Military Review

From aircraft carrier to maritime mobile airfield complex

200

Current discussion


The US Navy in its modern shipbuilding program is guided by the experience of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which shows that aircraft carriers have two significant advantages over real airfields - mobility and independence [4].

Carriers can be quickly transferred to the region in which the threat is growing. Unlike aviation coast-based, carrier-based aviation allows you to quickly build up military power in the region. Using aircraft carriers, it is possible to provide a demonstration of power in a short time, projecting it as much time as necessary. Neither the Air Force nor the army provide such an opportunity. Carriers allow operations without the need to obtain the right to use the territory and airspace of other states.

Regarding the issue of building aircraft carriers for the Navy, we are witnesses to a protracted and unobvious decision. There are two main, absolutely polar points of view: “Naval the fleet Russia does not need aircraft carriers at all ”and, on the contrary,“ without the inclusion of aircraft carrier groups in our Navy, it will be impossible to ensure reliable protection of Russian maritime borders during a future war ”[1]. In the ongoing discussion, it is important that each side expresses views that contain attractive judgments, regardless of their position.

Pro et contra

The article [1] contains the following fragment: “... a fleet deprived of aircraft carriers is pressed to the coast line, since it can receive air cover only from coast-based aviation ... the removal of the line of defense of sea lines farther from the coast using its own aircraft carrier forces cheaper and more efficient than equivalent in capabilities to strengthen the coastal defense and coastal fleet. " It emphasizes the most important thing in deciding on the significance of aircraft carriers for Russia - the removal of the line of defense of sea lines further from the coast.

The superiority of the supporters of the aircraft carrier idea and a practical shift towards its realization has been noted on the basis of giving the perspective aircraft carrier, according to the classification of the US Navy, a heavy aircraft carrier. We are talking about an aircraft carrier, similar to the lead aircraft carrier of the new generation Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which should be part of the US Navy in 2015 year. He is, according to the advertising classification of the US Navy, a supercarrier, which has the most practically achievable characteristics of ships of this class. The cost of the ship is estimated at 12,3 billion dollars. Gerald Ford carriers will be able to provide up to 270 sorties per day (120 on Nimitz aircraft carriers).

“Military Review” [2] gives some information about a possible program to build a supercarrier: “There is a message that the Krylov State Research Center received an export-design passport for a project of a promising aircraft carrier with a displacement of about 100 thousand tons, capable of carrying about a hundred aircraft of various classes and types. The air group will have to include the deck modification of the T-50 fighter, Ka-32 helicopters, long-range radar aircraft, etc. At the expense of a number of know-how, it is claimed, the promising aircraft carrier will be able to provide aviation operations even in a storm. The construction of a new aircraft carrier could cost 10 – 12 billion dollars and will continue for at least 10 years. ”

It is important to note here that the full value of an aircraft carrier is determined by the large number of aircraft wings, the ability to receive DRLO airplanes and to ensure flight operations under storm conditions. All these qualities are achievable only for heavy aircraft carriers with a displacement of the order of 100 thousand tons.

In a further controversy, with reference to Sergey Ischenko’s article “Russia will overthrow the future aircraft carrier” [2], doubts are expressed in the realism of this project. The fact is that to ensure the take-off of DRLO airplanes, an aircraft carrier must have launching catapults. However, our Navy does not have and has never had such equipment. In addition, for the construction of such a ship need a dock of appropriate size, which is now missing.

In practice

Nevertheless, approximate terms of performance of works are already defined and announced. Around 2030 a year or later, the combat strength of the Russian Navy could be replenished with a new aircraft carrier. Opponents of an aircraft carrier idea see an alternative to carrying out the line of defense of the sea frontiers farther from the coast in the use of other forces. Thus, Alexander Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, is of the following opinion: “... moving the air defense, anti-tank and anti-aircraft defense milestone a few hundred miles from its shores ... much cheaper and more efficiently can be solved by developing and improving the air force, air defense, coastal SCRC and underwater fleet". It is emphasized that aircraft carriers with such a variant of their use will be "disposable products" [1].

In this controversy and in supporting a positive point of view, the most important is the opinion of the decision-maker, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov: “We need an aircraft carrier not from yesterday and today, but a really promising ship, surpassing all existing ships of this class. This is our strict requirement for the industry, and we will not give up on it ”[1].

At the moment

In this regard, it should be noted that at present, the US Nimitz-type heavy aircraft carriers are modernizing Forrestal-type aircraft carriers (CV-59) developed in the second half of the last century. And even the creation of a new series of heavy aircraft carriers such as Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) will not make fundamental qualitative changes in the previously developed concept. Thus, the development of aircraft carriers is currently on an extensive path, which is expressed mainly in the growth of displacement, has reached its possible limit.

In Russia, attempts to create aircraft carriers are reduced, as follows from the above review, to copying solutions developed by the United States. It is known that attempts to overtake the leading side by symmetrically copying other people's decisions put the overtaking in a deliberately disadvantageous position. In this regard, a fundamentally new, asymmetrical approach should be sought to avoid this. Could it be possible, in accordance with the main task of the aircraft carriers in “pushing the line of air defense, air defense and anti-aircraft guns and anti-aircraft services for a few hundred miles from their shores,” to solve the problems of building heavy aircraft carriers in a different, unconventional way?

As a result, there are:


1) political will to implement the carrier idea;

2) the lack of alternativeness of the idea of ​​the need to "move the line of air defense, PLO and PDO a few hundred miles from its shores";

3) the difficulty of building heavy aircraft carriers, including for reasons of the lack of a dock of appropriate size and launching catapults for aircraft carrier equipment;

4) the idea of ​​solving the problem of building heavy aircraft carriers in a different, unconventional way.

New idea: foreign version

Meanwhile, there are ideas that, when implemented, have the property of a qualitative leap. The article "Battle Island" [5] expressed the following considerations. “Experience in the construction of super-large vessels and deep-sea drilling platforms convinced designers of offshore facilities that it is possible to build a floating offshore base by connecting individual self-propelled modules ... Joint Mobile Offshore Base JMOB will be a complex of modular self-propelled platforms, each approximately the size of 300 on 150 m, about 35 m in height ”(Fig. 1).

From aircraft carrier to maritime mobile airfield complex

Fig. 1. How JMOB is arranged

“Platforms could cross the ocean at speeds of 15 nodes (28 km / h). For a month, the entire structure can be assembled anywhere in the world. Each of the platforms (module) will apparently be a semi-submarine vessel. When traveling to their destination, they will sail. But having reached the place, they will accept ballast to provide greater resistance to excitement. Five modules, lined up in a row, will allow any modern aircraft (in particular, C-17) to take off and land even during the 6 category storm - wind at 25 nodes (46 km / h) and waves with a height of 5 m. Inside the structure will carry payload The 5 modular platform can accommodate 3,5 thousand vehicles, 5 thousand cargo containers and 150 aircraft. Each structural element must be designed for 40 years. ”

The core of this idea was the monograph [3]. It provides the rationale for the above JMOB characteristics. The summary states that the JMOB is the largest floating structure ever built, a revolutionary improvement in the current sea-based forces and assets, the elimination of most of the identified deficiencies.

The JMOB architecture is based on technologies for creating offshore offshore structures - mobile oil platforms. "This will be the island of the sovereign territory of the United States within each region that can maneuver in a winning position in international waters, ensuring containment and strengthening stability, a tool for all elements of national power."

These publications indicate the emergence of a new innovative idea, the singularity of which consists in the unconventionally large weight and size characteristics of a floating offshore base - a sea mobile airfield.

The significance of the new idea for Russia

At first, revolutionary positions are always unaccustomed, illogical, and even absurd from the point of view of common sense and established views. Let's solve these issues at the level of principles, ideas and ideas of the broadest plan ... The naval forces of the USA, Great Britain and France, the countries of undoubtedly maritime civilizations that have a coast facing the oceans, aircraft carriers are needed to project their power on transport communications and regions of their economic and military political interests.

Not for Russia. Yes, we are also focused in our interests on the World Ocean - the main arena of creating the infrastructure and the world economy of the future. But that’s the end of it. Let us ask ourselves a simple and obvious question: what is the character of the seas, the water areas washing the shores of Russia in which the Navy operates, and what are the connections of these areas with the oceans? The answer is obvious: the Black, Baltic, Okhotsk and Caspian seas are purely inland. Their sizes generally fit in circles of a radius of 500 km (Fig. 2).


Fig. 2. Sizes of the internal seas of Russia

Consequently, for the aviation support of air defense, anti-tank defense and anti-pillar air defense, etc. The water area and the forces of the fleet in the internal seas are necessary and sufficient coast, which is potentially a huge and comprehensive aircraft carrier with a runway deck, stretching for thousands of kilometers.

In addition, the Baltic and Caspian seas are excluded because of the difficulty or impossibility of passage from outside. On the Black Sea, due to favorable geopolitical changes, Russia acquired the Crimean peninsula, which is better than any superavian carrier. It is of interest primarily to push the line of defense in the northern (Barents and Norwegian Seas) and eastern directions (Bering Sea).

For aviation support of air defense, PLO and PDO, etc. water areas and fleet forces in the adjacent seas, such as the Barents, Norwegian and Bering, preferably a combination of the coast in the above-mentioned quality and advanced mobile airfield complexes, ensuring the removal of the line of defense of the sea lines farther from the coast. Being deployed, for example, in the geometric centers of the adjacent seas that have access to oceanic theaters, sea-based mobile aerodrome complexes will provide a solution to the task of “pushing the line of air defense, PLO and PDO a few hundred miles from their shores.”

Sea mobile airfield complexes will be:

- a deck providing the basing of any aviation, electronic and rocket technology for any purpose and reach;

- a deck providing an air presence on a permanent basis, without carrier maneuver.

Provided logistic support and service on a rotational basis, they will be able to continuously perform the functions of the advanced line of air defense, PLO and PDO literally for decades.

The economic evaluation of the cost of creating a platform shows that when using a cheaper and more technologically advanced structural material - reinforced concrete, its cost, despite a considerable displacement, is comparable with the cost of creating a classical atomic aircraft carrier. This is also achieved by eliminating the need to build huge shipbuilding docks, equipped with expensive heavy-duty crane equipment.

In addition, the platform does not require the creation of specialized devices to ensure take-off and landing of aircraft, in particular, launching catapults. This ensures the basing and use of existing and future "land" aircraft.

The simplicity, evidence of the prospects and availability of the implementation of the concept of the maritime mobile aerodrome complex allow us to hope that it will not be ignored. In the future, in order to ensure the economic and political interests of the Russian Federation, it is possible to assess the feasibility of projecting power into remote ocean areas. The possibility of increasing the size of mobile airfield complexes allows us to consider them as a prototype of the forward points and home areas.

References:

Ivanovsky A. Do we need aircraft carriers? / Internet newspaper "Century" // Electronic resource http://www.stoletie.ru/vzglyad/ nuzhny_li_nam_avianoscy_799.htm. - 08.07.2013.

Ryabov K. Construction of a new aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy: disputes and discussions in the press / Military Review // Electronic resource http://topwar.ru/73513-.html. - 21.04.2015.

Hatfield, Stuart A. Naval bases: the path to the project of continental combat power: a monograph / Command and Staff College of the US Armed Forces // Electronic resource http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA457399. - 2004. - 44 with.

Tebin P., Ermakov A. Superavianos in modern US naval strategy / Military Review // Electronic resource http://topwar.ru/25651-superavianoscy-v-sovremennoy-voenno-morskoy-strategii-ssha.html. - 22.03.2014.

Wilson D. Fighting Island / Military Review // Electronic resource http://topwar.ru/4044-boevoj-ostrov.html. - 05.04.2011.
Author:
Originator:
http://dfnc.ru/c110-novosti-3-apz-kurs-na-razvitie-proffesionals/
200 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. evil partisan
    evil partisan 14 November 2015 06: 42
    +6
    Cool. He wanted to fight - he took an airfield with him and swam where necessary ...
    1. crazyrom
      crazyrom 14 November 2015 06: 59
      10
      It is more necessary to the aggressors. We are not like that, we have much more limited use of aircraft carriers, and there are fewer places and reasons for using them. Well, the same cruise missiles sink aircraft carriers at times, even without a nuclear warhead.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 14 November 2015 11: 49
        11
        Quote: crazyrom
        It is more necessary to the aggressors. We are not like that, we have much more limited use of aircraft carriers, and there are fewer places and reasons for using them. Well, the same cruise missiles sink aircraft carriers at times, even without a nuclear warhead.

        Who told you about "drowning at once", the aircraft carrier covers the AWACS aircraft, in addition, there are surface ships' radars, from anti-aircraft missiles: missiles on fighters, about 500 missiles on escort ships (SM-2/6), many short-range missiles ESSM (50 km range), anti-aircraft guns and short-range machine guns, I am already silent about dipole reflectors and electronic warfare systems both on ships and on fighters (growler) + now the Americans are developing air defense lasers, it is not yet known what will happen.
        It is very unlikely that the missile will bypass all obstacles and hit the target, the AWAC will certainly detect the launch and will launch the missile, and even anti-aircraft missiles in the AUG in bulk.
        1. zoknyay82
          zoknyay82 14 November 2015 12: 08
          +4
          I advise you to read recent material on how many aircraft carriers were sunk by submarines. smile
          1. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 14 November 2015 12: 16
            +4
            Quote: zoknyay82
            I advise you to read recent material on how many aircraft carriers were sunk by submarines.

