Military Review

Short deck

153
The participation of the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" in the Syrian conflict depress


Intensive combat training of the Kuznetsov TAKR means its early access to the Mediterranean Sea to the shores of Syria in order to strengthen our group of VKS. But even with the full manning of the air group, the cruiser is unable to significantly influence the course of the hostilities.

The intensity of the "Syrian" aviation the videoconferencing group grew continuously and by the beginning of November, it seems, has reached the limit. The basis for such a conclusion can be not only data from "credible sources" from circles close to the headquarters of the Aerospace Forces, but also statements by officials of the Ministry of Defense.

In the sky a little, on earth closely


In particular, the spokesman for the Defense Ministry, Major General Konashenkov, said that Russian aircraft operating in Syria had switched to a new method of hostilities - flying missions not as part of groups, but singly. Such a step may be evidence that the capabilities of the Russian aviation grouping in Syria are not enough to solve the entire volume of combat missions. It should be noted that this is a necessary measure, and not a more perfect way of action. After all, flights in groups (at least a couple) are caused by the need to increase the combat stability of the aircraft, and in the event of the death of the aircraft, create more favorable conditions for the evacuation of the crew from the conflict zone, especially if this happened over enemy territory. Even in the most critical initial period of the Great Patriotic War, when our aviation was not enough, in the overwhelming majority of cases the aircraft operated at least in pairs. In Syria, the transition to solo flights is only partly justified by the fact that terrorists lack the ability to counteract our aircraft when they are operating from high altitudes.

This measure also shows that the command clearly understands that the existing aviation group is clearly not enough to turn the tide of military operations in favor of the troops of the legitimate government and in a short time to defeat the gangs. However, several factors hinder the build-up of the combat structure of our VKS group. First of all, it is necessary to note the clearly insufficient operational capacity of the Khmeimim airbase. Today, our aviation group also uses an airfield in the Syrian Tartus area (where the logistics center of the Russian Navy is stationed) for basing. Further strengthening it will require the expansion of the basing system in Syria, which is problematic under current conditions. Another important limiting factor is the potential of the supply chain. The existing composition of the air force seems to be the ultimate. Finally, its buildup will require the deployment of an appropriate ground support system, security forces and the defense of the aerodrome network. This requires a more numerous contingent of our Armed Forces. And this with a high probability will lead to the appearance of losses, which is absolutely unacceptable primarily from a socio-political point of view.

Alternative base "Hamine"

Short deckOne of the most important directions for solving the problem may be the deployment of an attack group outside Syrian territory. In this regard, the use of the forces of the Russian Navy is very promising. The experience of the Caliber strike from the Caspian Sea demonstrated not only the effectiveness of the missile system, but also the feasibility of using fleet against stationary objects of the IG. However, the cost of the attack was very high - more than 10 billion rubles. Yes, and stocks of this weapons in the Russian arsenals are limited. In any case, such spectacular and effective attacks were not repeated, although it would be logical to demonstrate to the world the combat capabilities of our long-range and strategic aircraft using X-55 missiles or the like. There are three options. The first is to strike from bases in the Caspian regions of Russia with Tu-22М3, Tu-95 and Tu-160 aircraft with free-fall bombs flying to a target over the territory of Iran and Iraq. The second is to attract ship artillery to destroy the militants' positions. The third is to use deck aviation against terrorist formations of the "Islamic State".

The first option formally looks the most realistic. Iran and Iraq will surely miss our planes, strikes from high altitudes will make them invulnerable to the IS militants, and well-established rear support in their own territory will allow them to act with the utmost intensity. However, judging by the fact that this has not yet been done, despite the obvious need, there are serious reasons that do not allow us to attract our long-range and strategic aircraft. Probably the main ones are three. The first is the lack of precision weapons, which mainly goes to an air force already deployed in Syria. The second is the low efficiency of free-fall bombs on point targets - there is reason to believe that long-range and strategic aircraft are not equipped with the SVP-24 system. The third reason is the inadmissibility of noticeable civilian casualties, which are inevitable with a large dispersal of bombs.

Attraction of Russian ships for artillery strikes is impossible due to the fact that the entire coastline of Syria is controlled by the troops of the legitimate government and our guns are not able to reach the IS militants. And the fleet's fire capabilities are not so great as to render appreciable support to the troops on the coastal direction.

What is Kuznetsov preparing for?


It remains only to use our only heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser (TAKR) "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov." Preparations for sending the ship to Syria are in full swing. This is evident from the nature of its activities in recent weeks and is confirmed by information from reliable sources. The early withdrawal of TAKR from planned average repair and active combat training at sea with intensive flights of the air group indicate that in the near future it will be sent to the Eastern Mediterranean and will join the military operations. In this regard, it is important to assess how much our cruiser can contribute to the solution of the task of defeating the IS formations, how much it can increase the combat capabilities of the Russian air group.

The main and only tool for TAKR in the fight against the IG is its air group - Su-33 and MiG-29К / KUB. From various sources it is known that at present in its composition in a flightable state 14 Su-33 (seven more in storage), 10 MiG-29K and two MiG-29CUB. Total - 26 machines that can be brought to attacks on the objects of the IG. Back in the 279-m naval fighter regiment, there are eight Su-25UTGs. This training attack aircraft does not have sighting equipment, weapons control system units, girder holders and pylons, a gun mount, therefore it is not suitable for combat operations.

By 1995, even on Soviet reserves, we managed to prepare ten combatant pilots to work from the deck of our aircraft carrier. In the future, the preparation of new aces and the maintenance of their qualifications were very limited. In the middle of 2000-x, according to reliable sources, there were about eight people in Russia who had the skills to fly from the Kuznetsov deck. With the beginning of a real renaissance of our aircraft, great attention was paid to combat training, including an increase in the number of naval aviation pilots capable of flying the Su-33 and MiG-29К / KUB from the TAKR deck. However, soon after the completion of the Kuznetsov long-range campaign in May 2014, it was delivered for scheduled maintenance, flights from its deck became impossible. Nevertheless, the military leadership, well aware of the importance of naval aviation to protect Russia's interests in remote regions and realizing the high likelihood of drawing the country into a conflict in Syria, took measures. As a result, so far, it has been possible to staff the Kuznetsova air group with operational aircraft in full. But the problem with the pilots remains. The fact is that their training requires significantly more time than usual - it takes at least two years of special training to master the specifics of flying from the deck, even from an experienced pilot. It is probably for this reason that our TAKR, having entered the Barents Sea today, is actively working out take-off and landing operations. In view of the above, it can be assumed that after an accelerated course of training for flight personnel, an aircraft carrier will be able to reach the shores of Syria, having a fully staffed air group — both cars and flight personnel.

Cruiser enough for a week


The radius of action of the Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB aircraft - a thousand kilometers (when flying with additional fuel tanks) - allows you to strike the objects of the "Islamic state" to the entire depth of the Syrian theater. The stock of aviation fuel is 2500 tons. There is no reliable open data on the number of units of aviation weapons on board the ship. Presumably, their stocks (based on data on American aircraft carriers) are 1500 – 2000 units with a total mass of 1000 – 1200 tons. We estimate the disposable resource of the ship’s aircraft group. In terms of fuel (including 10 – 15% NZ and allocation of 15 – 20% to helicopters in the interest of ensuring the safety of the ship and air group), these are 350 – 400 sorties, and for weapons only 250 – 300 (with full ammunition consumption at each departure) .

Data on the limiting intensity of flights from the deck of our TAKR is currently not available (for all history he never acted as a full air group with maximum intensity). When compared with the American and British aircraft carriers, taking into account the differences in the start technology (the Americans have an ejection, we have a ramp), the power plant and the number of service personnel, it can be assumed that the maximum daily intensity can be 35 – 40 of sorties, that is, 1,3 – 1,5 per vehicle day. This means that with the intensive use of its air group, the TAKR will use up ammunition and fuel for the aircraft for seven to nine days, after which it will need refueling. And if it is possible to replenish the stocks of aviation fuels and lubricants in the sea from a tanker, then there will be problems with the replenishment of aviation weapon stocks - at present, the Russian fleet does not have integrated supply ships that allow it to be done at sea. The only such ship in the Russian Navy, the Berezina, was removed from the fleet in 2002 and disposed of. Therefore, after a week of intensive actions, Kuznetsov will either have to go to Tartus, or, if this turns out to be unacceptable for some reasons, follow back to the Federation Council — the passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles may be impossible for him (Kuznetsov’s exit from the Black Sea in 1992, it was fraught with considerable legal difficulties caused by the international status of these straits).

"Drying" leave on the pier?


