On the "uselessness" of aircraft carriers in the new realities

More than two weeks have passed since the start of the Russian operation in Syria. You can already see some of its results. Russian aviation the group at the Khmeimim airbase consists of 12 Su-24M, 12 Su-25M, 6 Su-34, 4 Su-30SM, 1 Il-20M. There is also a number of Mi-24, Mi-8 helicopters, possibly Mi-17. Since September 30, the group has been flying from 20 to 88 sorties per day. In addition, 26 cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea were hit. During combat work, strikes are made primarily at command post, communications centers, ammunition, weapons and fuel storage areas, and military equipment concentration sites.


For a long time on this forum, some respected authors talked about the decline of the era of aircraft carriers, their complete futility and uselessness at the very high cost of construction and operation. We will not consider all areas of application where it is quite possible to find in some areas a more successful replacement for aircraft carriers. Consider only one thing - air support for ground anti-terrorist operations.

Despite the fact that the fight against terrorists is a private task, it threatens to become the main number one headache for so many countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia for many years, and perhaps for the coming decades.

The Russian aviation group has a total of 35 airplanes: 18 front-line bombers, 12 attack aircraft, 4 fighter, 1 PTR. The project's 1143.5 aircraft group was to consist of 50 units of airplanes and helicopters: 26 MiG-29K or Su-27K, 4 Ka-27РЛД, 18 К-27ПЛ, 2 К-27ПС.

Thus, by changing the composition of the group to predominantly multi-role fighters, it is possible to obtain the equivalent of the shock power of the group in Hamim. At present, Su-33K and MiG-29K aircraft can be based on the Admiral Kuznetsov TAKR.

On the "uselessness" of aircraft carriers in the new realities



Compared with Su-24M and Su-34, Su-33K planes have a lower maximum combat load - 6500 kg instead of 8000 kg, and approximately a comparable radius of combat action. Apparently, it does not have the ability to use KAB-500, and air-to-surface missiles with laser, satellite and television guidance, however this is most likely due to the concept of use — the air defense of the ship group and the attack of the enemy ships with Moskit missiles. Additional equipment for strikes against ground targets is quite possible. There is no RTR aircraft in this wing, but at one time it was supposed to create a whole family of ship planes based on the Su-27: Su-27KSh attack aircraft, Su-27KRTS attack and target designation, Su-27KPT jammer, Su-27KT tanker. The MiG-29K has an even lower maximum combat load (4500 kg) and a smaller combat radius of action, but a richer range of weapons.



Unfortunately, at present it is impossible to form a full-fledged air wing for an aircraft carrier, both because of the number of necessary equipment and because there is no necessary number of pilots trained for take-off and landing on the deck for high-intensity day-and-night combat operations.

The use of ground-based aviation and from the deck has its pros and cons. An aircraft carrier, when being protected by escort ships and RLD helicopters, is virtually invulnerable to terrorist attacks. Aviation at a ground airfield can be attacked by mobile sabotage groups with mortars. Dust storms do not affect the aircraft carrier, raised aircraft can use satellite-guided munitions. The effect of storms can be partially compensated by the aircraft carrier's ability to change the area of ​​aircraft lift. The redeployment of aircraft on an aircraft carrier is carried out together with "its" airfield and ammunition, no one closes the air corridor, there is no dependence on the quality of the ground airfield in the country of destination. At the same time, the ground airfield will have advantages in the possibility of a better rest for crews and attendants, a larger number of stationed ammunition and fuel, and ease of maintenance of equipment. Strikes with cruise missiles can be considered generally only as a supplement, considering both their cost (the salutik from 26 missiles is about 1 billion rubles) and the impossibility of objective control immediately from the results of video recording.

Given that Nimitz-class aircraft carriers can fly up to 120-140 sorties per day for two weeks at 40-60 departures intensity, it is possible to conduct an 1-1,5 air operation a month without replenishing fuel and ammunition. For Admiral Kuznetsov, the numbers, of course, will be different.

The bottom line is that the aircraft carrier is such a universal ship that there will always be a task that it will perform better than other means.

At least for now.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dart2027 17 October 2015 06: 49 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    There were a lot of good and correct things in the development of the Armed Forces and the Navy of the USSR, but there were also stupid things. One of the most serious reluctance to build aircraft carriers.
    1. severniy 17 October 2015 08: 50 New
      • 35
      • 0
      +35
      Yeah, Russia doesn’t exist without them ... Especially where is the thread in Tajikistan ... Like the very boat in the steppes of Ukraine ... It’s useless to provide peace and security without bases (land again) .... IMHO of course ...
      1. Ross_ulair 17 October 2015 10: 04 New
        • 34
        • 0
        +34
        Russia is primarily a continental power. With the greatest length of land borders.
        The basis of our strategy is that we are peaceful people, but our armored train stands on a siding.

        AUG is a means of global dominance in the world. AUG is the basis for the USA, because they have no one to fight with on their continent / continents, but marine communications become vital for dominating the world (and for war).

        As a result, Russia will never need as much AUG as the states (unless we follow the precepts of a certain Bronstein). There are "Kuznetsov", sort of going to lay another one. IMHO - this necessary maximum.
        Most importantly, we have missiles (both land-based, aviation, sea-based) that can turn ACG into trash. The states understand this, therefore they have never tried to crush us with a military component, they are crushing us by the economy.
        1. Lt. Air Force stock 17 October 2015 10: 39 New
          • 10
          • 0
          +10
          Quote: ROSS_Ulair
          The basis of our strategy is that we are peaceful people, but our armored train stands on a siding.

          The presence of aircraft carriers does not imply an aggressive state policy. For example, the state does not have air force bases abroad, with an aircraft carrier it is possible to create this very air force base in any region of the world, and most importantly, the air force does not have to pay rent to the state that allowed it to be built in the case of a ground airfield.
          1. Ross_ulair 17 October 2015 10: 50 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
            For example, the state does not have air force bases abroad, with an aircraft carrier it is possible to create this very air force base in any region of the world, and most importantly, the air force does not have to pay rent to the state that allowed it to be built in the case of a ground airfield.


            So I wrote above - two AUGs for Russia are more than enough.
            We are not dependent on maritime communications, the existing fleet is capable of fulfilling all the tasks of defending our borders. And two AUGs (currently one) will be capable of everything you are talking about. At the same time, without loading the defense budget with expensive toys such as aircraft carriers
            1. PSih2097 17 October 2015 12: 23 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: ROSS_Ulair
              So I wrote above - two AUGs for Russia are more than enough.

              two AUGs with three aircraft carriers, at least two, go - one in reserve / repair / prevention, the power plant is necessarily a reactor.
              about the need for such organizations as the BRICS and the SCO say something? And the Northern Sea Route will soon be year-round, and the cover of the SSBN before entering the combat patrol area?
              1. Mahmut 17 October 2015 20: 28 New
                • 7
                • 0
                +7
                The redeployment of aircraft on an aircraft carrier is carried out together with "their" airfield and ammunition, no one will close the air corridor,

                Only the air passage is a conditional thing, and the strait is a stubborn thing. Turkey as a member of NATO, in the event of accidental or rigged clashes, can easily close the Bosphorus.
                And where then will our ships move. Around Europe? In any case, they will not be able to return from the Baltic to the place of the main deployment in the Black Sea. In my opinion, the rental of ground airfields at any rate is cheaper than the construction of an aircraft carrier.
              2. Alf
                Alf 17 October 2015 22: 02 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: PSih2097
                two AUGs with three aircraft carriers, at least two go - one in reserve / repair / prevention, the power plant is necessarily a reactor

                The reactor on a double-edged sword carrier. On the one hand, the thing is necessary, there are no problems with refueling and range. On the other hand, if an aircraft carrier runs on an atom, then the escort must also be nuclear, otherwise all meaning is lost.
                1. Assistant 18 October 2015 23: 52 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  On the one hand, the thing is necessary, there are no problems with refueling and range. On the other hand, if an aircraft carrier runs on an atom, then the escort must also be nuclear, otherwise all meaning is lost.


                  In the reactor on an aircraft carrier, it makes sense only if steam catapults with an efficiency of 3% are used. In all other cases, the weight of the turbines + fuel does not exceed the weight of the reactor + protection, and the headache with the maintenance of the gas turbine plant is much less. An example of writing off Long Beach, which existed in a single copy, and Virginia, which were built 4 instead of 5, shows that it is more profitable to work with turbines.
                  On the other hand, YaSU is the technology of the future, and the fact that so far it is losing to fossil fuel engines is natural. From this point of view, using YaSU at NK is a way to spur progress in a promising area, albeit at the cost of reducing their operational characteristics.
            2. PSih2097 17 October 2015 12: 23 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: ROSS_Ulair
              So I wrote above - two AUGs for Russia are more than enough.

              two AUGs with three aircraft carriers, at least two, go - one in reserve / repair / prevention, the power plant is necessarily a reactor.
              about the need for such organizations as the BRICS and the SCO say something? And the Northern Sea Route will soon be year-round, and the cover of the SSBN before entering the combat patrol area?
            3. remy 17 October 2015 12: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I completely agree. TWO would be just right!
              IMHO vskidku,
              our approximate composition of AUG: 1 TAVKR pr. 1143.5 Admiral Kuznetsov, 1 BDK pr. 11711 Ivan Gren, 1 TARK pr. 1144.2 Admiral Nakhimov, 1 RK pr. 1164 Marshal Ustinov, 2 BOD pr. 1155 (1) Admiral Chabonenko / Vice- Admiral Kulakov, 2 Frigates, pr. 22350 Admiral Gorshkov / Admiral Kasatonov, 1 APRK pr. 949A, 2 MPLATR pr. 971, 1 armament transport pr. 20180TV Academician Kovalev, 1 supply tanker pr. 1559-B, 1 reconnaissance ship, pr. 864 Victor Leonov.
              TOTAL: 14 ships.
              1. remy 19 October 2015 16: 55 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                although with such an intensity of warfare as ours. one is enough for us so far but in perspective two. not more.
            4. KaPToC 17 October 2015 22: 50 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: ROSS_Ulair
              So I wrote above - two AUGs for Russia are more than enough.

              Quote: ROSS_Ulair
              At the same time, without loading the defense budget with expensive toys such as aircraft carriers

              You do not find a contradiction in your words?
          2. Alex 17 October 2015 11: 08 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
            most importantly, the Air Force does not have to pay rent to the state that allowed it to build this very base in the case of a ground airfield.

            I am not an economist and I don’t have the necessary information, but what is more profitable: to pay (what is the second question) for a base (usually not highly specialized, but with “additives”), or to contain an aircraft carrier? The question is not idle.
            1. Lt. Air Force stock 17 October 2015 11: 41 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Alex
              but what is more profitable: to pay (than - the second question) for the base (as a rule, not highly specialized, but with "additives"), or to contain an aircraft carrier? The question is not idle.

              Lessors may be asked to leave the base at the most inopportune moment, and no one will take away the aircraft carrier. The question here is not money, but reliability.
              1. Arkon 17 October 2015 15: 30 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Yes, we do not have the task of "building" the whole world.
                If we get involved somewhere, then at the request of the states of the region. There will be a request - there will be airfields.
                On which PAK TA will be able to land (there will be cheaper aircraft carriers) and bring all that is needed in a week.

                So, just in case, 1-2 aircraft carriers, as they wrote above ...
                1. KaPToC 17 October 2015 22: 59 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Arkon
                  So, just in case, 1-2 aircraft carriers, as they wrote above ...

                  Here you need to understand that if you build an aircraft carrier (at least one), you need to abandon something else. One aircraft carrier in plus - for example - two thousand armata tanks in minus, which is more important for us? We are building one aircraft carrier group - we are refusing to rearm the whole army.
                  1. strannik1985 17 October 2015 23: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Ie the fleet is not developing at all? Because the conclusions of the work of half a century ago are unequivocal — without air cover, building ships for operations beyond the coastal zone is a waste of money.
                    1. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 39 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: strannik1985
                      Ie the fleet is not developing at all?

                      Do you suggest not developing the army at all?
                    2. Scraptor 18 October 2015 09: 08 New
                      • -2
                      • 0
                      -2
                      Of course, some submarines like Dönitz in Atlánik ... And it’s better to immediately bury in silt.
                      1. Scraptor 18 October 2015 10: 08 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        ... so that the sonar does not find. and so lie. The magnetometer really finds it anyway ...
              2. Alex 17 October 2015 19: 48 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                Lessors may be asked to leave the base at the most inopportune moment, and no one will take away the aircraft carrier. The question here is not money, but reliability.

                You know, one can talk about these topics indefinitely, rather different factors influence the duration of the lease of the base and the possibility of the presence of an aircraft carrier at any particular point in the water area of ​​the World Ocean (the position of Turkey, for example). I just spoke not about CONVENIENCE FOR THE PROSPECTS, but about COST, say, on the scale of two or three years. In any case, contracts for the lease of territories for bases are drawn up for terms quite comparable with the life of an aircraft carrier. So let's divide these two numbers into, say, twenty to thirty years. Where it turns out less - there and more profitable. And after that, we will begin to consider issues of political influence on other states (either with the aim of obtaining the right to the unhindered presence of the AUG, or for a long quartering of the Navy-Air Force base, or something else).
                1. sniper 17 October 2015 20: 01 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Alex
                  So let's divide these two numbers into, say, twenty to thirty years. Where it turns out less - there and more profitable

                  A fair approach ... You just need to take the cost of not one base, but a large enough amount to cover all possible routes of an aircraft carrier ... In my opinion, it will be more correct. And add here all those airfields that need to be built along their own borders. Here arithmetic will turn out absolutely transcendent ... hi
                  1. Alex 17 October 2015 22: 46 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    But then here, too, you need to take the cost of all the ships of the AUG order, the cost of their aggregate maintenance, the need for the same bases in the ocean to ensure satisfactory coverage of the water area ... I don’t know much else, but obviously in the Moscow Region and the General Staff these numbers are much better known. So it’s better to just figure out what is called “one-to-one” - the order, I think, will be quite adequate.
                  2. KaPToC 17 October 2015 23: 01 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: sniper
                    You just need to take the cost of not one base, but a large enough number to cover all possible routes of an aircraft carrier ... In my opinion, it will be more correct.

                    The approach is not correct, where it is necessary - we will have any bases anyway, and where it is not necessary - it is not necessary to block the routes.
                    1. strannik1985 17 October 2015 23: 13 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      And therefore, according to studies of the 80s, it turned out that to replace 3 heavy aircraft, 12 full-fledged air bases are needed, which is 1,5 times more expensive.
                      1. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You have a mistake, the bases are not full, which will significantly reduce their cost.
                      2. strannik1985 18 October 2015 06: 38 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        And which ones? Without a runway, air defense, hangars, locations for personnel, equipment, weapons, fuel and lubricants, infrastructure for all this?
                        Each jack of the aircraft is 25-50 man-hours of service.
          3. max702 17 October 2015 13: 02 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alex
            I am not an economist and I don’t have the necessary information, but what is more profitable: to pay (what is the second question) for a base (usually not highly specialized, but with “additives”), or to contain an aircraft carrier? The question is not idle.

