Military Review

Hybrid of Admiral Gorshkov

146



Explanatory note to the article on heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of the 1143 Ave., published on “VO” a week ago. History with “Ships of Armageddon” severely criticized my point of view on the adequacy of the construction of these monsters. And if so, will have to keep the answer to readers.

Appearing as a kind of “hybrid” of a missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier, the Soviet TAKR proved to be ineffective in the role of a cruiser and completely untenable as an aircraft carrier. With a length of 273 meter and a displacement of 40 thousand tons in terms of the composition of its weapons, the “super cruiser” corresponded to a large anti-submarine ship (which was six times smaller than the “super cruiser”).

In parallel, TAKRam built real cruisers of the “Glory” type (1164 av.). With long-range air defense systems C-300 and twice a large number of strike weapons. While “Glory” was three times smaller than the aircraft carrier monster Admiral Gorshkov.

As for the wing, absolutely amazing things were happening there. For example, the “vertical” of the Yak-38. With subsonic flight speed, without radar and with a fuel reserve for 10 minutes of flight. “Soared-scared-sat”. The pilots of the American “Tomcats” did not care that the “Yak” was classified as an “attack aircraft”. Beat something will not on the passport, but in the face. However, even as a strike aircraft, the “Yak”, to put it mildly, looks suspicious. Funny combat load and range, minimal survivability, lack of aiming and navigation equipment for working in adverse weather conditions.

Squadron anti-submarine helicopters? An 273-meter monster was absolutely necessary to base it.

And in general, what is this dispute about? For 20 years before the Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers in France, the aircraft carrier “Clemenceau” was built. With smaller dimensions than TAKR, he carried a full-fledged air wing, incl. airplanes with horizontal takeoff and landing. In 1990's, powerful supersonic Super Etandars were based on it. And this is a completely different level. And for much less money.

The construction of the TAVKR was a mistake and a meaningless waste of money. At the same time repeated four times in a row.



My dear opponent Andrei Kolobov suggests looking at the situation from a different angle. It is alarming that the author, usually deliberately carefully checking the information, so freely interprets the facts and abuses very strange conclusions.

It is also possible that S.G. Gorshkov considered such a “Machiavellian” plan: based on the results of operating the TAKR project 1143, justify the mismatch of tasks the aircraft carrying cruiser to the capabilities of his wing. In any case, it should be taken into account that the tasks that were formulated in 1968 for the TAKR of the 1143 project could not be solved by the air group with VTOL and SG Gorshkov could not know about it.

Since the top management and even the commander-in-chief himself were involved in the case, then, indeed, it is better to refrain from searching for the guilty.

Another couple of such “Machiavellian plans” and full-scale experiments with the 273-meter “vundervaflay”, and the budget will go to the seams.

But why did the Soviet Navy need this “ideal” helicopter carrier?

TAKR was not a helicopter carrier. During the combat services, “Kiev” and its sisterships were engaged in what they were created for: the operation of useless VTOL aircraft.



And the heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1143 could well become the backbone of the defense of such areas - operating in the near sea zone, they perfectly complemented the actions of the ground anti-submarine aviation.

They were not allowed to operate in the near sea zone by pride.

Brief chronology of the service of the aircraft-carrying cruiser “Minsk”:

In the summer of 1980, the campaign in Vietnam, the port of Cam Ranh. During the campaigns of military service in December 1982 of the year “Minsk” was visited by Bombay, in July of 1986 of the year - Wonsan


TAKRy spent all the time on long hikes, pretending that they - these aircraft carriers. And to cover the “protected combat areas” in the near sea zone is work for the gray mass of the “third rank”: numerous patrol and small anti-submarine ships. Which in the composition of the Navy of the USSR had 530 pieces.

The value of the TAKR project 1143 in a full-scale nuclear missile conflict could be very high

Is it higher than that of nuclear submarine missile-carriers and their “colleagues” from the squadron “41 on guard of Freedom"?

Say what you like, but a helicopter is a terrible enemy of a submariner

At that time (as now), the most terrible enemy is an under-sonar sonar in conjunction with a towed low-frequency antenna, supplemented by a dozen missile torpedoes (Rastrub, Waterfall, foreign ASROK) on board the ship. None of the RSL is comparable in terms of detection capabilities with the ship's SSC consisting of thousands of hydrophones. Ship complexes are less dependent on weather conditions and, if there is contact, they are able to destroy the submarine in a matter of minutes.

In this sense, the 32 sentry ship of the Petrel Ave. 1135 “Petrel”, as well as two dozen modern BOD Ave. 1134A, 1134B and other 1155 “Deleted” were of special value.

Interestingly, for the tasks of escorting AUG in the Mediterranean, our 1143 TAKRs might have been even better suited than classic aircraft carriers.

There is not a single task with which the TAVKR could cope better than the classic aircraft carrier.

But after all, the very concept of 5 OPESK, which was supposed to die, at the same time mutilated the enemy ... What can you say? Only that the prowess of our crews, who took up combat duty, being doomed to death in the event of a conflict, deserves all the respect and memory of grateful descendants.

Those who die immediately may turn out to be happier than the survivors of the world nuclear apocalypse.

If they survive at all.

So there is no need for cheap melodramas, every citizen of the Union had a risk of burning in nuclear fire.

After increasing the range of US-based ballistic missiles of the sea based, their "city killers" no longer had reasons to deploy in the near-sea zone of the USSR.

No sooner had the leading "Kiev" come into operation, "Francis Kay" (1979 year) went out for combat patrols. The first SSBN, armed with the Trident-I complex. A terrible war machine was able to throw 8 warheads at a distance of 7400 km. American boats were able to shell all of Siberia from the Philippine Sea - right up to the Ural Mountains. As well as shoot on the territory of the USSR directly from the shores of the United States.

And who called TAVKRy here "Armageddon ships"?

A lot of unflattering words were said about the presence of heavy missile armaments on our TAKRs - the Basalt anti-ship missiles.

Yes, there everything looks strange.

For some reason, a quarter-kilometer ship was carrying 10 torpedo tubes and paired 76-mm artillery mounts of unclear purpose (too weak caliber for firing at any ships and ground targets; in terms of air defense, it is more useless than AK-726 to invent difficult).

But there is a nuance - in the USSR neither in 70-ies, nor later was there at all the abundance of heavy ships capable of carrying long-range anti-ship missiles "Basalt" / "Granit".

But did the RCC on the flood ships need it at all? The USSR Navy had 60 nuclear submarines with cruise missiles. Such a “squadron” could sweep everything in its path!

Hybrid of Admiral Gorshkov

SSGM Ave 670 “Skat” - a series of 17 submarine missile carriers armed with the Amethyst and Malachite anti-ship missiles


However, it was necessary to unbind RCC on the first domestic "aircraft carrier".

The statement that the “Kiev” air defense system was quickly outdated due to the advent of C-300, in my opinion, is not quite true.

The “Kiev” air defense system became obsolete with the advent of new threats, primarily with the massive appearance of anti-ship missiles. The omnipresent “Harpoons”, “Exosets” and “Tomahawks” (TASM), capable of being launched from any ship and aircraft.

But still, the 1143 TAKRs did not become useless ships.

Yes, at least it was where to play football.


Fighting service in the Mediterranean. That is why the Yankees were afraid of slippery black fishes from the depths of the sea, and aircraft carriers were not even considered by them as a real threat.


The fleet finally got some kind of carrier-based aircraft and set about developing a new one for itself. weapons, thereby gaining invaluable experience.

We always get experience when we don’t get what we want.
Author:
146 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alex_59
    Alex_59 20 October 2015 07: 32 New
    16
    Anyway, what is this argument about?
    The key phrase on which I want to close the topic.
    1. Ruslan
      Ruslan 20 October 2015 08: 10 New
      +3
      if the government was strongly against aircraft carriers, why was it necessary to do 1143, and not, for example, a landing ship with a solid deck, even 2, of 20000 tons each? and plant helicopters for you, and indulge in the svvp. and plos tasks you can issue and landing. Why was there such a hybrid with an unclear result?
      1. Banshee
        Banshee 20 October 2015 08: 23 New
        28
        The dispute is interesting. Long time and with pleasure I observe it. And I just get interesting information that I myself might not have looked for. And here on a silver platter bring a tray.

        Two worlds, two opinions.
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 20 October 2015 14: 16 New
          +2
          Quote: Banshee
          Two worlds, two opinions.

          Only one of them is balanced and reasoned, and the second is adolescent hyperemotional wink
      2. strannik1985
        strannik1985 20 October 2015 10: 29 New
        +1
        А смысл, если не обеспечена ПВО соединения? Англичане сэкономив на АВ типа "Игл" и CVA-1 заплатили порядка 1,3-1,5 млрд.долларов(стоимость потопленых в ходе Фолклендского конфликта кораблей),а точнее ещё больше, потому,что имей РН нормальное авианосное соединение Гальтиери просто не решился бы на войну.
        The difference is that the LV solves the missile defense tasks during the marine TMV, the Americans solve the main problems, and no one will solve the tasks of airborne cover for the Soviet Navy, all by themselves.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 20 October 2015 11: 30 New
          -2
          How do you know?

          Although the Argentines may have thought that something subsonic, the nostril is not a threat.
          They themselves had an aircraft carrier, they finished learning to fly Etandars from it ...

          Смысл в том что англичане с островов планировали слинять в следующий год-два. Они даже отказались завозить топливо на льготных условиях и в полной мере на зиму 1982/83 (островитянам пришлось бы сьезжаться чтобы не замерзнуть). Аргентинцы просто "поторопили их"... вместо этого всего через 2,5мес отгребли сами.

          An aviation connection 33g after the war so until England appeared, it is only being completed.

          Air defense of 2 compounds and the database area was provided at 3/4 in time and place. They still had to fly for reconnaissance and attack, not only for patrolling. Harriers were 5-10 times less than the Argentines, and the tonnage of sunken warships of Argentina exceeds English, as well as casualties among crews. At the same time, after the first losses, they went to base and the British remained under fire from their aircraft ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 20 October 2015 12: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: Scraptor
            Harriers were 5-10 times less than the Argentines, and the tonnage of sunken warships of Argentina exceeds English, as well as casualties among crews

            This is what neglect of rear services leads to. Lack of tankers + the inability to quickly deploy a normal airbase - and now the Argentines are following in the footsteps of the IJN Air Force, flying at full radius and reaching the target with the remainder in the tanks for only 5-10 minutes in the zone.
            В таких условиях "кооперативного мата" даже вертолёты с РВВ были бы эффективны. smile
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 20 October 2015 13: 07 New
              +2
              5-10 minutes when you know where the enemy is - more to intercept or attack is not necessary. The Argentine Mirages had RVV with GSN radars that were missed by the Harriers (who did not have them), because they could perform helicopter maneuvers. The helicopter gets off hard.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 20 October 2015 13: 40 New
                +1
                Quote: Scraptor
                5-10 minutes when you know where the enemy is - More is not necessary for interception or attack.

                That's it. That is, when working at maximum radius, you need either an AWACS machine or normal radars. Better AWAC - it’s better with targets for MV and PMV.
                Quote: Scraptor
                The Argentine Mirages had RVV with GSN radars that were missed by the Harriers (who did not have them), because they could perform helicopter maneuvers.

                They missed because the pilots performed the launch without waiting for the capture.
                А также потому, что "миражи" ходили на большой высоте (топливо!) и выполняли пуски по по целям, работавшим на МВ и ПМВ. Напомню, что через 9 лет в "буре в пустыне" даже последние модели "Спэрроу" регулярно мазали, если стрельба велась "сверху вниз". Кроме того, нижняя граница у R.530 была порядка 60-100 м.

                А шансов исправить промах у "миражей" не было - R.530 у них была всего одна.
                Even the use of PTBs (both aircraft took two or three 1300-liter or two 1700-liter) allowed them to be in the target area for no more than 10 minutes, and then at an economically favorable altitude of 10000 m. At the same time, the use of suspended tanks sharply reduced the combat load. In addition to shells for two 30-mm guns, Mirages could carry no more than three RVV (Matra R.530, Matra R.550 Magic). Daggers took 2 Shafrir missiles, and when acting on surface or ground targets, only two 227 kg or one 454 kg OFAB.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 20 October 2015 15: 52 New
                  -1
                  They had AWACS.

                  Maybe they still shot in the wrong direction?
                  They walked at high altitude because they have an advantage in height and speed there.
                  По одной R.530 у каждого. Просто срыв наведения при снижении или чаще "колокол".
                  so they shot several times a couple from a distance, then they climbed to shoot the R.550 and immediately 2 shot down.

                  Harriers have 2 PTB and 2 AIM-9 with infrared seeker.
                  Mirage is clearly superior in weapons.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 20 October 2015 18: 09 New
                    +4
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    They had AWACS.

                    Нет. В наших терминах их "нептуны" - это, скорее, машины РЦ (разведки и целеуказания).

                    Будь у аргов нормальные машины ДРЛО - не было бы случаев типа "самолёты получили ЦУ, но цели не обнаружили" или "неизвестно откуда появились истребители противника, сбившие аргентинские машины".
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    They walked at high altitude because they have an advantage in height and speed there.

                    Нет. Потому что расход топлива меньше. На МВ "миражи" и 10 минут не продержались бы.
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Harriers have 2 PTB and 2 AIM-9 with infrared seeker.
                    Mirage is clearly superior in weapons.

                    Кхм... это с каких пор всеракурсный "сайдвиндер" уступает R.550, работающей только вдогон?
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 21 October 2015 04: 26 New
                      0
                      It’s quite a normal AWACS, for example, six Daggers were aimed at a couple of Harriers and they shot down 5pcs. One as sieve stuck to the tanker left ...

                      It’s harder to get away from the R.550 - it’s faster and better capture. It’s better not to let IR missiles in the forehead because then it’s easier to evade them.
                      In addition to the R.550 on the Mirages, there were still radar all-perspective R.530 ...
                      1. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 21 October 2015 10: 40 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        It’s quite a normal AWACS, for example, six Daggers were aimed at a couple of Harriers and they shot down 5pcs. One as sieve stuck to the tanker left ...

                        Кхм... у "Даггеров" и "Миражей" не было оборудования для дозаправки. Поэтому они и извращались с ПТБ.

                        "На шланге" дотянули до базы "Скайхоки", повреждённые огнём ПВО в ходе налёта 24 мая.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        In addition to the R.550 on the Mirages, there were still radar all-perspective R.530 ...

                        Was. At best, one missile per plane. With a range of 17 km.
                        И, опять-таки, ПАРЛГСН при работа "сверху вниз" даёт регулярные срывы захвата.
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 21 October 2015 11: 04 New
                        0
                        At Mirages there was no refueling yet ...

                        37km range. On the harriers - not a single one.
                        This is the best rocket at that time.
              2. mav1971
                mav1971 20 October 2015 20: 34 New
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA

                They missed because the pilots performed the launch without waiting for the capture.


                By the way.
                Now I’ve remembered that it was about this time, as the second main reason for the unskilled use of technology, that they wrote in the journal ZVO.

                The first main reason was a defective (or out of date) 904 fuse, tail fuses for 83 bombs in Argentina were not installed.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 21 October 2015 02: 57 New
                  +1
                  Well, yes, they will write to you ...

                  the fuse was initially set incorrectly; missiles on a maneuvering target were not launched before capture.
        2. strannik1985
          strannik1985 20 October 2015 16: 05 New
          +1
          Аргентины смогли обеспечить себе целеуказание используя Р-2Н, С-130,Боинг-707,а англичане в силу небольшого радиуса истребителей СВВП не смогли этому воспрепятствовать,только один неосторожный Боинг завалили из Си Дарт и то случайно. У англичан не было полноценных АВ,только 2 ЛАВ с небольшим количеством "Си Харриеров" имевших небольшой радиус действия,плюс отсутствие ДРЛО. В силу этого для раннего обнаружения использовали корабли,"Шеффилд" и "Ковентри" погибли именно при работе в роли РЛ дозора. Все аргентинские самолёты,хоть "Супер Этандары",хоть "Скайхоки" выходили для атаки на низких или сверхнизких высотах используя внешнее ЦУ(например на "Шеффилд" с 250 км наводил Нептун).
          Смогли бы они позволить себе это имей англичане списанный в 1979 "Арк Ройал",а ещё лучше CVA-01"Куин Элизабет", зарезаный лейбористами в конце 60-тых,с "Фантомами" и "Хокаями"(первоначально Gannet AEW.3-4 шт).

          What conclusions have been drawn from the conflict?
          Before the conflict, Invincible-type LAVs were considered mainly as anti-submarine ships for Atlantic convoys and long-range anti-aircraft missiles of American AUG.
          The typical composition of the air group of 9 helicopters PL King Sea and 5 VTOL Aircraft Harrier, in the case of using the LAV as an amphibious landing should carry transport Sea King not part of the air groups. In total, 3 LAVs were built, due to financial difficulties, they wanted to sell one LOVE to Australia and preserve the second.
          After the conflict:
          1.All LAV remain in the LV.
          2. Everyone is undergoing an expensive upgrade, the Sea Dart air defense systems were removed from the ships, the hangar was increased for basing 21 aircraft, the capacity of the ammunition cellars and the capacity of the fuel tanks (moreover, due to the ship’s power plant stocks), the helicopter and Sea King AEW control helicopters were added to the group .2
          3. In order for LAV to at least somehow correspond to shock AV, not only Sea Harrier fighters, but also Harrier GR.7 drums from the RAF began to base on them.

