Military Review

Article response. Six Weeks "Desert Storm"

174
Article response. Six Weeks "Desert Storm"



Sleepy Arab afternoon was disturbed by the bell.

- How are you, O Sheikh Jaber?

- Glory to Allah, I feel good, I have already had dinner.

- By Allah, - said Saddam, - you will no longer have breakfast in Kuwait.

The same night Tanks "Tavalkans", throwing up clubs of sand, rushed across the border. Emir Jaber al-Salam fled to Arabia, where the remains of his battered army took refuge. Kuwait became the 19th province of Iraq.

At this time in the Middle East were on alert two carrier strike groups of the US Navy. Which did nothing to prevent the occupation of the strategically important for the West, oil Kuwait. Stood and watched. The AUGGs who arrived to the rescue (there were six of them in total by the winter) were also doing idleness, waiting for the Air Force to come into play.

According to the laws of military science, the obvious solution was to launch a series of preemptive strikes against Iraqi troops, if only to slow down the deployment of the group and prevent the Iraqis from quietly digging in Kuwait (by winter they dragged a bunch of air defense missile systems there and built three defensive lines).

But the aircraft carriers were inactive. Admirals understood that an attempt to intervene on their own would result in heavy casualties among decked wings without noticeable harm to the enemy. Now you can continue your conversation about "efficiency", "tactical flexibility" and "projection of force" with the help of aircraft carriers and deck aviation.

This material is the answer to the article. "And a little more about aircraft carriers", published a day ago on the "BO". In this article, my opponent Andrei Kolobov diligently argued the importance of the participation of AUG in Operation Storm in the Desert.

According to Andrew, the insignificant number of combat missions against the general background was bathed by the method of using carrier-based aircraft. As a result, aircraft carrier pilots made a significant contribution to the victory, which, in certain disciplines, reached 23 and even more than 40% !!!

My answer to Andrew will be like this.

1. There is no need to look for hidden meaning there, it is not.

Approximately in the same way as at school “losers” losers, so that they do not spoil the list. Trying to find any formal reason to put that “ud.”, Even if the reason is absurd and contrary to common sense.

The only reasonable explanation: Americans drove aircraft carriers to Iraq because they had to use them somewhere. Admirals also want orders.

Neither the tactical nor the strategic plan had any need for the participation of the AUG in that war. The Yankees and their allies had five times as many combat aircraft ashore.

“When the Americans lacked countless bases, aircraft were deployed without a word at international airports: Al Ain (UAE), King Fahd (Saudi Arabia), Muscat (Oman), at Sharjah International Airport and Cairo - wherever the place and necessary infrastructure ".

In other words, even the existing forces had to be based at international airports, and if you still had to deploy deck aircraft there too?


Andrew, do not be afraid and scare others. If desired, they would place a grouping equivalent to the wings of six AB. For example, removing part of the useless aircraft of their allies from the air bases of the region. What did the obsolete Saudi F-87, British “Jaguars” or surviving “Skyhawks” of the Kuwaiti Air Force mean in that war 5?

And replacing all of this aviahlam multipurpose fighter 4-th generation.


"Accidental meeting". The US Air Force F-15C and A-4KU look at each other in surprise. There is a temporary gap between them in 20 years.

Also, do not forget about the higher performance of ground-based aircraft (one F-111 for combat load and sighting systems cost as much as two or three deck bomber). Andrei will surely say: "How is that, I proved last time that there are only a couple of percent differences." But he took for comparison the best (and in fact the only) type of carrier-based aircraft with the most primitive of land multipurpose fighters (F-16). Only it is necessary to take into account that the light and massive "Falken" is used to minimize costs, if necessary, F-15E and the company will go into battle.

As a result, we are talking not about three hundred, but about a much smaller number of units. aircraft technicians. As for fuel supplies and 2, thousands of tons of ammunition aboard aircraft carriers ... The Capella would bring bombs, spare parts and consumables for the year of war ahead, good, she has a deadweight of 40 thousand tons and a transition speed higher than that of aircraft carrier.


Gas turbine military transport "Capella", one of the best in the Maritime Transportation Command. Speed ​​- 33 node


In the absence of aircraft carriers, the war would continue in its current form, in which we know it. Nothing would have changed, except for the lower operating costs of the Coalition.

2. Andrew wonders:

If Iraq would have modern operational tactical missiles (OTR)? In this case, the Americans with their allies would be able to provide air cover for all airfields ... At the same time, aircraft carriers cannot be hit by OTP, since they represent a moving target.

And what is the use of this if they cannot fight on their own?

No matter how cool, without ground air bases anywhere. If the insidious enemy has time to bomb all the airfields, the war is automatically lost. The presence of AB will not help anything. Or are you going to completely eliminate the base and place the aircraft on ships? Not? Then why for the hundredth time the argument about the lesser vulnerability of "floating airfields"?

3. "We are surprised to find that the US carrier-based aviation, which had only about a quarter of the total number of American tactical aircraft, turned out to provide 41,3% of all heavy fighter jets."

The surprise could be if these deck fighters would be the last hope. However, the Yankees have always had the opportunity to transfer a couple of additional F-15 squadrons to the theater. And nothing would have changed.

All the same, deck "Tomkaty", despite the thousands of sorties, could not intercept anyone, all the 34 aerial victories went to F-15C.

By the way, despite his reverent attitude to numbers (up to tenths of a percent), dear Andrei forgot to take into account 50 heavy fighters of the Saudi Arabian Air Force (the Saudis also flew F-15). However, on the general background, their value was small: only two declared victories.


Hundreds of marines at Sheikh Isa airbase in Bahrain, 1991


4. "It remains only to repeat that the mass of bombs can not serve as a measure of the effectiveness of aircraft."

Andrew is absolutely right. For example, about 40% of the highest-priority targets in Iraq were recorded as “stealth” (the group included NXHX 42, which made less than 2% of total departures). In fact - the most effective of the strike aircraft of the war.



In the first raid on a nuclear facility at Al-Tuva participated 32 aircraft F-16C, armed unguided bombs, accompanied 16 fighter F-15C, four directors the EF-111 interference protivoradarnyh eight F-4G and 15-135 tankers COP. This large group failed to complete the task. The second raid was accomplished at night with just eight F-117A with guided bombs. This time we destroyed three of the four Iraqi nuclear reactors.

(From the speech of the commander of the Air Force of multinational forces, General Horner.)

What conclusions will follow from this point?

1. As Andrew correctly noted, “the number of bombs dropped” is not the only measure of success. The only problem is that, as a result of the Gulf war, deck aircraft "blew" all points at once. The scanty number of sorties and dropped bombs, lower combat load, worst aircraft performance characteristics, no air victories ... Finally, naval aviation pilots were just afraid to entrust important tasks. These are the unfortunate facts that no longer correct columns of numbers.

2. Always, as the need arises, the command of the air force will "get out of its sleeve" a trump card. Ultimate heavy interceptors (F-15C or “Raptor”), invisible airplanes, tactical bombers (F-111 and F-15E), specialized anti-tank attack aircraft, etc. etc.

3. Unlike them, carrier-based aircraft in any situation will be limited to a set of multi-purpose light class fighters. During the events in question (1991), sea pilots had to fly generally on primitive aircraft. You can argue, citing the example of the Su-33, but physics is impossible to deceive. When taking off from the deck, his fuel level and combat load are sharply reduced.

5. Magic numbers

Taking this opportunity, I would like to draw your attention to an interesting approach to the analysis of the actions of the MNF air group. Many authors, including And Andrey, obviously, has a home supercomputer capable of taking into account the many variables on which the outcome of the war depends. Daily ammunition consumption, selection and distribution of targets, bomb suspension schemes for each type of aircraft, analysis of the actions of airfield services, distribution of departures in the first days of the operation ...

If all the data is still there, what are you trying to prove by the tenth of a percent? What is this ostentatious accuracy for, if we do not have full access to the source data?

Did you give these numbers to give a scientific look to the discussion? So draw in the middle of the text the integral sign, it will turn out even "more scientific".

The format of a small introductory article for a wide range of readers is not suitable for serious calculations.

How to distinguish white from black? Through the eyes! Simple words about simple things. The most understandable and obvious examples - and everything immediately falls into place.

I can bet on the effectiveness of AB in the open ocean. But to prove their importance on the example of the operation “Desert Storm” - only the opposite effect can be achieved this way.

All the facts about the participation of AUG in a purely land war testify against.

This is evidenced by the number of aircraft located on the coast - 5 times more than at the "floating airfields".

And the ridiculous disposition of placing half of the aircraft carriers in the Red Sea, so that sea pilots had to fly the longest, across the Arabian Peninsula.

And other shameful facts: the wing of the largest and most modern aircraft carrier (nuclear "T. Roosevelt") made its first combat departure only on the third day of the war.


