Military Review

News of the Russian aircraft carrier program

112
In the second half of June, several reports appeared in the domestic media about possible ways of developing one of the most interesting projects of the present time and the near future. With reference to unnamed sources, plans were announced regarding certain features of the possible construction of a Russian aircraft carrier. Last news on this topic are of great interest because they reveal some technical details of the projects.

22 June Interfax news agency revealed some details of future work. An unnamed source of the agency, associated with the situation, said that the prospective domestic aircraft carrier of the 23000 project "Storm" is likely to be equipped with a nuclear power plant. The necessary systems have already been developed, and their revised counterparts are planned to be tested during the operation of new ships. Thus, the “platform” for operational testing of a new reactor and other means of a power plant should be the nuclear-powered icebreaker “Arktika”.

The source of Interfax also appreciated the capabilities of design organizations and the shipbuilding industry. In his opinion, taking into account the time required to create the project, all the necessary work will take about eight to nine years. At the end of this period, the fleet can count on receiving a new aircraft carrier. It should be remembered that the military department has not yet ordered the development of the project and so far does not plan to build a ship with aviation group.



According to reports, the nuclear-powered icebreaker Arktika received a reactor of the RHYTHM-200 type. This system is a water-cooled reactor designed to be used as the main element of a nuclear power plant of icebreakers or floating nuclear power plants. The reactor was developed at OKBM. I.I. Afrikantov. RHYTHM-200 has a dual-circuit architecture with four steam generators. A characteristic feature of the project is the integration of steam generators into the core body. This made it possible to reduce the size and weight of the entire complex, as well as reduce the consumption of materials and reduce the likelihood of problems.

The RHYTHM-200 reactor develops thermal power up to 175 MW, which allows power plants to be supplied with power up to 30 MW. In a variant of the reactor of a floating power plant, this system is able to provide energy output up to 55 MW. The lifetime of the reactor is stated at 40 years. At one refueling with nuclear fuel, he is able to work 7 for years.

16 June The Baltic Shipyard (St. Petersburg) launched the head nuclear-powered icebreaker "Arktika", designed by 22220 / LK-60Я. This vessel is equipped with two RHYTHM-200 reactors, which provide total power on the shafts of three propellers at the level of 60 MW. Due to this, an icebreaker with a displacement of more than 33,5 thousand tons can reach speeds up to 22 knots, as well as to break through thick ice. Currently, the "Arctic" is located at the extension wall. Delivery of the vessel is scheduled for the end of next year.

Draft aircraft carrier 23000 "Storm" was developed on its own initiative by experts of the Krylov State Research Center. This project proposes the construction of a ship with a displacement of the order of 80 thousand tons, equipped with a nuclear or non-nuclear power plant. The ship must carry a flight deck with take-off positions equipped with jumps and catapults. It provides for the possibility of carrying several dozen airplanes and helicopters, and in addition, the use of weapons to protect against various threats and attack targets of various types.

Earlier, in February of this year, in the reports of the national press, interesting features of the proposed program for the construction of an aircraft carrier were mentioned. So, it was claimed that the nuclear power plant, which can be used on a new aircraft carrier, will be tested in one of the other projects. Similar systems were also proposed to be used on prospective destroyers of the “Leader” type. After operating and evaluating capabilities, such systems can be used in the construction of new ships with an aviation group.

Recent reports on the unification of the power plant are of particular interest. This year's news shows that in the shipbuilding industry there is an interesting proposal for equipping promising ships and vessels of several types. In this case, the RHYTHM-200 reactors with the corresponding equipment in different quantities can be used on icebreakers, destroyers and aircraft carriers.

It should be noted that the 23000 “Storm” project, as well as individual proposals within it, have not yet received official approval from the military and, as a result, they retain the status of initiative development with uncertain prospects. Krylov State Scientific Center for the first time showed his achievements in the field of aircraft carriers a few years ago. Since then, various details and plans of the organization have been repeatedly announced, but all of them still have not received official support from the Ministry of Defense. As a result, the real prospects of the project remain in question.

On the last day of June, new reports appeared regarding the possible timeframe for the development and construction of a new domestic aircraft carrier. The Interfax-AVN publication has received new data on this from an unnamed source in the shipbuilding industry. According to this source, the aircraft carrier construction project is still far from practical implementation.

The source said that at the moment work is underway, but they are still in the earliest stages. The aircraft carrier design phase will only begin in the 2020 year. According to current plans, the construction of the aircraft carrier will be conducted only in the twenties, but not earlier. The source of the Interfax-AVN publication hopes that by the beginning of the next decade, industry and the military will be able to form a common and unified view of cooperation and production ties that will be used during the construction of the ship.

The said deadlines for the design and construction of a promising ship, according to the source, fully fit into the logic of the development of shipbuilding in recent decades. In recent years, the industry has been engaged in the gradual development of production capacity, and further modernization of enterprises will allow the construction of large ships of large displacement by the end of the next decade.

The latest news clearly demonstrate the plans of individual organizations of the shipbuilding industry. They show that the Krylov State Scientific Center continues the development of its development, created on an initiative basis. These or those moments of the new project are being worked on, and information about such works is occasionally published in the press. The general public gets the opportunity to follow the progress of an interesting project, which in the future may have a significant impact on the image of the naval fleet Russia.

However, there is still a typical problem in the context of building new aircraft carriers. Discussion of the possibility of creating such ships continues for a long time. In addition, since the summer of 2013, there has been a discussion of the Storm project, proposed by one of the leading research and design organizations. The issue of building aircraft carriers attracts both specialists and the general public. Meanwhile, the military department is not in a hurry to plan the construction of new ships for the near future.

Representatives of the Ministry of Defense sometimes raise the topic of the aircraft carrier program, but so far only preliminary plans have been announced, which may later undergo noticeable changes. According to the latest statements of the responsible persons, the contract for the design and subsequent construction of the aircraft carrier should appear no earlier than mid-twenties. Thus, the construction of the ship, which requires a long time, will end no earlier than the thirties.

The current situation with information about plans and official reports directly indicate that at present the Ministry of Defense does not see the need for the urgent construction of a new aircraft carrier. Implementation of such programs belongs to the distant future - not earlier than the beginning of the next decade. A quicker start of work, for whatever reason, is not considered necessary.

Apparently, such a rejection of the speedy construction of an aircraft carrier has several reasons of a different nature. Development and construction of a ship with an aviation group is an extremely complex and expensive program. In addition, as part of this program, it is required to solve a host of other issues related to equipping the ship, forming an aviation group, etc. All this requires the involvement of the masses of various organizations and enterprises, as well as coordination of joint efforts and, naturally, enormous financial expenditures. Probably, while the leadership of the Ministry of Defense does not consider it necessary to start such programs.

The military are not planning to start building an aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy, but the development of such ships continues as an initiative. It can be assumed that in the near future will be published new reports on the progress of such work and the success in their implementation. It remains to follow the news and after they arrive, draw the necessary conclusions.


On the materials of the sites:
http://interfax.ru/
http://arms-expo.ru/
http://vz.ru/
http://tvzvezda.ru/
http://korabel.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
Wikimedia Commons
112 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 4 July 2016 07: 55
    +7
    The design and construction of a ship with an aviation group is an extremely complex and expensive program.

