Military Review

New Russian aircraft carrier: pros and cons

161



Does Russia need aircraft carriers?

History the creation and construction of aircraft carriers of the USSR and Russia is deeply dramatic and in many ways tragic.
Despite the fact that the Soviet leadership fleet back in the 1920s, they realized the enormous potential of this new type of ship in a naval war, and then the first attempts were made to build them, the first "full" aircraft carrier - the heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, became part of the fleet only in the end of 1991. Before the Great Patriotic War, and then, until the mid-1960s, the construction of such ships was largely hindered by the country's economic capabilities, and after that by the will of the country's top military and political leadership.

Currently, the Russian Navy has only one aircraft carrier - the same Admiral Kuznetsov TAKR, which performs more “training” functions, to ensure that they receive operating experience of such ships, rather than being a full-fledged combat unit. As before, aircraft carriers are the “blue dream” of modern Russian admirals. However, while the new Russian aircraft carriers remain only dreams, and there are a huge number of economic and industrial factors that impede its construction. The only thing is, now there is no need to prove their role to the political leadership of the country, in contrast to the “Soviet” times.

At the same time, the question of the need to build new aircraft carriers for the Russian fleet is the subject of public debate, mainly in the vast media and the Internet, and has huge "camps" for both supporters and opponents. This article attempts to address this issue from all sides. First you need to consider the arguments of opponents of the construction of new aircraft carriers for the Russian fleet. After reading their opinions, we can distinguish about the following arguments:

- The “race” with the fleets of the United States and other Western powers is a priori meaningless, since Russia is a “continental” power, while the United States and a number of other Western powers (for example, Great Britain) are “sea”, for which the fleet is almost the main military-political tool. Accordingly, the US fleet will a priori totally surpass the Russian, and the “chase” behind it in an attempt to equalize the combat capabilities, as it was during Soviet times, due to the huge number of factors, especially economic, was doomed to collapse from the beginning.

- Opponents of Russian aircraft carriers see in them, first of all, a “superpower” military-political tool that allows them to “project power” in various parts of the globe, as well as a kind of “colonial policy” tool with a view to exerting military and “psychological” influence at various countries of the Third World, “looking back” at the same time primarily on the US carrier fleet. This view is only partially true. In addition to the above “functions” of aircraft carriers, their main role in the US Navy is missed. And in the American Navy, aircraft carriers are, first of all, a means of gaining dominance at sea. If you look at the experience of using American aircraft carriers in local conflicts of recent decades, it is easy to notice that the role of the deck aviation was largely "secondary." Most of the tasks that lie with aviation in all these conflicts were solved primarily by "ground" aviation. Actually, US dominance in many regions is ensured not by aircraft carriers, but by a huge network of military bases, scattered in many continents, on which the necessary aviation and land groups are deployed, if necessary. However, in solving the problems of gaining superiority at sea, American aircraft carriers have no equal. Their deck squadrons, capable of launching a huge number of anti-ship missiles (RCC), can crush the forces of the fleets of most potential adversaries.

- Finally, the most important argument of opponents of Russian aircraft carriers is an economic factor. The construction of an aircraft carrier costs enormous money - at least 6-7 billions of dollars (given the long absence of the practice of building such large ships, the amount may turn out to be much more). In addition, the creation of an aircraft carrier implies the creation of a "concomitant" grouping of other ships, and this is a truly tremendous economic task, the expediency of which is opposed by the opponents of aircraft carrier construction.

Now consider, actually, what kind of "advantages" ensures the presence of an aircraft carrier. Immediately it is worth noting that the concept of aircraft carrier use in Russia (and in other countries) has little to do with the “American” one, so targeting the United States on this issue is meaningless. The main task of aircraft carriers in the Russian fleet is, first of all, the creation of an "air shield" over the connection of ships and the increase of its combat stability.

“Even a“ lightweight ”aircraft carrier has on board an 2-3 fighter squadron that directly covers the connection of ships, wherever it is. What provides an order of magnitude greater combat stability. Despite the fact that modern shipboard air defense missile systems provide high fire performance, carry out simultaneous shelling of several targets, and have a very high probability of hitting the enemy with anti-ship missiles, it is worth noting that enemy aircraft can freely launch their anti-ship missiles outside the effective air defense of a ship. In this case, the ships will have to independently fight off a large number of anti-ship missiles and with a massive attack, a large anti-ship anti-ship missile can "pierce" the air defense of the ship connections. However, even 1-2 squadrons of deck fighters can, if not disrupt, then significantly disorganize even the massive attack of enemy aircraft, which will simplify the "work" of shipboard air defense systems. Note, we are talking about a massive attack by enemy aircraft, for example, in a battle with the American carrier strike group (AUG). And in this role, in addition to the aircraft carrier, nothing can provide adequate air cover for the compound. Covering the "coastal" aviation is possible only in close proximity to the coast, and it is a priori less effective than from the carrier-based aircraft.

- The presence of an aircraft carrier as part of a compound greatly expands the capabilities of reconnaissance and target designation for connecting ships. The composition of the deck wing at a minimum includes long-range radar detection helicopters (AWACS). And even with their limited capabilities in comparison with DRLO planes, they are able to detect air and surface targets at a distance of 200 kilometers (the DRLO deck aircraft in our country have not been created, and obviously, the development of such an aircraft will take a long time). However, the construction of an aircraft carrier is not a quick process, to put it mildly. Moreover, in the long term, the role of DRLO airplanes can also be assumed by DRLO drones (such projects exist in our country). This provides the possibility of both the timely detection of air threats and the issuance of target designation for anti-ship missiles when firing at a long range. It also significantly increases the capabilities of the ship's air defense weapons. The new shipboard SAM systems, such as the European PAAMS, the American Aegis with the latest SM-6 anti-aircraft missiles and the Russian Polimen-Redut, have anti-aircraft missiles with active homing heads, which allows them to hit low-altitude targets (which include anti-ship missiles) outside of the horizon . However, this requires information about the targets behind the radio horizon, and only Airplanes or DRLO helicopters can provide it.

- The aircraft carrier can significantly increase the impact capabilities of the connection. Modern aircraft generation 4 + can use almost the entire range of controlled weapons, and even a light fighter, such as the MiG-29K, can easily “take” two light anti-ship missiles.

- Finally, an aircraft carrier is also a kind of huge command post for connecting ships. Only on ships of this class are installed the most advanced automated control systems of the ship connection, capable of receiving, transmitting and processing information from the ships of the compound, submarines, aircraft and naval headquarters almost in real time.
Thus, the presence of an aircraft carrier in the composition of the ships is not just at times, but an order of magnitude increases its combat stability and combat capabilities. Even despite the fact that the modern Russian fleet is largely "coastal", its "zone of responsibility" is very large. What are only the waters of the Barents or Sea of ​​Okhotsk. At the same time, the fleets of potential opponents are very impressive. Even to solve the problems of the defense of the maritime borders and the sea economic zone of Russia, it is extremely difficult to get along without aircraft carriers. To ensure these tasks, it is desirable for the Russian fleet to have one aircraft carrier group in the Northern and Pacific fleets, which would include an aircraft carrier, 1-2 missile cruisers or destroyers, 3-5 frigates and 1-2 multi-purpose nuclear submarines (APS) frigates and XNUMX-XNUMX multi-purpose nuclear submarines (APS) frigates and XNUMX-XNUMX multipurpose nuclear powered submarines (APL)

Unfortunately, the construction of aircraft carriers in our country is constantly being postponed, and they are unlikely to be laid even in the foreseeable future due to the poor economic situation. Indeed, the construction of an aircraft carrier is terribly expensive. So, for example, the construction of a new Russian aircraft carrier project 23000 is estimated at 300 billion rubles. In addition, you need to create and new destroyers and frigates, which would be included in the carrier group, to create the necessary infrastructure for basing and many other related projects. However, the construction and commissioning of such an aircraft carrier compound will strengthen the power of the Navy by an order of magnitude, turning it into a powerful military-political tool capable only by its appearance to prevent a possible war from erupting. For example, if a conflict arises around some disputed water area rich in natural resources, the appearance of an aircraft carrier connection in this area can, with a very high probability, force the enemy to abandon any attempt to resolve the conflict by force and make it more “negotiable” at the negotiating table.

And no less important, in addition to the obvious military advantages, the construction of an aircraft carrier is a huge investment in the country's industry. The construction of such a ship is only possible for the most developed powers, in fact it is a kind of “national project”, on which thousands of enterprises throughout the country work. Yes, the aircraft carrier is insanely expensive, but the cost of it will pay off at times in the future. Its construction will entail "pulling up" the level of the industry as a whole, and its high-tech industries in the first place. These are dozens, if not hundreds of thousands of new jobs. At the same time, despite the huge cost, the construction process takes a lot of time (building an aircraft carrier in our country currently requires 7-10 years), respectively, the financing of its construction is very much “separated” in time, and will not be an excessive burden for the annual budget country.

An aircraft carrier is a mandatory element for the fleet of any more or less large maritime power. In addition to the United States, France has its own aircraft carrier, England is building two new generation aircraft carriers, India and China have acquired new aircraft carriers. Yes, China, completed the former Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, and for India the former aircraft carrier cruiser Admiral Gorshkov was rebuilt into a “full-fledged” aircraft carrier. But these powers have already begun to build their national aircraft carriers. At the same time, China launched an ambitious program, which suggests the presence of 6 aircraft carriers by 2030 year. And if aircraft carriers can afford France, England, India and China, then really Russia can not afford them?

And I really want to hope that some time will pass, and in the future the new Russian aircraft carrier will cut the waves of the World Ocean with its huge body, causing fear and respect of any potential opponents.
Author:
Originator:
http://dfnc.ru/c106-technika/novyj-rossijskij-avianosets-za-i-protiv/
161 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. apro
    apro 16 January 2016 06: 23
    +8
    To have an aircraft carrier, Russia must become an empire with its ideology and independent economic policy, without which aug is senseless, today Russia is a dependent country and the creation of such expensive toys is a waste of time and money.
    1. venaya
      venaya 16 January 2016 06: 47
      23
      Quote: apro
      making such expensive toys is a waste of time and money

      The military economy and the availability of truly worthy tasks for spending so far not small state resources for us should dictate the idea of ​​building aircraft carriers.
      1. Darkmor
        Darkmor 16 January 2016 11: 12
        22
        And if aircraft carriers can afford France, England, India and China, can Russia really not afford them?

        Russia can afford anything, but not all of it at the same time :)

        You need to understand that an aircraft carrier is a weapon of war. Not a cold war, not a hybrid war, not an economic war or a dispute over the ownership of the islands - but a real, without quotation marks, war between powerful states. In peacetime, it is practically useless.
        If you think that by adjusting the aircraft carrier to the disputed territory, you will be able to "squeeze" it from the enemy without a fight, then you are deeply mistaken.
        The aircraft carrier in this regard, tactically, is only an expensive, easily destroyed trough. If they know about him and see him - if desired, they will drown him.

        Do we need an aircraft carrier? The question is very controversial.
        As a citizen, I naturally would like to see him - it would be more a symbol of achievement, not a ship. This is something like the Olympics in Sochi, but in the military sphere.
        But, putting myself in the place of the chief of staff, and trying to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, I would prefer to make a full-fledged fleet at the price of this aircraft carrier, or to strengthen coastal groups.
        So, no matter how paradoxical this sounds, I will find the positive aspects both in the presence and absence of an aircraft carrier.

        On the other hand, I think that, tactically, in any case, we need a light aircraft-carrying cruiser for helicopters (or vertical planes). So the question here will be different - what to build, a full-fledged aircraft carrier, or a pair of helicopter carriers - and what will they be?
        I would venture to suggest that the command will still choose the last option - after all, the availability of documentation for the Mistrals will allow us to significantly save on the development of a similar class of ships. What will be their appearance, air group and weapons - time will tell.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 16 January 2016 12: 14
          +4
          Quote: Darkmor
          You need to understand that an aircraft carrier is a weapon of war. Not a cold war, not a hybrid war, not an economic war or a dispute over the ownership of the islands - but a real one, without quotes

          And here it is wrong. Yes, an aircraft carrier can be used in TMV, but its main purpose is just to participate in cold, hybrid and economic wars. Simply put, the projection of power. What for? Everything is simple - if we do not project it, then there will be our enemies, and due to this they will increase.
          Quote: Darkmor
          after all, the availability of documentation for the "mistrals" will allow us to significantly save on the development of a similar class of ships

          Mistrals are primarily paratroopers, and as a prototype of a light aircraft carrier / helicopter carrier, you can take our 1143, taking into account modernization work for India
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 16 January 2016 22: 09
            -2
            Quote: Author
            And I really want to hope that some time will pass, and in the future the new Russian aircraft carrier will cut the waves of the World Ocean with its huge body, causing fear and respect of any potential opponents.

            "Time will pass, and in the future," but not now, "it will cut the waves with its huge stem" - surely d. just one and a huge soba in it drowned and burned all at once?
            Do you have to scare someone?
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 16 January 2016 22: 56
              +1
              Quote: Scraptor
              so that it drowned and burned all at once

              Please provide a link to a scientifically based analysis, which states that large-tonnage ships will immediately burn out and one small thing needs to be built.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 17 January 2016 08: 31
                -3
                Smarter than asking for a link didn’t come up with anything?
                To be a scientist in order to understand this is not necessary, write pzhlst at least once on this topic something coherent ...
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 17 January 2016 12: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  To be a scientist in order to

                  understand that at all times the basis of the fleet was large-tonnage ships.
                  So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 17 January 2016 14: 08
                    -1
                    Large-tonnage ships of those classes for which at the time this was required by their main weapon systems.

                    Do you still need justification that a bomb falling into a large pile will kill a lot of people (and destroy more planes), in addition, loaded with barrels of aviation fuel, and a smaller one - less?

                    Well then, you still here ...
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 17 January 2016 18: 19
                      0
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      ships of those classes for which at that time their main weapon systems required it

                      Many missiles can’t fit on RTOs, and decent air defense can be put at least on a frigate, and preferably a cruiser / destroyer.
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      You still need justification that a bomb in a large pile will kill a lot of people

                      It’s easier to melt small boats, and it’s difficult to drown an aircraft carrier - about 10 granites.
                      So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 17 January 2016 21: 17
                        +1
                        Is a frigate much smaller than a battleship? laughing Anti-ship missiles, like missiles, are crammed into displacement as much as they can fit, this is not a main battery tower like the "Bismarck" which had enough attack from a percale biplane.

                        It’s harder to melt small boats - it’s harder to get into a small boat and even harder to get into many small ones.
                        From a small ship it is also easier to remove the URO by interference.

                        The aircraft carrier will disable one racket that set it on fire on the flight deck, and it is drowned by blasting the only non-nuclear granite under its keel, which has a caliber greater than that of Dora and the weight of the warhead is greater than that of the bottom mine that sank Novorossiysk.

                        You have theories, I have a practice, they just wrote it to you again just like six months ago.
                      2. spravochnik
                        spravochnik 18 January 2016 09: 57
                        -1
                        Delusions of an inflamed mind. I don’t even want to comment.
                      3. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 18 January 2016 10: 58
                        -1
                        Yeah - you ... What then got out?

                        Or do you think that diving warhead RCC use flippers and scuba gear? It and the torpedoes are also exploding right now, like the bottom mines under the keel, they are not using wassat

                        Undermining the S-200 warhead above the forced deck of a large supercarrier is generally a holiday laughing
                      4. spravochnik
                        spravochnik 18 January 2016 12: 03
                        -2
                        Young man (MORE AND HAM TO THE SAME), is everything all right with your head? In the USSR, the diving warhead was abandoned back in the early 50s with the termination of tests of the KSSh (the winged projectile "Pike" - you know about that). The S-200 is an anti-aircraft missile with a launch range of 200 km. Which side it will be above the deck of the American AB.
                      5. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 18 January 2016 12: 33
                        -2
                        Even the P-35 at the end of the 50s already had a diving warhead, because the weight already made it possible to break the ships in half like that "by mine and torpedo". They are being abandoned now because the Americans have found out about it.

                        How, for example, the Osa missile defense system was fired at the ships?
                        Before the introduction of conventional reconnaissance and strike systems, a pair of MiG-105s flying over it could pour a bucket of tungsten shot onto the supercarrier, so they were banned, and everyone was supplied with a Spiral, as if they could not be launched by R-7 or any other ICBM. Aeroballistic missiles were also "restricted." Soviet SCVVPs, which do not need a large deck, generally went to an incredible enemy.
                      6. spravochnik
                        spravochnik 18 January 2016 12: 55
                        0
                        All this to the doctor.
                      7. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 18 January 2016 14: 01
                        0
                        Yeah, you ... you don’t see your own rudeness (from which you started).
                      8. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 18 January 2016 19: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Is a frigate much smaller than a battleship? laughing RCC like missiles

                        And their number is much smaller.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        From a small ship it is also easier to remove the URO by interference.

                        And what prevents the design of a normal electronic warfare
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        and it is drowning undermining

                        Then why were heavy cruisers and regiments TU-22 built to attack the AUG?
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        You have theories, I have a practice, they just wrote it to you again just like six months ago.

                        Practice on a motor boat?
                        So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                      9. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 18 January 2016 19: 52
                        0
                        It is right. Especially if warheads are suddenly nuclear, so as not to put them all in one basket.

                        And what hinders doing both?

                        Because ... Why didn’t their aircraft carriers be built while they were needed? And why did the MiG-105 and La-350 not get on the DB?

                        "Bismarck", "Roma", "Forrestal", "Armenia", "Novorossiysk", etc. these are not motor boats - you have theories.
                      10. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 19 January 2016 19: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Especially if warheads are suddenly nuclear

                        After the use of which it does not matter who and on what ships. If you think about it, then those who can be lucky in one blow compared to those who survive.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Why weren’t their aircraft carriers built yet needed?

                        Because of ideological nonsense. And then came a hunchback.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Bismarck, Roma

                        Those who did not have normal air defense, and Bismarck was simply unlucky - the steering wheels were damaged almost immediately. And by the way, they were not aircraft carriers.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        "Novorossiysk"
                        He was blown up as a result of sabotage.
                        And how many people drowned on ships of 2-3 ranks if to summarize?
                        So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                      11. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 20 January 2016 19: 03
                        0
                        Somehow completely incoherent nonsense ...

                        And how did a humpbacked one somehow build anyway?

                        And by the way, with an acoustic torpedo you would be lucky even faster, and then the aircraft carriers were fewer battleships.

                        Weight BB involved in the diversion?

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        So the rationale for your theories will be or not?

