Hybrid of Admiral Gorshkov




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:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alex_59 20 October 2015 07: 32 New
    • 16
    • 0
    +16
    Anyway, what is this argument about?
    The key phrase on which I want to close the topic.
    1. Ruslan 20 October 2015 08: 10 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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 20 October 2015 08: 23 New
        • 28
        • 0
        +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 20 October 2015 14: 16 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Banshee
          Two worlds, two opinions.

          Only one of them is balanced and reasoned, and the second is adolescent hyperemotional wink
      2. strannik1985 20 October 2015 10: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And what is the point if the air defense of the connection is not provided? The British saved on Eagle type aircraft and CVA-1 paid about 1,3-1,5 billion dollars (the cost of the ships sunk during the Falkland conflict), or rather even more, because if the LV had a normal carrier carrier Galtieri simply did not would decide on a war.
        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 20 October 2015 11: 30 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -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 ...

          The point is that the British from the islands planned to slip away in the next year or two. They even refused to import fuel on favorable terms and in full for the winter of 1982/83 (the islanders would have to gather in order not to freeze). The Argentines simply “rushed them” ... instead, after only 2,5 months they raked themselves.

          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 20 October 2015 12: 48 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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.
            In such conditions of the “cooperative mate” even helicopters with explosive explosives would be effective. smile
            1. Scraptor 20 October 2015 13: 07 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +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 20 October 2015 13: 40 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +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.
                And also because the “mirages” went at a high altitude (fuel!) And carried out launches on targets operating on MV and PMV. Let me remind you that after 9 years in the “desert storm” even the latest Sparrow models were regularly smeared if the shooting was fired “from top to bottom”. In addition, the lower boundary at R.530 was about 60-100 m.

                And the Mirages did not have a chance to correct the mistake - they had only one R.530.
                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 20 October 2015 15: 52 New
                  • -1
                  • 0
                  -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.
                  One R.530 each. Just a breakdown of guidance with a decrease or more often a "bell".
                  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 20 October 2015 18: 09 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    They had AWACS.

                    No. In our terms, their “Neptunes” are, rather, RC machines (reconnaissance and target designation).

                    If the Args had normal AWACS - there would be no cases like "the planes got the control, but they didn’t find targets" or "it’s not known where the enemy fighters shot down the Argentineans from."
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    They walked at high altitude because they have an advantage in height and speed there.

                    No. Because fuel consumption is less. At Mirage Mirages, they would not have lasted 10 minutes.
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Harriers have 2 PTB and 2 AIM-9 with infrared seeker.
                    Mirage is clearly superior in weapons.

                    Ahem ... since when is the all-aspect sidewinder inferior to the R.550, which works only after it?
                    1. Scraptor 21 October 2015 04: 26 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 21 October 2015 10: 40 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +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 ...

                        Ahem ... the Daggers and Mirages had no refueling equipment. Therefore, they perverted with the PTB.

                        “On the hose” reached the Skyhawks base, damaged by air defense during a raid on May 24.
                        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.
                        And, again, PARLGSN when working from top to bottom gives regular breakdowns of capture.
                      2. Scraptor 21 October 2015 11: 04 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 20 October 2015 20: 34 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 21 October 2015 02: 57 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +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 20 October 2015 16: 05 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          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. The British did not have full-fledged ABs, only 2 LAVs with a small number of Sea Harriers having a small radius of action, plus the absence of AWACS. Because of this, ships were used for early detection, and the Sheffield and Coventry died when working as a radar patrol. All Argentinean aircraft, even “Super Etandars”, even “Skyhawks” came out to attack at low or ultra-low altitudes using an external command center (for example, Neptune pointed at Sheffield with 250 km).
          Could they afford it if the British had written off Ark Royal, or better yet, the CVA-1979 Queen Elizabeth, slaughtered by the Labor Party in the late 01s, with Phantoms and Hokai (originally Gannet AEW.60- 3 things).

          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 20 October 2015 18: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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 20 October 2015 18: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I wrote the answer uv. Scraptor post from 11.30.
            2. Scraptor 21 October 2015 05: 36 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -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 21 October 2015 04: 18 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 21 October 2015 09: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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.

              They didn’t have money for a normal AB, only the modernization of “Invincible” cost 100 million pounds, their legs stretched out over their clothes. AB type Nimitz -6 billion dollars, twice as much as the cost of the lost ships in the conflict. Where does the money come from?

              Lost for the reasons already indicated.
              1. Scraptor 21 October 2015 10: 04 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Who suddenly failed there some Boeing 707 (?), And even “Sea Dart!”?
                And why confuse the "applied" and "lost"?

                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 21 October 2015 20: 35 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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.
                  Also (behind the horizon horizon line) Super Etandars attacked, access to the area at an altitude of 40-50 meters, airborne radars turned off. At a distance of 46 km, the flight altitude was increased to 150 meters and the radar was turned on for a short time (30 seconds), after launching the missile, turn around, drop to 30 meters and exit the battle. So attacked Sheffield and Plymouth.
                  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 22 October 2015 01: 36 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Well, and from which ship was this Boeing Sea-Dart taken off? what is written there?

                    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.

                    The Argentines also had AB, with English-built (like half of their fleet) ejection and aerofinisher, not for SQUWP, and smaller than Hermes and even Invincible.

                    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 22 October 2015 06: 34 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 23 November 2015 13: 14 New
                      • -1
                      • 0
                      -1
                      Many different, for example, "Neptune."

                      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.
                      After losing his wing from the actions of the harriers, the Argentinian - yes, he would, but he would lose it. And then they would not let helicopters and trackers fly.

                      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 23 November 2015 16: 58 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      P2V Neptune-based patrol aircraft, the same "AWACS" as a mobilized Boeing or S-130, it cannot constantly monitor the situation (access to the MV with the radar turned off in the work area, jump up to 150 meters with the inclusion of the radar fixation of British ships , again a decline in MV and going home).

                      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)?

