Military Review

Tears for "Admiral Kuznetsov"

76
We are not lovers to fall into the same funnel twice, but if such an alignment came out, we had to. In the world of information, such media as the Free Press enjoys a reputation as a platform where anyone can speak. For freedom. And they perform, and we carefully observe what is printed there.




Our attention was attracted by the article of the ex-captain of the Ukrainian Navy, Mr. Ischenko. "Syria will have to wait ". And for some reason. It’s somewhat unclear whose friend this gentleman is. He writes, it seems, about topical and urgent things. But the sediment remains strange. In his previous article he convinced readers about the need to tighten their belts in order to create tank army (and not even one). Now here are the strange discussions about the use of "Admiral Kuznetsov" in Syria, more precisely, about why it is not used. Although it would be very, very necessary.

But - let's go through the text.

"One of the main intrigues of the ongoing war in Syria is why the only Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov has not yet been connected to the combat efforts of our air group that storming the position of ISIS militants * from the Khmeimim airbase every day? once again begins with the fact that carrier strike groups are approaching the shores of the enemy, and deck-based aircraft take off with a maximum bomb load. Why don't we act the same way? If you can do without Admiral Kuznetsov in Syria then why is our country at all? "

The question of the need for "Admiral Kuznetsov" we still take out of the brackets. Until. As for the main message, first of all I would like to send Mr. Ischenko at least to Wikipedia. To understand the difference between the US strike aircraft carrier (anyone) and the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR.

It is clear to us as daylight. And, apparently, in the Russian Ministry of Defense is also clear. That is why they did not drive the ship through half of the world so that Su-33 fighters would take off from its side "with maximum bomb load". And they simply transferred what the igil warriors are now driving to the ground airfield. And successfully chasing.

By the way, to us, absolutely non-volatile comrades, it is also clear that an attack aircraft or a bomber taking off from a ground aerodrome carries a much greater shock load than its counterpart from an aircraft carrier. It is a pity that Ishchenko does not understand this.

"From the end of October, the 279 pilots of the separate shipboard fighter regiment on heavy Su-33 fighters have been flying vigorously from its deck. All of them were trained last summer at the Crimean training complex NITKA, which reproduces exactly Admiral Kuznetsov's deck. And now at sea work out takeoffs and landings from an aircraft carrier.

Actually, this is not at the right time. Because it’s a polar night in the Arctic and in almost round-the-clock darkness, it’s difficult for pilots to start restoring the skills of such flights over the sea. It is believed that in the conditions of the Northern fleet it is more expedient to do this in summer or early fall. And by winter, the only Russian aircraft carrier, it is advisable to get out to combat service somewhere much further south. There, pilots can also improve their flight skills in more favorable conditions, and the ship is safer. "


Actually, this is very stupid. It is somewhat incomprehensible who believes that the Kuznetsov should play the role of a migratory goose. In the summer in the waters, and by the winter it is necessary to get to the south.

Mr. Ischenko contradicts himself. For first, he says that in the summer the pilots worked everything out on a THREAD, and by winter they moved back to the Polar Region. And that's bad. Say, all summer trained under the southern sun, and for the winter it is necessary again to the south. And continue training there. And in the conditions of the polar night to train impractical. God forbid, still learn!

Here we come to the question, why do we need Kuznetsov. And why pilots train in the polar night. We do not know how Mr. Ischenko, but we, for example, understand that the Arctic grouping is our northern shield. And the ships and crews should act precisely in those latitudes and in those conditions.

You do not need to be a military expert to understand the simple fact that such training is necessary. The enemy, if anything, is unlikely to choose comfortable conditions for our military. Never chosen historically, the practice is unlikely to change in the future. And in a similar (hypothetical) situation, the answer to the question "why our deck does not work aviation“according to Mr. Ishchenko, he should have looked like this:“ And we were not prepared for action in the Arctic and the polar night. ”Beauty!

The following is a list of previous campaigns "Kuznetsova". With the indication that all seven, from 1995 to 2014, passed exactly this way, “correctly,” that is, the crew spent the polar night during the warm southern seas.

"The schedule of the combat use of the aircraft carrier and its wing in the previous years was maintained clearly. Only emergency circumstances could force the test take-offs and landings from the deck at the wrong time for this year. Obviously, the war in Syria is one of those. Then" Admiral Kuznetsov "Still not on the way to the eastern Mediterranean?"

It's simple, Mr. Captain! People first engaged in the business that they should have mastered when they won. Namely, actions in adverse winter conditions in the Arctic. Takeoffs, landings, shooting. It is in a polar night, namely in winter. Because the primary task of “Admiral Kuznetsov” is not to cut across the south, demonstrating its presence, but to teach the crews to operate in the conditions of the region on which its main base is located. It's simple.

And the fact that in previous years TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" "wintered" in the south, it is enough to remember who was in charge of our army and navy. And a lot will fall into place. But now the cruiser and its wing were engaged in their real work: the protection of the northern borders. Understanding from our side, it can not but rejoice, understanding from the other side can not but grieve.

This is followed by a rather lengthy discussion of the 100-th separate naval fighter regiment. Say, the pilots are not ready, the planes are not ready, the Admiral Kuznetsov is not ready to fight, and stuff like that.

Sobs avidly. Oh, how the Admiral Kuznetsov is needed now in Syria, how they are waiting for him there, and how bad it is that he will not be there before the summer, or even December. Without his wing of victory, we can not see.

How good, after all, that in our Ministry of Defense there are not such Ischenko. And people who clearly understand the goals and objectives of tomorrow. That is why bombers and attack aircraft are fighting in Syria, under the cover of fighters. Ground-based. With a large radius of action, with a greater bomb and missile load.

“MiGs have a wider range of weapons that can be hung on them. First of all, air-to-surface missiles. That is irreplaceable against the militants in Syria. So they would be very useful there. But if MiG pilots are not yet ready for such hostilities - what should Admiral Kuznetsov do in the Mediterranean? "

And he has nothing to do there! Therefore, he trains his pilots far to the north! Because our warlords are well aware that a storm trooper or a bomber definitely does more business than a fighter, even if armed with air-to-surface missiles. And they do not drive an expensive ship for 20 airplanes through half the world.

And in general, if there are Su-25 attack aircraft and Su-24 and Su-34 bombers, and even in such quantities, why are fighters needed for such work? Not from Kiev colleagues Ischenko spied on such a strategy? Yes, in the peaceful Lugansk and Donetsk, Ukrainian fighters worked well. For the time being. But for some reason the troops did not have much success.

So what do we have? We have something that with the plans of Mr. Ischenko goes completely counter.

1. "Admiral Kuznetsov" is located in the north, in the area of ​​its permanent deployment and strenuously trains the existing pilots of the 279-th ocean to operate in the Arctic.

2. In Yeisk, 1 December is recreated by 100. Armed with the latest MiG-29KR and MiG-29KUBR. The state order for these planes was completed just at the time of the regiment's reconstruction. Late last year.

3. The regiment performs overflight and training at the cruiser simulator range. That is, undergoing a full training. Yes, the preparation of the regiment will last more than one month. Perhaps even a year. But at the exit we will have a new air wing for Admiral Kuznetsov, which will be armed with the latest, only from the factory, aircraft. Further, it is planned to fly to the north and further training of flight personnel.

What can not arrange here?

Moreover, in such an authoritative source as Comrade Korotchenko's “National Defense”, we learned the following things, which we add to the existing list.

4. In 2016, Admiral Kuznetsov will embark on a deep modernization. And the upgrade will last until 2018 of the year.

During this time, the cruiser will be equipped with the necessary equipment for the use of both aircraft and helicopters. Because according to the results of the modernization, the Admiral Kuznetsov will receive on board the second component of its wing - the Ka-52K Katran helicopters. Yes, the ones that were built under the project with "Mistral".

Helicopters are built, crews also undergo training in the Far East. To transfer to the north - you know, not a question.

And what will we have at the end of the journey?

If you don’t listen to Ishchenko, who urges to urgently send a cruiser with an unprepared wing to Syria, ostensibly not to stand idle (of course, no one will listen to him), but in fact just wastes motor time, then the picture is wow.

