Military Review

Media: "Admiral Kuznetsov" will be repaired and upgraded in 2017 g

98
Modernization of the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" will begin in the 1 quarter of 2017 g, reports MIC with reference to tass.




"Work on the ship will begin after his return from a long voyage to the Mediterranean Sea in the first quarter of 2017, and will last two or three years," a defense industry source told the agency.

"The Defense Ministry’s State Contract with USC for repairs with the modernization of an aircraft carrier amounting to several billion rubles for the Nevsky PKB technical project is ready, it will be signed in June," he added.

According to the interlocutor, “a service contract has already been concluded for Kuznetsov under the command of the Northern fleet».

At which enterprise the work will be carried out is still unknown, but according to the source, the main contenders are Sevmash and Zvezdochka.

He noted that “the emphasis in modernization will be placed on the aircraft carrier’s takeoff deck, including the replacement of the cover, brake machines, aerofinisers and other elements of the take-off complex”.
Photos used:
http://3mv.ru/
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. oleg-gr
      oleg-gr 26 May 2016 11: 35
      +6
      We will look forward to appearing after the repair. There Nakhimov will be updated, they will put Peter on modernization.
      1. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 26 May 2016 11: 45
        +1
        Yes, the work remains for the Navy colossal .... Good luck !!! Maybe at least 10 years later the Russian fleet will approach the Soviet Navy
      2. Kibalchish
        Kibalchish 26 May 2016 12: 12
        +11
        Poor "Kuzya", he is at the docks more often than out to sea. Our fleet is worn out thoroughly, and the replacement of the old ships is not even foreseen yet.
      3. GSH-18
        GSH-18 26 May 2016 12: 16
        +1
        He noted that "the emphasis in modernization will be placed on the takeoff deck of an aircraft carrier, including the replacement of cover, brake machines, aerofinishers and other elements of the takeoff complex"

        As you do not upgrade the baobab, it will be a baobab for a thousand years until it dies! lol
        We need a new nuclear aircraft carrier, no one argues with this in the Ministry of Defense. How long can you play with TAKRs and burn people's money? This aircraft carrier against AUG in military terms is nothing, and this is a no brainer. Even under the USSR, construction of the first atomic Soviet aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk" began in Nikolaev, which was then cut into scrap metal.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 12: 32
          +1
          Quote: GSH-18
          We need a new nuclear carrier,

          tribes to tame?
          Quote: GSH-18
          no one is arguing with this already in Moscow Oblast.

          and then ... to cut, not to cut ....
          Quote: GSH-18
          TAKRy play, pop money?

          right now the defenders of "Kuzi" will tear them into ribbons ...
          Quote: GSH-18
          This TAKR against AUG in military terms does not represent anything from itself, this is a no brainer.

          amen ... nothing to add ...
          Quote: GSH-18
          Even during the Soviet era, construction of the first atomic Soviet aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk" began in Nikolaev, which was then cut for scrap.

          and thank God ... who needs rot? Would the Chinese have gone again? ... lads, calm down already, we no longer have problems, how to create costly, nafig unnecessary AUG? What are we, states? we have other priorities, and those are mainly in the northern seas, where AUG-do not work. "Will" lock "us" Middle-earth "and" Baltic "- where will we rush from the" quiet "? we will solve the problem from the ground, well ... from under the water! wink
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 26 May 2016 12: 40
            +5
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            tribes to tame?

            No, buddy Yurich, not tribes. And to tear our fleet off the coast and control the ocean zone as it should. Cover our submarines and nuclear submarines and ship groups, refuel strategists at sea, and much more that our Navy cannot do now.
            And if this did not convince you, then ask yourself why the Aircraft carriers of India and China. They are already actively using them and new ones have already been laid on the stocks. And we, like suckers, continue to reassure ourselves with all sorts of Soviet fairy tales about the fact that aircraft carriers are not what we would not need, but are also very unhealthy wassat fool
            1. g1v2
              g1v2 26 May 2016 13: 31
              0
              China needs it because it has a conflict over territorial waters. Plus Taiwan. India needs it, because the PRC has means and they should have it.
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 26 May 2016 13: 34
                +4
                Quote: g1v2
                India needs it because the PRC has means and they should have

                Iron logic! And we do not need, because the states have 11 pieces! wassat good
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 26 May 2016 14: 42
                  +3
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Iron logic! And we do not need, because the states have 11 pieces!

                  Needed but only now what will you provide it with, what kind of cover? Soviet junk? You look how old our Sarychs, Orlans and Atlantes with Petrels how old ... First, this fleet of frigates, destroyers, corvettes, RTOs needs to be restored and updated and not forgotten about new submarines, and then you can will talk about something.
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 26 May 2016 14: 48
                    +1
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    It is necessary, but only now why will you provide it with what kind of cover

                    Not a cover-up is a misconception about the composition of AUG. The composition of the AUG is determined depending on the spectrum of possible threats in the patrol area. If I may say so, escort ships are not assigned to an aircraft carrier.
                    According to this equipment AUG is free. You can even equip Soviet cruisers, it is only a question of the effectiveness of the entire AUG.
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 26 May 2016 14: 50
                      +2
                      Quote: GSH-18
                      it is only a question of the effectiveness of the whole AUG.