          As already mentioned, without diminishing the merits of the British pilots, the reason for the defeat of the Argentinean Air Force was the maximum range of aviation, quantitatively and qualitatively (Mirage 3 and Super Etandar is still much more serious than Harrier), which surpassed the English for the first fatal. They simply did not have the opportunity to conduct a maneuverable air battle and therefore could not repulse the Harriers, since the plane could not return to the airfield and would be lost.
          On the other hand, if the RN had full-fledged AWACS and fighters, the successes of the Argentine Air Force would be much more modest.
          But the British did not have CVA-1, and the argi drowned ships for 1,5 billion dollars.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 20 October 2015 18: 11 New
            +1
            Quote: strannik1985
            Argentines were able to secure target designation using R-2N, S-130, Boeing-707, and the British, due to the small radius of the VTOL aircraft, could not prevent this, only one careless Boeing was flunked from Sea Dart and then by accident.

            This is the ship control. I talked about TSUNIA for fighters, which allows you to continuously illuminate the air situation and direct fighters at air targets.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 20 October 2015 18: 42 New
              0
              I wrote the answer uv. Scraptor post from 11.30.
            2. Scraptor
              Scraptor 21 October 2015 05: 36 New
              -1
              Dragers darted at Harrier with DRLO ... we know how it ended, as with the Mirages.

              Then they began to use AWACS so that the planes from the battle with them evaded.
          2. Scraptor
            Scraptor 21 October 2015 04: 18 New
            0
            Were shot down by Harriers AWACS and scouts who were in the 200 mile zone. From Sea Dart, only a ship could be shot down.
            Coventry paired with Broadsword was not in the radar watch, just like floating air defense systems at the entrance to the strait on the cover of the landing zone.

            The drums were mixed with fighters

            Yes, no conclusions other than further attempts to build a supersonic SKVVP. Their basing (but already others, laced with the Soviet one) is supposed to be on AB. 33 years have passed and AB is not there yet - they were in no hurry with him somehow ... A base for supersonic aviation was built on the islands.
            The Argentinians lost warships in terms of tonnage and their crew members more, despite the fact that they fled to the base.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 21 October 2015 09: 09 New
              0
              Argos did not have AWACS, what other reconnaissance and target designators, besides the aforementioned Boeing, were lost by the Argentines?
              Does it interfere with one another? The ships were 220 km from the center of the order, interception was to be carried out by Harriers with LAV (three-minute readiness), this made it possible to detect targets 300 km from the center of the order.

              See the staff of the air groups before and after the conflict.

              У них денег не было на нормальный АВ,только модернизация "Инвинсибла" обошлась в 100 млн.фунтов, ножки протянули по одежке. АВ типа "Нимитц"-6 млрд.долларов, вдвое больше по цене, чем стоимость потерянных в конфликте кораблей. Откуда деньги?

              Lost for the reasons already indicated.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 21 October 2015 10: 04 New
                0
                Кто вдруг там завалил какой то Боинг-707(?), да еще "Си Дарт!"?
                И зачем путать "применявшиеся" и "потерянные"?

                Interception by the Harriers was always carried out with barrage.

                The composition of the air groups changed during the conflict depending on the tasks. An attack aircraft for intercepting the Tu-142 in the North Atlantic is not needed, for this a fighter is needed.

                Nimitz then cost 2,2 billion

                Lost because the Argentines were not smart enough.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 21 October 2015 20: 35 New
                  0
                  I read with Exetera on vif2ne about Boeing.
                  Argentines brought RC planes on MV (up to 15 meters) to the area of ​​work, after which the plane rose for a short time to a height of 150 meters and fixed British ships.
                  Так же(за линией радиогоризонта)атаковали Супер Этандары,выход в район на высоте 40-50 метров,бортовые РЛС выключены. На удалении 46 км высоту полёта увеличили до 150 метров и на короткое время включили РЛС(30 секунд),после пуска ракеты разворот, снижение до 30 метров и выход из боя.Так атаковали "Шеффилд" и "Плимут".
                  If there was a DRLO plane, the Argentines would have failed, it was not necessary to keep the ships in the RLD, the attacking planes would have discovered in advance.
                  It is the presence of the aircraft AWACS-the main plus of a normal aircraft carrier. According to the experience of the conflict, the British introduced the LAV Sea King AWACS and management into the LAV Air Group.

                  2 aircraft were barraging (40 minutes), 2 in 3-minute readiness on the deck of the LAV.

                  During the conflict, the LAV air group also performed strike functions, and before that, the composition of the air group was 5 Sea Harrier and 9 Sea King.Sea Harrier FRS. 1-deck fighter with GDP. But to solve the shock problems of the experience of the conflict, Harriet GR was based on LAV. 7 (6-8 percussion machines in addition to 7 full-time Harrier.FA. 2 and a small number of helicopters).

                  AB type Nimitz put into operation in 1986 and after 4,5 billion dollars, taking into account the construction in England, most likely all 5-5,5.

                  Galtieri most likely did not expect the British to send a fleet.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 22 October 2015 01: 36 New
                    0
                    Ну и с какого корабля "сняли" этот Боинг Си-Дартом? что там у них написано?

                    At 150m ordinary jumped, then again went down. AWACS pointed at the edge of the 200-mile zone.
                    Plymouth was bombed by radarless planes, they didn’t have to jump.

                    The AWAC subsonic is choked by noise and goes astray, so there the word Warning comes first.
                    The tiltrotor-DRLO is practically inferior to nothing on deck-based aircraft-DRLO.
                    The AWACS helicopter could have been introduced before the conflict.
                    Only now to base it in those conditions not on AB but on all the same ships carried forward. AB were not offshore but east of the islands, an amphibious group and a bridgehead in the strait between them. The attacks were mainly on her.

                    У аргентинцев тоже был АВ, причем английской постройки (как и половина их флота) катапультный и аэрофинишерный, не для СКВВП, и размером меньше не то что "Гермеса" а даже "Инвинсибла".

                    Harrier was more bartering, unless it was just about one Invincible.

                    Harrier GR.3

                    Well, as they expelled, it was already necessary to calculate that they were going to take back the islands, because the British did not go anywhere in vain.

                    They didn’t need Nimitz ... And if Argentina would have S-200, Su-24 and Tu-22M2?

                    The Argentines simply underestimated the Harriers and the Premier League.
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 22 October 2015 06: 34 New
                      0
                      What kind of arrears did Argentina have?
                      Is there a Convertoplan-DRLO in metal now to compare it with Hokai? I'm not talking about the 80s.
                      The helicopter loses in detection range, patrol time, Sea King AEW radar is optimized for tracking surface targets, it can detect airborne targets, but only flying at low speed (airwar.ru).
                      Argentinean AB with its direct use had every chance of getting a torpedo from the submarine.

                      Yes, but after the Harrier drums were driven on container ships, there were 12 cars on Hermes and 8 on Invincible.

                      And as it was sent to retreat too late, the dictator would not forgive the drain without a fight either.

                      If you have CVA-1, Phantoms and Hokaev, you don’t need to extend the Etandars to the radius limit, drive the fleet into the strait, even to Buenos Aires, or to Ushuaia. There is a difference?
                      If these weapons were available, the islands would be hollowed, the Su-24 and Tu-22M2 could be launched without fighter cover for Phantoms-suicide.
                    2. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 23 November 2015 13: 14 New
                      -1
                      Много разных, например "Нептун".

                      Which ship was the Boeing Sea Dart removed from?
                      The first working tiltrotor outside the USSR was the CL-84 in 1964.
                      Low altitude low speed targets are poorly caught.
                      После потери своего авиакрыла от действий харриеров, аргенинец - да, получил бы, а он бы его потерял. И они потом не давали бы летать вертолетам и "трекерам".

                      Some of the Harriers have been attack aircraft from the start.
                      Argentina had to prepare and not retire.

                      Mirages with Etandars would drown any AB even in the strait between the islands, not like the continent. Then they would finish off the escort left without cover from radarless subsonic aircraft. This amphibian group had an uncommon choice, and it was the best place to land.

                      Phantoms based on British AVs are much smaller than Nimitz ...

                      In order for everything to be ideally needed, just a DRLO helicopter on an amphibious group (if they write the truth that there were none).
                      Because there is nothing difficult in hanging a folding radar antenna under it.
                    3. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 23 November 2015 16: 58 New
                      0
                      P2V Нептун-базовый патрульный самолёт,такой же "ДРЛО" как мобилизованный Боинг или С-130,в постоянном режиме отслеживать обстановку он не может(выход на МВ с выключенной БРЛС в район работы,подскок до 150 метров с включением РЛС-фиксация кораблей англичан,снова снижение на МВ и уход домой).

                      Apparently a mistake.
                      So what? Is it a Convertoplan-DRLO? What are its characteristics?

                      Sea King AEW.2 is optimized for detecting surface targets, it saw only objects flying low at low speed, the British received a normal AWACS capable of detecting attack planes and cruise missiles of the enemy only in 2002, according to the Cerberus program, during which the previously built Sea King AWACS equipped with Searchwater 2000AEW radar (Sea King AEW7, aka ASaC7).

                      How? In conditions of early detection and superiority of the enemy (on CVA-1 type aircraft from 12 to 18 F-4 Phantom and the same number of Buccaneer S.Mk.2)?

                      Были,их притащили на мобилизованных гражданских судах,в штатные авиагруппы ЛАВ они не входили. Одно попадание в судно построенное по гражданским нормам судостроения и все,нет "авианосца".
                    4. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 23 November 2015 19: 01 New
                      0
                      At business jets now they are doing AWACS so what? He can do anything laughing
                      Не всякий бизнес-джет меньше авианосного "Хокай" No.

                      Apparently not ... What is difficult to convert a tiltrotor, like a helicopter in an AWACS?

                      It is more difficult to detect low-flying and low-speed against the background of the underlying surface.

                      In the usual way. It was they from the Harriers who suffered some unusual losses.

                      If there were any problems then? With a civilian ship, everything will be all right, but with an aircraft carrier, no. lol
                    5. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 23 November 2015 20: 23 New
                      0
                      This does not negate the fact that Argentines have no such car.

                      Apparently there is, if there are a lot of AWACS aircraft, and 6-7 helicopter models in the history of aviation.
                      Thank you, I am aware that the big question would be Sea King AEW.2 could provide timely detection of low-flying Super-Ethandars, Daggers and Skyhawks.

                      Which one? At the disposal of the F-4 AIM-7 with a range of up to 50 (English source) -70 (airwar.ru) km, early detection, the possibility of quick (due to take-off duty aircraft) replenishment of the air defense group.

                      What problems? One hit and no problem.
                    6. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 24 November 2015 12: 22 New
                      0
                      Since when did the same Neptune cease to be AWACS? Themselves in the branch began with this ... He coped with his task and gave target designation to the Harriers to the radarless Daggers.

                      Apparently, helicopter models in general as such appear much less frequently than aircraft models.
                      If in the course then what is the question again? It would be good
                      it's over to have a bigger antenna. And why couldn’t it and why were they needed there at all?

                      Well, at the disposal of the Mirage Matra with a radar seeker with a range of
                      French sources from 25 to 37km
                      The MiG-21 snapped the F-4 without any missiles from the GSN radar at all, and the Mirage or Dagger, in turn, were dangerous aircraft for the MiG-21. Dangerous Mirages were dismissed by Harrier without losses in air battles. Grab the food chain?

                      Do not flatter yourself, the airfield launches planes much faster than an aircraft carrier.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq6Hpxyrhyo
                      even so big (the first half a minute out of a total of 2 can be skipped)

                      Никаких проблем, одно попадание в авианосец, и нет проблемы. В Атланик-Конвейер хоть "экзосет" попал пробив борт а на Форрестале или Энтерпрайзе вообще 70мм "Зуни", или случилась авария, или маккейн отошел покурить...
                    7. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 24 November 2015 12: 42 New
                      +1
                      AWAC is an EU-121, and Neptune has never been AWACS.
                      They gave TsU (RC Neptune, Boeing, S-130) because the British could not ensure the timely detection of targets flying at the MV, in the presence of E-2C the British would not have such an opportunity.

                      The maximum that could be-RVV SD R530F (in real life R530 with a range of 15 (PARLGSN) -3 (IK) km) with a range of up to 25 km (adopted by the French Air Force in 1980), which is half as much as possible weapons F-4. How will they click them, the situation is completely different?
                      In principle, the British do not even need to push the aircraft carriers to the limit of the combat radius of the Mirage; the phantom and Bukanirov b / r allows you to work, leaving the AB in complete safety.

                      Two BS-6 CVA-1 catapults allow you to lift 2 aircraft per minute from the duty links on the deck.

                      A small detail, first get there, it was not in vain that Galtieri started a war game several years after the decommissioning of shock drums from the LV.
                    8. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 24 November 2015 14: 37 New
                      0
                      And they themselves wrote above what was, and issued target designation!
                      And why suddenly there will be no such opportunity? AWAC on AWAC ...

                      Was the year 1980 until 1982? French 25km mats were tuned by the Israelis. Tuning a rocket is done mainly by its engine.
                      And how in real MiG-21 snapped F-4 completely without them? And the Harriers of Mirages without them at all ?!

                      They wouldn’t have gained anything there, especially without refueling.

                      And almost all the links of the aircraft below the deck will not be able to react. Then why do they even need?

                      Почему через несколько лет а не сразу? Почему за те 33,5 года что прошло, опять никто не "затеял", и не напал на эти острова - СVA готовых по прежнему у UK нет?!

                      Get if that, be calm! Are airfields also somehow attacked? Only now they have much greater survivability than full aviation fuel, aircraft and ammunition of an unarmored huge pelvis, which will be difficult to miss.
                    9. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 24 November 2015 15: 21 New
                      +1
                      Are you pretending E-2C Hokai will detect such a RC much earlier than he can fulfill his task, send Phantoms and that’s all, there is no scout.

                      Where did they click them? Above the sea? Did MiGs go to sea to the limit of radius for attacks?

                      She (Phantoms-1610 km, Bukaniram-964-1854 km) against Mirage (650-840 km) does not need it.

                      On decks, dear, in 2-3 minutes readiness, in addition to those that will be in the air.

                      Ask, how do I know?
                      Because it’s expensive, especially after the war (1,5 billion dollars of expenses) that they could do right away, I already brought you the changes before and after the conflict.

                      What and how? So far, apart from the gallant statements, nothing has been received from you.
                    10. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 24 November 2015 15: 40 New
                      0
                      You’re not mine ... How will he detect him? Phantoms will fly up and be beaten by Mirages.

                      In the air battles! What does it have to do with the sea? Do you even know what aerial combat is (especially with the Air Defense Forces) and how does it happen?
                      That the Israelis never used F-4s against MiG-21s without Mirages in air battles, and the air patrol in Vietnam constantly kept 21-3 times more different types of aircraft between two AUGs and MiG-4 bases than North Vietnamese could simultaneously deploy these MiGs -21?

                      Well, it’s not necessary, it’s so unnecessary ... because after the military contact it’s definitely not required lol

                      Yes, what have the readiness to do with it? The fact that not everyone will be able to fire on the deck with catpults, not like dragging them from the deck below the hangar.

                      What do you know? That Royal Navy has not had an AUG for more than 33,5 years, and so far no one has attacked the Falklands again?
                      And the fact that Galtieri didn’t attack right after the AUG was withdrawn from the Navy?

                      Чем обычно. Вы хотите зделать громкое завление что за всю историю сухопутный аэродром прикрытый патрульными и дежурными звеньями и системами ПВО не был атакован противником ни разу? Тогда в чем проблема с "плавающим морским"?
                    11. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 24 November 2015 16: 50 New
                      0
                      Радаром AN/APS-120 за 300-400 км от ордера,Фантомам "подлетать" не надо,достаточно атаковать с дистанций более 12-15 км.

                      So what's up on the MiGs in Vietnam? Many Phantoms shot down over the sea at the limit of b / r?
                      Because these are battles over the territory of the enemy, where the enemy can hide behind radio shadow, where he can conduct a maneuver battle, that is, he can realize his advantages. None of this is in the area of ​​the islands.

                      Despite the fact that from the moment of detection of the attacking aircraft, tens of minutes will pass and the fighters will take off.

                      After the conflict, the LOVE more or less adapted for the tasks of projection, do you not notice this in principle?

                      Than? Can you talk substantively?
                    12. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 24 November 2015 20: 14 New
                      0
                      And how will he detect with this radar without revealing himself? lol
                      12-15km - great ... so you don’t know how aerial combat will go

                      Many just Phantoms shot down in battle! belay Без разницы где. "Радиотенью" прикрываются сбрасывая фольгу и выполняя маневр. Пачка фольги это гораздо легче и компакней чем AIM-7.

                      Dozens of minutes will not pass. Take an interest in the profile and flight time for interception from the duty position in the cockpit on the deck. They will be crushed by obstacles or knocked down by AWACS - an aircraft carrier cannot reflect the massive raids of supersonic aviation both on him and on himself.

                      In order to crush only two airfields in Okinawa before landing, more than a dozen aircraft carriers were needed. And not 2-3 of the former in the United Kingdom at the Falkland, which directly from the islands did not threaten anything.

                      You are not ...
                      Quote: wikipedia, AIM-7
                      the probability of hitting a target with one AIM-7 rocket at that time was no more than 10%, nevertheless about 55 Vietnamese aircraft were shot down using (total score) 600 AIM-7 missiles. In addition, the American F-4 Phantom II fighters accidentally sunk two of their own patrol boats with these missiles and inflicted damage on the American destroyer and the Australian cruiser.
                    13. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 24 November 2015 20: 52 New
                      0
                      But what difference does it make to him, anyway, there’s nothing for the Argentines to get Hokai.
                      Well, tell me the truth, what I do not know? How many medium / long range fights did the MiG-21 win against Phantom?