Unlike the Air Force aircraft, which could still fly to the target on their own, the deck aircraft were required to refuel. In the photo - deck EA-6B refueling from KC-135 over the Arabian desert
Author:
174 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 16 December 2016 06: 31
    +18
    Kaptsov, stop doing demagogy fellow negative
    When you need, you demand numbers, when you have been given numbers from your own articles, you are embroiled in idle talk, in which you blame others laughing
    What kind of kindergarten: "if only", twisting, dialogues woven for effect ... And where are the numbers request
    Chic minus hi !
    1. couch but smart general
      couch but smart general 16 December 2016 06: 51
      +4
      By the way, how to put cons? I don’t see something
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 16 December 2016 07: 04
        +7
        Like me fellow wink drinks Cons by today's rules are not set. The lack of a plus is a minus request Because your disapproval can be expressed differently yes
        1. couch but smart general
          couch but smart general 16 December 2016 07: 09
          +3
          ok thanks hi
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. avt
      avt 16 December 2016 10: 28
      +8
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Kaptsov, stop doing demagogy

      wassat Swing at the sacred !! ??
      Quote: Rurikovich
      When you need, you demand numbers, when you have been given numbers from your own articles, you are embroiled in idle talk, in which you blame others

      And what do adherents feed ??
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The numbers should mean something, if they do not mean anything - then such a calculation is useless

      bully
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 16 December 2016 18: 12
        +3
        Quote: avt
        Swing at the sacred !! ??

        Yes, a long time ago! drinks
        Quote: avt
        And what do adherents feed ??

        Adherents feed on faith! yes By faith in infallibility, by the belief that godfather is always right wassat
        Therefore, if we make such an analysis as a percentage, a quite interesting picture will be drawn. what of what is faith and what is reality wassat And the reality is the ratio of the comments to the betting plus. And this is 1 to 3. Therefore, the number of believers is three times less than the number of those who leave their opinions. And if you remove the fractions, then 1 to 2 fellow
        That is, there are two pragmatists per believer yes
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 17 December 2016 15: 41
        +4
        Quote: avt

        wassat Swing at the sacred !! ??

        ... just KILLING anti-AUG facts -
        “... At the same time, the advertised prohibitive combat power of American aircraft carriers turns out to be a myth.
        The winged aircraft declared in the 90 specifications spend most of their time ashore, being assigned to the aircraft carrier only formally.
        The 20-second take-off interval in practice turns out to be 5-minute.
        The maximum volume of the raised air group is no more than 20 vehicles, or rather, one shock squadron with attached means to ensure departure.
        The rise of this compound into the air takes more than an hour and a half, which means the impossibility of using the full combat load.
        At least the first 6 cars in the launch cycle are forced to use hanging tanks to work together with planes taking off later at the same range. From a tactical point of view, this means that the radius of action of the strike force can never reach its theoretical maximum, and the combat load will be at best half of the declared aircraft performance.

        Here you can jokingly propose the rule of "dividing by two" in relation to American aircraft carriers. Wing? Divide 90 into two, and you’ll get a realistic figure - 36 machines on the hangar deck and two links on the flight, if the weather permits. Startup cycle? We divide by two the number of vehicles that the aircraft carrier actually carries on board - the correct figure will be obtained. Combat radius? Divide by two. Combat load? We use the same approach.

        Propaganda and PR in the modern world order are, perhaps, even more important than the real combat power of the ship.
        A strike aircraft carrier of the Nimitz class is a very powerful means of projecting force.
        And the image that was created around him in the information field is stronger many times over. Try to search the Internet for pictures of aircraft carriers - you will see a large number of beautiful "ceremonial" pictures with a full aircraft wing on the deck. These photographs are most often taken during any joint exercises and after their completion. But to find pictures of the real combat work of an aircraft carrier is much more difficult, partly because they look far less impressive ... "

        Fully - http://eurasian-defence.ru/node/3602
    4. Rus2012
      Rus2012 16 December 2016 14: 00
      +11
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Chic minus

      ... Alas, "minus" write to yourself!

      In this case, Oleg was argued above the roof, he simply didn’t give the numbers so that they would not be repeated (they are in his early articles), except that he is witty and folded!
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 16 December 2016 18: 16
        0
        Quote: Rus2012
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Chic minus

        ... Alas, "minus" write to yourself!

        In this case, Oleg was argued above the roof, he simply didn’t give the numbers so that they would not be repeated (they are in his early articles), except that he is witty and folded!

        Firstly, not you, but YOU ... We are not a godfather to poke around wink
        Secondly, the arguments of Andrey from Chelyabinsk are entirely based on Kaptsov's "numbers". Open your eyes wink hi
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 16 December 2016 19: 19
          +3
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Firstly, not you, but YOU ... We are not a godfather to poke around

          SO!
          Tykalkin, where did you see this?
          Indeed, I don’t know, especially since I don’t plan to know!

          As for the numbers, we read carefully: "Oleg is argued above the roof, he simply didn’t give figures so as not to repeat (they are in his early articles)"
          I repeat for the visually impaired - ALL NUMBERS were in his early articles!
  2. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 16 December 2016 06: 36
    +4
    One author has numbers. The second has beautiful words. The numbers are somehow more faith.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 December 2016 07: 17
      +11
      Quote: DrVintorez
      One author figures.

      And another digit
      Quote: DrVintorez
      The numbers are somehow more faith.

      The numbers should mean something, if they do not mean anything - then such a calculation is useless
      1. jjj
        jjj 16 December 2016 10: 48
        +7
        Now "Kuzya" will return home, get up for repairs and we will think for ourselves: do we need such steamers or not. And if needed, for what specific tasks
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 16 December 2016 14: 03
          +5
          Quote: jjj
          And if necessary, for what specific tasks

          ... it has already been said for the thousand first time - as a heavily armed naval gendarme for - to keep "hostile Papuans" and "flag demonstrations" in good shape!
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 15: 09
            +2
            Quote: Rus2012
            ... it has already been said for the thousand first time - as a heavily armed naval gendarme for - to keep "hostile Papuans" and "flag demonstrations" in good shape!

            As part of the division's 100 aircraft, we "kept it up" ONLY! ! ! about decommissioning an aircraft carrier out of order, but not sinking it, and even then, with a “very modest” probability, because without hitting it less than 9 - 11 supersonic missiles with a warhead under a ton of explosive in each (!) is a pipe dream ...
            Less than a division (three regiments), there was no point in hitting the aircraft carrier, and from those three regiments (by calculations) there was almost nothing left in the end ...
            Thousands of crewmen of every American aircraft carrier on it "do not pick their nose", with an aircraft wing to 90 aircraft on it, even without the help of "AWACS" s, only using their H-2C "Hokkay" to detect the threat, close to themselves and no one let in, without any options, knocking down anyone trying to get close to him already at a distance of about 2.000 kilometers from him ...
            Source: http://www.chitalnya.ru/work/281405/
            All rights reserved © Chitalnya.ru

            These are the Papuans.
            1. Rus2012
              Rus2012 16 December 2016 18: 36
              +6
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              These are the Papuans.

              ... one very modest and tidy questioner -
              - and what are these your so-called. "Papuans" - pissing straight and scattering in the corners when they saw "ditching" fu-shashteen / fifteen on the sea horizon?

              I will remind you words of Admiral Selivanov Valentin Egorovich -
              All the time there were two American aircraft carriers. One carrier group in the base area in Naples, the other in Haifa, in Israel. My strength stood so that one part was in the Tunisian region, the other at the Gulf of Sallum. Each unit was aimed at its enemy carrier group. Each aircraft carrier was accompanied by our anti-ship missile submarines. Near the aircraft carrier there was always our tracking ship, which detected every take-off of an American carrier-based aircraft and transmitted this data to the boats. In addition to boats, each aircraft carrier was accompanied by our KUGs, (ship strike groups). If this is a cruiser with a missile range of three hundred and three hundred and fifty kilometers, then it goes at a distance of three hundred kilometers from the enemy’s AUG (aircraft carrier strike group). I tried to distribute the forces in such a way that no less than thirty of our missiles were aimed at each American aircraft carrier, with a readiness to launch missiles in two minutes. And every hour I gave out all means of the squadron updated target designation, the enemy was constantly on the gun.
              ...
              At the same time, twenty-five percent, that is, every fourth of our missiles, were equipped with nuclear weapons. There are eight missiles on the boat, two of them with nuclear warheads. On the RRC (missile cruiser) "Slava" - sixteen missiles, four of them with nuclear warheads. The Soviet Union once assumed the obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. But it is difficult to say how it would have been done during the war. For example, if in battle I have already fired all my missiles with conventional ammunition, but they continue to attack me from all sides, and no one can help me? How can you end resistance without exhausting your main striking power?
              Our calculations showed that in those years their AUG was capable of assassinating twenty-two missiles. Already the twenty third rocket aircraft carrier catches overboard. Twenty-fourth could be shot down again, but then they could miss three consecutive and so on. That is, when exceeding twenty-two missiles in a simultaneous salvo, we have already with a high degree of probability hit the main target - an aircraft carrier. Therefore, we believed that thirty missiles should always be ready for launch. But I honestly never believed that the Americans would really be able to shoot down all the first twenty-two rockets. I am sure that this number would not exceed ten. I have observed the combat training of their anti-aircraft gunners many times. They always fired only at parachute targets. We didn’t even think of shooting, we never shot at parachute targets. It's just a laugh, giveaway! We always fired on practical rockets. Those that fly to you clearly, at real speeds, from different directions.

