Military Review

USC: The ability to build an aircraft carrier from Russia will appear in 3,

101
The shipbuilding industry will be able to build aircraft carriers after the modernization of shipyards in St. Petersburg, which should be completed by 2019 g, reports RIA News the message of the head of United Shipbuilding Corporation JSC, Alexey Rakhmanov.




Earlier it was reported that the management of USC is considering the possibility of building a domestic aircraft carrier at the Severnaya Verf in St. Petersburg.

“If we talk about technological capabilities, then upon completion of the modernization work, then rather by the beginning of 2019, we will have everything to produce a large-capacity vessel, whether it be a civilian or a military vessel, including an aircraft carrier,” said Rakhmanov.

He noted that “USC has all the necessary competencies to start the production of helicopter-carrying ships” like the Mistral.

Now the Russian Navy has only one aircraft carrying cruiser, the Admiral Kuznetsov. The agency notes that in the state armament program before 2020 g, there is no paragraph on the construction of a new aircraft carrier.
Photos used:
http://www.nordsy.spb.ru/
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 28 December 2015 09: 40
    28
    USC: The ability to build an aircraft carrier from Russia will appear in 3,
    in the state armament program until 2020, there is no clause on the construction of a new aircraft carrier.

    There is an opportunity, but no desire. But is he even needed, this aircraft carrier? Destroyers and frigates of the ocean zone are more relevant and much cheaper. Plus various types of submarines, of course.
    1. Diana Ilyina
      Diana Ilyina 28 December 2015 09: 42
      +8
      What do you mean?! Or just stake out a place ?!

      P.S. Dear Ami du peuple, please write and staked out a place for a comment, otherwise it is not clear, first just a quote from the text, then "There is an opportunity, but there is no desire" and only then "There is a possibility, but there is no desire. Is it even needed, this aircraft carrier? The destroyers and frigates of the ocean zone are cheaper and more relevant. And different types of submarines, of course."

      1. oldseaman1957
        oldseaman1957 28 December 2015 09: 50
        0
        Quote: Diana Ilyina
        Or just stake out a place ?!

        - Already!
        1. Armored optimist
          Armored optimist 28 December 2015 10: 02
          30
          Even too lazy to write on this topic. Hundreds of times discussed. Three letters are not needed. This is not our weapon, there are no tasks for it, and we will not be able to use AUG far from our shores, cut off supplies and starve to death with kerosene bomb. For coastal defense, it is better to use coastal air defense air defense systems and air defense missile systems, which can be done quite a lot on the cost of air defense. And to destroy ICBMs and hypersonic missiles. All American AUGs in a nuclear war will live no more than 35 minutes from its start.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. a.hamster55
            a.hamster55 28 December 2015 10: 42
            +2
            A big target however - and where will this group be plowed? Are there really corners on the Sharik where our valiant Strategic Rocket Forces and an example of the same Caliber will not reach?
            1. Homo
              Homo 28 December 2015 11: 12
              +1
              Quote: a.hamster55
              A big target however - and where will this group be plowed? Are there really corners on the Sharik where our valiant Strategic Rocket Forces and an example of the same Caliber will not reach?

              Are there any smarter thoughts? In a "big war" (the likelihood of which is low) it is a target, but with a trifle (local wars such as Georgia, Syria, the Baltic states, etc.), it is just right to fight. And the Strategic Missile Forces are not to shoot a trifle! am
          3. sa-ag
            sa-ag 28 December 2015 11: 01
            +3
            Quote: armored optimist
            This is not our weapon, there are no tasks for it

            no, but the air cover of the naval group?
            1. Armored optimist
              Armored optimist 28 December 2015 12: 40
              0
              Not he will cover, but him. And as a former ZRVshnik, I argue that the air defense systems and AWACS helicopters will solve the tasks of covering from enemy aircraft much more efficiently and more reliably. And you can smash this weapon into different ships, which will increase overall survivability. And an aircraft carrier with even non-critical injuries will withdraw the entire air group from battle and the AUG will become undisguised.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 28 December 2015 13: 39
                +4
                Quote: armored optimist
                Not he will cover, but him. And as a former ZRVshnik, I argue that the air defense systems and AWACS helicopters will solve the tasks of covering from enemy aircraft much more efficiently and more reliably

                And which air defense systems will be able to cover the anti-submarine group operating in the sea, which carries out long-range missile defense of the SSBN deployment areas?
                What SAMs will be able to provide the line of interception of 200-300 miles from the carrier, including MV and PMV?
                And what will be the displacement of the carrier vehicle of the air defense missile system DD and helicopters of the AWACS (in an amount sufficient for round-the-clock patrolling)?
                How will the ZSCU for missiles be implemented?

                And wouldn’t it be easier not to invent Goldberg's car, but to build a normal AB - carrier of heavy fighter aircraft and AWACS?

                Once we were already running on the rake of "air defense of the naval formation exclusively on the basis of the air defense missile system". It all ended with the fact that the Navy, by hook or by crook, pierced the Erazz-aircraft carrier through Ustinov - otherwise the combat stability of the KPUG could not be ensured.
            2. NEXUS
              NEXUS 28 December 2015 13: 51
              +2
              Quote: sa-ag
              no, but the air cover of the naval group?

              The question is certainly correct, but ... to build aircraft carriers, you need to build escort ships (destroyers, frigates, ARKs and TARKs) for them. Question: How old is the flagship of TF Peter the Great and the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet of the RK Moscow? And remember, the last time destroyers were built at shipyards ... our fleets are getting old, and new ships of the first or second rank are needed to cover the same aircraft carrier.
              And in order to seriously discuss the construction of an aircraft carrier, first you need to sufficiently update the fleet of destroyers that would meet all the requirements of today's and tomorrow’s military threats, as well as build a replacement for the Eagles and Atlantes, and quickly.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 28 December 2015 14: 00
                +1
                Quote: NEXUS
                The question is certainly correct, but ... in order to build aircraft carriers, you need to build escort ships (destroyers, frigates, ARKs and TARKs) for them.

