Military Review

Russian aircraft carriers: will we have an aircraft carrier fleet?

231



Presentations of new projects were held as part of the Army-2015 exhibition held in July and the Naval Salon in St. Petersburg that followed it. The public was shown the layout of an aircraft carrier, and we saw that it would be as big as its American counterparts, and, interestingly, atomic.

How are they and how are we

The Americans, who always wanted to have a “long arm” in the ocean, took up their carrier fleet almost a century ago. Back in 1920, they converted Jupiter Carbohydrate into the USS Langley aircraft carrier (CV-1). Curtiss TF-1 piston planes were based on it, and communication between the flight crews and the ship was carried out using pigeon mail.

When the USS Enterprise was launched in 1960, the first American aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant, it already had an index of CVN-65, that is, it was the 65 in the US aircraft carrier account. The new-class aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford received the CVN-78 index, and its two sisterships, John F. Kennedy and already the third Enterprise, will bring this bill to 80. These figures illustrate an already well-known fact - America has long regarded aircraft carriers as a crucial military-political tool. The only country that, in addition to the United States, built an atomic aircraft carrier, remains France with its Charles de Gaulle.

We had nothing of the kind in our fatherland, and some more or less convincing attempts to create a carrier fleet in the USSR began only in the 1960s, when our country launched two helicopter carriers, Moscow and Leningrad. Of course, something was done before - you can recall the hydro-aviatransports of the Russian Empire or the Red Army “Kommunu” - the barge “France”, reworked during the Civil War for the transport of aircraft. Of course, they could not take off from the barge. There was also a pre-war draft aircraft carrier (project 71), which was stopped by the war. And after the war, while the giant US aircraft carriers, accompanied by AUG, as they say, plowed the seas, the Soviet leadership was inclined to an asymmetric response, mainly in the form of a nuclear missile weapons and far aviation. The situation changed with the removal in 1964 of Nikita Khrushchev from the leadership of the party and the state. In 1968, it was decided to stop the construction of the 1123.3 anti-submarine cruiser at the Black Sea plant in Nikolaev and instead begin work on the first large anti-submarine aircraft cruiser of the 1143 Krechet project. During the 1970s, four ships of this project were built (they could carry 12 Yak-36 / Yak-38 vertical take-off aircraft and a certain number of helicopters, and Kiev was the first-born). In reality, the combat capabilities of these ships were very modest. Differing from the low-armed aircraft carriers of the United States with an impressive set of missile and artillery weapons, they could not boast of air power. The Yak-38 was not the best product of the domestic aviation industry - it did not even have an airborne radar and was lightly armed. Of the four sisterships of the Krechet project, only one is operational today. In the past it was called “Baku”, then “Admiral Gorshkov”, and now it goes to sea under the Indian flag and the name “Vikramaditya”.

The development of this Soviet line of heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers was the 1143.5 project, within which the aircraft-carrying cruisers Varyag and Admiral Kuznetsov were built in Nikolaev. And they were closer to the traditional aircraft carriers. Due to the rejection of some of the weapons, these ships had an increased flight deck with a characteristic springboard. Unlike the 1143 project, they bore planes taking off with a takeoff run. All of the above Soviet heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers had a boiler-turbine powerplant, and it was planned to equip Ulyanovsk TAKR only with the 1143.7 project with an atomic heart. In addition, the ship was supposed to install a steam catapult, the design of which was worked out on the famous Crimean ground NITKA. But “Ulyanovsk did not survive the collapse of the USSR and was dismantled on the stocks in 1992 year.


The deck-based MiG-29 is a multifunctional all-weather machine of the 4 ++ generation. Their tasks include air defense and anti-ship defense of connecting ships, and striking enemy ground targets. The most modern modification is the MiG-29 KUB.


The day after tomorrow

In this история domestic aircraft carriers is over. The Admiral Kuznetsov continues to remain in the ranks, but this year he embarked on a major overhaul. "Varyag" was bought by China from Ukraine, allegedly to create an entertainment center, and then completed and put into the Navy PLA under the name "Liaoning".

Two important conclusions can be drawn from this whole story. The first conclusion: all domestic aircraft carriers were built at a plant in Nikolaev, and cooperation with this company, located on the territory of Ukraine, is impossible for the Russian defense industry today due to well-known circumstances. The second conclusion: none of these aircraft carrier cruisers was equipped with a nuclear power plant. Of the warships using atomic energy, in our Navy there were only submarines and heavy nuclear-powered nuclear cruisers of the 1144 Orlan project. One of the four such cruisers - "Peter the Great" - is in service. Ships of this type were produced in Leningrad / Petersburg, at the Baltic Shipyard, and thus the competence in the construction of heavy surface ships with a nuclear reactor in Russia remains.

And now it has been announced that in the field of aircraft carrier construction we from the Soviet past should step into the day after tomorrow. Russian nuclear aircraft carrier to be. But when? A model of a promising ship was created within the walls of the St. Petersburg Krylov State Research Center, perhaps the main think tank of the Russian military shipbuilding. In June, at the “Army-2015” exhibition, the model was exhibited at the stand of the Russian Navy. The second-rank captain Maxim Sorokin, who works at the stand, speaks about the project with typical military caution: “What we see on the stand is the likely appearance of the ship and those aircraft that will be based on it. Finally, the fate of the project is not resolved. There is no final decision on both the designer and the company in which the aircraft carrier will be built. There are two programs for the construction of the Navy - short-term (up to 2020 year) and long-term (up to 2050). The creation of an aircraft carrier, therefore, refers to the 2020-2050 period. ”


The USS Langley (CV-1), the first real aircraft carrier in the US Navy, was converted from Jupiter coal as early as 1920. Since then, the United States has acquired a powerful carrier fleet, which has several generations.

Islands and jumps

The advance project was presented in sufficient detail by representatives of the Krylov Center at the Navy Salon - 2015, held in St. Petersburg in July. It became known that the project received an index 23000 "Storm". It is assumed that the aircraft carrier will have both a nuclear power plant and an additional (backup) gas turbine. The numbers are voiced a little, but what is known is interesting to compare with the parameters of the newest American aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford. Both ships - existing and designed - have a displacement of about 100 000 t. The length of the "American" - 337 m. "Storm" on 7 m shorter. The width of the hull on the waterline is respectively 41 and 40 m. Draft - 12 and 11 m. Similar and speed - about 30 nodes (55,6 km / h). Ford can carry more than 75 aircraft, including multifunctional fighters, DRLO planes, helicopters and drones. In the Russian project with a similar structure of the aviation grouping 90 aircraft announced.

This simple comparison suggests that the Russian project in terms of weight and size parameters and weapon sets is guided not so much by Russian traditions as by the latest samples of American aircraft carrying ships. However, there are some noticeable differences. One thing has already been said - this is a hybrid power plant. The second is that, unlike the US aircraft carriers, instead of one “island” on the deck of the “Storm” there are two, but “thinner” ones. According to representatives of the Krylov Center, such a scheme with separation in space of the control points of the ship and aircraft will increase the survivability of the ship. However, it is unlikely that such an option can be recognized as domestic know-how. Two "islands" on the deck are installed on the recently launched Queen Elizabeth, the newest British aircraft carrier. The third difference is that, in the spirit of national traditions, our ship will have a springboard, and even two. Two springboards will lead to them (one short, the other long). Trampolines on their ships, the Americans, as you know, do not use. They use catapults - steam, and now electromagnetic, and launch from a catapult in the project "Storm" is also provided.

Russian aircraft carriers: will we have an aircraft carrier fleet?

USS Gerald R. Ford (CV-78) belongs to the newest generation. The ship is equipped with two atomic reactors and is capable of carrying around 76 aircraft. Due to the total automation of management, the number of crew members is significantly reduced.

If we talk about the aviation grouping of our prospective aircraft carrier, then it will presumably include the MiG-29KUB multi-purpose carrier-based fighter jets, as well as the deck version of the 5 generation fighter, now known as the T-50 PAK FA. In addition to the strike aircraft, the ship will take a group of DRLO facilities. Probably, these will be airplanes developed on the basis of the unrealized Yak-44 project, which was worked out back in 1970-s and had an American E-2 Hawkeye (developed by 1950-x, which is still in the US Navy) as its obvious prototype. It’s difficult to say anything about the unmanned component, as promising Russian models are under development. Unlike the Soviet TAKRs and following the example of the American aircraft carriers, the Storm will not have a significant amount of ship armament on board, but it will be equipped with an anti-aircraft missile system and anti-torpedo defense.

However, the absence of a large number of own weapons suggests that the aircraft carrier is guarded not only by its own aircraft, but also by other military surface and submarine ships. So the implementation of the project "Storm" will undoubtedly mean an update in other classes. Along with the aircraft carrier, the Krylov Center presented this summer the project of the Russian destroyer Shkval, which is an export version of the nuclear destroyer Leader, which, by the way, is also just a project. These multifunctional ships, developed using the stealth technology, will, in particular, be involved in the air defense and missile defense systems and will take on board such means as the C-400 and C-500 complexes (when and if the latter will be created).

If an aircraft carrier under the Storm project is once built, this will, of course, be an outstanding achievement of the Russian defense industry. And the question of how it will fit into the Russian military doctrine, and what this doctrine will be at the time the ship is launched, will probably be discussed for a long time.


Photo: Alex Beltyukov


Perspective aviation complex of the front aviation of the PAK FA - 5-generation multipurpose fighter
Developer: United Aircraft Design Bureau Sukhoi
Manufacturer: KIAAPO
Chief engineer A.N. Davidenko
Characteristics of the PAK FA
Crew: 1 people
Maximum take-off weight: 35,48 t
Normal weight: 26 t
Empty mass: 18,5 t
Payload: 10 T
Engine type: turbojet dual circuit with afterburner and thrust vector control
Author:
Originator:
http://www.popmech.ru/weapon/216061-rossiyskie-avianostsy-budet-li-u-nas-avianesushchiy-flot/#full
231 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Igor39
    Igor39 6 December 2015 07: 18
    +3
    Yes, at least one aircraft carrier per fleet, large as "Storm" is needed, may eventually be able to project their geopolitical interests.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 6 December 2015 08: 29
      38
      Sorry, what shisha? Now our economy is in decline, who would not say anything (especially Ulyukaev), but it is so. Now it is not necessary to spend Ablo on aircraft carriers, but on the most urgently needed, We have one "Moscow"! such a ship is needed, there are few new planes, and without the T50 we will not be able to properly deal with the F35 and F22 are huge grandmothers. What the hell is an aircraft carrier?
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 6 December 2015 09: 53
        11
        The duty gathering of little plump, fat little strategists of Khrushchev’s accountant tactics and just trolls in the comments?
        "Expensive", "uh, two-sided lol"," bad Yak-38 "," 20-30 ready-made NKs in the Navy "?

        NPS also cost money, and there are NPLs. Well, it was on the Yak-141 radar ... The desired combination of letters and numbers in the article and in the comments does not occur even once.

        Try to fight on land without aviation, why then do you want this from the sailors? The first AB was not American and had time to fight back in WWI. "Kuzia" is an aircraft carrier - hasn't Russia already had an aircraft carrier fleet for about 25 years, akhtunks?
        1. afdjhbn67
          afdjhbn67 6 December 2015 12: 04
          +2
          Quote: Scraptor
          Isn't Russia already carrying a carrier fleet for about 25 years?

          Have we become weaker from this or have nails been bitten over the years by the fact that there are no aircraft carriers?
          The first serious mess in Syria, and then the carrier there is a goat button accordion ... More forces and means for their own safety will take ...
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 6 December 2015 12: 37
            0
            No, when you were a political officer or a dissident, you made fun of and are making fun of the funny "exclusive submarine navy", which would be gouged and gouged without problems, because the submarine cannot escape from anti-submarine aviation and there is nothing to defend with. NK would have lasted a little longer.
            And now they dressed up as a Soviet person to continue to compost the brain of the public.
            1. Androsh
              Androsh 7 December 2015 00: 16
              +3
              Wrong article start. The first aircraft carriers were made before the First World War and were called hydrocarriers. In the Russian Empire there were four hydro-aircraft carriers who took part in the first world war.
        2. pr 627
          pr 627 6 December 2015 12: 42
          +3
          Bro, who do you want to fight on the road with? With great difficulty, Russia is rebuilding the ground component of anti-aircraft defense and missile defense to protect its territories. The tasks of covering the naval component of the strategic missile defense system have not been completely solved, there are no new nuclear submarines capable of fully solving the problems of anti-aircraft defense. And we are all peacocks, peacocks.
          1. vladimir_krm
            vladimir_krm 7 December 2015 13: 08
            +1
            Well, already the Russian Federation is fighting on the road. And it is much better to fight on the side, rather than wait until the war comes into the country. Chechnya and Dagestan confirm.

            As for the aircraft carriers, there are a lot of proposals and conceptual designs now: a springboard, an electromagnetic catapult, an atomic power plant, and heated debates about how to fly large AWACS aircraft and even transporters. That's just to decide - the military, and they have no ready-made concept yet. With the accumulation of Syrian experience, I think it will appear.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 8 December 2015 00: 03
              0
              Convertibles and high-speed AWACS helicopters have long been

              If there are a lot of projects, and even without a concept, then this is no accident laughing
      2. Igor39
        Igor39 6 December 2015 10: 35
        13
        Have you read the article? Here, for example: "Captain of the second rank Maxim Sorokin, working at the stand, speaks about the project with typical military caution:" What we see at the stand is the PROBABLE appearance of the ship and the aircraft that will be based on it. The fate of the project is final. not resolved. There is no final decision either on the designer or on the enterprise on which the aircraft carrier will be built. There are two programs for building the Navy - short-term (until 2020) and long-term (until 2050). The creation of an aircraft carrier, THUS, IS RELATED TO THE PERIOD 2020-2050. "

        Nobody says that we will build tomorrow and Ulyukaev has nothing to do with this.
        1. Starley from the south
          Starley from the south 6 December 2015 12: 46
          +1
          One thing is for sure: the world situation is changing and changing dramatically. Now we do not really need an aircraft carrier, except that it is expensive (my personal opinion), but tomorrow we may not be able to do without it. For example, in a situation when it is necessary to protect our allies in Nicaragua and Venezuela (at the request of the governments) at the same time from the "moderate", but heavily armed opposition. Only there is a possibility that one aircraft carrier will not be enough for such actions. For me, it is better to build a TARK of the Peter the Great type (or better, even more advanced), ships are universal, self-sufficient and not as expensive as aircraft carriers.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 6 December 2015 13: 25
            +6
            And how do you imagine such a ship. How long does it float without air cover ?. In the USSR, projects of air defense ships were created with astonishing constancy until the 80s. Then these attempts stopped. Do you know why? We conducted an analysis and came to the conclusion that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ensure the survival of ship formations only with airborne defense systems without self-defense.
          2. xtur
            xtur 6 December 2015 13: 55
            +3
            > Only there is a possibility that one aircraft carrier will not be enough for such actions. For me, it is better to build a TARK of the Peter the Great type (or better, even more advanced), ships are universal, self-sufficient and not as expensive as aircraft carriers.