              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 23: 50
                +1
                Quote: Rus2012
                ... one very modest and tidy questioner -
                - and what are these your so-called. "Papuans" - pissing straight and scattering in the corners when they saw "ditching" fu-shashteen / fifteen on the sea horizon?

                I didn’t understand which of us is not Russian?
                Quote: Rus2012
                words of Admiral Selivanov Valentin Egorovich -

                Destroy everything with a vigorous bomb.
  3. couch but smart general
    couch but smart general 16 December 2016 06: 46
    +6
    yesterday I didn’t touch Kaptsov ... but when tonight I read articles and a couple of him from insomnia and came across his article saying that the American fleet lost more than we did after hump and drunk, then everything became clear with him ... "sparrows" to this article and in general to some obstinacy (excuse me) of the author ..... the author either does not understand at all about what he or stupidly does not want to yield to the truth ..... and so .... ground airfields cannot to solve some situations like aircraft carriers ... and to overtake planes there even to the closest neighbors of the enemy is more problematic than on air troughs .... especially through a "puddle" on their own, they need to be delivered more than once in the air, guess the author ... so isn't it easier to bring are they by sea? cheaper and less gemmor and mobility? and after all, you still need to carry the materiel separately and serving the "train" on your own ... and on air troughs it all goes in one fell swoop, which again is cheaper and less gemmor think Kaptsov ... yes yes -are you surprised? again, to land-based airports .. they were de facto on the ground and were a little more vulnerable from Saddam .... and even on a foreign (in allied territory, but still in a foreign) territory where it is written on the water with a pitchfork .... Saddam's fleet, as far as I know, the fleet was a cat cried ... so at least there striped stars had carte blange .... this is my IMHO ... and let the commentators correct me if I went in the wrong direction at all .... about it I ask all commentators
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 16 December 2016 07: 09
      +8
      You are two weeks on the site what , and I’ve been sitting in three years already request And I’ll tell you a secret that our Oleg Kaptsov’s fantasy is still not capable of this. yes
      It is sometimes very interesting to read it. I would use it to write in the style of V. Pikul. But the trouble is that he positions himself as a seasoned analyst and expert on everything. Especially numbers wassat
      1. couch but smart general
        couch but smart general 16 December 2016 07: 13
        +3
        I noticed already tonight ... from his pearl "the American fleet suffered more from us during disarmament" which is worth ... a kind of local "Klitschko" on the VO website lol
    2. Santa Fe
      16 December 2016 07: 22
      +10
      Quote: Couchy but smart general
      the American fleet has lost more than us after a hump and drunk

      So it was

      You do not have the facts that it was different
      Quote: Couchy but smart general
      on aviakority it all goes together in one fell swoop which is again cheaper and less gemmor

      Well, give up the Air Force and place all the planes on ships

      In fact, if 80% is land-based, then it’s cheaper and the hemorrhoids are less
      1. Stanislav 1978
        Stanislav 1978 16 December 2016 07: 29
        +5
        SWEET_SIXTEEN Today, 07:22 ↑
        Well, give up the Air Force and place all the planes on ships

        No one is going to oppose the Air Force and aircraft carriers. As far as I understand, they have slightly different tasks and they should not be opposed but complement each other in the performance of certain tasks.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 December 2016 07: 32
          +8
          Quote: Stanislav 1978
          As far as I understand, they have slightly different tasks.

          During Desert Storm, their missions were identical.
          About consequences and results - in the above article.
          1. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 16 December 2016 07: 40
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            During Desert Storm, their missions were identical.

            Totally? Was the Air Force tasked with providing aircraft carrier air defense? Or did the tasks of the wing include the destruction of particularly important targets, like f117?
            1. Santa Fe
              16 December 2016 07: 45
              +4
              Quote: DrVintorez
              Or the task of the wing included the destruction of particularly important targets, like f117?

              In your opinion, is a good argument that sea pilots did not trust important missions?))))
              1. DrVintorez
                DrVintorez 16 December 2016 07: 56
                +3
                Classic. Answer only part of the question.
                Maybe the tasks of destroying bunkers with the help of f117 were carried out by the Air Force because the fleet does not have f117? How's the Air Force doing with tomcat? Maybe you should understand that different tools use different tools?
                1. Santa Fe
                  16 December 2016 08: 02
                  +6
                  Quote: DrVintorez
                  Maybe you should understand that different tools are used for different tasks?

                  If one tool does everything, incl. the most difficult job
                  And the second one is so bad that you are afraid of working

                  then what's the point? and what are the benefits

                  If you are special - it does not mean that you are useful
                  1. Stanislav 1978
                    Stanislav 1978 16 December 2016 08: 34
                    0
                    I’ll add a couple more lines to this conversation.
                    "And the second one is so bad that you are afraid to work for them"
                    If he is so bad, then why are the states holding onto him like that?
                    And do not talk about the military lobby, jobs, etc. ..
                    1. Santa Fe
                      16 December 2016 08: 47
                      +5
                      Quote: Stanislav 1978
                      why do states hold on to it?
                      And do not talk about the military lobby, jobs, etc. ..

                      If it is not necessary - find your explanation. Only with facts and examples of combat use you will have problems

                      At least Desert Storm showed that AUGs are useless in land operations. What then was confirmed by Yugoslavia and most recently Libya
                      1. slm976
                        slm976 16 December 2016 10: 31
                        +4
                        SWEET_SIXTEEN Today, 08:47 ↑ New
                        Quote: Stanislav 1978
                        why do states hold on to it?
                        And do not talk about the military lobby, jobs, etc. ..
                        If it is not necessary - find your explanation. Only with facts and examples of combat use you will have problems
                        At least Desert Storm showed that AUGs are useless in land operations. What then was confirmed by Yugoslavia and most recently Libya


                        Good afternoon, Oleg, in my opinion this explanation lies in your very question, AUG is precisely a tool for projecting strength and promoting their economic interests, and a very effective tool, usually Americans just need to adjust their AUG to the region they are interested in and express their will to solve all their questions ... for the United States, the AUG is an irreplaceable tool to support its diplomacy, but sometimes this tool does not work, threats do not work .. then the United States switches to force, that is, to war. That is, war is a very expensive force majeure, which occurs when diplomacy and threats have not worked .. And in a war, floating airfields, only one of the components, and how they are used, depends only on the commander of the operation ... He has a set means, the Air Force, the Navy, the naval aviation, the ILC ... and in order to draw conclusions why he used this or that means, you need to look at his head, not you and not I can not do this. Your conclusion that the pilots of naval aviation were not trusted with important tasks was also "sucked out of hand", because we do not know what specific tasks were solved by naval aviation, but are based only on statistics on combat missions and bomb load ... Andrey cited a catch phrase in his article: "There is a lie, blatant lies and statistics," and on the basis of statistics, you can substantiate any of your conclusions, which Andrey clearly showed you yesterday, giving you your own statistics ... that's all.
                      2. dauria
                        dauria 16 December 2016 11: 28
                        +3
                        If it is not necessary - find your explanation. Only with facts and examples of combat use you will have problems


                        There will be no facts until China and India build their aircraft carriers. Having an aircraft carrier, you can choose a place and time (or leave if you don't like it). That is, to take initiative at sea. All methods of destroying an AUG (a Tu-22m regiment or a submarine suddenly in an incredible way in a comfortable position) are defense, and even controversial. Only AUG is currently capable of fighting an opponent’s AUG. They have a tool, this is the main thing. It will be convenient, they will apply. We do not have. We are already losing the way.
                  2. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 11: 32
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    If one tool does everything, incl. the most difficult job

                    I didn’t understand your comment. Is this F-117 doing everything?
                    1. Santa Fe
                      16 December 2016 11: 49
                      +3
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      does f-xnumx do everything?

                      Air Force in general
                  3. activator
                    activator 16 December 2016 12: 50
                    +3
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Quote: DrVintorez
                    Maybe you should understand that different tools are used for different tasks?

