Military Review

Expert: why the most expensive aircraft carrier of the US Navy turned out to be protracted

60
The Central Naval Portal has discussed the next delay in the delivery of the new US Navy aircraft carrier “Gerald R. Ford” with an expert in the field of aircraft carrier fleet Prokhor Tebin. The expert said why criticism of this project regularly appears in the press, what are the similarities between aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford type and destroyers Zamvolt, and why Russia can repeat the American experience of trial and error in the construction of new aircraft carriers.


Information about problems with the take-off and landing equipment of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford was made public on Tuesday, July 26, with reference to the US Department of Defense Test and Evaluation Department, Michael Gilmore. In a conversation with TsVMP Prokhor Tebin stressed that criticism from this department should not be taken as evidence of the low quality of the aircraft carrier equipment.


Nuclear aircraft carrier "Gerald R. Ford" US Navy

“Now they like to replicate the retellings of the report of the Director of the US Department of Operational Testing and Assessments, without going into details and details. You need to understand that this division of the Ministry of Defense is engaged in testing new equipment for its suitability for arming. This is analogous to our military acceptance, which includes detection of all faults. If their report consists of criticism, it only means that they have done their job well. But this does not always allow us to say that some type of weapon that they criticized and bad, "- said the expert.

According to Prokhor Tebin, the next postponement of the delivery of a promising US Navy ship may be related to the number of innovations that the designers tried to fit on board the aircraft carrier.

It is worth remembering that "Gerald R. Ford" has not yet been handed over to the fleet and this is the first ship of a new generation, which uses a large number of new technologies. The problem of the American fleet is that at first they wanted to introduce innovations on aircraft carriers of this generation gradually, during the construction period of the first three ships. That is, a couple of new technologies on the first ship, a few more - on the second, and so on. And then they decided to put everything in one head. As a result, we got expensive and complicated unfinished construction. New technologies introduced in this aircraft carrier can provide great opportunities. These are, for example, aerofinisers (turboelectric - Ed.) And electromagnetic catapults. But on the other hand, it is not yet known how they will behave in reality and whether their hopes are justified. In the carrier fleet, Americans are holding the lead, constantly learning something new, and, of course, they run into problems along the way. The faults they are talking about now were two years ago. Whether it is a catapult or an aerofinisher, they must work actively and smoothly during flight operations. There are standards that say that there should be no more than one failure for a certain number of take-offs, which stops the work, for example, of an aerofinisher. And now this figure is much higher. This suggests that the birth of new technologies is a very painful, expensive and lengthy process.

Despite the delay in adopting Gerald R. Ford as part of the US Navy, the US Navy today does not lack aircraft carriers due to operating a series of Nimitz type ships.

Expert: why the most expensive aircraft carrier of the US Navy turned out to be protracted

Aircraft carrier under construction "Gerald R. Ford"

"Carriers of old projects, such as the Nimitz, will remain in service for a long time. The newest ship of this series is not even ten years old, and the oldest will serve until 2025 of the year. Now the US congressmen are unhappy that the law 11 aircraft carriers in the fleet, and in fact their 10.When decommissioned "Enterprise" (the first nuclear aircraft carrier of the US Navy - Ed.), It was not replaced immediately. It should be replaced just "Gerald R. Ford", but when he will make, not really clear, "- said Prokhor Tebin.

However, to continue the construction of aircraft carriers such as "Nimitz" just will not, because "Gerald Ford" just is a deep processing of "Nimitz" using a large number of new technologies. Perhaps some of these technologies in the future will seem unnecessarily expensive or not reliable enough, and they will be abandoned in favor of older and proven ones. As an example, a situation from the adjacent field related to the construction of the Zamvolt destroyers in the USA, weapons which are the most modern 155-mm guns AGS, which shoot fabulously expensive projectiles at a distance of more than 100 km. This was considered a breakthrough technology project, its main advantage. But for the same critics and scolded him. Technology does not stand on the spot and in the USA they come to the conclusion that it is more efficient to make not expensive rocket-shells and special cannons for them, but simply high-speed shells for standard guns. Perhaps it was the allocation of huge funds for Zamvolt that pushed technology toward an optimal development vector. It can also be with aircraft carriers.