                        Are you stuck? Then follow everything to the same pier, until Lavrenty Pavlovich did not carry out a more difficult diagnosis ...
                      12. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 20 January 2016 19: 10
                        -1
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Somehow completely incoherent nonsense ...

                        that is, the fact that after using "warheads suddenly nuclear" the whole world will become a radioactive trash heap in which "survivors will envy the dead" news for you?
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        And how did a hunchbacked one somehow build

                        And ruined the country. Learn the story.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Weight BB involved in the diversion?

                        Try during the battle to approach the ship and attach a mine ..
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Are you stuck?

                        So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                      13. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 20 January 2016 22: 40
                        0
                        Was the aircraft carrier built because ideological nonsense had gone away?

                        Diving warhead RCC weighs the same. Both mines and torpedoes are somehow brought down without attachment.

                        Just follow the pier ... m. they will help you there.
                      14. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 21 January 2016 19: 24
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Was the aircraft carrier built because ideological nonsense had gone away?
                        Yes, they stopped talking about weapons of aggression.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Diving warhead RCC weighs the same. Both mines and torpedoes are somehow brought down without attachment.
                        That's just one thing to place it exactly in the right place and another to get at least somehow. However, it’s really quite simple to get into your favorite MDK.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Just follow the pier.

                        So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                      15. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 21 January 2016 20: 51
                        0
                        So humpback is good? Which all JBCH also brought to one place? And so the second AB sailed to China and the third to India? Something better just appeared that left for the USA ...

                        What is enough to get into the MDK? What caliber does a risk group begin with and by what?
                        It is enough just to get into the UDC or in the AB - it will burn and then everything will immediately drown.
                        Few got "somewhere?" The WTO hits the right place, especially on a large contrast target.

                        You have theories, so justify them. Just not for me but for the doctors.
                      16. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 22 January 2016 17: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        So humpback is good?

                        Well, if you think so.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        It is enough just to get into the UDC or in AB - it will burn and then

                        put out the fire. Already discussed the fire on the AB and its consequences - the damage was far from critical.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        You have theories, so justify them

                        Well, you are constantly repeating that all the military do not understand anything and that large ships are not needed.
                        So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                      17. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 25 January 2016 01: 32
                        0
                        And you?

                        Is a fire at a gas station far from critical?

                        the military just understands ... Everything is to the doctor! laughing
                        yes
                      18. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 25 January 2016 21: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        And you?
                        So these are your words, not mine.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        It's a fire at a gas station then
                        Refueling less.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        the military understands
                        And they require ships of the 1st rank, including aircraft carriers.
                      19. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 29 January 2016 18: 53
                        0
                        What words?

                        And why burns worse? laughing

                        Already (35 years old) have not been required - but they are still waiting for you on the support vessel ... bully
                      20. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 29 January 2016 19: 15
                        0
                        aircraft carriers so 35 years old, battleships twice for as many
                        and you - at least 2-3 years
                      21. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 29 January 2016 19: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        What words?
                        These
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        So humpback is good?

                        Quote: Scraptor
                        And why burns worse?
                        Already been
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Already discussed the fire on the AB and its consequences - the damage was far from critical.

                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Already (35 years old) do not require
                        The source of the fact that the fleet is abandoning ships of the 1st rank?
                        So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                      22. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 29 January 2016 23: 07
                        0
                        What are these? And what happened?

                        So you go see the doctors yourself? Or are you being re-qualified as an enemy of the people?
                      23. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 30 January 2016 01: 09
                        0
                        Lucky - you get into one soft room with McCain laughing
                      24. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 30 January 2016 17: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        What are these? And what happened?
                        Your words here and determine what they had in mind.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Lucky - you get into one soft room with McCain
                        The fire was extinguished, casualties of less than 1/10 of the crew, the chassis was in good shape.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        So you go see the doctors yourself?
                        Do you have a problem with this? It happens.
                        So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                      25. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 30 January 2016 18: 58
                        0
                        Well, write which ones ...

                        Conversely, aviation at that time and after flew from it, and from what such non-combat smallness did this fire occur?

                        What theories? This is practice ... After all, in a war they are not gathered in one big pile (without extreme need).
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lancastria - больше 4000 жертв, войсковой транспорт.
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Армения_(теплоход,_1928) - > не менее 4500 жертв
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyama_Maru - около 5,400 жертв, войсковой транспорт.

                        well, or buggers collect them at headquarters ...
                        They wrote to you about this many times already, but you still have a gag, so either you are a pest, or something is just wrong with you
                        There were anti-ship missiles and the explosion of their warheads or warheads of torpedoes in the propellers or under the keel - the Bismarcs completely disappeared (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck_(1939) - линкор, 2100 жертв), appeared in the USSR (even the Canadian tiltrotor for AWACS has long been there) a supersonic jet SKVVP - and none of the military have any more interest in aircraft carriers.

                        You have a problem with this. Do not drag out with her. Then you will have only two options left, but the result will be one ...
                      26. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 31 January 2016 17: 30
                        -1
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Well, write which ones

                        These
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        So humpback is good?

                        Quote: Scraptor
                        What theories? This is a practice ...
                        Already there were only three, but how many battleships of landing ships and aircraft carriers successfully fought? This is a practice.
                        They have written to you about this many times already, but you still have a gag, so either you are a pest or something is just wrong with you. However, the enemies of the people have always sought to destroy our ocean fleet - nothing new.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        You have a problem with this.
                        As they say, it hurts someone, and you constantly talk about doctors - so where is your health certificate?
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        and none of the military

                        It was only after this that aircraft carrier ships finally began to be built.
                        So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                      27. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 31 January 2016 22: 45
                        0
                        And the sign "?" in normal people at the end of a sentence what does it mean?

                        Carriers seriously fought only NOT in the jet era, and then they were small.
                        Landing ships (UDC) - not at all ... There was only one combat landing from them, against a third world country (which had buggers at headquarters and did not deploy supersonic jet aircraft on the Malvinas / Falkland Islands), it was not "over-the-horizon" - barges dragged for a long time standing near the shore, the British waited for a convenient moment on the sidelines for almost a month and cursed everything in the world that their too large ships still do not have at least bow ramps.

                        Where did you see again "theory", Enemy of the people?

                        Well, why did they start building? Did it sell to America?
                        ... there are two options for you - either "orderlies of the forest", or Dybyanka (Big House on Liteiny).
                        Therefore, go better to heal yourself ...
                        You and your ilk want to destroy manpower by battalion in "ocean ships". It is criminal or popularly punishable ...
                      28. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 1 February 2016 17: 56
                        -1
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        And the sign "?" in normal people
                        In normal people, such a question, in principle, does not arise.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Aircraft carriers fought seriously just NOT in the jet era
                        And what is the difference? the role of aviation has not changed.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Well, why did they start building? Did it sell to America?
                        What was sold to America? You really learn some history - the unfinished "Ulyanovsk" was cut in Ukraine.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Therefore, go better to heal yourself ...

                        So you present your certificate or not?
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Destroy manpower by battalion in "ocean ships"
                        It was already - at all times, the enemies of the people sought to consecrate the country of the ocean fleet, under any, even the most ridiculous slogans.
                        So the rationale for your theories will be or not?
                      29. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 1 February 2016 20: 32
                        0
                        The supersonic SCVVP was "sold" to America ...

                        Under any pretext, they tried to group more Ivanushki into larger "ocean" ships (like Armenia, and draw a red cross on them only on one side so that it could be seen from the pier).
                        Go get treated ... Otherwise, then the doctor-euthanasiologist at the designated address will "justify". am
                      30. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 2 February 2016 21: 06
                        -1
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Supersonic SKVVP "sold" to America
                        Which continues to build Av with a catapult for normal aircraft. Learn the materiel.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Under any pretext, they tried
                        turn our fleet into a flotilla for coastal defense. We know passed.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Go get treated ... Otherwise then

                        So you present your certificate or not?
                        And when is the rationale for your theories?
                      31. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 4 February 2016 10: 27
                        0
                        This is so that others would repeat, or rather equalize, and be afraid of "difficulties" and "high cost" ... Why not just powder accelerators like in Korea?
                        She also has at least 2 times larger than it should ... And not for normal but for the usual scheme.

                        To drown more Russian sailors in just one or two big boxes - we know they passed too, even the BDKs were built in Poland because the Soviet industry refused to participate in this idea of ​​yours under various pretexts.

                        The doctor will write you a certificate, and you will confuse the theory with practicemaybe someone else referring to Dr. Maggo right away ...
                      32. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 4 February 2016 13: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        This is so that others repeat, or rather equal
                        Did they tell you this? No source?
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        because the Soviet industry refused to participate in this idea of ​​yours under various pretexts
                        Who said that? No sources? By the way, Soviet industry built it:
                        http://bastion-karpenko.ru/VVT/11435_2013_02.jpg
                        http://ot-a-do-ya.org/Images/enc/RI-SSSR-RF/Warships/TAKR1143/draft_1143_3.jpg
                        http://worldweapon.ru/images/flot/1144/1144_11.jpg
                        Beauties.
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        The doctor will write you a certificate, and you will confuse theory with practice

                        So you present your certificate or not?
                        And when is the rationale for your theories?
                        And about practice:
                        http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/72836/
                      33. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 4 February 2016 22: 12
                        0
                        Yes, under torture ... But what?

                        Are you smarter than asking for a link again, did you not "come up with" anything (more precisely, you did not teach)?

                        You need to provide help so that they don’t shoot right away.

                        At the expense of practice you were "red" ...

                        This plane does not know how to land vertically / normally (and unlike Drying, it’s not even super-maneuverable), what does it have to do with it? laughing
                        You still haven't found out what kind of "helicopter maneuvers" there are except for the Nesterov loop and how the anti-ship missile warheads dive without fins and without a mask with a breathing tube under the keel?
                      34. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 5 February 2016 01: 17
                        0
                        By the way, you did not answer about Korea
                        and about the rest of your pictures,
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        http://bastion-karpenko.ru/VVT/11435_2013_02.jpg
                        http://ot-a-do-ya.org/Images/enc/RI-SSSR-RF/Warships/TAKR1143/draft_1143_3.jpg
                        http://worldweapon.ru/images/flot/1144/1144_11.jpg

                        at least it’s not the UDC / BDK in which they die thousands of immediately, and having supersonic SKVVP and RCC, it’s all the same fucking unnecessary, except to heat these very SKVVP as well as dozens of helicopters with them half thousandth crews.

                        Your usual aircraft carriers, handsome, are obsolete like battleships, and that’s
                        http://s020.radikal.ru/i712/1405/02/e878af9b044a.jpg
                        before.
                        also "handsome" just now fuck nobody needs ...
  • g1v2
    g1v2 17 January 2016 00: 46
    +2
    In order to fully project power in this way, one would have to have at least 4 aircraft carriers. That is, spend at least $ 50 billion. The country then has money, but in my opinion, spending on aircraft carriers is absolutely not effective. For the money that costs only one aircraft carrier with an air group, you can radically strengthen any of our fleets with other ships and submarines. One carrier with an air group costs 30 frigates 22350. Will one aircraft carrier strengthen us seriously? Yes, no - against more than 10 aircraft carriers and the entire US fleet, the union of the eyes (USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada) and vassal Japan (40 destroyers only), neither 2 nor 4 aircraft carriers are allowed. But the economy will be harmed. But fifty ships of 2-3 ranks in conjunction with cr and reliance on their shore and its facilities are able to prevent the enemy from attacking our shores with impunity.
    Well, the increase in our submarine potential will also be able to keep the enemy in suspense and devote significant forces to the critical sea transportation and their safety. For the maritime import-dependent powers of the United States, the UK, Japan and Australia, which are our main opponents, an attack on their civil shipping by our submarine fleet is many times more dangerous than 4 aircraft carriers or a dozen destroyers. And they understand this and are paying increased attention to the same anti-submarine aviation. How many Poseidons did they decide to purchase? And all of them are for us and the PRC. But to control the entire oceans, especially if we can provide our submarines with access to it, they are unlikely to be able to go. Therefore, in my opinion, the large-scale strengthening of the submarine fleet is much less costly and much more efficient than the construction of aircraft carriers. But if someone is ready to pay for this construction out of their money, then Moscow Oblast will certainly find use for them. hi
  • Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 16 January 2016 12: 38
    +7
    Quote: Darkmor
    So the question here will be different - what to build, a full-fledged aircraft carrier, or a couple of helicopter carriers

    Having built one aircraft carrier, we will not solve anything, if we are to build, IMHO, then at least two or three full-fledged AUGs, and this is very expensive. Otherwise, we will, like the Germans with the "Tirpitz", take care and protect, they seem to have had a wunderwolf, but there was no sense from it, apart from the purely psychological effect with the PQ-17, IMHO.
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 16 January 2016 13: 48
    +8
    Quote: Darkmor
    The aircraft carrier in this regard, tactically, is only an expensive, easily destroyed trough.

    The aircraft carrier, namely its wing, is primarily the air cover of our warrant. Moreover, in order to destroy the AUG you need to puff heavily, since the group has an echeloned missile defense and air defense (the aircraft carrier does not go alone).
    But in order to make a decision on the construction of an aircraft carrier, it is necessary first of all to renew the fleet of destroyers, frigates and cruisers. It will only be from the aircraft carrier if it is covered by obsolete escort ships with complexes built back in the USSR.
    Now about the shipyard for the construction of a colossus of 100 thousand tons ... There is a North shipyard and a Star in the Far East ...
    For those who believe that we do not need an aircraft carrier, I suggest thinking about how much the efficiency of our warrant will increase, having an air cover of 90 aircraft.
    An aircraft carrier is not needed in order to "squeeze" something from someone ... it is needed in order for our country to become a truly oceanic power.
    The development of anti-ship missiles and missile defense is a good thing, but we’re like a continental power, unlike the United States or England, for which the fleet is vital. Now we are building ships of the coastal and marine zones ... but for a very long time we are not building ships of the first rank. ( Nakhimov’s modernization doesn’t count). And if you look at the age of the same Atlantes or Orlanes, it is clear that the situation is not as good as we would like.
    Before laying the aircraft carrier, we must now build the destroyer of the Leader project, the frigates and the nuclear submarines in the iron ... the MAPL of the Yasen-M project was postponed by 2 years, and we need these submarines no less than the Boreas.
    Therefore, let us first begin to build destroyers (which are the backbone of any fleet) ... and then we will decide with the aircraft carrier that is needed, but only when we will build enough destroyers and cruisers.
    1. Starley from the south
      Starley from the south 16 January 2016 16: 59
      +1
      And I have a backfill question: does anyone know how many Americans have American carriers on the go now, not on Wikipedia, but in reality? Something seems to me that they gobble up a lot of money and rarely go out to sea.
  • Starley from the south
    Starley from the south 16 January 2016 16: 53
    -2
    Quote: Darkmor
    The aircraft carrier in this regard, tactically, is only an expensive, easily destroyed trough.

    The aircraft carrier is easy to send to the bottom, because they are designed to crush the frail and weak, and for stronger opponents they have a thin gut. If Iraq had more modern air defense and aviation in the right quantities at the beginning of the 2000, the Americans would have got there. So the aircraft carrier, in my humble opinion, is not needed. The same tasks that are assigned to aircraft carriers are no less successful, and most importantly, cheaper, ships like heavy nuclear missile cruisers, or battleships, can solve. Such a battleship is harder to sink than an aircraft carrier, and the creation of an effective air defense and missile defense system to protect a potential enemy from a massive attack from carrier-based aircraft is definitely cheaper than all the same for carrier escort ships. In addition, the maintenance of an aircraft carrier will cost much more than one battleship.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 16 January 2016 17: 10
      +4
      Quote: Starley from the South
      An aircraft carrier is easy to send to the bottom,

      Before writing such nonsense, at least you would have familiarized yourself with the subject of the conversation. An aircraft carrier walks in the ocean in splendid isolation? With him in his "entourage" are a couple of cruisers, 3-5 destroyers, frigates and several nuclear submarines ... to send the aircraft carrier to the bottom in the ocean, first you need target designation. Then you need to approach the launch distance of anti-ship missiles. And now the fun begins ... Anti-ship missiles Granite has a maximum range of 600 km, and the range of the aircraft carrier's wing is 1200 km. At the same time, you seriously think that the same cover ships and nuclear submarines will calmly look at how our warrant will approach and shoot the aircraft carrier? With regards to our nuclear submarines, then again, the big question is whether they will be allowed to come within range of the use of anti-ship complexes.
      Remains aviation. Now look what calculations were made in the USSR on the destruction of the AUG (one). Briefly, 2 TU-22 regiments were allotted to this. Moreover, it’s not at all a fact that they will sink.
      Quote: Starley from the South
      and most importantly, cheaper, ships like heavy atomic missile cruisers, or battleships, can solve.

      To do this, ships-arsenals are already being built around the world ... we have such a project-destroyer Leader, with the anti-ship complex Zircon, but it is only in the layout.
      And in order for our warrants to walk quietly across the ocean, they need good air cover, starting with the fighter component and ending with avionics.
      1. Ramzaj99
        Ramzaj99 16 January 2016 17: 43
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        Before writing such nonsense, at least you would have familiarized yourself with the subject of the conversation. An aircraft carrier walks in the ocean in splendid isolation? With him in his "entourage" are a couple of cruisers, 3-5 destroyers, frigates and several nuclear submarines ... to send the aircraft carrier to the bottom in the ocean, first you need target designation, then you need to approach the launch distance of the anti-ship missile system. And now the fun begins ...

        Well, you don’t have to make them invulnerable. On paper, this is really so.
        But everyone remembers not such an old case: When two of our aircraft, at an extremely low altitude, entered an aircraft carrier formation "on the march", and noticed them only VISUALLY, when they imitated a combat approach to the aircraft carrier)))).
        Now imagine that there were five aircraft, and each pair of anti-ship missiles, and in the anti-aircraft defense zone, they may not even be included. They came low, shot back and left. A couple of missiles, the aircraft carrier, of course, will not sink, but it will no longer be able to fulfill its functions.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 16 January 2016 18: 23
          +1
          Quote: Ramzaj99
          Well, you don’t have to make them invulnerable. On paper, this is really so.

          This is more a case than a rule. To sink an aircraft carrier you need from 12 to 20 anti-ship missiles of the Granite class.
          With regards to flying up to an aircraft carrier, it’s a little harder to do in the ocean than when it is near the coast.
          If we take our warrants, then today they say so without air cover, a much more obvious and defenseless target than AUG.
          1. Ramzaj99
            Ramzaj99 16 January 2016 23: 19
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            This is more a case than a rule.

