ulyanovsk would have been operational, surely there would have been a further development of the topic as a supercarrier, the supersonic VTOL would have been brought up, leaving the West in a deep anus. Could and aircraft carriers cruisers converted into classic aircraft carriers, UDC or anti-submarine helicopter carriers. Once again, VTOL is not an antagonist to the "classic" carrier-based aircraft, but an addition. The time will come, most aircraft will have a vertical or short take-off, but for now it seems fantastic.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In fact, if the Americans had not bought them, the documentation needed to be presented. Or even pay extra for the US to use it
        Maybe if you make “useful” changes there. Seriously, this is a tragedy, we, like those Indians, who exchanged their pure gold for cheap mirrors and glass beads. An urgent need to revive the topic, return to their work on VTOL. You have your point of view and argue for it, I respect it, especially since in many matters I find you more likely an ally than an opponent. I hope that "whoever needs it" also has its own head, and I really hope that their heads are not offended by the mind.
        1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 10: 30 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          in the meantime, it seems fantastic.

          Maybe you are not reading those books? Everything has been done for a long time ... Even China J-26 is already completing it.
          A classic deck aircraft has a maximum of only 5-10% longer range - its hull must be sturdy due to the fact that it rigidly sits on the deck and clings to the arrestor. SKVPP sits gently.
          1. Per se. 15 October 2015 10: 48 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Scraptor
            Maybe you are not reading those books? Everything has been done for a long time ...
            As Vysotsky sang, I read the necessary books in childhood, and now, I hope, I read what is "interesting and correct." It was about the majority of flying vehicles, if you read my comment, and not about the fact that our crafty Chinese "Allied brothers" are doing it or someone else. So far, only in wildlife has vertical and shortened take-offs prevail, and in a crane-like manner, most of the world's airplanes take off. I repeat, the time will come, for sure, and in technology, vertical and shortened take-off will be the norm, for now it, as the norm, looks fantastic, and for some it is simply a harmful technical heresy.
            1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 12: 00 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Well, in the "cranes" it is certainly much closer to the technical side of the issue than ...
              Quote: Scraptor
              A classic deck aircraft has a maximum of only 5-10% longer range - its hull must be sturdy due to the fact that it rigidly sits on the deck and clings to the arrestor. SKVPP sits gently.

              In yesterday’s article, one commentator likened Yak-35 and F-141B wink in Meryl shoes laughing

              You suggest to have walking landing gear risers on cranes? wassat
              "Heresy" flew and shot down even 53 and 34 years ago.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 22: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          You have your point of view and argue for it, I respect it, especially since in many matters I find you, more likely an ally than an opponent

          Dear Sergey, if we do not agree on any issues, what could be better than a friendly and constructive discussion? It is quite possible that you will convince me, maybe - on the contrary, or maybe we will remain different in our opinion - any outcome leaves a pleasant “aftertaste” from communicating with a smart person who is able to argue his position.
          I understand your opinion on VTOL, it is logical and justified in its own way. For my part, I notice that R&D budgets are not rubber, we have been engaged in VTOL for a quarter of a century, investing money, alas, without a noticeable “exhaust”. I believe that the resources spent could be found more effective use.
          Quote: Per se.
          If the USSR were alive and well, the atomic Ulyanovsk would have been operational, surely there would have been a further development of the topic as a super-carrier

          Ulyanovsk already had four pieces, but what would happen after them is scary to think :))) drinks
          But then - the USSR ... Eh ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 12: 07 New
                • -2
                • 0
                -2
                This is for the court of officer honor, if you had one.

                Who doesn’t care and why?
            2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • Rurikovich 15 October 2015 08: 04 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    From the point of view of the author, the appearance of ships pr.1143 is explained. It is reasoned, intelligibly, taking into account political, economic realities of that time. Definitely plus good .
    At least some up-and-coming authors should learn a lot to convincingly write articles on topics that concern them. repeat lol
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 08: 17 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Thanks for the kind words! I did my best:)
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • sevtrash 15 October 2015 08: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The justification of the appearance / existence of 1143 Krechet is somehow strange and extremely tense.
    First - well, they always wanted an aircraft carrier. So what, it has long been known - "they wanted the best, it turned out as always." No excuse for pulling.
    And then the author quietly re-qualified 1143 as a helicopter carrier or carrier of anti-ship missiles. But the first task for Krechet was “the air defense of the ship and (or) the group of ships accompanied by it”! For what it was created. Well, fine, that carried RCC, but the main task was completely different.
    And this task, the main one, Krechet could not fulfill. They created an aircraft carrier - it was not clear what they got.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 08: 26 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: sevtrash
      The justification of the appearance / existence of 1143 Krechet is somehow strange and extremely tense.

      And, most importantly, it doesn’t go into your template again.
      Quote: sevtrash
      First - well, they always wanted an aircraft carrier. So what, it has long been known - "they wanted the best, it turned out as always." No excuse for pulling.

      There is a fact - the fleet wanted a full-fledged aircraft carrier, he was not allowed. What is the excuse and whom?
      Quote: sevtrash
      And then the author quietly re-qualified 1143 as a helicopter carrier or carrier of anti-ship missiles

      Which, in general, was the 1143 project, both of them. And it is necessary to evaluate its usefulness for the fleet precisely in the role of a helicopter carrier-PK Carrier, because 1143 was not an aircraft carrier.
      Quote: sevtrash
      But the first task for Krechet was “the air defense of the ship and (or) the group of ships accompanied by it”!

      Which he obviously could not fulfill, as the article says more than once.
      Quote: sevtrash
      For what it was created. Well, fine, that carried RCC, but the main task was completely different.

      Nevertheless, there were other tasks with which he could cope better than any other surface ship of the USSR
      Quote: sevtrash
      They created an aircraft carrier - it was not clear what they got.

      No one created an aircraft carrier. They created TAKR - the carrier of the VTOL aircraft, since Ustinov hoped that Yakovlev would be competitive with horizontal VTOL aircraft. Well, Gorshkov, not believing in this idea from a knowingly failing concept, managed to build a useful ship.
      1. sevtrash 15 October 2015 08: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And, most importantly, it doesn’t go into your template again.

        And why don’t you endure criticism all the time? request
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        No one created an aircraft carrier. They created TAKR - the carrier of the VTOL aircraft, since Ustinov hoped that Yakovlev would be competitive with horizontal VTOL aircraft.

        Yes Yes. Not an aircraft carrier, but an aircraft carrier cruiser. Can't you see the general again? Even in words, not to mention the essence?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, Gorshkov, not believing in this idea from a knowingly failing concept, managed to build a useful ship.

        Make an RCC carrier from an aircraft carrier? wassat

        By the way, another justification for the creation of 1143 will throw you. It was a solid progressive gradual movement to a real aircraft carrier. The next step. Such an expensive step.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 08: 53 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: sevtrash
          And why don’t you endure criticism all the time?

          It all depends on the quality of criticism.
          Quote: sevtrash
          Yes Yes. Not an aircraft carrier, but an aircraft carrier cruiser. Can't you see the general again? Even in words, not to mention the essence?

          But the bottom line is that no one in the fleet did not consider TAKR 1143 as an aircraft carrier. And no one believed that TAKR could replace an aircraft carrier. Well, you didn’t find anything more witty than to recall the memorable classification, which has nothing to do with this issue at all.
          Quote: sevtrash
          Make an RCC carrier from an aircraft carrier?

          That's when it comes to you that Gorshkov did NOT DO the aircraft carrier, because an aircraft carrier from the VTOL carrier is impossible, then we will continue.
          Quote: sevtrash
          By the way, another justification for the creation of 1143 will throw you. It was a solid progressive gradual movement to a real aircraft carrier.

          Have you tried to read the article?
          1. sevtrash 15 October 2015 09: 08 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

            It all depends on the quality of criticism.

            What article is such criticism
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And no one believed that TAKR could replace an aircraft carrier.

            Exactly. Nobody believed, but created. We spent billions, forces, funds on the creation of an aircraft carrier ship - even four! - which did not take place.
            "... The Yak-38 attack aircraft, which formed the basis of the air group, unlike the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier, close in flight characteristics, did not have an airborne radar. Because of this, the Yak-38 was practically incapable of participating in aerial combat, except for situations of rapprochement In addition, the range of Yak-38 airborne missiles was represented only by relatively short-range missiles, which made its use against ships or coastal targets with powerful anti-aircraft defense a very dangerous task. To a certain extent, the weakness of attack aircraft of the 1143 cruiser compensated for it a powerful arsenal of anti-ship missiles, but it was impossible to compensate for the inability of the Yak-38 to conduct air combat ... "

            And what is the conclusion? In your opinion - well, anyway, a successful ship? I have no doubt that you will say laughing
            1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 10: 01 New
              • -2
              • 0
              -2
              It already was, even Taoist answered you.

              Many Israeli aircraft did not have radar.
              At that time there was no RVV with a radar seeker at the harrier, the radar was only observational.
              Yak-38 could carry special ammunition and the WTO.
              And what is actually worse in the F-104G battle? bully

              After it, the Yak-39 and Yak-41, as well as the Yak-43 were ready (they didn’t have time to test it until the end).
              1. Taoist 15 October 2015 17: 18 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                By the way, 38 could conduct a maneuverable aerial combat - in this regard it was very close to the MiG 21 - differing only in the absence of afterburner. PMD Yaka is generally a redesigned 21go engine. and wing and geometric dimensions and even armament in the composition of up to 4x R-60 missiles ...
                so Skyhawks and other Mirages in the 38 shock configuration could drive, no worse than Harrier ...
                1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 04: 00 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Worse, but better F-104. Himself as a stormtrooper was better than Harrier.
            2. Starina_hank 15 October 2015 17: 40 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Sir! You, like all modern menagers, want to get everything at once, from a smooth start, and two heads better than that of an adversary. It has never been, and never will be!
          2. Scraptor 15 October 2015 09: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Possible, why not possible? Where did Vikramad come from? The Argentinian aircraft carrier was even smaller than the Invincible.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Scraptor 15 October 2015 09: 33 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          This "threw a bone to the dogs" ... And then too many questions began to appear from the category of why American planes fly over the sea and the red stars do not.
          Then, as the supersonic vertical line appeared, they were immediately taken away.
          Prior to this, in the form of 1123, because if a medium-sized ship, the SKVVP is still somehow useful, then helicopters are safer and better dispersed along a chain of corvettes or frigates.

          A solid progressive movement allowed Gorshkov to be remade to Vikramaditya - India is the birthplace of elephants and a great sea power (without a single nuclear submarine), it can and should be an aircraft carrier (although there is no need) wassat She has the Maldives nearby, which are shot through not just from a nose gun, but even from a rocket launcher. lol
        4. Starina_hank 15 October 2015 17: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quite right, each subsequent TAKR looked more and more like an aircraft carrier. Already on the “Minsk” practiced a short take-off. The only Russian aircraft carrier flows smoothly from this line.
        5. Starina_hank 15 October 2015 17: 10 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quite right, each subsequent TAKR looked more and more like an aircraft carrier. Already on the “Minsk” practiced a short take-off. The only Russian aircraft carrier flows smoothly from this line.
    2. Rurikovich 15 October 2015 08: 42 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: sevtrash
      The justification of the appearance / existence of 1143 Krechet is somehow strange and extremely tense.
      First - well, they always wanted an aircraft carrier. So what, it has long been known - "they wanted the best, it turned out as always." No excuse for pulling.

