Why does Russia's largest land power need aircraft carriers?

10 September 2021 35

Generals are always fighting the last war (generals are always preparing for the last war). This English proverb is the first that comes to mind when one has to once again hear the statement that "Russia is a great land power", and therefore it does not particularly need either the navy or, even more so, "these aircraft carriers of yours ". Let's try to disassemble this stupid and dangerous myth about our exclusive "land".

It was not in vain that we began with an old adage that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill used in his book World War II when describing the military preparations of the United Kingdom Defense Department. Stereotyped and inertial thinking in a rapidly changing world can play a very cruel joke. This also applies to Russians. Our country went through the terrible Second World War, which the USSR waged against the Third Reich and its European allies on land. The main source of danger today is considered to be the NATO military bloc, also located in the West. Apparently, subconsciously, we expect from there a new "blitzkrieg", tank wedges and foreign speech in the trenches near Moscow. But that era of the clash of multi-million-strong armies has long since sunk into oblivion. What threats can the modern Russian Federation actually face?

The first thing that comes to mind is the war for Ukraine. In it, the RF Armed Forces will face the Armed Forces of Ukraine and, possibly, NATO military contingents. But it will go on land, and the fleet will not be needed for it, except perhaps for the naval blockade of Odessa and other ports. Regardless of its outcome (liberation of Kiev or failure), hostilities will clearly not spread to the territory of Russia from Independence Square. The second, much less realistic scenario assumes a local clash between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Alliance over the Kaliningrad region. Our Baltic Fleet, equipped with "Calibers", will be assigned an "honorable" role to strike with all cruise missiles and die proudly. Another scenario, with a nonzero probability, involves a clash with the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force over the Kuril Islands. Here the main role will be assigned to our Pacific Fleet and naval aviation, and the forecasts for them are not the most reassuring, about which we are in detail told earlier.

Thus, there are at least 3 potential armed conflicts, in 2 of which the navy of the "great land power" will be involved in one way or another. But this is all "nonsense", since none of these hypothetical wars with Ukraine, NATO, or Japan threaten Russia's very existence. There is another, 4th in a row, threat that comes from the United States of America, the most terrible one.

Hidden threat

Once the USSR was the largest country in the world, occupying 1/6 of the land. After its collapse, the Russian Federation lost many territories, but it still remains the largest - about 1/8 of it. However, all this is ridiculous compared to the area of the World Ocean, which occupies 71% of the planet's surface area. And on this World Ocean, the US Navy reigns supreme with their 11 AUG, but, even more dangerous, they also dominate underwater.

A small digression is necessary here. Since the days of the Cold War, nuclear parity has been the main deterrent between the United States and the USSR from mutual destruction. It was supported by the so-called "nuclear triad" represented by strategic aviation, naval strategic forces and strategic missile forces. The essence of such a division is to ensure a guaranteed retaliatory strike even in the event of the destruction of any of its components. And this is where the hardest part begins.

On the one hand, silo-based ICBMs are maximally protected, and mobile-based complexes have an advantage due to the possibility of covert operational transfer. Strategic bombers equipped with nuclear weapons represent the effective "long arm" of the Russian Aerospace Forces. On the other hand, they are also the most vulnerable components of the “triad”. The location of mines with ICBMs is not a secret for a potential enemy, the movements of the Yars and Topols can be monitored from satellites and reconnaissance aircraft, and the strategists are based on only three airfields. If the Pentagon delivers a successful preemptive strike, the United States can significantly weaken the "weight" of a retaliatory nuclear retaliation strike.

In this regard, the most important component of the "nuclear triad" is the naval unit, represented by nuclear submarines equipped with ballistic missiles (SSBNs). Those are able to covertly stay and move under water for a long time. A strike by even one Ohio-class nuclear submarine is capable of wiping out dozens of settlements and killing millions of people. Realization of this fact made strategic submarine missile cruisers (SSBNs), perhaps, the most terrible weapon of our time. But, alas, the capabilities of Russia and the United States in their use differ significantly.

