“They will cut”: how to save “Admiral Kuznetsov”?

December 16 2019 118

Apparently, the fire was the last straw for Admiral Kuznetsov. Not only the military, but also the “accountant” from the Ministry of Industry and Trade are involved in deciding his fate. But this does not mean anything good for the last Russian aircraft carrier. It looks like they’ll cut it.

To be honest, if you sit with the calculator and count, then everything converges to the decision about disposal:

At firstThe ship is very old. Even its deep modernization will not extend the term of subsequent operation too much.

Secondly, the project itself is not entirely successful. A number of Western publications recognized the Russian aircraft carrier as one of the worst in history. Unfortunately, there is a considerable share of truth in this. "Admiral Kuznetsov" is, in fact, a variation on the theme of a helicopter carrier, not intended for heavy aircraft. The same Su-33 with a full combat load will not take off from it. And during the operation in Syria, two deck aircraft were lost while trying to land on it.

ThirdlyThe cost of upgrading the ship is astounding. Initially, the figure of 70 billion rubles was announced. After the aircraft carrier nearly drowned along with the floating dock PD-50 and damaged it with a collapsed crane, the amount of work, to put it mildly, grew. The rise of the dock is estimated at about a billion rubles, but the authorities came up with an original replacement for it.

Two dry docks of the 82nd shipyard will be reconstructed into one by the forces of St. Petersburg Investment Company. Engineering Construction". The amount of the contract is approaching 24 billion rubles. Impressive. And now there’s a fire in the energy compartment of an aircraft carrier. The total cost of work around "Admiral Kuznetsov" is guaranteed to overlap one and a half billion dollars, or even more. With this money, you can build several of the latest Borey nuclear submarines or project 22350 frigates, which represent real strength.

It turns out, "must be cut"?

That's right, but there is one important nuance. Having “cut” Admiral Kuznetsov today, the Ministry of Defense will lose the remains of its carrier-based aircraft. Landing and taking off from an aircraft carrier, making night flights over the sea is a special art that must be mastered for a long time and constantly maintained. Some simulators can not do here.

Left without the “Admiral”, Russia for many years, perhaps decades, will lose carrier-based aviation as a phenomenon. There is a lot of discussion about whether our country needs aircraft carriers. Need. The real, “hundred-thousandths that can be sent to the shores of Syria, and Venezuela, and to other points on the map. But to build them is expensive and long, during this time the whole school of carrier-based aviation will simply be lost.

Previously we called Three options for the fate of Admiral Kuznetsov: disposal, costly modernization to the level of a modern warship and its transformation into a museum-monument to the Soviet fleet. There is another option - to turn it into a training ship, surpassing the Black Sea. It will be more practical, faster and cheaper than trying to make it a “wunderwaffe”.

Sergey Marzhetsky
https://goodfon.ru/

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Arkharov

-1

16 December 2019 10: 40

Interesting to now make a training ship out of it, do you need much less money? As a training, it is interesting with the possibility of basing carrier-based aircraft, and this again is almost a complete modernization. If only at a joke, like blocking, but why?
1. The comment was deleted.
Afinogen

+1

16 December 2019 10: 56

Left without the “Admiral”, Russia for many years, perhaps decades, will lose carrier-based aviation as a phenomenon. There is a lot of discussion about whether our country needs aircraft carriers

With the tremendous development of anti-ship missiles (this is hypersonic missiles), aircraft carriers as a class are outdated and no longer needed. I remember that before the fleets had the main striking force, the battleship. The power of the fleet was determined by their quantity and size. But with the advent of the first anti-ship missiles, they ceased to be the main striking force in the fleet and left as a class. The same thing is happening with aircraft carriers. When the pair, the three planes will give a salvo with hypersonic PRK and immediately destroy the aircraft carrier and the guard ships, and there will be a sort of Pearl Harbor in the ocean. An aircraft carrier is an attack weapon, first of all, and who should we attack? His would keep. We need to build more corvettes, destroyers.
1. pin_code
  
  -1
  
  16 December 2019 12: 45
  
  A couple of aircraft still need to go to the missile launch area. Or, in your opinion, will the AUG commander sit and wait for enemy planes to fly up and launch rockets? Or will he send fighters to prevent this?
  1. Afinogen
    
    +2
    
    16 December 2019 13: 10
    
    The high-precision hypersonic dagger missile system, which is called the “killer of aircraft carriers,” poses an existential threat to the shrine of American military power. The upgraded version of the two-seat all-weather supersonic MiG-31 is a carrier of a hypersonic aeroballistic missile, the destruction range of which is almost 2 thousand km. Tu-22M3M and Su-57 can also be used for delivery. The maximum speed of the world's first air-launched ballistic missile exceeds the speed of sound by 10 times, which corresponds to 10 Machs, which the main engine develops in a few seconds, while maintaining the possibility of maneuvering. The dagger’s strikes cannot be repelled; it is invulnerable to modern air defense and missile defense systems. Experts say that the possibility of interception is excluded due to the speed of approach to the target, maneuvering and choosing the most effective angle of attack.
    There are also multipurpose submarines with anti-ship missiles, which were created to destroy the AUG.
    1. pin_code
      
      -1
      
      16 December 2019 13: 24
      
      Target designation with what you will give Daggers?
      1. Afinogen
        
        +2
        
        16 December 2019 13: 37
        
        It turns out (in your opinion) that "Daggers" is a bluff and they cannot destroy anything, right ??? So a lot of folk remedies have been wasted for nothing? Did I understand you correctly?
        
        pin_code
        
        -1
        
        16 December 2019 13: 40
        
        You started something for health, and finished for peace. Have you read my question? What will you give target designation? And one more .. how many planes are needed to strike at the AUG? Here the question is that there is even a rocket, there is nothing to deliver it (there is nothing to give the necessary number of carriers and missile defense to).
        
        It was smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines.
        
        Afinogen
        
        0
        
        16 December 2019 13: 50
        
        I understand your point. There is nothing to give the TSU, which means that the "Dagger" is a useless pile of iron. And enormous funds were again wasted in vain. I, of course, have the idea that whoever invented this weapon must have thought of everything. And the Americans wrote in the magazine that with the advent of hyper weapons in Russia, aircraft carriers became useless.
        
        pin_code
        
        0
        
        16 December 2019 14: 03
        
        You somehow all pervertly understand. Let's start with a simple ... we need dagger carriers, basing airfields, which means we need air defense facilities and much more. Need AWACS aircraft. And again the airfields and the same air defense. So, an aircraft carrier will cost less than all this and more mobile, and will meet the enemy at far approaches from their native shores. Under the guise of AUG, strategists can go into the deployment area. A multi-purpose just to be in the warrant and cover from the depths, and if necessary, strike at the warrant of the enemy.
        
        pin_code
        
        -1
        
        16 December 2019 14: 06
        
        And yes ... Americans can write a lot of things to knock out more money to the Pentagon))
        
        Arkharov
        
        -2
        
        16 December 2019 15: 20
        
        Afinogen - which "Americans" and in which "magazine"? Do you yourself regularly read American "magazines"?
        