      And he doesn’t make excuses wink I repeat, the point of view is stated on the basis of the political and economic realities of TOGO time! That, and not this. And the author correctly, in my opinion, focuses on the fact that not everything depended on the desire of the sailors. That was the reality. So it was necessary for those who understand the whole essence of the problem in a roundabout way to achieve their goal (albeit sometimes compromises, of which pr.1143 is). Without this, even the appearance of Kuznetsov would be in question if they adhered to Khrushchev’s worldviews for building a fleet. But you also had to take into account the economy, whether they would give money for such ships or not, industrial capabilities, real knowledge and skills of designers and a whole bunch different objective and not very circumstances ...
      Here, Oleg Kaptsov likes to approach the solution of the problem in a narrowly focused manner, which gives rise to waves of criticism. repeat
      So personally, from my point of view, the question is considered much broader than the notorious "they wanted the best, but it turned out as always" hi
      1. sevtrash 15 October 2015 08: 55 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        Quote: Rurikovich
        I repeat, the point of view is stated on the basis of the political and economic realities of TOGO time! That, and not this. And the author correctly, in my opinion, focuses on the fact that not everything depended on the desire of the sailors.

        In fact, the author justifies the appearance / creation of 1143 Krechet, presenting it as a completely successful ship. What, in my opinion (and not only and not so much), he cannot be, since he could not fulfill the main task laid down to him.
        It’s even somehow strange, because everyone seems to understand that they tried to make an aircraft carrier, in the form of such a VTOL carrier. And everyone seems to understand that he, as an aircraft carrier, turned out to be untenable. So no, let's come up with some justification for its necessity or outstanding qualities. Well, yes, as an aircraft carrier, it is insolvent, but it has great RCC. Therefore - a successful ship. wassat
        1. Alex_59 15 October 2015 12: 32 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: sevtrash
          It’s even somehow strange, because everyone seems to understand that they tried to make an aircraft carrier, in the form of such a VTOL carrier. And everyone seems to understand that he, as an aircraft carrier, turned out to be untenable.

          I still wildly apologize, but sometimes it seems that some commentators either did not read what they are commenting on, or problems with understanding. It is written in black and white - DON'T ATTEMPT TO MAKE A CARRIER! How else to write to get it? Did not try to build an aircraft carrier! Aircraft carrier did not try to build! They didn’t at all try to build an aircraft carrier!
          1. sevtrash 15 October 2015 15: 35 New
            • -3
            • 0
            -3
            Quote: Alex_59
            I still wildly apologize, but sometimes it seems that some commentators either did not read what they are commenting on, or problems with understanding. It is written in black and white - DON'T ATTEMPT TO MAKE A CARRIER! How else to write to get it? Did not try to build an aircraft carrier! Aircraft carrier did not try to build! They didn’t at all try to build an aircraft carrier!

            So I won’t wildly apologize, but nevertheless, I'm sorry - but what did you do then?
            Is an aircraft carrier not an aircraft carrier? And not an aircraft carrier cruiser? Not a light aircraft carrier? Yeah, it's just such a cruiser, on which it was completely by accident that they set the planes, did the take-off deck with elevators, did they hangars built in? Well, do not pay attention to this - is he just a cruiser? wassat
            Do you understand the essence of the discussion? She is a little in a different plane. The author writes that the ship is quite successful and correct, which I do not agree with, since its main difference and weapon turned out to be untenable.
            1. Alex_59 15 October 2015 19: 03 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: sevtrash
              Is an aircraft carrier not an aircraft carrier?
              no, not an aircraft carrier.

              Quote: sevtrash
              Yeah, it's just such a cruiser, on which it was completely by accident that they set the planes, did the take-off deck with elevators, did they hangars built in?
              following this description, I come to the conclusion that today Russia has two full-fledged nuclear aircraft carriers. Do you know why? Because the cruisers of the 1144 project have: a take-off deck, an elevator for lifting aircraft, a deck hangar already on the 3 of the Ka-27 helicopter.
              1. sevtrash 15 October 2015 20: 26 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Alex_59
                following this description, I come to the conclusion that today Russia has two full-fledged nuclear aircraft carriers. Do you know why? Because the cruisers of the 1144 project have: a take-off deck, an elevator for lifting aircraft, a deck hangar already on the 3 of the Ka-27 helicopter.

                And what is trifling? Yes, count all the ships that have helicopters. To them add those from which UAVs can launch. Yes, plus those with which you can fly kites. Or balls.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 22: 16 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Dear Alex, throw this discussion to you. Your opponent has a clear picture of the universe in his head. And all the arguments of the world are not able to lead him astray laughing
                So he decided to consider 1143 an aircraft carrier - and NEVER he will be able to consider the capabilities of this ship as an anti-submarine helicopter carrier. Because he firmly decided for himself that this is an aircraft carrier, and that’s the point! :) I spent a lot of words on him in “Tsushima Myths”, and I was convinced of only one thing - if this person has an opinion on any issue, he physically maybe at least try to look at the question from a different perspective. But he knows how to, and what else is there to talk about? :)
                It’s not even funny, it’s sad.
                1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 05: 36 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Yes, because the helicopter carrier does not need a corner deck.
                  1. mav1971 16 October 2015 19: 07 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Yes, because the helicopter carrier does not need a corner deck.


                    hey i don't understand you!
                    Are you talking about the 1143 project, which in the article - or something else abstract?

                    Have you ever seen a zone of potential straight deck on this project?
                    What is she doing there? Do not know?
                    The idea of ​​arranging the only (!!!) flight deck at an angle, adopted by the designers, is in principle viable.
                    It may be angular, but it is the only one. not complementing the direct core, but the only one. Unlike normal aircraft carriers.
                    1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 11: 43 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      About 1143, this is not just a helicopter carrier.
                      Not only is it busy, but the add-on is flare to the center. But all is better than 1123.
  • Engineer 15 October 2015 08: 47 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Thanks to the author for pointing out the need for these ships, especially for some couch experts who have never seen a warship in their eyes. Yak-41 is not necessary to offend: those records that he set the indicator of his good performance characteristics. In general, it was always surprising how some “expert” thinks that he is smarter than the Minister of Defense, generals, chief designer, dozens of his deputies, thousands and thousands of designers? Here they are all stupid and only spend money on the wind, and he alone knows what it was necessary to build.
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 09: 38 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      12 records is also a record by the way ...
  • TAXR 15 October 2015 09: 22 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    The article is interesting. Without claiming to be the “strategic pluses and minuses” of these ships, I would like to share my personal impressions, since I had the chance (as a "friend") to visit both Minsk and Novorossiysk before their inglorious destruction in perestroika. firing of Novorossiysk and clamshell project 675. We lived in a cabin in the tank area and had the opportunity to watch the start of lionfish with pl and dust flying into an open lumen after the crash of the rocket launchers above us from Novorossiysk. The firing went perfectly. But a terribly depressing impression (especially on the Minsk) was made by the condition of the ship, everything below the flight deck, while gentlemen officers and midshipmen jammed the "bitter" in their cabins, driving them into the "mandavok", in the engine and boiler rooms feces naturally floated above the paels. Of course, the "labeled" bear the main responsibility for the collapse of the USSR, but the then admiralty was no less smeared in the destruction of the fleet. And it seems that for a long time we will not have naval commanders Kuznetsov level, or at least Gorshkov. I don’t really believe in “victorious reports” and PR of the company of modern parquet sharkuns in uniform. request
    1. Alex_59 15 October 2015 10: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: TAKR
      accidentally hit the joint missile firing of Novorossiysk and the clamshell project 675.

      And what year, if not secret?
  • mosquit 15 October 2015 09: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Instead of the postscript, I would like to note that D.F. Ustinov, unfortunately, did not justify himself at all, and the Yakovlev Design Bureau bitterly failed the task entrusted to him by the Party and the Government. The decision to create a vertical takeoff and landing fighter-interceptor was made in the 1967 year, but even after the 24 year, the Yak-141 survivor of the three general designers was still not ready for the series.


    The phrase is for "strong party" criticism, but no more. I liked the article. hi

    According to 141, not everything is so simple ...

    In September-October 1991 in the Northern Fleet, the Yak-41M vertical / short take-off and landing (V / KVP) aircraft were tested. The tests were carried out on the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union S.G. Gorshkov, heavy aircraft carrier (TAKR) cruiser (TAKR) (until 1991 - Baku TAKR), the Yak-41M was not only the next stage after the Yak-38 in the development of domestic aircraft B / KVP, but also a staging machine in the history of world aviation - the first supersonic aircraft for vertical take-off and landing.

    The first studies of a supersonic vertically take-off fighter aircraft designed to defend aircraft-carrying ships from air attacks were carried out at MMZ Speed ​​in 1974. Taking into account the experience in the creation and operation of the Yak-38 aircraft in 1975, the design of a new aircraft under the index Yak-41 (product "48") began. A large amount of work was done to choose the aerodynamic design of the machine, several alternative propulsion options were considered. The results of research and development formed the basis of proposals for aircraft with a single lift-marching engine.

    A government decree adopted in November 1977 approved the proposal of the Air Force, Navy and MAP with the request of MMZ "Speed" to create a supersonic fighter for vertical take-off and landing and submit it for state tests in 1982. At the same time, the Decree provided for the creation of a training version of the aircraft - the Yak-41UT - with its presentation for testing in 1983, as well as the development in 1978 of a technical proposal for the creation of a ship-based supersonic VTOL attack aircraft.

    The development of supersonic VTOL was conducted under the leadership of Deputy General Designer S. A. Yakovlev (son of A.S. Yakovlev) and performed exactly on time. Gradually, designers began to give preference to the scheme of the aircraft with a combined power plant of the type used on the Yak-38. But work on the car with a single lift-marching engine (PMD) did not stop.

    In March 1979, the Design Bureau completed the development of a preliminary design of the aircraft with a single PMD R-79V-300 and the construction of its layout. At the same time, materials on a multi-role fighter with an expanded armament and combined power plant were submitted to the commission of the Ministry of Defense for consideration.

    Based on the results of the commission’s work, the MAP’s directive was adopted on the development of a draft design at MMZ “Speed” and the construction of a fighter model with a combined power plant.
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 10: 12 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      F-35 already flashed ... Yak-41 was ready in 1978 in iron.
      you can see the chronicle of those years and see how Ustinov’s mood changed in those years, especially when he visited these ships.
      1. mosquit 15 October 2015 14: 00 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        A government decree adopted in November 1977 approved the proposal of the Air Force, Navy and MAP with the request of MMZ "Speed" to create a supersonic fighter for vertical take-off and landing and submit it for state tests in 1982. At the same time, the Decree provided for the creation of a training version of the aircraft - the Yak-41UT - with its presentation for testing in 1983, as well as the development in 1978 of a technical proposal for the creation of a ship-based supersonic VTOL attack aircraft.
        In March 1979, the OKB completed the development of the draft design of the aircraft with a single PMD R-79В-300 and built its layout. At the same time, materials on a multi-purpose fighter with an expanded armament and a combined power-plant were presented to the commission of the Ministry of Defense.
        1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 51 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: mosquit
          create a supersonic fighter of vertical take-off and landing and submit it to state tests in 1982.

          Which index? This is about the Yak-41M, Yak-43 (with NK-32 1977) or the multipurpose Yak-141 with an extended wing, and the Yak-41 (fighter) was ready as described above, in 1978. With an engine. Whole. The attack aircraft were the Yak-38 / 38M, the fighter - the Yak-39, they abandoned it in favor of the supersonic Yak-41. Subsonic attack aircraft, which have already managed to make 231pcs, left.
          1. mosquit 16 October 2015 11: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Which index? This is about the Yak-41M, Yak-43 (with NK-32 1977) or the multipurpose Yak-141 with an extended wing, and the Yak-41 (fighter) was ready as described above, in 1978. With an engine. Whole.

