Aircraft carrier, UDC and hospital ship: what is interesting about the Russian project "Varan"

84

Last year, the Nevsky Design Bureau presented a project for the Russian aircraft carrier Varan. Naturally, “near-war” bloggers and journalists immediately took up arms against him, firmly saddling the hype topic of dislike for aircraft carriers. He got it for all unrealized projects at once, including for an atypical appearance. At the same time, everyone somehow forgot that Varan is more than just another Russian aircraft carrier that will never be built, but this is a real universal marine complex (UMC), about which I would like to talk in more detail.

According to the Nevsky Design Bureau, the Varan project is a unified modular platform, on the basis of which it is possible to create a whole family of large-capacity surface ships, including a light aircraft carrier, a universal landing ship (UDC), a transport and hospital ship, and even a certain Arctic supply ship. zones. The project allows assembly in a modular way, which will significantly speed up the pace of construction at any large shipyard. And this is very interesting, since it would allow the Russian Navy to meet the needs for several classes of large surface ships in an adequate time frame.



Light aircraft carrier


The need to provide air cover for Russian naval groups from the carrier-based aircraft of the AUG of the US Navy does not raise the slightest doubt. Alas, even after the modernization, the resource of the former TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" can be extended by only 10 years. Then that's it, not a single aircraft carrier will remain in the Russian Navy. It is not known whether the UDC under construction in Kerch will be able to take on deck aircraft with short takeoff and vertical landing, and we do not have SKVVPs themselves. The prospects for our navy are terrible.

Unfortunately, today Russia cannot yet build an aircraft carrier of the ATAVRK Ulyanovsk type from scratch. Sevmash and Primorskaya Zvezda are busy with orders for years to come. There is no experience, but there are significant problems with professional personnel. If we work hard, then, in the end, of course, we will build a heavy strike aircraft carrier, but it will take 15 years and will be expensive. Does this mean that this undertaking should be abandoned?

Of course not! It is necessary to balance desires with capabilities, and instead of a nuclear aircraft carrier with a displacement of 80 tons, start building a series of light non-nuclear aircraft carriers with half the displacement, at a level of 000 - 40 tons. "Varan" fully fits into this framework: length - 000 m, width - 45 m, draft - 000 m, displacement - 250 tons, full speed - 65 knots. The power plant is gas turbine. The air group is represented by 9 aircraft: 45 MiG-000K light fighters, 26 helicopters and 50 UAVs. Let the deck wing be decently inferior to the American Nimitz, but it is capable of preventing a one-sided beating of our KUG by US Navy AUG aircraft, conducting reconnaissance, and striking along the coast. "Varan" will be even stronger than the Japanese aircraft carriers of the Izumo class and is quite competitive with the French and British aircraft carriers.

For your money, this may be a completely acceptable solution in order to strengthen the combat capability of the Russian Navy. But this is not all the possibilities of this project.

UDC


A series of amphibious assault ships can also be built on this platform. Yes, two project 23900 UDCs with a total displacement of 40 tons are currently laid in Kerch, but they will clearly not be enough. "Ivan Rogov" will go to the Pacific Ocean, "Mitrofan Moskalenko" will become the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. But there is also the Northern Fleet, and UDC would not hurt in the Mediterranean Sea in Tartus. Russia is clearly building up its militarypolitical presence around the world, for which it is necessary to be able to quickly transfer military contingents with armored vehicles.

"Varan" in terms of displacement corresponds to the best UDC of the "America" ​​type in the world, but faster - 26 knots versus 22. On the deck, an American can accommodate 27 helicopters or 22 F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing fighters. Other combinations of the air wing are also possible, depending on the tasks assigned. The landing capacity of the UDC is 2000 marines, 40 AAV7 amphibious armored personnel carriers (in normal configuration) or 61 (in maximum). The ships have their own anti-aircraft artillery and anti-aircraft weapons.

On the platform of the universal marine complex from the Nevsky Design Bureau, it would be possible to build a series of 2-3 UDCs, larger than Project 23900 and comparable in capabilities to America. That is, "Varan" is not only an "unnecessary" aircraft carrier, but also a universal landing ship, which, fortunately, is still recognized as "necessary" in Russia.

Transport and hospital ship


However, Varan is of interest not only as a promising light aircraft carrier and UDC, but also as a transport and hospital ship. And with this, the Russian Navy has had big problems for a long time.

Recall that today we have only three special hospital ships of Project 320 built in the Soviet period in Poland: the Yenisei on the Black Sea, the Svir on the Barents Sea, and the Irtysh on the Pacific Ocean. Their resource has been exhausted, only the Irtysh is actually in service, the rest are waiting for repairs and modernization. Hospital ships are needed by the Russian Navy both in wartime, during operations in the far sea zone, and in peacetime - for humanitarian missions, and so on. For example, during the 2020 pandemic, the American hospital ship USNS Mercy arrived in the port of Los Angeles, its classmate USNS Comfort arrived in New York, where they helped treat the sick.

The Russian Ministry of Defense has long been talking about the need for new hospital ships. By the way, after the UDC "Mistral" in France, it was supposed to order hospital ships. It didn't grow. But the UMC project can also solve this problem.

So, on the basis of the same platform, the Nevskoye Design Bureau developed a project for a universal transport and hospital ship in two versions. The first is purely "conventional" with a total displacement of 29 tons with a hospital for 580 people, the second - with a total displacement of 1000 tons with a hospital for 31 people, but equipped with cargo spaces for landing equipment. Its class can correspond to KM (*) Arc5 AUT1-ICS EPP BWM (T) Special purpose ship, which would allow it to operate in the Middle East, Africa, and even the Arctic.

Thus, on one modular platform, it is possible to build ships of three classes at once, which our fleet is in dire need of. Even if we take into account the supposedly “unnecessary” aircraft carriers, then the UDC and the transport and hospital ships of Russia are definitely needed. A high degree of unification will simplify and speed up the construction process, as well as reduce its cost.

So, maybe it's worth taking a closer look at Varan and his family?
Our news channels

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

84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    26 January 2022 16: 20
    The use of the MiG aircraft carrier as an air wing is doubtful, since in battles at sea the range of aviation always plays a very important role, and here the MiGs lose to Sushki, and the radar on Sushki is stronger, which is also important, because whoever saw it first hit first. ..and this is very important.
    1. -1
      26 January 2022 16: 26
      The use of the MiG aircraft carrier as an air wing is doubtful, since the range of aviation always plays a very important role in battles at sea, and here the MiGs lose

      It is high time to change MiGs to the promising Su-75

      it is also important, because whoever saw it first, hit it first ... and this is very important.

      Hmm, and here, as a wunderwaffe, Zircons with Daggers are declared, and they scored for reconnaissance and target designation, as well as air cover soldier
      1. +3
        26 January 2022 16: 47
        For reconnaissance, a good radar is also needed, otherwise this scout will not live long, he will be the first to be spotted and destroyed. The battles in Africa, where the MiG-29 fought against the Su-27, clearly showed that there was nothing to catch against the Sushki MiGs.
        1. -1
          26 January 2022 17: 10
          Nobody argues. MiGs are outdated for a long time. We need new aircraft with modern radars.
          Su-75 seems to be a promising deck carrier. IMHO.
          1. +2
            26 January 2022 18: 52
            The Su-75 is a light class vehicle, it is doubtful that it will be able to compete with heavy fighters in terms of flight range, radar range and thrust-to-weight ratio ... It is better to think about the carrier-based version of the Su-57. Less is better, but better ... A heavy fighter over the sea will have much more capabilities than a light one
            1. -3
              26 January 2022 20: 43
              Quote: Sapsan136
              It is better to think about the deck version of the Su-57. Less is better, but better ... A heavy fighter over the sea will have much more capabilities than a light one

              Maybe. But any fighter will lose to its counterpart if there is no AWACS support. And a helicopter like Ka-31 will not help here. First of all, we need a full-fledged AWACS, capable of controlling a large area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbwater and directing its fighters.
              1. +1
                26 January 2022 20: 54
                The Su-57 is capable of operating as a mini-awax, and the AWACS turboprop aircraft in service with the US Navy are doubtful, because their survivability in battle will be at the level of the Tu-142, not higher. In other words, to the first fighter, or long-range enemy air defense system
                1. -3
                  26 January 2022 21: 15
                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  Su-57 is capable of operating as a mini-awax

                  alas, not able to. Can you guess why (the reasons are obvious), or should I reveal the topic?

                  Quote: Sapsan136
                  The AWACS in service with the US Navy is doubtful, because their survivability in battle will be at the level of the Tu-142, not higher.