                      Фантом может нести до 8 РВВ против 1 у Миража,не задолбаются "прикрываться"?

                      In terms of Phantoms, not enough 20 minutes to start and climb? What are these findings based on?
                      What obstacles did the AWACS gather?
                      What kind of electronic warfare equipment was available to the Argentine Air Force?

                      You do not confuse the Argentine Air Force and the Japanese Air Force.

                      Cute, nothing written about 1965-1969? What has been adopted by the AIM-7E2 (1968) and AIM-7F (1973) since then?
                    14. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 24 November 2015 21: 24 New
                      0
                      SR-71 do not confuse with Hokai?
                      2 lost in the whole war. The rest is won.

                      Against 3. Do not get sick, only 4 with a radar seeker versus 1-2 with a radar seeker.

                      10 minutes they will have somewhere no more, so everyone will not have enough. There, you still need to not only gain altitude and speed, but also fly away farther than the radius of the enemy’s use of weapons on an aircraft carrier to reach the intercept position and be guaranteed to intercept wassat But as I understand it, it makes no difference to you ...
                      Interference - as usual.
                      What any student will collect laughing

                      If confused it would be even more fun.

                      Who cares? Moreover, she still remained semi-active ...
                    15. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 25 November 2015 09: 58 New
                      0
                      I don’t confuse, the flying eye will shine outside the Mirage b / r (there will be enough radar power to illuminate the situation in the entire region of the islands) or at the limit, but under the guise of 2-4 Phantoms, how to shoot down? Will you attach a balloon to the RVV?

                      3-total number, including one R530 (weight 195 kg, range up to 17 km) and 2 R550 (89 kg, 2-8 km), against 8 missiles at Phantom-4 RVV SD AIM-7 (up to 50-70 km ) and 4 RVV MD AIM-9 (up to 18 km). At the same time, Saudwinder’s IR GOS is multi-aspect versus R550 which can only work in catch-up.

                      Which ones? Dipole reflectors can be guidance RGGSN RVV Mirage knock down, and what else? How are you going to drown the AN / APS-120?

                      С учётом того,что аргентинцам свои ударники придётся запускать вслепую,без разведки,времени у Фантомов будет куча,читайте описания атак. Пуски Экзосетов были успешны при внезапности атаки,при условии, что мишень не применяет РЭБ. Та же ситуация с Даггерами и Скайхоками. Пока Миражи обнаружат противника(РЛС "Сирано"-50 км)их уже во всю атаковать будут.

                      Just your unwillingness to understand the reason for the low efficiency of AIM-7 in Vietnam, the inability of radars of that time to distinguish targets from the ground, in addition, this nuisance allowed the Mig to get to the Phantoms from below and attack suddenly. In this case, the situation is different - the enemy spits at an altitude of 10 meters, there is a powerful Hokai radar, AIM-000 underwent a number of modernizations, even with a decrease in the Mirage, the target will be against the sea. Got it?
                    16. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 25 November 2015 12: 21 New
                      0
                      Are you a fan of F-4 and AIM-7? I will disappoint you - the Phantom loses the battle with the maneuverable MiG or with the Mirage.
                      The slow-moving Hokai will not be able to break away from the Mirages (suppressed or unsuppressed by interference).
                      Phantoms will not be able to cover it, because they will not be able to cope with the Mirages, and will themselves be knocked down.

                      Can I put AIM-7 on B-1, and no escort fighters are needed? When will it reach you?

                      By the way, the British had Gannet, Hokaev was not foreseen in that conflict

                      Where are 17 and 2-8 km from?
                      The range of the R530 is 25-37km, you and your 17km already have a thick matra so soon it will fly shorter than the thin R550 with its 15km
                      впрочем вы ее уже и так ниже "18км сайдуиндера" (какого, и куда?) поставили.

                      "Всеракурсным" сайдуиндер становится только в самой близи, и по стряхиваемости с хвоста это самая отстойная ракета. Это вообще там была самая отстойная ракета, кроме может быть ее устраелых реплик Shafrir.

                      These reflectors radar choked back in World War II, when there was no RVV.
                      Is that a dull radar like that? Suppressed even ground powerful.

                      AWAC flies in a watch and shines itself, Mirages on its radiation themselves will be visited like a lighthouse ...

                      You have the opposite.

                      Radars and GOS then already identified targets against the backdrop of the earth. A superficial target in general, how can one be found not on the background of the earth?
                    17. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 26 November 2015 11: 08 New
                      0
                      Are you a fan of F-4 and AIM-7?

                      In no case, just really appreciate the alignment. There are no conditions for realizing the advantages of the Mirage over the Phantom.

                      By the way, the British had Gannet, Hokaev was not foreseen in that conflict

                      Materiel is our everything. The British planned to buy the E-2A, the deal fell through due to the cessation of production of this model and the scrapping of the British aircraft carriers on which these aircraft could be based. If there are large ABs, buying the E-2C will not work.

                      Where are 17 and 2-8 km from?
                      The range of the R530 is 25-37km, you and your 17km already have a thick matra so soon it will fly shorter than the thin R550 with its 15km
                      впрочем вы ее уже и так ниже "18км сайдуиндера" (какого, и куда?) поставили.

                      Airwar.ru
                      airbase.ru (up to 18 km (10 miles), in practice up to 15 km).
                      The English-language WIKI gives an operational range of R530 from 1,5 to 20 km.
                      Range up to 25 km (airwar.ru) had the Super R530F RVV (adopted by the French Air Force in 1980), but the Argentines did not have it, up to 40 km had the Super R530D, but it was tested only in 1984.

                      Suppressed even ground powerful.

                      Hear, what Argentines crush Hokai radar?

                      AWAC flies in a watch and shines itself, Mirages on its radiation themselves will be visited like a lighthouse ...

                      It shines beyond the combat radius, and a number of Phantoms are hanging around. Where and how should they fly, how to carry out the combat mission?

                      Radars and GOS then already identified targets against the backdrop of the earth. A superficial target in general, how can one be found not on the background of the earth?

                      As you recently described, in 1965-1969, up to 90% of missile launches ended in a failure of guidance.

                      I note about the main target, the attack of the ships and there is no question, as well as about how to direct the drummers to the ships.
                    18. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 26 November 2015 12: 51 New
                      0
                      So unrealistic ... The realization of the advantages is in battle, but they would have to join it. And even guns would be needed ... lol

                      They planned to remake Gannet, but he still flew until 1976 in its original form.

                      French-speaking - regular 25km matra. Is there an English or French speaking airvar?
                      Super is 37km in 1979.

                      Think nothing? Maybe they didn’t crush the British connection with South Georgia yet?

                      Beyond the limit - let it shine. The islands above and near which the battles were not beyond, even if flying from the continent ... laughing Почему неустановленное? У Аргентины было ДРЛО! Причем в реале... Число Миражей и Даггеров было бы больше числа авианосных Фаномов. Единственный бой который они в "одиночку" осилили против МиГ-21 был наоборот при их троекратном численном преимуществе.

                      With the sidewinder then it was so for some reason too ... Probably also not seen on the background of the earth?

                      Yes, all the same way they were aimed and attacked in real life! From argeninsky AWACS. In your fantasies, it’s even the opposite about fantasy.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 20 October 2015 12: 41 New
    0
    Quote: ruslan
    if the government was strongly against aircraft carriers, why was it necessary to do 1143, and not for example a landing ship with a solid deck, even 2, of 20000 tons each?

    Проблема в том, что к концепции УДК у нас пришли в аккурат тогда, когда удалось продавить через "сапогов" первый АВ с нормальными самолётами.
    И УДК стали конкурентами АВ - ибо завод для их постройки планировал занять единственный в СССР "стапель 0".
  • Santa Fe
    20 October 2015 08: 20 New
    13
    Quote: Alex_59
    The key phrase on which I want to close the topic.

    Когда расставлены все точки над "и", теперь можно и закрыть

    However, in my personal opinion, any discussion of technology is more useful than listening to gossip about Poroshenko and Obama for the hundredth time. about the collapse of Ukraine / usa and the imminent collapse of the dollar
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 20 October 2015 08: 34 New
      +8
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Когда расставлены все точки над "и", теперь можно и закрыть

      Все точки над "и" изначально стояли. У вас свои, у Андрея свои, у меня свои, а у Кузина свои. Бодания в комментах не сдвинули эти точки ни на миллиметр ни у кого. Замечу только что подача материала, качество аналитики и стиль изложения у Андрея получается лучше, чем у вас (это моё личное мнение, можете обижаться).
      По существу: я еще в статье Андрея хотел написать, что в его выкладках главный недостаток - это места службы кораблей 1143. (Но там срач ушел в такие дебри...) 1143 всегда находились на БС в удаленных районах, а не у берега, где могли бы быть "лидерами" противолодочных сил. Т.е. ту теорию применения, которая вроде бы логична, и которую предложил Андрей, командование ВМФ СССР для этих кораблей реально не предполагало.
      1. Santa Fe
        20 October 2015 08: 57 New
        -1
        Quote: Alex_59
        Все точки над "и" изначально стояли.

        Нет, изначально на форуме "ВО" вспыхнул горячий спор
        each side has given its own arguments, then it’s up to readers
        Quote: Alex_59
        Andrey’s presentation of the material, the quality of analytics and the presentation style are better than yours

        In this sense, we do not compete with Andrei Chelyabinsk, we have discussions with him on various topics lasting 4
        Quote: Alex_59
        Those. the theory of application, which seems to be logical, and which was proposed by Andrei, the command of the Navy of the USSR for these ships did not really suggest.

        About that and speech
    2. With Siberian Cranes
      With Siberian Cranes 20 October 2015 12: 31 New
      +1
      However, in my personal opinion, any discussion of technology is more useful than listening to gossip about Poroshenko and Obama for the hundredth time. about the collapse of Ukraine / usa and the imminent collapse of the dollar
      golden words
  • Dam
    Dam 20 October 2015 07: 59 New
    0
    Yeah, some kind of misunderstanding, not a ship
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 20 October 2015 08: 05 New
      +3
      "Инвинсибл" лучше, "Горшков", или "Викрамадитья"?

      Thanks for pictures... smile

      but this is not an article, but a great answer to someone’s comments made earlier by someone ...
      Почему то про скопированный с F-35 рекордный (12шт) Як-141 не встречается ни разу. По поводу "бесполезности" СКВВП Як-38

      Range: 1,300 km[4] (807 miles) - на русском не удалось найти, все "пионэрами" повытерто.
      In 10 minutes you won’t fly so much. what
      Various Harriers are also inferior to him in speed at 100-200 km / h

      AV-8B in addition to the F-18 among the Americans now for some reason,
      The USSR MP MP Yak-38 in Afghanistan was also pleased.
      1. Santa Fe
        20 October 2015 08: 16 New
        +3
        Спорить со Scraptor (раньше оставлявшим комменты под ником "Кассандра") не имеет никакого смысла, после его рассказов, как цельнометаллические четырехмоторные бомбардировщики собирались на мебельных фабриках

        here is the link to the correspondence from that branch:

        http://topwar.ru/74947-aug-v-boyu-na-dalekih-beregah.html#comment-id-4508193

        После этого стало ясно, что это за персонаж и чем он занимается на форуме "ВО"
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 20 October 2015 08: 45 New
          -3
          The MiG-23 as she wrote on the deck Gorshkova also sat down, I remember this ... And he was not like the F-14 but the F-15 in 1983 beat.

          Now about your next artistic ignorance:
          La-5 and Yak-1 was almost all-wood then later to the later Yak-3 and La-7 they began to switch to metal, and Kozhedub already flew all-metal
          Me-109, on the contrary, from the tail boom became slowly becoming wooden. FW-190 and even more so.
          The same thing happened with the B-24.
          You can’t do such a trick on the B-29.
          Но все это конечно пропаганда, поэтому - не смотрите и не слушайте... и летайте на F-35 "брюхом вперед". lol

          Everyone has long known what you Oleg and Andrei are doing here with friends (one praising the battleships, the second aircraft carriers, but in unison reckoning on the air defense missile system), in the last article, by the way, he grabbed it over the edge ... Sometimes you even get the impression of where you started .

          Про 10мин "бесполезно полетать" при
          Range: 1,300 km [4] (807 miles) - at that speed even the MiG-31 never walked close.
          1. Santa Fe
            20 October 2015 09: 00 New
            +1
            Quote: Scraptor
            Me-109, on the contrary, from the tail boom became slowly becoming wooden. FW-190 and even more so.
            The same thing happened with the B-24.

            6 ward has Internet
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 20 October 2015 09: 08 New
              -2
              Чтобы Вы лишний раз не сомневались - пройдите в 5-ю и посмотрите из чего был сделан самый большой в истории 8-ми моторный самолет Хьюза "Spruce Goose".
              maybe their internet is different ...

              Что там с 10минутами "полетать и попугать" вокруг мачты на 7ми Махах? lol
              Do not repeat nonsense after others.

              1300 km is at transonic speed from Greece to Spain to fly.
              1. Santa Fe
                20 October 2015 09: 17 New
                +3
                Quote: Scraptor
                Чтобы Вы лишний раз не сомневались - пройдите в 5-ю и посмотрите из чего был сделан самый большой в истории 8-ми моторный самолет Хьюза "Spruce Goose".

                where does the Hughes plane we are talking about b-xnumx





                So, was it made of plywood?
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 20 October 2015 09: 27 New
                  -3
                  ... Or from the front sites in Algeria to bomb the Cote d'Azur (the same Toulon).
                  A TNW he (Yak-38) carried.

                  F-104G just flied over the Baltic.

                  This one was not made of plywood, but there were also plywood in 1942.
                  Just like concrete tanks in England a little earlier.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    20 October 2015 10: 14 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    This one was not made of plywood, but there were also plywood in 1942.

                    What modification of the B-24 was made of plywood?
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Just like concrete tanks in England a little earlier.

                    Forget about tanks

                    it's about plywood B-24
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 20 October 2015 10: 28 New
                      -4
                      Some sort of 1942 after the United States became a warring country, and bombers unexpectedly demanded en masse.

                      Do you need a photo of plywood B-24? lol

                      It was about the Yak-38 whose Range: 1,300 km [4] (807 miles) - You can’t fly so much in 10 minutes.

                      Your battleship has again flown on the Earth’s axis ...
                      1. Santa Fe
                        20 October 2015 11: 10 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        This one was not made of plywood, but there were also plywood in 1942.

                        Those. B-24 still made from duralumin

                        except for some unknown modification. Which one?
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 20 October 2015 11: 45 New
                        -4
                        The one in your photo is from duralumin.

                        Those that fall on 1942, probably ...

                        So with 10 minutes of the Yak-38 in your article, with its range of 1300km? By what equation do you know the speed (v = L / d)?
                      3. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 20 October 2015 19: 21 New
                        -3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Those. B-24 still made from duralumin

                        Quote: Scraptor
                        La-5 and Yak-1 was almost all-wood then later to the later Yak-3 and La-7 they began to switch to metal, and Kozhedub already flew all-metal
                        Me-109, on the contrary, from the tail boom became slowly becoming wooden. FW-190 and even more so.

                        Scraptor did not claim that the B-24 was wooden, he only claimed that the B-24 had wooden glider elements.
                      4. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 21 October 2015 03: 14 New
                        -4
                        The glider was at one time entirely wooden, precisely because it was mass-produced in furniture factories. But from this, the LTX fell lower than that of the B-17.
                        This is not a B-29 with pressurized cabs, and a large lengthening of the wing and fuselage.
                        First of all, the thin wing spar is made metallic, as its most loaded element.
                        Сделать из дерева то что у "Сладкого-16" на фото сделано из дюраля - не проблема, просто выростет вес этого каркасного "инерьера". А вес это не всегда надежность. Винты как то были деревянные и ничего.
                        In Germany, in WWI there were wooden airships, and better than Cepellins.
                      5. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 21 October 2015 20: 36 New
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        The glider was at one time entirely wooden

                        The layout was entirely plywood, there is no data about the aircraft, if you have such, then provide, model, year, plant, when it flew. It is necessary to prove in this case.
                      6. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 22 October 2015 00: 15 New
                        +1
                        Full-size mock-ups are still entirely wooden.
                        The comrade doubted the fundamental possibility of a wooden 4-engine aircraft, he was indicated on an 8-engine record. This is his level of expertise.
                        When switching from metal to wood for the same modification, usually only a recalculation of the carcass profiles, fasteners to the metal parts of the airframe (if any), different thicknesses of plywood or percale on the skin, and that’s all is usually indicated. Further along the same patterns in furniture and piano factories, structural elements are mass-produced and aircraft are assembled from them.
                  2. Santa Fe
                    21 October 2015 06: 56 New
                    +1
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    Scraptor did not claim that the B-24 was wooden, he only claimed that the B-24 had wooden glider elements.

                    Scrapotor claimed that the B-24 was made in furniture factories
                  3. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 21 October 2015 07: 02 New
                    -2
                    There, the workers are not trained in dural work - this, by the way ...
                  4. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 21 October 2015 08: 49 New
                    +3
                    what about diving anti-ship missiles? found or still looking for?
                    look at furniture factories
                  5. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 21 October 2015 08: 55 New
                    0
                    Warhead anti-ship missiles. Not looking, why should I? Her photo is constantly posting ...
                  6. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 21 October 2015 09: 16 New
                    +1
                    let me ask you a little curiosity?
                  7. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 21 October 2015 09: 34 New
                    +1
                    Scraptor.Было же написано - "давно научили", правда.