Opportunities for the destruction of ground targets in our naval aircraft vary significantly both among themselves and in comparison with those of the Russian Aerospace Forces grouping of Russia in Syria. First of all, it should be noted that the deck aircraft have not yet been equipped with the SVP-24 system. In combat operations against naval targets, being designed exclusively for static objects, it has limited value, and the tasks of defeating ground objects in this case have always been considered secondary. Therefore, first of all, the front-line aircraft, which we see in Syria, were upgrading the SVP-24 system. In this regard, it is necessary to recognize the limited suitability for strikes on the IG infrastructure of Su-33 aircraft. Optimized for solving air defense tasks of naval groups at sea, they can only use unguided ammunition for strikes against ground targets: NURS (80 80-mm C-8 units in four containers for 20 missiles, or 20 122-mm C-13 units in four blocks of five missiles, or four 266-mm C-25) and free-fall bombs in caliber from 100 to 500 kilograms with a total weight of up to four to five tons (taking into account the weight limit for take-off from the deck). The use of NURS involves strikes from low altitudes with a distance of no more than 1500 meters from the target, which makes these aircraft vulnerable to Islamist MANPADS, which is unacceptable for political reasons. Bombing from high altitudes leads to a significant dispersal of ammunition. Thus, these machines can be used either to accompany other strike aircraft (which is not yet relevant, judging by the situation in the sky of Syria), or for strikes against area targets located outside populated areas. The latter is also unlikely. That is, Su-33 will not be able to make a significant contribution to the fire defeat of the IG gangs.

Remaining 12 MiG-29K / KUB. These multi-purpose aircraft have great potential for attacking ground targets. Their control system and the use of weapons allows the use of new models of high-precision aviation weapons of destruction - X-29 and X-25 missiles, KAB-500Кр and KAB-500Л adjustable bombs. On the departure of such a plane can take two - four missiles or two adjustable bombs. Accordingly, under favorable weather conditions and visibility, as well as proper target designation, it is capable of destroying one or two militant objects reliably and with high accuracy during a sortie.

The available number of machines of this type allows you to perform daily up to 20 sorties. But then for the full-fledged use of the resource of these aircraft for a week or two and a half on board the TAKR, there should be about 250 – 350 high-precision ammunition, which Russia does not seem to have today. Therefore, the capabilities of the aircraft will be limited by the availability of weapons. But even if we assume that our TAKR will be equipped with the required number of WTO, in a week he will be able to destroy the order of 120 – 160 of typical targets. Compared to the results of the actions of the Russian aviation group in Syria, this is about 15 – 20 percent of its greatest combat capabilities.

That is, potentially, our Navy with its only TAKR can no more than once every six months (taking into account the need to return to the Federation Council) to increase the combat capabilities of the Russian Federation forces forces group in Syria by an amount that does not significantly affect the course of combat operations. This is the result of a quarter-century strangulation of the fleet, in particular the loss of four of the five domestic aircraft carriers.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/28042
153 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lapkonium
    Lapkonium 22 November 2015 05: 59
    76
    The article was clearly written last week. And there was one more blow with the calibers of the Caspian Flotilla. And supposedly from Varshavyanka in the appendage. Plus several sorties of the Tu-95MS strategists with the Kh-55, Tu-160 with the Kh-101 - a total of 106 missiles since the beginning of the operation. Tu-22M3 with OFABs ... All this contradicts several points in the article at once. But no one said that from the list "long-range aircraft - artillery - aircraft carrier" you cannot choose more than one option. wink

    And as for the limitations in efficiency - yes, of course, the 'former' aircraft carrier "Nimitsu" is not a competitor. But on the other hand, would he endlessly wander the northern seas without a clear goal? The money has long been invested - let it work, maybe the supply will arrive in time, but the pilots and commanders will take more experience.
    1. Alex v
      Alex v 22 November 2015 07: 18
      +5
      Totally agree with you
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 22 November 2015 10: 26
        0
        The main and only tool of the TAKR in the fight against IS is its air group - Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB

        Actually, it also has rockets on it ..
        1. kote119
          kote119 22 November 2015 13: 29
          +6
          what is the use of these missiles?
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 22 November 2015 16: 31
            +2
            Quote: kote119
            what is the use of these missiles?

            And you ask the surviving barmalei.
            1. kote119
              kote119 22 November 2015 16: 56
              +4
              Quote: GSH-18
              And you ask the surviving barmalei.

              only air defense systems remained on Kuznetsovo, there was still granite, and which of them could help against the barmalei?
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 22 November 2015 17: 20
                -5
                Quote: kote119
                only air defense systems remained on Kuznetsovo, there was still granite, and which of them could help against the barmalei?

                1. kote119
                  kote119 22 November 2015 18: 05
                  +4
                  AND WHAT ON THIS POSTER CAN YOU SEE WHAT BARMALAIS MISSILES TO SCAR?
          2. sssla
            sssla 22 November 2015 20: 04
            -27 qualifying.
            Quote: kote119
            what good

            This requires a more numerous contingent of our aircraft. And this is highly likely to lead to losses, which is absolutely unacceptable primarily from a socio-political point of view.

            So the Russians as the Mattress STATE began to fight! A couple of dead and different committees will tear everyone ?? Soon, and without orange juice, we will not go on the attack ?????
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 22 November 2015 10: 31
        +5
        Cruiser enough for a week

        I have repeatedly said that the moment will come when we need a real normal plane-deck atomic aircraft carrier! And then he came.
        Use TAKR instead of an aircraft carrier ... No.
      3. GSH-18
        GSH-18 22 November 2015 10: 37
        0
        Therefore, after a week of intense action, Kuznetsov will either have to go to Tartus, or, if this is unacceptable for some reason, to go back to the Northern Fleet - after all, passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles may not be possible for him (Kuznetsov’s exit from the Black Sea in 1992 was fraught with significant legal difficulties caused by the international status of these straits).

        Bullshit! Kuzya was attributed to Sevas before the collapse of the USSR. And the zone of his responsibility was Middle-earth. What are the legal difficulties ??? belay
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 22 November 2015 10: 20
      18
      Quote: Lapkonium
      doesn’t he wander about endlessly along the northern seas without an obvious goal?

      No need to travel to Moscow from Tula via Magadan.
      The aircraft carrier is intended, first of all, to increase the combat stability of the groupings of the forces of the fleet (air defense, anti-aircraft defense), and for strikes against "barmaley" it is much easier to place a couple of dozen Su-25 (Su-24) on the ground.
      For real military training (combining business with pleasure) in the sky of Syria, it can be used. It will provide its 20-30 sorties per day and how to load it with ammunition and fuel in the same Tartus will solve the problems. As with the installation of a perfect sighting system on the Su-33.
      It seems to me that TAKR in the eastern Mediterranean can solve the tasks of covering up the operation to provide the Syrian army by sea. On it, you can keep the reserve of the Marine Corps, and helicopters.
      In the role of Mistral, to some extent.
      PS
      And we still argued: why, they say, need Mistral? He, they say, is vulnerable, slow-moving and we have nowhere to land from him. All this is so, we simply did not realize that the Mistral is the essence - an anti-terrorist ship! wink
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 22 November 2015 11: 19
        19
        Of course, there is no military need to use Kuznetsov in Syria. Well, there was no such need to use strategists or strike with calibers. There, the goals are clearly political plus to play defiantly with muscles and give pilots and sailors something that exercises will not give - combat experience. Now Syria is a large testing ground, where in the course of the operation we practice tactics, weapons and train the Navy and VKS. First used in battle x101, calibers, tu160 and tu95ms and so on. So if the leadership considers it necessary to run in the blink of an hour and the Navy pilots in the war, then Kuznetsov will be sent. But personally, I think this is not worth it. They won’t be able to play muscles for 29 mig12, the experience may also become negative, which will immediately blow our opponents apart and start to scream that Russia is gathering all its strength because otherwise it will not be able to cope with the broads. The cost of Kuznetsov’s participation in the operation is clearly not worth his contribution. So the only plus is the pilot run-in. However, strategists are not needed there either, but they are. hi
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. mitrich
          mitrich 22 November 2015 13: 46
          +9
          I believe that Kuzya can work in Syria on several points. This is a real training for both pilots and the entire staff of the TAKR, as well as testing the technology of military operations. Even if you do not use Sushki for now, your five cents, 15-25 sorties by Mig, Kuzya will bring to the common cause. And do not hammer with high precision, expensive. There are FABs on this. Drying with Kuzi will be able to partially replace the Su-30 from the Khmeimim base, which will slightly release the take-off for the drummers. And you can replenish ammunition and fuel in Tartus, for which it exists. Even in the Crimea to drive Kuzyu for this is not rational.
          I think it’s more practical to use Kuzyu than to drive strategists and truckers across three countries. Yes, and to the maximum it is necessary to use KABs and FABs, high-precision only for demonstrating strength and testing, expensive. We are not exceptional, we do not print money. At the same time, recycling.
          1. Semen Semyonitch
            Semen Semyonitch 22 November 2015 22: 28
            0
            Quote: mitrich
            . At the same time, recycling.

            The terrorists? smile
          2. max702
            max702 22 November 2015 23: 29
            0
            Quote: mitrich
            I think it’s more practical to use Kuzyu than to drive strategists and truckers across three countries.