                      They were, they were dragged on mobilized civilian vessels, they were not included in the LAV staff air groups. One hit in a ship built according to civil standards of shipbuilding and that’s all, there is no “aircraft carrier”.
                    4. Scraptor 23 November 2015 19: 01 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      At business jets now they are doing AWACS so what? He can do anything laughing
                      Not every business jet is smaller than the Hokai aircraft carrier 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 23 November 2015 20: 23 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 24 November 2015 12: 22 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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)

                      No problem, one hit in an aircraft carrier, and no problem. Atlane-Conveyor even got through the board breaking through and on Forrestal or Enterprise in general 70mm Zuni, or there was an accident, or McCain went to smoke ...
                    7. strannik1985 24 November 2015 12: 42 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +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 24 November 2015 14: 37 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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?

                      Why in a few years and not right away? Why, in those 33,5 years that have passed, again no one "started", and did not attack these islands - SVA still has no ready-made CVAs ?!

                      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 24 November 2015 15: 21 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +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 24 November 2015 15: 40 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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?

                      Than usual. Do you want to make a high-profile statement that in the whole history a land airfield covered by patrol and duty units and air defense systems has never been attacked by the enemy? Then what is the problem with the "floating sea"?
                    11. strannik1985 24 November 2015 16: 50 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Radar AN / APS-120 for 300-400 km from the warrant, Phantoms do not need to "fly up", it is enough to attack from distances of more than 12-15 km.

                      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 24 November 2015 20: 14 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 No matter where. "Radio shadow" hide behind dropping the foil and performing a maneuver. A pack of foil is much lighter and more compact than 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 24 November 2015 20: 52 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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?

                      A phantom can carry up to 8 RVV against 1 at Mirage, do not get upset to “hide behind”?

                      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 24 November 2015 21: 24 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 25 November 2015 09: 58 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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?

                      Given that the Argentines will have to launch their drums blindly, without reconnaissance, the Phantoms will have a lot of time, read the description of the attacks. Launches of the Exocetes were successful with a surprise attack, provided that the target does not use electronic warfare. The same situation with the Daggers and Skyhawks. Until the Mirages find the enemy (the “Cyrano” -50 km radar) they will be attacked in full.

                      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 25 November 2015 12: 21 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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
                      however, you already put it below the “18km sidewinder” (which one, and where?).

                      The "side view" sidewinder becomes only in the immediate vicinity, and by shaking off the tail it is the most slop missile. It was generally the most sloppy rocket there, except perhaps its shabby replicas of 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 26 November 2015 11: 08 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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
                      however, you already put it below the “18km sidewinder” (which one, and where?).

                      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 26 November 2015 12: 51 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 Why not installed? Argentina had AWACS! And in real life ... The number of Mirages and Daggers would be more than the number of aircraft carrier fans. The only battle that they "mastered" alone against the MiG-21 was the other way around with their three-fold numerical advantage.

                      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 20 October 2015 12: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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?

    The problem is that we came to the UDC concept exactly when we managed to push through the “boots” the first AB with normal aircraft.
    And UDC became competitors of AB - for the plant for their construction was planning to occupy the only "slipway 0" in the USSR.
  • Santa Fe 20 October 2015 08: 20 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    Quote: Alex_59
    The key phrase on which I want to close the topic.

    When all the points are above the "and", now you can close

    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 20 October 2015 08: 34 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      When all the points are above the "and", now you can close

      All points above the "and" originally stood. You have yours, Andrei's own, I have mine, and Kuzin's own. Butts in comments did not move these points by a millimeter for anyone. I’ll just notice the presentation of the material, the quality of analytics and the presentation style of Andrei is better than yours (this is my personal opinion, you can be offended).
      Essentially: I also wanted to write in Andrei’s article that the main drawback in his calculations is the service locations of the 1143 ships. (But there the srach went into such wilds ...) 1143 were always on the BS in remote areas, and not offshore, where they could be the "leaders" of anti-submarine forces. 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.
      1. Santa Fe 20 October 2015 08: 57 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: Alex_59
        All points above the "and" originally stood.

        No, initially a heated debate erupted on the VO forum
        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 20 October 2015 12: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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
    • 0
    0
    Yeah, some kind of misunderstanding, not a ship
    1. Scraptor 20 October 2015 08: 05 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Is Invincible better, Gorshkov, or Vikramaditya?

      Thanks for pictures... smile

      but this is not an article, but a great answer to someone’s comments made earlier by someone ...
      For some reason, about the record (35pcs) Yak-12 copied from F-141 never occurs. Regarding the "futility" of SKVVP Yak-38

      Range: 1,300 km [4] (807 miles) - could not be found in Russian, all the “pioneers” were wiped out.
      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
        • 0
        +3
        There is no point in arguing with Scraptor (who had previously left comments under the nickname “Kassandra”), after his stories of how all-metal four-engine bombers were assembled in furniture factories

        here is the link to the correspondence from that branch:

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

        After that, it became clear what kind of character he was and what he was doing on the VO forum.
        1. Scraptor 20 October 2015 08: 45 New
          • -3
          • 0
          -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.
          But all this is of course propaganda, therefore - do not look and do not listen ... and fly on the F-35 "belly forward." 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 .

          About 10min "useless to fly" with
          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
            • 0
            +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 20 October 2015 09: 08 New
              • -2
              • 0
              -2
              So that you don’t doubt once again, go to the 5 and see what made the largest Hughes "Spruce Goose" motor aircraft in the history of 8 mi.
              maybe their internet is different ...

              What’s there with 10 minutes of “flying and scaring” around the mast on the 7th Mach? 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
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: Scraptor
                So that you don’t doubt once again, go to the 5 and see what made the largest Hughes "Spruce Goose" motor aircraft in the history of 8 mi.