            If this were an isolated case, then this can be called an accident.
            But there are many such cases.
            Or they forgot how the SU-24 went to the aircraft carrier, they could also determine it only visually, moreover, when refueling the aircraft carrier, and at this moment it is most guarded. There, they started cutting fuel hoses with a fright))) And such cases are not widespread just because such actions are strictly prohibited to pilots. And the plane is not a rocket, and if they do not notice such a goal, then not everything is so smooth there.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 16 January 2016 23: 26
              +3
              Quote: Ramzaj99
              If this were an isolated case, then this can be called an accident.
              But there are dozens of such cases.
              Or they forgot how the SU-24 entered the aircraft carrier, they could also determine it only visually, moreover, when refueling the aircraft carrier, and at this moment it is most guarded. There, they started cutting fuel hoses with a fright))) And such cases are not widespread just because such actions are strictly prohibited to pilots.

              Sorry, but about "chopping fuel hoses" is strong laughing ... all these stories are from the same song as the destroyer Cook and the SU-24, which put out the Aegis system on the destroyer ...
              I don’t want to disappoint you, believe no less cases of flying over our ships ...
              Do not underestimate the enemy so much. It is fraught with large and painful hemorrhoids.
              Realistically look at the situation. And do not believe everything that is being thrown into the Internet.
              1. Ramzaj99
                Ramzaj99 17 January 2016 12: 34
                0
                Quote: NEXUS
                . And do not believe everything that is being thrown into the Internet.

                No need to make from pindosos of the gods.
                Nobody is perfect.
                And for every tricky thread, there is a bolt.
                And about Cook, read the American press, and the statements of American generals about the HUGE problems of Aegis from Russian EW. The incident was the place to be. So much noise on both sides of the ocean from scratch does not happen.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 17 January 2016 13: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: Ramzaj99
                  No need to make from pindosos of the gods.

                  And I don’t do it. When they begin to engage in hat-making, having an aging fleet, there is a desire to simply bring such heroes to the ground a little.
                  Quote: Ramzaj99
                  And about Cook, read the American press,

                  As for Cook ... the Aegis system howled like a Beluga not because the SU-24 turned on the Khibiny, but because the destroyer guided at least a dozen of our radars, plus coastal electronic warfare systems.
                  I tell you, do not believe everything that is written on the internet. No one has canceled the war.
                2. Ramzaj99
                  Ramzaj99 17 January 2016 13: 24
                  0
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  I tell you, do not believe everything that is written on the internet. No one has canceled the war.

                  I didn’t tell you that the Khibiny on the Su-24 killed Aegis. I tell you that there was an incident itself recognized by the American side and there were problems with Aegis as a result of using Russian electronic warfare.
                3. The comment was deleted.
          2. spravochnik
            spravochnik 18 January 2016 10: 05
            0
            [/ Quote]
            If this were an isolated case, then this can be called an accident.
            But there are many such cases.
            Or they forgot how the SU-24 went to the aircraft carrier, they could also determine it only visually, moreover, when refueling the aircraft carrier, and at this moment it is most guarded. There, they started cutting fuel hoses with a fright))) And such cases are not widespread just because such actions are strictly prohibited to pilots. And the plane is not a rocket, and if you do not notice such a goal, then not everything is so smooth there. [/ Quote]
            Why cut hoses if there is a quick release system.
        2. leon1204id
          leon1204id 17 January 2016 22: 50
          0
          And one Granite is enough to damage the catapult. (Or the same Club K) and all this is a big trough. And if you remember how the Chinese are going to sink aircraft carriers with nuclear missiles ....... i.e. they went further than the USSR.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 18 January 2016 10: 09
            -1
            Quote: leon1204id
            And one Granite is enough to damage the catapult. (Or the same Club K) and all this is a big trough. And if you remember how the Chinese are going to sink aircraft carriers with nuclear missiles ....... i.e. they went further than the USSR.

            Well, you disable one catapult. So what? Three others will remain.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 23: 31
        +3
        Quote: Ramzaj99
        But everyone remembers not such an old case: When two of our aircraft, at an extremely low altitude, entered an aircraft carrier formation "on the march", and noticed them only VISUALLY, when they imitated a combat approach to the aircraft carrier)))).

        There have been several such cases. for example, with the Su-24, when the pair entered the aircraft carrier at the moment when the latter was refueling.
        Well, now - attention, the correct answer :)))
        1) The location of the aircraft carrier was known in advance - he did not try to hide or "dodge" from surveillance. He was just showing presence. In a combat situation, this will not happen
        2) There was no MANDATORY air patrol in the most dangerous direction. And he is obligatory in military operations, with high danger - their TWO.
        3) There was no advanced naval watch (usually it’s a destroyer 40-75 miles advanced in a threatening direction. But there was no war.
        4) There was no MANDATORY air patrol over the warrant.
        5) Aircraft carrier took fuel. In a combat situation, within the reach of enemy aviation, such an act is on the other side of good and evil.
        And in a real battle - if you please, 2 regiments of Tu-22M3 plus two regiments of fighter aircraft plus reconnaissance aircraft, electronic warfare and so on. With the success of the AUG, it will be destroyed, the aircraft carrier is sunk or incapacitated, the loss of attacking aircraft is up to 80%
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 16 January 2016 23: 38
          +5
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          losses of attacking aircraft - up to 80%

          The numbers are called up to 85-90% hi Only after all, people believe that an aircraft carrier walks in splendid isolation, and in the vast oceans of the world, target designation on it will be obtained with the click of a finger. laughing
          And our orders have no air cover laughing .We will tear all, scare and put to the bottom without air cover. wassat (sarcasm)
          Meanwhile, we will soon celebrate the 40th anniversary of the flagship Black Sea Fleet Moscow.
        2. Ramzaj99
          Ramzaj99 17 January 2016 12: 53
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Well, now - attention, the correct answer :)))

          1. There is such an entertaining thing .... the satellite is called. And believe me, the location of each aircraft carrier is tracked every minute.
          2.3.4. Excuse me, did you personally report the absence of a patrol?
          5.This is the most protected moment. In war there is no good and evil, there is a task to win.
          And as for the real battle)))) All these FICTIONS are only a simulation of the situation, and all these statements about the invulnerability of American ships, from the same opera as the tales of the invulnerability of American invisible planes .... The war in Yugoslavia showed that it was a bluff and rave.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 17 January 2016 13: 07
            +2
            Quote: Ramzaj99
            1. There is such an entertaining thing .... the satellite is called. And believe me, the location of each aircraft carrier is tracked every minute.

            Do you think that having satellites it is possible to easily obtain target designation, or even find AB?
            You should at least ask how the mattresses turned out. And they have twice as many satellite constellations.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Starley from the south
      Starley from the south 16 January 2016 21: 06
      0
      Quote: NEXUS
      Before writing such nonsense, at least you would have familiarized yourself with the subject of the conversation. An aircraft carrier walks in the ocean in splendid isolation? With him in his "entourage" are a couple of cruisers, 3-5 destroyers, frigates and several nuclear submarines ... to send the aircraft carrier to the bottom in the ocean, target designation is needed first.

      Of course, I did not serve on the Navy and on the aircraft carrier in particular. And about nonsense, so my opinion is supported by not so few people, including those who understand this issue are better than me. Would you read the articles that you wrote, for example last year, here on the VO on this topic, maybe you would not be so categorical. But one thing is certain: the question of the necessity or unnecessity of aircraft carriers in our country has not yet been resolved, not only to the circle of couch strategists, but among the expert community.
      Quote: NEXUS
      1200km Aircraft Carrier Wing Range

      I doubt this figure, because the radius of detection by AWACS targets such as a fighter flying is not very low, is something about 600 km, and missiles like Granite are even smaller. Of course, the TARK will be detected at a distance greater than 600 km, but our ships may have heard that there are newer anti-ship missiles with a greater range. And yet, our experts somehow calculated, long ago calculated, how many missiles, such as an obsolete Granite, will reach an aircraft carrier, even if it is fully escorted and ready. It turned out that out of 24 - 30 missiles, at least 2 pieces will reach the target. They, of course, will not sink the aircraft carrier, but will cause irreparable damage to it. Apparently, the Americans also know this, because their AUGs do not really want to get closer to our TARKs, even Moscow is afraid of the cruiser.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 16 January 2016 21: 18
        +2
        Quote: Starley from the South
        Would you read the articles that you wrote, for example last year, here on VO on this subject,

        You won’t believe it, but I’ve been reading articles on the site since I was 13.
        Quote: Starley from the South
        But one thing is certain: the question of the necessity or unnecessity of aircraft carriers in our country has not yet been resolved,

        The question of whether or not the need for aircraft carriers, reminds me of this-

        An aircraft carrier is needed, only new TARKs and destroyers need to be built first, and "do not pull the bottom pot," saying that we need to build it now.
        Quote: Starley from the South
        but our ships may have heard there are newer anti-ship missiles

        There is ... Zircon, which is only being developed and is not yet standing on more than one of our ships.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 18 January 2016 09: 58
    +1
    Quote: Darkmor
    In peacetime, it is practically useless.
    Just, precisely, in the so-called peacetime, the aircraft carrier is needed most of all. And, for an aircraft carrier, as well as for a surface fleet, there is always work, it will depend on this work whether it comes to a big war, or everything can be sorted out in local conflicts, force pressure and demonstrations. In "peacetime" even strategic nuclear submarines, created specifically for nuclear war, and not peacetime, are not useless for this peacetime, since they carry a deterrent factor. If we talk about "troughs", then all ships will become them in a total nuclear war, come to it. With such a logic, it is useless to have all the runways, all land airfields with aviation, all this will be destroyed, all this is already the primary goals for a possible war. What we should build should be determined by the fact that there is no point in a defective fleet, planning a knowingly flawed fleet that is not capable of solving the entire range of tasks at sea, this is throwing money down the drain. Cutting is more expensive here, such talk about the fleet, it's like talking about what is more important for a disabled person, arms or legs. Either Russia is building a strong fleet, or it will have a disabled fleet. Let me emphasize that we are not talking about quantitative butting with America, we will not build any more, not only aircraft carriers, but also destroyers with frigates, even nuclear submarines, if we rest on some boats without cover, but we are talking about creating a balanced, full-fledged fleet capable of solving all tasks on sea. This requires all classes of ships, all types of modern naval weapons, including naval aviation, and its carriers, aircraft carriers. VTOL aircraft and tiltrotors, like UDC or light aircraft carriers, are not an alternative, but a necessary addition to modern weapons, and, presumably, very promising in its further development. Russia can and should have a strong fleet, which is not built in one day, all the costs, not a one-time banquet, these are many years of construction, this is the development of our science and production. Russia is a rich country, the same States would have been bent long ago despite the fact that Russia had taken it out, the Yankees and the printing press, with their world dollar, would not have helped.
  • Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 21 November 2016 11: 52
    0
    It’s because of people like YOU that we had TAKRA, and not aircraft carriers in the USSR, you need to push YOUR fig couch politicians. Have you ever passed a ship past Kuznetsov? Was on Peter the Great that you are smart here. Russia needs two aircraft carriers at least otherwise we are not the Power of Peter the Great. The path along the takras turned out to be a dead end, although they were powerful enough, but Russia does not have a normal airplane with a vertical plane and will not be there for the foreseeable 10-15 years. So half measures will not help.
  • user
    user 16 January 2016 17: 59
    +1
    The meaning of building aircraft carriers should be dictated primarily by the military economy


    I think the meaning of the construction of aircraft carriers should be determined by the military doctrine of the Russian Federation where the goals and objectives of the Navy will be determined, and which should determine which fleet our country needs. Because the construction of one even the most advanced aircraft carrier does not solve anything, it needs a grouping of ships and infrastructure for basing the AUG, plus an aviation component with its own infrastructure. So the cost of the aircraft carrier itself against the background of these costs will be only a small part.
    It is necessary to determine goals and objectives, and then build ships, well, and there is always not enough money for them.
  • looker-on
    looker-on 18 January 2016 10: 35
    0
    The meaning of the construction of aircraft carriers should be dictated not by the military, but by the general economy of the country, in my humble opinion. According to the military doctrine of the Russian Federation, there are simply no worthy tasks for a "large" aircraft carrier. And in case of conflicts according to the Syria template, the Mistral project is more suitable for our country. I think that is why we did not receive them.
  • Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 16 January 2016 06: 55
    +2
    Quote: apro
    , today Russia is a dependent country and the creation of such expensive toys is a waste of time and money.

    That's right, you need to stop the meaningless purchases of new combat aircraft and meaningless submarines. To abandon the senseless YRSs and disperse the army to hell with dogs. It is meaningless.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 16 January 2016 07: 07
      10
      - The presence of an aircraft carrier in the composition of the compound greatly expands the capabilities of reconnaissance and target designation for connecting ships.


      So let's first decide on whose coast we will keep the aircraft carrier and how useful it will be for the Russian fleet.
      At IEE, this topic has been understood many times, and things are still there.
      Is the RUSSIAN aircraft carrier needed or not needed ... is that the question? what
      Next comes the question of political decision, money, industry readiness, etc.
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 16 January 2016 07: 51
        +2
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        At IEE, this topic has been understood many times, and things are still there.

        And what is NVO? "Independent Military Review" (nvo.ng.ru)? Or do you mean topwar.ru? Actually, it does not play a role - no matter how much the topic is "raised" on such thematic platforms, it will not become the basis for making decisions in the field of defense construction by the RF leadership. The opinion of Internet experts is the last thing of interest to the government bully
        1. Dembel77
          Dembel77 16 January 2016 09: 01
          +2
          You need to start with the economy. There will be a strong economy - there will be money, there will be money - we will build everything. And leave the fantasies to science fiction writers, we need to be realistic.
          1. Shark Lover
            Shark Lover 16 January 2016 18: 59
            -2
            A strong economy requires strong economists, or, at least patriots, they are not, or very few. Therefore, first build some kind of populist, 10 pieces, fit them to the government, the Duma, the council of federations and scare, like the Papuans, the colonization of their servants, and it’s tough. Then everything will be.
            1. Starley from the south
              Starley from the south 16 January 2016 21: 19
              +1
              Quote: Shark Lover
              A strong economy requires strong economists, or, at least patriots, they are not, or very few.

              No, they are, but they are not in the government.
      2. rkkasa xnumx
        rkkasa xnumx 16 January 2016 08: 46
        13
        Quote: The same Lech
        Is the RUSSIAN aircraft carrier needed or not needed ... is that the question?

        True or not, but there is such a bike:

        "A Time journalist asked if Gorshkov was afraid of American aircraft carriers. To which the admiral replied: "My task is not to build aircraft carriers. My task is to make sure that in case of war you will not have them.".
      3. cap
        cap 17 January 2016 00: 14
        0
        Quote: The same Lech
        - The presence of an aircraft carrier in the composition of the compound greatly expands the capabilities of reconnaissance and target designation for connecting ships.


        So let's first decide on whose coast we will keep the aircraft carrier and how useful it will be for the Russian fleet.
        At IEE, this topic has been understood many times, and things are still there.
        Is the RUSSIAN aircraft carrier needed or not needed ... is that the question? what
        Next comes the question of political decision, money, industry readiness, etc.

        What is the argument. The answer is near.
        "The Navy has confirmed plans to get a nuclear aircraft carrier in 2030
        16 January 2016, 22: 55
        In 2016, the Navy will receive 42 ships and support vessels, construction of a new universal amphibious assault ship will begin in 2018, and a nuclear-powered aircraft-carrying cruiser is expected to appear in 2030, said Vladimir Tryapichnikov, head of the naval shipbuilding department, Caperang.
        It remains to wait for 2030. Someone is lucky. 4 years old and maybe I'm lucky to see. hi
        1. Andrey55
          Andrey55 19 January 2016 10: 59
          0
          It remains to wait for the year 2030.4 years maybe I'm lucky to see.

          Until 2030, a dozen years more.
  • Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 16 January 2016 10: 16
    0
    From whom is Russia a dependent country?
    We butts with the Americans. Only if from oil prices.
  • Rash
    Rash 16 January 2016 06: 50
    24
    It starts again ... laughing wassat wassat wassat
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 16 January 2016 06: 56
      12
      Quote: Rash
      It starts again ..

      For those who want to push the srach.
      Guys, we don’t have money for an aircraft carrier!
    2. kote119
      kote119 16 January 2016 10: 36
      +1
      picture in the subject, put + lol
    3. King, just king
      King, just king 16 January 2016 16: 16
      +1
      Rash - K-R-A-C-A-B-A! Rzhunimagu! I beg your pardon, I do not know how to scribble "handsome" with "you"!
      Another weirdo licks some fiction.
  • Koshak
    Koshak 16 January 2016 07: 20
    10
    If you introduce a progressive income tax, the confiscation of "back-earned money", cancel
    "golden parachutes" ... will be enough for aircraft carriers, and even for the indexation of pensions and child benefits. Although, what am I talking about ... crying
    1. Valdis
      Valdis 16 January 2016 08: 29
      +5
      and cancel the 2018 World Cup))))) moreover, just before the opening))))) winked
    2. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 16 January 2016 10: 24
      +2
      In the current situation, businessmen will close their shops and flee to tropical islands. The hard workers come to work in the morning and kiss the closed doors. And stand in a long line for benefits and a plate of free stew. You can of course try to hang some Deripaska who did not have time to escape on a tree. But life won't get any better. "Partners" will say - "you are a wild country - you have a recession, unemployment, people are fleeing from the country, Deripaska hang on trees, how can you do business with you?" Do you want to live like this?
      1. Former
        Former 16 January 2016 11: 24
        +9
        Today is the day off at the office.
        In fact, fishing today is "without businessmen" - no "input" either from the Head Office or from the local one.
        Gas also goes through the pipe, plannedly switched to the second BCS, we ship PBF and condensate.

        The same thing throughout the country.
        The oligarchs will not take with them the pipes through which oil and gas flows, they will not "drank" the power lines with a hacksaw, they will not extinguish the blast furnaces.
        It will be easier, more fun to work without them, as we once worked in the USSR (like me, for example) - new productions will be built, the workers will not be shameful.

        And no need to jerk
        - Like, in the USSR they ate only vodka and "hosed" - until now, they can't gobble up and sell what was created in the USSR!
        Well, the fact that outsourcing and other trash will disappear is so wonderful!

        So there will be no "closed doors" if the described miracle happens.
        - All oligarchs will be removed from here (or they will work as simple laborers at the Construction Projects of the National Economy for parole)
        - "Locks" will not be enough if we, simple laborers, will be united!
        But this is a fairy tale, isn't it?

        I apologize for being off topic.
        Really boring, excuse me, is that it is believed that without the oligarchs anywhere!
        Believe me, there is someone to lead, there are techies and even excellent economists who are rooting for their country!