            AUG is an order of magnitude more expensive, and again, the effectiveness is exclusively against the Papuans without anti-aircraft defense, we have such miserable tasks, today's conflict in Syria is the result of a mess over the past 25 years, because if this had not collapsed into such a situation that it would never have come to Syria right now, a strong state of the USSR / Russia simply did not allow this by stopping the enemy’s actions in the early stages, and not delaying the solution of this problem to the last edge ..
            1. Lt. Air Force stock 17 October 2015 13: 30 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: max702
              and again, effectiveness exclusively against the Papuans without air defense

              The problem with air defense is being solved, for example, the United States has airplanes producing jammers Groler, and airplanes AWACS Hokai. + They develop bait missiles that would be the first to attack and deplete stocks of anti-aircraft missiles on the defending side and, in addition, made it possible to detect the location of air defense systems (MALD-J, MALD-D).
              "ADM-160A MALD (Eng. Miniature Air Launched Decoy) - UAV-false target, equipped with electronic warfare systems.

              The first flight performed in January 1999. Work on the creation of the apparatus was initiated by the agency (DARPA). Intended: for jamming, simulating the flight of a combat aircraft, as a target or a false target. Equipped with a radar amplification system in the microwave, VHF and microwave frequencies to achieve realistic simulation of almost any subsonic aircraft, from F-117 to B-52. Its navigation system is based on GPS and can set a very complex trajectory. Launch is made from an airplane. A one-time, with retractable wings, UAV. "

              Flight performance
              Wingspan 0,65 m
              15,2 diameter cm
              45 kg weight
              Ceiling 9000 m
              Flight range 460 km
              20 minutes flight time
              Engine: turbojet Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-50 turbojet; 0,22 kN (50 lbs)
              Length 2,3 m

              ADM-160B
              Length: 2,84 m (ft 9 7 inches)
              Wingspan: 1,71 m (5 ft. 7 in.) Fully extended
              Weight: 115 kg (250 lbs)
              Speed: Mach 0.91
              Ceiling: Over 12200 m (40000 ft)
              Range: Approximately 920 km (575 miles) with the ability to stick around the target
              Endurance: more than 45 minutes at altitude
              Drive: Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet
              Unit cost: US $ 120,000 (initial), [5] US $ 322,000 (as of 2015) [24]
              1. bmv04636 17 October 2015 20: 14 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I’m wondering, can the light elves use their aircraft carriers in winter or in the northern latitudes?
                1. strannik1985 17 October 2015 20: 41 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Teachings of Tim Wark-84, amphibious landing in Tromsø, Norwegian Sea, 561 km to Murmansk and 1061 km to Severodvinsk.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2015 21: 09 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: bmv04636
                  I’m wondering, can the light elves use their aircraft carriers in winter or in the northern latitudes?

                  They can. And in the winter, and in northern latitudes. A pair of American aircraft carriers operating off the coast of Norway was a hefty headache for the USSR
                  1. KaPToC 17 October 2015 23: 03 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Teachings of Tim Wark-84, amphibious landing in Tromsø, Norwegian Sea, 561 km to Murmansk and 1061 km to Severodvinsk.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    They can. And in the winter, and in northern latitudes. A pair of American aircraft carriers operating off the coast of Norway was a hefty headache for the USSR

                    The coast of Norway is quite warm, in my opinion both the north and winter were in our Russian understanding.
                    1. strannik1985 17 October 2015 23: 21 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      The exercises were held on February 28-March 22.
                      Tromso, the average temperature in February is 2 g. In the afternoon, Severodvinsk is 6,3 g. March -1 gr. and 3,7 grams respectively.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 October 2015 01: 01 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      The coast of Norway is quite warm, in my opinion both the north and winter were in our Russian understanding.

                      Fight, if anything, they will not be in our Russian understanding, but in accordance with their own plans, alas.
            2. sniper 17 October 2015 20: 14 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: max702
              , a strong state of the USSR / Russia simply did not allow this by stopping the enemy’s actions in the early stages,

              History has no subjunctive mood. We are not writing an alternative story? We have what we have and there is no difference what led to this state of affairs. We need to take this for granted and try to find a way out of this situation, and not dream about what would happen if ...
            3. Falcon 17 October 2015 21: 19 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: max702
              AUG is an order of magnitude more expensive, and again, the effectiveness is exclusively against the Papuans without air defense


              It depends on what is considered worthy of air defense. For example, the Russian Federation, China - here, of course, the use against C-300 / 400 AUG is very funny. But only this war is unrealistic, since there is nuclear weapons.

              In general, the AUG already acted against a very serious air defense - this is a desert storm and Yugoslavia.

              Far from the Papuans. And decent air defense. (do not compare with the air defense of developed countries!)

              If Antei 2500 5 divisions are delivered to Iran, this is quite decent air defense.

              BUT !, this is even NK 300PMU-2, and TOTAL 5 divisions. Even here there are several AUG + axes - quite relevant
              1. KaPToC 17 October 2015 23: 05 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Falcon
                In general, the AUG already acted against a very serious air defense - this is a desert storm and Yugoslavia.

                In Yugoslavia, most of the work was done by aviation from ground-based airfields, and in Iraq, too, they could do without aircraft carriers perfectly.
                1. Falcon 18 October 2015 00: 03 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  In Yugoslavia, most of the work was done by aviation from ground-based airfields, and in Iraq, too, they could do without aircraft carriers perfectly.


                  So what did not cost?

                  10 augs can simultaneously lift 200 l / a into the air.
                  Which of these countries can withstand so many ???
                  1. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 37 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Falcon
                    10 augs can simultaneously lift 200 l / a into the air.
                    Which of these countries can withstand so many ???

                    if the United States begins to concentrate 10 AUG near our shores, our nuclear missiles will fly to visit the Americans without waiting for their concentration.
                    1. Falcon 18 October 2015 12: 34 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      if the United States begins to concentrate 10 AUG near our shores, our nuclear missiles will fly to visit the Americans without waiting for their concentration.


                      And here are our shores and nuclear missiles ??? Talking about something else altogether belay
                    2. Setrac 18 October 2015 22: 19 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      It is about the fact that in history there was no case that the United States gathered its atomic aircraft carriers in one place for war, this will happen only during the third world war.
                    3. Scraptor 18 October 2015 23: 37 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Gathered in the first war against Saddam Hussein (Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Omani Zaldiv). It is difficult to get on it with a SCAD. Although mostly crushing masses flew from airfields. At least one of which SCAD flew in, though it ended up in the barracks, and not in the hangars, but only more were killed by the American military ...
    2. sandrmur76 17 October 2015 13: 31 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Aircraft carriers are not just expensive mobile airdromes, but escort ships and bases with all the consequences. You can shout that you need to steal less, but such amounts are needed there starting from construction wassat And the vulnerability of these giants has not been canceled by anyone. There will soon be underwater unmanned, quiet, fast mini submarines (pocket). Then there will be aircraft carriers like pancakes in a pan.
      1. Dart2027 17 October 2015 13: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: sandrmur76
        There will soon be underwater unmanned, quiet, fast mini submarines (pocket)

        As well as means of dealing with them. Absolute weapons do not exist and neither submarines nor aircraft carriers replace each other.
      2. Lt. Air Force stock 17 October 2015 13: 56 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: sandrmur76
        There will soon be underwater unmanned, quiet, fast mini submarines (pocket). Then there will be aircraft carriers like pancakes in a pan.

        By the way, underwater drones, torpedo bombers, you can safely attack the AUG.
        If the submarine breaks into the 50-kilometer AUG zone for torpedoing ships, then after launching torpedoes and missiles it will be discovered and most likely sank, and with it a hundred submariners. And drones are not sorry.
        1. sniper 17 October 2015 14: 13 New
          • -3
          • 0
          -3
          Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
          By the way, underwater drones, torpedo bombers, you can safely attack the AUG.

          The AUG goes 25 knots, but the drone, in the best case, makes five knots ... If of course it will catch and intercept AUG, then yes, it will sink, again, if there is anything ... laughing
          1. Lt. Air Force stock 17 October 2015 14: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: sniper
            The AUG goes 25 knots, but the drone, in the best case, makes five knots ... If, of course, the AUG catches up and intercepts, then yes, it will sink ...

            What prevents the construction of large drones with a displacement of 300-600 tons?
            1. sniper 17 October 2015 15: 15 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
              What prevents the construction of large drones with a displacement of 300-600 tons?

              Dear LZVV, of course, nothing prevents, only how will these drones be controlled? Artificial Intelligence? Or an operator with a coil of wire? What engines do you plan to install on these submarines? Nuclear reactors? You first decide on the concept of your killer robots, calculate their capabilities, and only then ... This is what people would not make fun of. I will not minus, maybe you will understand. wassat
              1. Lt. Air Force stock 17 October 2015 15: 24 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: sniper
                Dear LZVV, of course, nothing prevents, only how will these drones be controlled? Artificial Intelligence? Or an operator with a coil of wire? What engines do you plan to install on these submarines? Nuclear reactors? You first decide on the concept of your killer robots, calculate their capabilities, and only then ... This is what people would not make fun of. I will not minus, maybe you will understand.

                Why should I decide on a concept? Let the design bureau do this. It is clear that underwater drones will be equipped with weapons over time, and in order to use these weapons the drone will have to have the appropriate performance characteristics.

                (Minus I did not set you)
                1. sniper 17 October 2015 15: 43 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I do not argue that drones will sooner or later become a serious weapon, but so far underwater drones are more of a science fiction than something really dangerous ... There are more problems with underwater robots than with aircraft, which comes from the application environment. So I would not consider them as a real threat to the ACG. This is a matter of a very distant future.
              2. KaPToC 17 October 2015 23: 16 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: sniper
                You first decide on the concept of your killer robots, calculate their capabilities, and only then ...

                If we are talking about drones, then we need to build other aircraft carriers with a tonnage of 8000-12000, carriers of unmanned aerial vehicles.
                We take the usual Enterprise (for example), we reduce it by ten times the displacement, well, and proportionally in size, we take the usual deck aircraft, for example, F / A-18, we reduce its weight by ten times and proportionally to the size ..., in general, the principle is clear .
                1. NIKNN 18 October 2015 10: 08 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Why are you rushing with drones? There are a lot of devices against the AUG, not counting all the missiles (both ballistic and other anti-ship missiles), the concept of "sleeping" torpedoes that hang and wait for the entrance to the target detection zone (so 50 miles) is being developed, the main thing is that the reconnaissance works, and set during . What is not a drone? and the meager cost (advanced torpedo).
                2. Scraptor 18 October 2015 12: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  If the mind then the size of the aircraft carrier is limited by the distance of the horizontal landing of the aircraft in the arrestor, and it depends on its size a little. For example, the MiG-29 and Su-33 are the same.

                  SKVVP if not "broken" then generally sits himself upright, as if on a helipad.
                  Something more, not a single commenter has yet touched on this topic here.
                  A bunch of paid extras?
                3. bk0010 18 October 2015 21: 09 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  There is no SCVP suitable for warfare. Even the most well-deserved (Harrier) sucks. He became disgraced during the Falkland conflict (the number of planes intercepted by the Harriers turned out to be equal to the number of planes shot down by Sea Sparrow, while the main task of the expeditionary forces was to prevent the aircraft carrier from drowning with them), he let down the United States Naval Forces. Our YAK-38, after sailors kicked off from it, tried to use it in Afghanistan, couldn’t, it couldn’t take off due to the discharged air, but unlike the USA it didn’t cost us much blood.
                  "Vertical" is very necessary, especially to the ground forces. It removes the problem of "200 kT to the airport", perhaps they can even be transferred to the army aviation. If a combat-ready VTOL aircraft appears, then it will be forgiven for a small radius of action and the absence of supersonic (everything is compensated by the possibility of placing aircraft near the front line), it is only necessary that it provides acceptable reliability and combat readiness.
                4. Scraptor 18 October 2015 23: 18 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  And where did you get such “knowledge”?

                  This "sucks" even when subsonic then shot down 20+ aircraft without a single loss in aerial combat.
                  And then he shot down more ... At the same time, throughout the conflict there were 5-10 times fewer of them than enemy aircraft, and sometimes the enemy who flew to hunt for them (excluding strike groups) was three times more, so sometimes you still had to use SAM In addition, more than one British nuclear submarine grazed under their umbrella from the PLO, and they cultivated the Argentine army on the ground, which is why the British “expeditionary forces” lost 2,5 times less than Argentina in that war, and small Britain got the islands back.
                  Even the tonnage of lost argenin fighting ships (and the number of sailors) exceeds the losses of the naval forces of the small Britain (without a chartered container ship on which only 12 died), despite the fact that the Argenin ships immediately went to bases on the continent after the first major loss and then were not under fire.

                  How did he bring the United States Commission to the United States, and since when did they begin to talk about it? He never failed the British. Italians too. Rather, it prevents to cut the loot on the F-35.
                  Yak-38 in the "Rhombus" to support its infantry fought more successfully than helicopters and especially base aircraft. They were in the Navy both before and after Afghanistan, in which later the Harriers also fought.
                  SKVVP starting with the Yak-36 and Kestrel were made for the Air Force and Army Aviation. Harrier joined the British Navy 10 years later than the Air Force.
                  Aerodromes are also suppressed without 200kt by non-nuclear warheads or aircraft, which was done, for example, in 1967. With AB it is more difficult as it is mobile.
                  A supersonic Yak-141 with a range greater than that of the MiG-29 is, it appeared well a very long time ago. Didn't you know about this? The F-35 crookedly copied from it in the USA is flying yet (in a quantity of 50 pieces). With proper operation of the air defense system, the combat radius is 90-95% of a conventional aircraft.
                  In this case, an airfield or a large ship (converted vessel) is not required.
                  Due to the extreme (non-helicopter) landing conditions, arrested planes fight more often than SQUVP.
                  There are many even aerodrome (non-deck) aircraft which, in percentage terms, crashed more
                  For example F-104G (absolute record holder) and F-15.
                5. bk0010 19 October 2015 00: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  And where did you get such “knowledge”?

                  I will not give links, look for yourself.
                  Quote: Scraptor

                  This "sucks" even when subsonic then shot down 20+ aircraft without a single loss in aerial combat.

                  In the ship group, which they covered, 6 ships and ships were drowned, 11 damaged, 15 Harriers shot down. And this despite the fact that the British nuclear submarine completely neutralized the entire fleet of Argentina, and its aircraft had to operate at the limit of range and without cover. This is a complete failure of the carrier part of the air defense, especially considering that the Argi attacked 2-4 attack aircraft against the whole AUG. Another 2-3 frigates would be more useful than the Invincible.
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  In addition, more than one British nuclear submarine grazed under their umbrella from PLO
                  Alone, and she did not need any umbrella. The Navy of Argentina did not have the opportunity to oppose it.
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Even the tonnage of lost argenin fighting ships (and the number of sailors) surpasses the loss of the Navy of the United Kingdom
                  One old cruiser that was out of the combat zone.
                  Quote: Scraptor

                  How did he bring the United States Commission to the United States, and since when did they start talking about it?
                  As a result of accidents out of 397 Harriers, a third was lost. In the year 91, during the bombing of Iraq, the intensity of the Harrier sorties was 10 times less than planned. In normal mode, they managed to fight only a couple of days.
                6. Scraptor 19 October 2015 02: 39 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Links and did not ask. I do not need them. It was interesting from whom, or at least on what sites (or from books) they "learned" this.