            We are talking about the Yak-41M / 141
            You are mistaken about readiness in metal ... http://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html
            A photo, a drawing of what, a link to the source ... it would be better if the Yak-41 in flight date earlier than 1980 ...
            The R-79-300 engine, was ready at the end of 1984 ...
            1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 16: 47 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I don’t know who you’re talking to, I wrote "Yak-41 - 1978", not "Yak-41M / 141", and you didn’t have an index:
              Quote: mosquit

              create a supersonic fighter of vertical take-off and landing and submit it to state tests in 1982.

              changes were made all three times when the plane was already in metal, it was not even a change, and the order of modifications therefore the index changes. All three aircraft were needed. And the Yak-43, too (this is not a modification).
              Quote: mosquit

              The R-79-300 engine, was ready at the end of 1984 ...

              It makes sense to make a rotary nozzle on a smaller engine by 1984 with the NK-32 back in 1977?
              Quote: mosquit
              A photo, a drawing of what, a link to the source ... it would be better if the Yak-41 in flight date earlier than 1980 ...

              What more do you want? And what will it change? Understand your implicit quote.
              The engine for the Yak-41 was ready one and a half years earlier than the plane, it turns out 1976.
              In the comments on this or Kaptsov’s article (a day earlier), the people also wrote about 1978 and the Yak-41. Ask them, maybe they know better and will answer more accurately. Both about airplanes and about engines.
              1. mosquit 16 October 2015 18: 08 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Scraptor
                It makes sense to make a rotary nozzle on a smaller engine by 1984 with the NK-32 back in 1977?

                Was there a rotary nozzle on the NK-32?
                1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 11: 14 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  This is an additional unit to the engine. Without it, the NK-32 was ready in 1977
                  By poemma:
                  It makes sense to make a rotary nozzle on a smaller engine by 1984 with the NK-32 back in 1977?

                  By the way, in English, an article about the R79V-300 went a bit far and looks strange in Russian:

                  Is an first in the world with an engine capable of using afterburner in both horizontal and vertical modes (although according to some sources [8] in the 1960s, the Rolls-Royce company developed and tested the RB.153-61 engine with the same capabilities on ground stands).

                  And they generally rewrote the article about Yak ...
  • van zai 15 October 2015 09: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    From the article it is clear: 1st: It would be better to build an analogue of Clemenceau. With an almost equal displacement, all the same, 40 aircraft and helicopters. The 2nd Ustinov and Yakovlev scammed, either by accident or intentionally.
  • mosquit 15 October 2015 09: 30 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    In early 1980, in accordance with the Directive of the General Staff on the reorientation of the aircraft fleet of the designed fifth TAKR to vertical and short take-off aircraft, the TTT was adjusted for the aircraft, approved in 1978

    In November of the same year, the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force and Navy approved the specification of the TTT for the Yak-41 fighter .... In the same month, the Commission of the Ministry of Defense (Navy Air Force) considered the draft design and layout of the Yak-41, but it took almost six months to approve the protocol of the commission.

    Due to delays in the creation of engines in November 1983, the Decision of the military-industrial complex under the Council of Ministers of the USSR was adopted to postpone the release of the test aircraft Yak-41 to 1985 year, but this period also had to be adjusted. The lift-propulsion engine P-79В-300 was prepared for full-scale tests only at the end of 1984 of the year.

    1984 events of the year: the death of Minister of Defense D.F. Ustinov, who supported the development of VTOL, and the retirement of A.S. Yakovlev slowed down the work on the machine. The 1977 decree on the creation of the Yak-41 and all its subsequent additions remained unfulfilled

    In May 1986, the next decree was adopted on the creation of the MMK "Speed" multi-purpose ship aircraft Yak-41M using the backlog of the ship fighter Yak-41.

    The deadlines were set for submission for state tests of the Yak-41M aircraft - 1988 (beginning of the supply of aviation to the Navy - 1990), and the training Yak-41 UT -1989. Work on the creation of an attack aircraft based on the Yak-41 ceased.

    GAA.Matveev was appointed the lead designer on the aircraft.


    In short
    1977 - statement of the problem (Yak-41)
    1979 - layout for the commission
    1980 - changes in TTT
    1983 - postponement of the project to 1985 - the engine is not ready
    1984 - The death of Ustinov
    1986 - reanimation of the topic (Yak-141 based on the backlog of Yak-41); first flight in 1988; delivery of the Navy 1990 ...
    1991 - full flight tests

    If you recall what happened from 1985 to 1991, then flight tests in 1991 can be called a success! good

    Further events in the USSR / Russia put an end to many promising projects sad

    Compare the milestones of the "beloved" "lightning-2" :)

    JSF - start in 1996.

    At the same time, the scheme with a lifting fan has a serious drawback consisting in the transported “dead mass” of a two-stage fan, its duct, sashes, an uncoupling clutch, drives, a shaft and bearings, which is useless in horizontal flight. This mass is about 1800 kg with a PMD mass of 1450 kg. By weight, the scheme with a lifting fan is significantly inferior to the scheme with a lifting turbojet engine.
    This is the subject of the engine ...

    2001 - "flight"
    The Kh-35V made a vertical take-off, switched to the established hovering mode at a height of about 35 m for 8 seconds, and then made a vertical landing.


    How many F-35B combat units are there today? 46 pieces? 15 years, however, the aircraft in the metal ... wink

    PS.
    And for the "iconoclasts" ... I made the dream plans in a previous post ..
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 10: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In short, according to the Yak-41:
      1974 - statement of the problem,
      1975 - conceptual design,
      1978 - finished in metal.

      Then, with the finished machine, the TK changed several times (Yak-41,41M, 141). Then there was the Yak-43 they didn’t let him finish already “having lost interest”, then “they lost interest” in “Buran” / “Energia”, “USSR” ...
      1. castle 15 October 2015 12: 23 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It seems, dear Scraptor, you worked for Yakovlev in KB "SPEED".
        We appeared there about the Yak-40 and Yak-42 (the first Yak-42 was then assembled at the SPEED firm in Moscow) We were even allowed to see the Yak-45 mock-up and sit in its cabin with a "painted" dashboard. We may have met.
        1. Army soldier2 15 October 2015 20: 34 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          No, Scraptor is either an admiral or a colonel-general of aviation (in the extreme case, the Stakhanov of the Internet).
          And the article is really interesting. Thanks to the author. He knows the topic, has his own opinion.
          1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 03: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            He knows something about ships, but not about airplanes ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Scraptor 17 October 2015 14: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Where just did not work ... And what was behind her?
          Many somehow miss that it is somewhat similar to the A-12.

          And he did not work there, and did not work here.
      2. mosquit 15 October 2015 14: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You are confusing dates ..
        http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html
        1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          You are confusing planes. Yak-141 is not a Yak-41.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 22: 18 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: Scraptor
        In short, according to the Yak-41:
        1974 - statement of the problem,
        1975 - conceptual design,
        1978 - finished in metal.

        And what was ready in metal (stock up on popcorn and wait)
        1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 59 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          Yak-41 ... "eat" your popcorn.
          1. mosquit 16 October 2015 12: 09 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yak-41 ... "eat" your popcorn

            There wasn’t such an aircraft in the metal ...
            Maximum layout and (or) instance for static tests ... and most likely a paper project ... lol
            Give sources of data for the manufacture of at least one flight instance of this aircraft in 1977 ... bully
            1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 14: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: mosquit
              There wasn’t such an aircraft in the metal ...
              Maximum layout and (or) instance for static tests ... and most likely a paper project ...

              here decide what your all the same was and bring your own.
              On paper was Convair 200 (sketch)

              In 1978, hanging on a suspension.
              In 1977, the NK-32 engine for the Tu-160 and Yak-43 appeared, after which this aircraft began to be made, and the Yak-41 was only redone while the customer "dressed up" 3 times in a row, and with the finished machine ordered changes on a new ...
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. mosquit 16 October 2015 18: 04 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Scraptor
                so decide what you think it was all the same and bring your

                What was that?
                Quote: Scraptor
                On paper was Convair 200 (sketch)

                In my student years I had many projects on paper, there was practically no free space in the notes, and we are talking about a finished flight copy ...
                Quote: Scraptor
                In 1977, the NK-32 engine for the Tu-160 and Yak-43 appeared, after which this aircraft began to be made, and the Yak-41 was only redone while the customer "dressed up" 3 times in a row, and with the finished machine ordered changes on a new ...


                About NK it’s “fantastic” just ...

                NK-32
                Gross weight: 3650 kg
                Length: 7453 mm
                Diameter: 1785 mm

                Thrust: 14000 kgf
                Afterburner thrust: 25000 kgf


                Yak-141
                Aircraft Length m 18,30
                Aircraft height, m ​​5,00
                Maximum take-off weight, kg
                with a take-off run of 120 m 19500
                with vertical take-off 15800


                You need to keep track of the dispute

                Quote: mosquit
                According to 141, not everything is so simple ...

                In September-October 1991, the Yak-41M vertical / short take-off and landing (V / KVP) aircraft were tested in the Northern Fleet. The tests were carried out on the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union S.G. Gorshkov, heavy aircraft carrier (TAKR) cruiser (TAKR) (until 1991 - Baku TAKR), the Yak-41M was not only the next stage after the Yak-38 in the development of domestic aircraft B / KVP, but also a staging machine in the history of world aviation - the first supersonic aircraft for vertical take-off and landing.


                Quote: mosquit
                In short
                1977 - statement of the problem (Yak-41)
                1979 - layout for the commission
                1980 - changes in TTT
                1983 - postponement of the project to 1985 - the engine is not ready
                1984 - The death of Ustinov
                1986 - reanimation of the topic (Yak-141 based on the backlog of Yak-41); first flight in 1988; delivery of the Navy 1990 ...
                1991 - full flight tests


                Quote: Scraptor
                In short, according to the Yak-41:
                1974 - statement of the problem,
                1975 - conceptual design,
                1978 - finished in metal.


                Once again, I ask for links to the Yak-41 in your interpretation of the program chronology ...

                My "storehouse" of aircraft - http://www.airwar.ru

                Quote: Scraptor
                In 1978, hanging on a suspension.

                Dangling shit in the hole ... hi
                1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 12: 55 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  You had too many options and all the "right" ones.

                  The Convair 200 had nothing but a sketch.

                  Mass lengths and diameters had to be compared between NK-32 and Yak-43

                  The tests were based on the Yak on Gorshkov, and not the tests of the Yak as an aircraft. For example, the superstructure and the hull of the ship when they flow around with air create turbulence in it - the Yak-38 has a wing and the overall sail is less than that of the Yak-41 and 141, it affects it less.

                  Flight specimens were on the Yak-41 and on the Yak-141
                  41 is a clean fighter, 141 is a b / w, it got fuselage and differs in wing area about the same as Harrier-FA (fighter) from Harrier-GR (firing pin)

                  airwar.ru? heard a couple of times heard about this ... and you take from there or put there?