            How many aircraft carriers have sunk since 1945? During World War II, sonars were very poorly developed. In addition, the United States also has anti-torpedoes that are capable of intercepting torpedoes (an analogue of our NK-Package).
            1. KaraBumer
              KaraBumer 14 November 2015 13: 05
              0
              but how to intercept a tactical vigorous bomb falling vertically down from the sky onto an aircraft carrier group?
              1. mvg
                mvg 14 November 2015 13: 19
                +2
                How does this vigorous bomb get there? Finger to the sky? Already so many articles on this topic!
              2. Down House
                Down House 14 November 2015 18: 11
                0
                Quote: KaraBumer
                but how to intercept a tactical vigorous bomb falling vertically down from the sky onto an aircraft carrier group?

                Why would she fall from heaven?
                You can make a PPA (analogue of a UAV) with a mini-bomb - it will swim "tens of kilometers" and bang - dragging the aircraft carriers into the "abyss".
                1. Gost
                  Gost 14 November 2015 22: 10
                  12
                  Comrades, we are now discussing the opposition of the AUG, but does this make sense? I am not an expert of course, but the war between the USA and the Russian Federation with conventional weapons seems to me an unlikely scenario. God forbid to live to this moment, but it will be the last war of this planet. And the discussion about the defeat of the AUG by the forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation does not seem to be very good. This is a headache for countries that do not have such strategic weapons potential as the Russian Federation. If I'm wrong, explain to me.
                  As for aircraft carriers for our Navy. If our country is geopolitically strong, we will be provided with ground airports. Who can we attack using AUG on Australia, but do we need it? As for the defense and air defense of our coast, do you seriously believe that someone other than the United States is capable of committing aggression against the Russian Federation? In the event of such an attack, the nuclear potential will again be used. My purely personal opinion, it is necessary to develop a submarine fleet and promising long-range strike systems, plus electronic warfare whatever the thought would not test the power of our weapons.
                  Talking about air defense and impact properties of AUG we forget about electronic warfare. If in the case of Donald Cook there is even a grain of truth, then the whole body of the movement to create supercarriers is a farce.

                  This is my modest, not professional opinion.
                  1. b0bi
                    b0bi 15 November 2015 15: 14
                    +2
                    The most sensible remark.
            2. Whitesnow
              Whitesnow 14 November 2015 15: 58
              +5
              And how many wars have happened since 1945, in which aircraft carriers would be used?
              I mean those in which the United States, Great Great Britain, and France opposed countries with means of defeating AUG.
            3. Down House
              Down House 14 November 2015 18: 11
              0
              Quote: Lt. air force reserve
              During World War II, sonars were very poorly developed.

              And you can think of the range of destruction of boats since then has not grown?
              1. Lt. Air Force stock
                Lt. Air Force stock 14 November 2015 18: 39
                +1
                Quote: Down House
                And you can think of the range of destruction of boats since then has not grown?

                The maximum torpedo launch range is 50 kilometers (UGST, the heavy torpedo 65-76 was decommissioned).
                AN / SQS-53B / C - American shipborne long-range sonar station.
                1. Down House
                  Down House 14 November 2015 19: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                  Maximum torpedo launch range 50 kilometers

                  Well, that is, is there an opportunity to "shoot unnoticed"?
                  In general, I was talking about missiles initially.
                  1. Lt. Air Force stock
                    Lt. Air Force stock 14 November 2015 22: 02
                    0
                    Quote: Down House
                    Well, that is, is there an opportunity to "shoot unnoticed"?
                    In general, I was talking about missiles initially.

                    In theory, everything is possible, but in practice, anti-submarine helicopters will fly around the AUG, and it is possible that anti-submarine Poseidon aircraft will patrol on a rotational basis.
                    1. Down House
                      Down House 15 November 2015 00: 01
                      +1
                      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                      and practically, anti-submarine helicopters will fly around the AUG,

                      But in practice, helicopters also go astray, like the Poseidon.
                2. Ykrofashist
                  Ykrofashist 16 November 2015 01: 19
                  0
                  Actually, the 140km true torpedo was probably not launched from the bow torpedo tube
          2. sniper
            sniper 14 November 2015 17: 25
            +5
            Quote: zoknyay82
            I advise you to read recent material,

            Well, our Oleg has gone down in history ... His materials are already referred to in disputes as expert opinions ... Respect !!! wassat
          3. Ustinov 055 055
            Ustinov 055 055 31 March 2016 11: 15
            0
            And you can link
          4. Ustinov 055 055
            Ustinov 055 055 31 March 2016 11: 15
            0
            And you can link
        2. Down House
          Down House 14 November 2015 17: 56
          0
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          It’s very unlikely that a missile will pass all obstacles and hit the target,

          But after all, they fall into ground targets, the cover of which theoretically costs much less than the cover of aircraft carriers.
          1. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 14 November 2015 18: 44
            +2
            Quote: Down House
            But after all, they fall into ground targets, the cover of which theoretically costs much less than the cover of aircraft carriers.

            Show me the ground-based object that guards the AWACS aircraft, radars, electronic warfare and 500+ anti-aircraft missiles (let me remind you all S-400 launchers that have adopted about 168 of them, have 672 missiles, and here one AUG has anti-air capabilities of almost the entire modern group of C systems -400 of Russia)? The DRLO aircraft radar is very powerful, the E-2C provides maximum target detection at a distance of about 540 km (aircraft) and 258 km (cruise missiles), the water is flat, the plane is in the air at an altitude of several kilometers, therefore, nothing will prevent it from detecting a rocket, nor the terrain (which is not above the water), nor the horizon, nothing.
            1. Down House
              Down House 14 November 2015 19: 06
              0
              Quote: Lt. air force reserve
              Show me the ground object that guards the aircraft AWACS, radars, electronic warfare and 500+ anti-aircraft missiles

              I will show.
              This is the "territory" in which the "bombarded" object is located.
              1. Lt. Air Force stock
                Lt. Air Force stock 14 November 2015 20: 38
                +1
                Quote: Down House
                I will show.
                This is the "territory" in which the "bombarded" object is located.

                They never modeled and massively fired at an object so armed to the teeth. In Russia, all PU S-400 = 1AUG, where to collect so many anti-aircraft systems to analyze everything.
                1. Down House
                  Down House 15 November 2015 00: 05
                  +1
                  Quote: Lt. air force reserve
                  where to collect so many anti-aircraft systems to analyze everything.

                  You analyze the main thing the main thing - land aviation groups are cheaper than sea-based air groups - an aircraft carrier is a hefty ballast in the body of aviation.
                2. alexej123
                  alexej123 15 November 2015 01: 38
                  +1
                  Introductory - US AUG must attack an object on the territory of the Russian Federation. AS? When approaching, it will already be on sight. Russia has 3 advantages - 1 - nuclear weapons, 2 - air defense system, namely SYSTEM, 3 - vast space.
        3. veksha50
          veksha50 15 November 2015 20: 11
          0
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          Who told you about "drown at once",


          Hmm ... I didn’t expand the excerpt from your commentary ... Now you yourself calculate what expenses need to be poured not just into the aircraft carrier, but into its escort environment so that it is not sunk "at once" ...

          We need to build on the realities of today ... We are not yet able to carry out long-term operations far from our shores ... And the enemy, as they say, is already at our gates, standing on the porch ...
        4. bogdan4ik
          bogdan4ik 17 November 2015 06: 01
          +1
          Drowning an aircraft carrier is not an easy task. It's true. Only it does not need to be drowned. It must be disabled. And after the volley of Caliber, the Americans made sure that their AUG in the Persian Gulf is extremely vulnerable. And they removed her from the bay. This fact indicates that all your arguments should be wiped. Further. AUG is a complex based on aircraft carrier aircraft. That is, with the failure of an aircraft carrier, the vulnerability of the group increases significantly. To see the Caliber ground tracking stations did not work, the ship even more so fail. This means 26 calibers dolbonut at the same time throughout the group. Even one missile will hit the deck of an aircraft carrier (one of the most complex structures on the ship) and not a single plane will take off. At the same time, the rest of the ships will be hit, and then, if desired, the aircraft carrier can be finished off by submarines with the simplest and cheapest torpedoes.
      2. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 14 November 2015 12: 25
        -1
        Quote: crazyrom
        This is more necessary for the aggressors.

        Not so long ago, expressed a similar point of view, so not only the Israelis, but the Russians also pecked at me. They believe that an aircraft carrier fleet is needed, like water to fish.
      3. Xwazilb
        Xwazilb 20 November 2015 19: 29
        0
        Name at least one aircraft carrier sunk by a cruise missile? You manipulate conjectures as axioms of life.
    2. Very old
      Very old 14 November 2015 07: 14
      16
      Indeed, just fun ...
      1. Build modules
      2.Service modules
      3. In urgent need to rub them to the place of military use, to collect in a month in a heap
      1. Throw
        Throw 14 November 2015 07: 56
        25
        .
        4. If the place has shifted, take it apart for a month
        5. Again shove
        6. In the process of feathering, cover each warrant with anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft defense ships so that they do not melt one by one
        7. Collect

        Bohaataya idea ...

        PS. And when he “sailed to the right place,” it turned out that the war had already ended. On your territory ..
        1. Whitesnow
          Whitesnow 14 November 2015 16: 00
          +4
          But how much can you earn !!!!!
          Mavrodi hiccups envy of the US military-industrial complex.
      2. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 14 November 2015 08: 02
        26
        Quote: Very old
        Indeed, just fun ...

        Is this what is painted, one and a half kilometers in length? Isn’t it easier to fill the island in the middle of the same Baltic Sea and put a jump airfield there? laughing For America, which has a bad habit of poking its nose for 33 stars from home, it may be relevant. Put such a couple of islands in the Mediterranean Sea - and the whole sea is yours. And to us, with a defense doctrine, what should they do?

        In my opinion, somewhere I already read about this ... laughing
        1. i80186
          i80186 14 November 2015 08: 16
          +4
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          Put such a couple of islands in the Mediterranean Sea - and the whole sea is yours.

          It will not work, it is necessary to squeeze the Bosphorus first, without it, the supply cannot be organized. And the islands do not need to be poured, there they are, as well as dirt. Cyprus and Sicily alone are worth it; airfields are already there. Kerosene does not need to be carried again, there should be a lot of it. smile
          1. Zoldat_A
            Zoldat_A 14 November 2015 09: 18
            +3
            Quote: i80186
            And the islands do not need to be poured, there they are, as well as dirt. Cyprus and Sicily alone are worth it; airfields are already there. Kerosene does not need to be carried again, there should be a lot of it.

            So I don’t understand the meaning of this one and a half kilometer dinosaur. There are islands everywhere ... request
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 14 November 2015 10: 49
          29
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          In my opinion, somewhere I already read about this ...

          This is a remake of the article that was already in the discussion.
          On business. Such a unit at a speed of 14uz will thunder for half an ocean. The delight of "hearing" hydroacoustics. That is, stealth is zero, even if the space detection means and control center are destroyed by the enemy.
          Second. I doubt very much that such a hydraulic structure will be able to withstand the ocean wave for a long time. The rigidity of such a structure of articulated elements on such a wave ... is extremely difficult to achieve. Well, what nafig C-17 will sit on the "vertical snake"? Then, the authors probably have little idea of ​​the force of the wind load on such an articulated structure ...
          Thirdly. The platform will lose the main advantage of AVU - mobility. Here for sure, DF-21 and K * hunt for fame.
          Fourth. The author of the idea forgets about the "storage and maintenance" of aircraft at such a structure. Each module has a lift, aviation kerosene storage, BZ cellar, etc. It is hardly advisable to do all this separately (in sections): remember the history of northern convoys to the Union. If a transport with carriages was stoked, then the remaining AU trunks are of no use to anyone.
          Fifth. For the reasons of clause 4, what kind of "placement" of containers, cars and other "food" can be discussed, when in the womb it is still necessary to place dviglo, life support systems, control and navigation systems and much more that is needed to "lego" came under its own power to the point of "assembling puzzles into a single picture".
          Not, NOT ICE! At least, I have doubts about the reality of its "reinforced concrete" embodiment in the near future.
          Yours faithfully, hi
          1. Zoldat_A
            Zoldat_A 14 November 2015 10: 59
            11
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            This is a remake of the article that was already in the discussion.

            No, God knows how many years ago I read it at Ershov, in the Little Humpbacked Horse ...
            Here they enter a clearing
            Directly to the sea-okiyan;
            Across it lies
            Wonder Yudo fish whale.
            All his sides are torn
            Palisades are driven into the ribs,
            On the tail, the fuss is noisy,
            On the back the village stands;
            The peasants on the lip plow
            Between the eyes of the boys dancing
            And in the oak grove, between the mustaches,
            Looking for girls mushrooms.
            And in the upper left corner, there’s a strike airline ... laughing
          2. NIKNN
            NIKNN 14 November 2015 12: 54
            +7
            Boa KAA (3) RU Today, 10: 49 ↑

            ... No, NO ICE! At least, I have doubts about the reality of its "reinforced concrete" embodiment in the near future.


            I agree with the Boa KAA completely.
            In fact, it is a city with infrastructure and population. How much does the maintenance of the city in a well-functioning land structure cost? And for distant lands? Here the entire merchant fleet will be involved. (Although if one section is used as a trawler ....) And on the basis of this entire economy, calculate how much it will cost to deliver to the target one supply battle. It’s cheaper to hit the target of ICBMs with non-nuclear BG.
            Since then hi
          3. ancient
            ancient 14 November 2015 15: 30
            +4
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            No, NO ICE! At least, I have doubts about the reality of its "reinforced concrete" embodiment in the near future.


