Military Review

"Kuznetsov" their fate

105
The only Russian aircraft carrier corresponds to the tasks for which it was created


The opinion that aircraft carriers are not needed by our Navy is quite common. Someone says the opposite, but emphasizes: heavy aircraft carrier cruiser (TAKR) "Admiral Fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov "is so ineffective that it is worth withdrawing from the combat strength of the fleet. Such an opinion sometimes makes its way even in naval circles.

There is an obvious need to understand what exactly gives our fleet the presence in its composition of the Kuznetsov TAKR. It is well known: not a single aircraft carrier of the world operates independently of communication with other fleet forces. It is always the core of a large group. Accordingly, an analysis of the significance of an aircraft carrier makes sense only in the context of its influence on the course of combat operations of an appropriate scale. And the criterion of necessity is the increase in the combat effectiveness of the grouping of forces that includes it.

Airborne by birth


Initially should refer to stories and determine what such ships were intended for in the Soviet Navy. Distinctive features of our TAKR at the time of its creation were that it had a sufficiently powerful attack missile armament in the form of 12 PU for anti-personnel missile complex "Granit" and much more effective than foreign "classmates" means of air defense. The air group 24 of the Su-33 fighter was also specific, which could potentially be equipped for the use of the Moskit anti-ship missiles (successful tests were carried out).

Such views on the mission of the TAKR were based on our concept of armed struggle at sea: surface forces of the enemy, primarily large naval formations, the most important of which were considered carrier-based, should be hit by anti-ship missiles of various classes, among which long-range missiles ranked first in importance. At the same time, everyone clearly understood that the main threat to our strike forces is precisely aviation. For surface ships - deck and tactical, partly strategic, and for submarines - the basic patrol.

The solution to the problem of air defense by saturating the formations of ships with missiles was not fully justified. First, the limited range of the use of missiles, even the most long-range, in fact, excluded the possibility of defeating aviation groups to the point of launching their anti-ship missiles. This meant that the enemy had the opportunity to attack freely and in the most effective way. Secondly, the limited-fire ammunition missile (and MZA) allowed to reflect only a small number of strikes of enemy aircraft. Then he could shoot our ships as unarmed targets. The only salvation was to cover our ship groups with fighter aircraft. It is capable of defeating the attacking groups of the enemy up to the line of launching missiles and disorganize the strike. This meant not only a significant reduction in the number of anti-ship missiles, produced by our ship connection, but also causing losses that prevent subsequent attacks. In addition, the very fact of the presence of fighters forced the enemy to reduce the proportion of strike aircraft in the group, since fighters had to include clearance of airspace and direct accompaniment. However, the cover of surface forces by coast-based aircraft was and remains possible only at a distance of 150 – 200 kilometers.

There is one more problem - our long-range and anti-submarine aviation does not have effective self-defense weapons, and the EW systems only reduce the effectiveness of rocket attacks without preventing them. The only way to prevent heavy casualties is escorting our heavy vehicles and covering their combat use areas with fighters. When using coast-based fighters, this is possible only at a distance of up to 350 kilometers, which is completely inadequate for operations in the far sea zone.

Thus, by the end of the 60-x it became clear: without air cover by ship-based fighters, our ocean fleet is tied to the coast. To solve the problem, it was decided to create exactly the "anti-aircraft" aircraft carrier, which was the project 1143.5 - TAKR "Kuznetsov".

Today the situation has changed somewhat. There is evidence that the Granit complex from Kuznetsova was dismantled. Su-33 in its air group are replaced with MiG-29K / KUB with the ability to strike with anti-ship missiles and precision-guided munitions at sea and land targets. However, the overall purpose and role of our aircraft carrier in the structure of the Navy remain unchanged. In this context, its possible contribution to the solution of combat missions at sea should be evaluated.

"Kuznetsov" is part of the Northern Fleet. With the outbreak of hostilities, it is most likely that TAKR will be incorporated into a heterogeneous strike formation created to defeat enemy aircraft carrier groups in the northern part of the Norwegian Sea. It is also likely to use it to repel the enemy's VNO with operational submission for this period of its air group to a maritime formation or VKS merger. “Kuznetsov” will be the most important component of the forces and means covering in conjunction with the coastal formation (combination) of the naval forces of the fleet in the Barents and Kara Seas in the general air defense system.

The calculated increase in the combat effectiveness of these groups will allow us to give a reasonable conclusion about the desirability of maintaining the TAKR as part of our Navy.

TAKR did his job

It is advisable to begin the analysis from the most complex form of use of the forces of our Federation Council — the hostilities to defeat the enemy aircraft carrier group. Its composition is well known and analyzed in sufficient detail. These are the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, three or four missile cruisers (Ticonderoga) and destroyer (Orly Burk), three or four destroyers (Spryens) and frigate, one or two multipurpose nuclear-powered submarines, as well as some 100 air group aircraft, including up to 60 fighter / attack aircraft F / A-18C. The Federation Council can put up against this AUG the shock connection of dissimilar forces as part of two or three nuclear missile submarines (SSGN) of the 949 project, two or three multipurpose nuclear submarines of the 971, 945 project, two missile cruisers - one by one 1144 and 1164, and up to 8 – 10 destroyer-class surface ships (956 project), large anti-submarine ship (1155 project), frigate (22350 project). These forces will be supported by missile-carrying aircraft on a Tu-22М3 with an X-22 resource of one or two regimental sorties. Let us consider the possible course of hostilities with and without participation in our TAKR as part of this compound.

"Kuznetsov" their fateSuch a fight can last from 10 – 12 hours to days or a little more. Accordingly, the disposable resource of the TAKR air group is about 52 of sorties (with the existing 12 Su-33 and 14 MiG-29К / KUB).

The dynamics of the fighting will include several stages.

During the first, the main task of our connection will be the reflection of air strikes on surface ships and submarines. At this stage, we can expect to counter our connection with forces up to 30 – 34 units of carrier-based aviation and one or two tactical squadrons, up to 6 – 9 BPA aircraft from the airfields of Norway. With the allocation of 16 – 20 aircraft, it is possible to ensure the combat stability of the surface ships of the nucleus (cruisers and aircraft carrier) with a probability around 0,9, and submarines with a probability of no less than 0,9, while without the support of ship-borne aircraft these indicators will be significantly lower - 0,5 – 0,7 and 0,6 –– 0,7 respectively. In this case, most of the ammunition shipboard AIA will be spent.

At the second stage, the main task will be to identify the construction of AUG and ship orders with a strike at the anti-missile barrier (PRB) by the forces of a single SSGN. The issuance of target designation can be carried out from a reconnaissance aircraft, from a satellite or from an NPS reconnaissance-strike group. Placing the details of the calculation in the article is not possible. Therefore, we present the final result. If there is a TAKR in the compound and a detachment to ensure this strike of four to six sorties, the probability of its successful application is up to 0,95, whereas without an aircraft carrier it will not exceed 0,4 – 0,5. The reason is simple - the opposition of the FPA (which will prevent our SSGN from ascending to the communication session for receiving target designation and can destroy it) and the AUG combat air patrol fighters capable of shooting down our reconnaissance aircraft. As a result, in the first case, the probability of PRB neutralization is 0,7 – 0,8, and in the second, 0,3 – 0,4.

The main attack (the third stage) will most likely be delivered by Tu-22М3 with X-22 missiles and one or two SSGNs, ensuring their actions by reconnaissance aircraft. The limited strike time allows you to count on a resource within 16 of aircraft sorties by ship fighters, which will have to neutralize the BWP AUG and the raised groups from the on-duty position on the deck in readiness No. 1 - all 6 – 10 machines, to 4 – 6 coast-based fighters from airfields in Norway 2 – 3 aircraft BPA. If there is a fighter cover, its result can be evaluated in 0,7 – 0,8 for the probability of incapacitating an aircraft carrier with the loss of the capabilities of deck aircraft operations and the sinking of at least three or four escort ships. At the same time, the combat stability of our SSGNs will be at least 0,8 – 0,85, and the losses of missile-carrying aircraft will not exceed two machines (there may not be any at all). In the absence of destructive support for our strike forces, their losses will increase substantially. The combat stability of the SSGN will decrease to 0,5 – 0,55, and the losses of the DA regiment may exceed one third of its composition, having reached half or more under adverse conditions. At the same time, the probability of decommissioning the aircraft carrier will not exceed 0,2 – 0.25.

