Military Review

Ahead of the locomotive

175
We deliberately leave the Hamletian question of domestic fleet: do we need aircraft carriers in general? Its statement itself testifies only to one thing - to the weakness, bias of domestic science, in particular naval science. In an era when all continental solutions to the problem have been exhausted due to the shift of the main danger to oceanic directions, it is obvious: a purely continental defense is not well-founded because of its passivity and limitedness. In addition, the likely enemy already has bridgeheads on the continent, which it is preparing to expand just from the sea.

Thus, the question of reanimation of the domestic fleet, and in the format of the ocean and, therefore, balanced, where there is no alternative to its aircraft, should not be made dependent on certain 13 – 17 billions of dollars for the construction of an aircraft carrier. They appear to be no earlier than at the end of 2025. Many people think that only then will the time come for TTZ and other things: who will design, where to build, what to arm ... Obviously, we should work on the above problems.

Carriers have even Italy, Spain, Thailand. Therefore, do we need them? Such a question should not be asked at all, since the answer is clear in advance.

And the last preliminary consideration: aircraft carriers need to be engaged always, constantly also because the task of their development and construction does not have a momentary solution. It is complicated by a significant range of preliminary conditions and preparatory actions.

What to fly

It may be just as good that there is no money for an aircraft carrier. For its construction, we are absolutely not ready. The fact that the Krylov Institute presented at the Sea Show in the past as a model of a promising aircraft carrier is not realistic and quite far from the required presentation.

The industry, of course, is ready to respond with enthusiasm to such an order and accept it even today. First, the astronomical value. Secondly, the project promises to stretch no less than for 10 – 12 years, or even more. As for the deadlines, one can refer to the experience of the advanced states and fleets in these matters, which have both a school for building such ships and comprehensive technological cooperation. Britain, let's say, only designed its last aircraft carriers for nine years. And they must be worked out for certain, at least from the fact that they are to build a series, and not a single ship, as it is now, a ship of little interest in its imperfection.

Ahead of the locomotiveIt is customary to move on to design based on the idea of ​​the main weapons, which will be equipped with a promising ship. For an aircraft carrier, this is primarily the main type of combat aircraft that is part of the wing. According to modern operational-tactical concepts - universal (fighter attack aircraft). In addition, it is now inconceivable to imagine such a wing and the actions of the fleet’s grouping off-shore even in the most general sense - without carrier-based AWACS, PLO at least from the standpoint of ensuring the aircraft carrier’s own combat stability, as well as the fleet entrusted to it.

Therefore, first of all, the main universal deck-based aircraft of the 5 generation with the functions of a fighter and attack aircraft and a bomb load of at least seven tons, with a combat radius of 1200 kilometers, should be immediately ordered. Those who report to the government that we already have it, it is time to correctly put in place, explaining to them and to those who are listening to them that the fighter attack aircraft sought must be the best in the world and remain so at least until 2030 – 2035 . Note: to the deck aircraft, to its, in particular, strength, special requirements are imposed that are not put forward to ground-based vehicles. At the same time, the TTZ should be issued for the development of an early warning aircraft with a super-modern radar, the most economical and powerful power plant. In the same glider - antisubmarine and transport modifications. I do not think that the implementation of these tasks with the delivery of the ordered machines will be able to meet the deadlines of less than five to six years, even if you mobilize the best forces of the aviation industry under the special control of the top leadership of the country and the Navy. It is advisable not to attribute these costs directly to the subject of aircraft carrier development, then funds for financing the development can be carved out now.

Also, an aircraft carrier, like UDC, requires a heavy helicopter in various modifications - transport and unloading, for conducting special operations to a greater depth, anti-submarine. The "Kamov" is not and probably will not. In addition, Kamov machines are extremely overestimated in size, which is hardly acceptable in the ship's conditions, and not enough aerodynamic. On this with helicopters, perhaps, we will stop, because the continuation of the topic begins to go beyond the limits of aircraft carrier need. How long will it take to develop the specified DRLO, PLO and helicopter airplanes? Obviously at least five years, and then if the TTZ falls into the right hands.

Run and take

In the design of the aircraft carrier there are unique functional mechanisms that are not repeated anywhere else, besides technologically so complex that today their creation is available to a very limited number of manufacturers. First of all, it concerns steam or electromagnetic catapults for lifting 30 – 50-ton aircraft into the air. Attempts to circumvent this method of launch are bought by a significant reduction in combat capabilities. First of all, this restriction on the types of aircraft used (for example, early warning systems), reduced combat radius and bomb load.

Secondly, we need powerful mobile airborne aircraft lifts that do not occupy the space of the flight deck. Plus, a reliable landing and braking system for boating machines: a double and even triple aviofinishers system.

And, finally, however strange it may seem, - ship power engineering. The problems caused by boiler installations on domestic aircraft carriers, including those set for export, are still at the hearing. But these are types of steam turbine power plants that have been developed for many decades. Meanwhile, there were no steam catapults as the main consumer of steam on our aircraft carriers.

The whole world is now more and more confidently moving towards integrated ship power plants. But then it is appropriate to raise the question of choosing an option for an electromagnetic electromagnetic catapult, a sample of which is not without problems being run-in on the last American aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford.

If we assume that the braking system of aircraft landing on the Admiral Kuznetsov is in principle implemented, and our industry can cope with the ship power industry, then the catapults and the wing will remain an open and fundamental issue. As far as it is complicated, it can be seen at least by the example of technologically advanced France, borrowing a catapult and deck airplanes of the ARLO for its atomic Charles de Gaulle from abroad, and at the cost of appreciable damage to national sovereignty.

Our military-industrial complex did not master the catapult even in golden Soviet times, being practically omnipotent - just as the other, and traditionally aircraft-carrying, countries could not. The Americans, the monopolists in this matter, work in deep cooperation with the world's best manufacturers of mechanical systems. How much time may it take to develop, build, test and debug a domestic device? Not less than six - eight years, and then subject to the utmost attention to him at the top. But after all, the main power plant of the aircraft carrier is chosen for the type of catapult: for steam - steam power, for electromagnetic - most likely a powerful integrated ship power plant. And we still do not know how to build.

Airplanes and aviofinisery for a promising aircraft carrier does not seem to be considered such a very heavy topic in comparison with previous positions. They are and operate on an existing aircraft carrier. But bringing mechanisms to a constructively modern and absolutely reliable state still remains relevant.

Floating polygon

Thus, the problems raised above, associated with the creation of a modern and combat-ready aircraft carrier, objectively need an 7 – 10-year-old “abandonment” in relation to the deadlines for ordering such a ship as a hull. However, the project of the latter must be selected and approved as a result of the competition also in advance. It would be nice to invite foreign companies to participate in it - this will greatly enliven the process with unexpected original ideas and approaches that will inevitably be brought to such a forum. It is useful to recall that in this section, shipbuilding in the leading maritime powers adhere to the deepest universalization in the construction of aircraft carriers and the UDC, right down to the uniform hull sections and the general nomenclature of the ship equipment, such as, say, on-board aircraft and helicopter lifters.

It turns out that if the Ministry of Defense is really going to build an aircraft carrier from 2025, weapons for it, catapults, aircraft lifters, landing systems should be created now, and a competition of projects should be held no later than 2020 – 2021. The country does not have easy money to make essentially an experienced ship co from the leading aircraft carrier with all the ensuing consequences, as it happened before more than once, when it improvised with a ready-made hull to the fullest: they sculpted everything that sometimes did not highly contradictory wishes of all branches of the leadership, when the lead ship was brought to its pre-infarction state. For running all the necessary equipment, weapons and equipment, it is desirable to have a floating stand or an experienced vessel. This minimizes the natural risks in such cases and speeds up the delivery of such a complex ship. An experienced ship is also required in advance. Apparently, it should be built on the basis of a large transport with a displacement of at least 65 tons or, in the absence of such, in the form of a catamaran or trimaran based on finished hulls of vessels along 15 – 24 tons with a continuous flight deck-transformer and an island bridge, as is customary on aircraft carriers. Here, all functional interior and communications of the future aircraft carrier are actually modeled, run in and optimized: hangars for airplanes and helicopters, repair boxes, aircraft refueling complexes and ammunition supply, cellars themselves, irrigation and fire fighting systems, supply lines for spare large-sized units to be replaced by airplanes and helicopters ... By readiness, a catapult should appear on the ship, and even earlier, flights of vehicles assigned to a promising aircraft carrier should be practiced Incoming them from the industry, with the rise using nasal ramp. The design of such an experimental vessel ensures its continuous operation, as well as the simplicity and manufacturability of any reorganization: the convenience and speed of installation of the newly emerging equipment, the continuity of the marine testing process of the consistently incoming equipment - so that the debugging periods of even the most fundamental mechanisms do not go beyond two or three months .

Re-equipment and operation of the vessel also should not be associated with the financing of a promising aircraft carrier. There is no need to specify how much this particular program will save money by leaving to go through the inevitable trial and error of a non-aircraft carrier, which will then have to be in battle formation for many years. The vessel should be ready no later than mid 2018 of the year.

Who is in the cabin, who is on the bridge?

We have come to that aspect of any problem that we usually take into account in the last turn or ignore. These are human and structural factors. Perhaps, it is worth starting with the fact that deck pilots in all fleets of the world are a super elite among pilots, which is not inferior in any respect to flight test pilots and aces from flight teams. And the point here is not that they with enviable regularity have to board the deck of an aircraft carrier in a vast ocean. They fly at different altitudes and conduct a maneuvering battle above the surface of the sea, near a water edge, over mountainous terrain and unfamiliar water areas, with a superior enemy, which is incomparably more difficult than fighting over a flat earth’s firmament, having behind it a familiar airfield, all types of support and support. And one can imagine how the commanders of groups, squadrons, and squads should be trained, called upon to lead, motivate, and direct their heroic subordinates. There is nowhere without personal authority. And the level of these specialists should be the best not only within the national framework, where we never miss the opportunity to brag, but firmly convertible. No worse than American or French deck pilots aviation, with an objective comparison in close contact with colleagues from the best fleets of the world.

The second consideration: traditionally all over the world, the best aircraft carrier commanders are from deck pilots. So it was with the Americans who have the most experience with the British. It is logical, because who better understands the peculiarities of combat operations at sea under conditions of massive use by the parties of carrier-based aviation? It would seem that we should adopt this practice, but this is impossible for us for structural reasons. Pilots of deck aviation remain in the Navy outside the crew with all the ensuing consequences.

If we go even further, is it possible to be completely confident in the sufficient depth of the study and planning of military operations using the main weapon in this case, if the headquarters of the ship’s formation, interacting with the aircraft carrier, does not have a competent officer from carrier-based pilots? Recall how very difficult even the high flagships that emerged from the surface, in the management of submarines. By the way, in the 50 years, fleet commanders did not control aviation and submarines, but set general tasks. Accordingly, the commanders of the submarine forces and aviation worked directly and competently with subordinate forces - the recent experience of the past war affected.

Management will become truly effective and modern when pilots of deck aviation, submariners, past the bridge of a frigate or patrol will no longer be a rarity among the officers of the naval compound: then all nuances of naval combat will be comprehensively, correctly, soberly and effectively taken into account. Of course, this should be based on a renewed naval science, without a hitch, interpreting the actions of a modern balanced fleet with a full-fledged aircraft carrier in the core. Then the requirements for it will be defined and clear.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/31587
175 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. Vadim237
    Vadim237 29 July 2016 21: 38
    +7
    We will only begin laying the new destroyer in 2019, so the aircraft carrier is most likely after 2030.
    1. PN
      PN 29 July 2016 22: 03
      +37
      And is he needed? Modern air defense systems are so advanced that only feathers will fly from the birds. And by the year 30 they will be even meaner and ruthless. The threat to the aircraft carrier comes from everywhere, both from the air and from under the water. It’s like a battleship in the years of the Second World War, a formidable weapon, but too expensive, so they won’t let it into the front line, rather for the intimidation effect.
      1. Comrade Glebov
        Comrade Glebov 29 July 2016 22: 44
        +2
        Yeah ... so, by your logic, aviation is generally time to dump history. From her only feathers will fly.
        1. shibi
          shibi 30 July 2016 08: 46
          +7
          Not needed.
          One hit, and billions down the drain.
          Americans use them only until the first real confrontation. Next they will go to feed the fish.
        2. dauria
          dauria 30 July 2016 11: 43
          +11
          Yeah ... so according to your logic, aviation is generally time to dump history


          Well, to this and goes slowly. With manned aircraft for sure. In fact, some functions of aircraft are already successfully performed by UAVs. Horses and a hussar with sabers were supplanted. There are no artillery battleships either. Well, maybe they will remember at some round of history, they will return in a new form.