                    If one tool does everything, incl. the most difficult job
                    And the second one is so bad that you are afraid of working

                    then what's the point? and what are the benefits

                    If you are special - it does not mean that you are useful

                    That's how you love to pull everything by your ears and your photo is completely off topic, a screwdriver is inferior to an electric drill in almost everything in terms of power, duration of operation, and more expensive to maintain, but it is superior in autonomy so I have this and that another, and if I need to drill a hole of large diameter in the iron, I’d better discharge two batteries on a screwdriver than I will drag an extension cord of 30 meters.
      2. couch but smart general
        couch but smart general 16 December 2016 07: 34
        0
        I understand that the author of the article is Mr. Kaptsov, are you now? -You don’t doubt me ..... and the flag is a mattress on ava ... I see with you ... you can not answer .. I read your pearls today
      3. Alex_59
        Alex_59 16 December 2016 08: 05
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In fact, if 80% is land-based, then it’s cheaper and the hemorrhoids are less

        In fact, if 80% of the ground forces is a mabut, then it’s cheaper and there is less crap. Conclusion: immediately eliminate the special forces of the GRU and the Airborne Forces.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 December 2016 08: 26
          +6
          Alex has a problem with logical chains again))
          Quote: Alex_59
          Conclusion: immediately eliminate the GRU and airborne special forces.

          Special Forces GRU and Airborne throw on the most difficult areas

          Deceivers are afraid to send to responsible tasks, because they know that they are weak

          The example with the Airborne Forces and the infantry is not correct here.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 16 December 2016 09: 02
            +8
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Alex has a problem with logical chains again

            Yeah, I am like that. smile Only I am deeply and fundamentally convinced that the problem with logical chains is your Oleg. drinks Let’s be like rams resting their heads on this.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Special Forces GRU and Airborne throw on the most difficult areas

            Completely misunderstanding of the tasks of the GRU and the Airborne Forces. Sit down, two. It is sad that you again missed the point. The bottom line is that everyone has OWN tasks. Complexity has nothing to do with it. They simply do not carry out sabotage by infantry. And the GRU is not thrown in the field under the tanks. Or do you think that keeping the enemy tank attack is "not a difficult" task? Complex. A sabotage to organize in the rear? Difficult too. But to each - his own.
            1. Santa Fe
              16 December 2016 09: 12
              +5
              Too many unnecessary examples, we are talking about aviation and not about tanks and sabotage
              I understand your thought very well and consider it to be wrong
              Quote: Alex_59
              And the bottom line is that each of their tasks

              So can you tell me finally what were your special tasks for AV in Iraq, and not stories about tanks and trucks

              I know only one difference - they were not trusted by important tasks.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 16 December 2016 09: 28
                +3
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                I know only one difference - they were not trusted by important tasks.

                What do you mean "important"? I don't understand the essence of this definition in relation to the topic. Explain what you mean by this, then it will be possible to get worn out further.
                1. Santa Fe
                  16 December 2016 09: 37
                  +4
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  What do you mean "important"?

                  Targets Required to Destroy
                  a) first
                  b) it is necessary to destroy them

                  Sometimes items a and b followed together.
                  The Iraqis understood the importance of these objects and tried to cover them with air defense systems - the best of what was (and they had a lot)

                  Examples (from the fact that f-117 was destroyed in the first days): two command posts of the air defense sectors - Baghdad, the Air Force headquarters in Baghdad, the combined command and control center in Al Taji, the seat of the government, the nuclear center in Al-Tuva, oil pipelines, with the help of which the Iraqis intended to fill the barrier ditches in Kuwait with oil ...

                  This is what important means.

                  Now you - examples of special challenges for AB in Iraq?
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 16 December 2016 10: 08
                    +3
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Now is your turn - examples of special tasks for AV in Iraq?

                    No, I will not tell anything. smile
                    I’ll ask you another question. And what design features of deck aircraft do not allow them to destroy targets a) first b) must be destroyed?
                    That's right, so impossible at all. No
                    Are the wings short? Does a landing hook cling to air?
                    1. Santa Fe
                      16 December 2016 10: 59
                      +5
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      No, I will not tell anything.

                      They just talked cheerfully about the tanks and the gru, but about the AV could not ...
                      although I understand - to challenge obvious things, it is difficult

                      In land operations, the AB has no advantages over coastal aviation, only clear disadvantages
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      That's right, so impossible at all. No

                      Well, as you can see, they were not trusted. Fact.

                      Do not forget, we are talking about yesterday's article by Andrew, in which he climbed out of his skin, trying to find positive qualities from the participation of the AUG in that war. But it turned out to be even easier.

                      Their very American command despised
                      1. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 16 December 2016 11: 11
                        +4
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        They just talked cheerfully about the tanks and the gru, but about the AV could not ...

                        Yeah. I can’t know everything by heart. So, something.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In land operations, AB has no advantages over coastal aviation

                        And not in land operations?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Well, as you can see, they were not trusted. Fact.

                        They said just that: "sailors, we don't trust you." Fly in the chill from here. "You should, boss, write books" (C)
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Don’t forget, we’re talking about Andrei’s article yesterday

                        I'm not talking about the article. I am in general. Strange mistrust of the carrier-based aircraft from the American command in 1991, according to you. Strange. Just a few years ago before the Tempest, there was Operation Eldorado Canyon. They trusted there. Most, "IMPORTANT" in your interpretation of the problem. And nothing, the wings did not fall off, the landing hooks did not interfere. And here they don't trust. Trouble, trouble. For the sake of your calculations, you are ready to present the entire American command as "stupid" people. Test. laughing
                    2. Santa Fe
                      16 December 2016 11: 29
                      +3
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      And not in land operations?

                      Can argue
                      the only hope in combat operations in the South Indian Ocean
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      They said just that: "sailors, we don't trust you."

                      They bluntly said: "You will not get guided ammunition"
                      just a few% of the total

                      And come on the third day of the war, when F-117 will take out the air defense command centers and the most important objects
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      I am "Eldorado Canyon". They trusted there. The most "IMPORTANT" in your interpretation of the problem

                      Once trusted - why they drove the F-111 for thousands of miles

                      How to evaluate the participation of AB in Yugoslavia?)))))
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      And I'm not about the article. I as a whole.

                      In general, we will leave for later.
                      And according to the article by Andrei Chelyabinsk, it just turns out that they are useless in land operations.
                      1. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 16 December 2016 11: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Once trusted - why they drove the F-111 for thousands of miles

                        For the same reason why they drove AB in 1991 to fight in the Persian Gulf. Still undershot? Hard case...
                        Hint: why did we crush the barmaley in Syria with strategists and "Calibers"?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        They bluntly said: "You will not get guided ammunition"

                        Doesn't talk about anything. I repeat once again - everyone has their own task. The fact that the command has assigned such a role to carrier-based aviation does not mean that carrier-based aviation is completely incapable of doing anything more. This is clearly evidenced by the same operation "Eldorado Canyon". Moreover, you did not name a single design feature of the carrier-based aircraft that prevents it from being sent to the destruction of the so-called. "important" goals. There are simply no such features, or rather, they are vanishingly small. And there is a command plan for a specific operation. If, in accordance with this plan, there is a reason to throw the decks into battle, then the result is "Eldorado Canyon". And if they are assigned a supporting role (which does not detract from the merits of carrier-based aircraft as a tool), then it turns out "Desert Storm".
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        How would you rate AB participation in Yugoslavia?

                        Unlike you, the celestial, I am a mere mortal and do not remember all the books and the whole story by heart. So I honestly don't know. About "Kanyon" I recently just read the report of the USSR Ministry of Defense on overcoming the air defense of Libya, fell into the hands, because it is fresh in my memory. And about Yugoslavia - you can read at your leisure, then I will formulate an opinion.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        16 December 2016 12: 01
                        +5
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        but for the same reason why AV was driven in 1991 to war in the Persian Gulf. Still up to now?

                        That is, to you, finally doperlo!? Congratulations\
                        Not talking about anything. I repeat once again - everyone has their own task

                        What is their task in the land war? Name finally
                        just come without tanks and grooves, otherwise it will not be carried there as usual
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        design features of a carrier-based aircraft, preventing it from being sent to the destruction of the so-called. "important" goals

                        Did the deck Hornets and Intraders have a stealth?
                        Or system LANTIRN
                        Or combat load like the F-111
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Therefore, honestly I do not know

                        The only aircraft carrier pinned on the 12 day of the war

                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Unlike you, celestial being,

                        and what are you laughing at? I think you should be ashamed of what I know?
                        And the question about the FRY was generally asked without a second thought, I just know that there was almost no participation of the AV, I thought you know too
                  2. Maegrom
                    Maegrom 16 December 2016 10: 35
                    0
                    That is, the lack of similar invisibility in the arsenal of the fleet - is it his fault? Damn lobbyists did not try? Now the 5th generation fighters have appeared, ban the use of aircraft carriers, so as not to spoil the statistics?
                    1. Santa Fe
                      16 December 2016 11: 01
                      +5
                      Quote: Maegrom
                      That is, the lack of similar invisibles in the armament of the fleet - his fault?

                      Well, not mine
                      Quote: Maegrom
                      Now 5 generation fighters

                      Now it is now.