            Hi guys! drinks Ohhh belay it turns out that the "moremans" have the same ... "funny articles" went wassat , but I thought that only in "aviation topics is continuous ... fellow ".
            Her. 1000 times right Dear Zoldat_A drinks everything is like according to Ershov ... "miracle-yudo fish-whale ...." wassat
          4. sniper
            sniper 14 November 2015 17: 34
            +1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            , I have doubts about the reality of its "reinforced concrete" embodiment

            Well, the cement-cement yachts were built quite successfully ... Even the boats were built from this material ... So that maybe it is possible. Although, to me such a design seems highly doubtful, but I'm not an expert ...
            1. opus
              opus 14 November 2015 19: 43
              +3
              Quote: sniper
              Well, cement-cement yachts were built quite successfully ... Even boats were built from this material ...


              Then it’s better from ice (especially for our North Seas)

              When the allies were preparing to land in Europe, they seriously considered the project of building a fleet of huge aircraft carriers from ice.

              It is not entirely clear who first came up with this, but it is known that the idea of ​​icebergs-airfields was discussed in 1942 by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Lord Louis Mountbatten, head of Joint Operations, the British organization responsible for the development of offensive weapons.

              Initially, it was about a simple "cutting" of the tops of icebergs, equipping them with engines, communication systems and sending them to the theater of operations with a group of aircraft on board.


              Frozen water seemed a cheap and unlimited resource. As a bonus, such an aircraft carrier would be unsinkable, since a whole hail of bombs and torpedoes could not break a large iceberg into pieces, but only leave potholes on it.


              Habakkuk, Canada, 1943

              The ship with a skeleton of wooden beams and a filling of ice blocks (stabilized by three small refrigeration units and a network of tubes) totaled 18,3 meters in length, 9-plus meters in width and weighed 1,1 thousand tons. Its creation by forces of 15 people took two months.


        3. opus
          opus 14 November 2015 19: 37
          +3
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          ? Isn’t it easier to fill the island in the middle of the same Baltic Sea and put a jump airfield there?

          Easier to "return" Iceland


          Meanwhile, the large Soviet lighter carrier “Julius Fucik”, disguised as an American ship “Doctor Likes”, leaves Leningrad with a division of airborne troops under the command of General Andreev on board and proceeds to the Atlantic Ocean.
          .
          At the same time, aircraft of the USSR Navy organize a large-scale raid on the Keflavik airbase in the west of Iceland, a stronghold of NATO aviation. The Tu-22M regiment approaches Keflavik from the north and launches about a hundred X-22 missiles at the air base.
          .
          A few kilometers from the shore, a lighter carrier throws out four small hovercraft, and they head for Keflavik.

          ... as a result of the raid, almost all the equipment located at the airfield was destroyed, the command and almost all the personnel were killed.
          Soviet landing unhindered captures Keflavik.


          wink

          The Faroe-Icelandic border, aka the GISH line (Greenland-Iceland-Scotland) ceases to function. NATO (aircraft carriers) are blocked in the Atlantic south of the meridian
      3. avt
        avt 14 November 2015 10: 42
        +9
        Quote: Very old
        1. Build modules
        2.Service modules
        3. In urgent need to rub them to the place of military use, to collect in a month in a heap

        ,, We took a log and carried it cheerfully .... "Well, not an ounce of replacement of aircraft carriers as a class. Mo-o-o-may be, someday, when there really will be opportunities not only to move this floating runway, but also to provide it with everything you need from the shore .... In short, all the mobility of this platform is akin to mobile strategic complexes. It seems that everything is so fun - they loaded and drove off, but who is aware of the infrastructure that provides fun movement on wheels, Topol and “Yarsov", he will understand the amount of work necessary for a cheerful movement along the waves of this project. It is not for nothing that the Chinese just started to fill the islands in the sea.
        1. BMW
          BMW 14 November 2015 11: 08
          +4
          Quote: avt
          .Mo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o be there, when someday, when there really will be opportunities not only to move this floating flying strip, but also to provide it with everything necessary from the shore ..

          The most important thing in your comment
          Quote: avt
          .Mo-o-o-o-o can be, when-a-ah

          This project is not feasible for technical reasons, more precisely for one - there are no such materials (more precisely, there are, but UFOs are made of them laughing ).
          Given the scientific degrees of the authors writing such nonsense, we can understand that our science will soon be in full anus.
          Although, I can assume that this article is a test for the stupidity of society, and when stupidity reaches a certain percentage, it will be possible to curtail social obligations and introduce slavery. hi
          1. ancient
            ancient 14 November 2015 15: 32
            +3
            Quote: bmw
            This project is not feasible for technical reasons.


            And who told you that someone needs a project ???? The main thing is to "break through" R&D ... and the rest ... it doesn't matter anymore lol
            1. BMW
              BMW 14 November 2015 16: 25
              +2
              Quote: ancient
              The main thing is to "break through" R&D ... and the rest ... it doesn't matter anymore

              So that's why I swear - figs them, and not "cut". negative
          2. nerd.su
            nerd.su 14 November 2015 22: 05
            +1
            Quote: bmw
            This project is not feasible for technical reasons, more precisely for one - there are no such materials (more precisely, there are, but UFOs are made of them).

            And what are oil platforms made of? Or are they being built by aliens and sold to earthlings?
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 November 2015 23: 28
              +1
              Quote: bot.su
              And what are oil platforms made of? Or are they being built by aliens and sold to earthlings?

              Indiscreet question-And oil platforms go from place to place? And when moving even in low speed, completely different loads on the material. And do airplanes weighing 25 tons land on the oil platform (SU-33, I think the T-50 will be even heavier)?
              In addition, why protect such a module? He himself will not be beaten off from the adversary, which means that he needs a warrant in the form of a crowd of cruisers, destroyers, watchmen, PLO ships and supply ships. Where to get all this? Pants not torn from such steps? And if you protect such a module with coastal aviation, then a reasonable question arises - And then you need it if you have to stagnate along its coast?
              1. nerd.su
                nerd.su 15 November 2015 02: 49
                +2
                Oil platforms are towed as an option. Airplanes do not land on them, for they have a different purpose. But even for this purpose, they carry not a small load. Helicopters, by the way, land. When moving such an airfield, takeoff and landing of aircraft can be excluded, this is not an aircraft carrier.

                A warrant when moving is not more than that of an aircraft carrier. Unless the tugs are still, if not self-propelled. In a stationary position he will be able to protect himself, you can park a couple of separate modules next to him, with self-defense equipment, acoustic buoys, etc.

                Near their shores such a contraption is useless. The only suitable water area for him is the Mediterranean Sea. And then the Arabs, they are such, are friends today and provide a base for aviation. And tomorrow they will be offended and kicked out.
                For other areas - aircraft carriers.
                1. Down House
                  Down House 15 November 2015 09: 44
                  0
                  Quote: bot.su
                  Oil platforms are towed as an option.

                  It is possible not to move, in extreme cases it is much more preferable to "poke" such stationary (like NP but with a runway) bases based on the "flight range" of aviation, than to build and maintain an expensive aircraft carrier, which in case of something else is out there. swim and swim.
                  1. nerd.su
                    nerd.su 15 November 2015 15: 18
                    0
                    The cost of one such runway will be comparable or still more than the cost of the most expensive aircraft carrier. And to poke ... Given the area of ​​the ocean, this will amount to such an amount!
                    For Russia, the only place where such a thing is needed is the Mediterranean Sea. An alternative to such a floating runway there is the organization of a referendum on the entry of Malta into Russia.
                    1. Down House
                      Down House 16 November 2015 12: 58
                      0
                      Quote: bot.su
                      The cost of one such runway will be comparable or still more than the cost of the most expensive aircraft carrier.

                      No, being essentially a "standing concrete" ship will still be much cheaper.
            2. BMW
              BMW 15 November 2015 03: 06
              +1
              Quote: bot.su
              And what are oil platforms made of? Or are they being built by aliens and sold to earthlings?

              Compare the sizes, for starters.
              1. nerd.su
                nerd.su 15 November 2015 15: 00
                0
                The dimensions of the existing semi-submersible platforms: length 80-120 m, width 50-60 m. The dynamic stability control system allows the platform to remain in place with an accuracy of several meters even without anchors. Platforms can be rigidly not connected, then, in fact, a number of platforms are bridge supports. And the runway canvas, freely lying in the gutter on these supports, will absorb loads from horizontal and vertical movements. On a pair of freestanding platforms, flight control points and long-range self-defense systems, such as S-400 and Caliber. Even now, you can certainly solve all the technical problems, the question of price. And if you want to build such a thing in 30-50 years, and when designing ice-resistant semi-submersible platforms for developing the shelf of the Arctic seas, take into account their possible double use ... Reduce the amplitude of movement of the platform to 2-3 m, which is important for drilling and operation in oil industry, increase the size of the platforms. Separately, develop designs from which it is possible to assemble the runway weave of the desired length, the design of the upper part of the platforms on which the runway lies down to make like a shock absorber to damp vertical vibrations.
                1. BMW
                  BMW 15 November 2015 15: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: bot.su
                  Separately, develop designs from which it is possible to assemble the runway weave of the desired length, the design of the upper part of the platforms on which the runway lies down to make like a shock absorber to damp vertical vibrations.

                  We rest on the same thing. You won’t be able to provide the rigidity of the runway whip, it will go the same way, and the compensation, depreciation and suspension systems will not help. There is one reason - there is no rigidity.
                  I didn’t just talk about sopromat.
                  1. nerd.su
                    nerd.su 15 November 2015 15: 54
                    0
                    It will go. So absolute rigidity is not needed, the lash must have a certain amplitude at which it does not break. Either the platforms will be connected by separate trusses, it will be necessary to develop a covering so that the plane does not "stumble", which, given the small vertical amplitude, is possible.
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 14 November 2015 11: 28
          +3
          Quote: avt
          Well, not a single gram is a substitute for aircraft carriers as a class. Well, there will be some time when there really will be opportunities not only to move this floating flying strip, but also to provide it with everything necessary from the shore.

          For some reason, I thought about transformers. Maybe the idea is crazy, but for a moment I presented, say, several nuclear submarines and support ships, which are assembled in a certain place, and transformed, they turn into a floating airfield. I understand this is a fantasy, but all over the world they are switching over to unified platforms all over the world, and the same principle will probably be laid down in the future, in the idea of ​​transformed combat platforms (not only at sea, but also on land).
          Best regards hi
          1. avt
            avt 14 November 2015 11: 56
            +4
            Quote: NEXUS
            . Maybe the idea is crazy,
            hi As it immediately inspired Vysotsky-
            "Let it be a crazy idea, you do not cut it hot, you call us rather through the reptile - the head physician" laughing
            Quote: NEXUS
            For some reason I thought about transformers.

            It is better to recall the floating, and concrete, berths, which were quite available and are taking place. It is possible to assemble a strip from such modules somewhere in a quiet bay, having sunk in shallow water. But loved by the communication from the shore needed. How to ensure smooth operation then? I can even argue with
            Quote: bmw
            This project is not feasible for technical reasons, more precisely for one - there are no such materials (more precisely, there are, but UFOs are made of them).
            regarding impossibility to bungle now.
            Although, of course, if you take the pictures from the article as a sample, then yes - you need to raise such an airfield immeasurably. It's easier to build 10 nuclear aircraft carriers. So there is nothing to discuss here as a very specific project and, with respect, date, signature, call us, otherwise - if you don’t respond, We will write to Sportloto. " laughing hi
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 14 November 2015 13: 38
              +1
              Quote: avt
              As it immediately inspired Vysotsky-
              "Let it be a crazy idea, you do not cut it hot, you call us rather through the reptile - the head physician"

              Don’t talk ... laughing
              Quote: avt
              It’s easier to build 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

              But still, I think the future belongs to transformers. Let's just say that the idea is still fantastic, but no more fantastic, which the author of the article suggests. In addition, robotization in the army is gaining momentum and this is a fact. And assembling an airfield in the ocean like a puzzle looks much more attractive than to build one very big goal, which we need to build somewhere else (such a shipyard was only in Nikolaev), plus the construction time of 6-10 years (long). The aerodrome gathered, and then it also fell apart into components, which will be separately capable of performing combat missions. At the same time, tracking such an airdrome platform will be extremely difficult. And if one of the segments fails, it can be replaced by another. In this case, you do not need to drive the entire structure into the dock for repair.
              Quote: avt
              ,, Respectfully, date, signature, call us, otherwise - if you don’t respond, We will write to Sportloto. "

              You are Zin for the rudeness of abscess ... you are trying to offend Zin ... here in a day you’ll get so awkward, come home, there you sit! laughing
          2. avt
            avt 14 November 2015 14: 29
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            For some reason I thought about transformers

            What this is is a mystery to me, but assembling a structure from modules is a completely feasible technical task, even at the level of current capabilities. But again, the question is - is it worth it? Here's how with Sea Launch - also a clear idea and executed in metal. Well, by the criterion of cost - efficiency? I don't know .... and this project withered long before Yuzhmash began to work ONE day a week without electricity and water.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 14 November 2015 14: 38
              +1
              Quote: avt
              What is this is a mystery to me, but assembling a structure from modules is a completely feasible technical task, even at the level of current capabilities.

              At the level of current capabilities, you can only make something similar, as stated by the author of the article. But I think this idea is initially utopian. I’m talking slightly about something else ...
              For example, robotic submarines capable of surfacing to transform into a runway segment, and connecting such segments into a full-fledged airfield. Moreover, each such submarine itself will be a combat unit capable of performing combat missions.
              And as for fuels and lubricants and everything else, there are support vessels ... but the idea is that such a pseudo aircraft carrier essentially does not require escort, it cannot be tracked and it will be much more convenient to repair it ... while the runway is possible " link "even a kilometer.
              I understand that such an idea (its implementation) is now complex, but I am sure that in the near future it has the right to life.
              Sincerely. hi
              1. BMW
                BMW 14 November 2015 15: 05
                +5
                Quote: NEXUS
                For example, robotic submarines capable of surfacing to transform into a runway segment, and connecting such segments into a full-fledged airfield. Moreover, each such submarine itself will be a combat unit capable of performing combat missions.

                laughing laughing laughing He laughed heartily !!!! good drinks
                In this case, it is both easier and cheaper to build 50 "Zepelin" with a piece of runway above or below the cylinder. We took off, grappled - the flying airfield is ready. At least 10 meters, at least 10000 meters. They fired an anti-aircraft missile, disengaged, scattered - the missile got confused and fell, and they again grappled. You can put "Daggers" and "Broadswords". lol
                In short, guys, we urgently take textbooks on compromising materials and study the calculation of the strength of spatial farms. wink hi
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 14 November 2015 15: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: bmw
                  In short, guys, we urgently take textbooks on compromising materials and study the calculation of the strength of spatial farms.