          Not saying tomorrow. But under water, in air and space, artificial brains are the place. A person creates too many restrictions for pieces of iron ... And by 2030 you will smile at the saleswoman-robot and not suspect about it.
          And what should we do with aircraft carriers? Yes FIG knows. One thing I’ll say, at first they buy a refrigerator in the apartment, and then a gaming computer. Now is not up to them.
          1. Mikhail Krapivin
            Mikhail Krapivin 30 July 2016 17: 17
            0
            Quote: dauria
            Yeah ... so according to your logic, aviation is generally time to dump history


            Well, to this and goes slowly. With manned aircraft for sure. In fact, some functions of aircraft are already successfully performed by UAVs.
            Not saying tomorrow. But under water, in air and space, artificial brains are the place.


            Then we got kayaks. Brains (supercomputers) we still buy from a potential enemy number 1. They will stop selling normal processors to us, and the story of our modern weapons will end here, again we will return to the AKM - RPG 7 level.
        3. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 31 July 2016 00: 28
          -1
          Yeah ... so, by your logic, aviation is generally time to dump history. From her only feathers will fly.
          Manned aircraft. hi
      2. Valery Valery
        Valery Valery 29 July 2016 23: 06
        0
        You will be surprised, but aviation is the main force at sea. Of course it’s different: shock, AWACS, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, PLO - but aviation. A fleet without aircraft carriers cannot be considered full-fledged. The Russian Navy needs at least four avm (two for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet).
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 30 July 2016 00: 03
          +20
          Quote: Valery Valery
          The Russian Navy needs at least four avm (two for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet).

          Do we have today modern ships to support, cover and provide aircraft carriers? Before dreaming about the AUG, we would first have to build NEW destroyers, frigates, and cruisers under this business, which we do not currently have. What can I say about that? Buzzards and Atlanta will we drive until blue in the face? About a submarine is another story ... are we going to upgrade Varshavyanka up to the 30th year?
          As well as there is no 5th generation carrier-based strike multipurpose fighter. What are you talking about, dear? About Wishlist? So with the same success, one can now dream of military spaceships.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 30 July 2016 00: 51
            -5
            Quote: NEXUS
            Do we have today modern ships to support, cover and provide aircraft carriers? Before you dream about AUG, you would first need to build NEW destroyers, frigates and cruisers under this business, which we do not currently have

            Nexus, almost any Navy ships can act as a warrant for Augs. An order is formed each time depending on the tasks set. Augs of America are of course advanced in how they use a combat electronic network-centric defense and attack control system. We also need to strive for this. In the meantime, you need to at least lay the lead nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 30 July 2016 02: 24
              +1
              Friday night, so many hungry trolls wink
            2. kepmor
              kepmor 30 July 2016 08: 06
              +9
              ... almost any Navy ships ...
              Well, well, put an MPK with an IPC in the guard of an aircraft carrier, even with a new corvette ... but why? One has everyone's favorite "caliber", the other has a bad - why not security !?
              And such a "formidable" AUG will walk only in calm, so that the "protection" by chance does not drown in a 7-8 point storm, which are not rare in the Atlantic and quiet.
              On my IPC in December 95 I had a chance to go to the security of "Kuznetsov" together with "Kharlamov" (1155 project) during a storm of 5-6 points ... to be honest, there was no time for the leader's guard!
              "Head-legs" .... to keep the ship on the wave so that it would not break and the hull would not lead, but people would not be washed overboard!
          2. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 30 July 2016 03: 02
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            Buzzards and Atlanta will we drive until blue in the face?

            "sarych" then one on the "go" ... hi
          3. Valery Valery
            Valery Valery 30 July 2016 06: 49
            -8
            You yourself respected! And I'm an officer of the Navy! It is clear that a whole shipbuilders need a program for an aircraft carrier, which will include not only destroyers, but also tugboats, moorings, apartments for sailors, airplanes ... And before that we need to build shipyards for avm - our aircraft carrying cruisers were built in Nikolaev.
            Only in the presence of an aircraft carrier fleet will we speak on equal terms with the United States.
            1. Monarchist
              Monarchist 30 July 2016 07: 24
              +8
              The aircraft carriers did not recognize us, and therefore they will find ten reasons why it is superfluous: there is no project, there are no planes, there is no one, there is no other, and most importantly there is no UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEED!
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. The comment was deleted.
          4. Letun
            Letun 30 July 2016 12: 29
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            So with the same success, one can now dream of military spaceships.

            So they already dream, there was recently an article about 6th generation airplanes that will bomb and destroy from space lol
            1. dauria
              dauria 30 July 2016 13: 24
              +3
              which will bomb and destroy from space


              Well, let's say, not from space, but the pilot has nothing to do there in the future ... This chicken is already preparing to become a museum. But she did hers. She showed what will happen in ten years. And it is not a fact that the aircraft carrier itself will not change, although such a dinosaur is slowly "evolving"

              You see, people have even learned to move atoms one by one. "Nanoelectronics" is just a swear word and associations with Red. Brains with dragonfly reflexes and Einstein's intellect are no longer fantasy. The later we understand, the worse for us.
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 30 July 2016 00: 45
          -6
          Quote: Valery Valery
          (two for SF and Pacific Fleet).

          My friend, we’ll have three for our eyes. They would overpower. In addition, no matter how cool it sounds, an aircraft carrier is now needed at the Black Sea Fleet, as It is here that the main world military-political events unfold, and it is in the middle-earth that the 6th operational American fleet as part of an amphibian carrier constantly sits. To drive with tof or sf to the Mediterranean Russian aug is far, expensive and long.
          1. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 30 July 2016 03: 03
            +4
            Quote: GSH-18
            My friend, we’ll have three for our eyes. To overpower them

            "Kuzyu" would be preserved ...
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 30 July 2016 03: 22
              +1
              Quote: Andrew Y.
              Quote: GSH-18
              My friend, we’ll have three for our eyes. To overpower them

              "Kuzyu" would be preserved ...

              I agree with you. Kuzya, of course, now as a combat unit can be considered with a stretch, but as a real "desk" for our deck pilots suits perfectly well. And there you look, and a real atomic aircraft carrier will be at their disposal. These times are not far off, our fleet has taken over. Of course, with a delay for objective reasons, but they took it seriously yes
          2. Valery Valery
            Valery Valery 30 July 2016 06: 56
            0
            Look for friends in your yard!
            1. The use of aircraft carriers in the Black Sea is impossible, including by international agreements.
            2. In addition to the Arctic, the SF includes the entire Atlantic, including the Mediterranean Sea.
            3. The Pacific Pacific Fleet covers the entire Pacific and Indian Oceans.
          3. igorkuzik
            igorkuzik 30 July 2016 12: 32
            +5
            Crimea is an unsinkable aircraft carrier!
        3. etrofimov
          etrofimov 30 July 2016 04: 17
          +19
          Not one is needed! It is more reasonable to spend a lot of money that will potentially be buried in the process of making another defective monster of the Kuznetsov type on the development of new missile and torpedo weapon systems and the construction of a LARGE series of SSGNs (a la 949A but on a new round). The rest of the money should be spent on the development of the Navy's aviation (AWACS, long-range anti-submarine and anti-ship missile carriers, plus heavy escort fighters). In addition, AWACS deck aircraft are a complete squalor in comparison with full-fledged ones.
          An asymmetrical response to the American Stone Age Trampling approach is far more promising!
          Parroting has not brought anyone anything good yet "The Amers have it and we need it !. No, we don't. The Russian Navy has its own way! Minimum (if possible :) costs) while maximizing the effect!"
          1. olegkrava
            olegkrava 30 July 2016 07: 36
            -4
            How did you define the inferiority of "Kuznetsov"? Are you a great ship expert? Build Better. You can even build a spaceship with a language, but it won't fly. And for a freak, answer before God.
            1. etrofimov
              etrofimov 30 July 2016 08: 05
              +10
              My General, I'm sorry shipbuilder hull with twenty years of experience and what a ship is small I understand little. Built something already, managed ...
              This is the first, second, I think anyone, I emphasize ANY aircraft carrier with a wing of less than 60 aircraft, is essentially inferior.
              In addition, from the point of view of the aesthetics of ship architecture, all aircraft carriers are ugly!
              1. olegkrava
                olegkrava 30 July 2016 09: 26
                -5
                I am not a general, I am a warrant officer, the son of a midshipman and also a locator. But I’ll notice, if you’re a shipbuilder, why you didn’t build better than Kuznetsov, you’re a corpsman!
                1. etrofimov
                  etrofimov 30 July 2016 09: 48
                  +8
                  I am the son of a captain of the 2nd rank, grandson of the midshipman and generally a resident of Kronstadt. Factories build what the design bureau designed, and they, in turn, fulfill the wishes of the Fleet. I apologize for the alphabet :) I build submarines, I love and appreciate them in every way ... However, as a resident of Kronstadt, I am actively interested in topics on surface ships.
                  Unfortunately, excluding individual bright spots, the Russian (imperial), Soviet and current Russian schools for the design and construction of surface ships created few worthy projects, the situation with submarines is much better, so historically ...
                  Based on this, as well as the notorious common sense, based on my own knowledge and a lot of communication with fleet officers, I am a supporter of submarines in all their forms.
                  1. Roman 11
                    Roman 11 30 July 2016 17: 45
                    +1
                    Quote: etrofimov
                    Based on this, as well as the notorious common sense, based on my own knowledge and a lot of communication with fleet officers, I am a supporter of submarines in all their forms.

                    Still, which diesel ones are better with or without VNEU? If with VNEU, then is it worth to be a supporter of weapons practically from WWII times? Just don't talk about the "black hole" of Varshavyankas, their periodic need to emerge will almost certainly lead to detection and useless use. They can only dive near their coast, under a reliable umbrella of air defense, and even then it is not a fact that some NATO outside woman will not sneak up and quietly snap the Varshavyanka climbing for oxygen ...
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. etrofimov
                      etrofimov 30 July 2016 18: 39
                      +1
                      VNEU and only VNEU, only it remains to finish :)
                      But seriously, nuclear powered ships and only they are today ....
                      I partially agree about WWII weapons, as I wrote above, the existing assortment of torpedo weapons of the Russian Navy submarines is clearly outdated today, urgent measures are needed to eliminate the backlog in this area.
                  2. Thomas 1989
                    Thomas 1989 31 July 2016 17: 17
                    -1
                    Quote: etrofimov
                    I am the son of a captain of the 2nd rank, grandson of the midshipman and generally a resident of Kronstadt. Factories build what the design bureau designed, and they, in turn, fulfill the wishes of the Fleet. I apologize for the alphabet :) I build submarines, I love and appreciate them in every way ... However, as a resident of Kronstadt, I am actively interested in topics on surface ships.
                    Unfortunately, excluding individual bright spots, the Russian (imperial), Soviet and current Russian schools for the design and construction of surface ships created few worthy projects, the situation with submarines is much better, so historically ...
                    Based on this, as well as the notorious common sense, based on my own knowledge and a lot of communication with fleet officers, I am a supporter of submarines in all their forms.

                    and I have ... and I .... and I .... but actually you all have a fox come wassat
                2. Roman 11
                  Roman 11 30 July 2016 17: 27
                  +2
                  Quote: olegkrava
                  I'm not a general, I'm a warrant officer

                  Guys, why are you measuring your epaulettes, well, you give a pancake ..... laughing
          2. Monarchist
            Monarchist 30 July 2016 07: 37
            +1
            Petty Officer, I order you to listen to the opinion of the sailors! Read Valery’s opinion or remember that Kuznetsov spoke about the need for an aircraft carrier at a meeting with Stalin. Without an aircraft carrier, we are tight!
            1. olegkrava
              olegkrava 30 July 2016 09: 33
              0
              Thank you, that was my father’s name. But he just said the Navy BE. He died in 2000. Rogachev.
            2. Roman 11
              Roman 11 30 July 2016 18: 11
              0
              Quote: Monarchist
              Kuznetsov spoke about the need for an aircraft carrier at a meeting with Stalin. Without an aircraft carrier, we are tight!