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





                So, was it made of plywood?
                1. Scraptor 20 October 2015 09: 27 New
                  • -3
                  • 0
                  -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
                    • 0
                    +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 20 October 2015 10: 28 New
                      • -4
                      • 0
                      -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
                        • 0
                        +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 20 October 2015 11: 45 New
                        • -4
                        • 0
                        -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 20 October 2015 19: 21 New
                        • -3
                        • 0
                        -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 21 October 2015 03: 14 New
                        • -4
                        • 0
                        -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.
                        To make from wood what “Sweet-16” is made of duralumin in the photo is not a problem, the weight of this frame “inerrier” will simply increase. And weight is not always reliable. The screws were somehow wooden and nothing.
                        In Germany, in WWI there were wooden airships, and better than Cepellins.
                      5. saturn.mmm 21 October 2015 20: 36 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 22 October 2015 00: 15 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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
                    • 0
                    +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 21 October 2015 07: 02 New
                    • -2
                    • 0
                    -2
                    There, the workers are not trained in dural work - this, by the way ...
                  4. tlauicol 21 October 2015 08: 49 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    what about diving anti-ship missiles? found or still looking for?
                    look at furniture factories
                  5. Scraptor 21 October 2015 08: 55 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Warhead anti-ship missiles. Not looking, why should I? Her photo is constantly posting ...
                  6. tlauicol 21 October 2015 09: 16 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    let me ask you a little curiosity?
                  7. tlauicol 21 October 2015 09: 34 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Scraptor. But it was written - "long taught", true.

                    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 21 October 2015 10: 22 New
                    • -2
                    • 0
                    -2
                    Why didn’t they endure so quickly ... Does the office write? laughing
                  9. tlauicol 21 October 2015 10: 59 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +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 21 October 2015 11: 42 New
                    • -1
                    • 0
                    -1
                    Don’t get wet ...
                    Warhead not from plywood, why look for them there?
      2. saturn.mmm 21 October 2015 20: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 22 October 2015 00: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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.
        There are no "VTOL carriers" - SKVVP is an airplane.
  • saturn.mmm 20 October 2015 19: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 20 October 2015 12: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 21 October 2015 05: 29 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      This could vary from plane to plane. The skin of the Kozhedubovsky La-7 is metal.
      1. Alexey RA 21 October 2015 11: 00 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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?
        EMNIP, it was La-7 that was the "last step" of mixed-design vehicles before moving on to the all-metal La-9.
        1. Scraptor 21 October 2015 11: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          He himself spoke on TV ... So it gradually shifted.
  • avt
    avt 20 October 2015 08: 29 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +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,

    Look and find out why, especially when you compare Pegasus with what Yakovlev did.
    Quote: Scraptor
    For some reason, about the record (35pcs) Yak-12 copied from the F-141 never occurs.

    Again - who copied whom somewhere? Have you even seen a diagram of who and how vertically rises from them? Well, the Yaklivites sold a rotary nozzle to amers, yes - an important detail, since this all the similarities with the 141m ended and to this day this modification is lame in the US. foam at the mouth to prove patriotism to the greatness of the Yak -38, but in fact the ONE successful machine was and remains ,, Harrier. "
    1. Scraptor 20 October 2015 10: 48 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -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
        • 0
        +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 Hey, clown - you were there, well, what would I write about the fact that someone was dissatisfied there? Who was there, “dissatisfied" was specifically from the flyers? Wasn't it that the tails were twisted on airplanes in Mary, and then they sang songs on every corner "I was in Afghanistan. Well, at least I’ve sent a report on the results of the tests of the Yak-38, and sent it there specifically for testing in high altitude conditions? It’s better not to ask the Harrier who had worked in real battles as a" expert ". laughing
        1. Scraptor 21 October 2015 01: 53 New
          • -3
          • 0
          -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 22 October 2015 12: 07 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Was the Marine Corps in Afghanistan?
            1. Scraptor 23 November 2015 12: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              You did not know about this? and the Russian one was ...
              1. strannik1985 23 November 2015 17: 00 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                As far as I know, the MP Navy of the USSR was not in the DRA.
                1. Scraptor 23 November 2015 17: 59 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  This is known from where? bully
                  1. strannik1985 23 November 2015 20: 27 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I read a parsing of a BMP-2 photo with a tactical mark similar to the Morpech emblem.
                    Are you bored?
                  2. Scraptor 24 November 2015 12: 18 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    And how does this follow from this?
                    Already fun ...
                  3. strannik1985 24 November 2015 12: 46 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Forgot nothing?
                    You wrote the first: “In this onchot, there are reports of the Naval Forces and Airborne Forces and motorized riflemen of the SA in the interests of which the Yaks worked?”, “You didn’t know about this? b / d in the territory of the DRA.
                  4. Scraptor 24 November 2015 14: 23 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 24 November 2015 14: 35 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    That is, crap blurted out and do not know how to otmazatsya. Thank you.
                  6. Scraptor 24 November 2015 15: 53 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 24 November 2015 17: 01 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Do you have anything other than your own words proving MP's participation in the DRA 1979-1989?
                  8. Scraptor 24 November 2015 19: 55 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    It is necessary to somehow help with decoding some special
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    "tactical mark on the BMP-2?"
                    lol
                  9. strannik1985 24 November 2015 20: 04 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    No need to figure it out without you.
                    Essentially have something to say?
                  10. Scraptor 24 November 2015 20: 52 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    You have nothing to write about it ...
  • forumow 20 October 2015 10: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I agree about the “Harier” - a really successful plane for its time. The Yankees should have chosen the X-32, as part of the JSF program, which implements a similar VTOL design and has superior range. It looks like they were let down by the not very aesthetic exterior of this prototype :)
    1. Scraptor 20 October 2015 11: 34 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      An unprecedented in-depth analysis of thoughts ... X-32 was able to fly only in a semi-disassembled state. lol Just was an extra for the "contest".
      1. forumow 20 October 2015 13: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 20 October 2015 14: 19 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -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 20 October 2015 15: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Where to me!
            1. Scraptor 21 October 2015 06: 00 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              That's for sure...
      2. opus 24 October 2015 01: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 24 October 2015 11: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 23 November 2015 11: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 23 November 2015 12: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          ... What are "Bombs and AMRAAMS"?
          By specifications on Wikipedia, only the "non-American" maximum take-off weight is modestly indicated.
  • remy 20 October 2015 12: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    as an option, we would now resume work on VTOL Yak-141
    just appeared new engines, composites, avionics, etc.
  • mav1971 20 October 2015 21: 17 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Scraptor
    Is Invincible better, Gorshkov, or Vikramaditya?