                  I considered the idea of ​​unmanned submarines capable of "interlocking" segmentally into the runway in the form of an idea. And why do you think that coupling will take place in a 5 point storm? That's the point that you can choose a place even in a quiet lagoon, or in a calm square of the ocean, but you never know ...
                  Regarding zeppelins and so on, this is not the same thing. Unmanned submarines can also sink for a kilometer (Recent publication about Status-6) and the cruising range is good. Noticing it will be impossible.
                  And one more thing, I'm not talking about the current construction of such submarines ... but as an idea in the future, I am sure it is consistent.
                  Best regards hi
                  1. BMW
                    BMW 14 November 2015 15: 38
                    +2
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    but as an idea in the future, I am sure it is consistent.

                    IN FUTURE. When will the materials with the corresponding strength characteristics be created.
                    In general, water, such an insidious element that does not tolerate rashness and negligence.
                    To break such a coupling and two points is enough, and this is the natural state of the sea. With three points, they no longer moor.
                    And to make such a construction that it is unreasonable to assemble it in a quiet place. It’s easier to capture a piece of shore and build a runway, like the British in the Falklands. And it’s even easier to move VTOL or convertiplanes.
                    Best regards hi
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 14 November 2015 15: 59
                      +2
                      Quote: bmw
                      IN FUTURE. When will the materials with the corresponding strength characteristics be created.

                      Exactly! wink
                      Quote: bmw
                      To break such a coupling and two points is enough, and this is the natural state of the sea.

                      And if the hitching place is stronger than the one-piece construction?
                      After all, I'm not talking about the fact that today it’s starting to build.
                      But let’s so, what do we have today to oppose 11 AUGs of the USA? One aircraft carrier cruiser? Do we have shipyards for the construction of aircraft carriers? Plus the construction time. And the result is that the same 4-5 aircraft carriers (even if the shipyard will be ) we will build 40-50 years.
                      In addition, it is necessary to take into account the rapidly growing development of anti-ship missiles and missiles, which, with increased range for naval targets, will completely nullify the advantages of an aircraft carrier in front of the same TARK.
                      Sincerely. hi
                      1. BMW
                        BMW 14 November 2015 16: 22
                        +1
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        In addition, it is necessary to take into account the rapidly growing development of anti-ship missiles and missiles, which, with increased range for naval targets, will completely nullify the advantages of an aircraft carrier in front of the same TARK.

                        So I’m talking about. An asymmetric response in RCC, at least 4,5 Mach. And to go into hypersound is generally beautiful, so as not to fantasize at least 10 mach and Khan AUGam. hi
                      2. Down House
                        Down House 14 November 2015 18: 43
                        0
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        And if the hitching place is stronger than the one-piece construction?

                        Of course, I could be wrong, but any "structure" consists of load-bearing elements that must evenly hold the load.
                        If you break these elements with more "strong" elements, which in this case will corny cease to perceive the load, this will lead to the fact that under a strong load it will tear not the coupling itself, but the bearing elements themselves from the coupling, which are not more "monolithic" will not be able to distribute the load over the entire area.
                      3. Poplar505
                        Poplar505 14 November 2015 21: 16
                        +1
                        While they will build, if they will, they will fight on flying saucers in two elements (water-air}.
                        The idea resembles the temptation of 20 years ago of a cosmic orientation, thrown up from behind the sea-okeana. What if the Russians are unwound.
            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 14 November 2015 23: 47
              0
              Quote: NEXUS
              but I'm sure in the near future she has the right to life

              Theoretically, everything is possible, but if such technologies appear, the weapons will become fundamentally new and then aircraft carriers will really not be needed.
        3. ancient
          ancient 14 November 2015 15: 34
          +2
          Quote: NEXUS
          For some reason I thought about transformers.


          Andrey ... you "thought" this after an article about .. "smart casing" lol here you are .. "suffered" .. and then there is KRET with its "slogans" about ... "the escalated composition ...."
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 14 November 2015 15: 41
            +2
            Quote: ancient

            Andrey ... it was for you "thought" after the article about .. "smart casing" so you and .. "suffered" .. and then there is KRET with its "slogans" about ... "increasing composition ...."

            Damn, Sasha, why are you cutting the flight of thought then chopping me? laughing Well, I'm just trying to consider the idea of ​​a pseudo aircraft carrier (from the relatives of the puzzle). And for me the idea is interesting instead of building for 10 years, sorry "a hole, which will be a big goal, and which requires a cover court, escort, etc.
            It’s clear that all this is not feasible today. But it can be cheaper in monetary terms and you can significantly win in terms of construction of such segments.
            1. ancient
              ancient 14 November 2015 19: 48
              +1
              Quote: NEXUS
              Damn, Sasha, why are you cutting the flight of thought then chopping me?


              So I'm friendly and .. from the heart drinks
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 15 November 2015 18: 06
                +1
                Quote: ancient
                So I'm friendly and .. from the heart

                I know, Sasha drinks Just kidding. Nice to see you. good
      4. nerd.su
        nerd.su 14 November 2015 22: 11
        0
        Quote: avt
        It might be, someday, when there really will be opportunities not only to move this floating flying strip, but also to provide it with everything necessary from the shore

        The question of expediency and price. In the Mediterranean, we can build such a platform. Only the design should provide for the movement of the assembled platform, albeit at a low speed. On this, in fact, the areas where such a miracle is appropriate to apply, end.

        And the Chinese, for another reason, began to sleep.
    3. Reducer
      Reducer 14 November 2015 11: 18
      +4
      1,5 km of fixed connected modules? The ratio is 1:10!
      Well, and what kind of excitement (longitudinal, transverse, twisting) can this design withstand?
      And with a moving deck, the weighing idea is lost.
      Roll Compensators? with such dimensions? request
    4. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 14 November 2015 12: 27
      0
      Quote: Very old
      to pile in a month

      And wait for the weather in the sea. You don’t fly much into the storm.
  2. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 14 November 2015 07: 29
    +2
    Quote: wicked partisan
    Cool. He wanted to fight - he took an airfield with him and swam where necessary ...

    yes you deal with an inflatable boat first! wassat
    1. evil partisan
      evil partisan 14 November 2015 08: 18
      -1
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      yes you deal with an inflatable boat first!

      And you - with an inflatable woman ...
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 14 November 2015 08: 23
        +4
        Quote: wicked partisan
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        yes you deal with an inflatable boat first!

        And you - with an inflatable woman ...

        you are angry my friend ... because you know that I am younger! laughing
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 14 November 2015 10: 57
        +2
        Quote: Angry Guerrilla
        And you - with an inflatable woman ...

        Ay-y-yay! Well, "evil" you are a partisan ... But why be rude !? bully
        1. evil partisan
          evil partisan 14 November 2015 12: 09
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Well, "evil" you are a partisan ... But why be rude !?

          And what is he .. request . It's easy to offend a pensionerrecourse.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 14 November 2015 14: 36
            +3
            Quote: Angry Guerrilla
            It's easy to offend a pensioner

            So you, "partisan", damn it !!!
            Why snot on a fist to shake something! Derail Yurich's armored tires with a "vigorous" comment - and that's the end of it!
            Cheer up, "pensioner"! Yurich is a real man, he does not fight with pensioners ... and he is a kind sidekick by nature!
            Yours faithfully, hi
            1. Andrey Yuryevich
              Andrey Yuryevich 14 November 2015 17: 40
              +1
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              ! Yurich is a real man, he doesn’t fight with pensioners ... and he’s kind by nature as a sidekick!

              go on Kapraz ... please don’t dry the oars! fellow hi
            2. evil partisan
              evil partisan 14 November 2015 19: 31
              0
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Derail Yurich's "armored tires" with a "vigorous" comment

              Already yes . And repeatedly winked . But nothing takes it! sad
          2. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 14 November 2015 17: 38
            +1
            Quote: Angry Guerrilla
            Why is he ... It's easy to offend a pensioner

            do not mind it! let's "world"! drinks
            1. evil partisan
              evil partisan 14 November 2015 18: 43
              +2
              Quote: Andrey Yurievich
              do not mind it!
              Scored yes
              Quote: Andrey Yurievich
              let's "world"!
              drinks
              1. Andrey Yuryevich
                Andrey Yuryevich 14 November 2015 19: 20
                +1
                Quote: wicked partisan
                Quote: Andrey Yurievich
                do not mind it!
                Scored yes
                Quote: Andrey Yurievich
                let's "world"!
                drinks

                Haaaroshiy you are a quick-witted person! yes drinks laughing
  3. sub307
    sub307 14 November 2015 07: 55
    +1
    It depends on where he "wanted": to iron the Ivory Coast - maybe it will do, but the British Isles (for example) are very problematic ...
    1. BMW
      BMW 14 November 2015 08: 40
      16
      I don’t understand, Khrymov Ph.D., in what area.
      The guys who studied the TUS, just twist a finger at the temple.
      1.Economically feasible length is limited to 350 meters. A further increase in length leads to a strong increase in dead weight and a decrease in the proportion of carrying capacity.
      2. It is impossible to connect such sections rigidly, see item 1.
      3. Just try to imagine a swivel of such a design and a flying deck flying in waves.
      4. We sweep concrete immediately. On an alternating bend, it does not work. Particularly stubborn, come to SRV them. Lenin in Kamchatka and look at the work of the concrete dock with a broken slipway. (mistake in the formulation of two BMRT pr. 394).
      Authors read less science fiction and more by profession. Article minus.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. izya top
    izya top 14 November 2015 08: 10
    +4
    Quote: Angry Guerrilla
    took an airfield with him and swam where necessary.

    fishing she is so
    1. evil partisan
      evil partisan 14 November 2015 08: 19
      +1
      Quote: izya top
      fishing she is so

      And long ago the Jews wink hooked on fishing? what
      1. izya top
        izya top 14 November 2015 08: 29
        +9
        Quote: Angry Guerrilla
        And how long have Jews got hooked on fishing?

        fish she is kosher repeat
  6. War and Peace
    War and Peace 14 November 2015 08: 23
    +3
    such large offshore structures are extremely vulnerable, both from the air, and from submarine attacks. Carrier warrant is a high security and protection of the carrier with the accompanying ships and submarines, as well as the most important thing, the mobility of the group and therefore the secrecy. But this floating airfield has none of this and therefore a torpedo strike on the float will destroy the entire complex. As a military facility at sea, such a thing is not suitable ...
  7. Civil
    Civil 14 November 2015 10: 09
    +4
    Only two words:
    No money left.
  8. bandabas
    bandabas 14 November 2015 14: 38
    0
    You're right. There is no fun. This is not a computer toy.
    1. AUL
      AUL 14 November 2015 16: 54
      0
      I would add. The aircraft carrier always turns against the wind to reduce the take-off and landing distance. For example, with such a huge size, this can be neglected. But you try to sit-up from the deck with a strong side wind! And to deploy such a canoe every time is more than problematic!
  9. max702
    max702 14 November 2015 22: 18
    +1
    The article is good, but the conclusion is wrong: the aircraft carrier is needed by the country whose areas of interest require a military presence at ocean distances. Only the USA is suitable for this, which are separated from Eurasia by the Pacific and Atlantic.
    Russia, and even more so France, England, aircraft carriers are needed only for prestige. We have the Arctic, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Turkey and the Middle East at hand. Therefore, we need an aircraft carrier like a fifth wheel. First of all, we need non-nuclear anti-aircraft / missile destroyers and a network of military bases (Horn of Africa, something off the coast of Indonesia). If the world trade center moves to Antarctica (ice will become more expensive than oil), Australia (longevity pills will be received from kangaroos) or South. America (Coca will be the first reserve currency or raw material for starships), then aircraft carriers are needed as air.
  10. veksha50
    veksha50 15 November 2015 20: 06
    0
    Quote: Angry Guerrilla
    Cool. He wanted to fight - he took an airfield with him and swam where necessary ...



    That’s exactly what’s cool ... The author didn’t even give a hint about the cost of this floating airfield, and about its role as a huge potential target - and even more so ...

    And then, we have the coast of the Arctic Ocean - a huge ... It is easier and cheaper to revive the VKS-PVO-PRO infrastructure on the shore .... Energy supply to provide mobile nuclear power plants, which have already been written about more than once ...

    PS Maybe I’m not right, but the aircraft carrier direction can cause a crazy and thoughtless waste of money, which is already gone ... It’s better to build a dozen strike submarines, and at least a few destroyers for this money ...
  • Armored optimist
    Armored optimist 14 November 2015 06: 59
    +7
    We do not need this.
    Such complexes can be used in the indicated seas only against the USA and NATO. The answer will most likely be the use of nuclear weapons against them. But in conventional weapons in these areas, the enemy has a huge advantage of ground-based aviation, the amount of which can be brought to multiple superiority.
  • blizart
    blizart 14 November 2015 07: 07
    11
    Aircraft carriers for Russia are SOI 2.
    1. Armored optimist
      Armored optimist 14 November 2015 08: 30
      +4
      I support. The fifth column works to convince us of the need for gigantic unnecessary expenses.
      1. BMW
        BMW 14 November 2015 09: 11
        +1
        We do not need aircraft carriers, of course we can build one (in extreme cases, two) at the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet for prestige. Everyone is talking about asymmetry, the best answer is the development of hypersound, and we need to focus on it. All air defense, aircraft carriers immediately to a landfill.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 14 November 2015 11: 30
        +8
        Quote: armored optimist
        The fifth column works to convince us of the need for gigantic unnecessary expenses.