                      So am I about the same thing! Threats, weapons, doctrines have changed since the time of the union.
            2. drunkram
              drunkram 26 May 2016 13: 57
              0
              China has the same tribes nearby, but who do we have? homeless people in Syria can be bombed from the ground.
              By the way "Ulyanovsk" is TAVKR
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 26 May 2016 14: 10
                +1
                Quote: drunkram
                By the way "Ulyanovsk" is TAVKR

                Well, yes, he was so called in the USSR because of the then doctrine. Although this is a clear atomic ocean carrier with a full wing:


                Performance characteristics

                dimensions

                Displacement:


                85000 t
                according to other data: standard - 60000 t, full - 79758 t

                Length:


                323,7 m

                on the waterline 302,6 m

                Width:


                39,5 m

                Draft:


                about 10,7 m

                Flight Deck Length:
                323,7 m

                Flight deck width:
                75,5 m

                Power point

                A type:
                Nuclear power plant (4 reactors, 4 steam turbines)

                Number of Shafts:
                4

                Power:
                about 240000 hp

                Speed, cruising range

                Speed:


                30 knots

                Navigation range:


                ND

                Autonomy:
                ND

                weaponry

                Near 80 (according to other 60-85 data) of airplanes and helicopters
                (Su-27, Su-25, Ka-32, Yak-44 (DRLO))
                16 PU PKRK "Granit"
                4 x 6 PU ZRK SM-9 (192 missiles)
                8 x 30-mm 6-ti anti-aircraft guns AK-630M
                8 installations of the Dirk complex (each with 2 x 30-mm guns and 3М-88 anti-aircraft missiles, 256 missiles, 48000 shells)
                2 PU anti-submarine and anti-torpedo complex RPK-5 / Boa-1 (60 missiles)
                2 catapult.
                -------------------------------------------------- ------
                That's what we lost because of the tagged and its rearrangement!
                And now, let's go wild with an experimental transitional ship and its modernization!
            3. Inok10
              Inok10 26 May 2016 14: 05
              +5
              Quote: GSH-18
              No, buddy Yurich, not tribes. And to tear our fleet off the coast and control the ocean zone as it should. Cover our submarines and nuclear submarines and ship groups, refuel strategists at sea, and much more that our Navy cannot do now.

              ... let me take part in the dialogue ... hi ... this issue needs to be approached somewhat more comprehensively ... the aircraft carrier itself or its presence, of any displacement it would not be and no matter how many in number its aircraft group does not constitute any military unit ... accordingly, it needs a grouping of ships providing air defense and anti-aircraft defense ... about refueling strategists with the capabilities of a deck-based tanker, you made me laugh hard ... laughing ... that is, a conversation about the fact that now the design image of a combat unit is being formed as the AUG of the Russian Navy, a destroyer is being designed, an aircraft carrier is being designed ... that is, systematic work is underway ... and it is too early to write off even Kuznetsov, having aboard a very modest air group, its capabilities are quite serious ... SU-33 with a combat radius of 1500 km. and Onyx with a range of 500 km. this is very serious ... the main caliber of the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet has something in the region of 800 km. ... the number of aircraft on board and the displacement is not always quality ... hi
              Quote: GSH-18
              And if this did not convince you, then ask yourself why the Aircraft carriers of India and China. They are already actively using them and new ones have already been laid on the stocks. And we, like suckers, continue to reassure ourselves with all sorts of Soviet fairy tales about the fact that aircraft carriers are not what we would not need, but are also very unhealthy

              ... did someone say that we do not need AUG as part of two fleets of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet? ... and don’t forget, neither India nor China had 1991 with a change in the socio-economic system and territorial losses ... objectivity, from my point of view, is more important than emotionality ... hi
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 26 May 2016 14: 20
                0
                Quote: Inok10
                the aircraft carrier itself or its presence, of any displacement, it would not be and no matter how many in number its aircraft group does not constitute any military unit

                This is a serious statement! And nothing so that the aircraft carrier is capable of putting up to 120 aircraft against you, including up to 60-70 attack aircraft with the entire spectrum of missiles. And these attack aircraft will have target designation for YOU much earlier than you against the Aircraft Carrier, thanks to the presence of AWACS in the deck group of aircraft. And they will shoot YOU from under the radio zone (that is, you will not see them) with anti-ship missiles. In rotation and each time from a different place. How do you like this "not representing any combat unit" Aircraft carrier? Estessno, Aircraft carriers do not go one by one, this is logical. AUG is a synergy of the maritime and aviation components. In AUG, everyone defends each other and attacks in a consolidated manner. That's the whole concept request
                1. xtur
                  xtur 26 May 2016 15: 42
                  +1
                  > And nothing so that the aircraft carrier is able to put up to 120 aircraft against you

                  not many planes can fly into the air at the same time

                  > And these attack aircraft will have target designation for YOU much earlier

                  their AWACS sees aircraft at about 300-400km and breaks away from the aircraft carrier at about the same distance. So that if you knowwhere the enemy AUG is located, then everything is not at all as sad as it looks at first glance
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 26 May 2016 16: 31
                    0
                    Quote: xtur
                    not many planes can fly into the air at the same time

                    Well, our takr is several times smaller. This is despite the fact that today only 12-14 takra aircraft can be used in rotation, the rest will be replaced by ballast.
                    Here the issue is not the quantity, but the intensity of rotation of the aircraft carrier wing, which is much higher than that of the ground airfield. And that means that his efficiency is incomparably higher. An aircraft carrier is a kind of specialized air conveyor for servicing, reloading, basing and indirectly through the same aircraft DRLO-target designation, planning and control for its attack aircraft.
                    Quote: xtur
                    So if to know where the enemy AUG is located, then everything is not at all as sad as it looks at first sight

                    Such conditions in naval military affairs (if) are unacceptable, as they lead to a guaranteed rout. Enemy AUG is not anchored, therefore you will need target designation online. And without deck-mounted AWACS it is almost impossible. Even the satellites are not helpers in this.
                2. Inok10
                  Inok10 26 May 2016 18: 08
                  +5
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  This is a serious statement! But it’s nothing so that an aircraft carrier can set up to 120 aircraft against you, including 60-70 attack aircraft with a full range of missiles.

