Military Review

An aircraft carrier Russian fleet?

182
Powerful, beautiful warships at all times were the hallmark of the state and the subject of national pride of the people. In Russia, there are also such ones - the Peter the Great heavy nuclear missile cruiser and the Admiral heavy aircraft carrier fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov. " Both ships are the legacy of the great country of the Soviet Union. Time passes, and more and more often on the pages of open media, questions are raised about the modernization and replacement of these unique ships in their own way. After all, they are not only heavy in the navy classification, but also heavy in the economic burden on the navy budget. Most of the reviews, opinions and comments boil down to the fact that Russia should have one, two, three aircraft carriers. Ura-patriots, not bothering, argue with questions of prestige: Spain, Brazil and Thailand have aircraft carriers, and so great Russia must have such a ship! Do you argue against the iron argument! Sailors from the military argue that it is necessary to create an air defense umbrella over the formation of a naval group at the passage by the sea and to accumulate invaluable experience using the deck aviation for the future. Everything is also competent and for the future! I allow myself to disagree with the majority and try to substantiate the point of view that Russia does not need aircraft carriers.


In the current economic situation in the country and in the world it is difficult to understand the real cost of designing, building, equipping and operating an aircraft carrier with a displacement 80-100 thousand tons in Russia with the numbers of millions and billions of different currencies. It is only clear that in scale this will be comparable to the Sochi Winter Olympics, the bridge to the Crimea or the Vostochny cosmodrome, both in time and in money.

Currently in Russia there is no experience in designing ships of this class. References to the Soviet experience of the Ulyanovsk project are not taken seriously. We cannot afford on such a scale “the first pancake”, and the school has been accumulating for decades. The generation of the creators of the "Varyag" has gone, without realizing the dream of the first real aircraft carrier to the end.

The next, and most important, question: where, who and how will build an aircraft carrier. The Nikolaev shipyards are now abroad, lost forever. Creating an enterprise with the appropriate infrastructure from scratch for the construction of one or three ships in the Far East or in the north of the country can be calculated by economists. The figures are likely to be astronomical, and the country's deficient budget simply will not pull them, but there is no hope for foreigners or their investors. Starting cooperation in such a matter as building an aircraft carrier with foreign partners, whoever they are, means to attack the same rake as in the construction of the Mistral. A lot of money will be wasted, and most importantly, time, with zero result.

You can consider another option. Friendly China also dreams of a carrier fleet. Let's wait until the Chinese build themselves something better than our Varyag aircraft carrier, and order an improved version of the Chinese aircraft carrier adapted to our conditions! After all, tsarist Russia on the eve of the Russian-Japanese war was not ashamed to order in England, the "world factory", the famous cruiser Varyag, and the "factory of the world" is now China!

2036 year! Russia finally has two aircraft carriers as part of the Navy: "Admiral of the Kuznetsov Fleet" and "Admiral Makarov"! It is possible to argue about the date and name, the fact is the need to withdraw the first ship from the fleet. He provided the successor with a trained air group on modern aircraft, retaining invaluable experience. But the daily routine poses the same questions as twenty years ago. Where will be the native harbor of the mighty ship? What is the concept of combat use of the carrier group of Russia?

The first question will be answered by the time given the wisdom of the leadership of the country and the fleet, which allowed itself to have a full-fledged aircraft carrier, and, of course, should provide a decent maintenance and maintenance of such an expensive and prestigious colossus. But for what tasks the whole country for twenty years was supposed to tighten their belts? Sea wolves now will tell you with complete confidence and rare unanimity that in conditions of armed conflict both in the north of the Atlantic and in the Pacific Ocean, the only Russian aircraft carrier group will be more a game than a hunter. NATO's combined fleet in the Atlantic and the allied fleets of the United States, Japan, South Korea and others in the Pacific simply lock up the only Russian aircraft carrier in the base. After all, no one plans to bring the only AUG of the Russian fleet to a knightly duel with a similar US or NATO connection. There are no plans for amphibious operations of our fleet to the Hawaiian Islands or Midway, which may need to create an air defense umbrella and combat stability at the sea crossing.

Unfortunately, it must be admitted, both now and in the foreseeable future, the only Russian aircraft carrier will not be able to carry out combat missions to ensure versatile combat training of fleet forces and adequately demonstrate the flag of Russia in the world ocean. The use of the French aircraft carrier in the counterterrorist operation in Syria cannot be compared with the effectiveness of the actions of the Russian air group in the same country. So the presence of "Admiral Kuznetsov" in the same waters would hardly have changed. And, say, to force a presumptuous political regime for peace, as in Georgia or elsewhere, it is possible without an aircraft carrier strike group.
Author:
182 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 25 February 2016 08: 07
    29
    An aircraft carrier Russian fleet?
    Hooray!!! "fresh" topic! have not written for a long time !!!))))))))))))))))))))) all fray, when? and no one says what for ...? and most importantly "how much does it cost and who pays?" (escort and infrastructure, nobody cares, the main thing is NAD !!!)
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 25 February 2016 08: 17
      11
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      Hooray!!! "fresh" topic! have not written for a long time !!!)))))))))))))))))))))

      Well, from time to time it’s necessary to raise a similar topic in order to arrange the boiling laughing
      Nikolaev shipyards now - abroad, lost forever

      About "forever" is a very controversial statement. Another thing is the state of the Nikolaev shipyards themselves. In particular, the Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant is the only builder of Soviet aircraft carriers.
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 25 February 2016 08: 25
        +1
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant.

        An aircraft carrier on the Black Sea? > _>
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 25 February 2016 08: 30
          +1
          And what, in the Baltic Sea it is also impossible to have atomic ones, but where do you not know where Kirov was built?
          1. Baikonur
            Baikonur 25 February 2016 09: 19
            11
            What is the concept of combat use of the aircraft carrier group of Russia?
            With all due respect to the seaman, but I have the same question! Why do we need an aircraft carrier? For what tasks? We do not claim overseas attacks! Pure defense. It’s cheaper to carry out contractual work on arranging air bases in a particular region (if necessary!) Won, if not, they have quickly enough deployed in Syria. Especially land-based - suitable for all types of aircraft, unlike the offshore platform!
            And the maintenance and service of AUG - a lot of money! Prestige? Also somehow ... On the contrary, such costs are at the hand of our likely "partners".
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 25 February 2016 09: 34
              +1
              Quote: Baikonur
              Why do we need an aircraft carrier? For what tasks?

              To increase combat stability.

              For example, covering the position area of ​​underwater missile carriers. Grouping ships with an aircraft carrier will be able to accomplish this task with greater efficiency.
              1. Baikonur
                Baikonur 25 February 2016 10: 03
                +5
                Hmmm!
                covering the positional area of ​​underwater missile carriers.
                The shore group is 100000 times cheaper and more efficient and diverse!
                And the rear connection is continuous by land!
                And unsinkable!
                Purely my opinion! hi
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 25 February 2016 10: 56
                  +1
                  Coastal?
                  Bring the missile carriers ashore? "Submarine in the steppes of Ukraine ..." (c) 8)))
              2. Nick
                Nick 25 February 2016 10: 21
                0
                Quote: Spade
                Quote: Baikonur
                Why do we need an aircraft carrier? For what tasks?

                To increase combat stability.

                For example, covering the position area of ​​underwater missile carriers. Grouping ships with an aircraft carrier will be able to accomplish this task with greater efficiency.

                It’s true, but you need to calculate everything. Too high costs can undermine our economic sustainability, which, you see, also poses a threat to the state.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 25 February 2016 11: 12
                  +1
                  I'm afraid an alternative to an aircraft carrier will result in even more money.
                  The heavy helicopter carrier on which the PLO helicopters will be based and serviced
                  Developed satellite constellation with high resistance to defeat by anti-satellite missiles to replace carrier-based AWACS aircraft.
                  Heavy long-range anti-ship missiles capable of hitting targets at a distance of at least equal to the combat radius of enemy carrier-based aviation plus the flight ranges of their aviation anti-ship missiles
                  A powerful air defense system, capable of repulsing a massive strike of the enemy’s anti-ship missiles. In the conditions of impossibility to deal with carriers at distant approaches and poor situational awareness due to the lack of AWACS aircraft
              3. the polar
                the polar 25 February 2016 11: 06
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Quote: Baikonur
                Why do we need an aircraft carrier? For what tasks?

                To increase combat stability.

                For example, covering the position area of ​​underwater missile carriers. Grouping ships with an aircraft carrier will be able to accomplish this task with greater efficiency.

                If the enemy always knows where the "missile submarine positioning area" is at the moment, then it is not necessary to build aircraft carriers, but counterintelligence to look for traitors in the headquarters.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 25 February 2016 11: 39
                  +1
                  Are the traitors at headquarters forcing Americans to pay very much attention to sonar aids?
              4. Butchcassidy
                Butchcassidy 25 February 2016 11: 11
                0
                Quote: Spade
                For example, covering the position area of ​​underwater missile carriers.


                And the point is to attract the attention of a potential adversary to possible availability these essentially secretive submarines? Like, look - we are flying here, look for our submarines right here in this square?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 25 February 2016 11: 38
                  +1
                  Sorry, but Americans are not at all "well stupid ...". They have a bunch of powerful tools for monitoring the underwater environment. Starting with stationary monsters such as FDS and SOSUS, and ending with hydroacoustic reconnaissance ships.

                  Moreover, in the threatened period, they plan to deploy, using aviation and submarines, additional systems of hydro-acoustic observation.
              5. Rokossovsky
                Rokossovsky 25 February 2016 16: 00
                -1
                For example, covering the position area of ​​underwater missile carriers.

                Very wise! Especially under the ice of the Arctic ...
                The Americans out, fools, AUGs cover one or two multipurpose nuclear submarines, and we will be the SSBN AUGs!
                Lurking above all! )))
                Well did not offer the opposite!
                I already imagined how the Boreas drive Los Angeles from our aircraft carriers ...))))
                And how Americans will be surprised!)))
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 25 February 2016 16: 41
                  0
                  Quote: Rokossovsky
                  Americans out, fools, AUGs cover with one or two multipurpose nuclear submarines

                  So that they would not be sunk by depth charges ??? 8))))))))))))

                  Are you waiting!
                  1. Rokossovsky
                    Rokossovsky 25 February 2016 17: 12
                    0
                    Burning

                    Your epaulets mean that you should be aware of this.
                    Multipurpose nuclear submarines as part of the American ACG is an axiom!
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 25 February 2016 17: 58
                      +1
                      AND? Where are the analogies here?
                      If the submarine defense is carried out by multi-purpose hunter boats, then to protect the positional areas of our missile carriers, aviation is not needed, I understand correctly?