Finally, the Admiral Kuznetsov will have a full-fledged air group for this ship. Pretty "tired" Su-33 will replace the new Mig-29KR, there will be "Katrans". And, we emphasize, with really trained crews.

And what about 279? And everything is simple. Predict the state order for a new batch of Su-33. If the 24 MiGs were successfully assembled for the 2 of the year, then by the year of 2018, why not collect as many Dryers? And on the ship there will be not just an air wing, but consisting of fighters of two classes: heavy, but slaughter Su-33, and light, but maneuverable MiG-29. The latter also has an "assortment" weapons more will be.

And it would be realistic to use precisely the mixed wing. Half of the regiment is in combat duty, the second half is resting or training on a thread or in Yeisk. What about, almost the same thing. (Joke). Although, if you think so, having otdezhuriv yours in the cold waters of the north or somewhere else, take a vacation in the Crimea, and in the same place proceed to the period of "rehabilitation after the holidays" ... Why not?

This is what we call a professional approach. If only the cruiser endured such a life. But this is a separate topic.

So, sufferings like those outlined by Mr. Ishchenko are nothing more than an attempt to hypothetically return everything to the old rails. When the pilots sat on the ground, and the ships were engaged in "demonstrations". Not those times now, not those times. One must really "learn military affairs in a real way."

It is a pity, of course, that Mr. Ishchenko does not understand this. Well, what can we expect from the captain (albeit of the first rank) of the drowned fleet of the almost no longer existing country of Ukraine?

We do not require. Once again we state that in our army and in the navy everything is going as it should be. Well, the fact that our enemies do not like it, so they are enemies.
Author:
Photos used:
Leonid Yakutin http://vpk-news.ru
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. D-Master
    D-Master 19 January 2016 06: 49
    +5
    What can be expected from Svidomo? He will dig the earth to find the truffle where even moss does not grow. And what is their Khokhlovian affair for OUR aircraft carrier. He is ours and we use it where the General Staff considers it necessary. And as the events in Syria show, the General Staff did not seem to have forgotten how to typeset the operation.
    1. domokl
      domokl 19 January 2016 07: 15
      +8
      wink Ishchenko not Svidomo. He is like a refugee or an emigrant. And he works as an expert in Russia.
      1. jetfors_84
        jetfors_84 19 January 2016 07: 35
        +6
        Bad expert. Really offset in Syria, an aircraft carrier with fighter aircraft, when there are airfields on earth?
      2. podpolkovnik
        podpolkovnik 19 January 2016 09: 33
        +5
        Quote: domokl
        wink Ishchenko ... works as an expert in Rush tudey like.
      3. gostomysl
        gostomysl 19 November 2016 05: 22
        0
        However. I cannot evaluate this article positively.
    2. Butchcassidy
      Butchcassidy 19 January 2016 13: 16
      +4
      He's not Svidomo. He is quite a detailed specialist, but in his questions - politicians. And in the military component it "floats", I think that such bloopers are connected with this.
      1. Heapoiss
        Heapoiss 19 January 2016 16: 16
        +5
        You seem to mean Rostislav, and this is Sergey Ishchenko
        1. Butchcassidy
          Butchcassidy 20 January 2016 09: 36
          0
          Maybe yes))) hi
    3. Scraptor
      Scraptor 20 January 2016 10: 38
      +1
      By the way, to us, absolutely non-volatile comrades, it is also clear that an attack aircraft or a bomber taking off from a ground aerodrome carries a much greater shock load than its counterpart from an aircraft carrier. It is a pity that Ishchenko does not understand this.

      Why then would two "closely watching" and probably non-water authors constantly "complexing" on Ukraine (it is good that Apakidze did not live to see the war with Georgia) think that they know everything, especially about takeoffs from an aircraft carrier?
      it’s just there is an air base, and Su-24/34 do not fly from an aircraft carrier
      There would be no airbase - he would go there in order to clear a place for her, would risk even the only aircraft carrier for this ...
  2. Stoler
    Stoler 19 January 2016 06: 55
    +2
    The main reason for the shortage of the ship by personnel and aircraft.
    1. domokl
      domokl 19 January 2016 07: 17
      +8
      I do not agree. How many do not say halva ... It is necessary to modernize the ships. The same Kuznetsov of 1985 of release in my opinion ... Old age happens not only at people ...
      1. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 19 January 2016 07: 20
        +1
        Quote: domokl
        .. Old age happens not only in people ...

        Sash drinks well why so sad in the morning sad
        1. domokl
          domokl 19 January 2016 07: 38
          +3
          Quote: Ruslan67
          Sasha well, why so sad in the morning

          Not sad. I just know that at the end of this year a deep modernization of this ship is planned. Two years will be modernized. install additional equipment for MiGs and other cool things ... So, the old man will be rejuvenated in full .. There are only three of this project left. Ours, Chinese and Indian (also our former) ...
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 19 January 2016 07: 41
            +1
            Quote: domokl
            . Ours, Chinese and Indian (also our former) ...

            Just ours yes For idiots who think that we can’t do anything. Maybe the time has not come? what
          2. dyksi
            dyksi 19 January 2016 14: 00
            +2
            The decision is very correct, Russia needs a full-fledged Kuzya, with a full-fledged air wing. Thanks for good news.
          3. Dart2027
            Dart2027 19 January 2016 19: 15
            +1
            Quote: domokl
            install additional equipment for MiGs and other cool things

            This is certainly good, but it’s a pity that you can’t put an atomic ship instead of boilers. That is, it is possible to deliver, but then not two years, but five years at least.
          4. Ustinov 055 055
            Ustinov 055 055 15 March 2016 13: 59
            0
            Yes, it is not necessary to set this up and change the control unit, otherwise it will again be 055 and Peter will protect the trash on which 2 boilers just have not broken and smoke is visible in Iceland. Without a nuclear power plant, blacksmiths have no more targets as a maximum near-range aerodrome, although who will let him snoop far in the seas if his boilers break themselves
          5. Ustinov 055 055
            Ustinov 055 055 15 March 2016 13: 59
            0
            Yes, it is not necessary to set this up and change the control unit, otherwise it will again be 055 and Peter will protect the trash on which 2 boilers just have not broken and smoke is visible in Iceland. Without a nuclear power plant, blacksmiths have no more targets as a maximum near-range aerodrome, although who will let him snoop far in the seas if his boilers break themselves
      2. Ros 56
        Ros 56 19 January 2016 17: 56
        +2
        Quote: domokl
        . It is necessary to modernize the ships.

        Well, it’s understandable to modernize, but for good it’s necessary to build new ones, taking into account all the mistakes, otherwise they all sold out, but they started up EBN with this needle.
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 19 January 2016 08: 41
      +2
      Quote: Stoler
      The main reason for the shortage of the ship by personnel and aircraft.

      Actually, Kuznetsov had to be put on global repairs and modernization back in 2010, as for the technology, do not remember who was the head of the USC until recently and lobbied for his design bureau, although the idea to equip the Kuzya Su33KUB was not bad, but it grew together ...
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 19 January 2016 12: 06
        +2
        until 2010 we sawed Vikramaditya, so let's say "skill" resumed.
        As it was delivered, the understanding came that we can successfully work with ships of large tonnage. They immediately took Nakhimov for rehabilitation, then "Kuzya", then "Petya". It seems like everything is in order.
        It's just that the "great and mighty" Ukrainian fleet has slightly different views on the use of aircraft carriers. What can you say here: the vast experience of using AUG speaks for itself laughing
    3. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 19 January 2016 12: 17
      15
      Our leadership, I think, would definitely not refuse to send it to the shores of Syria, for the propaganda effect from this would be simply wow.

      But here the main reason is by no means the state of the air group ... The condition of the ship, it has one like that .... In general, a power plant was put into operation on it at the last exit from THIRD TIME... The electro-mechanical part on it is in a thoroughly killed state .... No matter how it is cherished meet ...

