Military Review

Ships of Armageddon. Heavy aircraft carrier cruisers project 1143

210

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 ""
Author:
210 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mamont5
    mamont5 15 October 2015 06: 50 New
    42
    Well, decent work. It is quite intelligible. Thank.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 October 2015 07: 24 New
      29
      You are welcome:)
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette 15 October 2015 14: 11 New
        +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.

        Хотелось еще отметить многочисленное бесполезное противолодочное вооружение этого недоракетного крейсера и бесполезные хлопушки "АК-76" . Трудно представить ситуацию применения РБУ -6000. По-моему там еще и торпедные аппараты были, что вообще нонсенс как для авианосца так и для ракетного крейсера. Ну и гидроакустическая станция, которая никого и никогда не слышала.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 15 October 2015 15: 16 New
          +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

          "Букари" это была песня а не корабли!!! Единственный "Керчь" остался и того вроде на иголки собрались пустить sad . There is no way to make the Trinity Museum and leave it to the descendants for a long memory ....
          1. Talgat
            Talgat 15 October 2015 20: 15 New
            +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
          maximghost 15 October 2015 18: 05 New
          +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 ...

          бесполезные хлопушки "АК-76"

          Which can also be used as air defense, albeit not bad ...
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 15 October 2015 19: 01 New
            +3
            I’m wondering if I wrote something wrong in the message above, since I got a minus?
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 16 October 2015 20: 34 New
              +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
            Boa kaa 16 October 2015 20: 28 New
            +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
            Scraptor 17 October 2015 05: 01 New
            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

            "+" поставился, значит "-" был не мой... laughing From TA launch RT with nuclear submarines. Or on NK it should not be completely TA.
            1. maximghost
              maximghost 18 October 2015 16: 10 New
              +3


              Here is an example run.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 18 October 2015 16: 46 New
                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
          gray 15 October 2015 21: 18 New
          +2
          Азов — большой противолодочный корабль проекта 1134БФ. ПУ ЗРК "С-300Ф".
          1. SAILOROLD
            SAILOROLD 17 October 2015 19: 58 New
            0
            К сожалению Азов лучшие свои корабельные годы проторчал на полигоне под Феодосией... Именно из-за "Форта"
        4. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 16 October 2015 20: 19 New
          +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.
          А вот тут, вы сударь, ни разу не угадали! ТАКР "Киев" с боевой службы 1979г привез рекорд дальности (I-я ДЗАО --48 км!) обнаружения и длительного поддержания г/а контакта подкильной ГАС "Орион". Читайте воспоминания членов первого экипажа Киева -- увлекательное чтение я вам доложу! yes
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 15 October 2015 22: 07 New
        +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
        Aqela 17 October 2015 10: 58 New
        +2
        Thank! Useful, interesting, thoughtful article! yes good
        Сейчас же, когда удар "калибром" по целям ИГИЛ, подтвердившим существенное могущество этик КР и возможность их установки на довольно не крупные носители, многие оценки возможностей флота СССР и России требуют пересмотра. soldier
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 33 New
      -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.
      Як-41 был готов еще в 1978г. До Фолкденд, где даже дозвуковые английские машины позволили выполнить все 7 ненумерованных пунктов из "перечня задач".
      After 25 years, the F-35 copied from it is not ready.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 15 October 2015 08: 00 New
        -15
        О, уже 3 "дежурных локхидовца" по минусу поставили... lol
        Anyhow? good
        Интересно, что вашей артели-тролльтелли ответит "Даос"? winked
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 October 2015 08: 01 New
          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
            Scraptor 15 October 2015 08: 05 New
            -3
            Rather, hirelings from their PR ... bully
            But essentially?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              15 October 2015 08: 16 New
              +3
              Quote: Scraptor
              But essentially?

              But in essence - answered below.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 15 October 2015 08: 42 New
                -7
                But essentially - no ...
                1. Army soldier2
                  Army soldier2 15 October 2015 19: 04 New
                  +9
                  Scraptor, 4604 comment for 180 days. You are just like Pasha Angelina. Where are your thoughts?
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 15 October 2015 21: 45 New
                    -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
                      Scraptor 16 October 2015 02: 35 New
                      -3
                      He has statistics ... wink
                    2. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 16 October 2015 05: 11 New
                      +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
                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",
                Вскрыть эти корабли позиции ПЛА , даже с кораблями сопровождения, могли только посредством зафиксированной из космоса , или иным способом своей гибели . При наличии у амеров только АУГ прикрывающих эти самые районы . Гоняться же за единичными экземплярами ,,Лосей"......Андрей явно переоценивает возможности ПЛО вертолетов , да еще и ограниченные техническими параметрами плавучего аэродрома . Как то не встречал ,ну за исключением бравых рапортов , что лодки с вертушек на раз ловили .Второй момент собственно продолжение первого , как противостояние с классической АУГ USAб приближение которой ставило на уши ВМФ
                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".
                Вот чем , чем , но не ,,Базальтом"точно встречать собирались , это просто исходя из практики мирного времени и количества ударной авиации заточенной во времена СССР именно на уничтожение АУГ. Так что авто довольно точно изложил историю создания этих ,,ни мышонок , ни лягушка, а неведома зверушка" и из чувства ностальгии ,которое я полностью разделяю- сам из,,Огонька" цветное фото ,,Киева" вырезал,пытается хоть как то оправдать затраченные усилия на постройку откровенно слабых кораблей . Но функцию свою представительскую они несли исправно! 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
                  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
                  Гоняться же за единичными экземплярами ,,Лосей"......Андрей явно переоценивает возможности ПЛО вертолетов , да еще и ограниченные техническими параметрами плавучего аэродрома . Как то не встречал ,ну за исключением бравых рапортов , что лодки с вертушек на раз ловили

                  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
                  Вот чем , чем , но не ,,Базальтом"точно встречать собирались , это просто исходя из практики мирного времени и количества ударной авиации заточенной во времена СССР именно на уничтожение АУГ.

                  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
                  и из чувства ностальгии ,которое я полностью разделяю- сам из,,Огонька" цветное фото ,,Киева" вырезал,пытается хоть как то оправдать затраченные усилия на постройку откровенно слабых кораблей

                  Maybe so. Your point of view has the right to life no more and no less than mine.
            2. inkass_98
              inkass_98 15 October 2015 08: 23 New
              19
              I didn’t set minuses, so I won’t hire :)
              Essentially - a sensible article, Kaptsov’s reasoned answer.
              Як-141 до ума не довели, после провала гос.испытаний (самолет-то угробили от криворукости, а не от того, что он был не готов, как Капцов написал - посадил летчик его на слишком высокой скорости, стойки шасси пробили корпус и баки, что привело к пожару и гибели самолета) просто про него "забыли", а документацией щедро поделились с америкосами.
              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
                Scraptor 15 October 2015 08: 52 New
                +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.
                Статья - очередная компиляция "на тему" какой "Академик Яковлев" и его самолет плохой. Просто перечитайте ее последний абзац. По ходу текста ляпсусы еще встречаются как по тактике так и по СКВВП. На один-два было указано.
                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
                  srelock 15 October 2015 14: 03 New
                  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, на этом сайте (и не только) действительно имеет место быть регулярный "наброс" на отечественную научно-инженерную школу от указанных лиц. Причина этого, вероятно, аудитория и желание подзаработать (в конечном итоге). Однако, более глубокая причина заключается в том, что в Нашей стране разрешена свобода слова без всякой за него ответственности. Посему, при наличии опыта, времени и желания, Вы так же можете написать статью и "измазать" всех, кого захотите fellow

                  Моё мнение по поводу "вертикалок":
                  СВВП всегда и по всем направлениям (от стоимости и ТТХ до боевого применения) проигрывает и будет проигрывать "классике".
                  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
                    Scraptor 15 October 2015 22: 27 New
                    0
                    Quote: srelock
                    на этом сайте (и не только) действительно имеет место быть регулярный "наброс" на отечественную научно-инженерную школу от указанных лиц.

                    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
                    Моё мнение по поводу "вертикалок".
                    СВВП всегда и по всем направлениям (от стоимости и ТТХ до боевого применения) проигрывает и будет проигрывать "классике".

                    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
                      srelock 16 October 2015 16: 25 New
                      +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.
                      Более того, пятое и шестое поколения тоже будут летать с "бетонок". Дело в том, что при эксплуатации в полевых условиях у самолёта снижается ресурс и добавляются ограничения к взлётной массе.
                      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
                        Scraptor 16 October 2015 18: 35 New
                        +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
                        srelock 17 October 2015 02: 09 New
                        +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.


                        Все прочие победы "Хариеров" происходили над противниками, не имеющими возможности ответить. Если им конечно удавалось догнать цель wink
                      3. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 17 October 2015 09: 46 New
                        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
                        srelock 17 October 2015 12: 56 New
                        0
                        Я привёл описания только тех воздушных боёв, которые имели результат. Был ещё один инцидент с участием "Миражей" и "Хариеров", но они не имели результата.
                        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.
                        Все воздушные бои ограничены датой 30.04.82. Аргентинцам хватило одного дня и больше они в воздушные поединки не всупали. Следует отметить, что почти во всех случаях "Миражи" и "Даггеры" имели преимущество в скорости и высоте и используя это, атаковали первыми, но устаревшие ракеты сводили это преимущество к нулю. В дальнейшем, уже при выполнении ударных задач, Аргентинские "Скайхоки" и "Даггеры" (и даже гражданский "Лиар Джет") не раз использовали это преимущество для ухода от перехвата.
                        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
                        Описания такого случая Я не нашёл, но нашёл очень похожий 24.05.82. с участием "Скайхоков" и без участия"Хариеров".
                        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
                        Scraptor 17 October 2015 16: 01 New
                        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.

                        Если поискать как следует найдете. За "первомайские" 2 миража и тот Даггер квитаться шли.

                        From the battle did not hear. Paratroopers - I heard. In the stratosphere and before its discovery.
                      6. srelock
                        srelock 17 October 2015 22: 48 New
                        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.

                        Если поискать как следует найдете. За "первомайские" 2 миража и тот Даггер квитаться шли.
                        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
                        Scraptor 18 October 2015 09: 00 New
                        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.
                        Не менее трети аргентинских самолетов было поражено пушечным огнем потому что Харриер висел на хвосте (что для реактивной эры начиная прямо с Кореи совсем не типично, где почти все уже было на схождениях), ракеты они берегли для того чтобы перехватить противника на пределе радиуса перехвата если не настигали его в пикировании (выход на 1,3М) до дистанции открытия пушечного огня, или если противник в завязавшемся групповом бое попробует выйти из него на сверхзвуке на форсаже (удалось всего одному потому что ракеты кончились или дали промах). Для этого прямо перед войной у AIM-9 увеличили дальность. Также она как и "Игла" меньше велась на ИК-ловушки.
                        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.
                        Все это мало кто знает, поэтому сочтите это за авторский текст. Документы и наставления на эту тему секретные по полной даже на английском. Да никто из них это и не расскажет. А профессионалу и так должно быть понятно если только замполиты "не работают над этим".
                        Therefore, if you are a pilot, then it should be clear to you all, especially having developed into a scheme.
                        Выходить из боя по недостатку топлива рискуя получить ракету никто не будет, будут драться до последнего и катапультироваться, особенно над "своими" островами, поэтому про "предел радиуса" для аргенинцев это все для мальчиков. Хотя психологический фактор конечно давит. Но сбивали их гораздо раньше чем у них даже заканчивался отведенный для боя лимит, а не оно до суха в баках.

                        Transonic is not supersonic.
                      8. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 18 October 2015 10: 06 New
                        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
                        srelock 18 October 2015 16: 00 New
                        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.
                        Англичане использовали всеракурсную ("all-aspect") AIM-9L. Пошла в серию с 1977г.
                      10. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 18 October 2015 18: 26 New
                        0
                        It was detailed in the text. The only truth on the links you provided was:
                        "Противник оказался проворнее, сказалась повышенная маневренность британских самолетов. "
                        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
                        Англичане использовали всеракурсную ("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.
                        На Даггерах РЛС и ракет с РЛС ГСН не было, а вместо R.550 обычно были израильские "Шафрир".

                        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.
                        Публике постоянно машут перед носом что AIM-9 стреляли в голову, хоя ими почти всегда били в хвост потому что на встречных ракурсах слишком велика вероятность промаха а "повышенная маневренность британских самолетов." пзволяла им легко заходить в хвост, раз уж перехват перешел в маневренный бой.
                        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
                        srelock 18 October 2015 20: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor

                        Disinformation-1
                        .
                        Disinformation-2
                        .
                        Scraptor, Вы уже сутки путаетесь убедить Меня в том, что приведённая ссылка (http://coollib.com/b/282283/read) - дезинформация. Даже если предположить, что это - так,а вся правда до сих пор находится под "грифом" и пруфов быть не может, то возникает логичный вопрос: Откуда Вам это известно?
                        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.
                        Публике постоянно машут перед носом что AIM-9 стреляли в голову, хоя ими почти всегда били в хвост потому что на встречных ракурсах слишком велика вероятность промаха а "повышенная маневренность британских самолетов." пзволяла им легко заходить в хвост, раз уж перехват перешел в маневренный бой.