                  ... removed the minus ... this is such a fashion for VO now, it’s stupid to embed the minus when two people talk in the hope that they will throw each other back ... well, this is a lyrical digression ... and now essentially ... stop, stop stop ... what are these 120 ?! ... no more than 90 aircraft! ... and, in fact, no more than 70 aircraft, given the fact that sometimes there is a need to put everything in the hangar ... there is still a difference, and it matters ... more about the composition of the Nimitz type air group (the main type is now) ...
                  F-18 - 48 pcs. - fighter / attack aircraft
                  EA-6B - 4 pcs. - EW aircraft
                  E-2C - 4 pcs. - aircraft AWACS
                  C-2A - 2 pcs. deck carrier
                  SH-3H - 8 pcs. - helicopter
                  ... this is a real air group ... if you take into account the peculiarity of taking off with the use of steam catapults and their location on the flight deck ... then the maximum Nimitz will be able to lift 1,5 aircraft of a mixed air group in air in 20 hours ... at the same time, when the last 20th will take off, the first one taking off will already use up half of the fuel ... 3 hours in the air or 800 km. combat radius ... so that the take-off of a mixed air group of 10 LA 5 in assault equipment + 5 cover in fighter aircraft looks more real, Nimitz will pick up such a group in about 20 minutes. when using 3 catapults, 3 minutes per flight 1 aircraft in the ideal case ... that is, 10 aircraft in the air ... respectively, no 60-70 shock subsonic Harpoons throwing me with a maximum range of 150 km. out of the question ... it's a fantasy ... agree ... hi
                  ... Kuznetsov’s certainly more modest, but even so it’s not all so neglected ... if you take the basing of a mixed air group, taking into account the need to put everything in the hangar (in the picture):
                  SU-33 - 8 pcs.
                  MiG-29K - 16 pcs.
                  K-31 - 4 pcs. - AWACS
                  K-27 - 4 pcs. - PLO / PS
                  ... that is, full combat 24 units ... 8 of which have a combat radius of 1500 km. ... the remaining 16ti 1000 km. ... and yet not an unimportant moment, we don’t have catapults ... therefore, it’s really possible to fly 5 aircraft into the air in 12 minutes from two launch points ... here’s an AWAC in the form of a K-31 and we have a short 150 km. for a target like a fighter ... but this can be compensated by the on-duty couple SU-33 ... hi
                  1. Inok10
                    Inok10 26 May 2016 18: 11
                    +2
                    Quote: Inok10
                    on the picture

                    ... did not cling ... the location of the aircraft in the Kuznetsov hangar ... hi
                  2. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 26 May 2016 19: 04
                    0
                    Quote: Inok10
                    this is a real air group

                    The fact is that there may be more than one aircraft carrier in the AUG! For example: a large atomic power group will consist mainly of an attacking air wing (because the rotation is higher by definition), and a light (smaller displacement) air group will be equipped with AWACS and PLO aircraft, something like this. There are sea options request
                    Quote: Inok10
                    Kuznetsov’s certainly more modest, but even so, not everything is so neglected

                    Kuznetsov can really set a maximum of 12 attacking aircraft in rotation, against 60 AUGs. This ratio speaks for itself.
                    1. Inok10
                      Inok10 26 May 2016 19: 24
                      +4
                      Quote: GSH-18
                      The fact is that there may be more than one aircraft carrier in the AUG! For example: a large atomic power group will consist mainly of an attacking air wing (because the rotation is higher by definition), and a light (smaller displacement) air group will be equipped with AWACS and PLO aircraft, something like this. There are sea options

                      ... the conversation went beyond the possibilities of one ... the expansion of the warrant was not discussed ... yes, let's recall the geography and climatic zones ... everything ordered by the Norwegian and Barents Sea steam catapults was ordered 10 months a year, Northern 6 months, it's cold there however all this time very , the catapult will freeze ... laughing
                      Quote: GSH-18
                      Kuznetsov can really set a maximum of 12 attacking aircraft in rotation, against 60 AUGs. This ratio speaks for itself.

                      ... can only be in the air from 48! only 10 maximum ... I’ve already figured out why ... Kuznetsov puts an equal number in the air, and at least 4 of them will twice exceed the mattresses in combat radius ... laughing
                      ... so, what we have in the bottom line ... that the magnificent atomic Nimitz, can really only hold 10 aircraft in the air, if with a lunch break (just kidding) then two groups with a gap of at least an hour of 10 aircraft ... Well, it’s not like 60 doesn’t come out, they simply can’t fit on board so much ... well, the modest Kuznetsov answers the same ... 10 times or in two flights of 10 with the same interval of at least an hour ... hi
                      1. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 26 May 2016 20: 14
                        0
                        Quote: Inok10
                        the conversation went beyond the possibilities of one ... the extension of the order was not discussed

                        AUG is a living structure, so it is valuable.
                        But if you want to isolate the Aircraft Carrier from the AUG ... Even the Americans have different ones. The most powerful atomic shock-real, up to 120 aircraft.
                        Quote: Inok10
                        Norwegian and Barents Sea ordered 10 months a year

                        Why not? There, the NATO squadron as part of the Aircraft Carrier is constantly present. It is for this reason that the atomic flagship "Peter the Great" was assigned to the Northern Fleet, and the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov", which had fled from the then Ukrainian Sevastopol, was also credited there.
                        Quote: Inok10
                        only in the air can be out of 48! only 10 maximum ... already figured out why ... Kuznetsov puts an equal number in the air, and even a minimum of 4 of them will twice exceed the mattresses in combat radius

                        Oh! belay Where did you subtract such things? Look at the propulsion system, the number of lifts, catapults and aerofinishers of a standard American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and the same on board the Kuzi, which runs on fuel oil. Already by the type of power plant it is clear where there is more and where what works faster.
                  3. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 26 May 2016 19: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Inok10
                    Kuznetsov’s certainly more modest, but even so, everything is not so neglected ... if you take the basing of a mixed air group taking into account the need to put everything in the hangar (in the picture):
                    SU-33 - 8 pcs.
                    MiG-29K - 16 pcs.
                    K-31 - 4 pcs. - AWACS
                    K-27 - 4 pcs. - PLO / PS

                    You are somewhat wrong in imagining the combat work of an aircraft carrier. The main indicator of the power of an aircraft carrier is not the number of aircraft based on it. The main indicator for an aircraft carrier is ROTATION LA. Well, that is, how much LA per unit of time is it capable of sending for a long time to the task and taking back. A set of measures is used to increase rotation. This is an increase in the length of the deck, an increase in the number of catapults, aerofinisher, hangar lifts, an increase in the power of EA. Therefore, all the last Amerikosov carriers are completely atomic. Catapults work on steam, but you don’t boil a lot of fuel oil request These are the cakes ...
                  4. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 26 May 2016 19: 53
                    0
                    Quote: Inok10
                    what are 120?