        Well, with the fifth column, everything is clear ...
        But what about the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy? With the General Staff?
        It's good to talk while sitting in a trench, under the "armor plate" ...
        And you go to sea without air cover, deploy boats, withdraw RKRs to combat mission areas, conduct a search operation in Middle-earth, etc.
        Verily said! * History teaches that it does not teach anything * ... (fools! - this is from myself)
        There is such a thing as a Methodology for calculating combat capabilities / potentials (weapons, forces and parties) ...
        Well, if the Navy General Committee (with the filing of the General Staff of the Navy!) Says: the fleet needs an aircraft carrier to solve problems in the DMO, and the "armored optimist" from the air defense claims that these are "unnecessary expenses", then the question arises: Why does he not steer the fleet? ?
        There have already been proposals to disperse the Main Staff of the Navy ... (Akin to "Katz offers to surrender!"). But for some reason they forget that the Moscow State University amas are going to inflict SVO from sea directions. So maybe * hornets' nest * is easier to crush away from the coast than to brush off * insects * on your territory? And boats alone are indispensable here, no matter how anyone might want it!
        RUSSIA NEEDS A BALANCED FLEET! hi
        1. BMW
          BMW 14 November 2015 12: 20
          +2
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          RUSSIA NEEDS A BALANCED FLEET!

          I absolutely agree with you. BUT.
          We are curtailing all social programs, supporting business, education, medicine, etc.
          With such power, the question arises of the existence of the state in general and in particular. We cannot have an ocean fleet either for economic or industrial reasons. We cannot build it and maintain it too. hi
          1. Catafract
            Catafract 14 November 2015 14: 31
            0
            The aircraft carriers are an extra-expensive project that did not even stretch the USSR, they are drawn in a symmetrical response to the US fleet to destroy their own economy. For reference, the maintenance per day of one aircraft carrier is from $ 1,5 to $ 2 million .. and if you still spend research and development and building the necessary docks, auxiliary ships, then this program can draw a trillion dollars, are they in the budget?
            1. BMW
              BMW 14 November 2015 15: 41
              0
              Quote: Catafract
              this program can draw a trillion dollars, are they in the budget?

              There is, if not to steal.
              1. Down House
                Down House 14 November 2015 18: 47
                0
                Quote: bmw
                There is

                It’s not a matter of what to eat, but what is to spend on something more interesting.
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 15 November 2015 10: 13
              0
              Quote: Catafract
              and if you still do research and development

              Count, give the exact number.
              Or just ephemeral trillions?
          2. Secta haki
            Secta haki 15 November 2015 21: 53
            0
            And who calculated this for you? Even small countries have their own aircraft carriers and have had them. The economy of the USSR or Russia with its half of the ISS and the strategic nuclear forces weigh less than for example the Spanish or Brazilian? On the contrary, none of the small countries with carrier-based aircraft, or third world countries, have nuclear submarines, and sometimes there are conventional submarines.
        2. Secta haki
          Secta haki 15 November 2015 21: 43
          +1
          Especially the story of the Cuban crisis and its blockade, where all Soviet submarines were freely found by American aviation, and then forced to emerge.
  • wk
    wk 14 November 2015 07: 09
    +9
    The attitude in Russia towards aircraft carriers resembles the famous Krylov's fable "The Fox and the Grapes" ... and you want it and it is not available .... you need aircraft carriers (aircraft carrier groups) of Russia - you NEED! ... maybe it can build them (given the geometric progression of tension in the world ) before the expected events? - NO ... therefore, we need to look for an alternative, and if our World at this stage bypasses formidable events, then, of course, it is necessary to think about it in the future, and in the short term Russia will not be able to.
  • Basarev
    Basarev 14 November 2015 07: 12
    -3
    I generally support the idea of ​​concrete ships, as well as modular ships ... However, this will not be a full replacement for the atomic nose. If only because the construction and maintenance of a real metal ship and base infrastructure will require and create much more jobs, which will greatly reduce the problem of unemployment, and this is a serious increase in the economically active population, a key resource in any country.
    1. Very old
      Very old 14 November 2015 07: 28
      +1
      Atomic noses ...?
      Well, go ahead!
      Seven, as they say, under the keel laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 14 November 2015 07: 46
      +9
      Why not an ice carrier? The old forgotten project of the supercarrier-iceberg "Habakkuk" - "Avvakum" during the Second World War. Well this is just for fun. laughing
      But seriously, this passage is alarming:
      the decision, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov: “We need an aircraft carrier not yesterday or today, but a really promising ship that surpasses all existing ships of this class. This is our strict requirement for industry, and we will not give up on it. ”

      Will this not work out another expensive project, like the "white elephants" of Admiral Gorshkov, I mean the aircraft carrier, if my memory serves me, Project 1143 - neither an aircraft carrier nor a cruiser. And about the nuclear aircraft carrier - even in the USSR they could not finish building the Ulyanovsk, which, as a result, remained to rust in the city of Nikolaev.
      Despite all the efforts made by the USC, only submarines (very successful) and small surface ships (the same are very successful) are still being built in Russia. Will Russian shipbuilders be able to create and build such a large and very complex surface ship as an aircraft carrier? In the coming years, this is hardly possible.
      I have the honor.
      1. BMW
        BMW 14 November 2015 09: 20
        +1
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        In the coming years, this is hardly possible.

        This is impossible, given the state of the economy, even in the next 20 years. (of course, if a new Stalin appears, then everything will be possible). yes
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 14 November 2015 11: 06
        +5
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        And about the nuclear aircraft carrier - even in the USSR they could not finish building the Ulyanovsk, which, as a result, remained to rust in the city of Nikolaev.

        could not but did not have time, the collapse of the USSR prevented ...
      3. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 14 November 2015 11: 55
        +7
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        TAKR, if my memory serves me right, of project 1143 - neither an aircraft carrier nor a cruiser.

        If you call a sniper rifle a shotgun, it will cease to fulfill its functions, will it lose its fighting qualities?
        The Hongfuza and the Indians repaired our TAKRs and they miraculously turned into aircraft carriers! (Liaoning and Vikramaditya)
        Tricky japanes were built by light aircraft carriers and, following the example of the Russians, they called them helicopter-carrying destroyers (Izumo). But from this they did not cease to have the functions of aircraft carriers, taking 28 aircraft on board. And it can be F-35!
        So, as Kuzma Prutkov said: * Look at the root! * wink
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 14 November 2015 13: 52
          +2
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Hongfuza and Hindus repaired our TAKRs

          The Hindus demanded to throw missiles from them and lengthen the take-off deck, turning the TAKR into a light aircraft carrier. And this was done at Sevmash, and not with them.
  • i80186
    i80186 14 November 2015 07: 13
    +4
    Islands, yeah. You can still make them from ice. British scientists will not let lie. laughing
  • TVM - 75
    TVM - 75 14 November 2015 07: 14
    +6
    Everything can rest not on technology, but on corruption of Russian officials who intend to order this building to any foreign company. Nobody canceled their love for kickbacks.
    1. wk
      wk 14 November 2015 07: 23
      +2
      Quote: TVM - 75
      Everything can rest not on technology, but on corruption of Russian officials who intend to order this building to any foreign company. Nobody canceled their love for kickbacks.

      Do you think corruption is possible only with kickbacks to foreign companies .... and there it is possible but easier to control ... in domestic shipyards to cut and easier and more possible ... an example of the numerous criminal cases of recent times in shipyards .... and like a cherry on a cake at the Vostochny cosmodrome .... and here’s another riddle ... Alabino-Kubinka park ... or the new center of the Ministry of Defense .... but the generals ... I apologize to MARSHALOV in Russia, even if they are former firefighters!
  • Aksakal_07
    Aksakal_07 14 November 2015 07: 19
    +1
    The classic version of asymmetric answering calls!
    1. BMW
      BMW 14 November 2015 09: 23
      0
      Quote: Aksakal_07
      The classic version of asymmetric answering calls!

      The classic version of idiocy. hi
  • McLuha-MacLeod
    McLuha-MacLeod 14 November 2015 07: 26
    12
    As the clever expression says, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." One good bang, and there is no expensive product.
    In the USSR, the distant approaches were always grazed by long-range aviation and submarines.
    Now also the satellite constellation has been added.
    I believe that aircraft carriers will soon become obsolete as well as battleships.
    Most likely something new will appear, with a new concept.
    1. BMW
      BMW 14 November 2015 09: 25
      0
      Quote: McLooka-MacLeod
      I believe that aircraft carriers will soon become obsolete as well as battleships.

      Hypersound. Then the aircraft carriers will simply not be needed.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 15 November 2015 08: 47
        0
        Or the Tsiolkovsky airships. A huge range (and with an atomic reactor - unlimited) plus one and a half hundred Caliber on board - it will be any stronger than any Gerald Ford.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • yuriy55
    yuriy55 14 November 2015 07: 31
    +8
    Very interesting in terms of design features. Investments in such island-airfields are especially interesting in light of the latest launches of the Kalibr missile system. If Russia already has a weapon called "The Thunderstorm of Aircraft Carriers", "The Killer of Aircraft Carriers", then, for sure, the enemy army will find "Terminators of floating airfields." The military doctrine of the Russian Federation is more defensive than offensive, in the sense that we are not going to conquer any territories. Yes, and the President's statements are more than clear: only help, only in accordance with international law ... and, if anything, we can also use "nuclear" weapons ... in order to prevent ...

    So, I'm more interested in issues of improvement and technical equipment inside:
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 15 November 2015 08: 49
      0
      However, for defensive purposes, the atomic carrier is useful - in the Soviet defensive doctrine, the bearers relied on their carrier-based aircraft to cover submarine deployment areas.
  • a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 14 November 2015 07: 35
    +5
    The idea is ancient as ...! It is relevant for us in the North, because at permafrost, a stationary airfield will turn out to be golden. Well, the supply too. In any case, the enemy will find goals if he succeeds!
  • Oleg6019
    Oleg6019 14 November 2015 07: 39
    +9
    Dreaming is always good. And if you approach the need for aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy more rationally?
    Now the state of our Navy is very deplorable, despite the active propaganda of success: there are few ships, most ships are very old and outdated in all respects. Therefore, first you need to create a powerful balanced Navy, which can then be supplemented with one or two aircraft carriers, and even then if necessary.
  • aleksfill
    aleksfill 14 November 2015 07: 46
    +3
    It seems someone is trying to drag Russia into a long-term race for the construction of huge ocean
    targets. Today the USA has no experience of repelling attacks on their AUGs and not because these AUGs
    perfect and unsinkable, but because they did not enter into a real conflict with an equivalent
    worthy adversary to repulse him, both on land, in the air, and at sea. Existing
    in the Russian fleet, the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" should be continued in subsequent
    similar, more advanced courts.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 14 November 2015 08: 01
      +4
      Quote: aleksfill
      It seems someone is trying to drag Russia into a long-term race for the construction of huge ocean
      targets.

      Why is someone? Here they are - Vladimir Polenin, doctor of military sciences, professor. Nikolay Hrymov, candidate of technical sciences smile
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. a.hamster55
      a.hamster55 14 November 2015 08: 49
      +1
      You don’t have to build anything - because these are huge targets. And plow open spaces is it right? For me, this is the dispersion of forces in a thin layer across the vast oceans.
  • _GSVG_
    _GSVG_ 14 November 2015 08: 07
    +1
    "1984" is a dystopian novel by George Orwell, published in 1949. The floating fortresses in this novel are indicated.
    And what will happen to this air-LEGO during a very powerful storm or undermining of nuclear weapons under it or near under or above water, and as a result of the formation of powerful waves?
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 15 November 2015 08: 51
      0
      In this matter, even ekranoplans are more effective - they have already written many times that Lun walked freely in a seven-point storm.
  • Stinger
    Stinger 14 November 2015 08: 17
    +4
    Well well! I give a free idea to continue voiced. If, as the eight pontoons that host the airfield shown in the picture, you use atomic submarines, four of which are military, and the rest are Obama and others like him, as well as bars and restaurants, you can not only protect the exceptional ones, which are constantly attacked by Russia and China, but also to convey democratic values ​​without leaving democracy and without regaining consciousness. By the way, you can also upload German gold, protected by the US state. Suddenly Putin wants to take him away.
  • Andryukha G
    Andryukha G 14 November 2015 08: 25
    +1
    American warriors have not yet realized that with their large iron boats with a bunch of planes on them, they can scare only the population of African countries, but not Russia, which has high-speed rockets on silent submarines.
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 15 November 2015 08: 53
      0
      Salt is here not only in the nose, but also in those who accompany it. Burke and other Ticonderoges can scare even Russia.
  • Gardamir
    Gardamir 14 November 2015 08: 31
    0
    Why do Russia need aircraft carriers? First, the country with which everyone is trying to take an example is fighting remotely, so it needs to bring its planes to the Persian Gulf, for example. Secondly, science and technology have gone so far as to think whether it is worth delivering planes somewhere, or can you try differently?
  • seos
    seos 14 November 2015 08: 36
    +2
    1) There is no manufacturing technology for such vessels
    2) There is no money to build such ships
    3) There is no money to equip such ships with aircraft
    4) Doubtful combat effectiveness
    5) It is impossible to protect such a ship (this tidbit will be destroyed in 1 hour of a major military conflict, like all priority surface naval targets)
    6) There is no money to maintain such military facilities
    7) It will take a lot of time to assemble it in combat conditions
    8) It is easy to destroy in parts on the march (before assembly), because its parts a priori will not have weapons.