For the development of success, long-range and short-range anti-ship missiles will be delivered to the main forces of surface ships, possibly with limited involvement of naval aviation. But all this is possible if the main blow is effective. Otherwise, it is quite probable that military operations will be curtailed with the withdrawal of the compound into the bases, which will occur under the fire of deck and tactical aircraft. The main content of this stage is the exchange of missile strikes by surface ships of the Russian compound and the surviving cruisers and destroyers of the United States, followed by the return of our forces to the base. The influence of deck aircraft on the course of warfare will be mainly associated with the reflection of enemy tactical aviation strikes, for which the entire remaining resource can be allocated - from 10 to 16 sorties. This will preserve the combat stability of our surface ships at the 0,8 level. In the absence of air cover, given the complete expenditure of the AIA ammunition, it is unlikely to exceed 0,2 – 0,25.

Thus, in the presence of TAKR, the probability of destroying an enemy aircraft carrier reaches 0,8 with the sinking of up to three to five escort ships from six to eight. At the same time, our connection bears more or less acceptable losses: surface ships - up to three or four units (including a missile cruiser with a relatively low probability), 1 – 2 SSGN and NPS, up to 10 – 12 aircraft, including 1 – 2 long-range aviation. That is, in the presence of TAKR SF can easily cope with AUG. But in the absence of the problem is practically not solved: the probability of withdrawal of the aircraft carrier will not exceed 0,2 – 0,3 plus one or two sunken escort ships. Our losses will be catastrophic: 6 – 8 surface ships, including both rocket cruisers, up to 3 – 4 submarines, 10 – 12 planes YES.

The conclusion is clear: the Kuznetsov TAKR is necessary. Talk about the feasibility of maintaining it in the fleet should be stopped.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/30669
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. barbiturate
    barbiturate 21 May 2016 06: 58
    +14
    Article plus, all this was long understood by the Soviet naval commanders and they insistently demanded aircraft carriers, and Western warriors not only demanded, but also received them)
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 21 May 2016 12: 13
      +11
      TAKR “Kuznetsov” is necessary
      Maybe put another way: you need two AUG (in the North and the Far East) with a set of cruisers, submarines, destroyers. And the aircraft carrier needs a more highly specialized and not a "jack of all trades 5 in one"
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 24 May 2016 01: 00
        -3
        And how the author is going to defeat AUG:
        This is a Nimitz-type aircraft carrier, three or four missile cruisers (Ticonderoga) and a destroyer (Orly Burke), three or four destroyers (Spryuens) and a frigate, one or two multi-purpose submarines, and also an air group of about 100 aircraft, including up to 60 fighter / attack aircraft F / A-18C

        forces:
        The air group was also specific - 24 Su-33 fighter

        In this situation, they will roll us over rather than we them. Arithmetic is a stubborn thing.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 24 May 2016 01: 19
        0
        I noticed one trend. From the moment of my registration on the site laudatory articles about aircraft carriers simply did not have the right to exist, since it was believed that aircraft carriers are floating clumsy, requiring the protection of the abuse target for any fleet. And the Americans built them only so that our effortlessly drown them on occasion lol
        Now the opinion in the media is changing. This is thought for a reason. Perhaps in the foreseeable future we will see in our Navy normal ocean-going flat-deck nuclear-powered attack aircraft carriers. yes
    2. Dam
      Dam 21 May 2016 13: 39
      +2
      Briefly clear. Bravo Sivkov
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 24 May 2016 01: 04
        0
        The main blow (the third stage), most likely, will be delivered by Tu-22M3 forces with X-22 missiles

        It is interesting, but where in the far sea zone can Tu22m3 come from, and just when they are needed?
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 24 May 2016 01: 08
        0
        At the same time, the combat stability of our SSBNs will be at least 0,8–0,85, and the losses of missile-carrying aircraft will not exceed two aircraft (they may not exist at all)

        lol The author is a bulletproof optimist!
    3. kuz363
      kuz363 22 May 2016 06: 16
      -12%
      Article minus. Western warriors received, because they are much richer than poor Russia
    4. GSH-18
      GSH-18 24 May 2016 01: 13
      -1
      The conclusion is clear: the Kuznetsov TAKR is necessary. Talk about the feasibility of maintaining it in the fleet should be stopped.

      Absolutely ambiguous. For me, so Kuznetsov at this historical moment is capable of performing well only one function — a floating school desk for deck pilots.
      Russia needs normal atomic aircraft carriers, this is definitely!
  2. Valery Valery
    Valery Valery 21 May 2016 07: 03
    +33
    Two serious mistakes were made with the "Kuznetsov" tavkr:
    1. The ship has a steam-powered power plant (8 boilers KVG-4), fuel - fuel oil. Cheap fuel - permanent repair.
    2. The Su-27 (now Su-33) was chosen as the aircraft — the best aircraft in the world, but not suitable for this ship. It is too heavy for a short run, respectively, there are restrictions on the combat load. You need to make a catapult or change the plane to MIG.

    RUSSIAN Navy NEEDS Aircraft carriers. THIS IS A UNKNOWN FACT.
    1. Volga Cossack
      Volga Cossack 21 May 2016 07: 09
      0
      in general - I agree. and by necessity - it is UNDISPUTABLE!
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 21 May 2016 07: 37
      +8
      Quote: Valery Valery
      It is too heavy for a short run, respectively, there are restrictions on the combat load.

      Heavy, but also heavily armed. And not only the Su-33, but also the MIG, and the Su-25 were tested.
      It seems that the mass-overall dimensions of the Su-33 are still quite acceptable.
      As for the catapults, in order not to complicate it, is it worth remembering about jet boosters for take-off with a load to the eyeballs?
      1. Orionvit
        Orionvit 21 May 2016 17: 41
        +4
        A steam catapult requires a nuclear power plant. You can't boil a lot of steam on fuel oil. Well, the autonomy of swimming increases many times over. Of course, it's too early to write off "Kuznetsov", but you must agree that a single combat unit from him is doubtful. It’s so easy to rattle with a weapon, and a training base for pilots.
      2. Come on
        Come on 22 May 2016 11: 58
        +3
        In my opinion, only the option is considered when the SF is first and suddenly attacked, and the AUG of the mattresses gets bored and sleeps :). If we leave those nuances that precede the scenario to the scenario, such as the intensity of the political situation, and, as a consequence, prepared, and perhaps very likely, the enemy reinforced by another AUG, then the possibilities of the AUG itself are not entirely open. The catapult and refueling in the air allows the Superhornets, and in the future the F35 to go on a combat mission with a complete, possible body kit, up to 10 tons and enough fuel to perform maneuvers. The problem with the F35 will also be its inconspicuousness, and in a real conflict in the Baltic there will be several dozens of F22 involved. Kuza needs a catapult, how to do another question. Here, after all, the topic is complicated. On the one hand, it is unrealistic to succeed without a carrier in the US Navy. On the other hand, at the moment, Kuzya alone, even if he is 100% able to give out what he owes to his performance characteristics, is unlikely to help much. Will the Russian Federation ever be able to afford a fleet that is not inferior to the US Navy, is generally in the stars.
        1. Operator
          Operator 22 May 2016 12: 40
          0
          Please name the US Navy Deck Tanker.
          1. goose
            goose 23 May 2016 16: 08
            0
            A-6 and O-2. Why aren't you tankers?
      3. GSH-18
        GSH-18 24 May 2016 01: 27
        0
        Quote: Alekseev
        It seems that the mass-overall dimensions of the Su-33 are still quite acceptable.

        The TAKR is too short for the Su-33, and even this rudiment, springboard ... For this reason, the Su-33 can take off with only half the combat load, and that’s it. But the twinkies do not satisfy in range of application and combat load initially.
    3. avt
      avt 21 May 2016 09: 42
      +19
      Quote: Valery Valery
      Two serious mistakes were made with the "Kuznetsov" tavkr:
      recourse
      Based on the above remarks, the author and the conclusion are actually not accurate request
      The conclusion is clear: the Kuznetsov TAKR is necessary. Talk about the feasibility of maintaining it in the fleet should be stopped.
      Since already at the time of construction, having limited the series to two ships, Yu in the USSR began to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant. So the conclusion should have sounded like this - THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER IS NECESSARY, and while there is no full replacement, "Kuznetsov", without unnecessary chatter needs keep it in working order.
      1. Valery Valery
        Valery Valery 21 May 2016 18: 07
        +5
        On this ship I have three combat services: 1995-96, 2004, 2005. Turn it around, I understand what I'm talking about.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 22 May 2016 11: 09
          +1
          The then Mig-29k had higher landing speed, less combat radius. Weaker radar, OLS, fewer explosive missiles and worse visibility. So there were reasons for choosing
        2. Ustinov 055 055
          Ustinov 055 055 23 May 2016 09: 30
          0
          We remember how we accompanied your miraculous miracle, you didn’t have any storms, but we got EM with Turilin on board all the more))
        3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2016 19: 13
      +5
      Quote: Valery Valery
      As the aircraft, Su-27 (now Su-33) was chosen - the best aircraft in the world, but it is not suitable for this ship. It is too heavy for a short run, respectively, there are restrictions on the combat load. You need to make a catapult or change the plane to MIG.