                And they will have to be built in any way - to ensure the PLO and air defense of the deployment areas of the SSBN. And then just give the existing ship groups AB to provide air defense groups. smile
                By the way, TARKR and RKR in the presence of AB are not needed. So by the end of construction, AB will need to have FR and EM.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 28 December 2015 14: 16
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  And they will have to be built in any way - to ensure the PLO and air defense of the deployment areas of the SSBN. And then just give the existing ship groups AB to provide air defense groups.

                  It certainly is necessary, who argues that ... but answer me, when the last ship of the first rank in the Russian Federation was launched?
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 28 December 2015 15: 01
                    0
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    It certainly is necessary, who argues that ... but answer me, when the last ship of the first rank in the Russian Federation was launched?

                    12.12.2014 - “Admiral of the Fleet Kasatonov”.
                    EMNIP, Masorin announced that pr. 22350 belongs to rank 1. smile
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 28 December 2015 15: 03
                      +1
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      12.12.2014 - “Admiral of the Fleet Kasatonov”.
                      EMNIP, Masorin announced that pr. 22350 belongs to rank 1.

                      Is this why frigate became a first-class ship then? Or will we now classify small ships of the sea zone as ships of the ocean zone, such as TARKs, ARKs and destroyers?
                      1. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 28 December 2015 17: 23
                        0
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        This is why fright frigate became a ship of the first rank then?

                        By the pike command, by the commander in chief desire - become TFR ships of the first rank! smile

                        However, this practice is not new - it is enough to recall how Project 58 moved from destroyers to cruisers. Or how the Yankees performed the same trick with their ears with tics. smile
                      2. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 28 December 2015 17: 31
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        By the pike command, by the commander in chief desire - become TFR ships of the first rank!

                        However, this practice is not new - it is enough to recall how Project 58 moved from destroyers to cruisers. Or how the Yankees performed the same trick with their ears with tics.

                        Well, with a fool and a boat can be considered aircraft carriers ... laughing
        2. brisk
          brisk 28 December 2015 18: 00
          +2
          Quote: armored optimist
          All American AUGs in a nuclear war will live no more than 35 minutes from its start.


          Why do they always talk about nuclear war? War may not be nuclear. What, except for spooling missiles with nuclear fillings, can the Navy have no other tasks? If the Navy is sent where, is it only to fire a nuclear weapon with an RGM at the enemy? Or maybe it would be more useful to bomb from an aircraft carrier? There is no question that Russia should be equal to the United States on aircraft carriers. And about the greater balance of the fleet. The aircraft carrier has a lot of useful tasks for the state. And militarily and in others. For such a power as Russia, it is completely within its power to create 20 AUGs in 25 - 6 years. And more and really do not. Not so much. The United States and now AUG are 2 times more, and in the past years it was all 20. But the Navy will be more balanced. AUG construction does not provide for a complete cessation of submarine production? The other day, they believed here that it would cost about $ 15 billion for 1 AUG. 6 * 15 = 90 billion dollars. With all the accompanying escorts ---- destroyers and others. This is only 4 billion dollars a year. Russia is quite capable. The sea line is decent. This is not Sweden. 4 AUG in the Pacific and 2 in the North. Just right.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 28 December 2015 18: 15
            +1
            Quote: svelto
            With all accompanying escorts ---- destroyers, etc.

            You think it’s good ... Do you recall how to build the Vostochny Cosmodrome? For the construction of 6 aircraft carriers, which are built on average with amers (who, as they say, know what they are building), it takes from 6 to 8 years ... for us to build fully equipped AUGs, firstly shipyards and more than one are needed ... secondly, normal financing is needed. Thirdly, we need to build new destroyers now, as well as develop a new deck, and not always upgrade Union-built cars. And at the same time, we need new submarines (starting from the project and ending with launching in good series), we need new AWACS and so on ... and there are also programs for creating PAK DA, PAK FA, PAK DP, PAK TA, LFI, as well as the ICBM project Sarmat, Vanguard and more more ... and there is also a space program, a social program, health and educational programs that also need money ...
            And as with mattresses, we do not have a printing press.
      2. USSR 1971
        USSR 1971 28 December 2015 10: 26
        14
        "Build" - maybe in three years, but we can heat it now.

        In general, the best aircraft carrier in Russia is the Crimea. Thanks protoukram that dug the sea around him.
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 28 December 2015 10: 35
          +1
          Quote: USSR 1971
          "Build" - maybe in three years,

          Don't build, but start building! The paratrooper "Ivan Gren" has been under construction for 10 years, for example.
        2. Mairos
          Mairos 28 December 2015 10: 46
          +3
          Another one is Sakhalin, another one is the Kaliningrad region. Well, a bunch of islands in the "north". And all, mind you, unsinkable.
        3. lukke
          lukke 28 December 2015 10: 50
          0
          In general, the best aircraft carrier in Russia is Crimea
          I agree, but such aircraft carriers, unfortunately, not on all seas)
          We need a similar one in the Pacific, in the Caribbean, and in the Mediterranean (not Syria as a base, but ours! Can buy some Greek island or Northern Cyprus to squeeze one punishment out of punishment ?!), of course. I, on the whole, do not yet see the need for an aircraft-carrying fleet for Russia, if only for the sake of developing scientific thought and working out the concept as such in the fleet (but that would be if we were a very rich state with an aafigenny military budget)
          1. OMEDB
            OMEDB 28 December 2015 11: 23
            +2
            Then we need Cuba, AUG in one bottle)))
          2. ssergn
            ssergn 28 December 2015 15: 17
            0
            Quote: lukke
            The Caribbean


            Cuba

            Quote: lukke
            Pacific basin


            Well, let's say Argentina, the same Kuril Islands.

            Quote: lukke
            Mediterranean (not in Syria as a base, but mine!


            Well, our sworn friends do not disdain to scatter the base around the world.