              But do we have to engage in battle in the ocean ??
              1. etrofimov
                etrofimov 30 July 2016 18: 42
                0
                In the event of a serious war, definitely have to! And given the quantitative and qualitative composition of the Russian Navy, the fleet will unfortunately have one task: to die causing the maximum possible damage to the enemy ..
                Sad but true.
      3. hirurg
        hirurg 29 July 2016 23: 23
        +1
        Wouldn’t be needed, Kuznetsov wouldn’t go.
        But a couple more advanced would not hurt. (So modest)
        There are different devices: hypersonic, and ....
        Impact tools should be different and in stock.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 30 July 2016 00: 07
          +15
          Quote: hirurg
          But a couple more advanced would not hurt. (So modest)

          How are you going to provide and cover this couple, dear? And then I look here half of the commentators just like in "Operation Y" the hero Vitsin, and strive to take the lower pot.
          First, escort ships are built, and then an aircraft carrier is provided for this. And many of those present in their children's Wishlist are apparently not burdened with the issue of protecting the AUG.
      4. Vadim237
        Vadim237 29 July 2016 23: 30
        +1
        The plane is not so terrible as its "filling".
      5. Vadim237
        Vadim237 29 July 2016 23: 39
        +1
        The United States defeated aircraft carriers in the war with Japan on the ocean; fighter bombers have air-to-air missiles against anti-aircraft missiles.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 30 July 2016 00: 11
          +8
          Quote: Vadim237
          The U.S. in the war with Japan on the ocean was defeated by aircraft carriers,

          Then the ships didn’t carry anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles, which could hit 1000 km, such as Vulkan. The tactics and use of the AOG slightly changed. There was also no nuclear weapons that could cover the whole AUG with one hit.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 30 July 2016 02: 36
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS
            Quote: Vadim237
            The U.S. in the war with Japan on the ocean was defeated by aircraft carriers,

            Then the ships didn’t carry anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles, which could hit 1000 km, such as Vulkan. The tactics and use of the AOG slightly changed. There was also no nuclear weapons that could cover the whole AUG with one hit.

            Don't mislead your audience. Do not hit, but fly. To "beat" you need target designation. And in the far sea zone without AWACS aircraft, you can only shoot up to the radio horizon line, that is, at 20-25 km. That's all your combat effectiveness in the ocean in the absence of carrier-based aircraft.
            1. etrofimov
              etrofimov 30 July 2016 04: 22
              +9
              Yes, yes, satellites have not yet been invented, over-the-horizon radars were also dreamed of by everyone! Yeah, without a carrier-based fighter, Granite and Basalt will not receive target designation ... Gee gee ...
              1. Roman 11
                Roman 11 30 July 2016 18: 16
                -1
                Quote: etrofimov
                Granite and Basalt will not receive target designation ...

                Maybe ...... they are morally obsolete. Onyx and Zircon are now well known.
            2. midivan
              midivan 30 July 2016 15: 44
              +3
              Quote: GSH-18
              Don't mislead your audience. Do not hit, but fly. To "beat" you need target designation. And in the far sea zone without AWACS aircraft, you can only shoot up to the radio horizon line, that is, at 20-25 km. That's all your combat effectiveness in the ocean in the absence of carrier-based aircraft.

              Now explain to me the mehany of the earth’s civilian fuel oil, well, the Americans have declared war on us and stick on our AUGs to our shores, isn’t it easier to fuck on the pentagon right away ... to gasp? Why play with them in a sea battle? immediately hit on the head and everything, I'm for rockets fellow
              1. dauria
                dauria 30 July 2016 15: 53
                +3
                here explain to me the mehan of the earth’s civilian fuel oil, well, here the Americans declared war on us and rod on their AUGs to our shores, well, isn’t it easier to fuck on the pentagon right away ..


                And you know, because you have clearly formulated our doctrine out of your mental simplicity. "Unacceptable damage" - that's "not a rod on their AUGs"
                1. midivan
                  midivan 4 August 2016 15: 44
                  0
                  Quote: dauria
                  And you know, because you have clearly formulated our doctrine out of your mental simplicity. "Unacceptable damage" - that's "not a rod on their AUGs"

                  smile repeatDuc time of youth taught, when a stronger one runs over then to hit the head and preferably on the beard, otherwise good luck not to see
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 30 July 2016 09: 08
            -5
            This carrier of the Volcanoes itself will be an excellent target for cruise missiles of carrier-based aviation and anti-ship missiles, the aircraft carrier’s formations are not terrible, they will be shot down by air defense systems of escort ships and carrier-based aircraft.
            1. etrofimov
              etrofimov 30 July 2016 09: 52
              +1
              Oh, how I doubt it ... it’s not so simple ... What about a group attack of 2 SSGNs and a group of 5-7 missile carriers, accompanied by fighters?
              1. Alex777
                Alex777 30 July 2016 12: 32
                +1
                1) At the moment, this is almost half of the fleet in one place.
                2) Air defense on current ships is almost completely absent.
                3) And there is also an EW factor.
                After the sinking of Eilat 52, the Israelis drove similar missiles into the water. And in the Falklnd War, only dipoles were enough for Exocet to go to sea. Since then, much water has flowed under the bridge ...
              2. NEXUS
                NEXUS 30 July 2016 12: 39
                +6
                Quote: etrofimov
                . What about a group attack 2 SSGNs and a group of 5-7 missile carriers, accompanied by fighters?

                I believe that in the near future there will be one more misfortune for the AOG, these are strike ekranoplanes, possibly unmanned ones, with stealth technology, on board of which long-range anti-ship missiles of the Zircon type will be placed on board (analogue of the Lun, only faster, more manageable and more arsenal more serious) ... and with this scenario, the life of aircraft carriers will be very difficult.
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 30 July 2016 22: 21
                  0
                  In the near future, there will not be any shock ekranoplanes in the arsenal of Russia - there is no development program in this area and there is no funding either.
              3. Vadim237
                Vadim237 30 July 2016 22: 18
                -3
                And who said that aircraft carrier formations will enter the area of ​​operation of our anti-ship missiles, "Accompanied by fighters" - they will not reach the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and whatever you say, the US fleet outnumbers ours by almost 10 times, and in terms of striking power 30 times - and what can we counter them - 100 cruise missiles with a launch range of up to 700 kilometers.
          3. Azitral
            Azitral 30 July 2016 09: 30
            +2
            Quite true. For some reason, all horror as concentrated on the "impenetrable" air defense AUG, but there are also nuclear torpedoes. If they do not satisfy in something, you can throw money on improvement. And then there are sophisticated bottom mines that eject a nuclear warhead on signal. And what will AUG do? In case of a serious war, they are a priority target. Goal.
            1. etrofimov
              etrofimov 30 July 2016 09: 53
              +1
              Exactly, the GOAL! And the priority along with the positional areas of the BR, command centers, naval base and megacities of the enemy.
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 30 July 2016 22: 31
              0
              You will find these strike groups from the beginning - all over the oceans, escort ships and carrier-based aircraft and will not let close a submarine or missiles or ships or planes - they will all be shot down and drowned over long distances, and in case of a big war the US Navy There are hundreds of supply bases around the globe - unlike us, our fleet can fight near our shores, but in the open ocean it has zero chances - there will be no help.
            3. Thomas 1989
              Thomas 1989 31 July 2016 17: 23
              0
              why atomic? there are no nuclear torpedoes for a couple of thousand kilometers sailing, modern bottom mines are not nuclear, if the warhead is 500 kg in trotequivalent .....
        2. etrofimov
          etrofimov 30 July 2016 04: 31
          +3
          Resources and powerful industry, and more! The Japanese perfectly understood the importance of aircraft carriers, but they were ruined by limited resources and nonsense in the field of organizing a training system for decks and a system for saving pilots at sea.
          1. Roman 11
            Roman 11 30 July 2016 18: 23
            +2
            Quote: etrofimov
            The Japanese perfectly understood the importance of aircraft carriers, but they were ruined by limited resources and nonsense in the field of organizing a training system for decks and a system for saving pilots at sea.

            Errors Yamamoto Midway.
      6. Chizh1020
        Chizh1020 30 July 2016 01: 30
        -1
        Aircraft carriers, this is a platform for weapons. There should be an aviation platform in the Far Sea zone! And they’ll shoot them like a chicken in the air !!
      7. Chizh1020
        Chizh1020 30 July 2016 01: 31
        -1
        Aircraft carrier, this is a platform for weapons. There should be an aviation platform in the Far Sea zone! And they’ll shoot them like a chicken in the air !!
      8. Chizh1020
        Chizh1020 30 July 2016 01: 32
        -1
        Aircraft carrier, this is a platform for weapons. There should be an aviation platform in the Far Sea zone! And they’ll shoot them like a chicken in the air !!
      9. Chizh1020
        Chizh1020 30 July 2016 01: 32
        -1
        Aircraft carrier, this is a platform for weapons. There should be an aviation platform in the Far Sea zone! And they’ll shoot them like a chicken in the air !!
      10. The comment was deleted.
      11. Chizh1020
        Chizh1020 30 July 2016 01: 34
        0
        Aircraft carrier, this is a platform for weapons. There should be an aviation platform in the Far Sea zone! Otherwise they will shoot like a chicken in the air !! bully
      12. pafegosoff
        pafegosoff 30 July 2016 03: 38
        +4
        In general, an aircraft carrier is a relic. Let the Americans and the Chinese spend it on them. The strategy needs a new, fantastic. Carry airplanes on ships - a hundred-year history.
        It would be nice to build an airship from an ultralight sponge (metal or polyester) to build one and a half to two kilometers.
        All right, space shuttles on the hump of aircraft carriers would be displayed.
        It would be nice to take cyber war seriously to control everything: from financiers to the defense industry.
        So no: give us the scoop!
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 30 July 2016 22: 35
          -2
          Why is the aircraft carrier a relic? - No one has the means of effective search, guidance and defeat of carrier groups, and will not even appear in the long term.
      13. dmi.pris
        dmi.pris 30 July 2016 07: 14
        0
        It looks like you didn’t even serve in the army as an ordinary .. Aviation doesn’t have to go into the air defense coverage area, and the aircraft carrier is not a battleship, but a really expensive but floating airfield, which is difficult to detect and can appear together with the AUG in the most dangerous places ..
        Quote: PN
        And is he needed? Modern air defense systems are so advanced that only feathers will fly from the birds. And by the year 30 they will be even meaner and ruthless. The threat to the aircraft carrier comes from everywhere, both from the air and from under the water. It’s like a battleship in the years of the Second World War, a formidable weapon, but too expensive, so they won’t let it into the front line, rather for the intimidation effect.
        1. etrofimov
          etrofimov 30 July 2016 07: 25
          +3
          What is hard to detect? Aircraft carrier??? If only visually further 1 mile in clear weather! It’s a trough, and you can see it with security from anywhere, even a satellite measuring the magnetic field and its perturbations will detect this barge from orbit, there’s nothing to say about radars even in passive mode!
          It was hard to find during WWII at large theaters such as the Pacific ....
          Your data is somewhat outdated ....
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 30 July 2016 22: 39
            -2
            "Even a satellite measuring the magnetic field and its disturbances will detect this barge from orbit" - Yes, it will detect - hundreds of tankers and container ships of the same size.
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 30 July 2016 22: 45
              +1
              Quote: Vadim237
              Yes, he will notice - hundreds of tankers and container ships of similar sizes

              - Vadim, can you see your house on Google maps? You can, you can ...
              - and these cards came from - be surprised - from the satellites
              - and an aircraft carrier - it is much larger than your home.