    And finally, the conclusion:
    There are cheaper and more effective ways to increase the country's combat power. The fleet needs to develop underwater, small, silent hoses with cruise missiles equipped with tactical nuclear weapons.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 14 November 2015 10: 31
      +2
      Quote: seos
      small silent eyeliner with cruise missiles equipped with tactical nuclear weapons

      Which can not be used, except for collective suicide in TMV.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 15 November 2015 09: 06
        0
        So I say - noses are needed, but not like in the USA, others. Not so conservative. It should be recognized that shipbuilding is best suited for ship-based verticals, because in the event of damage to a huge flight deck, a traditional bow becomes only an extra burden on the warrant - a huge defenseless trough. Verticals take off from small areas, and in case of alarm, you can quickly saturate the sky with airplanes. It would also be great to organize a take-off directly from the hangar - this will eliminate the vulnerable position of the aircraft on the deck. In addition, I see a trimaran as the ideal layout of the nose - this, in addition to a radical increase in stability during a storm, also greatly increases the speed. And I see concrete as the optimal material - it is more durable than metal, it does not rust, it does not fear freezing into ice, and finally, it is much simpler and cheaper to build from concrete ...
  • partizan86
    partizan86 14 November 2015 08: 36
    -1
    The aircraft carrier is certainly beautiful and increases opportunities, but not in a global war with an approximately equal enemy.
    Now any of the superpowers has sufficient means to defeat the carrier group. And if anti-ship missiles by some miracle do not solve the problem, then a cruise missile with a tactical charge is certain. The modular, non-maneuverable design is completely absurd, a direct gift even for a mosquito fleet.
    If you create an aircraft carrier, it’s already flying, but this is not in ours, and probably not in the next century. We don’t have much where to swim, we’ll roll it out anyway, but we don’t have money for such a toy. A series of already created ones, with the surviving Admiral Gorshkov, turned out to be unsuccessful, neither the cruiser, nor the aircraft carrier, and the engines are frankly weak, moreover, on diesel traction. Better to wait, while there is money to spend.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 14 November 2015 13: 22
      +6
      Quote: partizan86
      The series already created, with Admiral Gorshkov preserved, was unsuccessful, neither the cruiser, nor the aircraft carrier, and the engines are frankly weak, moreover, on diesel traction.

      Kind! It’s impossible, for the sake of a red word! openly show their ignorance.
      If you doubt something - take a look, well, at least in WIKI! - and then the power plant pr.1143 from diesel, will immediately turn into a steam power, the specific "thrust-to-weight ratio" (to the question of a weak power plant) will be more than that of the atomic Nimitz. (Kuznetsov: 200hp / 000t displacement; Nimitz: 50hp / 000t W), in other words: 260 hp per 000 ton of displacement at Kuzi) and 100 horses per 000 ton of Nimitz's weight - feel the difference!)
      And the last one. In the 80 years of the last century, in the absence of catapults, normal take-off aircraft, frail capabilities of the shipbuilding industry and the lack of experience in building such ships, the creation of 1143 was a labor feat for shipbuilders, science and technology of the Union of that time!
      And to argue that the Mosin’s three-line is worse than the AK-47 from the position of the 21 of the century - a lot of mind is needed!
      What they could, they created it. But it was under Gorshkov that the fleet went to the Ocean, became rocket and thermonuclear. And that's it. For statesmen are judged not by what they could, but did not do, namely by what they really did!
      PS "If you want to have a reputation as an intelligent person, spend your stupidity more economically!"(English proverb) yes
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 November 2015 13: 44
        +3
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And the last one. In the 80 years of the last century, in the absence of catapults, normal take-off aircraft, frail capabilities of the shipbuilding industry and the lack of experience in building such ships, the creation of 1143 was a labor feat for shipbuilders, science and technology of the Union of that time!

        Everything is correctly stated. But ... didn’t Ulyanovsk, which was already ready, and was a full-fledged aircraft carrier, have catapults? And remembering Ulyanovsk, Kuzya, against his background, honestly looks very pale.
        Best regards hi
  • runway
    runway 14 November 2015 09: 11
    +1
    You can salivate here, proving the necessity or unnecessary availability of AUG for the fleet.
    I consider it appropriate, in this regard, to heed the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov:
    “We do not need an aircraft carrier of yesterday or today, but a really promising ship that surpasses all existing ships of this class. This is our strict demand for industry, and we will not give up on it. ”
    If, even after this statement, local specialists have a desire to dream up on this topic, it is only to create the appearance that they are more competent than the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy.
    1. tasha
      tasha 14 November 2015 09: 29
      0
      It all depends on how you understand these words of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy.

      For example Variant 1. We NEED an aircraft carrier ...

      Or Option 2. We need .... a really PERSPECTIVE ship. Imagine that the industrialists bring the aircraft carrier design to the sailors based on the current capabilities of shipbuilders and designers, and the sailors tell them no, this is not a promising project, we can still wait. Think further.

      And in order to create an appearance - I think that we do not need an aircraft carrier, but good partners in different parts of the world, on whose territory Russia could, if necessary, create and maintain its own aviation group.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 16 November 2015 16: 04
        0
        It was "Goldfish" project 705 / 705K. A really interesting project, but unfortunately stillborn at this level of technology. The same story with ekranoplanes, aircraft carrier pr. 1143, VTOL aircraft, anti-aircraft SLBMs ...
        First of all, the project should be evaluated by users, in this case, sailors.
  • Uruska
    Uruska 14 November 2015 09: 17
    +1
    Brilliant idea! A certain fleet is sailing to a certain place. Then the links are connected. The runway appears first. Other units dock to it: headquarters, residential, repair, dining room, spare parts warehouse, conference room, sports, power station and so on ... It turns out a floating base. She is provided for everyone for a long time. Can lead an independent life. Promising project!
  • jury1971
    jury1971 14 November 2015 09: 21
    0
    It’s just amazing that we have some kind of inferiority complex or something? After all, there is its own, unique and much more effective development - an ekranoplane, but no - it is necessary to turn the loot into floating targets. It looks like the stools in the MO have settled down seriously and for a long time.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 14 November 2015 09: 23
    10
    Rare nonsense from pundits! Have fun in the morning, however!
    1. First, we are talking about pushing the boundaries of PLO, air defense, PDO from the coast, and then about the presence anywhere in the world ocean. So, what's the priority? If it’s about a permanent presence in the Barents or Norwegian, the game is not worth the effort, everything is decided by other forces and means of the fleet, coupled with ground-based aviation. Yes, and aircraft carriers are not intended to protect their own coast.
    2. If their purpose is to project power in remote points of the world's oceans, then ... Well, let's say the Caribbean Sea, or even the North or Mediterranean. How long will it take to transfer modules at 15 nodes of maximum speed (write at 10) and then a month to assemble and achieve combat readiness. And all this time potential "friends" will calmly look at these dances with tambourines? And all this time, both individual modules and the assembly site must be seriously guarded, involving almost the entire ship composition of the fleet! And this despite the fact that until the end of assembly, this air island is not able to be used for its intended purpose. In contrast to the classic aircraft carrier, which is able to raise its wing immediately after leaving the base. And it will get to the place at its 25-30 nodes much faster. You can forget about a month for assembly.
    3. Air wing. Separate modules, these are not separate aircraft carriers. Though huge. Will the planes load cranes before they even go out to sea or will the wing arrive on the island after the assembly is completed ?!
    Damn, how did they manage to defend their dissertations?
    1. Gato
      Gato 14 November 2015 09: 51
      +2
      Rare nonsense from pundits! Have fun in the morning, however!

      Likewise, colleague! Yesterday we celebrated Friday, 13. And today such a masterpiece from the "Doctor of Military Sciences". Although, it is easy to read with beer drinks
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 14 November 2015 13: 46
      +3
      Quote: rudolff
      Damn, how did they manage to defend their dissertations?
      Hello old Volchara !!!
      And they defended their dissertations according to the plan of the "graduation" of the almshouse (research institute, high school, postgraduate studies, finally!) ... It is difficult to get into postgraduate studies, even more difficult after that not to become a "candidate" (master! laughing )
      And we are surprised: and why is our science so ... advanced !?
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 14 November 2015 14: 21
        +3
        Hello, Boa constrictor! Long time no intersect. Glad to see you in good health!
    3. ancient
      ancient 14 November 2015 15: 38
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      Rare nonsense from pundits! Have fun in the morning, however!


      So this "fun" has been going on for a whole week .. you read it and .. you wonder .. how much should you drink? wassat recourse
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 14 November 2015 16: 24
        +3
        Hello ancient friend! Today is the day of the meeting of veterans! Nicely. And the "fun" ... So it is not a week, long ago. I took a break for a couple of months, went in and ... Little has changed. "We will destroy the whole world of violence to the foundations, and then We will build ours, we will build a new world, - Who was nothing, he will become everything." Tradition, however!
        good
        1. ancient
          ancient 14 November 2015 19: 54
          +3
          Quote: rudolff
          "Tradition, however!


          Hello friend! well, this time you have something for a long time ... "dived" .. complete .. "silence mode" wink
          Well, traditions ... they are so ... folk ..there are strong drinks

          1. rudolff
            rudolff 15 November 2015 00: 01
            +2
            So this is not for long! I didn’t drop in here for six months. Or just looked through the article, without comment. Nerves see junk, age!
            drinks
  • Robert Nevsky
    Robert Nevsky 14 November 2015 09: 40
    -2
    Hooray, hurray, go RUSSIA! soldier
  • Gato
    Gato 14 November 2015 09: 47
    0
    I especially liked the thesis on the independence of AUG. That is, it is not necessary to supply them. And do not have a fleet of support with the appropriate infrastructure?
  • srha
    srha 14 November 2015 09: 50
    -1
    A floating airfield is not a fantasy, as some critics of the concept try to present (seos, BMW, Lance, Old very, etc.) This is a reality that was carried out by the Bolsheviks and even capitalists in the last century, look for and read about floating ice stripes in the seas and oceans , about the rescue of Chelyuskinites finally remember. And the fact that such an airfield is much simpler, cheaper, and its capabilities are more than an aircraft carrier is a fact. One has only to estimate the cost of four 300 meter barges to form a normal runway for normal aircraft, even heavy ones, and less than 100 people to service them. with the cost of the aircraft carrier and its personnel. A heavy aircraft carrier will not pull - in general! And do not talk about technical impossibility. Even the Japanese already made up floating airfields (true for light aircraft) and experienced!
    And leave the tales that it’s harder to defend it with naval sofas, and the sailors will explain to you how they have to defend escort ships of the type of tankers or caravans of ships - for this the fleet originally existed in general - to protect the various interests of the state at sea.
    But there is only one drawback of this approach - it is really less maneuverable than an aircraft carrier, 30–20 percent interest, like supertankers have, instead of 30. That is, from Crimea to Syria will go not 3 days, but 4.

    By the way, if there was such a floating airfield there, it would be easier to defend against the needles, it would be easier to supply, and it would be easier to deploy. And all you need is to convert 4 tankers for take-off, one bulk carrier for hangars, one liner for a hotel for crews and one boat for an aerodrome control point. And in peacetime he would have something to do, right down to work in peaceful specialties - tankers, bulk carriers, etc.
    1. 31rus
      31rus 14 November 2015 09: 59
      +1
      Sorry, dear, they were not convinced! Here we need a new approach or a technological breakthrough, in my opinion, they will begin to destroy all these "colossals" faster from space or something like "Caliber" will appear that can sink any target
      1. SeregaBoss
        SeregaBoss 14 November 2015 11: 12
        0
        Dear, you also have not convinced that you cannot get from an aircraft carrier from space? Or what else will come up with.
        The concept with barges has the right to life. We must consider, argue, think.
    2. Gato
      Gato 14 November 2015 10: 13
      +1
      look-read about floating ice stripes

      Yes, there was such a publication in "Technique-youth" in 19-furry year. As far as I remember, it was about a floating GDP made of ice and sawdust (this is not a joke).
      So after all, this is not from a good life. Such ersatz for the then aviation made sense, with a weight of the aircraft up to 10 tons maximum.
      1. srha
        srha 14 November 2015 12: 38
        -1
        Do not live in the past, see IL-76, landing on the ice of Antarctica (90-217 tons): http://rutube.ru/video/fa3372a82bb874a87585c13517d64940

        But the An-74 - (20-30 tons) sits on the floating ice of Barneo

        And steel barges, to put it mildly, are somewhat stronger than ice ...
        1. ancient
          ancient 14 November 2015 15: 42
          0
          Quote: srha
          Do not live in the past, see IL-76 landing on the ice of Antarctica