They are against us

If the RF Ministry of Defense has the ability to efficiently control the movement of US strategic aviation and launches of silo-based intercontinental missiles, the naval component of the American "triad" is the biggest problem for it. About half of the nuclear arsenal is based on 14 Ohio-class SSBNs. In the future, they should be replaced by more advanced nuclear submarines of the Columbia project. They carry Trident II ICBMs on board, which are capable of striking even well-protected Russian ballistic missile silos and command bunkers. A successful preemptive strike by American nuclear submarines on the positions of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces and the airfields of the "strategists" could radically reduce the effectiveness of a retaliatory nuclear strike. We will talk about Russian SSBNs separately.

Of course, this does not mean that it is time to give up. You can and should fight the nuclear submarine, looking for them under water and destroying them, that's just what? Our anti-submarine aviation is outdated and few in number, and the naval missile-carrying aircraft has been completely eliminated as a class. Fight with your surface and submarine fleets? It is possible, but the range of the Trident II ICBM allows Ohio-class submarines to deploy almost off the coast of the United States. This means that the Russian Navy must go to the distant sea zone in order to take control of the area of possible combat deployment of the American nuclear submarine there.

With what? The cat cried out for the ships of the distant sea and ocean zones, and there are only eight specialized large anti-submarine ships (BOD) of projects 1155 and 1155.1 for the Northern and Pacific fleets. And you can't just send them alone. Air defense on them is weak, it is necessary to form a naval strike group. And how long will this KUG last against the US Navy AUG carrier-based aircraft strikes? It will be just a few missile attacks until our ships run out of antiaircraft ammunition, and then that's it. And the most offensive thing is that the chances of snapping back are small. As we previously detailed disassembled, without its own aircraft, AWACS will not be the first to see the approach of the enemy, his attack and give target designation to the Zircon and Caliber.

What conclusion can be drawn? The astute reader probably already guesses: in the distant sea zone, where the US Navy AUG reigns, Russian ships can be sent only with their own aircraft carrier, which will carry out reconnaissance and give target designation to the Zircons, which will allow them to reveal their strike potential. and cover the group with its fighter aircraft, ensuring its combat stability, and help in the search for nuclear submarines by launching anti-submarine helicopters. By the way, the movement of the USSR Navy towards aircraft carriers began with Project 1123 "Condor". This cruiser-helicopter carrier was created just for the fight against enemy submarines in the far sea zone. Its successors were the heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers (TAVRK), the last of which in our fleet is the Admiral Kuznetsov.

We are against them

Having established that without air support in the far sea zone, where the enemy's AUG operate, there is nothing to do at all, let's move on to how we ourselves should respond to the combat deployment of foreign nuclear submarines, which may indicate the preparation of the United States for war. Obviously, the main task will be to bring our SSBNs to the combat patrol areas so that they are not stupidly destroyed right at the base at the pier, along with all their ICBMs. According to open information, 2-3 SSBNs are simultaneously on alert. But what can they really do?

The main advantage of nuclear submarines is their secrecy. Alas, today Technology the search for submarines has reached such a level that they are no longer "wunderwaffe". The United States, NATO as a whole, and Japan have the most powerful anti-submarine warfare forces. This means that the deadly hide-and-seek game of a lone SSBN will most likely end with its detection and destruction. No need for unnecessary illusions. The sub is a powerful weapon, but not absolute. It can fully reveal its potential only under the condition of reliable cover by the surface fleet.

And what do we see? Our ships, trying to protect the area of combat deployment of SSBNs, will face exactly the same problem as when trying to hunt for "Ohio" somewhere in the far sea zone. There they will be awaited by the US Navy AUG, whose carrier-based aircraft will not leave any chance to complete the assigned task. Here again, one key element is missing - an aircraft carrier as part of the Russian KUG, which will lift the AWACS aircraft into the air and monitor all movements and actions of the AUG, give target designation to the Caliber and Zircon, as well as the Daggers, which the coast will be delivered by Tu-22M3 missile carriers, the bomber and our ships will be protected from attacks by enemy fighters by carrier-based aircraft.