Problems with breakthrough technologies in the construction of an aircraft carrier fleet in the United States have been noted before. In particular, due to technical difficulties, the project of the Enterprise-type ships did not continue.

"If you turn to stories, there were very big problems when they handed over the Enterprise. It came out very expensive, very difficult, and because of it for a long time the development of atomic aircraft carriers stopped. There were significantly more reactors on it than on Nimitz, eight to two. This turned out to be unjustified, so the Enterprise was the only one of its kind and for some time in the United States returned to non-nuclear aircraft carriers, ”the source told TsVMP.

The problems experienced by American shipbuilders with Gerald R. Ford’s equipment can be repeated in the construction of new Russian aircraft carriers, if the equipment is not built up in practice, the expert believes.


TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" take to the raid with 35-th ship repair plant

"In recent years, we (in Russia - ed.) Had experience of operating one aircraft-carrying cruiser with a small air group that did not take part in real hostilities. And the Americans continued to operate aircraft carriers for almost 100 years, and nuclear ones - more than 50. Build A new aircraft carrier is a difficult task in itself, and when there is not enough practical experience, it’s difficult to get something good out of the output. A new Russian aircraft carrier can either be a logical development of the existing operating experience of Admiral Kuznetsov, or something new, but then we will go our own long trial and error, "explained Prokhor Tebin.

The aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, whose equipment problems are currently being discussed in the United States, was laid down in the 2009 year. It was supposed to transfer the Navy ship back in the 2014 year, but the dates were shifted first to 2016 and now to the 2017 year. The cost of building an aircraft carrier, which is currently approaching 13 billion dollars, also grew proportionally. It is worth noting that this amount includes expenses in the amount of 3,3 billion dollars for the design of the entire series of aircraft carriers of the new generation. For comparison, the cost of a serial aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type is estimated at 4,5 billion dollars. Compared to its predecessors, ships such as "Gerald R. Ford" will be able to be operated by smaller crews, while providing up to 220 sorties per day.
Originator:
http://flotprom.ru/2016/Сша92/
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Knowing
    Knowing 28 July 2016 05: 29
    0
    The F-35, now Gerald R. Ford, the railgun ... will be shouted all over the world, and then everything turns out to be exceptional raw food.
    1. Korney84
      Korney84 28 July 2016 05: 36
      -3
      We relaxed in the 90s and in the zero, now their defense industry is rolling downhill. And no one has canceled corruption in their ranks.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 28 July 2016 06: 03
        +7
        Quote: Korney84
        We relaxed in the 90s and in the zero, now their defense industry is rolling downhill. And no one has canceled corruption in their ranks.

        I wouldn’t say that? The main thing is that the percentage of novelty in serial products should not exceed 20%. And so it is necessary to conduct research and development and bring the product to assembly in trial operation. What is happening with them now.
        1. oldseaman1957
          oldseaman1957 28 July 2016 06: 50
          +1
          Quote: Amurets
          it is necessary to carry out R&D and bring the product assembly into trial operation
          - $ 13000000000 !!!
          - Yes, and for half of these grandmothers Russia can develop and revive an entire armada of ekranoplanes of the "Caspian Monster" type, which will render the entire US aircraft carrier flotilla incapacitated. Here is an ASSYMETRY that can be implemented here.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 28 July 2016 06: 56
            +7
            And which will be easily detected by AWACS aircraft and carried by fighters.
            The meaning of this armada?
            1. JD1979
              JD1979 28 July 2016 10: 55
              0
              Quote: BlackMokona
              And which will be easily detected by AWACS aircraft and carried by fighters.
              The meaning of this armada?