              The idea is clear, I hope? wink
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 31 July 2016 10: 44
                -1
                Here another question arises, but how many satellites do Russia have that can search for aircraft carriers online?
    2. Inok10
      Inok10 29 July 2016 22: 08
      +21
      Quote: Vadim237
      We will only begin laying the new destroyer in 2019, so the aircraft carrier is most likely after 2030.

      ... exactly ... an aircraft carrier without an escort, and give it to the author and that they would publicly announce ... after this passage, I just put a minus, the first third of the article:
      Author: Our military industrial complex did not master the catapult even in the golden Soviet times, being almost omnipotent - like other, and traditionally aircraft carrier countries, could not. The Americans, the monopolists in this matter, work in deep cooperation with the world's best manufacturers of mechanical systems.
      ... well, well, there were two on THREAD, one was closed on the personal instructions of Ustinov, the second had been working since 1986, the name was really cleverly and tricky, "an overclocking device for testing aerofinishers," heating system for Northern latitudes ... photo attached: two barrels of a catapult in the workshop of the Proletarsky plant, full-scale assembly, mid-10s ... soldier
      1. Chizh1020
        Chizh1020 30 July 2016 01: 58
        -1
        Inok, justify the above. Once your position is based on theory. Then tell me how, where, how (well, etc.)
      2. Chizh1020
        Chizh1020 30 July 2016 02: 01
        +1
        Inok, justify the above. Once your position is based on theory. Then tell me how, where, how (well, etc.)
    3. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 29 July 2016 22: 10
      +20
      I read the article carefully and in the end it became clear: the author is a specific crew. He correctly laid out everything according to the actually floating and shooting hulk, but he got away from a much more primary question: Who, Where, With what forces and at the Base of what can he build it all? We had one plant that could build such giants - Nikolaev shipbuilding. Where is he now - everyone understands. There is nothing similar in Crimea. No, in the Far East basin, in Bolshoi Kamen it has just begun, and only tankers are planning to build it. And in the Baltic, all places have long been occupied and for many years to come. In Russia, even such a shipyard does not exist at all, on a ship of 70 thousand tons with a displacement. And the plant is needed with the appropriate equipment, and such specialists need to be found. And, in general, a lot of questions and problems. Look, the unfortunate spaceport (the most important, one must think, the construction site of Russia) only under the direct control of GDP could enter the system after endless corruption and other scandals. And here is an aircraft carrier. In my opinion, at this stage, Russia does not need it at all, this is a devastating project. So, I completely disagree with the author. Better with this crazy money to build 2-3 modern cruisers with a whole line of different missiles. They can exceed the range than the flight wing of an aircraft carrier, and their number will be incomparably greater and people (the best pilots, by the way) will not have to risk it. And to build a cruiser for 25-30 thousand tons - Russia has experience and opportunities too. Duma. So it will be more prudently unambiguous.
      1. Vladimir 1964
        Vladimir 1964 29 July 2016 22: 33
        +6
        Quote: Denis Obukhov
        I read the article carefully and in the end it became clear: the author is a specific crew. He correctly laid out everything according to the actually floating and shooting hulk, but he got away from a much more primary question: Who, Where, With what forces and at the Base of what can he build it all? We had one plant that could build such giants - Nikolaev shipbuilding. Where is he now - everyone understands. There is nothing similar in Crimea. No, in the Far East basin, in Bolshoi Kamen it has just begun, and only tankers are planning to build it. And in the Baltic, all places have long been occupied and for many years to come. In Russia, even such a shipyard does not exist at all, on a ship of 70 thousand tons with a displacement. And the plant is needed with the appropriate equipment, and such specialists need to be found. And, in general, a lot of questions and problems. Look, the unfortunate spaceport (the most important, one must think, the construction site of Russia) only under the direct control of GDP could enter the system after endless corruption and other scandals. And here is an aircraft carrier. In my opinion, at this stage, Russia does not need it at all, this is a devastating project. So, I completely disagree with the author. Better with this crazy money to build 2-3 modern cruisers with a whole line of different missiles. They can exceed the range than the flight wing of an aircraft carrier, and their number will be incomparably greater and people (the best pilots, by the way) will not have to risk it. And to build a cruiser for 25-30 thousand tons - Russia has experience and opportunities too. Duma. So it will be more prudently unambiguous.

        Denis. You are really right, taking into account the current defense doctrine of the state, your opinion absolutely agrees with my own. I enjoyed reading your comment. hi
      2. Kite
        Kite 29 July 2016 22: 34
        +6
        Quote: Denis Obukhov
        Better to build on this crazy money ......

        - Somehow, our authors spread a tree with a cape of wood, sort of looking ahead, but .....
        If the development of hypersonic vehicles is already underway that can reach any target on the planet, if they are already planning to create them as unmanned vehicles with one leader for the whole "flock", then fantasy should be given more freedom and plans for mother spacecraft. wink
        1. Yura
          Yura 30 July 2016 06: 56
          +2
          Quote: Kite
          figure out plans for spacecraft-uterus.

          Well, here are the promising tasks that tomorrow will be relevant, and the day after tomorrow yesterday. The controversy surrounding the aircraft carriers is precisely due to the fact that their relevance today is a big question, not to mention the possibility in ten years to get the most perfect ship for a museum afloat. But for example, how much can one spaceship control and keep under threat of territories? Two or three and the whole planet is under control, no AUG is impossible.
      3. Alex_59
        Alex_59 29 July 2016 22: 52
        +3
        Quote: Denis Obukhov
        Who, Where, With what forces and at the Base of what can all this be built?

        Sevmash can. If you invest the necessary funds in it and make a slipway of the appropriate size. According to other parameters, the NSR is able to build such large orders - there is experience in metalworking in the right volumes, assembly of large dimensions, work with nuclear power plants. Production is not completely killed, although it suffered in the 90 and 00.

        But this is not in our country. We have a liberal economy - the NSR itself must look for the customer, and the customer, by analogy with Medvedev’s attitude to civil aviation, can try to buy the right order abroad. Like Mistral, for example. Not with the Chubais, Medvedevs and other Shuvalovs about aircraft carriers you can think of.
      4. Alex777
        Alex777 29 July 2016 22: 56
        +6
        Not a single cruiser will fight off aviation without air support. Banal ammunition is not enough. On the link F-18 28 anti-radar missiles. Launch range - 100 km. On destroyers based on the missile defense missile defense SM-3 made anti-ship with a range of 400 km and a speed of 2700 m / s. Tomahawks made multi-purpose. The range was reduced to 1200 km, but the universal thing turned out: both on ground targets and ships. Can you imagine this swarm of rockets? Etc. etc.
        The author did not argue whether an aircraft carrier is needed or not.
        I just laid out that if you need it by a certain date, then what you need to start right now. And here I completely agree with him.
        I can’t say anything about the experimental ship. But the Chinese, building the Type-55 destroyer (cruiser), were not too lazy to build a full-size prototype to work out the solutions.
        1. Orionvit
          Orionvit 29 July 2016 23: 37
          +10
          Something the author went into the area of ​​"everything is lost" and "impossible". In the Soviet Union, most of the projects were designed and built practically from scratch, and nothing was done. The nuclear power plants and the main components of the aircraft carrier have long been developed. Is the lift a problem? Or a catapult? What nonsense. The main problem is money. Well, also naval doctrine. The states have a huge aircraft carrier fleet, because they always fight far from their shores, around the world. They are always bombing some Arabs. Do you think Russia will attack anyone in Africa or South America? An absurd question. If the combat radius of carrier-based aircraft is 500 km. (the author's desire for 1200 km is difficult to implement, to put it mildly), then the question is where to apply it. The Americans are greyhounds because they are at war with the natives, but in the event of a conflict with Russia (God forbid), all their aircraft carriers, if they approach the Russian shores within the range of carrier-based aircraft, will be immediately sunk. And the states are well aware of this. Output. Aircraft carriers are needed, but 3, maximum 4, to support military units far from their native shores. As a strike force, in a war with a well-equipped enemy, they are practically useless.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 30 July 2016 07: 05
            +1
            Quote: Orionvit
            The main problem is money.
            Where is the money, Zin? - Sarah was sent! laughing
            The Russian government, in principle, decided to pay labor pensions to emigrants who left Israel from Russia before 1993. Yesterday, Russian ambassador Pyotr Stegny officially announced this to the absorption minister, Sofa Landver.
            July 7, GDP signed. For a few days, I give pensioners of Crimea “... indexation of pensions is impossible ... there is no money, but you hold on. I wish you health and good mood. ”
            Quote: Orionvit
            Conclusion

            I absolutely agree with the conclusions. hi
        2. NEXUS
          NEXUS 30 July 2016 00: 13
          +6
          Quote: Alex777
          I just laid out that if you need it by a certain date, then what you need to start right now.

          You need to start not with an aircraft carrier, but with new escort ships.
          Quote: Alex777
          Not a single cruiser will beat off aviation without air support

          Not a single aircraft carrier can survive even an hour without a cover and guard ship.
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 30 July 2016 12: 25
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            Not a single aircraft carrier can survive even an hour without a cover and guard ship.

            This is undoubtedly and obvious.
            I answered a colleague who, instead of aircraft carriers, wanted several KUGs with cruisers.
            When the Polyment-Redut is finished at Gorshkov's, and new nuclear "destroyers" are built, there will be an escort.
            I also hope that the 22350M will have a marine S-400, at least without 40N6. 48N6DM - that's enough. On the site of the Morinformsystem-Agat such a boat was drawn.
            And if the displacement is increased by 1000 tons, it will be generally good.
            Regarding the number of aircraft carriers, I agree with you: 2-4 equally for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet. The main task is to cover the deployment areas of strategic SSBNs. Well, sometimes to support "allies".
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 30 July 2016 12: 43
              +3
              Quote: Alex777
              I answered a colleague who, instead of aircraft carriers, wanted several KUGs with cruisers.

              So, first you need to build combat-ready modern strike formations with cruisers, heavy cruisers and destroyers, and then lay an aircraft carrier, if by that time there will still be a need for it, given the development of anti-ship missiles, the increase in the range of ground aviation, and also the transition to hyper sound ...
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 30 July 2016 22: 41
                +1
                Heavy cruisers in Russia will also no longer be built - they will be replaced by destroyers, which are in no way inferior to cruisers in armament.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 31 July 2016 11: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  Heavy cruisers in Russia will also no longer be built - they will be replaced by destroyers, which are in no way inferior to cruisers in armament.

                  The destroyer Leader will be with a displacement of 18500 tons, and in fact it is not a destroyer, but the ARC (Nuclear-powered missile cruiser).
            2. Roman 11
              Roman 11 30 July 2016 18: 49
              0
              Quote: Alex777
              The main task is to cover the deployment areas of strategic SSBNs.

              Where is the Hawaiian Islands, or New York?
        3. Roman 11
          Roman 11 30 July 2016 18: 39
          +1
          Quote: Alex777
          Not a single cruiser will fight off aviation without air support. Banal ammunition is not enough.