All these layouts, in contrast to the current would-be experts and members of the "anti-aircraft sect", were well understood by the Soviet admirals, which was reflected in the tasks assigned to the TAVRK "Admiral Kuznetsov" and ATAVRK "Ulyanovsk":

1) ensuring the safety of strategic nuclear submarine missile cruisers in areas of combat patrol;

2) air defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;

3) search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;

4) detection, guidance and destruction of enemy surface forces;

5) ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.

Do you still think that Russia, our "great land power", does not need aircraft carriers?

Sergey Marzhetsky

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.

greenchelman

-2

10 September 2021 13: 34

All these layouts, in contrast to the current would-be experts and "Svidomo" members of the "anti-aircraft sect", were perfectly understood by the Soviet admirals, which was reflected in the tasks assigned to the TAVRK "Admiral Kuznetsov" and ATAVRK "Ulyanovsk":

1) ensuring the safety of strategic nuclear submarine missile cruisers in areas of combat patrol;

2) air defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;

3) search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;

4) detection, guidance and destruction of enemy surface forces;

5) ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.

Do you still think that Russia, our "great land power", does not need aircraft carriers?

For all of the above, the use of aircraft carriers is not at all necessary.
1. guleg
  
  0
  
  11 September 2021 15: 21
  
  Ok, it would be interesting to hear what and how you are going to solve these problems
  
  Quote: greenchelman
  1) ensuring the safety of strategic nuclear submarine missile cruisers in areas of combat patrol
  
  What?
  
  Quote: greenchelman
  air defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it
  
  Are you hoping for coastal aviation and ships' own air defense systems? The coastal ones may not be in time, but the ships have limited ammunition, and, for the majority, we do not replenish at sea. In addition, if coastal aviation will operate at max. radius, then there is no time left for any slightest cover. And again, a meager ammunition load - instead of it you will have to take fuel. And to organize at least three groups - one is covering, the second is on the way, the third is preparing for departure (it would be better to have the fourth and fifth - reserve, as reinforcement or to make up for losses). Still, coastal aviation will have a limited range. If the KUG sticks out further than its radius of action, it will remain without cover.
  
  Quote: greenchelman
  search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group
  
  And here how? Actually, in the USSR, their first helicopter carriers - Moscow and Leningrad - were built precisely in order to hunt for American nuclear-powered ships in the ocean. For even then the flight range of the ICBM was such that there was no need to approach the coast. And, as you can see, the BOD with one or two helicopters could not cope - a whole cruiser with a fairly developed air group was required to ensure round-the-clock patrolling of the water area and the search for enemy submarines - one group is searching, the second is replacing it, the third is preparing for departure, the fourth is resting - and then in a circle.
  
  Quote: greenchelman
  detection, guidance and destruction of enemy surface forces
  
  here, apparently, satellites "omnipotent"? So the satellite does not hang over the point of the ocean, it passes it only a few times a day. In addition, their orbits are known to a potential enemy. Those. if desired, for some time even a whole IBM can hide from satellites.
  
  Quote: greenchelman
  ensuring the landing of amphibious assault
  
  suggesting in the old fashioned way, with a BDK in the forehead on the PDO?
  1. greenchelman
    
    0
    
    11 September 2021 15: 31
    
    All of the above described to the Americans are very helpful to the Americans to implement?
    1. guleg
      
      -2
      
      11 September 2021 15: 39
      
      "When criticizing - suggest." Your quote:
      
      Quote: greenchelman
      For all of the above, the use of aircraft carriers is not at all necessary.
      
      you were offered - your sane and reasonable alternatives?
      
      Quote: greenchelman
      aircraft carriers are very helpful to the Americans to realize?
      
      of course
    2. Marzhecki
      
      -2
      
      16 September 2021 15: 55
      
      you would first understand the subject, and then angrily scribble comments on the topic
Sergey Latyshev

-3

10 September 2021 13: 52

And, again, aircraft carriers ...
all disputes on the Near-War sites have already subsided, it is clear that the money has been spent and will not be allocated in the near future, and there is almost no free capacity.

and the substitution of concepts - whether aircraft carriers are needed - instead of - whether aircraft carriers are needed now for that kind of money, or is it better to spend them on other weapons.