                    On fresh American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, this amount can actually be shoved and used to the fullest.
              2. GSH-18
                GSH-18 26 May 2016 16: 17
                +1
                Quote: Inok10
                SU-33 with a combat radius of 1500 km. and Onyx with a range of 500 km. this is very serious ... the main caliber of the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet has something in the region of 800 km. ... the number of aircraft on board and the displacement is not always quality ... hi

                Before entering into a discussion, it does not hurt to read about standard tactical techniques for the use of carrier-based aircraft. Then many questions will disappear and much will become clear. And you will undoubtedly become the location of the Russian Ocean Carrier Fleet hi
                1. Inok10
                  Inok10 26 May 2016 18: 26
                  +2
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Before entering into a discussion, it does not hurt to read about standard tactical techniques for the use of carrier-based aircraft. Then many questions will disappear and much will become clear. And you will undoubtedly become the location of the Russian Ocean Carrier Fleet

                  ... the above is answered in great detail ... hi
              3. Sergeant Pank
                Sergeant Pank 26 May 2016 19: 02
                +1
                Su-33 with a mosquito never took off. There is rather hope for Migi, and that they will be screwed with adequate RCC.
                1. GSH-18
                  GSH-18 26 May 2016 19: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Sergeant Pank
                  Su-33 with a mosquito never took off. There is rather hope for Migi, and that they will be screwed with adequate RCC.

                  Estessno! The 33rd stupidly will not lift it with such a short run-up and this wretched rudiment-springboard. And if he is very lucky and the headwind allows him to do this, then he has no chance to sit down with this foolishness. And dumping into the sea is painfully expensive. That was why there were no attempts.
                  Hope for deck twinks with TAKR ephemeral, the problem is the same, the ship is short. And the insufficient combat radius of the twinks. Although, of course, they can be crammed more than Sushka. But this generally will not affect the combat capabilities of the TAKR-rotation remains the same request
            4. NEXUS
              NEXUS 26 May 2016 14: 38
              +2
              Quote: GSH-18
              No, buddy Yurich, not tribes. And to tear our fleet off the coast and control the ocean zone as it should.

              It’s too early to talk about this. First, the coastal and marine component of the fleets needs to be updated so that comrades like Japan, Turkey, Norway, etc., sit quietly and do not rock the boat, that is, regain control of the seas and strengthen our shores. And then calmly start building ships ocean zone: destroyers, frigates, etc., without forgetting about support ships. And only after that you can think about the serious construction of an aircraft carrier (namely an aircraft carrier, not an aircraft carrier cruiser). In this case, while there is time, build a shipyard under the ocean vessels to lay not one aircraft carrier or the same destroyer of 15000 tons, but two, in order to at least understand something from this.
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 26 May 2016 14: 44
                +1
                Quote: NEXUS
                It's too early to talk about it.

                The main thing is not to be late.
                The states and their Eurovassals are against us. They laid us with bases. They walk in the Black Sea in a rotational mode, conduct exercises at our borders, their spy planes are already sickened up ... you can continue to list them. Will you say that early?
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 26 May 2016 14: 55
                  +3
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Will you say that early?

                  Yes, I will! And stop talking about NATO bases. This is not a blunder of our Navy but of the special services. The corresponding work was not carried out and we received orange coups one after another on the lands of our interests.
                  In order not to look offended, one should remember what the special services get money for and what kind of work they have to do. Then, when the "cleaning" of the territories from orange garbage begins, then there will be no new bases and the old ones will retreat in the future.
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 26 May 2016 16: 49
                    0
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    And stop talking about NATO bases. This is not a blunder for our Navy but for special services.

                    No matter now, whose fault it is. At the moment, this is reality. Fucking reality for us. For us and for our Navy as well.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    it would be necessary to recall what special services receive money for and what kind of work they should conduct

                    Here is an article about our Navy and not about our special services. And discussing the "supposedly yes" option is in any case meaningless request
          2. GSH-18
            GSH-18 26 May 2016 12: 41
            0
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            right now the defenders of "Kuzi" will tear them into ribbons ...

            That they can lol
          3. GSH-18
            GSH-18 26 May 2016 12: 48
            +2
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            and thank god ... who needs rot? would the Chinese again leave? ..

            Do you think where it went? That's where it went. And China now has, if I am not mistaken, three aircraft carriers. Why are they for China?
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            tribes to tame?
  2. vglazunov
    vglazunov 26 May 2016 11: 30
    0
    It’s interesting, when will the new projects be in operation, or all to China and India at the price of scrap metal for disarmament?
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 11: 45
      +5
      Quote: vglazunov
      It’s interesting, when will the new projects be in operation, or all to China and India at the price of scrap metal for disarmament?