      So he was already changed, all 24 MiGs were delivered by industry. Another question is that due to the lack of readiness of Yeysk and NITKI, it’s impossible to train pilots.
      Quote: Valery Valery
      The ship has a steam-powered power plant (8 boilers KVG-4), fuel - fuel oil. Cheap fuel - permanent repair

      That is yes. In essence, this is both the first and second and third errors at once. Would make atomic - how much easier it would be now.
      Quote: Valery Valery
      RUSSIAN Navy NEEDS Aircraft carriers. THIS IS A UNKNOWN FACT.

      drinks
    5. silberwolf88
      silberwolf88 21 May 2016 22: 25
      +1
      There is one more serious minus in combat use and it plays a decisive role in the use of aircraft from an aircraft carrier ... the absence of AWACS aircraft ... well, how a squadron of up to 8 deck-based E-2C Hokai aircraft is based on Nimitz ...
    6. Alex777
      Alex777 21 May 2016 23: 25
      0
      Quote: Valery Valery
      Two serious mistakes were made with the "Kuznetsov" tavkr:
      1. The ship has a steam-powered power plant (8 boilers KVG-4), fuel - fuel oil. Cheap fuel - permanent repair.
      2. The Su-27 (now Su-33) was chosen as the aircraft — the best aircraft in the world, but not suitable for this ship. It is too heavy for a short run, respectively, there are restrictions on the combat load. You need to make a catapult or change the plane to MIG.

      RUSSIAN Navy NEEDS Aircraft carriers. THIS IS A UNKNOWN FACT.


      Replacing MIGs reduces the radius of action - the Su-33 has significantly more. Therefore, now a mixed air group.
      1. goose
        goose 23 May 2016 16: 10
        +1
        Quote: Alex777
        Replacing MIGs reduces the radius of action - the Su-33 has significantly more. Therefore, now a mixed air group.

        Can explain how the MiG-29KUB has a smaller range during take-off from Kuzi than the Su-33? This is a flying barrel without strong restrictions on take-off weight. They even fill it in the tail.
    7. Idiot
      Idiot 22 May 2016 08: 13
      0
      Russian aircraft carriers are needed, but not now - an indisputable fact.
    8. Idiot
      Idiot 22 May 2016 08: 13
      0
      Russian aircraft carriers are needed, but not now - an indisputable fact.
  3. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 21 May 2016 07: 31
    +5
    At one time, Khrushchev spat on airplanes and decided that missiles were the main thing. As a result, we were constantly catching up. We need to develop all types of weapons.
    1. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 21 May 2016 08: 06
      +16
      Alexander 3
      It is necessary to develop all types of weapons.


      theoretically yes. but in practice it is impossible to invest resources equally in all directions. resources are not rubber.
      Therefore, the following questions arise before the General Staff. for example: to order 100 tanks, or at the same price to order, say, 10 helicopters with anti-tank weapons? What will be more effective?
      The questions are not simple, but no one has canceled the choice of priorities.
      no one has a magic wand yet.
    2. Großer feldherr
      Großer feldherr 21 May 2016 11: 17
      +4
      Quote: Alexander 3
      At one time, Khrushchev spat on airplanes and decided that missiles were the main thing. As a result, we were constantly catching up. We need to develop all types of weapons.
      Reply Quote Report Abuse

      It is not known how the story would have turned out if Khrushchev had not "lobbied" the Strategic Missile Forces, albeit to the detriment of other types of weapons and arms, thereby making it impossible for the West to attack the USSR and Russia even in the 90s, when combat readiness / ability was striving to zero ...
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 21 May 2016 19: 11
        +7
        Quote: Großer Feldherr
        It is not known how the story would have turned out if Khrushchev had not "lobbied" the Strategic Missile Forces, albeit to the detriment of other types of weapons and the VSK families.
        Unfortunately, such a simplified view of decision-making by Khrushchev was firmly rooted in the brains of Soviet inhabitants. He was warmed by the insult of the dismissed and reduced military. My father also fell victim to the Khrushchev sequestration.
        But this is all - the ordinary level of understanding. And the state one is different. With a severe budget deficit, limited resources, the country could not maintain large air forces while also creating a new type of armed forces. I had to sacrifice the most "expensive" technical types of forces: aviation, navy, RTV. The "freed" funds were used to develop the Strategic Missile Forces. And still it was necessary to relocate millions of people from dugouts and barracks to normal apartments ... And there was nowhere to take funds, except from our own sources. So I had to stretch the "Trishkin caftan", but it turned out to be a normal alternative to the US air armada.
        IMHO.
    3. Alf
      Alf 22 May 2016 20: 23
      0
      Quote: Alexander 3
      It is necessary to develop all types of weapons.

      True, but with wide strides you can tear your pants. You just need to plan correctly. In this five-year period, the army needs to be renewed, which means all the money for the army, the next for aviation, the next for the fleet.
  4. Yak28
    Yak28 21 May 2016 07: 45
    +3
    Quote: Valery Valery
    RUSSIAN Navy NEEDS Aircraft carriers. THIS IS A UNKNOWN FACT.

    I agree that we need them, but they won’t be, as in Russia there are no technologies, there is no base, there is no experience in the construction of such ships. As long as Russia gives birth to 1 aircraft carrier, it will already be outdated in all respects lol .USA in the construction of aircraft carriers in life can not catch up with anyone. So we need to focus our efforts on the development of effective weapons to destroy aircraft carrier groups
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 21 May 2016 11: 29
      +6
      Quote: Yak28
      since in Russia there is no technology, no base, no experience

      If you repeat this every day, then they will not appear.
      Quote: Yak28
      aircraft carrier he will have time to become obsolete in all respects

      I wonder how?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2016 13: 09
        +9
        Yes, you listen to him more.
        Quote: Yak28
        Russia has no technology, no base, no experience in the construction of such ships

        This is nonsense cable, because unlike many, many Russia just has the technology and the base and experience for the construction of aircraft carriers.
        We can do carrier-based aviation. We can make aerofinisher, take-off / landing systems for aircraft, we can make special coating for the flight deck. We can do ship nuclear power plants. Catapults? In the USSR they made steam and made a big reserve for electromagnetic, than now, by the way, we seem to have taken advantage. We already have two complexes for the training and pilots of carrier-based aviation (NITKA and Yeysk, though both require completion, but this is cosmetics, by and large, because all the key technologies are there). In terms of production - trained in the Indians.
        Quote: Yak28
        Until Russia gives birth to the 1 aircraft carrier, it will already have time to become obsolete in all respects

        It will become obsolete in all respects only in one case - if by the time of its construction the space will plow Star Destroyers
        However, with our attitude towards AB - perhaps it will be so
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 22 May 2016 11: 18
          0
          Andrey, excuse me, but your opponent is right. If normal, half a century ago it was necessary to lay one AB pr.1166 with Mig-23 for trial operation and only ten years later build a series. And all the numerous throwings from 1143, Mercury Halzan only worsened the situation.
          But what happened is what happened.
          And I would like to recall the question of the Falklands, more precisely, of the English Sidewinders
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 May 2016 13: 02
            0
            Quote: sivuch
            Andrey, I'm sorry, but your opponent is right

            I’m not sorry :)) What is he right about? What are the key aircraft building technologies we forgot how to do? :)
            Quote: sivuch
            And I would like to recall the question of the Falklands, more precisely, of the English Sidewinders

            Sorry, forgot. And what was the question?
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 22 May 2016 15: 20
              +1
              And I’m not just talking about key ones. It’s just that the Americans have accumulated vast experience in both construction and operation. In Russia, in such a situation, such a store will open. A thousand little things that mother don’t grieve. The same S-1 catapult was not exploited on the ship for a day. that it’s now wiser to immediately design the electromagnetic one. And have you already decided on personnel issues? I really didn’t work in Nevsky, only in the North and then in Diamond. A few years ago, for the sake of laughter, I decided to google, where now my head of the sector and department. Both left the Diamond a long time ago. One sells wood, the other - something similar. I do not think that it is better in Nevsky.
              And the question was about Sidewinders - it seems that the Americans promptly put 9L precisely in preparation for the transition. Actually, it was they who caused the devastating account in the BVB
        2. Alf
          Alf 22 May 2016 20: 29
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This is nonsense cable, because unlike many, many Russia just has the technology and the base and experience for the construction of aircraft carriers.