The answer, it seems, is in the famous and precise, that the main thing is Medvedevsky: ".... there is simply no money ..."
Marzhecki

-2

10 September 2021 13: 59

Quote: greenchelman
For all of the above, the use of aircraft carriers is not at all necessary.

I said my word and argued my position.
1. greenchelman
  
  -2
  
  10 September 2021 14: 08
  
  Sorry, but this is more like not an argument, but rudeness, since over 80% of site visitors are from the Russian Federation.
Bulanov

-2

10 September 2021 14: 01

Let the helicopter carriers build for the beginning for the near borders and the return of the strayed republics to the family of grateful peoples!
Marzhecki

-2

10 September 2021 14: 20

Quote: greenchelman
Sorry, but this is more like not an argument, but rudeness, since over 80% of site visitors are from the Russian Federation.

1) what doesn't seem like an argument? my article is a solid argument. have something to object, object. only specifically, and not in general terms, such as "there are other ways."
2) what does it have to do with how many visitors from the Russian Federation? you automatically recorded them all in the "sect"? What country are you from?
3) aircraft carriers are one of the most important elements of ensuring defense capability. this is a fact confirmed by 100 years of experience in their operation.
the information war against them is sheer sabotage against my country or simply inadequacy from the category of sectarianism. I tried to explain it in human language at first, but obviously does not help some. I will now have a corresponding attitude towards such characters.
1. greenchelman
  
  -1
  
  10 September 2021 14: 49
  
  I just noticed two points:
  1. For all the points you mentioned in the article, the use of aircraft carriers is not at all necessary, therefore your arguments are controversial and may be harmful to Russia.
  2. Not I automatically recorded the visitors in "Svidomo", and you. And this is not the first time that you have done this, which is why I paid attention. Probably, a significant part of the readers do not share your opinion.
2. guleg
  
  -1
  
  11 September 2021 14: 13
  
  And one more very harmful mistake. Aircraft and ships (with missile weapons) complement each other, not exclude each other. Their combined use allows you to neutralize the shortcomings of both, and enhance the positive qualities. The fleet must be balanced, nothing good will come from its lopsidedness.
  1. Marzhecki
    
    0
    
    16 September 2021 15: 49
    
    It is absolutely true that I tried to convey to the readers.
Marzhecki

-2

10 September 2021 14: 28

Quote: Sergey Latyshev
all disputes on the Near-War sites have already subsided, it is clear that the money has been spent and will not be allocated in the near future, and there is almost no free capacity.

and the substitution of concepts - whether aircraft carriers are needed - instead of - whether aircraft carriers are needed now for that kind of money, or is it better to spend them on other weapons.

there is no substitution of concepts. everything is very clear and to the point. only aircraft carriers are not enough for the Russian Navy to turn into a really serious, balanced force. there is money in the country, and capacities can be allocated.
and the money is not that big. the aircraft carrier will actually be built for 10-15 years. allocate an amount of 300-500 billion rubles for this period. it turns out not scary at all.
1. Sergey Latyshev
  
  -1
  
  10 September 2021 15: 13
  
  300-500 billion rubles / 10 years - 500 million greens per year.
  It seems a little
  We take the conditional RCC Caliber for 1 million - it turns out - this is instead of 500 Caliber per year. Not a little.
  
  We drive into the search how many calibers enter the Army a year, for example, calibers ... about 100 in 19 years .. and already like a lot. So many.
  
  You can double-triple and Calibers, and Daggers, and Zircons, and even build carrier aircraft for them ...
  
  There would be power
  1. Marzhecki
    
    -3
    
    10 September 2021 15: 23
    
    First of all, explain to me why you are counting instead of Calibers? And not with them? By the way, when did Caliber become an anti-ship missile?
    And then calculate how many tasks you can complete with Calibers, and how many with carrier-based aircraft together with Calibers and Zircons.
    1. Sergey Latyshev
      
      0
      
      10 September 2021 16: 04
      
      1) Lomonosov's law - nothing comes from nowhere. only at the expense of something else.
      2) Since we are talking about the SEA-OCEAN, then conditionally KR Caliber called the RCC.
      3) Naturally more. But the wording is not correct.
      That's right: "how many tasks can you complete with 2m number of conventional aircraft with 3m number of Caliber, Zircon and others, and how many with a minimum of carrier-based aircraft together with Caliber, Zircon. (The rest will be protected by 2 aircraft carriers).
      