      I hope the high-quality fireclay brick will be ... (without irony) they messed up with "Vikromandia" ... but in general, of course, the last century at "Petit" is already ... tired, it is necessary to change the EDU globally, but ... recourse
      1. Idiot
        Idiot 26 May 2016 12: 12
        0
        On "Vikramaditya" not ours, but the Indians screwed up. We decided to save money.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 12: 18
          0
          Quote: pft, fkb
          On "Vikramaditya" not ours, but the Indians screwed up. We decided to save money.

          what is it? our boilers were laid, and during the acceptance everything the fuck fell apart, otherwise, why would they return "back" ???!
          1. mike_z
            mike_z 26 May 2016 14: 21
            0
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            our boilers were lined up, and upon receipt everything was fucked up


            There our fault of course. It was not hell to agree to do the masonry without the use of asbestos, since we do not know how. But the customer insisted on this. Those. their fault too. In general, do not clutch at what you do not have experience in. Disgraced in my opinion. But then they got out of the situation.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. GSH-18
        GSH-18 26 May 2016 12: 21
        -1
        Quote: Andrew Y.
        Quote: vglazunov
        It’s interesting, when will the new projects be in operation, or all to China and India at the price of scrap metal for disarmament?

        I hope the high-quality fireclay brick will be ... (without irony) they messed up with "Vikromandia" ... but in general, of course, the last century at "Petit" is already ... tired, it is necessary to change the EDU globally, but ... recourse

        Yurich, it’s not EDU, but it’s time to change Petya to a normal nuclear-powered aircraft carrier!
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 12: 37
          +1
          Quote: GSH-18
          Quote: Andrew Y.
          Quote: vglazunov
          It’s interesting, when will the new projects be in operation, or all to China and India at the price of scrap metal for disarmament?

          I hope the high-quality fireclay brick will be ... (without irony) they messed up with "Vikromandia" ... but in general, of course, the last century at "Petit" is already ... tired, it is necessary to change the EDU globally, but ... recourse

          Yurich, it’s not EDU, but it’s time to change Petya to a normal nuclear-powered aircraft carrier!

          "Petya" on ... this is cool of course ... (minus is not mine, vaapche I try not to indulge in minus, if not in the cut rolls) how do you imagine THIS, and most importantly, why?
        2. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 12: 56
          0
          Quote: GSH-18
          rich, but it’s not EDU, but it’s time to change Petya to a normal nuclear-powered aircraft carrier!

          Nicholas ... Petya is a cruiser.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 26 May 2016 13: 06
            0
            Quote: Andrew Y.
            Quote: GSH-18
            rich, but it’s not EDU, but it’s time to change Petya to a normal nuclear-powered aircraft carrier!

            Nicholas ... Petya is a cruiser.

            Whimper. Bes beguiled lol Kuzyu had in mind. (article about him)
            Although, why the aircraft carrier can not be the flagship of the SF squadron? And Petya is with him! good
      4. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 12: 59
        +2
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        last century at "Petit"

        kill me in silence! "Petya" and here? an old goat started to report ... Nikolai Gerasimych, sorry crucian ... crying
  3. WYCCTPUJIA
    WYCCTPUJIA 26 May 2016 11: 31
    +1
    Who worked is tired. The lunch hour has come !!!! drinks
  4. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 26 May 2016 11: 31
    +1
    Will go to get a second youth.
  5. avvg
    avvg 26 May 2016 11: 33
    +2
    During the re-equipment and modernization of the aircraft carrier, perhaps our shipbuilders will gain experience and will be just around the corner, we will have more aircraft carriers.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 12: 22
      +1
      Quote: avvg
      During the re-equipment and modernization of the aircraft carrier, perhaps our shipbuilders will gain experience and will be just around the corner, we will have more aircraft carriers.

      our military doctrine is different, I don’t think that they will appear, at least not soon, not for us, they overlaid Sakhibych not in a "decimal" fashion! defense needs to be strengthened ...
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 26 May 2016 12: 31
        0
        It’s interesting, and who promoted this all so generously, and for what? belay
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 12: 38
          0
          Quote: GSH-18
          It’s interesting, and who promoted this all so generously, and for what? belay

          trollar - offal, in a tikhara robs ... wassat
  6. techie
    techie 26 May 2016 11: 35
    +1
    Quote: RUS96
    for well-deserved repairs

    It sounded alarmingly so with you, reminded of the wording of the pension "well-deserved rest". I hope this will be more like another vacation. And with renewed vigor in action.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 11: 48
      +1
      Quote: techie
      Quote: RUS96
      for well-deserved repairs

      It sounded alarmingly so with you, reminded of the wording of the pension "well-deserved rest". I hope this will be more like another vacation. And with renewed vigor in action.
      just a sober assessment, minus-uryapatriots, can of course be perverted as they can, but in fact, I agree with the "techie", and hell, who will convince you. cryingwho knows closely, will understand.
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 26 May 2016 12: 34
      0
      Quote: techie
      And with new forces in operation.

      From where, dear Techie, the new forces in the old unfinished trough? Which already at the time of launching did not meet those naval threats, but about the modern ones I generally keep silent.
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 12: 51
        0
        Quote: GSH-18
        Quote: techie
        And with new forces in operation.

        From where, dear Techie, the new forces in the old unfinished trough? Which already at the time of launching did not meet those naval threats, but about the modern ones I generally keep silent.

        I'm not a "techie" but, the arsenal is actually not bad, 12 × SCRC 4K80 "Granite" and, as you might guess, it will be possible to replace it with a "volcano" (which is not sickly, in itself)
        24 × PU Dagger (192 missiles)
        8 × ZRAK 3M87 “Dagger” (256 missiles) (these racquets have already proved themselves)
        2 × RBU-12000 "Boa constrictor" (60 depth charges)
        6 × AK-630 (if replaced with a "duet" it will be the same "number" ... in the end it is not bad ... almost a destroyer, but ... with carrier-based aircraft (and helicopters), I myself was also skeptical about "Kuze" old man ... yes. but if you "patch up" it is a good unit in the ranks. but damn it moved ...
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 26 May 2016 13: 24
          0
          Quote: Andrey Yurievich
          "Kuze" old man ... yes. but if you "patch" it is not a bad unit in the ranks. but damn it moved ...