                  AWACS do not get into a fight. They are like that commander who watches the battle from afar from the nearest hillock, surveying the whole picture. Yes, and they cover them with a fighter escort, too valuable aircraft.
                  1. -1
                    1 February 2022 08: 48
                    From afar, against the S-300, and even more so the S-400, it will not work, and air-to-air missiles now have a long range, and American AWACS are slow-moving, bulky and do not have stealth technologies. They will be shot at like a sitting duck. As for the Su-57, experts say that it can work as a mini-awax, I don’t think you know more about the secret aircraft than they do
                    1. -3
                      1 February 2022 09: 55
                      Quote: Sapsan136
                      As for the Su-57, experts say

                      what experts say? "Heads from the screen", referred to as "experts"?
                      Can't you imagine yourself why the Su-57 can't qualitatively to play the role of an AWACS aircraft?
                      1. Such an aircraft needs a long duration of patrol (and speed is not very important), it should hang in the sky as long as possible. How long can a fighter jet spend in the sky, even with refueling? And in the AWACS aircraft, pilots can change, relax, eat and even pee.
                      2. The radar must have all-round visibility, 360 degrees. AVKS has it, for radar fighters, even in surveillance mode (with loss of range and resolution), it often does not provide scanning in azimuth of more than 90 degrees. If the fighter is looking "forward", then AWACS should be looking around.
                      3. The radar should have a long range and good resolution (for fighters, a long range of radars is provided only in the narrow beam scanning mode in a narrow sector - on the order of only a few degrees), greater noise immunity and the ability to select targets - for working on complex surfaces, for example, on surface targets (to cut off glare from waves)
                      4. Targets need not only to be found, but also to be accompanied and classified, to identify especially dangerous ones, to transfer information about them according to their intended purpose - to fighter pilots, air defense headquarters, ground command post, etc., such an aircraft not only aims at the target, it also manages air defense systems and aviation in the sky. AWACS has specially trained people for this - RTK operators, who will do this on a single-seat Su-57?

                      Any questions?
                      1. -1
                        1 February 2022 09: 57
                        Among my friends there are combat pilots from Baltimore Air Force Base. I myself, excuse me, am still an active officer. Where is your information from? From people like Makarevich who were expelled from the Construction Institute for absenteeism and drinking? The American carrier-based AWACS is an aircraft with the performance characteristics of the Soviet An-24 and it does not live long in the combat zone. This is with an enemy like Yugoslavia, they could bend their fingers, with a more serious one they won’t work
                      2. -3
                        1 February 2022 09: 58
                        Basically nothing to say? Then it would be better to be silent. I gave you the characteristics required from AWACS and compared them with the characteristics of fighters. You could do it yourself. Or ask friends.

                        What does the "American deck AWACS" have to do with it, when it was about the Su-57 in the role of an AWACS aircraft? And for the booze. Looks like they kicked you out? Since you have already forgotten what you were talking about three minutes ago
                    2. -3
                      1 February 2022 09: 57
                      Quote: Sapsan136
                      From afar, against the S-300, and even more so the S-400, it will not work, and air-to-air missiles now have a long range, and American AWACS are slow-moving, bulky and do not have stealth technologies. They will be shot at like a sitting duck.

                      this is your opinion. Which, fortunately, has nothing to do with reality. It will be just as difficult for the striped ones to "fill up" the domestic AWACS as for our aircraft - their AWACS
                      1. -1
                        1 February 2022 10: 00
                        Well...let's wait and see...
                      2. -3
                        1 February 2022 10: 23
                        clown ... Well, your phrase that the S-300 is supposedly bullshit and it says well that you are an ov litter

                        justify your words that they sent me in a personal
                        - Where did I say that the S-300 is bullshit? A quote to the studio, otherwise we will publicly stick you with the title of a liar.
                        - With what fright did you decide that you can be rude to me?
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. The comment was deleted.
                      8. The comment was deleted.
              2. -1
                27 January 2022 08: 11
                Who can argue. I have been writing about this regularly for three years.
        2. -8
          26 January 2022 18: 27
          When analyzing those air battles, the technical condition of the aircraft, the serviceability of their avionics, the level of crew training, the readiness of ammunition, the qualifications of flight directors, squadron commanders, and other non-secondary ones were not taken into account.
          1. +1
            26 January 2022 18: 49
            The technical condition, as well as the qualifications of pilots and managers, was approximately equal. Africans bought dryers and MiGs from among those available from the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, they flew and led the local personnel of the African Air Force
            1. -8
              26 January 2022 20: 14
              How approximately equal are the qualifications of the crews? How often did they train in the use of aviation weapons? Regularly? With what results? How many exercises in a group? From difficult conditions? , senior pilots?
              1. +2
                26 January 2022 20: 34
                Well, since the military budget is approximately equal, then everything else is approximately equal, but at the expense of the flight range and the range of the radar, especially over the sea, it’s stupid to argue and here it’s not MiGs that are ahead, but Sushki, which gives them an advantage ... On heavy Dryers can be in the air longer, the patrol radius is longer, they will detect the target earlier and open fire ..
                1. -8
                  26 January 2022 20: 42
                  What is the advantage if it is not known how the crew and its command were prepared? What was the nature of the air battles? Single, group? ?
                  1. +2
                    26 January 2022 20: 45
                    If you want to troll, look for someone else ... I clearly wrote to you that the Africans bought the planes from cash in the park of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. Both countries maintain their aircraft in fair condition. The training of the armies of African states, which can afford the purchase of such equipment, is approximately the same ... And the advantages that the long flight range and the long range of the radar provide are more than obvious.
                    1. -9
                      26 January 2022 21: 00
                      I just asked questions, hoping to get enlightened on the issue under discussion. Do not be angry. You are among friends on this resource. Low professional training will nullify all the advantages of performance characteristics. Ramona (Egypt, 1971), Medvedka (Lebanon, 1982).
                      1. +2
                        26 January 2022 21: 06
                        The Soviet example here is connected primarily with the loss of five Soviet MiG-21s, which the Israelis like to savor, hiding their losses in battle with them. (This battle had two phases, in the first phase the MiGs disrupted the task of the Israeli attack aircraft, shooting down one Skyhawk and one Phantom, and in the last unequal battle they were able to overwhelm one Mirage) Yes, there is an error in the work of ground operators who controlled the MiGs and drove them into battle with almost empty tanks, five against 36 enemy aircraft, the result of which was predictable ... And at the expense of training, so there Africans fought with Africans, on aircraft recently purchased from the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, which is why the technical condition of the aircraft and the training of African crews were approximately equal
                      2. -8
                        27 January 2022 08: 01
                        The mistake is not only, and not so much of the operators, as the squadron command, and the crews themselves.
                      3. 0
                        1 February 2022 08: 50
                        The crews worked on guidance from the ground, at that time it was normal, since the capabilities of the radar on the MiG-21, and indeed the aircraft of those years, were limited. So the ground operators drove the MiGs into a hopeless battle against superior enemy forces, and even with almost empty tanks
        3. -2
          28 January 2022 05: 57
          Quote: Sapsan136
          The battles in Africa, where the MiG-29 fought against the Su-27, clearly showed that there was nothing to catch against the Sushki MiGs.

          I have not seen such information and I am skeptical about your comment.
          The MiG-29 is a relatively light aircraft and has higher characteristics of maneuverability, acceleration, rate of climb, therefore, in close combat, it will easily go into the tail of the Su-27 and win.
          In long-range combat, radar detection is comparable (the MiG has a smaller reflection area), the missiles are the same ... Here, the effect of a change in configuration is possible - more modern imported avionics, which will predetermine the time of the first launch ...
          1. -3
            28 January 2022 09: 48
            Quote: Wamp
            I have not seen such information and I am skeptical about your comment

            treat as you wish, by doing this you only show your blatant ignorance. However, for you this is a common state - to know nothing and pour conjectures and conjectures.
            Su-27 and MiG-29 met in battle only once - during the Ethiopian-Eritrean war of 1998-2000 (sometimes called the war in the Horn of Africa). A war in which Soviet weapons were predominantly used on both sides.