                  "on", but not "in" ... there is still such a "talk" (it’s turbulent). fall into it.
  • runway 15 October 2015 09: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I hope that after reading this article, there will be fewer opponents to the construction of our aircraft carriers.
    Indeed, the article clearly states that the fleet cannot fully solve the tasks assigned to it, hoping only for land aviation! Why do our “partners” have a “long arm” along with air bases around our borders, but we don’t need? Again stupidity, or betrayal?
    Interestingly, the author considers the issue of the emergence of carrier-based aviation in our country. Of course, it is impossible to disclose all aspects of the problem in one article, but the "course" for solving such problems persists today.
  • da Vinci 15 October 2015 09: 44 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Putting rocket weapons on the aircraft carrier is nonsense. IMHO
    1. Severomor 15 October 2015 12: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: da Vinci
      Putting rocket weapons on the aircraft carrier is nonsense. IMHO

      On an aircraft carrier - yes, nonsense, and where does the aircraft carrier and strike weapons? )
  • Fidel 15 October 2015 10: 14 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Definitely a plus.
    Decent and balanced article.
    Logical constructions and identified causal relationships of certain decisions and actions.
    The conclusions are clear and objective, and do not cause internal rejection of unreasonableness.
    And most importantly, there is no wringing of hands in the style of "stupid saaaavooooook", nor hat-tapping "ur-patriotism."
    Clarity of thought, clarity of perception and understanding of the essence of things!
    Oh! drinks
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 11: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You just captured me repeat
      Thank you for your kind words! drinks
      1. Fidel 15 October 2015 22: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What is true is not a sin)) hi
  • voyaka uh 15 October 2015 10: 56 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In the strategic plan, nevertheless, Nikita Khrushchev turned out to be
    right: land-based ICBMs and nuclear submarines today
    support for Russia the status of a Great Power.
    And the rapid buildup of the surface fleet by Leonid Brezhnev is serious
    undermined the economy of the Soviet Union. In the late 80s in the reserve of the USSR
    it was only 200 million dollars (now tens of billions).

    The fleet is the most expensive part of the military budget. Before building any
    a large ship should think: is there enough money for the construction, sea trips,
    repairs?
    1. Dart2027 15 October 2015 23: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      In strategic terms, after all, Nikita Khrushchev was right

      Building a submarine fleet is no cheaper than a surface fleet, but at the same time they have different tasks and opportunities.
  • Serg65 15 October 2015 11: 37 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    hi Welcome Andrew! laughing All the same, the poet’s soul could not stand it and was hooked by an unjustified curse of the TAKRs ?! You have rightly pointed out that the development of the Soviet Navy depended on the mood of the members of the Politburo, on financing and on lobbying your interests with good friends of the Minister of Defense. Some here in comments try to insert their informed "I" type
    Quote: sevtrash
    Make carrier RCC from an aircraft carrier

    And the fact that at the time of the commissioning of the first TAKR, the Soviet Navy consisted of only 4 missile cruisers pr 58, scattered across all fleets and a couple of DBKs, as it is not taken into account !!!! Designing of 1164 ave. Began the same year, the code was launched on Kiev ..... a question for connoisseurs ... what and how to defend Krechetam?
    Quote: sevtrash
    The justification of the appearance / existence of 1143 Krechet is somehow strange and extremely tense.

    Quote: sevtrash
    the first task for Krechet was “the air defense of the ship and (or) the group of ships accompanied by it”! For what it was created.

    Well, firstly, no one justifies the fate of the "Krechetov"! Of all the evils, the lesser was chosen, and as not paradoxically necessary at that time. Secondly, how the Yak-36MF could gain air supremacy and fully cover the grouping for me personally is a big mystery !!!!
    Quote: Scraptor
    Everything was written for the sake of the conclusion - the last paragraph, where again (interspersed with text) slander on the Yak-41.

    Quote: Scraptor
    Yak-41 was ready back in 1978

    Yes, of course, this is not disputable, but in the 1976, the TTZ was approved for the design of the "Big Cruiser with Aviation Armaments" whose main weapons were to be 50 aircraft of predominantly fighter aircraft. And only Yakovlev’s desire to receive a government order for the Yak-141 put an end to a full-fledged aircraft carrier (to improve the performance characteristics of his VTOL aircraft, Yakovlev proposed to Ustinov to equip the Novorossiysk under construction with gas dumping devices, which led to a delay in putting Novorossiysk into operation and delaying the start of construction ."Eagle"). Gorshkov, in turn, achieved what the fleet needed, as a result of not washing so much, he achieved the construction of 1143.5 Ave., which in turn put an end to VTOL.
    And the article, Andrey, is definitely a big plus! good drinks You can not consider anything in a narrow framework, not knowing the history of creation and the environment of the time of construction!
    1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 13: 15 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: Serg65
      Secondly, how the Yak-36MF could gain air supremacy and fully cover the grouping for me personally is a big mystery !!!!

      And how could Harrier?

      Quote: Serg65
      And only Yakovlev’s desire to receive a government order for the Yak-141 put an end to a full-fledged aircraft carrier (to improve the performance characteristics of his VTOL aircraft, Yakovlev “proposed” to Ustinov to equip the Novorossiysk under construction with gas dumping devices, which led to the postponement of Novorossiysk’s commissioning and delaying the start of construction ."Eagle"). Gorshkov, in turn, sought what the fleet needed, as a result of not washing it, he achieved the construction of pr.1143.5, which in turn put an end to VTOL.

      You first deal with the first question first to push this ...
      Yak-41 can be based anywhere, "even" on land. And without such devices, they are needed for testing.
      And both of the Navy could not come in handy? bully
      In the USA, something like this ...
      1. Serg65 15 October 2015 15: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Scraptor
        And how could Harrier?

        Yes, really, but could Harrier?

        Quote: Scraptor
        Yak-41 can be based anywhere, "even" on land.

        And ???? Yak-141 great plane! Maybe even take off from the barge! But do not tell me why it is not in service with the Russian Navy? And how many USN ships have the Harrier in service?

        Quote: Scraptor
        In the USA, something like this

        Well, I haven’t been to your USA, I won’t lie, what and how I know only from the reports.
        1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 02: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But did not you cope? Maybe even in the tumultuous battles there suffered a lot of losses?

          And why the USSR is not? There was an even more excellent Yak-43. Because the "customer will lose interest" (without explanation) and three times changed the technical specifications before lol
          But the lock was not lost, and Argentina wanted to buy but did not sell, because they gave the lock to the lock.
          Skolko USN has - look on the Internet yourself, just do not confuse with USMC.

          Have you been to the European Union, or to Iceland?

          1. Serg65 16 October 2015 20: 44 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Scraptor
            But did not you cope?

            Have you done it? Argentines drowned and disabled one third of the squadron on old Skyhawks overloaded with fuel tanks and bombs
            Sunk:
            - Sheffield destroyer;
            - the destroyer "Coventry";
            - frigate "Ardent";
            - frigate "Entiloup";
            - amphibious assault ship "Sir Galahed";
            - transport / helicopter carrier "Atlantic Conveyor";
            - landing boat Foxtrot Four (from the composition of the UDC HMS Fearless).
            Damaged:
            - the destroyer "Glasgow" - 454-kg unexploded bomb stuck in the engine room;
            - the destroyer "Entrim" - unexploded bomb;
            - the destroyer "Glamorgan" - PKR "Exochet" (the only one on the list, damaged by fire from the shore);
            - the frigate Plymouth - four (!) Unexploded bombs;
            - the frigate "Argonaut" - two unexploded bombs, the "Argonaut" was in the balance from death;
            - the frigate "Elekriti" - unexploded bombs;
            - Arrow frigate - damaged by aircraft cannon fire;
            - frigate "Broadsward" - punched through the unexploded bomb;
            - frigate "Brilliant" - shot by "Daggers" from a strafing flight;
            - landing ship "Sir Lancelot" - 454 kg unexploded bomb;
            - the landing ship "Sir Tristram" - damaged by bombs, completely burned out, evacuated on a semi-submerged platform;
            - amphibious assault ship "Sir Bedivere" - unexploded aerial bomb;
            - British Way tanker - unexploded bombshell;
            - transport "Stromness" - unexploded air bomb.
            At the same time, the Skyhawks for bombing came close to the British ships breaking through the air defense and patrols of your favorite Harriers.
            And at launches of Super Etandars of RCC Exoset, Harrier pilots only bred with pens!
            Quote: Scraptor
            "customer will lose interest" (without explanation)

            Of course I lost .... in 1982 on ChSZ was laid down TAKR ave. 1143.5 "Riga", the future Kuznetsov. And in 1985 the slipway was already occupied by 1143.6 Varyag Ave., but even after it was launched into the water, the slipway did not stand idle. In 1988, ATAVKR Ave. 1143.7 "Ulyanovsk" was laid ... did they plan to deploy VTOL? In addition, the test of the "aircraft in iron" Yak-Xnumx was carried out in the flesh of the year xnumx !!! Carriers that riveted like pies (worth and weight 41 times more than the "promising" VTOL) should have stood idle in the base and smoked the sky in anticipation of their wing wings ??????
            Quote: Scraptor
            Skolko USN has - look on the Internet yourself, just do not confuse with USMC.

            bully Well, for 15 years of combat practice, I learned to distinguish USN from USMC, and the great Google just says that the Harriers in the amount of 126 pieces remained with USMC, and only because Lockheed could not create VTOL version of F-35.

            Quote: Scraptor
            Have you been to the European Union, or to Iceland?

            But what, of course, happened, the Navy of the USSR provided me with a free cruise and not only to the EU and Iceland, but also the central Atlantic, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean lol
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 04: 38 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                --- Continued ---

                ... the landing boat was also without landing.
                The sunken bombs in San Carlos were anchored in this narrow strait carrying out air defense of the landing force or, like the damaged Glamorgan, they worked along the coast in the interests of the same landing force.

                Quote: Serg65
                Of course I lost .... in 1982 at ChSZ TAKR pr.1143.5 "Riga", the future Kuznetsov was laid. And in 1985 the slipway was already occupied by pr. 1143.6 "Varyag", but even after its launching the slipway did not stand idle. In 1988, ATAVKR pr.1143.7 Ulyanovsk was laid ... were they planning to deploy VTOL?

                And what does it have to do with it? Yaks in Afghanistan fought with ATAVKR? How are the Harriers now?
                Imagine - it was planned to have them on them too. In general, can they fly from any ship / ship? This SKVVP is a plane which, like a helicopter, an aircraft carrier or an airfield is not needed.
                Quote: Serg65
                In addition, tests of the "aircraft in iron" Yak-41 was carried out in the flesh of 1991 !!! Carriers that riveted like pies (costing and weighing 100 times more than the "promising" VTOL) should have stood idle in the base and smoked the sky in anticipation of their air wings ??????

                Yak-41 was ready in 1978 (fighter), Yak-41M, Yak-141 / 141M in 1982 or later. Next, they prepared the Yak-43 (twice as much as the shifter from the Tu-160).
                The Yak-38 / 38M (the Yak-39 was being prepared) was ready for the first three carriers, and they did not save anything. Only the fourth carrier was already tailored for the Yak-41.
                The USN seems to never have harriers, the USMC commander submits to the USN commander. Coast Guard (CG) - no.
                Quote: Serg65
                and then only because Lockheed can not create a VTOL version of F-35 in any way.

                he will not "create." And also successfully fight like Harrier FRS / FA and AV-8B F-35 will not be able to. When fighting with Harrier, he would be shot down almost the same way as the Mirages were shot down. As in the battle with the MiG-21 which Mirages incidentally shot down. Only Su-27 can shoot down Harrier now.

                Quote: Serg65
                But what of course I’ve been

                Do you know what anonymizing program is?
                Quote: Serg65
                USSR Ministry of Finance provided me with a free cruise

                Is it a technical specialist? bully laughing
                1. Serg65 17 October 2015 10: 51 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  what Well, rummaging around in other people's tables, drawers and pockets, they scared me from childhood, it's about ...
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Do you know what anonymizing program is?

                  Better to be

                  Quote: Scraptor
                  technical specialist?

                  Than how are you, having read all kinds of books, grabbed the top, and then clever at every corner posing as an expert wink
                  1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 11: 25 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Why is the photo not real? winked
                    That's noticeable...
    2. Alex_59 15 October 2015 13: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Scraptor
      And how could Harrier?

      This question is best asked by the crew of the following ships of the British Navy:
      Hms ardent
      HMS Antelope
      Hms sheffield
      Hms coventry
      Atlantic Conveyor
      Sir galahad
      1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 05 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        This question was asked of you (maybe not for you alone).