        Afinogen
        
        0
        
        16 December 2019 17: 01
        
        The American publication, Defense News, calls aircraft carriers "sitting ducks" who wait until they hit Russian or Chinese weapons. The combat effectiveness of the AUG is rapidly decreasing due to the advent of a new class of hypersonic anti-ship missiles, and the advanced reconnaissance and target designation tools make them a convenient target for high-precision weapons.
        
        Arkharov
        
        -3
        
        16 December 2019 20: 19
        
        There is nothing to give the TSU, so ... "Dagger" is a useless heap of iron.
        
        - then aluminum?
        
        Afinogen
        
        +3
        
        16 December 2019 21: 42
        
        Aluminum ??? Something I very much doubt that of aluminum and hyper speed. Mig 31 from a stainless steel is welded, 3 mach gives, so it is heated. At the first Mig, the star on the tails burned down, as if they didn’t draw, and the pilot’s lantern could not be opened. Attached. It was already at the subsequent that the cabin lantern was refined, and the paint on the tails was fireproof.
      2. Pishenkov
        
        +3
        
        16 December 2019 15: 26
        
        target designation than you will give daggers?
        
        ... and now they are given what, aircraft carriers, or what?
        I was very fond of battleships and artillery cruisers - ships of amazing beauty and imposing beauty. But their time has passed. The time of aircraft carriers is also passing - this is a means of delivering force, nothing more. And if there are new, more efficient, then why aircraft carriers? AUG can be destroyed not only with the "Dagger", but also with the "Caliber" and other means. The radius of action in the 2000-2500 km region is huge distances, there is simply no need for further in a tactical battle, the rest is for strategic weapons, to which the aircraft carriers themselves do not belong. And to organize an operational "presence" in "wars with the barmaley", a Mistral-class ship is quite enough, a couple of them are much less problematic to build, and they don't need such escorts ... If it's a serious matter, like Syria, then an aircraft carrier is all the same not enough - you need a stationary base.
        
        pin_code
        
        -1
        
        16 December 2019 17: 54
        
        The caliber in the RCC version is only 500 km range. The dagger also raises questions. There are AWACS aircraft on the aircraft carrier (not on Kuznetsovo, of course).
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +2
        
        16 December 2019 18: 06
        
        ... and what version did Caliber fly to Syria from the Caspian? Or are they on small missile ships in different configurations - for the land alone, for the sea others?
        And where does the aircraft AWACS? He will take off, the aircraft carrier will be gone ... especially if you take into account hypersound.
        
        pin_code
        
        -2
        
        17 December 2019 02: 35
        
        According to the purpose, different missiles, some for the destruction of ground targets, others surface.
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +3
        
        17 December 2019 13: 24
        
        I will not argue at the moment - I do not know this particular materiel, I have never been on ships with Caliber and have not seen the mine. But from those that I once saw, and from what I know about cruise missiles, I can assume that Caliber Rocket Carriers can fly the same distance as those that are against ground targets, that is, one type of launch vehicle can use both, and the other, the difference there is in guidance systems mainly and warheads. And I do not think that this is not resolved. In the public domain in Caliber there is only info on export options, and this, as you know, is not entirely MOT. When they flew from the Caspian for the first time, this also surprised everyone - in terms of their public performance characteristics, these missiles should not have been so easy to fly ... all the more, they are constantly being upgraded, like the Tomahawks, while the Caliber is a much newer and more progressive missile than that Tomahawk, on the other hand ... So I think there will be no problems with hitting ships over more than 500 km. And not only there are Gauges for this, for that matter ...
        
        pin_code
        
        0
        
        18 December 2019 07: 18
        
        Only they can fly the same distance at the same speed, during this time the aircraft carrier will shift 200 kilometers, and the control center will be the same point (the original). RCC has a supersonic speed. This is the same as driving a full tank of 500 km at a speed of 100 km per hour. But if you drive at a speed of 200 km, then you are unlikely to have enough fuel for 500 km ...
        
        Bitter
        
        +1
        
        17 December 2019 01: 42
        
        The time of aircraft carriers also passes - this is a means of delivery of force, nothing more.
        
        Why not consider the existing ships as platforms, "today" it is an aircraft carrier, and "tomorrow" you can rebuild the same platform in the good sense of the word into a carrier of other elements, both reconnaissance and attack or delivery.
        
        to organize an operational "presence" in "wars with the barmaley", a Mistral-class ship is quite enough
        
        Namely, they still need to be built, but there is already a building, there is no need to build it, and if the margin of safety allows, then no one will stand at the price.
        
        It is easy to break and cut, prototypes are also much easier to draw on the pros and cons than to release a real ship from the dock.
        Maybe just the capitalists "margin" and something else to pinch a little, and everything will go right at once.
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +1
        
        17 December 2019 13: 27
        
        Of course, you can make a Mistral from Kuznetsov - he, after all, should have been something similar from the very beginning. But if
        
        capitalists "margin" and something else to pinch
        
        it would be easier and more reasonable to build the Mistral ...
        
        Bitter
        
        +1
        
        17 December 2019 23: 28
        
        It would be simpler and more reasonable, that which is available, not to lose, and another, new, not only to build, but also to bring to mind.
        But I understand that "there is an opinion" to saw, and the one who represents him, cares about how to consolidate his innocence.
        Submarines are, of course, a class, but adversity is not a miss.
        If you see a vector only for strengthening this fleet, then be sure that somewhere you are working hard on the counter vector. So the fleet needs a variety of warships, aircraft and their means of support.
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +3
        
        18 December 2019 00: 01
        
        I agree. But I’m just leaving the real situation. The Russian military budget is not $ 738 billion.
        I’m just FOR a powerful and combat-ready fleet and against the cutting of combat-ready ships. There is nothing to saw already, and so the whole Soviet Navy was sold at one time for a penny ... sv ... lots ...
        I don’t know how much the ship was damaged - if it’s real there, as it is everywhere in the media, wires in one of the compartments caught fire, or oil floating on the water somewhere under floorboards, then this is hardly a reason for cutting. But, apparently, there were more problems there than we are officially told, or what needs to be done in order for the ship to remain operational, in excess of reasonable parameters. Or maybe not...
        I don’t know what is happening there now. But I know one thing for sure - after the collapse of the USSR, these ships practically did not see any serious service due to lack of funds, although the ship was often under repair. But, as Zhvanetsky said -
        
        Repair is not an action, it is a condition: if you went into a repair, it does not mean that someone started something, if you get out of a repair, it does not mean that someone did something ...
        