            Quote: lukke
            I don’t see the need for an aircraft carrier fleet for Russia


            But I don’t see such a need for the United States, given the huge number of bases in all parts of the world.
            hi
        4. The comment was deleted.
        5. asiat_61
          asiat_61 28 December 2015 12: 30
          0
          Well, why only Crimea? There is still Sakhalin, even very nothing.
    2. Now we are free
      Now we are free 28 December 2015 10: 13
      +4
      He noted that “USC has all the necessary competencies to start the production of helicopter-carrying ships” like the Mistral.
      Well, 200 kg of technical documentation, which the French handed over to the Russian side even before the cancellation of the delivery of Mistrals for SKD, I think they will be in demand, for which thanks to the French laughing laughing laughing wink

      P.S. By the way, if we are talking about 2019, then maybe you are in no hurry with the place of the laying of the future aircraft carrier? The Northern shipyard is of course good, BUT the same "Kuznetsov" was made at the Nikolaev shipyard ... Yes, the aircraft carrier "Peter 1" is the brainchild of the Baltic shipyard, but if we are talking about an aircraft-carrying ship, as far as my memory serves, they were always built in Nikolaev ... "Geroslava" is on fire and most likely in 2016 we will witness the culmination of the play "E ... the toad to the viper" in the power of the Ruins, after which, in order to avoid "New Chernobyls", the territory of the former Ukraine will be occupied by the troops of the Russian Federation and "Western Partners". Nikolaev as well as Kherson and Odessa will go to the Russian Federation / under the protectorate of the Russian Federation / Novorossia, and in this case, if Svidomosifilis does not destroy absolutely everything related to shipbuilding until that moment, perhaps a new aircraft carrier should be laid on the stocks of Nikolaev.
      1. veksha50
        veksha50 28 December 2015 10: 54
        0
        Quote: Now we are free
        the territory of the former Ukraine will be occupied by the troops of the Russian Federation and the "Western Partners". Nikolaev as well as Kherson and Odessa will go to the RF / under the protectorate of the RF



        Hm ... Already agreed with the "partners" ??? Promptly ...

        PS But actually, well, in FIG, such strategic plans are announced aloud ... We need to wait until the apple itself falls ... into the hands ...
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 28 December 2015 11: 50
        +3
        Quote: Now we are free
        perhaps a new aircraft carrier should be laid precisely on the stocks of Nikolaev.

        On what stocks? "Building berth 0" has long been a stuffed animal, a model of its former greatness. At those shipyards that were built by the USSR AV, they cook in the independent potbelly stoves.

        Or do you propose again to invest a lot of money and labor in raising the industry of Ukraine, so that it has something to once again separate? wink
    3. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 28 December 2015 10: 31
      +4
      Quote: Diana Ilyina
      What do you mean?! Or just stake out a place ?!

      Dear Diana, forgive me generously for not letting you leave a comment first. You, it should be noted, an extraordinary reaction - the response time was a little more than a minute.
      1. Pereira
        Pereira 28 December 2015 10: 35
        +3
        This is a shame. A little bit was not enough.
      2. Diana Ilyina
        Diana Ilyina 28 December 2015 10: 43
        +7
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        Dear Diana, forgive me generously for not letting you leave a comment first. You, it should be noted, an extraordinary reaction - the response time was a little more than a minute.


        I do not claim to be superior! It was just interesting to watch the commentary birth!
    4. nrex
      nrex 28 December 2015 10: 45
      -3
      I would write in plain text, I want another star on the chase, and all the arguments about patriotism do not care for me)))
      1. Diana Ilyina
        Diana Ilyina 28 December 2015 11: 05
        11
        Quote: nrex
        I would write in plain text, I want another star on the chase, and all the arguments about patriotism do not care for me)))


        If I needed "stars on shoulder straps", I would not write such comments! Patriotism I do not "do not care", but the shoulder straps just "do not care"!

        P.S. This is for you peasants, as small children, all the shoulder straps are needed, I'm not here for the sake of "titles"!
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 28 December 2015 11: 18
          +2
          Quote: Diana Ilyina
          P.S. This is for you peasants, as small children, all the shoulder straps are needed, I'm not here for the sake of "titles"!

          Personally for you, Dianochka, I suggest that the site administration establish some special rahons with straziks. Do not be offended, this is a good joke.
          1. Diana Ilyina
            Diana Ilyina 28 December 2015 11: 42
            +9
            Do not be offended! But I’m somehow indifferent to strassiks, you know by the saying: not everything is gold that glitters!
  2. oldseaman1957
    oldseaman1957 28 December 2015 09: 44
    +5
    The opportunity will appear, the most important thing is that there is a need. The money is huge, and with new small high-precision cruise missiles, can it be more profitable to build a large "mosquito" fleet?
    1. Igor39
      Igor39 28 December 2015 09: 51
      +7
      .... An opportunity to build in three years ...

      For some reason this reminded me smile


      In the sky clouds are running,
      Rainy dusk is compressed
      under the old cart
      workers are lying.

      And the proud whisper hears
      water both above and below:
      "In four years
      there will be a garden city! "

      Dark leaden,
      and the rain is thick as a tourniquet
      workers are sitting in the mud
      they sit, they plait a splinter.

      Slim lips from the cold,
      but lips whisper in harmony:
      "In four years
      there will be a garden city! "

      Bringing dampness upset -
      unimportant wet coziness
      the workers are sitting in the dark
      drenched bread is chewed.

      But whispers are louder than hunger -
      he drops drops falling:
      "In four years
      there will be a garden city!

      Here the explosions cry
      To disperse the bear gangs
      And mine will subsoil mine
      coangular "Giant".

      Here the construction sites will stand up.
      Beeps, steam, sipy.
      We are a hundred suns martin
      Flammable Siberia.

      Here they will give us a good house
      and sieve without soldering,
      Already cast off Baikal
      The taiga will move back. "

      The whisper of the worker grew
      Above the darkness of fat herds
      and then inaudible,
      only audibly - "garden city".

      I know the city will be
      I know the garden is blooming
      when such people
      in the country in the Soviet Union is!


      1929 Vladimir Mayakovsky
      1. nrex
        nrex 28 December 2015 10: 47
        +4
        By the way, this is about Novokuznetsk. But the city was built!
    2. GRAY
      GRAY 28 December 2015 09: 53
      +2
      Quote: oldseaman1957
      The opportunity will appear, the most important thing is that there is a need.