                        Первые раеты с РЛ головами обладали очень малой вероятностью попадания. Современные не далеко от них ушли, особенно это касается ракет с АРГСН. Для обеспечения сравнимой с ИКГСН вероятности требуется вводить многоканальную систему наведения, т.е. непрерывная коррекция с борта носителя в сочетании с собственной активной или полуактивной головой (особенно на больших дистанциях) и всё равно , точность хуже чем у ИК и для компенсации приходится увеличивать массу БЧ, а за ней и всей ракеты со всеми вытекающими. Криостатированные ИК головы обладают чувствительностью 45-30мК и меньше. Им абсолютно "фиолетово" с какой стороны подходить к самолёту, можно даже ракеты на далёкие галактики наводить при наличии хорошей оптики и погоды 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
                        Scraptor 19 October 2015 04: 32 New
                        0
                        I didn’t read the whole link, it was based on quotes if they were from there.
                        С содержимым "Дезинформаций" что не так?

                        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)
                        Ну по приколу, кроме уже написанного про воздушные бои - армейские картинки: "Британские войска начали подготовку к штурму Порт-Стэнли, столицы Фолклендских островов." А там стоит англичанин и лыбится на пленных арестованных аргентинских срочников!!!
                        And for all this time he corrected him or the editor or someone else who? If corrected, then everything is still ...
                      13. srelock
                        srelock 19 October 2015 04: 51 New
                        0
                        Scraptor, Russian What is your native language?
                      14. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 19 October 2015 05: 43 New
                        0
                        Is it imperceptible? And yours?

                        or is it also needed some kind of evidence?
                      15. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 19 October 2015 16: 06 New
                        0
                        кроме многочисленных ляпов с фото и "подбитыми кораблями" (в морской бой автор играл? или играл тот кто переводил подпси под фотографиями) открываем дальше книгу г-на Татаркова по ссыли и видим вот такое:

                        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.

                        Далее идем в английскую викапедию и набираем там: "Atlantic Causeway" и сравниваем...
                        что то у г-на Татаркина все про вертолеты да про цистерны, и ни слова про Харриеры и "ski jump" (трамплин) для них:

                        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
                        srelock 20 October 2015 01: 59 New
                        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
                        Scraptor 20 October 2015 02: 13 New
                        0
                        Apparently the point is that you believe him, but do not check for him.
                        Может Вы много чего не увидели? Был детальный ситуационный разбор полетов, не только странные подписи под фотографиями, и сличение устройства и назначения "Atlantic Causeway", с английским легкодоступным источником.

                        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
                        srelock 20 October 2015 03: 24 New
                        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
                        Scraptor 20 October 2015 04: 32 New
                        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
    srelock 17 October 2015 02: 48 New
    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
    Scraptor 17 October 2015 09: 28 New
    0
    Это прямые участки бетонных асфальтированны[ сверху автострад и они известно где. МиГ-29 может взлетать прямо с укатанного грунта, он потому называется "фронтовым".

    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?

    Потому что харриер маневреннее. Такой вот "маневренный штурмовик", да еще с тяговооруженностью больше единицы.
  4. srelock
    srelock 17 October 2015 22: 19 New
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    Потому что харриер маневреннее. Такой вот "маневренный штурмовик", да еще с тяговооруженностью больше единицы.
    It depends on what and how to compare.
    Особенностью "Хариера" является двигатель с очень высокой (для истребителя) степенью двухконтурности и статической тягой. Это, в теории, должно обеспечить высокие разгонные характеристики на малых и сверхмалых скоростях, а поворотные сопла со струйными рулями - хорошую управляемость на этих режимах, но только на них, т.к. сопла не регулируемые, нет форсажной камеры и не известно сколько даёт ВЗ. Профиль крыла (на глаз) оптимален до скорости ~0,9М, развитая механизация... Очень вероятно, что на скоростях 500-600км/ч и средних высотах, "Хариер" превосходит в маневренных характеристиках "Мираж III"/"Даггер", но на бОльших скоростях, должно сказываться отсутствие форсажа, сопла и ВЗ.
    Я уже писал, что самолёты 2-го поколения ориентировались на достижение максимально возможных скоростей, но при этом сильно страдали ВПХ. Положение несколько исправилось у истребителей 3-го поколения. Четвёрки же закрепили и улучшили результат, да и сейчас существует множество реактивных УТС/лёгких штурмовиков ни чем не уступающих в маневренности "Хариеру" и серьёзно превосходящих его по другим ЛТХ.
    The current demotion of all Harriers to attack aircraft in what?
    Are supersonic Yaks also attack aircraft?
    Да. Сейчас и "Хариер" и Яки, лучше всего подходят под определение лёгкого штурмовика, причём довольно посредственного.
  5. Scraptor
    Scraptor 18 October 2015 08: 15 New
    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
    srelock 19 October 2015 00: 52 New
    0
    За не имением точных данных, придётся "по приборам"... wassat
    Если взять турбовентиляторный двигатель (соотношение 10-14ед.) с 7-8 ступенчатой турбиной, то там да, основная тяга образуется от вентилятора. Двигатель Pegasus 11-61/Mk.107, степень двухконтурности 1,4; степень сжатия 14; турбина 2х2 Высокого и низкого давления. Примерное распределение тяги в статике от 0.8/0.2 до 0.7/0.3 между задней и передней парой сопел соответственно. Так как сопла однорежимные, то при увеличении скорости полёта, тяга их постепенно снижается и в какой-то момент вся оставшаяся тяга приходится только на заднюю пару, расположенную за центром масс ближе к точке фокуса. Следовательно разворот сопел вниз на скорости приведёт к появлению момента на пикирование. Косвенно, Мою версию подтверждает отсутствие зафиксированных случаев выполнения "Хариером" динамического торможения. По крайней мере, Мне не удалось найти достоверных свидетельств.
    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.
    Шансы "Хариера" на победу в поединке с истребителями 4-го поколения такие же как и у других УТС или штурмовиков. Стоит так же помнить, что в принципе, определённый (пусть и околонулевой) шанс победы над Су-35 есть даже у не вооружённого Ан-2 bully
  7. Scraptor
    Scraptor 19 October 2015 03: 44 New
    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
    srelock 20 October 2015 01: 39 New
    0
    Well, if practice, let it be practice.
    Миг-29 превосходит "Хариер" по маневренным и разгонным характеристикам во всём диапазоне высот и на скорости более скор. сваливания.
    "Хариер" не может применять ОВТ и систему струйных рулей для боевого маневрирования в силу конструкционных ограничений и отсутствия САУ.
    Can you reasonably dispute? hi
  9. Scraptor
    Scraptor 20 October 2015 02: 07 New
    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
    srelock 20 October 2015 03: 30 New
    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
    Scraptor 20 October 2015 04: 28 New
    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
    srelock 21 October 2015 00: 28 New
    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.

    Посмотрите, хотя бы нагрузку на крыло и на располагаемую тягу (разгонные хар-ки)... Лучше "Хариеру" с Миг-29 не встречаться laughing
  13. Scraptor
    Scraptor 21 October 2015 09: 52 New
    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
    srelock 21 October 2015 11: 50 New
    0
    "Полёт по проводам" позволяет реализовать сложное взаимодействие управляющих элементов (отклоняемые носки крыла, закрылки, флапероны, подвижные части горизонтального и вертикального оперения и т.д.) в соответствии с заданными параметрами движения ЛА (РУС, РУД, педали) и фактическими условиями (информация от датчиков крена, тангажа, скольжения, угла атаки, скорости ЛА и т.д.) Всё это в совокупности упрощает пилотирование, улучшает маневренные хар-ки, не допускает выход ЛА на закритические режимы, позволяет вводить большое число управляемых элементов (в т.ч. ОВТ), позволяет реализовать т.н. сверхманевренность и много чего ещё.
    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
    Scraptor 21 October 2015 13: 34 New
    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
    srelock 22 October 2015 09: 19 New
    0
    Так уж сложилось, что под выражением "fly by wire" на западе now подразумевают именно САУ. САУ обязательна для статически не устойчивых самолётов, для устойчивых - по разному. Поршневой "пилотажник" - конечно нет, современный "пассажир" - да без вариантов.
    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
    Scraptor 23 November 2015 12: 46 New
    0
    Так уж cложилось что с такой же ЭДСУ для статически-неустойчивого самолета как на Су-27 у них (на X-29) ничего не получилось, поэтому исходя из "маркетинговых соображений", они в это слово вкладывают совершенно иной смысл... lol
  18. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 16 October 2015 21: 35 New
    +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
    maximghost 16 October 2015 21: 52 New
    +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
    srelock 17 October 2015 03: 14 New
    0
    Boa kaa, Under the word a place, Я подразумевал не только существующие шоссе и аэродромы, но все остальные, пригодные для организации аэродромов места. Запасы бетонных плит 6х2м на складах "Росрезерва" - государственная тайна bully
  21. Scraptor
    Scraptor 17 October 2015 18: 40 New
    0
    They are heavy ... and put slowly.
  22. srelock
    srelock 18 October 2015 01: 55 New
    0
    Wangyu reduction in prices for concrete products 6x2m in a few years due to sales from storage laughing
  23. Scraptor
    Scraptor 17 October 2015 05: 26 New
    -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
    Dart2027 15 October 2015 19: 31 New
    +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
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 22: 14 New
      0
      Watch her video again ...
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 15 October 2015 23: 05 New
        0
        Чье "её"? Опять нечего сказать?
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 16 October 2015 12: 25 New
          0
          "Аварии", недоразумение...
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 16 October 2015 18: 14 New
          -1
          Something I can’t find any accident here.
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 19 October 2015 05: 50 New
          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
          Dart2027 19 October 2015 19: 31 New
          0
          So what to watch?
        5. Scraptor
          Scraptor 20 October 2015 03: 56 New
          0
          That's what they themselves asked.
        6. Dart2027
          Dart2027 20 October 2015 19: 23 New
          0
          So where is the link to the video?
        7. Scraptor
          Scraptor 21 October 2015 07: 13 New
          0
          In google and on youtube! Where else are they usually?
        8. Dart2027
          Dart2027 21 October 2015 19: 12 New
          0
          That is, it is not?
        9. Scraptor
          Scraptor 22 October 2015 02: 37 New
          0
          Go there and find the words yourself related to the topic.
        10. Dart2027
          Dart2027 22 October 2015 19: 02 New
          0
          According to relevant, you can find a lot of things. What exactly?
        11. Scraptor
          Scraptor 23 November 2015 13: 54 New
          0
          That link to what was asked.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 16 October 2015 21: 17 New
    +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, посадить невозможно: летчик -- жить хочет и садиться на 12-т кран, газоотбойники носового "Шторма", ПУ *Базальтов* он под пистолетом (не то что по доброй воли!) не согласится!
    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
      Scraptor 17 October 2015 13: 26 New
      0
      Google по "спарка + Як-141" выдает "0" попаданий.

      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
      Много ли было "посадок" с одной АЭС?

      Quote: Boa constrictor 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
    Severomor 15 October 2015 13: 08 New
    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
      Serg65 15 October 2015 15: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: Severomor
      their planes with helicopters did not differ in gallantry.

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

        Над "Киевом" почти над полёткой вертолёт висел, ну не знаю....."на глазок" метров 50-100, а то и меньше.

        Летом на парашюте на катере летал над морем, говорят где-то около 160м., казалось ну очень высоко, а тут вот они "агрессоры" ....камнем мжн сбить
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 15 October 2015 17: 30 New
          +2
          Quote: Severomor
          а тут вот они "агрессоры" ....камнем мжн сбить

          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
          Boa kaa 16 October 2015 21: 47 New
          +1
          Quote: Severomor
          Над "Киевом" почти над полёткой вертолёт висел, ну не знаю....."на глазок" метров 50-100, а то и меньше.
          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
      Starina_hank 15 October 2015 17: 17 New
      -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
      Starina_hank 15 October 2015 17: 17 New
      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
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 22: 14 New
      0
      After their appearance, they began to differ, especially since they themselves did not have such machines.
    5. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 16 October 2015 21: 43 New
      +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
    Scraptor 17 October 2015 18: 06 New
    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.