      He urgently needs a major overhaul, the longer the better. That's only when it will start, if it does not start at all.
      1. kepmor
        kepmor 19 January 2016 15: 34
        13
        You, Anton, are absolutely right!
        Apparently the authors did not serve on real hardware, because. all arguments for the air wing are reduced, although now this is not the main problem at Kuznetsov. With the warhead-5 there is a complete Zh ..., starting with the power plant and auxiliary and ending with electrical equipment and life support systems.
        Well, now they will put the TAVKR on "deep modernization", and what will be the result?
        Where to get new boilers, steam generators, gas turbines, turbines, etc.? Will we borrow from Chinese "friends"? Or the old "podshamanim" for big money and shove them back to their original place? And now our flagship will be on the "combat" only in a twin with the tug "Chiker" to walk, so that nothing like this happens, as in February 2012. in the Bay of Biscay?
        All this smacks of another "sawing the dough" for our state corporations - Rostec, USC, etc.
        By the way, Serdyukov has already been assigned to Rostec, and he has HUGE experience in this "sawing" business! Such valuable personnel are not scattered for nothing ...
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 19 January 2016 15: 57
          0
          Quote: kepmor
          Well, now they will put the TAVKR on "deep modernization", and what will be the result?
          Where to get new boilers, steam generators, gas turbines, turbines, etc.? Will we borrow from Chinese "friends"? Or the old "podshamanim" for big money and shove them back to their original place? And now our flagship will be on the "combat" only in a twin with the tug "Chiker" to walk, so that nothing like this happens, as in February 2012. in the Bay of Biscay?

          All this is very convincing and good. But what are your suggestions?
          What to do with Kuznetsov?
          1. Anton Gavrilov
            Anton Gavrilov 19 January 2016 17: 47
            +2
            My suggestion is to put in a major overhaul, and modernization.

            And if PV will still "live" for several years before its turn on the NSR after NA, then what will happen to this pepelatz is not clear ...
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 January 2016 16: 12
          0
          Quote: kepmor
          Well, now they will put the TAVKR on "deep modernization", and what will be the result?
          Where to get new boilers, steam generators, GTZA, turbines, etc.?

          Apparently, it will be like with "Gorshkov". The Kirovsky Zavod was responsible for his power plant:
          As part of its participation in this project, Kirov-Energomash Plant CJSC reconstructed the ship’s power equipment, manufactured spare parts, tools and accessories, as well as prepared operational documentation. Modernization of most mechanisms was carried out on the territory of the plant in St. Petersburg. In the course of work, the company's specialists dismantled, carried out troubleshooting and repair of high and low pressure turbines, gearboxes, components of the regulation, control and protection system, turbocirculation, turbo and electric oil pumps. In connection with the transfer of the ship's boilers to diesel fuel, the TNA3 turbocharging units were also replaced by the TNA3M.
        3. Anton Gavrilov
          Anton Gavrilov 19 January 2016 17: 49
          +3
          At the expense of the GEM, all the same, here everything is far from so bad.

          We do the GTZA ourselves, do the PTG ourselves, (first of all, the Kaluga Turbine Plant, you can also connect the Kirovsky plant, for example, it repairs the components of the PTU AN now) we’ll poorly make the boilers (we’ve assembled it for Vikra).

          With a power plant, where steam is the working fluid, everything is by no means as bad as with a gas turbine engine (which is completely absent from the word in our country). So the normal repair of its electromechanical part is quite feasible for us.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 19 January 2016 19: 51
            0
            Quote: Anton Gavrilov
            With a power plant, where steam is the working fluid, everything is by no means as bad as with a gas turbine engine (which in our country is still completely absent from the word).

            Well, yes - someone is making submarine and ALED units. smile
  3. bad
    bad 19 January 2016 07: 03
    +1
    Our attention was drawn to the article by the ex-captain of the Ukrainian Navy, Mr. Ishchenko, "Syria will have to wait"
    I read the articles of this "expert" .. it seems that he is paid extra in dollars ..
  4. ImPerts
    ImPerts 19 January 2016 07: 12
    +2
    Writes and writes. That's why he is a scribbler. Yes, Kuznetsov is not an American Nimitz. But he allowed not to lose skills, so the Russian Navy will always be grateful to him. The development of Russian AUG will begin with it.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  5. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 19 January 2016 07: 20
    +3
    And this, semi-respectable "Cossack" is not one of those who are going to arrange a "naval blockade" of Crimea for an hour? If so, then everything is very clear and to the place of his "Yaroslavna's cry"! Yes, he does not come from the glorious city of Putivlya for an hour - he looks like an epic one, he cries for our "Kuza", and if he jumps a little more, then everything will become into place! "Admiral Kuznetsov" will still show its own, but our General Staff will not "shoot sparrows from a cannon", because in Syria even without "Kuzi" there is something to "make a nightmare of bearded hares."
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 19 January 2016 07: 32
    +1
    ex-captain of the Ukrainian Navy, Mr. Ishchenko writes, the paper endures ... Yes, figs with him .. The funny thing is, the "Nezalezhnaya" has no fleet, there are admirals and captains ... but still there ... with reflections ...
  7. Mera joota
    Mera joota 19 January 2016 07: 46
    +9
    4. In 2016, Admiral Kuznetsov will embark on a deep modernization. And the upgrade will last until 2018 of the year.
    During this time, the cruiser will be equipped with the necessary equipment for the use of both aircraft and helicopters. Because according to the results of the modernization, the Admiral Kuznetsov will receive on board the second component of its wing - the Ka-52K Katran helicopters. Yes, the ones that were built under the project with "Mistral".

    Kuznetsov needs to completely change the power plant, without this it makes no sense to get up for "modernization".
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 19 January 2016 10: 28
      +4
      For what?

      There are no turbines, and high power will not be there for a long time.
      NPP, it’s cheaper to build a new one around the reactor than to cut Kuzyu and rebuild it alive.
    2. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 19 January 2016 14: 06
      12
      Kuznetsov needs to completely change the power plant, without this it makes no sense to get up for "modernization".

      This also includes the question of the expediency of operating large ships and especially aircraft carriers in the northern latitudes in the absence of an adequate repair base and simply infrastructure for servicing ships. Why is the Kuznetsova boiler-turbine power plant almost completely out of order? One of the answers is that it is cold in the north, sometimes very, for the power supply of a large ship, standing near the berth wall in the port, a large amount of electricity is required, which the Naval Forces are not always able to provide - the capacities of the coastal thermal power plants are not unlimited, moreover, the military units were disconnected during the EBN from the supply of electricity from civilian networks almost primarily due to chronic non-payment, and most importantly - the position of the top leadership (both army and civilian) to the needs of the military. This is how they drove the Kuzi power plant until it was completely worn out. You will say that the Kuznetsova power plant was very intensively exploited during long sea voyages, etc. And you will be right, but if you compare how much time the ships spend on a hike and how much they stand at the berth wall, we get a tangible difference that is clearly not in favor of the hikes. In addition, the "Admiral Kuznetsov" is still a rather young ship, and even though it is still far from real old age (and decrepitude), it will not be enough to modernize this ship alone. Even if we do not take into account the apparent inadequacy of the TAVKR to the requirements of the time as an aircraft carrier (first of all, the ship's air group is too small, it does not have its own AWACS aircraft - the sharp-sighted (and distant) eye of the AUG) "Kuzya" requires replacement for another aircraft carrier. And again, the question will be whether this aircraft carrier is needed in Russia, and if necessary, where to base it. To the first question, I believe that the answer is this: it is necessary if Russia positions itself as a maritime power and further intends to carry out missions similar to the one that is being carried out in Syria today - without its own ship group, which has its own "umbrella" in the form of a ship ( deck) of an air group based on an aircraft carrier, such missions are very difficult to carry out effectively. It is more difficult to answer the question of where to base an aircraft carrier: the Baltic and Black Seas are immediately excluded due to the limited maritime theater, an aircraft carrier is simply not needed there, and due to the closed nature of these seas (which are Danish and Black Sea, it is very easy to block the aircraft carrier from the open ocean from these seas may not come out (not to mention the Montreux doctrine regarding the regime of the Black Sea straits). It remains either the Northern Maritime Theater or the Pacific.
      I do not see the point of ostracizing Ishchenko for his point of view - he is not Svidomo, but some kind of specialist in naval affairs. Perhaps he is in good faith mistaken in something. Perhaps he writes what is expected of him, so to speak on the topic of the day - the theme of Syria and around it is more than relevant. Perhaps exaggerating the value of an aircraft carrier and the ability of a carrier-based air group to affect the enemy (which is completely excusable for a sailor - each sandpiper praises its swamp).
      I have the honor.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 19 January 2016 15: 00
        -2
        Why is the Kuznetsova boiler-turbine power plant almost completely out of order?