    "Where is the money, Zin ?!" V.S. Vysotsky
    1. aba
      aba 4 July 2016 08: 01
      +36
      "Where is the money, Zin ?!" V.S. Vysotsky

      For me, the timing is so much more interesting: The aircraft carrier design phase will begin only in 2020.
      Why not remember Nasruddin with his donkey and padishah ?!
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 4 July 2016 08: 36
        +7
        Dreams Dreams,
        Where is your sweetness?
        Where are you, where are you,
        Night joy?
        He disappeared
        Merry dream
        And lonely
        In the darkness deep
        I am awake.
        Pushkin
        1. Yars
          Yars 4 July 2016 15: 45
          +2
          Quote: Igor39
          Dreams Dreams,
          Where is your sweetness?
          Where are you, where are you,
          Night joy?
          He disappeared
          Merry dream
          And lonely
          In the darkness deep
          I am awake.
          Pushkin

          Don’t worry, you are "ours all", Russia will have everything, and not only this aircraft carrier !!!
          1. lelikas
            lelikas 4 July 2016 16: 08
            +7
            Quote: YARS
            Don’t worry, you are "ours all", Russia will have everything, and not only this aircraft carrier !!!

            But to live to see it, alas, many do not shine, but I would like to see.
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 4 July 2016 19: 07
              +3
              Quote: lelikas
              But to live to see it, alas, many do not shine, but I would like to see.

              I will join! But I’m sure we will all look at our first-born aircraft carrier! And we will rejoice from the heart when the arrogant smirks of the American rear admirals slowly and forever slide off their faces! yes
              1. t7310
                t7310 24 September 2016 22: 48
                +1
                so that their rear admirals have smiles sliding, they need to build orbital aircraft carriers earlier than they, for this you need to go the evolutionary path to work out the main nodes, there is one ordinary aircraft carrier - it’s not enough to build another 2 generations,

                then an underwater aircraft carrier - what is the thread

                http://s4.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2012
                /12/df6228260cc2fc9aff59a6c5a0ede004.jpg

                then floating land floating

                https://news2.ru/user_images/36694/1453635143.jpg
                http://forum.militaryparitet.com/extern.php?actio
                n = feed & tid = 4047 & type = atom

                floating earth flying generation 2

                http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article
                / 806/806647 / ace-combat-6-fires-of-liberation-2007
                0719044756644.jpg

                then what is the thread of current so that the screws turn around and work under water

                http://hobbystar.ru/pictures/galery/photo_75246_5
                .jpg

                Well, after that ....
              2. Krabik
                Krabik 21 December 2016 02: 39
                0
                forever slide off their faces


                I'm afraid the Amer’s admirals will cry with laughter when they see our aircraft carrier;)

                But the new version of granite for 1 km will cheer up the brave Amer sailors a little, unless of course by that time it will not fly on starships%))
            2. Ratmir_Ryazan
              Ratmir_Ryazan 4 July 2016 23: 39
              +3
              "Arctic" seems to have been done in three years, the aircraft carrier is of course more complicated, but I think it can also be done relatively quickly ... One or two of all you need to have, like a couple of helicopter carriers for Russia, there is nothing to think about ... Such operations as in Syria can be in the future, and we must be ready for this ...
              1. Krabik
                Krabik 21 December 2016 02: 42
                0
                We need a new catapult for him, but it has not yet been developed.

                Moorings were not built for them.

                Airplanes did not.

                And in general there are no prerequisites for the development of an aircraft carrier fleet in the Russian Federation.
          2. Nick
            Nick 4 July 2016 22: 42
            +9
            Quote: YARS
            Don’t worry, you are "ours all", Russia will have everything, and not only this aircraft carrier !!!

            As far as I understand the situation around the aircraft carrier topic, there is still no clear idea whether Russia needs super-expensive aircraft carriers in building and servicing, or is it more profitable to invest money on developing and improving the effectiveness of anti-ship weapon systems, surface, underwater, ground and air based.
            Of course, with an excess of resources, an aircraft carrier would not become an obstacle in the arsenal of the Russian Navy, but the problem is that our resources, primarily financial ones, are seriously limited, and the question arises of the most efficient use of them for the country's defense needs.
          3. Buffet
            Buffet 4 July 2016 23: 18
            +3
            on the other hand, why do we need it? okay now Kuznetsov, maybe build a Storm to replace him ... And why more? Kuznetsov does not even have AUG. The perfect target. In general, the topic was raised on VO ... pros and cons ... personally, I see 55/45 preponderance towards "against"
            1. Ratmir_Ryazan
              Ratmir_Ryazan 4 July 2016 23: 49
              +3
              Now Kuznetsov seems to be going to Syria to support our group ... What is bad? Will we always have the opportunity to prepare a base on the ground in advance and relocate planes there from Russia on our own? Not a fact ... So a couple of aircraft carriers, as well as a couple of helicopter carriers for them, are just the thing for Russia ... Yes expensive, but in the end ... If even one aircraft carrier costs $ 10, that's all 000 dollars from each citizen of the Russian Federation for the entire time of construction ... I’m ready right now to transfer this money to the construction fund of such a ship for all members of my family ... In the end, we are not buying them abroad, but we are building them all the money goes to our factories, our workers, our science ... And as far as I understand, a nuclear carrier is much more economical and safer than the same Kuznetsov, how much fuel needs to be put into it, and then the battery is for 000-000 years ... I for the construction of at least 69 such Storms !!! Even ready to chip in))) ...
              1. Nick
                Nick 5 July 2016 17: 26
                +1
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                as far as I understand, an atomic aircraft carrier is much more economical and safer than the same Kuznetsov, how much fuel you need to pour into it, and here the battery is 20-30 years old ... I am for building at least 2 such Storms !!! Even ready to chip in))) ...

                I agree, but with the availability of resources. not to the detriment of other programs.
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 4 July 2016 19: 24
          +2
          It should be remembered that the military department has not yet ordered the development of the project and so far does not plan to build a ship with an aviation group.

          Yes Yes wassat And the design bureau and the industry decided just to swell huge funds into the development of the aircraft carrier project! lol Do not tell my slippers.
          It’s just that they don’t file yet, which is completely justified.
      2. weksha50
        weksha50 4 July 2016 09: 50
        +16
        Quote: aba
        For me, timing is so much of interest: The stage of designing an aircraft carrier will not begin until 2020.
        Why not remember Nasruddin with his donkey and padishah ?!


        Probably in vain you are so ...

        There really is no money ... The budget expenditures for 2017-2019 are frozen, that is, the Moscow Region will not get a penny from the budget ...

        For our Navy, we would now have to receive submarines and warships of the coastal zone in order to secure the country, and we also need auxiliary fleet ships ...

        The construction of an aircraft carrier TODAY in Russia - simply not for the economic (and production) teeth ...

        The work carried out by the Krylovites regarding the future aircraft carrier and destroyers, as I understand it, is funded by the company ... This is a reserve for the future, especially the prototype of the power plant will already be tested on the Arctic icebreaker ...

        So we will not judge and predict who will die before, but we hope that after 2020 both the economy will recover and the aircraft carrier with destroyers will appear ...

        Some of us will not see this ... In this case, the saying about the donkey and the padishah is out of place ...
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 4 July 2016 11: 17
          0
          Design will begin after 2020, and will be built only in the 2030th.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 4 July 2016 19: 30
            +1
            Quote: Vadim237
            Design will begin after 2020, and will be built only in the 2030th.