    А. Никаких "проваленных с треском заданий" итп не было. Народ "от Партии и Правительства" даже получил премии.
    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).
    Г. Як-141 был готов к серии. Причем на заводе про который писал "Даос" в одной из своих немногочисленных статей. Просто непоследовало заказа на выпуск, вот и все. Перестройка уже была...
    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
    27091965 15 October 2015 09: 04 New
    +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
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 11: 54 New
      -3
      Life or theory? ... Ships of smaller displacement are easier and cheaper to build.
      1. 27091965
        27091965 15 October 2015 12: 37 New
        +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
          Scraptor 15 October 2015 14: 00 New
          -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.
          И незачем так их базировать потому что они становяся уязвимы и им долго расходится в "завесу" из одной точки.
          1. 27091965
            27091965 15 October 2015 16: 36 New
            +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
              Scraptor 16 October 2015 03: 38 New
              -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
                Boa kaa 16 October 2015 22: 02 New
                +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
                  Scraptor 17 October 2015 05: 34 New
                  0
                  And what are the fundamental difficulties in them?
          2. Army soldier2
            Army soldier2 15 October 2015 19: 11 New
            +1
            Scraptor, have you ever been to an American aircraft carrier?
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 16 October 2015 03: 40 New
              -1
              Is this a duty question? What did you want to know?
        2. Silhouette
          Silhouette 15 October 2015 17: 35 New
          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.
          "Варяг", имея меньшее водоизмещение, нес в два раза больше ракет и был по-настоящему удачным ракетным крейсером с водоизмещением эсминца.Да еще перезарядку мог делать в море.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 16 October 2015 20: 40 New
    +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
      Scraptor 17 October 2015 05: 15 New
      0
      Where the helicopters are.

      Axiom in the dispersal of manpower and equipment. As much as the main weapons allow.
      Очередной "Титаник", "Синано" или "Бисмарк" не облокотился.
      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
    Veps 17 October 2015 18: 10 New
    -1
    Обзор толковый, камрад! Опущена самая главная цель авианосных соединений. Это самое главное средство психологического давления. Поэтому у нас строили ТАКРы, как средства качественного усиления борьбы с авианесущими группировками корабельного базирования потенциального противника (отсюда активное применение ПКР большой и сверхбольшой дальности). У потенциального противника это ставка на использование авиации для применения по слабо защищенным средствами ПВО целям. Сравни показатели по эффективности самолёто-вылетов у ВМС США за период активного применения от войны с Ираком в 1990-1991 (там были три войсковые операции "Щит пустыни", "Лиса пустыни" и потом "Буря в пустыни") до войны в Ливии в 2011-2012. И сравни её с показателями применения крылатых ракет типа "Томагавк" в это же время. Чисто на заметку, за прошедшие войны в Ираке, Югославии и Ливии, ВМС США "настрелял" по целям около двух тысяч крылатых ракет разного калибра (в основном были, конечно же, разрекламированные "Томагавки"). Поэтому ракетное оружие в разы имеет большую боевую эффективность, нежели корабельная авиация. Авианосцы с тучей самолётиков выглядит гораздо устрашающе, чем три десятка юрких корветов (малых крейсеров) с тремя сотнями управляемых ракет. А на деле, как показали морские активные действия в прибрежных акваториях (в открытых водах уже давно никто не рассчитывает воевать эскадра на эскадру) ПКР и прочие ракеты, в том числе крылатые при грамотной тактике, разносят любую эскадру до состояния небоеспособности. Вон когда, иракские военные применили 1990 ПКР французского производства по одному из фрегатов ВМС США, так вся группировка за сутки уплыла из залива в Индийский океан на месяц, пока не подавили окончательно всю авиацию и ПВО. Работали тогда американцы исключительно с авиабаз в Катаре и Саудовской Аравии. И надо ещё понимать специфику нашей авиации ВКС и ВМФ по сравнению с авиацией ВМС США. Тяжелых самолетов массой более 25 тонн у американских военных на флоте нет. У нас они все за 30 тонн. Фронтовые бомбардировщики типа СУ-24М и Су-34 (основные носители тактических ядерных боеприпасов) с авианосцев не взлетают, и даже не садятся. ТАКР "Адмирал Кузнецов" корабль не сильно маленький (водоизмещение 75 тыс.тонн), для сравнения - авианосцы типа "Энтерпрайз" (головной корабль серии) имеют такое же водоизмещение. Новые проекты типа "Джеральд Форд" имеют водоизмещение более 100 тыс.тонн. Однако с них как FB-111 не взлетали, так и не взлетят (хотя, проектировались изначально они именно для авианосного базирования). Напомню, что FB-111 - это американский аналог нашего Су-24М.
  • Yak28
    Yak28 15 October 2015 07: 06 New
    +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
      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
        Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 38 New
        -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
          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?

          Британский пилот, на вопрос "Что Вы будете делать, встретив в бою МиГ-29", ответил: "Катапультироваться"
          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
          До Фолкденд, где даже дозвуковые английские машины позволили выполнить все 7 ненумерованных пунктов из "перечня задач".

          fool They were there and one - the cover of the British squadron from the air - failed to complete.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 15 October 2015 08: 42 New
            -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.
            Зачем Харриеры даже на Таравах не в них садятся? Или на "Atlantic Causeway"?

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Британский пилот, на вопрос "Что Вы будете делать, встретив в бою МиГ-29", ответил: "Катапультироваться"
            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.

            Поясните... Радиус почти как у хорнета, а в ближнем бою Томкета постигнет та же участь что аргенинцев. Или такие их потери против даже дозвуковых Харриеров это "эпическое фэнтази"?

            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.

            Пишите про авианосцы, как Ооег Капцов про линкоры или про броню. Или про винджаммеры (они тоже большие и красивые). Не надо гадить на самолеты и лезть в то чего не знаете. На сайт могут в конце концов "обидется".
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 15 October 2015 09: 38 New
              +7
              Quote: Scraptor
              And then what is not an aircraft carrier.
              Зачем Харриеры даже на Таравах не в них садятся? Или на "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
                maximghost 15 October 2015 12: 33 New
                +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
                Scraptor 15 October 2015 13: 28 New
                -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

                Яка - 1060, МиГа - 1030 или даже меньше, википедию постоянно поправляют "друзья народа".
                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
                  Falcon 15 October 2015 14: 48 New
                  +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
                  Вот как он описывает бой: «Пеpвые полтоpы минyты боя мы двигались по тpаектоpии, выходя в нyжное для атаки место всеми возможными способами. Hам довольно быстpо yдалось создать себе пpеимyщество для выхода на атакy цели, мы сели на "хвост" Сy-27 и весь остаток боя пpовели не слезая с него. Hадо отдать должное летчикy Сy-27, пилотиpовал он хоpошо, но бой все pавно выигpали мы.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 16 October 2015 01: 49 New
                    0
                    see below...
                2. Falcon
                  Falcon 15 October 2015 15: 15 New
                  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
                  Вот как он описывает бой: «Пеpвые полтоpы минyты боя мы двигались по тpаектоpии, выходя в нyжное для атаки место всеми возможными способами. Hам довольно быстpо yдалось создать себе пpеимyщество для выхода на атакy цели, мы сели на "хвост" Сy-27 и весь остаток боя пpовели не слезая с него. Hадо отдать должное летчикy Сy-27, пилотиpовал он хоpошо, но бой все pавно выигpали мы.


                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Яка - 1060, МиГа - 1030 или даже меньше, википедию постоянно поправляют "друзья народа".


                  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
                    Scraptor 16 October 2015 01: 44 New
                    -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
                      Falcon 16 October 2015 08: 36 New
                      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?


                      Ну это уже даже не смешно? "сели на хвост - это не в смысле пилот сел на хвост, а в смысле миг-29 сел! И выигрывали 80% боев. Давайте так, сначала читаете, а потом комментируете.

                      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
                        Scraptor 23 November 2015 14: 56 New
                        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.

                        Кто бы вас простил... Особенно такого, "имеющего ВУС авиационную". lol
            2. alexej123
              alexej123 15 October 2015 11: 39 New
              +9
              Я небольшой специалист, но утверждение о том, что Миг-29 не может сбить "Хариер" - это "сильно". Превосходство в скорости, в манёвренности, в бортовом оборудовании, в вооружении и "не может сбить"? По-моему этим коментом пытались "насолить" автору.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 15 October 2015 11: 50 New
                -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
              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?

              А Вы не в курсе?:) Ну что ж, придется опять ликбезом заниматься: Таравах СВВП базировались потому что "Харриерами" заинтересовалась морская пехота США. Которой импонировал штурмовик, способный действовать с необорудованного аэродрома, которому не нужны ВПП. США, имея двухсоттысячный корпус морпехов прислушалась к их пожеланиям. Иным словами СВВП НИКОГДА не рассматривался американцами в качестве самолета ВМФ. ТОлько для КМП, только для действий на суше и только для необорудованного побережья. Внимание, вопрос. За каким таким счастливым, СВВП нужен нашей морской пехоте, если ее в годы СССР было ЕМНИП 12 тыс чел и никакие десанты окромя тактических ею высаживать не собирались?
              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" (Сборник Общества Британских Аэрокосмических Компаний SBAC, посвященный 50-летию аэрошоу в Фарнборо), стр.81: "Для западных ВВС стало большим шоком, когда F-16, вооруженный ракетами SIDEWINDER (AIM-9M - Д.С.) сравнили в испытаниях (видимо в той же Германии - Д.С.) с МиГ-29, вооруженным Р-73. Из 50 поединков против Р-73 AIM-9M выиграла только один. Учебные бои на малой дистанции между F-15 с AIM-9M и МиГ-29 с нашлемным прицелом и Р-73 показали, что Миг может захватывать цели в воздушном пространстве в 30 раз большем по объему, чем F-15."
              Quote: Scraptor
              Harrier now can only be shot down with the Su-27.

              Харриер может быть сбит с чего угодно, так как эта дозвуковая пародия на боевой самолет неконкурентоспособна ни одному истребителю 4-го поколения от слова "НИКАК".
              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
                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.

                "Гениально" Ничего, что для обеспечения базирования 22 вертолетов ТАРК нужно 22 корвета (что много дороже ТАРК)? Ничего, что корветы не могут обеспечивать ту же интенсивность использования вертолетов, что и ТАРК? А уж про такие "мелочи" как автономность и способность подымать вертолеты во время волнения я вообще молчу.
                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
                Поясните... Радиус почти как у хорнета, а в ближнем бою Томкета постигнет та же участь что аргенинцев. Или такие их потери против даже дозвуковых Харриеров это "эпическое фэнтази"?

                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
                Обнаружив зашедший в хвост аргентинский истребитель или выпущенную им ракету, пилот "Харриера" изменял вектор тяги двигателя, за счет чего резко тормозил

                Looks like a mockery of the Harriers - having all the conceivable advantages, they still let the Argentines in their tail ?!
                НИ ОДНОГО из указанных выше преимуществ у Як-141 против Томкэта не имеется. Томкэт имеет преимущства в БРЭО и в скорости, что дает ему возможность вступать в бой в позиции, которую он посчитает для себя наилучшей. А его "регулируемые" крылья в значительной мере невелируют преимущество Яка в БВБ.
                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.
                К тому же сравнение Як с Томкэтом - "немного" некорректно. У нас не было Томкэтов. У нас были МиГ-29 и Су-33. Вот с ними-то и нужно сравнивать Як, так как у нас был выбор - строить авианесущие корабли под Яки или Су/МиГ.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  15 October 2015 20: 05 New
                  +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
                  На сайт могут в конце концов "обидется".

                  Take offense. I do not mind, and in general - they carry water to angry
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 16 October 2015 09: 08 New
                    -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.

                    Да - смешно: то у вас "на Скайхоках и Даггерах со свободнопадающими и невзрывающимися", то "на Супер-Этандарах и Миражах с "Экзосет"...
                    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.
                    Потери в моряках превышают и подавно потому что контейнеровозы почти "необитаемые".

                    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
                    Falcon 16 October 2015 10: 45 New
                    +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
                      Quote: Falcon
                      Looks like a comrade, he doesn’t own the subject at all.

                      Я вот думаю сделать "товарищу" бяку - взять да и написать статью о СВВП:) Взрыв от переполняющих эмоций нашему "оппоненту" гарантирован:)
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 16 October 2015 13: 44 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Я вот думаю сделать "товарищу" бяку - взять да и написать статью о СВВП:) Взрыв от переполняющих эмоций нашему "оппоненту" гарантирован:)

                        laughing Andrey, how little is needed to get you out of hibernation and return to creative work !!!!
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 16 October 2015 13: 56 New
                        -4
                        Creative byak? Something completely smelled of the udafkom ...
                    3. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 16 October 2015 13: 45 New
                      -2
                      Looking at your fragile attempts on this topic in the 2,5 paragraph here?
                      I think Kaptsov will do better ...
                    4. Serg65
                      Serg65 16 October 2015 19: 26 New
                      +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
                      Scraptor 17 October 2015 02: 14 New
                      -2
                      you answer for yourself - your semi-childish comments are clearly visible here ...