        Why are you so sure of this? To "start" a ship is not to start a car. Therefore, I cannot imagine, as stated by the above posts, that it was "launched three times". What, the boilers were not fired up, or the steam did not go to the turbines or the turbines were stuck? In general, it is possible to "kill" a boiler-turbine installation only in two cases - either the tubes in the boilers have burned out or the turbines have failed. But if this happened, then at least from the 3rd, even from the 53rd time, it will not work.
        It is also not entirely clear what the "cold sludge" of the cruiser in the North was to blame. Even without power from the shore, no one drives ALL boilers. Usually 1-2 boilers are enough to provide heating and power supply to the ship, and steam is not supplied to the turbines at all.
        So, IMHO, the problems with KTU "Kuzi" are far-fetched. Perhaps he will not give full speed (well, if he is 85, then he is already 30 years old, but without overhaul). But there will obviously not be a move without a move. Once again I draw your attention - KTU is not an internal combustion engine.
        1. Dimon19661
          Dimon19661 20 January 2016 05: 29
          0
          Finally, they indicated the age of the ship. This ship can be used as a training ship, nothing more.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 19 January 2016 16: 23
        +2
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        One of the answers is that it is cold in the north, sometimes very, for the power supply of a large ship, standing near the berth wall in the port, a large amount of electricity is required, which the Naval Forces are not always able to provide - the capacities of the coastal thermal power plants are not unlimited, moreover, the military units were disconnected during the EBN from the supply of electricity from civilian networks almost primarily due to chronic non-payment, and most importantly - the position of the top leadership (both army and civilian) to the needs of the military.

        EMNIP, "Kuznetsov" from the very beginning is based not on a port or base, but on 35 shipyards. As they knew ...
  8. kosopooz77
    kosopooz77 19 January 2016 08: 25
    +3
    Referring to American aircraft carriers, the expert could google, for starters, how many flights of the coalition planes during Desert Storm from aircraft carriers and how many from ground airfields. He could ask where the planes that bombed Belgrade took off from before these ships make the rulers of the destinies of entire countries
  9. Odysseus
    Odysseus 19 January 2016 08: 44
    +6
    I agree with the author that the idea of ​​using Kuznetsov in Syria is completely wrong.
    But the main news is that they nevertheless decided to put Kuzyu on modernization. Although given the gigantic volume of work and the current financial situation, the period of two years seems to be extremely underestimated.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 19 January 2016 10: 26
      +5
      They solve it every year, and then postpone it for another year, limiting itself to resuscitation measures in order to push out 1-2 to the Barents Sea once a year, or by intensive care if it goes to SM.

      It has been put on modernization since 2013, and every year, "It is needed now, we worked and extended it for a year, next year, it will get up for major repairs and modernization for sure!"
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 19 January 2016 12: 53
        +4
        Quote: donavi49
        It has been put on modernization since 2013, and every year, "It is needed now, we worked and extended it for a year, next year, it will get up for major repairs and modernization for sure!"

        That's just the point. This "daisy" has already bothered. It is necessary to somehow decide
        1) Put Kuzya on conservation - "until better times."
        2) Sell China
        3) Carry out, finally, this damn modernization.
  10. Shiva83483
    Shiva83483 19 January 2016 08: 46
    -3
    And if not sent this kozachok tovarisch? Straight is all about the training manual of the State Department of the Fashington Regional Committee of Mantulite ... where is the SMERSH asking, and where is it looking?
    1. podpolkovnik
      podpolkovnik 19 January 2016 09: 36
      +7
      Quote: Shiva83483
      And if not sent this kozachok tovarisch? Straight is all about the training manual of the State Department of the Fashington Regional Committee of Mantulite ... where is the SMERSH asking, and where is it looking?
    2. Anton Gavrilov
      Anton Gavrilov 19 January 2016 17: 57
      +1
      What d-would come across here sometimes ....

      I wouldn’t be ashamed to write such nonsense ...
  11. blizart
    blizart 19 January 2016 08: 51
    +4
    Ishchenko writes in a pro-Russian trend. Another thing is that his incantations about the imminent collapse of Ukraine and the accession of a new hegemon began to resemble the conversation of that foreman and the "gay" from the joke: "Again the collar is dirty? Oh, and I'll fuck you someday Pupkin!"
    “Yes, you only promise, Comrade Petty Officer!”
    1. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 19 January 2016 11: 35
      +3
      This is another Ishchenko writes, which Rostislav, and this Sergey hi
  12. sevtrash
    sevtrash 19 January 2016 09: 38
    -1
    It seems that the article is structured in the style - "everything is fine with us, and whoever says something wrong is the enemy."
    Long live the 37th!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 January 2016 16: 24
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      It seems that the article is structured in the style - "everything is fine with us, and whoever says something wrong is the enemy."
      Long live the 37th!

      Rather, comments are sustained in that spirit. smile
  13. red_october
    red_october 19 January 2016 09: 44
    12
    From the memoirs of Valentin Yegorovich Selivanov, a retired admiral who commanded the Mediterranean 5th operational squadron in Soviet times, and also flew on all domestic aircraft-carrying cruisers, including Kuznetsov.

    ... Now it has undergone major repairs again, everything seems to be put in order, but, as I understand it, the pipes still flow sometimes, although, of course, not like before. He is being prepared for the campaign next year. Now many newspapers write different things about this ship, that it is half-abandoned, nobody needs it. This, in general, is close to the truth. You cannot imagine the aircraft carrier parking in the north. An aircraft carrier is tens of thousands of tons of steel, hundreds of thousands of square meters of decks, cabins, hangars, compartments. It is simply unrealistic to warm it all on your own in the conditions of the northern winter! There, on the fourth or fifth deck of the step, knee-deep water due to fogging. He’s all frozen. Once in a lifetime, "Kuznetsov" more or less warmed up - in the Mediterranean Sea. Then he was a real handsome man. And so, he is constantly with frozen portholes. Should not aircraft carrier winter in the north. He dies there.
    In addition, the ship is idle. There is no combat work. But it serves almost two and a half thousand people. Two and a half thousand people freeze there in a limited space and do nothing, they are bored. There, every day someone from the crew hangs himself, they will cut each other, then they will be killed.
    Why are American aircraft carriers always in excellent condition - they are all the time on the march, in combat service, the crews have no time to do anything. Kuznetsov should spend the winter in the Mediterranean, which was done in the same Soviet times, when all aircraft carriers were diverted to the warm seas for the winter. "Kiev" served the most because it was constantly in the Mediterranean Sea. He worked there, flew there, excellent commanders grew, people served and were proud of such a service.


    November 2009, XNUMX
    1. sergei.84
      sergei.84 19 January 2016 14: 33
      -2
      It is interesting to read the opinion of the commander of "KIEV" -Pykov for this reason. I think that it will be the opposite, in contrast to those who "went to all heavy" On the roadstead of Severomorsk at -12 the bay was only covered with ice, and who was flowing and dripping there and in what places ...
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 19 January 2016 15: 07
      -1
      There, on the fourth or fifth deck of the step, knee-deep water due to fogging.