        And on the topic ..
        Probably, all the same, the aircraft carrier is needed - this is at least jobs, perhaps a certain "prestige" of the Country.
        You can write a lot, but is it worth it?
        1. sa-ag
          sa-ag 16 January 2016 17: 39
          +1
          Quote: Former
          The oligarchs will not take with them the pipes through which oil and gas flows, they will not "drank" the power lines with a hacksaw, they will not extinguish the blast furnaces.

          They will take their money, I doubt that without them - money will be happier and more fun to work :-)
      2. NIKNN
        NIKNN 16 January 2016 11: 41
        +2
        Quote: Cap.Morgan
        In the current situation, businessmen close their shops and flee to the tropical islands.

        This is why an aircraft carrier is needed to get them there wink
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 17 January 2016 14: 46
          -1
          two businessmen put a minus wassat

          they don’t have money for a flat roof floating hangar
      3. alicante11
        alicante11 16 January 2016 13: 28
        +2
        In the current situation, businessmen close their shops and flee to the tropical islands.


        If there is no mind, then let them run. There they will quickly be dispossessed, on one island, albeit not tropical, but Mediterranean, they have already done so.


        The hard workers came to work in the morning to kiss closed gates. And they will stand in a long line for benefits and a plate of free stew.


        Come on, a new director will be elected, or the state will appoint, open the gate and continue to work. But they will not unbuckle "businessmen" into cars-villas-lovers, which will really increase the capabilities of enterprises.

        "Partners" will say - "you are a wild country - you have a recession, unemployment, people are fleeing from the country, Deripaska are hanging on trees, how can you do business with you?" Do you want to live like this?


        Yeah, and basically stop buying gas, oil and sell their goods? And only for the hanged Deriapsku? I am begging you...
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. lnew
          lnew 16 January 2016 13: 40
          -1
          Quote: alicante11
          Come on, they will choose a new director, or the state will appoint, open the gates and continue to work.

          Those. steal someone else's property? Yeah
          And now this is the situation. You rested on pancakes at your mother-in-law. And then the "workers" came and decided to live in your apartment. You are not there. They unlocked the door and live for themselves. Live for an hour. The two live. A responsible tenant has been selected. And then, three hours later, they decided to move out. By seizing ownerless (you are not) property. What is it called from the point of view of the Criminal Code? So your rantings are called the same.
          Quote: alicante11
          Yeah, and basically stop buying gas, oil and sell their goods?

          It could even be. They are already cutting purchases. And the turnover is falling.
          1. max702
            max702 16 January 2016 14: 29
            0
            Quote: lnew
            Those. steal someone else's property? Yeah

            Why is it stolen? They will take advantage of the experience of civilized countries .. How do they famously squeeze other people's property by decision of all kinds of courts and committees? This is how it will be here. The necessary laws will be adopted, and accordingly the court will make the right decisions .. And for those who disagree there is MO .. You say they say this is a bust, yeah, but how does the United States and comrades work? In the same way, just the decisions of their courts are first reinforced by economic levers (seizure of accounts, enterprises, real estate), and if it doesn’t help, then the MoD and other specialized institutions begin to carry democracy ..
            1. lnew
              lnew 16 January 2016 14: 48
              +1
              Quote: max702
              They will take advantage of the experience of civilized countries .. How do they famously squeeze other people's property by decision of all kinds of courts and committees?

              And can you give examples? Well, what you wrote about.
              1. alicante11
                alicante11 16 January 2016 15: 10
                +1
                And can you give examples? Well, what you wrote about.


                Please - Cypriot expropriation. By the way, with the filing of the EU.

                And now this is the situation. You rested on pancakes at your mother-in-law. And then the "workers" came and decided to live in your apartment.


                If "I" left for permanent residence "on the islands", then let them live. Anyway, they will "hang" here. Life is more precious.


                What is it called from the point of view of the Criminal Code? So your rants are called the same.


                Well, having taken off their head, they don't cry through their hair. It already implies either a coup or "expropriation." The point is that "workers will suffer". But no, they will not suffer, only thieves who will sharpen the skis over the hill. Well, it's not a pity for him, to be honest.

                It could even be. They are already cutting purchases. And the turnover is falling.


                Cut - do not stop the "crisis," but Europeans still want to bask in the winters, this is not dill.
                1. lnew
                  lnew 16 January 2016 15: 37
                  0
                  Quote: alicante11
                  Please - Cypriot expropriation. By the way, with the filing of the EU

                  Those. the essence of the events taking place in Cyprus passed you by. If you are interested, the Cypriot authorities have come out of their way to minimize the loss of investors. Literally did what they could.
                  Quote: alicante11
                  If "I" left for permanent residence "to the islands"

                  I was actually talking about "to my mother-in-law for pancakes."
                  Quote: alicante11
                  But no, they won’t suffer, only a thief who will ski the ski over a hill.

                  Those. if they took everything out of your apartment, but didn’t get over the hill, then they are not thieves? Is the Criminal Code wrong?
                  Quote: alicante11
                  and Europeans still want to bask in the winters

                  They want to. And what, they really have nothing? It seems like they don’t suffer much from the cold. And not really, either.
        3. kalibr
          kalibr 16 January 2016 19: 42
          0
          For one, no! But after all we are going to "kulak" all, on many aircraft carriers, we decided not enough one. And here is the principle, and for the principle a lot of things can be done to discourage their own!
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 17 January 2016 04: 11
            0
            For one, no! But after all we are going to "kulak" all, on many aircraft carriers, we decided not enough one. And here is the principle, and for the principle a lot of things can be done to discourage their own!


            Actually, there was no question of "kulak", it was "for hanging". It doesn't matter for business to buy from Deripaska or from the people's director. And if the price also goes down ... And the politicians are imposing sanctions even without the hanged Deripaska, so if necessary, they will cut off the oxygen to their businessmen.
      4. Shark Lover
        Shark Lover 16 January 2016 18: 19
        +1
        I laughed at the phrase "Deripaska hang on the trees"))))))))))))) The largest park should be allocated. There are a lot of them, there will not be enough trees)))
    3. kalibr
      kalibr 16 January 2016 10: 24
      +2
      Even if "take away and divide everything" into 15 aircraft carriers is not enough, but one ... in figs is it needed? For show-off, perhaps!
      1. max702
        max702 16 January 2016 14: 37
        +1
        Quote: kalibr
        Even if "take away and divide everything" into 15 aircraft carriers is not enough, but one ... in figs is it needed? For show-off, perhaps!

        Well, if you take it away and divide it into a lot, it’s enough. Here’s a link to the site of the most expensive yachts in the world. Find out who owns the most and how much they cost, just 10 AUGs and enough .. And if you dig a little deeper, then there’s a lot more .. http://www.superyachtfan.com/
        pc: Regarding the aircraft carriers I agree with you nafig unnecessary troughs! Those funds that they will be invested in, we would invest in our country and it will be possible to look at the rest of the world from high periodically spitting on the most moronic ..
        1. lnew
          lnew 16 January 2016 14: 52
          +1
          Quote: max702
          Well, if you take away and divide by a lot, that's enough

          But didn’t you think that you too can take a lot of things? Property, freedom, health, life, relatives and friends. Do you know a proverb about a pit for a neighbor? I highly recommend you study it. By heart. You really need her. Just vital.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Federal
    Federal 16 January 2016 07: 32
    +3
    A “race” with the fleets of the USA and other western powers is a priori meaningless, since Russia is a “continental” power, while the USA and a number of other western powers (for example, Great Britain) are “maritime”, for which the fleet is almost the main military-political instrument.

    Apparently also because aircraft carriers did not build the military-industrial complex in the USSR, the USSR nevertheless conducted mainly a defensive policy and tried not to demonstrate offensive weapons. This confirms that we are a peaceful state and are not going to wage aggressive wars in foreign territories.
    Quote: Hungary [111K]

    The USSR put more emphasis on the submarine fleet, on nuclear submarine missile carriers and on strategic bombers. Bomber is faster than an aircraft carrier. Plus a lot of mobile complexes with Satan missiles, whose range and characteristics made it possible to make a preventive offensive strike.
    A nuclear submarine was cheaper than an aircraft carrier, and an aircraft carrier without an escort of 3-4 escort ships and nuclear submarines is also worth little, too big and light target. And this is an additional expense.
    The nuclear submarines of the latest generations were much better than the American ones in noise and invisibility, the sunken Kursk, for example, went under the American carrier fleet in the Mediterranean Sea almost unnoticed ...
    link: http://www.bolshoyvopros.ru/questions/632389-pochemu-sssr-tak-i-ne-postroil-udar


    nyh-avianoscev.html
  • kuz363
    kuz363 16 January 2016 07: 33
    +9
    Last year "Caliber" showed its effectiveness. So the future seems to belong to medium and small ships, and not to monsters in the form of aircraft carriers and battleships. And then, even if Russia builds an aircraft carrier, it will be a pale copy of the American one. With half the number of aircraft, at least no bases in the world's oceans. And he alone will not solve anything, since there are 10 such aircraft carriers in the USA! Russia needs to use its advantages of the largest territory - BRZhK, land strategic nuclear forces, and so on.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 16 January 2016 09: 51
      +2
      Exactly, the future belongs to missile ships, aircraft carriers - yesterday.
      1. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 16 January 2016 10: 43
        +2
        Quote: KaPToC
        aircraft carriers - yesterday.

        Only not for those who want to conquer other people's minerals, a very convenient thing: bomb the Papuans, who have nothing but a Kalash. Fly yourself back and forth with bombs and cannons, and at the same time drop toys to orphans.
    2. kote119
      kote119 16 January 2016 10: 41
      0
      these ships cannot be compared, these are ships that perform different tasks
    3. max702
      max702 16 January 2016 15: 34
      +4
      Quote: kuz363
      Last year "Caliber" showed its effectiveness. So the future seems to belong to medium and small ships, and not to monsters in the form of aircraft carriers and battleships.

      All right! good We also forgot about space. here in the flock it is said about AWACS aircraft as a means of target designation, well so why not assign this to a satellite constellation? Yes, now it’s somewhat fantastic, but we need to work and everything will become a reality, our task is not to conquer new spaces, but to inflict unacceptable damage on the enemy in the event of a conflict with him. In rocket science, we have come close to solving the problem of hypersound. how they decide all the fleet can be written off! We’ll deploy hypersonic rockets in platforms on space with a reaction speed of 1-2 minutes and at a speed of rockets of 50-60 km \ n there is no sense in the fleet, maybe this is why the space industry was slowed down all over the world because many could get an effective tool the impact of which there is no protection .. And many more who advocate for aircraft carriers forget such a crucial detail, stating that the AUG will increase the stability of the fleet in the event of a conflict with enemy aircraft AUG, namely WHAT IS THE CONFLICT AND WITH WHOM? It is most important! Only the USA and some of NATO have AHG, and therefore, since we are fighting with them, it will not be limited to one fleet, and EVERYTHING will go into action! First of all, strategic nuclear forces, or does someone think that in case of this they will do without nuclear weapons? They think so in vain, it was the timely use of nuclear weapons that would give a chance to victory for either side and it would be involved as early as possible because then it would be too late! So whether opponents have an AUG or not does not matter! And for other tasks, and the author himself states in the article that for Russia there are no other tasks for using AUG, this type of weapon is redundant! We’ll master our territory, populate people, rebuild and manage everything and everything, and then the question of new lands and resources will arise, what we inherited from our ancestors will be enough for developing 150-200 years and squandering resources in the coming years for playing boats ! Thank God that the country's top leadership understands this, prestige is good, but so far it’s not fat.
      1. Former battalion commander
        Former battalion commander 18 January 2016 00: 01
        +1
        at a missile speed of 50-60 km \ with meaning in the fleet

        And where did you see the rocket at that speed? At this speed, the object will immediately leave the limits of the solar system.
    4. Gerhard
      Gerhard 17 January 2016 01: 18
      +1
      Quote: kuz363
      So the future is visible for medium and small ships, and not monsters in the form of aircraft carriers and battleships.

      Khrushchev also carried nonsense in the form of a pier, if there are missiles, then the Air Force is not needed. Only it was nonsense.
  • Valdis
    Valdis 16 January 2016 07: 35
    +9
    We can’t do it ourselves. I propose to order in France. When it is almost ready, we will squeeze Narva from Estonia, with all that it implies ..... laughing
  • dzerzhinsky
    dzerzhinsky 16 January 2016 07: 38
    +4
    ... Yes, an aircraft carrier is insanely expensive, but the cost of it will pay off at times in the future ...

    In my opinion, an aircraft carrier is just an excellent target, which is quite easy to turn into a large pile of useless iron with conventional missiles, not to mention nuclear missiles. And he definitely has no future. It is dangerous only for third world countries - such as Papua New Guinea, Ivory Coast, etc.
    In addition, the author of the article needed to provide data on how much, for example, to build submarines or cruisers for the money spent on his (aircraft carrier) production. And it will immediately become clear whether Russia needs such a toy!
    1. rkkasa xnumx
      rkkasa xnumx 16 January 2016 08: 40
      +2
      Quote: Dzerzhinsky
      data on how much you can build, for example, submarines or cruisers for the money spent on its (aircraft carrier) production.

      Recently, there was a good article at VO:
      http://topwar.ru/88019-razvitie-vmf-sssr-svezhiy-vzglyad-v-buduschee.html


      "A combat-ready AV costs 7,8 times the cost of a missile-armed submarine at current prices."
    2. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 16 January 2016 10: 48
      +2
      Quote: Dzerzhinsky
      but the cost of it will pay off at times in the future ...

      Which side? will they carry tourists, or then convert them into container ships? And maybe then cut them and melt them on needles? And on pins and needles write: "This needle is made from an aircraft carrier." If someone wants to conquer someone, then he must understand that the Russians, if they conquer someone, they begin to feed and dress them until they are bitten by the breastfeeding hand. What prosperity is there, some losses ...
    3. Shark Lover
      Shark Lover 16 January 2016 18: 31
      +1
      By the way, yes. RCC is good, but it’s going to be a serious batch with nature, it won’t do without nuclear weapons. At what distance and at what power does the nuclear bomb need to be blown up so that the entire AUG is flushed into the toilet by a wave? I think even tactical will be enough. If the aircraft carrier’s planes are on a mission, I don’t envy them, the airdrome was washed away
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 18 January 2016 10: 32
        0
        At what distance do not explode, it will not wash off anyway. A modern order is being built taking into account the possibility of using nuclear weapons. All ships go at a fairly large distance, and as tests have shown, the ships are very resistant to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons.
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 16 January 2016 07: 43
    17
    Again twenty-five. This topic has been discussed a hundred thousand times. Nobody argues that aircraft carriers themselves are useful and necessary. Nobody argues that it’s better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick. But on practice Now we can’t even exploit Kuznetsov, which is like a suitcase without a handle: it’s hard to carry, but it’s a pity to leave.
    Also, in practice, our economy is ruled by people like Gref, who said yesterday that Russia is a losing country. We have now been building the Severodvinsk submarine for 20 years, and then for the third year they have been "experimentally exploiting" it. What aircraft carriers in such conditions can we talk about unclear.
    First you need to send all the Grefs and Kudrins to Kolyma, completely change their economic policies, restore production, and then talk about new aircraft carriers.
    1. Private27
      Private27 16 January 2016 11: 08
      +3
      They forgot about the dimonik.
      1. Former battalion commander
        Former battalion commander 17 January 2016 23: 55
        0
        So it’s such an empty place that it’s not a sin to forget ...
  • engineer74
    engineer74 16 January 2016 08: 30
    +7
    In general, it is strange to talk about the construction of an aircraft carrier as discarded money! I will explain:
    1. Money in any case will remain in the country and will be invested in real production.
    2. Russia will get a bunch of jobs in "high technology".
    3. One way or another, you will have to develop your electronic equipment, machine tool industry, nuclear technology, composites, etc. (they will wind up such sanctions for such a project that we will have to do everything ourselves until the last bolt).
    4. There will be experienced engineers and workers in commercial quantities.
    5. Technologies and experience will spread across other fields of application, including commercial ones.
    6. There will be an incentive for the further development of aviation, drones, light aircraft (UAVs) AWACS, which is also in demand.
    So, with the normal organization of the project, the money will be "repulsed" even before the flag is raised!
    IMHO
    1. Valdis
      Valdis 16 January 2016 08: 38
      +4
      Something the construction of cosmodromes and ships did not pull up the country much. Plus "excesses" in financing as in the "East". bully Skolkovo alone is not enough for us with their parties. This is all megalomania of "Upper Volta" with missiles.
    2. kuz363
      kuz363 16 January 2016 08: 47
      0
      Well, something like that happened during the USSR, when the military industry was at its best, and consumer goods were brought from abroad. How it ended is known. The country simply economically overstrained.
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 16 January 2016 09: 02
        +6
        Do you propose focusing on consumer goods? And who will consume it? Oil workers and farmers? wassat
        Stalin, on occasion, tell us about the uselessness of heavy industry and high technology! And to Roosevelt about the futility of the military-industrial complex as the "locomotive of the economy" ...
    3. common man
      common man 16 January 2016 10: 30
      +6
      Quote: engineer74
      3. One way or another, you will have to develop your electronic equipment, machine tool industry, nuclear technology, composites, etc. (they will wind up such sanctions for such a project that we will have to do everything ourselves until the last bolt).

      So can we first invest in the creation of modern factories for the production of electronics, machine tools and other things? Factories will also remain in the country.
      PS Frigates are unfinished, without engines. How much does it cost to build a plant and set up production of the entire line of ship turbines?
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 16 January 2016 10: 41
        +2
        There are no abstract factories for the production of anything - "demand creates supply"! So, for example, it happened with helicopter engines and air defense systems - factories were built.
        If there is a demand for domestic machine tools, private owners will invest in machine tool industry, not the state! But, I repeat, this is with the correct organization of the project! hi
        There are enough factories in the country where it is possible to manufacture ship turbines, there are no "finished" projects and a test base, so everything will be a little later than desired, but it will be! smile
    4. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 16 January 2016 10: 59
      +1
      Quote: engineer74
      It’s generally strange to talk about construction

      such an aircraft as Pe-8, for two Il-4 carry the same number of bombs as one Pe-8 and at the same range. The cost of building one Pe-8 is equal to four Il-4 aircraft. In the event of a shot down: the crew of the Pe-8 is eleven people, on two IL-4 - six.
      A single missile can destroy an aircraft base, a ship with a crew, and strategic missile launchers in the nose of an aircraft carrier.
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 16 January 2016 11: 23
        +6
        Have you heard about the Flying Fortresses raids? Specifically about their "interaction" with enemy fighters? smile
        And in general I had something else in mind: the fact that the implementation of such mega-projects strongly drives the technological and, as a result, the economic development of the country! It makes no difference to me what it will be - an aviv carrier, a crowd of atomic stealth destroyers, an aerospace bomber, even the Death Star, the main thing is that the project should be large-scale (ensure high employment in real production), long-term, high-tech and generate IMS (key multidisciplinary technologies) !