        All this still holds true only because of the initially strong and indestructible Soviet design.
        But, on the other hand, despite the "disgusting" tone of the article, in my opinion, the plan for the modernization and commissioning of the ship in 2022 has not yet been canceled. So let's see. Maybe "Kuzya" will also serve ... God forbid ... You just need to keep "effective managers" away from him ...
        
        Bitter
        
        +2
        
        18 December 2019 10: 31
        
        The Russian military budget is not $ 738 billion ...
        
        This is not entirely the case, in this case, the problem is how security measures were organized around the work performed.
        The desire to save money on some operations for the sake of "optimization" of the profit, or simply outright sabotage / unwillingness (maybe inability) or laziness to perform "meaningless" operations. My neighbor's house almost burned down, the welder on the roof was too lazy to cover or hang it. As a result, the whole house is in smoke, and then in water, and as a result - a new renovation.
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +2
        
        18 December 2019 10: 53
        
        Well, this, my friend, is already the usual Russian carelessness. Perhaps an unreasonable "economy". Do you know how many of these things have happened and are happening during ship repairs? It's just that they don't show it on TV. Yes, and phones with cameras before, not everyone had - now that where there was smoke, in 5 minutes already on the network.
        I spoke about the budget of the Ministry of Defense in connection with general issues - repair, modernization of the old or building a new one, if so, what new one ... and this is already a matter of money, and nothing more ...
        
        Bitter
        
        +2
        
        18 December 2019 11: 23
        
        ordinary Russian gouging.
        
        "Russian" can be omitted, it is the same everywhere.
        
        You know how many such things are in ship repairs
        
        And not only ships.
        
        modernization of the old or the construction of a new one, if so, what new one ... and this is a matter of money, and nothing more ...
        
        Gossip and negligence are also not free and can often create a billion-dollar negative advantage in favor of cancellation, instead of modernization.
        Thus, the "sarschiggoff team", led by managers and responsible technical personnel, should be able to buy an aircraft carrier cruiser at their own expense or sit down.
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +1
        
        18 December 2019 11: 25
        
        I agree ... of the punishments, the last is really more likely. Do you have to fight this somehow? ...
        
        pin_code
        
        -1
        
        18 December 2019 07: 22
        
        It NEVER was supposed to be a helicopter carrier, it was designed as a ship capable of creating anti-aircraft defense from fighter jets, to protect attack ships from enemy air raids (read how it is against enemy AUG planes).
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +1
        
        18 December 2019 11: 43
        
        I did not say that he was supposed to be a helicopter carrier, but there is no full-fledged aircraft carrier either, the parameters are not the same. Its main purpose is a heavy anti-submarine cruiser based on helicopters and airplanes with vertical take-off, this is the same project as Kiev and Minsk, but during construction it also pinned a springboard in the bow - not the best solution, and the dimensions of the deck are not the same for normal aviation.
        
        pin_code
        
        +2
        
        18 December 2019 13: 45
        
        The decision is just the same reasonable, Kuznetsov and Varyag were supposed to become desks for the pilots of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, and then the Ulyanovsk, which already had catapults, were to enter service. And about the project ... Kiev had an index of 1, and Kuznetsov 5. The project seems to be like one, but the ships are completely different ...
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +3
        
        18 December 2019 14: 02
        
        Well, that's what I'm talking about, that they are dissimilar, but they sit on the same body, in fact. I don't even remember what this discussion was about, in my opinion, to the fact that something like a Mistral can be made from Kuzi, I did not mean a helicopter carrier, but something so universal ... the draft of these ships is not the same, and in general, these are already very "couch" theories in isolation from reality.
        Of course, it is necessary to put into operation the way it is, because there is nothing similar and replacing in the Navy anyway. But such a ship is needed. And new ones also need to be built. And on this account I generally expressed my opinion that for the Russian Federation in the current situation it would be more reasonable to build something like a pair of Mistral than a full-fledged aircraft carrier for wild money and for purposes not very clear.
        At one time, the era of battleships ended, now the era of aircraft carriers is ending. And if the former I was really sorry, because of their unimaginable beauty, then the latter are not ... nothing beautiful - some kind of curves, awkward and clumsy. But this, again, is my personal opinion, but the taste and color of a friend is not ...
    2. pin_code
      
      -1
      
      16 December 2019 13: 25
      
      How many combat-ready boats (multipurpose) in our fleet do you know? And how many dagger carriers? I think you can count on the fingers.
    3. Binder
      
      -4
      
      16 December 2019 13: 57
      
      E, my friend, have you seen enough of Putin's cartoons!
      1. Pishenkov
        
        +2
        
        18 December 2019 00: 06
        
        But shaw, they are watched in Israel too? ... Ohhh! ... So, good cartoons! ... And you do not envy, still humble yourself. I understand that when your cartoons appear in your possession, you will no longer be there to watch and admire them! ...
        
        Binder
        
        -3
        
        18 December 2019 20: 50
        
        Quote: Pyshenkov
        when your cartoons come to you, you will be gone to watch and admire them! ...
        
        Mil-man, we don’t bother with primitive cartoons depicting non-existent wunderwaffles, we develop and produce real weapons, which you, like in Kiev, in a known way.
        And about the fact that we will not be - you finally went to the roof: Russians are dying, and for some reason there will be no Jews?
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +3
        
        18 December 2019 21: 26
        
        And about the fact that we will not be - you finally went to the roof: Russians are dying, and for some reason there will be no Jews? lol
        
        And who saved you? By their kindness ... ... From the camps ... from extinction ... and at the cost of their own blood ... they forgot? ... Ofigeli completely, damn it ...
        In the sun, it’s already completely overheated in its Israel, huh? Miron or how are you there? Brains boil? Usually I do not go to YOU, but here I got it in kind, ....
        Reaching out, the second time we will not save.
        I would also say something, but censorship will not give ....., damn it.
        
        PS And as for who will not be, it's me about you specifically, and not about the Jews ...
        