      Knee-deep? From fogging? You represent volumes. Here one of the three, or it was not the admiral, or he was misunderstood or distorted by the words. Because nonsense. The cruiser’s boiler-turbine installation is capable of delivering such power to disperse the ship to 30 nodes and at the same time HEAT AND LIGHT it (plus all electrical equipment). That is, the heating and lighting functions take too small a percentage of power to be so critical for the ship.
      1. Vladimir Postnikov
        Vladimir Postnikov 19 January 2016 16: 17
        +5
        "The cruiser's boiler and turbine plant is capable of delivering such power ..."
        A simple question: Who will allow this "Boiler and Turbine Unit" to be driven against the wall? You counted a small percentage of the maximum power?
        I can personally recommend you not to turn off the engine of your car in winter. It will always be warm, dry, no "condensation".
        You need to think before you write something.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 January 2016 16: 32
          +1
          Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
          A simple question: Who will allow this "Boiler and Turbine Unit" to be driven against the wall? You counted a small percentage of the maximum power?

          But there are no options. For auxiliary boilers at 1143.5 the project does not provide:
          Steam for needs not related to the movement of the ship was obtained by selection from the main boilers, so an auxiliary boiler installation was not needed

          They wrote that Kuznetsov always kept two boilers under steam.
        2. alicante11
          alicante11 19 January 2016 16: 35
          -1
          A simple question: Who will allow this "Boiler and Turbine Unit" to be driven against the wall? You counted a small percentage of the maximum power?


          And it does not need to be driven at such power, this insignificant percentage is enough. As said above - 1-2 boiler.

          I can personally recommend you not to turn off the engine of your car in winter. It will always be warm, dry, no "condensation".


          So I say that they do not. Do not drive KTU in the parking lot. Only emergency heating and lighting. Read carefully.
          1. Vladimir Postnikov
            Vladimir Postnikov 19 January 2016 17: 48
            +2
            I try to read carefully. But, I still try and think.
            Do you represent the Kuznetsov building? Can you imagine how much energy is required for this ship in the Barents Sea, and even in winter, to warm up all the rooms along both sides? Or do you think that its sides have good thermal insulation? Or do you think that "standby heating and lighting" heats and illuminates all the rooms on it?
            If you know for sure, if there were, then just write that there is no condensation on the lower decks of the Kuznetsov. All fairy tales about condensate are lies. These will be the words of a man, if true.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 20 January 2016 04: 25
              +1
              I try to read carefully. But, I still try and think.


              A very correct policy. But you always have to think. Who is "heating" all this at sea? On the go, who is heating? It is clear that power is being taken from the main power plant. But this selection cannot be large, otherwise we will not develop speed in winter. So it turns out that the energy of 1-2 boilers is spent on heating and power supply.

              Or do you think that its sides have good thermal insulation?


              I believe they do. After all, this is their "region of residence". I think that during the construction this was laid down. Do you have any other information?

              If you know for sure, if there were, then just write that there is no condensation on the lower decks of the Kuznetsov. All fairy tales about condensate are lies. These will be the words of a man, if true.


              If you know for sure that there is no insulation on "Kuza", then say so, this is a lie, it will be "the words of a man", if it's true :).
              Not everything can be known, sometimes, as you put it, you need to "think".
      2. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 20 January 2016 05: 33
        +2
        Have you ever been on a ship ??? Do not write nonsense. Regarding the fogging, it's true, in our winter in MINSK and NOVOROSIISKE it was damp even in posts (Sea of ​​Japan)
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 20 January 2016 12: 53
          0
          As for the fogging, it’s a pure truth, even in the winter it was damp in our posts on MINSK and NOVOROSIISK (Sea of ​​Japan)


          RAW, but not knee-deep water, right?
    3. King, just king
      King, just king 19 January 2016 17: 46
      0
      Have you read how Selivanov talked about his visit to Malta? When "Kuznetsov" was carried to the stones. Still, the Moremans, especially the military heroic people.

      Oh my, this is for the "red_october" post. Inserts according to the site's understanding ...
    4. g1v2
      g1v2 20 January 2016 04: 46
      0
      In my opinion, Kuzyu after modernization should be sent to the Pacific Fleet as a flagship. There, around it, a full-fledged Aug can be formed over time. And in the SF there is a bug around Petya, and in the future, a second bug around Nakhimov. BOD, frigates 22350, Atlanteans, leaders, and if anything remains of Ushakov and Bystry in them to form upon receipt of the ships. And it’s really a pity to Kuzyu - he will be warmer at the Pacific Fleet, and the japam will be more interesting. soldier
  14. eleronn
    eleronn 19 January 2016 09: 58
    -3
    If it were not for this article, I would not have known about the existence of the "greatest expert" Ischenko! Too much honor to this Ukrainian!
  15. donavi49
    donavi49 19 January 2016 10: 21
    11
    And what about the 279th okiap? It's simple. We forecast a state order for a new batch of Su-33. If 24 MiGs were successfully assembled in 2 years, then by 2018 why not collect the same amount of "Sushki"? And on the ship there will be not just an air wing, but consisting of fighters of two classes: heavy, but lethal Su-33, and light, but maneuverable MiG-29. The latter will also have a larger "assortment" of weapons.


    There is a deep misconception, there will be no Su-33, maximum repairs with modernization elements for avionics and avionics.

    MiGs cheaply and quickly held out for two reasons:
    1) The main order of 45 MiGs for India with an option for another 20 machines. That is, the GOZ has already passed through the knurled conveyor with minimal changes from the original side (even they wanted to buy Thales Helmets initially, like the Hindus, but did not have time).
    2) The MiG itself made the boat a base board for the entire production generation. MiG-29M / M2, and now MiG-35 / D are built on a glider of a ship (without a hook and some power elements, but on a virtually completely unified glider). That is, it is possible to produce any side, even land, even sea without restructuring or differentiation of the main shops.

    Sukhoi’s is different:
    The new line of Su-30, Su-35 on the glider is completely different.
    The release of Su-33 has long been discontinued, there is its own glider, its own nuances and subtleties.
    Launching a boat will be expensive, because you have to either return the original Su-33, say with a minimum of cheap like a glass cockpit (to rebuild the process technology on a new plane), or make a new Su-33 with an improved glider, engines, composites and a new radar. As a result, it will be even more expensive, but the aircraft will also be 4 ++.
    There are no orders for a heavy boat, only 20 boards from MO. The Chinese are sawing their boat. Hindus are sitting on MiGs. The rest on F-35, or F-18, or Rafaly are not going to jump.

    Bottom line, the restoration of the Su-33 will be incredibly expensive (to establish production for 20 boards).
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 19 January 2016 12: 56
      0
      Quote: donavi49
      Bottom line, the restoration of the Su-33 will be simply incredibly expensive (to establish production for 20 aircraft)

      Great, clear and comprehensive commentary.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 January 2016 16: 36
      0
      It turns out that Sukhoi will find it easier and cheaper to make some Su-35KUB (R) than to resume production of the Su-33? what
    3. opus
      opus 19 January 2016 16: 55
      +2
      Quote: donavi49
      Bottom line, the restoration of the Su-33 will be incredibly expensive (to establish production for 20 boards).