        In short: the main thing is to return the country to the technological path of development from agrarian and raw materials. It is better to do this through large-scale projects in the defense sector - now is the time ... hi
        IMHO
        1. Starley from the south
          Starley from the south 16 January 2016 21: 44
          0
          All this is good: large projects, many developments, including in the non-military sphere. It's great, I say without pathos! But if everything is more or less clear with the destroyers, then what should we do with the aircraft carrier? Leaving aside the question of the cost of its maintenance ... Let's say Nicaragua asks us to protect against an attack by "terrorists" who do not like the Transoceanic Canal project, what are we going to do? Wouldn't it be easier to create an air group there, as in Syria, than to send an aircraft carrier. And cheap and cheerful. And with the S-400 systems, no planes will fly close.
    5. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 16 January 2016 11: 14
      +2
      All the same will happen if the ships are built less pathos and more efficient.
      The same technology and jobs.
      One single strategic bomber, having launched a couple of exosets, will easily drown an aircraft carrier, and having a chance of salvation.
      Great, expensive to build and operate, noticeable, needs an escort squadron.
      Only needed for fighting thousands of miles from home.
      Well and still scare pupupas in Africa.
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 16 January 2016 11: 45
        -2
        Firstly, the Exosets do not carry strategic bombers, and secondly, they need a carriage for an aircraft carrier if they do not hit the catapults and aircraft lifts, which, by the way, is quite realistic. smile
        As for the main tasks of the Russian aircraft carriers, it is necessary to drive the Papuans, and not only in Africa, but they often began to wind up their turban and raise black banners, the defense of SSBNs increases the stability of the strategic nuclear forces.
        IMHO
    6. max702
      max702 16 January 2016 15: 48
      +2
      Quote: engineer74
      In general, it is strange to talk about the construction of an aircraft carrier as discarded money! I will explain:
      1. Money in any case will remain in the country and will be invested in real production.
      2. Russia will get a bunch of jobs in "high technology".
      3. One way or another, you will have to develop your electronic equipment, machine tool industry, nuclear technology, composites, etc. (they will wind up such sanctions for such a project that we will have to do everything ourselves until the last bolt).
      4. There will be experienced engineers and workers in commercial quantities.
      5. Technologies and experience will spread across other fields of application, including commercial ones.
      6. There will be an incentive for the further development of aviation, drones, light aircraft (UAVs) AWACS, which is also in demand.
      So, with the normal organization of the project, the money will be "repulsed" even before the flag is raised!

      All that you have listed can be obtained with other projects much more useful for our state! The construction of the same engineering plants, infrastructure and a lot of what is coming from abroad now. Nakoy lyad to throw out a mountain of forces and means on the project from which there will be no return?
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 16 January 2016 18: 20
        +1
        Machine Tool Plant? And why are they needed if a consumer product is not made on these machines? But Russia’s market niche is not large: military equipment, space (if not everyone has loved it), energy (nuclear and other high-tech). C / X, etc. I don’t take it - this is a separate song.
  • 3vs
    3vs 16 January 2016 08: 32
    +4
    Uncle Vova has already said who we need to get without the aircraft carriers and "calibrate"! ...
    And rightly so.
    Bringing down a multi-billion dollar colossus is much cheaper ...
    We would first have to start our agriculture, so that at first people had something to eat,
    and these "toys" are not paramount.
    1. sub307
      sub307 16 January 2016 09: 24
      +1
      However -
      “Russia is reviving one of the strategically important areas in shipbuilding - the production of aircraft carriers.
      In a few years, a new heavy aircraft carrier may appear in the Russian Navy. Recent statements by representatives of the shipbuilding industry and the preparatory work that has begun indicate that Russia is restoring its ability to build large-tonnage vessels, writes The National Interest.
      Russia lost the ability to build aircraft carriers after the collapse of the USSR. Over the past two decades, Russia has been rebuilding the shipbuilding industry. As the president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Alexei Rakhmanov said at the end of December, after the modernization of the shipyards by 2019, Russia will have everything for the production of large-capacity vessels, including aircraft carriers ....
      According to forecasts by NI (The National Interest), the construction of a new aircraft carrier will take about ten years.
      In 2015, a project of the new generation Russian aircraft carrier 23000E "Storm" with a displacement of about 100 thousand tons was presented in Russia. The project assumed that the ship could be powered by a nuclear engine and carry up to 90 aircraft. According to the minimum estimates, the construction of such a vessel could cost $ 5,6 billion.
      At the moment, an electromagnetic catapult is being developed to launch aircraft from an aircraft carrier. "There is an opinion ....
      based on RIA Novosti materials
    2. sa-ag
      sa-ag 16 January 2016 09: 30
      +1
      Quote: 3vs
      Uncle Vova has already said who we need to get without the aircraft carriers and "calibrate"! ...

      I wonder why this is about the analogue of "Caliber" - "Tomahawk" on every corner such mantras are not sung? It is enough for Iran to kick up and that's it, no one will calibrate anyone, the sky will be closed for flight and everything that flies will go astray, like it was when a photo of Erdogan with Putin appeared and the news about the Turkish Stream, like “we’ll bend and tear everyone”, and then all times and covered with a copper basin, so that the support of the words spoken above is very temporary and unstable
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 16 January 2016 10: 01
        0
        Even as they sing, the Americans mantra their axes, but they imprisoned their entire missile fleet under tomahawks.
      2. yuriy55
        yuriy55 16 January 2016 10: 27
        -1
        Quote: sa-ag
        ... I wonder why this is about the analogue of "Caliber" - "Tomahawk" there are similar mantras on every corner don't sing?


        Why don't they sing? I will try to return you to earthly joys. According to the hero of the famous comedy, people sing at a demonstration, in the opera, when they drink and when there is no voice and hearing ... laughing In our case, none of these reasons is suitable. And to chant what we saw in the film with the participation of Stephen Seagal is at least not patriotic.

        You there (somewhere) will release 26 analogs at once, if, of course, the analogs do not crack. Show what happened as a result of the launch, then ask us for a review of the "staging" ... winked
        1. sa-ag
          sa-ag 16 January 2016 17: 33
          0
          Quote: yuriy55
          You there (somewhere) immediately release 26 analogs, unless, of course, the analges do not crack. Show what happened as a result of the launch

          But they didn’t show you anything, they released and more than 26, starting with the first Iraqi, continued in Yugoslavia, shot around Afghanistan, in general, the practice was
  • sohosha
    sohosha 16 January 2016 08: 33
    0
    To do floating platforms, tourism, recreation and all that, and not necessarily with state participation, BUT under the flag and jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the right of exemption in which case ....
    1. Kos_kalinki9
      Kos_kalinki9 16 January 2016 09: 05
      +1
      Quote: sohosha
      To do floating platforms, tourism, recreation and all that, and not necessarily with state participation, BUT under the flag and jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the right of exemption in which case ....

      Even I did not understand, tourism, platforms, recreation and withdrawal, which side (or side) refers to an aircraft carrier?
  • yuriy55
    yuriy55 16 January 2016 09: 55
    +3
    The adopted military strategy of the Russian Federation does not provide for naval armada with the obligatory presence of aircraft carriers. The presence of an aircraft carrier in a squadron provides for bombing (air raids) on states with a small territory that do not have a developed air defense structure and missiles of sufficient range and power. A sort of "military toy" of intimidation in the hands of those who impose their will by force. Those who hammer in "democracy" with weapons. All talks about increasing some kind of stability (for what purposes? Someone assumes naval battles of the times of military sailing ships, when could they be suppressed by numbers?) Are groundless when they imply actions of an aircraft carrier against Russia, whose territory has a sufficient area.
    An aircraft carrier can be destroyed less costly than simply, with a light finger movement, the capabilities of the parties are aligned. Well, the United States likes to have aircraft carriers, let them have ... And we will have them ... with and without aircraft carriers ... yes
  • Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 16 January 2016 10: 02
    +1
    Learn from China -8 islands - "aircraft carriers" + 2 AB and there is no US parity in the Pacific Ocean! Cheap and cheerful! In the Russian Federation, however, it is always from a sore head to a healthy one - we build underwater monsters, put the last trousers in a pawnshop, then we set up "crocodiles" pr.1143 and 1144, the last money went away, and "monsters" rotted at the walls. never came in handy! Americans in Libya in 1986 brought 3 aircraft carriers and 180 pennants, so what? NOTHING! And in 2011 they managed to do Gaddafi ...! We have Crimea - the largest aircraft carrier in the world - build two runways for Tu 22 and Tu 160 with cover for Mig and Su, and we will slam the Mediterranean with the Black Sea like a mouse in a mousetrap! The same should be done in other theaters like the Chinese - CHEAP and ANGRY! And to do this, you need to treat the head of Shoigu, Rogozin, the first admirals and generals - so that they do not play soldiers and Naval Battle (computer games), but think and measure the capabilities of their country (economy) with a realistic and sufficient need! Glory to Russia!
  • air wolf
    air wolf 16 January 2016 10: 09
    +2
    Well, how long can this topic be procrastinated, we need not a new aircraft carrier, but the Yak-141M! And under the vertical you can even adapt the tanker! soldier
  • newl
    newl 16 January 2016 10: 14
    -1
    New Russian aircraft carrier: pros and cons

    No, well, it's just a movie. Moreover, not a comedy movie. How much can you talk about building a "funny" trough with airplanes? Chickens do not peck money?
    An aircraft carrier is an indispensable element for the fleet of any more or less large naval power.

    So this is for more or less large.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 16 January 2016 11: 03
        0
        They are now Europeans, they will soon be able to go to Paris without a visa. Only what kind of shisha?
        1. lnew
          lnew 16 January 2016 11: 28
          +2
          Quote: Cap.Morgan
          they will soon be able to go to Paris without a visa.

          Who do they need?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 16 January 2016 10: 34
      0
      Quote: newl
      So this is for more or less large.

      For example, Russia.
      1. lnew
        lnew 16 January 2016 11: 32
        0
        This is after Brazil, Italy and Canada. In order of rating of GDP.
  • Ratmir
    Ratmir 16 January 2016 10: 31
    -3
    Of course, aircraft carriers are needed, not gigantic, "American-like" ones, but relatively small ones. A sovereign ideology is not needed so that the state can afford the luxury of having aircraft carriers. Ideology is needed in general, especially for a country like Russia, which can be either great or none at all. And aircraft-carrying ships should be a harmonious element in the state's Armed Forces system, without distortions, precisely as a necessary element.
  • Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 16 January 2016 10: 31
    +2
    The topic really leaves no one indifferent. And my personal opinion is that an aircraft carrier is needed, but not right now. First, the economy and the "talented economists" would be dealt with.
  • podgornovea
    podgornovea 16 January 2016 10: 43
    +1
    Does Russia need an aircraft carrier?

    First HE IS!

    I already wrote once, I repeat:

    "Russia does not have the use of aircraft carriers in combat conditions! The United States has been developing it for decades. If you do not use this opportunity now, what is it for at all? Then there will definitely be those who will offer to put it on pins and needles, sell it, or maybe even give the keys to the apartment. where is the money in the bargain? "

    Does Russia need a new aircraft carrier?

    WILL BE NEEDED!

    He also wrote, I repeat again:

    "Despite the fact that the fight against terrorists is a private task, it threatens for many years, and perhaps for the coming decades, to become the main headache number one for many countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia."

    And sooner or later everyone will have to fight terrorists together, forgetting about their disagreements (of course, this is not about those who sponsor and support them, how and how to do this is a separate issue).
    If of course we do not want to let them gain strength.
    And since this problem exists, it must be borne in mind that a guarded airfield, which will allow unhindered transfer of an air group, support equipment, etc., may not always be in integrity and safety.

    In addition, no one canceled the task of covering and making combat stability from the air of the SSBNs in deployment areas (unless we are going to shoot directly from the coast, which is not very secretive and potentially fraught).

    Of course, he can’t afford it now, but designing and working out technical solutions must be done so as not to lose the school at all. Well, how can money be pledged, at least one (Kuzya is not eternal).
  • Gato
    Gato 16 January 2016 10: 49
    +1
    Again for the aircraft carriers ???!
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 11: 19
    +6
    "The aircraft carrier is expensive, we can't afford 300 billion!" The 2018 World Cup, which back in 2014 was estimated at 664 billion rubles (now, as if for a trillion), is affordable, but an aircraft carrier is not affordable.
    1. lnew
      lnew 16 January 2016 11: 24
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The 2018 World Cup, whose holding back in 2014 was estimated at 664 billion rubles (now as if for a trillion) - can afford it, but an aircraft carrier cannot afford it.

      Profit on the World Cup forgot to count. And from the aircraft carrier, there will definitely not be any profit.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 11: 34
        +2
        Quote: lnew
        World Cup profit forgotten

        And where is the profit? From the Olympics, they managed to calculate the "profit" as follows - the proceeds from the event + the cost of the facilities transferred "for the development of sports in the country." Those. we can say that the proceeds from tickets and so on somehow beat off the current costs of holding the Olympics, and all capital costs (of which there were the overwhelming majority) were "transferred to the development of sports" and therefore do not seem to be costs. Bast does not ring about infrastructure investments at all
        1. lnew
          lnew 16 January 2016 12: 38
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          so - revenue from the event

          Well, there was revenue. And the World Cup will be. Therefore, there will be clearly not the numbers indicated by you.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and all capital expenditures (of which there was an overwhelming majority) were "transferred to the development of sports" and therefore are not, as it were, expenditures.

          And you thought, why Russia was so lucky with this? It was unlucky in the fat years, and as problems in the world economy began, so lucky at once. Because the cunning bourgeoisie long ago realized that there would be no final profit. Therefore, this business was dismissed by ambitious countries. As if by chance it happened.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 12: 44
            +2
            Quote: lnew
            And you thought, why Russia was so lucky with this?

            Also, they discovered America.
            Quote: lnew
            Because the cunning bourgeoisie long ago realized that there would be no final profit

            In general, there will be no profit. And we return to the question - why is 300 billion expensive for us and a trillion cheap?
            Quote: lnew
            Well, there was revenue. And the World Cup will be

            against the background of total costs - negligible penny
            1. lnew
              lnew 16 January 2016 13: 29
              -1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              discovered America.

              This is not me, this is Columbus. Although there are various rumors. You think it could be me?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In general, there will be no profit. And we return to the question - why is 300 billion expensive for us and a trillion cheap?

              Do not exaggerate. There will not be a trillion.
              In addition, the cost of sports facilities is in any case productive. Even conditionally, through derivatives. But the cost of aircraft carriers, they are absolutely not productive. And Russia can only build them if there is nowhere to put the money. But the fat years have passed. Now only in the next life (in the next fat years).
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 13: 43
                +2
                Quote: lnew
                This is not me, this is Columbus

                Do not unlock laughing
                Quote: lnew
                Do not exaggerate. There will not be a trillion.

                Why? The announced costs (664 billion) do not include the construction of additional transport networks and urban infrastructure, since, according to the government, "the regions should do this" - but this is a frank trishkin caftan - if last time the center kicked money out of the regions for the Olympics, now the form of racketeering has changed a little, just business. Plus, since 2014, the total amount of even those costs that have been announced will grow
                Quote: lnew
                In addition, the cost of sports facilities is in any case productive. Even conditionally, through derivatives. But the cost of aircraft carriers, they are absolutely not productive

                Quite the contrary - an aircraft carrier is metal, electrics, cables, electronics, high technology (the same electromagnetic catopult). And the construction of buildings is an investment in the Tajiks who build them.
                1. lnew
                  lnew 16 January 2016 14: 00
                  -2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Do not unlock


                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The announced costs (664 billion) do not include the construction of additional transport networks and urban infrastructure

                  Well, you somehow think too broadly. Even then, you can add on the cost of the aircraft on which the fans will be transported.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quite the contrary - an aircraft carrier is metal, electrics, cables, electronics, high technology

                  Well yes. Technologies. Do not remind me where components are made for them?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  And the construction of buildings is an investment in the Tajiks who build them.

                  In general, as it were, referring to subsequent use. Yes, and the Russians can build.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  electromagnetic cat remote

                  Cats bullets? wassat
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 14: 08
                    +2
                    Quote: lnew
                    Well, you somehow think too broadly

                    It is not "too broad". There is such a concept in economics - cost relevance. Additional transport networks and infrastructure are needed only for the World Cup and will not be used after it (as happened with a large number of Olympic venues), so everything is correct.
                    Quote: lnew
                    Well yes. Technologies. Do not remind me where components are made for them?

                    In the Russian Federation
                    Quote: lnew
                    In general, as it were, referring to subsequent use.

                    Which brings additional losses from the maintenance of useless facilities?
                    Quote: lnew
                    Yes, and the Russians can build.

                    They can. But contractors prefer workers cheaper at a cheaper price, but in metallurgy, mechanical engineering, and so on, this number does not work. Aircraft carrier needs skilled labor, not jamshuda laborers
                    Quote: lnew
                    Cats bullets?

                    Easy! Maybe, for example, "Tomcat" to run :))
                    1. lnew
                      lnew 16 January 2016 15: 23
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The pre-transport networks and infrastructure are needed only for the World Cup and will not be used after it (as happened with a large number of Olympic facilities), so everything is correct.

                      No, not right. The events of 2014-15 were superimposed on the Olympic infrastructure. Therefore, everything is not simple there. Otherwise, all this infrastructure would have been sold out and operated long ago.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      In the Russian Federation

                      Oops Where is this secret place? And why can't you make components for Superjets there? And for the satellites?
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      additional losses from the maintenance of useless facilities?

                      Do you think that nobody needs housing, infrastructure and sports facilities? Why are they being built? Maybe it’s better to limit yourself to a complex of dugouts? On the land. And at sea, a flotilla of aircraft carriers. So will it be right?
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      But contractors prefer workers at a cheaper price

                      What prevents you from putting contractors in a tight framework?
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      not laborers-jamshuds

                      Do not worry, this is a dying subspecies. It will drift along with oil prices.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Maybe, for example, "Tomcat" to run :))

                      Cat Tom? This is an interesting thought.
                2. The comment was deleted.
            2. Kuzyakin15
              Kuzyakin15 16 January 2016 13: 50
              +2
              Andrey from Chelyabinsk:
              Trillion costs are preliminary estimates. You forget about the “law of Cheops”: Nothing, anywhere, has ever been built within the budget and on time! And this law in Russia today is more relevant than ever.
              Even according to data from the network, the construction of Olympic facilities and infrastructure exceeded the estimated in real terms at least three times.
              Yes, it was on TV, when inspecting the GDP of the objects of the Olympics on the eve of the surrender.
              But in the end, the GDP stated that it was satisfied with how the construction is going .....
              That's right, money is not out of pocket.
              From memory: more than 400 billion rubles for the objects of the Olympics and more than trillion on roads, tunnels .... in general for everything else
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Kuzyakin15
        Kuzyakin15 16 January 2016 13: 35
        -1
        Quote: lnew
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The 2018 World Cup, whose holding back in 2014 was estimated at 664 billion rubles (now as if for a trillion) - can afford it, but an aircraft carrier cannot afford it.