                  Three ships were sunk (and one boat), two were burned (the ship and the ship, they were abandoned, they sank later), and one was sunk as a military burial ground. At the time when the Argentines attacked these targets, which is typical, the harriers did not cover them, due to the lack of their quantity (except perhaps only one episode with a boat). The Argentine manages to hit the boat carrying cargo, was shot down almost immediately before he could get out of the attack, and died ... Harrier was 5-10 times less (this, like half of the other, was written in the commentary above).
                  The Argentinean lost tonnage of warships is greater (you didn’t notice this), although they almost immediately took refuge in the bases. Ask in more detail what else was sunk besides the old but armored cruiser (from the same battleships the Americans fired after a year and a half, the Syrians in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, and the Iraqis in 1991).
                  Whose failure was it, even if in order to clear the sky and attack the ships, the Argentines sometimes sent 3 times more fighters against the harrier patrol, but they shot down all of them (except one). Throughout the war, from a battle with a couple of harriers, only one plane flew out of six “hunters” at once (5 shot down), sucked on to the tanker and losing fuel on the fly, it just flew.

                  Not 15, but 4 harriers were knocked down by fire from the land of Rodeba and 2 were lost due to the weather (or vice versa). One left the deck. In a dogfight - not a single one (Argentines admit it).

                  3 British nuclear submarines acted unhindered because the Argentinean submarine aviation (both the helicopters and the base - this was the submarine that was opposed) was not allowed to fly Harrier. Which also acted at the limit of their radius until the moment when the advanced airfield on the coast was organized after landing in San Carlos.

                  On Invincible, 8 harriers in total, and another 12 on Hermes. Duty on the barrage went on 5-6 directions for two squadrons (amphibious and aircraft carrier) + reconnaissance and work on the ground. later came a little less replenishment. How can such forces block the area of ​​the 200-mile zone all 24 hours a day?

                  England would not have been able to return the islands without the Harriers, and another 2-3 frigates would not have gone anywhere across the entire Atlantic along and not across.

                  Maybe but very natryatli.
                  The American Harrier is a low-quality unlicensed copy of English (especially in terms of the engine, so for the most part it is purchased). The British in 1991 fought very productively. Both in the Balkan and in others, right up to Libyan and Afghanistan, until the USA was bought in bulk.
                  F-104G and F-15 crashed how much?
              3. bk0010 19 October 2015 00: 46 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Scraptor
                Yak-38 in the "Rhombus" to support its infantry fought more successfully than helicopters and especially base aircraft.

                What are you talking about? They were brought in 4 pieces, they tried to fly for 2 months (more than 100 sorties), after which all the Yak-38s were sent for revision.
                Quote: Scraptor

                Aerodromes are also suppressed without 200kt by non-nuclear warheads or aircraft, which was done, for example, in 1967.

                Yes, and mortars ...
                Quote: Scraptor
                A supersonic Yak-141 with a range greater than that of the MiG-29 is, it appeared well a very long time ago. Didn't you know about this?

                There is no Yak-141, but there is a Mig-29. It was made 2 sides, it was shown at exhibitions and all. He did not pass the tests, he did not go into the series. He had few chances, since a good VTOL aircraft should have a single engine, and 2 more lifting ones would again be screwed onto it. This is good for setting records, but not for exploitation.
                Quote: Scraptor

                The F-35 crookedly copied from it in the USA is flying yet (in a quantity of 50 pieces).

                Only some elements of the rotary nozzle were taken. In general, I would not be in a hurry to boast of such a relationship: perhaps the machine will be very ambiguous.
                Quote: Scraptor

                With proper operation of the air defense system, the combat radius is 90-95% of a conventional aircraft.

                About a third of all fuel goes to vertical take-off and landing, where does 90% come from? Plus, the engine resource burns out, as in afterburner. Plus very high requirements for the pilot. If the VTOL would be as good as you describe it, then it would be used everywhere. VTOL aircraft are very necessary, but there are no viable VTOLs.
              4. Scraptor 19 October 2015 03: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                About the "Rhombus". They did not try, but flew in combat to support the infantry, and served. I would like to know more about the mod.

                Mortar is troublesome, without guarantees, and if only there is nothing else. I didn’t hear what the Israelis did in 1967

                You have a straight complete set. Where is it written that the Yak-141 test did not pass, and what tests? Was the MiG-29 sent to two exhibitions there (Paris and Farnborough), also unsuccessful, to fall on someone else and hit the prestige?
                The Yak-43 has not yet been tested, and not the Yak-141.

                Subsonic SKVVP is possible, but supersonic on a single engine in Farnborough and before that have not yet been shown in Paris and 12 records on it. Which if the car is not a record but a combat one just means a lot.

                Quote: bk0010
                Only some elements of the rotary nozzle were taken.

                How do you know that? ...

                The plane was taken in its entirety and then a ventiator from XV-5 (also a foreign company, but all the same American) was put into it.
                Nobody boasts ...

                Quote: bk0010
                where does 90% come from?

                90-95% ... Where from?
                Quote: bk0010
                Approximately one third of all fuel is used for vertical take-off and landing,

                How long does take-off or even landing last? For so much time, you just can’t burn so much fuel ...
  • USSR 1971 17 October 2015 15: 46 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The armament of the country's army depends on the doctrine and strategy of the state. In our country and the United States, they are actually different. Sometimes it is much more effective to create a weapon against an aircraft carrier than to invest in their construction, trying to catch up and overtake. There are cruise missiles that, as it turned out, fly. A CD kit for a small rocket ship is still cheaper than an aircraft carrier. And there are submarines ...

    Previously, everyone competed who built more battleships. The era of new weapons has come and where are the battleships now? In museums and the Word of Warships project.
    There is nothing eternal, ce la vie.
    1. sniper 17 October 2015 16: 02 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: USSR 1971
      . Sometimes it’s much more effective to create a weapon against an aircraft carrier than to invest in their construction

      Well, why does everyone think that if we have an aircraft carrier, then only to hang out with the American AUG ... From time to time, there is a need in the presence of our aviation in different parts of the world ... There are two ways, or to spawn land airports around the world , who will let us do this, and besides, as always, money ... Well, a very expensive pleasure is the foreign air base ... because in addition to the direct costs of its maintenance, you will have to feed the political elite of this country and much more another ... Or a mobile air base, that is, an aircraft carrier. There are simply no other options ... And the second option is clearly cheaper ...
    2. strannik1985 17 October 2015 17: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The experience of the USSR proves the opposite, although they flew under the RCC Union, but came to the need to build normal ABs, only with national color-strike functions perform the KR, the air group ensures the stability of missile carriers, they did not manage to reach the logical finale (aircraft become the main striking weapon).
  • Bayun 20 October 2015 03: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It’s more to calculate ... It seems that the infrastructure for an aircraft carrier will gobble up 10 times more money than a ground base for the same number of aircraft.
  • Per se. 17 October 2015 13: 04 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: ROSS_Ulair
    Russia is primarily a continental power.
    I would have heard it, at one time, Peter I, would have put on a stake, how much effort was expended on access to the seas, on the creation of a fleet. The "psychology" of the gophers of the steppe, unfortunately, has a place to exist, but there can be no "land" power, a country with the largest coastline in the world, nor can there be any strong power (and even more so a great power) without a strong navy. We don’t need as many aircraft carriers as the United States, nor do we need as many destroyers, frigates, but we need a self-sufficient, strong fleet capable of performing any tasks at sea, including those when carrier-based aircraft are needed.
    1. Ross_ulair 17 October 2015 13: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      We don’t need as many aircraft carriers as the United States, nor do we need as many destroyers and frigates, but we need a self-sufficient, strong fleet capable of performing any tasks at sea, including those when carrier-based aircraft are needed.


      Well, and in what place do your words diverge from my statements? wink
    2. denis02135 17 October 2015 14: 54 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Dear Per se

      And what fleet do we need? How many articles were there on topwar, but no one talks about quantity, quality. (Same thing with tanks, planes) Get all your strength and do any amount, and what's next? Maintenance and repair, exercises, etc. etc. And most importantly, what should the fleet do? (Doctrine of application). Sorry for the confusion.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock 17 October 2015 15: 16 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: denis02135
        And what fleet do we need? How many articles were there on topwar, but no one talks about quantity, quality. (Same thing with tanks, planes) Get all your strength and do any amount, and what's next? Maintenance and repair, exercises, etc. etc. And most importantly, what should the fleet do? (Doctrine of application). Sorry for the confusion.

        The doctrine is simple, the fleet should ensure the protection of the sea borders of Russia, and the ability to carry out military operations far from its shores (for example, delivering massive attacks with cruise missiles), the submarine fleet must be numerous to track ballistic missiles and multipurpose submarines.
        As for the AUG, there is a greater chance of sinking the enemy when our AUG goes to the AUG of the USA than hoping that our submarine will break the guard of the warrant of ships and firing 24 missiles will sink the aircraft carrier and, ideally, all guard ships.

        Russia needs an ocean zone ship (destroyer), this is obvious, let the Navy determine the quantity, the ship must have good air defense to accompany landing ships to the coast of the enemy.
        Russia needs Frigates, corvettes and diesel submarines to patrol the coastal zone in search of enemy submarines.
        Russia needs atomic submarines to open up patrol areas of enemy submarines and track them, well, I think there’s no need to say about the need for ballistic missile submarines
        As for the aircraft carriers, as the type of ship it obviously should be present in our fleet, the issue is only in quantity, I think 2 aircraft carriers are enough.
        1. denis02135 19 October 2015 20: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Dear Lt. air force stock

          Thanks for the answer, but questions remain, what fleet size and number of drugs are needed for all current tasks. If I’m not mistaken, the number of all paramilitaries
          the army, navy, aviation, explosives, the FSB, etc. cannot make up 1% in peacetime, without tangible consequences for the country. Now the Russian Army is 1 ml. man plus FSB and BB. (where to get people?).

          Thank you.
          1. Scraptor 19 October 2015 20: 58 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            All the rest, in total strength is inferior to the explosives in their strength, here they do not need aircraft carriers - probably this is the main thing ...
  • tot843 17 October 2015 21: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In principle, I agree with the comment. I am against aircraft carriers, but for aircraft-carrying cruisers as a universal combat unit. And all the ranting at the expense of the AUG is amateurism and idle talk.
    1. tomket 17 October 2015 21: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: tot843
      but for aircraft-carrying cruisers as a universal military unit

      Yeah. It's about like 203 mm caliber guns on aircraft carriers that have shown nothing but worthlessness.
  • Boa kaa 17 October 2015 22: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: ROSS_Ulair
    Russia is primarily a continental power. With the greatest length of land borders.

    The numbers speak more eloquently than the speakers!
    "The length of the borders of the Russian Federation:
    Total - 60 932 km.
    - river and lake - 7 616 km.
    - land - 14 509 km.
    - maritime: - 38 km.

    * Baltic Sea - 126,1 km.
    * Black Sea - 389,5 km.
    * Caspian - 580 km.
    * Pacific Ocean - 16 km.
    * The Arctic Ocean - 19 724,1 km. "Https://otvet.mail.ru/question/46073160
    1. Ross_ulair 17 October 2015 22: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      By the greatest length, I meant the greatest length of land borders, in comparison with other countries of the world.
      Let's not read between the lines!

      In the Arctic - yes, the longest. But let's count not the entire northern border, but the possibilities of entering this very ocean - and there are two of them: west and east. And their control is much easier than control of the ocean borders at the USA. Which only confirms my words that for the USA AUG are vital, while for Russia, they are more likely than necessary
    2. KaPToC 17 October 2015 23: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: BoA KAA
      * Pacific Ocean - 16 km.
      * The Arctic Ocean - 19 724,1 km. "Https://otvet.mail.ru/question/46073160

      You do not want to clarify what part of the sea borders of Russia - floating and pack ice?
      1. Scraptor 18 October 2015 12: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In winter or summer?
        1. Ross_ulair 18 October 2015 18: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Scraptor
          In winter or summer?


          And what difference does it make if it is in fact the inland ocean of Russia? AUG can only go through two directions, which are pretty easy to control.

          Cross the Black Sea coast - straits and treaty. Caspian flies (only calibers fly out of it) laughing ).

          In fact, we have the Baltic and the Pacific. Adding the Arctic, or rather west and east, we get an average of 20 thousand km. While 14.5 thousand, plus river and lake 7.6 (well, we do not expect AUG in the river delta? wassat ) Total 22 thousand land.

          We believe, then read the post of the previous speaker. We think a lot wink
          1. Scraptor 19 October 2015 00: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The treaty has nothing to do with it, the American AB in the Black Sea, as well as in the Baltic, has nothing to do.
            Russian - only as a passage to the Mediterranean.

            SLO is the same internal for other countries that are all NATO members. They will unfold there before and not after.

            Russia has the longest border. Both maritime and land, and from the North there can be even more problems than with maintenance. Especially in the summer months.
  • tomket 17 October 2015 10: 36 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Quote: severniy
    Yeah, Russia cannot do without them ... Especially where is the thread in Tajikistan ... Like the very boat in the steppes of Ukraine ...

    In Tajikistan, of course, without them in any way. But it turned out that we can fight in Syria. And not only aircraft carriers would be useful there, but three times spat upon “Mistral” would not be out of place there now. however what we have. Russia is a land power and aircraft carriers are too expensive a pleasure, as a result we can’t quickly fit an air wing to support Assad. UDC we are not building, and the "mistral" troughs of paddling pools. As a result, we can’t quickly build up Assad’s heavy weapons. Such is the price of pride or whatever ....
    1. max702 17 October 2015 13: 11 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: tomket
      As a result, we can’t quickly build up Assad’s heavy weapons

      And for this there are specialized vessels of the "Rolker" type which are much more efficient than any BDK in the presence of at least someone port. And these ships were in abundance in the USSR, and some of them served in the US Shipping Command, which confirms the correctness of the chosen path. The ship is protected by the FLAG, not the number of guns and missiles .. Now in Turkey, 8 bulk carriers for the Syrian Express have been bought, they will hang the Navy’s flag and order, everything that needs to be brought, and this had to be done FOR LONG TIME! And do not kill, and so is not a great resource of our old BDK ..
    2. Lt. Air Force stock 17 October 2015 14: 00 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: tomket
      And not only aircraft carriers would be useful there, but three times spat upon “Mistral” would not be out of place there now.

      By the way, yes, Russia was forced to deploy, if I’m not mistaken, two security battalions and attack helicopters to guard the airfield in Latakia, if we had an aircraft carrier fully equipped and capable of launching and receiving 80 aircraft per day, we could just fit 60 -80 kilometers to the coast of an aircraft carrier and work on targets in Syria from it. And we would not be afraid of either the militants with the Stingers near the airfield, or the militants on Toyota pickups from the Grad MLRS, who are trying to fire at our airfield.
  • Dart2027 17 October 2015 10: 52 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: severniy
    Expensive and without bases (land again)

    And how much will it cost to have a bunch of bases around the world?
    Quote: severniy
    Especially where is the thread in Tajikistan

    Let's not build strategic nuclear submarines then. Well, what the hell are we for nuclear weapons in Tajikistan?
    1. KaPToC 17 October 2015 23: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Dart2027
      And how much will it cost to have a bunch of bases around the world?

      Why this stupid question? We do not need a presence around the world, and where necessary - there will be ground bases, as in Syria.
      1. Dart2027 18 October 2015 10: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: KaPToC
        and where necessary - there will be ground bases

        Firstly, not the fact that they will, and secondly, the base will be built for a long time, not a day or a month, and by the time it is ready it may be too late to do something.
  • Silhouette 17 October 2015 11: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Despite the fact that the fight against terrorists is a private task, it threatens to become the main number one headache for so many countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia for many years, and perhaps for the coming decades.