                      Капцов на счет брони для "каботажников", прав.
                2. Falcon
                  Falcon 16 October 2015 15: 04 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Я вот думаю сделать "товарищу" бяку - взять да и написать статью о СВВП:) Взрыв от переполняющих эмоций нашему "оппоненту" гарантирован:)


                  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.
                  "Говно не трож вонять не будет".
                3. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 16 October 2015 15: 57 New
                  -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
              Scraptor 23 November 2015 15: 25 New
              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
          Scraptor 16 October 2015 08: 40 New
          -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 ?!

          А "кобра Пугачева" зачем?

          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.
          МиГ-23 его "регулируемые крылья" тоже бы не помогли.

          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
        Scraptor 16 October 2015 09: 49 New
        -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.
        Десанты ею высаживались боевые, и "тактические" я так онимаю в вашем незамутненном замполитском сознании это до первого обратного ската сопки... где уже врага не видно (а значит - его нет 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.

        "Экзосетами" аргентинцы в ответ натворили еще меньше чем бомбами.

        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
    Assistant 15 October 2015 10: 03 New
    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
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 11: 51 New
      0
      Сами "Харриеры" там тоже вовсю атаковали поверхностные цели.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 October 2015 23: 06 New
      +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?
      Второе - а какими средствами аргентинцы искали бы АПЛ? Летали бы на самолете и смотрели вниз через иллюминатор? У них практически не было противолодочной авиации, а разведывательная была на таком уровне, что гражданские самолеты пришлось привлекать. Ну и качество СВВП было настолько "хорошим", что даже невоенных разведчиков с неба снять не смогли.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 16 October 2015 04: 08 New
        0
        А затем чтобы АПЛ бронированный "Бельграно" не утопила бы! В базы аргенинский флот попрятался именно после этого и еще ряда "маневров".
        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
    Taoist 15 October 2015 17: 48 New
    +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
    Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 43 New
    -5
    You got it wrong again lol
    1. inkass_98
      inkass_98 15 October 2015 08: 24 New
      +5
      Quote: Scraptor
      You got it wrong again

      What is wrong here? What is the question, is the answer.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 15 October 2015 09: 02 New
        -3
        Everything is wrong. Both the question and the answer.
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 15 October 2015 10: 37 New
    +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
      Falcon 15 October 2015 11: 03 New
      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
        Scraptor 15 October 2015 12: 56 New
        -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
          Dart2027 15 October 2015 19: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: Scraptor
          what vertical can not do what can he do?

          Take off in the normal way.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 16 October 2015 04: 37 New
            -1
            Does she lack an airplane landing gear? lol
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 16 October 2015 18: 11 New
              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
                Scraptor 17 October 2015 15: 02 New
                -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
                  Dart2027 17 October 2015 16: 13 New
                  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
                    Scraptor 17 October 2015 16: 42 New
                    -1
                    It must be replaced with a sled.

                    Let the one who enlightens me educate and give you pluses.
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 17 October 2015 19: 58 New
                      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
                      Scraptor 17 October 2015 20: 03 New
                      0
                      So will you change for the sleigh?
                    3. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 18 October 2015 18: 09 New
                      0
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      So will you change for the sleigh?

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


                      Then, to better perform helicopter maneuvers. lol
                      Any ...
                    5. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 19 October 2015 19: 34 New
                      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
                      Scraptor 20 October 2015 05: 12 New
                      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
                      Dart2027 20 October 2015 19: 22 New
                      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
                      Scraptor 21 October 2015 08: 29 New
                      0
                      To shoot down a helicopter from an airplane is very difficult.
                    9. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 21 October 2015 19: 15 New
                      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
                      Scraptor 22 October 2015 02: 37 New
                      -1
                      Because helicopters usually cannot fly so fast as to catch a fighter.
                    11. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 22 October 2015 19: 01 New
                      +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
                      Scraptor 23 November 2015 13: 53 New
                      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
    Scraptor 15 October 2015 12: 30 New
    -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
      Falcon 15 October 2015 15: 36 New
      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
        Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 13 New
        -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.
        У МиГ-29 еще щели "жаберные" сверху и перекрываемые воздухозаборники чтобы не всасывало в двигатель камни и песок. На Су-27 этого нет.
        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
          Falcon 16 October 2015 08: 49 New
          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
          У МиГ-29 еще щели "жаберные" сверху и перекрываемые воздухозаборники чтобы не всасывало в двигатель камни и песок.


          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
            Scraptor 16 October 2015 14: 12 New
            -2
            Quote: Falcon
            I just had the honor of serving it a couple of times.

            "О горе-горе Республике!" lol
            Or are you here trying to foreign intelligence brains soar that it does not fly from the ground? It is useless - they know ...
            Их закрывает пилот перед выводом на обороты, воздух идет через верхние "жабры" самолет взлетает, воздухозаборники открываются.
            Ren-TV has long been shown to everyone in the pictures, contact there.
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 15 October 2015 13: 40 New
    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?
    Я знаю что термин "сверхманевренность" впервые был применен в 90-е годы к Су-37, который оснащен двигателями с ОВТ. Самолеты без ОВТ так называть не принято. Если вы в понятие "сверхманевренность" вкладываете то значение, которое применимо к Су-33, то тогда и F-16, и МиГ-29, и еще много самолетов можно считать сверхманевренными.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 35 New
      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.
      Такими силами невозмодно полностью прикрыть обе свои тактически группы (амфибийную и авианосную) 24часа в сутки в секторе 160-180град (или более) каждая. Было бы их больше на 1/4 или 1/3 прикрытие было бы полным. Оно таким в общемстало только когда пришел "Atlantic Causeway".

      Su-27 and JAS-39 are only two serial statically unstable aircraft, so they are super-arrogant even without ATS.
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 15 October 2015 07: 07 New
    17
    Great article! A plus.
    Добавлю немного от себя. Практика показала, что идея гонять подводные лодки при помощи надводных кораблей и авиации сама по себе не является средством, гарантирующим обнаружение и уничтожение ПЛ. Очень много неуправляемых факторов, таких как состояние море и прочее. Время реального контакта с ПЛ было невысоким у большинства наших НК и даже у Ил-38 (напрмер: А.Артемьев "Ил-38 против атомных подводных лодок", М.2002 г.). В ближней зоне шансы еще есть, за счет массовости применения и высокой плотности средств поиска ПЛ, а вот в океане... И в этом смысле американцы возможно сделали правильный выбор, перейдя на стационарные средства обнаружения ПЛ в ограниченном водном районе - это SOSUS. Если бы мы развернули такую же систему, но не на Фареро-Исландском рубеже, а в Баренцевом, Охотском, Японском и других морях - возможно это обошлось бы дешевле, чем сжигание тонн топлива при патрулировании акваторий самолетами и НК.
    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
      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
      Silhouette 15 October 2015 14: 34 New
      +1
      В 1983 году "Минск" совершил первый и последний поход в Индийский Океан, где "пободался" с атомным "Энтерпрайзом", чем доказал полную свою бесполезность и абсурдность своего существования. Не смог сблизиться с авианосцем даже на дистанцию залпа, в то время как америкосы как в тире отрабатывали нанесение ударов своей авиацией с "Гарпунами" даже не входя в зону поражения корабельных средств ПВО. "Энтерпрайз" неделю ходил со скоростью 30 узлов, а "Минск" себе мог позволить такую скорость лишь несколько часов. Атомная лодка с нами была, но ее в Индийском океане на рабочей глубине днем визуально было видно изза прозрачности воды и черного копуса, который даже в нежно-голубой не удосужились наши стратеги перекрасить. Прилетала и дальняя авиация из Энгельса, но ее сбивали еще над Пакистаном, где у америкосов была база ВВС. Ну и из Катара тоже. Вобщем, порезвились на славу. Зато командир похода орден получил.
      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
        Quote: Silhouette
        В 1983 году "Минск" совершил первый и последний поход в Индийский Океан, где "пободался" с атомным "Энтерпрайзом", чем доказал полную свою бесполезность и абсурдность своего существования

        You are mistaken :) The first and last trip of Minsk to the Indian Ocean proved the futility and absurdity нахождения "Минска" в открытом океане:))
        Quote: Silhouette
        "Энтерпрайз" неделю ходил со скоростью 30 узлов, а "Минск" себе мог позволить такую скорость лишь несколько часов.

        Well, escort of the Enterprise could also walk 30 knots for a week? :)
        1. Silhouette
          Silhouette 15 October 2015 15: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Вы ошибаетесь:) Первым и последним походом Минска в индийский океан была доказана бесполезность и абсурдность нахождения "Минска" в открытом океане:))


          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? :)


          А америкосы же не дураки. Они прекрасно знали, что кроме "Минска" и трех противолодочных "беззубых красавцев" от Африки до Австралии противника нет и не придвидится. Минимум в течение месяца. Туда же только 3 дороги - через Суэц, через Малаккский пролив и вокруг Африки. Вот он и бегал один по Индийскому Океану в совершенной безопасности. Без эскорта. Вот так-то.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            15 October 2015 23: 44 New
            +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
              Scraptor 16 October 2015 01: 18 New
              0
              In the event of an aggravation, the base in Pakistan and Qatar would not be ...
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 16 October 2015 01: 57 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Вы ошибаетесь:) Первым и последним походом Минска в индийский океан была доказана бесполезность и абсурдность нахождения "Минска" в открытом океане:))

          Неужели он хуже чем "Илластриес"?
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • tchoni
    tchoni 15 October 2015 07: 14 New
    +2
    The article is not bad in itself, but the name should be changed to "Why did it happen all the same?"
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 41 New
      -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
        Dante Alighieri 15 October 2015 16: 45 New
        +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.

        Олег Капцов своими тезисами показывает, что данный класс мёртвым грузом (читай балластом) лёг бы на плечи флота. Андрей из Челябинска говорит о противоположном. Каждая сторона приводит свои аргументы и доводы, доказывая свою правоту. И обе стороны рассуждают категориями дня минувшего. Давайте возьмём для примера, ставший камнем преткновения вопрос об авиа соединении. Все доводы свелись к "+" и "-" Яков, однако находясь корабли пр. 1143 сегодня на вооружении какова вероятность, что на них продолжали бы базироваться Яки? Думаю, это увеличена, стремящаяся к нулю. Вероятность того что авиа крыло в основе своей состояло бы из вертолётов много выше. Но здесь уместен аргумент одного из комментирующих, что на сегодняшний день вертолёты, как средство обнаружения подводных лодок противника, - морально устарели (допускаю и такое), кроме того тезис Олега, что они не способны в случае угрозы оказать сопротивлении авиации противника, тем самым усилив ПВО корабля также имеет право на объективность. Добавлю от себя (не претендуя на истинность), что размер взлётно-посадочной палубы пр. 1143, для нужд исключительно вертолётов будет явно излишним. Однако ничто не стоит на месте, появившийся сравнительно недавно класс беспилотных летательных аппаратов, вполне мог бы оказаться той самой золотой серединой между ударной мощью и разведкой для кораблей пр. 1143. Оснастив беспилотниками эти корабли мы могли бы значительно усилить воздушную составляющую корабля, не проиграв в дальности обнаружения и по максимуму использовав инфраструктуру помещений и надстроек: в частности, представляется, что имеющая длина взлетно-посадучной палубы была бы оптимальной как для взлёта БПЛА (особенно если учитывать возможный монтаж пороховой катапульты), так и для его посадки, чего согласитесь самолёты, не оснащённые системами вертикального взлёта и посадки, себе позволить не могу, в виду банальной нехватки длины взлётной полосы.
        1. Dante Alighieri
          Dante Alighieri 15 October 2015 16: 46 New
          0
          Другой тезис Олега Капцова касательно недостаточной вооруженности корабля, в достаточной мере развеянный Андреем, так же нуждается в уточнении. Да, бесспорно, РК Гранит - мощное оружие, но его количество, представляется недостаточным даже для оппонента Олега. Однако, замена гранита, например, на тот же РК "Калибр" позволяет решить данную проблему, не прибегая к значительным изменениям в конструкции корабля и не перегружая его. Да, мы в определённой степени сокращаем дальность стрельбы по морским целям и (предположительно)мощность боеголовки, однако в разы увеличиваем количество носителей, что по закону больших чисел, должно обеспечивать большую вероятность преодоления системы ПВО вероятного противника. Что же касательно ПВО самих кораблей пр.1143, то, представляется, что за счёт более компактного расположения авиа крыла (всё же БПЛА, по своим размерам не превосходит истребитель) и, как следствие, освобождения дополнительных объёмов внутри корпуса, появляется возможность для установки на борт систем ПВО по классу С-300Ф и С-400Ф(если последние когда-нибудь всё же появятся). Таким образом возможности нашего ВМФ по противодействию воздушным целям противника были бы многократно усиленны, так как вместо 3-ёх или 4-ёх кораблей, на сегодняшний момент обладающих собственной полноценной ПВО, а по сему не способных в полной мере выполнять задачи по прикрытию морских соединений ВМФ, мы бы получали соответственно группировку кораблей в два раза превышающую сегодняшние показатели и это ещё без учёта БПЛА, которые также можно рассматривать как элемент ПВО (при соответствующем уровне технологий и вооружения естественно).