      Yes, and this is not necessary (no platform). Su-33 / Su-33KUB is enough for Kuznetsov

      T10K-1, 17.08.87, b / n 37, defeated 27.09.88, N.F.Sadovnikov
      T10K-2, 22.12.87, b / n 39
      T10K-0, 01-01, stat.test, 1989, in 1997 converted into a stat. T10KUB-0
      Т10К-3, 02-01, 17.02.90
      T10K-4, 1990, b / n 59, in 1995 - 96 was converted into T10KUB-1
      T10K-5,1990, b / n 69
      T10K-6, 03-01, January 1991, b / n 79
      T10K-7, 03-02, b / n 89 (blue) February 1991, stayed in Crimea, sold to China, prototype J-15
      T10K-8, 03-03, April 1991, defeated 11.07.91/XNUMX/XNUMX, T. Apakidze, failure of the CDS
      T10K-9, 03-04, June 1991, b / n 109, since 1996 has not flown
      T10K-10, 03-05, repeated statistical tests, (23.07.91?)

      w / o 60, flies
      w / o 61, flies
      w / o 62, flies
      w / o 64, flies
      b / n 65, defeated 17.06.1996/XNUMX/XNUMX, V. Kuzmenko, died
      w / o 66, flies
      w / o 67, flies
      w / o 68, flies
      b / n 70, defeated 17.07.2001/XNUMX/XNUMX, T. Apakidze. died
      b / n 71, no photo
      w / o 72, flies
      b / n 73, defeated 11.05.2000/XNUMX/XNUMX, P.P. Kretov
      w / o 76, flies

      w / o 77, flies
      w / o 78, flies
      w / o 79, flies
      w / o 80, flies
      w / o 81, flies
      w / o 82, drowned as a result of a cable break, 05.09.2005/XNUMX/XNUMX, Yuri Korneev
      w / o 83, flies
      w / o 84, flies
      w / o 85, flies
      w / o 86, flies
      w / o 87, flies
      w / o 88, flies

      In 1992 - 96, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 5 vehicles were delivered each, and one b / n 88 of the ninth series. From the ninth series, several cars remained at the plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur

      Thus, 35 cars were built, 9 experimental ones, 2 for static tests, 24 serial, 2 experienced and 4 serial lost.




      in 2010, the plant was engaged in the modernization of 6 Su-33 (apparently of the Su-27SM type) and overhaul of another 6 Su-33.

      You can find out more specifically on the public procurement website, tender documentation was posted in the second half of 2009. The price target for the modernization of the Su-33 is 214 million rubles per aircraft. I can’t say right away about the volume of work, I need to look for a state contract.
      (At the same time, the cost of upgrading the Su-27SM is about 200 million rubles.)

      The cost of repairing the Su-33 was about 20 million rubles.


      And the MIG is quite enough for now:

      Yes, 1000 km versus 600 km. However, MiG designers managed to partially compensate for this shortcoming. Firstly, the aircraft has a reliable and easy-to-use air-to-air refueling system. Secondly, the use of hanging tanks does not greatly reduce aerodynamics. And the decrease in payload is offset by the use of the latest high-precision weapons on the MiG-29K.
      It (MIG) is half the price, and the cost of an hour of flight is 2,5 times less.
      Quote: donavi49
      The new line of Su-30, Su-35 on the glider is completely different.

      Well, not quite like that:
  16. gallville
    gallville 19 January 2016 10: 32
    +5
    I do not see the point in the su-33. Better with a margin of mig-29k. And support kb for a moment and kb su from the 35th and 30th not to distract.
    In theory, 2 more squadrons of the MIG-29K will not hurt. One on the shore, 3 on Kuznetsovo. Or 2 to 2.
    Katrana is good, but all the same PLO and AWACS helicopters should be in the first place. In general, an aircraft carrier is good because it is possible to complete an aircraft group (read weapons) specifically for the task and without any special problems.
    Regarding modernization. So the most important thing is to update the electronics, debug the engines. But to remove unnecessary weapons (PKR, daggers). To put 12 units. armor leave 2 ak-630 in the modification of m-2, RBU itself also update. In the vacated place, either make hangars or improve crew living conditions (it might be cheaper to make cabins there).
    Through modernization, reduce the number of l / s of the ship to improve living conditions and space for units of the marine corps.
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 19 January 2016 13: 56
      0
      Radius of action, this is the meaning of SU-33.
      For an aircraft carrier - one of the most important parameters.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 January 2016 16: 43
      +1
      Quote: gallville
      Katrana is good, but all the same PLO and AWACS helicopters should be in the first place.

      Don't turn your deck wing into a jack of all trades. We don't have such a big hangar. The PLO tasks should be assigned to the AB escort.

      There, the Yankees generally threw PLO aircraft out of their wing. And instead of specialized PLO helicopters, their aircraft carriers received multipurpose MH-60S.
  17. red_october
    red_october 19 January 2016 10: 43
    +2
    Quote: gallville
    Katrana is good, but all the same PLO and AWACS helicopters should be in the first place. In general, an aircraft carrier is good because it is possible to complete an aircraft group (read weapons) specifically for the task and without any special problems.

    That's right, the Americans are doing this. They have at least 90 aircraft assigned to the board, but in reality the air group is recruited for a specific task.
  18. Idiot
    Idiot 19 January 2016 11: 13
    +3
    It may be more appropriate to transfer it to the Pacific Fleet?
    1. Sasha_Sar
      Sasha_Sar 19 January 2016 13: 51
      +4
      and 35 shipyards with him in addition
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 19 January 2016 15: 14
      +2
      It may be more appropriate to transfer it to the Pacific Fleet?


      What will he do here? Scare the Japs? The main fleet is in the north now, so the air umbrella should be there. "Kuzya" is not an aircraft carrier in the literal sense. An air defense ship of the compound, and even then in the near sea zone. After all, he does not have an ejection launch, so there have never been AWACS planes either. And without them, our amers will be inferior in detection range, and difficulties in aiming at the target will not be able to intercept the enemy in advance. You can use land-based A-50s near your coast, and probably also MIG-31 in the north, they seem to be patrolling the Arctic. Let it work there.
  19. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 19 January 2016 11: 39
    +3
    That is why they did not drive the ship halfway across the world so that Su-33 fighters would take off from its side "with maximum bomb load".
    What is half the world there? Half the world is when the Varyag goes with the Pacific Fleet to change the "Moscow".
  20. Michael.
    Michael. 19 January 2016 12: 22
    -4
    The French sounded the alarm when the Mistral simply began to stand idle and wasted money on their maintenance. We have been fostering this ship for several decades and now the tax-payers will gobble up a lot of new repairs. The question is: Do you need Rossi aircraft carriers at all? land interests. May God save and save it. And for this, thank God there is everything.
  21. Sasha_Sar
    Sasha_Sar 19 January 2016 13: 46
    +7
    Because the primary task of "Admiral Kuznetsov" is not to cut across the south, demonstrating its presence, but to teach the crews to act in the conditions of the region where its main base is located. It's simple.Complete nonsense. Don't put a good face on a bad game. "Kuzya" was built for the ocean, and not in order to frighten the "foe" because of the "corner". Flyers can be prepared, anywhere and as much as necessary, but until he sits on the deck alive, he is not a carrier-based aviation pilot. And "Kuzya" is now in the big "F .. I don't know how our ship repair industry works now, But in the 90s of the last century there was a saying:" If you want to ruin a ship, put it in repair. "And our" aircraft carrier "has its own quay wall there is a shipyard in 35. The workers of the plant on it as "serfs" plow. History does not tolerate the subjective mood. Now we have what we have. You can of course dream and remember the BDK 1174 projects, which were successfully ruined in the "zero" (I beg your pardon, put On the "conservation"). Yes, a lot of things have done the fathers - the commanders, receiving medals on secret orders ...
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 19 January 2016 15: 22
      +7
      Don't put a good face on a bad game. "Kuzya" was built for the ocean, and not in order to frighten the "foe" because of the "corner".


      "Kuzia" was built for the Soviet Navy. Which had the "Legend", had bases and airfields in different parts of the planet. There was an opportunity to ensure its at least temporary basing away from its ports and to provide target designation and guidance of aircraft and missiles (were) without its own AWACS aircraft. There were enough escort ships for ASW and close air defense. And now in the mighty Russian fleet there is none of this. KUG consist of a large attack ship and 1-3 small ones, not counting the paratroopers and tugs with workshops. Is that enough? So he should sit on his coast and in the near sea zone in the area of ​​operation of the A-50s and the "mosquito fleet".
      1. Sasha_Sar
        Sasha_Sar 19 January 2016 18: 05
        +2
        And no one argues. I remember how "Kuzya" in 1994 was "assembled" by the whole fleet on the BS in the Mediterranean Sea. And they went with EM "Fearless" plus a tanker tanker. "Three heroes" damn it ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 January 2016 16: 54
      0
      Quote: Sasha_Sar
      You can, of course, dream and remember the BDK 1174 project, which in the "zero" was successfully ruined (I beg your pardon, put on "conservation").