            Have you read the article carefully? R&D is already underway! And R&D is the initial stage of development and design yes
        2. lelikas
          lelikas 4 July 2016 16: 11
          +1
          Quote: weksha50
          The work carried out by the Krylovites regarding the future aircraft carrier and destroyers, as I understand it, is funded by the company ... This is a reserve for the future, especially the prototype of the power plant will already be tested on the Arctic icebreaker ...

          On the creation of layouts, a lot is not necessary, you can throw a smoke break. Not having received TK from the fleet, nothing really can be done.
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 July 2016 16: 14
          +2
          Quote: weksha50
          There really is no money ... Budget expenditures for 2017-2019 years are frozen

          So you see at what level the spending of the military budget is frozen :) There are quite substantial amounts there.
          Quote: weksha50
          For our Navy, we would now receive submarines and warships of the coastal zone in order to secure the country

          Could you recall at least one case in history after the era of sail, when the ships of the coastal zone and submarines secured the country? :))
          Quote: weksha50
          and you still need auxiliary fleet ships ...

          Today, first of all, we need ships of 1 rank, capable of displaying a flag and projecting strength, as well as conducting military operations in remote sea regions, which, for example, is the Mediterranean. The fleet is a powerful policy tool, among other things.
          Quote: weksha50
          The construction of an aircraft carrier TODAY in Russia - simply not for the economic (and production) teeth ...

          Perhaps not right now. But they had to develop the project right now, so that at least by the end of the decade they could lay the ship of this type.
          Quote: weksha50
          The work carried out by the Krylovites regarding the future aircraft carrier and destroyers, as I understand it, is funded by the company ..

          They don’t lead - the Northern Design Bureau is engaged in the destroyer, and the aircraft carrier ... it turns out, nobody. Krylovtsi so ... modelki build. More precisely, they built it at the moment when it seemed possible to receive an order for AB.
          Quote: weksha50
          Some of us will not see this ...

          I am 41 and I'm already losing hope ....
          "Hope dies last!" - said Vera, and she shot Lyubov ...
          1. Urfin
            Urfin 5 July 2016 21: 14
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Could you recall at least one case in history after the era of sail, when the ships of the coastal zone and submarines secured the country? :))


            The question must be posed differently.
            Could you recall at least one case in the history of Russia, when the ships of the sea zone could significantly affect the security of our country?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 July 2016 22: 03
              +1
              Quote: Urfin
              Could you recall at least one case in the history of Russia, when the ships of the sea zone could significantly affect the security of our country?

              If you do not take the sailing fleet, then in wartime - the First World War, the Black Sea Fleet. In peacetime - the post-war USSR.
              1. Urfin
                Urfin 6 July 2016 19: 49
                0
                World War I ... Oh, if the money spent on the dreadnoughts went to the organization of a normal General Staff or the creation of long-range land artillery ...
                You correctly said the Black Sea Fleet. But the fate of the empire was decided in battles with Germany and within the country.

                The post-war USSR - the fleet as providing the second (delivery of missiles to Cuba) and third (nuclear submarines) parts of the triad. Therefore, I partially agree with you. But this is a special supporting role, which does not coincide with the appointment of the fleet of any NATO country. And the need for a large nuclear carrier in such a fleet is extremely controversial, IMHO
      3. GSH-18
        GSH-18 4 July 2016 19: 16
        0
        In the picture, on the deck of the T-50 layout good
        Myrikos troll?)))
      4. N100
        N100 13 December 2016 13: 05
        0
        Why not remember Nasruddin with his donkey and padishah ?!


        laughing +100 Liberasts creating a liberal economy in 25 years and did not learn how to make money, embezzlement, kickbacks, fake projects covering banal theft from the budget, thieves' privatization of the commodity market.
        You can’t remember V.I. Lenin here. and the cook will be able to rule the state (in fact, Lenin’s speech was about political cuisine)
        So it is here .... as in the song of Agatha Christie, any janitor (an ass with a broom) can easily become a "LLC" ligarh for a lot of mind is not necessary to pump oil with gas and sell.
    2. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 4 July 2016 08: 42
      +7
      Quote: aszzz888
      "Where is the money, Zin ?!" V.S. Vysotsky

      The aircraft carrier will be built for several years, money in the framework of the defense budget is allocated every year. If the multibillion-dollar cost of building the Storm aircraft carrier is scattered for 7 years (the time of the aircraft carrier construction), then it will not be so expensive. It will not be necessary to pay 8-10 billion dollars for an aircraft carrier, and spend this money on construction for several years.
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 4 July 2016 08: 54
        +8
        Will be built as the Zenith Arena, for many years and every year more and more expensive laughing
        1. goose
          goose 4 July 2016 11: 32
          +3
          Quote: Igor39
          Will be built as the Zenith Arena, for many years and every year more and more expensive

          If you allocate money all at once, load suppliers, the cost will not increase. If you allocate money gradually, it is guaranteed long-term construction and the price tag will grow by 100%.
          1. alexng
            alexng 4 July 2016 14: 17
            +11
            I once also pondered, until my acquaintance business man (businessman - industrial worker) explained to me that paying the entire amount immediately harms the development of the economy, since money is pulled out of the country's circulation, which will eventually grow in circulation and the money earned as tax collection will go towards the gradual financing of non-income expenditures. Hence, the gradual payment is so invisible and not such a huge burden on the country's economy. Therefore, the extended option is more profitable and even more often the winner. In order to see this, you need to rise a little above the problem and look at everything from above, and not look "out of the bag" - the latter concerns me as well.
        2. lelikas
          lelikas 4 July 2016 16: 17
          +2
          Quote: Igor39
          Will be built as the Zenith Arena, for many years and every year more and more expensive

          It took longer to build "Gren". If our Moscow region does not play chamomile, but builds according to the project and finances at the time, then five years can be met without problems.
      2. NordUral
        NordUral 4 July 2016 13: 12
        +1
        And you are a comedian, however.
    3. 11 black
      11 black 4 July 2016 16: 03
      +13
      I’ll express an unpopular point of view, but the aircraft carrier ... IMHO - the fleet for us is the matter of 3, and the case of 1 and 2 is the Ground Forces and Air Forces.
      Only when we build 2300 Armat with all ext. machines (BREM and BMPT), as well as the required number of Boomerangs, Kurgan, Typhoons and Coalitions.
      When we launch the T-50 series and purchase a sufficient number of aircraft, helicopters and air defense missile systems - not to mention the strategic nuclear forces - only then can the Big Fleet program begin.
      And even then we need to think exactly what Avik is needed for - after all, our main weapon has historically been super-powerful anti-ship missiles, in this direction we are leaders and the development of Zircon is an example to this.
      So Avik is needed so that it can fly AWACS aircraft and on-duty fighter groups - that is, escort.
      That is, we, Russia, do not need a carrier armada - it will ruin the whole of Russia, but we need ships from which we can raise a normal AWACS aircraft and organize an air patrol - that's all.
      1. Beefeater
        Beefeater 4 July 2016 19: 30
        +3
        Indeed, we are a continental country and aircraft carriers are the tenth business for us.
        In the first place are aviation, proliferation and nuclear technology.
  2. basy66
    basy66 4 July 2016 07: 59
    .
    100 bread; 500 oil each; retired at 80
    1. Imperialkolorad
      Imperialkolorad 4 July 2016 09: 06
      +8
      Quote: basy66
      100 bread; 500 oil each; retired at 80