        Now compare the tonnage of the dead warships from this list with the tonnage of the dead Argentine warships, let alone compare the number of dead sailors on both sides. Oddly enough, even the Argentine tonnage is bigger, not that list.
        The lack of Argentinean PLO aircraft in the conflict area was provided by the Harriers. They also worked directly with their helicopters on surface targets.
        This is despite the fact that they were in 5-10 times less than Argentinean aircraft.

        Also compare that after this, almost the entire Argentine fleet hid in bases on the mainland outside the combat zone, and the English did not, so it was under fire.
        Nevertheless, the loss account is not in favor of Argentina.
        1. Alex_59 16 October 2015 06: 46 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Scraptor
          Now compare the tonnage of the dead warships from this list with the tonnage of the dead Argentine warships, let alone compare the number of dead sailors on both sides. Oddly enough, even the Argentine tonnage is bigger, not that list.
          The lack of Argentinean PLO aircraft in the conflict area was provided by the Harriers. They also worked directly with their helicopters on surface targets.
          This is despite the fact that they were in 5-10 times less than Argentinean aircraft.

          Our janitor Uncle Vasya achieved outstanding results this spring - he was able to bring down 120 icicles in a day. True, those 10 icicles that he did not knock hung over the porches and fell, killing 10 people. But anyway, Uncle Vasya is a cool janitor, because he shot down 120 icicles in a day! :-)))
          1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 10: 30 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Yes, if in icicles and not cranes and shoes, then without Uncle Vasya it would not have been 10 but 130.

            Ksati, first of all, harriers covered large landing ships and military transports.
            Those oblast ships that were struck were small and not landing, they almost all simply anchored in a narrow strait and covered the bridgehead with their air defense systems.
            Or they worked cannons along the shore on the flanks. One coastal RCC even snatched off.
            Then Kaptsov’s armor would help ...
            1. Alex_59 16 October 2015 11: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Scraptor
              Yes, if in icicles and not cranes and shoes, then without Uncle Vasya it would not have been 10 but 130.
              Are these all the thoughts that my post brought you to? Not much. The main idea was that you need to shoot down icicles where people walk, and not somewhere in the backyards. -)))
              Quote: Scraptor
              Those ordinary ships that were struck by the small ones

              The degree of your inadequacy begins to roll over. Destroyer and frigate - small ships? Cool.
              I wonder where the Harriers were when, on 25 on May 1982, the Argentinean Super Standards approached the Invincible aircraft carrier at 48 km and rocketed it? Missiles that day were able to be diverted from targets due to jamming, but one still drowned the Atlantic Conveyor. Where and whom did the Harriers defend at that time?
              1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 15: 21 New
                • -2
                • 0
                -2
                Are you able to think not in icicles, "backyards" and in the categories of other schiz? Or is such a goal just not worth it?
                Quote: Alex_59
                Where and whom did the Harriers defend at that time?

                Really flew to Cape Town for vodka? 5th day after landing in San Carlos ...
                At first, there were 20 harriers there, against 200+ Argentines who did not fly looking back at the icicles, but on the contrary, there was no uncle Vasya.

                Invincible was not near the Atlantic Conveyor. On false guidance with AWACS, the Argentines thought it was an Invincible and shot at a container ship right away ...

                Turn on yourself and compare the displacement and saturation of the manpower of the destroyer / frigate with 2 UDC, several military transports or aircraft carriers. And also with the fact that it is necessary to cover the infantry on the shore and storm the Argentine positions in which their own infantry suffered losses. By the way, relatively little because of this suffered. But the truth went on foot.
                1. Alex_59 16 October 2015 15: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Invincible was not near the Atlantic Conveyor. On false guidance with AWACS, the Argentines thought it was an Invincible and shot at a container ship right away ...
                  Yes, do not care where Invincible was or what kind of false guidance there was and what the Argentines thought.
                  I asked: where were the Harriers when the Argentinean Super Standards approached the English ships at 48 km? Why were these standards not brought down? What the hell were they doing at 48 kilometers from the British?

                  No answer.
                  1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 17: 27 New
                    • -2
                    • 0
                    -2
                    Spit unhygienic. They answered you.

                    They covered San Carlos and worked on the island of East Falkland. The protection of the half-unloaded container ship by the Harrier patrol was no longer a priority, it was necessary to protect its manpower on the shore.
      2. Scraptor 16 October 2015 03: 25 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: CERHJ
        Yes, and another 16 ships, which hit the Argentine bombs and simply did not explode! : laughing:

        Well, get out of the emergency and ask. For all 6 ... of which it is still unknown how many would have failed.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 21: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Serg65
      Welcome Andrew!

      And to you, Sergey, good day! drinks
      Quote: Serg65
      You can not consider anything in a narrow framework, not knowing the history of creation and the environment of the time of construction!

      Absolutely agree. Otherwise, hastily put marks can be very far from reality :)
      And thanks for the appreciation! hi
  • Severomor 15 October 2015 12: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We have already written that 1143 was originally an anti-submarine cruiser with aviation weapons (not only aircraft)))))), but no aircraft carrier - and that’s all !!!

    And the fact that at the time of the commissioning of the first TAKR, the Soviet Navy consisted of only 4 missile cruisers pr 58, scattered across all fleets and a couple of DBKs, as it is not taken into account !!!! Designing of 1164 ave. Began the same year, the code was launched on Kiev ..... a question for connoisseurs ... what and how to defend Krechetam?
    something is not clear, and if so, briefly:

    project 1134 Berkut - 4 ships 1968-69gg commissioning
    Project 1134A Berkut - 10 ships - 1969-1977 commissioning
    project 1134B Berkut - 7 cor - 1971-1979
    a little later EM pr 956 - 18 cor, but only since 1980.
    first TFR pr.1135 - in 1970

    Of course, I understand that our aviation is everything, but it is possible and in more detail about the possibility of how to deal with enemy submarines, and with covering their submarines (initially one of the main tasks).
    At 1143, not very bad GASs were installed at that time. In the bulb - Orion, towed - Platinum.
    Again, 16-18 KA-27s did not very badly cope with the task of finding submarines.
    Pr 1143 - the ship is most often flagship, respectively, depending on the tasks, not a frail detachment is supposed.
    As an example, in Severomorsk there were 2 flagships of 7 OPESK (3 brigades), Kirov and Kiev
  • maximghost 15 October 2015 13: 01 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    It’s too late, but I’ll put in my 5 kopecks (how do you manage to flood so much when everyone is at work?)

    1.) You should not write about the undercover fight in the article, few people know something reliable about it, as a result, its descriptions are only pulled by the ears, and therefore cause a negative attitude to the whole article. (the best example is the book of Kuzin and Nikolsky).

    2.) Why do you think that 8 basalts are few? Prior to this, the cruisers of the USSR were equipped with only 4 PKR, while not even basalts. Well, on the cretches, the amount of PCR increased at first to 12, and then m. and up to 16 in Ulyanovsk (in different sources in different ways). Well, for most commentators, TAKR is not an aircraft carrier, takr is a cruiser (or will you call pr.26bis a spitfayer on a catapult an aircraft carrier?). The task of the TAKR air group is to provide air defense and PLO formations, and it has strike functions, by and large, just in case.

    3.) The question arising from 2 points How could the Yak-38 help with air defense?

    Theoretically, he could intercept the harpoon carriers and thereby disrupt the attack, because of which attack planes would have to be covered by fighters, and given the limited number of planes that the enemy aircraft carrier can raise at the same time, we get fewer attack planes in the group. Those. The Yak-38 reduced the likelihood of the destruction of the Kug by the mere fact of its existence. Well, 38 yak-temporary solution, with the transition in the future to the yak-141.

    4.) The idea of ​​separating anti-ship missiles and aircraft into different buildings is also not the best. 2 we get 2 ships with a total displacement the same as Kiev, but with 2 sets of equipment and less resistance to rolling.

    5.) On the basis of what came the statement that the Yak-141 with a guarantee loses an air battle to all other planes? Armament and avionics at his level. Speed ​​and maneuverability, too, despite the fact that his main task would be to intercept enemy strikers.

    Well, do not neglect vertical lines. This is a new type of weapon. It may be recalled that the first jet aircraft lost a lot to piston ones, but this direction was not abandoned at one time.
    1. Alexey RA 15 October 2015 15: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: maximghost
      1.) You should not write about the undercover fight in the article, few people know something reliable about it, as a result, its descriptions are only pulled by the ears, and therefore cause a negative attitude to the whole article. (the best example is the book of Kuzin and Nikolsky).

      One thing is known for certain: up to pr. 1143.7, all projects of Soviet full-fledged AVs were cut short of iron. 71, 72, 85, 1160, 1153 ...
      Even 1143.5 almost suffered the same fate - initially instead of it the Central Committee and the Council of Ministers approved the construction of two UDC pr. 10200.
      Quote: maximghost
      4.) The idea of ​​separating anti-ship missiles and aircraft into different buildings is also not the best. 2 we get 2 ships with a total displacement the same as Kiev, but with 2 sets of equipment and less resistance to rolling.

      If we remove from 1143 missile launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic, then we can build a normal AB with normal aircraft in the same displacement. In this case, the carrier of long-range missile launchers is not necessary for us anymore - we have “flying launchers”, which also allows us to reduce the mass of launchers by approaching the launch point to the target.
      1. maximghost 15 October 2015 18: 34 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        One thing is known for certain: up to pr. 1143.7, all projects of Soviet full-fledged AVs were cut short of iron. 71, 72, 85, 1160, 1153 ...
        Even 1143.5 almost suffered the same fate - initially instead of it the Central Committee and the Council of Ministers approved the construction of two UDC pr. 10200.

        We know WHAT happened, but we don’t know WHY (and whether we already know the series). Something that looks like stupidity, when clarifying the circumstances, may be a competent and thoughtful move ... But it may not be. Because we know about all the undercover games from people who themselves have not seen the whole picture, I propose to refrain from discussing them.

        If we remove from 1143 launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic, then we can build a normal AB with normal aircraft in the same displacement.


        Here you are mistaken. It was certainly possible to build a classic aircraft carrier, but its effectiveness would have caused a bunch of questions. The small deck area and the specific location of the launching positions made it possible to operate with only a small number of aircraft at the same time and at the same time extremely slowed down the rise of the aircraft. Verticals allowed to solve this problem. Well, plus, we are losing all the weapons that are on the TAKRe and in return we need to make a springboard and an air finisher.

        In this case, the carrier of long-range missile launchers is not necessary for us anymore - we have “flying launchers”, which also allows us to reduce the mass of launchers by approaching the launch point to the target.


        This statement is also very controversial. Aircraft with light anti-ship missiles are a more flexible tool than heavy anti-ship missiles (we won’t drown the minesweeper with granite.) But organizing the departure of the strike group is much more complicated and takes more time (you need to prepare the planes for the departure, suspend the anti-ship missiles, and lift the group into the air, while to put the ship against the wind, after which the group should line up in battle formation, despite the fact that, due to the small displacement, we have problems with the take-off of the group exceeding 2 pairs) than launching anti-ship missiles from the ship. With all this, the verticals would also be modernized to launch “uranium” and then you can even try to deliver a combined strike: ship anti-ship missiles + airplanes with light anti-ship missiles, the main thing is that it would not interfere with the main task of the TAKR air group: providing air cover for the KMG.

        Cash
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 22: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: maximghost
          It was certainly possible to build a classic aircraft carrier, but its effectiveness would have caused a bunch of questions. The small deck area and the specific location of the launching positions made it possible to operate with only a small number of aircraft at the same time and at the same time extremely slowed down the rise of the aircraft. Verticals allowed to solve this problem.