    So what? ... let them have a headache in Africa there. Why are we supposed to treat their headache with our aircraft carriers? Nothing more to do? Destroyers and cruisers in bulk available? Or have pensions reached unattainable heights?
  • fest 1973 17 October 2015 17: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I don’t understand your dialect. Please write in Russian!
  • avia1991 17 October 2015 21: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: severniy
    Yeah, Russia can’t do without them ... Especially where is the thread in Tajikistan ...

    Right And especially with specialists like the author.
    I wanted to express my opinion on the article - but I do not see the point. I’ll say one thing: it’s unreasonably expensive to maintain an aircraft carrier for a one-time mission “to combat terrorism”. And in conditions of equal confrontation, using modern weapons, it is also useless.
    ... Or are we, like mattresses, on the CONTROL OF THE WHOLE WORLD?
  • War and Peace 17 October 2015 15: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Melnychenko and Abramovich shake, so instead of the fleet of the largest yachts, you can set up the largest fleet of aircraft carriers without any questions ...
    1. Ross_ulair 17 October 2015 15: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It’s not enough to build. They also need to be maintained. And it seems to me that the content of one aircraft carrier in ten years will at times block the cost of its construction.
    2. Professor 17 October 2015 15: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: war and peace
      Melnychenko and Abramovich shake, so instead of the fleet of the largest yachts, you can set up the largest fleet of aircraft carriers without any questions ...

      You would have suggested Putin to shake. Let's discuss real sources of financing, not fantastic.
      1. War and Peace 17 October 2015 17: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Professor
        Quote: war and peace
        Melnychenko and Abramovich shake, so instead of the fleet of the largest yachts, you can set up the largest fleet of aircraft carriers without any questions ...

        You would have suggested Putin to shake. Let's discuss real sources of financing, not fantastic.


        it is possible, but finances are so built that after the oligarchs, money simply does not remain for the national economy ...
  • Dam
    Dam 17 October 2015 19: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Only if we suddenly become an island and decide to take over the world! But seriously, is it not fat for an aircraft carrier to equip terrorists? By the way, I don’t know how Kuzya is, and Nimitz cannot keep in the air more than four Planes at a time. And then by the time the second pair takes off, the first will have to return in 30 minutes. Where is 120 Aircraft Departures ay? In addition, at night landing on an aircraft carrier is still happiness.
    1. Kuzyakin15 17 October 2015 21: 21 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      [quote = Damm] Only if we suddenly become an island and decide to take over the world! But seriously, is it not fat for an aircraft carrier to equip terrorists? By the way, I don’t know how Kuzya is, and Nimitz cannot keep in the air more than four Planes at a time. And then by the time the second pair takes off, the first will have to return in 30 minutes. Where there are 120 sorties- departures ay? In addition, at night to land on an aircraft carrier t

      And where did you read about it?
    2. Falcon 17 October 2015 21: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Damm
      Only if we suddenly become an island and decide to take over the world! But seriously, is it not fat for an aircraft carrier to equip terrorists? By the way, I don’t know how Kuzya is, and Nimitz cannot keep in the air more than four Planes at a time. And then by the time the second pair takes off, the first will have to return in 30 minutes. Where is 120 Aircraft Departures ay? In addition, at night landing on an aircraft carrier is still happiness.


      On Nimz, 12 vehicles may be ready for departure at the same time. Moreover, 8, if you look at the placement on the starting lines, are in 45 minute readiness.

      That is, at the same time, departure to 20 cars is provided, with a small interval. In about 15 minutes you can raise all 20 pcs. Then there are 1,5 hours to prepare a group of the following 20 machines ...

  • varov14 17 October 2015 22: 04 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Well, if you need aircraft carriers to fight terrorists, then of course you need to build it, it’s better to have an aircraft carrier for every terrorist, but I doubt it for a big war. it’s better to put this money into the development of torpedoes. It should have an unlimited radius of action, unlimited time, completely autonomous, in case of case, lie down on the ground or freeze at a depth that makes it impossible to detect, is individually tuned to the final "consumer", that is, to perform the same song as the "consumer", not to be detected. At the current level of development, it is quite possible to do if you turn on the head.
    1. Alf
      Alf 17 October 2015 22: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: varov14
      it’s better to put this money into the development of torpedoes. It should have an unlimited radius of action, unlimited time, completely autonomous, in case of case, lie down on the ground or freeze at a depth that makes it impossible to detect, is individually tuned to the final "consumer", that is, to perform the same song as the "consumer", not to be detected. At the current level of development, it is quite possible to do if you turn on the head.

      Why reinvent the wheel if
      At the time when the "Captor" was adopted, the Soviet Navy had anti-submarine mines and torpedoes for several years. The Soviet mine PMT-1 with characteristics similar to those of the Captor has been in service since 1972 (this mine was the first mine in the world of this class in general). PMT-1 was somewhat inferior to Captor in range, since a more advanced acoustic equipment and more modern torpedo were used in the American mine. These shortcomings were eliminated in the Soviet MTPK-1 mine torpedo, adopted in 1983 [6].
    2. Alf
      Alf 17 October 2015 23: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: varov14
      It should have unlimited range, unlimited time,

      An immodest question, should this torpedo have a nuclear power plant? Others have not yet been invented.
  • KaPToC 17 October 2015 22: 48 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The author never said why an aircraft carrier is better than a ground base! It is in such operations as in Syria that aircraft carriers are useless; the aircraft carrier group is the weapons system of the open ocean.
  • Mhpv 17 October 2015 22: 56 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Four ships from the closed sea haven’t shown you any advantages over the AUG within a radius of 1500-2000 km; one volley of them is enough to cover the entire AUG and not only the womb of an aircraft carrier. It’s enough to live in the past, even Russia has turned a diesel engine with a small power reserve into a formidable weapon. How many times have our boats carried out training attacks while being in the center of the AUG and the planes have already covered them, though not for combat. That’s what the army should be like. Even Western experts understood this, and then again about the aircraft carriers they sing praises from our territories and the possibility of missiles, this will be another cut of the budget for the construction and maintenance of the AUG. The author does not rave anymore.
  • Engineer 19 October 2015 09: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    How is this “unwillingness to build aircraft carriers”, and Ulyanovsk and Varyag is not a desire? The desire was, and built, if possible, not to the detriment of other Navy programs.
  • alekc73 17 October 2015 06: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Russian aircraft carriers are needed yesterday. Point. Even not discussed.
    1. kayman4 17 October 2015 09: 10 New
      • 21
      • 0
      +21
      At the beginning of the possibility of ground-based - Aircraft carriers is a terribly expensive and useless thing, since

      1. He needs to sail when he takes planes into the air
      2. He needs to swim when he plants them
      3. Resource aircraft eats on aircraft carriers faster
      4. The bomb load is limited due to the small deck length
      5. It is harder to supply an aircraft carrier with fuel and weapons than to drive tankers and BC trucks to the base.
      6. The probability of an emergency is higher than at the ground airfield.
      7. Fueling at the ground airfield has better conditions — there is no pitching, and therefore the sedimentation and discharge of sludge can be carried out more efficiently — which is not unimportant in the conditions of the Middle East with its temperature differences and humidity

      The author is not delirious - an aircraft carrier is good, but in this context it will be easier to increase ground-based aviation.
      1. podgornovea 17 October 2015 10: 07 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Do not rave, rave. It’s good that the base turned out to be “still there” and to bring everything to it in the volume that is needed.
        Trucks with BC through Turkey?

        “At the same time, a ground-based aerodrome will have advantages in the convenience of servicing equipment”
        Not in the eyes?
        1. ancient 17 October 2015 10: 46 New
          • 10
          • 0
          +10
          Quote: podgornovea
          Do not rave, rave. It’s good that the base turned out to be “still there” and to bring everything to it in the volume that is needed.
          Trucks with BC through Turkey?


          Let me "insert my 5 cents" or ... "throw in the author ... a pebble"? wink

          Immediately make a reservation ... to the author for the MINUS article! soldier

          I substantiate: wink

          1. Quote- "
          Unfortunately, currently it’s unrealistic to create a full-fledged wing for an aircraft carrier both because of the number of necessary equipment and the lack of the necessary number of pilots trained to take-off and landing on deck for round-the-clock combat operations of high intensity. " recourse

          Or maybe there is, first of all, the ABSENCE of the Navy of the Russian Federation - a COMPLETE AIRCRAFT, and only then ... your .. "arguments"? wink

          2. To compare the ground aviation base and the Aircraft carrier according to the criterion of combat effectiveness is ... forgive me my "French" .. anyway, that .... "one place with .. finger" wassat
          It would not hurt to "study" why the FIRST Aircraft carrier is intended wink

          3. Comparison of the performance characteristics of aviation equipment in general .. not at what gate. Forget about your "mythical" 6-8 tons .. you are with them only in Latakia .. you can steer.

          4. The Navy of the Russian Federation uses for supplying already 8 dry cargo vessels of the “auxiliary fleet” and a pile of tankers (there is a lot of information and photos on the Internet)! soldier

          Well, your CONCLUSION in general ..... remember the aviation group on the aircraft carrier the same (as our ground) has limitations on the tactical radius of action, so you are not very ... with the change in the area of ​​"lifting aircraft"
          As for the "rest" - you would be "driven" into the gung, so that you would "feel" all the "charms of the Afghan" life " wassat

          And by the way, you can’t immediately get video and photo control of the results of the strike, if the goals and time of the strike are known in advance, especially since the strike area does not have active air defense means? belay

          "Hang up" the UAV, a photo reconnaissance officer and ... take off .. even to ... "stop" wassat
          1. Aleksandr1959 17 October 2015 16: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Or maybe there is, first of all, the ABSENCE of the Navy of the Russian Federation - a COMPLETE AIRCRAFT, and only then ... your .. "arguments"?

            Greetings! Exactly. “Kuznetsov” was created as far as I remember, as an experimental site for testing various technologies for aircraft-carrying ships, including for testing the aviation component. But, the remaining ships were safely poher Ukraine. And when a new one appears in Russia ...
        2. kayman4 17 October 2015 16: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: podgornovea
          Do not rave, rave. It’s good that the base turned out to be “still there” and to bring everything to it in the volume that is needed.
          Trucks with BC through Turkey?

          “At the same time, a ground-based aerodrome will have advantages in the convenience of servicing equipment”
          Not in the eyes?



          Avik-type wow can be supplied with ships, but there is no airdrome :) Moreover, in the port the cars will have to be transported from the ship to the ship.

          Shorter than rubbish nonsense.
      2. g1v2 17 October 2015 10: 47 New
        • 13
        • 0
        +13
        During the American bombing of Iraq and Yugoslavia, carrier-based sorties accounted for, as I recall, less than 20 percent of all sorties. They just showed them more often. The main work went from ground airfields. Aircraft carriers made no decisive contribution to the victory of the United States in the 21st century. Without aviation from aircraft carriers, American aviation from American bases in Europe and in the BV would have done quite well. But one deck aviation without aviation from ground airports - no. So another airport in Syria will be much more useful than 2 aircraft carriers. Plus - cheaper. Well, do not forget that front-line aviation is much more effective for working on the ground than carrier-based. You can make Su33 or Mig29k work on the ground, but in my opinion they are by no means competitors in this Su25 or Su34. Of course, if the author builds an aircraft carrier and gives it to his native country FOR YOUR MONEY, then the navy will find it to be used, but the ratio of necessity / cost confidently tends to zero. Even if we consider the cost of an aircraft carrier at $ 12 billion, then with this money you can build up to 30 frigates 22350, each of which is equal to or superior to our old destroyers in its main characteristics (except for displacement). And the question is, what will strengthen our fleet - 3 dozen frigates or one helpless aircraft carrier that constantly needs protection? Any ship is a tool and has its value based on the naval doctrine of the country. In my opinion, an aircraft carrier is a luxury that our fleet will not strengthen, but 30 frigates for the same money will strengthen our fleet radically. And it seems that our mine with me is completely in agreement, maybe until 2025 no aircraft carriers are in the plans. And by the way there is infa about the closure of flights to Latakia's civilian airport. In my opinion, this is evidence of the relocation of additional front-line aviation forces there in the near future and the launch of projected mo 200 sorties per day. And it will be much more effective than any aircraft carrier.
        1. ancient 17 October 2015 11: 34 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: g1v2
          So another airport in Syria will be much more useful than 2 aircraft carriers


          Write it right ... it’s not even discussed, but ..... where can I get it then .. the second airfield?
          The most suitable would be Damascus, but ... there ... "lowering" for many reasons.
          Now, if we consider the maintenance of database by aviation as it is done now, then Mig-29K / CUBE IS WHICH COMPETITOR Su-25 wink

          And once again I repeat .. ALL OTHER write ABSOLUTELY TRUE, +! drinks , only here ..... AB in Latakia is not .. rubber .. unfortunately recourse
          1. g1v2 17 October 2015 11: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Well, one option - Sheilat. According to all the maps, he is far from the front line. As for the effectiveness of mig29k on the ground, I honestly am skeptical. In my opinion, it is much less suitable for this than the Su25 attack aircraft or fb Su34 and Su24. But if you think that Mig29k / cube is able to work on the earth just as efficiently and densely, then I will take a word.
            1. Lt. Air Force stock 17 October 2015 14: 08 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Attacks by cruise missiles can generally be considered only as an addition, taking into account both their cost (salute of 26 missiles - about 1 billion rubles) and the impossibility of objective control immediately according to the results of use in the form of video.

              If the author was following the news from Syria, then he would understand why Russia launched 26 Caliber. It all started with the fact that when the planes took off from Latakia, the militants left their bases in the cities with equipment in order to hide behind the civilian population (I don’t know whether someone is monitoring the airfield, or the US is warning). In order to destroy the militants and launched 26 Caliber.
            2. ancient 17 October 2015 16: 05 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: g1v2
              Well, one option - Sheilat.


              Only Shayrat is right, but ... the fact that she is far from the front line ... is confusing something ... just now in the epicenter of the database wink
              Starting from 9-12A, H019 worked perfectly on the ground (it was all mapping and selection) .. well, the C / CUB with KOLS and OLS-K ... leaves the SM far behind ... here comes the Grach with SOLT 'ohm -25..will be another matter drinks
            3. NIKNN 18 October 2015 11: 06 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Do not believe! Combat effectiveness when working on n.ts. for these aircraft 1 to 2 if it is a moment of 29 and 1 to 4 if not to 5 if it is 29k from the deck
    2. Kuzyakin15 17 October 2015 21: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: alekc73
      Russian aircraft carriers are needed yesterday. Point. Even not discussed.

      But this is 100% +++
    3. KaPToC 17 October 2015 23: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: alekc73
      Russian aircraft carriers are needed yesterday. Point. Even not discussed.

      But will they be needed tomorrow? The future of missile ships with a high share of electronic warfare, IMHO aircraft carriers - yesterday.
  • Alexart 17 October 2015 07: 13 New
    • 16
    • 0
    +16
    And the holy righteous Theodore Ushakov did not know about aircraft carriers (
    1. podgornovea 17 October 2015 07: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      What a sadness (
    2. AllXVahhaB 17 October 2015 08: 10 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I recalled: the adjutant asked Suvorov: what losses should the Turks write in the report? Suvorov: "write 100 thousand! Why pity them, Basurman")))
      1. kashtak 17 October 2015 11: 57 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: AllXVahhaB
        I recalled: the adjutant asked Suvorov: what losses should the Turks write in the report? Suvorov: "write 100 thousand! Why pity them, Basurman")))

        this joke is told about all the famous military leaders of that time. this alone proves that it is rather a fiction.
    3. strannik1985 17 October 2015 17: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The aircraft carrier-means of gaining dominance at sea, in the time of Ushakov, this ship was a battleship, for example, going to the Mediterranean expedition Ushakov's squadron totaled 6 LC.
  • SPACE 17 October 2015 07: 19 New
    • 20
    • 0
    +20
    Quote: author
    For a long time on this forum, some respected authors talked about the decline of the era of aircraft carriers, their complete futility and futility at a very high cost of construction and operation.