          And who is going to take ships out to sea ?? You still send them around the world as during Tsushima.
      5. etrofimov
        etrofimov 30 July 2016 04: 38
        +1
        Where to build, not a problem, the new slipway of the Baltzavod in St. Petersburg, being built at the Northern Shipyard in the same place ... We need will and money, but the main thing is the question, why do we need aircraft carriers in principle. I believe that coastal aviation of the Navy and missile submarines, with due attention, will completely close the task. Given the price of the issue in two versions, as well as the clearly greater combat stability of the hitch 2 SSGNs + 6-8 anti-ship missile carriers + 15-20 long-range fighters for covering missile carriers (with proper coordination of interaction), in my opinion the choice is obvious: we do not need aircraft carriers!
    4. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 29 July 2016 22: 16
      +1
      with a displacement of at least 65 tons or in the absence of one in the form of a catamaran or trimaran based on prefabricated ship hulls of 15-24 tons each with a solid transformer flight deck (C)
      Judging by the tonnage, this is not an airplane. but rather a drone laughing http://fleetphoto.ru/projects/1186/
      http://photo.adiso.ru/photo/resource/ru/258/258817/prodayu-locmanskiy-kater-proe

      kt-1710.1.b.jpg
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 29 July 2016 22: 31
        +2
        Quote: fennekRUS
        with a displacement of at least 65 tons or in the absence of one in the form of a catamaran or trimaran based on prefabricated ship hulls of 15-24 tons each with a solid transformer flight deck (C)
        Judging by the tonnage, this is not an airplane. but rather a drone laughing http://fleetphoto.ru/projects/1186/
        http://photo.adiso.ru/photo/resource/ru/258/258817/prodayu-locmanskiy-kater-proe
        kt-1710.1.b.jpg

        I always believed that we just need to redesign the Ulyanovsk project to fit the figure and new weapons HERE AND EVERYTHING ... We do not need shock armaments, we need ATAVKR for the air defense umbrella over the KUG and for air defense and anti-submarine warfare to escort SSBNs to the DB areas.
        1. etrofimov
          etrofimov 30 July 2016 04: 42
          0
          That’s why, the PLARK and the PLA, together with the naval aviation (coast-based), are fully able to solve the tasks and support of the SSBNs and the fight against AUG
      2. Camel
        Camel 30 July 2016 08: 37
        +2
        fennekRUS
        Judging by the tonnage, this is not an airplane. but rather a drone

        Aha! I also paid attention to tonnage "major"transports - it is surprising that many of the commentators define the author as a specialist in the field, if not shipbuilding, then certainly navigation. Probably the same" specialists "themselves. fool
    5. NEXUS
      NEXUS 29 July 2016 23: 19
      +2
      Quote: Vadim237
      We will only begin laying the new destroyer in 2019, so the aircraft carrier is most likely after 2030.

      Here I’m talking about the same thing ... we’re the Leader destroyer in no way able to take the bookmarks to the stage, but only bureaucrats run around with the mock-ups at the exhibitions ... while there’s no YaSU or main caliber for this destroyer (Zircon is being tested), and so on ...
      We still have a "plug" with anaerobic control system for new submarines. A submarine Kalina is necessary for us now and in a good series. The Husky MAPL is only in the project, and sorry, by and large, since the days of the USSR, submarines have been the main striking force in the fleets.
      Ash-M moved for two years.
      Also, we don’t have HMS for light destroyers with a displacement of 7-10 thousand tons, which we also need in a good series, as Sarychi is aging.
      And this is all a small part of what matters and tasks today. And then there are ice-class warships of 50 tons each thinking to build ...
      I don’t think that we will come to the tab of the aircraft carrier before 30-35 years. Too much more is required to be done before this.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 30 July 2016 00: 10
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        50 ton icebreaking class warships are thinking of building

        For icebreakers, the main displacement goes to hull structures, so that they will not be as large as they seem. For instance:
        - Project 23550 ice class patrol ship - displacement of 8500 tons, length 114 meters, width 18 meters.
        - Project 11356 patrol ship - displacement of 4035 tons, length 124,8 meters, width 15,2 meters.
        In general, if they build it, it will be something like Leaders, no more.
        Quote: NEXUS
        nor the main caliber (Zircon is being tested)

        And this is not scary. Zircon will be standardized with Caliber cells, so that in any case they will not remain unarmed.
    6. GSH-18
      GSH-18 30 July 2016 02: 05
      +1
      This is no longer a question-needed / not needed.
      The question itself is simply posed incorrectly. The point is not in aircraft carriers, but in the model of a balanced ocean fleet, consisting of ship formations — AUG (aircraft carrier strike group), which can operate effectively in all water areas and sea zones, at any distance from the homeland. AUG is impossible without carrier-based aviation. Accordingly, if we do not have nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, then our Navy will forever remain a coast guard fleet with all the ensuing consequences for the country request
  2. siberalt
    siberalt 29 July 2016 21: 40
    +5
    Yeah. "Let's leave the discussion about aircraft carriers outside the scope" and immediately discusses what is "outside the scope".
    Well, if the article is for itself, then we will not discuss it. laughing Moreover, from the territory of Russia, taking measurements almost halfway, we will get missiles anywhere.
    1. etrofimov
      etrofimov 30 July 2016 04: 43
      0
      I agree, not rockets, so Long-Range Aviation!
  3. Kite
    Kite 29 July 2016 21: 48
    +2
    Therefore, first of all, you should immediately order the main 5th generation universal deck aircraft with the functions of a fighter and attack aircraft and bomb load ...

    and then the author went into the gap because I really wanted to pee laughing
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 29 July 2016 21: 54
      +9
      really wanted to pee something
      where to put the stress? lol
      1. Vladimir 1964
        Vladimir 1964 29 July 2016 22: 35
        -1
        Quote: Gardamir
        really wanted to pee something
        where to put the stress? lol

        No comments. Competently and tactfully. hi
    2. Operator
      Operator 30 July 2016 00: 47
      +1
      The author has a mess in his head:
      - the main universal (oil oil);
      - with the functions of a fighter (Su-27) and attack aircraft (Su-25);
      - bomb load (ay, author, 21 century in the yard).
  4. Knizhnik
    Knizhnik 29 July 2016 21: 50
    0
    The author tries to distance himself from the monetary issue, but nonetheless returns to it twice. Well, money is a serious question, you won’t get away from it. request
    Questions are indicated correctly. There is no only answer - do you need an aircraft carrier?
    1. Sergey39
      Sergey39 29 July 2016 22: 32
      0
      There is an answer. Negative. They just don’t want to voice it.
    2. Vladimir 1964
      Vladimir 1964 29 July 2016 22: 37
      0
      Quote: Knizhnik
      Questions are indicated correctly. There is no only answer - do you need an aircraft carrier?

      What do you think? request The question is, of course, with some kind of counterpart to a colleague. hi
      Well, excuse me, as set .....
      1. Knizhnik
        Knizhnik 30 July 2016 00: 36
        +1
        I guess not yet. For example, if Syria did not provide the Russian Federation with a base for the airborne forces, then an aircraft carrier (as part of the AOG, of course) would be in place. But the fact is that Russia a priori does not wage such wars so that the aircraft carrier would be useful. It does not fit into the doctrine, so to speak. Although no one would have abandoned the technologies mentioned.
        1. igordok
          igordok 30 July 2016 08: 20
          0
          Even Italy, Spain, and Thailand have aircraft carriers.

          Do you need aircraft carriers in Italy, Spain or Thailand? What did they do to them? For a view, what is a superpower?
          1. Roman 11
            Roman 11 30 July 2016 19: 02
            0
            Quote: igordok
            Do you need aircraft carriers in Italy, Spain or Thailand? What did they do to them?

            Tin cans uncorked and sawed loot laughing
  5. Winnie76
    Winnie76 29 July 2016 21: 57
    +1
    And where to get the money for all this splendor? Catapults, boilers, AWACS aircraft, helicopters, test vessels? And will you have to invest money now, and the result will be (maybe) in twenty years? How many of our shipbuilders built Ash Head, if I’m not mistaken for 20 years. The author is fattening minus, sorry only one ...
    1. Knizhnik
      Knizhnik 30 July 2016 00: 41
      +1
      The author just mentions a lot of money and difficulties with the deadlines, so that your positions coincide. What is he minus for inattentive reading of his article?
  6. Barakuda
    Barakuda 29 July 2016 22: 00
    +5
    In addition to the aircraft carrier, loyal guard dogs are also needed, but they are also not available or few. I can imagine what a penny an aircraft carrier will fly into. Yes, and WHAT TASKS stand before him? There are no security bases, except in Syria, unlike the Americans. what
  7. Verdun
    Verdun 29 July 2016 22: 03
    +8
    A very strange article. On the one hand, there are obvious statements that aircraft carriers need to be built. On the other hand, there are absolutely not obvious prerequisites with which the author operates.
    Therefore, first of all, you should immediately order the main 5th generation universal deck aircraft with the functions of a fighter and attack aircraft and a bomb load of at least seven tons, with a combat radius of 1200 kilometers.
    Not obvious. Aircraft become obsolete before aircraft carriers. During the service of one ship, several types can change. No one builds a passenger liner first, and then an airport under it. It is clear that you need to determine the dimensions and the ultimate mass of future vehicles, but otherwise, generations, weapons, etc., are not necessary. In addition, while we are determined, time will again be missed.
    If we assume that the braking system of aircraft landing on the Admiral Kuznetsov is in principle implemented, and our industry can cope with the ship power industry, then the catapults and the wing will remain an open and fundamental issue. As far as it is complicated, it can be seen at least by the example of technologically advanced France, borrowing a catapult and deck airplanes of the ARLO for its atomic Charles de Gaulle from abroad, and at the cost of appreciable damage to national sovereignty.
    European countries do a lot of things to the detriment of their sovereignty. From the point of view of me, as an engineer, the catapult of an aircraft carrier is not God knows what complexity. It is only necessary to clearly determine what mechanisms we create - steam, electromagnetic, or, like the ancient Greeks, we pull the bowstring with a collar. It is clear that there will be technical problems, but if you do not start, then they will never be solved. The author’s dramatic passages remind me of the allegations of people claiming that we are so behind in the automotive industry that we can never create our Formula 1. Due to my professional activities, I had the opportunity to get acquainted with the various components of Formula 1 cars. There is nothing constructively supernatural in them, but there is only a high culture of production, modern technologies of this production and expensive materials from which all this is made. And, if you do not start trying to create such machines, then there will never be a production culture, materials or technologies. And the last one.
    Perhaps, it is worth starting with the fact that deck pilots in all the fleets of the world are a super elite among pilots, which is not inferior in any respect to flight test pilots and aces from flight teams. And the point here is not that they with enviable regularity have to board the deck of an aircraft carrier in a vast ocean
    Yes, such pilots are an elite, but only in the US Air Force for about twenty years, as aircraft landing takes place in automatic mode, and pilots are not strictly recommended to intervene in this process. Truth. a certain percentage of incidents during landing is connected precisely with the failure of automation. And this, again, is just an excuse to reflect on the fact that industries such as shipbuilding, aircraft manufacturing, and automotive are locomotive. because they are dragging along the development of other industries and related industries. So maybe enough is enough to reason, but is it time to start doing something?
  8. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 29 July 2016 22: 10
    +12
    And who told the Author that by 2030 the "aircraft carrier doctrine" will still be relevant? Especially when an ICBM with a hypersonic warhead appears with a CD trajectory in the final section to the target. that is, a kind of "hybrid" of a ballistic and cruise missile with a firing range of 8-13 thousand km. and pinpoint accuracy of 1-2 meters ("through the window")? What is the point of making a "birdhouse" (aircraft carrier), if its destruction can take place within 1 (!) Hour from the moment it leaves the sea? Which military analysts today will be able to say exactly what modern squadron combat will be like? Is Sivkov another "probabilistic" pearl about a "knightly duel" between cruisers or this author-genius of "the strategy and tactics of waging war at sea between AUG"? Maybe the new Russian aircraft carrier should be "light" and tailored for "drones", which in terms of combat power can be compared with light attack aircraft and fighters? And you are making gardens here - which is better than rye or wheat? Boats are a vista because of their stealth, aircraft carriers, like battleships and battleships, are dead ends and sucks! Do they already have a place in the trash heap or on needles cutting? It is no coincidence that the Americans are not going to finish building 12 AB - why?
    1. Kite
      Kite 29 July 2016 23: 46
      +1
      Quote: KudrevKN
      - what for?

      - this is the first, main question! The article states its symbolic meaning and purpose. And the history of the creation of this class of ships did not go from the desire to wave a club while sitting under a flagpole on your island. Next - the question of how the problem can be solved. Now, I am not an American, I find it difficult to justify the need to patrol the distant warm seas with such an "outfit". Dangle near Australia and Africa, closer to the equator? South of Australia there is a zone of constant storms and there you can fly into a natural floating island. The Mediterranean Sea is not enough, it is shot through and through not only by those who settled on its coast.
      If you feel like it, then: "we will definitely bang ... but, later" Everything will turn into dust, aircraft carriers too.
  9. Barakuda
    Barakuda 29 July 2016 22: 11
    0
    Quote: Verdun
    So maybe enough is enough to reason, but is it time to start doing something?

    Well, so they "do" .. it's scary to watch the news - how bureaucrats of all stripes burn on bribes and hijackings sad And imagine a state order for billions, how much will float away ... to plant something, but not to return the money, and TIME.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 29 July 2016 22: 18
      +2
      Quote: Barracuda
      And imagine a state order for billions, how much will float away ... to plant something, but not to return the money, and TIME.