                      And in the last article, Andrei from Chelyabinsk was specifically wrong, looking for the positive aspects of AB in Operation Desert Storm.
                      1. sniper
                        sniper 16 December 2016 21: 56
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And in a previous article, Andrei Chelyabinets was specifically wrong

                        In the last article Andrei from Chelyabinsk substantiated the appeal of the conclusions of Suite 16, based on his own figures ... wassat That is, he showed that you, Oleg, are cunning and very freely distorting the facts ... However, as today ... If the wing aircraft perform a task elsewhere, then the stump is clear, they are not trusted ... In short, fairy tales in best traditions ...
              2. Operator
                Operator 16 December 2016 09: 35
                +1
                Carriers have their own tasks - to cut the water and cut budgets laughing
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 12: 08
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Deceivers are afraid to send to responsible tasks, because they know that they are weak

            American ship-based aviation became the main striking force in the operation. F-14 fighters ensured air superiority and escorted attack aircraft such as the A-6 to their designated targets. A-7 and F / A-18, armed with anti-radar UR HARM, were entrusted with the task of destroying the air defense system of Iraq. E-6B Prowler and KA-6D Intruder tankers also had to fly more flights. The first night of the offensive brought the aircraft carrier well-deserved fame and honor, although the victims could not be avoided: an American F / A was shot down in an air battle with the Iraqi MiG-25 A-18C from the 81st fighter-assault squadron (pilot died), two A-6Es were also lost. Over the next days, the Americans lost a few more A-6s and one F / A-18, and on January 21, 1991, an F-14A + fighter was shot down by a missile. They managed to save the pilot by using the MH-53J helicopter from the US Air Force Special Operations Command with the support of the A-10 attack aircraft. His comrade was not so successful - he was captured and returned home only after the end of hostilities.The powerful blow of the coalition forces suffered warships, positions of coastal missile systems, naval bases and fleet basing centers, as well as objects of the port and oil-producing infrastructure of Iraq. As a result, 143 of the 178 warships and boats of the Iraqi Navy were destroyed, including 12 of 13 missile boats.

            On January 19, a hydropower station near Bogdad was destroyed by carrier-based aircraft
            In the foreground is Hornet (AA401), in which Lieutenant Commander Fox, along with his led Lieutenant Mongillo, defeated two Chengdu F-7 fighters in an air battle.
      4. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 08: 56
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In fact, if 80% is land-based, then it’s cheaper and the hemorrhoids are less

        And the ridiculous disposition of placing half of the aircraft carriers in the Red Sea, so that sea pilots had to fly the longest, across the Arabian Peninsula.
        In general, this is how the ground-based deployment of aviation suffers.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 December 2016 09: 07
          +5
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          In general, this is how the ground-based deployment of aviation suffers.

          They have no choice, the station airfield

          But why Aviki was kept in the red sea - this is where rzhach over supporters of AUG
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 12: 09
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            But why Aviki was kept in the red sea - this is where rzhach over supporters of AUG

            They only half kept in the Red Sea the second in the Persian Gulf.
      5. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 16 December 2016 18: 19
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        So it was

        Kaptsov, I have one question - why was there no rebuttal in the comments to Andrei’s article yesterday ????
        "We're so cool", or scrap wink ??
    3. avt
      avt 16 December 2016 10: 36
      +3
      Quote: Couchy but smart general
      Yesterday I didn’t touch Kaptsov ...

      bully
      - But because Kolya Taraskin is a young isho. And then Kolya Taraskin does not know the six rules of Gleb Zheglov. You, so be it, I’ll say.
      Oleg is generally lazy. Here, instead of writing books in the genre of fantasy, he issues articles on the site. Moreover, the main and even ... the religious theme of the narration of almost everything fits into the main mantra for the adepts - DEATH TO AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, WORLD IS ARMORED. So, if you see Javdet touch him .. " bully Remember the main mantra and sleep peacefully in awareness - this is Oleg. bully
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 16 December 2016 18: 22
        +2
        Quote: avt
        Remember the main mantra and sleep peacefully in awareness - this is Oleg. bully

        And conscience doesn’t let you sleep from injustice !!!! drinks
        I like you, the big white Shark, I had a birthday a week ago, and one of the toasts was for you (well, for a couple of people on this site fellow )
        1. avt
          avt 16 December 2016 19: 24
          0
          Quote: Rurikovich
          I like you, the big white Shark, I had a birthday a week ago, and one of the toasts was for you (well, for a couple of people on this site

          drinks Well - for many years! And today I again got in touch with candidates for your gentry on another branch bully A kind of worker-peasant, because we, the boyars, are working people! Such is our boyar share.bully
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 16 December 2016 20: 56
            +1
            Quote: avt
            Well - for many years!

            You're welcome drinks
            Quote: avt
            And today I again got in touch with candidates for your gentry on another branch of bully Workers and peasants, because we, the boyars, are working people! This is our boyar share.
            Pay less attention to political squabbles and more to the real situation. request
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 17 December 2016 00: 16
          0
          Quote: Rurikovich
          I had a birthday a week ago,

          Happiness to health and all the best, may God also give a cup of drink together.
  4. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 16 December 2016 07: 13
    +2
    Saddam was allowed to seize Kuwait, so the aircraft carriers were inactive.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 December 2016 07: 26
      +6
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      Saddam was allowed to seize Kuwait, so the aircraft carriers were inactive.

      You, of course, were personally present at the talks and saw official permission
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 09: 04
        +1
        Quote: Razvedka_Boem
        Saddam was allowed to seize Kuwait, so the aircraft carriers were inactive.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Razvedka_Boem
        Saddam was allowed to seize Kuwait, so the aircraft carriers were inactive.

        You, of course, were personally present at the talks and saw official permission

        If Saddam had not captured Kuwait, Kuwaitis would not have paid for the banquet.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 December 2016 09: 21
          +3
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          If Saddam had not captured Kuwait, Kuwaitis would not have paid for the banquet.

          Everything is good in your version except motives
          Why was such a banquet necessary? So that oil prices go up? For oil importers?))
          1. alstr
            alstr 16 December 2016 11: 07
            +1
            Firstly, we do not know the exact orders of the AUG command.
            Most likely, there was simply no order to support Kuwait, and they simply did not manage to coordinate the strike (well, almost like in our case in 41 g). Moreover, it was at night.
            Moreover, most likely some part of intelligence by the Americans was most likely transferred to Kuwait, as otherwise, it would not be possible to explain the fully working air defense, which thinned the Iraqi troops to the capital well.
            Secondly, the USSR was still somehow alive and the US leadership was obliged to take into account its reaction. Coordination of actions with us (so that we don’t press anything extra).
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 13: 23
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Why was such a banquet needed at all?

            The military budget, the justification of the huge armed forces before the people of the United States, the work of the military-industrial complex, to show who is the boss in the house. Yes, at the time when Sadam started the war there was one aircraft carrier there, the others two months later pulled themselves up.
        2. Operator
          Operator 16 December 2016 09: 38
          +1
          Test logic: "If Hitler had not occupied part of the USSR, the United States would not have paid for the lend-lease" bully
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 13: 39
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            then the United States would not have paid for the lend-lease "

            Naturally, he would not have been.
            After the end of World War II, the United States was the owner of the largest economy in the world. One of the consequences of the anti-crisis policy was a tremendous increase in national debt: in 1945 it amounted to 123% of US GDP. Taxes were again increased to 91% (they were slightly reduced only in 1963). The economic boom in the United States continued for nearly three decades.
      2. avt
        avt 16 December 2016 13: 29
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Saddam was allowed to seize Kuwait, so the aircraft carriers were inactive.
        You, of course, were personally present at the talks and saw official permission

        Oleg! Well, don’t be dumb! You shouldn't pretend to be Michael Bohm. The fact of Saddam's correspondence in Kuwait through the Ambassador of the USA is quite well known and it is stupid to deny it. The US practically pulled him off the leash with an answer in the spirit - this is your business and the local graters are not our concern.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 16 December 2016 18: 23
          +1
          Quote: avt
          You ain't gotta pretend to be Michael Bohm

          Looking where laughing
        2. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 16 December 2016 18: 37
          +3
          Quote: avt
          Oleg! Well, do not be dumb! You ain't gotta pretend to be Michael Bohm

          Is that the journalist who was a former marine?
          Quote: avt
          The US practically pulled him off the leash with an answer in the spirit - this is your business and the local graters are not our concern.

          Yeah, and then all the gold from Kuwait was raked. And Mishka Marked for what the hell climbed there to put out wells? Surely too pass, or is it really supposedly humanitarian aid was? Goodwill gesture. Yes, we ourselves were fed rations from the Bundestag at that time.
  5. Kenneth
    Kenneth 16 December 2016 07: 32
    +1
    Kaptsov? Exactly Kaptsov.

    The article is delusional from the very beginning. Why didn’t intervene right away. And because immediately for the United States it was not their war.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 December 2016 07: 37
      +7
      Quote: Kenneth
      Article crazy from the beginning

      Leave your opinion with you. And run to the library for knowledge
      Quote: Kenneth
      Why not intervened immediately. And because immediately for the United States it was not their war.