        Profit on the World Cup forgot to count. And from the aircraft carrier, there will definitely not be any profit.

        What is the profit?
        In whose pocket? And most importantly, at whose expense?

        If the profit is like the Olympics, then ......, in short nafig-nafig
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 14: 19
          -1
          Quote: Kuzyakin15
          If the profit is like the Olympics, then ......, in short nafig-nafig

          I agree:))
    2. g1v2
      g1v2 17 January 2016 01: 03
      -1
      $ 664 billion is not worth the World Cup18. SO MUCH 8 NEW MODERN STADIOS, HOTELS, ORDERING INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND THE CITIES themselves, WHERE MATCHES WILL PASS. I think that every city in the Russian Federation would like to do something so that only it will be put in order like Sochi. For the Olympics, they built railways and roads, sports facilities and created a first-class world-class resort. Where will they continue to receive tourists and spend anything, where our athletes will train instead of abroad. After the 2018 World Cup, we will have infrastructure, hotels and an increase in tourism, plus cool advertising around the world. Some cities will simply appear on the tourist map of the world - no one has heard much about them abroad, and here they will be drawn. Naturally, if the decision on the conduct were made now, it would hardly be accepted. He was taken in 2010. But now it’s a matter of principle and coolness to hold the World Cup so that the Yankees about the Russian economy torn to shreds no longer even stutter. This is exactly the case when show-offs are more expensive than money. Did you say that we need a fuck? Well look what we can!
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 January 2016 01: 44
        +2
        Quote: g1v2
        664 billion

        Rubles :)))
        Quote: g1v2
        SO MUCH 8 NEW MODERN STADIOS, HOTELS, ORDERING INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND THE CITIES themselves, WHERE MATCHES WILL PASS. I think that every city in the Russian Federation would like to do something so that only it will be put in order like Sochi.

        Only one aspect - besides the moral satisfaction of the residents (and in Sochi I heard that they are not very happy with the influx of migrants who do not want to leave after the Construction of the Century) it all costs nothing
        Quote: g1v2
        . For the Olympics, they built railways and roads, sports facilities and created a first-class world-class resort. Where will they continue to receive tourists and spend anything, where our athletes will train instead of abroad.

        Give it up. What "foreign athletes" train in Sochi? How much do they pay for training? How does this compare with the cost of running sports facilities?
        I will tell you a military secret - everything you said does not cover the current costs of maintaining all of this ... how would it be more polite?
        Quote: g1v2
        After the 2018 World Cup, we will have infrastructure, hotels and an increase in tourism, plus cool advertising around the world.

        Well, do not tell, the right word. Infrastructure - yes, it will remain, as well as the costs of its maintenance, which are generally not needed, from the word "perfect". Hotels will be empty, well if you manage to convert them into residential buildings (I've already witnessed this). Increased tourism is generally an epic fantasy. What goof will go to see "the place where the 2018 FIFA World Cup was held"? "Cool advertising" - if in terms of cost, then yes, the efficiency is absolutely zero. What did they advertise?
        Quote: g1v2
        But now it’s a matter of principle and coolness to hold the World Cup so that the Yankees about the torn to pieces economy of the Russian Federation no longer even stutter.

        This is nonsense of the highest category. While the budget of the Russian Federation is being sequestered, the costs for everything are being cut, when the state once again shifted its "show-off" onto us (dropping the dollar and stimulating inflation), while the real sector of the economy is subject to additional taxes (Plato, recycling fee) - spending money on football ... it's not even nonsense. Yankees - yes, laugh at the alternatively gifted.
        Quote: g1v2
        This is exactly the case when show-offs are more expensive than money.

        There is such a bearded anecdote, I will tell him with hints, so that it would be clearer
        Competitions for bodybuilders. Opposite the podium, a plump little man sits in an armchair, in appearance - you can beat snot. Another "cult" comes out, hands behind the head, strains the abdominal muscles ...
        - Hey, man, you have something with your stomach!
        He replies:
        - This is the press (2018 World Cup), girls from it (the world community) are dragging around!
        The peasant from the audience looked again, takes out a tooo-thick pack of bucks (two aircraft carrier groups) from his jacket pocket, and says:
        - Here is IT-press, girls (the world community) are dragging from it ...
        ... And you have something with your stomach!
        1. g1v2
          g1v2 17 January 2016 03: 52
          +1
          A beautiful city with stadiums that people will use all the time, infrastructure, etc. are not needed? Strange thesis. Here in St. Petersburg, to the failure of the World Cup in hockey, the Ice Palace was built. I constantly drive past during the days of ska matches - there crowds of people go to matches - from children to 60-year-olds. Maybe of course they were not told that they don’t need the palace, but personally I don’t see it standing empty. request Don’t worry about Sochi - they have good indicators for the year, and after Egypt and Turkey have become unavailable, at least part of the tourist flow will come there. And in any case, this is the development of the region, which is one of the tasks of the state. You may not need the infrastructure, but the locals will come in handy. Premier League clubs are based at all stadiums, which means people will go there. YES AND AT THESE STADIUMS NOT ONLY MATCHES PASS.
          Well, 2 carrier groups are show-offs only for natives - 2 aug against more than a dozen US forces and allied fleets, this is not even funny - that's fish food. Personally, in my opinion, this is the empty squandering of money. I agree that this money should go to the fleet, but not where it will not bring any benefit.
          At least on weekends with my family I can go to the Zenit stadium for a match. And the point of two aug, if I know that each of them has 5-6 aug of the enemy? And the money will gobble up many times more than the World Cup. Here I completely agree with Vovan Vovanych - we need an asymmetric answer, not stupid copying.
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 18 January 2016 10: 59
        +1
        Quote: g1v2
        $ 664 billion is not worth the World Cup18. SO MUCH 8 NEW MODERN STADIOS, HOTELS, ORDERING INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND THE CITIES themselves, WHERE MATCHES WILL PASS. I think that every city in the Russian Federation would like to do something so that only it will be put in order like Sochi. For the Olympics, they built railways and roads, sports facilities and created a first-class world-class resort. Where will they continue to receive tourists and spend anything, where our athletes will train instead of abroad. After the 2018 World Cup, we will have infrastructure, hotels and an increase in tourism, plus cool advertising around the world. Some cities will simply appear on the tourist map of the world - no one has heard much about them abroad, and here they will be drawn. Naturally, if the decision on the conduct were made now, it would hardly be accepted. He was taken in 2010. But now it’s a matter of principle and coolness to hold the World Cup so that the Yankees about the Russian economy torn to shreds no longer even stutter. This is exactly the case when show-offs are more expensive than money. Did you say that we need a fuck? Well look what we can!

        Oh, don’t tell my slippers. In my native Kaliningrad, I observe how all this is being done. But no way. In addition to the stadium, no real profit is observed, and he still needs to be built. All the declared plans of the local authorities (minimized in my opinion) have been cut back, and what remains is threatened with non-fulfillment. And recently, Putin generally stated that it is not good to solve the problems of the region under the pretext of preparing for the World Cup. Shame on the whole. It is unlikely that tourists will add all this at the end of the World Cup.
  • Yak28
    Yak28 16 January 2016 11: 23
    +1
    If Russia wants to have a military presence in different regions of the world, then an aircraft carrier will not stop and not one. For example, in Syria, aircraft carriers would not interfere. But I feel that while we build it, it will become obsolete. Plus, we have no experience in building large aircraft carrier cruisers. It can be simpler and cheaper to build screen plans, or other ships capable of effectively destroying aircraft carrier groups. First they destroyed their aircraft carrier ships themselves, but now they grabbed their heads.
    1. lnew
      lnew 16 January 2016 11: 27
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      then an aircraft carrier will not hurt, and not one. For example, in Syria, aircraft carriers would not hurt.

      And intergalactic cruisers would not hurt. And latifundia would not hurt every Russian. And gold toilets would not hurt each of them. And a lot more would not hurt. But the legs should be stretched over the clothes. And not by wish.
  • Idiot
    Idiot 16 January 2016 11: 34
    -1
    Russian aircraft carriers will be needed when it becomes a state of the Sun, where all dreams come true, everyone lives happily ever after and dies in one day.
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 16 January 2016 18: 41
      +2
      We have every chance to die in one day if we do not create powerful equipped aircraft! soldier
      And we will build the state of the Sun on the ashes of Europe and the USA !!! Joke...
      1. Starley from the south
        Starley from the south 16 January 2016 21: 56
        +2
        Quote: engineer74
        Joke...

        There is some truth in every joke ... as never before approaches the current situation.
  • TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force 16 January 2016 11: 44
    0
    here everything is poured from empty to empty every month for 3 articles whether we need aircraft carriers. take it up yes and it’s only on paper all the figurines move
  • fa2998
    fa2998 16 January 2016 12: 02
    +1
    Quote: Darkmor
    And if aircraft carriers can afford France, England, India and China, can Russia really not afford them?

    Can there be enough water in the mortar to crush! To begin with, all of the above countries developed rapidly economically, but we can only produce more and more oil and gas every year. If prices have dropped, then the country is poor! Now many projects will be frozen or terminated. WHAT AIRCRAFT-6 billion $ (and many more In the morning I read, a former contract soldier, a military pensioner, a pension of 7800 rubles. You first make it easier for people to live, and only then aircraft carriers, space cruisers and bases on Saturn! fool hi
    1. Kuzyakin15
      Kuzyakin15 16 January 2016 13: 52
      +1
      Quote: fa2998
      Quote: Darkmor
      And if aircraft carriers can afford France, England, India and China, can Russia really not afford them?

      Can there be enough water in the mortar to crush! To begin with, all of the above countries developed rapidly economically, but we can only produce more and more oil and gas every year. If prices have dropped, then the country is poor! Now many projects will be frozen or terminated. WHAT AIRCRAFT-6 billion $ (and many more In the morning I read, a former contract soldier, a military pensioner, a pension of 7800 rubles. You first make it easier for people to live, and only then aircraft carriers, space cruisers and bases on Saturn! fool hi

      Quote: fa2998
      Quote: Darkmor
      And if aircraft carriers can afford France, England, India and China, can Russia really not afford them?

      Can there be enough water in the mortar to crush! To begin with, all of the above countries developed rapidly economically, but we can only produce more and more oil and gas every year. If prices have dropped, then the country is poor! Now many projects will be frozen or terminated. WHAT AIRCRAFT-6 billion $ (and many more In the morning I read, a former contract soldier, a military pensioner, a pension of 7800 rubles. You first make it easier for people to live, and only then aircraft carriers, space cruisers and bases on Saturn! fool hi

      And the 2018 World Cup ...
  • Ilya77
    Ilya77 16 January 2016 12: 10
    +4
    I think we do not need aircraft carriers. These are huge expenses, yet the USA’s expenses are spread out over time - they already have the infrastructure for maintenance and ships of the warrant, we will have to build ALL of this, plus there are a lot of planes, if we look at the point of view of spending on the military-industrial complex - it’s better to put this money on another, on a nuclear submarine, aviation, etc. If you look at a wider spectrum, then it’s better to let then the country's infrastructure, people, education, in the end, if we want to return powerfully to the level of the USSR, we need to train accordingly, and modernize the plants.
  • lnew
    lnew 16 January 2016 12: 29
    +1
    And if aircraft carriers can afford France, England, India and China, can Russia really not afford them?

    First of all, because Russia is poorer in income (only GDP, excluding accumulated assets and debts) of these countries. And also it is poorer than Brazil and Italy. And approximately equal to Canada (WB, 29.12.15.). These all countries have no aircraft carriers.
    They also have no problems with a decrease in GDP in terms of constantly dying greens. And only thoughtless dreamers who do not understand what is happening with the economy still dream of aircraft carriers. With the same success, they can dream of Maybach for every pensioner upon retirement. However, reality is more severe.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 12: 40
      +1
      Quote: lnew
      First of all, because Russia by income (only GDP, excluding accumulated assets and debts) is poorer than all these countries

      This is strong. GDP in PPP of the Russian Federation in 2014 is the 5th place in the world, (France - on the 9th, if that). You can certainly speculate that you should not be tied to GDP per se, but to per capita GDP, but here the Russian Federation almost doubled China
      1. lnew
        lnew 16 January 2016 13: 21
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        GDP at PPP RF in 2014 - 5th place in the world,

        In fact, in the world it is customary to count at face value. Because international trade and calculations are carried out in real dollars, and not some virtual ones, as in PPP calculations. Here, China is 5,5 times ahead of Russia.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You can certainly speculate that you should not be tied to GDP per se, but to GDP per capita, but here the Russian Federation almost doubled China

        No, this indicator cannot be used. Because of too different average levels of consumption. And if you count it on something the same (three crusts of bread), then the GDP figures will radically change. The level of consumption for GDP is very important. Remember what Benya the helicopter did and why. Therefore, it is possible to compare GDP per day, but only in countries of approximately the same.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 13: 49
          0
          Quote: lnew
          In fact, it is generally accepted in the world at face value

          Just the same, PPP in the world is considered accepted. Because the basis of GDP is not international trade, but domestic production and consumption. The BB rating is not applicable, because in this case the same product produced in different countries will cost differently.
          1. lnew
            lnew 16 January 2016 14: 22
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Just the same, PPP in the world is considered accepted.

            And then. The authorities tell the people of poor countries in such a simple way that they are not as poor as they seem. GDP at PPP, it is simply bred for suckers.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Because the basis of GDP is not international trade

            And what from this? Especially for this there is an exchange rate. Perfectly, prices in local currencies are converted into dollars.
            But as soon as such a "rich PPP" exchanges his currency for dollars and travels abroad, everything falls into place (far from PPP). And inside the poor countries PPP-razvodilovo still works in places. For the inexperienced audience.
            And international trade is still conducted in dollars. And no one is interested in domestic purchasing power. Dollars are stupidly multiplied by the rate and rate of return. For import-dependent countries, PPPs are of little importance at all. Even domestically.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 14: 49
              0
              Quote: lnew
              And what from this? Especially for this there is an exchange rate. Perfectly, prices in local currencies are converted into dollars.

              And it turns out that a liter of gasoline in Spain costs 1,5-2 euros (I don’t remember exactly, but seem more like 2 than 1,5), and in the Russian Federation - about half the euro. The Spaniards, producing a liter of gasoline, receive about three times more GDP at face value than the Russians producing the same liter.
              Quote: lnew
              But as soon as such a "rich PPP" exchanges his currency for dollars and travels abroad, everything falls into place (far from being PPP).

              I have traveled many times. Everything is all right :)) And if a little more serious - why distort? We are discussing GDP, i.e. product. You are now starting to measure it in various candy wrappers and declare, in full accordance with the old cartoon, that the boa constrictor "in parrots is still longer". Well, yes, in parrots it is longer, in elephants - shorter, but this is the same boa constrictor, regardless of the currency of which country it is measured.
              So for the correct comparison of GDP - only PPP
              Quote: lnew
              And international trade is still conducted in dollars.

              Correctly. We, for example, are pushing gas at 200 dollars per thousand cubic meters, or even higher. And how much do we take inside the country?
              1. lnew
                lnew 16 January 2016 16: 27
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The Spaniards, producing a liter of gasoline, receive about three times more GDP at face value than the Russians producing the same liter.

                Do you suggest me to delve into the topic and start, for starters, with the level of consumption? And then recalculate all the GDP through it (the same)? It will be correct, but why do I need it? No, I don’t want and I won’t. Do you want to count, as the people of the Holocaust think, through PPP, count.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                So for the correct comparison of GDP - only PPP

                Nope. Why, see above.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And how much do we take inside the country?

                So what? How many months have we been heating with gas? Let's recalculate the average duration for Europe? And we will not take into account the "extra" gas?
      2. palm
        palm 18 January 2016 23: 19
        0
        Russia's GDP in 2016 will not exceed 2.5 trillion, which is approximately 8-10 place. the little colonel lowered the ruble and accordingly the gdp
  • AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 16 January 2016 12: 50
    +3
    Gag a bit ... We do not need aircraft carriers now! Our economy will not pull them ... This whole infrastructure is needed, and a fleet of AUGs is needed! In addition, the experience after the Second World War speaks of the stupidity of the AUG as a combat unit. That is, after the Second World War, aircraft carriers could not positively solve a single combat mission! Does this mean something?
    It is better to provide new weapons against the AUG. Type of ballistic missile with homing combat modules. And the technology has been mastered for a long time, there is experience. And the weapon will be fast and efficient!
    And yet, now there are many ways to counter AUG, and it’s very effective and inexpensive, in comparison with the cost of AUG. And some sort of Bastion battery, backed by air defense, can lock the AUG!
    So what? And that’s it!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 12: 55
      +1
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      In addition, the experience after the Second World War speaks of the stupidity of the AUG as a combat unit. That is, after the Second World War, aircraft carriers could not positively solve a single combat mission! Does this mean something?

      About your ignorance of military history? :)
      1. Pissarro
        Pissarro 16 January 2016 12: 59
        0
        and an example is possible?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 13: 57
          0
          About WWII recently laid out an article. After WWII, at least the Korean War, for starters.
      2. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 16 January 2016 18: 49
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: AlNikolaich
        In addition, the experience after the Second World War speaks of the stupidity of the AUG as a combat unit. That is, after the Second World War, aircraft carriers could not positively solve a single combat mission! Does this mean something?

        About your ignorance of military history? :)

        AND? In Korea, the state aviation succeeded only from land airports! And then, until Black Friday ... Vietnam is a failure, Iraq is a failure! The main problem is that an aircraft carrier cannot provide the required number of sorties, and deck carriers are noticeably weaker in terms of range and combat load than land aircraft!
        A suitcase without a pen!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 22: 49
          +1
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          In Korea, the state aviation succeeded only from land airports!

          Yeah :))) Here from the very beginning - did you hear anything about the role of aircraft carrier in maintaining the Busan bridgehead?
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          Iraq failure!