            For sailors, as I understand it, the problem is not even in air cover, but in target designation if the ships are far from the coast. So there is essentially one alternative - an aircraft carrier that has a large air wing and AWACS aircraft, or an aircraft carrier with a small air wing, but also having AWACS aircraft.
            I understand that the Kyrgyz Republic can largely compensate for the number of aircraft, but the absence of target designation is not possible to compensate for

            that is, it would be interesting to hear opinions on the economic component of such varieties - does the second option make sense in terms of cost-effectiveness?
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 6 December 2015 14: 32
              +1
              Just the problem is in the air defense of the compounds. There are other solutions for target designation, but not for air defense.
            2. igorka357
              igorka357 6 December 2015 18: 20
              0
              How is this one alternative ... and satellites?
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 6 December 2015 19: 46
                +6
                Quote: igorka357
                How is this one alternative ... and satellites?
                Our old-timer once said:"Hope for a satellite, but don't make a mistake yourself" and demanded that each officer (except for furs, honeys, supplies and hippolytes) show him the definition of a place by the Sun, stars ... Autonomous way, that is.
                Why am I doing this? And besides, with the beginning of the database or even in the threatened period, all satellites sensors will be burned by powerful EMP or high-energy lasers from the Earth! This is already there and everyone knows about it.
                But in reality, only aircraft can issue an over-the-horizon control center for firing systems. Submarine - only direct to the VIC area. And, TsU for RCC - a vital element of the battle. However - ABM / air defense too. I am silent about PLO. In short, where do not throw, and in DMZ without AVU can not do. Americans understood this long ago, right after Pearl Harbor.
            3. lescha.kazakov
              lescha.kazakov 18 December 2015 20: 49
              0
              Now Takr Nakhimov undergoes a major overhaul and Sevmash will undergo a TAKR Lazarev overhaul and Takr Ushakov will most likely be disposed of.
          3. Scraptor
            Scraptor 6 December 2015 14: 08
            -5
            What's so expensive about an aircraft carrier? Smooth deck and empty deck?

            This your universal missile-arillery ship beyond direct visibility inland from the shore will not solve anything, and will not support anyone ... but on the contrary, even mortars of the American civilian can break it.
            1. igorka357
              igorka357 6 December 2015 18: 19
              -3
              Che et you carry ..))? You are bearded on which calibers sprinkled tell me!
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 8 December 2015 00: 08
                +1
                Jump ... The bearded nearby have an F-14 by the way. Even the F-18 with refueling flies farther than the Caliber.
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 6 December 2015 14: 07
          +3
          Quote: Igor39
          The final fate of the project has not been decided. There is no final decision both on the designer and on the enterprise on which the aircraft carrier will be built.

          When will people appear in Russia who will make final decisions?
      3. good7
        good7 6 December 2015 11: 00
        0
        That's right, aircraft carriers can only be built provided that we have our own printing press!
      4. 222222
        222222 6 December 2015 11: 06
        +5
        All powers with access to the sea tend to have aircraft carriers .. But. Not everyone can afford such .... luxury !!
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 6 December 2015 12: 39
          +3
          And Thailand belongs to what category. Now, more or less serious countries have aircraft carriers. USA, England, France, Italy, Spain, Brazil, India, China, Australia, Thailand. Everything rests on the economic policy of the state. There will be a correct economic policy, there will be money, there will be aircraft carriers.
          1. topical
            topical 7 December 2015 22: 26
            0
            Quote: spravochnik
            And Thailand belongs to what category.

            In fact, of the countries you have listed, the poorest are not Thais, but Indians. Thais will be about twice as rich as Indians. The problem is that in connection with the latest developments in the economy, Russians do not get into this company. Today they are poorer than the Indians. And the dynamics are very bad.
            Quote: spravochnik
            There will be a correct economic policy, there will be money, there will be aircraft carriers.

            Right? And which one is correct? The most correct policy can give a return in 10 years, at least. Breaking is quick and easy. Build long and hard. Besides, where is the guarantee that it will be at all? This is the right policy.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 7 December 2015 22: 38
              0
              Was the homeland of the cygans richer and more powerful than the homeland of mammoths? wassat

              Why then they do not have their own aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, module on the ISS, or even an entire segment?
              1. topical
                topical 7 December 2015 23: 36
                0
                Quote: Scraptor
                Why then they do not have their own aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, module on the ISS, or even an entire segment?

                The phrase "They are already poorer than the Indians today. And the dynamics are very bad" until the end? It seems to me that no.
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. Scraptor
                Scraptor 8 December 2015 00: 13
                0
                Quote: topic
                The phrase "They are already poorer than the Indians today. And the dynamics are very bad" until the end? It seems to me that no.

                He emerged from the emergency, poked around, and hid in it again?

                You already carry something not quite incoherent, people will go out to recover ...
            2. Scraptor
              Scraptor 7 December 2015 22: 49
              0
              The one that is correct ...

              With the right policy, the construction cycle of the right ship is much shorter.
      5. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 6 December 2015 11: 33
        +5
        Quote: mirag2
        Sorry, what shisha?

        Maybe they will rob less at the top?) At least one year without theft and money will be about 150ml.u.u, this is enough for everything connected with AB. It will remain.
        1. sa-ag
          sa-ag 6 December 2015 11: 57
          +3
          Quote: chunga-changa
          Maybe at the top they will rob less?)

          A year of the country without theft, an interesting thought :-) You can still arrange a competition, who will steal the least :-)
          1. afdjhbn67
            afdjhbn67 6 December 2015 13: 28
            +2
            Quote: sa-ag
            You can also arrange a competition who will steal the least :-)

            laughing While in the other direction, the competition is successfully ..
          2. 222222
            222222 6 December 2015 13: 37
            0
            sa-ag SU) You can also arrange a competition, who steals least of all :-) "
            ..ga .socialist ..pfu.pfu ..capitalist ... with the presentation of the medal "hero ...." laughing
        2. Saratoga833
          Saratoga833 6 December 2015 17: 47
          +2
          As long as Vladimir Putin is at the helm, theft and corruption will continue at their former levels, if not more. He’s sitting on a short leash by our oligarchs.
          1. igorka357
            igorka357 6 December 2015 18: 25
            -3
            Yeah ... Abramovich, Berezov ... ugh, and Khodorkovsky ..)) all who tried to speak out against Putin during his rise to power .. either there .. either sat and dumped, or they lick his ass right now ..
          2. ametist415
            ametist415 8 February 2016 21: 07
            0
            You think if you remove Putin and everything will be fine. The gray mass always blames someone for their troubles, but not themselves. Sometimes I even think well that the oligarchs are throwing gray people for money who do not want to think, but are waiting for the king of the host who will take care of them and do everything.
      6. The comment was deleted.
      7. Kostyar
        Kostyar 6 December 2015 15: 04
        +3
        Sorry, what shisha?

        To execute the embezzlers and other liberals according to the laws of wartime, with confiscation !!!
        1. Saratoga833
          Saratoga833 6 December 2015 17: 50
          +5
          Quote: Bone
          with confiscation !!!

          As soon as the question arises of confiscation during theft and corruption - our Duma thinkers shove their tongues into the back seat at once, almost everyone has a stigma in the gun!
      8. Assistant
        Assistant 6 December 2015 23: 11
        0
        Sorry, what shisha?


        Option number times:
        To print the necessary amount of money and transfer it directly to allied enterprises producing components for AB. So that the money goes directly to the producers, and not a single ruble passes through intermediaries. Not even give money for raw materials and fuel, but to pay a supplier of raw materials a contract directly from the central bank account.
        As a result: money supply increases by the cost of an aircraft carrier, the volume of real assets also increases by 1 aircraft carrier. Monetarists, and they are happy. And the speed of money circulation does not increase, because they all go to the real sector, and not a single ruble goes to intermediaries who will scroll them on the stock market.
        It is clear that the option is unrealistic, because for it, you first need to fasten the system of control over officials to the country.

        Option number two:
        http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
        We look at the document, we see that Russia holds US debt obligations. its likely adversary, at $ 89.1 billion. Offhand: how many aircraft carriers are these?
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 6 December 2015 23: 17
          +1
          Quote: Assistant
          To print the necessary amount of money and transfer it directly to allied enterprises producing components for AB.

          Excuse me, dear, but we live in the USA, what are you talking about so boldly about the "printing press"?
          Quote: Assistant
          Option number two:
          http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
          We look at the document, we see that Russia holds US debt obligations. its likely adversary, at $ 89.1 billion. Offhand: how many aircraft carriers are these?

          Excuse me, who will give this money away? They are in stocks and other securities ... do not count on this money.
          1. Assistant
            Assistant 7 December 2015 01: 17
            +1
            Excuse me, dear, but we live in the USA, what are you talking about so boldly about the "printing press"?


            Money is printed in rubles - the national currency of the Russian Federation. It seems to be a sovereign state, it has the right to print the necessary amount of money for any security that it will accept. And as collateral a material asset is accepted - an aircraft carrier, 1 piece. This is not debt to you, if you find fault, this thing is at least less liquid, but much more reliable. The indicated method of distributing this money will allow avoiding the impact of the bank multiplier on them.
            Or do I don’t know something, and the Russian Federation is not a sovereign country pursuing its monetary policy?

            Excuse me, who will give this money away? They are in stocks and other securities ... do not count on this money.


            Securities are an asset, and their owner can buy them if he needs them, or sell them on the secondary securities market if they are not needed. US treasury bonds are traded in the secondary market, even forex shops offer work with them. So they wanted money - they sold paper.
            Or, again, I don’t know something, and the Russian Federation is not a sovereign country that independently manages its assets?
            1. I am Russian
              I am Russian 7 December 2015 21: 44
              +1
              1. The ruble is a derivative of the SGA dollar. Amerikos Fed is the owner of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
              2. Understand the words sovereign, social, and the terms partial bank reservation, inflation ... hi
              1. Assistant
                Assistant 8 December 2015 12: 55
                +1
                1. The ruble is a derivative of the SGA dollar. Amerikos Fed is the owner of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.


                What are we talking about. First you need to return the power in the country, then build aircraft carriers.

                2. Understand the words sovereign,


                See above

                social


                do not stomp on a sore spot ... (I'm from Belarus)

                and in terms of partial bank reservation, inflation ...


                see the post of December 6, 2015 23:11. Money is issued exclusively to end-executors in production chains, this does not allow the possibility of their scrolling from intermediaries. With this method of financing, the bank multiplier, which increases the speed of money circulation, does not work, because money does not go to banks, but immediately goes to the manufacturing sector.
            2. Idiot
              Idiot 11 January 2016 20: 19
              -1
              You really don't know something. The Russian Federation, at present, is not a sovereign country pursuing its monetary policy, and the more so, the Russian Federation cannot dispose of its assets invested in US debt. The Central Bank of the Russian Federation is an integral part of the Fed, so to speak, a Russian separate division that is not an independent legal entity with a current account in the United States. It is written in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. For now ... And why do we need aircraft carriers, a transcontinental power that is colossally self-sufficient in terms of energy and mineral resources, without overseas colonies and independent of world sea trade routes, I never understood and do not understand. Probably poor creature.
    2. Sheikh
      Sheikh 6 December 2015 08: 47
      11
      Quote: Igor39
      Yes, at least one aircraft carrier per fleet, large as "Storm" is needed, may eventually be able to project their geopolitical interests.


      I would prefer not to project my geo or political interests, and so that our country would have gas supply in Russia, pensions would be sufficient for a prosperous old age, people would not be embittered, but friendly and would not want to nail each other, so we ate our eco-friendly non-GMO products, and send aircraft carriers to countries that do not have weapons to destroy them, and boast of their strength and exclusivity - go to the states, they say a long way begins with the seller’s work at McDonald’s.
      here we have a president - a specialist in interstate relations, in international law, if the prime minister had the same specialist in economic relations, but where to find such people, sometimes it seems that the government does not know what to do with the country and the economy, this is more important than atomic toys coast of Honduras or Libya.
      Well, France has an atomic aircraft carrier, and that they ceased to be ami? table naval battle, by golly.

      and with war and projection - well, we will become a little poorer, well, we will tolerate bad tomatoes or their complete absence, but to be proud of poverty is the destiny of a poor person.

      PS Another thing is that Russia again saves the world, there is no one else.
      1. Mexovoy
        Mexovoy 8 December 2015 18: 19
        +1
        Why do you so dislike GMOs?
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 December 2015 11: 28
      12
      What kind of aircraft carriers — here frigates can’t do anything, the whole program of the rearmament of the Navy was disrupted until 2020.
      1. Secta haki
        Secta haki 6 December 2015 11: 45
        0
        Correctly ripped off. And then suddenly there will be aircraft carriers? laughing And now we already "don't even know how to build frigates."
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 6 December 2015 12: 17
        +3
        Quote: Vadim237
        What kind of aircraft carriers — here frigates can’t do anything, the whole program of the rearmament of the Navy was disrupted until 2020.

        I have already said that the school for constructing ships of the first rank is simply ruined. We are building watchdogs for 7-10 years, although during this time aircraft carriers are building.
        The very first question that should be asked to those who speak seriously about the construction of an aircraft carrier — is there such a shipyard in Russia where an aircraft carrier could be built?
        The second question is, if we build a suitable shipyard, how many aircraft carriers of Russia do you need to become a serious player, capable of confronting the United States with 11 aircraft carriers in this matter?
        The third question is, for any aircraft carrier we need cover ships, supplies, etc. ... and our cruisers and destroyers are getting old. And so the question is when will we start building Leaders (and we need a lot of them, because destroyers are the backbone of any fleet).
        And the question is rather painful - can we financially pull the aircraft carrier’s project, taking into account all the above questions?
        1. onix757
          onix757 6 December 2015 12: 21
          +3
          The second question is if we build a suitable shipyard

          MOSCOW, November 30 - RIA Novosti. The head of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, at a working meeting discussed the stages of construction of the Zvezda shipbuilding complex, as well as the creation of social and engineering infrastructure and the provision of the project with qualified personnel in the Russian Far East, the company said in a press release.

          Sechin took-Sechin will do yes
          1. afdjhbn67
            afdjhbn67 6 December 2015 16: 07
            +2
            Quote: onix757
            Sechin took-Sechin will do

            Oil platform - yes, it will wink
          2. Greenwood
            Greenwood 6 December 2015 16: 25
            +2
            It is planned to build tankers and gas carriers for export there. What are the aircraft carriers, what are you ?!
            1. onix757
              onix757 6 December 2015 16: 26
              0
              Well, the type of dock will allow you to build)
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 7 December 2015 04: 25
                -1
                Nilza-Nilza-Nilza-Nilza-Nilza ... Nilza-Nilza-Nilza-Nilza-Nilza ... wassat

                Aircraft carriers are weapons of aggression, our mains ...