            Not practical. the cost will be an order of magnitude higher, but will the effect be a question .. Especially in view of not the reliability of "Kuznetsov", at the rehearsal of "armata" the stench died out? And here is a combat mission and an unreliable link .. Nafig nafig .. Information wars in the present time are becoming more important than real ones .. alas, but this is so ..
        3. max702
          max702 22 November 2015 23: 23
          0
          Quote: g1v2
          The cost of Kuznetsov’s participation in the operation is clearly not worth his contribution. So the only plus is the pilot run-in.

          That's it! If the strategists in one sortie dumped a bomb load like 2-3 BC of aircraft from the "Kuznetsov" and FOR one time! then why is he needed there? Expensive, risky, and ineffective!
      2. max702
        max702 22 November 2015 23: 15
        +1
        Quote: Alekseev
        And we still argued: why, they say, need Mistral? He, they say, is vulnerable, slow-moving and we have nowhere to land from him. All this is so, we simply did not realize that the Mistral is the essence - an anti-terrorist ship!

        And who seriously believes that the Mistral was not given away because of the ruind? As for me there was Syria in mind .. The bourgeois analysts do not eat bread in vain, sat for a while, counted the logistical capabilities of our fleet and issued recommendations to prevent the strengthening of these .. That's what our fleet really lacks, these are the Ro-Ro vessels, especially those that were in the USSR nv photo Soviet ro-ro boat "Vladimir Vaslyaev", having changed several owners, is serving in the Navy
        USA
        Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/25777

        but here, too, "not brothers" noted .. sold 4 boats for a pittance ..
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 23 November 2015 00: 11
          0
          And where they were not noted, and how they leaked Ulyanovsk for nothing.
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 22 November 2015 10: 24
      0
      Quote: Lapkonium
      And supposedly from Varshavyanka in the appendage.

      Old article lol Ours already from the submarine "Rostov" (Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation) fired cruise missiles! Not to mention the truckers.
    4. NIKNN
      NIKNN 22 November 2015 10: 28
      +7
      And as for the limitations in efficiency - yes, of course, the 'former' aircraft carrier "Nimitsu" is not a competitor. But on the other hand, would he endlessly wander the northern seas without a clear goal?


      Well, our strategists loitered how many years?
      Each military equipment under something sharpened. Kuznetsov will significantly strengthen the order both from the point of view of air defense and anti-aircraft defense and when counteracting a similar enemy grouping. But to fight with the partisans, even though it’s unprofitable for strategists, the cost of the delivered ammunition rolls over. Yes, and America will be glad if we spend all precision weapons on the ISIS lol
      1. veksha50
        veksha50 22 November 2015 11: 12
        +3
        Quote: NIKNN
        . Yes, and America will be glad if we spend all precision weapons on the ISIS




        !!!

        A good idea ... The stocks of high-precision modern expensive weapons in a day or two can not be replaced ... And their volume is not dimensionless ...
        1. Genry
          Genry 22 November 2015 13: 22
          +4
          Quote: veksha50
          high precision modern expensive weapons

          DEAR it is only at the development stage. With an increase in production, the cost decreases significantly.
          And now, delivery (transports), storage (warehouses) and use (bombers) of high-precision weapons, with the same efficiency as "dummy" weapons, will be at the same level or cheaper. We need much less transports, warehouses, bombers and hordes of hungry personnel with washerwomen and cleaners.
        2. Malkor
          Malkor 22 November 2015 14: 01
          +3
          What's wrong ?? Our cab500l since the 80s do! Do you know what their stock is with us? The newest weapons are only tested in practice, and we are bombing mainly with junk, to dispose of it in such a way.
        3. Semen Semyonitch
          Semen Semyonitch 22 November 2015 22: 29
          0
          Quote: veksha50
          A good idea ... The stocks of high-precision modern expensive weapons in a day or two can not be replaced ... And their volume is not dimensionless ...

          There are no fools in the General Staff ...
      2. Nick
        Nick 22 November 2015 21: 49
        0
        Quote: NIKNN
        Yes, and America will be glad if we spend all precision weapons on the ISIS

        This resource is renewable. We will launch plants in three shifts ...
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 22 November 2015 22: 42
          0
          Already launched.
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 22 November 2015 10: 42
      -8
      There remain 12 MiG-29K / KUB. These multi-purpose aircraft have great capabilities for striking at ground targets.

      laughing Well, the author gives! Has he ever seen flashing and drying nearby so that he can compare the sizes? How many cube can take bombs and how much drying? The ratio is more than doubled in favor of drying.
      1. WUA 518
        WUA 518 22 November 2015 11: 54
        +4
        Quote: GSH-18
        The ratio is more than doubled in favor of drying.

        The declared difference is two tons. But in a real situation they will not be fully hung. They will proceed from the principle of reasonable necessity.
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 22 November 2015 22: 46
        0
        He had in mind the nomenclature of the ammunition used.
    6. GSH-18
      GSH-18 22 November 2015 10: 48
      +2
      This is the result of a quarter-century strangulation of the fleet, in particular the loss of four out of five domestic aircraft carriers.

      Author, are you burning! The USSR, as it is, even now, has never had aircraft carriers. We had and have TAKR. And TAKR is such a stripped-down hodgepodge of a missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier. As a result, neither this nor that. But as the Soviet strategists believed, this is enough to ensure acceptable survivability of ship formations in the far sea zone. For serious massive strikes along the coast, the TAKRs are not structurally adapted. This is the lot of nuclear carriers yes
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 22 November 2015 10: 58
        14
        TAKR fighters are able to protect their own ship
        from aviation from an enemy aircraft carrier.
        Those. should attack the TAKR KR, but for self-defense
        use your planes.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 22 November 2015 11: 15
          +6
          Quote: voyaka uh
          TAKR fighters are able to protect their own ship
          from aviation from an enemy aircraft carrier.
          Those. should attack the TAKR KR, but for self-defense
          use your planes.

          Here, an absolutely sound idea. Absolutely right! I want to add that the Su-33 TAKR can attack the enemy ship’s formation, similar to the type of aircraft carrier aircraft. But the main purpose of the TAKR is to cover the ship’s connection from the air in the far sea zone. You +
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 22 November 2015 20: 13
        +4
        Quote: GSH-18
        Author, are you burning! The USSR, as for now, has never had aircraft carriers

        This is not true. The only full-fledged aircraft carrier in the USSR was Ulyanovsk, with an aircraft wing of 90 cars, with catapults and AWACS aircraft. And almost ready, it was cut into needles on stocks.
        1. Above_name
          Above_name 22 November 2015 21: 55
          0
          NEXUS (1) SU Today, 20:13 ↑

          Quote: GSH-18
          Author, are you burning! The USSR, as for now, never there were no aircraft carriers

          This is not true. The only full-fledged aircraft carrier in the USSR was Ulyanovsk, with an aircraft wing of 90 cars, with catapults and AWACS aircraft. And being almost ready, he was cut into needles on the stocks.

          Slightly pregnant.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 22 November 2015 22: 09
            +4
            Quote: Above_name
            Slightly pregnant.

            And you probably see a lot of funny things in the story of Ulyanovsk ... your kind of humor.
            1. Above_name
              Above_name 22 November 2015 22: 31
              +1
              NEXUS (1) SU Today, 20:13 ↑ ...

              It not true. The only full aircraft carrier in the USSR wasis Ulyanovsk, with an aircraft wing of 90 cars, with catapults and AWACS aircraft. And being ALMOST READY(slightly pregnant.), he was cut into needles on the stocks.


              My answer to Chamberlain:
              Aircraft carrier in the USSR did not havebecause it was not included in the Soviet Navy,
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 22 November 2015 22: 56
          0
          Yes, he was not almost ready. He was not even allowed to enter the water.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 22 November 2015 22: 59
            +1
            Quote: spravochnik
            Yes, he was not almost ready. He was not even allowed to enter the water.

            Read the posts carefully ... I wrote, ON THE STEPS OF THE NEEDLES CUT.
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 23 November 2015 00: 23
              0
              You read this carefully. Ulyanovsk was "almost ready" like cancer before the moon.
      3. spravochnik
        spravochnik 23 November 2015 00: 18
        0
        Complete nonsense. Kuzya is quite an aircraft carrier. For your information. The newest British Queen Elizabeth AIRCRAFT CARRIERS have non-atomic propulsion and a springboard to boot and do NOT have catapults.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 23 November 2015 00: 23
          +2
          Quote: spravochnik
          Complete nonsense. Kuzya is quite an aircraft carrier. For your information. The newest British Queen Elizabeth AIRCRAFT CARRIERS have non-atomic propulsion and a springboard to boot and do NOT have catapults.

