Why is it better to build several light aircraft carriers instead of one nuclear one Russia


And again about aircraft carriers. The Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation is considering the possibility of building the first full-fledged domestic aircraft carrier, presumably with a nuclear power plant. The budget of the project at the start is impressive: some 500 billion rubles and the same amount for the construction of the infrastructure necessary for its operation (in the future, the amount may increase, as is often the case). Trillion rubles in one single ship - is it worth the candle?


For an adequate answer to this question, it is necessary to decide, why does our country need an aircraft carrier at all, what specific tasks will it perform? On this occasion, two irreconcilable camps have long been formed. The former believe that Russia is a great land power, and it needs to focus on ensuring security from its neighbors, while at sea we cannot compete with the United States in principle. The latter are convinced that, having closed itself on the continent and lacking effective levers of influence and "projection of power" in the World Ocean, Russia voluntarily abandons even attempts to become a global geopolitical player. There is a lot of truth in both points of view.

On the one hand, Russia currently does not have free production facilities and experienced specialists capable of implementing such a complex project. It will be difficult for the existing industrial base to provide a single aircraft carrier with all the necessary equipment nomenclature. There is no deck-based AWACS aircraft and tanker aircraft necessary for the functioning of the AUG. To form an aircraft carrier strike group, it will be necessary to collect from the pine forest a few scarce first rank ships, thereby weakening the rest of our fleets. It is unclear where the first full-fledged Russian AUG will be based. If in the Pacific Ocean, then it will have to build the corresponding expensive infrastructure.

And what specific tasks will it perform? If you just show the flag, then it will be expensive pleasure. Work on the communications of a potential enemy? But the US Navy has 11 carrier strike groups, and you can't impress them with just one. Finally, where to get money for all this? Our military budget is incomparable with the American budget and is constantly being sequestered. If you throw a trillion "with a tail" on an aircraft carrier, which will be built for many years to come, then other equally important weapons programs will receive less funding.

On the other hand, the Russian fleet still needs aircraft-carrying ships. Frigates and corvettes alone cannot defend even our own maritime borders. The multipurpose nuclear submarines of the United States and the NATO bloc pose a great danger to these ships, which have very little autonomy and relatively weak armament. Each Russian navy needs its own aircraft carrier, whose helicopters and aircraft will provide their anti-submarine protection and air defense. I would like to ask those who are in the camp of the opponents of aircraft carriers, what are we going to do if, for example, Japan takes the Kuril Islands into a naval blockade? How are we going to release and recapture our islands? Recall that the Self-Defense Forces of the Land of the Rising Sun are currently converting both of their helicopter carriers into aircraft carriers.

The trillion invested in the construction of the aircraft carrier will not go to the American Treasuries, but will remain in the country and will be invested in the development of its own industry and the production of the latest weapons and high-tech equipment. The lack of shipyards capable of building a ship of this class is an excellent reason to create appropriate production facilities.

It turns out that both points of view have their own rational kernel, but the truth, apparently, will be somewhere in between. Does Russia need aircraft carriers or not? Needed. The only question is which ones, for which specific tasks and when. For this reason, this issue cannot be considered separately from the general condition of the domestic combat fleet.

At firstGiven the weakness of the surface component, it is necessary to maintain and develop our submarine forces, nuclear submarines equipped with cruise missiles and ICBMs, to deter a potential enemy. So far, this is a priority.

Secondly, in parallel, you need to actively develop your surface fleet, equipping it with "Caliber", "Onyx" and "Zircon". To complete the series of Project 22350 frigates of the "Admiral Gorshkov" type and its modification 22350M with an increased displacement. After that, think about the production of missile destroyers and cruisers. The combat stability of the renewed Russian fleet should be increased by the Project 23900 universal landing ships of the Ivan Rogov type currently being built in Kerch. These two UDCs are a response to the French Mistrals and are essentially light aircraft carriers.