      And therefore, out of fear of being stolen, you do not need to do anything? But is it possible somehow at the same time. One will build ships and planes. Others - to catch and plant those who steal money? Of course, to carry water through a sieve full of holes is a stupid occupation. But when a person dies of thirst and cannot reach the well himself, there is nothing left to do but to wear it, while giving kicks to the negligent owner of such a sieve.
      1. Barakuda
        Barakuda 29 July 2016 22: 45
        0
        Yes, I agree, you need to do. Otherwise, we will graze the back (and so on this issue behind at least a quarter century) sad
      2. grandson of the hero
        grandson of the hero 30 July 2016 01: 46
        0
        I’m afraid that by that time there will be nowhere to plant. Occupancy will exceed all standards.
  10. Monos
    Monos 29 July 2016 22: 20
    +7
    In an era when all continental options for solving the problem have been exhausted due to the shift of the main danger to oceanic directions ...


    I got to this phrase and wanted to look the aftor in the eyes and ask: "Dear, have you tried not to write? Try it. Do people a favor."

    I wonder what kind of problem the author has, which he solved with "continental options" and what kind of danger lies in wait for him in the "ocean directions"? And, in general, what poked him so?
  11. Wildfox
    Wildfox 29 July 2016 22: 21
    +3
    I did not even read the article to the end, only to the point.
    Apparently, it should be built on the basis of large vehicles with a displacement of at least 65 tons or, in the absence of such, in the form of a catamaran or trimaran on the basis of ready-made ship hulls of 15-24 tons each, with a continuous flight deck-transformer and an island bridge, as is customary on aircraft carriers.

    Ator is not ship modeling here you can’t finish the file and you can’t grind it with a grinder. If you are far from compromising, please do not go into higher sciences. So for enlightenment on the seas and oceans there are sometimes waves of storms. Therefore, 2 tankers tied together will drown together with the crew. On power plants in general, I am silent I’m just removing the whole thing and sticking a new one .... but it’s easier to re-build an aircraft carrier.
    The problem is that no one doshikhpor formulated naf he RF is needed except on the TF. But agree to build a series of 3-4 aircraft carriers and escort ships to them will not. Unless considering export. As a result, they will build what can be sold and not what they need.
    I would very much like to see aircraft carriers in the navy but apparently hardly sad
  12. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 29 July 2016 22: 37
    0
    Hey, we’ll probably dream about an aircraft carrier for it, for it needs a decent escort escort, and these are ocean ships, which we also took care of once or twice. This is what we need to build first, but for aircraft carriers we already need to think in advance about the appropriate planes, helicopters, and develop the engineering industry. An aircraft carrier will essentially require the creation of a new industry unit with many, many branches with completely new machines. The author is right that we need to think now about an aircraft carrier, it is worthless for Russia to be without ocean ships, without aircraft carriers, and without them we will be a regional country
  13. dima-fesko
    dima-fesko 29 July 2016 22: 42
    0
    Its setting itself testifies only to one thing - to the weakness and commitment of Russian science, in particular naval science.

    "Kulibins! We have! This is the first thing.
    Secondly, as stated above, the doctrine we have is different!

    No one needs air shaking! The aircraft carrier should also have military security (in case of going beyond the territorial waters), and this is the cost. At the same time, think about how such a cow is destroyed? Do you know the tactics? It is not effective for protection (coastal is better), for offensive operations only in relation to 3 countries that do not have developed air defense and the Navy. Where is the reason?
  14. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 29 July 2016 22: 43
    +1
    It is good that the author does not doubt the past day of the fleet. But you should look to the future, and not prepare for past wars.
    So, in order.
    In the era of GZO and TsU from space, it is difficult to speak of the combat survivability of J. Ford class bridgeheads. The adoption by the PLA of the People's Republic of China of the PKBR DF-21D seriously perplexed the Yankees and moved the safety zone for the AMG to 1500 km from China's guides. Thus, removing AVU from the category of first-class means of attack in the reserve of the High Command.
    SecondlyIt was not in vain that the command of the Navy created anti-aircraft divisions of SSGNs in the 80s. The combat capabilities of the Yasen-M class APRK are far superior to those of the 949A project. Maybe, after all, a "surprise" from under the water is better than counter-force butting at the top? I agree, we need air cover for the same APRK. But to measure who has longer tusks and brighter feathers - please come to our anti-aircraft divisions SSGNs.
    Third, good idea trial boat. It remains only to calculate what it will result in for the cost of the new AVU project.
    Fourth, rightly noted that the series should be at least 4 units. - 2 units. to each of the strategic fleets. Otherwise, it will be difficult to talk about succession and combat stability.
    About training the commander of the AVU. The staff have a rule that the cap must land on the deck of his ship. After that, it is considered that he is ready to manage the AVU.
    Everything was simpler for us: the deputy TAKR aviation commander was responsible for flight safety and its combat use. Therefore, we have decided this question.
    About energy and LA of the future You can talk a lot, but there will be something that designers will do, and industry will be able to produce in bulk.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 30 July 2016 07: 23
      0
      1. As far as I know, there was one successful test with a b / g DF-21D hitting a fixed target in the dimensions of the deck of an aircraft carrier. I don’t know about the tests on a moving target and arming, do not share the source?
      1. etrofimov
        etrofimov 30 July 2016 07: 29
        +1
        What nafig difference, with at least 200 kilotons of dispersion from 3 scatter from 5-XNUMX kilometers will not play any role. So and so, to the bottom!
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 31 July 2016 00: 03
        +1
        Quote: strannik1985
        I don’t know about tests on a moving target and arming

        1. There were 2 hits.
        2. The DF-21D was adopted as an anti-ship ballistic missile in January 2009.
        The U.S. Department of Defense said that China had developed and reached the initial operational readiness stage for a ground-based missile system with anti-ship ballistic missiles based on the DF-21 in conventional equipment. The DF-21D is the first and only anti-ship ballistic missile in the world, and the first weapon system capable of hitting long-range moving carrier-based attack groups using ground-based mobile launchers.
        DF-21D maneuvering warheads can be paired with various types of terminal guidance systems. China's deployment of the DF-21D has raised serious concerns in US military circles. So, in August 2010, the Washington Times published the opinion of analysts that the DF-21D is capable of breaking through the protection of the best aircraft carriers and that it was the first threat to the global dominance of the US Navy since the Cold War. In January 2011, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that among the Chinese military developments, the DF-21D and the J-20 fighter are the most worrisome.
        To ensure target designation, PKBR China launched a number of satellites:
        Yaogan-7 - optoelectronic satellite - December 9, 2009
        Yaogan-8 - aperture synthesized radar satellite - December 14, 2009
        Yaogan-9 - a series of three satellites of marine electronic intelligence - March 5, 2010.
        https://ru.wikipedia.org

        And also: http://nevskii-bastion.ru/df-21d/
        According to experts, the emergence of such new weapons can significantly increase the protection of China from sea directions in coastal seas from the threat of surface enemy formations in them, and can also radically change the nature of hostilities at sea, as well as the prospects for the development and construction programs of aircraft carriers in general .
  15. Denis Obukhov
    Denis Obukhov 29 July 2016 22: 50
    +6
    And what are the goals of the only aircraft carrier of the Russian Federation is foreseen - to walk in proud loneliness surrounded by a dozen enemy aircraft carriers ... For several decades now, the built aircraft carrier Kuznetsov can’t live to the point of full combat readiness, but then from scratch! ruin the Russian Federation (as the USSR used to be), order the construction of an aircraft carrier - a black hole for state finances (as in a joke - you want to look respectable, spend a lot of money on charity and work above the roof - buy an elephant) ...
  16. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 29 July 2016 22: 51
    +8
    Simple question. And where will our AUG be based, and how will they BREAK through the expanses of the oceans? Except from Kamchatka (but there is a base of several AUGs, oh-oh. These are not several submarines.) Where are the bases around the world, where it will be possible to supply tens of ships, and tens of thousands of people? And in the case of combat work in the distance - a whole fleet of suppliers and tankers? This is all for those whose doctrine is to fight with the wrong hands on other continents. So they built their whole policy, and the structure of their armed forces. And we, in my opinion, are not even going to fight on the American continent. When the bases were in Cuba, there were options, but now there is no such task. Who are we going to iron with aircraft carriers? Papuans? Matrasia even could not cope with Vietnam, and she had enough aircraft carriers even then. Indeed, the impression is that the aircraft carrier is a mammoth of the Cold War, a fossil, such as the battleship of WWII. Large, expensive, and ineffective.
  17. Comrade Glebov
    Comrade Glebov 29 July 2016 23: 31
    -1
    "Admiral Gorshkov" (2004) and "Leningrad" (somewhere between 1991-93), "Moscow" (1995) were sold to India, "Varyag" and "Kiev" were sold to China (1993), "Novorossiysk" and "Minsk "sold to South Korea, some of them as scrap metal (1997 and 1995)," Ulyanovsk "(1995) not completed and dismantled. GY, Zrada! ARE OUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS? IT IS NECESSARY TO URGENTLY DELIVER A MONUMENT TO YELTSIN FOR 7 BILLION!
  18. Barakuda
    Barakuda 29 July 2016 23: 42
    +4
    Or maybe follow the path of the USSR? There are no aircraft carriers, but the underwater fist was CSO-GO. And the Americans pissed as much as a run. Although they called them blind cows, for some reason the diapers were not removed.

    How many atomic submarines and submarines at various stages are currently being built in Russia?

    12 pieces at once?

    Under construction nuclear submarines of the Russian Federation:

    1. "Prince Vladimir" (project 955A)

    2. "Prince Oleg" (project 955A)

    3. “Generalissimus Suvorov” (project 955A)

    4. “Emperor Alexander III” (project 955A)

    5. “Prince Pozharsky” (project 955A)

    6. Kazan (project 885M)

    7. "Novosibirsk" (project 885M)

    8. Krasnoyarsk (project 885M)

    9. Arkhangelsk (project 885M)

    10. Perm (project 885M)

    11. Khabarovsk (project 09851)

    12. "Belgorod" (project 09852)

    Did you forget anyone in the puffer?
  19. SCHWERIN
    SCHWERIN 29 July 2016 23: 47
    0
    Carriers suck. The Japons drowned them in packs during World War II. The US Navy crews drew arrows on the decks and wrote: "Aircraft carriers in that direction." Japanese kamikaze successfully attacked these ships.
    Scary expensive to operate and maintain. Vulnerable, especially now from missiles. Americans traditionally use them. They have many bases. Just like they use rare buses to transport students.
    1. Barakuda
      Barakuda 29 July 2016 23: 58
      -1
      "Tamaghawk" and "Minuteman" are also rare. That does not at all interfere with keeping the Strategic Missile Forces of Russia in suspense.
    2. Comrade Glebov
      Comrade Glebov 30 July 2016 01: 27
      +1
      Of course it sucks! Only for some reason the Americans carried the Japanese mom out and now she herself serves as a kind of "aircraft carrier" for them. And the T-34 tanks suck, the Germans burned them with faust patrons for nothing, fu-fu-fu. Only someone's war in Berlin ended ...
      1. SergeBS
        SergeBS 30 July 2016 13: 16
        +1
        Quote: Comrade Glebov
        Of course it sucks! Only for some reason the Americans carried the Japanese mom out and now she herself serves as a kind of "aircraft carrier" for them.

        For historical accuracy only. In 1945, the SA "carried out" the Kwantung Army in China, our "only" almost a million warriors defeated and took away the raw material bases. As a result, Japan has almost no one and nothing at all to fight. Without this "little help" the USA would have stormed the islands for another 5 years. Japan's fate was decided in China. Actually for China and Malaysia, Japan climbed into the war.
    3. SergeBS
      SergeBS 30 July 2016 13: 05
      0
      Quote: SCHWERIN
      Carriers - it sucks. Japons drowned them in packs during World War II.