                      Honestly, I just don’t understand what you are trying to convey to me.
            2. gispanec
              gispanec 25 February 2016 10: 33
              0
              Quote: Baikonur
              It is cheaper to conduct contractual work on arranging air bases in a particular region. And the content and maintenance of the AUG - a lot of workouts!

              who told you such nonsense ?? ... they gave Gabala to Azerbaijan, but why ?? ... more expensive !! I ask you to give figures on the construction of an aircraft carrier + content = lease of three or four air bases abroad (Vietnam, Cuba, Syria, Africa) with protection and maintenance ... I don’t know about it and I don’t say what is expensive or cheap ...
              1. a71
                a71 26 February 2016 19: 12
                0
                Gave Gabala Aliyev bent the price of the rent. Attention! For rent, and not the maintenance of the object has become expensive!
            3. Per se.
              Per se. 25 February 2016 11: 32
              +6
              Quote: Baikonur
              With all due respect to the seaman, but I have the same question! Why do we need an aircraft carrier? For what tasks?
              Maybe the Russian fleet is not needed? The fleet and naval aviation, just and solve everyday tasks at sea, so that it does not come to a big war. Russia needs a fleet, and definitely not weak and flawed. Nobody asks why, they say, I need a car, give me more studs, I will pierce other people's wheels ... There are, of course, agents of influence, there is an information war, but the logic of the peasant from the clearing is killing. The British say that it is good to destroy an enemy ship in battle, but even better to destroy it right on the slipway. With our traitors and thieves, ships are destroyed not even on the stocks, but already on the design tracing paper, in the very idea! Unbuilt ships, like unborn soldiers. Do we need aircraft carriers, do we need long-range bombers, other "offensive" weapons (we are not going to attack anyone)? If you go to the West, it becomes a colony, an appendage of raw materials, so probably not needed. But if Russia has plans to be a great power, and Russia simply cannot be different, then we need a balanced fleet capable of solving all tasks at sea. All tasks at sea cannot be solved without aviation, and cannot be solved by basic aviation alone, without carrier-based aircraft. The whole world is building or is going to build aircraft carriers, so think about whether Russia needs them, are we stupider and poorer than the same India or Spain and Italy.
            4. uge.garik
              uge.garik 25 February 2016 17: 06
              0
              ... Well, we must be able to use trophies of war, and for this at least some experience is needed .. so there is no full-fledged replacement yet - disputes regarding the Russian ASU will continue ... if only the benefits are not "blurred". ..
          2. Ami du peuple
            Ami du peuple 25 February 2016 09: 43
            +2
            Quote: Engineer
            And what, in the Baltic Sea it is also impossible to have atomic ones, but where do you not know where Kirov was built?
            I know. But you TARK mixed up with TAKR. Carrier cruisers were created only in Nikolaev. But it is possible to build aircraft carriers at the Baltic plant in St. Petersburg - there is just a suitable 350-meter slipway, the only one in Russia. Only he is busy for the next five years under the nuclear icebreaker program.
            Quote: ShadowCat
            An aircraft carrier on the Black Sea? > _>

            I did not understand sarcasm. Not for use in the Black Sea, but only as a construction site.
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 08
              0
              Quote: Ami du peuple

              But it is possible to build aircraft carriers at the Baltic plant in St. Petersburg - there is just a suitable 350-meter slipway, the only one in Russia. Only he is busy for the next five years under the nuclear icebreaker program.

              You are not right. Once again, I remind you about Kerch with a huge dry dock.
          3. Nick
            Nick 25 February 2016 10: 17
            +1
            Quote: Engineer
            And what, in the Baltic Sea it is also impossible to have atomic ones, but where do you not know where Kirov was built?

            Actually, "Kirov" is a cruiser, albeit an aircraft carrier. He does not pull on a full-fledged aircraft carrier.
            1. Nick
              Nick 25 February 2016 13: 10
              0
              Quote: Nick
              Actually, "Kirov" is a cruiser, albeit an aircraft carrier. He does not pull on a full-fledged aircraft carrier.

              I don’t understand, minus what? The TARK "Kirov" carried on board an air group of only three Ka-27 helicopters. This is definitely not an aircraft carrier, but judging by the minus, someone thinks differently.
        2. Zeppelin ml.
          Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 08: 47
          +9
          Quote: ShadowCat
          An aircraft carrier on the Black Sea? > _>

          - this is the Crimea. laughing
          1. Dryulea
            Dryulea 25 February 2016 08: 56
            +1
            Besides unsinkable
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 25 February 2016 19: 46
              0
              Quote: Dryula
              Besides unsinkable

              Call the peninsula Aircraft Carrier can only .. a girl in a kokoshnik! laughing Do not carry crap.
        3. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 25 February 2016 09: 10
          +2
          Quote: ShadowCat
          shipyard.

          it is not the Black Sea itself. From there, you can throw it anywhere you want. But the question is: where to transfer? Pacific Ocean, you can still talk here ... but first you need to build a pier for it in deep waters. Built for the Mistrals, but completed or not, after the termination of the contract. I don't know if my article appeared here "279 KIAP" about an excursion to Severomosrk-3, but there you can see ship-borne Su-25s, we were not allowed to approach Ka-52 helicopters, but there are ... a lot of them there. It's all naval aviation. The Su-34K itself has 8 suspension points, as we were told: in the center of the fuselage there is a beam for installing a rocket with a 200 kg., Warhead, but the rocket itself was not created with the Grobochev period. And suddenly it will not work how to create a ground base in Syria. Here's an airfield for Su-25 attack aircraft (Rooks), and if you upgrade the "Night Hunter" for the deck?
          1. Butchcassidy
            Butchcassidy 25 February 2016 11: 15
            0
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            it is not the Black Sea itself. From there, you can transfer it anywhere.


            Today, just the same, a full-fledged aircraft carrier cannot leave the Black Sea on its own, since the regime of the straits, enshrined in the Montreux Convention, prohibits passage through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles aircraft carriers. This rule, among other things, served as the basis for the development of the concept of aircraft-carrying cruisers, i.e. another class of ships.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 25 February 2016 12: 42
              +1
              Quote: ButchCassidy
              Today, just the same, a full-fledged aircraft carrier cannot move out of the Black Sea on its own, since the regime of the straits, enshrined in the Montreux Convention, prohibits the aircraft carriers themselves from passing through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.

              I apologize - but in what article of the convention does it say (in relation to the Black Sea coastal Powers)?
          2. GSH-18
            GSH-18 25 February 2016 19: 48
            +1
            Quote: shasherin.pavel
            And suddenly it will not work how to create a ground base in Syria. Here's an airfield for Su-25 attack aircraft (Rooks), and if the "Night Hunter" is upgraded for the deck?

            Hi Pash! Two articles today on the topic of need / not need Aircraft carrier of Russia. In my opinion, the question is ridiculous, and it has been ridiculous since Soviet times. The answer is obvious, YES!
        4. GSH-18
          GSH-18 25 February 2016 09: 38
          -2
          Quote: ShadowCat
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant.

          An aircraft carrier on the Black Sea? > _>

          This is possible if we make some changes to the Montreux convention (on the tonnage of warships). By the way, the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" was quietly based in Sevastopol under the USSR, it was his home port.
        5. olegactor
          olegactor 25 February 2016 10: 33
          -1
          and blacksmiths from where .... he in Nikolaev and was under construction
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 25 February 2016 12: 20
            0
            Quote: olegactor
            and blacksmiths from where .... he in Nikolaev and was under construction

            Kuznetsov is not an aircraft carrier! A carrier aircraft cruiser. Although they look similar, they are completely different ships in terms of capabilities, performance characteristics, and tasks. It’s time to already know!
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 25 February 2016 10: 11
        0
        Aircraft carrier, as you know, is a UNIVERSAL weapon. Due to the possibility of basing it on the deck of all the main types of military aircraft. Aircraft carrier knows everything that its aircraft PLUS can do, installed on it equipment and weapon systems. In addition, he is mobile. If we somewhere do not have the opportunity (As in Syria) to dull our air group, then the Aircraft Carrier will help us!
      3. dmi.pris
        dmi.pris 25 February 2016 11: 56
        0
        This is an indisputable statement. Well, let's go seize the shipyards by force? There aren’t any reasons.
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        Hooray!!! "fresh" topic! have not written for a long time !!!)))))))))))))))))))))

        Well, from time to time it’s necessary to raise a similar topic in order to arrange the boiling laughing
        Nikolaev shipyards now - abroad, lost forever

        About "forever" is a very controversial statement. Another thing is the state of the Nikolaev shipyards themselves. In particular, the Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant is the only builder of Soviet aircraft carriers.
      4. spravochnik
        spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 02
        +1
        Well, yes, something has already been received - Theodosius and Kerch. In Kerch, by the way, a large dry dock (150 built, planned to build 000).
    2. Engineer
      Engineer 25 February 2016 08: 29
      +3
      If the Union built aircraft carriers, then it was NADA.
      1. 73bor
        73bor 25 February 2016 08: 59
        -1
        Then it was NADA and now the situation has changed and the times of the supercarriers are gone!
      2. ver_
        ver_ 25 February 2016 09: 00
        -3
        ... anachreon they are needed - in a few years it will be the type of ships that nobody needs - like a suitcase without a handle ..
      3. GSH-18
        GSH-18 25 February 2016 09: 46
        0
        Quote: Engineer
        If the Union built aircraft carriers, then it was NADA.

        The Union has never built Aircraft Carriers. There were projects ("Ulyanovsk" for example), but the opponents killed. As a result, there appeared neither one nor the other-aircraft-carrying cruisers.
        1. Zeppelin ml.
          Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 10: 31
          0
          Quote: GSH-18
          The Union has never built Aircraft Carriers. There were projects ("Ulyanovsk" for example), but the opponents killed. As a result, there appeared neither one nor the other-aircraft-carrying cruisers.

          absolutely right. But the terminological nuances do not interest anyone)
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 25 February 2016 13: 11
          +2
          Quote: GSH-18
          The Union has never built Aircraft Carriers. There were projects ("Ulyanovsk" for example), but the opponents killed. As a result, there appeared neither one nor the other-aircraft-carrying cruisers.

          "Ulyanovsk" just no one stabbed.
          The seventh iteration of Project 1143 - the Ulyanovsk nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, pr. 1143.7 - was laid down in Nikolaev, but was not completed due to the collapse of the USSR.
      4. GSH-18
        GSH-18 25 February 2016 12: 34
        -2
        Quote: Engineer
        If the Union built aircraft carriers, then it was NADA.