      Dear, you are a little resource mistaken.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 July 2016 11: 40
      +8
      How scary to live. Urgently distribute aircraft carriers to pensioners and pregnant hipsters!
  3. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 4 July 2016 08: 29
    +3
    Questions about money should not be asked to the Author, but to the Government and admirals and generals in the MO! Until in their heads (brains) "sawdust" "strategically" will not fall into place, we will fence similar projects (nonsense, BSK) and even with a smart academic look! Indeed, there is nowhere to put people's money, but to drive it into floating coffins! After 2020, do they want to master (plunder) new financial horizons (military budgets)? I really hope that the new government and the new command (after 2016 and 2018) will turn out to be more prudent and decent than these crooks and thieves !!!
    1. Blondy
      Blondy 4 July 2016 09: 17
      +3
      Quote: KudrevKN
      Questions about money should not be asked to the Author, but to the Government and admirals and generals in the Moscow Region!
      You don't need to ask anyone anything. This is simply "the hopes of young men nourish" if we are to quote the classics, I mean the dreams of shipbuilders to snatch a fat order.
  4. Rokossovsky
    Rokossovsky 4 July 2016 08: 53
    +3
    So, the nuclear platform “Arctic” should become the “platform” for operational testing of the new reactor and other facilities of the power plant

    At one time, they also wanted to shove an "icebreaker" OK1144 onto Orlany (pr. 900), but as a result they shoveled it so that it turned out to be actually a new power plant! So does it make sense to step on the same rake ?! It is not easier to create a new reactor using the RHYTHM200 developments request
  5. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2016 09: 01
    +20
    Talk about aircraft carriers has been going on for 10 years, no less. Until the Ministry of Defense decides what, how much and for this it is necessary - all this is chatter and nothing more. A characteristic feature of the shipbuilding programs of the last 40-50 years has been the lack of a clear vision of what the military wants. As a result of a series of ships of 4-5 hulls, a variety of weapons, etc. If, nevertheless, they decide that an aircraft carrier is needed, then now we need to think about the ships of the warrant, about auxiliary ships, about infrastructure, about the air group, finally. Otherwise it will be "as always". An aircraft carrier will arrive at the base, and for it there is no pier or ground infrastructure ...
    1. oblako
      oblako 4 July 2016 09: 41
      +9
      And in my opinion, the concentration in one place of a very large strike power and military potential, in addition to the positive aspect, has significant drawbacks, given the current level of development of missile weapons ... I do not know where the border of the optimal combination lies, but I am amazed by the picture of military damage, which is a sinking aircraft carrier with an air wing on it ... And there is no need to talk about air defense and escort ships ... There is no non-surmountable air defense, and much cheaper means. This is of course true for the "big war". Local wars are, of course, yes ... in any corner of the planet ... And this is due to the geographical remoteness of the United States, the presence of its interests across the oceans and seas ... and the way they are implemented. It seems to me that we should realize our interests differently.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 4 July 2016 12: 23
        +2
        Quote: oblako
        I don’t know where the boundary of the optimal combination lies, but I am shocked by the picture of military damage, which is a sinking aircraft carrier with an air wing on it ...

        The picture of military damage when a missile cruiser (or a group of EMs) drowns with a BC sufficient to overcome AUG air defense will be about as amazing. ICH, to accompany such a CGM, even at its shores, AB will still be needed. smile
      2. mav1971
        mav1971 4 July 2016 19: 05
        +3
        Quote: oblako
        .. There is no surmountable air defense, and much cheaper means. s.


        It is a very big mistake to contrast in cost one anti-ship missile and one aircraft carrier.

        Let's count.
        On the one hand, an aircraft carrier - 10 billion dollars. The wing on it is 3-5 billion dollars. Ammunition and fuel - another 2-3 billion dollars.
        Total round up to 20 billion

        No one is a warrior against AUG. Knowing the potential of AUG anti-aircraft defense, you need about 100 of the latest promising Tu-22m3 substitutes. These include 25 tankers, a new BAO, and reconstructed airfields. Such aircraft less than 500 million dollars, taking into account the cost of development, will not work. Total costs are the same 20 billion dollars.
        The second variant of the "wolf pack" of submarines. Again, we count. Even our MAPL is no longer worth less than $ 2 billion. Kazan came out in 5 billion dollars, which is why Ash and cover.
        To have a flock - you need to have at least 12 such boats on the theater, otherwise they will be harmless. The cost is even more expensive than 20 billion dollars.

        So think a little further than the price of an 1 rocket.
        1. Zulu_S
          Zulu_S 5 July 2016 02: 46
          +4
          20 billion = 1 aircraft carrier, + escort ships =? How many such groups are needed? Where, in what fleets? What tasks will these groups solve? The Soviet Navy did not have an answer to these questions, and there are no answers now. That is, "nah ... goat button accordion" is relevant. Correct me if you are not right.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 5 July 2016 10: 31
          0
          Quote: mav1971
          No one is a warrior against AUG. Knowing the potential of AUG anti-aircraft defense, you need about 100 of the latest promising Tu-22m3 substitutes. These include 25 tankers, a new BAO, and reconstructed airfields. Such aircraft less than 500 million dollars, taking into account the cost of development, will not work. Total costs are the same 20 billion dollars.
          The second variant of the "wolf pack" of submarines. Again, we count. Even our MAPL is no longer worth less than $ 2 billion. Kazan came out in 5 billion dollars, which is why Ash and cover.

          These are not "first" and "second" options - this is one option. smile
          According to the calculations of the time of the end of stagnation for the sinking of the AV, following as part of the AUG, joint actions of 2 "loaves", 2-3 Project 670M and 2 mrap were required.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 July 2016 12: 09
      +3
      Quote: Old26
      A characteristic feature of the shipbuilding programs of the last 40-50 years was the lack of a clear vision of what the military wants.

      Not only. There were still overlapping industry opportunities (a typical example is the history of the GEM for pr. 956) and biting bulldogs under the carpet between the naval and army men. As a result of the latter, instead of building normal AVs from the very beginning, our fleet was forced to approach them by the method of successive approach, having received 4 mutants in front of Kuznetsov.
    3. lelikas
      lelikas 4 July 2016 16: 28
      0
      Quote: Old26
      The aircraft carrier will come to the place of basing, but for him there is neither a pier nor ground infrastructure ...

      The Mistrals were corrected - they began to build it, though the Mistrals were not received. :(
  6. Ryabtsev Grigory Evgenievich
    Ryabtsev Grigory Evgenievich 4 July 2016 09: 14
    +3
    Most of all, the phrase "unnamed source" is touching. Nobody is responsible "for the market".
  7. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 4 July 2016 09: 36
    +13
    We would need to update the fleet with frigates at least, then destroyers and udk - and only then dream of aianotsots
  8. kolobok63
    kolobok63 4 July 2016 10: 19
    -2
    8-10 submarines of the Lada project will fully surpass this very expensive project in efficiency! hi
    1. goose
      goose 4 July 2016 11: 40
      +8
      Quote: kolobok63
      8-10 submarines of the Lada project will fully surpass this very expensive project in efficiency!