          Kuznetsov was built in Nikolaev, is there now in Russia a shipbuilding shipyard of this size? Sevmash, alas, REPAIR shipyard.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 21 May 2016 19: 20
      +3
      Quote: Yak28
      The US can’t catch up with anyone in the construction of aircraft carriers. So we need to focus on developing effective weapons to destroy aircraft carrier groups.

      So nobody seems to be going to catch up with them! But 3-4 AVUs for strategic fleets are needed.
      The time of AVU is coming to an end: the GZO will come into service in the near future. "Zircons" and K * will draw a line under the combat expediency of these monsters, just as the carrier-based aircraft did with the LK.
      The future of fleets is for submarine forces with UAVs and uninhabited PAs.
      1. Come on
        Come on 22 May 2016 12: 33
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The future of fleets is for submarine forces with UAVs and uninhabited PAs.


        So this future is very far away. If you look at the next 20 years and the dynamics of the technological gap between the Russian Federation and NATO on the topic of the fleet over the past 25 years, it is very doubtful that there is any hope of catching up with NATO, or the US Navy, to be able to compete on an equal footing in the open ocean zone. And if not, then maybe you should think about an advantage in the direction of strengthening the coastal forces of the Russian Navy? Fast missile ships supported by the Russian Air Force from the shore.
    3. Alf
      Alf 22 May 2016 20: 24
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      So we need to focus our efforts on the development of effective weapons to destroy aircraft carrier groups

      That is, to develop an effective shield. But you must have a sword.
    4. goose
      goose 23 May 2016 16: 14
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      US in the construction of aircraft carriers in life can not catch anyone

      South Koreans - it’s easy, if they had the money, they would build it — more faster and better, and they would fit into the budget, unlike the United States. We seriously thought about giving some subcontracts to South Korea for the construction of large units of the fleet, for example, landing helicopter carriers - docks, supply vessels.
  5. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 21 May 2016 08: 18
    +3
    The fleet needs aircraft carriers, TAKR Kuznetsov is an excellent training ground for both shipbuilders and military.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 21 May 2016 08: 52
      +8
      Quote: Dimon19661
      Navy needs aircraft carriers

      Quote: Dimon19661
      Until Russia gives birth to the 1 aircraft carrier, it will already have time to become obsolete in all respects

      Quote: Dimon19661
      we need to focus our efforts on developing effective weapons to destroy aircraft carrier groups

      In these quotes, the entire dilemma of the General Staff of the Russian Navy.
      What does the Soviet experience in the construction of aircraft-carrying cruisers tell us? in order to have an AB, you need to build guard ships, without them the AB will become an ordinary floating airfield at the berth.
      With the start of construction of 1143 Ave. (1970 g.), The construction of guard ships also began.
      Etc. 1144 (1973 g.) 4 series of the ship.
      Etc. 1164 (1976) was planned 10, laid 4, entered into service 3 ship.
      Etc. 956 (1973) was planned 50, laid 21, entered into service 17 ships.
      Etc. 1155 (1977 g.) Laid and built 12 ships.
      PLA pr. 671 RTMK (1976 g.) Built 25 ships.
      949 submarine (1982 g.) Planned 18, built 11 ships.
      Etc. 1833 (1972 g.) Built 1 ship.
      THOSE. to start the construction of an aircraft carrier. you need to practically begin the construction of both guard ships and strike ships. The question is ... will the country pull such a burden?
      Quote: Yak28
      we need to focus our efforts on developing effective weapons to destroy aircraft carrier groups

      In my opinion, this formulation of the question is now most relevant!
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 21 May 2016 11: 30
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        THOSE. to start the construction of an aircraft carrier. you need to practically begin the construction of both guard ships and strike ships. The question is ... will the country pull such a burden?

        And what we do not need the ocean fleet? With or without an aircraft carrier, but their construction is necessary.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 21 May 2016 11: 34
          +6
          Quote: Dart2027
          And what we do not need the ocean fleet? With or without an aircraft carrier, but their construction is necessary.

          And I do not mind, the fleet is needed without options! But you must first understand what a fleet! And what do we want from the fleet!
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 21 May 2016 15: 03
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            But you must first understand what fleet!

            The ocean fleet should consist of ships of different types, which interact with each other as a single system. The carrier component of this system. This is nothing new.
            Quote: Serg65
            And what do we want from the fleet!

            The navy is a tool that can be used both in peacetime and in wartime. And given the fact that with the advent of nuclear weapons, global conflicts have become a matter of very dubious, its role as a long arm in peacetime is even more important than in the case of a hypothetical war with the United States. I recommend the book "The Role of Naval Forces in World History" by Mahan Alfred.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2016 17: 47
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        What does the Soviet experience in the construction of aircraft-carrying cruisers tell us? in order to have an AB you need to build security ships

        nope. What you are listing is not escort ships. These are KUG ships, which the aircraft carrier was called upon to provide. Only not one, but six (Two "Kuznetsovs" and 4 "Ulyanovsk")
  6. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 21 May 2016 08: 47
    +5
    An aircraft carrier, whatever its size and capabilities, gives stability to the connection, even if in a single battle. It has already been proven that aviation is almost a key weapon in the modern world. And therefore, actions outside the coastal aviation cover zone are tantamount to defeat.
    A floating airfield with a couple of dozen aircraft and helicopters creates much more possibilities and variability for the operation of the compound. This is reconnaissance, and anti-aircraft defense, and air defense ... And if we trample on our shores, then what kind of greatness and strength can we talk about? Even a vessel of the "Prince of Austria" type with a dozen aircraft is already a force when skillfully used.
    hi
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 21 May 2016 10: 16
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      An aircraft carrier, whatever its size and capabilities, gives stability to the connection, even if in a single battle.

      hi Hello Andrey! The interpretation of the combat use of the aircraft carrier, given by the author, could theoretically probably be such, but in practice ..... an attack by the AUG of the enemy on the area of ​​operational responsibility of the Northern Fleet ??? I'm sorry, but why? What is the operational-tactical need to drive the AUG to the northern seas? As for countering the enemy's SF AUG. Russia is not Libya, and if (do not let of course) our American "friends" want to repeat the adventures of Bonaparte and Adolphe, then the hostilities will take place on the fields of democratic Europe, in this case, the AUG will be occupied by the convoy service and not by attacks on coastal cities. Here is the SF can and make fun of our "friends"!
      laughing I will, with your permission, dream a little. AUG SF consisting of "Kuznetsov", "Petr", "Nakhimov", "Ustinov", "Kulakov" "Severomorsk", "Levchenko", "Chabanenko" and "Ushakov" provide access to the operational space of the SSGN pr. 949A, pr. 855, project 945A nuclear submarine, project 971, and project 671 RTMK. Due to the fact that the collapse of the USSR also affected the military component of the faithful enemy, the once famous SOSUS system is no longer as global as in past times. I think that our nuclear submarines will be able to enter the vastness of the Atlantic without great difficulties and take positions on the routes of the Atlantic convoys. Having received data on the course of the convoy, its speed, wind rose and the speed of ocean currents in the area of ​​the convoy, it is possible with a high degree of probability to calculate the time when the convoy will be at point A. Having received target designation from airfields, 50 (in the presence of 60) TU-95MS and distance of 1500-2000 km from point A, 800 X-55 missile launchers are sequentially launched. Andrey, can you imagine what will happen in the BIUS of a ver. enemy when 800 low-flying targets are detected on them? These are all planes for takeoff and all air defense missiles for launch! ..... and at this time ... our nuclear submarines are like in a dash. 10 out of 10 and a soft toy for you! soldier
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 21 May 2016 20: 05
        +9
        Quote: Serg65
        As for counteracting the enemy’s SF AUG.