                    Diving warheads of the Republic of Tatarstan can be given along the NK, but more often diving warheads, since bringing it under the keel of the NK is quite simple maneuver, in contrast to the homing search for submarines at depth.


                    Scraptor (8) US October 14, 2015 06:28 ↑
                    Well, the P-35/6 already certainly could. This is the standard for anti-ship missiles with warheads greater than 200 kg. Scraptor (8) US October 14, 2015 11:09 ↑
                    Did you have to write about this? feel
                    They already wrote about the P-700, but then they stopped ...
                  8. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 21 October 2015 10: 22 New
                    -2
                    Why didn’t they endure so quickly ... Does the office write? laughing
                  9. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 21 October 2015 10: 59 New
                    +1
                    The office writes, writes .. the truth is your office - these are brilliant quotes from your posts!
                    Well, how is it, in a furniture factory with a diving warhead for the P-35? not found yet? look, the audience is waiting ..
                  10. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 21 October 2015 11: 42 New
                    -1
                    Don’t get wet ...
                    Warhead not from plywood, why look for them there?
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 21 October 2015 20: 44 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Scrapotor claimed that the B-24 was made in furniture factories

        It’s difficult to understand your long-standing dispute, on the topic I’m interested in what we are considering, what type of ship, even with classification we can’t figure it out, but here lies the most important feature that is in the details.

        VTOL is a promising model, it will be developed, we would not always lag behind.
      3. Scraptor
        Scraptor 22 October 2015 00: 20 New
        0
        TAX is its classification, according to the bourgeois Flight deck cruiser or Aircraft cruiser. All five pieces are 1143 for aircraft carrier, 1123 for helicopter carrier.
        Никаких "носителей СВВП" нет - СКВВП это самолет.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 20 October 2015 19: 14 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    What modification of the B-24 was made of plywood?

    The B-24D had wooden glider elements in the area of ​​the nose turret, if I am not mistaken.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 20 October 2015 12: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    La-5 and Yak-1 was almost all-wood then later to the later Yak-3 and La-7 they began to switch to metal, and Kozhedub already flew all-metal

    Yakovlev's first all-metal aircraft is the post-war La-9.

    La-7 is an aircraft of mixed design: wood, delta wood and steel.
    The oval cross-section fuselage is a wooden semi-monocoque structure, including four spars and fifteen frames. Spars are made of pine and plywood. Spars have a tapering shape, thicker in the nose of the fuselage and thinner in the tail. The frames are also made of pine, in places of the greatest load reinforced with plywood or delta wood. Delta wood is glued directly to the frames in the places necessary for reasons of strength. The left and right halves of the fuselage skin are glued from birch veneer and glued to each other and to the power set with resin-based glue.
    (...)
    The oil cooler tunnel is made of steel sheet and is attached to the power set of the fuselage with 20 bolts between frames No. 4 and 7. The junction of the wing and fuselage is closed by the upper and lower gaps. The lower runway is monolithic wooden, the upper (right and left) - of four tin plates each. Lifts are attached to the central part of the fuselage and to the engine hood. The engine mount is attached to the frame No. 1, in addition to the engine, weapons are installed on the engine mount. The motor frame is welded from chromium-molybdenum steel pipes.
    (...)
    The center section is the main power element of the airframe design. It consists of two metal spars, ten ribs of mixed design and wooden stringers. The center wing panel is made of birch veneer and is attached to the power set using VIAM B-3 epoxy glue. The center section spars have an I-section, the shelves are made of their chromium-molybdenum steel, the walls are made of duralumin.
    The design of the detachable wing consoles is similar to the design of the center section. The power set of the console includes two metal spars, 15 wooden frames and 14 stringers
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 21 October 2015 05: 29 New
      -1
      This could vary from plane to plane. The skin of the Kozhedubovsky La-7 is metal.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 21 October 2015 11: 00 New
        +1
        Quote: Scraptor
        This could vary from plane to plane. The skin of the Kozhedubovsky La-7 is metal.

        Where does the data come from?
        ЕМНИП, именно Ла-7 был "последней ступенькой" машин смешанной конструкции перед переходом к цельнометаллическому Ла-9.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 21 October 2015 11: 14 New
          0
          He himself spoke on TV ... So it gradually shifted.
  • avt
    avt 20 October 2015 08: 29 New
    +5
    Quote: Scraptor
    The USSR MP MP Yak-38 in Afghanistan was also pleased.

    laughing What are you about??? I don’t get it. About how 38 sat in the mountains when he was dragged there piece by piece? Well, there was the Yak-28 there, technicians became agitated who saw him on the field - from what temporary portal he dropped out of the past.
    Quote: Scraptor
    AV-8B in addition to the F-18 among the Americans now for some reason,

    Ищите и обрящете почему , особенно когда сравните ,,Пегас" с тем что сделал Яковлев .
    Quote: Scraptor
    For some reason, about the record (35pcs) Yak-12 copied from the F-141 never occurs.

    Опять же - кто кого куда копировал то ? Вы вообще хотя бы схему того кто и как вертикально из них подымается видели ?Ну продали яковлевцы поворотное сопло амерам ,да - немаловажная деталь, так на это все сходство со 141м и закончилось и по сию пору так эта модификация и хромает у USов.Можно с пеной у рта доказывать патриотизьм в величие Як -38, но по факту ЕДИНСТВЕННОЙ удачной машиной был и остается ,,Харриер".
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 20 October 2015 10: 48 New
      -3
      ... another fish detective.

      I don’t know what happened to you and where it was blown away, but the Soviet MP was in Afghanistan the Yak-38 was pleased, and became dissatisfied when this link was removed from there.

      The Yak-28 from the same era as the MiG-21, this one also flew there, the B-52 happens to be flying now.

      Then how many Harriers flew there, see for yourself.

      Do not compare better - Pegasus cannot provide supersonic speed. Even the Yak-38 has a maximum speed higher than that of the AV-8B at 200km / h.

      And you? The Americans got the technology for the whole plane. Inserting a fan from the American XV-5 (1964) instead of two outboard engines and another sawing of the Yak in the F-35 was done by the Yakovlevites subcontracting at Lockheed. Even this fan is controlled by the Soviet system. The Americans themselves did nothing. In fact, only three Yaks and Harrier were successful. Of these, the most successful is the supersonic Yak-41.
      This is the one that the Americans allegedly took only a nozzle (and then they had something like this, but it did not work - but this is so, little things).
      1. avt
        avt 20 October 2015 16: 31 New
        +2
        Quote: Scraptor
        I don’t know what happened to you and where it was blown away, but the Soviet MP was in Afghanistan the Yak-38 was pleased, and became dissatisfied when this link was removed from there.

        laughing Слышь клоун - ты там был , ну что бы тут писать про то что кто то там остался недоволен?Кто там ,,недоволен" был конкретно из летунов? Уж не те ли что в Марах самолетам хвосты крутили , а потом песни пели на каждом углу - я в Афгане был. Ну хотя бы отчет по итогам испытаний Як-38, а его туда именно на испытания в условиях высокогорья отправляли, читал ? За Харриер отработавший в реальных боях походу ,,знатока" лучше и не спрашивать. laughing
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 21 October 2015 01: 53 New
          -3
          Do you all solder? Are you trying to bite, right? Maybe you were there and sat on a mountain with Chinese DshK, but now you are writing from America or Israel? And so I was not glad that at the call of the advanced aircraft pilot Yaki flew much earlier than helicopters and base aircraft?
          The Harrier, who worked in real battles, the Argentine conscripts knocked 4 pieces off the ground, Yak peaceful shepherds with stingers - not a single one. In Iraq from the US - pieces 5.
          Are there reports of MP Navy and Airborne Forces and motorized infantry SA in the interests of which the Yaks worked - are there?
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 22 October 2015 12: 07 New
            0
            Was the Marine Corps in Afghanistan?
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 23 November 2015 12: 20 New
              0
              You did not know about this? and the Russian one was ...
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 23 November 2015 17: 00 New
                0
                As far as I know, the MP Navy of the USSR was not in the DRA.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 23 November 2015 17: 59 New
                  0
                  This is known from where? bully
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 23 November 2015 20: 27 New
                    0
                    I read a parsing of a BMP-2 photo with a tactical mark similar to the Morpech emblem.
                    Are you bored?
                  2. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 24 November 2015 12: 18 New
                    0
                    And how does this follow from this?
                    Already fun ...
                  3. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 24 November 2015 12: 46 New
                    0
                    Forgot nothing?
                    Вы первый написали:" В этом атчоте рапорты МП ВМФ и ВДВ и мотострелков СА, в интересах которых Яки работали - есть?","Вы об этом не знали? и российская в чечении была...", вам и доказывать участие МП в б/д на территории ДРА.
                  4. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 24 November 2015 14: 23 New
                    0
                    I don’t have to prove anything. On the contrary, you need it, but it won’t work, because the USSR MP as all special forces participated in absolutely all armed conflicts in which the USSR participated. Especially in the war in Afghanistan.
                    And where was it even more convenient for them to gain mountain combat experience if they suddenly needed it later in Norway, Svalbard, Korea, Papua New Guinea, Alaska, South Africa, Colombia, Chile, Peru? The same Yak-38 was guarded by the MP.
                  5. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 24 November 2015 14: 35 New
                    0
                    That is, crap blurted out and do not know how to otmazatsya. Thank you.
                  6. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 24 November 2015 15: 53 New
                    0
                    That is, you blurry constantly ...

                    as from
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    I read a parsing of a BMP-2 photo with a tactical mark similar to the Morpech emblem.

                    suddenly it follows that the USSR MP was not in Afghanistan?

                    What are you so bored with? laughing
                  7. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 24 November 2015 17: 01 New
                    0
                    Do you have anything other than your own words proving MP's participation in the DRA 1979-1989?
                  8. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 24 November 2015 19: 55 New
                    0
                    It is necessary to somehow help with decoding some special
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    "тактического знака на БМП-2?"
                    lol
                  9. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 24 November 2015 20: 04 New
                    0
                    No need to figure it out without you.
                    Essentially have something to say?
                  10. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 24 November 2015 20: 52 New
                    0
                    You have nothing to write about it ...
  • forumow
    forumow 20 October 2015 10: 57 New
    0
    Согласен насчёт "Хариера" - действительно удачный самолёт для своего времени. Янкам следовало выбрать X-32, в рамках программы JSF, реализующего аналогичную конструкцию СВВП и имеющего превосходство в дальности. Похоже их подвёл не слишком эстетичный экстерьер этого прототипа :)
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 20 October 2015 11: 34 New
      -2
      An unprecedented in-depth analysis of thoughts ... X-32 was able to fly only in a semi-disassembled state. lol Просто был статистом для "конкурса".
      1. forumow
        forumow 20 October 2015 13: 35 New
        0
        ... drew my brain dear tovarisch!
        They (Boeing workers) admitted this to you themselves?
        But Lockheed look immediately rolled out a valuable fighter. That's what he has been dying for 20 years!
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 20 October 2015 14: 19 New
          -2
          the one above - yes ... that is, you.
          If he flew only half-dismantled, and this is shown on YouTube, then what competition can there be?
          He has only a run-off thrust, but you’ll catch your brains vryatli crying
          1. forumow
            forumow 20 October 2015 15: 12 New
            0
            Where to me!
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 21 October 2015 06: 00 New
              -1
              That's for sure...
      2. opus
        opus 24 October 2015 01: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        X-32 was able to fly only in a semi-disassembled state.

        well ..




        Quote: Scraptor
        He has takeoff thrust only


        Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 (SE614) turbojet engine, thrust (not afterburning) about 10500 XNUMX kgf


        In stealth mode, it’s enough to get up from 2 x 450-kg bombs and 2 UR air-to-air AIM-120C AMRAAMS.
        / although we must pay tribute, it looks terrible

        1. Taoist
          Taoist 24 October 2015 11: 20 New
          0
          There is another ambush with such a scheme - it is extremely statically unstable - and it may not be enough to compensate for the slightest external influence of gas rudders - all the more so because gas rudders wipe power from the same unified control system ... The pitch channel at the transition will suffer especially mode ...
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 23 November 2015 11: 48 New
            0
            He flew vertically only in a partially disassembled state, this is even visible in his face.
            His scheme (and, in fact, the legacy of his engine) on hovering is a harrier without front cold nozzles, giving 25% of thrust.
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 23 November 2015 12: 05 New
          0
          ... Какие тут "Бомбы и AMRAAMS"?
          по спецификациям в википедии скромно указан только "невериканльный" максимальный взлетный вес.
  • remy
    remy 20 October 2015 12: 41 New
    0
    as an option, we would now resume work on VTOL Yak-141
    just appeared new engines, composites, avionics, etc.
  • mav1971
    mav1971 20 October 2015 21: 17 New
    +3
    Quote: Scraptor
    "Инвинсибл" лучше, "Горшков", или "Викрамадитья"?

    Thanks for pictures... smile

    but this is not an article, but a great answer to someone’s comments made earlier by someone ...
    Почему то про скопированный с F-35 рекордный (12шт) Як-141 не встречается ни разу. По поводу "бесполезности" СКВВП Як-38

    Range: 1,300 km[4] (807 miles) - на русском не удалось найти, все "пионэрами" повытерто.
    In 10 minutes you won’t fly so much. what
    Various Harriers are also inferior to him in speed at 100-200 km / h

    AV-8B in addition to the F-18 among the Americans now for some reason,
    The USSR MP MP Yak-38 in Afghanistan was also pleased.


    Oh my God.
    Again.
    Enough to quote the TV program Looked and retired Mitikov completely.


    YAK-38 as part of Rhombus in Afghanistan flew only in the morning from 4 to 5 in the morning.
    Because any aircraft (and the YAK-38 is simply hypertrophied) has a direct dependence of engine power on the ambient temperature.
    With increasing temperature, power decreases.
    Accordingly, to ensure takeoff, the aircraft had to be lightened.
    There is information that for the YAK-38, when the ISA temperature increased by 1 degrees, it was necessary to drain from 200 to 300 liters of fuel.
    With a maximum fuel load of 2800 liters in conditions of 30-degree heat, underfilling was from 600 to 900 liters.
    Total 1900-2200 liters.
    Given the fuel consumption for vertical take-off and landing in 800 liters - we get the remainder of 1100-1300 liters.
    If he needs a combat suspension, then it also comes from fuel.
    Yes Yes.
    Such is the plane.
    And it turns out that really the Yak-38 is a top-mast defense aircraft.
    And the modernized Yak-38M is a guys defense aircraft.

    1300 km could fly in the theory of the Yak-38M - with two anti-aircraft guns, in winter in the Kandalaksha region, and with a completely airplane take-off with an acceleration in 2-2.5 km.
    Although the figure in 900 is more likely, as people who know the situation from the inside say.
    The real combat radius in the Gulf of Aden with at least two FAB-100 or P-60 is not more than 38km for the Yak-120 and 38km for the Yak-180M. That is 10 minutes.
    And what are two FAB-100? 240Kg ...
    Awesome plane.
    About Afghanistan have not heard. how is the colonel, the special test officer decided to fly during the day?
    So he ran out of fuel on take-off, it really ended.
    And the plane roughly sat on the strip from a height of 5 meters.
    1. maximghost
      maximghost 20 October 2015 22: 39 New
      +1
      Откуда вы взяли эту информацию? Ни в одной публикации в интернете по "Ромбу", такого нет, Алферов в своих мемуарах тоже такого не пишет, хотя упоминает о боевых вылетах яка (без подробностей, но отмечает, что результат так себе).

      And then, why do you take the worst-case tests as the benchmark, according to the results of which corrections were made (and after these tests corrections were also made). At that time, Harrier did not even fly in such latitude ...
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 20 October 2015 23: 12 New
      +3
      Quote: mav1971
      There is information that for the YAK-38, when the ISA temperature increased by 1 degrees, it was necessary to drain from 200 to 300 liters of fuel.


      откуда дровишки? Блин как задрали "знатоки" накопавшие где то в сети какую то пургу...
      Да, у Яка ПД по причине короткого газового тракта и предельно упрощённой конструкции жару не любили но это "лечилось" не сливом топлива а включением системы кислородной подпитки... И мои пилоты которые в Ромбе участвовали сильно бы удивились узнав что летали они только по утрам...
      By the way, if you think that in Saki it’s much cooler in the summer, you are very mistaken ... and for some reason you went to the full profile and to the WRC with full combat ... Well, I know about these matters exactly and not from the OBS agency.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 22 October 2015 00: 07 New
        0
        Write your memories and post somewhere on airwar.ru. Do not consider it a mockery or a mockery. Both on the Internet and in conversations there was no information about the satisfactory functioning of the Yak-38; it would be very useful to record evidence of who actually operated the VTOL aircraft.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 22 October 2015 00: 34 New
          0
          Fix it here - Comrade Taoist actually exploited the Yak-38.
          Pilots flying it SKVVP praise as the testers Yak-41.

          Who were you talking to? With those who write something at the expense of 10 minutes or something like that? Or with those who write that the Yak-141 began to be made in 1967? Is the F-35 so good and the Harrier so bad?
        2. Taoist
          Taoist 25 October 2015 12: 53 New
          0
          Maybe someday I’ll write ... well, about the fact that I met that I did not meet ...
          As a rule, people who have little to do with real service write on the network. (maybe there’s nothing more to do) - and indeed there really were few of us who had a relationship with these machines ... 1 classroom was produced by our specialization - 15 people ... and consider age - I’m from the last and almost 50 to me. .. i.e. those who actually dealt with our product are mostly even older. And few people go to all these forums.
          Is the only more or less honest resource on the issue http://takr-kiev.ucoz.com/forum/59-156-1
          At least there are collected memories of veterans.
    3. Scraptor
      Scraptor 21 October 2015 01: 41 New
      -4
      If you are suddenly dushman, then next to you have ever exploded NURs at least for the same 200 kg? Did the yak arrive 5-7 minutes earlier than the helicopter would fly or 10-15 than the basic dvzhe supersonic aircraft from Bagram (Surprise !!!)?