    The esteemed authors, with these allegations, had in mind his absolute futility in a large-scale conflict of major powers, usually nuclear missile, but if, according to the author’s logic, then he’s right, as well as criticism of aircraft carriers in general, that his effective destiny and task, it's just the same to drive the Zulus of banana republics and terrorists with bows. True, he will never be able to compare with a real airfield, and good bombers will not take off from him, but one or two is certainly necessary to carry out counter-terrorist operations in remote areas of the earth, but it does not need to be assigned any strategic super functions, as it does not make sense large-scale construction of these super-carrying troughs.
    1. velikoros-xnumx 17 October 2015 07: 39 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      Quote: SPACE
      but one or two for counter-terrorist operations in remote areas of the earth, of course, it is necessary to have

      I agree that a pair of aircraft carriers (so that at least one is on duty in a state of combat) for local military operations, similar to the ones carried out today in Syria, Russia is necessary. In a global conflict, their fate is a foregone conclusion; in such a situation, an ASN strike strike submarine, in my opinion, is more likely to survive and strike, with the subsequent departure from the scene of the attack.
    2. roadsmell 17 October 2015 08: 58 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Attacks by cruise missiles can generally be considered only as an addition, given how much they cost (salute of 26 missiles - about 1 billion rubles)

      And to create and maintain aircraft carriers and their groupings of ships with the aim of driving the Zulus is much cheaper !!!
      author, burn more !!!!
  • mosquit 17 October 2015 07: 29 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    An aircraft carrier covered by guards and RLD helicopters is practically invulnerable to terrorist attacks.

    Keyword - practically.

    Dust storms have no effect on the aircraft carrier, the raised aircraft can use satellite-guided munitions. The influence of storms can be partially compensated by the ability of an aircraft carrier to change the aircraft lifting area.

    In areas of "counter-terrorist" operations, only dust storms and storms are bad weather conditions ...?
    And again, you compensate for the storm partiallyand the dust storm is too local a factor that should influence the choice of an aircraft carrier - as a tool ...

    Raised aircraft may use satellite-guided ammunition

    How does basing an aircraft on the nomenclature of its weapons? Ground aviation should only loose ammunition be used?

    The redeployment of aircraft on an aircraft carrier is carried out together with "their" airfield and ammunition, no one will close the air corridor, there is no dependence on the quality of the ground airfield in the destination country.


    Probably in this case, military security is needed that is not commensurate in cost and complexity with the organization of ground, and this is anti-submarine, air defense, conditional enemy ships, etc.
    Similarly, the provision of supply - it is one thing to supply the AUG - ports, support ships, etc.
    It is much easier to resolve the issue of providing a ground base - an airfield ...

    If you say that terrorists do not have such means of destruction, then there is a general sense of having an AUG in the area of ​​the operation, when it is enough to have a good base on land ...

    Attacks by cruise missiles can generally be considered only as an addition, taking into account both their cost (salute of 26 missiles - about 1 billion rubles) and the impossibility of objective control immediately according to the results of use in the form of video.


    Weapons are chosen on the basis of the tasks that need to be solved when the goal is achieved - 26 missiles hit their ground targets - they solved part of the military tasks, and in addition the Russian Federation solved some political tasks, which is very important.

    Why video?
    Firstly, the traveler will show excellent results, and secondly, the shooting is not from the ammunition, but from the carrier or from another object - for example, from an UAV ..

    Nimitz class aircraft carriers can carry out up to 120-140 sorties per day for two weeks at an intensity of 40-60 sorties,


    Explain - 120-140 sorties per day, and the intensity of 40-60 sorties in what time interval?

    I did not see any weighty arguments in choosing the ACG as the base of the group during the CTO. hi
    1. podgornovea 17 October 2015 07: 55 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      a lot of words are not the case
      Quote: mosquit


      Keyword - practically.
      Experts consider the probability of a breakthrough of terrorists to the aircraft carrier on boats with hexogen through military security


      In areas of "counter-terrorist" operations, only dust storms and storms are bad weather conditions ...?
      In Africa, in the Middle East, in Asia, the snow rarely comes, somehow ....
      And again, you compensate for the storm partiallyand the dust storm is too local a factor that should influence the choice of an aircraft carrier - as a tool ...

      Raised aircraft may use satellite-guided ammunition

      How does basing an aircraft on the nomenclature of its weapons? Ground aviation should only loose ammunition be used?
      During a dust storm, ground aviation cannot use any ammunition. At least an aircraft carrier has the ability to change the area of ​​raising and receiving aircraft

      The redeployment of aircraft on an aircraft carrier is carried out together with "their" airfield and ammunition, no one will close the air corridor, there is no dependence on the quality of the ground airfield in the destination country.


      Probably in this case, military security is needed that is not commensurate in cost and complexity with the organization of ground, and this is anti-submarine, air defense, conditional enemy ships, etc.
      Similarly, the provision of supply - it is one thing to supply the AUG - ports, support ships, etc.
      It is much easier to resolve the issue of providing a ground base - an airfield ...

      Please tell us about aviation, submarines, ships of not a conditional enemy of ISIS - by type and quantity

      If you say that terrorists do not have such means of destruction, then there is a general sense of having an AUG in the area of ​​the operation, when it is enough to have a good base on land ...

      There can be no bridgehead at all! There is no Donetsk airport after “cyborgs” popped up from there and there is a DNR

      Attacks by cruise missiles can generally be considered only as an addition, taking into account both their cost (salute of 26 missiles - about 1 billion rubles) and the impossibility of objective control immediately according to the results of use in the form of video.


      Weapons are chosen on the basis of the tasks that need to be solved when the goal is achieved - 26 missiles hit their ground targets - they solved part of the military tasks, and in addition the Russian Federation solved some political tasks, which is very important.

      Why video?
      Firstly, the traveler will show excellent results, and secondly, the shooting is not from the ammunition, but from the carrier or from another object - for example, from an UAV ..
      Well, actually, the point is that SLCM is not a carrier but ammunition, but a carrier aircraft
      Nimitz class aircraft carriers can carry out up to 120-140 sorties per day for two weeks at an intensity of 40-60 sorties,


      Explain - 120-140 sorties per day, and the intensity of 40-60 sorties in what time interval?
      Hint for those who did not guess the same thing per day

      I did not see any weighty arguments in choosing the ACG as the base of the group during the CTO. hi

      Thank God! I crossed myself
      1. Genry 17 October 2015 10: 47 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: podgornovea
        a lot of words are not the case
        Thank God! I crossed myself

        You generally have all your opus is not the case!

        Where did the price of rockets come from? From the ceiling?
        And why didn’t you compare the cost of one hit with a rocket and a deck aircraft over a period of time, say 10 years.
        After all, the rocket stands in the mine and does not ask for food, and carrier-based aviation must constantly train.
        Plus the psychological and material factor of pilot loss.
      2. mosquit 17 October 2015 12: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I'm happy for you...
  • Professor 17 October 2015 07: 33 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    All that the Russian grouping in Syria has easily fits on an aircraft carrier such as Nimitz, inaccessible to a terrorist. If Russia had at least one normal aircraft carrier, then no one would carry out such a dangerous deployment in Latakia.
    1. Hello 17 October 2015 07: 42 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +14
      Quote: Professor
      All that the Russian grouping in Syria has easily fits on an aircraft carrier such as Nimitz, inaccessible to a terrorist. If Russia had at least one normal aircraft carrier, then no one would carry out such a dangerous deployment in Latakia.

      I don’t dispute the value of aircraft carriers, but I’m not sure that Russia needs them. All Russia is not separated from the world by two oceans like the United States, so the value of aircraft carriers in my opinion is doubtful.
      1. Professor 17 October 2015 07: 48 New
        • -11
        • 0
        -11
        Quote: Hello
        I don’t dispute the value of aircraft carriers, but I’m not sure that Russia needs them. All Russia is not separated from the world by two oceans like the United States, so the value of aircraft carriers in my opinion is doubtful.

        All permanent members of the UN Security Council possess aircraft carriers ...
        1. AllXVahhaB 17 October 2015 08: 08 New
          • 12
          • 0
          +12
          Quote: Professor
          All permanent members of the UN Security Council possess aircraft carriers ...

          Well, it's like a scepter and a power)))
          1. Professor 17 October 2015 08: 10 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: AllXVahhaB
            Well, it's like a scepter and a power)))

            This is the type of difference between a regional power and a global one.
            1. severniy 17 October 2015 08: 44 New
              • 8
              • 0
              +8
              Quote: Professor
              Quote: AllXVahhaB
              Well, it's like a scepter and a power)))

              This is the type of difference between a regional power and a global one.

              Russia is not everything. And the base in Syria (with all its accessibility) is much more difficult to sink than an aircraft carrier ....
              1. Professor 17 October 2015 08: 46 New
                • -4
                • 0
                -4
                Quote: severniy
                Russia is not everything. And the base in Syria (with all its accessibility) is much more difficult to sink than an aircraft carrier ....

                Are militias capable of sinking an aircraft carrier? Do him harm? A base can do this with ease. Show how?
              2. tomket 17 October 2015 10: 45 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: severniy
                And the base in Syria (with all its accessibility) is much more difficult to sink than an aircraft carrier ....

                somewhere I saw a photo of an airfield in Afghanistan, at which the perimeter was studded with various infantry fighting vehicles, to create a safety zone from the stingers. ISIS will attract Somali pirates to attack the aircraft carrier ????
                1. Professor 17 October 2015 10: 58 New
                  • -2
                  • 0
                  -2
                  Quote: tomket
                  somewhere I saw a photo of an airfield in Afghanistan, at which the perimeter was studded with various infantry fighting vehicles, to create a safety zone from the stingers. ISIS will attract Somali pirates to attack the aircraft carrier ????

                  Oh, if Afghanistan had access to the sea ... It's me about the aircraft carriers.

                  Quote: SPACE
                  Buying or having missiles and nuclear warheads is not enough; you must have resources, territory, technology, all that is included in the concept of POTENTIAL.

                  You already decide whether a global power is distinguished from a regional one by the ability to send any other aggressor country for 30-100 years first, or you need to have resources, territory, technologies, all that are included in the concept of POTENTIAL.

                  Quote: SPACE
                  But this is a consequence of the presence of a nuclear missile potential, which just allows it to conduct operations outside its territory and which also makes it a global superpower, and it is not for me to explain to you that nuclear weapons are primarily a geopolitical tool, even its presence is already working, even without the intended use.

                  Many countries operate outside their territory. Fingers are not enough to count them. Are they all global superpowers?

                  Quote: Alex
                  EMNIP, Israel itself is painstakingly refusing (at the official level, in any case) from the presence of WMD in it in any form.

                  It does not deny (it is strange to use this verb in relation to Jews). Israel never denied the presence of nuclear weapons, but did not recognize.

                  Quote: Manul
                  Ground airport is always more efficient than aircraft carriers.

                  Not always. In the case of Latakia, an aircraft carrier is much more Efficient than an airfield in a territory susceptible to attacks by terrorists and militias.

                  Quote: Manul
                  The states during the bombing of Iraq really needed the airfields of Iran, which provided them.

                  Did Americans use Iran airfields kindly provided to them? Somehow I missed this moment. Are there any details?

                  Quote: Manul
                  How would that war go if Iran became stubborn?

                  Turkey has become stubborn. Well?
                  1. Alex 17 October 2015 11: 14 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: Professor
                    Does not deny (it is strange to use this verb in relation to Jews).
                    If the question is in terminology - Grand Pardon, Professor ...

                    Israel never denied the presence of nuclear weapons, but did not recognize.
                    I recognize painfully boring logic ...
              3. tomket 17 October 2015 21: 43 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: severniy
                And the base in Syria (with all its accessibility) is much more difficult to sink than an aircraft carrier ...

                How many aircraft carriers sank in Korea and Vietnam? But at various bases, the American and French krovushki drank pretty .....
            2. SPACE 17 October 2015 08: 48 New
              • 13
              • 0
              +13
              Quote: AllXVahhaB
              Well, it's like a scepter and a power)))

              Quote: Professor
              This is the type of difference between a regional power and a global one.

              A global or regional power is distinguished by the ability to send any other aggressor country 30-100 years ago in the first minutes through 200 minutes and the aircraft carrier does not appear to be here.
              Today's scepter and power is a nuclear missile potential.
              1. Professor 17 October 2015 08: 54 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: SPACE
                A global power from a regional power is distinguished by the possibility of the first to send any other country 30-100 years into the past in 200 minutes.

                You are mistaken. Israel says it has a nuclear triad with ICBMs and a couple of hundred warheads capable of sending any other country 30-100 years into the past in 200 minutes. Nevertheless, Israel is a regional power. No more.

                Today's scepter and power is a nuclear missile potential.

                Not. Otherwise, Russia would not have deployed a base in Latakia, but would have beaten Topol across Syria. Tomorrow, how will Russia defend its interests in Africa or, say, South America? Without an aircraft carrier in any way.
                1. SPACE 17 October 2015 09: 57 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Professor
                  Israel says it has a nuclear triad with ICBMs and a couple of hundred warheads

                  Buying or having missiles and nuclear warheads is not enough; you must have resources, territory, technology, all that is included in the concept of POTENTIAL. Well, by and large, Israel has neither one nor the other in sufficient volumes, you buy a lot, use open access to Western technologies, in other matters, like your whole economy is “external”.
                  Quote: Professor
                  Otherwise, Russia did not deploy a base in Latakia,

                  But this is a consequence of the presence of a nuclear missile potential, which just allows it to conduct operations outside its territory and which also makes it a global superpower, and it is not for me to explain to you that nuclear weapons are primarily a geopolitical tool, even its presence is already working, even without the intended use.
                2. Alex 17 October 2015 10: 46 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Professor
                  Israel say

                  The key word is "say." EMNIP, Israel itself is painstakingly refusing (at the official level, in any case) from the presence of WMD in it in any form.
                3. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 05 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Professor
                  Israel say possesses a nuclear triad

                  That is, Israel has strategic bombers, strategic underwater missile carriers and ground ballistic missiles? I think you wishful thinking.
                  Quote: Professor
                  a couple of hundred warheads capable of sending any other country 30-100 years into the past in 200 minutes.

                  This is not enough against countries such as Russia, the USA, China, at the same time, the countries I have indicated can literally burn Israel out completely.
              2. tomket 17 October 2015 10: 47 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: SPACE
                A global or regional power is distinguished by the ability to send any other aggressor country 30-100 years ago in the first minutes through 200 minutes and the aircraft carrier does not appear to be here.