        Binder
        
        -7
        
        18 December 2019 22: 17
        
        Quote: Pyshenkov
        And who saved you? By their kindness ... ... from the camps ... from extinction ... and at the cost of their own blood ... they forgot? ..
        
        You didn’t save anyone - you butted the Germans, and you didn’t give a damn about us.
        
        Quote: Pyshenkov
        I would also say something, but censorship will not give ....., damn it.
        
        What can you say, stupid. Be quiet already.
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +3
        
        18 December 2019 22: 40
        
        I would have told you ... personally ... at a meeting ... so that everything comes at once and as quickly as possible, but your reluctance to get into Haifa for this. It’s not worth it.
        
        After such communication, all sorts of thoughts get into my head, such as: but was it all in vain then at all? After all, then such people are born, as it were, softer ... ungrateful ..., or Soros - he also survived then, well ... they didn’t let him die, but he alone is worth what he did to people .. .
        I would like to hope that all the same it was not in vain, and that the majority of those saved were still normal people, and not ... like this. Ugh ...
        
        Binder
        
        -3
        
        19 December 2019 21: 43
        
        Quote: Pyshenkov
        I would have told you ... personally ... at a meeting ... so that everything comes at once and as quickly as possible
        
        Your happiness is that our communication is virtual, in real life you have zero chances.
        
        Pishenkov
        
        +3
        
        19 December 2019 22: 03
        
        Well, yes, well, yes ... I've already heard this all a couple of times ... then, however, they immediately started yelling, some about racism, some about national intolerance or congenital Russian aggression ... And they ran after the police ... you would as if I immediately remembered both about the fascists and about the Holocaust, "protect, they beat the Jews" ... I can already see it straight ...
        Of course, I have no chance ... for a couple of thousand kilometers, something brave our bindyuzhnik ...
        Okay, good. So still respond only to shame. I won’t do it again. Only nerves spoil.
        ... and if such a brave one, you would at least write your natural name, you can at least in PM, and with an address or telephone ... How do you like Hercules? And then I’m suddenly locked up in Israel, to swim in your salty pool, so you would come to visit ... and you would deal with me at the same time if you did not change your mind, huh? ... How? Weak? Is there enough steepness?
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        isofat
        
        +3
        
        19 December 2019 23: 20
        
        Bindyuzhnik (Miron), The USSR is a multinational state, and it’s foolish of you to say that we didn’t care about our people, of which people of your nationality were a part. Such thoughts do not speak about your intellect; this conclusion also strengthens your confidence in your physical superiority.
        Let me remind you that there was no Israel at that time, it appeared in 1948, not without the participation of the USSR. Of course, this information will not add to your mind, but it can add knowledge.
        
        Binder
        
        -5
        
        20 December 2019 08: 43
        
        Your multinational state of the USSR of its citizens nationalities destroyed by millions and nobody cared. And certainly not for you to talk about my intelligence and level of knowledge.
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        20 December 2019 11: 57
        
        And certainly not for you to talk about my intelligence and level of knowledge.
        
        You are right, there’s nothing to talk about.
        
        Binder
        
        -3
        
        20 December 2019 17: 47
        
        Reasoning is not your thing at all - you were not born for that ...
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        Binder
        
        -1
        
        20 December 2019 18: 11
        
        There is no need to teach you, you have this function inherent in genes.
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        20 December 2019 19: 15
        
        Bindyuzhnik (Miron)when the opportunity presents itself to you, then you will explain everything to people where the birds come from. Good luck to you.
        
        plabu
        
        +1
        
        20 December 2019 20: 22
        
        Quote: Bindyuzhnik
        ... you were not born for that ...
        
        Understand your birth, teachers like you got divorced - there aren’t enough pillars.
        
        Quote: Bindyuzhnik
        There is no need to teach you, you have this function inherent in genes.
        
        That is why you do not know how to teach? It’s noticeable, but about your heroism - well, what was there before - without a chance, - how many of you are so "powerful" here, in the internet ???
        PS As for the genes - track your FIRST
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        isofat
        
        +1
        
        18 December 2019 21: 28
        
        how to Kiev in a known way
        
        In 999, Nikita Shchekomyak got lost in the boundless steppe and got to the Polovtsy. When the Kipchaks asked him: Where are you from? He replied that he was from the rich and beautiful city of Kiev, and so painted the wealth and beauty of his native city to the nomads that the Polovtsian Khan Nunchak hooked Nikita by the tongue to the tail of his horse, and the Polovtsy went to fight and rob Kiev. So Nikita Shchekomyak got home with the help of his tongue.
    4. Alexis Miller
      
      -8
      
      17 December 2019 07: 58
      
      Dreamers, better serve pancakes with a shovel than flog nonsense. What kind of daggers are you clucking about, about those daggers that are hanging on the side of a Chechen! ???
      1. Pishenkov
        
        +3
        
        18 December 2019 00: 19
        
        ... and why are you damn it, dear? Follow a diet, it will be useful to you. The dagger that the Chechen has on his side is enough for you specifically for complete fear. Or some Arab.
        Those that are on carrier aircraft, and are already in service, this is not for you, but for a more serious enemy.
2. pin_code
  
  -1
  
  16 December 2019 12: 48
  
  Battleships ceased to be the striking force of the fleet, not because of anti-ship missiles, but just the same aircraft carriers. But the story is silent about whether the anti-ship missiles can destroy the battleship or disable it, ...
  1. Afinogen
    
    +1
    
    16 December 2019 13: 17
    
    The first aircraft carriers appeared immediately after the First World War, and the battleships left in the 50s. And then the Americans used their main caliber in the Vietnam War and during Operation Desert Storm. In 1992, four American battleships were finally decommissioned and eventually turned into museum ships.
    1. pin_code
      
      -1
      
      16 December 2019 13: 27
      
      Will you quote me a wiki? Or say something on the topic?
      1. Afinogen
        
        +2
        
        16 December 2019 13: 34
        
        You wrote that the battleships disappeared because of the aircraft carriers. I expressed the idea that this is not so.
        
        pin_code
        
        -2
        
        16 December 2019 13: 42
        
        So you need not express your thoughts, but to begin with, read the story.
    2. Arkharov
      
      -3
      
      16 December 2019 15: 22
      
      You are absolutely wrong, just the battleships were invulnerable, at least to the first generation of the Kyrgyz Republic.
  2. A.Lex
    
    -2
    
    17 December 2019 20: 57
    
    In the days of the existence of the LC, there were no means of protection against such weapons. Because you are comparing the incomparable, Andrew.
    1. pin_code
      
      -2
      
      18 December 2019 07: 27
      
      If a comment to me, then I can argue. There are photos in which kamikazes were "stuck" on board of American battleships (without consequences for the latter), given that the speed of the aircraft is about 500 km / h, they can very much endure the strikes of cruise missiles, even without means of protection against such weapons.
3. 123
  
  +1
  
  16 December 2019 13: 20
  
  When a couple ,. the top three planes will fire a salvo with hypersonic missile defense and immediately destroy the aircraft carrier and the guard ships and there will be a sort of Pearl Harbor in the ocean.
  