      Harrier with a vertical take-off radius for attack in Europe 92km, Yak-38 - 195
      Range from the ship with a run can be achieved almost the same as stated at least where.

      Where about 800l and 5 meters? He will not eat so much in such a short time.
      This is not the same one that still took off vertically in the Union, sat down horizontally, then hit with a helmet on the concrete and said that it was a bad plane? Well this one will say ...
  • 27091965
    27091965 20 October 2015 13: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: Damm
    Yeah, some kind of misunderstanding, not a ship



    “The carrier of carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft, anti-submarine aircraft carrier operates as part of the aircraft carrier search and strike group (APUG). An aircraft carrier is usually based on an anti-submarine group consisting of two squadrons of Trekker anti-submarine aircraft (20 aircraft total) and a squadron of Sea King anti-submarine helicopters (14-16 aircraft).
    In addition to anti-submarine aircraft carrier, APUG includes 6-8 destroyers or patrol ships. It should be noted that, according to foreign naval experts, anti-submarine aircraft carriers need all types of combat protection. Therefore, when constructing, in particular, an APOG PLO order, the principle of combining object and zone defense is maintained. ” 1972

    “I must report that our experiment on the use of the Saratoga strike aircraft carrier during its recent multi-purpose stay on the Mediterranean Sea (in addition to strike aircraft, a group of anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters was added to the air wing) was successful. We intend to make similar changes in the composition of air wings on other strike aircraft carriers. ” Admiral E. ZAMVOLT "Sea Power", April 1972

    The displacement of the aircraft carrier "Nimitz" 90000 tons, laid in 1968. It is difficult to assume that the USSR managed to build such a ship in those years. Apparently, the anti-submarine carrier with the most enhanced both offensive and defensive weapons was taken as the basis for Project 1143. The main task of the search and destruction of submarines, with a reduced group of combat guards, strike functions were secondary.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 20 October 2015 13: 55 New
      0
      Quote: 27091965i
      Apparently, the anti-submarine carrier with the most enhanced both offensive and defensive weapons was taken as the basis for Project 1143. The main task of the search and destruction of submarines, with a reduced group of combat guards, strike functions were secondary.

      The problem is that AB USN anti-submarine shock was determined by the composition of the air group. In the 70s, the Yankees for these ABs had three typical air groups: EMNIP, anti-submarine, anti-submarine-strike and shock.

      А противолодочные АВ из старых "Эссексов" в 70-х начали массово выводиться из состава флота. Кроме того, и у "Эссексов" были как противолодочные, так и ударные варианты: например, "Орискани" нёс "крусейдеры", "скайхоки" и "корсары-2".
      1. 27091965
        27091965 20 October 2015 14: 46 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        In the 70s, the Yankees for these ABs had three typical air groups: EMNIP, anti-submarine, anti-submarine-strike and shock.


        The point was not in the air group, by 1974, these aircraft carriers should have been completely withdrawn from the US Navy, and which ships could be taken as the basis for the development of project 1143?
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 20 October 2015 08: 02 New
    +3
    As far as I understand, both Oleg and Andrey agree that pr.1143 was a clear mistake, it’s just that Andrei is trying to justify their some usefulness in fact ...
  • avt
    avt 20 October 2015 08: 07 New
    +6
    Все так -,,родила царица в ночь не то сына , не то дочь , не мышонка, не ляушку , а неведому зверушку."Дороговато обошелся ,,бесценный опыт" request
    There is not a single task with which the TAVKR could cope better than the classic aircraft carrier.
    request Yes, even from Oleg to hear - only for this plus an additional one can be delivered. smile
    We always get experience when we don’t get what we want.
    what Наверное я бы чуток перефразировал - мы всегда говорим о полученном бесценном опыте ,ну Пушкин наше все - ,,И опыт - сын ошибок трудных..." laughing But why was there, besides the first, three more times to step on the rake! ?? Yes, to be honest, and after this series, ONCE TWO TIMES. One of which we walk in sin with half, and the second, the Chinese are far from releasing from their shores, as a result, the necessary ships were cut into scrap metal by the great Ukrai.
  • tasha
    tasha 20 October 2015 08: 08 New
    +1
    I would like to note that the ships of the 1143 project were originally built as anti-submarine cruisers.

    Interesting article in the topic:

    " Поэтому я задался целью сравнить Як-38 и "Харриер" как системы морского оружия именно тогда, в мае 1982 года, чтобы представить себе, как на месте "Харриеров" проявил бы себя советский самолёт. Для полноценного сравнения потребовалось бы, разумеется, математическое моделирование конфликта, а ещё лучше - военно-стратегическая игра на карте с учётом всех реалий той войны. Не претендуя на полноценный анализ, я хотел бы составить у читателя представление: как было бы, если..."

    http://kramtp.info/page/57/id=32
    1. Santa Fe
      20 October 2015 08: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: tasha
      Поэтому я задался целью сравнить Як-38 и "Харриер" как системы морского оружия именно тогда, в мае 1982 года

      Харриеры базировались на 20-тыс. тонных "Инвинсиблах" и контейнеровозах, ввиду отсутствия у британцев денег на нормальные боевые корабли

      Yak-38 based on 40 thousand ton 273 meter super cruiser
      Когда СССР имел все технические и финансовые возможности для постройки классического авианосца с истребителями-бомбардировщиками уровня "Супер Этандара". Серьезнейшая была машина, заткнет за пояс большинство самолетов того времени
      (основания считать: Клемансо ~ 35 тыс. тонн, современный атомный "де Голль" с Рафалями - 40 тыс. тонн)

      (besides, in my personal opinion, instead of carrier-based aviation, the conventional air forces will always cope)
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 20 October 2015 09: 47 New
        -1
        in view of the fact that there is no need for so many special construction ships (if only for speed) in peacetime if the container ship can be converted from 3 days to 2 weeks.

        I agree with the rest in the realities of the 70s.
  • Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 20 October 2015 08: 32 New
    18
    Who was afraid of whom and as a separate topic. Yankees will not write that. The ship was created under the aircraft type "Hariera", but did not grow together. Yakovlevites immediately could not create such a machine. But with the advent of "YAK_141" the ship became quite itself.
    The author forgets that: 1. The ship was created primarily as an anti-submarine operating under the superiority of the enemy’s surface fleet. 2. The confrontation between sailors and land explorers is forgotten, that is, Gorshkov was able to defend the project in this form. 3. Even Admiral Kuznetsov at one time could not break through the construction of an aircraft carrier. 4. There is nothing to rattle the name of a respected man in the fleet, under whose leadership this ocean fleet was built. The political and economic factor of the appearance of these ships was not taken into account.
    The fleet did not receive a full-fledged aircraft carrier, but ships appeared that made it possible to work out the use of AUGs and significantly strengthened the Navy.
    Once again I observe the author's attempt to consider naval problems without an integrated approach, according to the “I want this” method. This does not happen. Any technique is a compromise between I want and I can (a set of characteristics, the capabilities of industry, the intended combat use, the struggle of various groups in the Armed Forces and the government.) In general, this question is more or less objectively addressed by Kuzin and Nikolsky. And in conclusion, the Fleet was also not enthusiastic about this project, but real life is real in everything.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 October 2015 09: 24 New
      -7
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      . The ship was created primarily as an anti-submarine operating in the conditions of superiority of the enemy surface fleet.

      No, it was created as a carrier of VTOL aircraft with a pile of missiles that occupied the entire bow of the cruiser

      Quote: Fotoceva62
      There is no need to rattle the name of a respected man in the fleet, under whose leadership this ocean fleet was built

      When and by whom was the ocean fleet of the USSR built?
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      Any technique is a compromise between I want and I can (a set of characteristics, the capabilities of industry, the intended combat use, the struggle of various groups in the armed forces and government.)

      In this case, the TAKR is an indicator of serious problems in the military-industrial complex of the USSR.
      If you spent so much effort and money, but got absurd at the exit
    2. Gomunkul
      Gomunkul 20 October 2015 21: 04 New
      +2
      Fotoceva62 I will supplement your thoughts with this information:
      Aircraft carriers of the Kiev type became the first ships in the Soviet fleet designed to base aircraft. The design of these cruisers was much more advanced, and the combat capabilities are much higher than the previous 1123 anti-submarine cruiser-helicopter carriers.
      The cruisers of project 1143 are considered to be unsuccessful, because their air group was not much larger than the air groups of the modern aircraft carriers of England or Italy, and was only equal to the air group of several smaller aircraft carriers of the French Navy. Such estimates consider aircraft carrier cruisers exclusively as floating airfields, ignoring the widest arsenal of airborne weapons that they possessed. In fact, at the time of commissioning, they were the strongest surface ships in the world. Until the early 1980s, when the United States Navy began to receive an aviation version of the Harpoon guided missile, the anti-ship capabilities of the Kiev-type TAKR significantly exceeded even any of the US multi-purpose aircraft carriers: they had only bombs from deck aircraft that had to to attack deep in the reach of enemy air defense - with a small chance to reach the drop point altogether, not to mention the defeat of the target. While Kiev had the most powerful Bazalt missiles - low-impact due to its speed and armor, capable of interfering with enemy air defense, grouping under unified control, break into the target at low altitude and hit it 550 km from the cruiser. One Soviet TAKR was able to hold at gunpoint, for example, almost half of the entire Mediterranean Sea. And while in the oceans the American aircraft carriers avoided approaching the Soviet cruisers within the range of their missiles, then in the strategically important areas of the Mediterranean, South China or Sea of ​​Japan this was often impossible.
      The air group on the aircraft carrier cruiser was not the basis, but only a small part of its combat capabilities. At the same time, with the exception of only US multipurpose aircraft carriers, in its striking capabilities it was noticeably superior to the air groups of any other ships - not excluding even French aircraft carriers such as Clemenceau, designed for classic ejection launch aircraft. With a formally equal number of vehicles (up to 36 on a Soviet, up to 40 on a French ship) and approximately equal weights and combat loads of the aircraft themselves [13], Soviet ships could provide much more intensive combat work due to the features of VTOL aircraft: in comparison with classical aircraft, their the same deck area can be placed 1,5-2,5 times more, and the take-off and landing rate of the Yak-38 was 3-5 times higher than the French deck cars. As for the light aircraft carriers of other countries calculated for VTOL (British type Invincible, Italian type Giuseppe Garibaldi and others), they were significantly smaller than Kiev (10-20 thousand tons against 40 thousand tons) and carried no more than 8 -12 aircraft, against thirty or more vehicles in the TAKR.
  • altman
    altman 20 October 2015 08: 34 New
    +4
    In fact, the argument is about nothing .. there were such ships, doing their job, good or bad, another thing. And for a sailor, his ship is the best. So let it remain so.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 October 2015 08: 50 New
      -2
      Quote: altman
      . And for a sailor, his ship is the best

      And for the taxpayer - the best ship is the one who brings victory

      Мелодрамы отставить! "расчет суровый гаек и стали"
      1. Severomor
        Severomor 20 October 2015 10: 45 New
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And for the taxpayer - the best ship is the one who brings victory
        Мелодрамы отставить! "расчет суровый гаек и стали"


        Everything is correct, but the war wasn’t thanks to the TAKRs as well!

        ТАКР "Киев" - 10 боевых служб, думаю это тоже победы!
  • qwert
    qwert 20 October 2015 08: 50 New
    10
    About Harrier and the Yak-38. Not everything is so simple. Harrier won only with a short take-off. When vertical, it was even inferior to Yak, because this mode was practically not used. Unfortunately, we have the opposite. Well, with the Yak-141, the situation changed in a coordinated way. If the Harriers proved to be quite good in the Falkland Conflict, then the Yak-141 in general could perfectly prove itself. Its target equipment was similar to the MiG-29, i.e. the detection systems were better than the F-18, the P-27 missiles also outperformed Spurrow, and the R-73 weren’t in competition at all. Those. The Yak-141 could well provide defense in a collision with the Hornets, not to mention the American carrier-based attack aircraft. And most importantly, the Yak-141 was planned to equip the X-31 missile. And this is not a joke. Even for Aegis. In principle, they were created in order to destroy Aegis and ships with this system. If not for Gorby ....
  • Orlan1144-2
    Orlan1144-2 20 October 2015 08: 56 New
    13
    I read articles by respected authors one after another ... both funny and painfully (some colleagues are more concerned with preserving their own reputation than with caring for the fleet.
    Представьте на миг, что замечательная тройка "Киев", "Минск" и "Новороссийск" живы. И своевременно проходили все виды ремонтов. И в межпоходный период стояли бы у стенки, получая с берега электроэнергию, воду и пар. И что стоят в их ангарах помимо ка-27 и Ка-29 замечательная замена "огурцам" Як36М - мне без разницы как бы они назывались. Есть авианосец - значит будут соответствующие самолеты. Нет авианосцев - нет и палубной авиации и остаются только споры. Нашлось бы в современных условиях применение "неправильным русским авианосцам"? Несомненно. А все остальное - от лукавого.
    Yours faithfully, Valery.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 October 2015 09: 08 New
      +3
      Quote: Orlan1144-2
      Представьте на миг, что замечательная тройка "Киев", "Минск" и "Новороссийск" живы

      А куда дели четвертого - "Баку"?

      Now imagine for a moment instead of them aircraft carriers without missiles, but with a solid flight deck (such as Vikrmaditya)
      Quote: Orlan1144-2
      И что стоят в их ангарах помимо ка-27 и Ка-29 замечательная замена "огурцам" Як36М

      And what are in their hangars MiG-29K

      The picture is more beautiful turned out.
      What did Ustinov and Gorshkov just think about?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 20 October 2015 09: 39 New
        +9
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And what are in their hangars MiG-29K
        Да, замечательно, но МиГ-29К не мог взлетать с кораблей меньшего размера, а Як-141 при необходимости мог подняться с любой баржи, если угодно, взлететь из любой ямы. При всём при этом, СВВП мог использовать и укороченный старт, наконец, если есть возможность, взлетать обычным способом с разбега, экономя топливо, имея полосу, так же традиционно совершать посадку. У обычных самолётов такого выбора нет, и при уничтоженных взлётных полосах, они оказываются мишенями на земле. Что до кораблей проекта 1143, надо понимать, что благодаря им вообще началось строительство авианосного флота, и без опыта его создания, не пришли бы к "Кузнецову" и атомному "Ульяновску". Ничто не мешало, переделать в последствии первые корабли, как "Горшкова" для индусов, в классические авианосцы, УДК или многоцелевые вертолётоносцы. То, что корабли порезали, что уничтожили практически готовый Як-141, опередивший своё время, виновата не "порочность" идеи, а предательство и развал великой страны, Советского Союза. Погиб ни только наш авианосный флот, но вообще пострадал, так или иначе был уничтожен весь мощный флот СССР. Уже говорил, но повторю ещё раз, будь вместо авианесущих крейсеров, "гибридов адмирала Горшкова", самые современные полноценные авианосцы, их, скорей всего, так же бы порезали и продали при Ельцине. Уничтожение нашего флота, в частности авианосного, было одной из главных идей-фикс наших заокеанских "друзей". Останься СССР, давно бы построили не один уже атомный "Ульяновск", перешли бы и к лучшему проекту, как и кошмарили бы буржуев бесподобными возможностями своих сверхзвуковых Як-141М или ещё более совершенным его дальнейшим развитием. Адмирал Горшков сделал для флота, что смог, и надо гордится своим флотом, а не гадить на палубу своей славной истории.
        1. Santa Fe
          20 October 2015 09: 44 New
          -4
          Quote: Per se.
          Yes, great, but the MiG-29K couldn’t take off smaller ships

          TAKRA 273 meter length

          much less
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 20 October 2015 11: 13 New
            0
            Yak from 120 meters

            MiG and Su have a thrust-weight ratio and, therefore, take-off run is approximately the same.
          2. Per se.
            Per se. 20 October 2015 13: 30 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            much less
            Атомный французский авианосец "Шарль де Голь" имеет длину 261,5 метров, у испанского типа "Принц Аустерийский" длина 195,9 метров, а итальянского "Джузеппе Гарибальди" вообще 180,2 метра. Не самые маленкие у нас были корабли. Конечно, на авианесущих крейсерах полётной была лишь угловая палуба, под СВВП и вертолёты, и она намного короче общей длины корабля, при желании Як-141 мог базироваться и на вертолётоносцах типа "Москва" и "Ленинград", при усилении кормовой палубы.
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 20 October 2015 10: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          то до кораблей проекта 1143, надо понимать, что благодаря им вообще началось строительство авианосного флота, и без опыта его создания, не пришли бы к "Кузнецову" и атомному "Ульяновску".