      US President George W. Bush announced to NATO allies that in the “event of Iraq’s invasion of any other country in this region,” he intends to use US forces. According to preliminary estimates by the Pentagon, the creation of groups of troops sufficient to fight Iraq will take 45 days. Already 7 August US Secretary of Defense R. Cheney arrived in Riyadh, where he discussed issues related to the deployment of American aircraft at Saudi Arabia’s military air bases. American troops began to arrive in Saudi Arabia on the seventh day of the war, 8 August. As part of Operation Desert Shield, units of the 82 Airborne Division from the Central Command of the US Armed Forces landed on the territory of this country

      "This was not their war"
      Buffoon, pancake
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 16 December 2016 07: 44
        0
        On the seventh day of the war ??? abolish the land military !!! Leave only the Air Force!
      2. Kenneth
        Kenneth 16 December 2016 08: 01
        +2
        I am pleased that you introduced yourself to Mr. Damn Skomorokh. Only your answer from this has not become less delusional. The Americans could collect and transfer troops there for any purpose from defense of the SA to the fight against warming. But even they coordinate the real massive use of force with the UN, especially the international coalition. They received this decision at the end of autumn.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 December 2016 08: 21
          +6
          Quote: Kenneth
          . But the real massive use of force, even they agree with the UN, the more international coalition. This decision they received in the late fall.

          That is, you admit that the AUG has no "projection of strength" and "flexibility of use"

          Everything needs permission from the UN, but for now it is not - Saddam knows that he can defeat even the entire Middle East. The presence and formidable look of AUG does not affect him

          The second. Che, I do not remember that the lack of a UN decision stopped the Yankees from the start of hostilities. There is - there will be a war, if not - it will also be if they need
          1. Kenneth
            Kenneth 16 December 2016 08: 34
            0
            Probably scary, but not completely. Saddam. But he was hanged.
            1. Santa Fe
              16 December 2016 08: 55
              +5
              Quote: Kenneth
              scary, but not to the end

              Ha ha ha
              Quote: Kenneth
              he was hanged.

              We are discussing the role of AUG in the 1990-91 war.
              Not what happened 30 years later
              1. Kenneth
                Kenneth 16 December 2016 09: 02
                0
                It happened after 12 years if you do not mind. And it was partly a consequence.
                1. Santa Fe
                  16 December 2016 09: 05
                  +4
                  Quote: Kenneth
                  Happened later 12 years if you don't mind

                  Tremendous flexibility and efficiency))

                  And by the way, not 12, he was executed at 2006
      3. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 11: 17
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Keep your opinion with you.

        But what about democracy?
        Oleg Your article from 2014
        Sea pilots were satisfied with this situation. "Centurions" calmly sat behind the backs of the Air Force pilots. Moreover, they received a generous portion of fame and did not particularly hurry to go under the shots of the Iraqi Shilok. With all due respect to the mastery of these people, their participation in the operation “Desert Storm” can only be called a profanation.

        Andrey, according to your figures, cited data on the percentage of the number of sorties from an aircraft carrier which is not very different from the Air Force.
        So did the "centurions" sit out or did they not sit behind the backs of the Air Force?
        They were deployed in the Red Sea, probably because they were afraid of an accidental breakthrough of an aircraft or of an enemy boat, were safe, it’s not a war on American soil, why take the risk. If you look at the map of the deployment of US air bases in that operation, you can see that the US Air Force took off even from Djibouti.
        US Air Force Base Deployment
        1. Santa Fe
          16 December 2016 11: 36
          +7
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Andrew, according to your figures, gave the data on the percentage ratio of the number of sorties

          Andryukha began to divide-multiply my numbers (by the way, quite normal. Numbers - the number of sorties / tonnage of bombs), trying to find justify AV's participation in Iraq

          And invent various absurd reasons to justify them.

          Quote: saturn.mmm
          So did the "centurions" sit out or did they not sit behind the backs of the Air Force?

          Sit back, all the facts in front of you
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          If you look at the map of the location of the US air bases in that operation, you will notice that the US Air Force was taking off even from Djibouti.

          And someone was based almost at the border
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          reinsured, this is not a war on American soil, why risk

          It is strange that the ordinary Air Force did not suffer from these fears, despite the fact that Chelyabinsk spoke yesterday about their greater vulnerability to the OTP. But it turned out ... AB was scared first

          Super expensive troughs that are even afraid to approach the enemy. And they do not know how to do anything in a real war.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 14: 35
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Andryukha began to divide, multiply my numbers (by the way, it’s quite normal. Numbers - the number of sorties / tonnage of bombs)

            What do you have against percentage?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And someone was based almost at the border

            Three AVs were in the Persian Gulf (Roosevelt, Ranger, Midway) where closer?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It is strange that the ordinary Air Force did not suffer from these fears.

            If a bomb hits them they will not drown.
      4. sniper
        sniper 16 December 2016 22: 13
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Keep your opinion with you.

        But why actually? I like his opinion, and I share it ... Well, since the great Kaptsov said
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Buffoon, pancake

        So there are already two of us, still a couple and you can open the booth ... wassat
    2. Panikovsky
      Panikovsky 16 December 2016 10: 26
      +5
      Quote: Kenneth
      The article is delusional from the very beginning.

      Do not rush, neither Kaptsov nor Kolobov are nonsense, they are intelligent and competent guys, so their discussions are interesting.
  6. Octopus
    Octopus 16 December 2016 08: 23
    +5
    Hm. I have to admit that Mr. Kaptsov wrote a very reasonable article. I do not exclude that the end of the world is closer than I expected.
    Naturally, there may be questions about the details, but the general idea, in my opinion, is undeniable. In modern conditions, aviks without ground operations are useless. And together with the ground operation - all the more useless. They devour resources not only for construction, but also for the protection of themselves in combat conditions.
    1. novel66
      novel66 16 December 2016 12: 43
      +5
      such an opinion also developed. and this was not yet sane coastal defense, what would the AUG do then?
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 16 December 2016 14: 11
        +2
        Quote: novel xnumx
        it was not yet sane coastal defense, what would the AUG do then

        Hang out in the Red Sea, of course. Or the Mediterranean.

        Andrey from Chlb quite convincingly and reasonably proved that the American carrier-based aircraft is not so worse than the American air force. That is, for example, lighting a cigar with a banknote is no less convenient than a match. He is certainly right in almost every detail. And certainly not right in general.
        1. novel66
          novel66 16 December 2016 14: 42
          +4
          but still some kind of counter-poip thing - these AUG
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 16 December 2016 17: 01
            +2
            Quote: novel xnumx
            some anti-poppy thing - these AUG

            On the contrary. Aviks were created to stoke LK in the ocean. And KR. And even a submarine. But the main thing is landing transports.
            Since after WWII the theme with transports is not relevant, and it is a pity to abandon the aviki (they are really unrealistically strong), you have to chase them for beer.
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 17: 37
          0
          Quote: Octopus
          That is, for example, lighting a cigar with a banknote is no less convenient than a match.

          800 US military bases outside the US budget cost $ 156 billion a year, 10 aircraft carriers (if they are all in the ocean at the same time on the database) cost $ 36 billion a year.
          So in both cases, they light a banknote.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Octopus
            Octopus 16 December 2016 18: 17
            +2
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            So in both cases, they light a banknote.

            You are right, of course. Our American partners are not too worried about the notorious taxpayer money. Just need to keep in mind one caveat.
            1. Are bases without aviks sufficient to solve the tasks of the US Armed Forces?
            2. Are aviks without bases sufficient to solve the tasks of the US Armed Forces?
            And the argument "if there are avics, then they are needed" does not channel.
  7. Kenneth
    Kenneth 16 December 2016 08: 32
    +5
    It seems that some aircraft carrier stole the girl from Oleg, and the armored cruiser helped her return. The question is whether or not it was necessary to use the AUG in a war. AUGs are not only ready-made airfields, they are also command centers and planes with the best and most trained crews. Of course, you could transfer a couple of squadrons and even call the pilots from the reserve if Oleg wanted to, but the Americans were used to using the best. Further on basing. Yes, the Americans used not only bases but also civilian airfields. But the fighter is not a medium-range Boeing that has refueled and let it fly. This is a combat aircraft, which can be damaged and which needs not only refueling and routine inspection but also repair and armament. Poor American logisticians providing these pleasures at civilian airfields. And here are the ready-made places of basing. As for the contribution and other F-15. Oleg did not seem to hear about a straw breaking the donkey's back. The absolute superiority in the air of Americans is both a numerical factor and information and logistic. Superfluous excellent airfields, supply bases, information centers - are not superfluous if they help to win.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 December 2016 09: 02
      +3
      Quote: Kenneth
      This is a combat aircraft that may be damaged.