  Try without an aircraft carrier to crank a similar number in the Indian Ocean or somewhere near Venezuela.
  
  An aircraft carrier is an attack weapon first of all, and who should we attack?
  
  The logic is flawed, "the aircraft carrier is a weapon of imperialism" is from the field of agitation. In the event of a war, the opposing sides not only defend themselves, but also attack. If you only repulse the blows, sooner or later miss, the enemy will not suffer, because you will not attack. In addition, an aircraft carrier can provide air cover far from its airfields. And the aircraft carrier is capable of attacking conventional "Papuans" without a normal air defense and fleet.
  1. Afinogen
    
    -1
    
    16 December 2019 13: 30
    
    Try without an aircraft carrier to crank a similar number in the Indian Ocean or somewhere near Venezuela.
    
    Well, firstly, in the Indian Ocean or off the coast of Venezuela, the AUG does not threaten us. And secondly, if there is a desire to attack AUG, there are multi-purpose submarines
    
    In the event of war, the warring parties not only defend themselves, but also attack.
    
    In the event of a war, there will be a massive exchange of nuclear missile strikes. This will be both an attack and retaliation.
    1. 123
      
      +1
      
      16 December 2019 14: 04
      
      Well, firstly, in the Indian Ocean or off the coast of Venezuela, the AUG does not threaten us. And secondly, if there is a desire to attack AUG, there are multi-purpose submarines
      
      But is it worth the wait until they get closer and become threatening? Isn't it more expedient to destroy it in advance? After all, there are carriers and carriers of nuclear weapons there, why take the risk and allow them to reach the strike distance?
      
      In the event of a war, there will be a massive exchange of nuclear missile strikes. This will be both an attack and retaliation.
      
      Wonderful, let’s then use the artillery with tanks for scrap, they’ll still burn in a nuclear fire. In this style, the unforgettable Nikita Sergeyevich reasoned, thought, now only missiles will be. In addition, it can be not only Americans, there are different wars. For example, with Japan. The British fought with Argentina, but somehow the nuclear apocalypse did not happen.
      And finally, look at the world experience, how are aircraft carriers developing, are they all wrong? Too many stupid people - don't you find?
      1. plabu
        
        +1
        
        16 December 2019 14: 18
        
        As for the world experience - China is going to stop on the completion of its project 002, it seems, I’m writing from memory, again because of the financial component, then where are we going with ACG? We are already richer than China, it turns out I missed something?
        And then they will have three aircraft carriers, most likely by the number of their fleets, and then how much do we need? And the main question is who will be the sponsor?
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        16 December 2019 14: 40
        
        about the world experience - China is going to stop on the completion of its project 002, it seems, I am writing from memory, again because of the financial component, then where are we going with ACG? We are already richer than China, it turns out I missed something? bully
        
        If I'm not mistaken, they plan to build 4 pieces and for now everything. I think this is still not financial constraints, but rather, reasonable sufficiency.
        We, of course, are not richer than China, and so far we are talking about the modernization of one, and not the construction of four. In addition, they just stopped, about disposal yet is not heard.
        
        And then they will have three aircraft carriers, most likely by the number of their fleets, and then how much do we need? And the main question is who will be the sponsor?
        
        We're about 4, two to the north and two to the Pacific. If my opinion interests, the place of "Kuznetsov" is the Mediterranean Sea. It is still not a "purebred airfield", but a cruiser, moreover, without a nuclear reactor, therefore, it may be free to walk home through the Bosphorus. He would only have to stick a catapult, in the heat the planes need a long runway, and instead of the Granites, a dozen Zircons.
        Well, as for sponsors, they will not be, all from the budget, so, I think, 4 pcs. we won't see it, it's good if they build a couple. And they will definitely build, here the decisive factor is not the availability of "extra" money, but necessity. The problem must be looked at as a whole, taking into account the concept of the development of the fleet and the country's economy. If you remember, the Marines are being transformed into an Expeditionary Force, everything goes to the fact that we will slowly squeeze our "clearing" on the globe. Its zones of influence are Asia, Africa, Latin America.
        
        plabu
        
        +1
        
        16 December 2019 16: 59
        
        As for when and much more, read -
        
        https://topwar.ru/165406-perspektivnyj-rossijskij-avianosec-poslednie-novosti-i-neopredelennoe-buduschee.html
        
        Judging by what is written there, it’s not that in the near future, but in the very distant, so 10 years to wait, and this is in the best case ...
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        16 December 2019 19: 30
        
        Judging by what is written there, it’s not that in the near future, but in the very distant, so 10 years to wait, and this is in the best case ...
        
        That's right. Somewhere, I wrote, probably under another article on this topic, that after modernization it takes another 10 years. Pilots need to train somewhere. Ground complexes are not enough for this. Otherwise, then they will build a ship, but no one will fly.
  2. A.Lex
    
    0
    
    17 December 2019 21: 06
    
    123, the same can be said about the aircraft carrier - it cannot be protected from all sides at the same time with the MASSED use of anti-ship missiles - at least one will break through. .......
    The problem is that one missile is enough for an avik to become a floating trough - runway damage and it is useless. But with overland affairs, not everything is so sad. Therefore, the av-tsy is a means of war with states that do not have the means of PC struggle (this is why it was said that they are "a means of delivering democracy to the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America"). Ameri are not fools - they have not had ANY war with the state (any) that has SIMILAR defense systems (or attacks).
4. Arkharov
  
  -1
  
  16 December 2019 15: 17
  
  The battleships were certainly not gone because of cruise missiles. This is a consequence of the development in the 2nd World War of aircraft carriers with carrier-based aircraft.
5. Alf
  
  0
  
  17 December 2019 20: 07
  
  Quote: Athenogen
  An aircraft carrier is an attack weapon, first of all, and who should we attack?
  
  And then why should landing ships? They can be used only when landing on a foreign coast. So cut too?
Sergey Latyshev

+1

16 December 2019 11: 57

Yeah, now the 3rd wave in the media will go that aircraft carriers are rubbish, there is no need to build, Americans are suckers, and we will throw them with hypersonic caps.