                You can boast about the status of a great power as much as you like, spitting on aircraft carriers and UDC, but even France with its “De Golem” and “tonnage” carried Libya without much tension.
                1. SPACE 17 October 2015 11: 04 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Do not tell, but take an interest in who, like in a crowd, from where and with what made the practically unarmed Gadaffi, the airfields of Italy, Spain, Europe, even from Great Britain the planes took off, this is not counting cruise missiles. And even Chet made the carrier Degol between repairs incomprehensibly, apparently it was a psychological attack, by demonstrating the French relics, forgive but not seriously your statement. In general, Gaddafi avenged a couple of American eagles landed past the deck of the aircraft carrier, the C-200 complex in ancient times.
                  1. tomket 17 October 2015 12: 02 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: SPACE
                    even from Great Britain

                    Flights from Great Britain were carried out for advertising purposes, they say that's how the "typhoon" can.
                  2. tomket 17 October 2015 21: 46 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: SPACE
                    Gaddafi, the airfields of Italy, Spain, Europe, even from Great Britain, planes took off, not counting cruise missiles.

                    Helicopters, as I understand it, also flew to Kadaffi from Britain ????
                    1. NIKNN 18 October 2015 11: 40 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      It turns out where the sign of globality is buried .... in helicopters. Do not foolishly for God's sake when there is nothing to cover.
                    2. Scraptor 18 October 2015 13: 19 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Harriers, not even from the USA and Italy.
              3. g1v2 17 October 2015 10: 57 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                A global power from a regional one is distinguished primarily by global interests and the ability to defend them. India has an aircraft carrier, but that does not make it a global power even if it has 5 of them. The main feature of a global power is interests around the world and resources to advance these interests. China is a global power even if it did not have an aircraft carrier. She is made such a power primarily by her growing influence in Africa and Latin America. And an aircraft carrier is just a tool - it may or may not be needed. A scalpel in the hand will not make a person a surgeon. request Well, for show-offs and Orlans will suit or apl.
            3. core 17 October 2015 10: 09 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              is it supposedly the British and French, global powers !?
            4. Alex 17 October 2015 10: 44 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Professor
              All permanent members of the UN Security Council possess aircraft carriers ...

              Quote: Professor
              This is the type of difference between a regional power and a global one.

              Once also treated with dreadnoughts. And how did the "Linkor fever" end?

              You need to build such expensive toys only when you know exactly what you need them for. And so, for the sake of prestige ...
            5. Arkon 17 October 2015 18: 31 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              This is the type of difference between a regional power and a global one.


              Ahhh ... Well, that is, Germany in the Second World War was "regional", and Japan was "global"?
            6. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 00 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Professor
              This is the type of difference between a regional power and a global one.

              A global power has its own global positioning system.
        2. Manul 17 October 2015 10: 56 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Professor
          All permanent members of the UN Security Council possess aircraft carriers ...

          laughing This is an argument .. Yes, again, you are calling us a regional power. We are of course invisible, but tired of it .. But many permanent members fly into space, have their own satellite navigation system, have so many armored vehicles and aircraft, the same striking power of the submarine fleet, such a length of land borders (and even that is all in aggregate) ... If you start to measure, then not aircraft carriers. We will definitely build them, and the UDC. We just don’t have to rush us, the tea at the top are not ignoramuses in the General Staff.
          1. Professor 17 October 2015 11: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Manul
            And again, you are calling us a regional power.

            No offense. The way it is. Show you a map of the US military presence in the world?

            Quote: Manul
            And many permanent members fly into space, have their own satellite navigation system, have such an amount of armored vehicles and aircraft, the same striking power of the submarine fleet, such a length of land borders (and even that is all taken together) ...

            So what? All this (except space which is out of armaments) is located exclusively in your region.

            Quote: Manul
            If you start to measure, then not aircraft carriers. And we will definitely build them, and UDC.

            I didn’t doubt Krymnash, but now I doubt very much that you can master it.

            Quote: Manul
            Just do not rush us, tea at the top are not ignoramuses in the General Staff.

            They decide little. those who distribute finances decide. And now everything is not pink there. Not to aircraft carriers.
            1. Manul 17 October 2015 11: 27 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Professor
              They decide little. those who distribute finances decide. And now everything is not pink there. Not to aircraft carriers.

              We are also building a spaceport and a bridge. Yes, and our roads are being built and production is opening. There is no doubt that we will complete these global construction projects - we will also build an aircraft carrier.
              Show you a map of the US military presence in the world?
              Show you the targeting map of our ICBMs? They match laughing .
              1. Professor 17 October 2015 11: 34 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: Manul
                We are also building a spaceport and a bridge. Yes, and our roads are being built and production is opening. There is no doubt that we will complete these global construction projects - we will also build an aircraft carrier.

                I have no doubt in Russia's ability to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier, I doubt any of us will live up to this event.

                Quote: Manul
                Show you the targeting map of our ICBMs? They match

                Tell us how, when and by whom the problems were solved using nuclear weapons?
                1. 27091965 17 October 2015 14: 49 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Professor
                  I have no doubt in Russia's ability to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier, I doubt any of us will live up to this event.


                  In St. Petersburg, presented a conceptual design of a new Russian aircraft carrier.

                  “The construction and operation of a modern nuclear carrier, and Russia needs nuclear carriers, will cost hundreds of billions of rubles. Today, the army cannot afford such a pleasure, since the main pressing problem is being solved - to achieve that by 2020 70% of Russia's weapons will be new. As for the concept, of course, such concepts are needed, they must be worked out. An aircraft carrier is a projection of power. Expanding the zone of our global influence, of course, at a certain stage we will be able to begin the construction of aircraft carriers. Somewhere in 20-25, maybe 30 years. " May 20, 2015
                2. corporal 17 October 2015 15: 02 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Professor
                  Tell us how, when and by whom the problems were solved using nuclear weapons?

                  The surrender of Japan.
                  Although it is clear that in the present world it is so simple not to use nuclear weapons.
                  1. Professor 17 October 2015 15: 43 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: Corporal
                    The surrender of Japan.
                    Although it is clear that in the present world it is so simple not to use nuclear weapons.

                    Do not make me laugh. More explosives were dropped in Tokyo than in those bombs of the equivalent. In Tokyo, more Japanese were killed than during the nuclear bombing. The nuclear weapons there did not solve the problem, but only accelerated the already obvious surrender.
                    1. Scraptor 18 October 2015 12: 43 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      3 kilotons in total. But the number of those killed is greater.

                      August 1945, Toyama, the pre-war population of 150.000, the night bombardment by carpet bombing was destroyed along with all its population ... there were no survivors.

                      The use of nuclear weapons simply provoked the USSR to enter the war with the aim of depriving the Japanese of bacteriological weapons of mass destruction. Only after losing it and realizing that after Sakhalin the Red Army landed in Hokkaido and Honshu, the Japanese surrendered to the Americans.
                  2. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 11 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Corporal
                    The surrender of Japan.
                    Although it is clear that in the present world it is so simple not to use nuclear weapons.

                    People who do not know about nuclear weapons cannot fear them, Japan did not capitulate because of nuclear weapons.
                3. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 10 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Professor
                  Tell us how, when and by whom the problems were solved using nuclear weapons?

                  Caribbean crisis?
        3. KaPToC 17 October 2015 23: 58 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Professor
          All permanent members of the UN Security Council possess aircraft carriers ...

          For the truth hurt? belay

          All members of the UN Security Council possess nuclear weapons.
    2. Malkor 17 October 2015 09: 42 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      sometimes you are right)) hi
      a pair of Russian aircraft carriers are very needed
    3. Manul 17 October 2015 10: 44 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Professor
      All that the Russian grouping in Syria has easily fits on an aircraft carrier such as Nimitz, inaccessible to a terrorist. If Russia had at least one normal aircraft carrier, then no one would carry out such a dangerous deployment in Latakia.

      A ground airfield is always more efficient than aircraft carriers. And if you can use it, they always use it. The states during the bombing of Iraq really needed the airfields of Iran, which provided them. How would that war go if Iran became stubborn?
    4. ancient 17 October 2015 10: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Professor
      If Russia had at least one normal aircraft carrier, then no one would carry out such a dangerous deployment in Latakia.


      TOTALLY AGREE! +! soldier
      1. sniper 17 October 2015 12: 58 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        I don’t understand at all, why did they throw minuses to the Professor? Quite the right thing to say. Or the minusers do not like his flag? I hope no one will argue that the construction of a ground base is not cheap, especially on foreign land? And what will happen to her in a month, a year or ten years? The political leadership in Syria will change and where is the guarantee that we will be allowed to stay there? We already went through this when Crimea was part of Ukraine, as soon as they did not scoff at our fleet ... As for the vulnerability of ground bases for terrorist attacks, it’s foolish to dispute the same. An aircraft carrier, of course, is not a panacea, but a very important tool with the proper use of IMHO
        1. Arkon 17 October 2015 19: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I hope no one will argue that the construction of a ground base is not cheap, especially on foreign land?


          No one will argue. Only in Syria, Russia does not have a single base. Until.
          Need to continue?
          1. sniper 17 October 2015 20: 07 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Arkon
            Only in Syria, Russia does not have a single base.

            Yeah ... We Syrians modernized the airfield and secured it ... But we flew the current and clean the wings ...
            1. Arkon 17 October 2015 20: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Yeah ... We Syrians modernized the airfield and secured it ... But we flew the current and clean the wings.


              Well, yes.
              And, mind you, all this muchWell, right MUCH smile cheaper than an aircraft carrier.

              And without an invitation we do not come. wink
            2. Arkon 17 October 2015 20: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And without an invitation we do not come.


              It's me that the deployment site is provided by the "receiving side". smile
    5. kashtak 17 October 2015 12: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Good day. now point by point. to get to the coast of Syria, a Russian aircraft carrier can go through 2-3 straits in the territory of third countries (if they miss). and effective only in good weather, which is uncontrollable and in the absence of coastal defense, which is only possible against gangs. I'm not even talking about continental regions where water is only in the tap. is it worth it? expensive, vulnerable, depends on external conditions and is not universal since it can only operate by aviation. not? if there is a need it is easier to expand the base on the shore.
      1. Kuzyakin15 17 October 2015 22: 00 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: kashtak
        Good day. now point by point. to get to the coast of Syria, a Russian aircraft carrier can go through 2-3 straits in the territory of third countries (if they miss). and effective only in good weather, which is uncontrollable and in the absence of coastal defense, which is only possible against gangs. I'm not even talking about continental regions where water is only in the tap. is it worth it? expensive, vulnerable, depends on external conditions and is not universal since it can only operate by aviation. not? if there is a need it is easier to expand the base on the shore.


        Following your logic, Russia absolutely does not need ships of rank 1-2. Enough RTOs and watchdogs of the marine border guard?
        1. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 15 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Kuzyakin15
          Enough RTOs and watchdogs of the marine border guard?

          Who is there firing caliber militants? RTOs and watchtower wink
    6. KaPToC 17 October 2015 23: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Professor
      All that the Russian grouping in Syria has easily fits on an aircraft carrier such as Nimitz, inaccessible to a terrorist.

      The invulnerability of aircraft carriers is greatly exaggerated, in this case, the CIA protects the aircraft carrier from terrorists, which they created and direct these terrorists, and not at all some military capabilities of the American fleet.
  • Fox
    Fox 17 October 2015 07: 40 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Papuans to drive the most. And in the USSR they did not fight with the Papuans. Something like that.
    1. Mera joota 17 October 2015 09: 22 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Fox
      but in the USSR they didn’t fight the Papuans. something like that.

      Wow, and the bearded Mujahideen with the “Boers” means the modern regular army?
      Opening pancake ...
    2. tomket 17 October 2015 10: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Fox
      Papuans to drive the most. And in the USSR they did not fight with the Papuans. Something like that.

      Until yesterday, we were not going to drive the Papuans. And we had enough of Kuzi. however, today it turned out that bearded Papuans needed to be driven. with what?
  • Hitrovan07 17 October 2015 07: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Who are you going to bomb, dear ???
    1. podgornovea 17 October 2015 08: 12 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Who we are bombing now
  • samalex56 17 October 2015 07: 48 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Carriers, of course, are a very necessary thing. Here are just a few questions that arise:
    1. What money to build (a very expensive thing, and since they have started to build three times they will plunder, then consider for yourself).
    2. Who will build. The collapse of the military-industrial complex has not yet been overcome, and technologies and personnel are needed, from designers to technologists, craftsmen and workers.
    1. AllXVahhaB 17 October 2015 08: 07 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Who needs it? Does our military doctrine provide for colonial wars off the coast of others? IMHO those funds that are carrier groups can be spent more efficiently ...
      1. Dart2027 17 October 2015 10: 48 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        Quote: AllXVahhaB
        Our military doctrine provides

        military doctrine of genius (in the literal sense of Suvorov): "A bullet is a fool, and a bayonet done."
        Questions?
      2. PSih2097 17 October 2015 12: 18 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: AllXVahhaB
        Who needs it? Does our military doctrine provide for colonial wars off the coast of others?

        and what is the Russian Federation doing in Syria now and will most likely be doing in Iraq ...
    2. Cap.Morgan 17 October 2015 08: 25 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      By the way, the only reason to build an aircraft carrier is to overcome the technological gap.
      How was the Tu - 4? While it was designed, mastered, and rigged, it’s outdated production lines, but it has mastered many technological methods.
      1. NIKNN 18 October 2015 12: 12 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        I agree completely! R&D will serve a lot even if we don’t build it, we need to build it!
    3. tomket 17 October 2015 10: 51 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: samalex56
      . What money to build on (a very expensive thing, and since they have started to build three times, plunder, then consider for yourself).

      Siluanova shake and there. in general, we need to get rid of vicious thoughts that we are poor and we constantly have no money.
      Quote: samalex56
      The collapse of the military-industrial complex has not yet been overcome, and technologies and personnel are needed, from designers to technologists, craftsmen and workers.

      The aircraft carrier was sent to the Hindus, is it really possible for us to master it?
    4. sniper 17 October 2015 13: 03 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: samalex56
      . The collapse of the military-industrial complex has not yet been overcome, and technologies and personnel are needed, from designers to technologists, craftsmen and workers.

      Write the right things, only by your logic it turns out that since there is nobody to build, then we won’t build until we get builders from Mars ... We need to restore everything and build ... It won’t work differently.
  • AllXVahhaB 17 October 2015 08: 02 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    So let's see the statistics on the carrier carrier and the most belligerent power: how much in% of the last companies they had flights from aircraft carriers, and how many from ground airports (bases in Turkey, CA, etc.). And everything will become clear about the aircraft carriers)))
  • Armored optimist 17 October 2015 08: 02 New
    • 21
    • 0
    +21
    Russia does not need an aircraft carrier. We have no tasks for him.
    Are we going to drive someone thread in Africa or South America? Or will we direct him to the shores of the USA, Europe? How much will he fight there? Let one of the apologists of this thing say what kind of tasks he will be set?
    To create an AUG, another 20-30 combat surface ships, a pair of nuclear submarines, and a dozen supply ships will be required. And 100-120 defective deck aircraft. But, he hell and atomic, once every two or three days, he will be obliged to accept the grub and fuel from the supply. And how to supply it for 5-10 thousand miles? The Americans have bases around the world, and cutting our supply lines is not a problem. Build another guard squadron for each tanker?
    The only reason to talk about aircraft carriers is to show the Americans: everything is fine guys, we are still fools and still listen to your (our) 5th column. Only it’s impossible to finish the construction.
    For the cost of the life of one AUG, you can build two dozen multipurpose and missile nuclear submarines, a satellite system for monitoring the world's oceans and a hundred ICBMs with anti-ship warheads that will kill all American AUGs with one hit, and as a bonus another twenty regiments s-400, s-500 and Air Force Division. Compared again ZhTs and ZhTs.
    If anti-ship warheads are installed on ICBMs, then, together with reconnaissance satellites, which do not need active radars, but only RTR antennas and receivers (all these stealth shines with their RES like greenhouses on a cloudless night), such ICBMs will be lit on aircraft carriers without asking permission to land. No Aegis will save. The Chinese made such a ballistic missile, but are we stupider?
    1. SeregaBoss 17 October 2015 08: 54 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Strongly and categorically agree with you!
      We are going our own way! We are a huge country, without leaving our water area and space we can fuck everyone and star-striped too! I hope to make the right decision. With this doctrine, we do not need them, it will change in 5 years, it will be visible there.
      1. RONIN-HS 17 October 2015 14: 12 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Strongly and categorically agree with you!
        We go our own way! We are a huge country, ...