      GDP said that there is no need for military bases abroad, they say, and so we all get. I think that with regard to the aircraft carrier, at least in the near future, the same opinion will be.
    3. Igor39
      Igor39 28 December 2015 10: 02
      +7
      I'm just sure that if you shake the officials and managers with their "Golden Parachutes" properly. Money can be easily found for a couple of aircraft carriers.
  3. The black
    The black 28 December 2015 09: 48
    +2
    In general, I agree, although 1-2 may not hurt (but in the future, not now)
    1. tolian
      tolian 28 December 2015 10: 12
      0
      In the future, military aviation will disappear. In the usual sense for us now.
      1. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 28 December 2015 11: 45
        0
        Quote: tolian
        In the future, military aviation will disappear. In the usual sense for us now.

        Are you hinting at drones? But unmanned can be ships and tanks ... and ... missiles. And we, in due time, already passed it.
        Summary: A certain balance of forces, desires and opportunities should be ensured.
    2. NIKNN
      NIKNN 28 December 2015 20: 42
      +2
      Quote: Black
      In general, I agree, although 1-2 may not hurt (but in the future, not now)

      At least 3 in one theater. request
  4. little girl15
    little girl15 28 December 2015 09: 48
    0
    There is a desire. The main thing is that there are opportunities. As Peter 1 said, our thoughts are great!
  5. tolian
    tolian 28 December 2015 10: 09
    0
    Exactly. It is not needed, especially in the construction of the Caliber-class cruise missile corvettes.
  6. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 28 December 2015 10: 19
    0
    If there is an opportunity, it is necessary to build !!!
  7. vodolaz
    vodolaz 28 December 2015 10: 27
    0
    The possibility of building is good, but we do not need aircraft carriers, as a phenomenon and how the Americans use them with their bunch of military bases around the world and against a obviously weaker enemy, so as not to bombard the Lyuley.
  8. veksha50
    veksha50 28 December 2015 10: 49
    +2
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    There is an opportunity, but no desire.



    Just that week there was information about a powerful, huge dock laid, through which it will be possible to build large-tonnage ships ... And now the same news has been beaten from the other side ...

    Key phrase: "opportunity to build "... It still does not oblige anyone to anything, but says that the shipyard's possibilities in construction will expand ...

    PS So this is good ...
  9. seti
    seti 28 December 2015 10: 51
    +1
    I wrote an article on this topic on the forum in Opinions. For anyone interested, read it.
  10. Atrix
    Atrix 28 December 2015 10: 59
    0
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    There is an opportunity, but no desire. But is he even needed, this aircraft carrier?

    Admirals have an understanding, I think, that they need an aircraft carrier in combination with escort ships, and Russia does not yet have these ships. Therefore, they are not particularly in a hurry to build it, before the construction of the ships of the ocean zone.
  • Uran
    Uran 28 December 2015 09: 41
    -7
    America, if I’m not mistaken, has several of them. 10 pieces. and we have only one! this is not fair! need to build
    1. The black
      The black 28 December 2015 09: 42
      +4
      Maybe 1-2 aircraft carriers are needed to demonstrate the flag (but not in the future). Russia is a continental country. There will be no battles with the US Navy in the ocean. Overseas landing operations - too. In order not to let the American aircraft carriers to our shores, basic aviation and coastal missile systems are enough.
    2. kostyan77708
      kostyan77708 28 December 2015 09: 56
      +8
      But the meaning is measured ... with amers? A very costly event to build aircraft carriers! Russian engineering idea - To answer the adversary is much cheaper and more efficient! With the development of rocket science, navigation technologies, etc., aircraft carriers will soon become huge targets that can be sunk by several anti-ship or ballistic missiles from a fairly long distance, progress does not stop. ... this is purely my opinion
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 28 December 2015 10: 13
        +2
        Quote: kostyan77708
        But the meaning is measured ... with amers?
        Are we going to "face off"? They have more destroyers with frigates, and nuclear submarines, if they want, will build many times more than we do, the point is, after all, it is not a matter of butting in numbers, the fleet must perform all tasks at sea, and this also requires carrier-based aircraft. The fleet is always in business, and it does not to a small extent depend on this business whether it comes to a major war, or whether the hotbeds can be extinguished in time, stopped, prevented by a show of force. Come to a big war, so the prelaunch state is no less important, and the role of the surface fleet and aircraft carriers in particular is just as important in it. If we rest against popular logic, then we can generally reason, why do we need ground troops, tanks, airplanes, when there are nuclear missiles, body armor will not save from a nuclear explosion ...
    3. tolian
      tolian 28 December 2015 10: 14
      +2
      Uranus, there are millions of buggers in the USA, but do we need this?
    4. vodolaz
      vodolaz 28 December 2015 10: 29
      +1
      Quote: Uranus
      America, if I’m not mistaken, has several of them. 10 pieces. and we have only one! this is not fair! need to build

      What for? Was Schaub? Weapons are created for specific combat missions and tactics of its use, but not the other way around.
  • prabiz
    prabiz 28 December 2015 09: 41
    0
    Somehow not very good ......
  • Diana Ilyina
    Diana Ilyina 28 December 2015 09: 41
    13
    I am glad that the modernization and rearmament is in full swing! One way or another, the defense industry will not let the economy completely fall! It only bothers that the nanotolik has VERY MUCH MONEY! I would like the Audit Chamber and the Investigative Committee to understand this issue!
  • Jozhkin Cat
    Jozhkin Cat 28 December 2015 09: 46
    +2
    they do not need us nafig these aircraft carriers.
    It’s better to learn how to master them, without a pale, to drown repeat just in case request
    1. Mairos
      Mairos 28 December 2015 10: 39
      0
      I agree. For the price, it will cost as much as 4-5 new Leader-class destroyers stuffed with missiles of all types. Or are we also going to engage in "power projection" away from our shores? If we are going, then yes, then we will have to build, and regardless of desire.
    2. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 28 December 2015 11: 09
      +5
      This is not the only point.