      EMNIP, they ruined them before - "Rogov" was written off back in 1996. "Nikolaev" has been in reserve since 1997.
      1. Sasha_Sar
        Sasha_Sar 19 January 2016 18: 07
        +1
        And the flag was removed from "Mitrofan Enko" in 2008, although the last time it fully went out to sea in 1996 ...
  22. Vladimir Postnikov
    Vladimir Postnikov 19 January 2016 13: 47
    +4
    There is such a thing - a reasonable reaction.
    What it is? This is when an adequate response to system recovery follows to some system disturbance. But, a person has weaknesses, therefore, in those systems that people control, "jumping to extremes" regularly occurs, when the reaction to indignation far exceeds the impact from this indignation.
    Let's move on to this article. After reading this article, one can assume that Mr. Ishchenko is an enemy, or at least (the word did not pass the censorship). With "Kuznetsov" everything is fine.
    To be correctly understood, I’ll immediately inform you that I stopped reading the articles of the journalist Ishchenko after I read a couple of his articles. It does not work well with material. Takes information from Wikipedia, and does not check. It turns out nonsense.
    So, Mr. Staromokhov and Staver are very similar to Ischenko. Their article is a double reaction to the disturbing influence. And for this they used exactly the same "platform (" Military Review "), where anyone can speak. For freedom."
    The journalist Ishchenko did not come up with the theme of his article in Svobodnaya Pressa himself. This topic has been discussed since the very beginning of the actions of the Aerospace Forces in Syria. The topic long before Ishchenko's article sounded like this: Why is "Kuznetsov" not in Syria, since Russia has it and it can be used in Syria (which means it is allowed to be used in Syria by other "serious players")?
    Only the lazy one does not know that the SU-33 is not very suitable for the role of bombers and attack aircraft. But his presence alone would mean a lot. And here in November our bomber was shot down. And there are only four fighters in Syria. What can the authors of the article on this site answer to this?
    Actions in Syria demanded an increase in the number of aircraft. And where to expand?
    It has already been mentioned by me on other "sites" that in vain at one time they refused to "freeze" the Yak-130. These light attack aircraft could take off from the Kuznetsov and very economically carry out bombing with corrected bombs. Anyway, I'm surprised that the Yak-130 is not used in Syria. Nobody thinks about saving. Or did the Yak-130 manufacturers all lie about their aircraft? Then take them for one place. If they are right, then why are these planes depriving the ideal opportunity to increase their sales in the combat trainer market?
    Truth, as a rule, lies in the middle.
    As for me, now I’ll add Skomorokhov and Staver to the black list for Ischenko.
  23. lazma3
    lazma3 19 January 2016 16: 03
    -5
    Kakogoto Ishchenko-Drishchenko read, only wasting time. By the way, he is a ready candidate for the role of commander in chief of the Navy of Ukraine.
  24. King, just king
    King, just king 19 January 2016 17: 32
    +2
    Quote: Odyssey
    Quote: donavi49
    Bottom line, the restoration of the Su-33 will be simply incredibly expensive (to establish production for 20 aircraft)

    Great, clear and comprehensive commentary.



    It’s clear, it’s clear, but if Poghosyan was in power now, it is still unknown whether it would be the MiG-29 or the Su-33 would be built. I think this is the case. And in general, it turns out "devastation in boskah" - for many years they vilified, well, or they vilified the MiG-29K, and here it turns out that a mistake came out when Poghosyan was moved.
    And further. Why, then, fools in the United States, with experience in aircraft carrier operation for almost 100 years, removed the heavy F-14, and left to blow out for ALL - F-18? Why do we have, if the 33rd is still under the knife, the pilots do not immediately begin to retrain on the 29th at NITKA, and not engage in some kind of useless preparation for the 33rd?
    And more about Mig. Almost clean fighter, although in today's times we need attack aircraft and fighter-bombers. Again for shooting down AWACS?
    If PLO helicopters and transport helicopters are put on "Kuznetsov", it turns out that we do not have escort ships for PLO at all ... Yes, and there is no sense in PLO helicopters according to the practice of our "capitals" and TAVKR with a gulkin member. As in one of the books: "... The contact was dubious, but they reported cheerfully!"
    But in principle, this is only my opinion.
  25. Santor
    Santor 19 January 2016 18: 28
    +5
    As soon as the authors insidiously mentioned the word "ex-captain of the Ukrainian Navy" - and it started flowing ... No, it started, excuse me, shit through the pipes ... And both authors just plainly lied. They read that he graduated from college in Sevastopol and that's it ... But they didn't look for a year.

    Born in 1953 year. Captain 1 rank stock. He graduated from the Black Sea Higher Naval School named after Nakhimov in Sevastopol. The first officer post is the commander of a missile weapon control group on the large anti-submarine ship Komsomolets Ukrainy (Black Sea Fleet). Then there was the naval newspaper Flag of the Motherland, the editorial department of the Lenin Military-Political Academy, the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda, and the Northern Fleet.

    The words of Ishchenko taken out of context and presented in digestible sauce - the author is Ukrainian and all ...

    Can someone find the courage to apologize? Well, he’s not special, although he leads his column on military issues at Politinfo ...

    I support the opinion of Vladimir Postnikov.
  26. Santor
    Santor 19 January 2016 18: 32
    0
    Quote: King, just king
    If PLO helicopters and transport helicopters are put on Kuznetsov, it turns out that we do not have escort ships for PLO at all.


    You are right - no. There is no ocean zone, equivalent to those of the adversaries.
    1. King, just king
      King, just king 19 January 2016 21: 27
      0
      I figured out a list of the most important adversaries, with those pieces of iron about which we are talking - soper ballet, dear mother !!! - USA, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Japan, South Korea, the PRC + any other type of riffraff like Holland-Norway-Sweden-Romania-Australia

      and ....... Allies - NOT ONE! This is diplomacy, and the people rejoices for the minister, who cursed the journalist with a curse, yo mine, and for such a job, he himself is like that, along with the rest of Kodla.
  27. gergi
    gergi 19 January 2016 19: 13
    0
    Kaklov had an aircraft carrier. Sold not expensive. Soon, the country saiga will be sold if they find someone. The competition is held by tseeuroopshchik who will quickly sell what else is left in the ridiculous nenka. Yes, and Nenko with the milk will leave soon.
  28. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 19 January 2016 20: 37
    +3
    The article is too emotional, and the arguments why "Admiral Kuznetsov" does not fight are honestly weak. According to the author, the cruiser does not fight because:
    1. This is not his area! He must be able to fight in the north! Well, what is there to comment? If he knows how to fight in the north, then naturally he will be able to fight in the south! Discrepancy in the argument!
    2. On the cruiser, only fighters, not bombers! Another problem! And what does the fighter have nothing to do in the sky of Syria? A cover from the Turks? Even Syrian fighters use for this!
    3. Is it impractical to drive a cruiser "for half the world"? Well, this is generally funny! Is it prudent to drive strategic bombers "for half the world" to defeat the Islamists' primitive dugouts?
    4. The regiment of pilots performs a "flight of equipment". Well, it would be great to fly over this technique in conditions close to combat! Only for the benefit of combat readiness!
    And so on. In patriotic ecstasy, the author attacked the Ukrainian captain, who was quite objectively assessing the current situation with the cruiser. Now, if the questions posed by this captain were posed by Putin, the author would slavishly outline everything in different colors. The article clearly shows an attempt to shield the army and navy from really uncomfortable questions! Namely - IS THE CRUISER READY? And in general, WILL HE EVER BE READY? And how many years will "fly around the materiel", how many years STILL will modernize the CRUISER itself?
    Hiding your head in the sand is undignified! We need to call a spade a spade! Do not cover up with patriotic rhetoric, carelessness, inability, incompetence! Now, in peacetime, having shielded a stupid general from punishment, you doom many people who depend on this inept or careerist to the death of many people in wartime. My personal opinion! Minus the "patriots"!
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 20 January 2016 10: 27
      0
      The point is to drive an aircraft carrier from 1/3 of an air group, spending a lot of money, if you can raise a couple of Tu-22M3 squadrons from Mozdok
  29. ivanovich
    ivanovich 19 January 2016 20: 41
    +7
    Free Press response to Roman's article