          Man, Kuznetsov has never been an aircraft carrier! Admiral Kuznetsov is a HEAVY CARRYING CRUISER. What does an atomic or non-atomic power plant mean? Don’t write such nonsense.
          If you don’t understand, then compare the air wing of Nimitz (the aircraft carrier) and Kuzi, and also pay attention to one point, such as the presence of AWACS aircraft.
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 23 November 2015 00: 33
            +1
            Kuznetsov is really Not an aircraft carrier, like Ulyanovsk, which you call an aircraft carrier. But the Chakri Narubet is just an aircraft carrier, despite the absence of catapults and AWACS aircraft.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 23 November 2015 00: 39
              +1
              Quote: maximghost
              Kuznetsov is really Not an aircraft carrier, like Ulyanovsk, which you call an aircraft carrier. But the Chakri Narubet is just an aircraft carrier, despite the absence of catapults and AWACS aircraft.

              Ulyanovsk, although it was called the Carrier Cruiser, but he was a thoroughbred Aircraft Carrier with all the attributes attached to this name.
              1. maximghost
                maximghost 23 November 2015 00: 46
                +1
                His main strike weapons were cruise missiles. And the tasks remained the same, so he is still an aircraft-carrying cruiser, and not an aircraft carrier.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 23 November 2015 00: 50
                  +1
                  Quote: maximghost
                  His main strike weapons were cruise missiles.

                  Its main strike weapon was just an air wing. And the fact that it was better protected than the Americans, so I'm sorry, they had their own doctrine and concept of use, and the USSR had its own.
                  1. maximghost
                    maximghost 23 November 2015 00: 57
                    +1
                    The mere presence of RCC already makes it a cruiser. Well, the strike on the enemy’s ships was most likely delivered jointly by anti-ship missiles and aircraft, and coastal work for our TAKRs (and aircraft carriers, if they were) was far from the highest priority ...
                    1. maximghost
                      maximghost 23 November 2015 01: 00
                      +1
                      So, in my opinion, the PCR nevertheless left Ulyanovsk as the main strike complex, and the aviation would rather provide a granite strike, overloading the enemy’s air defense with its missiles ...
                    2. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 23 November 2015 01: 03
                      +1
                      Quote: maximghost
                      The mere presence of RCC already makes it a cruiser.

                      By your logic, our MKs are at least destroyers, given the Caliber-NK complexes on their sides.
                      1. maximghost
                        maximghost 23 November 2015 01: 14
                        +1
                        No) frigates, and m. Even the corvettes of our probable friends, after all, also carry harpoons and exosets.
              2. goblin xnumx
                goblin xnumx 23 November 2015 11: 33
                0
                people, well, here's the point of your debate about what could be a cloud of iron atoms (the current state of Ulyanovsk) - argue in PM :)
          2. spravochnik
            spravochnik 23 November 2015 21: 21
            0
            Man, you’re not rubbing this rubbish if you do not understand. The composition of the wing is not an indicator. It can be different, depending on the problem being solved and the type of aircraft carrier. And there were many of these types: heavy, light, escort, percussion, multi-purpose. The term TAKR was coined so that there were no problems with the passage of the Turkish straits. By the way, your favorite Ulyanovsk according to the official classification is TAKR and the fundamental difference from Kuzi is that there are only 2 catapults on the corner flight deck. But, I repeat, the latest English ABs also do not have catapults, but they have a springboard, but at the same time they remain aircraft carriers.
    7. veksha50
      veksha50 22 November 2015 11: 08
      0
      Quote: Lapkonium
      All this contradicts several points in the article.



      There, the author pointed out the main thing: that the Caliber’s strike on the roaming thugs is too expensive a pleasure, and the ammunition is not immediately replenished ...

      Yes, and hitting the latest missiles with long-range aircraft - too cool ...

      PS And about the poor training of the pilots ... The war quickly teaches ... Another question is precisely the complexity of supplying Kuzi and his air link ...
    8. Nosgoth
      Nosgoth 22 November 2015 11: 56
      0
      Long-range aviation and expensive cruise missiles from ships are an exception to the rule rather than a pattern, and their usefulness is the same as that of an aircraft carrier, i.e. not particularly significant for business, but good for a PR company. :-(

      If you are for "a riot of colors", and not for performance, then your fun and uplifting mood is understandable.
    9. kote119
      kote119 22 November 2015 13: 28
      +2
      Quote: Lapkonium
      But on the other hand, does he not stick around endlessly along the northern seas without an obvious goal?


      and what tasks should he perform in Syria, and most importantly with what, and how economically feasible?
    10. andrei.yandex
      andrei.yandex 22 November 2015 17: 24
      0
      They survived the military work, not serve.
    11. TsUS-Air Force
      TsUS-Air Force 22 November 2015 20: 36
      -4
      I want to ask people everything, we are improving the flow of weapons during local wars, and now we are running all kinds of missiles there. Why is PAK FA not in Syria?
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 22 November 2015 20: 41
        +1
        Quote: NOC-VVS
        I want to ask people everything, we are improving the flow of weapons during local wars, and now we are running all kinds of missiles there. Why is PAK FA not in Syria?

        Because he passes state tests. At the end of 16, the beginning of 17 he will go into series. hi
      2. TsUS-Air Force
        TsUS-Air Force 24 November 2015 23: 41
        0
        minus that? just asked
    12. varov14
      varov14 22 November 2015 22: 03
      -2
      What a fellow has revealed all the cards, is there d .... among the military, and what are you taught?
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 22 November 2015 22: 12
        +3
        Quote: varov14
        What a fellow has revealed all the cards, is there d .... among the military, and what are you taught?

        You are probably one of these "d ... military", since you think that "these cards" are secret. Apparently laziness was born before you, if you did not even bother to look for information IN PUBLIC SOURCES.
    13. Valiich
      Valiich 22 November 2015 22: 08
      0
      I completely agree that the article is lagging behind. Long-range aviation is working on targets, and through Iran and Iraq, and the caliber has once again demonstrated itself. "Kuznetsov" also needs to work and expand the bases and reinforce. Gol "wished to be connected. The French finally remembered the historical truth, and how the Normandy Niemen got into battle formation! It will be credited to them! This is a blow to American and Western hysteria against Russia!
    14. Edvagan
      Edvagan 23 November 2015 00: 23
      0
      and it’s always better to just practice in combat than to stand on permanent repairs
    15. goblin xnumx
      goblin xnumx 23 November 2015 11: 18
      +1
      maybe again?
    16. avdkrd
      avdkrd 24 November 2015 01: 54
      0
      Quote: Lapkonium
      And as for the limitations in efficiency - yes, of course, the 'former' aircraft carrier "Nimitsu" is not a competitor. But on the other hand, would he endlessly wander the northern seas without a clear goal? The money has long been invested - let it work, maybe the supply will arrive in time, but the pilots and commanders will take more experience.

      Everything is correct. In any case, the experience of operating in combat conditions will make it possible to draw a conclusion about the combat effectiveness of Kuzi, or to remove the question of the need for ships of this class in the Russian fleet. It seems to me that he will cope with the function of an escort aircraft carrier (for what estimate time will tell), but no one has positioned him as a nagibator. In Operation Desert Storm, only 1% of all sorties were flown from aircraft carriers, the rest from ground bases. We have a base, and Kuzya needs to be trained in the air defense of a ship formation, especially since the situation in the Mediterranean is saturated.
  2. Vladimyrych
    Vladimyrych 22 November 2015 06: 00
    +9
    In general, there is a feeling that the presence of the TAKR in the team causes more a feeling of inconvenience than confidence. This is where the term "suitcase without a handle" seems to fit. And you need it with a stretch and it's a pity to quit.
    1. Bird the Talker
      Bird the Talker 22 November 2015 09: 25
      -1
      the way out is simple - "attach" a handle: create your own aircraft carriers and support ships. along the way in the 21st century without this, no matter how.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 22 November 2015 10: 33
        +1
        The problem is that they are needed right now.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 22 November 2015 10: 52
        -4
        Quote: Bird Talker
        the way out is simple - "attach" a handle: create your own aircraft carriers and support ships. along the way in the 21st century without this, no matter how.

        I completely agree with you. I’ve been talking about this for a long time.
        We need aircraft carriers. And then we will need them even more!
      3. veksha50
        veksha50 22 November 2015 11: 14
        +4
        Quote: Bird Talker
        the way out is simple- "attach" a handle:create your own aircraft carriers and support ships.


        Iehhh .. Where is the money, Zin ??? And time is already running out for nowhere ...
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 22 November 2015 21: 33
      0
      Quote: Vladimir
      This is where the term "suitcase without a handle" seems to fit.

      The Navy Air Force also needs real combat experience, so it's better in Syria than off the coast of the Russian Federation without it.
  3. region58
    region58 22 November 2015 06: 08
    +2
    Preparations for sending the ship to Syria are in full swing. This is obvious by the nature of its activities in recent weeks and is confirmed by information from reliable sources.

    The main and only instrument of TAKR in the fight against IS is its air group - Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB.

    Something wrong. I always thought that the fighters on Kuznetsov were intended for other purposes. And already
    attract naval artillery to destroy the positions of militants
    - Is it according to the Euphrates that the cruiser will go? request
    1. vladimir_krm
      vladimir_krm 22 November 2015 11: 00
      +7
      This is Konstantin Sivkov from the military-industrial complex. One of the authors who love the tone "Lelik, everything is gone!" :)
      The technology is simple: facts, including little-known ones, and small distortions:

      "strategic aviation. Probably the main ones are three. The first is the lack of high-precision weapons, which mainly go to the aviation group already deployed in Syria."