          Для опыта достаточно было 1 корабля - "Киева", без расточительства на серию из 4-х единиц. В этом-то и проблема что развал великой страны произошел из-за нерационального расходования средств. В том числе на постройку серии из 4-х кораблей 1143. Это конечно капля в море для бюджета страны, но все же...
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 20 October 2015 13: 37 New
            +2
            Quote: Alex_59
            This is the problem that the collapse of a great country occurred due to the irrational spending of funds.
            В развале Советского Союза наш флот, и авианосный в частности, меньше всего виноват. Не хочется повторятся, даже не будь у СССР вообще авианесущих крейсеров, экономь всё и вся, всё равно, хватило бы одного мечтателя Горбачёва с его "гуманизмом" и уступками перед янки. Что не прошляпил бы Михаил Сергеевич, сдал бы другу Билу Борис Николаевич.
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 20 October 2015 11: 06 New
          -1
          Not a pragmatically ready Yak-141 but ready. Its radius is larger than that of the MiG-29.
          Almost ready Yak-43 with engine from Tu-160 and he almost did not manage to speed.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 20 October 2015 21: 48 New
            +2
            Quote: Scraptor
            Not a pragmatically ready Yak-141 but ready. Its radius is larger than that of the MiG-29.
            Almost ready Yak-43 with engine from Tu-160 and he almost did not manage to speed.


            Not ready.
            He was unprepared.
            He did not pass the tests. It is a fact.
            The maximum possible combat radius of the 20 ton machine Yak-141 was 690 km with airplane take-off.
            At Mig-29 - up to 740km.
            When using vertical take-off and landing - 3 times decrease.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 21 October 2015 09: 05 New
              -2
              Quote: mav1971
              Not ready.
              He was unprepared.
              He did not pass the tests. It is a fact.

              Now jump ... laughing

              Он прошел свои испытания - 12 рекордов. Показы на авиашоу в Париже и в Фарнборо. Единственной аварией закончились испытания на аэродинамическую совместимость с "Горшковым". Самолет после нее был восстановлен. Своим испытания пока не прошел Як-43.
              In terms of radii, you also have something out of the ordinary ... He has a radius of 1050 (someone else wrote about 900 here), and the MiG-29, in general, unlike Yak, cannot fly upright either.
              The subsurface antediluvian Harrier would otherwise have a larger radius. laughing
        4. avt
          avt 20 October 2015 16: 13 New
          +5
          Quote: Per se.
          and the Yak-141, if necessary, could rise from any barge, if necessary, take off from any pit.

          fool Yah !?? And jet exhaust VTOL poher? Well, don’t need to sincerely believe Hollywood in the films of which the hero stands under the nozzles of the launching spaceship and heroically blows his nose, and what dialogue he is holding. laughing
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 20 October 2015 16: 21 New
            -1
            You must be able to ...
          2. Per se.
            Per se. 20 October 2015 19: 07 New
            0
            Quote: avt
            Yah !?? And jet exhaust VTOL poher?
            Вам очень надо всё утрировать, если "яма", так обязательно впритык, непременно, как в поделках Голливуда. Тянет на сарказм, понесло, ну, каждому своё, только смайлики такие уже хамство, хотя для нынешнего молодняка, может и норма. Наглость и самоуверенность могут порой помочь в жизни.
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 20 October 2015 21: 55 New
              +1
              Quote: Per se.
              Quote: avt
              Yah !?? And jet exhaust VTOL poher?
              Вам очень надо всё утрировать, если "яма", так обязательно впритык, непременно, как в поделках Голливуда. Тянет на сарказм, понесло, ну, каждому своё, только смайлики такие уже хамство, хотя для нынешнего молодняка, может и норма. Наглость и самоуверенность могут порой помочь в жизни.


              Yes, all because slogans should not be thrown.
              To take off from the barge, you need to make an almost armored deck with an effective cooling system for its outboard water.
              With top performance by the way.
              Jet exhaust in 10 tons from a distance of 1 meters - you know something enchanting.
              Development of documentation, testing, refinement, manufacturing, installation, commissioning.
              This is not a sheet of 50mm steel to put.
              Did you think about this when you wrote about any barge?
              Here is a quota.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 21 October 2015 02: 50 New
                -2
                From a caravan in waterless Afghanistan took off ...
                The spherical thrust that lifts the Yak-38 presses on the trailer no more than he does.

                Have you tried to think at all?
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 21 October 2015 03: 54 New
                  -1
                  And then it's time to collect slogans, time to spread slogans ...
      2. forumow
        forumow 20 October 2015 11: 18 New
        +1
        Отличные были кораблики, в смысле отличные "коробки"! Их можно было перестроить, все четыре, как по образцу "Викрамадитьи", для НАШЕГО флота, так и в "ракетный линкор" - корабль-арсенал, под те-же "Калибры", а то и что покруче. Как-раз было-б два на два, взаимно дополняющих друг-друга одноплатформенных корабля. Гораздо больше пользы чем от сохранившихся ТАРКов типа "Киров", которые теперь модернизируют за неимением чего лучшего.
        We should consider this option of equipping our fleet with new similar ships in the course of its further development!
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 20 October 2015 13: 45 New
          0
          Quote: forumow
          Гораздо больше пользы чем от сохранившихся ТАРКов типа "Киров", которые теперь модернизируют за неимением чего лучшего.
          Ну, спасибо, что хоть они остались. При желании, и один из "Орланов" можно бы было переделать в лёгкий атомный авианосец, как и атомный "Урал" подходил, не угробили бы его окончательно, ни только в качестве корабля разведки и слежения, но и для переделки хотя бы под учебный авианосец или многоцелевой вертолётоносец. На схеме один из вариантов модернизации "Орлана" в качестве вертолётоносца.
          1. forumow
            forumow 20 October 2015 15: 19 New
            0
            New-Moscow!
      3. avt
        avt 20 October 2015 16: 08 New
        +3
        Quote: Orlan1144-2
        Представьте на миг, что замечательная тройка "Киев", "Минск" и "Новороссийск" живы. И своевременно проходили все виды ремонтов. И в межпоходный период стояли бы у стенки, получая с берега электроэнергию, воду и пар. И что стоят в их ангарах помимо ка-27 и Ка-29 замечательная замена "огурцам" Як36М - мне без разницы как бы они назывались.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Now imagine for a moment instead of them aircraft carriers without missiles, but with a solid flight deck (such as Vikrmaditya)

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And what are in their hangars MiG-29K

        laughing Well Oleg is cool! good laughing
        Quote: Per se.
        Yes, great, but the MiG-29K couldn’t take off from smaller ships,

        It remains only to understand this sado-maso - instead of making normal ships with normal aircraft, again, dreams of removing tonsils through the ass? Type - but there are no analogues in the world?

        Quote: Per se.
        With all this, the VTOL aircraft could also use a shortened start, and finally, if possible, take off in the usual way from the start, saving fuel, having a lane, it’s also traditionally to land. Ordinary planes have no such choice,

        But they fly on and take more.
        Quote: Per se.
        destroyed runways, they are targets on the ground.

        Actually, we speak for the ships, and on them, if the ship is destroyed, what kind of plane was there. By the way - is it even the USA that VTOL aircraft are used ONLY in the Marine Corps as an addition to the wing at the UDC and only as a light attack aircraft / bar / addition to the wing of an accompanying aircraft carrier? The USAF does not want the happiness you proposed. laughing Understand, finally, that I am not against VTOL aircraft, but their time to replace the current classic aircraft simply did not come, well, due to quite objective technical reasons. They have no qualitative advantage over conventional airplanes, well, except as an option for the poor, well, those who have luxury a full-fledged aircraft carrier can not afford.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 20 October 2015 16: 19 New
          0
          Further quite a bit. MiG-29 so generally has a smaller radius.

          There are just analogs (of ships).

          A large ship of this class is easier to destroy (get into it). With all the wing.
          The US is not at all trendsetters in this. He was with small Britain both in the Air Force and in the Navy, until the Americans stole it from them. As in the version of the fighter and attack aircraft, and in the Air Force appeared 10 years earlier. The wealthy Argeninians demonstrated a qualitative advantage (by the way, they had an ordinary aircraft carrier, not only an armored cruiser, like AWACS and PLO).
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 20 October 2015 18: 36 New
            0
            Это если сравнивать Як-141 с Миг-29 9-12 первый полет которого был в 1977 году,своему "конкуренту на палубе" Миг-29К(первый полет в 1987)он уступает по дальности на большой и малой высоте,массе боевой нагрузки и другим параметрам.

            But the big AV carries the AWACS plane, and not a helicopter (at best), normal horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft (for example, the Su-27k, with which the 141st nobody even compares), more ammunition and fuel for the air group, that is, it makes the maximum so that the missiles will not reach him.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 21 October 2015 03: 31 New
              0
              When the MiG-29K was made, the Yak-43 was already completed with the only marching engine of which (from Tu-160), which is on the afterburner, and not on the afterburner, it covers both of the Su-33.
              And in battle, ceteris paribus, SKVVP will bring down an ordinary plane almost always. In addition, he does not depend on concrete and large ships ... Only the Su-27 can hunt for subsonic Harriers, the MiG-29 cannot, but can leave the battle with it.

              Big AV is affected more easily and burns better with loss of crew, and immediately the entire wing. AWAC flies from small ones on convertiplanes.
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 22 October 2015 06: 47 New
                0
                Work on the Yak-43 was discontinued in 1992, even the prototype was not in the metal, and the Mig-29K flew in 1988, what can I compare with the machine from the mid-second half of the 90s with full funding?

                In close combat, in long-range losing.

                A tiltrotor in the USSR? But does it even exist in metal?
                The helicopter as an AWAC and the plane loses.
                Of course, the VTOL aircraft and the Ka-31 DRLO would find application, because 4 cross-country cruisers have already been built, it’s the time (90s) and costs (a separate plane, not the deck version of the land one, and they could have done it much earlier during construction, etc.) 1160 or pr.1153).
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 23 November 2015 13: 11 New
                  0
                  How do you know that the Yak-43 was not in the metal? The engine for it was ready back in 1977. Work began within 2 years after that.

                  MiG-29 generally compared with the Yak-41 and not the Yak-43

                  In honor of what will he suddenly lose in the distant? The Harrier mirages did not achieve a single hit.

                  Canada even had a tiltrotor in 1964; it is simpler than the SKVVP.

                  There are no deck versions of a classic land plane, it happens the other way around.
                  SCVVP generally fly at sea or on land - it makes no difference.
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 23 November 2015 17: 14 New
                    0
                    There is no such information in open sources, if you have one, indicate.

                    Because Yak was at least in metal, you generally repel paper indicators.

                    The mirages worked at the limit of the radius, 10 minutes of flight in the area of ​​work and back (despite the fact that in 8 YAG there were only 12 operational aircraft).

                    So what? Is it a Convertoplan-DRLO? What are its characteristics?

                    It makes no difference, but its performance in terms of load level and combat radius is worse than that of horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft.
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 23 November 2015 18: 46 New
                      0
                      Is there anything open about it, all the more not contradictory? Work on the aircraft was carried out since 1979, the NK-32 engine was ready in 1977 (Wikipedia), the rotary nozzle with the Yak-41 was proportionally increased, like most of the Yak-41 airframe, ready in 1978 (even before its conversion to the Yak-141) and that’s it ... Do you think no one who has this NK-32 in metal wanted to put it on SKVVP, and did not start making SKVVP on its basis in metal? And he waited 13 years when the Yak-141 in Paris and Farnborough flies? Another question was why the pause was at 2 years old, before the readiness of the NK-32 and the start of design work on the Yak-43 ... laughing
                      Переделку чистого истребителя Як-41 в истребитель-бомбардировщик Як-141 в общем "обосновывали" тем, что Як-43 с НК-32 будет все равно лучше чем Як-41 как истребитель. То что Як-41 Флоту и ВВС прямо сейчас неужен "как-то" не бралось в расчет.

                      Enough of these minutes Mirage to attack.

                      Was it difficult to make from a simple convertiplane, a drone convertiplane? The latter on the basis of the V-22 already exists, somewhere in the wrong you can see its characteristics.

                      His performance is the same or better. 5-10% less radius
                      1. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 24 November 2015 05: 24 New
                        -1
                        That is, there is no machine in the iron, there is nothing to compare with.

                        Against the Ferret was not enough.

                        I have no idea, but I’m sure that it will be inferior to the same E-2C.

                        If we talk about what was in the iron, then inferior and significantly.
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 November 2015 12: 26 New
                        0
                        It used to be, but now I don’t know.

                        Это не хорек а "скопа". Летает и воюет также как летает и охотится эта птичка, поэтому так и назвали... Против него достаточно только Су-27. С МиГ-29 будет в дуэльной ситуации боевая ничья.

                        If you have no idea, why do you think so?

                        And what prevents to start the release? NK-32 for the Tu-160 is not enough? Which in the 90s, too, almost all of a sudden did not cease to exist in iron?
                        И почему нельзя сравнивать? Потому что так очень не хочется чтобы у "этой страны" была безаэродромная авиация, не прикованная к аэродромным полосам, и массовая авиация над морем?

                        The NK-32 engine on the Yak-43 gives one more thrust than both engines standing on the Su-27. It was a finished car in which the tests were not completed.
                        То есть, то что "шьют" Як-141, хотя у него были всего-лишь незаконченные испытания на совместимость с ТАВКР "Горшков" по базированию на него...
                      3. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 24 November 2015 12: 52 New
                        0
                        Если "точно" то укажите источники данной информации.

                        The NK-32 engine on the Yak-43 gives one more thrust than both engines standing on the Su-27. It was a finished car in which the tests were not completed.

                        If it is ready, then where is at least some information about it?

                        If you have no idea, why do you think so?

                        Trend-s, as a base for avionics, it is worse than an airplane.
                        A counter-question is if you have no information whatsoever, then why do you think it will be equal in performance or better?

                        И почему нельзя сравнивать? Потому что так очень не хочется чтобы у "этой страны" была безаэродромная авиация, не прикованная к аэродромным полосам, и массовая авиация над морем?

                        Because paper indicators are far from always embodied in metal.
                      4. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 November 2015 14: 43 New
                        0
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        There is no such information in open sources

                        in which then do you indicate? In closed? lol

                        On the Internet ... Where is the information that it was not ready, and especially since it supposedly was not in the metal, what do you insist on so eagerly? bully

                        Do not tell. The tiltrotor has a much less stressful landing.

                        НК-32 тоже бумажный? ... Да, нет, "дорогой". Потому что вам хочется чтобы они были бумажными. Если не чтобы "они вообще были"...
                      5. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 24 November 2015 15: 25 New
                        -1
                        To summarize: there are no sources, only distortion. I see no reason to continue the conversation.
                      6. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 November 2015 15: 53 New
                        0
                        Подводя итог: вы со своим пустозвонством "старались" на советские СКВВП, морскую пехоту и конвертопланы, но кругом не справились...

                        And constantly go away from answering questions repeatedly asked above.
                        Ведь не пишете что "неизвесно был он в металле или не был", а бездоказательно настаиваете что "не был". repeat

                        Вот был бы НК-32 "бумажный", тогда у вас против кого-нибудь еще может быть и были, какие-нибудь шансы, но только не против тех кто знает что обычно самолет разрабатывается даже под перспективный двигатель... как Як-36 например, на котором "пока-что" поставили два имеющихся (поскольку перпективный запаздывал и появился только на Як-38ом). А уж если мощнейний НК-32 есть то сделать на нем СКВВП это само собой разумеется, потому что для такой техники особенно двигатель выбирается самый мощный.
                      7. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 24 November 2015 16: 56 New
                        0
                        So what's the problem? Throw me on both blades, give evidence of the existence of the Yak-43 in the metal? You are not a troll, have you taken your version from your finger?
                      8. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 November 2015 19: 54 New
                        0
                        The fact is that you are a troll ... bully Anyone not a troll would already understand that with the paperless NK-32 there was the same paperless Yak-43.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        To summarize: there are no sources, only distortion. I see no reason to continue the conversation.

                        be consistent ... Or did you feel completely bored? laughing
                      9. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 24 November 2015 20: 07 New
                        0
                        Of course, of course, from a finger it is more true lol
                      10. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 November 2015 20: 56 New
                        0
                        Left middle arm? bully

                        Плохо "старались" дорогой товарищь! ... А чего не спросили почему даже между готовностью НК-32 и началом работы над Як-43 была пауза в более чем 2 года? laughing
  • bk0010
    bk0010 22 October 2015 00: 28 New
    0
    Не красивее. Какие задачи вы собираетесь возложить на авиагруппу из Миг-29К? ПЛО? Не смешно. Правда можно заменить часть Мигов на вертолеты, но тогда опять получится 1143, но уже без ракет ПВО? - самолеты подходят идеально, но в отсутствии самолетов ДРЛО управлять и наводить придется либо с корабля с ограниченным радиогоризонтом, либо с внешних абонентов, отсутствующих в общем случае. Атака АУГ? По сравнению с "Базальтом" возможности авиагруппы просто несерьезны, другое дело, что по-хорошему требуется не 8 ракет, а 20-24. Атака отдельных кораблей? Миги осилят, но уж больно мелковато для авианосца. Поддержка МДО? Десантные операции планировались проводить в проливах, где им могла помочь береговая авиация. Такой авианосец мог бы реально пригодится для решения задач повышения устойчивости РПКСН, демонстрации флага и "миротворческих операций", но для их решения можно обойтись и более дешевыми средствами.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 22 October 2015 00: 37 New
      0
      AWAC lifts tiltrotor, go helicopter.
      There are 16 for them.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 22 October 2015 22: 50 New
        0
        Not an option, unfortunately, neither in terms of capabilities, nor in terms of duty. Ours recently made a new AWACS, so very happy that they managed to shove it into the IL-76, were preparing to use Ruslan. With a decrease in the size and weight of the equipment, the possibilities are reduced. In my opinion, there is enough helicopter for Central Administration for Granites to the area with AUG, but he will not pull out the control of an air defense group. However, I do not presume to argue, I just have not heard about this.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 23 November 2015 12: 18 New
          0
          The best option (except for the airship, on duty).
          Il-76 does it fly from ships?
          They always cram as much as they cram, leaving no empty space. In IL-76, Tu-126, Ka-31 - Yak-44? CL-84 or V-22, shoved everywhere differently.
    2. strannik1985
      strannik1985 22 October 2015 12: 39 New
      0
      Те же,что возлагались на Миг-29К авиагруппы "Ульяновска" или сейчас на предполагаемую авиагруппу "Кузнецова". Я же не пишу,что авиагруппа будет только из Миг-29К,просто чаще всего именно его(а точнее версию 9-12)сравнивают с Як-141.
  • GOgaRu
    GOgaRu 20 October 2015 09: 44 New
    0
    Респект автору статьи! Хотя я и не всегда согласен с его выводами, материал всегда дает нагрузку для моих "шестеренок". good
  • timyr
    timyr 20 October 2015 10: 24 New
    +4
    You forget about our wonderful shipbuilding industry, which did not build what the sailors wanted, but what they could. By the way, this applies to the entire MIC.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 20 October 2015 11: 51 New
    +2
    In hindsight, everyone is strong.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 11: 56 New
    +7
    Appearing as a kind of “hybrid” of a missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier, the Soviet TAKR was ineffective as a cruiser and completely untenable as an aircraft carrier.