                Gas carriers and tankers are so expensive. laughing
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 6 December 2015 12: 43
          +1
          Don’t smack nonsense. We can build everything. Such construction periods are caused by only one - poor financing. There, the Indians built up the ships very quickly.
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 16: 48
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          I have already said that the school of building ships of the first rank, we just collapsed

          And it does not need to be recreated, or what?
          Quote: NEXUS
          We have been building watchmen for 7-10 years

          Yes, due to the unavailability of Gorshkov’s weapon systems, it will come out for a decade.
          Quote: NEXUS
          The very first question that should be asked to those who speak seriously about the construction of an aircraft carrier — is there such a shipyard in Russia where an aircraft carrier could be built?

          Such a shipyard can be created in a fairly short time and at relatively low cost in Severodvinsk.
          Quote: NEXUS
          The second question is, if we build a suitable shipyard, how many Russian aircraft carriers do you need to become a serious player

          3.
          Quote: NEXUS
          capable of confronting the United States in this matter, with 11 aircraft carriers?

          To become a serious player does not need to strive for parity with the states. And it is not necessary to assume that if the United States has 11 aircraft carriers today, then in 35-40 years (and faster we can’t build 3 ABs) there will be the same. 30 years ago there were 15, by the way.
          Quote: NEXUS
          The third question is, for any aircraft carrier we need cover ships, supplies, etc. ... and our cruisers and destroyers are getting old. And so the question is, when will we start building Leaders

          I understand that both of them (in the sense of AB and Leaders) will be built between 2020 and 2050. In principle, a dozen leaders will be enough to form 3 AUGs
          1. topical
            topical 7 December 2015 22: 34
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In principle, a dozen leaders will be enough to form 3 AUGs

            Yeah Do not write fantasy novels at your leisure?
        4. Idiot
          Idiot 11 January 2016 20: 22
          -1
          we quickly build for export, at the level of world standards.
        5. Idiot
          Idiot 11 January 2016 20: 22
          -2
          we quickly build for export, at the level of world standards.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. siberalt
      siberalt 6 December 2015 11: 53
      +2
      Needs extend no further than possibilities. It is better to reach any point from yourself with rockets than to build economy-free delivery vehicles with a support. Russia is not an island, and even more so, not a colonial state. Do we need to surround the "Tuareg" to keep them at bay for "puddles", for what? What is the goal and strategy?
      1. sa-ag
        sa-ag 6 December 2015 13: 39
        +2
        Quote: siberalt
        backup vehicles

        Well, this is not only a delivery vehicle, but rather a cover for ship grappling
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 6 December 2015 15: 29
        +1
        Quote: siberalt
        for what? What is the purpose and strategy?

        To not be used against us.
      3. kalibr
        kalibr 6 December 2015 21: 44
        -1
        The whore must be sent to each senator and put in a bucket of diamonds, and no aircraft carriers should be! It will be cheaper and more beautiful!
        1. oleg46
          oleg46 7 December 2015 02: 09
          0
          Quote: kalibr
          The whore must be sent to each senator and put in a bucket of diamonds, and no aircraft carriers should be! It will be cheaper and more beautiful!

          Serious approach to business! laughing
    6. marlin1203
      marlin1203 6 December 2015 15: 42
      +1
      In principle, the Americans cannot be without aircraft carriers, since on their mainland they are "isolated" laughing And we are in the very center of enormous Eurasia, and in addition to aircraft carriers, we have money to spend on weapons. soldier So "whatever the child is amused", if only not with aircraft carriers ... laughing
      1. Secta haki
        Secta haki 7 December 2015 02: 06
        +1
        if only they didn’t start their own, so that only yours would play in the sandbox.
    7. starshina78
      starshina78 6 December 2015 17: 48
      0
      And I would rather give up the construction of aircraft carriers in favor of anti-submarine defense ships and ships that could destroy American destroyers armed with missile defense. This should have been done yesterday. In theory, we do not have new such ships, not counting "Dagestan", "Great Ustyug", and others, but they are limited in seaworthiness. only after we have enough of such ships and boats, and we are guaranteed to be able to destroy enemy boats and destroyers in case of war, then we can proceed to the construction of aircraft carriers.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 7 December 2015 10: 12
        0
        And the Americans will just watch how these ships will do their "dirty" business. They are the same AB on them and embed.
        1. Ykrofashist
          Ykrofashist 8 December 2015 01: 10
          0
          World War 3 for the sake of several boats. lol lol lol I don't know how anyone, but I put a minus for this "truth". Shield your enemies not with cruel barbarians, but with intelligent creatures with hypertrophied interests. Then closer to reality. Or decided to drown the AUG boats fellow fellow fellow
      2. Idiot
        Idiot 11 January 2016 20: 29
        0
        it is necessary to build a huge number of submarines, diesel and nuclear, as well as frigates and corvettes. There is nothing wrong with rebuilding and re-equipping existing ships of the first rank.
    8. topical
      topical 7 December 2015 22: 16
      -1
      Quote: Igor39
      Yes, at least one aircraft carrier per fleet, large as "Storm"

      Which fleet? Black Sea? Who is going to dictate Romania its conditions?
      As for Russia, there will be one thing. Or aircraft carriers, or the Russian Federation. Bolivar cannot stand two. You have to choose.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 7 December 2015 22: 33
        +1
        To the North and the Pacific.

        We have already chosen - Russia, Bolivar and aircraft carriers will be, but we do not need in the topics.
        1. topical
          topical 7 December 2015 22: 35
          -1
          Quote: Scraptor
          and we don't need from topics.

          I, an Icelandic Russian, forgot to ask you. He chooses. In Iceland you will choose. If the natives allow.
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 7 December 2015 22: 42
          +1
          Quote: topic
          I forgot to ask you.
          ... and immediately fled to the Black List.

          They will not ask you, a Romanian loyal subject, when you click the shutter in front of your nose and without your branzulet you go through the stage.
  2. Magic archer
    Magic archer 6 December 2015 07: 29
    +8
    If we had at least one full-fledged aircraft carrier now, it would already be standing off the coast of Syria. A strong geopolitical and military tool. And it’s hard to argue with that. So the aircraft carrier is needed, despite its price.
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 6 December 2015 07: 59
      17
      For such a price, you can build a base in Cyprus. Which is faster and more reliable ... yes
      1. mirag2
        mirag2 6 December 2015 08: 30
        +3
        For such a price, you can build a base in Cyprus. Which is faster and more reliable.
        You are right. A much more profitable investment from all sides.
      2. mirag2
        mirag2 6 December 2015 08: 30
        0
        For such a price, you can build a base in Cyprus. Which is faster and more reliable.
        You are right. A much more profitable investment from all sides.
        1. amba balamut 77
          amba balamut 77 6 December 2015 08: 46
          18
          And when it blazes in another place, the aircraft carrier Cyprus, cutting the stem with waves, at all times will go where the motherland sends it.
          1. avt
            avt 6 December 2015 10: 15
            +4
            Quote: amba balamut 77
            Aircraft carrier Cyprus, cutting the stem with waves, at all times will go where the homeland sends.

            good Oleg will come and ask you right now! laughing In general, the article, and the discussion itself will be about that ..... ,, And today in tomorrow, not everyone can watch. Rather, not only everyone can watch, not everyone can do it. "There is still not enough mind to remember this phrase! laughing I use a search engine and a carbon copy. request What to rub about anything? wassat
            1. IS-80
              IS-80 6 December 2015 17: 13
              +1
              Quote: avt
              That is still not enough mind to remember this phrase! I use a search engine and a carbon copy.

              And the meaning to understand not only you just not given at all and even more so. After all, this verbal construct, filled with incredibly deep meaning, gave out an outstanding Ukrainian-German philosophus of modern times. Hegel and Frying Pan all rolled into one so to speak. Yes, and the mayor of the capital city of Kiev. And an athlete to boot. laughing
              1. avt
                avt 6 December 2015 18: 30
                +1
                Quote: IS-80
                . After all, this verbal construct, filled with incredibly deep meaning, gave out an outstanding Ukrainian-German philosophus of modern times.

                On YouTube, they installed the interrogation of Klitschko Gotsman in 2 episodes, well, and three more people involved - he really neighing good looking at the interrogation by the Gotzman Petyuni and Yaytsenyukh, and comrades Saha ... Ah! What a man!
          2. kashtak
            kashtak 6 December 2015 10: 19
            +1
            how many times have they written, if it comes to a conflict with a combat-ready adversary, then the aircraft carrier cutting the bow of the wave will go to the bottom.
            1. Secta haki
              Secta haki 6 December 2015 10: 56
              -2
              Nuclear submarines go to the bottom even faster
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 6 December 2015 13: 17
                +3
                Without air cover in the deployment areas it will be so.
            2. Forest
              Forest 6 December 2015 12: 22
              +3
              An aircraft carrier connection is very difficult to destroy, and the aircraft carrier itself has a huge reserve of survivability.
              1. Starley from the south
                Starley from the south 6 December 2015 13: 04
                0
                Quote: Forest
                An aircraft carrier connection is very difficult to destroy, and the aircraft carrier itself has a huge reserve of survivability.

                This is if the aircraft carrier is destroyed by the means that the Americans have, then yes - it is tenacious. The Americans did not create funds specifically for the destruction of aircraft carriers, but we have such funds. KR type Granite, and now Onyx are very effective against aircraft carriers, according to leading experts. One submarine will have time to fire a salvo of 16 missiles even without a nuclear warhead, of which 2 pieces will reach the target in the worst case, and most likely more, but this is enough to disable it completely if it does not sink the aircraft carrier.
                1. Forest
                  Forest 6 December 2015 13: 46
                  -1
                  To incapacitate an aircraft carrier, you need more than 5 hits of heavy and under 20 hits of light anti-ship missiles. A volley of less than 40-50 missiles is unlikely to reach the AUG, as defense means are constantly evolving, but the anti-ship missiles froze in development with 70-x-80-x.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 19 December 2015 14: 35
                    0
                    One diving anti-ship missile warhead under the keel. The armored battleship "Novorossiysk" only had one bottom mine of about the same weight.
                2. mav1971
                  mav1971 6 December 2015 19: 18
                  0
                  Quote: Starley from the South
                  Quote: Forest
                  An aircraft carrier connection is very difficult to destroy, and the aircraft carrier itself has a huge reserve of survivability.

                  This is if the aircraft carrier is destroyed by the means that the Americans have, then yes - it is tenacious. The Americans did not create funds specifically for the destruction of aircraft carriers, but we have such funds. KR type Granite, and now Onyx are very effective against aircraft carriers, according to leading experts. One submarine will have time to fire a salvo of 16 missiles even without a nuclear warhead, of which 2 pieces will reach the target in the worst case, and most likely more, but this is enough to disable it completely if it does not sink the aircraft carrier.


                  None will fly!
                  Do not flatter yourself.
                  1. Starley from the south
                    Starley from the south 6 December 2015 21: 34
                    0
                    Quote: mav1971
                    None will fly!
                    Do not flatter yourself.

                    Very interesting! Would you be interested in why American aircraft carriers are trying to bypass our missile cruisers (Moscow, Varyag, Peter the Great) as far as possible? Read the articles of the developers of the CD "Granit" (old rocket), some of them were here on "VO". Of course, these missiles of the air defense (ABM) system will be detected, but these are cruise missiles, they fly low, so they will be detected late, and their speed is supersonic. They will find out something, but they will not have time to shoot down everything. Study the materiel!
                    1. mav1971
                      mav1971 7 December 2015 09: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Starley from the South
                      Quote: mav1971
                      None will fly!
                      Do not flatter yourself.

                      Very interesting! Would you ask why American aircraft carriers try to get around our missile cruisers (Moscow, Varyag, Peter the Great) as far as possible?
                      .....
                      Learn the materiel!


                      Where?
                      Where do you get such grass?
                      Will there be evidence? That the carriers are leaving?
                      Memoirs from captains of Amer aircraft carriers are desirable ...
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 7 December 2015 21: 50
                        0
                        And do Soviet memoirs work?
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. kashtak
                    kashtak 7 December 2015 12: 05
                    0
                    Quote: mav1971
                    No one will fly! Do not flatter yourself.

                    yes you are an optimist.
                  4. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 7 December 2015 21: 55
                    0
                    Justify. And tie with the grass.
              2. kashtak
                kashtak 6 December 2015 14: 51
                -1
                Quote: Forest
                An aircraft carrier connection is very difficult to destroy, and the aircraft carrier itself has a huge reserve of survivability.

                on one of the American aircraft carriers, a fire started because of a capsized bucket of kerosene. the ship was barely saved. exploded BC aircraft on the flight deck and the fire spread to the hangar. if the RCC explosion (and not one) is internal, then the survivability margin no longer looks huge. the same applies to hits of 650mm torpedoes. here laid out photos of the damage to the American battleship from a torpedo hit. but there they fell into the edge of the stem, but what if under the midsection and a couple? write about ground mines? I think this is enough.
                1. mav1971
                  mav1971 6 December 2015 19: 20
                  0
                  Quote: kashtak
                  Quote: Forest
                  An aircraft carrier connection is very difficult to destroy, and the aircraft carrier itself has a huge reserve of survivability.

                  on one of the American aircraft carriers, a fire started because of a capsized bucket of kerosene.


                  Where did such firewood come from?
                  Who is it that "heals" such stories in the 21st century?


                  Explain to me - where on the American aircraft carrier - buckets of kerosene?
                  Is the process of filling their buckets regulated?
                  1. kashtak
                    kashtak 7 December 2015 12: 13
                    0
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Explain to me - where on the American aircraft carrier - buckets of kerosene?

                    ask the technician who poured this bucket. why he needed kerosene I don’t know. maybe washed something.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                2. Forest
                  Forest 6 December 2015 19: 24
                  0
                  In our country, not so long ago, a tank burned out due to the fact that the conscript did not put out a cigarette, so, according to this logic, the tank should be afraid of cigarettes? The aircraft carrier itself is armored, has a large margin of safety of structures, many compartments that will absorb the shock wave from warheads, and a developed system of struggle for survivability, especially among the Nimitts and Fords. Bottom mines - this is generally from a series of jokes. I do not know such a system to get a ship from a depth of 2-6 km. To destroy aircraft carriers of the Enterprise type, the Union considered the missile consumption around 10-20 only for direct hits. And the strength and security of aircraft carriers has grown. I do not think that the admirals and shipbuilders of several fleets of the world are more stupid than couch analysts.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. kashtak
                    kashtak 7 December 2015 12: 00
                    0
                    the carrier has only the deck armored. when hit on board, a rocket will easily break through several of your partitions. further where the warhead gets. and this is not a cigarette. how much aircraft fuel is on an aircraft carrier? what about bombs?
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 7 December 2015 23: 41
                      0
                      Only one is booked and such a reservation will not help now.
                      The width of the deck of a nymets forced by aircraft is many times greater than the height of its side.
                  3. The comment was deleted.
                  4. kashtak
                    kashtak 7 December 2015 12: 20
                    0
                    Quote: Forest
                    to get the ship from a depth of 2-6 km.

                    draw a map and show me such depths in the Mediterranean. and try to prove that there are no places suitable for mining. and then I apologize for calling some a whirlpool navigator.
                    1. Forest
                      Forest 7 December 2015 14: 30
                      0
                      Yes, no problem - the average depth of the Mediterranean is more than 2 km. Even depths greater than 500 m are practically unattainable for modern technology.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. kashtak
                        kashtak 7 December 2015 16: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Forest
                        Yes, no problem - the average depth of the Mediterranean is more than 2 km. Even depths greater than 500 m are practically unattainable for modern technology.