    Buffoons from Military Review
    A certain network of media outlets, “Military Review” (not to be confused with the supplement to “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”), registered in Udmurtia, on January 19 published an article “Tears for Admiral Kuznetsov”, signed by “Author Roman Skomorokhov, Alexander Staver”. This is the author or two, we don’t know, but that’s not the point. It quite sarcastically criticizes the opinion of our journalist Sergei Ishchenko, set forth in the article “Syria will have to wait for Admiral Kuznetsov,” which tells about the only Russian aircraft carrier. Well, criticism is normal, everyone has the right to have and express their own opinions. Abnormally different.
    Self-respecting journalists, and just decent and intelligent people, in a dispute, first of all, do not become personal and adhere to generally accepted rules of decency. Secondly, they use verified facts and do not label their opponents.
    I will quote the beginning of the article in VO: “We are not lovers of falling into the same funnel twice, but if such a situation came out, then we had to. In the world of information, such media as the Free Press enjoy a reputation precisely as a platform where anyone can speak. For freedom. And they perform, and we carefully observe what they print there. Our attention was attracted by an article by ex-captain of the Ukrainian Navy, Mr. Ishchenko ... ”
    And in the end we read: “Well, what can we expect from the captain (albeit of the first rank) of a drowned fleet of an almost no longer existing country in Ukraine? We do not demand. Once again we note that in our army and navy everything is going as it should be. Well, the fact that our enemies do not like it is because they are enemies. ”
    Let it be known to the gentlemen from VO that Sergei Ishchenko is a professional naval officer, missile, captain of the first rank (in reserve) of the Russian Navy. When the USSR served in the Black Sea, and then in the Northern Fleets, then in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, he worked as a military columnist for the newspapers Krasnaya Zvezda and Trud. He was never listed in the Ukrainian Navy and was not a citizen of that country. If a personnel officer of the Russian fleet and a patriot of Russia is an enemy for “VO”, then this very clearly describes them ...
    However, the meticulous reader will ask himself, why did VO become so fed up with our journalist? For example, a comment by one of the visitors to their site: “Aspeed. Today, 09:48. I don’t understand why these guys from VO are so ganged up on Ishchenko? It seems not the worst uncle, like ours. Why so much attention? ” And the chest opens very simply. January 12, an article by S. Ishchenko, “The Fleet of Ukraine Loses End,” was published in SP. And a few days later in “VO” appeared material of the same R. Skomorokhov “Echidna comments. Whistle everyone to the shipyard ... and give the ends! ”, In which about half of the text is“ ripped off ”from the article in“ SP ”. And without reference to the author and our publication.
    Of course, Ishchenko did not like this, and he did not fail to write to his Udmurt colleagues about this. In response I received the following letter: "18.01.2016/11/09, XNUMX:XNUMX," Vadim Smirnov " :
    Good afternoon! He didn’t put a link there, now we’ll fix it. Send a link to the original, please. This is my fault I did not trace. Does not know how to set links. Excuse me!
    Respectfully yours, Vadim Smirnov VO-media LLC, Voennoye Obozreniye ".
    It would seem that the conflict has been settled. But it was not there! Instead of correcting, to put it mildly, tactlessness, the gentlemen from VO removed the article with plagiarism from their website and then published a dirty “run over” of our journalist. Like, know our and do not arise! I want to note that in the Russian Imperial Navy they didn’t even call for a duel for such tricks, but simply beat on the head with a shandal and drove them away. Forever.
    And for the attention to our publication, Mr. Skomorokhov and Co. thank you!
    http://svpressa.ru/society/article/140442/
  30. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 20 January 2016 05: 43
    0
    Local experts are better aware of the use of fleet forces than Navy personnel officers.
  31. red_october
    red_october 20 January 2016 09: 23
    0
    Quote: King, just king
    Have you read how Selivanov talked about his visit to Malta? When "Kuznetsov" was carried to the stones. Still, the Moremans, especially the military heroic people.

    Oh my, this is for the "red_october" post. Inserts according to the site's understanding ...



    You can read here: http://www.47br-ovra.com/news/admiral-v-otstavke-selivanov-valentin-egorovich
  32. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 20 January 2016 10: 26
    0
    They will not build the Su-33, but in its original form, it is outdated.
    The MiG-29K / KUB (new, not to be confused with the MiG-29K of the 1990 model
  33. abc_alex
    abc_alex 20 January 2016 15: 11
    +1
    Quote: King, just king
    It’s clear, it’s clear, but if Poghosyan was in power now, it is still unknown whether it would be the MiG-29 or the Su-33 would be built. I think this is the case. And in general, it turns out "devastation in boskah" - for many years they vilified, well, or they vilified the MiG-29K, and here it turns out that a mistake came out when Poghosyan was moved.
    And further. Why, then, fools in the United States, with experience in aircraft carrier operation for almost 100 years, removed the heavy F-14, and left to blow out for ALL - F-18? Why do we have, if the 33rd is still under the knife, the pilots do not immediately begin to retrain on the 29th at NITKA, and not engage in some kind of useless preparation for the 33rd?
    And more about Mig. Almost clean fighter, although in today's times we need attack aircraft and fighter-bombers. Again for shooting down AWACS?
    If PLO helicopters and transport helicopters are put on "Kuznetsov", it turns out that we do not have escort ships for PLO at all ... Yes, and there is no sense in PLO helicopters according to the practice of our "capitals" and TAVKR with a gulkin member. As in one of the books: "... The contact was dubious, but they reported cheerfully!"
    But in principle, this is only my opinion.


    There was no mistake. Just by the time the devastation of the 90s began, the MiG-29K was less ready than the Su-27K. Yes, with feces he rubbed it diligently, but nevertheless 20 for Russia and 33 for India did.

    We do not need to compare our realities with the state ones. The US aircraft carriers are preparing to take the F-35, and what’s happening there with the composition of the wing, the question is purely theoretical.

    The MiG is not at all a clean fighter. Let me remind you that he learned how to bomb before the Su-27. And the only thing that makes it different in functionality from dry ones is that it cannot carry heavy missiles of the Yakhont type. And so, please choose the X-31A, X-35, or 4 KaB-500.
    And what's wrong with knocking AWACS down? Shoot him and a couple of Hokaev and you can tear off from the AUG piece by piece.

    Well, if attack aircraft are needed, then the Su-25UTG was planted on Kuzya. The Su-25K was also under development, though under ejection take-off. The Yak-130 can hardly be called a serious combat vehicle.

    PLO. In your opinion, BOD - is this name coined from the bulldozer?
    1. King, just king
      King, just king 20 January 2016 16: 38
      0
      By corporalism, they’re silly, I’m scolding this and that ... Where do we go ...
      Let’s skip Poghosyan ....
      What does the 35th have to do with it? I wrote about the unification of the fighter-I-B-scout whose functions were assigned to the Hornets by removing the Tomkets as an extra link. We have 33 cleaners, but they are training on them, why?
      About the 29th and 4th KAB-500, but with some thread rockets ... From the springboard? Yeah, she’ll dress a skullcap a new one (the film Passion for Vladimir) and take off.
      "Well, if you need stormtroopers" ... so no stormtroopers, no!
      PLO and BOD - reread my post more carefully, please, talk about PLO helicopters on Kuznetsov. And where will you get them, these BOD?

      About shooting down AWACS and mochilovo AUG ..... Remember the phrase from "Ivan Vasilyevich is changing his profession" which Shpak said after leaving the elevator, when Shurik asked: "Where is the king?" This is exactly what I want to tell you.
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 22 January 2016 14: 34
      0
      So "Yakhont" so far no one carries. Tokmo "Bramos" on the Su-30MKI.
      And the Su-33 is a pure heavy fighter for gaining air superiority.
      That was the prototype of the Su-33KUB (with a "duck" nose, like the Su-34, radar with PFAR and new avionics) - it was multifunctional. But - it was created in a single copy and "did not go"
      Here is more about it: http://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/su33kub.html