    Thanks for pictures... smile

    but this is not an article, but a great answer to someone’s comments made earlier by someone ...
    For some reason, about the record (35pcs) Yak-12 copied from F-141 never occurs. Regarding the "futility" of SKVVP Yak-38

    Range: 1,300 km [4] (807 miles) - could not be found in Russian, all the “pioneers” were wiped out.
    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 20 October 2015 22: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Where did you get this information? Not a single publication on the Internet about Rhombus has this, Alferov in his memoirs also does not write this, although he mentions the sorties of the yak (without details, but notes that the result is so-so).

      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 20 October 2015 23: 12 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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.


      where are the firewood from? Damn, as the "experts" pulled up somewhere in the network some kind of snowstorm ...
      Yes, because of the short gas path and extremely simplified design, Yak PD did not like the heat, but it was "treated" not by draining the fuel but by turning on the oxygen recharge system ... And my pilots who participated in Rhombus would be very surprised to learn that they only flew in the mornings ...
      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 22 October 2015 00: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 22 October 2015 00: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 25 October 2015 12: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 21 October 2015 01: 41 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -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 20 October 2015 13: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 20 October 2015 13: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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.

      And anti-submarine aircraft from the old Essexes in the 70s began to be massively withdrawn from the fleet. In addition, the Essexes had both anti-submarine and strike options: for example, the Oriskani carried the “crusaders”, “skyhocks” and “corsairs-2”.
      1. 27091965 20 October 2015 14: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 20 October 2015 08: 02 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +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
    • 0
    +6
    Everything is so - ,, the queen gave birth on the night to either a son or a daughter, not a mouse, not a frog, but to an unknown animal. "It cost a lot, invaluable experience" 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 Probably I would rephrase a bit - we always talk about invaluable experience, well, Pushkin is everything - ,, And experience is the son of difficult mistakes ... " 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 20 October 2015 08: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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:

    “Therefore, I set out to compare the Yak-38 and the Harrier as a naval weapon system precisely then, in May of the 1982 of the year, to imagine how a Soviet aircraft would have shown itself in the place of the Harriers. For a full comparison, of course, it would require mathematical modeling of the conflict, and even better - the military-strategic game on the map, taking into account all the realities of that war. Without claiming to be a full-fledged analysis, I would like to give the reader an idea: what would happen if ... "

    http://kramtp.info/page/57/id=32
    1. Santa Fe 20 October 2015 08: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: tasha
      Therefore, I set out to compare the Yak-38 and the Harrier as a naval weapon system precisely then, in May 1982 of the year

      Harriers based on 20-thousand tonnes of "Invincibles" and container ships, due to the lack of British money for normal warships

      Yak-38 based on 40 thousand ton 273 meter super cruiser
      When the USSR had all the technical and financial capabilities to build a classic aircraft carrier with fighter-bombers of the Super Etandar level. The most serious car was, shut up most of the aircraft of that time
      (grounds to consider: Clemenceau ~ 35 thousand tons, the modern atomic de Gaulle with the Rafals - 40 thousand tons)

      (besides, in my personal opinion, instead of carrier-based aviation, the conventional air forces will always cope)
      1. Scraptor 20 October 2015 09: 47 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -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 20 October 2015 08: 32 New
    • 18
    • 0
    +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
      • 0
      -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 20 October 2015 21: 04 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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 20 October 2015 08: 34 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +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
      • 0
      -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

      Melodramas set aside! "calculation of harsh nuts and steel"
      1. Severomor 20 October 2015 10: 45 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And for the taxpayer - the best ship is the one who brings victory
        Melodramas set aside! "calculation of harsh nuts and steel"


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

        TAKR "Kiev" - 10 military services, I think this is also a victory!
  • qwert 20 October 2015 08: 50 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +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 20 October 2015 08: 56 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +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.
    Imagine for a moment that the wonderful three "Kiev", "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk" are alive. And all kinds of repairs took place in a timely manner. And in the inter-passage period, they would stand by the wall, receiving electricity, water and steam from the shore. And what are in their hangars besides the Ka-27 and Ka-29, a wonderful replacement for the Yak36M "cucumbers" - it makes no difference to me what they are called. If there is an aircraft carrier, then there will be corresponding planes. There are no aircraft carriers - there is no carrier-based aircraft and only disputes remain. Would there be an application to the “wrong Russian aircraft carriers” in modern conditions? Undoubtedly. And everything else is from the evil one.
    Yours faithfully, Valery.
    1. Santa Fe 20 October 2015 09: 08 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Orlan1144-2
      Imagine for a moment that the wonderful three "Kiev", "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk" are alive

      And where did the fourth go - “Baku"?

      Now imagine for a moment instead of them aircraft carriers without missiles, but with a solid flight deck (such as Vikrmaditya)
      Quote: Orlan1144-2
      And what are in their hangars besides ka-27 and Ka-29 a wonderful replacement for "cucumbers" YAK36M

      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. 20 October 2015 09: 39 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And what are in their hangars MiG-29K
        Yes, great, but the MiG-29K could not take off from smaller ships, and the Yak-141 could rise from any barge, if necessary, take off from any hole. 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, and with destroyed runways, they turn out to be targets on the ground. As for the ships of the 1143 project, one must understand that thanks to them the construction of the aircraft carrier fleet began in general, and without the experience of its creation, they would not have come to Kuznetsov and the nuclear Ulyanovsk. Nothing prevented the redesign of the first ships, like the Gorshkov for Hindus, into classic aircraft carriers, UDCs or multipurpose helicopter carriers. The fact that the ships were cut, that they destroyed the almost finished Yak-141, ahead of its time, was not to blame for the "depravity" of the idea, but for the betrayal and collapse of the great country, the Soviet Union. Not only did our carrier fleet die, but generally suffered, one way or another, the entire powerful fleet of the USSR was destroyed. I already said, but I repeat once more, if instead of the aircraft-carrying cruisers, "Admiral Gorshkov hybrids", the most modern full-fledged aircraft carriers, they would most likely have been cut and sold under Yeltsin. The destruction of our fleet, in particular aircraft carrier, was one of the main ideas-fix of our overseas "friends". If they had stayed in the USSR, they would have built more than one atomic Ulyanovsk long ago, they would have switched to a better project, just as they would have nightmare the bourgeois with the incomparable capabilities of their supersonic Yak-141M or its even more advanced development. Admiral Gorshkov did what he could for the fleet, and he should be proud of his fleet, and not spoil the deck of his glorious history.
        1. Santa Fe 20 October 2015 09: 44 New
          • -4
          • 0
          -4
          Quote: Per se.
          Yes, great, but the MiG-29K couldn’t take off smaller ships