            Then the Ethiopian Su-27s (eight aircraft delivered from the available stock of the Russian Defense Ministry) completely defeated the Eritrean MiG-29s (also delivered from Russia). Where did you see imported avionics here, I’ll never know. Ahh, you are conjecturing again, but you have nothing to conjecture. But to the point)

            The advantage of the Su-27 in the radar, which made it possible to see the enemy earlier and launch missiles, appeared. It also turned out that in close maneuvering combat, despite the fact that the Su-27 is a much heavier vehicle, it is in no way inferior to the lighter MiG. So, on February 23, 1999, a pair of Ethiopian Su-27s were attacked by four Eritrean MiG-29s. The "dry", evading the missiles fired at them, themselves began the pursuit of the 29s, caught up with them, imposed close combat and shot down one aircraft of the close-range missiles.
            The next day, the Su-27 shot down another MiG from a cannon.
            On May 16, a pair of Ethiopian Sushki attacked a pair of MiG-27 missiles at a long distance with R-29 missiles - one was shot down, the second was damaged.

            Generally. The "dry" spent that war with a dry score - without losing a single one of their cars, they shot down 4 MiG-29s of the Eritrean Air Force (and several other aircraft).
            This achievement is due, among other things, to the technical superiority of the Sukhoi Design Bureau machine over Mikoyanovsky (and this is no wonder - MiG-29 was originally conceived as simpler and cheaper). The Su-27s had more advanced avionics, and could choose a convenient position before the battle and start shooting earlier, they had greater speed and could impose their battle tactics on the enemy. Mig, having a small supply of fuel, consumed it very quickly and was forced to leave the battlefield. In general, that conflict showed the convincing superiority of a heavier and more advanced machine. However, the same situation would have been if the F-15 and F-16 had collided. - "Eagles" would butcher "Falcons" under the walnut all other things being equal.
            1. +1
              28 January 2022 14: 14
              Quote: Half a century and a half
              you are only showing your blatant ignorance.

              According to Bismarck, you have a "gift of God" .... laughing
              Critically evaluating information is not for you.
              But without thinking to talk nonsense - you just have a psi-diagnosis: "hyperactivity" wassat

              Quote: Half a century and a half
              Then the Ethiopian Su-27s (eight aircraft delivered from the available stock of the Russian Defense Ministry) completely defeated the Eritrean MiG-29s (also delivered from Russia).

              I have heard this story before. But there are so many blunders in it that it became clear that this is a repeatedly retold story designed not by a journalist, but by some kind of self-taught scribbler.
              A competent journalist would immediately clearly describe the sequence of the battle: the moment of fixation on the radar, the capture of the target by the missile and launch, the use of traps and the reaction of missiles to them. But in this article, the facts are simply erased, leaving only emotions with strange self-explosions of missiles.
              And about supposedly equal conditions, according to the article:
              - Su-27s were fresher than MiG-29s by 15 years.
              - Su-27s worked in the zone of their ground-based radar and the situation was analyzed by the guidance officer.
              - Pilots of the Su-27 could not be natives, because it takes time to master the newly delivered aircraft.
              - Missiles from opponents ??? Fresh ones have more advanced algorithms for target acquisition and ignoring interference.

              Losses:
              Su-27 crashed while checking after assembly.
              The MiG-29 probably did not return to its airfield, possibly having been damaged in aerial combat by a close explosion of a rocket that triggered a trap.
              The MiG-29 was shot down by a missile during an attack by a superimposed Su-27.
              MiG-29 was shot down by a missile in a dogfight.

              It can be seen that the MiG-29 pilots were worse prepared, prone to panic and the aircraft required modernization ... The organization of pilot awareness was insufficient.
              It can be seen that the Su-27's defense system worked out better, "catching" all the missiles.

              Quote: Half a century and a half
              Generally. The "dry" spent that war with a dry score - without losing a single one of their cars, they shot down 4 MiG-29s of the Eritrean Air Force

              Learn to count at first grade level. Sick of coronavirus?

              Quote: Half a century and a half
              and this is no wonder - the MiG-29 was originally conceived as simpler and cheaper). The Su-27s had more advanced avionics, and could choose a convenient position before the battle and start shooting earlier, they had greater speed and could impose their battle tactics on the enemy.

              The MiG-29 was conceived as a light, front-line, multifunctional, with the ability to work from unpaved airfields. It has everything that the Su-27 has. It is more complex in design, although smaller than the Su-27, had greater energy saturation and maneuverability and was the main aircraft of the Air Force (the Su-27 has gills ??tongue ).
              The Su-27 was conceived as a pure long-range fighter for bomber escort.

              Quote: Half a century and a half
              Mig, having a small supply of fuel, consumed it very quickly and was forced to leave the battlefield.

              All weapons were spent in a couple of minutes. Then at least beat your forehead. fool

              Quote: Half a century and a half
              In general, that conflict showed the convincing superiority of a heavier and more advanced machine. However, the same situation would have been if the F-15 and F-16 had collided - the Eagles would have cut the Falcons to a nut, all other things being equal.

              He showed that in long-range combat they are the same, and in close combat, the MiG pilots simply fled, not realizing their advantage in maneuverability and energy saturation.
              F16 is a plane for stupid people.
              F15 is a dangerous machine, but you can find flaws.
              1. -2
                28 January 2022 14: 29
                I'm not interested in your diagnoses. With this - to the doctor)

                Quote: Wamp
                A competent journalist would immediately clearly describe the sequence of the battle: the moment of fixation on the radar, the capture of the target by the missile and launch, the use of traps and the reaction of missiles to them.

                I do not intend to retell you everything to the last detail or quote multi-page fragments from books. You are given the facts that you denied, if you want details - look for them.

                Quote: Wamp
                Sick of coronavirus?

                you apparently do. And this is extremely detrimental to your well-being. Especially mental.

                Quote: Wamp
                It has everything that the Su-27 has. It is more complex in design, although smaller than the Su-27, had greater energy saturation and maneuverability and was the main aircraft of the Air Force (the Su-27 has gills ??).
                The Su-27 was conceived as a pure long-range fighter for bomber escort.

                I'm not even going to comment on this nonsense. They lied in every sentence - so you can manage, unless you completely own the question. However, as we have already found out earlier, in the field of aviation you are just nobody.
                The Su-27 was conceived as a long-range fighter-interceptor capable of operating autonomously. That is why its avionics are much better than the MiG, and the internal fuel reserves are larger.
                MiG is a light front-line fighter operating from front-line AE in conjunction with ground-based command posts. Therefore, it has a simplified composition of equipment and a low flight efficiency.
                You will never stop talking nonsense for aviation? You write just the wildest things every time! And then from them you want far-reaching and incorrect conclusions. The computer would be taken away from you, the Internet would be turned off, and smart books would be given to read and talk with knowledgeable people.

                Quote: Wamp
                He showed that in long-range combat they are the same, but in melee

                well, yes, of course, they are exactly the same, finishing the fights with a final score of 4:0.
                Whose roof is leaking?

                Pull the owl on the globe further)

                1. +1
                  29 January 2022 16: 17
                  Quote: Half a century and a half
                  The Su-27 was conceived as a long-range fighter-interceptor capable of operating autonomously.

                  Since when did the air superiority conqueror retrain as an interceptor? And why then did they suffer with the MiG-25/31?

                  Quote: Half a century and a half
                  You will never stop talking nonsense behind aviation?

                  Are you Ukrainian speaking? They say "about aviation". I have nothing against Ukrainians and others ... - I have three bloods. But I do not like Nazis and fools.

                  Now the chain of your ....

                  Quote: Half a century and a half
                  I do not intend to retell you everything to the last detail or quote multi-page fragments from books. You are given the facts that you denied, if you want details - look for them.

                  Quote: Half a century and a half
                  Whose roof is leaking?
                  Pull the owl on the globe further)

                  From these quotes, it is clear that you do not think with your head at all, you use other people's templates. This leads to the fact that you are simply spreading other people's fakes and memes. And the meaning of the word "fact" you have not yet comprehended.
                  Think with your head and not the Internet in which 99% of the information is distorted.
                  1. -4
                    30 January 2022 00: 42
                    Quote: Wamp
                    Since when did the air superiority conqueror retrain as an interceptor?

                    I wrote

                    Quote: Half a century and a half
                    interceptor fighter long range, able to operate autonomously

                    To understand why it is written so, you need to know the history of the creation of the aircraft. The aircraft created in the PFI was to become the basis not only for the aviation of the USSR Air Force, but also for air defense aviation. This means that it must be universal, meet a wide list of requirements and be able to conduct both maneuverable air combat over the front line and intercept intruders of the country's airspace and strategic bombers. A year before the decision of the Military Industrial Complex of the Council of Ministers, Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Air Defense Marshal of the Soviet Union Pavel Batitsky wrote that, given the proximity of the main tactical and technical data of the fighter-interceptor to the data of the new front-line fighter proposed by the Air Force, I consider it necessary to conduct a simultaneous preliminary design of 2 modifications of a promising fighter: a front-line Air Force fighter and air defense fighter-interceptor. It was the air defense officers who showed very great interest in the PFI, as a result, the program split into two areas - the serious and heavy Su-27 fighter-interceptor and the MiG-29 light front-line fighter. The Su-27 should be a universal fighter - be able to close combat, and long-range, and at low altitude, and at high altitude - up to 22 kilometers, both when pointing from the ground, and autonomously. It turned out to be more complicated and more expensive than the MiG, but it was not inferior to it in maneuverability, surpassing it in all other indicators.
                    Drying for a long time did not know how to land, being the same interceptor fighter, while bombs were hung on the MiG almost immediately.