          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
            Scraptor 16 October 2015 03: 02 New
            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
          Scraptor 16 October 2015 02: 47 New
          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

          Ату-ату! Забудьте вы эту "пороховую катапульту", его же отсталые китайцы изобрели! Лучше для паровой жечь солярку... laughing
  • Per se.
    Per se. 15 October 2015 07: 44 New
    +7
    Прочитал с интересом статью, со многим мнение совпадает, кроме, - "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.". Вряд ли яковлевцы "провалили" задание, был в СССР создан серийный СВВП, как и был создан впервые в мире сверхзвуковой СВВП Як-141. Конечно, глупо спорить, если сравнивать в противопоставлении классический самолёт и СВВП, но совсем не глупо, если СВВП рассматривать не в качестве некого "антогониста", а в качестве дополнения к самолётам традиционной схемы. Появление СВВП, как и первое появление аэропланов, приход авиации на море, создание авианосцев, всё это следствие эволюции вооружений, научно-технического прогресса. Век СВВП начался намного позднее "обычных" самолётов, но они будут развиваться, совершенствоваться, заняв свою нишу, имея свои плюсы. Лично мне очень жаль, что зарубили Як-141, как и его дальнейшее развитие, Як-141М и Як-43, мы лидировали в этой теме, а сейчас желчно похихикиваем над янки, которые и не имели своего самолёта СВВП, такого опыта, используя сперва наработки англичан по "Харриер", после поимев наш Як-141, при создании F-35. Что до кораблей проекта 1143, так ничто после не мешало их модернизировать, переделать в полноценные авианосцы (как "Горшкова" для индусов). Ничто и не мешало при развале СССР порезать или продать, как авианесушие крейсера, и полноценные авианосцы, будь они построены. Случилось, что случилось, надо жить дальше, надо думать, как и чем на море Родину защищать, а для этого нужен сильный, сбалансированный флот, для которого нужны разные корабли и летательные аппараты, включая как классические самолёты и вертолёты, так и новые, конвертопланы и СВВП.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 07: 56 New
      -2
      "Вчерашнего дня" была еще одна заказная статья от SWEET_SIXTEEN о F-35 vs, Як-141 на ту тему...
      Харриер от англичан они тоже "поимели", как и наработки по конвертоплану CL-84 у канадцев, ГЕГЕМОН он такой гегемон...
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 October 2015 08: 45 New
      +7
      Quote: Per se.
      Вряд ли яковлевцы "провалили" задание, был в СССР создан серийный СВВП, как и был создан впервые в мире сверхзвуковой СВВП Як-141

      Уважаемый Per se, проблема в другом. От ОКБ Яковлева ожидалось, что они смогут создать СВВП, который по своим ТТХ станет конкурентоспособной оппозицией самолетам американских авиакрыльев. И вот с этой-то задачей Яковлев не справился совершенно и никак. В его положении лучше всего было честно сказать, что такой СВВП создать не получится, вместо этого он "тянул резину", а флот на четверть века остался без дееспособной палубной авиации.
      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
        Scraptor 15 October 2015 09: 09 New
        -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.
        Резину тянули ваши партайгеноссе в высоких кругах. Например, заставляли переделывать самолет три раза, а потом "потеряли интерес".

        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.
        Per se. 15 October 2015 09: 43 New
        +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.
        Уважаемый Андрей, просто по определению СВВП не мог тогда быть полноценным конкурентом палубникам янки, как не мог быть полноценным конкурентом наш авианесущий крейсер атомному авианосцу США, создай даже тогда яковлевцы такой супер СВВП. То, что наш флот остался на четверть века без полноценной авиации... Я уже отмечал, горе не в том, что вместо классических авианосцев начали с авианесущих крейсеров, а в том, что погиб Советский Союз. Будь у нас и "полноценные авианосцы", не факт, что их бы при Ельцине не порезали, не продали. У Штатов паранойя на наш флот, на его уничтожение, до настоящего времени здесь лоббируют, саботируют и попросту козлят всячески, и, нередко, весьма эффективно. Будь жив и здоров СССР, уже был бы в строю атомный "Ульяновск", наверняка, было бы и дальнейшее развитие темы в суперавианосец, был бы доведён и сверхзвуковой СВВП, оставив Запад в глубоком анусе. Могли и авианесущие крейсера переделать в классические авианосцы, УДК или противолодочные вертолётоносцы. Ещё раз повторю, СВВП не антагонист "классическому" палубному самолёту, но дополнение. Придёт время, большинство летательных аппаратов будет иметь вертикальный или укороченный взлёт, а пока это кажется фантастикой.
        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
        Может быть, если внести туда "полезные" изменения. Если серьёзно, это трагедия, мы, как те индейцы, что меняли своё чистое золото на дешёвые зеркальца и стеклянные бусы. Нужно срочно возрождать тему, возвращаться к своим наработкам по СВВП. Вы имеете свою точку зрения и аргументируюте её, я это уважаю, тем более, что во многих вопросах нахожу Вас, скорее союзником, чем оппонентом. Надеюсь, "кому надо" тоже имеют свою голову, и очень надеюсь, что их головы не обижены умом.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 15 October 2015 10: 30 New
          +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.
            Per se. 15 October 2015 10: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: Scraptor
            Maybe you are not reading those books? Everything has been done for a long time ...
            Как пел Высоцкий, нужные книжки я в детстве читал, да и сейчас, надеюсь, читаю то, что "интересно и правильно". Речь шла о большинстве лететельных аппаратов, если Вы прочитали мой комментарий, а не о том, что там наши лукавые китайские "братья-союзники" доделывают или кто-либо ещё. Пока лишь в живой природе преобладает вертикальный и укороченный взлёт, а по-журавлинному, взлетает большинство самолётов мира. Повторюсь, придёт время, наверняка, и в технике вертикальный и укороченный взлёт будет нормой, пока же это, как норма, выглядит фантастикой, а кое для кого и просто вредной технической ересью.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 15 October 2015 12: 00 New
              -1
              Ну в "журавлях" это конечно гораздо ближе к технической стороне вопроса чем...
              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
              "Ересь" летала и сбивала еше 53 и 34 года назад.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 October 2015 22: 34 New
          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

          Уважаемый Сергей, если мы в каких-то вопросах не сходимся во мнении, то что может быть лучше, чем дружелюбная и конструктивная дискуссия? Вполне возможно, что Вы переубедите меня, может - наоборот, а может мы останемся каждый при своем мнении - любой исход оставляет приятное "послевкусие" от общения с умным человеком, способным аргументировать свою позицию.
          Ваше мнение по СВВП мне понятно, оно логично и по своему обосновано. СО своей стороны я замечу, что бюджеты НИОКР не резиновые, мы четверть века занимались СВВП, вкладывали деньги, увы, без заметного "выхлопа". ПОлагаю, что потраченым ресурсам можно было бы найти более эффективное применение.
          Quote: Per se.
          Будь жив и здоров СССР, уже был бы в строю атомный "Ульяновск", наверняка, было бы и дальнейшее развитие темы в суперавианосец

          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
                Scraptor 16 October 2015 12: 07 New
                -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
    Rurikovich 15 October 2015 08: 04 New
    +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 .
    По крайней мере ,некоторым "упартым" авторам стоит во многом поучится убедительно писать статьи на волнующие их темы repeat lol
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 October 2015 08: 17 New
      -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
    sevtrash 15 October 2015 08: 10 New
    0
    The justification of the appearance / existence of 1143 Krechet is somehow strange and extremely tense.
    Сначала - ну хотели все время авианосец. Что же с того, это уже давно известно - "хотели как лучше, получилось как всегда". На оправдание не тянет.
    А потом еще автор потихонечку переквалифицировал 1143 в вертолетоносец или носитель ПКР. Но первой задачей для Кречета значилось - "противовоздушная оборона корабля и (или) группы кораблей, сопровождаемых им"! Для чего он и создавался. Ну прекрасно, что нес ПКР, но основная задача была совсем другой.
    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
      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
      Сначала - ну хотели все время авианосец. Что же с того, это уже давно известно - "хотели как лучше, получилось как всегда". На оправдание не тянет.

      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
      Но первой задачей для Кречета значилось - "противовоздушная оборона корабля и (или) группы кораблей, сопровождаемых им"!

      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
        sevtrash 15 October 2015 08: 44 New
        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
          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
            sevtrash 15 October 2015 09: 08 New
            -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.
            "...Составлявший основу авиагруппы штурмовик СВВП Як-38, в отличие от близкого по летным характеристикам английского Hawker Siddeley Harrier, не имел бортовой РЛС. Из-за этого Як-38 был практически не способен к участию в воздушном бою, исключая ситуации сближения на дистанцию визуального обнаружения. Кроме того, гамма бортового ракетного вооружения Як-38 была представлена лишь сравнительно недальнобойными ракетами, что делало его применение против кораблей или береговых объектов с мощной ПВО весьма опасным занятием. В определенной степени, слабость ударной авиации крейсера проекта 1143 компенсировалась его мощным арсеналом противокорабельных ракет, но компенсировать неспособность Як-38 вести воздушный бой оказалось невозможно..."

            And what is the conclusion? In your opinion - well, anyway, a successful ship? I have no doubt that you will say laughing
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 15 October 2015 10: 01 New
              -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
                Taoist 15 October 2015 17: 18 New
                +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
                  Scraptor 16 October 2015 04: 00 New
                  0
                  Worse, but better F-104. Himself as a stormtrooper was better than Harrier.
            2. Starina_hank
              Starina_hank 15 October 2015 17: 40 New
              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
            Scraptor 15 October 2015 09: 37 New
            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
          Scraptor 15 October 2015 09: 33 New
          -1
          Это "кинули собакам кость"... А то слишком много вопросов стало появляться из разряда почему американские самолеты над морем летают а краснозвездные - нет.
          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
          Starina_hank 15 October 2015 17: 10 New
          +1
          Совершенно верно, каждый следующий ТАКР все больше походил на авианосец. Уже на "Минске" отрабатывали укороченный взлет. Единственный российский авианосец плавно вытекает из этой линейки.
        5. Starina_hank
          Starina_hank 15 October 2015 17: 10 New
          0
          Совершенно верно, каждый следующий ТАКР все больше походил на авианосец. Уже на "Минске" отрабатывали укороченный взлет. Единственный российский авианосец плавно вытекает из этой линейки.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 15 October 2015 08: 42 New
      +4
      Quote: sevtrash
      The justification of the appearance / existence of 1143 Krechet is somehow strange and extremely tense.
      Сначала - ну хотели все время авианосец. Что же с того, это уже давно известно - "хотели как лучше, получилось как всегда". На оправдание не тянет.

      And he doesn’t make excuses wink Повторюсь, изложена точка зрения исходя из политических и экономических реалий ТОГО времени! Того, а не этого.И автор правильно,по моему, акцентирует внимание на том, что не всё зависело от хотения моряков. Такова была реальность. Вот и приходилось тем, кто понимают всю суть проблемы окольными путями добиваться своего(пусть иногда и компромиссами,коим является пр.1143). Без этого даже появление "Кузнецова" было бы под вопросом, если бы придерживались хрущёвских мировоззрений на строительство флота.А ведь ещё надо было учитывать и экономику,дадут деньга на такой корабли или не дадут, возможности промышленности,реальные знания и умения проектантов и ещё кучу разных объективных и не очень обстоятельств ...
      Here, Oleg Kaptsov likes to approach the solution of the problem in a narrowly focused manner, which gives rise to waves of criticism. repeat
      Так что лично с моеё точки зрения вопрос рассматривается гораздо шире, чем пресловутые "хотели как лучше,а получилось как всегда" hi
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 15 October 2015 08: 55 New
        -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
          Alex_59 15 October 2015 12: 32 New
          +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
            sevtrash 15 October 2015 15: 35 New
            -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
              Alex_59 15 October 2015 19: 03 New
              +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
                sevtrash 15 October 2015 20: 26 New
                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
                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
                Вот решил он считать 1143 авианосцем - и НИКОГДА он не сможет рассмотреть возможности этого корабля в качестве противолодочного вертолетоносца. Потому что он для себя твердо решил, что это - авианосец, и точка!:) Я на него много слов потратил в "Мифах Цусимы", а убедился только в одном - если этот человек имеет мнение по какому-то вопросу, он физически не может хотя бы попытаться посмотреть на вопрос с другой точки зрения. Он же знает, как правильно, и о чем тут еще говорить?:)
                It’s not even funny, it’s sad.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 16 October 2015 05: 36 New
                  0
                  Yes, because the helicopter carrier does not need a corner deck.
                  1. mav1971
                    mav1971 16 October 2015 19: 07 New
                    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
                      Scraptor 17 October 2015 11: 43 New
                      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
    Engineer 15 October 2015 08: 47 New
    +7
    Спасибо автору, что указал потребность в этих кораблях особенно для некоторых диванных экспертов, которые боевой корабль в глаза не видели. Як-41 обижать не надо: те рекорды, что он поставил показатель его хороших ЛТХ. Вообще, всегда удивляло как вот так какой-то "эксперт" считает, что он умнее министра обороны, генералитета, главного конструктора, десятков его замов, тысячи и тысячи конструкторов? Вот они все тупые и только деньги на ветер тратят, а он один знает, что надо было строить.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 09: 38 New
      +2
      12 records is also a record by the way ...
  • TAXR
    TAXR 15 October 2015 09: 22 New
    +7
    Статья интересная. Не претендуя на "стратегические плюсы и минусы" этих кораблей, хотел бы поделиться личным впечатлениями, так как довелось(как "прому")неоднократно побывать и на "Минске" и на "Новороссийске до их бесславного уничтожения в перестройку. Случайно попали на совместные ракетные стрельбы "Новороссийска" и "раскладушки" проекта 675. Жили в каюте в районе бака и имели возможность наблюдать старт крылаток с пл и труху летящую в открытый "люментер" после грохота стартовиков ракет над нами с "Новороссийска". Стрельбы прошли на отлично. Но ужасно удручающее впечатление(особенно на "Минске")произвело состояние корабля, все, что было ниже летной палубы. В то время, как господа офицеры и мичмана глушили "горькую" в своих каютах, гоняя в "мандавошку", в машинном и котельном отделениях фекалии натурально плавали выше паел. Конечно "меченый" несет основную ответственность за развал СССР, но и тогдашний адмиралолитет не меньше замазан в уничтожении флота. И думается, долго у нас еще не будет флотоводцев уровня Кузнецова, или хотя бы Горшкова. Не очень верится в "победные реляции" и пиар компании современных паркетных шаркунов в погонах. request
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 15 October 2015 10: 22 New
      0
      Quote: TAKR
      лучайно попали на совместные ракетные стрельбы "Новороссийска" и "раскладушки" проекта 675.