                        from Sicily to Tunisia depths range from 50 to 500 near Malta, an average of 100-200. the same applies to the Aegean and Adriatic seas. learn the lecture. or check on the open planet Google Earth. good luck navigator.
              3. Idiot
                Idiot 11 January 2016 20: 30
                -1
                theoretically
            3. mvg
              mvg 6 December 2015 16: 33
              +1
              Chestak SU Today, 10:19 ↑

              how many times have they written, if it comes to a conflict with a combat-ready adversary, then the aircraft carrier cutting the bow of the wave will go to the bottom.


              How are you going to let the aircraft carrier to the bottom? Share it. And then the Soviet admirals could not find the answer to this vital question.

              And also a "brilliant" idea about Cyprus. We have few of our hangers-on, let's feed this Cyprus prostitute. The locals don't want to work there at all. This is how Russians are expected with money.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 6 December 2015 21: 17
                +5
                Quote: mvg
                How are you going to let the aircraft carrier to the bottom? Share it.
                There is such a thing. It is called "Operation XX Fleet to defeat AVU (AMG) XXX". It involves not only the forces of the fleet, but also RV, DA and other forces and assets of the RF Armed Forces (Space forces, stationary centers of RTR, etc.). Previously, even submarine divisions were created for this, * anti-aircraft * were called. MRA divisions for 1 AVU dressed up ... And now there are funds ...
                Quote: mvg
                Soviet admirals could not find an answer to this vital question.
                Yes, they found, they found ... True, he did not suit the Yankes, he was hefty too much. But then we were not afraid of this, but were afraid of the Yankees, tk. they walked in the rank of OPPOSING adversary, and not as "partners", as they are now. hi
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 7 December 2015 04: 20
                  -1
                  They found it even under Stalin, but they didn't tell you, and the method is non-nuclear. Because of this, the Americans had constant tantrums, and promises to use nuclear weapons if "at least someone" hits their aircraft boats with anything.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. sa-ag
            sa-ag 6 December 2015 13: 40
            -1
            Quote: amba balamut 77
            And when it blazes elsewhere, the aircraft carrier Cyprus

            And in that place there will probably be an aircraft carrier "Cam Ranh" :-)
            1. onix757
              onix757 6 December 2015 13: 44
              +3
              Quote: sa-ag
              And in that place there will probably be an aircraft carrier "Cam Ranh" :-)

              Will not be. Putin abandoned Kamrani
      3. Magic archer
        Magic archer 6 December 2015 08: 45
        11
        Cyprus?! Actually, the Turks are right next to them, and the Greeks are also a NATO country! What base are you talking about in such a situation!? An aircraft carrier has a big advantage - MOBILITY.
        what kind of people are on the site now!? Schoolchildren at the weekend?! Nobody enters the dimput but only pluses with minuses put fool
        1. kashtak
          kashtak 6 December 2015 10: 40
          -3
          aircraft carrier mobility only in the distant ocean. and in coastal areas he is like an elephant in a minefield. and to go to Syria, for example, he needs to go through the straits on NATO territory. and to leave the same thing. You could not explain at the same time how an aircraft carrier can help against gangs if God forbid we have to help the CSTO allies in Central Asia, for example. cost / performance ratio is not in favor of aircraft carriers.
        2. afdjhbn67
          afdjhbn67 6 December 2015 12: 07
          0
          Quote: Magic Archer
          ! Nobody enters the dimput, but only pluses with minuses put

          let's submute laughing I seem to have written an answer to you ...
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. gjv
          gjv 6 December 2015 12: 12
          +1
          Quote: Magic Archer
          Cyprus?! Actually, there are just nearby Turks and Greeks are also a NATO country! What kind of base are we talking about !?

          Quote: kashtak
          aircraft carrier mobility only in the distant ocean. and in coastal areas he is like an elephant in a minefield

          Right now, the Americans are bringing an "elephant" to Croatian Split. To Latakia, of course, 1880 km. However, with PTB, the distance can be reached.

          Aircraft carrier CVN 75 Harry S. Truman in the Adriatic, December 2015 (c) Ivo Cagalj / Pixsell

          Today it is not known how much time the aircraft carrier will spend in Split, but there is already information that during the visit its crew members will go ashore in order to get acquainted with local attractions.
          However, along with museums and souvenir shops, American sailors, according to local media, will also use the services of ... ducks. Due to the fact that the country's police in recent years have managed to significantly reduce the scale of organized prostitution on the coast, according to a law enforcement source, up to 40 elite prostitutes from Budva, Tivta (Montenegro) will be specially delivered under the visit of Americans by local pimps led by the Montenegrin ) and Belgrade.
          According to informed sources, elite forgiveness has already arrived in the seaside towns of Croatia ... ducks and girls from escort services from Zagreb, Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to the newspaper, the cost of these services, unless, of course, there are specific agreements, ranges from 100 to 500 euros per night.
          Air Wing on Harry Truman - 90 Aircraft and Helicopters - F / A-18E Super Hornet, F / A-18F Super Hornet, F / A-18C Hornet, E-2C Hawkeye, EA-18G Growler, C-2A Greyhound, MH-60S Seahawk, MH-60R Seahawk. In a group with "Harry Truman" usually cruiser USS Anzio (CG-68, class "Ticonderoga") and 4 URO-class destroyers of the "Arleigh Burke" ("IGIS") - USS Bulkeley (DDG-84), USS Gonzalez (DDG- 66), USS Ramage (DDG-61), USS Gravely (DDG-107).
        5. lelikas
          lelikas 6 December 2015 13: 08
          +3
          Quote: Magic Archer
          Cyprus?! Actually, the Turks are right next to them, and the Greeks are also a NATO country! What base are you talking about in such a situation!? An aircraft carrier has a big advantage - MOBILITY.
          what kind of people are on the site now!? Schoolchildren at the weekend?! Nobody enters the dimput but only pluses with minuses put

          You have forgotten about the British Air Force base in Cyprus - how convenient it is - "if something happens" the planes will launch missiles at each other without taking off from the runway ....
        6. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 6 December 2015 21: 28
          +4
          Quote: Magic Archer
          what kind of people are on the site now!? Schoolchildren at the weekend?! Nobody enters the dimput but only pluses with minuses put
          Dolodya, I welcome you!
          This is not so bad. Disheartened unreasonable, incompetent categorical judgments !!! fool
          Well, he didn’t serve, you don’t know - read, google, agreed on a competent opinion with reference to the source! Then you can debate ...
          And so - despondency takes from chewing gum ... crying
      4. LEX SU
        LEX SU 6 December 2015 10: 42
        +2
        Cyprus is NATO! Nobody will let them build a base ... Cypriots PPR arrange (sat .... and dispersed)
        1. gjv
          gjv 6 December 2015 12: 27
          0
          Quote: LEX SU
          Cyprus is NATO!

          De jure, the Republic of Cyprus is not a member of NATO and even participates in the Non-Aligned Treaty. However, at the same time, the Republic of Cyprus is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the European Union and the Council of Europe, the OSCE, IFC, the IMF and the EBRD. And all these organizations are very subject to the influence of NATO and, accordingly, the United States.
          And of course - the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not de jure recognized by the UN, but protected by the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus is de facto Turkish territory.
          To build a Russian base in such a "gadyushnik" is madness!
          It is necessary to work politically on introducing the idea of ​​referenda in Greece and Serbia on joining the Russian Federation.
          1. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 6 December 2015 17: 39
            0
            Greece and Serbia have a state of their own. The mentality of people is also very different from Russian. And by the way, with its own traditions of political life. It is unlikely that Serbs and Greeks will like our presidential unity of mind. Yes, nobody there wants to join the Russian Federation. The maximum is the creation of a supranational association with the participation of the Russian Federation and these countries. And that is extremely unlikely, and in the case of Greece it is close to zero.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      5. strannik1985
        strannik1985 6 December 2015 11: 46
        0
        Someone allowed the base to be built, or who can guarantee that the staff will not be "asked" at the wrong time?
        Before the Cuban missile crisis, the USSR built an airfield for long-range aviation in New Guinea, the United States had enough bribes of $ 16 million so that the airfield "could not" receive heavy aircraft. As a result, the transfer of the DA had to be abandoned, limited to the DPL.
      6. spravochnik
        spravochnik 6 December 2015 12: 46
        0
        About more reliable - a moot point. The power in Cyprus will change, what will we do? How to connect Crimea ?. And there is an English base. In addition, the aircraft carrier - the base is mobile, where necessary, we will overtake it there. Will we drive Cyprus too?
      7. Per se.
        Per se. 6 December 2015 17: 45
        +1
        Quote: yuriy55
        Which is faster and more reliable ...
        Maybe faster, but hardly more reliable, and hardly more profitable. Today we are called to Cyprus, but how will they ask to leave tomorrow? And, hello to all costs, and if they do not trample, then under the conditions of the blockade and sanctions, the base in Cyprus still needs to be maintained, and this, in addition to security, repairs, the delivery of food, fuel, ammunition. Finally, if "eternal peace" happened around Cyprus, the base would not float to a new hotbed of tension. Aircraft carriers did not just appear, as, in their time, destroyers, or submarines. Maybe it’s enough to deny the obvious, the aviation went to sea, the navy needs it. Expensive, and space is expensive, no one, however, is looking for a cheap alternative to space satellites. There is no money, but annually hundreds of billions are flowing out of Russia into offshore companies, tens of billions are stolen, there is no need to press on to tears, especially since the bourgeoisie will not distribute the saved money to the people. There is no point in a knowingly weak fleet, and a strong fleet implies the solution of all tasks at sea, many of which cannot be solved without carrier-based aircraft. What and how many aircraft carriers we need is another question, as well as the accents in the balance of the fleet.
      8. topical
        topical 7 December 2015 22: 45
        0
        Quote: yuriy55
        For such a price, you can build a base in Cyprus.

        Why did you decide that the Cypriots will allow themselves to build a base?
    2. blizart
      blizart 6 December 2015 08: 24
      +9
      I will argue. It is difficult not to catch the trend in the development of shipbuilding in Russia. After each next sharp turn in politics or even the fate of the country, the ships of the ocean zone were the first to go under the knife. As a tribute to geography, as a tribute to short-sighted politics, as a tribute to ... sharp turns. Will the geography of Russia change? Holy, holy! Will there be no sharp turns? Don't tell my hooves! In the very near future, Russia will face "tough" showdowns, not just for a place in the world, but simply for the existence of its unique civilization. In the very near future, weapons in all their guises will step into space, despite any politicians' goodwill. In the very near future, invisible particles and processes will become weapons. Enough already to fend off threats, repeating after opponents the concept of war, which is about to become the day before yesterday. Take a look around, you start everything from the boats yourself! And thank God! So the first four words of the title question to me sounds like: "Do you need ..."
      1. mirag2
        mirag2 6 December 2015 08: 32
        +1
        That's it, the turns have already begun, even the bends. But still I did not understand what you mean, is it necessary or not?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. gjv
        gjv 6 December 2015 12: 31
        +2
        Quote: blizart
        In the very near future, weapons in all forms will step into space, in spite of any politicians' good deeds. In the very near future, invisible particles and processes will become weapons. Enough to fend off threats already, repeating the opponents of the concept of war, which is about to become the day before yesterday.

        Here is information from the adversaries on the development of weapons in the Russian Federation.
        According to a well-known insider close to the US Department of Defense, Bill Hertz in the article "Russia Flight Tests Anti-Satellite Missile", published on December 2, 2015 on the web resource freebeacon.com, Russia made the first successful test of an anti-satellite intercept missile of a promising anti-missile and anti-space defense "Nudol", developed by JSC "Concern VKO" Almaz-Antey ".
        According to informed sources in the US Department of Defense, referred to by Bill Hertz, the test of this rocket was carried out on November 18. According to these sources, this test was the first successful after two unsuccessful ones.

        The processed image, presumably, of the long-range P222 mobile launcher (product 14Ts033) of a promising anti-missile and anti-space defense system on the Nudol theme developed by Concern VKO Almaz-Antey JSC, published in the corporate calendar of the Almaz-Antey Air Defense Concern (VKO) "for 2015 (c) Concern VKO Almaz-Antey" JSC (via Dmitry Kornev / militaryrussia.ru)
        1. Nik_One
          Nik_One 6 December 2015 17: 45
          0
          The picture shows the appearance of the launcher of the S-500 complex.
      4. Dart2027
        Dart2027 6 December 2015 12: 34
        +1
        It is precisely that, always and with all their differences, the enemies of the people sought to destroy our ocean fleet - and nothing changes in this. So there is one word:
        "I need ..."
        1. topical
          topical 7 December 2015 22: 53
          -1
          Quote: Dart2027
          It is precisely that, always and with all their differences, the enemies of the people sought to destroy our ocean fleet - and nothing changes in this. So there is one word:
          "I need ..."

          What will you sacrifice? Include compound feed and quinoa in the diet, and exclude everything else? PPTs. Russians and so recently in terms of welfare have dropped below the plinth. And then the "builders of fat herds of aircraft carriers" came running.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 8 December 2015 20: 41
            0
            Quote: topic
            Russians and so recently in terms of welfare have dropped below the plinth
            Judging by the number of cars on the streets I doubt it.
            Quote: topic
            What will you sacrifice
            You personally can not sacrifice anything.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. topical
              topical 8 December 2015 20: 52
              +1
              Quote: Dart2027
              Judging by the number of cars on the streets, I doubt it

              And judging by the number of cars, too.
              It reads: According to the Association of European Businesses, in November 2015, 131572 new cars were sold in Russia, which 42,7% lessthan for the same period of the crisis of 2014.
              Quote: Dart2027
              You personally can not sacrifice anything.

              Thank. I would like money for such nonsense to be collected by subscription. But then figs what you build. The bulk of people still think sensibly and soberly.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 8 December 2015 23: 06
                0
                Quote: topic
                According to the Association of European Businesses, in November 2015, 131572 new cars were sold in Russia, which is 42,7% less than in the same period of the crisis year 2014

                Do you need to change cars every year? Well, you have requests.
                Quote: topic
                The bulk of people still think sensibly and soberly.

                and expects an increase in the number of the Russian Navy, including the aircraft carrier component.
                1. topical
                  topical 9 December 2015 00: 45
                  +1
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Do you need to change cars every year? Well, you have requests.