        The Union has not built a single Aircraft Carrier. It's time to already know such things! The Union built aircraft-carrying cruisers, which Aleko is not an aircraft carrier, which in terms of performance characteristics, the composition of the air group, the number and duration of the autonomy of the entire barge. In the USSR, there was a project of a normal aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk", but the srategs from the USSR Ministry of Defense cut it off and gnawed it as soon as they could - as a result, it turned out twice as small stub - "aircraft carrier" request Something like this...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 25 February 2016 13: 25
          +1
          Quote: GSH-18
          In the USSR, there was a project of a normal aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk", but srategs from the USSR Ministry of Defense cut it off and nibbled it as soon as they could - as a result, we got TWICE smaller stub - "aircraft carrier" request Something like that.

          Somehow it’s not at all like that. smile

          The history of full-fledged heavy aircraft of the USSR begins with project 1160 - aircraft with nuclear power plants with a displacement of 80 kt. The project was slaughtered in favor of continuing the construction of 1143.
          Then the second approach to the projectile followed - project 1153 in 70-72 kt. He was also stabbed to death in favor of the next iteration of the original 1143 - project 1143.4 (the future "Gorshkov").
          And only for the third time it was possible to break through a full-fledged AB - formally, as part of the next "improvement" of pr. 1143. This AB should have become 1143.7.

          It is noteworthy that Morin writes about 1143.7, that this project belongs to the 1143 line only conditionally, but in fact "Ulyanovsk" was a development of the 1160-1153 line.
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 25 February 2016 14: 09
          +1
          No not like this. The aircraft carrier is just terminological and nothing more. And the aircraft carriers are different and depending on whom the performance characteristics are measured against. Is Invincible an aircraft carrier? Yes, a light aircraft carrier, although its performance characteristics cannot be compared with Project 1143. And there have been many AB projects in the USSR since the 30s. One listing will take the entire page. As for "cut and nibbled". Back in 1969, the USSR developed a "real aircraft carrier" with the AEU pr. 1160 "Oryol". So it was just "nibbled" and as a result received pr. 1143. And "Ulyanovsk" not only "existed in the project", but was also founded in 1988 on the "zero" slipway of the ChSZ. At the time of the collapse of the USSR, it was 25% ready. Something like this ...
    3. Aleksander
      Aleksander 25 February 2016 08: 43
      +2
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      and no one speaks what for...? and most importantly "how much it costs, and who pays?"


      Strange ... Author about it -All article and says.
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 25 February 2016 08: 48
        -2
        Quote: Aleksander
        Strange ... The author talks about this whole article.

        I'm talking about our colleagues ...
    4. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 08: 49
      +1
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      the main thing is NADA !!!)

      Yurich, in my opinion, the author is just saying "DO NOT !!!". But, of course, at the same time taking into account the wisdom of the leadership of the country and the fleet(C)
    5. Gray brother
      Gray brother 25 February 2016 08: 51
      -2
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      all grind-when? and no one says what for ...?

      First you need to build a pair of escort battleships. laughing
      1. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 25 February 2016 09: 14
        0
        Quote: Gray Brother
        escort battleships

        Maybe bigger anti-submarine warheads are better than the Keisser Air Defense?
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 25 February 2016 14: 13
          +1
          Quote: shasherin.pavel

          Maybe bigger anti-submarine warheads are better than the Keisser Air Defense?

          All this has already been counted and re-counted back in the USSR. The result of this work was pr-in pr. 11435 and 11436 and bookmark pr. 11437.
    6. 73bor
      73bor 25 February 2016 08: 57
      0
      The cruiser Varyag was built in the USA. You can build an aircraft carrier, but for what? The USA themselves do not know what to do with them, half are idle!
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 February 2016 16: 02
        0
        Quote: 73bor
        The cruiser Varyag was built in the USA.

        So ... it seems to me that the author of the USA still has a British colony, in which the separatists illegally seized power. smile
    7. samoletil18
      samoletil18 25 February 2016 09: 07
      +1
      After all, tsarist Russia did not hesitate on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War to order the famous cruiser Varyag in England, the “factory of the world”,
      Philadelphia in the USA. And the heroic "Varyag" died due to the fact that he found himself alone on the KOREAN COAST IN A THREATENING PERIOD. Therefore, the Russian flag denotes the right thing, but bungling is unacceptable. It is not that the situation with the destroyers is ideal. And here, an aircraft carrier. Is he going to walk the oceans alone, like the Varyag? Yes, can. a boat, such as "Koreyets" to start up next, for show.
      I also want a country house on the Black Sea with a yacht, a pier, security and a beach per kilometer, but I confine myself to an apartment, until I earned all the Wishlist. And an aircraft carrier, if ordered in the United States, and not at their vassal, will be built there and delivered on time and will be offered a substantial discount for the next. Only offer them, immediately ISIS (a banned terrorist organization in the Russian Federation) will be bombed with Turkey!
    8. PV KGB of the USSR
      PV KGB of the USSR 25 February 2016 09: 26
      +3
      Why do we need an aircraft carrier? Better 10 new "killers" of aircraft carriers, I mean large missile cruisers and submarines, I would like new projects. In addition, it will not be so difficult to destroy the AUG with modern supersonic missiles. And most importantly, it would look beautiful
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 February 2016 09: 40
        +4
        Quote: PV KGB USSR
        Why do we need an aircraft carrier? Better than 10 new aircraft carrier killers

        And by what means do you plan to provide them with target designation?
        How to carry out air defense?
        How to carry out missile defense in the conditions of a lack of helicopters?
        1. Dangerous
          Dangerous 25 February 2016 10: 35
          0
          It is clear that without reconnaissance and target designation it is problematic to conduct without carrier-based aviation. Naturally, we would like to have aircraft carriers with a sufficient number of security ships. But in this economic situation, it's all just empty Wishlist. Therefore, we need the necessary and sufficient means of deterrence, with which so far the submarines and missile ships (frigates / destroyers) can act
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 25 February 2016 11: 14
            +1
            Nuclear submarines, whose position areas are not covered in any way, are money down the drain, not a deterrent.
            1. Andy
              Andy 25 February 2016 12: 02
              +2
              I’m afraid you shouldn’t tire of the tender brains of the idiots scorched by the sultry wind of Kaptsovschina ... they’re dreaming of oars with boarding hooks. all arguments are like peas on a wall. Yes, economically and technically, the aircraft carrier cannot be pulled, but unfortunately it does not become less necessary. and even the Chinese and Indians understand this
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 25 February 2016 12: 14
                +3
                For now, maybe we won’t pull it. But you need to start right now. It will take a lot of time to develop it, develop the entire spectrum of necessary carrier-based aircraft, create infrastructure for its production, and develop technologies. 15 years for sure.
          2. spravochnik
            spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 17
            +2
            Quote: Dangerous
            Therefore, we need the necessary and sufficient means of deterrence, with which so far the submarines and missile ships (frigates / destroyers) can act


            And how long can they hold back without air cover?
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Siberia 9444
        Siberia 9444 25 February 2016 10: 16
        0
        In vain flooded the metal could pass. lol
      3. Andy
        Andy 25 February 2016 11: 56
        +4
        the author-videoman is apparently one of those people who drowns on an aircraft carrier a week. Otherwise, this nonsense can not be explained. if an aircraft carrier is so easy to destroy, then why will other ships or submarines be more stable? than the aircraft carrier was drowned, what countermeasures were taken can you explain? not a site at all, but Klondike idiots-idiots became ... urya-rya, we don’t need (t90cm / aircraft carrier / t50), urya-rya. feed someone else's!
        1. PV KGB of the USSR
          PV KGB of the USSR 25 February 2016 12: 31
          -4
          Do not twist your feet. Read http://ria.ru/radio_brief/20160224/1379767317.html Yes, by the way I'm not a bast shoe, I'm a "quilted jacket" wink Only today I read a comment I agree with: Aircraft carrier in the 21st century is a great Titanic, with the same large number of casualties. Or will someone give a guarantee that you can easily destroy Yakhont? And two, but three? And you don’t have to be rude, learn how to discuss, although with the Estonian flag ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 25 February 2016 13: 35
            +3
            Quote: PV KGB USSR
            Only today I read a comment I agree with: Aircraft carrier in the 21st century is a great Titanic, with the same large number of casualties.

            Covering the positional areas of SSBNs without AB is akin to the next Operation Verp.

            Without a floating airfield with a minimum arrival time of the aircraft and an AWACS hanging in the air, our KPUG will have to rely on the fact that the time to detect suitable enemy aircraft will be longer than the time of takeoff, gathering and approach of the aircraft from coastal airfields. And pray that there are no SMUs on the shore that impede takeoff. ICH, the situation "on the shore - zero visibility, above the ships - a clear sky" - this is by no means a fantasy. This was even on the blessed Mediterranean.
            And there is little hope for shipboard air defense systems alone - you can’t deceive the radio horizon.

            Oh yes, these coastal airfields will still need to be built and equipped. For example, on the Kola Peninsula, in the area of ​​the throat of the White Sea. With almost complete absence of roads.
          2. Andy
            Andy 25 February 2016 13: 35
            +1
            They have already explained the functions of an aircraft carrier a hundred times, but you still haven’t figured out what to discuss with you then. where will the yachts come from for the aircraft carrier? who will let you go for a salvo? why such stubborn people cannot understand one thing - an aircraft carrier is not a target, he can also give change. and the Soviet Navy understood this
          3. The comment was deleted.
            1. PV KGB of the USSR
              PV KGB of the USSR 25 February 2016 14: 30
              +1
              No, it didn't reach you. Even if there is money to build ONE aircraft carrier, which will be ready in 30 years, since it will not be mortgaged earlier than in 10 years. We will not build it faster, there is no capacity and experience, our leaders and command staff openly speak about this. Farther! The aircraft carrier operates as part of a group of support ships and a pair of submarines! Will we build them too, or do we have something idle? One AUG, it's like a dead man's vitamins! While we are building today's weapons will become like a flintlock against a Kalashnikov assault rifle, which means we will rearm. How long does it take? We cannot repair and re-equip project 1144 quickly! Therefore, it is necessary to follow the path along which we are going: many small mobile missile ships with good weapons such as "Caliber", etc. And also submarines of project 949A "Antey" and above. Who can say what aviation will be like in 30 years? Will a "floating bucket" with a crew of several thousand people be needed for a quick air strike? And the most important thing! Whose shores will we go to on it? Are we going to capture someone? In short, we need to create what we are great at: an effective weapon at minimal cost. We already have the best weapons - this confirms that we speak Russian and there are red stars above the Kremlin.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 25 February 2016 14: 55
                +2
                Quote: PV KGB USSR
                Farther! The aircraft carrier operates as part of a group of support ships and a pair of submarines! Will we also build them, or is something worthless with us?

                The minimum task of domestic AV is to cover the KPUG from the air. That is, it should initially act in conjunction with escort ships.
                Quote: PV KGB USSR
                Therefore, it is necessary to follow the path along which we are going: many small mobile missile ships with good weapons such as "Caliber", etc.