      And what year, if not secret?
  • mosquit
    mosquit 15 October 2015 09: 26 New
    +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.


    Фраза для "крепкой партийной" критики, но не более. Статья понравилась. hi

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

    In September-October 1991 на Северном флоте проходил испытания самолет вертикального/короткого взлета и посадки (В/КВП) Як-41М. Испытания проводились на тяжелом авианесущем крейсере (ТАКР) "Адмирал Флота Советского Союза С.Г.Горшков" (до 1991 г. - ТАКР "Баку"), Самолет Як-41М стал не только следующим после Як-38 этапом в развитии отечественных самолетов В/ КВП, но и этапной машиной в истории мировой авиации - первым сверхзвуковым самолетом вертикального взлета и посадки.

    Первые проработки сверхзвукового вертикально взлетающего самолета-истребителя, предназначенного для обороны авианесущих кораблей от атак с воздуха, были выполнены на ММЗ "Скорость" в 1974 году. С учетом опыта создания и эксплуатации самолета Як-38 в 1975 году началось проектирование нового самолета под индексом Як-41 (изделие "48"). Был выполнен большой объем работ по выбору аэродинамической схемы машины, рассматривалось несколько альтернативных вариантов силовой установки. The results of research and development formed the basis of proposals for aircraft with a single lift-marching engine.

    The Government Decree adopted in November 1977 of the year approved the proposal of the Air Force, Navy and the Ministry of Aviation Administration with the request of the Moscow Highway Plant "Speed" to create a supersonic vertical takeoff-landing fighter and submit it to state tests in 1982. At the same time, the Ordinance provided for the creation of a training version of the Yak-41UT aircraft, presenting it for testing in the 1983 year, and also developing a technical proposal for creating a ship-based SUVS attack aircraft in the 1978 year.

    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.

    According to the results of the commission’s work, an instruction was taken by MAP to develop a preliminary design at the MMP “Speed” and build a model of a fighter with a combined power plant.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 10: 12 New
      -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
        mosquit 15 October 2015 14: 00 New
        -1
        The Government Decree adopted in November 1977 of the year approved the proposal of the Air Force, Navy and the Ministry of Aviation Administration with the request of the Moscow Highway Plant "Speed" to create a supersonic vertical takeoff-landing fighter and submit it to state tests in 1982. At the same time, the Ordinance provided for the creation of a training version of the Yak-41UT aircraft, presenting it for testing in the 1983 year, and also developing a technical proposal for creating a ship-based SUVS attack aircraft in the 1978 year.
        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
          Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 51 New
          -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
            mosquit 16 October 2015 11: 57 New
            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
              Scraptor 16 October 2015 16: 47 New
              0
              Не знаю с кем вы разговариваете, у меня было написано "Як-41 - 1978г", не "Як-41М/141", а у вас индекса не было:
              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
                mosquit 16 October 2015 18: 08 New
                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
                  Scraptor 17 October 2015 11: 14 New
                  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).

                  А статью про Як они вообще "блеск" переписали...
  • van zai
    van zai 15 October 2015 09: 29 New
    0
    Из статьи понятно:1-е: Лучше бы построили аналог "Клемансо". При почти равном водоизмещении всё таки 40 самолётов и вертолётов. 2-е Устинов с Яковлевым лоханулись, либо случайно, либо преднамеренно.
  • mosquit
    mosquit 15 October 2015 09: 30 New
    +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

    В мае 1986-го принимается очередное постановление о создании на ММЗ "Скорость" многоцелевого корабельного самолета Як-41М с использованием задела по корабельному истребителю Як-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

    Дальнейшие события в СССР/России поставили "крест" на многих перспективных проектах sad

    Сравните вехи "всеми любимой" "молнии-2" :)

    JSF - start in 1996.

    Вместе с тем схема с подъемным вентилятором имеет серьезный недостаток, заключающийся в возимой "мертвой массе" двухступенчатого вентилятора, его канала, створок, разобщительной муфты, приводов, вала и подшипников, бесполезной в горизонтальном полете. Эта масса составляет около 1800 кг при массе ПМД 1450 кг. По массе схема с подъемным вентилятором существенно проигрывает схеме с подъемными ТРД.
    This is the subject of the engine ...

    2001 год - "полёт"
    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.
    И для "иконоборцев"... планы-мечты приложил в предыдущем посте..
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 10: 19 New
      0
      In short, according to the Yak-41:
      1974 - statement of the problem,
      1975 - conceptual design,
      1978 - finished in metal.

      Потом при готовой машине несколько раз менялось ТЗ (Як-41,41М,141). Потом был Як-43 его уже закончить не дали "потеряв интерес", потом "потеряли интерес" к "Бурану"/"Энергии", "СССР"...
      1. castle
        castle 15 October 2015 12: 23 New
        +1
        Похоже, уважаемый Scraptor, Вы у Яковлева в КБ "СКОРОСТЬ" работали.
        Мы там появлялись по-поводу Як-40 и Як-42 (первый Як-42 тогда ещё собирали на фирме "СКОРОСТЬ" в Москве) Нас даже пустили посмотреть макет Як-45 и посидеть в его кабине с "нарисованной" приборной доской. Мы с Вами, может и встречались.
        1. Army soldier2
          Army soldier2 15 October 2015 20: 34 New
          +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
            Scraptor 16 October 2015 03: 47 New
            0
            He knows something about ships, but not about airplanes ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 17 October 2015 14: 45 New
          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
        mosquit 15 October 2015 14: 01 New
        0
        You are confusing dates ..
        http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 56 New
          0
          You are confusing planes. Yak-141 is not a Yak-41.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        15 October 2015 22: 18 New
        -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
          Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 59 New
          -2
          Як-41... "кушай" свой попкорн.
          1. mosquit
            mosquit 16 October 2015 12: 09 New
            0
            Як-41... "кушай" свой попкорн

            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
              Scraptor 16 October 2015 14: 39 New
              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.
              В 1977 появился двигатель НК-32 для Ту-160 и Як-43, после чего начался делаться этот самолет, а Як-41 только переделывался пока заказчик 3 раза подряд "выделывался", и при готовой машине заказывал изменения по новой...
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. mosquit
                mosquit 16 October 2015 18: 04 New
                +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
                В 1977 появился двигатель НК-32 для Ту-160 и Як-43, после чего начался делаться этот самолет, а Як-41 только переделывался пока заказчик 3 раза подряд "выделывался", и при готовой машине заказывал изменения по новой...


                Про НК это "фантастика" просто...

                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 of the 1991 of the year, 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 cruiser (TAKR) (before the 1991 - TAKR "Baku"), 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 ...

                Моя "кладезь" по ЛА - http://www.airwar.ru

                Quote: Scraptor
                In 1978, hanging on a suspension.

                Dangling shit in the hole ... hi
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 17 October 2015 12: 55 New
                  0
                  Было у Вас слишком много вариантов и все "правильные".

                  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?

                  "на", а не "в"... еще "болтанка" такая есть (она же турбулетнасть). попадают в нее.
  • runway
    runway 15 October 2015 09: 44 New
    +2
    I hope that after reading this article, there will be fewer opponents to the construction of our aircraft carriers.
    Ведь в статье ясно сказано - флот не может полноценно решать поставленные перед ним задачи, надеясь только на сухопутную авиацию! Почему наши "партнёры" имеют "длинную руку" наряду с авиабазами вокруг наших границ, а нам не надо? Опять глупость, или предательство?
    Интересно автор рассматривает вопрос зарождения палубной авиации в нашей стране. Конечно, все аспекты проблемы раскрыть в одной статье невозможно, но "курс" решения таких задач сохраняется и сегодня.
  • da Vinci
    da Vinci 15 October 2015 09: 44 New
    -2
    Putting rocket weapons on the aircraft carrier is nonsense. IMHO
    1. Severomor
      Severomor 15 October 2015 12: 14 New
      +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
    Fidel 15 October 2015 10: 14 New
    +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.
    А главное нет ни заламывания рук в стиле "тупой саааавоооок", ни шапкозакидательского "уря-патриотизма".
    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
      You just captured me repeat
      Thank you for your kind words! drinks
      1. Fidel
        Fidel 15 October 2015 22: 16 New
        0
        What is true is not a sin)) hi
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 15 October 2015 10: 56 New
    +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
      Dart2027 15 October 2015 23: 03 New
      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
    Serg65 15 October 2015 11: 37 New
    +4
    hi Welcome Andrew! laughing Всё таки не выдержала душа поэта и зацепило не обоснованное ругательство ТАКРов?! Вы совершенно правильно указали, что развитие советского ВМФ зависело от настроения членов Политбюро, от финансирования и от лоббирования своих интересов хорошими знакомыми министра обороны. Некоторые тут в коментах пытаются вставить своё информированное "Я" типа
    Quote: sevtrash
    Make carrier RCC from an aircraft carrier

    А то что на момент вступления в строй первого ТАКРа, в составе советского ВМФ было всего 4 ракетных крейсера пр 58, разбросанных по всем флотам да пара тройка БРК, как то во внимание не берётся!!!! Проектирование пр.1164 началось в тот же год, кода был спущен на воду "Киев".....вопрос к знатокам...чем и как защищаться "Кречетам"?
    Quote: sevtrash
    The justification of the appearance / existence of 1143 Krechet is somehow strange and extremely tense.

    Quote: sevtrash
    первой задачей для Кречета значилось - "противовоздушная оборона корабля и (или) группы кораблей, сопровождаемых им"! Для чего он и создавался.

    Ну во первых судьбу "Кречетов" ни кто и не оправдывает! Из всех зол выбрали меньшее и как не парадоксально нужное на тот момент. Во вторых, как Як-36МФ мог завоевать господство в воздухе и полноценно прикрыть групировку для меня лично большая загадка!!!!
    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

    Да конечно это не оспоримо,но в 1976 году было утверждено ТТЗ на проектирование "Большого крейсера с авиационным вооружением" главным вооружением которого должны были стать 50 летательных аппаратов преимущественно истребителей. И только желание Яковлева получить госзаказ на Як-141 положило крест на полноценный авианосец (для улучшения ТТХ своих СВВП Яковлев "предложил" Устинову оборудовать строящийся "Новороссийск" газоотвальными устройствами, что привело к переносу сроков вступления "Новороссийска" в строй и затягивания начала строительства пр."Орёл"). Горшков же в свою очередь добивался того что нужно было флоту, в результате не мытьём так катаньем добился постройки пр.1143.5, что в свою очередь поставило крест на СВВП.
    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
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 13: 15 New
      -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
      И только желание Яковлева получить госзаказ на Як-141 положило крест на полноценный авианосец (для улучшения ТТХ своих СВВП Яковлев "предложил" Устинову оборудовать строящийся "Новороссийск" газоотвальными устройствами, что привело к переносу сроков вступления "Новороссийска" в строй и затягивания начала строительства пр."Орёл"). Горшков же в свою очередь добивался того что нужно было флоту, в результате не мытьём так катаньем добился постройки пр.1143.5, что в свою очередь поставило крест на СВВП.