      It’s too early for us to build — we are building frigates with corvettes with incredible difficulty, we have the most basic things for any fleet — there are no new minesweepers, there are no new anti-submarine ships, there are 4 miracles of the 20380 project on the BF, and that's all for now ...

      There are practically no new frigates, now they will hand over 4 to which there are power plants, and there will already be a pause, at least on 22350 for sure, in particular, Golovko is already frozen at the moment ..

      There are such suspicions that turbines with gearboxes from the good old 11356's will be put on the 1135, from the last such one in Baltiysk they were just dismantled recently and taken away in an unknown direction. We must rely on repairs so that we can put it on the 4 building .. .

      There are few auxiliary ships and new supply ships, but they are being built, and for the most part there are no such severe problems as with corvettes and frigates in terms of the power plant.

      We need to bring the shipbuilding industry to a start, and we need to start with small ships, and not immediately climb onto the mastodons, who now can only build in the USA.
      1. Evgeniy667b
        Evgeniy667b 28 December 2015 12: 05
        +2
        Anton, with both hands I will sign up for minesweepers, PLOs and other ships that are very necessary now, and also so that all submarines go exclusively to the Russian fleet. It’s not up to the aircraft carriers that is right for us now. Industry must be restored, and then something must be said.
        1. Anton Gavrilov
          Anton Gavrilov 28 December 2015 14: 13
          0
          That's just the leadership of the country, the navy and industry campaign does not subscribe to this ...
      2. Evgeniy667b
        Evgeniy667b 28 December 2015 12: 05
        0
        Anton, with both hands I will sign up for minesweepers, PLOs and other ships that are very necessary now, and also so that all submarines go exclusively to the Russian fleet. It’s not up to the aircraft carriers that is right for us now. Industry must be restored, and then something must be said.
  • AID.S
    AID.S 28 December 2015 09: 47
    +4
    So far, the situation is like a toast in the "Caucasian Captive".
    "I have the desire to buy a house, but I have no opportunity, I have the opportunity to buy a goat, but I have no desire. So let's drink, so that our desires coincide with our capabilities."
  • Baloo
    Baloo 28 December 2015 09: 47
    +8
    Do we need him? I do not need a taxpayer. I need an increase in funding for health care up to 9% of GDP, and not 3.5%, I need the accessibility of sports, the cessation of fees in schools. Nobody knows about the latter? Have you seen a roentgenogram of a mosquito? In what other country can this be? Why has this domestic introscopic technology of Siberian scientists still not found application in domestic medicine?
    And you say an aircraft carrier ... flights to Mars ... The position parasitizes on troubles in the social sphere, corruption and other things. Young people who grew up and formed during the collapse of the state, and therefore laden with enemy propaganda. hi
    1. Jozhkin Cat
      Jozhkin Cat 28 December 2015 10: 01
      +2
      I strongly disagree about Mars, but what if there are any nishtyaks there, for example, which metal is not there or very little on the earth? A space program is needed, but adequate, I think flights to Mars are very premature, and cosmonauts who agree to be suicide bombers by 80%, first you need an auto-launch vehicle that can even drill a hole 5 meters, take samples and return safe.
      it would be better if they sawed normal engines, with a thrust of 30-40 tons, so that a horseradish, 15 minutes = speed of light. that would be a matter and a real breakthrough, a step forward.
  • kit-kat
    kit-kat 28 December 2015 09: 49
    +2
    Why do we need this aircraft carrier? Are you going to conquer the colonies?
  • zekaze1980
    zekaze1980 28 December 2015 09: 55
    +1
    I think we don’t need it today, there’s no money that can’t be donated. But if only for someone under the order, then it’s possible.
  • Sergey Vladimirovich
    Sergey Vladimirovich 28 December 2015 10: 00
    +1
    So I also think, but does it make sense to build them? .. For what? Investing money in large "movable"? ..
  • The black
    The black 28 December 2015 10: 04
    +3
    Quote: AID.S
    So far, the situation is like a toast in the "Caucasian Captive".
    "I have the desire to buy a house, but I have no opportunity, I have the opportunity to buy a goat, but I have no desire. So let's drink, so that our desires coincide with our capabilities."

    It would be nice, of course, but for today it is not possible laughing ... Drowning an aircraft carrier, even with modern weapons, is VERY hard.
    1. Alexanast
      Alexanast 28 December 2015 11: 13
      +8
      It’s hard to drown, but turning it from a floating fortress into a floating rubbish is so complete.
  • chikenous59
    chikenous59 28 December 2015 10: 06
    +3
    Everyone spoke out, and now we disagree)) Otherwise, the General Staff will have a cover, someone will definitely report to the president that experts are saying much smarter things in VO))
    Sarcasm of course, no offense.
  • Oleg1080
    Oleg1080 28 December 2015 10: 06
    +1
    Gentlemen are good! The news is good, because not only military, but also civilian vessels. It's time to give Geyrope a competition and pick up her bread. It’s not only necessary to do it for yourself, you can do business too. Again, you need to practice not on your orders, but on strangers ...
    Holiday greetings ... fellow
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 28 December 2015 10: 06
    +4
    I don’t believe Severnaya Verf. I don’t believe the office, which has been building one corvette for eight (EIGHT !!!) years, that suddenly in three years it will easily begin to rivet aircraft carriers.
    If this were claimed in Severodvinsk, I would not hesitate. And so ... empty words.
    1. avt
      avt 28 December 2015 10: 15
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      If this was claimed in Severodvinsk, I would not hesitate. And so ... empty words

      The chief builder from Nikolaev, a fairly authoritative person in his circles, also at the beginning of the zero seems to say that Russia, in principle, can build in the north, naturally with the additional equipment of production facilities. I have ruled out the Baltic.
      Quote: Alex_59
      I don't believe "Severnaya Verf"