        Sivkov is great: he drew a hypothetical situation "Nimitz" against our AVU headed by Kuznetsov ...
        Why so modest? I would, on the place of the commander of the Atlantic Fleet of the United States, send 3–4 aircraft as a part of the AMG to the Russian shores. This is so that Kuza will not be bored! They have a resource, we - except Kuzi - have nothing above. Some boats. But without air cover ...
        Further. Sivkov somehow left the Operation of the Fleet Forces to Defeat the Enemy's AMG, so he has no mention of the supporting actions of other forces, arms and even branches of the Armed Forces in the interests of solving this problem. But if it has to be solved in practice, then both the Strategic Missile Forces and the RV ZVO will be involved in it. So, a lot depends on the outfit of strength.
        Quote: Serg65
        I think that our submarines without great difficulty will be able to reach the expanses of the Atlantic and take positions along the routes of the Atlantic convoys.
        Let me now (from the position of the USA Atlas) present a picture of what is happening. I am massing the PLO forces at the borders of North Cape-Bear (AvPUG) and Faro-Icelandic (main forces) KPUG, RGAB fields, AvPLO. Naturally, I cover all this with aviation with AVU and BPA. The Danish Strait, so beloved by our submariners, I fill the MZM from Captor. Yes, in 3 rows, so that it was more reliable. Above all this pie - a BPA from R-8A with 4-8 gliding Мк54 on each. And abroad, at a distance of 100-150 miles, the "Virginia" curtain. That way 3-4, so that the head does not swing.
        But nobody writes about this! Therefore, many believe that ama suckers are gimmicks, unskillful extras ... And they are very serious guys! And their "toys" are much larger than ours. Yes, "toys" with cyber brains, and not from a manual drive, as we had until recently.
        So, there will be no dashing "cavalry" attack on the convoys. If 3-4 boats go hunting, it will be great. But the previous calculations gave 1-3 units, the maximum.
        Further. I would cover KOH with the mobile area of ​​the PLO. And our submariners had to overcome it again ... But the boats still need to be pointed out, to give the TsU ... And on top of the aircraft of the adversary ...
        I hope it’s now clear why the profession of the submariner is considered heroic !?
        Yours faithfully, hi
        1. Operator
          Operator 21 May 2016 21: 46
          -6
          Russian strike nuclear submarines will be withdrawn to the Atlantic even before the outbreak of military conflict under the keel of civilian vessels.

          Convoys will be detected by the 29B6 "Container" ground over-the-horizon radar at a distance of up to 6000 km. Transmit the coordinates of convoys to nuclear submarines in a submerged position - radio transmitters on super-long waves (Antey, Goliath, Fregat, Zeus).
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 22 May 2016 11: 05
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            Russian strike nuclear submarines will be withdrawn to the Atlantic even before the outbreak of military conflict under the keel of civilian vessels.

            I agree. But there is such a thing as autonomy. And if the initial phase is stretched for 45-60 days?
            Quote: Operator
            Convoys will be detected by the 29B6 "Container" ground over-the-horizon radar at a distance of up to 6000 km.
            No problem! Even the COP will participate in this! But there is no war, which means that you cannot touch them. And they have a simple task: to cross the Atlantic and quickly unload on the continent. And how will you stop them if D-Day is not announced !?
            Quote: Operator
            To transmit the coordinates of convoys to the submarine in underwater position - ultra-long-wave radio transmitters (Antei, Goliath, Frigate, Zeus)
            Yes, I do not mind! But this is bad luck: there is such a thing as a communication mode. This is when the boats are transferred to a certain frequency of receiving RDO. This is usually: 24, 12, 8, 4, 2 hours and further in variations until continuous. ADD penetrate up to 10m. You can release the antenna and receive from a depth of 90m. But! BPA sees objects to a depth of 60m, and AES-r - up to 200! Then, the closer to the surface the more difficult it is to get rid of the thermal trace, other unmasking factors.
            Then there is such a thing as navigation accuracy and navigation data storage time. This is when the navigator takes the cap's eggs and demands to swim up to determine the place. Again, an 18m overhang, poor protection from the ECO of an artificial satellite.
            Well, further on the scenario: field of buoys, contact, detection, guidance of maneuvering forces of the PLO. Then transfer contact shock submarine, or ships KPUG.
            So, the tactics of using the forces of the fleet is an area of ​​high creativity. These are not Cossack robbers, but rather chess.
            Yours faithfully, hi
            1. Operator
              Operator 22 May 2016 13: 00
              0
              The autonomy of the Yasen nuclear submarine is 90 days. The rotation of domestic nuclear submarines with positional areas on the routes of convoys from North America to Western Europe during a special period is carried out at the rate of 9 submarines in positions and 1 submarine on a base or approach / departure from a position.

              During a special period, when American AUGs approach Russian shores at a range of combat use of F / A-18, F-35C and cruise missiles, the Iskander-M OTRK will constantly be targeted at the AUG (the flight range of anti-ship ballistic missiles is 2000 km with a special warhead with a capacity of 3 kt and KVO 7 meters). The flight time of Iskander is an order of magnitude greater than the flight time of carrier-based aircraft and ship Tomahawks.
              In any case, for the Khornets and Penguins it will take off without landing, are American pilots ready to become kamikazes - that’s the question bully

              Ultra-low-frequency radio transmitter "Zeus" penetrates with its signal not only the entire thickness of the oceans, but the entire globe.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 May 2016 13: 31
                +1
                Quote: Operator
                the Iskander-M missile system will be constantly targeted at the AUG (the flight range of anti-ship ballistic missiles is 2000 km with a special warhead with a capacity of 3 kt and a KVO of 7 meters).

                good laughing
                Let me go, miracle grass :)))
                1. Operator
                  Operator 22 May 2016 14: 45
                  0
                  I remember exactly the same comments before the publication of the photo "Caliber-A" laughing
              2. Serg65
                Serg65 23 May 2016 06: 21
                +2
                Quote: Operator
                During a special period, when American AUGs approach Russian shores at a range of combat use of F / A-18, F-35C and cruise missiles, the Iskander-M OTRK will constantly be targeted at the AUG (the flight range of anti-ship ballistic missiles is 2000 km with a special warhead with a capacity of 3 kt and KVO 7 meters). The flight time of Iskander is an order of magnitude greater than the flight time of carrier-based aircraft and ship Tomahawks.

                what Hmm! Andryusha, I'll throw you a theme for the flight of your imagination. On the eve of a global conflict, the GRU of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation fractures about a dozen container ships through third parties, puts its crew on them with knowledge of all the languages ​​of the world, puts on the deck a bunch of containers with Caliber and sends them to surf the world's oceans in anticipation of D-Day under the Liberian flag. Option? bully
                1. Operator
                  Operator 23 May 2016 11: 44
                  0
                  Serezha, but what the hell are the ships that in international waters have the right to stop and search any warship? laughing
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 23 May 2016 11: 54
                    +1
                    Andryusha, because as I understand it, we are talking about the first strike, or about retaliatory actions! And among many merchants, with a dozen container ships, never go Russian. wink , and stop everyone for inspection ..... what is your evidence? !!! stop
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 23 May 2016 06: 11
              +1
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              tactics of using fleet forces are an area of ​​high creativity. These are not Cossack robbers, but rather chess.
              Yours faithfully,

              Sasha, well, it’s impossible! Your reality is like a sickle for ya.tsam strategists from the pen! But the fact that this is the truth of naval life cannot be taken away good
          2. Alf
            Alf 22 May 2016 20: 32
            0
            Quote: Operator
            Russian strike nuclear submarines will be withdrawn to the Atlantic even before the outbreak of military conflict under the keel of civilian vessels.

            If the adversary tells us, we start the war on June 1, get ready.
  7. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 21 May 2016 10: 32
    +5
    The author has collected the entire naval composition of the Northern Fleet in the composition of our ACG, 100 of which cannot be achieved in combat readiness in the present peacetime. The first stage of the scenario under consideration may be the last.

    Such a fight can last from 10 – 12 hours to days or a little more. Accordingly, the disposable resource of the TAKR air group is about 52 of sorties (with the existing 12 Su-33 and 14 MiG-29К / KUB).

    In other words, 26 aircraft from Kuzi will be able to complete two flights a day. Then Nimitz, with up to 90 aircraft, with a greater combat load on the plane (taking into account the presence of steam catapults, somewhat greater displacement and, accordingly, platform stability and ammunition) and the same two sorties per day, is almost guaranteed to destroy the Russian Northern Fleet at the first stage. And the rest of the American AUG won't be needed! Conclusion: the presence of an aircraft carrier with us will lead to the loss of the Northern Fleet. Of course, I distort, but, following the example of the author, I proved the opposite.
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 21 May 2016 12: 25
      +5
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      Conclusion: the presence of our aircraft carrier will lead to the loss of SF.

      to memorize. I consider this conclusion a masterpiece. but now we know that if we do not have an aircraft carrier, we will not lose the northern fleet.
  8. podgornovea
    podgornovea 21 May 2016 10: 39
    +5
    A nuclear submarine or an aircraft carrier instead of tanks?