      You first deal with the first question first to push this ...
      Як-41 может базироваться где угодно, "даже" на суше. И без таких устройств, они нужны на испытаниях.
      And both of the Navy could not come in handy? bully
      In the USA, something like this ...
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 15 October 2015 15: 37 New
        +1
        Quote: Scraptor
        And how could Harrier?

        Yes, really, but could Harrier?

        Quote: Scraptor
        Як-41 может базироваться где угодно, "даже" на суше.

        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
          Scraptor 16 October 2015 02: 20 New
          0
          But did not you cope? Maybe even in the tumultuous battles there suffered a lot of losses?

          А почему СССР нет? Был и еще более отличный Як-43. Потому что "заказчик потеряд интерес" (без обьяснения причин) и три раза менял ТЗ до этого 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
            Serg65 16 October 2015 20: 44 New
            +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
            "заказчик потеряд интерес" (без обьяснения причин)

            Конечно потерял....в 1982 на ЧСЗ был заложен ТАКР пр.1143.5 "Рига", будущий Кузнецов. А в 1985 стапель уже занял пр. 1143.6 "Варяг", но и после его спуска на воду стапель не простаивал. В 1988 году был заложен АТАВКР пр.1143.7 "Ульяновск"...на них планировалось разместить СВВП? К тому же испытания "самолёта в железе" ЯК-41 проводилось в плоть 1991 года!!! Носители, которые клепались как пирожки (стоимостью и весом в 100 раз больше чем "перспективный" СВВП) должны были простаивать в базе и коптить небо в ожидание своих авиакрыльев??????
            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
                Scraptor 17 October 2015 04: 38 New
                -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
                Конечно потерял....в 1982 на ЧСЗ был заложен ТАКР пр.1143.5 "Рига", будущий Кузнецов. А в 1985 стапель уже занял пр. 1143.6 "Варяг", но и после его спуска на воду стапель не простаивал. В 1988 году был заложен АТАВКР пр.1143.7 "Ульяновск"...на них планировалось разместить СВВП?

                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
                К тому же испытания "самолёта в железе" ЯК-41 проводилось в плоть 1991 года!!! Носители, которые клепались как пирожки (стоимостью и весом в 100 раз больше чем "перспективный" СВВП) должны были простаивать в базе и коптить небо в ожидание своих авиакрыльев??????

                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.

                он и не "сотворит". И также успешно вести бой как Харриер FRS/FA а также AV-8B F-35 не сможет. При бое с Харриером он представьте себе будет сбит почти также как сбивали Миражей. Как и при бое с МиГ-21 которых Миражи кстати сбивали. Сбить Харриер сейчас может только Су-27.

                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
                  Serg65 17 October 2015 10: 51 New
                  +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
                    Scraptor 17 October 2015 11: 25 New
                    0
                    Why is the photo not real? winked
                    That's noticeable...
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 15 October 2015 13: 58 New
      +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
        Scraptor 15 October 2015 23: 05 New
        -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
          Alex_59 16 October 2015 06: 46 New
          +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
            Scraptor 16 October 2015 10: 30 New
            -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
              Alex_59 16 October 2015 11: 51 New
              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
                Scraptor 16 October 2015 15: 21 New
                -2
                Мыслить умеете не в сосульках, "задворками" и в категориях прочей шизы? Или такая цель как раз не стоит?
                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
                  Alex_59 16 October 2015 15: 56 New
                  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
                    Scraptor 16 October 2015 17: 27 New
                    -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
        Scraptor 16 October 2015 03: 25 New
        -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
      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
    Severomor 15 October 2015 12: 48 New
    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 !!!

    А то что на момент вступления в строй первого ТАКРа, в составе советского ВМФ было всего 4 ракетных крейсера пр 58, разбросанных по всем флотам да пара тройка БРК, как то во внимание не берётся!!!! Проектирование пр.1164 началось в тот же год, кода был спущен на воду "Киев".....вопрос к знатокам...чем и как защищаться "Кречетам"?
    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.
    Как пример, в Североморске были 2 флагмана 7 ОПЭСК (3 бригады), "Киров" и "Киев"
  • maximghost
    maximghost 15 October 2015 13: 01 New
    +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
      Alexey RA 15 October 2015 15: 20 New
      +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.

      Если мы убираем с 1143 ПУ КР, то мы можем в том же водоизмещении построить нормальный АВ с нормальными самолётами. В этом случае носитель дальнобойных КР нам уже необязателен - у нас есть "летающие ПУ", позволяющие к тому же сократить массу КР за счёт приближения точки пуска к цели.
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 15 October 2015 18: 34 New
        +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.

        В этом случае носитель дальнобойных КР нам уже необязателен - у нас есть "летающие ПУ", позволяющие к тому же сократить массу КР за счёт приближения точки пуска к цели.


        Это заявление тоже очень спорно. Самолеты с легкими ПКР более гибкий инструмент, чем тяжелые ПКР (не быудем же мы тральщик гранитом топить.) Но организация вылета ударной группы гораздо сложнее и занимает больше времени (надо подготовить самолеты к вылету, подвесить ПКР, поднять группу в воздух, при этом надо ставить корабль против ветра, после чего группа должна выстроится в боевой порядок, при том, что у нас из-за малого водоизмещения проблемы со взлетом группы превышающее 2 пары), чем пуск ПКР с корабля. При всем при этом вертикалки тоже бы модернизировали для пуска "урана" и тогда можно даже попытаться нанести комбинированный удар: корабельные ПКР+самолеты с легкими ПКР, главное, что бы этоне мешало главной задаче авиагруппы ТАКРа: обеспечение воздушного прикрытия КУГа.

        Cash
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          15 October 2015 22: 39 New
          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
            maximghost 15 October 2015 23: 09 New
            +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
      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

      Потому что у меня имеется послезнание, которое говорит о том, что примерно к моменту ввода ТАКР в строй наши же аналитики пришли к выводу, что для поражения АУГ нужно 24 "Гранита" (и потому наши АПЛ проекта 949 несут ровно 24 таких ПКР)
      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
        maximghost 15 October 2015 23: 00 New
        +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.

        Потому что у меня имеется послезнание, которое говорит о том, что примерно к моменту ввода ТАКР в строй наши же аналитики пришли к выводу, что для поражения АУГ нужно 24 "Гранита" (и потому наши АПЛ проекта 949 несут ровно 24 таких ПКР)

        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
          Quote: maximghost
          You also write about Ustinov and Yakovlev

          Про Устинова я пишу, что предложение СВВП исходили именно от него (а это факт) и что именно он "зарубил" идею авианосцев (и это факт, причем общеизвестный, "Орел" был прибит именно им) Про Яковлева я вообще пишу
          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.

          У "крейсеров" было совершенно ждругое предназначение - ПВО соединений, идущих на разгром АУГ. В этой задаче выход ТАКР на дистанцию ракетоного удара карекотически не присветствовался,нечего было ему там делать. К тому же Гранит - это не просто пусковые (бронированные, кстати) это еще куча коммуникаций, приборов управления, постов, обслуживающего персонала и проч и проч., и веса все это отъедает солидно.
          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
            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
              maximghost 15 October 2015 23: 57 New
              +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
                Scraptor 16 October 2015 06: 25 New
                0
                There are already such convertibles as high-speed helicopters.
          2. maximghost
            maximghost 15 October 2015 23: 54 New
            +2
            ро Устинова я пишу, что предложение СВВП исходили именно от него (а это факт) и что именно он "зарубил" идею авианосцев (и это факт, причем общеизвестный, "Орел" был прибит именно им) Про Яковлева я вообще пишу
            In fairness, I note that I have no idea how much D.F. Ustinova had a hand in Yakovlev himself.

            So I keep wondering


            Просто вы делаете выводы из неполной и, возможно, недостоверной "картины", без учета мотивации участников (которую никто не может знать). Из-за этого статья начинает походить на "скандалы, интриги, расследования", при том, что вы наверняка не хотели придать ей такой вид.

            У "крейсеров" было совершенно другое предназначение

            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
            Scraptor 16 October 2015 10: 06 New
            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.

            В 1985г уже все почти 10 лет как было. Как и три варианта самолета на его базе с четвертым в разработке. Но когда Устинову сделали инфаркт, многие захотели "назад в будущее" вместо того чтобы исплользовать и то и то. И сейчас тут хотят...
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 16 October 2015 06: 24 New
          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.
          Параллельно с конца 1978 начались работы над "увеличенным" Як-43 на базе двигателя НК-32 от Ту-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
        Scraptor 16 October 2015 05: 32 New
        0
        A quarter of a century waiting for the F-35, you again turn everything upside down.
        Где "Раптор, который мог бы стоять на палубах"? И куда делся F-14?

        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
      Scraptor 15 October 2015 22: 10 New
      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
        maximghost 15 October 2015 23: 10 New
        +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
          Scraptor 16 October 2015 05: 34 New
          0
          Quite another, and vice versa incorrectly complicated everything twice.
        2. maximghost
          maximghost 16 October 2015 19: 39 New
          +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
            Scraptor 17 October 2015 11: 36 New
            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.

            Кино "Титаник" смотрели? А ведь телеграф и телефон тогда уже был...
            1. maximghost
              maximghost 18 October 2015 16: 15 New
              +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
                Scraptor 18 October 2015 16: 56 New
                0
                So that in the event of an attack on him, it would sink or burn immediately 36?
                1. maximghost
                  maximghost 18 October 2015 21: 34 New
                  +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
                    Scraptor 18 October 2015 22: 19 New
                    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
    Gomunkul 15 October 2015 13: 04 New
    +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
    Alexey RA 15 October 2015 13: 23 New
    +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:
    "Базальты" худо-бедно эмулировали нормальные палбные ударные самолёты. Да, авиагруппа получилась маленькой, одноразовой и чисто ударной. Но зато её дальность, скорость и загрузка кратно перекрывала ТТХ бортовой авиагруппы и заставляла супостата держаться подальше.
    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"... дело в том, что при наличии в составе флота классического АВ с нормальными самолётами дальнобойные ПКР становятся не так критичны. Все эти "Базальты", "Вулканы" и "Граниты" по сути дела являлись "одноразовой эмуляцией" авиагруппы АВ, попыткой компенсировать отсутствие нормальной палубной авиации путём увеличения дальнобойности вооружения обычных кораблей до эффективного радиуса ударных машин АВ.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 15 October 2015 15: 08 New
    +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
    I liked the article. Thanks to the author!
    Невольно всплыло воспоминание из детства: огромый (на всю торцевую стену пятиэтажки) рисунок ТАКР "КИЕВ" в моем родном городе Полярный в восьмидесятых годах. Район улицы Лунина, может кто помнит...
  • Taoist
    Taoist 15 October 2015 15: 46 New
    +2
    Кстати основная ошибка автора в том что он так же не удерживается от наложения своего собственного "послезнания" на выводы.

    1) Для него постулат того факта что АВ это "универсальный солдат" доказательств почему то не требует.

    2) ПКР он рассматривает так же как "одноразовую замену палубной авиагруппы" а не как отдельный и самостоятельный вид оружия

    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
      Alexey RA 15 October 2015 16: 33 New
      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.
      Ведь рыцарских поединков "since you have verticals - then we will send verticals to battle" не будет. Против наших палубных вертикалок работали бы как раз обычные палубники - "фантомы", "хорнеты" и "томкеты".
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 15 October 2015 17: 08 New
        +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.

        И про "рыцарские поединки" никто не говорит - просто не стоит забывать что недостатки СВВП это продолжение его преимуществ. В случае конфликта "на коротке" авиагруппа СВВП имеет преимущество в скорости подъёма. Она не привязана к скорости хода носителя и малочувствительна к повреждениям полётной палубы. Использование СВВП в связке с тяжёлыми ПКР как раз позволяет компенсировать недостаток огневой мощи собственно авиакрыла. Разделить ударные и вспомогательные ...
        опять же это мы опять противопоставляем ТАКР - АУГ ... а если с точки зрения "проекции силы" ? Получается и экономней и универсальней чем гонять АУГ ... Да и безопасней...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 15 October 2015 17: 54 New
          +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.
          Сколько у нас дальность "Оникса"? По комбинированной траектории - порядка 170-200 миль. То есть, получается, что для их применения мы на огромном авианесущем крейсере должны войти не то что в радиус работы ударников - а подлезть практически под CAP и "хокаи". С учётом того, что первые ударники АУГ начнут работать с 550-600 миль, ТАВКР для выхода на рубеж пуска КР должен 10-15 часов пилить под ударами авиации противника. И это при условии неподвижности АУГ.
          Quote: Taoist
          В случае конфликта "на коротке" авиагруппа СВВП имеет преимущество в скорости подъёма. Она не привязана к скорости хода носителя и малочувствительна к повреждениям полётной палубы.