In addition to transporting and disembarking amphibious assault forces, they carry on board up to 16 Ka-27, Ka-29, Ka-31 or Ka-52K helicopters, and up to 4 UAVs. After putting them into operation, our Navy will be able to quickly carry out the transfer of troops to separate theaters of military operations, which will increase its effectiveness. The Syrian campaign has clearly demonstrated that the Russian Defense Ministry is in dire need of new large amphibious assault ships, which serve as real "workhorses" of logistics in such local conflicts. In the future, Russia should have its own vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL), which should be our answer to the American F-35B. The presence of an air wing on the deck of each UDC sharply increases the stability of the entire flotilla in which it goes. It turns out that the decision to build two new large UDCs was a very correct step towards the creation of aircraft-carrying ships.

Thirdly, after Russia has its own VTOL aircraft, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation can take the next step by starting the construction of aircraft carriers, but not heavy nuclear ones, like the American ones, but lighter and more inexpensive ones. Currently, many countries are in the process of creating and re-equipping light aircraft-carrying ships. It is noteworthy that this idea originated in the United States under the name Sea Control Ship (SCS). Due to its compact size and conventional power plant, such a ship should have cost 8 times less than the Nimitz. On board such a light aircraft carrier, it was supposed to place anti-submarine helicopters and VTOL fighters. The main task of the Sea Control Ship is to provide continuous air cover for convoys. Due to the sequestration of the military budget, the Pentagon abandoned this idea, but it was picked up and implemented in other countries, for example, in Spain.

Probably, this is what the modern small Russian fleet needs to increase its combat effectiveness, especially if shock and reconnaissance and strike UAVs are placed on such an aircraft carrier. Of course, they cannot directly compete with the AUG of the US Navy, but this is not the task of light aircraft carriers. But the construction of several such compact and relatively inexpensive aircraft-carrying ships will be within the capabilities of our shipbuilding industry and within the pocket of the military budget. And after that, when we step by step go through all the stages of restoring our surface fleet and industry in general, we can seriously think about a full-fledged aircraft carrier with an attached strike group (new destroyers and cruisers), which will not ruin the country, but, on the contrary, strengthen.
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
    Just a cat (Bayun) 21 May 2021 13: 01
    +3
    somewhere I've already seen it ...

    1. The comment was deleted.
  2. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 21 May 2021 14: 14
    0
    federal budget revenues of the Russian Federation in 2011 will amount to 11,069 trillion rubles, expenses - 11,099 trillion rubles.

    https://www.rbc.ru/economics/03/10/2011/5703ecf09a79477633d386e4" При курсе $32,67.руб.
    2021 - revenues: 18,8 trillion rubles, expenses: 21,52 trillion rubles, forecasted GDP: 115,53 trillion rubles; https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4586163 At a rate of $ 72 rubles.
    Or maybe change the president with the government, then the money will appear? Mediocrities do not solve problems, they create them!
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. Why is it better to build several light aircraft carriers instead of one nuclear-powered one?

    Because we DO NOT build aircraft carriers in general - they will be drowned in the very first minutes of the war! DO NOT!!!! am
  4. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 21 May 2021 15: 05
    -4
    Why is it better to build several light aircraft carriers instead of one nuclear one Russia

    - Yes ... what other aircraft carriers ... - They need like ... like ... like a bear slippers ...
    - But the "Mistrals" really would be useful to Russia for all 200% (and even adapted for our helicopters) ... - Maybe Russia should have tried then and bought them from Egypt ... - There were restrictions on the sale of Russia; but their (restrictions) could have been circumvented ... - to register the deal as a purchase in parts; by barter; for the supply of Russian military aircraft; formalize as temporary joint military cooperation between Russia and Egypt; arrange some kind of "artificial fires" on these ships and purchase them as emergency equipment, etc. and so on ... - yes, you can invent anything ...
    - It is still not too late today; but nobody just does it ...
  5. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 21 May 2021 15: 43
    +3
    Quote: BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine
    Why is it better to build several light aircraft carriers instead of one nuclear-powered one? Because we DO NOT build aircraft carriers in general - they will be drowned in the very first minutes of the war! DO NOT!!!! am

    So wars are different. Not all of them are nuclear. There are border, local and regional conflicts. Wider one must think, wider.
    1. cmonman Offline cmonman
      cmonman (Garik Mokin) 21 May 2021 16: 34
      -2
      There are border, local and regional conflicts. Wider one must think, wider.