          How? :) Vertical take-off was rejected for obvious reasons (scanty take-off mass), and with short take-off, VTOL aircraft have no advantages over conventional planes in terms of take-off speed.
          1. maximghost 15 October 2015 23: 09 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            , and with short take-off, VTOL aircraft have no advantages over conventional aircraft in terms of take-off speed.

            When using different take-off modes (141 had them or 5), it is possible to use the flight deck with great efficiency (even take-off across the deck was assumed). Neither the full length of the flight deck nor specially equipped launching positions are required for takeoff, which means that you can quickly and conveniently taxi out of those. positions. Well, the take-off procedure itself is faster and easier: no need to approach a specially equipped position, cling to a catapult / stand up, give fast and furious, well, etc. Well, the dependence on wind / speed is not so important (with a catapult, a certain speed is also needed).
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 22: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: maximghost
      You should not write about the undercover struggle in the article, few people know something reliable about it

      The article lists FACTS, not a description of the undercover fight. And the facts are such that two commanders-in-chief of the USSR Navy were tortured to promote the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier in the USSR Navy. Gorshkov continued to push through the aircraft carrier in parallel with the development and construction of 1143, etc. Therefore, I cannot accept this reproach.
      Quote: maximghost
      Why do you think that 8 basalts are few? Prior to this, the cruisers of the USSR were equipped with only 4 PKR

      Because I have the afterthought, which says that around the time the TAKR was put into operation, our analysts came to the conclusion that 24 Granites were needed to defeat the ACG (and therefore our Project 949 nuclear submarines carry exactly 24 such anti-ship missiles)
      Quote: maximghost
      Well, on the cretches, the amount of PCR increased at first to 12, and then m. and up to 16 in Ulyanovsk

      Now, starting with TAKR 1143.5, they should have refrained from the anti-ship missiles — they were aircraft carriers, not helicopter carriers.
      Quote: maximghost
      Theoretically, he could intercept the harpoon carriers and thereby disrupt the attack, because of which attack planes would have to be covered by fighters

      And in any case, they were covered with fighters - just in case, especially if they were operating near our territories. But this would not help us.
      Quote: maximghost
      Well, 38 yak-temporary solution, with the transition in the future to the yak-141.

      Firstly - a good prospect, which a quarter century had to wait. And secondly, to the moment that this perspective would take shape, the USA could have an analogue of the Raptor on the decks.
      Quote: maximghost
      Well, do not neglect vertical lines. This is a new type of weapon.

      There were many new types of weapons that completely did not justify themselves. And by the way, the development of such technologies is very, very expensive and it is not reasonable to spend money in the hope that suddenly it will fire once.
      1. maximghost 15 October 2015 23: 00 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The article lists FACTS, not a description of the undercover fight. And the facts are such that two commanders-in-chief of the USSR Navy were tortured to promote the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier in the USSR Navy. Gorshkov continued to push through the aircraft carrier in parallel with the development and construction of 1143, etc. Therefore, I cannot accept this reproach.


        You also write about Ustinov and Yakovlev. At the same time, there are facts and facts, but we don’t know and cannot know what motivated these people to make decisions, so it’s not worth drawing conclusions from all this.

        Because I have the afterthought, which says that around the time the TAKR was put into operation, our analysts came to the conclusion that 24 Granites were needed to defeat the ACG (and therefore our Project 949 nuclear submarines carry exactly 24 such anti-ship missiles)

        Not a single Soviet NK carried 24 heavy anti-ship missiles, so anyway it would have been necessary to use 2 ships with heavy anti-ship missiles in the Kug. Well, 24 anti-ship missiles are for guaranteed destruction, the chances were from 8 and 12.

        Now, starting with TAKR 1143.5, they should have refrained from the anti-ship missiles — they were aircraft carriers, not helicopter carriers.

        Well, first of all, it's a cruiser. Secondly, why give up granite? They eat up an area from the hangar, but which can only fit 2 aircraft. And about the use of both anti-ship missiles and aircraft and from the ship, I wrote 2 comments below.

        And in any case, they were covered with fighters - just in case, especially if they were operating near our territories. But this would not help us.


        What is the point of covering the strike group with fighters outside our coastal aviation, in the absence of any carrier-based aircraft? Especially in combat conditions, where the number of anti-ship missiles in a salvo is very important, and it is not recommended to approach the enemy’s KUG.

        Firstly - a good prospect, which a quarter century had to wait.

        Everything came up against the development of an engine with a rotary nozzle and an afterburner, and while it was done, they brought 38 to normal + gained experience.

        And secondly, to the moment that this perspective would take shape, the USA could have an analogue of the Raptor on the decks.

        The raptor is only 97 years old, then 141 would have already been on decks. + verticals would also be improved.

        There were many new types of weapons that completely did not justify themselves.

        Those that initially showed themselves not very well, but now without them there is no way anywhere.
        And verticals have 1 big plus. They reduce the displacement of the carrier ship.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 23: 35 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: maximghost
          You also write about Ustinov and Yakovlev

          About Ustinov, I write that the VTOL proposal came from him (and this is a fact) and that it was he who “hacked” the idea of ​​aircraft carriers (and this is a fact, moreover, the well-known “Eagle” was nailed by him) I generally write about Yakovlev
          In fairness, I note that I have no idea how much D.F. Ustinova had a hand in Yakovlev himself.

          So I keep wondering
          Quote: maximghost
          Not a single Soviet NK carried 24 heavy anti-ship missiles, so anyway it would have been necessary to use 2 ships with heavy anti-ship missiles in the Kug. Well, 24 anti-ship missiles are for guaranteed destruction, the chances were from 8 and 12.

          Maybe they were, but much less. Just the opportunity to install 12-16 launchers was, this would not add some crazy weight (+ additional launchers - spare missiles and reloading mechanisms) And retrospectively reasoning - it was better to put 12-16 :)
          Quote: maximghost
          Well, first of all, it's a cruiser. Secondly, why give up granite? They eat up an area from the hangar, but which can only fit 2 aircraft.

          The "cruisers" had a completely different purpose - air defense units, going to defeat the AUG. In this task, the TAKR launch at a distance of a missile strike was not karekotically complied with; there was nothing for him to do there. In addition, Granite is not just launchers (armored, by the way), it is also a bunch of communications, control devices, posts, maintenance personnel, and so on and so forth, and it all eats up solid weight.
          Quote: maximghost
          What is the point of covering the strike group with fighters outside our coastal aviation, in the absence of any carrier-based aircraft? Especially in combat conditions, where the number of anti-ship missiles in a salvo is very important, and it is not recommended to approach the enemy’s KUG.

          And why should our TAKR be outside its borders?
          In addition, the amount of anti-ship missiles in a salvo, surprisingly, is not so important, the states have everything according to their notes - a demonstration group, EW and anti-aircraft defense groups, etc. Everything is based on making the fire control radar turn on, then crushing them with interference and PRR, and only after that, having weakened the air defense to the extreme, strike missiles. The assault groups themselves were never very large.
          Quote: maximghost
          Everything came up against the development of an engine with a rotary nozzle and an afterburner, and while it was done, they brought 38 to normal + gained experience.

          But how would this help us in 1985, if Armageddon happened? There is a good saying - if the gun is a millimeter further than you can reach, you don’t have a gun.
          Quote: maximghost
          The raptor is only 97 years old, then 141 would have already been on decks. + verticals would also be improved.

          Okay, with the raptor, I got excited.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 23: 36 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            quote = maximghost] And verticals have 1 big plus. They reduce the displacement of the carrier ship. [/ Quote]
            Without AWACS aircraft (which need a catapult) is still bad. As well as without EW aircraft (which is unlikely to succeed from Yak - the payload is not the same) And if you build an ejection aircraft, then there is no point in planting VTOL aircraft on it
            1. maximghost 15 October 2015 23: 57 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Without AWACS aircraft (which need a catapult) is still bad.

              This is one of the main problems. Somehow it can be solved by AWACS helicopters with the prospect of switching to convertiplanes ...
              1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 06: 25 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                There are already such convertibles as high-speed helicopters.
          2. maximghost 15 October 2015 23: 54 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Ro Ustinov, I write that the VTOL proposal came precisely from him (and this is a fact) and that it was he who “hacked” the idea of ​​aircraft carriers (and this is a fact, moreover, the well-known “Eagle” was nailed by him) I generally write about Yakovlev
            In fairness, I note that I have no idea how much D.F. Ustinova had a hand in Yakovlev himself.

            So I keep wondering


            You simply draw conclusions from an incomplete and possibly unreliable "picture", without taking into account the motivation of the participants (which no one can know). Because of this, the article begins to look like "scandals, intrigues, investigations," despite the fact that you probably did not want to give it such a look.

            The "cruisers" had a completely different purpose.

            So at TAKRs it was different, just such a tradition to compare our KUG and their AUG in a vacuum.
            Moreover, this was not excluded ...

            And why should our TAKR be outside its borders?

            This regularly happened on the BS.

            In addition, the amount of anti-ship missiles in a salvo, surprisingly, is not so important, the states have everything according to their notes - a demonstration group, EW and anti-aircraft defense groups, etc. Everything is based on making the fire control radar turn on, then crushing them with interference and PRR, and only after that, having weakened the air defense to the extreme, strike missiles. The assault groups themselves were never very large.


            Nevertheless, the number of missiles in the salvo is very important, it may not work to suppress air defense systems, part of the missiles will go to interference, well, etc.

            But how would this help us in 1985, if Armageddon happened? There is a good saying - if the gun is a millimeter further than you can reach, you don’t have a gun.


            And what would a classic aircraft carrier help us in 85? And in the long run, AT MY LOOK, for the USSR, takras with the FIS, especially in combination with 1143.5-1143.7, would have brought more benefits, would have been cheaper, and allowed to create more shock groups, with cover for aviation ...
          3. Scraptor 16 October 2015 10: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            About Yakovlev, I generally write
            In fairness, I note that I have no idea how much D.F. Ustinova had a hand in Yakovlev himself.

            You generally write about Yakovlev, unlike D.F.Ustnov ... I didn’t live on anything - they collected all the airmen and made them an order for the air defense missile system in the 50-60s, all refused, except for A.S. Yakovlev
            Before that, also have everyone gather to make a large helicopter - everyone refused except A.S. Yakovlev.

            In 1985, almost all 10 years ago. Like the three versions of the aircraft at its base with a fourth in development. But when Ustinova had a heart attack, many wanted to "back to the future" instead of using both this and that. And now they want to ...
        2. Scraptor 16 October 2015 06: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: maximghost
          Everything came up against the development of an engine with a rotary nozzle and an afterburner, and while it was done, they brought 38 to normal + gained experience.


          It was made in less than a year and a half. For another one and a half, they converted the Yak-38 into the Yak-41 (1978). Then everything came up against the new requirements of the customer, which changed three times. So appeared Yak-41M and Yak-141.
          In parallel with the end of 1978, work began on the “enlarged” Yak-43 based on the NK-32 engine from the Tu-160.
          In addition to fine-tuning the Yak-38M, work on the Yak-39 (a radar fighter based on the Yak-38) was also conducted in parallel.
          According to its declared performance characteristics, the still unprepared F-35 of the Soviet Yak-43 will not soon catch up, if catch up at all.
      2. Scraptor 16 October 2015 05: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        A quarter of a century waiting for the F-35, you again turn everything upside down.
        Where is the "Raptor that could stand on decks"? And where did the F-14 go?

        On the Yak-38, just read the TK, yes how ... there is almost everything written about its use. yes
        Technology is evolving sequentially.
        Of the Yak-38 was made Yak-41, in just 3 years, then the CUSTOMER began to change the requirements for the finished machine 3 times.