                And the third time to step on the rake of a mosquito fleet. Not enough for us the TKA of the 30s and the RKA of the 60s of the last century, which are practically defenseless in terms of air defense?
              2. spravochnik
                spravochnik 25 February 2016 17: 08
                0
                Quote: PV KGB of the USSR
                We’ll not build faster, there are no capacities and experience, our leaders and command staff openly talk about this.

                And you listen to them more. They have told us so much over the past 25 years.
              3. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 25 February 2016 23: 23
                +1
                Quote: PV KGB USSR
                Whose shores will we go to? What are we going to capture someone?
                Sergey, I don’t even take offense at you, since you are sincerely mistaken, being in your ignorance.
                There is such a taskas "isolation of the combat area", "the conquest and retention of dominance in a remote area of ​​airspace to ensure ..." - then there are variations: exit, deployment of fleet forces; to prohibit the exit to communications of shock NKs, enemy submarines, and so on.
                Question: Who will do this outside the range of shore-based aviation? Pope? - So he's in the Vatican! And NATO aircraft - along the Atlantic coast! And coastal too! The F-35 is definitely humpbacked. But ama will finish it all the same! And he does not need large runways, he will have enough area of ​​100x20m. Therefore, the announcement: and we destroy airfields - will not work ...
                So how to solve the problem of covering the forces of the fleet even "around the corner" ... if not with aircraft carrier aviation? request
          4. Andy
            Andy 25 February 2016 14: 02
            +1
            read how the Americans pressed Soviet submarines during a campaign in the Atlantic. how lack of support for surface ships. pl is not a panacea for all ills. ships of different classes and purposes are needed.
            1. PV KGB of the USSR
              PV KGB of the USSR 25 February 2016 14: 54
              -2
              I do not need to read. My father started back in the 60s on the first nuclear submarines, and he walked on ice in the Arctic and the British bombed them. You read it there in Estonia. Drive the whole army into one village club and read, read and pray.
              1. Andy
                Andy 25 February 2016 17: 51
                +1
                and you still taught me courtesy! laughing
                then I was right in your assessment
              2. The comment was deleted.
          5. Andy
            Andy 25 February 2016 14: 02
            0
            read how the Americans pressed Soviet submarines during a campaign in the Atlantic. how lack of support for surface ships. pl is not a panacea for all ills. ships of different classes and purposes are needed.
          6. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 25 February 2016 22: 52
            +2
            Quote: PV KGB USSR
            Or will someone give a guarantee that you can easily destroy Yakhont?
            What are you, my dear! Of course not! For, according to V. Baranets:
            There is a unique Yakhont anti-ship missile, it moves at such a speed that it cannot be detected no speakers. Therefore, I can not disagree with that
            that dear Baranets himself clearly understands what he is talking about, if not a drop of confusion he believes that supersonic anti-ship missiles are detected by ACOUSTIC systems. lol
            RIA Novosti http://ria.ru/radio_brief/20160224/1379767317.html#ixzz41D9Bhuvo
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. Alf
        Alf 25 February 2016 19: 33
        0
        Quote: PV KGB USSR
        Why do we need an aircraft carrier? Better 10 new "killers" of aircraft carriers, I mean large missile cruisers and submarines,

        And let's send a submarine to the shores of Syria, let it drive cruise missiles to Ishilov’s men there. The fleet must be balanced. And not only balanced, but also ready for ANY war, incl. and LOCAL. And in a local war, SSBNs or fighter boats are not needed, but aircraft carriers like all-rounders are required. A base in Syria is very necessary, but so far they will agree on it, while they will deliver building materials, while they will build it ... And the aircraft carrier slams there in a week or two. And after he hangs the umbrella, you can safely build.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 25 February 2016 23: 48
          +1
          Quote: Alf
          And in a local war, SSBNs or fighter boats are not needed,
          Local wars, they, too, are different. For example, India - Pakistan. Israel - PLO, OAR. etc. The Americans are seriously considering equipping their SLBMs with SSBNs / warheads with MLM. Again, the Indian Axes with Elk and Virginia are launched through the territory of the states-victims of Amer’s democracy. So here you are wrong. Our pr.636.3, too, was marked by ISIS gauges from Middle-earth ...
    9. rpek32
      rpek32 25 February 2016 11: 51
      +1
      sho again?
      aircraft carriers this is Moby Dick on VO. laughing
    10. da Vinci
      da Vinci 25 February 2016 12: 03
      +1
      In continuation - Only recently: "Why do we need Mistral! The French were deceived. Hurray!" Is an aircraft carrier more needed or cheaper?
    11. max702
      max702 25 February 2016 12: 22
      +1
      For some reason, everyone forgets progress in such areas as Aviation, rocket science, satellites .. they all correctly said that large landing operations are not expected in the coming decades, therefore, the main thing is to protect their coast. And aircraft and complexes of anti-ship missiles and the Navy will do just fine. Targeting problem? Well, in space, we seem to have a good backlog here and work there, we’ve come close to hypersound in rockets (goodbye ship air defense). Even these two points turn the fleet into expensive rubbish .. But we have a good backlog on submarines, efforts in this direction further nullify the surface fleet. And for some reason, they forget the main reason for the uselessness of the AUG of the Russian Federation, namely, who are you going to fight with? From whom to defend? And the adversary is one NATO with comrades no others! And how would you imagine if aviation and other kings' arguments converged in a battle, then how soon will the red button be pressed signifying the end of human civilization on planet Earth? Read not Tom Clancy, but the military’s calculations are clearly written there, the sooner the more chances to win the conflict .. It will be so, only the military should win wars and battles, and then it’s not really their task, but in this case then will not be! AUG is a weapon of aggression and nothing more, do not print the world currency of the USA, no one would have observed AUG, and now that the USA has laid the bases on the whole world, even they come to understand that they are not needed, but they are building new ones (I wrote about the reason above) but again, most likely they will be built up to a maximum of 3-4 out of 10 current ones. It’s better instead of one AUG to give each soldier normal boots, a ceramic armor made of ceramic and carbon fiber, a walkie-talkie, and an automatic sight, the infantry Vanya fights EVERY DAY! Unlike the mythical battles of the AUG fleet ..
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 25 February 2016 23: 58
        +2
        Quote: max702
        AUG is a weapon of aggression and nothing more

        But what task do you set for the AUG, it will carry out such a task: if you want an offensive (strike against a naval naval base, an NK at sea, etc.), and you want a defensive one (intercepting a military center, air patrol, finding an NK and issuing a command center).
  2. cniza
    cniza 25 February 2016 08: 21
    +3
    This is a difficult question, the modern world is changing so quickly that it is very difficult to predict the tasks that will have to be solved in 20 to 30 years, but it is necessary to find a solution.
  3. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 25 February 2016 08: 23
    +3
    Your song is good, start over ...

    2036 year! Russia finally has two aircraft carriers in the Navy: Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov and Admiral Makarov!

    The first will be at that time already under 40 years old.

    Where will be the home harbor of a mighty ship?

    As if there are many options - the Northern Fleet or the Pacific. In the Black and Baltic, this is just a target scraping all the shallows.
  4. woron333444
    woron333444 25 February 2016 08: 25
    18
    They came up with Niva and UAZ so as not to build roads, and now Caliber so as not to build aircraft carriers.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 19
      +1
      It does not interfere.
    2. samoletil18
      samoletil18 25 February 2016 13: 18
      0
      Quote: woron333444
      They came up with Niva and UAZ so as not to build roads, and now Caliber so as not to build aircraft carriers.

      Americans have come up with the Hammers. We have almost no destroyers, but here an aircraft carrier.
  5. fregina1
    fregina1 25 February 2016 08: 25
    +4
    I do not think that the Nikolaev shipyards are lost forever ....... it is possible that in the future it will be the Nikolaev shipyards that will build the Russian aircraft carrier (although Turkey may have problems because of the nuclear power plant) when the USC becomes their owner! Nikolaev was told by fate to build the Russian fleet, and all this crap with a temporary stay in Ukraine will soon end, along with the Outskirts !.
    1. brisk
      brisk 25 February 2016 14: 54
      0
      Quote: fregina1
      Nikolaev was told by fate to build the Russian fleet, and all this crap with a temporary stay in Ukraine will soon end, along with the Outskirts !.


      So how will Nikolaev be returned to Russia? Answer. A military campaign against him?
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 25 February 2016 17: 11
        0
        You wait and see.
        1. brisk
          brisk 25 February 2016 19: 13
          0
          Quote: spravochnik
          spravochnik Today, 17:11 ↑
          You wait and see.


          Yes, I have already lived for 52 years and I see only that what you are counting on, bullshit of the purest water. And how much longer do you have to live to see your Iridescent perspectives? 5 years? 10 years? Or maybe you won't invest in 60 years? So what will then be covered with complete darkness. Are you counting on pro-Russian sentiments in Ukraine and in the Left Bank in particular? I wouldn't be so optimistic. I live here, in the glorious city of Zaporozhye. Recently, I do not share such dreams. Here, take a look. Russian-speaking city, according to the category of some Novorossiya. Do they love Russia very much there? I would say "Yes", but I'm afraid it will be inaccurate and mistaken in many ways. I personally heard with my own ears what young parents were saying to their preschoolers on the streets, when local "blue-and-yellow activists" were chasing disgruntled "kalarads" the other day (they were not even allowed to open their mouths and line up to express their displeasure):

          http://glavnoe.ua/news/n261062

          And here's another. The Censor that people like to refer to here often as the subject of the Ukrainian resource "G", but what changes from that? The fact that they published was correct, it took place. Russian-speaking city where it happened. I fully agree that it is not Galicia. But the question is - will the idea of ​​being even just in orbit of the Russian Federation, not to mention becoming a part of them, get the majority there? At least in the next 25 years? It is highly doubtful. And what will happen after that time is Night and Fog.

          http://censor.net.ua/video_news/376030/nahya_vy_menya_vygonyaete_benderovtsev_vy
          gonyayite_bld_kievskoyi_storonnitse_russkogo_mira_predlojili


          Russia now cannot stretch Crimea alone properly. I don’t really believe the so-called Russian "liberals", but the words of one of them have reason. So he said the other day that the Kerch Bridge will never be built. I will not believe it completely, but the fact that it will not be built either in 2018 or in 2019 is like drinking. God grant that it will be built by 2022. And this period is so - 50 to 50. At my desire, it was built. Russia also has not easy times, not only in Ukraine. It's only the beginning. So the bridge across the Kerch is also under great doubt.