          Many tried to combine the incompatible and at the same time save money. And only we "succeeded"! lol
          It is impossible to effectively place planes and missiles on one, moreover, "budget" platform. Crap turns out! request
          1. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 13: 32
            0
            Quote: GSH-18
            It is impossible to effectively place planes and missiles on one, moreover, "budget" platform. Crap turns out!

            "if you can't, but you really want to, you can!" wink Of course, not an ideal way out ... but without fish and cancer ...
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 26 May 2016 13: 38
              0
              Quote: Andrey Yurievich
              wink of course, not an ideal way out ... but on fishlessness and cancer ...

              From that and that lol
              The main thing is that we
              Quote: Andrew Y.
              cancer

              not put on occasion!
              1. Andrey Yuryevich
                Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 14: 30
                0
                Quote: GSH-18
                Quote: Andrey Yurievich
                wink of course, not an ideal way out ... but on fishlessness and cancer ...

                From that and that lol
                The main thing is that we
                Quote: Andrew Y.
                cancer

                not put on occasion!

                sailor? Russian? oh well ... we have in the peak case, there are kingstones.
                1. GSH-18
                  GSH-18 26 May 2016 14: 54
                  0
                  Quote: Andrew Y.
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Quote: Andrey Yurievich
                  wink of course, not an ideal way out ... but on fishlessness and cancer ...

                  From that and that lol
                  The main thing is that we
                  Quote: Andrew Y.
                  cancer

                  not put on occasion!

                  sailor? Russian? oh well ... we have in the peak case, there are kingstones.

                  This pose will be at the opening of kingstones laughing
                  But in general it’s not funny at all. In the sea, as in life, there are all sorts of cases. And you need to be as prepared as possible for them, so that Schaub won’t be in a pose request
  7. Petrof
    Petrof 26 May 2016 11: 40
    +1
    with the modernization of the aircraft carrier in the amount of several billion rubles ///

    but
    for me it would be better to spend money on the army - for example, communication
    or on the Strategic Missile Forces
    and why the Russian aircraft carrier - it is not clear
    for which overseas naval theaters is it intended - also in a fog of obscurity
    like Mistral
    1. mike_z
      mike_z 26 May 2016 12: 28
      0
      The Mistrals are not aircraft carriers and would really only be a burden to the fleet. Although they would be adapted. But "Kuznetsov" is a full-fledged aircraft carrier and is not even useless to support ship groups in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Moreover, he not only has planes. This is an aircraft carrier.
      1. Petrof
        Petrof 26 May 2016 12: 42
        0
        Quote: mike_z
        it’s not even useless to support ship groups in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean


        in support from whom?
        if against NATO, then this is a full-fledged nuclear war
        it’s better to spend money on more necessary things, especially in a crisis

        army is more priority than fleet

        Quote: mike_z
        Although they would be adapted


        You can chop nuts with a microscope, but is it necessary
      2. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 13: 02
        0
        Quote: mike_z
        s. But "Kuznetsov" is a full-fledged aircraft carrier

        I would say: a half-destroyer-semi-aircraft carrier .... a hybrid rarely found in nature.
      3. GSH-18
        GSH-18 26 May 2016 13: 33
        0
        Quote: mike_z
        But "Kuznetsov" is a full-fledged aircraft carrier

        I have never been, even in the project. "Kuznetsov" is not an aircraft carrier, please do not confuse friends. On a classic atomic strike aircraft carrier, a complete air group with all types of aircraft, including AWACS aircraft, which ensure the effective use of carrier-based aircraft in the oceanic zone - the delivery of missile strikes by carrier-based attack aircraft from under the radio zone (for targeting with AWACS) against enemy ship formations in rotation mode.
        TAKR cannot do this. Since there is no target designation not only for his very small group of fighters, but also for his missiles. Since the air wing ONLY fighters and attack aircraft. Yes, and its autonomy is only a month! What is the ocean zone here? request
        1. mike_z
          mike_z 26 May 2016 14: 14
          0
          Quote: GSH-18
          I have never been, even in the project. "Kuznetsov" is not an aircraft carrier, please do not confuse friends.

          I put it a little incorrectly - I did not add that "for our fleet and our doctrine." I know how Kuznetsov differs from Nimitz, etc. But it can also be used by attack aircraft with fighters and missile weapons. And he will receive target indications, because he is not alone. Everything is within the assigned tasks. Yes, this is not a full-fledged aircraft carrier, but I would not argue that the fleet does not need it.
          As a mechanic, I have more complaints about Kuza than tactics and strategists combined. I would say a couple of affectionate and designers, and builders. But this is a completely different song.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 26 May 2016 14: 40
            0
            Quote: mike_z
            And he will receive target designation, because he is not alone.

            For the effective use of carrier-based aircraft, firstly, there must be a sufficient number of them (and not a maximum of 24 as on the Kuz) and secondly, there should be AWACS in the deck group. Otherwise, you will receive target designation in the form of enemy missiles approaching you request
  8. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 26 May 2016 11: 54
    +2
    And then he will begin to work fully, or go to modernize modernization?
  9. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 26 May 2016 11: 55
    0
    It's easier to cut this "cuttlefish" on needles! Why repair a trapped horse? Easier to shoot! She will go out to sea for three days. then a month is repaired! And if on the BS, then immediately to the "overhaul", which can become endless ....
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 13: 06
      0
      Quote: KudrevKN
      It's easier to cut this "cuttlefish" on needles! Why repair a trapped horse?