        Write about ships (especially an article about them), you are not a ZERO in planes, but (especially in Soviet SKVVP) is a purely negative value.
        your preferences to trample them in the dirt are visible both from the last paragraph of the article, and from manic lies and the denial of the results of using such apparatusus abroad.
    3. Scraptor 15 October 2015 22: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: maximghost
      4.) The idea of ​​separating anti-ship missiles and aircraft into different buildings is also not the best. 2 we get 2 ships with a total displacement the same as Kiev, but with 2 sets of equipment and less resistance to rolling.

      And why is that? 2 ships with a total displacement of 1143 wounds will work, and not as you wrote.
      Quote: maximghost
      Well, do not neglect vertical lines. This is a new type of weapon. You may recall that the first jets lost a lot

      Well, Argentina lost to them ... And this type of weapons has been more than half a century.
      1. maximghost 15 October 2015 23: 10 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And why is that? 2 ships with a total displacement of 1143 wounds will work, and not as you wrote.

        Well, I wrote this. Apparently not quite correctly expressed his thought ...
        1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 05: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quite another, and vice versa incorrectly complicated everything twice.
        2. maximghost 16 October 2015 19: 39 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          I do not understand what you want to say.
          But I will repeat my position in more detail: Separately, a light aircraft carrier and a cruiser will have a displacement of 25-30 thousand tons and 10-15 thousand tons, respectively, while they will have a double set of expensive electronic and navigation equipment more rigid frames when using weapons during excitement seas....
          1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 11: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            11 thousand tons is now the smallest aircraft carrier, anti-ship missiles generally launch submarines from under water or from the Caspian NK.
            Weather SKVVP 2+ points to ordinary decks.

            Did you watch the Titanic movies? But the telegraph and telephone were already there ...
            1. maximghost 18 October 2015 16: 15 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              11 thousand tons is now the smallest aircraft carrier

              With an air group as much as 14 aircraft. In my opinion, the minimum size of an air group is 30-36 aircraft.
              1. Scraptor 18 October 2015 16: 56 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                So that in the event of an attack on him, it would sink or burn immediately 36?
                1. maximghost 18 October 2015 21: 34 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  So that in the event of an attack on him, it would sink or burn immediately 36?

                  In order to provide AWACS, PLO, as well as round-the-clock patrolling of a pair of fighters in the air, an aircraft carrier with 14 aircraft cannot do this, so its sinking is much more likely ...
                  1. Scraptor 18 October 2015 22: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    AWACS is provided by a tiltrotor or just a helicopter. 8 pcs aircraft carrier it did (for which it was intended, or in WWII at 6). Put 2-3 such aircraft carriers nearby (at 11-14), and all the air wings of the squadron cannot be destroyed immediately (preferably in a counter-atomic warrant, which is also suitable for cluster anti-aerodrome munitions).
  • Gomunkul 15 October 2015 13: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    A long time ago there were no articles on the pages of VO with such a detailed discussion in the comments. Thanks to the author and everyone who expressed their opinion here. hi
  • Alexey RA 15 October 2015 13: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Of course, one can reason like that - why to put anti-ship missiles on a helicopter carrier, it is better to make it smaller and cheaper, and let missiles carry specially designed missile cruisers, both surface and underwater. But there is a nuance - in the USSR neither in the 70s, nor later there was no abundance of heavy ships capable of carrying long-range anti-ship missiles "Basalt" / "Granite". And the idea of ​​creating a high-quality airfield for 22 helicopters, and then enlarging it a little more and setting up the “Basalts” is not at all bad - it’s easier and cheaper than building a separate ship for 8 launchers of anti-ship missiles installed on the TAKR-s of Project 1143.

    In stock PU KR on TAKR has both pros and cons.
    Plus:
    “Basalts” somehow emulated normal carrier-based strike aircraft. Yes, the air group turned out to be small, one-time and purely shock. But on the other hand, its range, speed, and loading multiple times blocked the performance characteristics of the airborne air group and forced the adversary to stay away.
    And the farther the AB enemy is from us, the less cars will come to us as part of the strike group.
    Cons:
    PU KR in the bow killed at the root every possibility of simultaneous take-off and landing operations in the KVP variant. That is, we formally have a corner deck, but in fact we are either preparing the next group for take-off, or we are releasing the deck for receiving returning cars. Welcome back to the times of WWII.
    The absence of a bow flight deck reduced the ability to increase the load of KVP machines by increasing the take-off run. Roughly speaking, instead of the entire length of the ship, a maximum of 2/3 was used for take-off.
    The absence of a forward flight deck killed all the possibilities for re-equipping Air Group 1143 with traditional aircraft with a short take-off and landing - without costly and lengthy overhaul.

    As for there was no abundance of heavy ships capable of carrying long-range anti-ship missiles "Basalt" / "Granite"... the fact is that in the presence of a classic AB with normal aircraft in the fleet, long-range anti-ship missiles become not so critical. All these “Basalts”, “Volcanoes” and “Granites” were essentially a “one-time emulation” of the AB air group, an attempt to compensate for the lack of normal carrier-based aircraft by increasing the range of conventional ships to the effective radius of the AB strike vehicles.
  • Taoist 15 October 2015 15: 08 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The article is not bad, in comparison with the creations by all of us adored Kaptsov, it is generally impeccable. Although I cannot agree with some conclusions, on the whole, the author quite reliably displayed a list of tasks and situations based on which my products were created ...
  • AAV
    AAV 15 October 2015 15: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I liked the article. Thanks to the author!
    Involuntarily a memory from childhood emerged: a huge (on the entire end wall of a five-story building) drawing TAKR "KIEV" in my hometown Polyarny in the eighties. The area of ​​Lunin Street, can anyone remember ...
  • Taoist 15 October 2015 15: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    By the way, the author’s main mistake is that he also can’t refrain from imposing his own “aftertaste” on the conclusions.

    1) For him, the postulate of the fact that AB is a "universal soldier" for some reason does not require evidence.

    2) RCC he considers the same as "a one-time replacement deck carrier" and not as a separate and independent type of weapon

    3) Underestimates the real combat capabilities of vertical bars and constantly tries to compare them with conventional machines

    4) I overlooked the rework of Gorshkov in Vikramadyu - and this also says a lot in terms of the potential of the project.
    1. Alexey RA 15 October 2015 16: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      4) I overlooked the rework of Gorshkov in Vikramadyu - and this also says a lot in terms of the potential of the project.

      So ... there are 2 problems with this alteration:
      1. It shows how much work needs to be done to turn the TAVKR into a semblance of a real aircraft carrier (16 aircraft per 38 kt standard - this is somehow not enough).
      2. During this alteration, all the launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic were thrown out.
      Quote: Taoist
      3) Underestimates the real combat capabilities of vertical bars and constantly tries to compare them with conventional machines

      And with what else to compare them, if not with the main enemy.
      After all, knightly fights "since you have verticals - then we will send verticals to battle"it won’t. Just our regular decks - phantoms, hornets and tomkets — would work against our deck vertical lines.
      1. Taoist 15 October 2015 17: 08 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Well, not such a large volume ... taking into account the fact that the aircraft began to be deployed, in principle, not intended for the project. And the replacement of open launchers with modern subdecks is not at all a question. And then estimate the combat capabilities of such a project if we replace 38 with 41 and Basalts with the Onyx and Favorit UPV ... In principle, the AUG will be somehow unhappy - especially considering the areas of potential clash and the fundamental absence of heavy anti-ship missiles from these very AUGs.

        And no one talks about “knightly fights” - just do not forget that the disadvantages of VTOL are a continuation of its advantages. In the event of a conflict "short", the VTOL aircraft group has an advantage in the speed of ascent. It is not tied to the speed of the carrier and is insensitive to damage to the flight deck. The use of VTOL in conjunction with heavy anti-ship missiles just allows you to compensate for the lack of firepower of the aircraft wing itself. Separate percussion and auxiliary ...
        again, we contrast this again with TAKR - AUG ... and what if from the point of view of the "projection of force"? It turns out both more economical and more universal than driving an AUG ... Yes, and safer ...
        1. Alexey RA 15 October 2015 17: 54 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Taoist
          And the replacement of open launchers with modern subdecks is not at all a question. And then estimate the combat capabilities of such a project if we replace the 38s with the 41s and the Basalts with the Onyx and Favorite UPV ...

          Not a mouse, not a frog - but an unknown animal. (C)
          Once again, we run into a rake of the 30s of the last century. Remember, then, ships with combined aviation and artillery weapons were popular. And then it came to understand that for the normal operation of aviation, its carrier should be away from the enemy - which automatically makes its artillery a dead load.
          How long is our Onyx range? On a combined trajectory - about 170-200 miles. That is, it turns out that to use them on a huge aircraft-carrying cruiser, we must enter not only the radius of the work of the drummers, but crawl almost under the CAP and Hokai. Taking into account the fact that the first AUG drummers will begin to operate from 550-600 miles, the TAVKR must saw for 10-15 hours in order to reach the launch line of the Kyrgyz Republic under enemy aviation strikes. And this is subject to the immobility of the AUG.
          Quote: Taoist
          In the event of a conflict "short", the VTOL aircraft group has an advantage in the speed of ascent. It is not tied to the speed of the carrier and is insensitive to damage to the flight deck.

          Ahem ... and this is nothing that a potential enemy has long had catapults - and the rise of aircraft is not tied to the speed of the carrier.
          And in case of damage to the flight deck, the K / VTOL is deprived of the ability to fly and is converted into a “clean” vertical with very strict restrictions on take-off weight. Yes, the VTOL aircraft can take off - but its radius and load will be minimal.
          Quote: Taoist
          again, we contrast this again with TAKR - AUG ... and what if from the point of view of the "projection of force"? It turns out both more economical and more universal than driving an AUG ... Yes, and safer ...

          And if you look from the point of view of the projection of force, then the ACG from Middle-earth can project force into the Persian Gulf. And from the Persian Gulf - to Afghanistan.
          Moreover, not once a week (start-up - withdrawal to the safety depository - reloading the runway - return to the position), but daily for several weeks.
          1. Scraptor 15 October 2015 22: 39 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            An ordinary plane will not be able to. Neither take off nor sit down.
            When used properly, the combat radius of an equal-class vertical is only 5-10% lower than that of a conventional aircraft. Argenina stepped on a rake, and you skipped on them. If there were F-3,5 instead of Mirage-14 and Skyhawks? F-18 and Intruders, the result would be the same. Therefore, even Harrier-1 (AV-8A) was bought with pleasure for the United States KPM from small Britain, and he went to other countries only after the British saturated them.
            1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 10: 12 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Scraptor
              Argenin stepped on a rake, and you galloped on them. If there were F-3,5 instead of Mirage-14 and Skyhawks? F-18 and Intruders, then the result would be the same

              Figures. smile
              Under the Falklands, the “harriers” found themselves in an extremely advantageous situation: the enemy’s base aircraft operated at the radius limit, had no fuel supply for normal air combat, and was also armed with old RVVs. Argi could not even provide a normal cover for the drummers.

              If we change the aircraft of the Arg to "tomkets" and "intruders", then the problem with fuel is solved.
              The KA-6D is capable of transferring 7260 kg of fuel to the refueling aircraft (this is an almost complete refueling of the F-14 fighter) at a distance of 560 km from the aircraft carrier.

              And since there is no problem of fuel supply, it is possible to organize normal patrolling of fighters, coverage of the air situation and fight for air supremacy. Instead of flying to the "unlit" area, spending time searching for targets, launching rockets - and quickly get to the base, praying for enough fuel.
              And if RVV comes along with the planes ...