          Why didn’t the Russian Federation accept the DNR-LNR? Russian-speaking people, 3 million, and territory. Not Uzbeks with Tajiks from Central Asia. Russians. And they were kicked. With a shortage of people directly in Russia, and valuable Russians in particular. And it’s not Akhov’s affairs that are now looming in the DPR-LPR. And you swung at Nikolaev with his shipyards ... I think that he is no closer to Russia than Paldiski and Liepaja. Were there good bases of the Navy of the USSR? Good, unique. Where are they now? And will they be with Russia again? What do you think? Above, you did not even approximately answer me.
  6. novel66
    novel66 25 February 2016 08: 26
    +7
    Armored!! certainly armored !!!
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 08: 40
      +3
      Quote: novel xnumx
      Armored!! certainly armored !!!

      laughing sarcasm is accepted !!
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 February 2016 14: 00
      0
      Quote: novel xnumx
      Armored!! certainly armored !!!

      All the same! With armor thickness no less than that of Shinano! smile
  7. Yarik
    Yarik 25 February 2016 08: 30
    +2
    After all, tsarist Russia did not hesitate on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War to order the famous cruiser Varyag in England, the “factory of peace”

    "Varyag" was built in Philadelphia. This is not England at all. wink
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 08: 45
      +2
      Quote: Yarik
      "Varyag" was built in Philadelphia. This is not England at all.

      yes, comrade mixed up a little - the Varangian in England finished his way, but did not start)))
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 21
        +1
        This illustrates the level of competence of the author. Experts, damn it.
  8. Zomanus
    Zomanus 25 February 2016 08: 30
    +5
    Plusan article.
    Let’s start by putting our fleets in order, updating at least more than half.
    And then the Pacific Fleet will soon be withdrawn somewhere other than in parades will be scary.
    And when we have a complete set of fleets,
    then it will be possible to think about the creation of permanent groups.
    For example, drums, where you can give out 50 + cruise missiles in one salvo from one side.
    Well, I want it so ... But this is a plus anti-submarine cover,
    anti-air. Well, plus goryachok / goryuchka at the time of exit ...
    So think about it.
  9. Tusv
    Tusv 25 February 2016 08: 32
    0
    That's where the five percent sequeste rummaged.
  10. Achilles
    Achilles 25 February 2016 08: 33
    0
    Now almost all experts tell Avionosts this past, anti-ship missiles (sea and coast-based) appear, which are easily destroyed by aircraft carriers until the latter approaches the coast. Carriers, if necessary, are only for use against the natives, and this is not advisable, it is better to have small ones with high-precision missiles, especially from our economic situation
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 08: 59
      0
      Quote: Achilles
      Carriers, if necessary, are only for use against the natives

      just like that - for colonial patrols) Here we will get colonies, declare our interests somewhere in the region of Tierra del Fuego or the Solomon Islands (to support the fraternal people of Vanuatu) - then of course.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 24
      0
      Quote: Achilles
      Carriers, if necessary, are only for use against the natives, and this is not advisable, it is better to have small ones with high-precision missiles, especially from our economic situation

      High-precision (and expensive) missiles across the natives - it is very economical lol , especially in our economic situation.
  11. ARES623
    ARES623 25 February 2016 08: 35
    0
    "It's 2036! Russia finally has two aircraft carriers in its Navy:" Admiral of the Fleet Kuznetsov "and" Admiral Makarov "!"
    At the expense of “Makarov”, I don’t know if they will build, but “Kuznetsov” most likely will not swim, he does not feel great today. The aircraft carrier is probably needed. At TF. And he should graze in the area of ​​the Kuril Islands, indicating our presence in the disputed area and supporting the landing, if necessary. However, the potentials of maintaining the intensity of flights from AN and land aerodromes are incomparable. And Kuzya, in general, is frankly weak. You can look at the work of the Aerospace Forces in Syria and understand that in order to ensure actions in the area of ​​disputed territories in a period of 1,5-2 weeks, five or six such ships are needed. So, if you build, then full-size, for 60-80 aircraft with AWACS.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 25 February 2016 13: 24
      0
      Yeah, we’ll bomb the vessels first to make oil at $ 300 per barrel. And there is an aircraft carrier with a plant and all that the soul desires.
  12. ramzes1776
    ramzes1776 25 February 2016 08: 37
    -1
    Small missile ships with long-range missiles and anti-ship missiles with a long range are a worthy response to American AUGs.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 30
      +1
      Haha, did you see their defensive weapons? But the anti-ship missiles, and very large ones (you can’t put them in the MRK at all - you need a cruiser), do not fly further than 1000 km.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 February 2016 14: 07
      0
      Quote: ramzes1776
      Small missile ships with long-range missiles and anti-ship missiles with a long range are a worthy response to American AUGs.

      As the experience of Libya and Iraq has shown, even in the 80s, RTOs lived before the first inclusion of the radar. This is followed by a standard procedure: RTR detects and classifies the source, "Hawkeye" directs the drummers, and they take out the MRK without a sane air defense system.
  13. Evgeniy-111
    Evgeniy-111 25 February 2016 08: 39
    +1
    And where does the author get information, are there plans for landing operations on enemy shores or aren't there? That they were not published in newspapers?
  14. mpzss
    mpzss 25 February 2016 08: 41
    +2
    Well, the aircraft carrier is not needed, then it follows from here that it is necessary to stop ALL NEW developments of the domestic military-industrial complex, tk. and our PAK-FA, also in small quantities, in total, in my opinion, 11 pieces, which should amers "squeeze" them at the airfield with their "raptars", etc.
    The author, what nonsense! not only that because of people like you we are severely behind in electronics and cybernetics, considering them "pseudosciences", and besides, officials "buried" a lot of things in their time and in the troubled 90s, let's not step on the same rake ten times!
    An aircraft carrier is needed at least in order to get a GREAT experience in creating such things that can come in handy later, because, in my opinion, aircraft carriers will smoothly and gradually migrate into space, because there will also need to build a combat fleet, but this is already so , from the field of science fiction, which will become a reality in the course of 100-150 years!
    1. VP
      VP 25 February 2016 08: 53
      +5
      aircraft carriers smoothly and gradually migrate into space

      Fell from the chair, but was able to rise without assistance
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Achilles
      Achilles 25 February 2016 10: 59
      +1
      mpzss Of course, aircraft carriers are needed, but not now when there are problems with the economy, at this stage it is much more expedient to build medium and small ships with high-precision missiles, just for the destruction of aircraft carriers, etc.
    3. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 33
      0
      Quote: mpzss
      aircraft carriers smoothly and gradually migrate into space, because there too it will be necessary to build a military fleet, but this is already so, from the realm of fantasy, which will become a reality within 100-150 years!

      Well, you brother is an optimist. I’m afraid humanity simply won’t live to see it.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 February 2016 14: 11
      0
      Quote: mpzss
      in my opinion, aircraft carriers smoothly and gradually migrate into space

  15. VP
    VP 25 February 2016 08: 43
    +8
    All true.
    The only application would be "display a flag".
    This fun will cost several trillion. In addition to the aircraft carrier itself, a cloud of expenses is also required:
    - without an air group, he is not a walker, and even a corvette costs billions under ten, and a pair of corvettes can not do there. On the example of Americans who have extensive experience in using the AUG and more or less optimized its composition, we need ships providing air defense throughout the operating area, we need ships providing anti-aircraft defense, we need a cloud of supply ships, we need an atomic submarine providing both shock and anti-submarine functions
    - requires infrastructure for its basing
    - each outing to the sea of ​​such a horde will cost many billions, and without exits it is impossible to achieve coherence of the work of the group
    Well, do we need all this just for the sake of "a shob bulo". With this money, you can transplant the heels of air regiments to the PAK FA and replace from a thousand T-72s with armats
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 14: 27
      0
      Anti-aircraft defense in American AUG are performed by the same ships.
      And the infrastructure for basing other ships (including small ones), which is not needed or is it required only for AB?
      And the exit of a whole horde of small ships is free, or in order to save money, completely stop the release of ships at sea ?.
  16. There are a lot of us
    There are a lot of us 25 February 2016 08: 43
    +3
    "- The collective farm needs to be bullied!
    Question from the audience: on .. I "
  17. tchoni
    tchoni 25 February 2016 08: 46
    0
    Ohhh ... We took care of the food. Following the logic of the author and bringing it to the point of absurdity, only submarines should be built. Amen...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 25 February 2016 10: 14
      +5
      Without any absurdity: for the protection of the Russian coast rationally
      to build corvettes and frigates from the Kyrgyz Republic, operating under the air cover of coastal aviation, and to build nuclear submarines for long-range operations.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 35
        +1
        And who will cover the submarine? Opponents will have fun watching Russian submarines hanging around their noses.
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 25 February 2016 13: 36
        +1
        Corvettes and frigates are good. But, their price is not high. Of course, right now, everyone is fascinated by the caliber of the Caspian flotilla, and therefore they do not notice the value of the "fort" on the Varyag "placed. This is what I mean - to the fact that ANY squadron should have different specialized ships in its composition. And if the squadron operates in isolation from land bases - even more. An atomic boat is good as a strike platform, but it is not comme il faut to drive trade, to inspect goods with its help. A cruiser of the "Moskva" or "Varyag" type is very limited in its strike capabilities when working on small ground targets, but it has a good air defense system. MRK type "Dagestan" has good strike capabilities, but no air defense. "Kuzya" the same has its place in this system, because, depending on the conditions, can provide both search and attack for a long time a large number of small targets, and area air defense and anti-submarine functions ...
        Everything will depend on the tasks. And Russia cannot completely abandon the "long arm", an instrument of influence, if you will.
        I completely agree with people who say that we do not need a large carrier fleet. But, and without it at all - this is not the same thing.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 February 2016 14: 22
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Without any absurdity: for the protection of the Russian coast rationally
        to build corvettes and frigates from the Kyrgyz Republic, operating under the air cover of coastal aviation, and to build nuclear submarines for long-range operations.