      Well, somehow it’s clear where the wind blows from - a sting is led about a long-term order, which in fact will become long-playing in the world.
      Quote: Alex_59
      I do not believe the office, which is eight (EIGHT !!!) years, one corvette builds
  • AdekvatNICK
    AdekvatNICK 28 December 2015 10: 08
    0
    Yes, what did you do. Why, why. We do not need them yet, but here it is discussed that we will get "opportunities".
    It is not known what tasks the fleet will face in the years through 5-10, and if we suddenly need to build such a ship in the new realities, we will already have it, because we asked for modernization. it will be enough just to start building already.
  • askort154
    askort154 28 December 2015 10: 13
    +1
    The Anglo-Saxons in the genes have a powerful fleet to conquer distant lands.
    In the Russian genes - to protect their land from enemy raids.
    An aircraft carrier is not a defense weapon; it is an attack weapon.
  • chikenous59
    chikenous59 28 December 2015 10: 19
    0
    Quote: askort154
    The Anglo-Saxons in the genes have a powerful fleet to conquer distant lands.
    In the Russian genes - to protect their land from enemy raids.
    An aircraft carrier is not a defense weapon; it is an attack weapon.

    Yes, hello, we arrived, and who prevents the use of an aircraft carrier for defense on long lines? 30 fighters aboard an aircraft carrier with the support of other ships can delay the enemy for a long time.
    Here you need to carefully consider what is more profitable, more effective, etc.- launch missiles from the shore, ship, or have several dozen fighters aboard an aircraft carrier? I think different means can be used for different tasks in different geographical areas.
    1. Armored optimist
      Armored optimist 28 December 2015 10: 28
      +3
      30 fighters, you say? And the amers have 90 on board. And the supply base is at hand all around the ball. And look at the globe. Where and whom do we need and can be kept at a distance? In the Black or Baltic Seas? In the north? With some stretch in the Pacific, but even there they have unsinkable Okinawa. Substitute him closer to her? Or do you want her and the AUG ICBMs?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 28 December 2015 13: 55
        0
        Quote: armored optimist
        30 fighters, you say? And the amers on board 90.

        The problem is that in order to repel an attack by carrier aviation against a ship formation, covered from the shore, it is necessary to have on the shore twice or three times more force detachment than on the enemy's AW. And also to build on the shore airfields of the required aircraft capacity - moreover, next to all areas of operation of the fleet. And they will have to be built and operated in such "habitable and civilized" places as, for example, the throat of the White Sea, where the only way is by sea. That is, the fleet will also have to ensure the supply of cover airfields.
        Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a floating airdrome that can be carried around to any area and which itself goes for its supplies? smile
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 28 December 2015 14: 13
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a floating airdrome that can be carried around to any area and which itself goes for its supplies?

          Answer the question, how long was the Ash-tree project built by MAPL Severodvinsk? Bookmark December 21, 1993, launch on June 24, 2010 ... 17 years! How many aircraft carrier we will build, despite the fact that the school for building even self-supporting TARKs has long disappeared.
          And the second question, do we have experience in the design and construction of catapults?
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 28 December 2015 15: 07
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            Answer the question, how much was the Ash-tree project built by MAPL Severodvinsk? Bookmark December 21, 1993, launching June 24, 2010 ... 17 years!

            But no need to juggle. For the head submarine pr. 885 was stopped by construction in 1996 and resumed in 2004. Moreover, "resumed" means practically "started anew" - since the project has changed in 8 years.
            That is - 6 years for the lead ICACL of a new generation.
            Quote: NEXUS
            And the second question, do we have experience in the design and construction of catapults?

            There is. At Proletarskiy Zavod, it was developed at least three times - for the Eagle, for NITKA and for 1143.7. It came to factory tests.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 28 December 2015 15: 12
              +1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              But no need to juggle. For the head submarine pr. 885 was stopped by construction in 1996 and resumed in 2004. Moreover, "resumed" means practically "started anew" - since the project has changed in 8 years.
              That is - 6 years for the lead ICACL of a new generation.

              And who distortes that? There are figures from which you can’t get anywhere ... Kazan, Yasen-M project has been postponed for a year so far ...
              I’m all saying this, that even on such a project there are problems with financing, but what about the construction of an aircraft carrier?
              Quote: Alexey RA
              There is. At Proletarskiy Zavod, it was developed at least three times - for the Eagle, for NITKA and for 1143.7. It came to factory tests.

              It was all under the king of peas, and in fact, if there is a decision to build an aircraft carrier, the catapult will have to be crafted from scratch, since there are no specialists or developments.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 28 December 2015 17: 32
                0
                Quote: NEXUS
                And who distortes that? There are figures from which you can’t get anywhere ... Kazan, Yasen-M project has been postponed for a year so far ...

                So I'm talking about the numbers: from the voiced by you "17 years of construction of" Ash "" 8 years can be immediately subtracted - until 2004 the construction was officially stopped.
                In fact, you can immediately throw out the period from 1993 to 2004 - because in 2004 the initial draft was changed.
                Quote: NEXUS
                I’m all saying this, that even on such a project there are problems with financing, but what about the construction of an aircraft carrier?

                Take "Boreyev" - they already have 3 in service, 4 are under construction. And the head was laid at about the same years.
                Quote: NEXUS
                It was all under the king of peas, and in fact, if there is a decision to build an aircraft carrier, the catapult will have to be crafted from scratch, since there are no specialists or developments.

                Is not a fact. The proletarian plant is still engaged in all kinds of marine aircraft equipment - aerofinisher and storage and transportation systems for helicopters in the hangar.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 28 December 2015 17: 45
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  So I'm talking about the numbers: from the voiced by you "17 years of construction of" Ash "" 8 years can be immediately subtracted - until 2004 the construction was officially stopped.

                  What difference did they stop or just slowly build ... they laid it in the 93rd year, lowered it in the 10th year ... from the fact that something was frozen there, they stopped or didn’t finance the fleet no easier, we got the submarine 17 years after Bookmarks
                  You can also lay an aircraft carrier now, and launch it in 50 years, maybe they can stop it and decide what is not needed (Ulyanovsk is recalled), etc.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Take "Boreyev" - they already have 3 in service, 4 are under construction. And the head was laid at about the same years.