          TAKRA 273 meter length

          much less
          1. Scraptor 20 October 2015 11: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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. 20 October 2015 13: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            much less
            The atomic French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle has a length of 261,5 meters, the Spanish type Prince of Austria has a length of 195,9 meters, and the Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi in general is 180,2 meters. Not the smallest we had ships. Of course, on aircraft-carrying cruisers, the flight was only a corner deck, under VTOL and helicopters, and it is much shorter than the total length of the ship, if desired, the Yak-141 could also be based on helicopter carriers like “Moscow” and “Leningrad”, while reinforcing the aft deck.
        2. Alex_59 20 October 2015 10: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          then before the ships of the 1143 project, one must understand that thanks to them the construction of the aircraft carrier fleet began in general, and without the experience of its creation, they would not have come to Kuznetsov and the nuclear Ulyanovsk.

          For the experience it was enough 1 ship - "Kiev", without squandering a series of 4 units. This is the problem that the collapse of a great country occurred due to the irrational spending of funds. Including the construction of a series of 4's 1143 ships. This is of course a drop in the bucket for the country's budget, but still ...
          1. Per se. 20 October 2015 13: 37 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Alex_59
            This is the problem that the collapse of a great country occurred due to the irrational spending of funds.
            In the collapse of the Soviet Union, our fleet, and aircraft carrier in particular, is the least to blame. I don’t feel like repeating myself, even if the USSR had no aircraft-carrying cruisers at all, saving everything and everything, all the same, one dreamer Gorbachev with his “humanism” and concessions to the Yankees would have been enough. What Mikhail Sergeyevich would not have spoiled, he would have handed over to his friend Boris Boris Nikolaevich.
        3. Scraptor 20 October 2015 11: 06 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -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 20 October 2015 21: 48 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +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 21 October 2015 09: 05 New
              • -2
              • 0
              -2
              Quote: mav1971
              Not ready.
              He was unprepared.
              He did not pass the tests. It is a fact.

              Now jump ... laughing

              He passed his tests - 12 records. Airshow displays in Paris and Farnborough. The only accident ended with aerodynamic compatibility tests with Gorshkov. The plane after it was restored. His test has not yet passed the Yak-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
          • 0
          +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 20 October 2015 16: 21 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            You must be able to ...
          2. Per se. 20 October 2015 19: 07 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: avt
            Yah !?? And jet exhaust VTOL poher?
            You really need to exaggerate everything if the “pit” is so close to it, without fail, as in the works of Hollywood. He is attracted to sarcasm, he suffered, well, to each his own, only emoticons are already rudeness, although for today's youngsters, maybe the norm. Insolence and self-confidence can sometimes help in life.
            1. mav1971 20 October 2015 21: 55 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Per se.
              Quote: avt
              Yah !?? And jet exhaust VTOL poher?
              You really need to exaggerate everything if the “pit” is so close to it, without fail, as in the works of Hollywood. He is attracted to sarcasm, he suffered, well, to each his own, only emoticons are already rudeness, although for today's youngsters, maybe the norm. Insolence and self-confidence can sometimes help in life.


              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 21 October 2015 02: 50 New
                • -2
                • 0
                -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 21 October 2015 03: 54 New
                  • -1
                  • 0
                  -1
                  And then it's time to collect slogans, time to spread slogans ...
      2. forumow 20 October 2015 11: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The boats were excellent, in the sense of excellent "boxes"! They could be rebuilt, all four, both on the model of Vikramaditya, for OUR fleet, and in the "missile battleship" - the arsenal ship, under the same "Gauges", or even more abruptly. There were just two-on-two, mutually complementary single-platform ships. Much more benefit than the surviving TARKs of the Kirov type, which are now being modernized for lack of anything better.
        We should consider this option of equipping our fleet with new similar ships in the course of its further development!
        1. Per se. 20 October 2015 13: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: forumow
          Much more benefit than the surviving TARKs of the Kirov type, which are now being modernized for lack of anything better.
          Well, thanks for at least staying. If desired, one of the “Orlanes” could be converted into a light atomic aircraft carrier, just as the atomic “Ural” came up, they would not have completely destroyed it, not only as an reconnaissance and tracking ship, but also for remaking at least for a training aircraft carrier or multipurpose helicopter carrier. The diagram shows one of the options for modernizing the Orlan as a helicopter carrier.
          1. forumow 20 October 2015 15: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            New-Moscow!
      3. avt
        avt 20 October 2015 16: 08 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Orlan1144-2
        Imagine for a moment that the wonderful three "Kiev", "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk" are alive. And all kinds of repairs took place in a timely manner. And in the inter-passage period, they would stand by the wall, receiving electricity, water and steam from the shore. And what are in their hangars besides the Ka-27 and Ka-29, a wonderful replacement for the Yak36M "cucumbers" - it makes no difference to me what they are called.

        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 20 October 2015 16: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 20 October 2015 18: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This is when comparing the Yak-141 with the Mig-29 9-12, the first flight of which was in 1977, its inferior competitor on the deck, the Mig-29K (first flight in 1987), is inferior in range at high and low altitude, weight of combat load and other parameters.

            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 21 October 2015 03: 31 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 22 October 2015 06: 47 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 23 November 2015 13: 11 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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 23 November 2015 17: 14 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 23 November 2015 18: 46 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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
                      The conversion of a clean Yak-41 fighter into a Yak-141 fighter-bomber was generally "justified" by the fact that the Yak-43 with the NK-32 would still be better than the Yak-41 as a fighter. The fact that the Yak-41 Fleet and the Air Force is right now "somehow" was not taken into account.