        The necklace of coastal airfields at whose expense will we build?
        For it’s impossible to constantly keep in the air an outfit of forces that alone can repel an AUG strike. This means that it will be necessary to build airfields so that the time for reinforcements to arrive (including taxiing, take-off, group gathering and flight to a given square) is less than the time for finding a suitable enemy strike group. Plus, the capacity of airfields should be at least equal to the number of air wings of the AUG decks.
        And so - at all important points on the coast. It will be especially good to build bases in the area of ​​the throat of the White Sea.
        Oh yes, after construction, we will also have to maintain this network in a ready state.
  18. Barboskin
    Barboskin 25 February 2016 08: 47
    +2
    Ordered Varangian in England ?! Maybe in the USA.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 25 February 2016 09: 20
      +2
      By the way, yes, as we say Tsesarevich in France. As a pilot instance, for construction later in its shipyards such as Borodino. Afftar, at least for pedagogy, should probably climb sometimes (although referring to her is also bad manners). wassat
  19. shinobi
    shinobi 25 February 2016 08: 48
    0
    In principle, I agree with the author, but I’m staying in the opposition. Not much. Aircraft carriers in the format like we all really didn’t give up .. But here are a few small ones, for air protection and close reconnaissance of ship groups, and not vice versa, when the group guards the aircraft carrier .Back to the original goal of creation. Missile systems are doing just fine with the rest.
    1. VP
      VP 25 February 2016 09: 09
      0
      The flight range, for example, SU-35, even without PTB, is 3500 km. What additional will an aircraft carrier give for your designated purposes? Especially with decks, the range is much lower.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 43
        0
        Will give mobility and efficiency. Who told you that the range of the decks is much smaller, has not been so for a long time.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 February 2016 14: 33
        0
        Quote: VP
        The flight range, for example, SU-35, even without PTB, is 3500 km. What additional will an aircraft carrier give for your designated purposes?

        Equipped airfield at any point on our coast with a capacity of a couple of air regiments, capable of moving at a speed of 30 knots.

        Plus a reduction in the reaction time - between the detection of the enemy and the strengthening of the air patrol over the KPUG - up to ten minutes. No need to waste time flying from the coastal base to a given square. Yes, and the time gap between the detection of a suspicious target and the request for takeoff of reinforcements, if there is its own AB in the rear of the KPUG, may be greater. And this will give additional time to identify and analyze the target that has appeared - whether it is a real strike group or a false one, imitating an attack and "consuming" our reserve of fighters (and real strikers will appear when the reinforcements lie on the return course for refueling).

        Plus, a single aviation control center directly on the spot - and not a multi-stage system with detection from ships and guidance from the coast.

        Plus their own AWACS cars. And not dowries for amplification, which at any moment can be selected back.
  20. engineer74
    engineer74 25 February 2016 08: 49
    0
    The use of the French aircraft carrier in the counter-terrorist operation in Syria does not compare with the effectiveness of the actions of the Russian air group in the same country.

    A "lethal" argument - the author suggests building air bases in all regions where we have interests? And to calculate how many "aircraft carriers" it will cost us only bribes to governments, he did not try? In general, another article on the topic "little money - let's do nothing"! Is it not destiny to think about the fact that large projects are the engine of technology and the economy? Wanguyu, if tomorrow there will be oil for $ 500, then the author will write that we urgently need 50 AUG.
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 25 February 2016 09: 06
      +2
      And swell a third of the budget into a vessel with airplanes that can sink to the bottom when a pair of RCC hits. Did not try to count?
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 25 February 2016 09: 24
        +1
        Counter question, and W-61-12 in the avazbase?
        The construction of a network of airbases will lead to "progress" in earthworks in foreign countries, the construction of the AUG will lead to the development of a high-tech industry in Russia, at comparable costs. What will we choose? I don’t like the "usual" atomic AB, let's build an orbital one, but the project needs to be launched, the "buns" from technology and the development of science and industry will pay off any investment in the project even before its completion!
        IMHO
        1. Tusv
          Tusv 25 February 2016 09: 54
          +1
          Quote: engineer74
          I don’t like the "usual" atomic AB, let's build an orbital one, but the project needs to be launched, the "buns" from technology and the development of science and industry will pay off any investment in the project even before its completion!
          IMHO

          Not well with orbital it is understandable. Here we are ahead of the rest. There was a salute, the world. now we are carrying passengers to the ISS
        2. Winnie76
          Winnie76 25 February 2016 10: 33
          +1
          There are a million options where to invest grandmas and they will work. For example, in domestic ship turbines, aircraft manufacturing, tank building. Finally, the normal road to build from Peter to Vladik ...
        3. max2215
          max2215 25 February 2016 10: 55
          +2
          The construction of a network of airbases will lead to "progress" in earthworks in foreign countries, the construction of the AUG will lead to the development of a high-tech industry in Russia at comparable costs.
          and what, besides the construction of the AUG, there are no more directions?
          AUG will be needed if we want to recapture Alaska, and in the defense of our own territories, AUG is a waste of budget, which is already bursting. And to buy an expensive toy, just because a neighbor has it .... Here are the URO frigates, this is the theme for technology too ....
          1. tolian
            tolian 25 February 2016 11: 28
            +2
            Aircraft carrier to be !! To one. We will keep the possibility of building if necessary. And not only aircraft carriers, but boats, planes, helicopters accompanying the aircraft carrier. By the way, buying from China is money to the Chinese. Creating in Russia is not money thrown away, as some people think. After all, speaking the language of today, it is import substitution. In a number of defense industry sectors. Build without fail! Slowly. Consistent with opportunities.
    2. ver_
      ver_ 25 February 2016 09: 12
      0
      ... want to say that there are no airfields there? ... Compare the cost of an aircraft carrier and an air base in Syria, where the air forces operate from ..
    3. VP
      VP 25 February 2016 09: 16
      +1
      Excuse me, what kind of foreign shores do you think is necessary to bomb defending your interests?
      In Syria, for our participation to affect the current situation, it took several months of very hard work of the air group consisting of bombers, multi-purpose aircraft, attack aircraft, and a helicopter group. In your opinion, this is how much aircraft carriers would need to be fitted and for how long should they be kept there to achieve a similar result on the MiG-29K instead of the SU-34?
    4. Tusv
      Tusv 25 February 2016 09: 25
      +1
      Quote: engineer74
      And to calculate how many "aircraft carriers" it will cost us only bribes to governments, he did not try?

      Recently, the LADY quoted Bulgakov: "You don't have to ask. They will give it themselves." Cypriots even collected signatures :)
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 48
        0
        And what, how did it end? Even if "for" - nothing happens - they will not give. Because there is already an English base in Cyprus.
  21. Armored optimist
    Armored optimist 25 February 2016 08: 51
    +7
    How many years have been repeating to the world ...!
    How much can you discuss this topic?
    The Yankees admit that in a modern war, an aircraft carrier will not live even half an hour after it began.
    The Chinese made a ballistic missile against such targets. Are we stupider?
    Drive around Africa and South America we have no one. Ground defense, submarines and coastal anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile systems are better for coastal defense. With equivalent money, you can have a defense from all directions much more effective.
  22. Winnie76
    Winnie76 25 February 2016 09: 01
    0
    Quote: engineer74
    And to reflect on the fact that major projects are the engine of technology and economics, not fate?

    Let's immediately build a death star. We’ll advance right away in technology, we will raise the economy inaccessiblewink
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 25 February 2016 09: 47
      0
      Considering our traditional "space" niche in the international division of labor, it would not hurt to raise military-space technologies to "unattainable heights"! wink
      The Death Star project is temporarily irrelevant to anyone with a small number of potential targets.
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 25 February 2016 12: 10
        +1
        It is possible to irradiate Ukraine and Turkey with X-rays. Scare America to shit. The whole ball will follow the string. A bonus will be the development of the economy and technology. The Death Star project is relevant as never before winked
  23. oldzek
    oldzek 25 February 2016 09: 04
    0
    I mostly agree with the author, but I set the minus for ignorance of history. Abroad, ships for Russia were built in Germany, France, the United States, but not in England.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 12: 51
      0
      You are wrong, the cruiser "Rurik 2" was built in England.
  24. nozdrevat58
    nozdrevat58 25 February 2016 09: 07
    -1
    Aircraft carrier in the Black Sea?
    What for? We have a Caspian And a range of -4000
  25. ivan bogomolov
    ivan bogomolov 25 February 2016 09: 09
    +3
    That there would be an armored aircraft carrier, that it would fly and sink under water, that EVERYTHING would be shorter, and would not cost money, OH ALREADY THESE TALES, OH ALREADY THESE TALES. And now we just need to restore engineering and production, give GOD forces and patience, as always, we do not have enough time. soldier
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 25 February 2016 10: 22
      0
      Restoring engineering and production is easier and cheaper on specific programs, and that it will be an AB or a base on Mars is not so important.
      We need a technological leap through a generation, taking into account the modern "conjuncture", better in military technology!
      IMHO
  26. Zeppelin ml.
    Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 09: 10
    0
    Friendly China also dreams of a carrier fleet. Let's wait until the Chinese build something for themselves

    everything is correct !!!! Two years ago, People's Daily announced a competition for the project of the future aircraft carrier !!! I personally liked this one underwater most of all. Shall we wait? laughing
  27. triglav
    triglav 25 February 2016 09: 14
    0
    In my opinion, the emphasis should be on ekranoplans.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 25 February 2016 09: 31
      +1
      Rather, on nuclear submarines with cruise missiles.

      There was a seditious thought, and why it is impossible to equip, say, such a missile defense submarine?

      For example, at the moment when the submarine is driven into a corner by aircraft anti-aircraft guns. This requires a rocket with autonomous targeting and an active homing head. Yes, and with an underwater launch and a large range.

      The mines of Caliber and Onyx are suitable for this, the potential target is usually Poseidons or helicopters, which means that it does not need hypersonic speed, but you can even get by with a ramjet engine.

      Those. carrying, albeit highly specialized, air defense, the submarine approaches the destroyer in combat capabilities. wassat
      1. VP
        VP 25 February 2016 10: 16
        +1
        If she is being driven, then teleportation is needed. Well, to jump out nearby, deploy radars, make targeting, launch and back
        1. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 25 February 2016 10: 41
          0
          Yes, here the whole cimus is in a completely autonomous guidance of the rocket, here the system should already have elements of artificial intelligence. Therefore, there are still no such missiles.
          Although preliminary data can be obtained from a satellite or over-the-horizon radar.

          I understand that the task is of a completely new level of complexity and looks fantastic. wassat The underwater position provides stealth, but also deprives the eye of the radar, so the observation station for any need to be taken outside. Only the AWACS aircraft, the satellite, and the over-the-horizon radar remain with obtaining preliminary coordinates, and then the homing head must solve the problem on its own.
          1. VP
            VP 25 February 2016 10: 51
            0
            Quote: kugelblitz
            Although preliminary data can be obtained from a satellite or over-the-horizon radar.

            I’ll tell you a little secret - it’s impossible to get any satellite data or data from an over-the-horizon radar under water. So the physics is arranged that radio waves, scum, do not spread in water.
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 25 February 2016 10: 55
              0
              Duc, about this and I say that it is impossible wassat Only ultra-long waves can, but there, because of such a frequency, you can only give a signal "you are under attack."
              The missile must decide everything itself, and the allocation of goals, and guidance.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 25 February 2016 11: 53
              0
              Quote: VP
              So the physics is arranged that radio waves, scum, do not spread in water.