Maybe 3D cartoons will be drawn in better quality. We wait.

PS So far, aircraft carriers have only managed to hit hypersonic missiles in photoshop drawings ...
1. plabu
  
  0
  
  16 December 2019 12: 34
  
  So why waste time on trifles, once the battleships were ho-ho, let's start building battleships, but I haven’t come across an intelligible answer to the question "why do we need aircraft carriers" yet, maybe you can help?
  Moreover, I DO NOT consider that only or mainly missiles are needed, but the functions that aircraft carriers can perform are not so necessary to build them, and even in large quantities - IMHO ...
  1. pin_code
    
    -3
    
    16 December 2019 12: 51
    
    Go to the Military Review, there, knowledgeable people laid out everything on the shelves. About why aircraft carriers are needed.
    1. plabu
      
      +1
      
      16 December 2019 14: 09
      
      I read, I’m not sure that it’s all, but quite a lot, and my conclusion is that they have not yet convinced me that the questions above the roof are for Timokhin and Legat, and not only for them ...
      And best of all - in my opinion, the answer of one of the commentators -
      
      ... while there is no answer to the questions - which one? and why? not a fig and watch ...
    2. plabu
      
      +1
      
      16 December 2019 14: 19
      
      And I also read your discussion in the discussion of 4.12, while NOT impressive ...
  2. 123
    
    +3
    
    16 December 2019 17: 46
    
    ... I haven’t come across an intelligible answer to the question "why do we need aircraft carriers", maybe you can help?
    
    I'm not sure if the question was addressed to me, but I'll answer just in case. The time has come for the construction of an ocean-going fleet. This implies a permanent presence in remote areas of the world's oceans. Without aircraft, the fleet is vulnerable. An aircraft carrier such as Kuznetsov was originally planned to provide air cover for the fleet at a considerable distance from the airfields of aviation. His presence in the squadron almost automatically means that the distance from which an unpunished strike can be delivered increases, it simply becomes impossible. Without it, aviation can attack without entering the air defense engagement zone. In addition, aviation makes life difficult for submarines. We are not the United States and we have no airfields around the world. In addition, naval aviation can strike along the coast and provide air cover for the same Marine Corps. In general, this is an opportunity to quickly strengthen the military presence anywhere in the world ocean. As I understand it, the struggle for spheres of influence is returning.
    In a global nuclear war, their use is doubtful, the goal is decent and most likely, they will be hit first and foremost, because nuclear weapons are also placed on the aircraft carrier. Something like that in a nutshell.
    1. A.Lex
      
      +1
      
      17 December 2019 21: 16
      
      123, one question - in the event of a conflict between the Russian Federation and the USA, will the bases around the world greatly help the amers if the Russian Armed Forces immediately strike a nuclear strike against the USA itself? And after ... after on the planet it will be possible to live only underground ...
      And the fact that the Russian Federation will strike with "special ammunition" on the "decision-making territory" has already been said.
      1. 123
        
        +4
        
        17 December 2019 21: 36
        
        A.Lex
        
        One question - in the event of a conflict between the Russian Federation and the United States, will the bases around the world greatly help the amers if the Russian Armed Forces immediately strike a strike against the United States itself?
        
        No, not much. If only missiles located closer to our borders have time to damage part of the launchers before launching the missiles. In the case of a global nuclear war, this will no longer matter. Remaining enough for everyone, with a margin. Bases are needed in peacetime, they provide control over zones of influence and logistic support in local military operations.
        I think so.
  3. Sergey Latyshev
    
    -1
    
    17 December 2019 13: 56
    
    I support pin_code (Andrey 1974).
    IMHO: Aircraft carrier - airbase + warehouse.
    Nobody says that Russia does not need airfields or warehouses.
    One Kuznetsov, wrote in VO, if it is stupidly taken to the north, like a floating airfield, blocks a quarter of our coastline for access to the submarine.
    1. A.Lex
      
      -1
      
      17 December 2019 21: 18
      
      Seryozha, ONE runway damage is enough for this "airbase" and it loses its "first function".
      1. Sergey Latyshev
        
        0
        
        18 December 2019 09: 10
        
        And?
        1) Any airbase as well. Maybe only larger runways. And what, refuse? On the contrary, we are building new ones.
        2) Neither helicopters, nor vertical planes. takeoff does not hurt. The warehouse is also intact.
        3) There, it seems, the armor is 10 cm. To significantly damage ..... we must try. After 2 MV there are not enough examples ... Our Kuznetsov - could not disable the fallen tower crane.
        (At VO about test shelling of old ships. Junk withstands up to 25 serious hits, and sometimes drowns up to 12 hours.)
        4) You must also get on it. This is simple with ura-smi, and the sailors in an interview: A USA squadron detects a launch within a radius of one and a half thousand kilometers.
        Any garbage will be satisfied with a flurry of fire at all lines, and the repression of the entire area.
        Remember the pictures from the S-400 radar when the Syrians shot down our plane. For 100-200 km, instead of Israel’s f, there is a fading of spots.
        5) The most important thing. The Russian Federation is not only pulling Kuznetsov, but dreams of building another 2, only it can’t.
        And China, India, + NATO countries can. And they are building. And UDC is building. Are fools everywhere?
        
        I apologize to everyone for the sheet. I will be corrected!
2. Pishenkov
  
  +4
  
  16 December 2019 22: 31
  
  ... rejoice. If we were struck by nature, we would not have time for discussions on the Internet ...
steelmaker

-1

16 December 2019 13: 27

Do we need aircraft carriers? It all depends on what policy the state is pursuing. Gorbachev-Yeltsin did not need an army, let alone aircraft carriers. Serdyukov closed the flight schools and destroyed the base, we still "rake" it. And YOU say: "Deck AVIATION!" The USA is climbing all over the world! And what about aircraft carriers? Therefore, they need. When I wrote here that we need to revive military bases wherever not only we are offered, but where we ourselves need it, then such a cry of provocateurs and "Cossacks" began !!! CONCLUSION - first politics, and then economics, sports, army, under this POLICY !!!!
1. pin_code
  
  -2
  
  16 December 2019 13: 51
  
  Because US aircraft carriers are a continuation of politics, and somewhere, politics itself. Blockade of the coast, interruption of trade. As an example. And coercion to their requirements and conditions.
2. A.Lex
  
  +2
  
  17 December 2019 21: 20
  
  Stalevar, you are wrong. First, not politics, but an IDEA with ideology is needed. We need to know who we are, where and why. And on the basis of this - everything else .... and 100 varieties of sausages do not dance here ...
  1. pin_code
    
    0
    
    18 December 2019 07: 32
    
    Totally agree!
123

+2

16 December 2019 13: 51

the ship is very old. Even its deep modernization will not extend the term of subsequent operation too much.