                      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 24 November 2015 05: 24 New
                        • -1
                        • 0
                        -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 24 November 2015 12: 26 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It used to be, but now I don’t know.

                        This is not a ferret, but an osprey. It flies and fights just like this bird flies and hunts, so it was called ... Only Su-27 is enough against it. With the MiG-29 there will be a combat draw in a duel situation.

                        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?
                        And why not compare? Because you really don’t want “this country” to have aerodrome-free aerodrome, not riveted to the airfield, and mass aviation over the sea?

                        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.
                        That is, what they “sew” the Yak-141, although it only had incomplete compatibility tests with the Gorshkov Tavkr based on it ...
                      3. strannik1985 24 November 2015 12: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        If "exact" then indicate the sources of this information.

                        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?

                        And why not compare? Because you really don’t want “this country” to have aerodrome-free aerodrome, not riveted to the airfield, and mass aviation over the sea?

                        Because paper indicators are far from always embodied in metal.
                      4. Scraptor 24 November 2015 14: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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.

                        NK-32 is also paper? ... Yes, no, dear. Because you want them to be paper. If not that "they were at all" ...
                      5. strannik1985 24 November 2015 15: 25 New
                        • -1
                        • 0
                        -1
                        To summarize: there are no sources, only distortion. I see no reason to continue the conversation.
                      6. Scraptor 24 November 2015 15: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        To summarize: you "tried" with your idle talk on the Soviet SKVVP, the Marine Corps and convertiplanes, but you couldn’t do it all around ...

                        And constantly go away from answering questions repeatedly asked above.
                        After all, do not write that “he was unknown in metal or was not”, but insistently insist that “was not”. repeat

                        That would be NK-32 “paper”, then you could have some chances against someone else, but not against those who know that usually a plane is designed even for a promising engine ... like the Yak-36 for example, on which “so far” they put two available ones (since the promising one was late and appeared only on the Yak-38th). And even if there is a more powerful NK-32, then to make SKVVP on it, this goes without saying, because for such a technique the engine is especially selected the most powerful.
                      7. strannik1985 24 November 2015 16: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 24 November 2015 19: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 24 November 2015 20: 07 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Of course, of course, from a finger it is more true lol
                      10. Scraptor 24 November 2015 20: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Left middle arm? bully

                        Poor "tried" dear comrade! ... Why didn’t they ask why even between the readiness of the NK-32 and the start of work on the Yak-43 there was a pause of more than 2 years? laughing
  • bk0010 22 October 2015 00: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Not prettier. What tasks are you going to assign to the air group from the Mig-29K? PLO? Not funny. True, you can replace part of the MiGs with helicopters, but then again you get 1143, but without air defense missiles? - airplanes are ideally suited, but in the absence of AWACS aircraft, it will be necessary to control and aim either from a ship with a limited radio horizon, or from external subscribers, which are generally absent. AUG attack? Compared to Basalt, the capabilities of the air group are simply not serious, it’s another matter that, in a good way, not 8 missiles are required, but 20-24. Attack of individual ships? Migi will master, but it’s too small for an aircraft carrier. MAO support? The landing operations were planned to be carried out in the straits, where coastal aviation could help them. Such an aircraft carrier could be really useful for solving the tasks of increasing the stability of the SSBNs, demonstrating the flag and "peacekeeping operations," but cheaper solutions can be used to solve them.
    1. Scraptor 22 October 2015 00: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      AWAC lifts tiltrotor, go helicopter.
      There are 16 for them.
      1. bk0010 22 October 2015 22: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 23 November 2015 12: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 22 October 2015 12: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Those that were assigned to the Mig-29K of the Ulyanovsk air group, or now to the alleged Kuznetsov air group. I’m not writing that the air group will be only from Mig-29K, it’s just most often it (or rather version 9-12) is compared with the Yak-141.
  • GOgaRu 20 October 2015 09: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Respect to the author of the article! Although I do not always agree with his conclusions, the material always puts a strain on my gears. good
  • timyr 20 October 2015 10: 24 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +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 20 October 2015 11: 51 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In hindsight, everyone is strong.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 11: 56 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +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”).

    Since when did Bazalt anti-ship missiles and an air group of two dozen helicopters appear on the BOD? What did I miss? 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.

    "Glory" was laid in 1976, between the third and fourth ships of project 1143 (Novorossiysk laid in 1975 and Baku - 1978). Thus, it is correct to compare the "Glory" unless with "Baku", and this ship had 12 launcher "Basalt" and “Daggers” - they refused from the Storm installations.
    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 20 October 2015 11: 59 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +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 really higher than that of nuclear submarines 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.
      1134B and pr. 1155 "Daredevil".

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

      And what is better “Clemenceau” to accompany the AUG in the middle-earth?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 11: 59 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +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 ...
        ... And who here called TAVKR "ships of Armageddon"?
        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 20 October 2015 21: 01 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +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 20 October 2015 13: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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.


      You can sometimes meet very significant objections. For example, the author writes "... a sandwich with sausage ...", and the opponent in response - "... no, the sausage laid on bread! ..."
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 13: 48 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: sevtrash
        For example, the author writes "... a sandwich with sausage ...", and the opponent in response - "... no, the sausage laid on bread! ..."

        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 20 October 2015 13: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: sevtrash
        For example, the author writes "... a sandwich with sausage ...", and the opponent in response - "... no, the sausage laid on bread! ..."