      The author is not aware that the strategists have other types of weapons? I am sure that he knows this very well, therefore, he is distorting the facts consciously.

      "... flights from its deck have become impossible"

      And why the thread? Moreover, now there are two of them.

      "The use of NURS involves strikes from low altitudes at a distance of no more than 1500 meters from the target, which makes these aircraft vulnerable to Islamist MANPADS, and this is unacceptable for political reasons."

      And I thought that the pilots feel sorry. It turns out that for political ...

      Threat. Thanks to the editorial staff of VO for posting this article with a slight delay, I dare to assume - deliberately, when something has already happened, so that the author’s entangles could be better seen :)
  4. Kos_kalinki9
    Kos_kalinki9 22 November 2015 06: 17
    +1
    How many times have we been buried? And aviation and navy. And we have plywood Armata. And there are not enough "cartridges". Not tired? If criticism is essentially and not idle speculation.
    1. Lapkonium
      Lapkonium 22 November 2015 06: 31
      +6
      Quote: Kos_kalinki9
      If criticism is essentially not idle speculation.


      And where do you think the author is not essentially speaking?

      1) Restrictions on the use of air groups against ground targets
      2) Difficulties with replenishment of fuel reserves
      3) The inability to replenish ammunition for an air group at sea
      => Relatively small role in the fight against barmaley. The key word is relative, because our activity in Khmeimim is many times greater than what the Americans or the French do.

      Maybe the author made a mistake where, or what was not in the know because of the lack of information - but the article is sober about the case. It is a pity only a little belated.
      1. region58
        region58 22 November 2015 06: 51
        11
        Quote: Lapkonium
        Restrictions on the use of air groups against ground targets

        In my opinion, the air group on the cruiser performs the role of air defense and anti-submarine defense, but not for work on the ground. I am mistaken?
        1. Alex v
          Alex v 22 November 2015 07: 25
          +2
          Bravo!!! And then tired of listening to amateurs, who are going to plow the field with armored personnel carriers)))
        2. Lapkonium
          Lapkonium 22 November 2015 07: 29
          +2
          Exactly! For this, it was originally created. Therefore, if we send our converted TAKR to fight land caliphates, then its capabilities will be reduced, and for air defense and anti-aircraft defense off the coast of Syria there are not many sides. Although the MiG-29K can strike with missiles and bombs. They also wanted to upgrade the Su-33s in 2013-15, but I don’t know if they had time. I suppose that yes, once sent - at least partially; and unmodernized will keep air.
          1. veksha50
            veksha50 22 November 2015 11: 23
            -1
            Quote: Lapkonium
            I suppose that yes, once sent - at least partially; and unmodernized will keep air.



            So the author said that there were only 14 adapted for striking at ground targets, and the maximum number of sorties was 1,3 per plane per day ... That this would not bring much benefit and help to the existing and working group in Syria ...

            Although, if we consider the issue from the point of view of getting Kuzey and his air group combat and practical experience, then, in general, the thing is necessary ... And now, according to the author, in 2000 we had only 8 pilots who could fly with the decks of the TARK ... And now, I think, not much more, but according to the number of aircraft, God forbid ...
        3. WUA 518
          WUA 518 22 November 2015 08: 42
          +8
          Quote: region58
          In my opinion, the air group on the cruiser performs the role of air defense and anti-submarine defense, but not for work on the ground. I am mistaken?
          The calculation for the Kuznetsov air group looked something like this: 4 aircraft on-duty forces, a variant of armament by air, the rest depending on the task, including work on the ground.
      2. Kos_kalinki9
        Kos_kalinki9 22 November 2015 06: 56
        +1
        The experience of a Caliber strike from the Caspian Sea demonstrated not only the effectiveness of the missile system, but also the feasibility of using the fleet against stationary IS targets. However, the cost of the attack turned out to be very high - more than 10 billion rubles. And the stocks of such weapons in Russian arsenals are limited.

        I do not diminish the dignity of the article, but if you write then write the truth. There were two strokes of Caliber regardless of the cost.
        1. Lapkonium
          Lapkonium 22 November 2015 07: 24
          +5
          The article was obviously written before the second hit, and much more.
          1. Kos_kalinki9
            Kos_kalinki9 22 November 2015 07: 39
            +3
            Quote: Lapkonium
            The article was obviously written before the second hit, and much more.

            Well, the meaning of the article then if there is still much to what? To write once again how everything is bad with us about our shortcomings in the Navy? How many articles on VO have already been on this topic?
            1. Lapkonium
              Lapkonium 22 November 2015 07: 49
              +1
              Quote: Kos_kalinki9
              Well, the meaning of the article then if there is still much to what?


              Well, if you remove the first third about calibers and long-range aviation, then the rest of the article is quite readable and informative. I think she was delayed for technical reasons - not to delete it now completely? Although edits are certainly desirable.
              1. Kos_kalinki9
                Kos_kalinki9 22 November 2015 08: 46
                +1
                Quote: Lapkonium
                Quote: Kos_kalinki9
                Well, the meaning of the article then if there is still much to what?


                Well, if you remove the first third about calibers and long-range aviation, then the rest of the article is quite readable and informative. I think she was delayed for technical reasons - not to delete it now completely? Although edits are certainly desirable.

                But no one has yet undone edits. And there’s absolutely nothing to invoke for technical reasons. No one argues that the Navy is all amazingly good. Then remove the first third of the article. Otherwise, the article looks one-sided.
                1. Lapkonium
                  Lapkonium 22 November 2015 09: 16
                  0
                  Yes, this is not my article at all! Of course, it would be better for the author / editorial office to admonish.
      3. alicante11
        alicante11 22 November 2015 09: 45
        +6
        And where do you think the author is not essentially speaking?


        "Essentially," that's right. And I didn't even forget about the possibility of replenishing the b / c in Tartus. BUT ... in the end he still sends the poor "Kuzya" to be loaded in Murmansk. The author is simply exaggerating. The fact that it will be loaded in Tartus, which is intended for this, by the way, "Kuzia" will be - this is unambiguous. Also with the shock capabilities of the AVG. In the absence of opposition, unadapted aircraft can also solve simple tasks. Whereas special aircraft of the Aerospace Forces can deal with more complex targets, without being distracted by unprotected columns and area targets. As well as presenting the transition to single sorties as evidence of the congestion of our group is untenable. These issues in the annex to the Second World War have already been discussed here. So this speaks exclusively of the absence of a threat from the enemy's air defense.
        I don’t understand at all, why does everyone not like the Syrian campaign? The fact that all terrorists have not been "done" in a week is haunted? So this is a question of the balance of forces and the characteristics of the conduct of hostilities in settlements. Plus the political aspect of possible losses. In such a situation, the claims against the Syrians, even against our pilots, are completely unjustified. Let's leave them alone and rejoice at success, and not wash the bones of those who risk their lives for us, including.
    2. Alex v
      Alex v 22 November 2015 07: 20
      0
      I support you
    3. veksha50
      veksha50 22 November 2015 11: 18
      +2
      Quote: Kos_kalinki9
      If criticism is essentially not idle speculation.


      The author of the article normally revealed the problems of using Kuzi against barmaleys ... much more ...
  5. TVM - 75
    TVM - 75 22 November 2015 06: 27
    +6
    Of course, a little "suitcase without a handle", but 25 years were not in vain. There are no supply ships, one aircraft carrier is not enough. And they sit behind a puddle and wait for Russia to give its best in Syria. Now the main task of the West is to screw up Russia. Because the success and rise of Russia is not included in their plans.
  6. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 22 November 2015 06: 28
    0
    this is the case when "alone in the field ...", if "takrov" was 4-5, the other alignment would be, and so it looks depressing. recourse some who probably laugh at our "aircraft carrier" ...
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 22 November 2015 11: 07
      0
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      this is the case when "alone in the field ...", if "takrov" was 4-5, the other alignment would be, and so it looks depressing. recourse

      Yes, we do not need TAKRs. It's time to understand and take into account that Russia needs at least TWO full-size nuclear carriers! And the events in Syria are eloquent proof of this. angry
  7. Hydrograph
    Hydrograph 22 November 2015 06: 44
    +3
    It is clear that we need real aircraft carriers, large and autonomous, and of course an escort and supply chain. There is no sense to drive "Kuznetsov". If only to work out combat use in real conditions, and test people. As an option, you can consider the experience of England in the construction of poppies and kam thorns during the war years, but this should have been done earlier and there is no shipbuilding industry capacity. Recruits to the Kuriles on a civilian ship are transported under a contract with the RF Ministry of Defense, and we are the fleet, the navy, calibers, calibers.
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 22 November 2015 16: 28
      0
      Quote: Hydrograph
      this had to be done earlier and there are no shipbuilding industry capacities.