"Admiral Nakhimov" is also not a boy, modernization is cheaper than building a similar new one, cheaper by 15-20%, there is no need to build a new building.

the project itself is not entirely successful. A number of Western publications recognized the Russian aircraft carrier as one of the worst in history.

If we make decisions based on the "authoritative" opinions of Western publications, we will not last long, it is at least not reasonable.

Unfortunately, there is a considerable share of truth in this. "Admiral Kuznetsov" is, in fact, a variation on the theme of a helicopter carrier, not intended for heavy aircraft. The same Su-33 with a full combat load will not take off from it.

The division into aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers is conditional, the Japanese are building helicopter carriers, but F-35s will be placed on them. Yes, the Su-33 will not take off at full load, but who prevents the installation of a catapult during the modernization? But this design has its advantages, in case of malfunction, the aircraft catapult, although with a lower load, but has the ability to take off from the springboard.

And during the operation in Syria, two deck aircraft were lost while trying to land on it.

Is that an argument too? Look and compare how many others fell overboard, or even directly onto the deck, with explosions and fires, and then we will discuss this topic.

the cost of upgrading the ship is astounding. Initially, the figure of 70 billion rubles was announced. After the aircraft carrier nearly drowned along with the floating dock PD-50 and damaged it with a collapsed crane, the amount of work, to put it mildly, grew.

All the costs of the fleet are amazing, this is one of the most expensive military branches. Is there a real analysis or comparison with the cost of analogues? Or just the amount is surprising. In addition, the deck was about to change.

Two dry docks of the 82nd shipyard will be reconstructed into one by the forces of St. Petersburg Investment Company. Engineering Construction". The amount of the contract is approaching 24 billion rubles. Impressive.

It is not worth pushing the costs of developing the infrastructure of the shipbuilding industry into the cost of an aircraft carrier. The dock is not being built specifically for Kuznetsov, besides, the floating dock had to be written off sooner or later anyway, nothing is eternal.

The total cost of work around "Admiral Kuznetsov" is guaranteed to overlap one and a half billion dollars, or even more. With this money, you can build several of the latest Borey nuclear submarines or project 22350 frigates, which represent real strength.

Such reasoning is frank stupidity, the comparison is not correct, these ships have different purposes. The logic is something like this - to buy a truck crane is expensive, it doesn’t matter - we’ll buy two bulldozers.
Any other reasons for recycling? Will we move on to the arguments for modernization?
1. pin_code
  
  -2
  
  16 December 2019 14: 09
  
  The author's logic is "iron".
Bulanov

-3

16 December 2019 14: 18

Why not use this aircraft carrier as a military base? For example, Russians discovered new islands in the Red Sea. You can stake them, drive this aircraft carrier there, and use them as a military base. In any case, it’s worth calculating all this in cash. If not in Red, then in other places there are small islands ...
1. Arkharov
  
  -4
  
  16 December 2019 15: 30
  
  How can one discover an island in our time? Even if he is small, you think nobody? It is possible, for example, in the middle of the ocean, closer to the equator, to make a floating prison from it in a similar way, only if you find the necessary number of guards?
  1. Bulanov
    
    -2
    
    16 December 2019 16: 43
    
    Arkharov! Have you read the newspapers today?
    1. Arkharov
      
      -1
      
      16 December 2019 17: 43
      
      What kind? Soviet? Before lunch?
      1. Bulanov
        
        +1
        
        17 December 2019 10: 23
        
        Arkharov! For almost 30 years, there has been no Soviet power. You overslept!
        
        Arkharov
        
        -1
        
        17 December 2019 13: 33
        
        What are you reading then? The newspaper "Tomorrow"?
        
        pin_code
        
        +1
        
        18 December 2019 07: 33
        
        He reads immediately the day after tomorrow)
  2. 123
    
    +2
    
    18 December 2019 15: 00
    
    How can one discover an island in our time? Even if he is small, you think nobody?
    
    This is not an isolated case, just type "discovered the island":
    
    Well, but the rest ..... Your candidacy to consider?
beeper

-2

16 December 2019 14: 55

One thing is ALREADY quite clear - this ship is "unlucky" and a series of incidents (man-made and miraculous "coincidences") will drag on and on after it - as a result, this one renamed many times (which in itself, in the naval tradition, is considered a very bad omen -

He who did not go to sea did not pray to God!

... ) "air cruiser" will explode or drown with the entire crew ??!
How many "signs of fate" are still needed to finally decide on this "sad vessel" ?!
So it happens in the "life of machines" - the fate of this, which has already served enough, the ship does not develop well and the costs of maintaining it in service only grow unjustifiably, and there is no infrastructure for its maintenance and repairs, as well as suitable berths - it hangs all the time between cruises on the roadstead, consumes the resource of its mechanisms and the crew still sways on the waves, as well as outside their native shores (each American aircraft carrier has its own pier on the naval base, and more than one!)!
If you make good use of it, then "Kuznetsov" has a direct road "to the needles", to any museums or blockhouses - it will be too expensive to maintain such a "monument", it is better to build new ships or housing for sailors with this money!
Round-the-clock flights over the sea can be fully trained without a "floating airfield", and takeoff-landing at the NITKA complex in Saki - since he has now escaped his sad, "square" -deriban, fate and is back in the ranks!
IMHO
Upmost

-2

16 December 2019 15: 03

Whatever you say, and when in a causal place it’s not enough round, then you can’t help with blowing cheeks.
A country that is not able to bring to mind under-carrier, inherited from the USSR, and even choose an adequate parking place (standing on a joke in the north for an aircraft carrier like a slow death), is unlikely to even think about building / having new aircraft carriers, and carrier-based aircraft to them.

And why all this? Better to build new "pipe locomotives" (S-400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, etc.), and create one more combat cartoon.

You look, and the partners are scared ...
Marzhecki

0

16 December 2019 17: 19

Quote: 123
Such reasoning is frank stupidity, the comparison is incorrect, these ships have different purposes. The logic is something like this - to buy a truck crane is expensive, it does not matter, we’ll buy two bulldozers.

Who are the judges?
1. 123
  
  0
  
  18 December 2019 15: 01
  
  Who are the judges?
  