        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 20 October 2015 16: 21 New
          • -5
          • 0
          -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 20 October 2015 20: 57 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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?
            I use the Soviet classification, in which project 1123 is an anti-submarine cruiser, 1143 is a heavy aircraft carrier, and the aircraft carrier is Nimitz :) And the difference between TAKR - the VTOL carrier and the aircraft carrier is obvious (well, except for you, of course)
            In the international classification of CATOBAR, STOBAR and STOVL, TAKR of project 1143 does not enter, because it is neither one nor the other nor the third. You, of course, using children's logic: “since VTOL means STOVL on it” you referred it to STOVL. That in the world there are a bunch of aircraft carriers that are not CATOBAR, STOBAR and STOVL You did not think. You didn’t even think to ask yourself a question - landing helicopter carriers (say, “Tarava” or “Uosp”) - are they STOVL aircraft carriers? No? Why so, are they carriers of VTOL? Ah, they are landing helicopter carriers ... Well, Project 1143 TAKR is an anti-submarine VTOL carrier helicopter carrier, and it has nothing more to do with aircraft carriers than Tarava or Uosp.
            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:
            “This is because you don’t see the difference between the CATOBAR and STOVL aircraft carriers”

            Or do you think that there is no difference between them? laughing
          2. Scraptor 21 October 2015 05: 53 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            Perhaps this is because the VTOL aircraft carrier sounds better to the public ...
            nobody writes “helicopter carrier” (instead of helicopter carrier) or “speed carrier” instead of “ebola carrier or AIDS”. Here, all means are good starting from a direct lie, for example, about 10 minutes around the mast instead of 1300 km range, similar to NLP, and like a deck ... something there.

            If to write so "carrier SKVVP". But here they missed one letter ...
            1. Scraptor 21 October 2015 06: 24 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              A missile carrier is not called a "rocket launcher"

              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 21 October 2015 06: 51 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Well, because the brain is dislocated primarily through the terms ... and then they give a lot of other "benefits" ...

            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 is an aircraft carrier, they simply “devote” it from aircraft carriers through the “VTOL carrier”, and SKVVP - from airplanes, for this, the notion with the “VTOL carrier” and “invented” ...

            Cruiser carriers used to be, but it was more for reconnaissance.
            1. Scraptor 21 October 2015 06: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 20 October 2015 12: 21 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +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.

    Threat from the category of "and they have lynched blacks" - and they have a black man near the helicopter hangar biceps shook))))
    1. Serg65 21 October 2015 12: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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. Somehow it so happened that I usually stood a "dog".
  • Zigmars 20 October 2015 12: 23 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +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” ...

    A nightmare ... What, however, is amazingly self-confident amateurism and what an impenetrable darkness of speculative overlook! And this is all Oleg Kaptsov. After such “original” authorial passages, more like fantasy, to be honest, it even becomes awkward.
    You should write fairy tales, Oleg. Without any irony.
    1. Severomor 20 October 2015 12: 31 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +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.

      It’s necessary to answer the “passages”, and here are 3 posts-sheets from Andrey from Chelyabinsk, albeit with reservations, but much better than the article itself
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 October 2015 12: 33 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Severomor
        It would be necessary to answer the "passages", and here are 3 posts

        I apologize for interrupting :)
        1. Severomor 20 October 2015 13: 09 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +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 21 October 2015 12: 41 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Welcome Andrew hi drinks
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I apologize for interrupting :)

          Yes, there’s nothing to apologize to you for, everything is right! In the 2015 year, of course, it can be argued that the "Zaporozhets" was a worthless car, but for the citizens who lived in the 70, it was a completely normal, inexpensive and economical car bully
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Alexey RA 20 October 2015 12: 39 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -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 20 October 2015 13: 13 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      What did not suit AK-726 in 1969?
      1. Serg65 21 October 2015 12: 44 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 20 October 2015 12: 45 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    It is very interesting to read different points of view on the problem of an aircraft carrier for our fleet.

    But it seems to me that the problems of the specific operating aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov should be more relevant for us now.
    1. He really is in the combat structure of the Navy.
    2. He has a number of problems:
    -technical condition. Boilers, their repair, the desirability of dismantling weapons unusual for an aircraft carrier (Granites, etc., which eat up (as I know, not an expert) extra volumes that can be filled with airplanes and helicopters). Somehow they drastically pulled Kuzya off the repair, then they wrote about the “modernization” almost until the 18 of the year, and then for 3 months. managed. Well, let's say they are preparing it, just in case, to the coast of Syria, if the capacities of ground airdromes are not enough - the general staff knows better. We have only speculations from the media about how it will be - we will find out in fact. The Ministry of Defense has recently acted in the best tradition of military PR and has learned to shock the public. The United States smokes on the sidelines with its Persian Gulf war)))
    - 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!
    Further. Ordered 20 pcs. MiG-29K and 4 MiG-29CUB. They can work qualitatively on ships and coastal targets. (I’ll leave the eternal dispute between the adherents of MiGs and Sushki - who is better, who is faster. There is a reality - Sukhoi is overloaded with orders from both civilian and military, and MiG’s capacities, on the contrary, need to be loaded) According to media reports, about 10 pcs. It is already possible to include in the combat structure and carry out all the tasks that the command will put before the crew and combat pilots. But .... also there are no pilots? Soon the extreme 10 wing will arrive. Although maybe I'm driving horses and in the near future everything will be.

    One thing is obvious. We do not need 10-20 "Nimitsev" like the United States: they have their own strategy - to humiliate and dominate the world. But the same "Kuznetsov" with 30 combat aircraft and helicopters on board (an analogue of the current ground airfield in Latakia), perhaps, would be very relevant off the coast of Syria.
    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
    • 0
    +4
    Not quite in the subject of the article, but I want to say thanks to the author for the last sentence: "We always get experience when we don’t get what we want."

    As a development engineer, I completely agree. Moreover, it is applicable to any design activity (electronics, mechanics, construction, etc.)
  • Orlan1144-2 20 October 2015 13: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 20 October 2015 14: 13 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 20 October 2015 14: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 20 October 2015 14: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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.

    I do the same, but my opinion is still outweighed by common sense, "there are more good and different assassin boats."
    1. Scraptor 20 October 2015 14: 44 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Exactly - outweighs. Where will she run away from an airplane that flies 10 times faster?
  • Taoist 20 October 2015 15: 02 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +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)

    Who told you this nonsense? repeating fiction of journalists? Fortunately, I am not familiar with Yaks in books and articles. 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 - but the "special task" in case of need will equalize the chances. By the way, the combat radius at the WRC was quite normal 250-300 km, and this is without PTB. And the navigation equipment completely allowed flights at any time of the day in simple and difficult weather conditions. The restrictions were mainly in fog - when it was impossible to use the "moon".