    The ships of Project 1143 were designed as aircraft carriers of cruisers - carriers of VTOL aircraft with strike weapons, and this is not quite the same as a half-cruiser / semi-aircraft carrier.
    With a length of 273 meters and a displacement of 40 thousand tons

    30,5 thousand tons of standard displacement.
    in terms of the composition of its weapons, the “super cruiser” corresponded to a large anti-submarine ship (which was six times smaller than the “super cruiser”).

    С каких это пор на БПК появились ПКР "Базальт" и авиагруппа в два десятка вертолетов? Что я пропустил? laughing
    In parallel with the TAKRs, real “Glory” cruisers were built (Project 1164). With long-range air defense systems S-300 and twice as many shock weapons.

    "Слава" был заложен в 1976 году, между третьим и четвертым кораблем проекта 1143 (Новороссийск заложен в 1975 и Баку - 1978г) Таким образом, корректно сравнивать "Славу" разве что с "Баку", а этот корабль имел 12 ПУ "Базальт" и "Кинжалы" - от установок "Шторм" отказались.
    Squadron anti-submarine helicopters? An 273-meter monster was absolutely necessary to base it.

    22 helicopters in the hangar (and up to 30 aircraft, partially based on the flight deck) - is it ONE squadron? Strong.
    20 years before the Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers, the Clemenceau aircraft carrier was built in France. With smaller dimensions than TAKR, he carried a full-fledged air wing

    Actually, I directly wrote that aircraft carriers are more functional than TAKRs. Why discover America for the eleventh time?
    And for much less money.

    Was Clemenceau cheaper than TAX? Can I have links?
    The construction of the TAVKRs was a mistake

    Yes.
    and waste of money

    No, because they could perform the role of anti-submarine helicopter carrier properly, and this function was in demand by the Navy
    TAKR was not a helicopter carrier.

    TAKR was still a helicopter carrier :) Actually, there were even swap air groups in Kiev - one purely helicopter (20 Ka for PLO, 2 rescuers), the second - purely VTOL (20 Yak and 2 rescue helicopters)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 11: 59 New
      +7
      During the combat services, Kiev and its sisterships were engaged in what they were created for: the exploitation of useless VTOL aircraft.

      Yeah. For example, during the service of Kiev, aircraft took off from its deck 4258 times, helicopters - 9154 times. But of course he was not a helicopter carrier laughing
      TAKRs spent all their time on long hikes, pretending that they were real aircraft carriers

      ... and at the same time fulfilled the tasks of PLO in full. Those. to fulfill their functions in the Mediterranean and off the coast of the USSR were quite ready.
      The fact that the ships did not sit glued to our near sea zone does not contradict my explanations.
      And to cover up “protected combat zones” in the near sea zone is a job for the gray mass of the “third rank”: numerous patrol and small anti-submarine ships. Of which there were 530 pieces in the navy of the USSR.

      Well, what year there were so many of them? :)
      Is it higher than that of nuclear submarine missile-carriers and their “colleagues” from the squadron “41 on guard of Freedom"?

      Not higher, but so what? Roughly speaking, nothing will surpass the effectiveness of the SSBNs, and now what can you build anything besides them?
      At that time (as now), the most terrible enemy is a sneaky sonar

      Which, alas, were then far from farsighted
      In this sense, 32 patrol ships of pr. 1135 “Petrel” were of particular value.

      At the time of laying Kiev in the ranks there was not one.
      BOD pr. 1134A

      Already one thing.
      1134Б и пр. 1155 "Удалой".

      No one.
      There is not a single task with which the TAVKR could cope better than the classic aircraft carrier.

      И чем лучше "Клемансо" для сопровождения АУГ в средиземке?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 11: 59 New
        +4
        So there is no need for cheap melodramas, every citizen of the Union had a risk of burning in nuclear fire.

        Is the difference between the RISK of death and the GUARANTEED death unclear? Glad for you - you obviously walked away from both of them.
        No sooner had the head “Kiev” come into operation, “Francis Kay” (1979) went on combat patrol ...
        ...И кто здесь называл ТАВКРы "кораблями Армагеддона"?
        I. And he motivated it by protecting YOUR boats, and not by looking for strangers. Oleg, be kind if you oppose me, and argue with me, and not with your reflection in the mirror.
        But were RCCs needed on surface ships? The USSR Navy had 60 nuclear submarines with cruise missiles

        Of the modern ones - Anchar, 11 Skatov, and 6 Seagulls - all with anti-ship missiles Amethyst / Malachite, which were not suitable for basalt soles.
        Kiev air defense systems are outdated with the advent of new threats, primarily with the massive emergence of anti-ship missiles

        And what was wrong with RCC? The surface target of the Storm could hit, meaning it would not have blundered against RCC
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 21: 01 New
          +3
          So, I'm afraid that I made a couple of mistakes. First, the separation of the air groups into anti-submarine separately and the VTOL aircraft, separately, it seems, existed only in the project, but in practice the ships received a mixed air group. And secondly - all 36 aircraft still fit in the hangar.
          Not that this changes anything much, but the truth is above all! And thanks maximghost for pointing out my mistakes
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. sevtrash
      sevtrash 20 October 2015 13: 31 New
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Appearing as a kind of “hybrid” of a missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier, the Soviet TAKR was ineffective as a cruiser and completely untenable as an aircraft carrier.

      The ships of Project 1143 were designed as aircraft carriers of cruisers - carriers of VTOL aircraft with strike weapons, and this is not quite the same as a half-cruiser / semi-aircraft carrier.


      Можно встретить иногда очень существенные возражения. К примеру автор пишет "... бутерброд с колбасой...", а оппонент в ответ - "...нет, колбаса, положенная на хлеб!..."
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 13: 48 New
        +2
        Quote: sevtrash
        К примеру автор пишет "... бутерброд с колбасой...", а оппонент в ответ - "...нет, колбаса, положенная на хлеб!..."

        This is because you do not see the difference between an aircraft carrier and a VTOL carrier. As well as the difference between a cruiser and an anti-submarine helicopter carrier
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 13: 48 New
        +1
        Quote: sevtrash
        К примеру автор пишет "... бутерброд с колбасой...", а оппонент в ответ - "...нет, колбаса, положенная на хлеб!..."

        This is because you do not see the difference between an aircraft carrier and a VTOL carrier. As well as the difference between a cruiser and an anti-submarine helicopter carrier
        1. sevtrash
          sevtrash 20 October 2015 16: 21 New
          -5
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This is because you do not see the difference between an aircraft carrier and a VTOL carrier.

          Does CATOBAR, STOBAR and STOVL tell you something? What classification do you use?
          Or none? It is understandable. If you count the Krechet not falling into any class of ships, then, automatically, it becomes incomparable with anything and absolutely successful.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 20: 57 New
            +1
            Quote: sevtrash
            Does CATOBAR, STOBAR and STOVL tell you something? What classification do you use?
            Or none? It is understandable

            I’m wondering - how do you manage to make such mistakes with such aplomb?
            Я пользуюсь советской классификацией, в которой проект 1123 - противолодочный крейсер, 1143 - тяжелый авианесущий крейсер, а авианосец - это "Нимиц":) И разница между ТАКР - носителем СВВП и авианосцем очевидна (ну, кроме Вас, конечно же)
            В международную классификацию CATOBAR, STOBAR и STOVL ТАКР проекта 1143 не лезет, потому что он не является ни одним ни другим ни третьим. Вы, конечно, пользуясь детской логикой: "а раз на нем СВВП значит он STOVL" отнесли его к STOVL. Что в мире существуют куча авианесущих кораблей, не являющимися CATOBAR, STOBAR и STOVL Вы не подумали. Вы даже не подумали задать себе вопрос - десантные вертолетоносцы (скажем, "Тарава" или "Уосп") - они авианосцы STOVL? Нет? А чего так, они же носители СВВП? Ах, они десантные вертолетоносцы... Ну а ТАКР проекта 1143 - противолодочный вертолетоносец-носитель СВВП и к авианосцам он имеет не больше отношения, чем "тарава" или "Уосп".
            But the funny thing is, if you consider that you are right and attribute 1143 to STOVL, then what have you achieved? Just that my phrase
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            This is because you do not see the difference between an aircraft carrier and a VTOL carrier.

            takes the form:
            "Это от того, что Вы не видите разницу между авианосцами CATOBAR и STOVL"

            Or do you think that there is no difference between them? laughing
          2. Scraptor
            Scraptor 21 October 2015 05: 53 New
            -2
            Perhaps this is because the VTOL aircraft carrier sounds better to the public ...
            никто же пишет "носитель вертолетов" (вместо вертолетоносец) или "спидоносец" вместо "носитель эбола или СПИД". Тут все средства хороши начиная от прямой лжи, например про 10мин вокруг мачты вместо 1300км дальности, подобного НЛП, и як об палубу... чего то там.

            Если уж писать так "носитель СКВВП". Но и тут одну букву пропустили...
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 21 October 2015 06: 24 New
              0
              Ракетоносец не называют "носителем ракет"

              They will surely classify the carrier of the convertiplanes as helicopter carriers (so that they would not be there either, and this would be associated with corruption or something else).

              But the carrier SKVVP for some reason can not be attributed to aircraft carriers (as everywhere else). Although this is a kind of aircraft.

              Where it is impossible to steal it is necessary to smear. And, if possible, then - and then, and more ...
          3. Scraptor
            Scraptor 21 October 2015 06: 51 New
            -1
            Ну потому что мозг вывихивается в первую очередь через термины... а они потом дают массу других "выгод" ...

            CATOBAR, STOBAR and STOVL - aircraft carriers are all aircraft carriers
            a helicopter carrier is not a carrier in general, just as a helicopter is not a plane.

            STOVL - авианосец, ими через "носитель СВВП" просто "разжаловается" из авианосцев, а СКВВП - из самолетов, для этого придумка с "носителем СВВП" и "изобретена"...

            Cruiser carriers used to be, but it was more for reconnaissance.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 21 October 2015 06: 56 New
              0
              On battleships - for adjusting over-the-horizon artillery fire.
              And almost all of them were hydroplanes, landing not on the deck, and then lifted for installation on a catapult, from the surface of the water with a crane.
  • Severomor
    Severomor 20 October 2015 12: 21 New
    +5
    Yes, at least it was where to play football.
    The author doesn’t, and the photo is credited

    No one canceled the admiral's hour, in his spare time on duty, if there were no flights, it was allowed ... including playing football (the gate in the lower right).
    By the way, in the hangar, when there was no aircraft, they also played.

    ЗЫ из разряда "а у них негров линчевали" - а у них негр около вертолётного ангара бицепс качал ))))
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 21 October 2015 12: 32 New
      +1
      Severomor laughing Igor, TAKR I had two completely opposite feelings, it’s pride in our fleet good and hatred at the moment when they started physical exercises for the orchestra am. Как то уж так получилось, что я обычно стоял "собачку".
  • Zigmars
    Zigmars 20 October 2015 12: 23 New
    10
    They were not allowed to operate in the near sea zone by pride.
    Brief chronology of the service of the aircraft-carrying cruiser “Minsk”:
    In the summer of 1980, the campaign in Vietnam, the port of Cam Ranh. During the campaigns of military service in December 1982 of the year “Minsk” was visited by Bombay, in July of 1986 of the year - Wonsan
    TAKRs spent all their time on long trips, pretending that they were real aircraft carriers. And to cover up “protected combat zones” in the near sea zone is work for the gray mass of the “third rank” ...

    Кошмар... Какой, однако, поразительно самоуверенный дилетантизм и какая непроглядная темнота умозрительного верхоглядства! И в этом - весь Олег Капцов. После таких "оригинальных" авторских пассажей, больше похожих на фэнтези, честно говоря, становится даже как-то неловко.
    You should write fairy tales, Oleg. Without any irony.
    1. Severomor
      Severomor 20 October 2015 12: 31 New
      +5
      Quote: Zigmars
      A nightmare ... What a defiant amateurism and superstition !! And this is all Oleg Kaptsov. After such passages, frankly, it becomes somehow awkward.

      Надо б и ответить на "пассажи", а тут 3 поста-простыни от Андрей из Челябинска, хоть и с оговорками, но намного лучше самой статьи
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 12: 33 New
        +2
        Quote: Severomor
        Надо б и ответить на "пассажи", а тут 3 поста

        I apologize for interrupting :)
        1. Severomor
          Severomor 20 October 2015 13: 09 New
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I apologize for interrupting :)

          )))) Not at all, in the majority of the case, CPSB
          Ships of project 1143 were designed as aircraft carriers of cruisers - carriers of VTOL aircraft with strike weapons

          All the same, initially anti-submarine cruisers with VTOL, pr 1143 became TAKRami since 1977. (project 69year)

          The construction of the TAVKRs was a mistake
          Yes.

          I’m not sure you need to look at the doctrine of the development of the USSR fleet, just so for the sake of the flight deck the ship will not be built. And the tasks were initially anti-submarine, then they added:
          - defeat of enemy surface ship groupings;
          - ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 21 October 2015 12: 41 New
          +3
          Welcome Andrew hi drinks
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I apologize for interrupting :)

          Да не за что вам прощения просить, всё правильно! В 2015 году можно конечно утверждать что "Запорожец" никчёмная машина, но для граждан живших в 70-х это была вполне нормальная, недорогая и экономремонтная машина bully
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 20 October 2015 12: 39 New
    -1
    For some reason, a quarter-kilometer ship was carrying 10 torpedo tubes and paired 76-mm artillery mounts of unclear purpose (too weak caliber for firing at any ships and ground targets; in terms of air defense, it is more useless than AK-726 to invent difficult).

    Well then. There were still AK-725. And their predecessors - ZIF-75.
    The last AU price would not have been ... that year in 1943. smile
    1. Severomor
      Severomor 20 October 2015 13: 13 New
      +1
      What did not suit AK-726 in 1969?
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 21 October 2015 12: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: Severomor
        What did not suit AK-726 in 1969?

        laughing Caliber !!!! It needed 406 mm and with the same rate of fire as the AK-726 bully
  • The comment was deleted.
  • red_october
    red_october 20 October 2015 12: 45 New
    +3
    It is very interesting to read different points of view on the problem of an aircraft carrier for our fleet.

    Но мне кажется, более актуальными для нас сейчас должны быть проблемы конкретного действующего авианесущего крейсера "Адмирал Кузнецов".
    1. He really is in the combat structure of the Navy.
    2. He has a number of problems:
    -техническое состояние. Котлы, их ремонт, целесообразность демонтирования несвойственного для авианосца вооружения ("Граниты" и пр. которые съедают как будто (не знаю, не специалист) лишние объемы, которые можно заполнить самолетами и вертолетами). Как-то резко сдернули "Кузю" с ремонта, то писали о "модернизации" чуть ли не до 18 года, а тут за 3 мес. управились. Ну, допустим, готовят его, на всякий случай к берегам Сирии, если мощностей наземных аэродромов хватать не будет - генштабу виднее. У нас-то только догадки из СМИ, как будет - узнаем по факту. Минобороны в последнее время действует в лучших традиция военного пиара и научилось эпатировать публику. США курят в сторонке со своей войной в Персидском заливе)))
    - fleet. Even though it is not a full-fledged (classic) aircraft carrier, there are only about 10 Su-33 on the wing. And about 10 on the shore or in reserve. These are quite powerful cars with one minus - they are pure interceptors, and although they are being modernized, they cannot work on ships, not to mention ground targets. And the most important thing. All the time I was wondering why around 10 these machines rust on the shore, with an obvious (!!!) unloading of the aircraft carrier’s hangar. And only recently a thought appeared: there are simply not enough pilots! Which could work on the deck of an aircraft carrier!
    Далее. Заказано 20 шт. МиГ-29К и 4 МиГ-29КУБ. Они могут качественно работать и по кораблям и по береговым целям. (Оставлю за скобками вечный спор приверженцев "МиГов" и "Сушек" - кто лучше, кто быстрее. Есть реальность - "Сухой" перегружен заказами и гражданскими и военными, а мощности МиГа наоборот надо загружать) Поставлено, судя по сообщениям в СМИ, около 10 шт. Уже можно включать в боевой состав и выполнять все задачи, которые поставит командование перед экипажем и боевыми пилотами. Но.... тоже нет пилотов? Скоро и крайняя 10-ка крыльев поступит. Хотя возможно я гоню коней и в ближайшее время все будет.