              However, the same args could have done without re-equipping the Air Force - just deploying a normal air base at the Falklands in time and providing its cover from air and land. This would remove the problem of radius, and also increase the number of arg cars in the air (there would be no need to waste time flying to the mainland and back). And then the "harriers" would have been very bad.
              Quote: Scraptor
              Therefore, even Harrier-1 (AV-8A) was bought with pleasure for the United States KPM from small Britain, and he went to other countries only after the British saturated them.

              Yeah ... and after that, the ILC cried with burning tears as a result of the combat use of the "Harriers" in Iraq.
              1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 18: 06 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                On the contrary, the British were extremely disadvantageous:
                1. they were 5-10 times less (at the beginning 10, then 5 as the forces grew and the Argenins became thinner).
                2. they had the same fuel restrictions before landing and creating an advanced airfield.
                3. vice versa - they did not have missiles with a radar seeker, only with infrared, Harrier then from the RVV except AIM-9 did not carry anything else.

                The Argentines themselves decided that they decided to compete for superiority in air themselves, but they simply stumbled without loss by the Angchians, even having a three-fold numerical superiority over them - therefore they could not cover the drummers. These drums in the Middle East, by the way, successfully clicked the MiG-21 themselves.

                A solution to the fuel problem would not work - with the interception and the beginning of the battle, the Argentine plane crashed after a maximum of 1,5 minutes.
                Refueling at the Arsenins ksati was (but not at all).

                Quote: Alexey RA
                ILC plaka

                What kind of tears, and in which war of the two?
                In Iraq, used the AV-8B in which they "made changes" lol despite the fact that the BAE warned them ... And the Americans did not have combat experience on them, mostly the British flew on their own.
          2. Scraptor 16 October 2015 04: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            A classic aircraft carrier should go against the wind, with maximum speed.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 22: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      The article is not bad, in comparison with the creations by all of us adored Kaptsov, it is generally impeccable

      Thank you! drinks
      Quote: Taoist
      For him, the postulate of the fact that AB is a "universal soldier" for some reason does not require evidence.

      Honestly, I do not quite understand what exactly needs to be proved. Are AB capabilities to strike at sea targets proven? Proven. AB air defense capabilities? Proven. AV capabilities for PLO? Also proven. And what else is needed?
      Quote: Taoist
      RCC, he considers the same as "a one-time replacement deck carrier" and not as a separate and independent type of weapon

      I see RCC as a means of forcing the enemy AUGs to stay away from our anti-submarine warrant :) Therefore, I don’t quite understand why you have such an opinion.
      Quote: Taoist
      Underestimates the real combat capabilities of vertical bars and constantly tries to compare them with conventional machines

      The USSR and the USA had a cold war, which had certain chances to turn into a hot one. At the same time, US aircraft carriers had powerful carrier-based aircraft - Tomkets, Hornets, and other Intruders there. In which case, it would be with them that the Yak-38 from our TAKR would have to be "translated". And why should I compare our VTOL aircraft, if not with their deck analogues of the same times?
      Quote: Taoist
      I overlooked the alteration of Gorshkov in Vikramadyu - and this also says a lot in terms of the potential of the project.

      So there, almost a new ship was built in the old building. And this case was significantly larger than our first TAKRs. And spent a lot of money on it. Despite the fact that a quality aircraft carrier from Vikramaditya still failed.
      But - as I would like to leave it to myself ...
      1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 06: 05 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yak-38 from our TAKR

        yes
        Yak-38, Yak-141, Yak-43.

        Before the latter, Tomket is a sheep, even in range, as well as before the Su-27.
        Yaks could fly not only with TAKR.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But - as I would like to leave it to myself ...

        Well, they would have left! Poor Indians would not have bought themselves.
    3. Scraptor 16 October 2015 04: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: CERHJ
      Ships with VTOL aircraft cannot use airplanes in that seaworthiness. In which classic aircraft carriers do this. Our pilots with TAVKR relied additional physical. load (exercise bike), so that there would be no excess weight with such nutrition ..

      Quote: CERHJ
      Everyone for some reason thinks that our industry was equal to the United States. And in terms of power and technology. And this is. Mildly speaking. not so! despite the fact that in the 70s we had to not only develop new ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers. PLARB.APL, but also KR and 4-generation aircraft. We had to develop space too. And then we had to choose priorities. This is the main thing! We could keep the balance on the sea with the help of the nuclear submarines. We built them in huge numbers and projects. Because we did it better ....

      Sing, it’s better for you ... It was superior in technology. Naprmier for the same Su-27 and Yak-41/43.
      There is also an exercise bike on the aircraft carrier, and SKVVP are superior in seaworthiness to ordinary deck decks by two points, no less. laughing
  • Performance 15 October 2015 16: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I also liked the article. But from my point of view, they limited not only economic and political realities, but also technological ones. Large sizes of floating structures are a serious problem for us, and even more so then. We could solve them, but there was little experience and time, we started with the "small" one.
    1. Alexey RA 15 October 2015 17: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Efficiency
      I also liked the article. But from my point of view, they limited not only economic and political realities, but also technological ones. Large sizes of floating structures are a serious problem for us, and even more so then. We could solve them, but there was little experience and time, we started with the "small" one.

      Ahem ... actually, a whole shipyard was reconstructed specifically for the construction of the AB. On which a battleship of 65 ct displacement was built before.

      Regarding problems with the large size of floating structures, in the early 70s the Kerch Shipyard built the Crimea supertanker: 180 ct displacement, length 295 m, width 45 m, draft 17 m.
      And the Nikolaev "Ocean" in the 70s built the oil tankers "Boris Butoma": 132 ct displacement, length 258.6 m, width 39.9 m, draft 15.7 m.
      1. Taoist 15 October 2015 17: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        No ... any tonnage could be built ... but with its base there was much worse ... Not a single berth designed for such ships was ever built ...
        1. maximghost 15 October 2015 18: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          No ... any tonnage could be built ... but with its base there was much worse ... Not a single berth designed for such ships was ever built ...

          I read somewhere that infrastructure development was planned in the 90s. A bit late, of course, but it was planned ...
        2. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 10: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          No ... any tonnage could be built ... but with its base there was much worse ... Not a single berth designed for such ships was ever built ...

          Duc ... The eternal pain of our fleet. What under the kings, what under the general secretaries.
          They tried to overcome this only once - when, during the temporary detention facility, simultaneously with the construction of the pr-23 aircraft, they began to build basing and repair places for them. Judging by the numbers, it was very expensive - the estimated cost of equipment for all locations of the LC was equal to the cost of a full-fledged shipbuilding plant (the same Molotov plant No. 402 in the "complete set" with all workshops).
    2. Serg65 15 October 2015 17: 24 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Efficiency
      Large sizes of floating structures are a serious problem for us, and even more so then. We could solve them, but there was little experience and time, we started with the "small" one.

      Reference ... TAKR "Kiev" length 273 meters, displacement 41 370 tons, entered into service in the 1975 year.
      In the same 1975, the Novorossiysk Shipping Company included the Crimea supertanker with a length of 295 meters and a displacement of 180 thousand tons.
      That is, technology was not so problematic!
  • 02520406 15 October 2015 17: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    mighty and great fleet, the pride of our motherland
  • Scharnhorst 15 October 2015 23: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The author and commentators, being convinced of their innocence, defend their point of view. Is there a computer analysis of the various options for a collision between the USAG and the USAG of the USSR in the discussed composition of ships and aircraft?
    1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 07: 56 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      The composition under discussion is not complete.

      In order not to bother with this, the Soviet KMG simply always kept the AUG in the range of their weapons in peacetime.

      The computer does not analyze, but considers, in accordance with what it is "invested" (with the program) these "convinced of their rightness" ...

      When Nikita, who had mischiefed in the Caribbean crisis, left, and Gagarin flew into space, the American and any other AVs, in case of the sluggishness of the Soviet KUG that released him beyond the radius of the RCC, were simply supposed to be knocked out of the MiG-105 (without a computer laughing ) in pairs launched from the territory of the USSR with one or two launches of R-7. And usually with non-nuclear means. High-kinetic fool knocked a hole in him from deck toseabed bottoms, or while McCain went to smoke, the anti-aradrome cassette munition disfigured the deck (the planes on it simply burned down). Further, if the AB remained afloat and while its air wing did not fly, the AUG was finished off by the approaching Soviet KUG or nuclear submarine, purely in Russian “wall to wall”. It may not even be quite so since some KUGs had their own Yak-36 (M).

      Therefore, the USSR was building something of an aircraft carrier that was suitable in the Ocean only for conflicts of low intensity (the USA also had a similar X-20 Dyna-Soar in development), and in order to drive anti-submarine Orions. And on their shores - in the form of cover for deploying their SSBNs - to drive the same Orions back. And the MiG-105 so that everything would get away with the world gendarme and hegemon, then they decided to ban it (especially with the development of non-nuclear weapons for it) by putting it under a treaty on not placing weapons in space ... Then when the Yak-41 created a “threat” it was also banned, like aeroballistic anti-ship missiles before that. And then more robotic reconnaissance and strike systems with quick-launching satellites for communication, telemetry and control went.
      Why do we need supercarriers that are knocked out by launching one or two ICBMs even without nuclear warheads on them?

      20 at the USA AUG - 20 such “manned” ICBMs on duty
      10 at the USA AUG - 10 such “manned” ICBMs on duty
      (or so that with even a small margin)
      No capitalist economy can stand such an "arms race" ... therefore it was banned, and they themselves did not build the "Eagle". laughing
  • serg2108 15 October 2015 23: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    thanks to the author, everything is correctly stated well .... from my point of view ... anyway, this is history and it remains only to discuss it ... it is a pity that our statesmen could not create a full-fledged carrier fleet sad
  • PPD
    PPD 16 October 2015 11: 43 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    A few things are always surprising:
    1 it is worth remembering that this is a cruiser with aviation weapons.
    For some reason, the substitution of concepts always says that our aircraft carrier ... etc. And this gradual is hardly accidental.
    2 For some reason, they always compare with at least Nimitz. Well really, compare, so compare. Why be shy then. So you can compare the Korean with Yamato, in principle, too. And draw the appropriate conclusions. And why not compare with the British aircraft carriers who fought in the Malvinas (or Falkland wink ) islands. Probably because the Angles will look very pale. And so with Nimitz, comparable beauty.
    3 Allegedly weakness as a cruiser. This is from a comparison with pr 1164 and there more from pr 1144. 8 Basalts called weak weapons. !! ?? And the statements that the Yankees learned to shoot them !? Hartman b .... one has 300 basalts, the other has only 250. Someone shot at them from basalts. all the more massive?
    4. Initially, the tavkr was designed as an anti-submarine development of Pr 1123. Well, the Yak 38 was not planned as a fighter, it was believed that it was quite fair that the air defense system itself and the brand + guards were quite enough. Functions and applications are different.
    All this coven says only that we have a very good ship, a decent one. Thanks to Andrey for a good article.
  • Taoist 16 October 2015 16: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Damn it is tempting to write all the same his article on this topic ... but somehow it doesn’t work out with local moderators. In any case, the last two articles that I tried to post here were wrapped due to spelling claims. Charles!
    1. Scraptor 16 October 2015 17: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I have one (on the topic of the partition of Japan and the Korean War), still with a claim to punctuation. winked The second was a reprint, generally disappeared without an answer ... And what topics do you have? Maybe so let’s go read or throw a link to a third-party resource?
      1. Taoist 16 October 2015 17: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, what are our topics ... all the same fleet and aviation. Well, about the eternal ... ;-) I'll try to throw in a personal if I find. You usually write under the influence of a moment in excitement. And then it doesn't matter.