    In general, Kaptsovskoye “I'm all in white and everything around” is starting to get very tired. built pr.1143, they’re not building “battleships” now, everything is around ... one I know how to ... am
    1. Santa Fe 21 October 2015 06: 54 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -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 20 October 2015 15: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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.

    I do the same, but my opinion is still outweighed by common sense, "there are more good and different assassin boats."

    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?
    And then Boris Butoma, from which we received fuel at the end of the 70, still plows the expanses of the seas and oceans.
    Valeri.
    1. Serg65 21 October 2015 12: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Orlan1144-2
      And then Boris Butoma, from which we received fuel at the end of the 70, still plows the expanses of the seas and oceans.

      And not only “Butoma”, but also “Bubnov” and “Chilikin”, it is true that he now has a different name “Cambodia Asia”
  • Taoist 20 October 2015 15: 59 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    One thing is good in this "stream of consciousness" - in the photo where the pilots to the Yaks are running on alarm - the 29 airborne is my car. ;-)
    1. Scraptor 20 October 2015 16: 08 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      And who stands to his right?

      where are the proofs? proofs where? wink show your passport ... winked
      1. Taoist 20 October 2015 16: 18 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +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 20 October 2015 18: 25 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +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
    How many times he said: Guys, if you undertake to prove something or report something in your opuses, approach this specifically, taking into account all possible objective and subjective factors! Then your articles and comments will be more suitable for the description, as "true" (well, other definitions as well as synonyms in the text).
    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
    Such "analysts" and scribblers sit, and scribble articles from the category "everyone was stupid then, and we are the smartest and know why such (as it is now fashionable) van der wafers turned out .... 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 20 October 2015 18: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 21 October 2015 04: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 20 October 2015 20: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I bring the performance characteristics of the Yak-38M aircraft, which is not such a harmless "misunderstanding"
    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 UR "air-to-air" R-60 or R-60M, or RCC X-23M,
    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 21 October 2015 03: 43 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -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 20 October 2015 21: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 21 October 2015 02: 24 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -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 20 October 2015 23: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 21 October 2015 11: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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.
      Adopted in the spring of 1976, following a review of the technical proposal made by the NPKB to create such a ship, a government decree provided for design in 1976-1977. and the construction until 1985 of two nuclear "large cruisers with aircraft armaments", pr. 1153. In contrast to AB pr. 1160, they provided for the basing of light catapult aircraft (of the types indicated above), and in the future - Su-27K. The total number of LAC (when placing light aircraft on the ship) was 50 units. while increasing the composition of the SCRC and reducing the ship's displacement to 70 tons. In connection with the refusal of the Ministry of Heavy Engineering with the approval of the draft resolution from the development and manufacture of special aviation-technical devices for these cruisers, B. Butoma entrusted their creation to the Proletarian plant of the Ministry of Industry and Trade (the main Designer - A. A. Bulgakov).
      (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 22 October 2015 01: 34 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 22 October 2015 10: 34 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Not at all in the topic but moderation is strange on this forum.

    Messages with answers are deleted while the logical chain is broken. If it is believed that the answer was “not in those expressions” (although everything was written in the framework), then you must also delete the original post that caused such a reaction. I personally don’t understand why I can’t call an illiterate amateur such a shame ... It's a shame, I still thought that this forum is more concerned with professionals than with writers from the alternative story genre ...
  • okroshka79 22 October 2015 22: 37 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Dear Alexey RA! Of course, I take off before your erudition my old worn-out drap-castor fleece cap, sewn up from time and climatic factors, sewn on the occasion of one old Jewish master, who was famous for the entire Soviet fleet, who kept his establishment on Telephone Pier in the glorious hero city Sevastopol. I am sure that your level of knowledge and awareness in the military-political, economic, scientific-industrial and social situation in our country then is much higher than that of the then Minister of Defense of the MCC D.F.Ustinov. It was because of his ignorance that he, without consulting with you, decided to build the fourth building of the wrong aircraft-carrying cruiser, etc. 1143 instead of the correct aircraft carrier, etc. 1153. I also well understand that the most luminaries and experts gathered here, knowing which ships needed to be built. I am pleased to note that our aircraft-carrying ships on the forum got "in full" and all of their shortcomings were analyzed with particular care. True, I must tell you that one, a very large drawback, probably forgot to indicate in the erudite rage. Let me make some contribution: the billiard room was not enough. It was somehow not quite convenient from the side of the side of the table to hit the ball hard. And when the cue rested against the bulkhead, ship jokers always said hello to Marynich. But seriously, it was precisely when Defense Minister D.F.Ustinov was in charge of the fleet that our “Sharks” were built, which held 1200 (absolutely secret information)) ground facilities of our “partners” at gunpoint, our airliners were equipped with “Granites” (the same thing), entire fleets of the SSBNs were created (similarly) on two fleets. And a lot more. How could at that time any overseas bureaucrat from any overseas country allow himself to blather out something aloud at our address, like today !? And, most importantly, our ships of all projects have solved their task at sea, starting from a small mine-seeker boat and ending with these notorious either "under" or "re", as one of the most advanced put it (here it’s a shame him!), cruisers. The same words about the remaining forces and means of the naval forces: the war was not allowed along with other types of our Armed forces. This is the main thing. And more. Dear public! Leave your criticism of our Soviet Navy and its naval, aviation and coastal personnel to yourself. If you noticed, not one of the self-respecting sailors here on the forum said a single bad word or scornful expression to our ships. Because, unlike the very zealous military experts who saw the ships, as the sailors say, only on candy wrappers, they would not allow themselves to do this. Although they know very well both the strengths of their ship and its shortcomings. Because they also know that military art is the ability to neutralize the enemy’s strengths and realize their strengths against him. I have the honor!
    1. bk0010 22 October 2015 22: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 25 October 2015 22: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    PPR - however, as usual ... everyone remained with their own.