                  And we have ONE Ash Tree! Submarines and when will the next big question. We need multi-purpose submarines more, and now we are not doing very well with them. How much is the Lada project already? And what about the Leader project?
                  And you can sit and shout that we need an aircraft carrier as much as you like, just do not, like the hero of Vitsin, "take the lowest pot", but start building destroyers first and not 3-4 pieces, but in a large series.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Is not a fact. The proletarian plant is still engaged in all kinds of marine aircraft equipment - aerofinisher and storage and transportation systems for helicopters in the hangar.

                  And are those people and developers NOW still with it? Since that time, everything has changed and people are new and special just two times and miscalculated ... and even if you raise the documentation on the developments, you still have to create everything from scratch.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 29 December 2015 10: 05
                    0
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    What difference did they stop or just slowly build ... they laid it in the 93rd year, lowered it in the 10th year ... from the fact that something was frozen there, they stopped or didn’t finance the fleet no easier, we got the submarine 17 years after Bookmarks

                    If there is no difference - why take Ash as an example? Take the second Borea. Or Indian 1135. smile
                    The construction of the lead 855 until 2004 was not carried out not because of technical problems, but because of the financial insolvency of the state.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    And we have ONE Ash Tree! Submarines and when will the next big question. We need multi-purpose submarines more, and with them we are not doing very well now

                    In fact, SSBNs were needed in the first place. Because the average age of the BDRM now, at the time of commissioning of the Boreis, is 28 years. And at the Pacific Fleet there are generally 35-year-old BDR.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    And you can sit and shout that we need an aircraft carrier as much as you like, just do not, like the hero of Vitsin, "take the lowest pot", but start building destroyers first and not 3-4 pieces, but in a large series.

                    Heh heh heh ... now it’s easier for us to build an atomic AB - for him, at least there is a GEM. smile
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 29 December 2015 10: 34
                      +1
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      The construction of the lead 855 until 2004 was not carried out not because of technical problems, but because of the financial insolvency of the state.

                      Exactly! And the price of Ashen is many times lower than that of an aircraft carrier ... and you are talking about 6 aircraft carriers in 25 years. And I will answer you, in the words of Vysotsky-Where is the money, Zin? hi
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 28 December 2015 10: 57
      0
      http://topwar.ru/88019-razvitie-vmf-sssr-svezhiy-vzglyad-v-buduschee.html
  • Max40
    Max40 28 December 2015 10: 22
    +1
    Better a couple of ekranoplanes combat and landing. That's enough for the eyes.
  • novel68rus
    novel68rus 28 December 2015 10: 26
    +1
    it wasn’t necessary to sell those that were .. put on conservation. it’s cheaper to upgrade than to build a new one .. at 90, when the aircraft carrier was sold to the Chinese, they barely had time to remove new weapons from it otherwise the generals would have sold the whole .. and now it would be nice to have two full-fledged aircraft carriers .. but building up again will be very expensive .. soldier
  • gukoyan
    gukoyan 28 December 2015 10: 31
    +2
    Our country does not need aircraft carriers ... We are better off building cruisers than an aircraft carrier.
  • nozdrevat58
    nozdrevat58 28 December 2015 10: 46
    +1
    Don't build, but start building! The paratrooper "Ivan Gren" has been under construction for 10 years, for example.
    Is it necessary? After all, the country is huge - we will get it from the Caspian.
  • Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 28 December 2015 10: 51
    -1
    Quote: Igor39
    I'm just sure that if you shake the officials and managers with their "Golden Parachutes" properly. Money can be easily found for a couple of aircraft carriers.
    A very good and positive initiative !!! In general, it would be possible to build an aircraft carrier on voluntary donations from patriotic citizens of Russia. "People's" aircraft carrier! As it was after the Russo-Japanese War, when the country's naval forces had to be practically rebuilt. Then, on a wave of patriotic enthusiasm, the revival of the Russian fleet actually took place!
    But in essence, as the conflict in Syria showed, Russia needs aircraft carriers. Of course, not that crazy American armada of magnificent targets, but 2-3 universal warships are necessary for our country, which could be carriers of both airplanes and helicopters and, moreover, could be used as military transport ships for the transfer of troops, weapons and ammunition.
  • nrex
    nrex 28 December 2015 10: 51
    0
    They will not build a maximum like Mistral no more. Like a melt base. Or it is necessary to change the doctrine from defensive to - There is no place in the world where there are no Russian interests, like the American.
  • avva2012
    avva2012 28 December 2015 11: 04
    0
    Quote: AdekvatNICK
    Yes, what did you do. Why, why. We do not need them yet, but here it is discussed that we will get "opportunities".
    It is not known what tasks the fleet will face in the years through 5-10, and if we suddenly need to build such a ship in the new realities, we will already have it, because we asked for modernization. it will be enough just to start building already.