  People, declare a vote if interested.
Arkharov

0

16 December 2019 17: 45

I finally made sure that 123 и 321 - not the same person. For the first time, there was such a lively discussion between them. You won’t play like that. I am glad.
1. plabu
  
  +1
  
  16 December 2019 20: 00
  
  Not even six months have passed.
  1. Arkharov
    
    -2
    
    16 December 2019 20: 14
    
    Agree, better late than never?
2. 123
  
  +2
  
  16 December 2019 21: 34
  
  Finally, I became convinced that 123 and 321 are not the same person. For the first time, there was such a lively discussion between them. You won’t play like that. I am glad.
  
  What if it’s a split personality? Don’t worry, we’re just namesakes.
  1. Arkharov
    
    -2
    
    17 December 2019 07: 38
    
    It's just that you both wrote about the same thing all the time. Almost like two dairy twins. And here is such a genuine fight.
    1. 123
      
      +3
      
      17 December 2019 21: 40
      
      It’s just that you both wrote about the same thing all the time. Almost like two dairy twins. And here is such a genuine fight.
      
      I cheated so as not to invent it myself. Just don’t tell anyone.
Igor Pavlovich

-2

16 December 2019 23: 21

modernization of "Admiral Kuznetsov" is guaranteed to overlap one and a half billion dollars, or even more

- and at the same time he will remain a prehistoric mastodon. And regarding the future of aircraft carriers:

In the USA, in Newport News, Virginia, on 08.12.2019, the newest American aircraft carrier of the Gerald Ford type "John F. Kennedy" was officially launched. The value of the contract for the design and construction of the ship, signed in June 2015, was $ 3,35 billion.

That is, in the United States, the cost of the newest aircraft carrier is only twice as much as the modernization of Kuznetsov and twice as cheap as the planned Russian aircraft carrier "Manatee" with a preliminary (!!!) cost of more than $ 6,5 billion (which is also less than Kennedy's by thirty %) ...
1. Pishenkov
  
  +1
  
  18 December 2019 11: 00
  
  Everything is YES, only something he still somehow does not get into operation ... Floats, but does not go anywhere. And we will look at its final price when it comes out and stands on combat duty. And something tells me that this price will be completely different ...
Victor March 47

0

17 December 2019 00: 58

Quote: pin_code
You somehow all pervertly understand. Let's start with a simple ... we need dagger carriers, basing airfields, which means we need air defense facilities and much more. Need AWACS aircraft. And again the airfields and the same air defense. So, an aircraft carrier will cost less than all this and more mobile, and will meet the enemy at far approaches from their native shores. Under the guise of AUG, strategists can go into the deployment area. A multi-purpose just to be in the warrant and cover from the depths, and if necessary, strike at the warrant of the enemy.

In boxing, there are punches called "Slash". There is no need to drive AUG, it is enough to drown the island, for this only 20 Sarmats are enough. And 80% of the population will look at their brave sailors from above. And let them look for a place where they can stick. This is done within an hour. During this time, the AUG will do so little that it can be considered anchored.
1. pin_code
  
  0
  
  17 December 2019 02: 44
  
  Immediately the whole world in ruin, ingenious)). And you, as if in badminton, beat a racket with a racket))
2. Arkharov
  
  -1
  
  17 December 2019 07: 44
  
  After 20 Sarmatians (and then, most likely, several hundred Minutemans and Tridents), already 80% of all humanity will observe their past residence from above. Moreover, someone will be watching all this colorful process from the bunkers, and someone from the balconies.
pin_code

+2

17 December 2019 02: 48

Quote: Igor Pavlovich
... "the modernization of" Admiral Kuznetsov "is guaranteed to overflow one and a half billion dollars, or even more" ... - and at the same time it will remain a prehistoric mastodon. And regarding the future of aircraft carriers - "In the United States, in Newport News, Virginia, the newest American aircraft carrier of the Gerald Ford type" John F. Kennedy "was officially launched on 08.12.2019. The value of the contract for the design and construction of the ship, signed in June 2015 year, amounted to $ 3,35 billion. "
That is, in the United States, the cost of the newest aircraft carrier is only twice as much as the modernization of Kuznetsov and twice as cheap as the planned Russian aircraft carrier "Manatee" with a preliminary (!!!) cost of more than $ 6,5 billion (which is also less than Kennedy's by thirty %) ...

According to the shipyard, at the moment the ship is ready at 50%, construction is proceeding according to the approved plan. Barring unforeseen hitches, the US Navy will receive a new aircraft carrier in 2020. In addition, "John F. Kennedy" will cost the US Navy $ 1,5 billion less than "Gerald Ford", the final price of which was 12,9 billion. And where is cheaper ???
1. Arkharov
  
  -2
  
  17 December 2019 07: 52
  
  That is, in the United States, the cost of the newest aircraft carrier is only twice as much as the modernization of Kuznetsov and twice as cheap as the planned Russian aircraft carrier "Manatee" with a preliminary (!!!) cost of more than $ 6,5 billion (which is also less than Kennedy's by thirty %) ...
  
  Yes, they know how to count money. Yes, and in a democratic country, you have to strictly report to taxpayers for what you spent.
  1. 123
    
    0
    
    18 December 2019 10: 49
    
    Yes, they know how to count money. Yes, and in a democratic country, you have to strictly report to taxpayers for what you spent.
    
    Oh yeah in a democratic account Apparently this applies to the United States
    
    Do you want me to pick you up with dozens of similar news?
    1. Arkharov
      
      0
      
      18 December 2019 12: 33
      
      I’m talking about this and talking about a democratic country, thank you very much for the confirmation. These videos are easy to find. You find similar videos about other countries, do you think there’s nothing to shoot on this subject?
      1. 123
        
        -1
        
        18 December 2019 14: 12
        
        I’m talking about this and talking about a democratic country, thank you very much for the confirmation.
        
        Confirmation of what? Somehow you are vaguely expressed.
        
        These videos are easy to find. You find similar videos about other countries, do you think there’s nothing to shoot on this subject?
        
        What for? The conversation is not about them.
        
        Arkharov
        
        -1
        
        18 December 2019 15: 50
        
        Confirmation that such information is not hidden.
Vladimir Eremin

+4

17 December 2019 17: 31

We slept .... still slept ... slept again ... and so for 30 years, woke up, and, oh! Deck aviation disappears! (this, by the way, is a very modern thing) ... and now with whom to ask, strategists! It seems that the enemies of the Russian Federation are sitting in power.
Victor March 47

0

20 December 2019 18: 15

Quote: pin_code
Immediately the whole world in ruin, ingenious)). And you, as in badminton, beat the racket with a racket))

Of course, not all. It will go to everyone. Calm down, you will survive long and painfully.