          Read Kaptsov less at night. His task (for a long time) to troll the audience and cause heated discussions in the comments. For a long time his articles have no historical or analytical value.
          In Iraq, aircraft carrier aviation has shown its best side, NOTHING yielding to the Air Force planes.
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          The main problem, an aircraft carrier cannot provide the required number of sorties

          Maybe :)) You will be surprised, but the number of aircraft carrier combat sorties per 1 aircraft is no less than in the Air Force. In Iraq, yes.
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          and decked ones are noticeably weaker in terms of range and combat load than land aircraft!

          Take an interest in TTX F / A-18 Hornet and compare it with F-16.
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          A suitcase without a pen!

          How many times I notice - the less knowledge, the more categorical judgments
      3. Starley from the south
        Starley from the south 16 January 2016 22: 04
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: AlNikolaich
        In addition, the experience after the Second World War speaks of the stupidity of the AUG as a combat unit. That is, after the Second World War, aircraft carriers could not positively solve a single combat mission! Does this mean something?

        About your ignorance of military history? :)

        Why ignorance? .. Aircraft carriers are very effective ... against the Papuans with spears and bows, otherwise, against countries without normal air defense and FFP. History, unfortunately, is silent about the cases of using AUGs against countries with at least C-300.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 23: 01
          0
          Quote: Starley from the South
          Carriers are very effective ... against the Papuans with spears and bows, otherwise, against countries without normal air defense and FFP

          Sure. The problem is that they are effective against countries with "normal" air defense and anti-missile defense.
          You see, there is a strong forty-year-old man, in the past - an Olympic champion - a heavyweight boxer. He does not smoke, does not drink, maintains himself in great shape, constantly trains. And once, he tamed the yard drunk, who decided to get to the bottom of a woman passing by, who did not agree to give him a rupe on a sober bum.
          And then a 12-year-old boy comes who has been reading books about the Slavic-Goritsk wrestling for a whole year and says: “Yes, he once meant something, but since then his technique has become completely outdated, now this boxer is only against drunks that -that is still possible there, but against a real enemy, for example - me, he is no one to call him "
          And what do you answer him?
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 January 2016 11: 10
          0
          Quote: Starley from the South
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          In addition, the experience after the Second World War speaks of the stupidity of the AUG as a combat unit. That is, after the Second World War, aircraft carriers could not positively solve a single combat mission! Does this mean something?

          About your ignorance of military history? :)

          Why ignorance? .. Aircraft carriers are very effective ... against the Papuans with spears and bows, otherwise, against countries without normal air defense and FFP. History, unfortunately, is silent about the cases of using AUGs against countries with at least C-300.

          And what is better land in the same conditions?
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 16 January 2016 17: 20
      +2
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      This whole infrastructure is needed, and the fleet is providing AUG!

      We still do not need to build cruisers and destroyers, as the fleet is aging. And the adversary is building modern warships regularly. Take the Japanese fleet ... they have the oldest ship built in '91, and now look at the age of the same Atlantes.
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      It is better to provide new weapons against the AUG.

      RCC Bolide, with a range of 800 km. Zircon, with a range of 1000 km (hypersonic missile). But as in the development of destruction systems, anti-missile systems are also being developed.
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      And some sort of Bastion battery, backed by air defense, can lock the AUG!

      Tell me, which admiral, being in his right mind, will drive the AOG to the shores where coastal complexes, ground aviation, etc. are located? AUG is effective in the ocean, or near the shores where there are no means of counteracting it.
      1. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 16 January 2016 18: 38
        0
        Andrey, the arguments have a right to exist, but! In peacetime, we do not need AUG priori. And in case of war, aug is the target! Which will be destroyed in 100 percent of cases! Moreover, it is destroyed by relatively much cheaper means! And neither the size of the order, nor the equipping of air defense and pro systems will save!
        Further, from aug in the ocean there is no sense! She will not block the enemy’s communications, and the decks that should work on the enemy’s land objectives, why then? But the enemy will take funds in the ocean, in the form of submarines and long-range aviation, to multiply aug by zero ... A suitcase without a handle in the US Navy! Suitable for projecting power on the Papuans, but completely defenseless against a country equal, or slightly weaker, in technological development!
        But cruisers and destroyers need to be built, and I think we will do it, they are the workhorse of war at sea, not battleships and aug!
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 16 January 2016 20: 01
          +2
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          Andrey, the arguments have a right to exist, but!

          Alexey, in order to "multiply by zero" AUG, we need target designation means. The question is, do we have them? We even have 1700 drones. And the satellite constellation is half the size of the US one ... by the way, China has almost caught up with us in the number of satellites ... As for the Premier League, just look at the number of submarines in our country and in the states.
          The United States is an ocean power, and therefore it spends most of its military budget on the fleet, which is 7-8 times more than we spend on the entire army, aviation and fleet combined. And when hat-making begins, while having very outdated fast ocean fleet it looks very comical.
          That’s such a cheer for the patriots with this hatred, I want to ask one question: WHEN WE BUILT THE FIRST SHIP OF THE FIRST RANK? The destroyer Sarych does not count.
          And the second question, for them, HOW MUCH TODAY IS THE DAY OF DESTROYERS OF THE USA AND HOW MUCH OF RUSSIA? (I will be modestly silent about all NATO).
          1. AlNikolaich
            AlNikolaich 16 January 2016 22: 45
            0
            Andrey, therefore, I urge the construction of destroyers and cruisers! And the carriers didn’t stand up to us!
            We need ballistic anti-ship systems, in addition to cruise missiles! We need coastal defense complexes, so that the adversary had no thoughts closer than a thousand miles to come to us! It is necessary to develop means of anti-submarine defense ... There is much to spend money here, and without the construction of aircraft carriers! Classically piping with America, we don’t have enough money for the economy ... However, we are trying ... It’s not clear why! We will not surpass their fleet in the distant future, and it is not necessary. Our country is different, and the fleet has several goals that differ from the goals of the US fleet! So do not stupidly imitate them.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 16 January 2016 23: 10
              +3
              Quote: AlNikolaich
              And the carriers didn’t stand up to us!

              The aircraft carrier wing of 90 vehicles will significantly increase the combat effectiveness of the warrant, where there will be cruisers and destroyers.
              Quote: AlNikolaich
              We need ballistic anti-ship systems, in addition to cruise missiles!

              One doesn’t interfere. The development of coastal complexes and the construction of a nuclear aircraft carrier. By the way, think about this ... how much easier would be the task for us if we did not move the aircraft from the depths of the country to bases in Syria, but simply fitting such an aircraft carrier, in one step, we provided an aviation team to carry out the tasks.
              Quote: AlNikolaich
              Classically pipisky with America, we have no money is not enough economy ...

              And I don’t even tell you about measuring with genital organs with mattresses ... I’m saying that if we want to be an ocean power, our warrants should be covered from the air. And in the light of current realities, an aircraft carrier wouldn’t hurt us . And in the near future for sure, too.
              Quote: AlNikolaich
              We will not surpass their fleet in the distant future, and it is not necessary.

              If we do not develop our fleet (in a balanced way), then in the near future no one will seriously take us in the ocean. And let me remind you, two-thirds of the entire earth’s surface is water. Where there are minerals, areas of our interests as military and economic. And in order to solve something in the oceans, you need first of all a strong balanced fleet. There are tasks that cruisers and destroyers simply can not do.
              Quote: AlNikolaich
              Our country is different, and the fleet has several goals that differ from the goals of the US fleet!

              It is true that our country is different, continental ... but our interests extend not only to the line of our borders. And there is also a struggle for resources, political and economic interests, in the future there will be responsibilities to the allies ... and for this all we need a fleet. And once again I emphasize-BALANCED.
              1. tigoda
                tigoda 18 January 2016 00: 15
                -1
                Britain had SUCH fleet before WWII. Something she did not crush Germany in any way. Moreover, Germany put it on the brink of survival with submarines. This is despite the fact that initially since 2 Germany and ships almost did not build, tk. aimed at the USSR. The fleet should not be BALANCED but SPECIALIZED for a particular adversary, so that he could not use his "trump cards".
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 12: 53
    0
    Well, the country is still preparing for the construction of aircraft carriers
    http://flot.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=165000
    Russian experts have begun development of an electromagnetic aircraft launcher (electromagnetic catapult) for aircraft carriers, said Sergei Vlasov, general director of the Nevskoye Design Bureau.
    1. lnew
      lnew 16 January 2016 13: 23
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Well, the country is still preparing for the construction of aircraft carriers

      So the country did not even prepare, but already built communism. And where is this communism?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 14: 02
        +1
        Quote: lnew
        So the country did not even prepare, but already built communism. And where is this communism?

        Not completed. But communism is orders of magnitude more expensive than the Olympics, and the Olympics are more expensive than an aircraft carrier, so since they made the Olympics, we’ll build an aircraft carrier
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. lnew
          lnew 16 January 2016 14: 34
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But communism is orders of magnitude more expensive than the Olympics

          Would you voice the exact price of communism? And then I forgot how much the Olympics cost.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          so since they did the Olympics, we’ll build an aircraft carrier

          Of course. Only on diet food (on a quinoa with sawdust) for a start we will pass. For the sake of a bucket of nuts without nuts, some enthusiasts are still not capable of that.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Not completed.

          The country has not been able to enter capitalism for 100 years. Everything shies to the sides as if on the way out of feudalism. And you mean the construction of the kingdom of heaven on earth (the adherents of Marxism-Leninism called it "communism"). Capitalism will be simpler. And also, no way.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2016 15: 19
            +1
            Quote: lnew
            Would you voice the exact price of communism?

            Well, the exact price will have to be calculated, it will come out a long time, and since we have not built communism and live under capitalism, I may calculate for a couple of thousand dollars. And I don’t work on postpay, only in advance
            Quote: lnew
            Of course. Only on diet food (on a quinoa with sawdust) for a start we will pass

            They built the Olympics, they didn’t switch to the quinoa. Why should you switch now?
            Quote: lnew
            The country has not entered capitalism for 100 years.

            How does the existing one not suit you? Why is he not capitalism for you?
            1. lnew
              lnew 16 January 2016 15: 30
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              and live under capitalism

              Do you live in Chelyabinsk under capitalism? I'll have to go see what he looks like. Even curious.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              then for a couple of thousand dollars, I, perhaps, will count. And I don’t work on postpay, only in advance

              God will give. bully
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Why should you switch now?

              Guess what. Of three times. I give a tip, the economic situation has changed. Highly.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              How does the existing one not suit you? Why is he not capitalism for you?

              Clarify the main features of the capitalist mode of production. And feudal, so that you no longer have any doubts.
        3. sa-ag
          sa-ag 16 January 2016 17: 52
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Not completed. But communism is orders of magnitude more expensive than the Olympics, and the Olympics are more expensive than an aircraft carrier, so since they made the Olympics, we’ll build an aircraft carrier

          Well, therefore, communism is possible :-)
        4. Odysseus
          Odysseus 16 January 2016 20: 40
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But communism is orders of magnitude more expensive than the Olympics

          Communism is an idea, it is priceless. That is, it simultaneously costs nothing and costs infinity.
          By the way, it was precisely with Khrushchev’s ideas about the descent of Communism into our sinful life (Communism by 1980) that the USSR began (plus a block of its anti-Stalinist ideas).
          As for the aircraft carrier program, you need to start small: finally decide on Kuznetsov, or sell it to China, India or put on normal repairs with modernization.
          1. Cap.Morgan
            Cap.Morgan 16 January 2016 23: 51
            -1
            Khrushchov released political prisoners from the camps.
            Thanks for that already.
            1. lnew
              lnew 17 January 2016 00: 45
              0
              Quote: Cap.Morgan
              Khrushchov released political prisoners from the camps.
              Thanks for that already.

              And Khrushchev began to build massive housing.
              And Khrushchev laid the foundations for the creation of the oil and gas industry of the USSR.
              And much more.
              But most importantly, he broke the ridge of Stalinism. As it seemed then. But unfortunately, as it turned out, only broke. And the red plague at times shows its bestial mug.
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus 17 January 2016 09: 11
                +1
                Quote: lnew
                But most importantly, he broke the ridge of Stalinism. As it seemed then. But unfortunately, as it turned out, only broke. And the red plague at times shows its bestial mug.

                The continuation of your same madness. Do you, in general, know why Khrushchev criticized Stalin? For "deviation from the Leninist norms of party life" and for the persecution of the "Lenin guard" heroes of the Revolution and the Civil War. And the main claim - Stalin was not "left" enough, not revolutionary enough. He exchanged the world revolution for the construction of socialism in one country.
                That is, Khrushchev and Co. were a hundred times more "red plague" than Stalin.
                This is what I will tell you, my friend, with your visions of the "animal murl".
                1) Or you are sitting on hard drugs. Then get down, it is harmful to health.
                2) Or you are an absolute ignoramus. I hope for this, because then you have a chance to improve. Start with the basics, from the textbook of the history of the Ancient World for grade 5. And then gradually, year after year, on your own, from simple to complex -and enlighten. I will sincerely hope so.
                1. lnew
                  lnew 17 January 2016 13: 41
                  0
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  This is what I will tell you, my friend, with your visions of the "animal murl".

                  And here's what I'll tell you. If you want to live in the sect of "witnesses of Marxism-Leninism", live. If you want, the size of your apartment. If you find anyone else, buy a hangar for your sect. And enjoy there.
                  But do not forcefully pull the whole country there, as it was in the 20th century. And it was impossible for the dissidents to shoot and exile to hard labor (in the Gulag). You can not kill millions of people in the country by starvation, for the sake of some of their idiotic plans. This is genocide. Bolshevism and Stalinism will still be condemned by the tribunal. It is the matter of time.
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  Start with the basics of the Ancient World history textbook for Grade 5.

                  What for? I am well educated enough to understand the whole essence of "socialism". There was nothing unusual in it, except for the sauce of Marxism-Leninism, and there is not. There have been a million such "socialisms" in history, but under different sauces. This is an ordinary pseudo-religious (pseudo-religion Marxism-Leninism) feudal society. Since the society is not traditional feudal, but pseudo-religious, it was headed not by a monarch, but by a high priest (shaman, etc., a million terms). At the same time, an extreme degree of socialization took place. Those. everything belonged to a sect headed by the high priest. But the subjects did not own anything at all. Carpet, crystal vase and old suit. That is all the inheritance of a sect subject (not a sectarian, sectarians usually did better) after his death.
                  The end of all these "socialisms" has always and at all times, in all countries has been the same. The trouble is that he stayed in Russia for so long.
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  Or you are sitting on hard drugs. Then get down, it is harmful to health.

                  As far as I heard, sectarians are almost impossible to leave the sect. Allegedly, something is changing in the head. Therefore, in this sense, you are hopeless. For God's sake, it's your choice. But do not impose your visions so aggressively and aggressively on others.
              2. tigoda
                tigoda 18 January 2016 00: 03
                0
                Khrushchev was a bitter drunkard, like Poroshenko. Drunk, he gave Crimea to Ukraine. Drunk, he expelled Marshal Zhukov from the Central Committee. Dispersed smart economists from the government. The army was "reduced" so that people were left homeless, unemployed, without funds. On these "miracles" in Russia, such spies appeared at the very top ... In short, he lived as a drunkard, and ended his career as a drunkard.
          2. lnew
            lnew 17 January 2016 00: 41
            0
            Quote: Odyssey
            Communism is an idea, it is priceless.

            Communism is plagiarism from the pseudo-religion of Marxism-Leninism. An analogue of the kingdom of heaven in traditional religions.
            Quote: Odyssey
            By the way, it was precisely with Khrushchev’s ideas about the descent of Communism into our sinful life (Communism by 1980) that the USSR began (plus a block of its anti-Stalinist ideas).

            What nonsense. The sunset of the USSR began under the dear Leonid Ilyich. When in the USSR in 1974 the golden rain of high oil prices fell. It was then that the leadership of the USSR decided that communism was just around the corner and nothing more was needed. You just have to wait for his coming. But communism did not come. The drop in oil prices has come. In 1986 Then you know.
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 17 January 2016 08: 57
              0
              Quote: lnew
              The sunset of the USSR began under the dear Leonid Ilyich. When in the USSR in 1974 the golden rain of high oil prices fell. It was then that the leadership of the USSR decided that communism was just around the corner and nothing more was needed. You just have to wait for his coming. But communism did not come. The drop in oil prices has come. In 1986

              What was it ? What is the expectation of communism after 1974? Excuse me, are you out of your mind?
              Do you even know that Khrushchev's concept of "building the material foundations of Communism" was disavowed by 1974 and replaced by the concept of developed socialism? How did you decide that after 1974 someone in the Soviet leadership "was waiting for communism" and decided "that nothing needs to be done"?
              Politics and the economy of the USSR (universal labor for the good of society) after 1974 was exactly the same as before 1974. Oil, in general, had nothing to do with it.
              Formally, the "decline of the USSR" began in 1985 with the beginning of the policy of restructuring carried out by the Central Committee of the CPSU headed by Gorbachev. In fact, the coming to power of Gorbachev and his team was the result of long political and ideological changes in the party that began since the time of Khrushchev. The economy here, in general, is did not lie sideways.
              But if we talk about the economy, how can additional income become harmful to the economy? From the point of view of this "logic", there was no income from oil, the economy was developing well, they began to receive additional income, it became bad, and the price of oil decreased very badly. Apparently, when you receive your salary, you throw it out on the street because your economy deteriorates from receiving money.
              And then in the USSR there was a planned socialist economy closed from the market capitalist economy. The ruble was not convertible, and goods were produced for themselves. How can such an economy depend on prices in foreign markets? Do you even understand what heresy you are writing?
              Quote: lnew
              Communism is plagiarism from the pseudo-religion of Marxism-Leninism. An analogue of the kingdom of heaven in traditional religions.

              Oh my God. The ideological base of Marxism is dialectical materialism. What religion? What is the "kingdom of God"? Do you even know that in classical Marxism communism is a process, not a state? What you write is just enchanting nonsense.
              1. lnew
                lnew 17 January 2016 14: 08
                0
                Quote: Odyssey
                Excuse me, are you out of your mind?

                Sorry, yes.
                Quote: Odyssey
                What is the expectation of communism after 1974?

                Actual. Those. complete idleness and squandering of natural rent.
                Quote: Odyssey
                Khrushchev's concept of "building the material foundations of Communism" was disavowed long ago by 1974

                Do you understand Russian? It is written that against the background of the rain of petrodollars, communism was expected. Or will you deny that "communism was built" in the USSR?
                Quote: Odyssey
                Oil has nothing to do with it.