    "- Winnie the Pooh for you honey or condensed milk?
    - Both, and you can do without bread "
    wink
    1. St_tov
      St_tov 22 May 2016 05: 16
      0
      Without bread - this is without a population, you have to understand?
  9. Schultz
    Schultz 21 May 2016 10: 52
    +2
    I know Konstantin Valentinovich how I want to answer the opponents of Russian aircraft carriers as a patriot and a fighter for the revival of the aircraft carrier wing as part of the Russian Navy - according to project 1143, it was planned to create not one, but not five, but fifteen aircraft carrying cruisers (named after the capitals of the Union republics) and, accordingly, the creation of 15 AUGs, which ensured a certain parity with the fleets of the probable enemy - and, taking into account the foreign navies operating at that time, it would be possible to quickly solve the combat tasks of the fleet in the regions of presence.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 21 May 2016 11: 07
      +6
      Quote: Schultz
      Under the 1143 project, it was planned to create not one and not five, but fifteen aircraft-carrying cruisers

      Eco you, Alexander, have enough !!!!! Project 1143.4 "Baku" by and large was the last in this project, the next two, in theory, are completely different projects, and God himself ordered "Ulyanovsk" to assign a new index. As far as I remember, it was planned to build four types of "Ulyanovsk"!

      Quote: Schultz
      by the name of the capitals of the Union republics

      Novorossiysk and Ulyanovsk are clearly not the capital!
      1. Schultz
        Schultz 21 May 2016 11: 33
        0
        Everything does not always work out, which was previously discussed at the Politburo, but that project 1143 was sunk to please our ... - there is no doubt. And by the way "Ulyanovsk" is 1144 (or am I mistaken?)
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 21 May 2016 11: 36
          +2
          Quote: Schultz
          by the way, "Ulyanovsk" is 1144 (or am I wrong?)

          You are mistaken this 1143.7 project, drowned pr.1160.
  10. iouris
    iouris 21 May 2016 13: 50
    +2
    The task of such a country as, approximately, the Russian Federation is not to win the war, but to prevent it and at the same time not to suffer an economic "fiasco". War can be prevented by 1) surrendering, 2) keeping the US administration confident in its ability (and, most importantly, readiness) to inflict unacceptable (by their standards) damage as a result of a preemptive retaliatory strike, provided that a clearly marked "red line" passes.
    Such a "red line" may be not only the threat of a military strike, but also, for example, a policy aimed at lowering oil prices to $ 20 per American barrel and other raw materials.
    If TAKR is required for such a response, then please. But it is better to get along with cheaper solutions.
    1. St_tov
      St_tov 22 May 2016 05: 20
      0
      "pre-emptive retaliation" because of the price per barrel is strong.
    2. Come on
      Come on 22 May 2016 13: 31
      -2
      Oil prices are regulated by the market, or at least the main suppliers with lower net cost, and not the US Department of State. Well, even if you hypothetically imagine that the State Department influenced prices and oil prices collapsed, as a result of which the Russian economy collapsed, would it not be better then to shy away at those rockets who brought this economy to such a state?
  11. Verdun
    Verdun 21 May 2016 13: 53
    +2
    Quote: Valery Valery
    Two serious mistakes were made with the "Kuznetsov" tavkr:
    The problem of "Kuznetsov" is that it was created as a palliative based on the aircraft carrier, originally developed for VTOL aircraft. Even after the missile armament was removed, the displacement is clearly not enough to accommodate a full-fledged air wing with a supply of fuel and ammunition. A nuclear power plant is more suitable for a modern aircraft carrier, there is no doubt about that, since space is saved for fuel for the ship itself. But even such savings do not solve all issues within the 60 tonnes of displacement. For comparison, the US aircraft carriers of the Nimitz generation are all over 000 tons. At the same time, AUG is definitely needed, although perhaps not in the same form as in the US Navy.
  12. Photon
    Photon 21 May 2016 14: 25
    +1
    Quote: Scharnhorst
    chance

    You do not distort, and do not even distort much. You carry some garbage. Even if we assume that all 90 Nimitz aircraft are capable of completing missile defense missions, even if we allow the absence of opposition from Kuznetsov's fighters and the absence of opposition from coastal aviation. 180 sorties, and not at once, but during the day, can destroy the fleet? !!!
    Those. do not compare with the author of the article
  13. proud
    proud 21 May 2016 14: 48
    +2
    An interesting article and a logical train of thought, it’s immediately obvious that a smart person wrote an article, not like Kaptsov!
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 21 May 2016 20: 16
      +6
      Quote: proud
      you can immediately see the smart man wrote an article, not like Kaptsov!
      Two words.
      1. The article is ancient, with a lot of assumptions that are far from the real picture in terms of the composition of the forces of the parties. Has the main goal to convince the public of the need for AVU. Hence all the "tightness".
      2. Oleg does not need to be insulted! He is a smart and knowledgeable writer. He writes brightly and interestingly. He simply has a different task: "to throw the bone", to add fuel to the fire of the discussion, in order to revive the despondency of the forum, to drag it from the political chatter to the basis of military-technical problems.
      So, "all kinds of mothers are important, all kinds of mothers are needed!"
      Yours faithfully, hi
  14. Operator
    Operator 21 May 2016 14: 57
    +4
    The author of the article uses very outdated data.

    The combat radius of the F / A-18 Super Hornet deck-based is 726 km, the combat radius of the F-35C Lightning II deck-based is 1140 km, the range of the AGM-158B JASSM-ER cruise missile is 980 km, the range of the RGM / UGM-109C Tomahawk ship-based is equal to 1600 km.

    At the same time, the combat radius of the land-based Su-35S is 2000 km, the flight range of the air-based 3M-54M1 "Caliber-A" anti-ship cruise missile is 1600 km.

    Those. not a single American AUG is capable of delivering an air or missile strike on Russian territory either now or until the 2050 of the year (the deadline for the operation of the F-35C).

    Well, then why do we need a kueva cloud of aircraft-carrying ships, the Tu-22 and X-22: such as playing Cossack robbers (Indian cowboys) in the vast oceans?
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 22 May 2016 00: 18
      +3
      At first I wanted to skip and not be smart. But the principle of "flies separately, cutlets separately" does not allow you to calmly look at heresy. So:
      Quote: Operator
      The combat radius of the F / A-18 Super Hornet deck-based is 726 km, the combat radius of the F-35C Lightning II deck-based is 1140 km, the range of the AGM-158B JASSM-ER cruise missile is 980 km, the range of the RGM / UGM-109C Tomahawk ship-based is equal to 1600 km.

      1. The combat radius F / A-18 is variable, and it depends on the profile, b / load, and the presence of the PTB. Therefore, R = 740-1065km. But this is not the limit. The encounter battle with Kuzey Avu Nimitz practiced at D = 1600km. This is a word.
      2. The combat radius of the F-35C also depends on the take-off method: vertical, shortened, catapult.
      3. D floor AGM-158B JASSM-ER for stationary targets (!) = 980km. This is true. But the tactical Tomahawk flies only 600km (to be exact, then 564km).
      Quote: Operator
      the flight range of the airborne 3M-54M1 "Caliber-A" anti-ship cruise missile is 1600 km.
      No! This is the range of the BC. And in the SC all the same 600km. In the export version, so in general - 300!
      Quote: Operator
      not a single American AUG is capable of delivering an air or missile strike on Russian territory neither now nor until 2050

      More than a controversial statement! Imagine the initial database period using conventional weapons. AMG approached 200 miles to Kamchatka, lifted 40-50 CRBM carriers into the air, and before entering the country's airspace (25km from the line) launched them according to the plan of the first strike. Well, how do you like this oil painting?
      Quote: Operator
      Well, why then do we need a kueva cloud of aircraft-carrying ships, Tu-22 and X-22:
      And so that the above does not happen.
      You can, of course, stand with his pants down with a bar of soap in a knee in a bowed pose ... But, THIS IS NOT OUR STYLE TO MEET UNCALLED GUESTS !!! angry
      1. Operator
        Operator 22 May 2016 01: 34
        0
        The following "not heresy" looks funny in your analysis:
        - вертикальный takeoff F-35С;
        - "tactical" Tomahawk (I indicated another modification of the RGM / UGM-109C and its range);
        - "coolest" maximum combat radius F / A-18 in 1065 km despite the fact that the combat radius of the Su-35С is almost twice as large (i.e. deck Hornet will not reach the coast in any way);
        - data casting tactical KR "Caliber" 3M14 despite the fact that I gave the data anti-ship KR "Caliber-A" 3M54 (domestic, not export).