              And how do you forgive the fighters will carry? I don’t remember anything suitable for them, except perhaps the VPU.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 28 July 2016 15: 04
                0
                Air-to-air missiles and anti-ship missiles. Both this and that is suitable for defeating ekranoplanes.
        2. Korney84
          Korney84 28 July 2016 08: 02
          +1
          In principle, this was what was meant. How many years did not do anything, and now they are trying to catch up. So they implement everything at once.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 28 July 2016 07: 07
      +1
      Aircraft carriers for bullying Aboriginal people. What can they do against a nuclear power?
      1. Poppy
        Poppy 28 July 2016 15: 15
        0
        That's it: because we especially do not need them
        they are nullified by rockets
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 29 July 2016 12: 33
          0
          They are needed, but in a completely different form from the way Americans have ... In addition to air cover in conventional wars, it is still necessary to ensure the stability of nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles from air reconnaissance and enemy attacks.
    3. Pavel1
      Pavel1 28 July 2016 07: 26
      +3
      why shouldn’t we reach for the Americans, the capabilities of modern anti-ship missiles are increasing many times and one multi-purpose Ash will put them out of commission this marine airfield with a high degree of probability, and even taking into account our poor manners with the timing of the construction of ships, it turns out that something is expensive and indefinitely. It is better to build aircraft carriers for India, they still have not passed the period of youthful romanticism.
    4. Lord_Bran
      Lord_Bran 28 July 2016 09: 28
      +1
      The most melancholy-sadness will be if the "Ford" turns out to be finished. But about the F-35, it seems, you can no longer worry.
    5. Vadim237
      Vadim237 28 July 2016 09: 39
      +4
      The F 35 only has problems with BERO, and so the plane flies and flies perfectly - not a single accident in 16 years
      1. Muvka
        Muvka 28 July 2016 19: 45
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        The F 35 only has problems with BERO, and so the plane flies and flies perfectly - not a single accident in 16 years

        There are no accidents, because it does not fly.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 28 July 2016 21: 34
          +1
          Already released 174 aircraft and they flew tens of thousands of hours - so they fly.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 29 July 2016 10: 06
            0
            probably because of problems with avionics or software, this version later than the other two finally appeared in public, a quarter of a century later, from which the F-35 was copied. lol
  2. KOH
    KOH 28 July 2016 05: 40
    +25
    Some kind of blizzard ... the title of the article ... "why the most expensive aircraft carrier of the US Navy was long-term construction"
    the author dragged Russia here ... Russia needs the killers of aircraft carriers, and why Russia tears at a crazy price, we do not wage war of aggression, as exceptional ... and again, Russia needs weapons that would timely break up these barges ... (purely my opinion) ...
    1. Leto
      Leto 28 July 2016 05: 53
      -18%
      Quote: CON
      Russia needs a weapon such that it would timely gouge these barges ... (purely my opinion) ...

      The most reliable tool against an aircraft carrier is ... an aircraft carrier unfortunately.
      1. aba
        aba 28 July 2016 06: 12
        +10
        The most reliable tool against an aircraft carrier is ... an aircraft carrier unfortunately.

        It’s hard for me to assess the chances of one aircraft carrier against another, but if a meteorite or some sort of blank from space arrives, it’s unlikely that even such a large aircraft carrier will withstand it! laughing
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 28 July 2016 06: 20
          -4
          For these cases, he is accompanied by a bunch of ships with missile defense.
          1. drunkram
            drunkram 28 July 2016 10: 34
            -1
            For this Onyx and BraMosa were created, and for this Sarmat
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 28 July 2016 11: 38
              +1
              Quote: drunkram
              For this Onyx and BraMosa were created, and for this Sarmat

              Horses mixed up in a bunch, people ... (s)
              Sarmat is a heavy ICBM and it is unlikely that ours will ever use it as the Chinese DF-21D.
              Quote: Leto
              The most reliable tool against an aircraft carrier is ... an aircraft carrier unfortunately.