                    The fact that the Mig is simpler is enough to know at least a little from the design of the aircraft. MiGs (up to the MiG-29M) had mechanical wiring, while the Su-27 immediately received a multi-channel EDSU. Comparing the radar of cars is simply ridiculous. In our time, light cars have caught up with, and some have surpassed, their heavier counterparts in complexity (and price), but we are talking about a different time.

                    You won't read it anyway, but it might come in handy for someone a two-volume monograph on the history of the creation and development of this excellent machine: "The Su-27 Fighter. The Beginning of History" and "The Su-27 Fighter. The Birth of a Legend". Authors: Pavel Plunsky, Vladimir Antonov, Vyacheslav Zenkin, Nikolai Gordyukov, Ildar Bedretdinov

                    "air superiority conqueror" - there is no such term at all.

                    By the way, not so long ago you signed up the Su-34 as an attack aircraft. And for some reason, the abnormality of this phenomenon didn’t cause any questions in you) You won’t notice a telegraph pole in your own eye, right?

                    Quote: Wamp
                    why then suffered with the MiG-25/31?

                    to find out the answer to this question, you now have a wonderful reason to get acquainted with the monographs on the MiG-31

                    Quote: Wamp
                    I do not like Nazis and fools.

                    why do you go to them then? Do you like being?
                    1. +1
                      30 January 2022 07: 07
                      How do you famously mix other people's excerpts with your fabrications. That's why 99% of the contents of the Internet have been scammed by people like you.

                      Quote: Half a century and a half
                      it is enough to know at least a little from the design of aircraft. MiGs (up to the MiG-29M) had mechanical wiring, while the Su-27 immediately received a multi-channel EDSU.

                      First fully, it was decided to use the concept of instability, which may in the future be used to improve maneuverability of an aircraft and its flight range. This may be done by balancing the losses that occur at cruising speed. To achieve improvements fighter was equipped with a by-wire system, with which it would be possible to fly a plane.

                      https://avia.pro/blog/samolet-mig-29-istoriya
                      You lied again. Without EDSU, he could not take off at all.

                      Quote: Half a century and a half
                      "air superiority conqueror" - there is no such term at all.

                      And where did I state that this is a term. "Interceptor" and "attack aircraft" are also not terms, but slang.
                      Head, head (again) and not the head, use.

                      Quote: Half a century and a half
                      By the way, not so long ago you signed up the Su-34 as an attack aircraft.

                      No need to overthink. I said that it performs the same tasks as the Su-25.
                      I’ll chew it for you: i.e. he destroys all targets, including moving ones, but does this by bombing and launching missiles from his height, without diving and slides (where attack aircraft usually catch).

                      Quote: Half a century and a half
                      why do you go to them then? Do you like being?

                      You are like Klitschko:
                      "Being smart is good, being smart is even better."

                      And I forgot about the difficulty...
                      - The MiG-29 has protection against debris entering the engines by switching the air intakes to the upper surface of the center section.
                      - It has systems and weapons that provide work on ground targets.
                      1. -3
                        30 January 2022 09: 52
                        Quote: Wamp
                        The MiG-29 has protection against debris entering the engines by switching the air intakes to the upper surface of the center section

                        You just discovered America! Naturally, it has, because it had to be operated from low-class airfields

                        Quote: Wamp
                        It has systems and weapons that provide work on ground targets.

                        Perhaps you didn't notice that I wrote about this in my comment?

                        Quote: Wamp
                        Head, head (again) and not the head, use

                        use your own advice) You give good advice, but for some reason you yourself or don’t use
                      2. +1
                        30 January 2022 13: 39
                        Quote: Half a century and a half
                        You just discovered America! Naturally, it has, because it had to be operated from low-class airfields

                        Instead of saying what the Su-27 can do, which the MiG-29 does not, you are changing the context again. It was about complexity ... Pretending to be "smart" and moving out of the topic?

                        Quote: Half a century and a half
                        You give good advice, but for some reason you yourself or don’t use it

                        You have the right inclinations - that's why I give advice.
                        Do you already know the basic process of love? True, my attitude towards you is the initial stage of respect. But you are blatantly lying!
              2. 0
                4 February 2022 23: 40
                How many flights do you have on it?
      2. +1
        26 January 2022 19: 53
        A full-fledged aircraft carrier is definitely not needed ... UDC for the possible deployment of 15-20 light vehicles of the Su-75 and Ka-52 class, which can be replaced, for example, with the Mi-8/17, for landing, evacuation, etc. operations - yes, probably, and reasonably ... But certainly it is not needed for real naval battles! This is 100% stupid! It is possible and necessary to destroy the American AUG anti-ship missiles from different carriers - nuclear submarines / submarines / aviation ... It is foolish to try to make a symmetrical response, especially to an enemy whose AUG is a forced step, the reverse side of the coin of life on the "island" ...
        1. -9
          26 January 2022 20: 20
          In addition to the AUG, the enemy did not forget to maintain the combat readiness of submarines, the linearity of their crews. The ICEX exercises alone are worth something. The Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Evmenov does not have the opportunity to repeat such exercises even once. And the enemy performs them regularly, with an order of magnitude greater use of practical torpedo weapons.
          The enemy didn’t screw up all types of naval aviation. He didn’t expose thousands of civilians
          officers, midshipmen, foremen. So that in four years, grab them from nowhere. And so on.
        2. 0
          26 January 2022 20: 35
          The task of the aircraft carrier is to cover the SSBN deployment area. Air battles over the sea are simply attached to it.
          1. 0
            26 January 2022 21: 07
            A modern nuclear submarine does not need any cover! Considering that a torpedo attack is already like a misericord, it is needed in very specific cases, given that it definitely makes no sense to approach the AUG nuclear submarine closer than 100 miles, but on average, an attack is expected from 200-300 miles - no cover is what she needs , but contraindicated! A nuclear submarine can enter from any direction, a diesel one is more likely only from frontal angles, but there are practically no chances to hear it before the attack! The boat only needs target designation!
            1. -3
              26 January 2022 22: 51
              Quote: sH, arK
              A modern nuclear submarine does not need any cover!

              Your counterparts are talking about SSBNs, a component of the nuclear triad. They just really need it - both under water and on it. From hunter boats and from enemy anti-submarine aircraft and anti-submarine ships.
              1. +1
                27 January 2022 10: 10
                The SSBN generally always goes by itself. It does not and cannot have a "direct" cover. This does not mean that she is left to the mercy of fate. When I was still serving, our 667 came out and at certain points intersected with 971 - of course, it could be considered a cover, it "chopped its tail" at a low speed at certain points. But the captains only knew the crossing points. Our SSBNs go on duty on the ice. After taking over the watch, the SSBN, upon detecting a pursuit, makes an evasive maneuver, while continuing the pursuit, it is obliged to attack!
                Everything that is being discussed here has nothing to do with the SSBN database! These multi-purpose ones play cat and mouse, they monitor the AUG, control the tails of the SSBNs at predetermined points, etc. They make films about them, they throw out tricks, break through the Faroese border, etc. These can be compared with sports cars on the road - they drive, spin, etc. The SSBN is a bus with child passengers - it goes quietly, it chooses a wide and free road. If he hears someone in advance, he “stops and turns off the light”, like a smuggler ... Yes, a traffic cop with a flasher can overtake nearby, then he will overtake then fall behind, then turn on the flasher-siren (MGK-AGS), but he drives himself, he has his own problems... He doesn't know where the bus goes, where it stops...
                The SSBNs themselves are quite noisy even at medium speed, so they go to the database on the quietest and quietest, snake, strictly north-south, in order to remove the EMF to zero, and drastically reduce the ability to detect the boat with a magnetometer from Orion. Their task is, like the bus to be on schedule at specific stops, while the stops themselves are a secret behind 7 seals! By the way, the QUO of warhead missiles depends on the accuracy of their observance! Although, the launch can be made virtually at any point, but with a decrease in accuracy!
                1. -3
                  27 January 2022 11: 34
                  Quote: sH, arK
                  SSBN generally always goes by itself

                  in Soviet times, their work was provided by multi-purpose nuclear submarines, BOD and TAVKR. You are probably confusing direct and long-range cover. Let's go back to WWII. The convoys also went with direct cover - usually corvettes and destroyers, very rarely cruisers, and distant ones - battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, whose task was to isolate the area and cut off enemy forces. Long-range cover rarely came into action, but its presence did not allow the enemy to arrange a massacre in the chicken coop.