                  Those. there is nothing to answer, so write all sorts of nonsense. I understood you.
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  and expects an increase in the number of the Russian Navy, including the aircraft carrier component

                  You misunderstand the term "sanity". What you write about is closer to the term "madness".
                  I repeat once again, if there are lovers to go crazy, then let them announce the collection of money by subscribing to the construction of floating coffins. And they build them for their own.
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 9 December 2015 19: 24
                    0
                    Quote: topic
                    Those. there is nothing to answer, so write all sorts of nonsense. I understood you.

                    So I'm right?
                    Quote: topic
                    Once again I repeat, if there are lovers to go crazy, then let
                    and further mutter under our breath, we do not need a normal fleet
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    always and with all their differences, the enemies of the people sought to destroy our ocean fleet - and nothing changes in this
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. topical
                      topical 9 December 2015 20: 02
                      0
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      So I'm right?

                      Of course. I understood this a long time ago. That you are always right. Even when clearly wrong.
                      For reference. According to Alliaz Group for 2014. the well-being of the average Russian has worsened by about 2 times this year. And today, in terms of accumulated wealth (net per capita financial assets), he is slightly poorer than the average Indian (by 2,1%). 50th out of 53 countries in the study. Do you know these numbers? Do you have anything else in your head besides ambition? Somehow it is not noticeable. And one gets the feeling that ambition is all there is. People like you are ready to transfer the whole country to the camp gruel, "just to live in a great country." They just do not know that such "great countries" are actually called trash heaps. And the "greatness" of such countries exists only in the inflamed brains of some mentally not quite healthy individuals.
                      Stretch your legs on clothes. For starters, learn at least Russian proverbs. It will be useful to you.
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 10 December 2015 19: 25
                        0
                        Quote: topic
                        For your information:
                        For reference, I do not live on a desert island, but in a large city, and how I see people around me with my own eyes.
                        Quote: topic
                        Is there anything else in your head
                        besides whining that Russia should grovel in front of everyone whom the "civilized world" will point to?
                        Quote: topic
                        For starters, learn at least Russian proverbs
                        The pig will find dirt everywhere.
                        but non-Russians, but also time-tested:
                        Even if a sword is needed once in a lifetime, it must always be worn
                        Want peace - get ready for war
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 8 December 2015 00: 51
          0
          Quote: topic
          What will you sacrifice? Include compound feed and quinoa in the diet, and exclude everything else? PPTs. Russians and so recently in terms of welfare have dropped below the plinth. And then the "builders of fat herds of aircraft carriers" came running.

          Topikammi so that feed and quinoa grow better ... yes
          One or two more aircraft carriers are enough to prevent the topics from squeaking, and in which case tanks in the USA will be fired on pontoons through a strait only 90km wide ...
          1. topical
            topical 8 December 2015 01: 08
            +1
            Quote: Scraptor
            and in which case tanks in the USA are blown on pontoons

            Will you buy them pontoons? Buy. Pay taxes to the Icelanders in NATO and buy it. "Foreign Patriot". I would sit and keep quiet.
          2. Scraptor
            Scraptor 8 December 2015 02: 05
            -1
            Quote: topic
            Will you buy them pontoons? Buy. Pay taxes to the Icelanders in NATO and buy it. "Foreign Patriot". I would sit and keep quiet.

            You will make pontoons to them in Siberia from bamboo according to Chinese technology under the supervision of effective Stalinist Georgian managers. As a result, from your NATO alone Iceland will remain lol
            Gone, in the emergency - sit while there bully Etc.
          3. kashtak
            kashtak 8 December 2015 10: 16
            0
            Quote: Scraptor
            Topikammi so that feed and quinoa grow better ... Another one or two carriers will suffice so that the topics do not squeak, and in which case tanks in the USA are blown on pontoons through a strait only 90km wide ...

            at such a distance, an aircraft carrier unnecessarily. from the shore more efficient.
    3. kuz363
      kuz363 6 December 2015 08: 37
      +2
      In addition to the aircraft carrier, another 10-15 ships are needed to guard the aircraft carrier. Plus coastal facilities and moorings. So the amount of costs can be safely doubled.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. gjv
        gjv 6 December 2015 12: 33
        +1
        Quote: kuz363
        In addition to the aircraft carrier, another 10-15 ships are needed to guard the aircraft carrier. Plus coastal facilities and moorings. So the amount of costs can be safely doubled.

        The Americans reduced the security group - 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 6 December 2015 23: 05
          +3
          Quote: gjv
          The Americans reduced the security group - 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers.
          This is in peacetime, when no one really threatens. And during an aggravation of the situation, in a threatened period or with the beginning of the database. Everything will be like an adult.
          In addition to an AVU order, there is such a thing as a marching / battle formation. It determines the relative position of units / groups of ships from the AMG. This is usually:
          - the air defense battalion (KAG) of the 1-2 KRUF of t. Ticonderoga, advanced 80-100 miles in the threatened direction of attacks of the RKR and EM URO, the enemy’s regiment;
          - Division (KPUG) of PLO ships - 3-4 ships (FR PLO) Comrade Arly Burke in the direction of PLA / PL attacks. Usually on D launch of anti-ship missiles from their own assets;
          - Division (UG) PLA / PLARK Comrade Virginia / Los Angeles. - In a free hunt for D g / a contact with AMG in the search for PLA, enemy ships.
          - rear, supply ships division. Fuel (air! - too), rockets, power supplies and food.
          And all this construction is covered by air patrols, AWACS aircraft, tied to a single information system of the theater of military operations.
          In peacetime, the AVU is in service until the replacement of 6-8 months. In the military - until the task is completed.
          So, today, it is practically impossible to crack all the degrees of "protection" of AUS / AMG without a "scrap". That is why we are planning to use the "sledgehammer" if we do not stop its deployment by conventional means until the line of the rise of aviation. But here are the cunning beasts: they already in peacetime occupy the RBD and spin their BP there. And so that sometimes the head is spinning. The attack aircraft fell, well, we think everything - flew off ... An, dutki! An hour later, the flights continue ... Seriously preparing ... asps!
    4. Kirill
      Kirill 6 December 2015 11: 46
      -5
      Due to restrictions on fuel supplies and ammunition, AB can only be used to deliver one massive strike with significant time limitations.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 17: 11
        +2
        Quote: kirill
        Due to limitations on fuel supplies and ammunition, AB can only be used to deliver one massive strike

        Where did you get this? Well, read at least something - for example, about the actions of aircraft carriers in "Desert Storm"
    5. siberalt
      siberalt 6 December 2015 12: 04
      +2
      And how much to build, maintain and bring to the point an aircraft carrier with a bunch of cover ships and submarines? I understand that the forum is for the military, but do they agree to give their salary? Or again school teachers and senior citizens? It is not bad to fly in the clouds, but it all ends with falling to the ground, and there the children, mother, family and they are also asking to eat.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 6 December 2015 23: 34
        +6
        Quote: siberalt
        and there are children, mother, family and they are also asking to eat.
        Nobody argues with that. But I remember a veteran, a hunched-over old man with the Order of the Red Star, World War II and a bunch of medals ... So he, speaking to the soldiers, said: it was hard for us, for our sons in Afghanistan and Chechnya - too ... We endured everything, have overcome, you must be prepared for such trials. But it is better that there is no war ... We are ready to endure, if only there is no war ... "
        He did not ask for food, because he knows for sure that it is better to tighten the belt over the last hole, but to have a weapon that will enlighten the "partners" than to grunt in a collar at a trough with bran, forgetting his ROD, pride, history, exploits of ancestors .. ...
        We somehow get strange: those who do not eat jamon and parmisan, washing them down with Hennessy, whose brains have not yet flooded with dollars and overseas goods ... He thinks about the people and country, and those about whom he wrote above - about yourself, food and benefits ... Maybe something is wrong in the kingdom of Denmark?
  3. TVM - 75
    TVM - 75 6 December 2015 07: 56
    +2
    If there is a desire and the aircraft carrier does not drown in the paper and interagency sea, then it will certainly be. Indeed, at sea, aviation is the most effective weapon. A rocket can destroy the enemy, but no one can do better than aviation.
    1. Genry
      Genry 6 December 2015 11: 06
      -1
      For reconnaissance and transport purposes, you can use the aircraft and drones. A small special ship with a mowed stern is enough for launching and selection from the water.
  4. Zubexcom
    Zubexcom 6 December 2015 08: 28
    +3
    Personally, my opinion is that aircraft carriers are a big target in the theater of operations and not a single support ship can protect it from missiles, etc. At the cost of one aircraft carrier, you can build about 6-8 missile submarines and solve tasks without even getting close to the enemy. Effectively and not noticeable. And for the presence, a cruiser or destroyer of the far sea zone will be enough.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 6 December 2015 08: 33
      +1
      To the aircraft carrier, a lot of everything is needed, right.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 8 December 2015 00: 26
        0
        A bunch of what? NK? Russia has them ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Zubexcom
        Zubexcom 6 December 2015 08: 39
        +1
        Definitely.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. topical
      topical 7 December 2015 23: 02
      0
      Quote: Zubexcom
      At the cost of one aircraft carrier, you can build about 6-8 missile submarines and solve tasks without even getting close to the enemy. Effectively and not noticeable. And for the presence, a cruiser or destroyer of the far sea zone will be enough.

      Plus to you from me. Only the cruiser, I would also crossed out.
    4. Scraptor
      Scraptor 8 December 2015 00: 37
      +1
      The cost of nimitsa with a displacement of 100 thousand tons is 2,2 billion
      The cost of Ohio with a displacement of 17 thousand tons is 1,5 billion
      all in 1980 prices

      What are you talking about with your 6-8?

      For the presence of the boat and enough Peter the Great with two MANPADS on deck
  5. Armored optimist
    Armored optimist 6 December 2015 08: 32
    +6
    The operation in Syria is a very good example of the impossibility of using our aircraft carrier. Be it even three times nuclear, but it should take food, jet fuel and bonbs every two to three days. And, if the mess really will be serious, then cut off the supply chain he has no problem. And it is close to our territory. I'm not talking about the possibility of sending him somewhere to Africa or South America. The Americans have bases around the world, they can supply the AUG. We do not have such opportunities. And to protect the coast with equivalent money (including the cost of defective aircraft, 20-30 guarding and supply ships, operating costs, personnel and coastal servants), you can build much more (than on board) fighters, bombers and air defense systems (including military towns , airfields, etc.).
    All talk about the need for us aircraft carriers are provocateurs who want to drop us at large inefficient costs.
    1. amba balamut 77
      amba balamut 77 6 December 2015 09: 02
      +2
      So then it is, but the futility of the entire ocean fleet, except for the nuclear submarines, also fits into your scheme. It is impossible to agree with this, you need to look for a way out, ala price - quality - tasks.
      1. topical
        topical 7 December 2015 23: 05
        0
        Quote: amba balamut 77
        So then it is, but the futility of the entire ocean fleet, except for the nuclear submarines, also fits into your scheme. You can’t agree with this,

        Just the right thing. An armored optimist writes.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 10: 46
      +5
      Quote: armored optimist
      The operation in Syria is a very good example of the impossibility of using our aircraft carrier.

      ??
      Quote: armored optimist
      Even if it’s nuclear three times, it should take food, jet fuel and bonbs every two to three days

      depends on stocks of both, usually they are calculated much more than three days.
      Quote: armored optimist
      And, if the mess really will be serious, then cut off the supply chain he has no problem.

      Those. do you think ours in Syria produce "bonbs" directly at the airfield? :)))
      Quote: armored optimist
      And to protect the coast with equivalent money (including the cost of defective aircraft, 20-30 guarding and supply ships

      Why not 200-300? The modern Shtatovskaya AUG consists of an aircraft carrier, five destroyers, two nuclear submarines and a supply ship.
      Quote: armored optimist
      you can build much more (than on board) fighters, bombers and air defense systems (including military camps, airfields, etc.)

      Well, taking into account that the construction of one civil airfield in your homeland costs about a billion dollars, your optimism about "cheaper" should be explained by low awareness
      1. Armored optimist
        Armored optimist 6 December 2015 12: 33
        +1
        - According to the experience of the database back in Vietnam, aircraft carriers took supplies every 2-3 days.
        - Land, this is land. And I’m talking primarily about actions from my territory, not 5000 km from it. Syria is closer, but you, apparently, are proposing not to be limited to it.
        - Yes, about 20-30 this is about AUS, not AUG. The cost of AUG according to the estimates of one of the authors of the Military Review Oleg Kaptsov is $ 16 billion. Let it cost us 10. Anyway, you can build a lot of money for such money. And to transfer air defense forces to a threatened direction throughout the country.
        Take a look here
        http://topwar.ru/?newsid=12712
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 6 December 2015 12: 36
          +5
          Quote: armored optimist
          And to transfer air defense forces to a threatened direction throughout the country

          Better to fight away from the territory of your country.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 15: 47
          +1
          Quote: armored optimist
          According to the experience of the database back in Vietnam

          There, the aircraft carriers fought a little different, not like they are now :)))
          Quote: armored optimist
          Land, this is land. And I’m talking primarily about actions from my territory, not 5000 km from it. Syria is closer, but you, apparently, are proposing not to be limited to it.

          You stated that Syria illustrates the impossibility of using an aircraft carrier, explaining this by supply. So I propose either to explain how our base in Latakia will be supplied with cut supply lines, or to admit that without an external supply channel, neither the aircraft carrier nor the air base will last long.
          Quote: armored optimist
          Yes, about 20-30 this is about AUS, not AUG

          And you can ask how you recorded the full AUS escort in the required escort to the Russian aircraft carrier?
          Quote: armored optimist
          The cost of AUG according to the estimates of one of the authors of the Military Review Oleg Kaptsov is $ 16 billion. Let it cost us 10. Anyway, you can build a lot of money for such money. And to transfer air defense forces to a threatened direction throughout the country.