              Probably, after all, SSGNs with appropriate support. The problem with the control center is solved through space. In the future, probably GZO, such as "Zircon":
              March 17, 2016 it became known that Russia is beginning to test the Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missiles. The rocket will be able to reach a speed of 5-6M (when flying at a low altitude it is about 6-7 thousand km / h). The product is planned to be installed on promising 5-generation Husky multipurpose submarines, as well as replacing them with the P-700 Granit heavy anti-ship missiles on cruisers pr.1144 Orlan. The maximum range of the latest anti-ship missiles is unknown - presumably, it will be at least 400 km.
              https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2101606.html
      2. Poppy
        Poppy 28 July 2016 15: 16
        0
        who told you such nonsense?
  3. Observer2014
    Observer2014 28 July 2016 05: 42
    +7
    The whole situation with their super-expensive projects is at hand for you. Can you imagine if with their budget they will begin to make military equipment at normal prices. How much would it be !? True, there is a trump card in this case too. The nuclear charge doesn’t give a damn about how many times he’ll kill the example of ships or tanks. They’d be in the affected area.
  4. Bort radist
    Bort radist 28 July 2016 05: 42
    +1
    "According to Prokhor Tebin, the next postponement of the delivery date of a promising US Navy ship may be due to the number of innovations that the designers tried to fit on board the aircraft carrier."
    The latest fantastic projects in the USA are so ahead of reality that you understand - "Better a tit in your hands than a duck under the bed."
    PS And in real politics, something does not add up. They offered a "Week of Silence" in Syria. The Aerospace Forces are stopping flights, and the States are not blowing up anyone. And during this time they will strain and define moderate and not so.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 28 July 2016 06: 26
      0
      Quote: Bort Radist
      "According to Prokhor Tebin, the next postponement of the delivery date of a promising US Navy ship may be due to the number of innovations that the designers tried to fit on board the aircraft carrier."
      The latest fantastic projects in the USA are so ahead of reality that you understand - "Better a tit in your hands than a duck under the bed."
      PS And in real politics, something does not add up. They offered a "Week of Silence" in Syria. The Aerospace Forces are stopping flights, and the States are not blowing up anyone. And during this time they will strain and define moderate and not so.

      Why doesn’t add up? They are normal.
      The situation began in Syria, there is one hostile state, everything is quiet and calm there.
      The current situation, the war ripped the whole country, the huge clouds of the warring people, mated in this mess of Russia.
      Maximum scenario, no hostile state
      A minimum scenario, Assad quickly wins, and leaves the game for 20 years, sitting and restoring his economy to Russian loans to the same level as before the start of the US operation.
      Everything seems to be taking shape.
  5. 78bor1973
    78bor1973 28 July 2016 05: 50
    +1
    220 sorties a day-bullshit, rather a day, and then with a big stretch!
  6. Bayonet
    Bayonet 28 July 2016 05: 52
    +15
    7 years in total, for such a huge ship packed with innovative technologies - long-term construction? How is Ivan Grenn doing there? wink
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 28 July 2016 06: 03
      +12
      Well, they compared the pathetic 100 thousand-ton aircraft carrier with a large landing ship of 5 thousand tons. Not to say that 12 years old is clearly less than 7. wassat
  7. evil partisan
    evil partisan 28 July 2016 06: 06
    0
    Even I see that no matter what type of weapons the Yankees take up - it turns out a money pump ... what
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 28 July 2016 06: 12
      +3
      Only in the news, like 100 thousand head series, to which the unfinished construction is attributed, even though it even fits after the deadline for just 7 years.
      Here is an example of a Soviet ship of the head series, in order to compare.
      On March 26, 1973, the construction of the first lead ship of Project 1144, the Kirov heavy nuclear missile cruiser (TARKR), was launched (from 1992 to 2004, Admiral Ushakov). Launching took place on December 27, 1977, and on December 30, 1980 the cruiser was handed over to the fleet.

      Total 7 years for the 26 thousandth ship. Also unfinished?
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 28 July 2016 09: 35
      +1
      Quote: Angry Guerrilla
      Even I watch

      Even I look, you changed the flag, defector ... wassat Hi Gazpromovets! hi
      1. evil partisan
        evil partisan 28 July 2016 10: 22
        +1
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        You changed the flag, defector.

        I do not understand tebe: sho tse take - "deserter"? request And how is it on the sovereign mov bude?what
        Great boules!
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 28 July 2016 13: 41
          +1
          Pervacha grunts, fat snack, enlightenment will come! You pick it up, like a grasshopper! laughing hi
    3. Poppy
      Poppy 28 July 2016 15: 17
      0
      so in terms of sawing budgets, our officials are miserable preparations against ov
  8. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 28 July 2016 06: 20
    +1
    It was necessary to build two in one — to unite in one ship both an aircraft carrier and a destroyer of the Zumwalt type, and it would be cheaper.
  9. Yak28
    Yak28 28 July 2016 06: 35
    +6
    What a long-term ship is being built quickly, long-term construction in our country, in no way will an aircraft of the 5th generation be given birth to a series, and the vaunted SU-34 made its first flight in 1990, and got up for a series in 2014. year will be built, and then it will break down every now and then. And what new Russian aircraft carriers can we talk about, not the USSR, and even more so Russia did not have any experience or technologies for the construction and operation of large aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class. wink
    1. kos2910
      kos2910 28 July 2016 06: 58
      0
      Quote: Yak28
      SU-34 made its first flight in 1990

      Just 15 years ago and dropped out of military construction, now developments are going quickly.
  10. jovanni
    jovanni 28 July 2016 06: 45
    +3
    "... It is worth noting that this figure includes $ 3,3 billion in design for the entire series of next-generation aircraft carriers."