                  What do you suggest? Drive the fleet, and SSBNs in particular, into coastal waters, under the umbrella of coastal aviation and DBK, i.e. self-isolation? Where do you propose deploying nuclear cruisers, under the ice and in the shallow Sea of ​​Okhotsk, deliberately restricting their maneuver and at the same time making it easier for the enemy to search for and destroy them? Then why do we need them at all, because the main advantage of the submarine is completely reset. Isn't it more logical to dig mines for ICBMs instead of nuclear-powered ships? Since in both cases the enemy will know the location of ballistic missiles and will try to cover them, only silo ICBMs are cheaper and more can be built

                  Ensuring the deployment of SSBNs is not to run with the whole crowd along with the submarine, as you suggest, it is to isolate its patrol area and make it as difficult as possible for the enemy to track him, ideally, make it impossible at all. This is when the value of the SSBNs manifests itself - somewhere out there, it is not known where exactly, there is a boat with vigorous missiles, and it cannot be reached, and in which case it will slowly and sadly open the covers of the mines and send nuclear gifts flying. The task of the NK, submarines and aviation is to remove all enemy anti-submarine forces - their aircraft, ships - from the patrol area, and even more so from the launch area. submarines. How are you going to do it?

                  In the USSR, the PLO task was approached comprehensively. How did our first helicopter carriers appear? Because it became obvious that the BODs with their meager number of helicopters cannot provide a round-the-clock search for enemy submarines. In addition, a larger ship carried not only more helicopters, but was also much more resistant to weather conditions (at what points do flights from a frigate and from a helicopter carrier stop?) The next logical step was the TAVKR - not only helicopters, but also planes were put on the ship .
                  1. +1
                    27 January 2022 17: 02
                    God! SSBNs are almost all in the Northern Fleet, not the TF! This time! The Sea of ​​Okhotsk is shallow???!!!! Yes, there is an average depth of under 1000 meters! What are you about?!!! This is an area closed from everyone, it is quiet to pass through the Kuril Islands on the AUG - FANTASTIC DREAM! Yes, Sivulf will quietly pass there! And Orion/Poseidon will fly by! But even on an airplane flying there during the war - oh, and a risky task! But going to NK there is 100% suicide! And our any SSBN in our inland sea clearly has all the advantages! And yes, there is not the slightest problem to provide cover for him there in the Sea of ​​​​Okhotsk! And the Sivulfs are already being hunted by multi-purpose ones - the SSBNs have completely different tasks. And in order to remove any NK air trough from the Okhotka region, this is exactly the last thing that is needed! And in the days of the USSR, and I served when he was still there, no TAVKRs ever covered the SSBNs, well, if only because they are not icebreakers;);)
                    The situation is the same in the White Sea, here it is, yes, shallow, relatively, there the average is less than 90 meters ... But the better it is to hide your boat there - but nothing else will enter!

                    And there is no point in remembering WWII and even the times of the USSR ... Then there were completely different restrictions, and the launch range was different, and everything is steel ... There is no point in comparing a hunter with a horn, with a hunter with a bow and a hunter with a sniper rifle - that's all completely different things ... Very ... And different goals and principles of hunting ...
                    1. The comment was deleted.
        3. -4
          26 January 2022 23: 02
          Quote: sH, arK
          But certainly it is not needed for real naval battles!

          and entrust the tasks of anti-aircraft defense and air defense exclusively to frigates with their only helicopter and medium-range air defense systems (at best)?

          Quote: sH, arK
          AUG is a forced step, the reverse side of the coin of life on the "island"

          AUG is an attribute and basis of a modern strong ocean fleet. Previously, the place of aircraft carriers was occupied first by battleships, and then by battleships, the battle squadron was the core and power of the fleet. Of course, there were fleets consisting of simpler ships - submarines, corvettes, destroyers, maximum cruisers - but were the fleets full-fledged?
          And then she came ... yes, she came - aviation. And she showed that she can sink any ship - be it in the harbor or on the high seas, be it a destroyer, cruiser or the latest battleship. Even if it has a hundred anti-aircraft artillery barrels. Now, in fact, nothing has changed.
          Dominance in the sky ensures victory under it
          1. -1
            27 January 2022 08: 12
            thanks for your comments good
          2. 0
            27 January 2022 10: 38
            Some kind of stupidity ;) Brad. Confusing God's gift and scrambled eggs! AUG in itself is both a goal and a means! She can't hide! Noisy and reflective for 200 miles around! Therefore, above her, AUG, her (!!) AWACS aircraft are prancing, trying to detect observers - for example, Tu-142, fishermen, or just bulk carriers ... AUG on the go is a huge evil rhinoceros, but she is not a hunter - she is a game! But to fight with a rhinoceros with a bow and a spear is more expensive for yourself! Therefore, the AUG goes to bantustan easily and without hiding! She is not afraid! She has nothing to fear!
            But if the Hunter (nuclear submarine with anti-ship missiles) went hunting, and the hunter for such an animal is not alone, but huntsmen with dogs (Tu-142MR, Tu-22M) are with them, then the AUG is a game, dangerous, evil, but GAME! And only a complete fool will send another AUG to meet with the AUG! Yes, this was at the very beginning, during the 2nd World War, before which the BATTLESHIPS were unshakably at the head of the flock, and after the war they disappeared like bison in America;) Then, when there was no long-range aviation, anti-ship missiles, and diesel submarines could not not only to catch up, but even to intercept the AUG from an ambush - there was an era of domination of aircraft carriers! But admirals, unlike generals, do not always and everywhere prepare for the last war ... AUG is still a strong trump card - like brass knuckles in a fist, but if the enemy has a finca in his hand and a pistol in his pocket, then I will say that it is not with all the trump cards you can win the game ...
            1. -1
              27 January 2022 11: 21
              But if the Hunter (nuclear submarine with anti-ship missiles) went hunting, and the hunter for such an animal is not alone, but huntsmen with dogs (Tu-142MR, Tu-22M) are with them, then the AUG is a game, dangerous, evil, but GAME!

              But will carrier-based aircraft not advance towards the Tu-142MR, Tu-22M? Who will see whom earlier, by the way, if the AUG has an AWACS aircraft?
              And our Hunter does not have his own hunters in the face of anti-submarine aircraft, anti-submarine helicopters, PLO and MAPL destroyers?
              1. +1
                27 January 2022 15: 08
                8-) What deck?! I did not go on an aircraft carrier (but I was on it, though under construction, in Riga - it became a Varangian, then Liaoning). Do you think there is always a wing or a task force in the air?! No, of course ... Even on Nimitz, there is a maximum of 2000 tons of jet fuel. This is for 300 takeoffs and landings. In this case, the air group can get away from it by a maximum of 200 miles. Theoretically, when the AUG has already entered the operational zone, the air group (very limited) can operate at a distance of up to 350-400 miles, but this is a "sport of the highest achievements". And at a distance further than 150 miles, the Tu-142MR, and even more so the Tu-22MR, is practically in no danger;) Hockey will see them, but they will find out about it much, much earlier by a re-reflected signal (who sees it earlier on the hunt - a beast of a lantern beam or you are an animal in the beam of a lantern ?! - so it’s clearer? )
                1. -4
                  27 January 2022 20: 22
                  Quote: sH, arK
                  when the AUG entered the operating zone

                  then in the air AWACS, at least a patrol link, at the starting steam, a tanker and rescue helicopters in operational readiness. This is the bare minimum. And also in the air, basic AWACS and basic patrol and anti-submarine. This is an axiom and a valid rule - AUGs are also given "land" heavy vehicles, as well as additional means - for example, a satellite constellation and long-range tracking stations can work exclusively in its interests, it can be combined with another AUG or interact with it at a distance (as it was with those same Flitex-82), etc.
                  So the question of who will "see" who ahead is not even worth it. And it will not be a Tu-142 armada.
                  And Hokkai or E-3 will see exactly the attacking armada, and the armada - AWACS. And where is the AUG really, will they know? Somewhere within the AWACS flight radius, but where exactly? This is a water area with a minimum radius of 200 miles, an area of ​​​​more than 125 thousand miles, in which there are a lot of radio signals, etc.