          Well, for basing 90 aircraft you will need three airbases (one per air regiment) and a bunch of jump airfields - for at least one regiment at least two in the north and three - in the far one. Total we have five airfields per air regiment, which even for a total of half a billion A billion dollars for construction gives us 2,5-5 billion for an air regiment and 7,5-15 billion for three air regiments - this is without the cost of the aircraft themselves :))) That would be comparable to the cost of AUG, only AUG in contrast from 90 aircraft has much greater capabilities (the same escort ships can be equipped with cruise missiles, for example, I’m generally silent about nuclear submarines). Well, about the fact that AUG can act everywhere, and your 90 LAs - I just do not remind you of the Far East and Northern Fleet - as it were.
          Quote: armored optimist
          Take a look here
          http://topwar.ru/?newsid=12712

          Did you watch it yourself? :))) There, the prohibitive cost of alternative ways of counteracting AUGs is described, as it were
    4. Forest
      Forest 6 December 2015 12: 25
      +1
      As if aircraft carriers were in the sea for weeks without supply, and they still had food in their bins.
  6. kuz363
    kuz363 6 December 2015 08: 33
    +2
    "And the question of how it will fit into the Russian military doctrine, and what this doctrine will be like by the time the ship is launched, will probably be discussed for a long time." As always, they first build and then think about how to use it. And it will be a pitiful likeness of an American aircraft carrier. So rather there will be a long program of construction until 2050. But in the end, due to lack of funds, everything will end in conversations, like now
  7. altman
    altman 6 December 2015 08: 49
    +3
    Before building an aircraft carrier, you need to create escort ships for it. And here "Gorshkova" cannot take so much time to mind. And ships of the frigate-destroyer type need at least 4-5 for a group.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Zubexcom
      Zubexcom 6 December 2015 08: 55
      -1
      There has simply not been a single serious incident with an aircraft carrier. If at least one aircraft carrier is destroyed in a military conflict and the protective equipment does not interfere, then I think the advisability of having an aircraft carrier will drop to zero.
    3. Armored optimist
      Armored optimist 6 December 2015 08: 56
      -1
      I support. And even more than 4-5. The Americans believe that the AUG can be up to 20-30 ships. Here is an example (add supply transports that are en route to bases and back with your escort ships):
      1. Delta
        Delta 6 December 2015 11: 13
        +5
        Quote: armored optimist
        And even more than 4-5. The Americans believe that the AUG can be up to 20-30 ships. Here is an example (add supply transports that are en route to bases and back with your escort ships):


        You, nevertheless, distinguish a staged photo from reality. A typical AUG consists of (the United States, since other countries have virtually none): AB itself, 1-2 missiles, providing air defense, 3-4 destroyers, 1-2 submarines. Provision: 1-2 transport (more and not needed). Where is 20-30 from?
        1. Secta haki
          Secta haki 6 December 2015 11: 26
          -1
          Well, I wanted to ... so that it was "more accurate". bully good Where did the pioneers get such money? laughing
        2. Armored optimist
          Armored optimist 6 December 2015 12: 23
          -1
          Confused data on AUS and AUG. For land excusable.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 16: 27
        0
        Quote: armored optimist
        The Americans believe that the AUG can be up to 20-30 ships.

        The Americans established the composition of the promising AUG in 1 AB 5 EM 2 submarines and 1 TR total - 9 ships.
    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 16: 22
      +1
      Quote: altman
      Before you build an aircraft carrier, you must create escort ships for him

      I'm wondering, well, who is the "smart" who launched this thesis on the Internet? Tell me please - if you decide to have a child, what will you do first - will you take your beloved into the bedroom, or go shopping for diapers?
      What happened to "Gorshkov"? The draft design was made and approved in 2003 (this is a simple matter), but the tender for it was announced only in 2005. Bookmarked in February 2006, launched in 2010 and according to plan in 2012 was supposed to be part of the fleet. In fact, due to the weapons systems that were not completed in time (problems with the POLIMENT-redoubt and artillery), it will probably go into operation in 2016. In total, for all the problems of the domestic shipbuilding industry, from sketch to transfer to the fleet - 13 years.
      Now estimate how long it will take to build an aircraft carrier. A draft design can be done quickly, but the rest of the design and technical documentation will have to be done for years (in fact, several years). It is necessary to design new components and assemblies (such as catapults), build, test them ... i.e. from the moment of making the decision to the moment of laying the aircraft carrier, not 2, but at least 3-4 years will pass. And it will be built for 8-10 years as planned, but in fact - for 12 years (and that would be good) And then - a couple of years for testing before being accepted into the fleet. Total - from the moment of the sketch to the moment "in the fleet" it will take 18 or even 20 years. And if you are going to build cover ships first, then by the time the aircraft carrier is put into operation they will no longer be new, twenty years old, battered ships. no longer at the peak of naval progress.
      1. altman
        altman 6 December 2015 17: 57
        0
        I suggest first to learn how to build ships of the first rank with a smaller displacement. You can proclaim, lay and build 30-40 years. Launched in 2006, the frigate has not yet entered service. At best, it will be ready in 2016. That is, it took 10 years to build a frigate. You propose to start building an aircraft carrier with unclear prospects, to swell a lot of money into it .. and get it .. in 2045 in the fleet? Until then, the goals of its use and armament will change, and a lot of things .. In order to build it, you need a clear naval concept !! Know why and for what, where to use and where to repair, who will accompany and who is the likely enemy.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 18: 24
          0
          Quote: altman
          I suggest that you first learn how to build ships of the first rank with a smaller displacement

          And I explained to you why this path is vicious.
          Quote: altman
          You can proclaim, lay and build 30-40 years

          And the longer we postpone the construction of an aircraft carrier, the greater the chance that this will happen.
          Quote: altman
          Launched in 2006, the frigate has not yet entered service. At best, it will be ready in 2016. That is, it took 10 years to build a frigate.

          Right. But on the other hand, a frigate will appear in the fleet in 2016. Well, according to your logic, before taking on such a complex project as a frigate, you should first learn how to build corvettes. "Guarding", if you remember, was introduced to the fleet in 2008. What if we postponed the design and construction of frigates until 2008?
          I'm telling you. The design bureau, which was engaged in the development of "Polyment" by this time, would have died safely (due to the lack of an order for development - Polyment is not used in the corvette) and instead of getting the "Polyment-Redoubt" (namely, its lag became the main the reason for the delay in the construction of the "pot" we would be left without a modern radar and an air defense system in general. And without a team capable of making it. As a result, we would have begun to revive the design bureau in 2008, they would have started to work in any serious way, Allah knows when, the project itself There would be no one to do a new frigate either (the specialists who did the project in 2003-2006 and then would simply scatter in search of another job) and the new frigate would be laid where the thread would be in 2012, if not later. Well, we would have received our first frigate of a new type where is the thread by 2023-2025. Instead of 2016.
          1. altman
            altman 6 December 2015 18: 27
            -1
            So answer me a question .. why such an expensive toy to our fleet?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 19: 30
              +1
              Quote: altman
              why such an expensive toy to our fleet?

              Because an aircraft carrier formation is the optimal means of war at sea in terms of cost / efficiency.
              1. Secta haki
                Secta haki 7 December 2015 02: 11
                0
                Yes, nonsense - in 1941 we survived without aviation, and then we will stand at the bottom on an even keel ... and "hiding" from Asdik, lowered on a cable under a thermocline, we will swim for some time

                winked
              2. altman
                altman 7 December 2015 05: 20
                0
                Interesting .. when and by whom is it proven in modern conditions? Examples of the Second World War do not count, we must prepare for future soldiers, and not for the past
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 7 December 2015 05: 44
                  0
                  Also a hunter to count the killed Soviet soldiers by this criterion?

                  Look what he writes in http://topwar.ru/index.php?newsid=87293 about the Air Battle over Kuban, and in general about the place of the Soviet Air Force and Naval Aviation in the history of World War II
              3. topical
                topical 7 December 2015 23: 14
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Because an aircraft carrier formation is the optimal means of war at sea in terms of cost / efficiency.

                Yeah So you are also going to wage war on the sea. With whom, may I ask? If with the Americans, then this is stupid. And if not with them, then who will allow you?
                So it turns out that the Russian aircraft carrier is not needed in any way.
              4. Scraptor
                Scraptor 8 December 2015 00: 23
                0
                Quote: topic

                Yeah So you are also going to wage war on the sea. With whom, may I ask? If with the Americans, then this is stupid. And if not with them, then who will allow you?
                So it turns out that the Russian aircraft carrier is not needed in any way.

                Why is this stupid? And if they start so smart themselves? Anyone who decides not to build will go after them.
                Any topic that they forgot to ask, Russia does not need.
  8. andrei.yandex
    andrei.yandex 6 December 2015 08: 52
    0
    The presence of an aircraft carrier is a kind of reflection of the economic state of the country, only the United States and the USSR were on the shoulder. Now China is "trying to play the role" of the USSR.
    1. Major_Vortex
      Major_Vortex 6 December 2015 10: 22
      0
      Quote: andrei.yandex
      The presence of an aircraft carrier is a kind of reflection of the economic state of the country, only the United States and the USSR were on the shoulder. Now China is "trying to play the role" of the USSR.

      You are, to put it mildly, mistaken. The USSR did not build aircraft carriers. What was being built in Nikolaev could not be aircraft carriers for the simple reason that the aircraft carriers had a passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.
      Missile, aircraft-carrying cruisers, and other ships were built, but no aircraft carriers.
      Heavy aircraft carrier cruiser (not aircraft carrier) "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov":
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 6 December 2015 13: 41
        -2
        That you are mistaken. Kuzya is an aircraft carrier.
        1. Major_Vortex
          Major_Vortex 6 December 2015 15: 23
          -2
          Quote: spravochnik
          That you are mistaken. Kuzya is an aircraft carrier.

          Sometimes reading is better than speaking. Turkey would not allow a single aircraft carrier to enter the Mediterranean Sea through the straits. They did not build aircraft carriers in the USSR, and even the ideology for this was summed up: they say, "An aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression" soldier

          Understand a little bit of the issue before arguing on topics that you don’t understand:

          “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov” (former names - in the order of assignment - “Soviet Union” (draft), “Riga” (bookmark), “Leonid Brezhnev” (launching), “Tbilisi” (testing)) - heavy aircraft carrier Project 1143.5 cruiser, the only one in the Russian Navy in its class (as of 2015). Designed to defeat large surface targets, protect naval formations from attacks by a potential enemy.
          The fifth heavy aircraft carrier of the USSR missile cruiser - "Riga" was laid on the slipway of the Black Sea shipbuilding plant on September 1, 1982. For the first time, it differed from its predecessors by the possibility of taking off and landing traditional planes, modified versions of land Su-27s, MiG-29s and Su-25s on it. To do this, he had a significantly increased flight deck and springboard for take-off aircraft.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 17: 50
            +1
            Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
            Sometimes it's better to read than talk

            So why not follow this, in every way, useful and sound advice? You would have every opportunity to find out that the heavy aircraft carriers of the USSR 1143.1-1143.4 cruisers were a kind of anti-submarine helicopter carrier, and TAKR 1134.5 and later were a kind of aircraft carrier.
            The same "Kuznetsov" has four fundamental differences from the American "Nimitz" - size (ours is smaller), the absence of a nuclear power plant, a springboard instead of catapults, and, finally, the presence of strike weapons.
            At the same time, the dimensions of the Kuznetsov exceed a number of foreign aircraft carriers; this is not a reason to exclude it from the class of aircraft carriers, and the same applies to nuclear power plants - for many years, aircraft carriers have used conventional power plants and no one has written them down in aircraft carriers on this basis. Many aircraft carriers are equipped with a springboard - these are the Spanish "Principe Asturias" and the Italian "Cavour" and the British aircraft carriers "Queen Elizabeth" and others - there are no catapult stations on them, springboards - please. Finally - strike weapons. Many people say that the TAKR is precisely a new class of ship, because, unlike a classic aircraft carrier, it has not only defensive, but also strike weapons. But these people forget that in the not so distant past, such weapons were considered an integral feature of an aircraft carrier. The American ships "Lexington" and "Saratoga" were precisely aircraft carriers, despite the fact that they carried 203-mm guns in four towers - i.e. typically cruising strike weapons.
            In other words, at the dawn of aircraft construction, they were equipped with strike weapons. Then they came to the conclusion that this was not necessary - the tactics of the aircraft carriers did not involve the use of cruising guns, and the aircraft carriers began to build without large guns. But our admirals came to the conclusion that cruise missiles (purely cruising caliber! laughing ) could well be used by an aircraft carrier in battle - and the strike weapons returned.
            In general, if you believe that the presence of "Granites" removes "Kuznetsov" from the class of aircraft carriers and makes it a ship of a different class, then please be consistent and inform the Americans that their "Lex" and "Sarah" are not aircraft carriers, but heavy aircraft carriers. cruisers. And do not forget to tell the Japanese the same about "Akagi" - he also had EMNIP at birth 203-mm
            1. Major_Vortex
              Major_Vortex 7 December 2015 00: 55
              -3
              Andrey from Chelyabinsk, I suggested above that all ignoramuses engage in self-education before writing nonsense on the site. This also applies to you:
              Article 11. Black Sea states may carry capital ships through the straits with tonnage in excess of the restrictions provided for in the first paragraph of Article 14, provided that they go by themselves, escorted by no more than two destroyers.
              Original Text (Eng.)
              Article 11. Black Sea Powers may send through the Straits capital ships of a tonnage greater than that laid down in the first paragraph of Article 14, on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers. ”
              Appendix II to the Convention defines the capital ship and aircraft carrier:
              "B. CATEGORIES
              (1) Capital ships include ships of the following two subcategories: (a) Surface warships, excluding aircraft carriers, auxiliary ships and ships falling into subcategory (b), whose standard displacement exceeds 10 tons (000 metric tons) or carrying guns caliber over 10 inches (160 mm);

              (b) surface warships, excluding aircraft carriers whose standard displacement does not exceed 8 tons (000 metric tons) and which carry guns of a caliber greater than 8 inches (128 mm).

              (2) Aircraft carriers are warships, irrespective of the displacement, built or converted mainly for aviation operations. If aviation is not their primary purpose, these ships should not be classified as aircraft carriers, even if there is a flight deck.

              Original Text (Eng.)
              B. CATEGORIES
              (1) Capital Ships are surface vessels of war belonging to one of the two following sub-categories: (a) Surface vessels of war, other than aircraft-carriers, auxiliary vessels, or capital ships of sub-category (b), the standard displacement of which exceeds 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) or which carry a gun with a caliber exceeding 8 in. (203 mm.); (c) Surface vessels of war, other than aircraft-carriers, the standard displacement of which does not esceed 8,000 tons (8,128 metric tons) and which carry a gun with a caliber exceeding 8 in. (203 mm.).
              (2) Aircraft-Carriers are surface vessels of war, whatever their displacement, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea. The fitting of a landing on or flying off deck on any vessel of war, provided such vessel has not been designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea, shall not cause any vessel so fitted to be classified in the category of aircraft-carriers.
              »
              Thus, aircraft carriers are clearly excluded from the list of ships that are allowed to pass through the Black Sea straits.

              What you mistake for an aircraft carrier is aircraft cruiser. TAKR stands for Heavy Aircraft Cruiser and you do not need to invent anything else. The main armament of such a ship is rocket, and the wing is auxiliary. Otherwise, it falls under the ban imposed by the 1936 Montreux Convention on the passage of aircraft carriers through the Bosporus and Dardanelles. It is written: Heavy aircraft carrier cruiser (TAKR) "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov."
              ... Shkolota soldier
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 December 2015 17: 11
                0
                Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
                Andrey from Chelyabinsk, I suggested above that all ignoramuses engage in self-education before writing nonsense on the site. It concerns you too

                It concerns first of all you, ignoramus. Firstly, the Montreux Convention is not a universally accepted definition and classification of aircraft carriers. It merely regulates which ships have the right to pass through the straits and which are not. To do this, she uses a certain definition of an aircraft carrier, which is not used anywhere else. Therefore, you can lay out its text in full - it does not matter in the question of whether to consider a ship as an aircraft carrier.
                The definition of an aircraft carrier in the convention itself is absurd.
                Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
                Aircraft carriers are warships, regardless of displacement, built or converted mainly for aviation operations. If aviation is not their primary purpose, these ships should not be classified as aircraft carriers, even if there is a flight deck.