              Is not a fact. For example, ADD can be taken at depths of up to 50 meters.
              There is a laser satellite connection. True, there is a limitation there - the boat must communicate first, so that the satellite can transmit a message at known coordinates.
              But this is also solved, the VLF connection with its very low speed of information transfer (three letter characters in 15 minutes) can still send a command to get in touch
              1. Captain nemo
                Captain nemo 25 February 2016 15: 59
                0
                Quote: Spade
                There is a laser satellite connection. True, there is a limitation there - the boat must communicate first, so that the satellite can transmit a message at known coordinates.

                In one of the programs on TV, as it was told about it. The bottom line was this in the mid-80s from the manned "Salyut", using a laser with a green spectrum of radiation, since it has the least attenuation in water, communication was established with a submarine without surfacing, located in the Atlantic Ocean.
        2. Winnie76
          Winnie76 25 February 2016 13: 55
          0
          Well, let's build teleporters. With such pricing in shipbuilding it will be cheaper. Ash tree before the crisis was 47 yards according to Wiki. Those. roughly 1.5 billion greens. Moreover, it was built for 20 years. And there was where to build, and this sub was far from the first in the history of the plant, there was streaming production. There will be an order of magnitude more problems with the aircraft carrier. Accordingly, in 200 years we will have an aircraft carrier. True, the country for these 200 years will have to squeeze much in costs
    2. Winnie76
      Winnie76 25 February 2016 12: 16
      0
      WIG is insanely cool. Such a fool flies at an altitude of 10 meters at a speed of 500 kilometers. And a boat towards her. Traffic lights in the sea have not yet been invented, and no one has canceled gulls. IMHO too specific technique with very limited application
  28. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 25 February 2016 09: 17
    +1
    For some reason, it seems to me that our fleet needs to have several submarine missile carriers than one or two floating garages. It is not in vain that Antei is being repaired and the Ashes are being built. Like the surface Leader IMHO will bring more benefits.
    Of course, an aircraft carrier is useful as a platform for supporting amphibious operations, although with total superiority over the enemy, it has no chance against coastal missile batteries and airborne carriers. Even air defense and airborne aviation are unlikely to help.
    In general, our fleet should rather build helicopter carriers, with SVPs and high-speed landing planes in the kit, plus destroyers with strike cruise and anti-aircraft missiles. A kind of analogue of the Mistral, but more tenacious and equipped with at least medium and near-range air defense, as well as assault and anti-submarine helicopters. Over time, you can equip fighter-bombers vertical take-off, using a short take-off at full load.
  29. crazy_fencer
    crazy_fencer 25 February 2016 09: 21
    0
    By the way, those same Americans who have experience in building and content There are more aircraft carriers than anyone else, they gave birth to the proverb: "If you want to ruin a country, give it an aircraft carrier."
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 13: 08
      0
      And "helluva lot of smart" ears and hung. Many countries with aircraft carriers go broke?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 February 2016 14: 58
      0
      Quote: crazy_fencer
      By the way, the same Americans, who have more experience in building and maintaining aircraft carriers than anyone else, gave birth to the proverb: "If you want to ruin a country, give it an aircraft carrier."

      Well, not in the lottery, but in preference, not the Volga, but the Lada, did not win, but lost ... (C)

      For the phrase "If you want to ruin a small country, give her a cruiser"is usually attributed to Churchill.
  30. Yak28
    Yak28 25 February 2016 09: 23
    0
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    "how much does it cost and who pays?"

    And whoever always pays for everything for us, not the rich, but ordinary hard workers. The state will raise prices for everything more than usual, stop wage growth, increase taxes and pay for utilities, and you can buy an entire aircraft carrier. The only problem is that The USSR-Russia had neither technology nor experience in building large airborne cruisers. wink
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 February 2016 15: 02
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      The only misfortune is that the USSR-Russia had neither the technology nor the experience in building large airborne cruisers.

      If the USSR-Russia had neither technology nor experience in the construction of large aircraft carrier cruisers, then where did the five completed and two unfinished ships of pr. 1143 come from? belay
  31. MstislavHrabr
    MstislavHrabr 25 February 2016 09: 27
    +1
    A new generation aircraft carrier is a ship full of shock drones (for work in the air and under water), AWACS devices, possibly with laser weapons, with a compact nuclear power plant and with a minimum number of people. Fleet, with a large level of autonomy and not necessarily very large ... Why are we fixated on large ships ?! You need to think carefully about how to make ships with a relatively small displacement more efficient than the huge aircraft carrier targets of the last century ...
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 25 February 2016 14: 04
      0
      Because a small aircraft carrier costs a little cheaper than a large one, and in terms of efficiency does not reach very much. And by the way, are there many UAVs in the world with laser weapons or a compact nuclear power plant?
  32. Stas157
    Stas157 25 February 2016 09: 29
    +6
    It is only clear that in terms of scale this will be comparable to the Sochi Winter Olympics
    60 billion dollars, or what? For comparison, the most expensive US aircraft carrier costs 13 billion dollars, and the average price is 5 billion!
    Currently in Russia there is no experience in designing ships of this class. References to the Soviet experience of the Ulyanovsk project are not taken seriously. We cannot afford on such a scale “the first pancake”, and the school has been accumulating for decades. The generation of the creators of the "Varyag" has gone, without realizing the dream of the first real aircraft carrier to the end.
    When the Vicamadrilla was being completed for the Indians, I heard on the contrary that our production workers have confirmed their competencies in the construction of aircraft carriers!
    The next, and most important, question is: where, who and how will build an aircraft carrier. Nikolaev shipyards now - abroad, lost forever.

    The largest dry dock in the USSR was at the Gulf in Kerch. And this is not abroad! Of particular interest is the presence of a dry dock 360 × 60 × 13,2 meters with two cranes with a lifting capacity of 320 tons and two horizontal stocks of 400 meters. The case-processing workshop has a production capacity of 60 thousand tons of steel per year. For comparison: this indicator is equal to that of the key military shipyard of Russia - Sevmash. The plant may become one of the centers of large-capacity construction.

    Unfortunately, it must be admitted that now, and in the foreseeable future, the only Russian aircraft carrier will not be able to carry out combat missions to ensure versatile combat training of the fleet forces and adequately demonstrate the Russian flag in the oceans.

    Unfortunately, Kuzya was not ready for the operation in Syria.

    Does the Russian Navy Need an Aircraft Carrier? Of course you need! But, even more needed are new corvettes, destroyers, BDKs, airplanes, submarines, air defense systems. Therefore, it is more correct to raise the question of what is critically necessary for our army and navy, and from which for now we can refrain.
  33. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 25 February 2016 09: 40
    +1
    Poor people in the richest country do not need aircraft carriers.
    Nowhere to build, no one to build, nothing to build.
    So if anything, then again the besieged Leningrad and the battle for Moscow.
  34. Zeppelin ml.
    Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 09: 41
    +4
    Quote: triglav
    In my opinion, the emphasis should be on ekranoplans.

    Quote: kugelblitz
    For some reason, it seems to me that our fleet needs to have several submarine missile carriers

    laughing As V.I. Polesov used to say: "There are no three-eighths of an inch dice, but they are going to start the tram! .."
  35. vic58
    vic58 25 February 2016 09: 42
    0
    Something "the pride of the United States" somehow began to get up for modernization ... One little bear said: "It's not without reason !!" And the price of such coffins is too high!
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 25 February 2016 09: 46
      0
      Quote: vic58
      Something "the pride of the United States" somehow began to get up for modernization ... One little bear said: "It's not without reason !!" And the price of such coffins is too high!

      The US is building D. Ford type aircraft carriers, two in the construction of one bookmark in 2018.
  36. stas-xnumx
    stas-xnumx 25 February 2016 09: 43
    +2
    I agree with the namesake Stas157... "So does the Russian fleet need an aircraft carrier? Of course it does! But, even more needed are new corvettes, destroyers, large landing ships, aircraft, submarines, air defense systems. Therefore, it is more correct to pose the question of what is critically necessary for our army and navy, and from what for now we can refrain ... "

    Perhaps you just need to wait a while with the aircraft carrier, but corvettes, destroyers, boats, planes, etc. in the first place or something to put ... Now we need speedy, mobile, so-called compact fast-reacting combat units ...
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 10: 19
      +2
      Quote: stas-21127
      etc. in the first place or something to put

      and how many, sorry, such "first stages" if there is "more first"? Maybe a sane naval doctrine is needed first? Usually ships are built for it, and not vice versa.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 13: 17
      +1
      The fastest reacting unit is an aircraft carrier.
  37. Abbra
    Abbra 25 February 2016 10: 19
    +1
    By the way, a wise article. Twenty small boats, marsing under the fishing trawlers. And each has two Caliber on board. That's what I think ...
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 10: 41
      0
      Quote: Abbra
      Incidentally, a wise article. Twenty maaalenki boats, zamarsikrovshissya under fishing trawlers.

      truthfully, do not hell with the hell under the USA, we must adopt the tactics of Somali pirates!
  38. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 25 February 2016 10: 23
    +2
    Who knows which is better, fork out for an aircraft carrier, invest in someone else's economy, or let bureaucrats plunder uncontrollably. For me, it's better to feed Russian workers and engineers who, in turn, will buy Russian import-substituted goods. A plus will be a contribution to the further development of Russian industry. I also think that it is not necessary "the first pancake should become lumpy", because you can "bake and pancakes" in the form of a helicopter carrier, especially since projects already exist. And to have a couple of three full-size aircraft carriers, such a power as our country needs "to dictate the rest of the world community, its unyielding will "!) But for this it is necessary to tighten the economy, which in turn is only possible with a different, more professional government. And it not to a small extent depends on us "Vote or you will lose!"
  39. Winnie76
    Winnie76 25 February 2016 10: 25
    +1
    Quote: GSH-18
    Aircraft carrier knows everything that its aircraft PLUS can do, installed on it equipment and weapon systems.

    Yes, you sho? And there are probably AWACS ... And aircraft refueling, strategists, transport aircraft, command posts?
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 13: 22
      +1
      That's right, on the American and French aircraft carriers all this (except for strategists) is.
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 25 February 2016 14: 16
        0
        We kind of talk about our aircraft carrier, not about French. That is, it turns out that a plus to all expenses is that you will have to spend money on developing all this magnificence. And spend the money now, and get it all through the years. Maybe ... Or we won’t get ... Well, I couldn’t, I didn’t ...
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 25 February 2016 14: 51
          0
          Whats wrong with that. All this diversity is created, for example, in the United States on the basis of 2-3 basic platforms. And we can do that. For example, on the basis of one aircraft you can make AWACS, a transporter, a PLO plane, an electronic warfare aircraft, a tanker. Much can be combined in one aircraft at the expense of interchangeable and suspended equipment.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 February 2016 15: 05
      0
      Quote: Winnie76
      Yes, you sho? And there are probably AWACS ...