      I used to adhere to a similar point of view, but, having good weapons, "Kuzya" is already becoming a full-fledged master of the region, for which the states need a whole AUG ... a small spool turns out, but expensive ..
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 26 May 2016 13: 51
        0
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        why, states, need a whole AUG

        AUG is primarily intended to control the theater’s ocean zone. And the fact that amerikoses are pushing them somewhere lately is, so to speak, not targeted but very effective from a psychological point of view, their use. AUG cannot be driven to the shores of an enemy with good naval aviation. But in the open ocean he is king!
  10. Spartanez300
    Spartanez300 26 May 2016 12: 01
    -1
    To upgrade or in the current version to sell for good money, I doubt that our fleet needs it too big a target. And with this money it’s better to build a nuclear submarine or an attack cruiser. This is my personal opinion and I ask without minuses.
    1. Idiot
      Idiot 26 May 2016 12: 14
      -1
      You will not get it.
    2. Idiot
      Idiot 26 May 2016 12: 14
      -1
      You will not get it.
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 26 May 2016 14: 02
      -1
      Quote: Spartanez300
      And with this money it’s better to build a nuclear submarine or strike cruiser

      Cruisers and nuclear submarines without air cover have very little combat stability. So without Carriers we still can not do, whatever one may say request
  11. Sergey-72
    Sergey-72 26 May 2016 12: 25
    +1
    How not to modernize, but I must admit that this is yesterday. It is necessary to build nuclear submarines and RTOs with "Calibers" - this is more needed now, IMHO.
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 26 May 2016 17: 04
      0
      Quote: Sergey-72
      How not to modernize, but I must admit that this is yesterday. It is necessary to build nuclear submarines and RTOs with "Calibers" - this is more needed now, IMHO.

      It is necessary to build a normal nuclear-powered aircraft carrier so that these nuclear submarines and MRKs do not become targets of carrier-based aircraft, like the long-suffering "Donald Cook" for our naval aviation pilots!
  12. mike_z
    mike_z 26 May 2016 12: 25
    +1
    I wonder if he can pass the channel to Severodvinsk? I remember that the translation of "Gorshkov" was worked through for a long time because of the shallow depths and the large draft of the cruiser. On the way to the plant, the pumps took a sip of silt and the diesel generator stopped, they approached the pier in the dark, since the tugs worked well. "Kuznetsov" has even more draft, about 11 meters ... I don't know how it will get into the NSR or "Zvezdochka".
    For those who doubt the need for this ship, our Navy should read good books about the Navy and keep doubts to myself. An aircraft carrier is needed. And preferably not one!
    1. Petrof
      Petrof 26 May 2016 12: 48
      0
      Quote: mike_z
      I advise you to read good books about the Navy


      I would like to read not just good books about the fleet, but about naval victories
      If you saw the film "Secret Fairway" filmed in Soviet times, how did the infantrymen who stormed Konigsberg respond about the fleet?

      feature film of course, but nonetheless. And censorship missed

      Quote: mike_z
      Aircraft carrier needed. And preferably not one!


      for what?
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 13: 12
        0
        grandfather stormed both Koenig and Pillau (Baltiysk) there was nothing bad about the fleet, except that many "striped" ones were killed ... and how boats helped out ... and worked along the coast with torpedoes and 12,7-mm machine guns ...recourse
        1. Petrof
          Petrof 26 May 2016 13: 26
          0
          Quote: Andrew Y.
          except that many "striped" were killed ...


          Are they used as infantry?

          Quote: Andrew Y.
          and worked along the shore with torpedoes and 12,7 mm machine guns


          and the main caliber?
          where was the ship artillery?
          (this is exactly what sounded in the film)
      2. mike_z
        mike_z 26 May 2016 14: 05
        +1
        Quote: Petrof
        for what?

        The question is complex and almost rhetorical. The answer in the very classification of the ship is an aircraft-carrying cruiser. In short: to support the forces of the fleet in the far sea zone. Incl. and for solving anti-submarine problems. Any AUG has many tasks. Not here to voice everything. I cannot even summarize a lecture on the use of ships of this class in modern conditions. The Secret Fairway has always been considered science fiction. And there are serious books about victories and defeats, documentaries, memoirs, and scientific ones. And from all you need to draw conclusions.
        1. Petrof
          Petrof 26 May 2016 14: 18
          -2
          Quote: mike_z
          there are victories too


          so I ask you to name them

          Quote: mike_z
          to support fleet forces in the far sea zone.


          But why do we need it, especially in a crisis
          and how much everything you need for the army can be purchased for several billion rubles - instead of swelling them in Kuznetsov
          I remember reading something like a textbook on NVP of 1940, it seems of the year, there they talked about some kind of ship, how it was well modernized
          looked on the Internet how this ship proved to be in battle - and in any way, it was blown up by a mine

          The Russian Federation is not a sea power, no matter how many seas and oceans we had around, historically it happened
          the army is the main force, and the auxiliary fleet
          and we must proceed from this, especially now, when there is no surplus of money, to put it mildly

          Yes, and naval bases abroad, we also do not have much
          Unlike.
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 26 May 2016 17: 06
      0
      Quote: mike_z
      Aircraft carrier needed. And preferably not one!

      I fully support, comrade! drinks And exactly the Carrier! No more TAKRs!
      1. mike_z
        mike_z 26 May 2016 18: 33
        0
        Quote: GSH-18
        And exactly the Carrier! No more TAKRs!


        I completely agree! Will wait...
  13. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 26 May 2016 13: 01
    0
    in order to have aircraft carriers, a decent economic potential is needed.
    and interests in other parts of the globe.
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 26 May 2016 17: 33
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      interests in other parts of the globe.

      Do you want to say that the Russian Federation does not have them?
  14. abc_alex
    abc_alex 26 May 2016 13: 20
    -1
    Quote: GSH-18
    We need a new nuclear aircraft carrier, no one argues with this in the Ministry of Defense. How long can you play with TAKRs and burn people's money? This aircraft carrier against AUG in military terms is nothing, and this is a no brainer. Even under the USSR, construction of the first atomic Soviet aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk" began in Nikolaev, which was then cut into scrap metal.