        And I strongly disagree (2 times!) With both of you laughing
        1. You proceed from the defense of their shores, with theater in their own territory. And the adversary will freely roll his troops across the Atlantic to a European theater ... ??? Therefore, the client must be "extinguished" either in his own lair immediately (until he came out), or at the transition. And how to do it without AUG ??? Who will cover the boats?
        2. AUGs are needed, and it can be ships not necessarily the classical scheme. IMHO good
        1. Armored optimist 17 October 2015 14: 21 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          For these tasks there is nothing better than a nuclear submarine pack.
          1. Scraptor 17 October 2015 19: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And will she support the landing on the shore with nuclear torpedoes?

            And how much will she have anti-aircraft guns and a universal caliber if someone starts from above with biplanes or inflatable boats to jam fish with dynamite?
        2. Scraptor 17 October 2015 19: 22 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          What about non-classical aircraft (SCVVP)?
          Words (none of): SKVVP, VTOL, F-35, AV-8B, Yak-38, Yak-41, Yak-141, Harrier, Harrier, tiltrotor, Osprey, V-22, CL-84, Osprey, As of the time of writing the comment, neither in the article nor in the comments has it ever been seen!
          Meanwhile, they need smaller boats if not boats.
          Dear all such, dear ...
          Naglia successfully solved the problem of the Malvinas Islands with such people, and then they just didn’t notice where ...

          Separately, it should be noted that for high-precision operation of the Su-33 on the ground, an appropriate container is simply hung on it.
          1. NIKNN 18 October 2015 12: 25 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Separately, I note that from the deck hanging a container (instead of ammunition) with this container, you will attack.
            1. Scraptor 18 October 2015 16: 25 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              I especially note that others somehow hang, even on the Harriers, and not on a healthy Su-33 ...
        3. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 18 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: RONIN-HS
          1. You proceed from the defense of your shores, with a theater of war on your own territory. And the adversary will freely roll his troops THROUGH the Atlantic to the European theater of war ... ???

          The question is whether our country does not need or does not need a fleet, the question is - do our fleet need aircraft carriers?
    2. science fiction writer 17 October 2015 09: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Russia does not need an aircraft carrier. We have no tasks for him.

      And the protection of the Arctic, Chukotka. There are not many airfields and all as one at gunpoint
      amers. And those who want to put their nostrils there are more than enough, and give the slack immediately
      not only nostrils are stuck hi
      1. Armored optimist 17 October 2015 09: 26 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        On sight, how is it? Aiming for an ICBM? Well, here it will not be up to the aircraft carriers. And in a non-nuclear war, aircraft carriers in the Arctic and Chukotka have nothing to do. For coastal defense, there is nothing better than an air defense system in those areas and MIG-31 fighters with long-range missiles cannot be invented.
        Operation of an aircraft carrier in ice? To receive and release the aircraft, it must follow at maximum speed. On meter at least ice it will be spectacular!
        For the Arctic, I would suggest that it is better to design heavy aircraft that are not very fast, but capable of hovering for a long time, with explosive missiles with a range of 1000 km, which is possible, for example, on ramjet. One aircraft on duty will cover 2-3 thousand kilometers of the border.
        1. tomket 17 October 2015 10: 56 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: armored optimist
          Operation of an aircraft carrier in ice? To receive and release the aircraft, it must follow at maximum speed. On meter at least ice it will be spectacular!

          When escorting polar convoys, both escort and squadron aircraft carriers were regularly included in the escort. Or do you think the polar convoys went through the Mediterranean Sea?
          1. Armored optimist 17 October 2015 12: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Throw these "polar" convoys onto the map and see where the ice border goes.
        2. sniper 17 October 2015 13: 12 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: armored optimist
          I would suggest that it is better to design heavy, not very fast, but capable of long patrolling, airplanes with explosive missiles with a range of 1000 km, which is possible, for example, on ramjet. One aircraft on duty will cover 2-3 thousand kilometers of the border.

          Your proposal, of course, is very easily feasible and does not require money at all (unlike an aircraft carrier). For the Arctic, we will develop some airplanes, others for the tropics, third for the middle lane, well, weapons for them are natural for everyone ... And all this is completely free, that is, for nothing. And let these planes hang non-stop in the air for months ... You are our armored optimist ... wassat
          1. Armored optimist 17 October 2015 14: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            You did not notice in my post:
            "FOR THE COST OF THE LIFE CYCLE of one AOG, you can build two dozen multi-purpose and missile nuclear submarines, a satellite system for monitoring the world's oceans and a hundred ICBMs with anti-ship warheads that will kill all American AUGs in one hit, and as a bonus another twenty regiments s-400, s-500 and Air Force division. Once again, the LC and LC are compared. "
            PS I have to "scream", for some reason my commands "italic", "bold" or "underline"
            1. Dart2027 17 October 2015 14: 49 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Quote: armored optimist
              FOR THE COST OF THE LIFE CYCLE of one AUG

              And what will be the cost of all of the above?
            2. sniper 17 October 2015 15: 21 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: armored optimist
              , for some reason, the italic, bold, or underline commands do not work for me

              Maybe there are problems with the browser? This sometimes happens, try to log in from another and if everything works, then try to find the reasons in yours. smile
              1. Armored optimist 17 October 2015 16: 57 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Shpashibo! I use the Yandex browser.
                1. sniper 17 October 2015 17: 04 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: armored optimist
                  I use the Yandex browser.

                  The same Chrome, current view from the side, a good browser, I use it myself, but there are problems ...
            3. strannik1985 17 October 2015 16: 14 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              I wonder how did you calculate this if there is no modern analogue of the Legend for anti-ship ICBMs?
              Why would it (the system) be cheap if it was intended only to deal with enemy BNK? AV functions have much more than a struggle for supremacy at sea.
              1. Armored optimist 17 October 2015 16: 58 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I said - I guess.
                1. strannik1985 17 October 2015 17: 11 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I guess I didn’t see the words in your message.
            4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2015 16: 57 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: armored optimist
              "FOR THE COST OF THE LIFE CYCLE of one AOG, you can build two dozen multi-purpose and missile nuclear submarines, a satellite system for monitoring the world's oceans and a hundred ICBMs with anti-ship warheads that will kill all American AUGs in one hit, and as a bonus another twenty regiments s-400, s-500 and Air Force division. Once again, the LC and LC are compared. "

              You are clearly not aware of the cost of the AUG life cycle, since you write this
      2. Manul 17 October 2015 11: 11 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: fiction
        And the protection of the Arctic, Chukotka. There are not many airfields and all as one at gunpoint
        amers. And those who want to put their nostrils there are more than enough, and give the slack immediately
        not only nostrils are stuck

        I agree - we need my opinion on a couple of aircraft carriers for anyone, to support land operations, which may not necessarily be on another continent. It is enough to recall the conflict in Georgia. Landing from the sea also needs to be covered. How to explain this to people who "do not want to fight in Africa"?
        Quote: Rigla
        and the air group? why so many turntables ???
        And the opposition to the enemy’s submarine fleet? You can easily saturate the area with anti-submarine helicopters.
      3. NIKNN 18 October 2015 12: 28 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        It’s not too difficult to take an aircraft carrier into sight
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. tomket 17 October 2015 10: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: armored optimist
      For the cost of the life cycle of one AUG, you can build two dozen multipurpose and missile nuclear submarines

      Yeah .... launch the satellite, fly to the moon, master Mars .... I remember there was a detailed analysis, which resulted in the creation of "Granite" and nuclear submarines.
    5. Manul 17 October 2015 11: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: armored optimist
      If anti-ship warheads are installed on ICBMs, then, together with reconnaissance satellites, which do not need active radars, but only RTR antennas and receivers (all these stealth shines with their RES like greenhouses on a cloudless night), such ICBMs will be lit on aircraft carriers without asking permission to land. No Aegis will save. The Chinese made such a ballistic missile, but are we stupider?

      Good topic. I hope this is secretly being developed in our country, because if it comes up - there will be a screech from across the ocean in fear for her expensive toys - Mama Do not Cry.
      But in a pinch there is JBF? If pressed, AUG is swept off the face of the ocean as easy as shelling pears.
    6. Seaman77 17 October 2015 11: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Your comment is as fantastic as the picture ....


      Quote: armored optimist
      Russia does not need an aircraft carrier. We have no tasks for him.


      The same thing was said about the Mistral. And now in Syria they would not be in the way, agree.



      Quote: armored optimist
      Are we going to drive someone thread in Africa or South America?


      But do not we drive the “broads" in the same Syria?


      Quote: armored optimist
      For the cost of the life of one AUG, you can build two dozen multipurpose and missile nuclear submarines, a satellite system for monitoring the world's oceans and a hundred ICBMs with anti-ship warheads that will kill all American AUGs with one hit, and as a bonus another twenty regiments s-400, s-500 and Air Force Division



      Why do you think so??? Are there any calculations? Or IMHO?

      Quote: armored optimist
      If anti-ship warheads are installed on ICBMs, then, together with reconnaissance satellites, which do not need active radars, but only RTR antennas and receivers (all these stealth shines with their RES like greenhouses on a cloudless night), such ICBMs will be lit on aircraft carriers without asking permission to land. No Aegis will save.


      Yes, and you can also build a Death Star and send satellites with the "engineer Garin hyperboloid" into space ... but this is from the realm of fantasy, but in reality please explain how you can get an ICBM on a MANEUVERING ship?
      1. Armored optimist 17 October 2015 12: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Since homing of warheads at the speed of entry into the dense layers corresponding to the velocities of ICBMs is apparently impossible with plasma problems, we can talk about hypersonic anti-ship missiles delivered by ICBMs to the AUG area, attacking the group from different directions.
      2. Armored optimist 17 October 2015 12: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        1. If there were no ground base in Syria, then our aircraft carrier there would be very hard. And if there is a base on earth, you can do without it.
        2. Exactly. But I say that in the zones of our interests we can always reach from our shore. Where we cannot, there fortunately there is no zone of our interests.
        3. IMHO
        4. This is you, my friend, yourself break into "unscientific fantasy". I don’t offer anything fantastic - all the technologies are well developed.
        1. Dart2027 17 October 2015 13: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: armored optimist
          If there were no ground base in Syria, then our aircraft carrier there would be very hard. And if there is a base on earth, you can do without it

          A base and a base with an airfield are two different things. Yes, and you can do without a base, although it is really harder.
          1. Armored optimist 17 October 2015 14: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Verbiage
            1. Dart2027 17 October 2015 23: 38 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Servicing ships requires a certain infrastructure, not an airfield. We have the Navy base in Tartus, and the airfield near Latakia.
        2. Seaman77 17 October 2015 13: 43 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: armored optimist
          1. If there were no ground base in Syria, then our aircraft carrier there would be very hard. And if there is a base on earth, you can do without it.

          An aircraft carrier is a ready-made base. With equipment and staff. It’s much easier to establish a ship’s supply, and even an AUG, than to build a base. By the way, our base in Latakia from the local supply of "only fresh vegetables."

          Quote: armored optimist
          But I say that in the zones of our interests we can always reach from our shore. Where we cannot, there fortunately there is no zone of our interests.

          This is not our interest today. Can you guarantee that tomorrow will not be?
          ACG is the fastest means of building up strength anywhere on the Earth. And in Syria, the ground base was created because the aircraft carrier is not normal. What is easier to send ships, or to drive planes through three countries? And if these countries do not open the “border” for overflight? What to do then? Would there be an operation in Syria if Iraq or Iran did not give the green light to the transit of our aircraft? Remember, at first they flew through Bulgaria and Greece, but everything quickly closed there ...

          Quote: armored optimist
          3. IMHO
          No comments.


          Quote: armored optimist
          I don’t offer anything fantastic - all the technologies are well developed.


          Which ones, please enlighten ...
          We have "hypersonic anti-ship missiles delivered by ICBMs to the AUG area attacking a group from different directions" ???? Or are these your assumptions?
          Today, tests of a hypersonic missile are being conducted in Russia, and even according to rumors ... When will they end, when will this missile be put into service, and will it ...

          How sad it sounds, today for Russia even the construction of an aircraft carrier is fantastic.

          Perhaps the only "asymmetric answer" that we can give the Yankees with their AUG today and in the coming years is Yaseni and the ICBM with the NJB.
          1. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Seaman77
            An aircraft carrier is a ready-made base. With equipment and staff.

            Oh my god, how dear she is!
  • Rigla 17 October 2015 08: 09 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    If the Russian Federation needs an aircraft carrier (it’s not clear why, but still), then it’s certainly not like Kuznetsov, without catapults, without a reactor, with a bunch of weapons occupying a lot of precious space ... and an air group? why so many turntables ??? and a dozen SU-33, practically not adapted for shock operations, or MiG29 (resp. mod.), which for some reason are not based there despite the fact that the ship has been on the water for a quarter of a century.
  • Cap.Morgan 17 October 2015 08: 17 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    This is expensive. Aircraft carriers.
    And in the event of a major war, the kirdyk aircraft carrier immediately.
    Aircraft carrier is good only in the war against under-states. Swim to the shore and break up peaceful villages.
    Therefore, Khrushchev, no matter how anyone related to this, developed submarines and missiles.
    1. strannik1985 17 October 2015 10: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Therefore, the USSR spending 1,5 times more money than the United States on the fleet came to the construction of ATAVKR pr.1143.7 Ulyanovsk?
  • What a 17 October 2015 08: 44 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Conclusion: an aircraft carrier is good only in the war against terrorists and then in countries near the sea. Even in a war with small countries but biting like Israel, they are a big, slow target.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • sergei.84 17 October 2015 09: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, the sum of 26 missiles, I think "brutally" exaggerated. Even forty years ago, on the ships of Project 1134, where cruise missiles were the main complex, engines with MIGs were used that were exhausted. And that means the price ... I don’t think now our designers have become dumber.
    1. Mera joota 17 October 2015 10: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: sergei.84
      where cruise missiles represented the main complex, engines from the MIGs that had exhausted their resources were installed.

      Where did you dig such nonsense?
      1. Genry 17 October 2015 11: 03 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        This was during the MIG-15, when the cruise missile was based on this aircraft.
  • afrikanez 17 October 2015 09: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    an aircraft carrier is such a versatile ship that there is always a task that it will perform better than other means.
    Until the ship’s rocket hits him. Weapons-carriers are offensive, we wonder who are going to attack?
    1. strannik1985 17 October 2015 10: 54 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      There is no purely offensive or defensive weapon; any can be used both in defense and in attack.
      An aircraft carrier is a means of gaining dominance at sea (dominance at sea = dominance at sea, the truth since World War 2), and after that is a means of projecting power, as the author of the article says.
  • tchoni 17 October 2015 09: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    (salute of 26 missiles - about 1 billion rubles),
    Here it is not necessary. These shot - they will buy more. Most money will go to the Russian economy. In the high-tech sector of her ... So what else do you need? More such fireworks would be ....
  • Mera joota 17 October 2015 09: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Apparently, it is not possible to use the KAB-500, and air-to-ground missiles with laser, satellite and television guidance, however, this is most likely due to the concept of use - air defense of a ship’s group and attack of enemy ships by Mosquito missiles

    Apparently, the author judges the technique only from photographs, while believing that if a Moskit anti-ship missile system was hung on the Su-33 at the exhibition, then undoubtedly "he can."
    but at one time it was planned to create a whole family of ship aircraft on the basis of the Su-27: Su-27KSh attack aircraft, Su-27KRC reconnaissance and target designation, Su-27KPP jamming director, Su-27KT tanker.