      At 1143.7 have already been planned. In general, the epic with decks DRLO stretches from the time of the project 1160.
      Quote: Winnie76
      And air tankers

      Deck fighters with UPAZ.
      Quote: Winnie76
      transport aviation

      The same AWACS without a plate and its avionics. smile
      Quote: Winnie76
      command posts

      A bunch of AWACS + BITS.
  40. jesus045
    jesus045 25 February 2016 10: 25
    0
    India with a poor population still wants to buy an aircraft carrier, they’re building their own, but all our boobs are wrinkling, wondering if it’s necessary, they can’t build ..
  41. Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 25 February 2016 10: 31
    +3
    There is a lot of money in Russia. Where do they go? They steal, speculate and take out. Who is to blame? Holding power. What to do? Shoot speculators, thieves and the fifth column. And then build at least star ships.
    1. Zeppelin ml.
      Zeppelin ml. 25 February 2016 10: 45
      +1
      Quote: Tambov Wolf
      They steal, speculate and take out. Who is to blame? Holding power. What to do? Shoot speculators, thieves and the fifth column

      a wise answer to the question "Does Russia need aircraft carriers?" And versatile. Suitable for:
      - Do we need to fly to Mars?
      - Do I need an all-wheel drive Lada X-Ray?
      - Do I need to soak a neighbor who is stuck in the elevator?
  42. lopvlad
    lopvlad 25 February 2016 10: 36
    +2
    We will wait until the Chinese build themselves something better than our aircraft carrier "Varyag", and order an improved, adapted to our conditions, version of the Chinese aircraft carrier! After all, tsarist Russia did not hesitate on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War to order in England, the "factory of the world"

    the crown of such orders "from friends" was the collapse of the Russian Empire. In its history, Russia had thousands of ruined lives of soldiers and defeat when it "hammered" on the development and modernization of its own defense industry.
  43. pr 627
    pr 627 25 February 2016 10: 41
    +1
    Well, again from empty to empty. Russia currently does not have a full-fledged shipbuilding industry at the level of the USSR that can solve the problem of building an AB. It must be created from scratch. So if you build an AB, you must first restore the industry.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 13: 28
      +2
      Do not smack nonsense. What does it mean to restore from scratch. Factories are and work. To modernize and develop - yes.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 25 February 2016 14: 24
        0
        Quote: spravochnik
        Do not smack nonsense. What does it mean to restore from scratch. Factories are and work. To modernize and develop - yes.

        At "Sevmash" they are moving to the third stage of modernization, the Krylov Scientific Center believes that "Sevmash" will cope with the construction of an aircraft carrier, besides, it is possible to connect the "Zaliv", which will build part of the aircraft carrier's sections, it is also possible to connect the "Baltic" which already has some experience ...
        He who does not want is looking for reasons, who wants is looking for opportunities.
  44. uskrabut
    uskrabut 25 February 2016 10: 57
    0
    If you build a Russian aircraft carrier, then only a series of 6-7 units. So that in every ocean there are a couple to replace. Design, I think, is not a problem. There is also a plant. There is only one question left - where to apply it. Maybe it's easier to build a bunch of small ships with calibers and air defense, plus submarines for various purposes? They are even harder to kill, and they can nobly kill. Look how recently they fired from the Caspian.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 13: 27
      0
      Already passed in Soviet times. As if these ships neither crews nor infrastructure are needed.
  45. abc_alex
    abc_alex 25 February 2016 10: 59
    +1
    Quote: Stas157

    The largest dry dock in the USSR was at the Gulf in Kerch. And this is not abroad! Of particular interest is the presence of a dry dock 360 × 60 × 13,2 meters with two cranes with a lifting capacity of 320 tons and two horizontal stocks of 400 meters. The case-processing workshop has a production capacity of 60 thousand tons of steel per year. For comparison: this indicator is equal to that of the key military shipyard of Russia - Sevmash. The plant may become one of the centers of large-capacity construction ..


    But a new Zvezda plant is being built in the Far East. There, according to projects up to 250 thousand tons of displacement, ice-class tankers. No? Doesn't work?




    Does the Russian Navy Need an Aircraft Carrier? Of course you need! But, even more needed are new corvettes, destroyers, BDKs, airplanes, submarines, air defense systems. Therefore, it is more correct to raise the question of what is critically necessary for our army and navy, and from which for now we can refrain.


    What is the question? Impact like the USA? Our strike functions are performed by missile-carrying ships. And changing something here is stupid. Why do we need intermediaries in the form of airplanes, if we already have shipborne missiles with a range of 300 to 1000 km or more? And with the adoption of the "Caliber" is still more simplified.
    In our fleet, an aircraft carrier has a range of tasks akin to an escort: reconnaissance and air defense. And about the lack of a decks DRLO all remember? And for an air defense warrant you definitely need an air wing? Or maybe enough ship defense, combined into a single complex system such as Aegis?
    1. Stas157
      Stas157 25 February 2016 13: 21
      +2
      Quote: abc_alex
      Percussion, like the USA? Our missile-carrying ships perform shock functions.

      And how do our missile carriers carry out their strike functions in Syria? Isn’t it too expensive to shoot sparrows with guns?
      Quote: abc_alex
      Why do we need intermediaries in the form of airplanes, if we already have shipborne missiles with a range of 300 to 1000 km or more? And with the adoption of the "Caliber" is still more simplified.

      And the United States has, but they are building aircraft carriers.
      Quote: abc_alex
      And about the lack of a decks DRLO all remember?

      I heard at the base of the drone the AWACS want to do. Nevertheless, the absence of deck-based AWACS does not mean that aircraft carriers do not need to do, rather, it says that they need to do their own AWACS.
      I believe, nevertheless, Russia cannot afford to build aircraft carriers at the moment. If only that already ordered mines of defense were not cut!
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 13: 33
      0
      Quote: abc_alex

      But a new Zvezda plant is being built in the Far East. There, according to projects up to 250 thousand tons of displacement, ice-class tankers. No? Doesn't work?


      Initially, back in Soviet times, the plant was laid precisely for the construction of large warships.
    3. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 February 2016 13: 43
      +3
      Quote: abc_alex

      And for an air defense warrant you definitely need an air wing? Or maybe enough ship defense, combined into a single complex system such as Aegis?


      And this has already passed in Soviet times. In the 60-70s, the USSR was very interested in the design of air defense ships, but then they abandoned this unpromising task precisely because they came to the conclusion that to ensure the combat stability of the ship’s connection on an ocean theater without air cover IMPOSSIBLE. A DRLO deck was designed back in the USSR. Yak-44 was called. You can resume.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 February 2016 15: 27
      0
      Quote: abc_alex
      But a new Zvezda plant is being built in the Far East. There, according to projects up to 250 thousand tons of displacement, ice-class tankers. No? Doesn't work?

      Nafig-nafig. Not DalVas. The corvette "Perfect", pr. 20380, still cannot be completed there - and it was laid down already in 2006.
    5. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 February 2016 15: 57
      0
      Quote: abc_alex
      The question is what? Percussion, like the USA? Our missile-carrying ships perform shock functions. And to change something here is stupid. Why do we need intermediaries in the form of airplanes, if we already have ship missiles with a range of 300 to 1000 km or more.

      When striking CD there are several big problems.
      1. How to redirect the missile defense if intelligence data were incorrect?
      2. Where to shoot if the target is revealed only in general, without detail?
      3. How to shoot at a moving target - the same column?
      4. If the reconnaissance is wrong and the goal is false - what to do with the issued KR?
      5. The main thing - what is the cost of the Kyrgyz Republic to work at least 500 km? And how long will the ammunition of the ship with such KR?
      Let me remind you that the ammunition of the AB is completely replenished right at sea - with the KKS or even delivery by deck transporters. But loading SLCMs into UVP on the high seas is a practically impossible thing.

      Unlike the KR, the RUK in the form of an aircraft-RVZ / KAB bundle has greater flexibility, the ability to adjust the amount of ammunition consumed on the target based on the analysis of hits of already dropped weapons - up to canceling the strike and returning valuable ammunition to the base (see the landing of our vehicles in Khmeimim with unused KAB), the possibility of additional reconnaissance of the radar target, the ability to work on the target with "cast iron" with guidance using the onboard PrNK.
      And most importantly, unlike the CD, which is completely consumed after launch, a much cheaper missile / bomb is consumed in the aircraft-RVZ / KAB bundle. Why is it cheap? And because she does not need to fly 500 km with her own engine with its own fuel and navigation system "in one person" - an aircraft will deliver it to the target / launch zone next to the target.
      Quote: abc_alex
      And for an air defense warrant you definitely need an air wing? Or maybe enough ship defense, combined into a single complex system such as Aegis?

      The "Aegis" in terms of naval air defense is just the last line of defense of the AUG, firing back at what broke through the barrier of the carrier-based aircraft.
      And without data from AWACS "Aegis" will be blind to MV and PMV almost completely. What is the use of having "heavy" missiles in shipborne air defense systems if we see low-flying targets from only 25-30 km away?
      However, even if we see the targets earlier, we will not be able to direct missiles at them before the target leaves due to the radio horizon.
  46. Sergey Vladimirovich
    Sergey Vladimirovich 25 February 2016 11: 16
    0
    I agree completely! Maybe I, of course, and not "seven Fridays" wink in the forehead. Maybe I don’t understand what I mean with my meager mind ...
    But I also do not see the expediency of building and the presence of an aircraft carrier in service. Modern missile weapons can solve the same range of problems. Build it according to the principle - so that there is ... There is a lot of things to build really necessary and extremely necessary. I think - everything is correct - Russia does not need an aircraft carrier. Waste.
  47. Normal ok
    Normal ok 25 February 2016 11: 35
    0
    All clear. But the author made a mistake, - the cruiser Varyag (and the battleship Retvisan) was built not in England but in the USA.
  48. Andy
    Andy 25 February 2016 11: 48
    +1
    not an article but throwing gvna onto a fan! no, you look what this analyte is getting-
    "After all, Tsarist Russia, on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War, was not ashamed to order the famous cruiser Varyag in England, the" factory of the world ", and China is now the" factory of peace "!"
    in England, in England ... as a sub-chair!
  49. xam0
    xam0 25 February 2016 11: 56
    0
    Yes, immediately an aircraft carrier, bypassing all the intermediate stages necessary for its construction! As they used to say - you’re striding widely, tearing your pants!
  50. spravochnik
    spravochnik 25 February 2016 11: 57
    +3
    Actually, the legendary "Varyag" Russia ordered in the USA (who does not know, now it is the States). And the "factory of the world" - England at that time was engaged in building up Japan's sea power.