      Too cheap and mass produced, like Marx or Ford. This is a direct violation of Russian economic laws that have been taught in universities since the 90s.
      On large non-serial objects, the amount of control is less, therefore, more kickbacks and gesheft. Those. the project does not pass the business case. It is known that if you build a series of 16 frigates of 5 thousand tons each, then money will go much less than 1 carrier in 80 kilotons. An additional minus will be that they will be built on the strength of 4-5 years at different shipyards, i.e. it will be impossible to concentrate all margins in one hand.
      Extra bonuses. From one large ship you can make an admiral’s stake in the fleet, and the brand of a shipbuilder will grow much more as an aircraft carrier than, for example, a dozen or so other frigates.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 4 July 2016 12: 45
        +1
        Quote: goose
        Extra bonuses. From one large ship you can make an admiral’s stake in the fleet, and the brand of a shipbuilder will grow much more as an aircraft carrier than, for example, a dozen or so other frigates.

        Heh heh heh ... actually a dozen frigates give 2-3 admiral stakes - commanders of brigades of surface ships.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 July 2016 12: 40
      +1
      Quote: kolobok63
      8-10 submarines of the Lada project will fully surpass this very expensive project in efficiency!

      Want to go dear daddy Doenitz? I'm afraid it will end the same way. wink

      In addition, the submarine has a very limited ability to work along the coast.
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 4 July 2016 16: 31
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        In addition, the submarine has a very limited ability to work along the coast.

        And in the air - very weak;).
  9. Tsoy
    Tsoy 4 July 2016 10: 23
    0
    Remembering Ivan Gren, I think most of the site visitors will retire when the aircraft carrier goes to sea ...
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 4 July 2016 16: 33
      0
      Quote: Choi
      Remembering Ivan Gren, I think most of the site visitors will retire when the aircraft carrier goes to sea ...

      I would only be glad, because according to my estimates, everything will go a little beyond retirement. :(
  10. Forever so
    Forever so 4 July 2016 11: 01
    -3
    Admiral Generals, as always, plan to win past wars. In another way, the construction of such an expensive target, and even with a nuclear installation, is impossible to understand. Now, if they said that they plan to create air groupings on new icebreakers in order to calmly control the Arctic, this is another question, both topical and interesting. What would be the same TARK Kuznetsov in icebreaking performance ?? For that, I could control the entire SevMorPut. Yes, and the armored hull would have poured oil on all lovers of battleships, today discussing the thin sides of modern ships)).
  11. alexfin
    alexfin 4 July 2016 11: 32
    +1
    ... the saying about how the Russians "harness for a long time but go fast" does not fit here .... we only talk a lot now with almost zero activity ..
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 4 July 2016 12: 13
      0
      This is a case that will be good if we just talk. The main thing is not to extend arms and projects to the fundamentally important and necessary for the country.
  12. NordUral
    NordUral 4 July 2016 12: 12
    0
    Have we stolen a printing press from the United States?
  13. 3vs
    3vs 4 July 2016 12: 13
    0
    Or maybe it’s already worth building ordinary carrier ships, and thinking about underwater
    an aircraft carrier, in the belly of which there will be both ordinary aircraft and strike drones.
    Such a "hat" pops up in the desired area and drones start from it, not limited
    discounts on a person’s overload, and in the event of his death one does not have to deal with rescue
    crew search ...

    That, I think, would be more reasonable!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 July 2016 12: 47
      +2
      Quote: 3vs
      Or maybe it’s already worth building ordinary carrier ships, and thinking about underwater
      an aircraft carrier, in the belly of which there will be both ordinary aircraft and strike drones.
      Such a "hat" pops up in the desired area and drones start from it, not limited
      discounts on a person’s overload, and in the event of his death one does not have to deal with rescue
      crew search ...

      An underwater carrier with strike drones is called a submarine. smile
      1. 3vs
        3vs 4 July 2016 15: 34
        0
        Well, do not tell me!
        SSGNs are cruise missiles, i.e. "one-time" application.
        But drones, not limited to the physical nature of man,
        able to work out and return, that's another!
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 4 July 2016 17: 35
          +1
          Quote: 3vs
          But drones, not limited to the physical nature of man,
          able to work out and return, that's another!

          You know, in the 30s there were many different projects of hybrid ships. Some of them even reached the metal.
          The submarine you are proposing is very similar to a hydrosailing cruiser (only it is also submerging). And according to it, the conclusions have long been known: either he is a cruiser carrying 2/3 of an air group with dead cargo, or he is a hydro-carrier who is engaged in most of the cruising providing for takeoff and landing of his aircraft.

          In your case, an additional minus will be that for receiving returning UAVs, the PL carrier must float up. That is, the enemy doesn’t even have to spend much money on PLO - just launch your missile launcher after the outgoing UAV.
          The second minus is the need to maintain the UAV-PL communication channel (or to block an autonomous UAV with the possibility of automatic take-off and landing - with the corresponding price).
          And I'm not talking about possible problems with landing UAVs that did not use up the combat load.
    2. Zulu_S
      Zulu_S 5 July 2016 03: 05
      0
      Look at 7 decades ago, dear 3vs. The Japanese by August 45th had 3 submarine aircraft carriers. Got to the Americans. They studied them for several years, and drowned them. It was considered futile. A UAV can be launched from existing ones. And you don’t have to come up.
  14. Kenneth
    Kenneth 4 July 2016 12: 25
    +1
    Compared to an aircraft carrier, even two thousand armatures seem necessary.
    1. 3vs
      3vs 4 July 2016 15: 38
      +2
      Here we are talking about such a "hat"! laughing
      1. Tsoy
        Tsoy 4 July 2016 15: 47
        0
        Quote: 3vs
        Here we are talking about such a "hat"!


        You stole my picture! laughing

        https://topwar.ru/97567-admiral-kuznecov-vozmet-kontrol-nad-vostochnym-sredizemn
        omorem-strahi-ssha-i-strategiya-a2-ad.html # comment-id-6033814
        1. 3vs
          3vs 4 July 2016 16: 19
          0
          Yes, this picture was on topvar, only for a long time to search for topics!
          Googled in Yandex and found it!
          And a noble "hat", isn't that so !? fellow
          1. Tsoy
            Tsoy 4 July 2016 18: 17
            0
            Quote: 3vs
            And a noble "hat", isn't that so !?


            There are not enough robots, antennas for communication with an orbital gun and hand-held dinosaurs. wassat
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 4 July 2016 19: 23
            +1
            In the 2080s something like this may appear, but only this aircraft-carrying trimaran submarine will sink a maximum of 150 meters, since with a greater immersion the water pressure will simply crush it - thanks to the flight deck.
            1. Tsoy
              Tsoy 5 July 2016 06: 55
              +1
              Quote: Vadim237
              In 2080


              And how do you like this miracle?
  15. ism_ek
    ism_ek 4 July 2016 13: 02
    +6
    The Japanese in 1941 "rattled" aircraft carriers in front of the United States. And how did it all end? The USA has launched almost 4 aircraft carriers in 100 years ... The USA is much more powerful than us economically. It is pointless to catch up with them. We must act on the cut.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 July 2016 17: 55
      +5
      Quote: ism_ek
      The Japanese in 1941 "rattled" aircraft carriers in front of the United States. And how did it all end? The United States launched almost 4 aircraft carriers in 100 years ...

      Not really almost 100And 103.
      That's just most of these ABs were escort - only Kaiser issued 50 AVEs per year.