          Dear .. you heard the ringing .. yeah you don’t know .. where is he! soldier
          1. srha
            srha 16 November 2015 17: 59
            0
            Quote: ancient
            ringing .. don’t know .. where is he!
            Yeah. But I’m not interested in your ringing, somehow you yourself sort it out with your ringing ...
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 14 November 2015 14: 16
      +2
      Quote: srha
      And the tales that it’s harder to defend are left to naval sofas, and the sailors will explain to you how do they have to defend escort ships escorting type tankers or ship caravans
      Sergey, you’re probably recently at VO. Therefore, komenty marine professionals, such as my good friend Rudolph, you do not like. I’m not talking about myself.
      But believe me, we know what we are writing about, because (unlike you) we have been standing on an iron deck for more than one year, and academies (VMA and in their specialty) with VVMUZ have finished, there are all kinds of courses (with AGSh, VMA, VSOK, etc.) , obligatory "retraining" every 5 years - a lot passed ...
      So, you are wrong.
      Everyone has the opportunity to speak out on the issue under discussion. And it's up to every member of the forum to listen to whose opinion. But to determine who is a pro and who decided to play the "babalike" is "a matter of taste for each subject of our resource", as one wise MARSHAL of the site said when I was driven to "minus major".
      Do not be offended and do not exact, but referring to "real sailors" without knowing who it is on the site is a futile business!
      In conclusion, I can say one thing: Boa constrictor and Rudolph on this issue spoke out very clearly. And your business is to agree with them or to give counter arguments defending your point of view. You just don’t have to hide behind your backs - this is not customary for sailors.
      Successes hi
      1. srha
        srha 14 November 2015 18: 18
        -1
        A rare case of reasoned denial. It even got through. I'm sorry. I didn’t smell real sailors by their words. And I realized that I should not refer to "real sailors".
        But I didn’t touch your argument, let's go through:
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Such a unit at a speed of 14uz will rattle half a ocean
        And so the aircraft carrier does not rattle? Do airplanes fly silently too? And how much is a tanker in an order from an aircraft carrier group noisier than an aircraft carrier? I think that on the contrary, the aircraft carrier will be noisier. Can you dispel my doubt reasonably? And in terms of speed, 14uz is the economical move of tankers providing the lowest cost of transportation. And if you do not look at the economy as it should be in the military, but take high-speed, and without cargo, there will be more.
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Secondly. I doubt very much that such a hydraulic structure will be able to withstand the ocean wave for a long time. The rigidity of such a structure of articulated elements on such a wave ... is extremely difficult to achieve. Well, what nafig C-17 will sit on the "vertical snake"?
        I won’t look for a link, I’m not a pro, but I’ll tell you that I read the conclusion about landing tests on ice floes, from which I realized that the deflection of ice in the water under a heavy machine greatly facilitates landing. Airfield on the ice I’m just citing it as an example so that you don’t doubt - here it is an already existing and tested version of a possible selection of rigidity and flexibility.
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Thirdly. The platform will lose the main advantage of AVU - mobility. Here for sure, DF-21 and K * hunt for fame.
        And here you have an understatement. For example, off the coast of Syria these DF-21 and K * are now hunting? And you are sure that the main advantage of AVU is mobility, not airplanes? Simply, if you are sure that the main advantage in mobility is, it may be better than ekranoplanes, nor any aircraft carrier in mobility can compare with them ...
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Fourth. The author of the idea forgets about the "storage and maintenance" of aircraft at such a structure. On each module ...
        Not sure what's on everyone. I’m just sure that on everyone it’s absurd and profanity to discredit. That's right - these are several tankers (without oil, in combat use) for the take-off formation, a container ship for hangars with airplanes and their supply, a passenger liner for crews and service staff, and a boat with an air traffic control system. Do you remember Soviet dual-use ships?
      2. srha
        srha 14 November 2015 18: 23
        0
        Yes, there are still questions.
        For example, the economic component? How much will it cost to form a floating aerodrome out of multiple ones? A tanker of 100 million, a dry cargo ship and a liner are not yet expensive for another 100, well, and a runway - it will have to be formed when built on such specialized tankers, and a control boat, even 100, must be completed. They are complete for assembly. All the same, it does not reach very much up to 10 billion.

        And are the combat use of aircraft carriers after World War II on the move, without many months of preliminary preparation known? It’s just that the conflicts in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya cannot be said. Is that the Falklands, but even there it was not without auxiliary ships - "The composition of the air group was constantly increasing. On the container ship "Atlantic Conveyor" and an additional 8 carrier-based Sea Harrier aircraft, 15 Harrier GR3 aircraft, as well as 11 squadrons of Lynx, Wasp, Sea King and Wessex helicopters of various types were airlifted to the South Atlantic and modifications ".

        I. I understand that a mortar is different from a gun, and an aircraft carrier from a floating airfield. And their purpose and application should be somewhat different, although their main function is the same - to ensure the use of aircraft. But there are no fatal technological problems. There are only economic and professional.
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 14 November 2015 23: 54
          +3
          srha, have you read the article carefully? What other tankers, bulk carriers, liners, boats ?! "A complex of modular self-propelled platforms, each measuring about 300 x 150 m, about 35 m high." Can you imagine such measurements? 150 meters from side to side! In addition: "Each of the platforms (module) will, apparently, represent a semi-submarine vessel." Have you seen somewhere a tanker 300 meters long, 150 meters wide, more than ten stories high at home and able to half-submerge at the same time ?!
          Secondly. "Five modules, arranged in a row, will enable any modern aircraft (in particular, the C-17) to take off and land." The empty weight of the C-17 is about 122 tons, the maximum take-off weight is over 265 tons. Not every airfield will accept it, what kind of landing on the deck can we talk about? Make a half-meter thick armor steel deck with a matching under-deck set? Maybe it's easier to stretch a rope into orbit so that you can get to the ISS in an elevator?
          Further. The boa constrictor correctly noted that the rigidity of such a structure is doubtful. But you, apparently, are not very friends with sopromat, since they did not understand him. And here the ice is bending during landing, this is not about that. It's about the design strength and rigidity of the structure and its ability to withstand wave action. There were many cases when the ships broke when launching or on the waves in stormy weather. A long ship is a problem for any engineer and constructor. And here are five modules of 300 meters each. One and a half kilometers! You will never in your life draw a stress diagram of such a structure. And if you draw, then you won’t calculate. There is a constructive limit to everything.
          These are all technical points. Other others may not be mentioned. Nonsense!
          1. srha
            srha 15 November 2015 13: 01
            0
            I read the article.
            Quote: rudolff
            What other tankers, bulk carriers, liners, boats ?!
            I don’t understand why you cannot call several tankers completed to prefabricated modules "Complex of modular self-propelled platforms". But with the dimensions it is indicated "apparently", which means there may be options - I gave the option that is better from my point of view.
            Quote: rudolff
            what kind of landing on deck can we talk about? To make a half-meter thick armored deck with the appropriate deck set?
            And you thought, pretended to be options? I have already been tortured to present you with facts and videos of these facts - 30 tons of ice floe are kept from the bush! Next, see tensile / compression tensile strength, p, Pa:
            ice - 1.0 · 106 / 1.0 · 106..2.0 · 106
            Aluminum - 6 · 107..8 · 107 / -
            Cast iron - 1.4 · 108..2.5 · 108 / 6.0 · 108..1.75 · 109
            Steel - 3.8 · 108..8.0 · 108 / -
            http://khd2.narod.ru/info/datamech.htm
            As you can see, steel is more than 2 orders of magnitude stronger, so landing aircraft heavier by an order of magnitude is not a technical problem - but yours.
            Quote: rudolff
            And here the bending of ice during landing ... A long ship,
            Do you only know how to read, or do you sometimes get to understand what you read? I do not suggest such stupidity as a long hard ship. Try to understand this and then it will immediately become clear to you where the deflection is, why it is needed, what it needs to be provided, and what means it needs to be provided. Once again, watch the video with a long - several hundred meters floating runway in the ocean! But if you do not believe your eyes again, then I am powerless ...

            By the way, I’ll tell you a secret, modules, tankers, ice floes are possible, but nonsense, more effective means of deploying floating airfields are possible.
            1. rudolff
              rudolff 15 November 2015 19: 25
              +1
              srha, I’m extremely glad that you can read and even understand what you read. Sad only that sometimes powerless. Well, I mean, when you do not understand.
              Well then, let it be your way. From a technical point of view there are no problems! Tankers, liners, dry cargo ships, boats are taken .., they are completed to prefabricated modules, assembled into a single structure and wow a la, the aircraft platform is ready! Solid pluses and no minuses. Well, almost none. The cost of this design, assembled from used civilian ships, is mere pennies in comparison with classic aircraft carriers. No need for launch catapults and deck braking systems. No specialized deck aircraft are needed, any will do. No giant shipyards needed. No technology needed in addition to large-assembly. No need ... Yes, in principle, nothing special is needed! It would be a desire! So? Well, if so, then an immodest question. If everything is so simple, then why aren't they still? The Chinese, Indians, and many others are concerned about the construction of classic aircraft carriers. They rack their brains, create (steal, copy) technologies, spend unmeasured money ... Are they all stupid?
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 15 November 2015 19: 31
                +1
                srha, little remark. If you have touched on the ice theme as an argument. The thickness of ice in the Borneo region during the spring months varies from one and a half to two and a half meters, in some places up to three. From time to time after landing, takeoff "Cheburashka" breaks the strip. Cracks, faults are then "repaired" (ice, snow, water). What will be the thickness of the "barge" deck, comparable in strength characteristics with two or three meters of solid ice field? And this is just for a relatively light "Cheburashka". And if for the aforementioned S-17? This is the first thing.
                Secondly. The ice cover is on the surface of the water. Try to raise this ice strip above the water and install it on some kind of rigid support structure. What complexity would this under-ice construction be so that the ice could at least take a maize?
                1. srha
                  srha 16 November 2015 17: 53
                  0
                  Quote: rudolff
                  If everything is so simple, then why aren't they still?
                  Not just of course. And the hardest part is the experts who are looking for excuses, not solutions. But if you recall the story ... when the world war pressed, then immediately began to make simple cheap civilian aircraft carriers - even the states. This time. Two, the Japanese in this century have made and tested a prefabricated floating airfield for light aircraft, i.e. they tested it technically, then I don’t know, maybe the economy didn’t like it, maybe it was classified. Three, you use the demagogic construction again, suggest absurdity, and then honestly call it stupidity - like you won, like with the ice strip that I offer only as a good example of the possibility, even with rather weak structural properties of the material. It is clear that some "cast iron" is more than two orders of magnitude (100 times) stronger.

                  Your second - well, you can't (!) "Install it on some rigid support structure", you yourself said - it will break. So it is not necessary to consider deliberate nonsense, but it is necessary to look for another solution - flexible ... An example due to ice was presented above.

                  By the way, you have one more strange proposal here - I understand that for some reason you think that a three-meter layer of ice smeared on the top (deck?) Of a tanker weighs more than what it can carry, for example, oil in its deep tanks , and if you count? Although, I repeat, it is better to use materials that are better than ice.

                  Quote: rudolff
                  The ice cover is on the surface of the water.
                  Why raise the runway high? Let the base be semi-flooded in operation. With a high wave, he, PA, is still not operable, but on an ordinary wave it is possible with breakwaters, etc. to shield.

                  Therefore, I remain of my opinion - the technical ability of the PA, and cheaper than the aircraft carrier, is. And I realized that the sailors didn’t need such a bayonet.
  • Gato
    Gato 14 November 2015 10: 03
    +1
    Bullshit is everything.
    Here are our (in the sense of Svidomo) naval commanders launched a whole armored boat 23 m long. Vice Admiral (gee) of the Ukrainian fleet (gee-gee) said a speech about this occasion. We smashed the champagne on board! (sorry, the boat was not injured)
    And here we are arguing for aircraft carriers request
  • Old26
    Old26 14 November 2015 10: 33
    +2
    Quote: crazyrom
    So, the deputy director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, Alexander Khramchikhin, is of the following opinion: “... pushing the line of air defense, anti-aircraft defense and air defense systems a few hundred miles from their shores ... much cheaper and more efficiently can be solved by developing and improving the air force, air defense, coastal air defense missile systems and underwater fleet".

    He almost never agreed with Khramchikhin's point of view, but here he is right about one thing. setting the frontier is several hundred miles cheaper. The truth is not writing, but how to achieve this? Modules? Stupid. It may not be stupid if it is necessary to create a stationary floating base in an area where there are no airfields, and others are far away, but firstly it is long (the mobility of this idea is zero), secondly - the "assembly" time will be hefty, and the enemy will sit and watch ? and 1 - it will be much more susceptible to waves than a conventional aircraft carrier and is hardly cheaper.

    Quote: bmw
    Quote: Aksakal_07
    The classic version of asymmetric answering calls!

    The classic version of idiocy. hi

    I agree. The invention of the bicycle.

    Quote: blizart
    Aircraft carriers for Russia are SOI 2.

    Not at all. Especially if we once again do not use the principle of "catching up and overtaking America."

    Quote: bmw
    We do not need aircraft carriers, of course we can build one (in extreme cases, two) at the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet for prestige. Everyone is talking about asymmetry, the best answer is the development of hypersound, and we need to focus on it. All air defense, aircraft carriers immediately to a landfill.

    It seems that you think that our enemy will not do anything and leave everything as it is. On hypersonic Raman there is hypersonic anti-aircraft. This is not a way out or a panacea. Whether we need aircraft carriers or not depends on how we position ourselves. A superpower ready to defend its interests not only in the 200-mile zone, or we will be an ordinary regional power. In the second case, aircraft carriers are not only unnecessary, but also harmful, since this will be an ordinary drink of money. If we are going to protect our interests anywhere in the world, then aircraft carriers are needed.
    Take the current situation in Syria. Would it happen, for example, 5-7 years ago, could we quickly deploy our aviation forces there? Bulgaria and now sometimes does not provide air corridors for our BTA. And then there were tense relations with Iran, and there were American troops in Iraq. The question is how to transfer planes there? On the BDK disassembled? How to cover, if necessary, the deployment zone of our submarine missile carriers? And many other questions. The only thing is that there is no need to chase the United States quantitatively ...
    1. BMW
      BMW 14 November 2015 15: 59
      0
      Quote: Old26
      On hypersonic Raman there is hypersonic anti-aircraft.