      Why not ?? Has already! For India, we are not on our knees muddied the aircraft carrier. And parts of the Mistral hulls were manufactured by our USC! So apparently the gag is only in the bubble and the decision of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief yes
      1. goblin xnumx
        goblin xnumx 23 November 2015 11: 38
        +1
        pulnut caliber dnyuh- salute of 10 billion, there is loot, but build, no, how is that?
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 22 November 2015 23: 17
      0
      Don't say nonsense. There is enough capacity. There is not enough, as they say now, "political will" and funding. And so throughout the fleet. Ships take a long time to build, not because they have forgotten how to do it, but because funding is irregular.
  8. Alex1313
    Alex1313 22 November 2015 07: 12
    +2
    Quote: Lapkonium
    The article was clearly written last week. And there was one more blow with the calibers of the Caspian Flotilla. And supposedly from Varshavyanka in the appendage. Plus several sorties of the Tu-95MS strategists with the Kh-55, Tu-160 with the Kh-101 - a total of 106 missiles since the beginning of the operation. Tu-22M3 with OFABs ... All this contradicts several points in the article at once. But no one said that from the list "long-range aircraft - artillery - aircraft carrier" you cannot choose more than one option. wink

    And as for the limitations in efficiency - yes, of course, the 'former' aircraft carrier "Nimitsu" is not a competitor. But on the other hand, would he endlessly wander the northern seas without a clear goal? The money has long been invested - let it work, maybe the supply will arrive in time, but the pilots and commanders will take more experience.

    Well, muuut wrote
    1. Alex v
      Alex v 22 November 2015 07: 35
      +3
      I completely agree!!! And I want to draw your attention to the fact that the author of the article confuses the aircraft carrier with the TARK - they have different tasks !! The aircraft carrier is designed to strike at foreign territory away from its shores, and the TARK is designed to hunt for submarines and provide air defense !!
      1. Kos_kalinki9
        Kos_kalinki9 22 November 2015 09: 25
        0
        Quote: Alex V
        Totally agree!

        AlexV, you already decide which comment you fully agree with. Which now, or which
        Lapkonium Today, 05:59 AM
        The article was clearly written last week. And there was one more blow with the calibers of the Caspian Flotilla. And supposedly from Varshavyanka in the appendage. Plus several sorties of the Tu-95MS strategists with the Kh-55, Tu-160 with the Kh-101 - a total of 106 missiles since the beginning of the operation. Tu-22M3 with OFABs ... All this contradicts several points in the article at once. But no one said that from the list "long-range aircraft - artillery - aircraft carrier" you cannot choose more than one option. wink

        And as for the limitations in efficiency - yes, of course, the 'former' aircraft carrier "Nimitsu" is not a competitor. But on the other hand, would he endlessly wander the northern seas without a clear goal? The money has long been invested - let it work, maybe the supply will arrive in time, but the pilots and commanders will take more experience.
        Reply Quote Report Abuse
        1
        AvatarRadovoy
        Alex IN BY Today, 07:18 ↑
        Totally agree with you
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 22 November 2015 23: 21
        0
        Carriers have many tasks, which is why they are called multi-purpose.
  9. nirutha
    nirutha 22 November 2015 07: 33
    +4
    If there is an aircraft carrier, then it should work. Such a case has occurred.
    1. Alex v
      Alex v 22 November 2015 07: 44
      +6
      Although Kuznetsov is not an aircraft carrier and is not intended to strike at hostile territory, it would not hurt to train an air group in real combat operations (to protect an attack group in the air). An ideal case turned out to be for Russian sea pilots - at the same time, it’s possible to work out the landing on the TARK until automatism.
  10. andrei.yandex
    andrei.yandex 22 November 2015 07: 40
    +1
    It's nice to read the opinion of a professional on the site, especially a former employee of the General Staff.
  11. Alex v
    Alex v 22 November 2015 08: 01
    +5
    I read the article and to be honest - ofigel !! How illiterate is it to confuse an anti-submarine aircraft carrier with an attack aircraft carrier? Konstantin Sivkov,
    RARAN correspondent member, doctor of military sciences - you would have suggested that you plow the fields on the Armata field, because the tank also has a truck, as well as a tractor))
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 22 November 2015 10: 58
      +2
      Quote: Alex W
      How illiterate is it to confuse an anti-submarine aircraft carrier with an attack aircraft carrier?

      What's on the forehead, what's on the forehead. The gyrfalcon was conceived by an aircraft carrier, which is essentially the case. But what happened and why and why they called it is another question. Which essentially does not change at all - Kuznetsov an aircraft carrier, peculiar as always.
    2. andrei.yandex
      andrei.yandex 22 November 2015 17: 31
      0
      Now give anti-submarine weapons on the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov". As far as I still know, the Su-33 is armed with air-to-air missiles and free-fall bombs, while the Su-25UTG is a training one, and the Ka-29 is a transport and landing force.
      1. naitchanter
        naitchanter 23 November 2015 16: 13
        0
        Here is KA 29 the most submarine specialist. He can detect it with the help of buoys, and destroy it with the help of torpedoes. It can also be a transport and airborne fire support.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 23 November 2015 21: 10
          0
          What nonsense. Ka-29 can not be anti-submarine. Antisubmarine is Ka-27. He is also on the Kuz, and also the Ka-27PS - search and rescue.
    3. spravochnik
      spravochnik 22 November 2015 23: 30
      0
      Sivkov, of course, the specialist is rather strange, but you will not smack nonsense. Since when is Kuzya - anti-submarine. And the term TAKR, as applied to Kuza, is a question of terminology. The first ships of the series are rightfully called TAKRs: from Kiev to Gorshkov, and Kuzya is quite an aircraft carrier.
  12. Yurmix
    Yurmix 22 November 2015 09: 02
    -4
    This is the second time a similar article has come across as all the Caliber were plowed with lard of rubles, and there were no precision weapons left in Russia, well, the Jimaliev would trample on the Crimea a whole horde, for the bad boy did his job.
  13. podgornovea
    podgornovea 22 November 2015 09: 29
    +5
    Now in Syria, our pilots, as well as flight support services and others, are gaining unique experience with very high intensity. Now they are also connected to long-range aviation. Russia has no use of aircraft carriers in combat conditions! The United States has been working on it for decades. If you do not use this opportunity now, then what is it for? Then there will definitely be those who offer to put it on needles, sell it, or maybe even give the keys to the apartment where the money is in addition? There are, of course, many questions of how the propulsion system of a ship will behave during hard work; before, there were a lot of problems with it. And not only on it, but just now there is a unique opportunity to get answers!
  14. Yurmix
    Yurmix 22 November 2015 09: 33
    +5
    Well, just in case for the snotty left something.
  15. srha
    srha 22 November 2015 09: 45
    0
    Although the article focuses on the capabilities of the anti-submarine aircraft-carrying cruiser (PLC), but what is the main point of the article? Is it just about the inadequate capabilities of PLC? Not only that, they, insufficient impact capabilities, become visible in the light of the general task. Which one? Strengthening striking power. What is missing? Strikes, which means bombs, missiles, planes, pilots, aircraft carriers, industry, money, even political influence on Turkey. That is not enough money. And what can replace the funds? Savvy and hard work! That ours are working in Syria is evident. And what about the rest? It is not clear.

    And here, oddly enough, the role of some of our marshal commentators, as creators of "opinions", appears. After all, they cut their "savvy" on the fly. So they tried to "screw up" the discussion of alternative means to aircraft carriers already at the level of an idea, immediately citing controversial, often simply absurd assumptions about alternative means. Instead of being smart and looking for solutions to these complex - controversial problems in the formation of new tools. This I remembered the discussion "From an aircraft carrier to a naval mobile airfield complex", where some gentleman put a post (yes, mine, but it doesn’t change the essence) from the video of landing the aircraft on the ice marine airfield complex minus. I understand that he did not like the idea so much that he was ready to minus the reality. I repeat - instead of finding a solution to problems - naked criticism, or rather even criticism.

    A bit on the issues raised in the article. For sure, a marine mobile airfield complex would be useful now in Syria. But, what did not bother to try to do, that is not. And now you can’t do it quickly, several years are needed, and then many years of operating experience for refinement. But why not hear anything about drone drone? Is it really that bad in this area? "Scat" was shown in 2007. Not necessarily something of the level of a "traitor", is it possible for now, for strikes on ISIS firing points and "carts" something simpler?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 10: 14
      +2
      Quote: srha
      Is it really that bad in this area? "Scat" was shown in 2007.