      To think more is to think small!
      Most of the conflicts you listed occur far from the borders of Russia. The aircraft carrier and the escort group will get there, but they will not be able to take part - there are no logistic support bases! There is nowhere to refuel / food / water / ammunition, there is nowhere to be repaired ... So first you need to think "deeper", and then "shirshhe" ...
    2. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
      Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 21 May 2021 17: 45
      +4
      Sergey is a difficult and difficult question. If you install ordinary turbines, the ship will be cheaper, it will have greater combat survivability, but at the same time it will have a number of chronic disadvantages. On their shores, coastal aviation will cover us, and then speed is an essential element of victory. In combat mode, the ship maintains its maximum speed, or cruising, it does not run on economic speed in a combat situation, and at this speed the fuel consumption on the turbines begins to grow seriously, which limits the duration (range) of sailing and is very serious. A ship with a nuclear power plant is more expensive, its survivability in case of combat damage is worse, but it can maintain high speed for a long time, having almost unlimited cruising range. Naturally, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier needs the same escort ships so that they do not limit its speed and cruising range. At one time, the United States built cruisers and, in fact, frigates of the Bainbridge type with nuclear power plants, just for the escort of nuclear aircraft carriers. And at the expense of the seizure of the Kuriles by Japan, so in this case, no one prevents the Russian Federation from hitting Japan with cruise missiles even to the last Japanese, starting with the Soviet Kh-55 and S-10 and ending with the modern Kh-101 and others.
      1. Binder Offline Binder
        Binder (Miron) 21 May 2021 22: 40
        -7
        Quote: Sapsan136
        at the expense of the capture of the Kuriles by Japan, so in this case no one prevents the Russian Federation from hitting Japan with cruise missiles even to the last Japanese, starting with the Soviet Kh-55 and S-10 and ending with the modern Kh-101 and others.

        And why so aggressive, don't you understand that the response will arrive?
        1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
          Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 23 May 2021 21: 02
          +2


          You invite me to be afraid of everyone and bend in front of everyone ?! I got tired of it in the 90s, now I advise you to be afraid of people like me, but if you try to attack, you will get tired of burping your blood !!! So do not wake the sleeping bear, you will regret it !!! I do not need either Israel or Japan, but if you twitch to occupy the Russian Federation, you and your countries will die too !!!
          1. Binder Offline Binder
            Binder (Miron) 23 May 2021 21: 07
            -8
            An old saying goes:

            A dog that barks loudly does not bite.

            bully
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
              steelmaker 25 May 2021 17: 12
              -2
              The Jews were furious. We got it from the Arabs and immediately stopped barking. And silence.
  6. Dukhskrepny Offline Dukhskrepny
    Dukhskrepny (Vasya) 21 May 2021 15: 50
    +1
    Or maybe the yachts of "Putin's friends" can be adapted for aircraft carriers
    1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
      Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 21 May 2021 19: 00
      +2
      Yes, there and yachts of all Kirkorovs are quite capable of handling the BOD, they even have helicopters.
  7. Sasha Ivankov Offline Sasha Ivankov
    Sasha Ivankov (Sasha Ivanov) 21 May 2021 15: 59
    +3
    These are our future aircraft carriers. Abramovich's new yacht