      In addition, the United States is not like that. smile

      The pull of the US shipbuilding industry into the war has been prepared since 1936. Then the US leadership was worried about the squeezing of American companies from the shipping market and the rapid obsolescence of the merchant fleet - most of the ships still remembered the WWII. And then an absolutely non-market and, frankly, socialist decision was made: in 10 years to build 500 high-speed transports at the state expense - and lease them to American companies to work on foreign lines. And at the same time, expand the shipyard + to provide subsidies to shipbuilders and shipowners to cover the difference in the cost of construction and operation of American and imported ships.

      In fact, this program meant direct government intervention in the international transport market and the extrusion of non-US shipbuilders and carriers by dumping. Oh yes, the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 also limited the percentage of non-Americans in court teams: no more than 10% by 1938. The reason is simple: the United States began to form a reserve of civilian sailors.

      No flags of convenience for you, no "we will order a ship in Korea / China, and we will hire someone cheaper" - before that war in the United States, strict state control was established over private business in the field of transportation and shipbuilding. So I would be wary of comparing those USA with the current ones.
      1. Zulu_S
        Zulu_S 5 July 2016 03: 12
        0
        Roosevelt was in general a very ideologically uninhibited comrade.
  16. Lyubopyatov
    Lyubopyatov 4 July 2016 13: 09
    -1
    In general, it is very useful to do without the official approval of the project as long as possible, and to coordinate all work on an initiative basis and carefully bring it to mind. If I had my way, I would even start looking for extra-budgetary funds to finance the project ("voluntary donations from oligarchs"), transfer the project to "hardware" (without unnecessary fanfare) and still "without official interest from the Ministry of Defense." For example, Abramovich sells his yachts and Chelsea to use the proceeds to build a personal floating airfield with Disneyland below deck. And then suddenly "Disneyland" will be renamed into TAVKR ... So the terms can be shortened.
  17. cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 4 July 2016 13: 43
    +1
    In general, "CHAMOMILE" is obtained from the author of the article; - "needed, not needed," the project, "will, will not be" the ship, "will not order" the Ministry of Defense, etc.
  18. Div Divich
    Div Divich 4 July 2016 14: 29
    +2
    Carriers are not needed, since there is no money for them, it is more important to update the fleet. The sea is like a railway leading to many countries, and rocket launchers must also carry cargo along these routes.
  19. TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force 4 July 2016 14: 57
    +6
    how many years are poured from empty to empty
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 4 July 2016 15: 53
      0
      P ......... - do not build. Although we do not need aircraft carriers for hell.
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 4 July 2016 16: 34
      +2
      Quote: NOC-VVS
      how many years are poured from empty to empty

      And there will be no less.
  20. Krabik
    Krabik 4 July 2016 15: 53
    +3
    We are barely building frigates, we have been building the BDK for 12 years, and it is only 5 thousand tons.

    Although, why not dream of our shipbuilders about such orders;)
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 4 July 2016 19: 26
      +2
      It is necessary for the United States aircraft carriers and all ships learning to build, 2 - 4 years and the ship is built.
  21. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 4 July 2016 16: 08
    +1
    Quote: alexneg
    payment of the entire amount immediately harms

    The construction of the Energia-Buran system, emnip, cost 16 billion rubles, still Soviet, full-scale. A huge amount at that time. Lozino-Lozinsky said that if the entire amount had been announced at once, the Buran might not have been built. The designers have broken down the amount by year and have agreed on the annual amount. That is, as Lenin said: "We must get involved in the battle, and then we'll see!" Although some argue that Napoleon said it. But that is another story.
  22. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2016 17: 09
    +4
    Quote: ism_ek
    The USA is much more powerful than us economically. Catching them is pointless. We must act on the cut.

    The question of catching up with the United States has never been raised. Neither in the USSR, nor now, in Russia.

    Quote: Sofa Divanich
    Carriers are not needed, since there is no money for them, it is more important to update the fleet. The sea is like a railway leading to many countries, and rocket launchers must also carry cargo along these routes.

    So no need or no money? It is necessary to renew not only the fleet, but also aviation, the Strategic Missile Forces, and the ground forces. If we decide to remain a country of the second or third world, which does not have any geopolitical interests outside its borders, we do not need an aircraft carrier. Give a few thousand missile boats and we will be happy. But we already went through it. At one time, Admiral Amelko was a supporter of such a coastal fleet. But outweighed the position of Gorshkov, who believed that the country needed to have an ocean fleet.
    So it is now. All talk about the uselessness of aircraft carriers, about "coffins" - all talk only through the projection of the world war. But world wars are not common. And with modern weapons, they are generally unlikely because they will become the last war.
    But no one canceled the local wars. And the simplest example. Syria. What would be more profitable, including and economically. Bring an aircraft carrier with hundreds of planes to the coast and hammer the enemy or drive strategists for thousands of kilometers? Use river-sea boats with 8 launchers of cruise missiles or, together with an aircraft carrier, fit a warrant ship similar to the American Burke with 2-5 dozen cruise missiles and strike not at maximum range, but what is called point-blank?
    Okay Syria, which is called "at hand". And project the same task for example on ... Vietnam? But when there is no talk of aircraft carriers, then there are no fantastic solutions ... Pull America ... Expand .... in South America .... Create a base in .... "Sweep" the American fleet with "Caliber". Yeah, from ships with an autonomy of 10 days ...
    Fleet, it has been said 100500 times that it should be balanced. And it is covered from the air, especially in areas where coastal aviation cannot reach. Yes, and where it reaches out - there will be so much time for a flight there that aviation may no longer be needed. Covering the deployment areas of our strategic missile carriers is also useless? But in this case, the aircraft carrier is by no means superfluous.
    But I repeat what I wrote in another post. It is the MO that must decide WHAT NEEDS, HOW MUCH AND HOW MUCH. There should be a concept of application and only then decide whether to build or not. Well, do not forget the auxiliary fleet and the ships of the warrant too
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 4 July 2016 20: 25
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      The question of catching up with the United States has never been raised. Neither in the USSR, nor now, in Russia.

      But what about the famous "DIP"? smile
  23. kuz363
    kuz363 4 July 2016 17: 39
    0
    Hopefully. that this aircraft carrier will remain only on paper. Paper can stand it.
  24. azer
    azer 4 July 2016 17: 50
    0
    And the point is to build them if articles were published on your website at the end of the century of aircraft carriers. Russians just wake up?
  25. Alex1977RUS
    Alex1977RUS 4 July 2016 18: 36
    0
    Quote: goose
    Quote: kolobok63
    8-10 submarines of the Lada project will fully surpass this very expensive project in efficiency!

    Too cheap and mass produced, like Marx or Ford. This is a direct violation of Russian economic laws that have been taught in universities since the 90s.
    On large non-serial objects, the amount of control is less, therefore, more kickbacks and gesheft. Those. the project does not pass the economic feasibility ...