    They wrote that they agreed with Nicaragua on the account of the base. Also the body of water around Vietnam with its oil shelf. There are, apparently, some other promising projects that we do not know about. An important plus is that such projects, in addition to jobs at the shipyard itself, also provide an opportunity for subcontractors to work. New scientific developments, naturally. And, the fact that we, a continental power, like China or India, are not located on the islands, but we are building (buying) our aircraft carriers.
  • TVM - 75
    TVM - 75 28 December 2015 11: 07
    +1
    The question is not what to grab immediately and build. The point is that USC will be able to build them. And already how to use this opportunity is the second question. You can build anything you like - aircraft carriers, landing ships, floating bases, fishing plants, supply ships, tankers, etc., etc., both for yourself and for order. Expanding the technological capabilities of the enterprise is always a big plus.
  • capitosha1rang
    capitosha1rang 28 December 2015 11: 20
    +3
    Infa is interesting and entertains Rospatriotism.
    Comrade Stalin said: "We'll collect a pretty penny, but we will build a battleship."
    To build an aircraft carrier of the 21st century, you can collect both a pretty penny and two. BUT, to get a sense from the ship, you need to "collect" not a penny, and even - not a ruble!
    The aircraft carrier will need coastal infrastructure, escort ships, intelligence, in the end.
    Hundreds of officers and thousands of contractors who will need to be provided with housing, for starters, all this will require far from cheap, and even not ruble costs.
    What for?
    "Calibers" have shown their ability and the fact that they can be installed on any civil ship, or a ship that seems to be so.
    The Ministry of Rybkhoz SRT puffs with an engine (of which hundreds were riveted in the USSR) in the Atlantic, the Pacific Ocean, without entering the territorial waters of the United States, for excuses it catches a fish, releases nets and trawls, IN AN OCCASION - ISSUES "CALIBERS"
    It is, of course, one thing for a member of the State Commission, all the more for the Chairman, to stand on the bridge of an aircraft carrier, and another thing is on the bridge of the SRT - a medium-sized fishing trawler, on which there is no show-off, no barbecue, no money "sawed off" at the stage of state order, design, supplies of components and basic materials, contracts for the supply of "filling" and so on. and so on!
    Here, the Vostochny cosmodrome, in terms of importance and costs, is approximately equal to the construction of an aircraft carrier, and what did you get? In addition to scandals and stolen-stolen billions of domestic rubles, the shortage of which the treasury intends to fill with extortions from long-range soldiers and working pensioners?
    1. S_last
      S_last 28 December 2015 14: 29
      0
      Don't watch a lot of ads, it's harmful. Advertising always sticks out the pros and is modestly silent about the fat cons. One "caliber" is more expensive than the whole CPT, and you also need guidance systems, reference points, conditions for starting. Not to mention the fact that no one will go to the fact that the weapon, possibly with an SBS, dangled in an unknown place and in whose hands it is unknown. Any boat with 1 machine gun and 3 dushmans will capture an SRT with calibers and detonate an SCS in your yard.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 December 2015 14: 52
      0
      Quote: capitosha1rang
      The Ministry of Rybkhoz SRT puffs with an engine (of which hundreds were riveted in the USSR) in the Atlantic, the Pacific Ocean, without entering the territorial waters of the United States, for excuses it catches a fish, releases nets and trawls, IN AN OCCASION - ISSUES "CALIBERS"

      There is no more Ministry of Fisheries with hundreds of SRTs. Everything is sold out to private traders. In the best case, your "Calibers" will come with a rusty and half-flooded database - because the fishermen have a plan, and they have no time to engage in any garbage (demonstrative fishing will not work - your disguised SRT-PU will in this case stand out too much against the background of fiercely, furiously working brothers). At worst, they will sell "calibers" to Japan or Norway, as a bonus to the fish caught. laughing

      By the way, are you going to strike first? Otherwise, your flock of SRTs will simply be combed from the air by a squadron of Hornets.

      And I still do not consider the case of detention of such a trawler by some fish guard - for violation of fishing rules. Fortunately, there were precedents. And what to do? Giving "calibers" left and right? Or accompany the fishermen with ships of the fleet, which in this case will still have to be built (both ships and the floating rear to them)?
  • Maksim
    Maksim 28 December 2015 11: 52
    0
    The opportunity to cost aircraft carriers should be. Do Russia need them - now they don’t, in the end, you can build for someone, Egypt, Iran ...? Imagine how many jobs and technologies ...
    1. anew
      anew 28 December 2015 18: 04
      0
      Quote: Makcim
      in the end you can build for someone Egypt, Iran ...? Imagine how many jobs and technologies ...

      Everything is correct. You can also replace the word "aircraft carrier" with the word car, bicycle, machine tool, bearing, processor, and further down the list. But for some reason they don't. At least massively. And why a product called an "aircraft carrier" will be built?
  • bad
    bad 28 December 2015 12: 57
    +1
    wow, how many couch tacticians and strategists! and almost all of them are quite often smarter than analysts from the General Staff .. personally, I have nothing against freely expressed personal opinion .. but when they start to impose it, this is already vyser .. the news is just good .. will have the opportunity to build aircraft carriers after the modernization of the shipyards in St. Petersburg, which should be completed by 2019, RIA Novosti reports the message of the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, "- there will be an opportunity! .. and whether they will build or not," the war will show the plan. " ...
  • Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 28 December 2015 13: 14
    0
    Quote: novel68rus
    it wasn’t necessary to sell those that were .. put on conservation. it’s cheaper to upgrade than to build a new one .. at 90, when the aircraft carrier was sold to the Chinese, they barely had time to remove new weapons from it otherwise the generals would have sold the whole .. and now it would be nice to have two full-fledged aircraft carriers .. but building up again will be very expensive ..

    Yes, they hurried and thoughtlessly cut or sold out!
    This former aircraft carrier of project 1143.4 "Admiral of the Soviet Union Fleet Gorshkov" after a very successful modernization was sold to India and is called today "Vikramaditya". "Novorossiysk" - heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of project 1143.3 was withdrawn from the fleet in 9 years after commissioning, "Minsk" - heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of project 1143.2 was withdrawn from the fleet after 15 years. Today, with the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov", we could have four full-fledged excellent aircraft carriers! And then we would be even more weighty, we could dictate our unyielding will to the rest of the world community.))))
  • S_last
    S_last 28 December 2015 14: 08
    0
    The carrier fleet in Russia will certainly appear as soon as such a problem is solved.
    MOSCOW, December 28. / TASS /. The share of “poor” families who do not even have enough food and those who have enough money to buy food is difficult, has grown from 22% to 39% over the past year.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 28 December 2015 14: 41
    0
    Theoretically, yes, it will. Theoretically, you can start building the mistral right now, but you won't be able to finish it. Remember the video of how the French mistral were docked from two halves afloat? So, we will be able to build the halves, "there are competencies," but there is nowhere to connect them. We'll have to build differently, that's the price for all "competencies". The shipbuilding of large ships is almost always unique and almost entirely depends on the capabilities of each particular plant. And you have to either "adjust" the plant to the required technologies, or change the "competencies" for the plant.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 28 December 2015 23: 53
    +1
    Yes, it’s better to rivet two dozen assault submarines with cruise missiles than 3 floating aircraft stools.
    1. anew
      anew 29 December 2015 00: 07
      0
      For which there are no suitable aircraft yet.