                Accordingly, the anti-submarine cruiser Moskva is an aircraft carrier because it was built mainly for the operation of helicopters, which (surprise-surprise!) Are also aviation :) And a corvette with a 30-mm pukalka on the bow and a helipad at the stern is an aircraft carrier too.
                Secondly, even if we take on faith the definition of aircraft carriers by convention, the Soviet TAKR will NOT fall into it, because the tasks that the USSR fleet set for these ships mean aviation, as the main weapon of the ship.
                Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
                The main armament of such a ship is rocket, and the wing is auxiliary.

                Nonsense, from the word "complete". Take the trouble to read AT LEAST ANYTHING about the history of the creation of Soviet aircraft.
      2. andrei.yandex
        andrei.yandex 6 December 2015 14: 01
        0
        Actually, the name does not always reflect the essence. And they called them aircraft carrier so that there was no conflict. The aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk under construction was more complete, since it was planned to have a nuclear power plant and a pair of catapults.
        1. Major_Vortex
          Major_Vortex 6 December 2015 15: 32
          -1
          Quote: andrei.yandex
          Actually, the name does not always reflect the essence. And they called them aircraft carrier so that there was no conflict. The aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk under construction was more complete, since it was planned to have a nuclear power plant and a pair of catapults.

          In addition to the name, an aircraft carrier cruiser has significant differences from an aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier cruiser has the main missile armament, but unlike the missile cruiser, it additionally carries several dozen aircraft and helicopters. The aircraft carrier has twice as many planes. But if the Soviet Union had built an aircraft carrier, it would have been locked up in the Black Sea. Not lucky the Soviets with neighbors in the south. But other shipyards in the USSR did not build such a thing. You can’t fool anyone by simply juggling the name laughing
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 6 December 2015 17: 07
            0
            And where, in the Montreux convention, is there a direct ban on passing an aircraft carrier through the straits?
            The main armament for a ship of 62 tons with a displacement of 580 launchers for the "Granit" anti-ship missile system (project 16) or 11437 launchers for the "Granit" anti-ship missile system for a ship of 12 tons (project 46)? Are you seriously?
            Purely internal troubles, nothing more.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 19: 37
            0
            Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
            The aircraft carrier cruiser main missile weapons

            For an aircraft-carrying cruiser, the main armament - aircraft, missile armament is purely auxiliary and is intended for use in those rare situations where weather conditions preclude the possibility of using aircraft but allow - RCC. The main function of heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers (from 1143.5) is to ensure the combat stability of missile-carrying aircraft and ships attacking the AUG by covering them with fighter aircraft.
            Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
            The aircraft carrier has twice as many planes.

            For example, the aircraft carrier "Clemenceau" (already 40) or the aircraft carrier "Cavour" (as many as 12)
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 7 December 2015 11: 09
              0
              Or at the atomic AV "Charles Degol". Especially now, during the operation in Syria.
          3. spravochnik
            spravochnik 7 December 2015 11: 07
            0
            I just understand, due to the specifics of my profession - a shipbuilder engineer. In addition, unlike you, I saw all the Soviet aircraft carrier in nature. If you are such a specialist, tell me, how much space does his “main“ weapon ”take on Kuza? 2(!) Su-33 fighters. And to accommodate such a "main" weapon, the aircraft carrier has an aircraft carrier architecture. By the way, it was planned to build the building following the "Ulyanovsk" building (pr. 1143.8) without anti-ship missiles. This was the only difference, he was not an aircraft carrier either. Do you know that before Kuzi there was ave. 1153 ATOMNOUS TAKR, he - what ?. The TAKR class is valid for the first ships of the 1143-1143.4 series. For them, aviation weapons are really auxiliary. For subsequent ships, this classification was preserved rather according to tradition and due to the rejection of the term aircraft carrier by the Soviet leadership. In the 60s, the LIGHT AIR CARRIER project was generally classified as PBIA - a floating base for fighter aircraft. Because of that, he stopped being an aircraft carrier. So, you teach materiel.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 7 December 2015 22: 15
              0
              An aircraft carrier should not have anything extra taking up space even for 2 aircraft (or accessories), or interfering with their work.
              What will happen to the aircraft on deck during the launch of these anti-ship missiles?
              It was impossible to shove them into a rocket cruiser nearby, and the conference room into the headquarters ship? Or a conference room in a missile cruiser? wassat I think his captain would be against ... yes But here shipbuilders decide and authoritatively "scientifically substantiate" their sabotage and delirium, and not the final customer.
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 8 December 2015 10: 56
                0
                What should be on AB, and what should not be, is determined by the doctrine of its use. Doctrine demands, there will be RCC. For example, on the Italian AV "J. Garibaldi" there is an anti-ship missile, on the Chinese "Liaoning" they are also provided.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 8 December 2015 21: 17
                  0
                  This is determined by what kind of ship it is. The doctrine according to which you act requires the deterioration of aircraft carrier characteristics by all possible means.

                  Giuseppe Garibaldi has only short-range air defense / anti-aircraft defense, anti-ship missiles were removed from him in 2003, in order not to interfere with aircraft, Liaoning is the former Varyag, launchers for anti-ship missiles on it were also dismantled.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  9. Awaz
    Awaz 6 December 2015 08: 57
    +8
    do not entertain yourself with illusions. The financial condition is such that without aircraft carriers a kirdyk may come. Further, the expediency of these devices is completely incomprehensible to Russia. Well Russia does not wage war of aggression. To defend their territory. This is what you need to pay attention to and not build and draw beautiful and stupid barges for transporting aircraft.
    Even the example of Syria shows that land airports are both cheaper and more practical and more reliable.
    Do not try to grasp the immensity. It is necessary to do and do well what we can do. Learn first just to build large tankers in two years, and only then, when the thread in the better years, when there is nowhere to put money, you can build at least space rocket carriers ...
    To begin with - air defense systems cover the country, at least the most vulnerable and strategic directions ...
    Divorced manila ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 19: 44
      0
      Quote: AwaZ
      do not entertain yourself with illusions. The financial state is such that without aircraft carriers may come kirdyk

      Nevertheless, the money for all sorts of World Cups there (according to the latest data, the cost estimate exceeded a trillion) And for all sorts of skolkovs / dealers. But there is no money for an aircraft carrier. Sadly :))
  10. Erg
    Erg 6 December 2015 08: 57
    +1
    We do not need aircraft carriers. It is too expensive. Not effective. Ten times cheaper means of destruction of AUG.
    1. 2s1122
      2s1122 6 December 2015 10: 54
      +2
      So maybe Crimea wasted in vain, look how much money is pumped in. What do you say.
      1. Erg
        Erg 6 December 2015 11: 23
        0
        Why are you nervous, partner? Our Crimea is not in vain. wink
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 6 December 2015 13: 43
      0
      And what are the means that do not need to be delivered?
  11. Rigla
    Rigla 6 December 2015 09: 09
    +2
    Aircraft carrier??? And the fact that Putin said that the T-50 will be purchased not 50-60, but even less, does not bother you? What kind of planes will take off from an aircraft carrier ??? And the 50-60 T-50 is a ridiculous figure for the Russian Federation, but they also want to reduce it ...
    1. Forest
      Forest 6 December 2015 12: 27
      +1
      This first purchase will be reduced to one squadron. You at least read the news, and do not invent them like a jealous wife.
  12. Foxbed
    Foxbed 6 December 2015 09: 48
    +4
    Quote: Erg
    We do not need aircraft carriers. It is too expensive. Not effective. Ten times cheaper means of destruction of AUG.

    It is very expensive. It is expensive to build. It is even more expensive to service. Although one or two aircraft carrier groups are necessary. For solving geopolitical tasks and "projecting a force presence", they are necessary. But I like a more economical approach: a command ship (with a powerful radar, electronic warfare, with a reconnaissance aircraft or helicopter) and a group of 5-7 destroyer-frigates with cruise missiles on board .Im in the cover of a pair of submarines. BDK and MDK - if landing is necessary.
    Ps. And quite a "fantastic idea": to convert 941 "Shark" (Typhoon) into a submarine aircraft carrier. good belay Everyone in the world will be in Ahtung .....
  13. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 10: 15
    +4
    in any case, a country that has access to the ocean is obliged to have aircraft carriers. expensive not expensive but we will definitely come to this. first we’ll build one, then the second ... in general, according to the statements of our Navy, we need 5 aircraft carriers. 4 in the fleets, the fifth will be in place of those going for repairs. don’t worry about supply ships_ our hand is full of it, logistics is not a problem either. The main thing is to start and finish the first Aian. further it will go on the thumb. you see, if you need to sort this out, it’s not gentle, then under such an excuse our fleet (the same Ulyanovsk) was already cut, sold out as scrap. between killed along the way many other projects (the same yak 41). and when to solve a political problem (not even a military one) we just need to show one aircraft carrier, then instead we send almost half of the fleet. friends, don’t joke like that, an aircraft carrier is a huge force. You can argue for a long time, but it is good that the leadership of the country and the fleet understands the carrier fleet. moreover, what a reserve will be even purely economic. how many specialists and just workers will be raised by prof. level. how many people will be employed at the shipyard and related workers receiving a salary.
  14. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 10: 34
    +5
    Thus, any ship can go to the bottom if the crew is not profi. I will upset you even more. we need to seriously engage in restoring the ocean fleet. and it’s precisely the impetus for this will be given by the construction of aircraft. and so why bother to go into the water after all, everything can be sunk so? while an aircraft carrier goes down to the bottom, its wing will destroy the enemy’s fleet.
  15. 2s1122
    2s1122 6 December 2015 10: 42
    0
    A money issue is a headache for all countries, even Americans. Aircraft carriers are needed by everyone, the length of the sea borders is awesome. And if Russia declares itself to be a state with a world politics, then the arguments should be weighty on the open sea.
  16. Wiruz
    Wiruz 6 December 2015 10: 46
    +2
    If aircraft carriers are needed, then they are not like "Storm" or "Shkval" (I constantly confuse which of them is who). The idea of ​​a wunderwuffle with 2 jumps and 2 catapults smacks of delirium. And if you consider that the plane taking off will surely touch another, standing at the starting position ...

    In short, this project is in the furnace. If you build aircraft carriers, you have to "stupidly" copy American Nimtsy and Fords - everything is beautiful and nothing more. You can, of course, try to return to the idea of ​​Ulyanovsk (one springboard and two catapults) ... but I don't know ...

    hi
    1. Igor39
      Igor39 6 December 2015 10: 58
      +1
      So to copy, you need to parse it first, or so, from memory? laughing
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 20: 21
      +1
      Quote: Wiruz
      If aircraft carriers are needed, they are not like "Storm" or "Flurry"

      With Storm, the situation is like this - this is a pure fantasy of the Krylovites, who have never been engaged in the design of aircraft carriers. Those. At some point, the question of an aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy surfaced again, the Krylovites tried to hurry up and urgently gave birth to a draft design of a "super aircraft carrier", quickly shoving everything "modern and trendy" into it.
      Nuclear ship - but with the possibility of replacing the EU with the usual type (what kind of madman will build a ship of 100 thousand tons with catapults and with conventional ES? But no final decision on the ES has been made - let there be such and such :))) Springboard or catapult? And who knows what they want up there, let both be just in case. In addition, all that the Krylovites had at their fingertips was data on Ulyanovsk, and he also had a mixed ski-cattle ... but with Ulyanovsk it’s understandable, it was designed when there was no previous experience in operating the ski jumps. Etc.
      In general, when they do everything seriously, the sailors will give normal technical specifications and there will be normal project development, but what they are demonstrating now is like that, a dream of reason
  17. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 11: 11
    +4
    In any case, the history of mankind shows that all states that have reached a high level of development have seriously engaged in the fleet. I agree with you this is just a project. but about copying the Yankees ... well, I don’t know. can really do Ulyanovsk with serious modernization. because in those days it was a breakthrough project. I read my dad somewhere years ago, the Navy even raised the drawings of Ulyanovsk, but then for some reason they decided to draw in a new way. I even agree to modernize Kuznetsov. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong, but the heavy always seemed to me more necessary. flight cruise. than just a maritime airdrome like a Uyanka. because he has a serious offensive and defensive weapons. let's say make Kuznetsov atomic. and a bigger air wing. it will be cheaper. Imagine if a smith had five pieces. and don’t have to think and rack your brains. the country gets rich we will build modern.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. Boris55
    Boris55 6 December 2015 11: 24
    0
    Russia, which claims to be one of the leading places in global governance of the world, cannot do without aircraft carriers.

    A question for specialists. Is there any protection against the Chinese missiles of "aircraft carrier killers" which fall almost from space at right angles onto the aircraft carrier?
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 6 December 2015 16: 18
      +2
      Quote: Boris55
      A question for specialists. Is there any protection against the Chinese missiles of "aircraft carrier killers" which fall almost from space at right angles onto the aircraft carrier?

      At a right angle, it cannot fall a priori. Well, the means of electronic warfare, air defense ...
      Chinese killer missiles of aircraft carriers have one problem, you need to know where the aircraft carrier is and constantly adjust the flight of the missile taking into account the movement of the aircraft carrier. Well, there’s how the GOS will work ...
  20. Foxbed
    Foxbed 6 December 2015 12: 20
    +1
    Quote: anodonta
    What kind of missiles? Just don't say Granite. Only one country in the world, Russia, has such missiles, and then only in limited quantities. You will not build 6-8 PLA instead of one aircraft carrier either - at best 3-4. And will these submarines be able to effectively solve problems in a local conflict, to put it mildly, well, a very big question?


    We have more effective things in which we are ahead of the rest of the world. Moreover, we have working samples of this technique. I am talking about cranoplanes designed by the Central Design Bureau for SEC under the leadership of Rostislav Alekseev. "Lun", "Orlyonok"
    Performance characteristics:
    Wingspan - 44,00 m
    Length - 73,80 m
    Height - 19,20 m
    Wing Area - 550,00 m2
    Weight:
    empty aircraft - 243000 kg
    maximum take-off - 380000 kg
    Type of engines - NK-87
    Thrust - 8 x 13000 kgf
    Maximum speed - 500 km / h
    Practical range - 2000 km
    Flight height on the screen - 1-5 m
    Seaworthiness - 5-6 points
    Crew - 10 people.
    Armament: 6 launchers PKR ZM-80 Mosquito.