        All my comment simply cries out that no AUG after start hostilities will not dare to approach the Russian coast closer than 3600 km (2000 km Su-35S + 1600 km anti-ship missile "Caliber-A"), and you are all about your "principle" oil painting with a piece of soap and pants down laughing
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 22 May 2016 12: 06
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          after the outbreak of hostilities, no AUG will risk approaching the Russian coast closer than 3600 km (2000 km Su-35S + 1600 km anti-ship missiles "Caliber-A")
          It seems to me that we are talking about different things: I am talking about naval combat between naval formations, you are about striking coastal targets.
          And still. The pilot will never go to the limit of the LTX of his car. Therefore, -15% of the R combat. There remains 1300. The anti-ship gauge does not fly at 1600. The reason is as simple as 3 rubles: at an average speed of 720-800km / h, it will reach 2-2,2 hours at such a range. During this time, AMG will leave the area of ​​probable location of targets. Space at the time of the exchange of blows will be disabled on both sides. There will be no one to issue the CC.
          Next. AVU can "run away" 1000 km from the previous place of its detection in a day. This is not a bunker with known coordinates.
          Therefore, all tactical weapons are tied to their own means of detection and CC.
          AMG will operate along the coast after delivering anti-aircraft missile defense attacks on air defense / missile defense. Therefore, it is not a fact that it will be detected at all at the ranges indicated by you. Well, then in war as in war: Aegis is included in the work. Again, the airborne patrols from the AVU will not sit idle.
          Do you think stupid people were sitting in the General Staff of the Navy at the time of S.G. Gorshkov and therefore they could not solve the task of destroying AVU without the VYAV? - In vain!
          So, do not believe the PR-shares that ours, that the staff. Real data is much more modest, because when solving the problems of RO, D is always selected secured. And this is at best 0,75 from D max.
          According to your persistence, you are far from the topic.yes
          However ... Likbez over, allow me to take my leave. hi
          1. Operator
            Operator 22 May 2016 13: 41
            0
            1. I haven’t talked about the battle between the AUG and the AUG, since I consider a domestic aircraft carrier an unnecessary toy if Russia has over-the-horizon radars, multi-functional fighters, anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, strike submarines and low-frequency radio transmitters.
            And also with the severe restrictions of American steam catapults for take-off weight / combat radius of deck aircraft and the dimensions of unified launchers for launch weight / range of ship-based cruise missiles.

            2. In two hours of the RCC’s flight, the AUG order will have time to move to 100 km - a completely accessible distance for detecting surface targets with EPR from 10000 to 100000 sq m of the radar seeker of the RCC leader from 10 km altitude.

            3. You have not specified who will launch long-range cruise missiles along the coast (despite the fact that the range of the latest modification of ship-based Tomahawks with conventional warheads does not exceed 1600 km). Anyway, this "long" range is covered by the Su-35S combat radius of 2000 km.
            And also what does Su-35С have to do with ground-based air defense / missile defense facilities, which, during a special period of two hours of flight, the Tomahawks can obviously fly into the air and escape from the attack.

            4. As for the work of the Aegis, Hokaev and air patrols within a radius of 1000 km after a high-altitude blasting of the maneuvering megaton class BB above the AUG, these are adherents of US Navy and Admiral Zamvolt.

            5. Coefficients of casting distances for using various types of aviation and missile weapons work for both sides.

            PS According to your persistence in the "educational program" it is clear that you are a writer in life, not a reader laughing
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 23 May 2016 10: 29
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              According to your persistence in the "educational program" it is clear that you are a writer in life, not a reader
              Dear, having read the heresy about the VYAV of the megaton maneuvering GB BB over the AUG (Clause 4) ... I was numb! belay
              Further conversation has no ground for an exchange of views. Excuse me. stop
              (PS. The writer, reader, listener, performer, activist, leader - everything went through. I even tried to move science sideways. Fortunately, I came to my senses in time. Therefore: "nothing is new under the Moon, friend of Horatio!) yes
              1. Operator
                Operator 23 May 2016 11: 48
                0
                Well, that’s agreed - on points 1,2,3 and 5.
  15. King, just king
    King, just king 21 May 2016 16: 23
    +4
    Another modeler "Kuznetsov" against "Nimitz". Well, when you get tired of writing nonsense.
  16. voliador
    voliador 21 May 2016 16: 33
    +1
    He put a plus, but the argument, in my opinion, is somewhat biased.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 22 May 2016 11: 23
      0
      As you put it mildly
  17. serge siberian
    serge siberian 21 May 2016 17: 25
    +1
    Quote: Yak28
    Quote: Valery Valery
    RUSSIAN Navy NEEDS Aircraft carriers. THIS IS A UNKNOWN FACT.

    I agree that we need them, but they won’t be, as in Russia there are no technologies, there is no base, there is no experience in the construction of such ships. As long as Russia gives birth to 1 aircraft carrier, it will already be outdated in all respects lol .USA in the construction of aircraft carriers in life can not catch up with anyone. So we need to focus our efforts on the development of effective weapons to destroy aircraft carrier groups

    drinks however, in the 80x, the actions of imported aircraft carriers, survivability, from 7do11minutes. then all these ships were on the sight of our missiles.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2016 17: 44
      +1
      Quote: serzh sibiryak
      however, in the 80x, the actions of imported aircraft carriers, survivability, from 7do11minutes. then all these ships were on the sight of our missiles.

      two Tu-22M3 regiments under the cover of 2 fighter aviation regiments, not counting RTR and EW, as well as reconnaissance aircraft, guaranteed the destruction of an AUG with one aircraft carrier with a probability of approximately 0,8-0,9 provided that (ATTENTION!) the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Losses of attackers (that is, 50% and higher).
      7-11 minutes, yes ...
      1. Operator
        Operator 21 May 2016 21: 56
        -6
        "Attacking losses 50 percent" - yeah, when attacking the AUG with freely falling bombs in the parade line led by the regiment commander and the standard bearer laughing

        After blasting over the ACG in high atmospheric layers of a single nuclear charge of 1 Mt delivered by a ballistic missile and generating a heavy-duty EMP, the deaf-mute deaf AUG ships could be bombed without loss even with the help of Il-76.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2016 23: 42
          +3
          Unlike your fantasies of non-erotic content, I talk about the real calculations of the USSR Armed Forces to destroy the AUG. Do you dream further about ZGRLS :)))
          Quote: Operator
          After undermining over the ACG in high layers of the atmosphere of a single nuclear charge with a capacity of 1 Mt,

          Or go read something about the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion. It may help, although it is unlikely for you.
          But so, for reference - a preliminary attack on the AOG was supposed to be delivered by 6-8 missiles X-22PSI with warhead 0,2-0,35 Mt each. It was not supposed to be destroyed, but only to suppress AUG anti-aircraft defense to such an extent that a volley of several tens of X-22 in conventional equipment (of the order of 60) could oversaturate it and, with a high degree of probability, incapacitate or sink an aircraft carrier.
          1. Operator
            Operator 22 May 2016 00: 33
            -3
            You, as a historian, are probably interested in re-reading the Old Testament legends of Kuzin and Nikolsky, but it is much more interesting to understand the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion in relation to AUG.

            Therefore, enjoy Crossroads operation at your leisure to understand the complete stupidity of using more than one nuclear warhead on ships without first suppressing, but not ship’s air defense, but the radar of that air defense.

            Well, it’s not without good use that you will become acquainted with such a damaging factor of a high-altitude nuclear explosion as EMP — what it is, how many warhead units are needed to generate, power, CVO, and radius of destruction.

            After which it will be possible to talk about the need (lack of need) for the amount of RCC to be already blinded by AUG air defense.

            Regards, Engineer.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 May 2016 09: 22
              +3
              Quote: Operator
              To you as a historian

              I am not a historian :)
              Quote: Operator
              Therefore, enjoy Crossroads operation at your leisure to understand the complete stupidity of using more than one nuclear warhead on ships without first suppressing, but not ship’s air defense, but the radar of that air defense.

              But the admirals of the USSR do not agree with you :) Poor people, where are they to your heights :)
              Nobody ever intended to use ballistae on AUG. More precisely, there was such an idea (google R-27K), but the problem is that everything is easy and simple only in your kindergarten - in practice, even the control center from "Legend" did not guarantee an acceptable accuracy of a ballistic missile attack. Even with pre-guidance of a passive seeker. And the ZGRLS - that's bad luck - could not give the control center due to relatively low accuracy and other reasons.
              And besides, ZGRLS are huge in size and stationary objects, i.e. their life in a modern conflict of high intensity (especially with the use of nuclear weapons - 40 minutes from the onset of the conflict. Of course, they are invaluable as a means of warning of a first strike, but that, in general, is all.
              Quote: Operator
              Regards, Engineer.

              With all due respect - what exactly are you developing? I believe that by informing visitors to VO this information, you will save a lot of lives - we simply will not buy it (or use it).
              1. Operator
                Operator 22 May 2016 14: 08
                -2
                History is your calling.

                Domestic admirals did not and do not intend to use the ICBM BB on ships, in fact, high-altitude explosions of megaton nuclear charges are designed to disable AUG radars before the RCC exit due to a radio horizon.