      The experience of 2 MV, when the Americans and Yapi at first sank the aircraft carriers with comparable uniformity, and then into one gate, calls into question the effectiveness of a small number of aircraft carriers, without sensible protection against a strong enemy. It would be a lot - another conversation, but there is no capacity.
      
      Airfield + warehouse + mobility + planes everyone needs, the stump is clear. But the Aircraft Carrier is 500 billion rubles, and in 10 years, and the airfield - 2-5 billion rubles, and for a year
      1. guleg
        
        0
        
        11 September 2021 14: 00
        
        Only now your airfield is "at an eternal anchor" - it is not able to move, its coordinates are known. To "move" the airfield - it will have to be rebuilt. And the sea is impossible from the word at all.
        The whole trick of an aircraft carrier is only that, for all its shortcomings, it ensures the presence of aviation here and now, where it is needed.
        Even if we turn to the WWII experience, the turning point in the war at sea against the Doenitz wolf packs occurred only when escort aircraft carriers began to be included in the convoys, along with the general strengthening of ASW forces. Even the balloon that accompanied the convoy was already a help. Before that, aircraft also flew over the ocean - anti-submarine Liberators and others, but they did not achieve much success in PLO.
        
        Sergey Latyshev
        
        0
        
        11 September 2021 17: 30
        
        You are right about that. "mobility + Airfield + warehouse + planes everyone needs, the stump is clear." - I will change my own words. And it is the SPs that are especially vulnerable.
        
        But here, too, there is a twofold side. If they zhahnut on land - it will not be so sorry. Since the cost is simply incomparable.
        There is almost no news in the media about airfields, perhaps a little from Syria and the North.
        And they are still discussing mistakes with Kuznetsov. Yes, about the foreign - the same thing.
        
        And neither the apologetic commentators, the opponents commentators, nor the media authors have money with the capacity for an aircraft carrier. ))))
        But the airfield - the chance to finance is higher.
      2. guleg
        
        -1
        
        11 September 2021 14: 07
        
        But AUG, like nuclear weapons, can and are a means of deterrence. The air wing, in addition to conventional weapons, may have nuclear tactical bombs and missiles. Already a strong argument for many hotheads.
    2. greenchelman
      
      0
      
      10 September 2021 18: 15
      
      By the way, when did Caliber become an anti-ship missile?
      
      What is the actual problem?
      The Kalibr family missiles were created on the basis of two projects: the strategic nuclear cruise missile 1975M1984 with a combat radius of 3 km, developed during the period from 10 to 2500 at the Novator SMKB, and the Alpha anti-ship missile competition (ROC Turyuza).
      
      Nomenclature of missiles
      Anti-ship missiles (shown according to open data for the export version)
      3M-54K / 3M-54T (3M-54KE / 3M-54TE) and 3M-54KE1 / 3M-54TE1 (shortened for the standard NATO TA) are standard missiles with a penetrating high-explosive warhead placed in a transport and launch container / glass ;
      3M-54KEK (3M-54TEK) and 3M-54KEK1 (3M-54TE1K) - control missiles with an inert warhead, intended for training launches, placed in a transport and launch container (transport and launch cup);
      3M-54KEUD (3M-54TEUD), 3M-54KE1UD (3M-54TE1UD), 3M-54KEUS (3M-54EUS), 3M-54E1US, 3M-54KERM (3M-54TERM) and 3M-54KE1UD (3M-54KE1RM) (XNUMXM-XNUMXKEXNUMXRM, respectively training-operating, training-bench (for trainings on refueling with liquid fuel) and educational-split models of missiles from the TCS complex, placed in a transport-launch container (transport-launch cup) for training and practicing practical skills of personnel in operation and technical maintenance of missiles;
      3M-54KEGVM and 3M-54TEGVM - dimensional and weight mock-ups designed for personnel training in loading and unloading.
      