      Do you think that he can sit on the deck of an aircraft carrier like this?)))))
      Quote: Kenneth
      Superfluous airdromes

      They are not great, but very problematic.
      which is not slow to reflect on the limitations and performance characteristics of deck aircraft
      Quote: Kenneth
      Extra excellent airfields, supply bases

      they have excellent supply bases
      for 43 of the day of operation, only 6 days were marked, when there were departures from all six AV
      for the rest of the time, part of the AV was inactive - because loading and dragging bombs, pumping fuel and repairing the arresting cable in the sea, this gemmor

      Blow to the library or information center. stop here with empty slogans scatter
      1. Kenneth
        Kenneth 16 December 2016 09: 41
        0
        Information now service also smoked bamboo. You yourself go by the way.
      2. Kenneth
        Kenneth 16 December 2016 10: 09
        0
        Damn you are a little demagoguery. Let’s say rolled bombs on an aircraft carrier, repaired the finish line and inflated catapults. And they flew not at 10 sorties a day each. But you can argue that all land-based aircraft flew at least daily. By the way, how field storms affect aircraft carriers.
    2. spech
      spech 16 December 2016 10: 25
      0
      If you book an aircraft carrier and tanks with wings, put on the deck lol
      1. novel66
        novel66 16 December 2016 12: 45
        +3
        submerge for stealth and drift quietly
  8. Santa Fe
    16 December 2016 08: 45
    +3
    Admittedly, I wasted a Jaguar, this light attack bomber was not that bad

    The only problem was target highlighting. He himself could not do this (there was only room for 1 missile), as a result he worked in tandem with the Bukkanir. Two planes - one target

    For the use of high-precision weapons for a given target, the Americans required one aircraft - an F-117, F-111 or F-15E with a LANTIRN sighting and navigation container (pictured), and then someone asks where to get a place for additional aircraft. The answer is to refuse the help of "allies", because of which some problems


    A simple fact speaks about the combat qualities of the “allies”: during the sortie flight on the night of January 17, out of six Tornadoes, the Italian Air Force was able to refuel only one. But no one completed the combat mission - the only refueled bomber was shot down on the way to the target.


    These humanoids only ranked in vain.
    1. alstr
      alstr 16 December 2016 11: 22
      0
      It is impossible to refuse the help of allies, because in addition to military expediency proper, there is at least political expediency as well as economic expediency.
      And they can have a higher priority over the military unit.
      1. Santa Fe
        16 December 2016 11: 39
        +2
        Quote: alstr
        You can not refuse the help of the allies, because besides military expediency itself, there is at least a political expediency

        You could simply not invite. Or request help in another form - airmobile hospital, warship, air tanker
        1. alstr
          alstr 16 December 2016 11: 59
          +1
          Again a policy issue.
          If you recall, then literally less than a year there was an invasion of Panama. What was followed by the negative reaction of many countries.
          Therefore, a re-invasion of Iraq by US forces alone would be made even worse. The creation of a coalition and the engagement of allies added the legitimacy of the operation.
          Plus, from a military point of view, such a war was a good training ground for working out the interaction of NATO forces in combat conditions.
          In fact, this is the first joint operation of NATO forces from Vietnam.
          1. Santa Fe
            16 December 2016 12: 06
            +3
            Quote: alstr
            Such a war was a good training ground for working under combat conditions for the interaction of NATO forces.

            And what did she give? Once again showed that all NATO countries are helpless without the US
            Quote: alstr
            . Creating a coalition and engaging allies added legitimacy to the operation.

            Assistants and help should be selected

            Anything but keep these clowns away from the front line
            1. alstr
              alstr 16 December 2016 12: 31
              +2
              Again. You omit the political part of the operation. From a political point of view, the widespread use of Allied forces was required.

              Moreover, most likely it was "Desert Storm" that became the starting point for a gradual decrease in the actual use of forces in combat operations, which led to the current situation when in fact only the US army and, to a limited extent, England and Germany are combat-ready in NATO.
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 14: 21
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          You could just not invite.

          They would have lost the destroyer, the British were useful and the sea helicopters showed themselves well.
          1. Santa Fe
            16 December 2016 22: 45
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            The British were useful and sea helicopters showed themselves well.
            Reply Quote Complaint More ...

            Hike, just leave them))
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 16 December 2016 23: 57
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Hike, just leave them))

              Here I have no objections, although the French tried hard in Libya, but that's another topic.
      2. novel66
        novel66 16 December 2016 12: 46
        +3
        Well, clean neighing, on occasion
    2. Petio
      Petio 16 December 2016 23: 40
      0
      But then they made 226 sorties, of which half as 1-on-1 refueling tanks and dropped 565 bombs of 453 kg each
  9. antivirus
    antivirus 16 December 2016 08: 47
    0
    One to the other is not a hindrance, but an addition
  10. Kenneth
    Kenneth 16 December 2016 09: 04
    0
    Regarding the role of the aircraft carrier in the ground operation, the Anglo-Argentine conflict was better considered.
  11. tomket
    tomket 16 December 2016 09: 05
    0
    I don't even want to read. Where it is necessary it will be silent, where it will attract by the ears. Kaptsov, you'd better write an article on what would have happened to the Falklands without two underdogs such as Hermes and Invincible, and how quickly the war would end if there was a normal Igla air group with Phantoms.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 December 2016 09: 18
      +3
      Quote: tomket
      and how quickly the war would end if there was a normal Igla air group with Phantoms.

      Briton - all of a sudden, the Argentines the same old stuff. It does not happen

      I have already written an article about how the war would end if the British had a normal Igla air group with phantoms

      Argam - an F-15 interceptor regiment and a full ordered set of Etandars with an Exocset anti-ship regiment (12 carriers and 24 rockets)

      In such conditions, the squadron is guaranteed to come snow fox. Is this what you want to discuss?
      1. tomket
        tomket 16 December 2016 09: 31
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I have already written an article about how the war would end if the British had a normal Igla air group with phantoms
        Argam - an F-15 interceptor regiment and a full ordered set of Etandars with an Exocset anti-ship regiment (12 carriers and 24 rockets)

        The thing is that the Britons HAD an "Eagle" with "Phantoms", which they sawed for stupidity, and the Argentine F-15 regiment is only possible in an excessively violent FANTASY.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 December 2016 09: 41
          +2
          Quote: tomket
          The thing is that the Britts HAD an "Eagle" with "Phantoms"

          Phantom fighters with medium-range URVV shot as children as Argentine Daggers and Skyhawks, who did not even have radar.

          What does this prove? What to be rich and healthy is better than poor and sick?
  12. Operator
    Operator 16 December 2016 09: 31
    +2
    The article is a definite plus.

    The crowd of aircraft carriers in the 1991 year did not cope with their main task - they could not quickly respond to enemy aggression and began to wait for the transfer of tactical aviation groups to the theater of operations.

    On a fig then these floating troughs with airplanes on board - to be an appendage to the Air Force?
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 16 December 2016 09: 55
      0
      A variant with no order for active actions is not considered for aug?
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 December 2016 10: 09
        +2
        Look at the root - the order to the AB couple to repel aggression was not given, because the sense of their carrier-based aircraft was like a goat's milk.

        And if anyone forgot - in the 1991 year, as now, the United States was bound by allied commitments with the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, providing for joint defense and security. The United States did not need the consent of the UN or NATO to protect Kuwait from overt aggression by Iraq.
        Moreover, in the 1991 year, the United States no longer had to fear the Gorbachev USSR, which had completely surrendered all its positions in the international arena and in full steam went to self-liquidation.

        Therefore, the delay in the United States with the response was caused by only one thing - the absolute stupidity of aircraft carriers as a military means of quick reaction, which their fans love to talk about. AB sat in a baaaalsha puddle called the Middle East theater, then everywhere.
        1. novel66
          novel66 16 December 2016 12: 49
          +3
          maybe fear otvetochki - then there was still
    2. Kenneth
      Kenneth 16 December 2016 10: 12
      0
      Operationally it’s like. Bases bomb all Iraqi air defenses, drop troops and capture Kuwait. This is the second login Kaptsova
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 December 2016 10: 25
        +1
        What the hell is "bomb all Iraqi air defenses" that remained in Iraq during the entire time of the seizure of Kuwaiti territory?

        And, I realized, other tasks (such as strikes on tank and mechanized columns of an advancing enemy) for deck aviation are not by definition. Such a purely specific anti-fluffy watercraft.

        PS Kenneth is Kolobov's second login? laughing
  13. demiurg
    demiurg 16 December 2016 09: 51
    +2
    Oleg is undoubtedly right.
    On the one hand, an air wing, the main task of which is to protect an aircraft carrier, and only the second or third are attacks against ground targets.
    On the other hand, air regiments specialize in ground strikes or capture air superiority.