  8. Valentine Offline Valentine
    Valentine (Valentin) 21 May 2021 16: 44
    +2
    These are all our "dreamers", and the time and aggressive policy of our "enemies-partners" can lead to the sad date of June 22, 1941, so we don't need to so much aim at expensive long-term construction projects, but use what we already have are in military-technical developments and they do not need such huge costs, and there are developments, and not all "products" are still scrapped, I'm talking about the Barguzin and Molodets BZHRKs, and with new types of missile weapons they the rocket flight range of up to 11 thousand kilometers is added to their driving performance, and they do not require almost any infrastructure, and try to find them among tens of thousands of the same refrigerated Pullman cars. scurrying across our vast expanses of immense Russia ..... And the Japanese are the smartest nation, and they perfectly understand that the blockade of the Kuriles, or their capture, threatens not only a "small" nuclear war, but also a universal nuclear apocalypse, no matter how powerful the fleet of they were not, and our current Pacific Fleet does not go into any comparison with the Japanese fleet, and even more so the United States, which needs such aircraft carriers to demoralize the recalcitrant natives around the globe, and nothing more, and to whom the Yankees have nothing to answer. Look, Comrade Eun has only a dozen nuclear warheads, and to Washington he is like a rusty nail in their bottom, but Uncle Sam even stopped talking in his direction.
  9. Netyn Offline Netyn
    Netyn (Netyn) 21 May 2021 22: 33
    -1
    Again the flow of delirium and fantasies
    We don't need classic aircraft carriers
    Here it turns out, as with the Caspian monster - it seems like a good thing, but where to stick it in and what to do with it, in principle, is not clear
    The ideal option is the logical development of Project 1143.7 - air cover of the ship group plus anti-ship missiles + long-range missile weapons, anti-submarine capabilities and an echeloned air defense system
    1. The comment was deleted.
  10. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 22 May 2021 00: 06
    +3
    As a striking force, aircraft carriers have lost their significance. Perhaps nuclear aircraft carriers (at least three - one in service, the second starts repairs, the third finishes repairs) make sense only as mobile autonomous and non-volatile airfields, repair bases and transports in the absence of any infrastructure in the uninhabited northern expanses.
    If so, what is required is not aircraft carriers in the classical sense, but universal ships with a nuclear power plant, which are cheaper, more technologically advanced, do not require AWACS aircraft and other aircraft carrier weapons and escorts.
    The general modern trend towards the creation of robotic systems on the ground, in the air, at sea, in space.
    Synchronous representations of hundreds of drones are indicative, from which one can assume what they can do with an appropriate combat charge.
    This also applies to fish drones, which in appearance are indistinguishable from real ones.
    The only drawback is the limited range, but this can be solved. Any aircraft carrying out regular flights, for example, can seed the entire route with such drones, sleeping quietly for the time being, but raised by alarm can destroy strategic objects.
  11. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 May 2021 08: 12
    +1
    Quote: cmonman
    To think more is to think small!
    Most of the conflicts you listed occur far from the borders of Russia. The aircraft carrier and the escort group will get there, but they will not be able to take part - there are no logistic support bases! There is nowhere to refuel / food / water / ammunition, there is nowhere to be repaired ... So first you need to think "deeper", and then "shirshhe" ...

    Why shallow? On the contrary, it is practical.
    Reread it again. The point is that in the coming decades we do not need large nuclear aircraft carriers at all, even harmful. But light aircraft carriers in all fleets, on the contrary, are needed to increase their combat effectiveness. It is both cheaper and faster, and our industry will handle it, and there will be more sense.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 May 2021 08: 21
    0
    Quote: Valentine
    And the Japanese are the smartest nation, and they perfectly understand that the blockade of the Kuriles, or their capture, threatens not only with a "small" nuclear war, but also with a universal nuclear apocalypse, no matter how powerful their fleet is, and our current Pacific Fleet is not going in any comparison with the fleet of Japan, and even more so the United States

    Revanchist sentiments are now very strong in Japanese society. Yes, they are smart, but they can be very belligerent and frostbitten. At the beginning of the last century, Japan was an extremely aggressive militaristic state and is gradually returning to this.
    About the nuclear war with Japan over the Kuril Islands ... Are you sure?
    1. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
      Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 22 May 2021 09: 52
      +4
      Japan can simply capture the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin - they are within the line of sight of Japan and thousands of kilometers from the inhabited regions of the Russian Federation.
      They will seize, and endless negotiations will begin underneath, because no one will have the determination to deliver a nuclear strike against Japan and start a world war.
      NATO also proceeds from this regarding the Kaliningrad province, which is surrounded by NATO.
      There is only one way to discourage the hunt - by the willingness to defend even a tiny island in the Kuril and any other region with all available forces and means, including nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
  14. Volga073 Offline Volga073
    Volga073 (MIKLE) 22 May 2021 08: 21
    +1
    We must build !!
    This is a Trillion rubles - invested in our engineers, workers, production facilities.
    Otherwise, they will simply be plundered by liberals and oligarchs and taken to the West.
  15. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 May 2021 09: 15
    +1
    Quote: Bindyuzhnik
    Quote: Sapsan136
    at the expense of the capture of the Kuriles by Japan, so in this case no one prevents the Russian Federation from hitting Japan with cruise missiles even to the last Japanese, starting with the Soviet Kh-55 and S-10 and ending with the modern Kh-101 and others.