      Alas, what was shown in 2007 was a conceptual prototype of an experimental machine, in contrast - a plywood layout.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 22 November 2015 23: 37
      0
      Damn, another specialist in ship classification has appeared.
  16. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 22 November 2015 09: 51
    +2
    I had the opportunity to run people and equipment in real, combat conditions, so you can put up with some costs. By the way, yes, training a sea pilot is very specific, significantly different from training a ground pilot and more expensive.
  17. Lord_Sita
    Lord_Sita 22 November 2015 09: 58
    +1
    Article plus for debriefing. About naval artillery is a very thoughtful idea, but I'm not sure that we have such ships.
    I wonder what time the article lay on the table? what
  18. Lord_Sita
    Lord_Sita 22 November 2015 10: 07
    +1
    About the fact that "Kuznetsov" was under repair and the pilots did not have the opportunity to train takeoff and landing. After all, we seem to have some kind of NITKs, why don't they use them? Maybe the author forgot about them and fantasized "on the topic"?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 November 2015 10: 15
      +1
      Quote: Lord_Sita
      After all, we seem to have some NITKs that they don’t use?

      THREAD is fine, but still nothing can replace real flights from the deck.
  19. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 22 November 2015 10: 08
    0
    It’s necessary to run in, all the more the main load is carried by the land airfield. You can fly to ensure air defense. With supplies, a hat can work out.
  20. van zai
    van zai 22 November 2015 10: 30
    +2
    Article plus bold. Thoughtfully, intelligibly and without "urya-patriotism."
  21. rudolff
    rudolff 22 November 2015 10: 31
    +8
    Sivkov forgot to mention one more feature of Kuznetsov. The degree of reliability of its KTU is such that it turns any of its outings into the open sea into a very "fun" and unpredictable adventure. Sometimes on the verge of a foul. The installation managed to fail with all of its boilers immediately after repairs.
    If it’s good, then it’s time to seriously deal with Kuznetsov. Try to make a full-fledged aircraft carrier out of it, revise the project, put it in the long-term overhaul with modernization. Go to hell with Granite, which is absolutely unnecessary for him, to solve something with this god-cursed KTU. During the repair, build a full-fledged air wing, lay and build the necessary support vessels, and form a stable escort group.
    There is another option. After a scheduled repair, overtake him at the Black Sea Fleet closer to Nitka and turn it into a combat training one. Purely to save the school of carrier-based aviation. In the SF, in any case, he has nothing to do. In the winter, even to melt it, it’s impossible to dry it properly.
    Well, now he's really a "suitcase without a handle."
  22. veksha50
    veksha50 22 November 2015 11: 03
    +3
    "This is the result of a quarter-century of suffocation of the fleet, in particular the loss of four out of five domestic aircraft carriers" ...

    No matter how annoying, but, like 08.08.08, clearly defined holes and negatives in the combat capabilities of our Kuzi in particular and the fleet as a whole ...

    There is a vision of the goal, which means that we need to speed up the preparation, supply, and work of industry ...

    PS And here again, there was a reason for the eternal dispute - do we need aircraft carriers or not ... We need, damn, not one ... By and large, they need at least three, given the fact that one will undergo repairs or rest, the second will rotate, and the third will be on real combat duty ...
  23. karavay82
    karavay82 22 November 2015 11: 10
    +4
    General Staff, ay!
    Here you were given a strategy for using the poor "Kuzi". Soon the map will be placed, and the route will be carefully drawn with a felt-tip pen and how the planes should fly, even how to stand on the deck, so that there is more room.
    May be enough!
    In fact, there is the possibility of flying carrier-based aircraft in combat conditions, which has never happened in the history of the Russian Navy.
    And you yourself are suitcases with a handle and without a handle. If you look at the legislators of the use of aircraft carriers - the United States, the number of carrier sorties of carrier-based aviation is many times lower than that of aircraft based on land airports (they have already written many times).
    I didn’t say, but any war, as it didn’t sound cruel, is a way to try out WEAPONS, which ours are shown by both calibers, Strategic missile carriers and X-101 missiles ... and even Solntsepek!
    Now they will try deck aviation.
    The article refers to one limitation - the airfield.
    Aviation itself is of course a powerful weapon ...
    But look at the Syrian army - T-64, D-30, etc., the training of personnel.
    Without building the capacity of the Syrian army, victory is impossible.
    The next is the financing and supply of ISIS weapons.
    Until ISIS aid flows narrow, it will be so - militant flows will flow into Syria, and our aircraft will bomb, bomb, bomb ...
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. Vega
    Vega 22 November 2015 11: 58
    +1
    If you need it there, then you need it. As for the running-in pilots, equipment and their combat use, I completely agree.
  26. Lieutenant colonel
    Lieutenant colonel 22 November 2015 12: 05
    +2
    How does it turn out that the Americans have mastered the loading of fuel and b / p at sea - but we are not? And how do we supply submarines - what should happen? Are we supplying ships in the sea? We don’t have supply ships (without taking into account the poor man who was cut)? I think that with a calm sea, loading and unloading is possible. Rather, our fleet performs such tasks. And the use of Kuznetsov is undeniably justified. Experience is a priceless thing !!! Seven feet under the keel to our sailors.
    1. WUA 518
      WUA 518 22 November 2015 12: 25
      +7
      Quote: Reserve lieutenant colonel
      How does it turn out that the Americans have mastered the loading of fuel and b / p at sea - but we are not?

      Well, why, when that was all.
      1. Lieutenant colonel
        Lieutenant colonel 23 November 2015 04: 02
        0
        Well, why was it? And now ships do not refuel at sea? I'm talking about the fact that they do not sit in the General Staff. far from it. Everything was counted long ago and without couch strategists.
  27. DHA
    DHA 22 November 2015 12: 46
    -4
    article LIBERALIAN, she is already a month old, but some ... pulled out now
  28. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 22 November 2015 13: 22
    +2
    This aircraft carrier is certainly fine, but why does the author not allow the creation of an air force base in Iran? It would be simpler and more logical, apparently because the solution to such a problem is beyond our means by our ingenious foreign ministry and everyone understands this, the American foreign ministry would solve the issue in a week. And we also seemed to have had negotiations with Cyprus a couple of years ago for a military base, the local local patriots remember on my ears with joy and promised to show everyone Kuzkin’s mother how it ended? How much more convenient and safer would it be to bomb from Cyprus? Or, for example, if we had normal relations with Turkey, how much easier it would be to fly airplanes, at least from the same Crimea, but the guys of Lavrov decided to make the boss happy, and advised the GDP from the TV to congratulate the Armenians on the genocide, that everything was instant messed up with Turkey, now we fly through w .. (around the whole of Europe) and count planes and bombs on Kuz. No matter how much the rope does not curl, but sooner or later, you still have to reap the fruits of the genius of individual ministers.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 22 November 2015 13: 58
      0
      Quote: chunga-changa
      It would be simpler and more logical, apparently because the solution to such a problem is beyond our means by our ingenious foreign ministry and everyone understands this, the American foreign ministry would solve the issue in a week.

      Because Americans without complexes can make any ally armed riots in the capital, problems with the trade embargo, armed invasion, etc.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 22 November 2015 15: 31
        0
        Ours, too, can and completely without complexes. For example, at the most crucial moment for the "allies", refuse to supply air defense systems. Only thanks to the genius of our ministers, this does not lead to anything good, no questions in our favor are resolved, and no extremely necessary bases are created from this. And of the achievements, only stupid jokes and swearing on TV.
  29. serverny
    serverny 22 November 2015 13: 39
    -2
    The author constantly misinterprets the facts and sucks out of his finger the nonsense in the spirit of "everything is lost", skillfully masking it among a hundred years of well-known criticism "and what if we try to use TAKRs as clean aircraft carriers - they are g-no."

    They did the right thing by publishing this liberal graphomania with a delay. The author as a result looks like a clown, which he is.
  30. ODERVIT
    ODERVIT 22 November 2015 14: 31
    0
    In general, I agree. that sticking around the northern seas is worthless. But the rush in the preparation of the flight crew is very alarming. Haste is inappropriate here. The deck, unlike the concrete runway, does not forgive mistakes ....
  31. crazy_fencer
    crazy_fencer 22 November 2015 14: 41
    0
    Article minus. Firstly, these are the purest water "polymers of pros ... or". Secondly, all these "highly intelligent" reasoning inevitably makes one remember Shota Rustaveli: "Everyone thinks himself a strategist, seeing the battle from the outside."
  32. xomaNN
    xomaNN 22 November 2015 15: 51
    0
    If "Kuzya" approaches Syria, it will be a real BS for its air group. With regard to the destruction of fire by the Islamists, then free-fall bombs are more economical. Opportunities and tests of new high-precision missiles were carried out and OK! Expensive toys. And "transfer" to Assad MLRS "Hurricanes" (Tornadoes can also be experienced) and NURS to them. Their reserves are large.
    .
    Another option: to convince Father to test in the case the Belarusian MLRS "Polonaise" with the declared 200 km. range.
  33. ZAV69
    ZAV69 22 November 2015 16: 09
    +1
    But he is not needed there. Now, like airfields, several are already in use. It makes sense there to add Su25 and Mi24 for direct support of troops
  34. NIKNN
    NIKNN 22 November 2015 16: 17
    +3
    He took an interest in Charles de Gaulle, read it, it was of little use either. If Kuze had a catapult, so that the take-off load would increase for airplanes ... oh why dream ... there is as it is, a new one needs to be built. belay
  35. IAlex
    IAlex 22 November 2015 16: 18
    0
    The only training ship-airfield with teachers, and he is sent to war - sadness ...
  36. shturman032
    shturman032 22 November 2015 16: 35
    0
    If the Yak-38 with vertical take-off were in operation, it would be possible to use them without occupying the main take-off, in theory. They themselves will increase the number of aircraft in the region.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 23 November 2015 12: 52
      0
      With a vertical landing ... Where did you forget the Yak-41?
      SKVVP does not need an aircraft carrier or an airfield at all
  37. Platonich
    Platonich 22 November 2015 16: 56
    0
    It may be cheaper to supply multiple launch rocket systems with thermal bars, etc. to Syria.
  38. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 22 November 2015 17: 53
    +2
    If there were fewer deck pilots than astronauts, then this, you see, is not the case.
  39. litus
    litus 22 November 2015 18: 32
    +1
    Quote: GSH-18
    And so you still, for the educational program: Kuzya at the time of the division of the Black Sea Fleet of the USSR between Ukraine and Russia left Sevas (almost escaped), so as not to be allowed for scrap or something cleaner.