    Одно очевидно. Нам не нужны 10-20 "Нимицев" как у США: у них своя стратегия - унижать и доминировать во всем мире. Но тот же "Кузнецов" с 30 боевыми самолетами и вертолетами на борту (аналог действующего наземного аэродрома в Латакии), возможно, был бы был очень актуален у берегов Сирии.
    And for the actual work on goals. And as a continuation of the media campaign conducted by the Ministry of Defense and which is a continuation of the policy of demonstrating power
  • AAV
    AAV 20 October 2015 13: 32 New
    +4
    Не совсем в тему статьи, но мне хочется сказать спасибо автору за последнюю фразу: "Мы всегда получаем опыт, когда не получаем того, что хотим."

    As a development engineer, I completely agree. Moreover, it is applicable to any design activity (electronics, mechanics, construction, etc.)
  • Orlan1144-2
    Orlan1144-2 20 October 2015 13: 55 New
    +2
    Quote: Severomor
    What did not suit AK-726 in 1969?

    Severomor, you are unlikely to hear the answer to your question. For this it was necessary to shoot from these cannons. My personal opinion - for 1969 - was very good, if not to consider cooling as a spill of sea water through the channels of the trunks.
    Valeri.
    1. Severomor
      Severomor 20 October 2015 14: 13 New
      +1
      I didn’t shoot ....., I repent, but I saw. ))))
      More precisely, I know how they fired, how they shot down targets, including the prizes of the Commander-in-Chief.
      Well shot
      Now probably not relevant
  • Orlan1144-2
    Orlan1144-2 20 October 2015 14: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: Severomor

    More precisely, I know how they fired, how they shot down targets, including the prizes of the Commander-in-Chief.
    Well shot
    Now probably not relevant

    Why is it not relevant, in general, art. the installation was very good. It would now have a more advanced control system than the MP-105, and the capabilities of today's electronics - and it would be relevant now, however, like the rest of the armament of an aircraft-carrying cruiser.
    Valeri.
  • lis-ik
    lis-ik 20 October 2015 14: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Banshee
    The dispute is interesting. Long time and with pleasure I observe it. And I just get interesting information that I myself might not have looked for. And here on a silver platter bring a tray.

    Two worlds, two opinions.

    Аналогично делаю и я, вот только моё мнение перевешивает всё же здравый смысл, "больше лодок убийц-хороших и разных".
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 20 October 2015 14: 44 New
      -2
      Exactly - outweighs. Where will she run away from an airplane that flies 10 times faster?
  • Taoist
    Taoist 20 October 2015 15: 02 New
    +8
    Kaptsov, have I already told you that you are an enchanting deer?
    So you again and on the same rake.

    "For example, the "vertical" Yak-38. With subsonic flight speed, without radar and with a stock of fuel for 10 minutes of flight. “Took off-scared-sat.” The pilots of the American “Tomcat” did not care that the “Yak” was classified as a “stormtrooper”. They will beat not according to the passport, but in the face. However, even in the role of a strike aircraft, the Yak, to put it mildly, looks suspicious. Funny combat load and range, minimal survivability, lack of sighting and navigation equipment to work in difficult weather conditions." (with)

    Вот эту чушь кто вам сказал? выдумки журнаглистов повторяете? Я к счастью с Яками не по книжкам и статьям знаком. Да он не вундерваффе - но тем не менее 40-50 минут даже при полёте по полному профилю эта машина летала. Да боевая нагрузка от тонны до полутора не сильно много - но "специзделие" в случае нужды уравняет шансы. Боевой радиус при ВКР кстати составлял вполне нормальные 250-300 км и это без ПТБ. И навигационное оборудование вполне позволяло полёты в любое время суток в простых и сложных метеоусловиях. Ограничения были в основном по туману - когда невозможно было пользоваться "луной".


    А вообще Капцовское "я весь в белом а все вокруг " начинает сильно утомлять. строили пр.1143, не строят сейчас "линкоров", все кругом ... один я знаю как правильно... am
    1. Santa Fe
      21 October 2015 06: 54 New
      -1
      Quote: Taoist
      Kaptsov, have I already told you that you are an enchanting deer?

      Yes, so far to me! You have to go down too long ..
      Quote: Taoist
      Yes, he is not a child prodigy - but nonetheless, for 40-50 minutes, even when flying in full profile, this car flew. Yes, the combat load from a ton to one and a half is not very much

      at what ambient temperature.
      and at what length
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  • Orlan1144-2
    Orlan1144-2 20 October 2015 15: 39 New
    0
    Quote: lis-ik
    Quote: Banshee
    The dispute is interesting. Long time and with pleasure I observe it. And I just get interesting information that I myself might not have looked for. And here on a silver platter bring a tray.

    Two worlds, two opinions.

    Аналогично делаю и я, вот только моё мнение перевешивает всё же здравый смысл, "больше лодок убийц-хороших и разных".

    Or maybe it is better to have a balanced fleet in its capabilities? With boats, with surface ships, including aircraft carriers, and with an appropriate number of ships and support vessels?
    А то "Борис Бутома", с которого мы принимали топливо в конце 70-х, до сих пор бороздит просторы морей и океанов.
    Valeri.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 21 October 2015 12: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Orlan1144-2
      А то "Борис Бутома", с которого мы принимали топливо в конце 70-х, до сих пор бороздит просторы морей и океанов.

      И не только "Бутома", но и "Бубнов", и "Чиликин" правдо у него теперь другое имя «Камбоджа Асиа»
  • Taoist
    Taoist 20 October 2015 15: 59 New
    11
    Одно хорошо в этом "потоке сознания" - на фотке где пилоты к Якам бегут по тревоге - 29й бортовой - это моя машина. ;-)
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 20 October 2015 16: 08 New
      -2
      And who stands to his right?

      where are the proofs? proofs where? wink show your passport ... winked
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 20 October 2015 16: 18 New
        +6
        And to his right is a technician ... But shhh ... it's a secret. Moreover, with proofs it’s tight - well, we didn’t know then about such garbage as the Internet ... we were generally taught to count on a slide rule and it was without wifi ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 20 October 2015 18: 25 New
    +8
    I came home from work, read ... what I will express my opinion personally, the more I do not want to hang tags on anyone request
    The article is stupid NOTHING! Transfusion from empty to empty !! They try to call the same things in different words (more precisely, from different authors, including in the comments). What causes only a shake of the head and not for the publication of a phrase ... winked
    Сколько раз говорил : Ребята, если берётесь что-то доказывать или о чём-то сообщить в своих опусах, подходите к этому конкретно, учитывая все возможные объективные и субъективные факторы! Тогда ваши статьи и комментарии будут более подходить под описание, как "верные"( ну и по тексту в качестве синонимов другие определения).
    Some undertake to discuss something, to judge, looking with today's mind! But no one put himself in the place of those who designed these ships, no one had to take into account the technical conditions, knowledge, capabilities, views on the conduct of various confrontations !!! NOBODY !!!!! All smart, well-read, everyone has the Internet, live under capitalism .... request
    Сидят такие "аналитики" и писаки, и строчат статьи из разряда " все тупые тогда были а мы самые умные и знаем, почему получались такие (как сейчас модно) вандервафли.... request
    Since that plane was better, and this one worse, it was necessary ... But it would be better to do this and that ... All stupid, it was necessary to build aircraft carriers ... and other nonsense ....
    But no one took into account in their articles (even on this topic) the political situation at that time, the situation inside the country, the struggle at the top, the struggle between the Ministries, the struggle between the KB for orders, industries, leadership changes, ideology in the end !! ! But very often very many weapons at that time appeared precisely because of such contradictions! And I am more than sure with that that pr.1143 was a hostage to such butts. And to say purely from today's point of view that then everyone was stupid, at least ignorant. That's why such articles appear.
    Objective and one-sided. Nothing new .... Minus
    hi
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 20 October 2015 18: 30 New
    +2
    PS. Maybe there were good ideas, maybe aircraft carriers would have appeared earlier, but that was the time. And you need to look at the appearance of this or that type of weaponry through the prism of all circumstances, and not just purely technical ones. Then the appearance of this or that ship will be quite explainable both by technical capabilities and political realities and, more importantly, by the economic capabilities of each individual country hi
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 21 October 2015 04: 59 New
      0
      And also the fact that since everything was fine with this, the workshop was built so that the dry dock would not be lengthened ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 20 October 2015 20: 30 New
    +2
    Привожу ЛТХ самолета Як-38М, не такое уж и безобидное "недоразумение"
    Modification of the Yak-38M
    Wingspan, m
    full xnumx
    with folded wings 4.45
    Length, m 16.37
    Height, m ​​4.25
    Wing area, m2 18.41
    Weight, kg
    empty 7500 aircraft
    normal take-off with GDP 10800
    normal take-off with UVP 11800
    2750 fuels
    engine's type
    lifting and marching 1 TRD R-28-300
    lifting 2 turbojet engines RD-38
    Thrust, kgf
    lifting and marching 1 x 6700
    lifting 2 x 3250
    Maximum speed km / h
    at sea level 1210
    at height 1080
    Practical range, km
    normal 1100
    with vertical take-off 550
    Combat radius of action, km 250 -380
    Maximum rate of climb, m / min 4500
    Practical ceiling, m 11000
    Max. operational overload 6
    Crew, people 1
    Armament: At 4 external suspensions - maximum - 2000 kg of combat load, with GDP - 1000 kg
    4 УР "воздух-воздух" Р-60 или Р-60М, или ПКР Х-23М,
    or 2 P-60 and 2 500 kg. bombs
    or 2h 500 2 kg bombs and NUR HC-16-57 (55-mm)
    or P-2 60 and 2-23 container UPK with 23-mm
    double-barreled gun GS-23L.
    And although the plane did not shine, but over the entire period of operation (1982 - the beginning of the nineties) did not kill a single pilot, although there were enough accidents (I have no statistics). A classmate served in naval aviation (on the shore), said that for a techie the plane was not very pleasant.
    I am not a ship specialist, but I liked the article as a whole, although in some places the author’s argument was not solid.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 21 October 2015 03: 43 New
      -2
      ... that you, under other articles, trolls walked in droves, who saw how pilots were constantly buried at their bases, widows there were lonely with crying children and all that. With braids, and even without an orchestra.
  • IAlex
    IAlex 20 October 2015 21: 58 New
    +1
    And why soared, our only aircraft carrier Kuznetsov is the heir to 1143, i.e. the project did not disappear at that time, but bent now because neither the Navy of the Russian Federation is able to build, maintain or maintain such ships ... There is no sense in talking about the Yak-XX aircraft either, incl. what could be useful, such as the Yak-141/201/44, no longer exists, as well as the design bureau ...

    To summarize: all planes have become a pure history, and only, ships have also become history, and the likelihood that they will someday have a continuation is extremely small, and if so, a cove on the history of decisions made without the context of those events is also bay on the moon, because it will not lead to anything, neither in the past nor in the future ...
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 21 October 2015 02: 24 New
      -3
      It is useless to have a harbor, and in Russia, according to rumors, an aircraft carrier is being built and the J-26 is almost completed in China.
      I forgot about the Yak-43 ... As well as the fact that where the Soviet did not become history in the form of the F-35, Vikramaditya and Liaoning.

      And we almost bought the Mistral for the same money.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 20 October 2015 23: 58 New
    +1
    Speaking about our Navy, Mr. Oleg Kaptsov, like some of the participants in the discussion, is constantly striving to show and prove to disagree how to make grandfather out of grandmother. Not understanding the simple that the military shipbuilding of that time can only be viewed from the perspective of that time. And no other way. And in Soviet times, the best was built for the fleet, which our shipbuilding industry was capable of.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 October 2015 11: 11 New
      0
      Quote: okroshka79
      Speaking about our Navy, Mr. Oleg Kaptsov, like some of the participants in the discussion, is constantly striving to show and prove to disagree how to make grandfather out of grandmother. Not understanding the simple that the military shipbuilding of that time can only be viewed from the perspective of that time. And no other way. And in Soviet times, the best was built for the fleet, which our shipbuilding industry was capable of.

      Yeah ... that's just the shipbuilding industry was ready to stop at the third 1143. And then build the classic 1153.
      Принятым весной 1976 г. по результатам рассмотрения выполненного НПКБ технического предложения по созданию такого корабля постановлением Правительства предусматривалось проектирование в 1976-1977 гг. и строительство до 1985 г. двух атомных "больших крейсеров с авиационным вооружением" пр. 1153. В отличие от АВ пр. 1160 на них предусматривалось базирование легких самолетов катапультного типа (указанных выше типов), а в перспективе - и Су-27К. Общее количество ЛАК (при размещении на корабле легких самолетов) составляло 50 ед. при увеличении состава ПКРК и снижении водоизмещения корабля до 70 000 т. В связи с отказом Министерства тяжелого машиностроения при согласовании проекта постановления от разработки и изготовления специальных авиационно-технических устройств для этих крейсеров, Б. Е. Бутома поручил их создание Пролетарскому заводу Минсудпрома (главный конструктор - А. А. Булгаков).
      (c) A.B. Morin
      But Butoma and Grechko died ... and Ustinov pushed for the cessation of work in 1153 and the order of the fourth in 1143.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 22 October 2015 01: 34 New
    +2
    Dear author of this opus, I saw these ships live in person ??? Or did they go to sea with military missions ??? Just another couch expert who grabbed some kind of strange information on the Internet. If the author was present at practical firing, I think I’ve changed I’d have my own point of view on the exact opposite. I affirm not unfoundedly, at one time, as a representative of industry, I often hovered in Minsk and Novorossiysk TAKRs. For my time, there were good ships, I must say. Oh ...... By the way, hello to the first commander of the 7th Takr Novorossiysk captain of the first rank Miroshnichenko Yuri Ivanovich
  • Taoist
    Taoist 22 October 2015 10: 34 New
    +4
    Not at all in the topic but moderation is strange on this forum.

    Сообщения с ответами удаляются при этом логическая цепочка рвётся. Если считается что ответ был "не в тех выражениях" (хотя всё писалось в рамках) то надо тогда удалять и исходный пост который такую реакцию вызвал. Я лично не понимаю почему я не могу безграмотного дилетанта назвать таковым... Обидно, я всё таки считал что данный форум с большим вниманием относится к профессионалам чем к сочинителям из жанра "альтернативная история"...
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 22 October 2015 22: 37 New
    +4
    Уважаемый Alexey RA! Я, конечно, снимаю перед Вашей эрудицией свою старую заношенную и порыжевшую от временных и климатических факторов драп-касторовую флотскую фуражку, пошитую по случаю у одного старого знаменитого на весь советский флот еврейского мастера, который держал свое заведение на Телефонной пристани в славном городе-герое Севастополе. Уверен, что Ваш уровень знаний и информированность в военно-политической, экономической, научно-производственной и социальной обстановки в тогдашней нашей стране куда выше, чем у тогдашнего Министра обороны МСС Д.Ф.Устинова. Именно по своей неосведомленности он, не посоветовавшись с Вами, принял решение строить четвертый корпус неправильного авианесущего крейсера пр. 1143 взамен правильного авианосца пр. 1153. Я так же хорошо понимаю, что здесь собрались самые светила и знатоки, знающие какие корабли надо было строить. С удовлетворением отмечаю, что нашим авианесущим кораблям на форуме досталось "по полной программе" и все их недостатки проанализированы с особой тщательностью. Правда, должен Вам сказать, что один, очень крупный недостаток, наверно в эрудическом раже забыли указать. Позвольте и мне внести некую лепту: помещение бильярдной было маловато. Как-то не вполне удобно было от борта длиной стороны стола по шару сильно стукнуть. И когда кий упирался в переборку, корабельные шутники всегда передавали "Привет Мариничу". А,если серьезно, то именно в бытность министра обороны Д.Ф.Устинова для флота были построены наши "Акулы", которые держали под прицелом 1200(совершенно не секретные сведения)) наземных объектов наших "партнеров", наши апл оснащались "Гранитами" (тоже самое), создавались целые флотилии рпксн (аналогично) на двух флотах. И еще очень много много другого. Разве мог в то время какой-нибудь заморский чинуша из какой-либо заморской страны позволить себе вслух что-либо вякнуть в наш адрес, как сегодня!? А, главное, наши корабли всех проектов решили свою задачу на море, начиная от маленького катера-искателя мин и заканчивая этими самыми пресловутыми то ли "недо", то ли "пере", как здесь один из наиболее продвинутых выразился (вот позор-то ему!), крейсерами. Об остальных силах и средствах родов ВМФ - те же слова: войны не допустили вместе с другими видами наших Вооруженных сил. Это - главное. И еще. Уважаемая публика! Оставьте свою критику нашего советского ВМФ и его корабельного, авиационного и берегового состава при себе. Если вы заметили, ни один из уважающих себя моряков здесь на форуме не сказал в адрес наших кораблей ни одного плохого слова и презрительного выражения. Потому, что, в отличие от особо ретивых военспецов, видевших корабли, как говорят моряки, только на конфетных фантиках, себе такого они не позволят. Хотя отлично знают как сильные стороны своего корабля, так и его недостатки. Потому что знают и то, что военное искусство - это умение нейтрализовать сильные стороны противника и реализовать против него свои сильные стороны. Честь имею!
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 22 October 2015 22: 54 New
      0
      Quote: okroshka79
      Leave your criticism of our Soviet Navy and its naval, aviation and coastal personnel to yourself

      This will kill the forum. The Soviet fleet, the American AUG and Tsushima are three pillars for such naval forums.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 25 October 2015 22: 29 New
    0
    PPR - however, as usual ... everyone remained with their own.