    And why so aggressive, don't you understand that the response will arrive?

    Well, who would talk about aggressiveness, Mr. Israeli-American.
  16. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 May 2021 19: 39
    0
    Quote: Jacques Sekavar
    Japan can simply capture the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin - they are within the line of sight of Japan and thousands of kilometers from the inhabited regions of the Russian Federation.
    They will seize, and endless negotiations will begin underneath, because no one will have the determination to deliver a nuclear strike against Japan and start a world war.
    NATO also proceeds from this regarding the Kaliningrad province, which is surrounded by NATO.
    There is only one way to discourage the hunt - by the willingness to defend even a tiny island in the Kuril and any other region with all available forces and means, including nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

    I think in a similar way ...
  17. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 22 May 2021 21: 49
    +1
    In principle, right.
    Both in WW2 and now they built Convoy Aircraft Carriers for the sake of cheapness. 20-30 planes versus 80-100.

    For the protection of places where submarines are put forward, for training builders and the military, and for demonstrating the flag are quite suitable.

    Another thing is that there is no capacity, no money, no infrastructure, no concept.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 May 2021 09: 20
      +1
      A light aircraft carrier, an aircraft-carrying cruiser, we will still pull in terms of production capacity and project cost. There will be real benefits from it. We will definitely not be able to pull off a heavy nuclear power plant in the next 20-30 years. There won't be much benefit from this, more harm.
      The presence of a full-fledged AUG should correlate with the level of development of the country's economy and industry, we still have to grow and grow before that.
      1. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
        Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 25 May 2021 09: 30
        +1
        Buran is comparable in cost to the construction of the BAM, at a time when the cadaverous smell of the USSR already foreshadowed the collapse of the state.
        The lunar exploration program, the construction of a space station to replace the ISS and other ambitious plans are hardly cheaper.
        A huge new port with a dock suitable for supertankers and aircraft carriers is being built in Sovetskaya harbor. Severodvinsk is also capable of something.
        So building a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is not a problem, but scientific institutes and the general staff are engaged in defining its place and tasks in the general military concept.
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 25 May 2021 11: 02
          +1
          Quote: Jacques Sekavar
          So building a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is not a problem, but scientific institutes and the general staff are engaged in defining its place and tasks in the general military concept.

          How simple it is with you. Is there enough money for everything? And on aircraft carriers, and on the AWACS aircraft, and on escort ships, and on the space station, and on the moon? The budget is being cut continuously. I'm just afraid that half of these projects will be blown off halfway due to funding shortfalls.
          The tasks should be set realistic, corresponding to the capabilities of the industry and the country's budget, as well as the real tasks of the defense department. First, the industry must be restored, import substitution must be made, a surface fleet must be built, carrier-based aviation must be retrained, two or three light aircraft carriers or heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers must be built. And only then, in 2-3 years, you can swing at the creation and subsequent maintenance of a full-fledged AUG with a heavy nuclear aircraft carrier. At present, such a project will not be beneficial, but rather harmful to the country, siphoning scarce financial resources from more important defense projects.
          P.S. I personally am FOR a nuclear aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean. But in due time, when the country is ready for it. Otherwise we will overstrain and get bullshit. You need to go to AUG step by step.
  18. SemVale Offline SemVale
    SemVale (Vale) 3 June 2021 11: 44
    -2
    There are no missions for aircraft carriers.
    As well as there are none for "Kuznetsov".
    There is no basing point for both aviation and flight personnel.
    No dock. No technology.
    And you can draw anything.