                You would have a little self-education. Did not think about it? In 1974 the price of oil increased by about 2 times. And in 1980 (this is when the insidious Yankees allegedly viciously avenged Afghanistan), even more than 2 times. As a result, the price rose 4,5 times. And it collapsed only in 1986. And even then, not to the level of 1974. But this USSR was enough.
                Quote: Odyssey
                Formally, the "decline of the USSR" began in 1985 with the beginning of the policy of restructuring carried out by the Central Committee of the CPSU, headed by Gorbachev.

                In 1985 Gorbachev also did not know such a word. And in 1986. already knew. Why, see above.
                Quote: Odyssey
                The economy here, in general, was not lying sideways.

                In pseudo-religious societies, economics is generally not the main thing. The main thing there is pseudo-religion itself.
                Quote: Odyssey
                But if we talk about the economy, how can getting additional income become harmful to the economy?

                Easily. If it is wrong to use it. I will not give analogies to the quickly and easily become rich and joyous narcotic woodpecker, who later became impoverished.
                Quote: Odyssey
                The ruble was not convertible, and goods were produced for themselves. How can such an economy depend on prices in foreign markets? Do you even understand what heresy you are writing?

                Are you trying to blame me now? That the USSR did not conduct foreign trade? You must have heard about the purchase of feed abroad. Why do you want to make me laugh?
                Quote: Odyssey
                The ideological basis of Marxism is dialectical materialism. What religion?

                None. Sectarian type pseudo-religion. The most common. To be convinced of this, you will follow yourself, how it disturbs you when communicating with a dissident. A sect, in other words.
                Quote: Odyssey
                What is the "kingdom of God"? Do you even know that in classical Marxism communism is a process, not a state?

                Yeah. True, the process itself is not described. Only its features are described. Well, exactly, like the kingdom of heaven.
                1. Odysseus
                  Odysseus 18 January 2016 00: 24
                  0
                  Quote: lnew
                  Are you trying to blame me now? That the USSR did not conduct foreign trade?

                  Of course, the USSR conducted foreign trade. It was carried out in the 20s, in the 50s, and in the 80s. I, my friend, tried to explain the following simple things to you.
                  1) The USSR conducted foreign trade, but its economy, by its very structure, depended only to a small extent on it, since the money received from this trade was not circulated domestically, and the share of imports in all-union production was insignificant.
                  2) The strength of the Soviet state did not depend on it at all. By the very structure of Soviet society, the economy itself is not the main factor in the stability of Soviet society (and foreign trade is secondary to the economy itself) For example: in 1919 and 1935, and in 1948, etc., the state of the economy was incomparably worse than in 1985. But this did not in the least affect the general stability of Soviet society and the state.
                  3) And the increase in prices for any exported goods, at least in the 20s, at least in the 70s, at least for hemp, at least for oil favorably influenced the economy (although this factor, as already mentioned, is secondary). It favorably affected since it was possible to purchase more desired import.
                  1. lnew
                    lnew 18 January 2016 01: 08
                    0
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    , and the share of imports in the all-Union production was insignificant.

                    Gee-gee. It’s ridiculous.
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    For example: in 1919, and in 1935, and in 1948, etc., the state of the economy was incomparably worse than in 1985. But this did not affect the general stability of Soviet society and the state.

                    The USSR was in different states. And if in 1935. foreign trade could be ignored, then in 1987. without it, the USSR quickly collapsed. Well, so, to put it quite roughly, the defenders of the homeland (military) and this very homeland were threatened. Too costly "protected", it is not clear only from whom. And the oil supply has disappeared. As a result, a kirdyk happened.
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    favorably affected the economy

                    You have not read my previous comment. Read.
                2. Odysseus
                  Odysseus 18 January 2016 01: 03
                  0
                  Quote: lnew
                  wrinkles

                  In psychology, what you are writing about is called a transfer. You transfer your own complexes and experiences to another person. It is you, my friend, not me, who began to write about communism in the topic of aircraft carriers, it was you who turned to me, not me to you. You write about strange fantasies where you see the "animal mug", and you dream of a tribunal over communism, which in your fantasies seems to be either the kingdom of God or the Gulag.
                  That is, it disturbs you, but not me at all. How can I help you:
                  1) Try not to be afraid. Even if you somehow participated in the looting of the Soviet legacy (which, judging by your reports, it is unlikely) or simply emigrated or fear for any other reason, fear no one will offend you, no one will come following you on a black funnel.
                  2) If this topic is of such concern to you, try not to think about it at all. Think of something good not related to politics.
                  Quote: lnew
                  dissenters.

                  The problem, my friend, is not that you are a "dissenter", the problem is that at the moment, excuse me, you are not thinking at all. In fact, in dialogue with you, I did not propagandize "Marxism" at all. Leninism ", or some other propaganda. I only wrote about simple things that are obvious to a knowledgeable person, regardless of his worldview. The fact is that Marxism is a kind of materialism, not a religion, and communism is a socio-economic formation, and not the kingdom of God, the fact that Khrushchev is a much greater Bolshevik (red plague) than Stalin, and the Brezhnev Politburo did not "wait for communism in the late 70s" is obvious to both the monarchist and the anti-Soviet neoliberal and Trotskyist and alien from another planet. that I write that 2X2 = 4, and you, that 2X2 = pig's tail, and all who claim the opposite are conspirators and dangerous scoundrels.
                  PS In general, I began to answer you precisely because you are not a "dissenter" and certainly not a professional anti-Soviet. And it is useless to discuss with those and others, because they know what the reality is, but evaluate this reality in their own way. obviously you yourself believe in the nonsense that you write. That leaves hope for your deliverance from fears and ignorance and, accordingly, for your education and the development of your personality.
                  1. lnew
                    lnew 18 January 2016 01: 26
                    0
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    You write is called a transfer. You transfer your own complexes and experiences to another person.

                    No no. No need to breed me. And you don’t need to redirect the arrows. I am already an adult boy, you will not succeed.
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    You dream of a tribunal over communism which in your fantasies seems to be either the kingdom of God or the Gulag.

                    You have obvious problems reading comprehension.
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    No one will offend you, no one will come for you on a black funnel.

                    Don't say "gop". And don't be so calm about yourself.
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    the problem is that, at the moment, you, excuse me, are not thinking at all.

                    And then. For sectarians in general, strangers are not even people. They don’t go to the sect. So stupid. Iron logic of idiots.
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    The fact that Marxism is a kind of materialism, not a religion

                    So the Bolsheviks all had a topsy-turvy. Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors. They called their pseudo-religious society materialistic. They called themselves individuals who committed the counter-revolutionary coup, revolutionaries. The whole world fought against Nazism, and the Bolsheviks fought against fascism. And this perpetual list goes on and on.
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    and communism is a socio-economic formation

                    Well, who cares what they called their kingdom of heaven? At least a formation, at least a transformation. What did that change?
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    obvious to both the monarchist and the neo-liberal anti-Soviet and Trotskyist and alien from another planet

                    I already wrote, something is done with the sectarians with their heads. Therefore, they are not entirely adequate. And they don’t understand the obvious things.
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    The problem is that I write that 2X2 = 4, and you, that 2X2 = pig tail, and all who claim the opposite are conspirators and dangerous villains.

                    I am not a "witness of Marxism-Leninism" and am not interested in such extremes.
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    You obviously yourself believe in the nonsense that you write

                    There is a big difference between us. I know, and you believe. Materialist I. But you are a pseudo-religious idealist. If millions of innocent victims of Bolshevism do not act on you in any way, then nothing will help you.
                    Quote: Odyssey
                    and, accordingly, on your enlightenment and development of your personality.

                    No no. There is no need to "educate" me. Life in the USSR was enough for me. I wasn't used to stepping on the mop the second time. Moreover, now, when the atrocities and genocide of Bolshevism against the population of the USSR are no longer a secret behind seven seals.
  • atakan
    atakan 16 January 2016 13: 27
    +2
    Quote: Dembel 77
    You need to start with the economy.


    fool Start again? All these extreme 15 years it was the main thing
    ECONOMY, but whose? For whose sake? Who controls this very economy, directs it, their goals? Everything is so vague. But they scored on politics as they wanted and got such crap that only now 5-6 years have become better (is it better?). And now, Russian citizens are calmly abducted by dozens every year and imprisoned or given to families \ children \ And in the United States they are killed in these families. The reaction to the show, like - let it go.
    1. looker-on
      looker-on 18 January 2016 10: 41
      0
      Why again? Not again, but in the first. Nobody has been involved in economics in Russia for more than 100 years. And abductions are not connected in any way with the presence / absence of an aircraft carrier (or 10). Citizens of Belarus, for example (specifically took an example near us) are not kidnapped. For murders in families I will not say no information, but I think that such things happen in the world regardless of the homeland of the children .. it’s a terrible fact.
  • 3vs
    3vs 16 January 2016 14: 21
    +1
    Quote: sub307
    As the president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Alexei Rakhmanov said at the end of December, after the modernization of the shipyards by 2019, Russia will have everything for the production of large-capacity vessels, including aircraft carriers ....

    That's just the point - including ....
    Shipyards are being modernized, and it will be possible to build large bulk carriers of the Arctic class for
    SevMorPuti ...
    We are peaceful people, but we will also build an aircraft carrier! fellow
  • alicante11
    alicante11 16 January 2016 14: 32
    +5
    ABs are needed, but not abstract AUGs, which would have puffed out on the sea, but ships imprisoned for a specific application.
    The Northern Fleet is considered the main one in Russia now. Its main task is to protect the areas of SSBN deployment and the defense of the coast and bases. The Federation Council can solve all these tasks under the cover of land-based aviation. But if we discard the incredible nuclear war, then there remains only one task that the Federation Council can solve - defensive. However, for such tasks, the Northern Fleet is clearly redundant, for defense such ships as PV are clearly redundant, roughly like the Gangut in the Baltic in WWI. The only task that can be set by the Federation Council in the event of a non-nuclear confrontation is to cover the deployment of our submarines past Scandinavia, where NATO may well arrange an anti-submarine barrage. And when performing this task, it is necessary to have air cover operating from the AB deck, since land-based aviation, even with the use of tankers, will not be able to provide a permanent "air defense umbrella". What type of ship should you choose? Given the short cruising range, it makes no sense to build an atomic AB. Also, the relative proximity of its coast to its airfields may allow the use of ground-based AWACS aircraft, which have a longer flight range than fighters. So the ejection launch is not very important either. Thus, "Kuzya" fully satisfies the tasks that the Federation Council is called upon to solve. The only thing that can be built for him is a colleague so that during the repair of one AV the fleet does not remain without air cover. At the World Cup, AB is clearly not needed. Because in this puddle he will be just a great target. In the Far East, you can also have a large number of air bases from which aviation can support the operations of the fleet in the defense of the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin and Primorye. The deployment of SSBNs from Kamchatka is also carried out directly into the Pacific Ocean without passing through narrows, so it will be easier and safer for them to leave without cover for large fleet forces, relying on the actions of diesel-electric submarines and multipurpose nuclear submarines, and the coastal fleet under cover may well carry out their escort and meeting in coastal waters. land based aviation.
    Thus, Russia has no sense in building supercarriers. The maximum that can be done is to "clone" Kuzya. This couple may well solve representative and expeditionary tasks on a rotational basis.
    1. Hydrograph
      Hydrograph 16 January 2016 16: 02
      +1
      General Staff resting laid out on shelves +1005000
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 16 January 2016 14: 40
    +5
    A question to the author, why do we need "superiority at sea" and its conquest?
    Where will we drive caravans of ships with cargo and people across the oceans? What critical sectors of the military industry in our country are completely dependent on shipping? Our fleet has two tasks. To ensure the use of nuclear missiles from submarines and anti-landing defense of the coast, it is possible to support our landing operations.
    Everything else is the task of the peacetime fleet and the fleet of a facilitating operation like the Syrian - beyond the direct access to land.
    To demonstrate the flag in peacetime, AB is not needed. For polit. probably yes, but our dashing - the best foreign minister in the world, and in general the diplomatic school - prosir..et any successes and favorable moments in principle, the demonstration of AB will not change it. It is only possible to use the AB in a limited overseas military operation, it has been going on for several months, yes, the AB would not hurt, but somehow it is bypassed.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 18 January 2016 11: 31
      0
      And who did you leave the task of combating American naval carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic, BR and missile defense against?
  • Hydrograph
    Hydrograph 16 January 2016 15: 59
    +4
    Our disease. That Tsar Cannon never fired, then Tsar Bell never rang. In VO two fanatics, one battleship of the other aircraft carriers, well, at least look at the squabble of the people !!!
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 18 January 2016 11: 36
      0
      Read less non-fiction literature and all sorts of nonsense on the Internet. The Tsar Cannon shot perfectly, because according to the terminology of the time, this is not a cannon, but a ShotGun, and it shot a Shot (in modern terminology - buckshot). And in this person was a wonderful and effective weapon for appeasing the enemy.
  • yuriy55
    yuriy55 16 January 2016 16: 06
    0
    Here is an interesting alternative to aircraft carriers:
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 16 January 2016 18: 53
      +3
      If this "alternative" is brought to mind, it will not be cheaper than an aircraft carrier, but much longer in terms of time! Although I believe that ekranoplans will be in demand someday ... wink
    2. tigoda
      tigoda 17 January 2016 23: 49
      0
      THIS is not an alternative; it is the same dead end path of development as the airships in 1908-1938.
    3. spravochnik
      spravochnik 18 January 2016 11: 50
      0
      What a crazy movie. What does the Chinese fleet have to do with it, which constantly looms on the screen. Now, on the subject of the film. Firstly, "Eaglet" did not carry missiles and could not strike at the American AB, never entered the Black Sea Fleet, but was in the Caspian and only 5 of them were built (not 20-30). Secondly, the KM did not carry any missiles, but was a purely experimental ship. Thirdly, the PDA and ekranoplanes were built before Alekseev. Fourthly, the KM was not shown to the Americans, because by that time he had already been lost in the accident. These are the "specialists" and "experts" present in the film.
  • King, just king
    King, just king 16 January 2016 16: 12
    +2
    Another thinker about the Russian aircraft carrier has nothing more to do. Again twenty-five. Useless crushing of water in a mortar.
  • Crown
    Crown 16 January 2016 17: 21
    +2
    Not needed at this stage
  • ibirus
    ibirus 16 January 2016 21: 21
    +1
    An aircraft carrier is a weapon of invaders, countries that want to rob others and take away land and lives.
    If you want to raise the industry, implement a program to equip the fleet with modern surface ships and, most importantly, different types of nuclear submarines.
  • Garris199
    Garris199 16 January 2016 22: 54
    +1
    It is better and cheaper to make anti-ship missiles with a range of 1.5-2 thousand and to nightmare aircraft carriers from the coast and from submarines. Better they fight off massive missile attacks if they can. Now granites are exchanging for onyx and calibers, but the range there is already not the same.
  • Cap.Morgan
    Cap.Morgan 16 January 2016 23: 47
    0
    Whatever we say, but the decision has been made.
    By the year 2030, Russia will have an atomic large-tonnage aircraft carrier.
    To survive)))
    1. Former battalion commander
      Former battalion commander 17 January 2016 23: 24
      +1
      Exactly, "To live would be" ... The West took the country in iron tongs, so the sanctions on gas and oil will spread that we will eat food or aircraft carriers? And in general, what is the point? Smart and without an aircraft carrier will live well, but a fool and an aircraft carrier will not help ... It is difficult to call us smart ... twice in a hundred years, THEY (!) YOURSELF (!) COUNTRY BURNED, and now we continue! And you mean aircraft carriers ...
  • CB activist
    CB activist 17 January 2016 02: 34
    +2
    "And if aircraft carriers can be afforded by France, England, India and China, then can't Russia really afford them?" This is the Author's question posed at the end of his material. There is an answer to this question, simple and harsh.

    Yes, France, England, India and China can afford to build such ships, but Russia cannot. Because in these foreign countries there is no very specific criminal-comprador bourgeois class with exorbitant appetites, a passion for wastefulness and an intention to plunder their country to the last thread, but in Russia there is such a class. In terms of the degree of hedonism and meanness, our bourgeoisie is ahead of everyone, it is very specific, it was created like this in the 90s. Now she is sitting at the Gaidar Forum. In 2014, $ 150 billion was exported from Russia. It is clear that this was not done by a small entrepreneur, not by the owners of bakeries and haberdashery. The oligarchy did it, no more than 30-40 names. Russia sells oil, and tax revenues from its sale are "canned" in American banks. If not for this robbery, Russia would build an aircraft carrier every two years, for fear of enemies, to the surprise of allies. No matter how well we work, the result will be modest, the robbery will devour everything.
    1. Former battalion commander
      Former battalion commander 17 January 2016 23: 16
      +1
      Ah yes well done Activist AT THE MOST POINT!
  • Kotr
    Kotr 17 January 2016 04: 19
    0
    There was an idea to build an underwater aircraft carrier with vertical take-off aircraft. (Dreams)
  • prostofily
    prostofily 17 January 2016 05: 14
    0
    No. We are our own aircraft carrier. 1 To test yourself.
  • ProkletyiPirat
    ProkletyiPirat 17 January 2016 19: 08
    0
    The Russian Federation will need aircraft carriers in exactly two cases:
    1) our territory expands to the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian oceans and the Mediterranean Sea,
    2) aircraft carriers and cover ships appear that can be transferred from the Pacific Ocean to the Black Sea and / or Baltic Sea, but only across the territory of the Russian Federation bypassing border territories.

    and now answer the questions?
    -) Do we plan to unite with the EU \ China \ India? - obviously not, which means that point "1" disappears
    -) Is it possible to create a water / land passage for ships weighing 100 tons between the oceans and seas adjacent to the Russian Federation? - clearly not, which means point "000" disappears
    -) are there "engines + fuel systems" capable of lifting a ship weighing 100 tons into the air? - clearly not, which means that point "000" disappears

    this does not mean that the Russian Federation will never have aircraft carriers, they will be guaranteed to be, but only when ....
    1. gvozdan
      gvozdan 8 February 2016 01: 01
      0
      I don’t understand something logic
      1) We have access to the seas and oceans
      2) What is the reason for limiting the passage of the gibaltar, the Bosphorus and Bering by the Aircraft Carrier?
      4 aircraft carriers, 1 on the SF 1 on the Pacific Fleet 1 in the Mediterranean + 1 spare. It’s possible to get hold of one in the Atlantic, only you can decide on the base or which island to wring out or make friends with someone in western Africa.
      You can also go to India from the Pacific Fleet, and to the Atlantic with the SF

      Wrong prerequisites = wrong conclusions

      "to formulate an ambitious task, not to whine and not to drool over every occasion, and to go towards achieving these goals and solving problems. , - so it will be. "