    but this does not mean that he was assigned to the BSF. As far as I remember, he was assigned to the Federation Council, although he was on the raid of Sevastopol.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 22 November 2015 23: 57
      0
      So.
  40. Peterhof 73
    Peterhof 73 22 November 2015 19: 22
    0
    The only such ship Berezina that existed in the Russian Navy was withdrawn from the fleet in 2002 and disposed of.
    Of course it is sad. And it would be useful to establish cooperation with the French. For the French, the word Berezina sounds like music.
  41. mvg
    mvg 22 November 2015 20: 01
    +3
    Quote: GSH-18
    Quote: CERHJ
    What? Free-falling bombs? Do not carry nonsense! Su-33

    Have you heard anything about missile weapons for Su aircraft? For example, you can easily hang "Yakhont" on it, I hope you know what it is?
    Quote: CERHJ
    you look at his sighting system, where is there an opportunity to strike with guided air-to-surface weapons?

    Are you sure that ALL SU-33 strike groups have exactly the same filling? I would not say that.
    If this system was installed on the Su-24, then on the Su-33 it will be installed under the appropriate anti-ship missiles — this is their immediate work and purpose.

    Unfortunately, it's hard to argue with such people .., there is a vinaigrette in my head and listens only to myself, basically infa comes "from the bulldozer."
    Yakhont (Onyx) X-61 is really in the nomenclature of weapons of the Su-33 and MiG-29K, only how will they help in the fight against DIASH? The conversation is about using something other than land mines and Nurses.
    On the Su-24 and Su-34 stationary sighting systems, this topic was sucked up 3 times this month .. You can’t stick it on the Su-33, but we couldn’t do the aiming containers like the Shantyrov Sniper (LANTIRN) // http: / /topwar.ru/85660-su-34-protiv-f-15e-yarost-nebes.html //
    Yes, the economic component is also important, to drag TAVKR from the North Sea, + 2500 crew .. - crazy. In order for 12 MiGs to fly over Syria for a week. There (at 1143), and so the coppers breathe, the conditions for the crew are simply Spartan, and as a combat unit, it is very unsuccessful.
    Shtatniks are described with laughter, having learned such news.
  42. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 22 November 2015 20: 04
    +2
    111 comments.
    How much ado about nothing.

    Of course, the ship in its current form is not intended to participate in operations such as the Syrian. It is generally a means of defense and not attack.

    But more importantly, unfortunately, the ship in its current state generally cannot take an active part in military operations. He needs constant repair and urgent modernization. Without this, it is impossible to maintain its combat readiness, especially in a remote theater of operations.
    In this state, he is already 10 years old. But the light at the end of the tunnel seems to be visible again.

    And there, as if the spiteful people would not like death, but a resurrection and a more or less bright future.

    In this sense, it is interesting to discuss what can be done from the ship and not what it is now.
    Since now, as a combat unit, he is almost nothing of himself.
  43. maximghost
    maximghost 22 November 2015 21: 29
    +1
    Quote: CERHJ
    Quote: GSH-18
    Actually, it also has rockets on it ..

    Actually, before writing nonsense, it would be worthwhile at least to take an interest in today's appearance of Kuznetsov. Besides the air defense missiles. The rest of the shock weapons were dismantled a long time ago ..

    Where did the firewood come from? On the network, a bunch of sites and articles say that there is granite, and only from you I hear about dismantling it 1 time ...
    1. kote119
      kote119 22 November 2015 21: 52
      0
      and you are going to shoot granite at fenders? yes and who said they dismantled it
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 22 November 2015 22: 07
        +1
        Well, theoretically, this is possible, although not effective. But I'm just interested in the fact itself. This is the first time I hear about the dismantling of granites. Kmk, this is not true, because meaning in dismantling is zero, and the shock capabilities of the ship are falling sharply ...
  44. ruslan1976
    ruslan1976 22 November 2015 22: 57
    0
    Kuzya is needed there for another. Russia has decided, all the conditions have been summed up. France is involved in order to exclude the interpretation of the conflict as a conflict with NATO. Russia will take the straits: the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, and the coast along with it.
  45. kostolom45
    kostolom45 22 November 2015 23: 26
    0
    and attack helicopters charge it is not fate? You can then even stand in the Tartus in the raid, the helicopters do not need an oncoming flow. From one side to load the PSU, from the other turntable to let go, continuously :)
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 23 November 2015 00: 05
      0
      It is quite possible to download the Ka-52K, built for the Mistral.
  46. maximghost
    maximghost 23 November 2015 00: 19
    +1
    and attack helicopters charge it is not fate? You can then even stand in the Tartus in the raid, the helicopters do not need an oncoming flow. From one side to load the PSU, from the other turntable to let go, continuously :)


    It is quite possible to download the Ka-52K, built for the Mistral.


    And for what?
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 23 November 2015 00: 34
      0
      For what they are intended for. For striking ground targets. Or you do not know that the Ka-52K - attack helicopter.
  47. maximghost
    maximghost 23 November 2015 00: 41
    -1
    For what they are intended for. For striking ground targets. Or you do not know that the Ka-52K - attack helicopter.

    See how our VKS are fighting in Syria ... An attack helicopter cannot effectively attack targets from a height of 5 km. Our turntables, which are already in Syria, are only guarding the airbases and that’s it. So the idea with Kuznetsov and helicopters is stupid.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 23 November 2015 01: 01
      0
      It seems that you are not completely up to date. Watch a video about the actions of Russian helicopters from Syria. They really participate in the support of ground forces and operate from extremely low altitudes.
  48. Above_name
    Above_name 23 November 2015 01: 54
    0
    maximghost SU Today, 00:41 ...
    See how our VKS are fighting in Syria ... An attack helicopter cannot effectively attack targets from a height of 5 km. Our turntables, which are already in Syria, only guard the airbases and all.
    Quote: spravochnik


    spravochnik GB Today, 01:01
    It seems that you are not completely up to date. Watch a video about the actions of Russian helicopters from Syria. They really participate in the support of ground forces and operate from extremely low altitudes.


    Yes Yes ..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCdfWEgPShY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApZdvz_n4ro
  49. maximghost
    maximghost 23 November 2015 01: 56
    -1
    I have not heard anything about it? Mb is Syrian turntables?
  50. Lieutenant colonel
    Lieutenant colonel 23 November 2015 04: 18
    +1
    An interesting opinion is expressed in the article -In particular, the press secretary of the Defense Ministry, Major General Konashenkov, said that Russian planes operating in Syria have switched to a new method of combat operations - flying on a combat mission not as part of groups, but singly. Such a step may be evidence that the capabilities of the Russian aviation group in Syria are not enough to solve the entire volume of combat missions. It should be noted that this is precisely a necessary measure, and not a more perfect mode of action. After all, flights in groups (at least a couple) are caused by the need to increase the combat stability of the aircraft, and in the event of the death of the side, create more favorable conditions for the evacuation of the crew from the conflict zone, especially if this happened over enemy territory... The author is unaware that the outfit of means of destruction is calculated from the required amount of ammunition to destroy an object / target. And that to defeat a convoy of equipment with a length of up to 500 meters (a couple of hundred fuel tankers, or up to an enemy tank company. At the same time, please do not confuse it with an outfit of means of destruction located on helicopters, there the calculation is based on the principle of not area destruction, but a point one), one carrier with a set unguided weapons on board. Is the use of single aircraft in Yugoslavia and Iraq for "free hunting" by NATO forces also a sign of approaching the "limit"? To become somehow more like the creations of an 11th grade schoolboy who is familiar with the midshipman "from" the fleet. For some reason, many consider themselves smarter than the General Staff of the Armed Forces.
    An article about the fact that our missiles are ending and the Homeland is in danger is still relevant here. And then our strategists do not have sights, the ship group cannot work on the ground and there are no more planes - we are at the limit, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow we will have to turn off the operation - the horses are tired!