      "There is an elder in the garden, and there is an uncle in Kiev."
      Something like this. It was during World War II that aircraft carriers DECIDED the outcome of the battles in the Pacific. Most impressive example: Operation Soaring Chrysanthemums. The entire Japanese grouping of suicide ships was sunk by aircraft of US aircraft carriers WITHOUT a battle with the ships and did not walk away from the word "absolutely". The main striking force of the fleets there passed from battleships to aircraft carriers.
      BUT many years have passed since then. If then it was possible to "detect" the enemy from a distance either from a reconnaissance ship or from a reconnaissance plane, now it is "a little" not so. If then the aircraft carrier could only be drowned at close range or by planes "to get it", but now - again, "a little" is not so.
      Those. If in 194X aircraft carriers could well defend themselves, and battleships became their "whipping boys" and as a result lost their attractiveness as a fighting force, now, in order to save an aircraft carrier, a horde of ships is needed to blow dust particles off it. Moreover, this horde will cope with the task only if it is fighting a "sea" power such as Ukraine (there are no URO boats, no coastal defense, no long-range aviation). With Papuan (Africa) - will have enough strength to arrange a storm. But only.
      1. SergeBS
        SergeBS 30 July 2016 13: 37
        0
        Quote: SergeBS
        I didn’t walk away from the word “absolutely”.

        I didn’t solve my problem because of the word “absolutely”.
        Fooled over. sad
  20. Dart2027
    Dart2027 29 July 2016 23: 55
    +1
    How tired of the same thing.
    Well, how many times can one explain that in our time they are fighting just in the territory of some Iraq. Yes, nuclear submarines and DELP are certainly needed, but they are weapons for other tasks. Well does not replace one another.
    1. Barakuda
      Barakuda 30 July 2016 00: 09
      +1
      Is there anyone arguing? I meant that the AUG can simply be destroyed with the help of the nuclear submarine. It was generally forbidden to approach nuclear submarines of the Kursk type closer than 500 km.

      Although it would be nice, of course, it would be — near the coast of Syria, scaring the Turks, British, French, and Spaniards (along the way) a Russian AUG appeared at the head of an aircraft carrier of the type (think for yourself) .... All NATO ships left the Black Sea, US President HILARI TRUMP urgently convened ...
  21. Old26
    Old26 30 July 2016 00: 11
    +4
    Quote: Verdun
    Very strange article.

    Rather ambiguous. In principle, the author correctly argues that IF we want to have a full-fledged aircraft carrier in the future, we must deal with the problem now. After all, he is absolutely right about the wing. We don’t have a full-fledged AK right now. Not bad, in general, the SU plane is simply a marine version of the land. Still refers to heavy fighters. I have probably heard about light MIGs for about 20 years, no less, but things are still there. Indeed, at one time the same Sukhoi Design Bureau developed a whole line of deck machines. Why not go the same way now?

    Quote: KudrevKN
    And who told the Author that by 2030 the "aircraft carrier doctrine" will still be relevant? Especially when an ICBM with a hypersonic warhead appears with a CD trajectory in the final section to the target. that is, a kind of "hybrid" of a ballistic and cruise missile with a firing range of 8-13 thousand km. and spot accuracy of 1-2 meters ("through the window")? What is the point of making a "birdhouse" (aircraft carrier), if its destruction can take place within 1 (!) Hour from the moment it leaves the sea?

    I think that will be. The development of rockets in the 50s was also considered the grave digger of everything. And large ships, and aircraft. And nothing. More than half a century has passed, and neither aviation nor aircraft carriers have been buried yet. Whether or not the hybrid that you described will appear (a mixture of ICBMs with CDs) will be unknown. We consider hypersonic maneuvering BG a panacea for everything. Is that so? If such a BG is intended to break through missile defense, it does not mean at all that it will act as a missile defense in the final section of the flight, especially with a missile defense trajectory. as I understand it, the trajectory of the Kyrgyz Republic is a low-profile flight. and so, to cross a horse and a trembling doe is unlikely to succeed. Or the trajectory of the RC, but then the subsonic or supersonic speed with a short flight range (due to the size and weight of this BG-KR. Or hypersonic, but then this is a trajectory tens of kilometers high, well, and point guidance (1-2 meters) provided I don’t have to say that the object will go in the plasma. Most likely the control will be inertial, which means with a big final error. And it’s a mistake to assume that the aircraft carrier is so defenseless, including constructively, that it will be sunk in an hour.

    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
    In the era of GZO and TsU from space, it is difficult to speak of the combat survivability of J. Ford class bridgeheads. The adoption by the PLA of the People's Republic of China of the PKBR DF-21D seriously perplexed the Yankees and moved the safety zone for the AMG to 1500 km from China's guides. Thus, removing AVU from the category of first-class means of attack in the reserve of the High Command.

    Alexander! To accept that they accepted DF-21D, but I did not hear about real tests. Once they fired at a landfill, where they depicted the contour of the flight deck and achieved two hits in the contour. Some evil languages ​​ask the question: did they draw the outline before or after the hit?
    After all, you can get into an area equal to the area of ​​the deck with a fairly small KVO. But the aircraft carrier will not stand and wait. YES and with the radar, the Chinese have not yet resolved problems
    1. Kudrevkn
      Kudrevkn 30 July 2016 08: 44
      +1
      And who told you that it would be easy - easier to say (write) than to do? But science does not stand still, although thought is still ahead of action! At the same time, is an aircraft carrier a weapon of the pre-war period and a "horror story" for small countries like Libya (1986)? But even in that war, to put it mildly, did 3 (!) AB (1 nuclear) "liquid flow" against Soviet ships and aircraft, like their "retinue" of 180 pennants? Even AB "Coral Sea" was damaged and was forced to "leave the battlefield" and go to Naples for repairs. The rest of the NATO "warriors" were not braver - they got out after them: it cost 4 "goldfish" to "wave their tails", and the Tu-95 pairs "wave their wings and turn the propellers" every two hours of flying! Time will tell - who has accumulated more forces and resources for the war?
  22. shadow
    shadow 30 July 2016 00: 30
    0
    We have nothing to fly on. There is something to fly: MiG 29k / cu. But aviks are already in the past. Take-off of an airplane, its departure into orbit, there the speed is not the same as that of aviks or airplanes that are in airspace, flew a few minutes to the right place, went down, dropped or shot down what was ordered and also got back. Everything about everything for several hours, or even less. And with avik how? And no nuclear submarines can reach the airplane, or maybe even air defense.
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 30 July 2016 20: 06
      0
      Quote: Shadows
      Take-off of an airplane, its departure into orbit, there the speed is not the same as that of aviks or airplanes that are in airspace, flew a few minutes to the right place, went down, dropped or shot down what was ordered and also got back.

      And before approaching, I looked into the video camera from space, are there any anti-aircraft ships floating in Hawaii, and there are a lot of fighter jets on the airfields? laughing
  23. Barakuda
    Barakuda 30 July 2016 00: 36
    +2
    Quote: Old26
    I have probably heard about light MIGs for about 20 years, no less, but things are still there. Indeed, at one time the same Sukhoi Design Bureau developed a whole line of deck machines. Why not go the same way now?

    How do you know where the cart is? Sukhoi (and not only He, Myasishchev, for example) developed projects during his lifetime, which became relevant 20 years later. Maybe there is some kind of "secret" genius. But the management is stupid, which has nothing to do with aviation, I would have dispersed them. For people who do not understand that the plane has ONE WING, and not two, you need to stupidly fire, and not receive salaries more than an engineer at times. am
  24. Bekas1967
    Bekas1967 30 July 2016 00: 57
    0
    It feels like they are trying to drag us into the arms race again. How it ended, I remember well .... I would not want a repetition. It would be better if we built normal roads from Kaliningrad to Vladik. Schools, hospitals, sports facilities, etc. we are not the United States, dollars do not print.
    1. Chizh1020
      Chizh1020 30 July 2016 01: 26
      +3
      Yes, the arms race ever stopped at all !?
    2. Comrade Glebov
      Comrade Glebov 30 July 2016 01: 30
      0
      About schools and hospitals +++++. But by producing "butter", we further provoke the greedy insolent socks to test our "guns".
  25. Chizh1020
    Chizh1020 30 July 2016 01: 17
    0
    Ahah, what can I say, even China has 3 pieces.
  26. shinobi
    shinobi 30 July 2016 03: 45
    +1
    The future belongs to submarines. In the near future, when the zircons start to be mass-produced, all water spaces from the coastal batteries will be shot through. So the need for aircraft carriers is an open and very controversial issue.
    1. etrofimov
      etrofimov 30 July 2016 04: 47
      +1
      Yes, he’s not controversial, they are not needed (my comments above)
  27. Volksib
    Volksib 30 July 2016 05: 29
    +6
    Life is very fleeting and fast, during the construction period of 10-15 years, technology goes to an endless distance. Therefore, at the moment it will be better for us to look for pearls under our feet. American AUGs have shown their effectiveness in wars with the enemy, which are technologically weak when aircraft carriers in principle there’s nothing to be afraid of. I read the comment about the need for an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea. This is murderous. The Americans never, I emphasize, never bring the AUG neither into the Black Sea nor into the Baltic. The elephant in a china shop is just stupidly beaten))). On the Black Sea there is one aircraft carrier and it is unsinkable our Crimea. Caliber-NK, which showed their debut in Syria, can be installed even on a fishing schooner ... Tu-160M2 production will be resumed, it’s several times cheaper and more efficient than the construction of aircraft carriers. A whole escort of ships of the oceanic zone is needed to protect a floating airfield. the wasp that got into its network does not compete with it in the sharpness of the sting. Yes and in speed it’s clearly inferior. In general, without fuss it simply eats imagining I sew about myself formidable deadly winged ....
    1. etrofimov
      etrofimov 30 July 2016 05: 49
      +1
      Absolutely to the point, totally agree!
    2. SCHWERIN
      SCHWERIN 30 July 2016 07: 00
      +3
      Agree to all 100!
      Let us turn to the past. USA vs Japan in World War II. the Americans crushed a powerful surface fleet with AVIATION! Japons drowned aircraft carriers Amers aircraft.
      The British brought out a miracle of technology - the German battleship "Bismarck" WITH ONE TORPEDO !!! dropped from the "maize" torpedo bomber Swordfish!
      They say - it's all in the past. But the means of defense and attack are always in balance, regardless of time.
      Yes, aircraft carriers are cool! Huge money, rich country. But most likely for colonial wars. They simply push the airfield to the country.
      For the Russian Federation, this is not necessary. We have Crimea and the Kaliningrad region. In the east, Kamchatka and the islands. Probably enough?
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 30 July 2016 07: 41
        -1
        Quote: SCHWERIN
        For the Russian Federation, this is not necessary. We have Crimea and the Kaliningrad region. In the east, Kamchatka and the islands. Probably enough?

        And in Syria I had to build an air base.
  28. viktor.
    viktor. 30 July 2016 07: 29
    +3
    I think with the current development of the submarine fleet and rocket science, carrier groups will become ineffective in the near future, but if I invest $ 1200000000 in the VKS, I think it will be much more interesting.
  29. prior
    prior 30 July 2016 08: 22
    0
    Article - stuffing.
    Russia is not a country, it is UNIVERSE. It’s impossible to conquer and hold it -
    (Napoleon, Hitler, Batu ...)
    The Soviet Union was not defeated by the Americans or American aircraft carriers.
    He was ruined by the costs of building rockets, ships, including aircraft carriers.
    Once again on the same rake?
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 30 July 2016 10: 24
      +1
      Quote: prior
      He was ruined by the costs of building rockets, ships, including aircraft carriers

      Here it is not necessary, huh? He was killed by traitors.
      1. Roman 11
        Roman 11 30 July 2016 20: 26
        +1
        Quote: Dart2027
        Here it is not necessary, huh? He was killed by traitors.