    And that’s why instead of huge floating coffins, and the coffins of the third stage,
    because now the cutting of the dough of boots and flyers is in progress, we need to design and build giant stratospheric-mesospheric aircraft-bearing airships of air defense-missile defense.
    On a promising thermonuclear move.
    And none of your dull piers for boxes of eighty kilotons displacement,
    with pipes and wires, and other baths, so that a mighty atomic ship, aircraft-carrying in a rusty bucket with worn-out turbine cars in five years, like Kuzma the memorable, did not turn, and sailors did not grow lice, and
    ate hot. Well, small things all this serial escort yes, no need to build.
    Mobility is again strategic in the tropospheric mesospheres higher, because even ours,
    an Orthodox naval boat through Jomolumgma, or the peak of Communism there will not pass, but the mesospheric airship is equally volatile over the Mediterranean Sea and over the Sahara. Well, patriots note, not only
    strategic direct-flow fighters, anti-aircraft missile systems, and cannon-artillery airships will be strong.
    An ordinary two-pound cast-iron kettlebell, manufactured by the USSR Ministry of Electronic Industry Engineering Plant, Uzhgorod, dropped from a height of fifteen kilometers, pierces both the take-off and hangar decks of an Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, and Zimvolt generally tears the fuck like a hot-water bottle. And you can carry it out as a high-precision, intelligent munition Krasnopol-3 Bis, with a purchase price of half a lard for a little thing ... Theme is the richest, do not saw it, cut it on R&D alone, Skolkovo rests, stuffs it in the firebox, gives a peaceful thermonuclear! And then, after all, prototypes of conceptually experimental models of future mesospheres need to be built, helium production should be organized especially cleaned, but on an industrial scale ... And you can pull up homies from Roscosmos, because the best helium is known to be helium 3.
    And he is on the moon ...
    1. Zulu_S
      Zulu_S 5 July 2016 03: 19
      0
      "Ostap suffered ..."
  26. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2016 19: 00
    0
    Quote: 16112014nk
    The construction of the Energia-Buran system, emnip, cost 16 billion rubles, still Soviet, full-scale. A huge amount at that time. Lozino-Lozinsky said that if the entire amount had been announced at once, the Buran might not have been built. The designers have broken down the amount by year and have agreed on the annual amount.

    They would have built it, despite what the esteemed Gleb Evgenievich said. The party's decision was - they would do it, despite the billions. After all, they "forced" to make a ship similar to the American.
  27. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 4 July 2016 20: 10
    0
    The rapid development of aviation in recent years can significantly change the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier of the usual type. A new generation of UAVs with a higher thrust-to-weight ratio and without restrictions on starting overloads will be able to launch on accelerators, possibly vertically. And sit down with significant overloads. The aircraft carrier's familiar appearance is adapted for conventional "crew" aircraft. After 15 years, a person, as the most expensive and fragile element of the system, can "move" into a protected cabin on a ship. And the ship can be significantly smaller, and its efficiency is higher.
  28. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2016 20: 24
    0
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    The rapid development of aviation in recent years can significantly change the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier of the usual type. A new generation of UAVs with a higher thrust-to-weight ratio and without restrictions on starting overloads will be able to launch on accelerators, possibly vertically. And sit down with significant overloads. The aircraft carrier's familiar appearance is adapted for conventional "crew" aircraft. After 15 years, a person, as the most expensive and fragile element of the system, can "move" into a protected cabin on a ship. And the ship can be significantly smaller, and its efficiency is higher.

    This option cannot be excluded. Perhaps not after 15 years, but later, but this option cannot be ruled out. Indeed, modern aircraft carriers are different from the first. And not only the power plant, but also the architecture.
  29. Bayonet
    Bayonet 4 July 2016 20: 30
    +1
    Here, too, "proactively"! And what - I like it! fellow
  30. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 4 July 2016 20: 31
    +3
    Picture probably from the St. Petersburg exhibition last year.
    A plane that takes off on the left, for example, lands and does not catch, can touch the central springboard with the right wing.
    There was a destroyer there.
    In my opinion, you must first set up and master modern frigates, with all air defense, anti-aircraft defense and other bells and whistles, as well as minesweepers, corvettes, autonomous underwater, surface and of course air vehicles of all types. Then someday destroyers, if this class does not die out. And you also need not to ruin the country, otherwise you will have to wait for humanitarian aid again, as in the early 90s. "Bush's Legs", etc.
  31. Andrew
    Andrew 4 July 2016 22: 09
    +1
    Already underway, the development of the aircraft carrier of project 23000E "Storm" will begin to design it in 2017-2018, and the start of the main design phase is planned for 2020. The estimated cost of this aircraft carrier will be $ 6.2 billion! For comparison - the American aircraft carrier Gerald Ford will cost the Americans as much as 12.8 billion! The Russian fleet is back! By 2020, we will receive 100 warships, including 33 submarines will be built separately from these ships! (8 nuclear submarines of Project 955 Borey (an increase of 2 units is possible) nuclear submarines of project 855 Ash 7 units, 12 nuclear submarines of Project 636 Varshavyanka)
    1. polkovnik manuch
      polkovnik manuch 10 July 2016 12: 48
      0
      Drink honey with your mouth! On paper, everything is smooth, but here's how it really will be.
  32. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2016 22: 15
    0
    Quote: Bayonet
    But what about the famous "DIP"?

    This does not apply to aircraft carriers. Even according to the plans of the USSR, the number of aircraft carriers should have been: 4 types Kiev, 2 types "Kuznetsov", 4 (EMNIP) "Ulyanovsk".

    Quote: Falcon5555
    In my opinion, it is first necessary to set up and master modern frigates, with all air defense, anti-aircraft defense and other gadgets, as well as minesweepers, corvettes, autonomous underwater, surface and, of course, air vehicles of all types. Then someday destroyers, if this class does not die

    In principle, the scheme is viable. Here are just likely to die immediately 2 classes: a cruiser and a destroyer. And there will be something in between. A shock ship of some kind. IMHO.

    I do not think that they will die out as well as the class SSGNs. They will become in size as our "Ash", and possibly even smaller. SSBNs will remain. Although they will become different. Promising projects are now with a reduced number of launchers. American - 16 PU, British - 12
  33. evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 4 July 2016 23: 05
    +1
    Scientist (I will not offend, not a dreamer) "Alex 1977 RUS", of course, got carried away. In my opinion, such "giant stratospheric-mesospheric" monsters themselves will be a tasty target not only for air defense systems of the future, but also for the present. But what not to take away is the thinking head. Go for it, young man.

    But the design of the "Mountain Shooter" of the aircraft carrier UAV is quite realizable. Maybe in the not too distant future, it will be OUR UAV carrier.
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 5 July 2016 20: 46
      0
      Quote: evge-malyshev
      it will be our UAV carrier.

      Beepaelan laughing
  34. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 5 July 2016 00: 32
    +2
    Quote: aszzz888
    The design and construction of a ship with an aviation group is an extremely complex and expensive program.

    "Where is the money, Zin ?!" V.S. Vysotsky

    I agree, full perspective dumbness !!! About how to fly to Mars, next year or the construction of the Zenith Arena! wassat "Saw, Shura, saw - she is golden!" (C)
  35. Cosmonaut
    Cosmonaut 5 July 2016 00: 35
    0
    Quote: evge-malyshev
    Scientist (I will not offend, not a dreamer) "Alex 1977 RUS", of course, got carried away. In my opinion, such "giant stratospheric-mesospheric" monsters themselves will be a tasty target not only for air defense systems of the future, but also for the present. But what not to take away is the thinking head. Go for it, young man.

    But the design of the "Mountain Shooter" of the aircraft carrier UAV is quite realizable. Maybe in the not too distant future, it will be OUR UAV carrier.