    Who is "you"? Russia? So we are a continental country, our armed forces traditionally have to defend the country on land. We do not plan to control the world's oceans, nor do we plan expansion. And we are not eager to play the role of the world gendarme. So why?

    This TAKR against AUG is worth nothing. Well, yes, and what is a first-class player worth against the US boxing team? I want to point out that even the great and terrible Nimitz is worth nothing against the AUG. Just because no ship against ten modern ships and submarines cost nothing. You do not debilitate the situation, it is not necessary.

    Yes, the USSR laid down its own atomic aircraft carrier. Only now the USSR did not just lay down the ship, it launched the PROGRAM, which, among other things, included, for example, the development of a carrier-based AWACS aircraft, which (oh, marvelous!) Was planned as an AWACS aircraft for ground forces and border guards. And the USSR had its own vision of naval battles, the main component of which were heavy anti-ship missiles with nuclear weapons as well. And an aircraft carrier was somehow built into this scheme. And now we have how many ships are ready for the warrant? AND?

    Well, the cherry on the cake. And, tell me, one nuclear-powered aircraft carrier of the Russian Federation will cost a lot against the USA AUG? And against two AUG? And three? The United States has 10 heavy aircraft carriers, at any given time they can withdraw two or three of their own against our ship. And it is true. Even if ours will hold 50 planes, 75, or 100, will be lifted against it. It doesn’t. And to us, you propose to kill ourselves in order to climb this mountain?

    Do you really not understand that the United States will put a gold statue on a 2: 1 scale to the one who wraps our shipbuilding program on an aircraft carrier race? This is an absolutely losing option.

    Carrier ships are needed. But first, you decide what tasks.
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 26 May 2016 17: 40
      +1
      Quote: abc_alex
      So we are a continental country, our armed forces traditionally have to defend the country on land. We are not planning to control the oceans ... So why?

      My friend had to learn geography at school.
      Well, okay .. Here's why:
      By the sea, Russia borders on 12 states. The length of the sea border with Norway is 23,3 kilometers, with Finland - 54 kilometers, with Estonia - 142 kilometers, with Lithuania (border with the Kaliningrad region) - 22,4 kilometers, with Poland (border with the Kaliningrad region) - 32,2 kilometers, 320 kilometers with Ukraine, 22,4 kilometers with Georgia, 22,4 kilometers with Azerbaijan, 85,8 kilometers with Kazakhstan, and 22,1 kilometers with North Korea.
      Only the sea border Russia has with the USA and Japan. These are the narrow straits that separate the South Kuril Islands from Hokkaido Island and Ratmanova Island from Kruzenshtern Island. The border with Japan is 194,3 kilometers long and 49 kilometers from the USA.
      The longest sea border (19 kilometers) runs along the coast of the seas of the Arctic Ocean: the Barents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian and Chukchi. Year-round shipping without icebreakers is only possible on the northern shores of the Kola Peninsula.

      If interested, the full text is here: http://rustrana.rf/article.php? Nid = 29608
      Continental power .. heh! And you say peacocks! lol
      But this is generally something unintelligible:
      Quote: abc_alex
      Carrier ships are needed. But first, you decide what tasks.

  15. siemens7774
    siemens7774 26 May 2016 13: 24
    +2
    Quote: Kibalchish
    Poor "Kuzya", he is at the docks more often than out to sea. Our fleet is worn out thoroughly, and the replacement of the old ships is not even foreseen yet.


    Generally done
  16. Ros 56
    Ros 56 26 May 2016 13: 26
    0
    But how much can it be repaired, probably, taking into account all the mistakes, a new one should be laid? Of course the thing is serious and powerful, but something was apparently missed in the project.
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 26 May 2016 17: 53
      0
      Quote: Ros 56
      But how much can it be repaired, probably, taking into account all the mistakes, a new one should be laid? Of course the thing is serious and powerful, but something was apparently missed in the project.

      Yes, these aircraft carriers are generally a transitional option to aircraft carriers! Their release was shut down in due time and the atomic "Ulyanovsk" was laid in Nikolaev. But they didn’t manage to finish building it-perestroika, her mother. Then the skippers on the slipway cut it and sold it to China for scrap.
      And without the aircraft carriers, the Americans and Nata will not let us into the world’s ocean, so don’t go to your grandmother yes So all the world's marine (and not only) communications will be under their sole control. What follows from this, I think there is no need to explain.
  17. arnulla
    arnulla 26 May 2016 15: 11
    0
    Carriers, of course, are good and necessary, but do not forget that they are not cheap. The life cycle of such a ship requires considerable financial resources. There will be order with the economy in the country, there will also be an aircraft carrier. In the meantime, with the economy, we frankly do not really
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 26 May 2016 17: 55
      0
      Quote: arnulla
      There will be order with the economy in the country, and there will be an aircraft carrier. In the meantime, with the economy, we frankly say not very

      And did it ever occur to you that these things are in some way interconnected?
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 26 May 2016 18: 11
        +1
        We and the existing aircraft carrier do not know what to do, but do you propose to customize yet?
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 26 May 2016 20: 54
          0
          Quote: rudolff
          We and the existing aircraft carrier do not know what to do, but do you propose to customize yet?

          The fact of the matter is that TAKR is not an aircraft carrier in the full sense of the word. This is such a hodgepodge that can not do anything properly. That's why we don’t know what to do with it. Read my comments, I do not want to repeat myself.
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 26 May 2016 21: 25
            +1
            Yes, I read the comments, and therefore called the aircraft carrier, I knew that you will not pass by! good
  18. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 26 May 2016 16: 37
    0
    Well, then there was certainty with a trip to Srdz. sea. The end of summer - autumn?
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 26 May 2016 18: 16
      -1
      Quote: chunga-changa
      Well, then there was certainty with a trip to Srdz. sea. The end of summer - autumn?

      Well, at least deck flyers will practice a little. The role of the Kuze desk is best suited to this historical moment in the development of fleets.