          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.
          А при повреждениях полётной палубы К/СВВП лишается возможности КВП и превращается в "чистую" вертикалку с очень жёсткими ограничениями по взлётной массе. Да, взлететь СВВП сможет - но его радиус и нагрузка будут минимальными.
          Quote: Taoist
          опять же это мы опять противопоставляем ТАКР - АУГ ... а если с точки зрения "проекции силы" ? Получается и экономней и универсальней чем гонять АУГ ... Да и безопасней...

          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
            Scraptor 15 October 2015 22: 39 New
            -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
              Alexey RA 16 October 2015 10: 12 New
              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
              При Фолклендах "харриеры" оказались в крайне выгодной для себя ситуации: базовая авиация противника действовала на пределе радиуса, не имела запаса топлива на нормальный воздушный бой, да ещё и была вооружена старыми РВВ. Арги даже не смогли обеспечить нормальное прикрытие ударников.

              Если мы меняем авиацию аргов на "томкэты" и "интрудеры", то решается проблема с топливом.
              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.

              А раз нет проблемы запаса топлива, то можно организовать нормальное патрулирование истребителей, освещение воздушной обстановки и побороться за господство в воздухе. А не прилететь в "неосвещённый" район, потратить время на поиск целей, выпустить ракеты - и быстро сматываться на базу, молясь чтобы хватило топлива.
              And if RVV comes along with the planes ...

              Впрочем, то же самое арги могли сделать и без перевооружения ВВС - просто вовремя развернув нормальную авиабазу на Фолклендах и обеспечив её прикрытие с воздуха и суши. Это сняло бы проблему радиуса, а также увеличило бы количество машин аргов в воздухе (не пришлось бы терять время на полёт до материка и обратно). И тогда "харриерам" пришлось бы очень плохо.
              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.

              Угу... и после этого КМП плакал горючими слезами по итогам боевого применения "хариеров" в Ираке.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 16 October 2015 18: 06 New
                -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?
                В Ираке применялся AV-8B в который они "внесли изменения" 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
            Scraptor 16 October 2015 04: 11 New
            0
            A classic aircraft carrier should go against the wind, with maximum speed.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 October 2015 22: 50 New
      +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
      Для него постулат того факта что АВ это "универсальный солдат" доказательств почему то не требует.

      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
      ПКР он рассматривает так же как "одноразовую замену палубной авиагруппы" а не как отдельный и самостоятельный вид оружия

      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

      У СССР с США была холодная война, имевшая определенные шансы превратиться в горячую. ПРи этом авианосцы США располагали мощной палубной авиацией - Томкэты, Хорнеты, и прочие там Интрудеры. В случае чего именно с ними пришлось бы "переведываться" Як-38 с наших ТАКР. И с чем же мне сравнивать наши СВВП, как не с их палубными аналогами тех же времен?
      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
        Scraptor 16 October 2015 06: 05 New
        -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
      Scraptor 16 October 2015 04: 24 New
      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
    Performance 15 October 2015 16: 08 New
    +1
    Мне статья тоже понравилась. Но с моей точки зрения, ограничивали не только экономические и политические реалии, но и технологические. Большие размеры плавучих конструкций для нас и сейчас серьезная проблема, а тем более тогда. Решить мы их могли, но было опыта мало и времени, начали с "малого".
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 October 2015 17: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: Efficiency
      Мне статья тоже понравилась. Но с моей точки зрения, ограничивали не только экономические и политические реалии, но и технологические. Большие размеры плавучих конструкций для нас и сейчас серьезная проблема, а тем более тогда. Решить мы их могли, но было опыта мало и времени, начали с "малого".

      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.

      Касаемо проблем с большими размерами плавучих конструкций - в начале 70-х керченский ССЗ построил супертанкер "Крым": 180 кт водоизмещения, длина 295 м, ширина 45 м, осадка 17 м.
      А Николаевский "Океан" в 70-е строил нефтерудовозы "Борис Бутома": 132 кт водоизмещения, длина 258.6 м, ширина 39.9 м, осадка 15.7 м.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 15 October 2015 17: 31 New
        +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
          maximghost 15 October 2015 18: 59 New
          +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
          Alexey RA 16 October 2015 10: 49 New
          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.
          Один только раз попытались это преодолеть - когда при ИВС одновременно со строительством ЛК пр. 23 начали строить для них места базирования и ремонта. Судя по цифрам, было это очень недёшево - сметная стоимость оборудования всех мест базирования ЛК была равна стоимости полноценного судостроительного завода (того же молотовского завода №402 в "полной комплектации" со всеми цехами).
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 15 October 2015 17: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: Efficiency
      Большие размеры плавучих конструкций для нас и сейчас серьезная проблема, а тем более тогда. Решить мы их могли, но было опыта мало и времени, начали с "малого".

      Справочка...ТАКР "Киев" длина 273 метра, водоизмещение 41 370 т., вступил в строй в 1975 году.
      В том же 1975 году в состав Новороссийского морского пароходства вошёл супертанкер "Крым" длинной 295 метров, водоизмещением 180 тыс тонн.
      That is, technology was not so problematic!
  • 02520406
    02520406 15 October 2015 17: 03 New
    0
    mighty and great fleet, the pride of our motherland
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 15 October 2015 23: 17 New
    +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
      Scraptor 16 October 2015 07: 56 New
      -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.

      Компьютер не анализирует, а считает в соответствии с тем что ему "вложат" (с программой) эти "убежденные в своей правоте"...

      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 днища, или пока Маккейн отошел покурить, палубу уродовал противоародромный кассеный боеприпас (самолеты на ней при этом просто сгорали). Дальше, если АВ оставался на плаву и пока его авиакрыло не летало, добивание АУГ происходило подошедшей советской КУГ или АПЛ, чисто по русски "стенка на стенку". Может быть даже не совсем так поскольку на некоторых КУГ имелись свои Як-36(М).

      Поэтому СССР строил что то авианесущее, что годилось в Океане только для конфликтов малой интенсивности (у США тоже был в разработке аналогичный X-20 Dyna-Soar), и для того чтобы гонять противолодочные "Орионы". А у своих берегов - в виде средств прикрытия для развертывания своих ПЛАРБ - обратно гонять те же "Орионы". А МиГ-105 чтобы мировому жандарму и гегемону все сходило с рук, потом решили запретить (особенно с разработкой неядерных средств для него) подведя под договор о неразмещении оружия в космосе... Потом когда Як-41 создал "угрозу" запретили и его, как аэробаллистические противокорабельные ракеты до этого. А потом пошли уже более роботизированные разведывательно-ударные комплексы с быстровыводимыми спуниками для связи, телеметрии и управления.
      Why do we need supercarriers that are knocked out by launching one or two ICBMs even without nuclear warheads on them?

      20 у США АУГ - 20 таких "пилотируемых" МБР на дежурстве
      10 у США АУГ - 10 таких "пилотируемых" МБР на дежурстве
      (or so that with even a small margin)
      Такой "гонки вооружений" ни одна капиталистическая экономика не выдержит... потому и запретили, а сами не стали строить "Орел". laughing
  • serg2108
    serg2108 15 October 2015 23: 48 New
    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
    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
    Taoist 16 October 2015 16: 52 New
    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
      Scraptor 16 October 2015 17: 05 New
      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
        Taoist 16 October 2015 17: 08 New
        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.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 17 October 2015 07: 03 New
    0
    I liked the article, I completely agree with the author, everything is logically explained, there were such conditions and possibilities, therefore we made such decisions and built such ships, exactly as the author argues, those who made the decision to build this project could think.
    По СВВП тоже согласен, после долгих лет исследований КБ Яковлева не смогло создать приемлемый самолет для полноценной борьбы с авиагруппой горизонтального взлета вероятного противника, сие есть факт и подтверждается железобетонным доказательством - флот постоянно требовал "нормального" авианосца и "нормальной" авиагруппы, а это не форумные бойцы, а люди, реально эксплуатировавшие эту технику и готовящиеся ее применить в случае войны.

    Видимо, по мнению некоторых комментаторов, флотские начальники и пилоты наших СВВП просто не понимали своего "счастья" и явно не догадывались о том, что раз ты взлетел вертикально, то имеешь неоспоримое преимущество перед самолетом, которого выпихнула с палубы богомерзкая катапульта, а характеристики даже и сравнивать не стоит. laughing
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 17 October 2015 11: 00 New
      -1
      How can the fact that:
      Quote: barbiturate

      флот постоянно требовал "нормального" авианосца и "нормальной" авиагруппы,

      reinforced concrete to prove that:
      Quote: barbiturate

      "после долгих лет исследований КБ Яковлева не смогло создать приемлемый самолет для полноценной борьбы с авиагруппой горизонтального взлета вероятного противника, сие есть факт"

      A strange dogma, or rather, its absence.

      Studies are done at institutes (research institutes) and not at the design bureau.

      Сверхзвуковой Як был показан в Фарнборо (купили у китайцев?), а до этого в Париже в 1990. Производственная линия готовая к его выпуску простаивала и заказ так и не получила... "Перестройка" уже была.
      All the technology went to him in the USA at the price of BMW. Now it's the F-35.

      Здесь есть пользователь "Даос" который служил на корабельном Як-38 техником, строевые летчики этот дозвуковой Як тоже любят.
      But of course you might be better off the sofa ...

      Перед Крымской войной НЕдиванные капитаны красивых больших парусных кораблей издевались над весно-чумазыми "пароходниками" и были выше них рангом, но ненадолго.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 17 October 2015 13: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    A strange dogma, or rather, its absence.


    Funny, I also think about your comments. laughing

    Quote: Scraptor
    Studies are done at institutes (research institutes) and not at the design bureau.


    Different names of the same thought process, construct or investigate or solve a problem, as you please, I do not insist smile


    Quote: Scraptor
    Сверхзвуковой Як был показан в Фарнборо (купили у китайцев?), а до этого в Париже в 1990. Производственная линия готовая к его выпуску простаивала и заказ так и не получила... "Перестройка" уже была.
    All the technology went to him in the USA at the price of BMW. Now it's the F-35.


    I absolutely do not deny the genius of our engineers and designers who created a plane unique in the method of take-off and landing (not the only one in its class, but unique), but I do not see the ADVANTAGES of this plane in front of the traditional take-off aircraft, but the cons are visible to everyone. Well, the F-35 is still a completely different plane with a quarter-century difference in time, what is common there, except for the rotary nozzle? Or could no one but our engineers think of this? Although the fact of the sale of documentation seemed to be there, what’s up on our ideas and what the Americans themselves thought up is a fantasy field laughing


    Quote: Scraptor
    Здесь есть пользователь "Даос" который служил на корабельном Як-38 техником, строевые летчики этот дозвуковой Як тоже любят.
    But of course you might be better off the sofa ...


    I did not see a statement from this user that he operated this plane and the pilots were very pleased with this machine, and also positively assessed their chances in a battle against American aircraft. But I had to read the analysis of people and not from the couch, like me laughing (although I have a chair, not a sofa) and the thoughts of these people I understood.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 17 October 2015 17: 39 New
      -2
      Keep justifying the nickname. Share with those who think as well.

      And then why one bureau and another institute?

      But you just denied ... and together with the author wrote that you could not.
      For example, it seemed acceptable to Lockheed
      acceptable by many even the subsonic Harrier,
      You confuse all advantages with minuses, and pluses with disadvantages. And of course takeoff and landing. How else?
      Where did you get that there is nothing in common except the nozzle?
      Переводите года в вентиляторы? Только его и "додумали" со старого XV-5. Но даже его тягой управляет все та же советская микросхема...
      No one else was 15 years before, and 15 years after, and now it is for some reason patented in England, although hotch does not seem to reflect this ...

      We didn’t see the claims, but there are or were there ... And even here or under the Kaptsov article (a day earlier).
      "диван, кровать, кресло, анализ" это все не то... если только не катапультное, но отогда - "тушите свет"...
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 18 October 2015 07: 00 New
        -1
        Some kind of incoherent stream of thoughts you have laughing Continuous stream of consciousness laughing What aviation does to people laughing
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 18 October 2015 10: 11 New
          -2
          this time you also have a short one ...
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 18 October 2015 16: 22 New
            0
            don't worry, but it's your own fault that short laughing is it not all the time to pamper you long or are you used to long ones each time? laughing Be healthy lol
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 18 October 2015 16: 48 New
              0
              that anyone hurts about that and ...
  • Dan Slav
    Dan Slav 17 October 2015 19: 02 New
    0
    It is extremely interesting to read such articles and polemics on them.
    Thank you!
  • Evgenia
    Evgenia 18 October 2015 10: 17 New
    0
    To be honest, I did not quite understand why the author says that the TAVRES ARE GOOD SHIPS.
  • Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 23 June 2016 11: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Silhouette
    In my opinion there were also torpedo tubes, which is generally nonsense for both an aircraft carrier and a missile cruiser.

    This is when the torpedo launchers ceased to put torpedoes on the cruiser PU ???????