    Well, yes, without cutting anywhere. But! We then almost such a sum simply let the wind go, giving the yanyku when he was already sitting on his suitcases. It would be better if they supported their designers ...
  11. kos2910
    kos2910 28 July 2016 06: 55
    -2
    Why do we need new aircraft carriers? We are not invaders. Well, one can be built leisurely and inexpensively to replace Kuzi, but this is secondary. So, just so that the shipyard’s competence is not lost.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 28 July 2016 06: 57
      -3
      For example, in order not to keep the air base in Syria, in the conflict zone, but to fly quietly from the aircraft carrier.
      1. 78bor1973
        78bor1973 28 July 2016 08: 34
        +5
        No aircraft carrier in combat effectiveness with a land airfield and is not close!
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 28 July 2016 11: 51
          +3
          Quote: 78bor1973
          No aircraft carrier in combat effectiveness with a land airfield and is not close!
          I agree if you can move the "land airfield" 1000 km per day in any direction chosen by the Supreme Command. Good luck! laughing
  12. Wildfox
    Wildfox 28 July 2016 07: 00
    0
    The author made another statement.
    "The new Russian aircraft carrier can be either a logical development of the existing operating experience of the Admiral Kuznetsov, or something new, but then we will go our own long way of trial and error," explained Prokhor Tebin. "
    Naturally, that should be a logical continuation! It is not necessary to build everything that the neighbor has, but only that will increase the country's defense capability.
    My humble opinion is that the Americans in vain saved and shoved all the innovations into one aircraft carrier. It was necessary to gradually introduce it. Also, during the operation, a bunch of sores will come out that will make the introduction of something almost impossible. As a result, hurrying up can preserve progress for many years. hi
  13. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 28 July 2016 08: 02
    0
    Big ship! It will be difficult to miss.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 28 July 2016 11: 58
      +1
      Quote: Tatar 174
      Big ship! It will be difficult to miss.

      The main thing is that the means of destruction (missiles, bombs, torpedoes, etc.) and their carriers break through the 400-500 km zone of anti-aircraft defense, air defense / missile defense. Well, of course they broke through the "inner circle" of self-defense.
      It will be quite "fun" when a LO and EM cannons are put on such an AVU.
      It remains only to trust in Ash-tree with Zircons, but Husky to wait!
      IMHO.
  14. iliya87
    iliya87 28 July 2016 08: 31
    +2
    Wash sooo expensive and useless thing. We don’t need avionics at all, why? And so we can reach the nearest countries from airfields, and no one is going to attack the USA. I understand this is important for the United States, regular show-offs and additional forces in anti-aircraft and bombing activities, but they need to sail to their interests, and we can walk on foot.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 28 July 2016 12: 06
      +1
      Quote: iliya87
      We don’t need avionics at all, why?

      It is a pity that the General Staff of the Navy and the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation do not agree with you.
      According to calculations, in order to solve the tasks assigned to the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, they need two military aviation units for each fleet.
      But there is no money. Therefore, "Wishlist" has to be postponed until better times.
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 28 July 2016 22: 30
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        It is a pity that the General Staff of the Navy and the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation do not agree with you.
        According to calculations, in order to solve the tasks assigned to the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, they need two military aviation units for each fleet.

        Field Marshal, did the General Staff give you their calculations? I hope you approved them)))))
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 29 July 2016 00: 56
          +1
          Quote: Winnie76
          Did the GS provide you with your calculations?