    What for ??? laughing
    PS. The author of the article. myself. vulgarized everything - aircraft carrier bar table (photo) !!! Passed by already !!! am
  36. adamantan
    adamantan 5 July 2016 02: 14
    +2
    And it seems to me that the best aircraft and other carriers have been built for a long time, we need only a revision, their names: Crimea. Cuba. Sakhalin. Kaliningrad on the slipway: Port Arthur and Camran, there are still options ....
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 5 July 2016 20: 54
      0
      Quote: adamantan
      Are there any other options ....

      Hussar flying squadron, Koschey the Immortal, Ears - swans, Carpet - all-terrain vehicle and other funny paraphernalia laughing
  37. Alex1977RUS
    Alex1977RUS 5 July 2016 08: 31
    +2
    Quote: evge-malyshev
    Scientist (I will not offend, not a dreamer) "Alex 1977 RUS", of course, got carried away. In my opinion, such "giant stratospheric-mesospheric" monsters themselves will be a tasty target not only for air defense systems of the future, but also for the present. But what not to take away is the thinking head. Go for it, young man.

    But the design of the "Mountain Shooter" of the aircraft carrier UAV is quite realizable. Maybe in the not too distant future, it will be OUR UAV carrier.

    The young man traded five dozen))) It was an irony and an example of a utopian project, the same as building a series of atomic aircraft carriers, support ships for them and all coastal infrastructure, the only practical value of which was to cut the budget dough.
    Although it must be said that stratospheric airships are quite promising as heavy missile defense systems PRO-PKO and, in combination with DRLO complexes. When using them in the second line naturally. The same S-400
    launched from a height of fifteen to eighteen kilometers and fly higher, and faster, and the reaction time of the complex is reduced. Yes, and you can see from this height away.
    True, these must be really LARGE airships in order to steal a normal stock of missiles. And to protect it with the same short-range defense systems and electronic warfare systems, given them, these electronic warfare systems available energy, from missiles arriving at the limit of altitude-altitude is not so difficult. Burn an obstacle in which a hundred kilowatts were not simply driven in)))
    But this is already away from the main thread of the discussion.
  38. Div Divich
    Div Divich 5 July 2016 09: 57
    +1
    Quote: Old26
    So no need or no money?


    Aircraft carrier, this is just one of many options for military equipment.
    To win, it is not necessary to have all the types of equipment existing on the planet, to win, certain actions are needed.

    War is a conflict of ideas in the heads of different people. So in addition to bombing, you need to work with people.
  39. Alex1977RUS
    Alex1977RUS 5 July 2016 10: 00
    +1
    Quote: evge-malyshev
    ... In my opinion, such "giant stratospheric-mesospheric" monsters themselves will be a tasty target not only for air defense systems of the future, but also for the present. But what not to take away is the thinking head. Go for it, young man.

    Yes, and also, by the way.
    The practical ceiling of the F-22 as the main promising US fighter is 20 km.
    On the decks.
    ceiling
    F-14 -16 km.
    F-18 - 16 km.
    By air defense system.
    Patriot - reach in height - 25 km for MIM-104 and 20 km for ERINT.
    Officially at least.
    Across Europe - Tornado climbs 15 km, Mirage 2000 16 km. Etc.
    This despite the fact that the altitude record at the moment is slightly higher than fifty dollars.
    True for a record drone, but 50 km.
    In general, to buy up an airship that climbed thirty kilometers, equipped with at least a minimum of means of self-defense, and just in case and carrying out missile defense systems of the region is now practically unrealistic.
    And the funniest IMHO is that if you put in it not a SAM, but a missile defense system, it’s almost completely
    depreciates NORAD, in the form in which it is. At least, simply because the United States is naturally not covered from a massive attack by the Kyrgyz Republic from Latin America. And on the other hand, with such a height of the carrier, too.
    And even more so, it is impossible to intercept it by air defense forces of banana states of LA, packages with cocaine simply will not reach. )))
    It is also advisable to land it before it reaches your territory, because a nuclear reactor falling over your territory will also not add motivation to let it fly.
    And so on and so forth ... Like crap just hanging quietly at an altitude of 30 km conducting so-called upper atmosphere studies, ten km from the border of the territorial waters of Great Britain, they contribute very much to a balanced and peaceful policy ...
    But all this unfortunately is really prohibitively expensive.
  40. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 5 July 2016 10: 04
    +1
    Let's return, so to speak, to our sheep. From the rumors cited by the author from anonymous sources and only three specific figures (two reactors provide "Arctic" with a displacement of 33,5 kT with a capacity of 60 MW and a speed of up to 22 knots), it is clear that the power plant for Avik is a big question. The same reactors will probably be able to provide 30 knots for the "Leader", but not for an aircraft carrier of 80 kT. And this strange phrase: "the use of weapons to defend against various threats and strike at targets of different types", I'm afraid to even suggest what the author or an anonymous author means by it. "We don't need this kind of hockey!"
  41. Alex1977RUS
    Alex1977RUS 5 July 2016 10: 22
    0
    Quote: Scharnhorst
    Let's return, so to speak, to our sheep. From the rumors cited by the author from anonymous sources and only three specific figures (two reactors provide "Arctic" with a displacement of 33,5 kT with a capacity of 60 MW and a speed of up to 22 knots), it is clear that the power plant for Avik is a big question. The same reactors will probably be able to provide 30 knots for the "Leader", but not for an aircraft carrier of 80 kT. And this strange phrase: "the use of weapons to defend against various threats and strike at targets of different types", I'm afraid to even suggest what the author or an anonymous author means by it. "We don't need this kind of hockey!"

    The speed depends not so much on the power of the control system as on the contours of the body and the parameters of the propeller group.
    The icebreaker has its own tasks, and far from optimal in terms of speed characteristics hydrodynamics,
    the propeller group is optimized for ice conditions, where the thickness and strength of the blade is more important than its efficiency,
    etc. And the speed of ships increases with increasing power SU not linearly. Everything is complicated there, all kinds of troubles.
    Well, and what actually prevents them from sticking into the aircraft carrier not two, but four reactors?
  42. Roman 11
    Roman 11 5 July 2016 21: 06
    0
    First, create at least a DRLO deck with a normal radius and flight characteristics!
  43. Div Divich
    Div Divich 6 July 2016 15: 27
    +1
    Quote: Novel 11
    First, create at least a DRLO deck with a normal radius and flight characteristics!


    If what an Aircraft Carrier in Russia can do (proof of Kuznetsov and his brothers), only he will be built for a very long time, 15-20 years.
    But what for do you need a ship for the sake of status, let it be better if the frequently used ships are updated.
  44. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 10 July 2016 12: 52
    0
    For the construction of aircraft carriers, huge production capacities are needed, but where do we have them? "Effective managers" have done everything possible to destroy the shipbuilding industry and the defense industry as a whole.
  45. cheburator
    cheburator 11 July 2016 09: 48
    0
    Everything has its time! Gradually new opportunities will appear, and as they arise, urgent issues must be addressed. good
  46. fif21
    fif21 5 December 2016 20: 54
    0
    If Russia is going to conduct military operations on the American continent, then it is needed. hi
  47. san4es
    san4es 20 December 2016 12: 33
    +9
    ... you need to start the slipway under the keel to adjust, so that it would go