    These are the promises of Sukhoi Design Bureau that were not realized due to the increase in the mass of the Su-33.
  • Gardamir 17 October 2015 10: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author believes that aircraft carriers are weapons against terrorists? Not convinced. Times change. And alas, aircraft carriers are the past.
  • Yak28 17 October 2015 10: 42 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    If Russia had a decent aircraft carrier, it would be possible to quickly increase the clearly insufficient number of aircraft in Syria. For interventions in countries with weak aircraft, air defense and the absence of cruise and other medium and long-range missiles, the aircraft carrier is the same. Having several aircraft carriers I’m keeping a decent air group that can navigate wherever I need to be mobile enough. I think the aircraft carriers did not build in the USSR because of the lack of technology and practice in creating such ships.
    It seems to me that the air carrier group, which has both air defense systems and cruise missiles, is not so easy to destroy, as they say on TV. Many say Russia does not need aircraft carriers, because it is an offensive weapon, and we are not going to fight with anyone. But how says wisdom, "The best defense is attack."
    1. Mikhail Krapivin 17 October 2015 22: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "It seems to me that an air carrier group that has both air defense systems and cruise missiles is not so easy to destroy, as they say on TV."

      I may be wrong, but it seems to me that it is optimal to destroy an aircraft carrier group with two low-power tactical nuclear charges. The first in the air to disable electronics, the second in the center of the order, closer to the aircraft carrier. In my opinion, cheaply and angrily, if not right, correct it.
      1. NIKNN 18 October 2015 12: 53 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Rather not quite right, in the early 80s an outfit of forces and means for failure AUG consisted of 2-4 regiments TU22 + ensuring this operation was much more money. AUG defense begins 500 km from the aircraft carrier and has 3 defense zones. Today, thinking with a ballistic head you won’t get it. On the other hand, today there are funds that can be guaranteed to withdraw from a standing AUG, but this occupation is not cheap and the outfit of forces and means is comparable approximately (in value) with what I described at the beginning of the 80s.
  • van zai 17 October 2015 10: 50 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Aircraft carrier is a means of gaining supremacy at sea. An effective system for destroying enemy ships and vessels. Striking along the coast is secondary.
    1. SPACE 17 October 2015 11: 34 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Quote: van zai
      Aircraft carrier is a means of gaining supremacy at sea

      And who is there to conquer, dolphins and gulls or something, these are neutral waters, the communications equipment that the nuclear submarines will cut much more effectively, including for aircraft carriers, and the open ocean will never be the main theater of war.
      1. strannik1985 17 October 2015 12: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        If they break through 2 lines of the PLO, if they themselves are not hit by aircraft of the PLO and ICAPL of the enemy.
  • Alex 17 October 2015 10: 52 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Who argues, an aircraft carrier against terrorists - like a machine gun against the natives: efficiently, deadly and almost unrequited. But against serious opponents - here, as Tungus said in Sniper, you need to think. Maybe a couple of them in the Pacific Ocean will inflate their niche, but in the Black Sea, IMHO, you won’t especially turn around. As specifically for Syria, I think the base is more practical.
  • Manul 17 October 2015 11: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In general, the fierceness of regular disputes over the need for aircraft carriers gives the impression of a hundred-year war, previously they were held with a free application about the Mistrals. Now I want to ask the opponents of UDC - are you still in stock? wink
    We will have a modern aircraft carrier, and unfortunately they will not ask any of us. crying
  • onahoret 17 October 2015 11: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Excellent article.
  • lazy 17 October 2015 12: 22 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Undoubtedly, to protect national interests anywhere in the world, Russia needs at least a couple of full-fledged aircraft carriers. so as not to envy the availability of bases (which simply do not exist in many regions), nor the goodwill of transit countries. A simple question for the opponents of aircraft carriers is how would we transfer aircraft to Syria if Iran behaved like Turkey or Bulgaria. Carriers are not a means of global war (even among amers), it is a means of solving regional problems.
  • rusakov89 17 October 2015 13: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Assessing the "usefulness and worthlessness" of aircraft carriers is a very thankless task; there will always be supporters and opponents of floating airfields. The dilemma from the category of "and I want and prick."
  • Mountain shooter 17 October 2015 13: 33 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The fact that a large aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type is capable of providing 120-140 sorties per day is on paper. Simple calculations with the number of aircraft on the upper deck, the time of their preparation for departure, etc. gives very small values ​​of real daily departures. There are also departures - maximum in pairs. And the landing? Any land airfield will give odds to any aircraft carrier. Moreover, if the aircraft carrier will not be used against the Papuans, then his life is very limited.
  • IAlex 17 October 2015 13: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Heh, heh ... Actually, the United States mainly uses aircraft carriers for areas where there are no allies and bases, i.e. the object of the attack is surrounded for the United States by countries that are not eager to let in either US troops or aircraft. Therefore, aircraft carriers begin an operation to destroy the enemy’s air defense and coastal infrastructure, then they land troops and create a base on which land aircraft will already be deployed ...

    The only snag on the current day is that almost all the allies of the Russian Federation are destroyed, and the United States has puppets in all regions, and all their aircraft carriers are slipping to use dagger strikes from different directions in order to destroy the enemy’s air defense as much as possible. The only one against whom they will partly be effective is the Russian Federation, because we have a huge northern ocean and there are almost no bases in the north ...
    1. Forest 17 October 2015 14: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Can aircraft carriers fight in the ice? Something new. And there is nobody to bomb there - 2,5 huts at 100 km.
      1. IAlex 17 October 2015 15: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But to make an airfield for long-range aviation and protected from all sides is quite possible, all the more you will not get a damn thing, because there is not even a single hut per 100 km. And if you think that this cannot be, because they will be frightened, hehe, as soon as they are sure that they will not pick up with serious losses, they will simply slip into brazen and do whatever they want, under the protest of our Foreign Ministry .. .

        But what in order to get to the coast you need to go through the ice? It is quite possible in the summer along the coast from the Bering Strait, there are almost no bases of the Russian Federation and the population ...
        1. Forest 17 October 2015 20: 59 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Only in the process of constructing such a base will there be constant missile attacks that will not allow you to settle in normal places, or you will have to fill special foundations in permafrost and swamps, and here you need to establish a steady stream of transport aircraft, which is easy to interrupt the MiG-31. Trying to capture the AUG area of ​​Wrangel Island is futile. While everything will work out, there will not be enough space for the B-52, but our 95s and 160s will be shot from a long distance. An aircraft carrier will be a simple burden.
  • Forest 17 October 2015 14: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author is somewhat confused - the Americans set records in 120-140 sorties in ideal conditions, without fully servicing an aircraft going into battle, without suspending a full set of weapons, collecting and transmitting data to pilots about targets. Our Kuzya without a catapult and with a much smaller air wing (even if hypothetically formed to a complete set) will not be able to perform 80 sorties, especially since the load of the Su-33 and MiG-29K launching from the deck is less than the full time in 2-3, and there is no full range of guidance systems for ground targets. An aircraft carrier is needed, but with other aircraft, such as the F-18.
    1. Lt. Air Force stock 17 October 2015 15: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Forest
      An aircraft carrier is needed, but with other aircraft, such as the F-18.

      In the future, you can create a marine version of PakFa (if necessary, under the wings you can install hanging pylons and place additional weapons on them).
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Denis Skiff 17 October 2015 16: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    enough 6 aircraft carriers?
    1. Yak28 17 October 2015 16: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The USSR had military bases in many countries, and in Vietnam and Cuba, and many more where. Since Russia abandoned these bases, then of course a couple of decent floating airfields will not hurt, not to mention 6
  • bk0010 17 October 2015 16: 27 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Add my 5 cents.
    1) 3 types of anti-ship ICBMs were developed in the USSR, but did not go into series, as they fell under contractual restrictions like START and should be considered as ICBMs. Then they decided that ICBMs (minus 6-10 cities) are more important than one aircraft carrier (http://topwar.ru/36200-protivokorabelnye-ballisticheskie-rakety-dalnego-deystvi
    ya.html).
    2) Aircraft carrier is worse than a land aerodrome. It has two advantages: it is mobile and it is located next to the naval group, which allows you to organize an effective cover from coastal aviation.
    3) To create 2 permanent AAGs, not two, but eight aircraft carriers are required: an aircraft carrier is a complex ship and requires a lot of repair. Confirmation - the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, but two AUGs in peacetime and up to 4 when they are at war.
    4) An aircraft carrier is an expensive and hemorrhoidal ship, therefore, when a task can be effectively solved without involving aircraft carriers, it will be solved without aircraft carriers.
    Now for the article:
    >
    Retrofitting to strike ground targets is possible.

    Su-33 is a clean fighter, it does not bomb, retrofitting is impossible due to meaninglessness. There were only conversations about launches from him by the Mosquitoes; I did not hear about launches themselves. Mig-29 KUB that yes, multi-purpose.
    >
    There are no RTR aircraft in such an air wing, but at one time it was supposed to create a whole family of ship aircraft based on the Su-27: Su-27KSh attack aircraft, Su-27KRC reconnaissance and target designation, Su-27KPP jamming director, Su-27KT tanker.

    There are no such aircraft, and it’s too expensive to make an attack aircraft or a tanker from a fighter. Or do you want to follow in the footsteps of the F-18?
    Aviation at the ground airfield can be attacked by mobile sabotage groups with mortars.
    An aircraft carrier at sea can be attacked by pirates with a DShK.
    Dust storms do not affect aircraft carrier
    Yes, yes (sorry for sarcasm).
    . Attacks by cruise missiles can generally be considered only as an addition, given how their cost
    The Americans calculated that it is cheaper for them to fire missiles with nuclear submarines than to drag an aircraft carrier with an air group. Moreover, before the arrival of the aircraft carrier, it is still necessary to suppress air defense and coastal defense.
    Given that aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class can carry out up to 120-140 sorties per day
    Can not. Once they made 100, but without performing combat missions.
    The bottom line is that the aircraft carrier is such a universal ship that there will always be a task that it will perform better than other means.
    Because of one task, contacting an aircraft carrier is too expensive. Better than others, it solves the tasks of air defense (but not protection against anti-ship missiles) and landing support. Tasks of anti-aircraft defense, fighting enemy ships, protecting the coast, ensuring the stability of the operation of the SSBNs, displaying the flag, etc. You can decide well without an aircraft carrier.
    1. Mikhail Krapivin 17 October 2015 22: 30 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      You have excellent counterarguments that are interesting to read. Maybe write an article in the antithesis?
      1. bk0010 18 October 2015 20: 52 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Thank you for your kind words, but I'm not a real welder, I just happened to listen to smart people. Accordingly, the article would have been amateurish.
  • Denis Skiff 17 October 2015 19: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Interests interests, but we are not aggressors? How have we acquired-annexed so many territories? Not a war. Yes, the bases are needed and we will have them sooner or later. And we’ll find ways to protect ship’s constellations, aircraft carriers or something else.
    1. KaPToC 18 October 2015 00: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Denis-Skiff
      Interests interests, but we are not aggressors?

      It is not a question of aggressors whether we are or not, the presence or absence of aircraft carriers - it is a question of the utility of gigantic costs for aircraft carriers.
      Can one aircraft carrier group withstand, for example, ten frigates of project 22350 and twenty corvettes of project 20380? It seems to me that at equal cost, missile ships will overcome aircraft carriers.
  • Captain45 17 October 2015 20: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the topic of aircraft carriers:Can the Russian fleet sink at least one US aircraft carrier? on http://cont.ws/post/135041 or http://www.imperiyanews.ru/details/414c5e72-1003-46ea-b122-f728892ddbf4. There are so many people, so many opinions.
  • Crimson89 17 October 2015 22: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    There were a lot of good and correct things in the development of the Armed Forces and the Navy of the USSR, but there were also stupid things. One of the most serious reluctance to build aircraft carriers.

    Aircraft carriers were not needed even in Soviet times, but now ... It’s the U.S. Navy that has many surface ships that can cover the USSR aircraft carrier that went by creating aircraft-carrying cruisers that could launch attacks themselves, without aviation. And if you look at our fleet now, then we need 100% aircraft carriers, not aircraft carriers!
    1. strannik1985 17 October 2015 22: 29 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The difference between the AB and TAVKR-part of the place is occupied by RCC, escort ships are needed by both. Oh yes, in the Kuzi version, there is no AWACS plane, the GEM has been redesigned, there is no catapult. Well, why the heck to walk on a rake? Little experience of the USSR?
    2. Alf
      Alf 17 October 2015 22: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Crimson89
      And if you look at our fleet now, then we need 100% aircraft carriers, not aircraft carriers!

      And which aircraft should an aircraft carrier cruiser, in your opinion?
  • leon1204id 17 October 2015 22: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I put a minus to the author. It's just that an aircraft carrier is not a universal ship. When strategists send somewhere an aircraft carrier, an aircraft carrier group is always implied. And the strategy of Russia is different. And trends in the development of technology show that after the Nth amount of time for launch vehicles of every kind weapons, oceans will turn into puddles, and vessels in the oceans, which can be seen from orbit into a telescope, into a light target. Winged missiles go in two directions: stealth or speed to hypersound (of course it is desirable "both of these and more," as Winnie said, but so far there are no ... such opportunities). smile
  • Mikhail Krapivin 17 October 2015 22: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: ROSS_Ulair
    Most importantly, we have missiles (both land-based, aviation, sea-based) that can turn ACG into trash. The states understand this, therefore they have never tried to crush us with a military component, they are crushing us by the economy.


    Anyway - in their trash!
  • Aqela 18 October 2015 02: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The aviation group of ship 1143.5 under the project was to consist of 50 units of aircraft and helicopters: 26 MiG-29K or Su-27K, 4 Ka-27RLD, 18 K-27PL, 2 K-27PS.

    It may still be more accurate to write By 18а-27PL, 2Kа-27PS.
  • Edvid 18 October 2015 03: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Carriers, as the main strike leaving the surface fleet, lose ground, they go down in history, as the battleships left. Now they can scare the banana republics, but not Russia.
  • Alexy 18 October 2015 03: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I believe that Russia, in the current economic situation, does not need ACGs at all. And an aircraft carrier is an effective means for conducting combat operations at a considerable distance from the coast, otherwise it becomes a good target for coastal anti-ship missile systems, as well as coastal aviation. Of course, I do not argue about the effectiveness of AUG in attacks on natives.
  • Zaurbek 18 October 2015 19: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I believe that while there is such a conflict as the Syrian, it is possible to break in our aircraft carrier. There is a safety net as an airfield with full fighters. If some of the drum functions cannot be performed, let the air defense functions be performed. How else to teach pilots in an environment close to combat?
  • _KM_ 19 October 2015 11: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Russia needs an aircraft carrier. At least as a political tool.