      Difficult question. But the speeds are too high, and the time is very short. I won’t argue here.
  • Old26
    Old26 14 November 2015 10: 38
    +1
    Quote: Aleksandr72
    And about the nuclear aircraft carrier - even in the USSR they could not finish building the Ulyanovsk, which, as a result, remained to rust in the city of Nikolaev.

    You are not quite right. Could and completed. A series of EMNIP of 4 such ships was planned. But the collapse of the Union followed ...
    And he did not stay to rust in Nikolaev. Our neighbors quickly sawed it for metal and sold it to "overseas friends" so as not to finish building it for Russia. But those threw them with a price ...

    Quote: crazyrom
    It is more necessary to the aggressors. We are not like that, we have much more limited use of aircraft carriers, and there are fewer places and reasons for using them. Well, the same cruise missiles sink aircraft carriers at times, even without a nuclear warhead.

    Alas, let your words be to God’s ears. There is such a book, it seems called "Naval strategy" or "War at sea" (here I can really be mistaken with the name in which it was, I don’t remember exactly, I read about 5 years ago). Posted by Admiral Captain Ivan Matveevich. And he has a very good calculation there on how "aircraft carriers are being drowned with cruise missiles".

    According to his calculations, in order to do this it is necessary to incapacitate an aircraft carrier from 5 to 7 cruise missiles of the Granit or Kh-22 type, and for destruction - 11-12... It is not without reason that such huge forces were allocated to the destruction of the AUG in the USSR. So say "at one time" - sorry, hap
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 November 2015 10: 55
      0
      Granites and X 22 will soon be removed from service.
    2. mvg
      mvg 14 November 2015 13: 32
      +2
      I add that the destruction of 1 !!! AUG was estimated by our military at 15-17%, and it was the USSR with a whole bunch of TU22M2 and TU142, while the missile carrier suffered serious losses. As a result, it is not clear how we would destroy aircraft carriers in a limited conflict.
      PS: To all fans of Caliber. At least once, for the sake of your education, go online and read about the missiles of the Caliber family, its anti-ship version, how far it "floats", how it will "meet" it, and in general, what are the chances that it will be launched?
      Even 2-3 Antei's 949A (wherever there would be so many) each 24 Granites each had very illusory chances of destroying an aircraft carrier .. In the best case, they would have destroyed 2-3 URO destroyers at the cost of death
      1. ancient
        ancient 14 November 2015 15: 55
        0
        Quote: mvg
        and it was the USSR with a whole bunch of TU22M2 and TU142


        Well, the Tu-142 has not yet been used there .. but the Tu-95RTs are yes .. but even then intelligence and .. additional exploration .. no more, so the "heap" and .. "did not smell", but the Tu-16K ... and Tu-22K (as well as Tu-16P and Tu-22P) these were more than drinks
    3. ancient
      ancient 14 November 2015 15: 52
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      According to his calculations, in order to do this, it is necessary to disable an aircraft carrier from 5 to 7 cruise missiles of the Granit or Kh-22 type, and for destruction - 11-12.


      These are very erroneous calculations, because. they were made "hell knows when" and "took into account that the Indzhis with a probability of 0.85 will be able to knock our missiles down" .. that's why the density of the volley and the flow of missiles was considered.
      And the "huge forces" were allocated due to the fact that while the AUG was in a state of "full combat readiness" its ORDER increased and before "getting" to the "aircraft carrier" you had to "solve problems" with ships and aircraft AWACS of the Air Defense Forces AUG, electronic warfare and air defense ships. wink
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 14 November 2015 10: 46
    -2
    The idea might work well for military operations such as the current Russian air forces in Syria.
  • dvg79
    dvg79 14 November 2015 10: 53
    +1
    Do I have a déjà vu? In my opinion, this article has recently been on VO.
  • Vladimir 23rus
    Vladimir 23rus 14 November 2015 10: 59
    -1
    Wunderwuffle in its purest form! I don’t know how many "Calibers", for example, it is necessary to disable (not even sink) this is a miracle, but God himself ordered a couple of tactical-strategic missiles to a ready target for a training ground not to be regretted. Since there is a suspicion that the speed of THIS is so-so from the word at all. About the inland seas without any comments at all (funny).
  • NordUral
    NordUral 14 November 2015 11: 09
    +2
    Roof of ambition demolished? What kind of aircraft carriers do we have? Where are you going to fight? These are the States, like an island, and even their arrogant, paranoid idea of ​​dominion over the world. Where to sail? Do you have enough of your own continental problems?
  • Tektor
    Tektor 14 November 2015 11: 11
    +1
    The issue of an aircraft carrier is a geopolitical issue. It is akin to another question: Does Russia want to have allies? Here we take Argentina. Was she able to turn to us before the Malvino-Falkland conflict began, so that our aircraft carrier would resemble tudes-syudas there? Could. Perhaps if the steering wheel had a competent politician who was able to calculate all the risks, then they would have sent. As the experience of Syria shows, an aircraft carrier does not have to be very large, 32 shock and multifunctional bombs are enough, and also (~ 24) turntables for various purposes. Well, the stock of weapons with security. It turns out about 60 boards taking into account the AWACS and the transporter, although the AWACS can be based on the A-40 Albatross, which drops / rises from the water and takes off from the water.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 14 November 2015 11: 14
    +1
    Quote: Vladimir 23rus
    Wunderwuffle in its purest form! I don’t know how many "Calibers", for example, it is necessary to disable (not even sink) this is a miracle, but God himself ordered a couple of tactical-strategic missiles to a ready target for a training ground not to be regretted. Since there is a suspicion that the speed of THIS is so-so from the word at all. About the inland seas without any comments at all (funny).

    Tactical and strategic missiles is cool)))), you read the article carefully, no one talks about a full-fledged ship. We are talking about a pretty mobile team platform that can be quickly deployed in a local conflict zone.
  • Wolverine 1234
    Wolverine 1234 14 November 2015 11: 15
    0
    Once upon a time there was an idea to place anti-ship missiles (just "caliber") in containers of the cargo type and place them on the seabed. The containers must of course be reinforced against corrosion and salt water. Thus, the coastline would be under control for many hundreds of kilometers. And 100 of these containers would be cheaper than one supercarrier. But this is just my opinion.
  • v1tz
    v1tz 14 November 2015 11: 23
    0
    Again, these disputes are better, cheaper. It is necessary to have both aircraft carriers and aircraft carriers, cruisers and helicopter carriers and floating mobile airfields, and be used depending on the situation. How many times I was convinced when at hand there are a lot of different appropriate equipment, equipment, trained people, this is just a fairy tale: and the costs will return.
  • cormorant
    cormorant 14 November 2015 11: 30
    +2
    Another button accordion ... What platforms? Nothing intelligible on the destroyer has happened yet, and here aircraft carrier platforms are being discussed. As a result, we get the construction of several platforms, almost in terms of complexity and cost, each approaches a good aircraft carrier ... In general, science fiction and ideas that can be implemented by 2050 need to be published on sites of more highly specialized ...
  • Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 14 November 2015 12: 26
    0
    All this is wonderful and wonderful. But whoever owns space will also own the planet. The first who installs combat platforms will dictate what to do to the rest. And assembling a platform now, on current rockets, even of the Proton type, is elementary. Yes and the cost is comparable to an aircraft carrier. And after that you can put any weapon from 100 mgt of guided warheads to any other. The only thing is, we need to send everyone to hell. And we don't have the courage to do this. "Partners" are all around. In the USSR, this has already begun to do, but everything was pumped.
  • evil partisan
    evil partisan 14 November 2015 12: 27
    0
    Well, such a design does not pull on an aircraft carrier - this is understandable. But for civilian missions? Well, for example, when performing any tasks in difficult conditions, when aviation is also needed, but equipped airfields are absent? Such an idea may work, it seems to me ...
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 14 November 2015 13: 09
    +1
    Quote: Tambov Wolf
    All this is wonderful and wonderful. But whoever owns space will also own the planet. The first who installs combat platforms will dictate what to do to the rest. And assembling a platform now, on current rockets, even of the Proton type, is elementary. Yes and the cost is comparable to an aircraft carrier. And after that you can put any weapon from 100 mgt of guided warheads to any other. The only thing is, we need to send everyone to hell. And we don't have the courage to do this. "Partners" are all around. In the USSR, this has already begun to do, but everything was pumped.

    And about the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in Space did not hear? not..
  • Old26
    Old26 14 November 2015 13: 13
    0
    Quote: Wolverine1234
    Once upon a time there was an idea to place anti-ship missiles (just "caliber") in containers of the cargo type and place them on the seabed. The containers must of course be reinforced against corrosion and salt water. Thus, the coastline would be under control for many hundreds of kilometers. And 100 of these containers would be cheaper than one supercarrier. But this is just my opinion.

    And how do you imagine the launch of these missiles? From what depth? Do you also put the personnel in the container and put them on the bottom? After all, target designation is introduced before launch. Who invented such utter stupidity?
  • Izotovp
    Izotovp 14 November 2015 13: 18
    +1
    Throwing into the thick of the debate: such a "removed airfield" is also capable of performing the functions of an air defense post and covering transport routes and, for example, when entering the equator: a sea space launch, an independent submarine supply point, a floating base and a transit point to ensure our interests in Antarctica, which is becoming a strategic place on the sly.
  • mvg
    mvg 14 November 2015 13: 40
    +2
    In general, the authors of such projects, like ice-cold aircraft carriers, and bulk islands, in the open ocean .. First, consult with the head doctor. Until the issuance of the terms of reference .. and do inflatable boat, at least a woman .. Where much more real. And don’t take the bread from Herbert Walls and Hanline ..
  • Streich
    Streich 14 November 2015 14: 31
    -1
    It seems to me that in this dispute it is necessary to determine the military doctrine: a) offensive, b) defensive. If offensive, then it probably makes sense to have aircraft carriers in the escort group, for not very strong targets (strong targets have something to answer, even though there are 10 AUGs). If defensive - then why throw money for nothing. This is the first.
    Second: the article talks about building in 10 years (in practice, 15). During this time, as Nasredin used to say, either the donkey will die, or the emir. During this time, the physical concept of weapons will completely change, and all these masses of metal will frighten only fish in the ocean.
    We need a powerful, mobile, stuffed with state-of-the-art electronic warfare and warhead delivery systems. (Missiles, shells, etc.) It is necessary to develop the completely abandoned industry of atomic propulsion systems for aviation, including for fleet aviation. The atomic group of drones can seriously cover any squadron anywhere.
    So you need to think in the future. If there were no promising developments in the USSR, now there would be no Russia.
    So it seems to me.
  • rubidiy
    rubidiy 14 November 2015 15: 20
    +1
    Any article that considers the need for aircraft carriers, in my opinion, is useful.
    True, mere mortals are still not given to know all the pros and cons, therefore, further every thought is my personal vision. I do not impose. hi
    - It is definitely not necessary to follow the path of the race for the Americans. In general, two main points in this article were voiced. First, catching up with Russia will only spend resources without getting into the hands of modern really formidable weapons. Here one cannot disagree with the commander in chief. The second - aircraft carriers, as we know them today, will very soon reach the technical limit. Those. trying to catch up, hoping in the future to overtake, is basically meaningless, because around the bend is not a continuation of the track, but a dead end. laughing

    - No matter how banished the American and British media on the topic of the "aggressiveness" of the Russians, it was and will be only their propaganda, which protects the Western elites from the wrath of their own peoples. The reality is that Russia is still a self-sufficient state. The goal of capturing European countries was not there, and it is not. I personally do not see the point of "pushing back" the borders with the help of aircraft carriers. our country is so huge that a strike can be prepared from anywhere. The cost / benefit ratio is highly questionable. The only sane use of aircraft carriers for Russia is to support a ground operation in you-know-who territory.

    - The project of a huge floating airfield is a step along the same path of gigantomania. How it ended for the forefront at that time in the technical plan of Nazi Germany, I hope, there is no need to remind. The US has long been discussing the strategy of "spreading death", which I would translate as "dispersing death". Those. abandoning the practice of dumping all the eggs in one basket. So far, I notice with satisfaction that these conversations remain only conversations for them. Russia, on the other hand, does not build large surface ships in its rearmament program. Our business is to build a large number of frigates capable of delivering coordinated strikes while being at a considerable distance from each other. I would like to see this principle in the form of a new aircraft carrier project. A large number of small aircraft carriers operating on new principles that allow quickly launching all aircraft on board, capable of better protecting themselves from threats from the air and from under the water. True, I understand that this concept rests not so much on the construction of such a ship, but on the construction of a new aircraft that does not require large dimensions of the ship for confident takeoff and landing. sad
  • asar
    asar 14 November 2015 16: 46
    0
    It will be necessary - they will drown the USA AUG!
    I agree with the

    Streich
  • andrew42
    andrew42 14 November 2015 17: 32
    0
    It is not surprising that for the first time such a concept (of a floating platform) was announced in the "west". Well, purely "Death Star" from "Star Wars". Typical aggressor weapon. Not our doctrine, this one. Second: as already correctly noted, this monster will simply consume a huge amount of resources - combat security and support. And thirdly, the main thing: the same vulnerable, "disposable" instrument of war as an aircraft carrier, only it will be loaded into it, Mom, do not worry. No, we don't need such a ballet. And what about a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy - ONE such a group is definitely needed. If only because both the state and business invest their assets abroad, and it is sometimes necessary to protect this quickly and toughly. BUT! Not more than one, Not today, and Not in this economy. My verdict: to develop a promising aircraft carrier, without haste, R&D, etc. already today, complexes and systems can be tested without a case with a dock. And raise the economy, the economy! production of the means of production, as Comrade Marx said. Without a powerful industrial public sector, the country will not even be able to handle the first such aircraft group. The banana republic does not need such toys, just as the donkey does not need a knight's saddle.