          Namesake! I respect humor, even in such a straightforward way.
          But! There are operational-tactical calculations alongside forces for solving typical tasks by a compound (KUG, KPUG, AMG, OBK ...) ships. It is they who show that a couple of "normal" AVUs (60-80 thousand tons) would be "just that."
          Quote: Winnie76
          I hope you approved them
          No, I set the task for the design and construction of new multipurpose submarines of the "Husky" with the "Zircon" anti-ship missile on board. bully
  15. 3vs
    3vs 28 July 2016 09: 14
    +1
    It seems that the time of traditional aircraft carriers has passed.
    With the development of missile weapons, airplanes are not particularly needed.
    What is needed on the ship - helicopters for anti-submarine service, rescue, etc. tasks
    and drones, both heavy and reconnaissance for target designation,
    calibrate the rest ...
    1. vadimtt
      vadimtt 28 July 2016 09: 41
      +1
      Actually, modern anti-ship missiles are the heavy impact drone laughing
      It is enough to add unmanned reconnaissance reconnaissance target indicators and all sorts of REB carriers / repeaters.
  16. Vadim237
    Vadim237 28 July 2016 09: 33
    0
    Dolgostroy - in comparison with what? This aircraft carrier is ready, a full-fledged combat unit, it remains to complete the little things.
  17. Old26
    Old26 28 July 2016 18: 24
    0
    Quote: 78bor1973
    No aircraft carrier in combat effectiveness with a land airfield and is not close!

    Verify the truth. But what to do if the target is located 3 thousand kilometers from the nearest airfield (and not the fact that you can deploy aviation there - the country may turn out to be unfriendly) ??? What to do then? And the aircraft carrier will calmly approach the goal ... And for some reason, when it comes to aircraft carriers, they immediately begin to talk about their worthlessness in a nuclear war, how easy they are, they say, are amazed, and so on.

    Can anyone tell me when the last time was a nuclear war with the use of aircraft carriers and their countermeasures ???
    And local?
    There was no nuclear, and local - regular

    Everyone remembers the same Syria. But here is the question. What would happen if opposition groups could reach the range of an artillery strike at an air base? Could she function normally? And hitting a floating airfield a hundred kilometers from the coast is a difficult task.

    And further. About the ease of hitting an aircraft carrier. Now I can not accurately name the work of Admiral Captain, something like "War at Sea". He speaks very well there about the possibility of hitting aircraft carriers with non-nuclear weapons, in particular the CD.

    In particular, in order to incapacitate an aircraft carrier, it is necessary that 5-7 missiles of the X-22 class (or a marine analogue with the same warhead) fall into it. To sink - 11-12 missiles. But given that the aircraft carrier does not go alone, but with a warrant, it is easy to imagine what outfit of forces is needed to sink the aircraft carrier. In Soviet times, it was believed that the destruction of an aircraft carrier needed an air division of bombers. And you read at VO, so it’s powerful to send it to the bottom with almost one rocket ...
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 28 July 2016 22: 54
      0
      Quote: Old26

      Verify the truth. Only what to do if the target is located 3 thousand kilometers from the nearest airfield

      What are these goals for three thousand kilometers from the native land. Dreaming of world hegemony?
      Quote: Old26
      And for some reason, when it comes to aircraft carriers, they immediately begin to talk about their worthlessness in a nuclear war, how easy they are, they say, are amazed, and so on.

      And in the non-nuclear, sorry, as they showed themselves? For example, how did Kuzya prove himself in Syria, Georgia or in Chechnya?

      Quote: Old26
      Everyone remembers the same Syria. But here is the question. What would happen if opposition groups could reach the range of an artillery strike at an air base? Could she function normally? And hitting a floating airfield a hundred kilometers from the coast is a difficult task.

      Aircraft would be evacuated to another airfield. And they would bomb from there. But the survivability of the aircraft carrier is a big question. In connection with the rapid development of anti-ship missiles, artillery, spacecraft, underwater drones. Or are you only going to fight with the bearded? And where is the guarantee that one of the crew members of Kuzi will not be recruited by ISIS? And in the case of a floating airfield, we have all the eggs in one basket. One explosion - and there is no crew, no planes, no ship.

      Quote: Old26

      In particular, in order to incapacitate an aircraft carrier, it is necessary that 5-7 missiles of the X-22 class (or a marine analogue with the same warhead) fall into it. To sink - 11-12 missiles. But given that the aircraft carrier does not go alone, but with a warrant, it is easy to imagine what outfit of forces is needed to sink the aircraft carrier.