      Missiles against ground targets (based on open data for the export version)
      3M-14K / 3M-14T (3M-14KE / 3M-14TE) - a standard rocket with a high-explosive warhead, placed in a transport and launch container / glass;
      3M-14KEK (3M-14TEK) - a control rocket with an inert warhead, designed for training launches, placed in a transport and launch container (transport and launch cup);
      3M-14KEUD (3M-14TEUD), 3M-14KEUS (3M-14EUS) and 3M-14KERM (3M-14TERM) - respectively, training-operating, training-bench (for training on refueling with liquid fuel) and training-split models of missiles from the composition of the TCB complex, placed in a transport and launch container (transport and launch cup) for training and practicing the practical skills of personnel in the operation and maintenance of missiles;
      3M-14TEGVM - overall weight models designed for training personnel in loading and unloading operations.
      
      Anti-submarine missiles
      Torpedo-missile 91R1, 91RU, 91RUK (91RE1)
      91РТ2 rocket torpedo (91РТЭ2)
      1. guleg
        
        -2
        
        11 September 2021 14: 17
        
        Quote: greenchelman
        Nomenclature of missiles
        
        Now tell us which missiles from this range are being produced and which ones are being purchased?
  2. guleg
    
    -2
    
    11 September 2021 13: 53
    
    For calibers and other missiles, carriers are needed. By themselves, they do not fly "out of the case". Media also costs money, and a lot.
    
    Now let's continue your logic:
    instead of tanks, you can make anti-tank mines. Great amount. How much does a tank cost? Millions 5, and a mine? How many of them will you get instead of one tank? Yes, we will sow all the borders in ten rows.
    Neither helicopters nor airplanes are needed. They are shot down by "one missile", "fall" from electronic warfare and other things. We need many, many anti-aircraft complexes and electronic warfare systems.
    And then explain to the infantry why they do not have tanks and air support. But there are many, many mines and a hell of a lot of missiles.
    
    Your logic is something like this: we won't cost a battleship, we'd better build a lot of torpedo boats. And what will you do with them?
Netyn

-1

10 September 2021 14: 54

Quote: Marzhetsky
information warfare against them is the purest sabotage against my country

It seems that the author is drowning for some of his own country
Otherwise, his graphomaniac itching about useless aircraft carriers cannot be explained))
Marzhecki

-2

10 September 2021 15: 17

Quote: greenchelman
I just noticed two points:
1. For all the points you mentioned in the article, the use of aircraft carriers is not at all necessary, therefore your arguments are controversial and may be harmful to Russia.
2. Not I automatically recorded the visitors in "Svidomo", and you. And this is not the first time that you have done this, which is why I paid attention. Probably, a significant part of the readers do not share your opinion.

1. you did not disprove my theses in any way. for example, explain to me how you can ensure the fulfillment of the task under point 2) air defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it, somewhere in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean in the area of operation of the US Navy AUG.
2. I believe that a significant part of Russians share my opinion.
3. I used the word "Svidomo" in quotation marks in a figurative sense to emphasize the degree of obstinacy. naturally, it did not bore any nationalist color.
P.S. I ask you to quote where I "not for the first time" write down readers in Svidomo.

waiting for
1. greenchelman
  
  -1
  
  10 September 2021 16: 11
  
  No problem.
  In the very first comment to the previous article, you directly insulted a reader who disagrees with you.
  
  I'm tired of your "anti-aircraft sect". You are dangerous pests.
  
  https://topcor.ru/21511-pochemu-giperzvukovye-kinzhaly-i-cirkony-bespolezny-protiv-aug-vms-ssha.html
  
  Here in the text of another article you categorically describe:
  
  Third. This was not really mentioned in my colleague's article, but very often the "sectarians" point out that there is nowhere to build aircraft carriers in the modern Russian Federation and there is nothing for it.
  
  https://topcor.ru/21233-pochemu-admirala-kuznecova-nelzja-vyvodit-iz-sostava-flota.html
  
  Or do you not control what you write, and even accuse someone of being obstinate?
  1. Marzhecki
    