                  Your mistake is that for some reason you consider the commanders of the AUG or AUS to be complete nerds, and their enemy to have not only psychic abilities, but also weapons unprecedented on Earth.

                  You can grab the AUG by the coki in the way you describe only once - providing an unexpected and lightning-fast, well-coordinated attack. This means - strike first and suddenly, without warning. Do you think this option is realistic?
              2. +1
                27 January 2022 16: 06
                Lord, do you understand the difference? You, AUG, go by order, you interact, radars, AGS are working, well, even AWACS is on duty! They see you much further than you (an example was given - who will see whom before - a hunter sitting in ambush of a man with a lantern or a man with a lantern sitting in ambush?). A scout is a scout for that - what he sees first! You, on AWACS (this is not AWACS, but E-2C, for example), catch the reflected signal, in line of sight, and the reconnaissance officer is sufficiently re-reflected! He does not need a direct line of sight! You see only on the main DN, and the scout catches the side lobes! He knows both range and bearing, and you?

                The only limitation is that you are already ready for war, since you came out with a warrant, and you still need to prepare killers, gather them in a heap, and start driving them!

                Well, in pursuit, well, you saw Tu-100 at 142 miles, though he found out about you 200 miles further, but he went for clarification, and you play Hockey (E-2D, for example), you also saw - so what? "Tu" has already passed everything about you to the KC, and you shouted to the deck of the AUG! What's next? You are 100 miles from the deck, for example ... Will someone catch up with the Tu-200 from 142 miles? Let's not write nonsense ... Until the group takes off, until it reaches the distance, where will the Tu-142 be?
            2. -4
              27 January 2022 11: 42
              Quote: sH, arK
              AUG in itself is both a goal and a means! She can't hide!

              the Americans proved that you can hide a whole AUG. Recall the exercises NORPAC FleetXOPS 82, when all the forces of the Pacific Fleet could not find the American AUG for a week, and in the meantime it even worked out strikes on the coast of Primorye and calmly withdrew.
              Then it was believed that secrecy is the main condition for the surprise of delivering the first preemptive strike.

              But AUG, in most cases, there is no need to hide.

              Quote: sH, arK
              She is not afraid! She has nothing to fear!

              We are now talking not about ways to deal with the American (or other) AUG, but about its value for the Russian fleet.
              1. +1
                27 January 2022 15: 49
                The value of the AUG for the Russian Navy is the value of a rhinoceros horn! This is the value of a hunting trophy! I won’t even take any hypersonic anti-ship missiles, which, if you trust their performance characteristics, (and it’s stupid not to trust them, given the fact that almost all the performance characteristics that were indicated earlier for air defense systems, anti-ship missiles and others were rather underestimated, not overestimated - well this is how the VP worked :-)) make hunting for the AUG simply exciting and practically safe entertainment ... I’ll take the old X-22s and Granites, which are 949 each on the 24 project - and they will attack from 200 miles, where the devil himself is not will get it, and there will be no way to know about them! And one boat is a 80-90% AUG sentence! Yes, 70 percent, if the launch is from 200 miles, they will intercept and take away the electronic warfare ... But 5-7 missiles will hit! One rocket is enough for any ship! If he does not immediately kill, then he will never be a fighter! Even the issue of evacuation is extremely doubtful! The mass launch of the P-700 implies an attack from 2 directions, from 2 carriers. This is already an extremely painful blow, and then fight with the Kh-22 ... And there will also be at least 20-30 of them. No, I would not want to be a sailor on a ship in AUG! And the beating won't end! AUG will finish 100% to the last!

                And the "quiet" approach of the AUG is the tales of the Vienna Woods! Yes, in radio silence, in peacetime, you can sneak up, you don’t risk anything! And in the military? When the first trawler, the plane that sees you, snitchs! And then what? Catch 100% of the missiles on board? So?! You are going without AWACS and AGK! Well, you are blind, you didn’t turn on the flashlight, but you can’t be seen, but you, too! And you can all be sent to the bottom of the fish to be fed by the only diesel engine accidentally caught on the way!
                1. -3
                  27 January 2022 15: 52
                  Quote: sH, arK
                  The value of the AUG for the Russian Navy is the value of a rhinoceros horn!

                  this is your personal opinion, which does not claim to be objective and correct, and is also not confirmed by anything - even in your own words. You stubbornly avoid answering reasonable questions, talking not to the point.

                  Quote: sH, arK
                  No, I would not want to be a sailor on a ship in AUG

                  and would you like to be a sailor on a ship or submarine, in the sky over which enemy aircraft reign supreme?
                  1. +1
                    27 January 2022 20: 41
                    You probably do not understand everything, since you think that I am moving away from answers that are not asked questions? Do you know where the FleetXOPS 82 (NORPAC FleetXOPS 82) exercises were? And when? And the fact that yes, they were called the "Russian Pearl Harbor" - but they did not enter the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, but approached from the Bering Strait in complete radio silence ... Yes, there were a lot of mistakes then, it was all sorted out and shoulder straps flew, this like the landing of Matthias Rust on Red Square - this is an example of the complete tearing of the top of the air defense / navy !!! And how many times did boats surface in the middle of an AUG order during exercises ?!
                    But RER systems have since advanced much further than AUG camouflage tools! But most importantly, who dares to go in complete radio silence during the database?! Either put on a cross or take off your panties! At the exercises - all the brave, well, they will find out, so what ?! And during the DB?! They'll find you and kill you instantly! You are blind! So leave the stupidities of peaceful life for exercises - no one will take risks like that in a war!
                    1. -4
                      27 January 2022 21: 10
                      Quote: sH, arK
                      They'll find you and kill you instantly! You are blind!

                      Creed quia absurdum

                      Quote: sH, arK
                      Yes, there were a lot of mistakes back then.

                      and, as I see it, no special conclusions were drawn from that, alas. Especially the townsfolk, but the townsfolk are not familiar with those events, why? AUG is such a beautiful and convenient target!

                      Quote: sH, arK
                      But RER systems have since advanced much further than AUG camouflage tools! But most importantly, who dares to go in complete radio silence during the database?!

                      and the connection is not in place. Or do you think that with AB they will transmit in plain text "I'm Nimitz, I'm going there, my coordinates ..." ??? And with intelligence, especially at sea, we are not very good, even worse than it was in the days of the USSR.

                      But all this is beside the point. This is me answering your misleading questions. And the main one was: how and how are you going to provide air defense and anti-aircraft defense, isolation of the database area outside the coverage area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbcoastal aviation? You never answered it. For what purposes was the TAVKR built in the USSR (even a nuclear one was laid down)?
                      Or are you just not going to go "over the line"? If so, then, of course, no questions. Voluntary isolation (even minefields are not needed!) - this is what the enemy is only on hand. Then, in theory, we don’t even need a fleet, there will be enough coastal defense boats, and we don’t need SSBNs - we’ll poke along the perimeter of the air defense system and the DBK, and we’ll sleep peacefully) Or you can not install them - we have nuclear missiles in the mines!

                      Have you considered the option if the conflict starts not with the exchange of nuclear weapons, but with the use of conventional weapons? And then the SSBNs locked in the waters known to the enemy become just targets in a mousetrap ... And their chances of staying alive will melt every day. The only way out in this situation is to bang first, devaluing the submarines for the enemy as a target. Otherwise, there is a huge risk that nuclear missiles will simply sink with them. Are you ready to push the button first?
        4. -1
          27 January 2022 08: 20
          A full-fledged aircraft carrier is definitely not needed ... UDC for the possible deployment of 15-20 light vehicles of the Su-75 class

          As on UDC without aerofinishers and so on. will the Su-75 land?
          1. +1
            27 January 2022 10: 51
            An arrester is a few cables stretched over bobbins, what's the problem with installing/removing them?! I understand that a steam catapult, and even more so a fashionable, electromagnetic one, cannot be installed! Well, even on Kuza there are no catapults, only springboards! Which, by the way, is a huge minus, making this expensive rotten trough very inefficient!
            1. -1
              27 January 2022 11: 18
              On the same Kuz, these cables break regularly, and planes fall into the water. And it is much more adapted for horizontal landing than UDC.
              1. +1
                27 January 2022 14: 29
                Well, it's a cable quality issue. As far as I remember, there are 5 of them on the landing site. And if one breaks, then there is no big problem. Braking of course becomes sharper, but not critical. There are also cables at the end of the deck - safety cables. They do not cling like that, but with a bow stance.
                Of course, landing on the deck is not an easy thing, dangerous and very bad for health, an occupational disease is retinal detachment ... And 30-40 meters of the deck do not play a huge role, UDC, unlike a full-fledged aircraft carrier, implies much less takeoff and landing traffic, moreover, takeoff and landing takes place on the same deck, because there is no corner landing, like catapults ...
                1. -4
                  27 January 2022 16: 10
                  Quote: sH, arK
                  Well, it's a cable quality issue. As far as I remember, there are 5 of them on the landing site. And if one breaks, then there is no big problem.

                  no problem?! This is definitely a go-around - if there is such an opportunity. And everyone will be lucky if the ends of the torn cable do not cripple anyone and do not hook the plane. And they won't get tangled up in other cables.
                  There are 4 cables on Kuznetsov, of which one is working - the second. It is on him that pilots are taught to land. All other insurance.