      These are spherical window figures in a cosmic vacuum sucked from an unknown finger. No one will ever be able to confirm or deny it. 1: 1 scale experiment only
  18. Old26
    Old26 29 July 2016 07: 45
    0
    Quote: Winnie76
    What are these goals for three thousand kilometers from the native land. Dreaming of world hegemony?

    Do you prefer to see Russia as a third world country with a coastal fleet and no interests outside its territorial waters?

    Quote: Winnie76
    And in the non-nuclear, sorry, as they showed themselves? For example, how did Kuzya prove himself in Syria, Georgia or in Chechnya?

    in almost any non-nuclear (local) war, they have shown themselves. Whether in Iraq, in Libya, or in any other regional conflict. How did "Kuzya" show itself? Is he an aircraft carrier? Or does the presence of a dozen fighters allow us to consider it as such? Does he have strike aircraft? Therefore, nowhere and did not show

    Quote: Winnie76
    Aircraft would be evacuated to another airfield. And they would bomb from there. But the survivability of the aircraft carrier is a big question. In connection with the rapid development of anti-ship missiles, artillery, spacecraft, underwater drones. Or are you only going to fight with the bearded? And where is the guarantee that one of the crew members of Kuzi will not be recruited by ISIS? And in the case of a floating airfield, we have all the eggs in one basket. One explosion - and there is no crew, no planes, no ship.

    They would have been evacuated if there was such a second airfield. And if he is not, then what? Well, there’s no suitable airfield in Syria for Russian aviation, where will you evacuate?
    As for the rapid development, you know, a very weak statement. How fast are underwater drones developing? Or spacecraft have become shock and are capable of hitting ground targets, and the rapid development of anti-ship missiles - do not list at least a dozen or two new anti-ship missiles that have appeared in the last 10 years. As for survivability, this is a recent trend, to consider aircraft carriers as a kind of tin can that can be sunk with one missile. As for the recruitment of a member of the Kuzi crew - well, then let's assume that one of the employees of the nuclear arsenal can be recruited and he is at the right time ...

    Quote: Winnie76
    These are spherical window figures in a cosmic vacuum sucked from an unknown finger. No one will ever be able to confirm or deny it. 1: 1 scale experiment only

    Of course the spherokonin. Like everyone else in this world. Nobody knows for sure that one mine requires two BGs from the "trident". Spherokonin? She is the most. No one knows for sure that our missiles will be able to hit the same American aircraft at a distance of 200 km with a 100% guarantee. Spherokonin is exactly like her. After all, there was no 1: 1 scale experiment. And the fact that there are specialists who are able to calculate both the necessary outfit of forces and the options - you do not consider this. The easiest way to say that all this is sucked from an unknown finger. But believe me, I trust this data sucked out of an unknown finger, voiced by the same Captain or other military men, more than ANALYTEGS from modern media
  19. Winnie76
    Winnie76 29 July 2016 10: 29
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Do you prefer to see Russia as a third world country with a coastal fleet and no interests outside its territorial waters?

    I prefer that for a start Russia could fully protect its territorial waters.
    Quote: Old26
    in almost any non-nuclear (local) war, they have shown themselves. That in Iraq, that in Libya, that in any other regional conflict. How did "Kuzya" show itself? Is he an aircraft carrier?

    Ok, I agree. Kuzya is not an aircraft carrier. Do you propose to build a full-sized 100 thousand tons of tubs like the Americans? Can you imagine the burden on the budget? This means a reduction in all other promising programs. We will be naked and barefoot, but on the other hand, an Aircraft Carrier.
    Quote: Old26
    Spheroconin? She is the most. No one knows for sure that our missiles will be able to hit the same American aircraft at a distance of 200 km with a 100% guarantee. Spheroconin - exactly she. After all, there was no 1: 1 scale experiment. And the fact that there are specialists who are able to calculate the necessary outfit of forces and options - you do not consider it.

    Nevertheless, you refer to these figures and offer to calculate the outfit of forces. How many experts - so many opinions. Sheffield had one unexploded Exocet.
    Quote: Old26
    Or the spacecraft became shock and capable of hitting ground targets, and the rapid development of RCCs - do not list at least a dozen or two new RCCs that appeared in the last 10 years.