    This is a very promising direction. And if you still make a carrier ship for them? ...
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 6 December 2015 12: 37
      -1
      Seaworthiness of 5-6 points was promised for the Rescuer, which was built on the basis of the second Lunya.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 6 December 2015 12: 49
        0
        Seaworthiness is not so important, it is flying and can leave the screen or bypass a storm.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 6 December 2015 12: 53
          0
          So it’s not important that KM, Eaglet and half of the layouts lost with moderate excitement?
          Good pepelats which you can tear off the tail with an careless maneuver.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 6 December 2015 12: 57
            0
            So it’s not very important why it was written. The tails of planes themselves sometimes fall off, submarines sink, and aircraft carriers fly into a lighthouse.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 6 December 2015 13: 08
              0
              And that is why the "anti-aircraft" Lun was part of the Caspian Flotilla? Do you believe yourself?
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 6 December 2015 14: 01
                0
                And why would he need to sink such missiles there?
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 6 December 2015 14: 10
                  0
                  Most interesting request
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 6 December 2015 14: 20
                    0
                    Take a clue from the hall lol
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 6 December 2015 14: 40
                      0
                      In addition to low seaworthiness, I have no versions.
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 6 December 2015 15: 19
                        0
                        Then take the clue from the hall.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 6 December 2015 12: 42
      -1
      Quote: Foxbed
      And if you still make a carrier ship under them

      Which will cost like all US aircraft carriers combined.
    3. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 December 2015 12: 46
      0
      Where are they? Oh, no ... like the SLE. But keep the diesel aircraft carrier alone, which in addition is constantly being overhauled. Without AWACS planes, but with missiles and a conference room, and from that the Su-33 "scientifically grounded" is removed, changing to the "short" MiG-29 ...
    4. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 December 2015 18: 41
      0
      The ekranoplan the past, the ekranoplast the future.
      1. Secta haki
        Secta haki 7 December 2015 02: 19
        0
        Wing is an ekranoplan with a motor? wassat
  21. fa2998
    fa2998 6 December 2015 12: 42
    +1
    Quote: Igor39
    Yes, at least one aircraft carrier per fleet, large as "Storm"

    Of course, most of the members of the VO site are rooting for the country's defense, but let's conduct such conversations when we get rich. Let's even exclude 2 "closed" fleets - 2 Northern and Pacific ones remain. In order to have a stable grouping, you need at least 2 aircraft carriers. Now pr.10 -12 billion $ х4 = 48 billion. Based on the level of corruption and a stable rise in prices for government orders while they are being fulfilled (remember the Olympic facilities), approx. 50 billion $ minimum. If our budget is cut, not to the aircraft carriers. hi
  22. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 12: 48
    +4
    so I gooory about the modernization of Kuznetsov. he will pass channels without any problems.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. Foxbed
    Foxbed 6 December 2015 13: 04
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    Which will cost like all US aircraft carriers combined.

    Uh ... Not really. hi They do not need steam catapults or jumps under them. They need a delivery / unloading vehicle, a shelter where you can wait out the storm + to refuel, maintenance and replenishment of ammunition. yes
    The beauty of ekranoplanes is that they are almost invisible to radars. The most dangerous enemy is that which cannot be detected. Imagine a missile (6 anti-ship missiles) boat that rushes at a speed of 500 km / h to a range of 2000 km and which the radar almost does not see ... hi
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 6 December 2015 14: 00
      0
      Remember the sizes of these ekranoplans. The media for them will become prohibitive in size and complexity. And very visible and vulnerable. And all the secrecy of your ekranoplanes will fly to hell.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 6 December 2015 14: 18
        0
        he is his own carrier
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 6 December 2015 15: 28
      0
      Quote: Foxbed
      Under them are not needed not steam catapults, not jumps

      With such dimensions, the carrier itself will have to be made three times longer and wider than an aircraft carrier. It is difficult to imagine how much this will be in terms of displacement.
  30. Lord of Wrath
    Lord of Wrath 6 December 2015 13: 06
    +1
    Your reasoning is strange ... prestige for the country ... money ... etc.
    American films have driven all this into the head. Well, those came from Britain (The rule of Britain, the rule of the seas)
    And before investing trillions in another project, it’s easier to try it easier ... and see - DO WE NEED IT? For example, lay a container ship on deck and place 20 aircraft instead of 100. Which by the way was repeatedly done in the 2-th world.
    And remember the pragmatic Germans who could, but did not do aircraft carriers. With the explanation that the pilots are not accustomed, there is no operational experience, and the necessary combat missions can be solved by other means
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 6 December 2015 14: 06
      0
      Just compare the planes of the second world and modern. Now the fighter weighs as much as the then strategic bombardment. And carries the same amount of weapons. World War II planes generally took off without catapults, free dispersal. And for modern airplanes which runways are needed. So do not bear the old experience in our time. It's not gonna go. But the Germans built aircraft carriers, and many more projects were concocted, because they were well aware of their significance. And to build a strong one was simply not enough.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 6 December 2015 15: 34
      -1
      Quote: Lord of Wrath
      Your reasoning is strange ... prestige for the country ...
      For some reason, all the guardians of the public good always do not like when the country begins foreign policy successes and rejoice in its failures.
      Quote: Lord of Wrath
      For example, lay a container ship on a deck and place 20 aircraft instead of 100
      And how will they take off, how to service them, where to push communication systems, etc.?
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 7 December 2015 04: 22
        0
        Into containers, or between them ... It’s time to realize that it’s hard not to fly from / to an ultra-short runway, but to land. Unless it’s SEC, which doesn’t even need an arrestor.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 7 December 2015 11: 18
          0
          England and the USSR have tried this. Nothing better than the Harrier and the Yak-38 did not fit.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 7 December 2015 23: 46
            0
            Forget about the Yak-141, but about the Yak-43 for the same fundamental reasons do not know anything?

            The classic Argentine aircraft carrier was smaller than the Invincible.
  31. Denimax
    Denimax 6 December 2015 13: 50
    0
    Much has been said here about aircraft carriers and armadillos. Maybe you should talk about really needed ships at the moment? For example, build a mosquito fleet of 100 units or more. With the most modern weapons and the ability to transfer along rivers, canals or railways to any war zone.
  32. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 13: 59
    +5
    mosquito fleet. exclusively defensive and meaningless in large long-range operations. he also has weapons restrictions. And the river fleet is also very necessary for the reasons that you indicated. and I want to say about mig29k / cu instead of su 33. well, then you are in vain. pure fighter for the defense of the ship, instant multifn. works on air, land and surface.
    1. Denimax
      Denimax 6 December 2015 14: 13
      0
      In terms of the number of BC, it is of course limited, therefore 100 units. Of course he is defensive, long-distance operations can be left for strategists, there are enough of them.)
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 December 2015 14: 15
      0
      It depends only on avionics. Su is a much better aircraft, and if possible its modernization.
  33. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 14: 06
    +4
    Lesha Kazokov looked at your link and what? almost the same as I said.
  34. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 14: 20
    +4
    Forgive me for a small clarification. Strategists are aircraft (to be honest, I would like more). but we are talking about ships. strategists solve their tasks. heavy aviation cruise. for which I worry about mine.
  35. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 14: 21
    +4
    Forgive me for a small clarification. Strategists are aircraft (to be honest, I would like more). but we are talking about ships. strategists solve their tasks. heavy aviation cruise. for which I worry about mine.
  36. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 14: 27
    +4
    sou harder than an instant. olin from crucial arguments for sailors.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 December 2015 14: 37
      0
      Su is much better than an airplane, with such a displacement, the difference in weight does not play any role
  37. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 14: 44
    +4
    Well this is a big moot point. just look tth. su heavy class fighter. ask the sailors whether it matters or not.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 December 2015 14: 56
      0
      look ask ...

      still compare the aerobatics of this heavy, which is faster than light
  38. fa2998
    fa2998 6 December 2015 14: 50
    0
    Quote: sa-ag
    You can also arrange a competition who will steal the least :-)

    There is an idea! It is necessary, as under Peter 1, to arrange "kumpanstva"! Everyone, officials, deputies, etc. will build aircraft carriers. Oilmen and bankers will build cruisers. Customs and traffic police and a smaller bipod will build destroyers. Separately there will be kumpanstva-chief doctors, rectors, directors of housing and communal services and others - on corvettes. And follow the timing and quality! laughing lol hi
  39. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 15: 06
    +4
    about aerobatics here you went too far. how much has already been said, it is written about these lions of excellent aircraft which are better_ about excellent, small differences. Su 33 created as a pure marine fighter. instant 29k / cube as multifunt. marine fighter.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 December 2015 15: 12
      0
      Have you seen this aerobatics at all? Compared? The avionics providing the "multifunctionality" of the MiG-29 will fit into the Su-33 even more so.
  40. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 6 December 2015 15: 14
    0
    We still have frigates before the aircraft carrier, but we need to make and maintain corvettes. As well as diesel and nuclear submarines. Partially the aircraft carrier will be replaced by "calibers" on all these ships. And only then take up the aircraft carrier, but this does not mean that R&D on technologies is not needed for them.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 6 December 2015 15: 16
      -1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      We are to the aircraft carrier more frigates, but corvettes must be made and maintained.

      Aren't they now? Is everyone swimming on pies? winked lol Found the fools ...
  41. newcomer
    newcomer 6 December 2015 15: 23
    +4
    first, for some reason, no one is in a hurry to put the wiring on the sou. secondly, all these technical projects offer in kb. Well, thirdly I saw aerobatics and dryers and twinks. why didn’t you like aerobatics for a moment? Once again (as I do not like to say the same thing), it’s harder, it’s pure istr. and it will be on ships along with the twinks. created for different purposes. and while both projects are almost the same age, the moment, unlike su, was constantly modernized. and your wishes about sous I also share somewhere. and the last moment is smaller and lighter this is one of the decisive factors for the navy.
  42. Wolka
    Wolka 6 December 2015 17: 57
    -1
    given our territorial extent and the capabilities of military aviation, we simply do not need them, but hidden underground airfields and storage bases with a developed underground communications network in the main directions, yes ...
  43. wicked pinnochio
    wicked pinnochio 6 December 2015 18: 08
    -2
    you can submarine that would be drowned by ameri aircraft carriers enough money for them
    1. wicked pinnochio
      wicked pinnochio 7 December 2015 16: 38
      -1
      let's lovers of america still minus
  44. Bjorn
    Bjorn 6 December 2015 19: 07
    0
    Well yes...
    At the time of the Union, they fed all of Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. They rebuilt their national republics for Russian money. They created the most powerful army in the world. And there was nothing money. And now there is no money.
    I live in a large railway station and have been seeing this endless stream of tanks towards the ports for more than twenty years. Now the truth has become less, apparently Ust-Luga has earned. And in the opposite direction going beyond the horizon in your direction, an endless stream of scows with brand new Mars. Eight pieces each. New-generation Gelentvageny, Eski and Eshki and Tseshki ... I have long had the feeling that every Russian rides on Mers.
    But of course there is no money for an aircraft carrier.
  45. classik46
    classik46 6 December 2015 19: 42
    0
    The Americans are very resisting and painfully reacting to the fact that the Navy of other countries is being updated. To prevent this, they are arranging conflicts for which the resources of competitors are wasted. One country controls all the oceans, trade routes, for the first time in history. Even the WB did not have this.
  46. runway
    runway 6 December 2015 19: 49
    +1
    There is no story sadder in the world than the story, there is not about Romeo and Juliet, but about the Russian aircraft carrier ....
    By chess standards, an aircraft carrier is a queen. Have you played chess without a queen? The fleet today cannot fulfill the entire range of tasks assigned to it. He is forced to snuggle stern to his bank. Our leaders have clearly placed our fleet in unequal conditions with our "partners".
    "Yes, we are their missiles, yes we are them ....". Dear, you do not have to live during the Second World War, when there was still an opportunity to break through the air defense of the AUG combat guard. Today this probability is approaching zero. We can only hope that someone will set fire to a bucket of kerosene in the cellars of an aircraft carrier ... And tomorrow they will be completely different aircraft carriers, but they will be, because no one besides them will solve the tasks assigned to them. Therefore, our "partners" have built, are building and will build aircraft carriers, no matter how much they cost.
    Now that let's first learn how to build corvettes and frigates, and only then ....
    Then it may not come. Today, I simply doubt that Russia is capable of building the most advanced aircraft carrier itself. Will we ask the Chinese to build at least one aircraft carrier for us? When the chief says, the government will be ready to pay any money at the expense of the people.
    There is no sadder story in the world ....
  47. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 6 December 2015 21: 04
    0
    Respect only the strong.
    Of course you need to build. Science and production will develop.
    As long as there are buyers of oil and gas, pull.
  48. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 6 December 2015 21: 49
    +1
    God forbid to drag Russia into a senseless waste of resources on aircraft carriers ... USSR policy in this matter PERFECTLY corresponded to goals and costs ... Proof of the correctness of the decisions adopted in the USSR on this issue was a PARITY of forces at sea ... It is necessary to build submarines, arm their anti-ship systems and do not fool yourself with aircraft carriers.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 7 December 2015 11: 24
      +2
      That is why the USSR came to the construction of aircraft carriers? Without them, you can’t even deploy your submarines in combat positions.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 7 December 2015 23: 50
        0
        Civilian ships were converted into aircraft carriers and in WWII and WWII in 1982, but they could not be converted into submarines. recourse
    2. ametist415
      ametist415 8 February 2016 20: 53
      0
      The experience of the Second World War showed that under the domination of alien aircraft, submarines are almost useless. If you are on a submarine at sea, then you need air cover, which means an atomic carrier (with catapults), which will always cover you and provide goal-setting, and you protect it with your ships and submarines. So the United States. These are elementary things.
  49. Killj
    Killj 7 December 2015 01: 03
    0
    Well, how to protect the prestige of the country and of course, as a real combat force, this is needed from 10 or more groups worth 1 trillion dollars along with support ships and aircraft ... do they have a budget?
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 7 December 2015 04: 39
      +1
      Why 10 at once? Enough 1-2 more, and not necessarily "two-horned monsters" the size of Nimitz

      And the money for the Mistral was in the budget?

      And was it really necessary to sell Gorshkov to the Indians? winked
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 7 December 2015 12: 14
        0
        Unfortunately, even Soviet calculations showed that the most effective is AB, which is close in size to Nimitz. Downsizing leads to a disproportionate decrease in combat effectiveness.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 7 December 2015 23: 19
          0
          The same calculations "scientifically substantiated" something else. For example, the absence of a sloping children's deck at Project 1123, a non-aircraft tank at 1143, two bow towers at 1155, a main caliber tower at the Dolphin KMPV lol

          The length of the aircraft carrier must be at least the distance of the aircraft landing in the emergency barrier, which is already determined by its landing speed. Thus, the total length of the aircraft carrier in size of the current corner deck of the same niece or Kuznetsov is more than sufficient ...

          Exceeding this size leads to the fact that too large an aircraft wing of the ship will be destroyed or damaged at once all, along with it.
  50. Engineer
    Engineer 7 December 2015 08: 42
    +1
    Quote: mirag2
    Sorry, what’s the big deal? Now our economy is in decline, whoever says anything (especially Ulyukaev), but it is.


    And without a powerful army, we won’t have it at all, but a foreign economy. The events of the past year show that we have no allies, and even the countries traditionally close to us are hypocritical in their intentions. Therefore, the Army and Navy are our allies. Yes, and VKS) Think about it.