                  Quote: sH, arK
                  There are also cables at the end of the deck - safety cables.

                  an emergency barrier is already on the scribe. If the plane must land at all costs. Landing with the help of AB is an emergency.

                  Quote: sH, arK
                  no corner landing

                  and that's bad.

                  Quote: sH, arK
                  30-40 meters of the deck do not play a huge role

                  sure? Look at Charles. At one time, the French saved up, and lost the opportunity to simultaneously produce and receive cars.
                  If we speak only for the UDC, then we should not forget that this is a "paratrooper", the main load for him is the landing force and its equipment, and aviation is his load. Therefore, it will be part (sometimes a very large part) moored on the deck. You say size doesn't matter...
                  1. 0
                    27 January 2022 17: 44
                    Again nonsense! If the cable breaks, then the plane will not go to the "second circle"! They go to the second round when the hook did not catch the cable at all! But this is already the end! The second round, when the approach is inaccurate and the pilot is not sure about the safety of the landing - in 99% he turns on the afterburner at least a few meters from the boat, landing at a large angle of attack, unlike landing on a regular airfield!

                    Well, about the ends of the cable - this is generally an anecdote;)) There is no one on the open deck and there cannot be when landing!
                    1. -4
                      27 January 2022 19: 06
                      Quote: sH, arK
                      If the cable breaks, then the plane will not go to the "second circle"! They go to the second round when the hook did not catch the cable at all! But this is already the end! The second round, when the approach is inaccurate and the pilot is not sure about the safety of the landing - in 99% he turns on the afterburner at least a few meters from the deck, landing at a large angle of attack, unlike landing on a regular airfield!

                      when landing on deck, the aircraft always comes in afterburner - precisely in order to have a thrust reserve in case of go-around.

                      Quote: sH, arK
                      Well, about the ends of the cable - this is generally an anecdote;)) There is no one on the open deck and there cannot be when landing!

                      what are you talking about! You, apparently, are extremely poorly familiar with the organization of service on an aircraft carrier. Firstly, there are planes "in the parking lot" nearby, and secondly, there are always a lot of people on the deck.



                      I can’t name the position of this sailor in the Russian Navy, but the Americans have a special person from Hook runners (guys in green vests), who, after hooking the cable with a hook, runs like a bullet to the plane and helps it free itself from the cable - sometimes he himself from the hook doesn't come off.


                      This is on many videos, but you don’t get carried away with such nonsense, right, when your head is full of speculation? The work performed on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier is rightly considered extremely dangerous, but someone has to do it, there are no robots there yet.
                      1. +1
                        27 January 2022 21: 33
                        Excuse me, I said that I was on the "aircraft carrier" only in Riga under construction, I did not go to sea at all on it. I am a submariner. Officer BC-4. He served on the 667 project for a little over 3 years. But the photographs that you bring - two were taken on the tank - there is a take-off, catapults ... that's why people are there! On the closet (middle part of the deck) - there are a lot of people, too, there is a superstructure (city) of planes ... But the last one, you can’t see in the photo that it is a poop, perhaps this is already the corner edge where the plane slowed down - otherwise the cable cannot be removed from the hook! I don’t understand, where is the contradiction here that there should be no people on the landing corner deck? And a broken cable can cripple and kill only those who violate the combat schedule - am I mistaken and don’t know something ?!
                      2. -2
                        27 January 2022 21: 46
                        Quote: sH, arK
                        But the photographs that you bring - two were taken on the tank - there is a take-off, catapults

                        paragraph ... you do not distinguish bow from stern? Don't see the finishers? Especially for you, the arrows showed the cables, the ovals - the blocks of the chain hoist:
                        And highlighted in yellow is the "hook cable puller" in the "green suit" prepared for the sprint to the plane



                        Quote: sH, arK
                        I don’t understand, where is the contradiction here that there should be no people on the landing corner deck? And a broken cable can cripple and kill only those who violate the combat schedule - am I mistaken and don’t know something ?!

                        Yes, because there are people there - at the stern, in the area of ​​​​the cables. And they are there on schedule, in their places! Some will run to remove the cable, the second will watch how the cable is wound back, the third is something else ... yes, technicians can simply climb near the planes moored in the parking lot! No matter how strange it may seem, there are quite a lot of people on the flight deck while working with aircraft. The markings indicate where you can go and where you can't. But the broken cable does not care about the markings!
                      3. +1
                        27 January 2022 21: 59
                        In the pictures - I don’t see something stern! In the first photo - where are the people? And on the last - F-35 bow stand in the finisher? Do I understand correctly? So what is this food? It's waist then, middle!
                      4. -3
                        27 January 2022 22: 04
                        Quote: sH, arK
                        In the pictures - I don’t see something stern!

                        and he also says - he served in the Navy! Put on your glasses, you brat. I showed the finisher cables with arrows - you don’t see them either? Where do you think the finishers could be located, perhaps in the nose?

                        I think you've overheated. Not your topic, don't bother writing more. Neither technically nor tactically. It is sickening to read, even somewhat ashamed of a compatriot. Discuss politics better, you can lie there, they won’t notice)
                      5. +1
                        28 January 2022 10: 54
                        Here is a photo of an aircraft carrier:


                        In your photographs, there is a side platform on which the planes are standing - there, as far as I understand, there is an aircraft elevator! And this elevator in the picture, and this is Nimitz's 8th sistership, CVN-75 "Harry Truman", is not in the poop, stern, but already in the middle part of the ship, waist! Open your eyes yourself!
                      6. -2
                        28 January 2022 10: 59
                        In my photos, the arrester cables are clearly visible, as well as the equipment and people in the immediate vicinity. What you were talking about and it was you who denied the presence of cables in the photo.
                        You are now doing your favorite thing - denying the obvious, inventing something and arguing furiously with it. Yes, argue who is stopping you, only without my participation and with the understanding that you are arguing with yourself. You still take offense at yourself and call yourself a bad word)
              2. +1
                27 January 2022 20: 47
                Falling is one thing, and cables are another. It's not directly related. Yes, if you hooked on the last of the 5 cables, and it broke (!!!) - then yes, you are out of luck! Well, sometimes the wheel will burst during landing, and a lot of things - and it ends, but badly ... Well, really! And yes, landing on an aircraft carrier is extremely difficult, so I’m not campaigning for it! Vice versa! Why are these, already ineffective against a more or less serious enemy, expensive floating troughs! :-):-)
            2. -4
              27 January 2022 16: 00
              Quote: sH, arK
              An arrester is a few cables stretched over bobbins, what's the problem with installing/removing them?!

              Are you sure you know how the finisher works? I am sure that you have no idea how it works and is arranged, otherwise you would not write incredible nonsense. This is a fairly large and heavy device, seriously "screwed" to the power set of the ship, with hydraulic brakes, moreover, adjustable to the weight of a particular aircraft. Can you imagine how much energy an airplane landing has? Even if it is just a 20-ton apparatus with a speed of 240 km / h, which needs to be stopped (i.e., absorb all its energy) on a run of no more than 90 meters (this is on Kuznetsov and the "Americans") And this " do you propose to shoot and stage a tiny "bastard" by the team? yes you are a dick!
              In addition, on the run, the aircraft needs space on its sides, the narrow deck of the UDC is not very suitable for this. Why did they make a corner deck on AB, you know?
              1. +1
                27 January 2022 17: 33
                You solve God's gift with scrambled eggs again! We are talking about UDC, and this is a strong compromise between convenience and common sense (and money!). Therefore, there can be no corner deck, arrester systems - they are calculated only for light aircraft, with an initially short mileage, well, we don’t consider UVVP, and they are generally a moot point, but they don’t exist and it’s not yet clear whether they will ... It’s with the Americans there heavy Hornets and Hokkai...