        I also don’t remember that due to the deterioration of the economy, countries scattered. Well, in the USSR in the 20s and 30s there was a crisis, a great depression in the states ..... Millions died of hunger, 91 has nothing to do with the crisis like heaven and earth! It is important who stood at the helm. But crises have always been and will be, for that it is capitalism.
        And now some simpleton heard that the Saudis dropped prices not oil and from this the USSR collapsed and went online, which is why ..... well what can I say - this is the level of education.
  30. Zomanus
    Zomanus 30 July 2016 09: 01
    +4
    But what for is he needed, this aircraft carrier?
    When a rocket launched from the Caspian Sea can fly FIG knows.
    America needs aircraft carriers, yes. Well, what for us then?
  31. Kirill
    Kirill 30 July 2016 09: 19
    +3
    The development of the oceanic fleet is necessary to ensure the capture of the colonies and to ensure the protection of the supply lines of the metropolis with the colonies. RF does not need colonies. We have enough resources to withstand emergencies. We can defend our sea flanks without aircraft carriers. Crimea is an example. The best "aircraft carrier".
  32. olegkrava
    olegkrava 30 July 2016 09: 37
    0
    Quote: olegkrava
    Thank you, that was my father’s name. But he just said the Navy BE. He died in 2000. Rogachev.
  33. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 30 July 2016 10: 08
    +1
    ... the Hamlet question of the domestic fleet: do we need aircraft carriers in general? Its setting itself testifies only to one thing - to the weakness and commitment of Russian science, in particular naval science.

    It's funny. Right there in the article, the author has not a single claim to "naval science" - no, but full of claims to industry, developers, and the government. It turns out that we are not bad scientists, it turns out that we simply do not have the necessary aircraft for AV, no helicopters, no pilots, no catapults and no one is doing this. That is, even if now the AV is built, there is no one and there will be nothing to fly from it, but of course the professors from Krylovsky are to blame, you understand what scoundrels - engaged, hinder the development of the fleet.
    There is about the same level of "reasoning" in almost everything, there is no logic or analysis, only lamentations.
  34. viktor.
    viktor. 30 July 2016 10: 43
    +1
    A carrier group is created to attack. Why should we attack?
  35. Old26
    Old26 30 July 2016 12: 15
    0
    Quote: Shadows
    We have nothing to fly on. There is something to fly: MiG 29k / cu. But aviks are already in the past. Take-off of an airplane, its departure into orbit, there the speed is not the same as that of aviks or airplanes that are in airspace, flew a few minutes to the right place, went down, dropped or shot down what was ordered and also got back. Everything about everything for several hours, or even less. And with avik how? And no nuclear submarines can reach the airplane, or maybe even air defense.

    This fantastic scenario will (if any) be realized when not only the aircraft carriers of the Gerald Ford series (the head one is not yet in service), but also the subsequent series will be decommissioned from combat service. Only talk about 6th generation planes, no one yet knows what they can do, and your aircraft carriers are already outdated weapons and are in charge of combat aerospace planes ...

    Quote: Barracuda
    Quote: Old26
    I have probably heard about light MIGs for about 20 years, no less, but things are still there. Indeed, at one time the same Sukhoi Design Bureau developed a whole line of deck machines. Why not go the same way now?

    How do you know where the cart is? Sukhoi (and not only He, Myasishchev, for example) developed projects during his lifetime, which became relevant 20 years later. Maybe there is some kind of "secret" genius. But the management is stupid, which has nothing to do with aviation, I would have dispersed them. For people who do not understand that the plane has ONE WING, and not two, you need to stupidly fire, and not receive salaries more than an engineer at times. am

    Valery! Believing in a certain "secret genius", as well as in the "good tsar and bad boyars" is not forbidden to anyone. But let's be realistic. Geniuses don't make the weather right now. The general level of scientific and technical potential of the country makes the weather.

    Regarding my phrase that things are still there. And what is wrong? What, on the same "Kuznetsov" there is already a group "Migov" or something else? Or maybe everything is as it was before? Ship dryers? You can create anything you want. The genius of the designer is sometimes not 2, but 10 steps ahead. But not all the ingenious that they created is relevant now. The same Myasishchev, once created the M-19 project. Yes, in comparison with the "Buran" it was an advanced project, but not realized due to the fact that there were no engines corny (and now there are none). And the brilliant project remains unrealized even now ...
  36. Old26
    Old26 30 July 2016 12: 23
    0
    Quote: shinobi
    The future belongs to submarines. In the near future, when the zircons start to be mass-produced, all water spaces from the coastal batteries will be shot through. So the need for aircraft carriers is an open and very controversial issue.

    No need for distortions again. We have all gone through this. The future is for balanced fleet. And not worth the same "Zircon" do another wunderwaffe... It will not shoot through any "all expanses of water" from the coastal batteries.
    Zircon will be launched from the same launchers as Caliber (possibly Onyx). This means that the dimensions of the rocket will be within the limits of this launcher. Negative starting accelerator (length about 0,7 m). As a result, we get a rocket 7 meters long, which must first be accelerated to hypersonic speed, and then still maintain this speed. And do you think that it will have a range capable of covering "all bodies of water"?

    Quote: Zomanus
    But what for is he needed, this aircraft carrier?
    When a rocket launched from the Caspian Sea can fly FIG knows.
    America needs aircraft carriers, yes. Well, what for us then?

    And where will it fly from? especially if you have to go over the water? It may fly by fuel, but where will it go?
    Whether carriers are needed or not will depend on who we position ourselves. A superpower that has its own geopolitical interests in various parts of the globe, or a regional power that does not claim the first roles in world politics. In one case, aircraft carriers are needed, in the other not. There is no third

    Quote: anna1980
    I think with the current development of the submarine fleet and rocket science, carrier groups will become ineffective in the near future, but if I invest $ 1200000000 in the VKS, I think it will be much more interesting.

    The development of the submarine fleet and rocket science has been going on for 60 years. Super jerking
    not visible. There is an evolution. And all these 60 years have said that aircraft carriers will become ineffective. So what, have they become? They stopped building? Or are rocket science and underwater shipbuilding developing in dozens and hundreds of countries with giant steps? The number of players in this field has not changed. And to invest 12 billion again exclusively in the videoconferencing - to create another bias, stepping on the rake once again.

    Quote: strannik1985
    1. As far as I know, there was one successful test with a b / g DF-21D hitting a fixed target in the dimensions of the deck of an aircraft carrier. I don’t know about the tests on a moving target and arming, do not share the source?

    Alas, the namesake, I will not share the source. I would like to believe that for now. A couple of years ago I came to this information, looking at materials on the Chinese missile program. I looked through English-language sites, including and Chinese, but in English. Somewhere there, and these materials came across. Unfortunately, the archive was on the hard drive, which was covered. Friends managed to get some of the information (they still do it), but almost half was covered. So, alas, I can’t confirm with documents
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 30 July 2016 21: 03
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      And this means that the dimensions of the rocket will be within this launch. Minus starting accelerator (length approximately 0,7 m). As a result, we get a rocket 7 meters long

      Yes? And what about shafts for increasing range it is impossible to raise 3-4 meters? Hands forgotten how to do?
      Quote: Old26
      which must first be accelerated to hypersonic speed, and then still maintain this speed.
      It depends on which section they will accelerate to this speed? Maybe 200 miles to the target, just to penetrate the air defense squadron.
      Quote: Old26
      It may fly by fuel, but where will it go?

      If you are going to take into service, then you have decided on a guidance system ..... it seems that it will be something similar to basalts with granites, only much quicker on the finish line ..... miles, 200 just where the long-range air defense begins.

      Quote: Old26
      The development of the submarine fleet and rocket science has been going on for 60 years. Super jerking
      not visible. There is an evolution. And all these 60 years have said that aircraft carriers will become ineffective. So what, have they become? They stopped building?

      They talked about hypersound in the last few years, and then from 60 years you can safely subtract 20-25 years, in the west there was laziness, they stayed in triumphs, and we didn’t have money - everything went offshore to the oligarchs and bribed by their lackey bureaucrats servants.
  37. Mercenary
    Mercenary 30 July 2016 12: 23
    0
    Aircraft carrier efficiency 19%, works only in third world countries! It is necessary for aggressive policies to deliberately weak countries. Loses military ability even with minor damage to the deck (aircraft carrier Enterprise)
    In short, expensive and ineffective. It is better to produce landing ships, they are very much needed now in Syria (transport workers did not come home for half a year and carried a mat part for the Russian Aerospace Forces. Something like "Mistral", but OURS !!!!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 30 July 2016 22: 51
      0
      Apparently you are not aware that US carrier-based aircraft during the war years in Vietnam dropped 4 times more bombs than they dropped into Western Europe during the Second World War - aircraft carriers have weapons that are not inferior to nuclear ones, and there are nuclear bombs on US aircraft carriers to this day.
  38. Taoist
    Taoist 30 July 2016 12: 52
    +1
    We will not be able to pull off a full-fledged "drummer" and we do not need him ... there are no interests and tasks based on our doctrine. Universal ships with aircraft weapons are certainly necessary ... but this is primarily a question of creating a doctrine of a balanced fleet and is unlikely to be solved before the problem of protecting and defending BMZ is solved. So while all the talk about an aircraft carrier is an air concussion ...
  39. Titsen
    Titsen 31 July 2016 08: 48
    0
    Quote: Monarchist
    and most importantly there is NO UNDERSTANDING!


    It looks like this short phrase is a summary of both the article and all (practically!) Comments!

    A plus!
  40. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 31 July 2016 09: 17
    0
    For a full-fledged war, we need an aircraft carrier to cover the nuclear submarine deployment areas in the North Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Otherwise, the Navy of the United States, Britain, and Japan will endanger our submarines in a threatened period. An aircraft carrier for expeditionary forces is also of great value. This is the support of our rapid response forces around the world. I am silent about the development of technologies thanks to such projects ... But we should not get carried away with 1-2 AUGs. The Russian Federation is a land power, we are not so dependent on sea supplies like India or China. The naval blockade of the Russian Federation will not bring much benefit to the enemies, but is critical for India and China.
  41. Awaz
    Awaz 31 July 2016 11: 08
    +5
    how many times has it been said that in the current situation this is a waste of money. Besides the fact that there is no technology, the most important thing is that there is no need at all. We have a huge territory and we are not going to attack anyone. There is no possibility or even necessity to confront the American plus the fleet of its allies in the open ocean. Our main task is to protect our territory. It is necessary to develop missile systems, aviation and air defense. And then not a single bastard will twitch.
    Further, in the event of even a conflict, the destruction of one aircraft carrier even by the Americans is a fierce blow to both psychology and economics. Does FIG know how it will affect if the Russian aircraft carrier is destroyed, which will be clearly the first target ....
    We do not have overseas territories and we do not have overseas allies, which must be defended to the last Russian. We have only our own land and we need only deal with the protection of these territories. No aircraft carriers are needed here
    1. etrofimov
      etrofimov 31 July 2016 12: 02
      0
      A hundred pits pluses, but you can’t forget about submarines ...
      1. Awaz
        Awaz 31 July 2016 17: 01
        0
        yes yes, the submarine nuclear fleet is the most important thing. Here they are just what is needed first and foremost not the renowned aircraft carriers
    2. Thomas 1989
      Thomas 1989 31 July 2016 17: 34
      +1
      how many times has it been said that in the current situation this is a waste of money. Besides the fact that there is no technology, the most important thing is that there is no need at all)))))) golden words !!!
      quote (((((In an era when all continental solutions to the problem have been exhausted due to the shift of the main danger to oceanic directions, it is obvious: a purely continental defense is not well-to-do because of its passivity and limitedness.)))) I don’t understand why it is so peremptory? provocations? The main threats to our country are just continental, as always .....
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 31 July 2016 18: 43
        -1
        Quote: Thomas 1989
        The main threats to our country are just continental, as always
        That is, you need to wait until they come to visit us?
      2. Awaz
        Awaz 1 August 2016 09: 18
        0
        even with successful economic development, Russia will not be able to economically survive even 50 years against the whole world. There is no reason to attack anyone. The main task is precisely to make sure that not one scum had the desire to even think about an attack on the Russian Federation.
        I show it banally: if you are a boxer but you have short arms, there is no point in trying to fight a long-armed boxer according to his rules. We must impose our own style, which is not as convenient as possible for the enemy. It is also advisable to play a little with an unfamiliar enemy in order to understand his shortcomings, if you really cannot dump him right away.
  42. Denis Lebedev
    Denis Lebedev 1 August 2016 16: 01
    0
    The author is right to work out all the aspects of the decision to build an aircraft carrier, but first you need to decide if we need him at all.