    0
    
    16 September 2021 16: 09
    
    And I am not going to give up my words. The problem is in such readers: they do not understand a thing about the subject they are discussing. I have been fond of the aircraft carrier for several years and have studied a lot of materials. Believe me, I understand it many times more than the average Russian or Ukrainian.
    But you obviously don't understand. You are throwing theses from Russophobic manuals, invented in order to justify the absence of the aircraft carriers that Russia needs. This is sabotage, direct. What I am writing directly about. Such as you, who do not understand what you are writing and do not listen to what they are trying to explain to you in an accessible language, who are you if not stubborn?
2. greenchelman
  
  -2
  
  10 September 2021 16: 17
  
  Regarding point 1, you must provide convincing evidence of your innocence. so that there is no doubt, you are the author of the article. And in the material I did not read this, therefore I wrote it - it is doubtful.
  
  Regarding point 2, it's generally some kind of narcissism to write about yourself like that ...
  
  I believe that a significant part of Russians share my opinion.
  
  Have you conducted a survey? Especially when right in the text it is written about "sect" and "Svidomo".
  1. Marzhecki
    
    0
    
    16 September 2021 15: 52
    
    Regarding point 1, you must provide convincing evidence of your innocence. so that there is no doubt, you are the author of the article. And in the material I did not read this, therefore I wrote it - it is doubtful.
    
    I gave evidence that they did not personally convince you, does not say anything about their insolvency. maybe the problem is you.
    
    Have you conducted a survey? Especially when right in the text it is written about "sect" and "Svidomo".
    
    and when you say that the Russians do not share my position?
The comment was deleted.
Marzhecki

-3

10 September 2021 15: 33

Quote: Netyn
Quote: Marzhetsky
information warfare against them is the purest sabotage against my country

It seems that the author is drowning for some of his own country
Otherwise, his graphomaniac itching about useless aircraft carriers cannot be explained))

about useless aircraft carriers. I'll give you your quote here:

Netyn (Netyn) May 21, 2021 22:33 PM
Why is it better to build several light aircraft carriers instead of one nuclear one Russia
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

Something I see some kind of contradiction "Perfect option". Oh well.
The position changes along with the party line, huh?
shinobi

-1

11 September 2021 12: 31

If you want to ruin the state, give it an aircraft carrier.
1. guleg
  
  0
  
  11 September 2021 14: 03
  
  China will soon collapse on its own. Immediately, as soon as the third aircraft carrier is completed
Winnie

0

12 September 2021 06: 34

I do not see ANY reason for the war between Russia and NATO. The economy of Russia is 80% owned by NATO countries. The country is COMPLETELY ruled by the Americans represented by the IMF, Fed and PwC.

What other war with NATO? Russians are dying like flies. During Putin's rule, irrecoverable losses of the population amounted to 15 million people (Hitler had 11 million people). In America, over the same time, the increase is 45 million. In accordance with the Houston project of the CIA, by the end of the century the population of Russia IN PEACE TIME should be reduced by 10 times, to 15 million people.
In fact, THE WAR IS ALREADY GOING !!! Only this is an undeclared war of the Kremlin's Russophobes against the people. And it is called GENOCIDE.
And you’re not thinking about that. Aircraft carriers, aircraft carriers ... Who needs them if Russia's oceanic fleet is completely destroyed as a result of defeat in the Cold War?
https://warspot.ru/4806-sssr-i-sovremennaya-rossiya-sravnenie-sil-vmf
Marzhecki

0

16 September 2021 15: 57

Quote: Winnie
And you’re not thinking about that. Aircraft carriers, aircraft carriers ... Who needs them if Russia's oceanic fleet is completely destroyed as a result of defeat in the Cold War?
https://warspot.ru/4806-sssr-i-sovremennaya-rossiya-sravnenie-sil-vmf

so we are talking about ways to restore the Russian ocean-going fleet. and aircraft carriers should become its core
BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

+1

18 October 2021 11: 31

What a hell for us A-carriers and others ..._ he_ knows_ what-carriers! And we don't need eyeliner! Only for free to feed a caudlo of fat-faced, gold-driven alcoholics!
no, it is necessary to sink the enemy from the shore with hypersonic missiles coming from space! It is - this is it, the future of wars!