                And we are not talking about putting something "by the team", we are talking about the universalization of the project, when it is 90% compatible in terms of equipment and construction of the ship! Those. we are actually talking about sisterships but of different directions! But it's not the same ship. Although the conversion of a light aircraft carrier to UDC is quite possible, albeit with the loss of some functionality!
                1. -3
                  27 January 2022 19: 15
                  Quote: sH, arK
                  We are talking about UDC, and this is a strong compromise between convenience and common sense (and money!). Therefore, there can be no corner deck, arrester systems are calculated only for light aircraft, with an initially short run

                  hmm ... A jet plane uses a parachute when landing at an airfield - that's why the run is short. Without the use of a parachute, in any case, the aircraft will roll more than the length of the deck, not even the UDC, but the aircraft carrier. That is why - and not out of a whim - they put finishers. This is the first. Secondly, an aircraft landing on an aircraft carrier comes in afterburner - and you yourself agreed with that - so what kind of short run can we even talk about without using a finisher or a parachute? A parachute, of course, is not used on aircraft carriers.

                  Now let's move on to the second. To the corner deck. It appeared not for the sake of convenience, but to improve the safety of landing operations. So that the plane, "if anything", does not hit anyone and fly into the water, and not bite into the superstructure or into the parked aircraft and other equipment. This is clear?
                  These two attributes - the finisher and the corner deck - are mandatory on aircraft carriers with aircraft with classic takeoff and landing. This is not a whim, this is what is called written with sweat and blood (not our 0 British and Americans. But if you want, you can also go through this thorny path - fools learn only from their mistakes)

                  Summary: only VTOL aircraft can be based on the UDC. They can take off with a short takeoff, but their landing will be vertical.
                2. -3
                  27 January 2022 19: 30
                  Quote: sH, arK
                  And we are not talking about putting something "by the team", we are talking about the universalization of the project, when it is 90% compatible in terms of equipment and construction of the ship! Those. we are actually talking about sisterships but of different directions! But it's not the same ship. Although the conversion of a light aircraft carrier to UDC is quite possible, albeit with the loss of some functionality!

                  this is another misconception. You cannot make a full-fledged light aircraft carrier from a UDC, but a UDC from an aircraft carrier. Different requirements, different hardware, different internal architecture.
                  You may have a similar external case, but completely different internal layout and stuffing. And where is the unification?

                  You either did not serve in the Navy, as you assure, or you do not understand the specifics of a "paratrooper" and an aircraft carrier. Laying heat-resistant plates and putting up columns for refueling is not getting an aircraft carrier. At UDC, aircraft are an appendage of the landing force, and they are commanded by one person. The air wing of the "paratrooper" is designed for a meager number of sorties - this is to deliver the landing force, provide it with fire support, then the aircraft operate from ground platforms. Aircraft can be based directly on the deck. they do not need a lot of fuel and ammo. An aircraft carrier is different. To accommodate cellars, jet fuel storage. repair shops, warehouses with spare parts, and so on and so forth - it is necessary to throw out the entire landing force. The navigational equipment for supporting flights on AB and UDC is also different, the air wing is in different subordination. On AB - a different composition of the air group, these are their own technicians, etc. But these are already organizational moments, but there are enough of those that I brought. And if you also put finishers - and they won’t turn out easy, they will be the same as on a normal AB, if there are planes of the classic landing method - this is also a place, and not a small one.
                  You would at least pull up the materiel first before talking about such topics ..

                  And now look at the finisher of one cable "Kuznetsov"




                  And here is another good link: https://www.aviapanorama.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/86.pdf
      3. 0
        27 January 2022 12: 25
        well, in general, the MiG announced plans to develop a new shipborne fighter, and taking into account competence, it’s easier and faster to order a MiG than Sukhoi
  2. 0
    26 January 2022 16: 36
    Of course, it is good with hospitals, only here there are personnel (doctors) - as a rule, good ones are not enough now. And the military department, using some privileges, lures them away from the national economy, so to speak, and Doctors from the outback leave to serve in hospitals. And hospitals in cities and villages are emptying - take Anapa - they built a hospital and doctors in the city, and it didn’t happen like that at all. And by and large, the military would be allowed to recruit only from our Russian vacuum cleaner (Moscow) where there are more of these doctors than in Russia. And the ships are definitely needed. They should only be used for their intended purpose - if the "Kuzya" is imprisoned for helicopters and a vertical line - why rape the equipment ???
  3. 0
    26 January 2022 17: 19
    Ah, Varan...
    This is the one in which they forgot to insert the pipe into the layout, and the photo was mirrored incorrectly for a long time ...

    What is there to say.

    while it is not there, you can at least put su 75, at least an instant 41, although Yak 141bis.
    There is only one result - they saved money from being stolen.
    1. -9
      26 January 2022 18: 30
      It can be considered with any type of aircraft. This is more for gymnastics of the mind. Anyway, the aircraft listed above take a long time to wait. The aircraft carrier is designed for specific types of aircraft.
  4. -1
    26 January 2022 17: 50
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    There is only one result - they saved money from being stolen.

    And so the type is not stolen?
    1. 0
      26 January 2022 22: 29
      Clear stump. from old projects.
      On VO there is just news about the new defendants ....
  5. -4
    26 January 2022 20: 29
    So, maybe it's worth taking a closer look at Varan and his family?

    maybe worth it, but only then, so that you never do it!

    "Varan"? God forbid. Even from the outward appearance of this "supercarrier" one can understand that the pictures were drawn without "feeling, sense, placement", without working through the project one iota. Apparently, because they themselves considered it extremely unpromising.
    1. Is the superstructure shifted to the nose - is this in order to make take-off operations as difficult as possible? All normal people put the island closer to the stern, but we have a special way!
    2. Oh, catapults! Do they exist? Not those that they still tried to do for Ulyanovsk, but reproduced in Russia?
    3. "Kuznetsov", with comparable dimensions, provides simultaneous takeoff and landing of aircraft. Varan doesn't have that.
    4. Corner "deck" Varan "is something! I immediately recall the first British post-war aircraft carriers on which they experimented with the corner deck. It was simply painted (with paint!) On a regular flight deck. That's why you don't like sailors and deck pilots so much by drawing the landing part of the deck straight across the ship?
    5. 26 knots for an aircraft carrier? Why not 19 then, like a tanker? Aircraft carriers always ran for 30 (like their ecort), and this was justified.

    Modular design. Question to the author - how does he understand this phrase? Which of the sections, like from a certain "Lego", will different ships be assembled? We combine ABCD - we get an aircraft carrier, we combine AFSHR - at the output of UDC? Or, as in small arms - we change the barrel and bolt, and we get a rifle of a different caliber? No, our industry has a completely different concept of modularity, its own, original. It's just the same set of essential mechanisms. For example, engines, communications, weapons. But everything else will be different, on each type of ship. And the bodies will be different. And there will be no acceleration and reduction in the cost of construction.

    "Varan" will never be realized. And it doesn't upset. Although aircraft carriers and UDC are undoubtedly needed. But good ones. We are not rich enough to spend money on bad things.
  6. 0
    27 January 2022 00: 44
    it’s better to have two monitor lizards (45 thousand tons) than one (80 thousand tons), it’s like the saying “don’t put all your eggs (planes) in one basket”, and without a catapult, a springboard is enough like on Kuza,
    all the fables about the need for a powerful AWACS, they say, without it, aviation is blind, etc.
    have no reason, because the radar of Ross fighters (su35, su57) is seen at a distance of up to 400 km. moreover, these radars can be installed on the su75 and on the ship su30, they won’t fit in an instant 35. (we don’t take it on board). Varan should be considered not as a classic AUG (for air control), but as a battle cruiser (Kuznetsov’s ideology), whose air wing increases the range of Zircon 1 thousand (Onyx-bramos 600-800 km), by a radius of su57, su35, that is, by 1,7 -2 thousand km. why shoot down dozens of planes in the air, when having a long arm (2,7 thousand km) you can drown or neutralize all 70 planes on board a large US air trough from a safe distance, and 3-5 su 57 will be able to do this, of course Zircon must have apple. target designation will be given by satellites, including those that are supposedly launched for satellite Internet, or the Yaseni nuclear power plant will be directed by Varan))
    1. -1
      5 February 2022 00: 07
      Aha
      Only you can't see without Avax
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. 0
    11 March 2022 06: 55
    Thanks, Sergey. Nikolaev should be reunited with Russia. There and build both monitor lizards and Varangians.