                Russian over-the-horizon radars are used for target designation on the AUG onshore missile systems, ground-based aviation and strike submarines at positions in the World Ocean in a special period up to the moment start nuclear conflict.
                After the launch of American missiles and the departure of aviation at the last coordinates received by the AUG, the return launch of Russian missiles and the departure of aviation are carried out.
                Whether after that over-the-horizon radars will be destroyed does not bother anyone.

                I develop hardware and software systems for industrial use. What are you developing?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 May 2016 17: 44
      +2
      Quote: serzh sibiryak
      however, in the 80x, the actions of imported aircraft carriers, survivability, from 7do11minutes. then all these ships were on the sight of our missiles.

      two Tu-22M3 regiments under the cover of 2 fighter aviation regiments, not counting RTR and EW, as well as reconnaissance aircraft, guaranteed the destruction of an AUG with one aircraft carrier with a probability of approximately 0,8-0,9 provided that (ATTENTION!) the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Losses of attackers (that is, 50% and higher).
      7-11 minutes, yes ...
  18. Aurelius
    Aurelius 21 May 2016 17: 31
    +3
    - This is a Nimitz-type aircraft carrier, three to four missile cruisers (Ticonderoga) and a destroyer (Orly Burke), three to four destroyers (Spryuens) and a frigate,
    The SF can set up against this AUG strike force of diverse forces consisting of two or three nuclear missile submarines (SSGN) of project 949, two or three multipurpose nuclear submarines of project 971, 945, two missile cruisers - one each of projects 1144 and 1164 and up to 8-10 surface ships of a destroyer class (project 956), a large anti-submarine ship (project 1155), a frigate (project 22350).

    What an interesting thought experiment, however! Against the AUG of the past, judging by the presence in its composition of the two thousandth spruces written off at the beginning, we will put up ten destroyers and NPCs (project 956, of which there are as many one laughing and 1155, of which 4 roofing felts, 5 roofing felts) + to poor fellow Gorshkov, who will be transferred to the fleet by the end of the year, and then according to plan.
    A serious short article, interesting ...
  19. mav1971
    mav1971 21 May 2016 18: 26
    +4
    Article minus.
    Since, although the author claims to be objective, many factors are not taken into account.
    Lack of aboard our aircraft carrier - AWACS, PLO, RTR, EW, RCC carriers with a sane range of fire.
    Lack of refueling or suspension modules for refueling in the air.
    3-4 times the smaller composition of combat aircraft.
    A much smaller combat radius and combat load due to the lack of a catapult, and therefore the need for certain maneuvers, courses and speeds to ensure takeoff.
    Much weaker avionics capabilities of our aircraft.
    If the system calculates according to the weakest component, then our aircraft carrier is the entire weak link. As if who did not want to.
    Compare Americans and us in aircraft carriers - on a par - can only be an amateur lover of spherical horses in a vacuum. To whom Sivkov always belonged.

    The second one. In the event of a clash in the North Atlantic, the NATO fleet will participate. And these are dozens of modern IJIS-compatible ships. Working in a single information field. Automated. They have nothing to do at home. They will lock up our fleet with a whole bunch. Accordingly, the number of ships in the enemy will be overwhelmingly superior. Sivkov again does not take this into account. Almost all enemy naval aviation will be there too. Both German and English, and everyone on the heap.

    Output.
    The author draws ridiculous conclusions based on purely speculative, completely divorced from realities, fantasies.
    Patriotism, divorced from life, leads in the 41 year, and terrible losses.
    Sivkova shoot as an enemy of the people! Well, or at least take away the keyboard.
  20. nik230794
    nik230794 21 May 2016 22: 46
    -1
    The only Russian aircraft carrier cruiser Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov for me personally has become a kind of symbol of the entire Russian Navy, along with the Project 1144 heavy nuclear missile cruisers and the Moscow missile cruiser. In connection with the reunification with Crimea and the final consolidation of the Sevastopol naval base and basing points on the peninsula for Russia, it would be nice to think about the issue of strengthening the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the future with its own aircraft carrier.
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 22 May 2016 08: 38
      +1
      The Black Sea Fleet has the most powerful aircraft carrier in the world - the Crimean Peninsula.
    2. Idiot
      Idiot 22 May 2016 08: 38
      0
      The Black Sea Fleet has the most powerful aircraft carrier in the world - the Crimean Peninsula.
  21. red_october
    red_october 22 May 2016 00: 26
    +1
    The article apparently lay in the author's desk for a long time.
    It writes about the 12 Su-33 and 14 MiG-29K, although at the beginning of the 2016 of the year, the 24 MiG-29K / CUB was in service.
    I think by the end of the year, when Kuznetsov will be off the coast of Syria, there will be material for reflection on the future fate and use of this particular aircraft carrier, and, possibly, the prospects for building new aircraft carriers in general.
  22. Aurelius
    Aurelius 22 May 2016 05: 31
    +2
    Quote: nik230794
    it would be nice to think about the issue of strengthening the Black Sea Fleet of Russia in the future with its own aircraft carrier.

    Why in a puddle aircraft carrier? Aviation will fly to Crimean airfields from any point of the sea without refueling
  23. St_tov
    St_tov 22 May 2016 05: 33
    0
    The likelihood that an extraordinary plenary session will happen, with the exposure of an anti-people group that tried to trick the Russian Federation into another arms race, followed by a nuclear conflict, significantly exceeds the probability of the events described in the article.
  24. sivuch
    sivuch 22 May 2016 11: 32
    +1
    The air group was also specific - 24 Su-33 fighters, which could potentially be equipped for the use of the Moskit anti-ship missile (successful tests were carried out).
    Is it possible from this moment on in more detail? When were such tests carried out? Throwing or for a real purpose? Because I read the exact opposite - there were no real improvements on the use of the Mosquito. And the famous photos of the Su-33 with the Mosquito model at the exhibition, Of course, I saw it. It didn’t go further than these Wishlist. Moreover, you can see how many years the Indians have been messing around to add a much lighter Bramos to the MKI
  25. Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 23 May 2016 09: 57
    +1
    The article is outdated by a minimum of 20 years, since so many surface ships the SF simply does not have. And the efficiency of those who stand in line is not something that is earlier. Unfortunately, our SF squadron has been disbanded, the ships will perform maximum missions to cover the near sea zone about any long trips and battles with 7 or any other US fleet
  26. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 28 May 2016 10: 56
    0
    If only one of you, "couch strategists", had at least 1 month. If I had been on the "crocodile" (Project 1143), I would have quickly tempered my naval ardor !? Out of 8 main boilers 6 "flow" (max. Stroke - 14 knots), out of 6 steam jet (?) Cold. machines "cool" max. 2-3, desalination plants "salt" and "flow" - full LJJJJH !!!! Are you talking about the "sublime" - our AUG on their AUGs: according to Sivkov, "the greatest strategist and tactician of all times and peoples" as 0,3 to 1,0? It is funny and sad at the same time! Better to be quiet. can you pass for the clever?
  27. solombalec
    solombalec 13 June 2016 23: 12
    +1
    Who will let the adversary’s ACS go into combat use in the event of armed conflict (war) between the United States and Russia? Nuclear strike and - solid vapor and molecules. There can be no other war.
  28. fif21
    fif21 11 October 2016 10: 39
    0
    Quote: GSH-18
    And the Americans built them only so that our effortlessly drown them on occasion. Now the opinion in the media is changing. This is thought for a reason. Perhaps in the foreseeable future we will see aircraft carriers as part of our Navy
    AUG battle with modern weaponry? Cavalry against Katyushas! What matters is the opinion of experts, not the media. Whether Russia needs floating airfields or not, that is the question. Does Russia intend to defend its interests with the help of weapons? Are there countries with which Russia has no land borders, and these countries pose a threat to the security of the Russian Federation and its allies? If there is, then there should be floating airfields, like landing ships. The only question is money and time. The experience of Japan and the United States in converting civilian ships into aircraft carriers is interesting here. hi
  29. fif21
    fif21 11 October 2016 10: 58
    0
    Quote: St_tov.
    The likelihood that an extraordinary plenary session will happen, with the exposure of an anti-people group that tried to trick the Russian Federation into another arms race, followed by a nuclear conflict,

    Your flag left us no chance. Russia will never be the "six" of the United States, and the United States will never agree to lose its "exclusivity." In my understanding, the United States is "cowboys" committing crimes against humanity, imposing their rules, with the help of weapons, on the whole world.
    And this "lawlessness" must end. We are peaceful people, but our armored train is on a side track. hi
  30. prawdawsegda
    prawdawsegda 13 November 2016 00: 34
    0
    To have modern weapons for the Armed Forces, we need people like Kosygin, Maslyukov, Ustinov, who knew how to organize industry. Everything else we have is and will be. You’ve divorced a camomile, you need an aircraft carrier, you don’t need it. Of course we need more than one if we can!