    I will list only three. AGM-158C LRASM - promise in 2018, the Norwegian NSM and Bramos. But interested countries will be able to buy them. KA I suspect will soon learn to fully issue target designation, and underwater drones - to mine fairways. But these are my unsubstantiated assumptions ...
    Quote: Old26
    As for the recruitment of a member of the Kuzi crew - well, then let's assume that one of the employees of the nuclear arsenal can be recruited and he is at the right time ...

    It’s possible, of course, only the nuclear warhead must be fooled for a long time in front of the colleagues. Qualification is needed again. Plus surveillance systems and all sorts of. But to place cans or lay out plastids on the ship is much easier. No qualifications are required at all. So the vulnerability is different
  20. Old26
    Old26 29 July 2016 18: 25
    0
    Quote: Winnie76
    I prefer that for a start Russia could fully protect its territorial waters.

    Even now we can protect our therweds with what we have. The mosquito fleet is sufficient for this task. The same "Buyany-M" on the Black Sea are capable of this.

    Quote: Winnie76
    Ok, I agree. Kuzya is not an aircraft carrier. Do you propose to build a full-sized 100 thousand tons of tubs like the Americans?

    I more or less imagine the burden on the budget. I can’t imagine another. Why, as soon as the conversation comes about aircraft carriers, everyone suddenly begins to believe that Russia MUST BUILD aircraft carriers-copies from the American and in the same quantity. And what, to make an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 70 thousand tons with a full-fledged air group - these are full-size 100-thousand. After all, the atomic "Ulyanovsk" projected at the end of the existence of the USSR was not a copy of the "Nimitz". but had to have a full-fledged air group. Nobody requires the construction of 10 or 15 nuclear aircraft carriers, but the required number for each theater of operations and does not require such a number. As far as I remember, the figures that flashed in the media are 3 AB for the Northern Fleet, 3 for the Pacific Fleet. Such ships are not needed at the Baltic Fleet and Black Sea Fleet. But it is the MO that must decide what to build. Again, an ersatz aircraft carrier with missile weapons (neither a cruiser, nor an aircraft carrier, or build ships for the necessary tasks. And the tasks are not only to drive the bearded men from ISIS ...

    Quote: Winnie76
    Nevertheless, you refer to these figures and offer to calculate the outfit of forces. How many experts - so many opinions. Sheffield had one unexploded Exocet.

    If these are serious experts, and not ANALITIGES from the media, then the numbers are more or less close to each other. The same specialists from the Air Force, incl. and instructors of flight schools in their lectures for cadets never talked about aircraft carriers as objects that could be hit - one spit (this is on the conscience of the "specialists" from the media). The number of aircraft required in such calculations differs slightly. to expect that one ship, even a non-nuclear warhead, will be enough for it to become incapable of combat is initially stupid. The same tests when they tried to sink the captured "Graf Zeppelin" in the Baltic Sea in the USSR showed that it is not so easy to sink even such a target ship. And now - even more so. The structural elements of the aircraft carrier allow it to withstand a certain impact and remain functional. It is stupid to expect that a cruise missile will certainly fall into the ammunition cellar and destroy an aircraft carrier.

    Quote: Winnie76
    I will list only three. AGM-158C LRASM - promise in 2018, the Norwegian NSM and Bramos. But

    Three types of cruise missiles in the world - is this rapid development? In addition, one is not yet existing. With the same, if not with greater speed, means of protection against KR ...

    Quote: Winnie76
    It’s possible, of course, only the nuclear warhead must be fooled for a long time in front of the colleagues. Qualification is needed again. Plus surveillance systems and all sorts of. But to place cans or lay out plastids on the ship is much easier.

    Qualification is really needed for the YaBZ is different. But to arrange canisters and plastids on the ship with the crew in! .5-2 THOUSANDS of people is that simple? Especially in the amount capable of sinking the ship?
  21. Ivan Mokhovikov
    Ivan Mokhovikov 30 July 2016 23: 54
    0
    Oh, whose cow would moo, we don’t even have our own aircraft carrier in the project
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 31 July 2016 06: 03
      0
      Why is Kuznetsov not an aircraft carrier? Your cow, of course, is strange ...