    And 2 air wings could not save Kuwait. 30-40 aircraft capable of working on ground targets, under the guise of 30-40 fighters, this is nothing. Americans do not fight without air superiority.
    1. novel66
      novel66 16 December 2016 12: 50
      +3
      Americans do not fight without superiority. maybe right, but vile
    2. Mista_dj
      Mista_dj 27 December 2016 12: 31
      +1
      The task of "protecting the aircraft carrier" is a priority for the escort ships included in the AUG.
      The task of an air wing is to strike at ships and coastal (in the context of ground) enemy targets.
      An air battle to protect an aircraft carrier in the radius of destruction of air defense systems is a waste of wing wing resources. They will interfere more than protect an aircraft carrier.
      As mentioned above, Americans do not fight without quality superiority.
      Of course, the aircraft carriers could not make a decisive contribution, but even from the point of view of a quick build-up of forces in this theater, AUG is a very effective tool.
  14. Fox
    Fox 16 December 2016 09: 56
    +2
    and what attacked the author? ... he’s right. I read a detailed report on the use of carrier-based aircraft in that war. There the Americans shed tears even more specifically.
    1. Mista_dj
      Mista_dj 27 December 2016 12: 33
      +1
      And probably, from hopelessness, they continued to complete the existing ones and lay the foundation for new, promising aircraft carriers ...
  15. common man
    common man 16 December 2016 10: 14
    +5
    During the Second World War, in the Pacific theater of war, after the capture of another, even a small island, the Americans began to build an airfield on it. And this despite the overwhelming superiority to the second half of the war in aircraft carriers. When landing allies in Normandy, how many aircraft carriers participated? Prefer to use the British Isles. An aircraft carrier cannot replace land aviation. Correctly say that everyone has their own tasks. Destination of an aircraft carrier, battle in the open ocean, cover for convoys, squadron battles. That's just such battles after the 45th year did not occur. And in those that happened, they would have managed perfectly well without them. But there are aircraft carriers and their presence must somehow be justified. So they are thrown to perform tasks unusual for them.
    6 aircraft carriers participated in Desert Storm? This is more than all other countries combined. And if we accept that without the aircraft carriers, the Americans could not have run over Hussein, then .... I don’t know, paws up and screw it up.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 18 December 2016 01: 10
      0
      Quote: man in the street
      An aircraft carrier cannot replace land aviation.

      This is not necessary, the aircraft carrier serves to gain supremacy at sea, and not on land. He is strong where coastal aviation does not reach.
  16. Kenneth
    Kenneth 16 December 2016 10: 21
    +1
    Although in one I am ready to agree with Oleg. If all American aircraft carriers disappear all at once, it will be positive.
    1. novel66
      novel66 16 December 2016 12: 52
      +2
      preferably with america
  17. Ural resident
    Ural resident 16 December 2016 11: 19
    +2
    Friends. In vain attacked Kaptsov.
    A person is passionate about his topic - has his original point of view.
    There is an opportunity to reasonably oppose and "seek the truth."
    Each article causes a heated discussion and brings animation to the site.
    It’s always so interesting to read for me.
    In addition, Kaptsov and a number of other authors have long become an integral part of life in VO.
    I can only wish for more of these authors to appear, and lately, in addition to rya-crackers, there is almost nothing to read.
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth 16 December 2016 11: 56
      +1
      I agree. Whatever the nonsense it has always been carefully designed.
  18. Dekabrist
    Dekabrist 16 December 2016 11: 20
    +3
    While I read the comments, I was already sweating, such a glow.
    I think the answer is not complete. For the final shame on aircraft carriers, there must be a continuation.
    The first lines are as follows: “On February 3, 1991, a World War II veteran Missouri first opened fire from his 16-inch guns at Iraqi forces 25 kilometers from the coast. Soon, he was joined by the same type“ Wisconsin. ”The ships fired at enemy positions on the coast Kuwait, Failaka and Bubiyan islands. In total, they fired over a thousand 406-mm shells and 52 Tomahawk cruise missiles during the campaign. The effectiveness of the firing exceeded all expectations. Thus, the established opinion about the "death" of battleships as a class of ships is no longer considered indisputable ... "
    1. novel66
      novel66 16 December 2016 12: 55
      +2
      but in general, yes. Will coastal complexes be able to penetrate the armor of battleships, and the 406 mm projectile and the "ax" are things that cannot be ignored
      1. Mista_dj
        Mista_dj 27 December 2016 12: 40
        +1
        Easily !!!
    2. Mista_dj
      Mista_dj 27 December 2016 12: 43
      +1
      All the effectiveness of this scrap metal is due to the complete lack of fire fighting means for the Iraqis. If they were, the fate of both battleships would be unambiguous - on needles.
  19. Locksmith
    Locksmith 16 December 2016 12: 04
    +1
    Quote: dauria
    All Ways to Destroy AUG

    There is one more, the simplest and most effective laughing The hostesses, so that the cat would not walk, but worked, smeared its paws with oil, the cat licked itself for a long time and had to stay at home at night, catching mice. So, during the years of the Vietnam War, our commanders suggested that the command promptly stop departures of amers from aircraft carriers (then the aircraft carriers stood in the viewing sector of this air defense system), namely, "put" a couple of C75 missiles on the deck, this would lead to a fire and repair of the deck for at least a few days, which would have automatically stopped the raids. They were refused, not because of inefficiency, but because of the fear of a US nuclear strike against Vietnam. This is described in the book "Experience of the Vietnam War" we read it in the textbook. wink
  20. Ostup bender
    Ostup bender 16 December 2016 12: 22
    +2
    Completely plan the war. Conduct it in the allotted time. Minimize losses to the ridiculous. that I didn’t have a chance to shoot. to give Kaptsov a hundred years ahead an occasion to scratch turnips and tryndet ... we don’t fight like that ... it's not fair ... fu.
  21. Operator
    Operator 16 December 2016 12: 22
    0
    Alex_59,
    Operation "Eddorado Canyon" - damn it, I did not know that the US carrier-based aviation in 1986 included F-111F bombers laughing
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 16 December 2016 13: 54
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      Operation "Eddorado Canyon" - damn it, I did not know that the US carrier-based aviation in 1986 included F-111F bombers

      It was attended by 18 F-111, 4 EF-111 and 27 carrier-based aircraft. The mission was to clear the air defenses for the F-111 and strike Benghazi and Benin. In this operation, carrier-based aircraft played a key role and, as Oleg puts it, solved the most "important" tasks, on which the outcome of the entire operation and the success of the 111s depended.

      Moreover, I am not trying to make far-reaching conclusions on this operation, that the command "despised" or "did not trust" the Air Force and therefore entrusted the main work to the Navy. Also, I do not conclude that the work of the Air Force relying on refueling aircraft is flawed (EMNIP flight 24 F-111 was provided by 28 tankers - a whole air wing of refueling tankers, which the deck ships simply do not need). But I do not draw such conclusions because I am in my mind and understand that if the state has the means (and the United States has them), it is useful to develop both types of aviation and correctly combine them in the right proportions. But this does not apply to the Russian Federation.
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 December 2016 17: 05
        +1
        You are mistaken in your conclusions: 27 carrier-based aircraft in Operation Eldorado Canyon were used for dance support - they inflicted a diversionary strike on secondary targets.

        The main blow was delivered by 18 land F-111F, which:
        - carried out flight in conditions of increased secrecy with take-off from the territory of Britain, and not Cyprus, for example;
        - were covered from 4 Libyan air defense by EF-111 EW aircraft flying with them;
        - We approached the target from the rear from the side of the desert, not the sea.

        At the same time, aircraft carriers only got underfoot, because for direct and distracting attacks on Libya it was easier and more efficient to use tactical aircraft based on numerous NATO air bases in the Mediterranean.

        Conclusion - if the United States did not have an AB, the result would be the same with a smaller composition of aircraft involved.
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 16 December 2016 21: 38
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          You are mistaken in your conclusions:

          Not me. USSR Ministry of Defense.
          Quote: Operator
          27 carrier-based aircraft in Operation Eldorado Canyon were used for dance

          What does "dance" mean? Are you talking about ballet chtoli? They solved their problem! Zapavshchiki - theirs, electronic warfare - theirs, AWACS - theirs. Nobody was on a dancer, everyone is equally needed.
          Deckers quite specifically solved the problem of destroying Libyan air defense systems. Attack aircraft were introduced into the resulting gaps. In addition, 12 carrier-based aircraft were bombed too. By the way, from 18 111's only 11 completed the combat mission. And the decks of 27 - 24.
          Quote: Operator
          inflicted a distracting blow on secondary targets

          The distracting blow is not applied simultaneously with the main one, since it does not allow the enemy to make a decision to regroup in the wrong direction. The distracting blow is carried out some time before the main one. If you don't know, the F-111 and the deck ships were hitting almost a minute per minute. The Libyans simply did not have a second to understand at all where and which strike, and even more so to assess which one was the main one. And finally, none of the sources (not ours, not the American ones) give such an assessment to the actions of carrier-based aircraft as "a secondary or diversionary strike." Read at your leisure: "The experience of the Libyan air defense combat operations in March-April 1986" publication of the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces 1986
          1. Operator
            Operator 16 December 2016 22: 08
            +2
            To drive the bombers over 4000 km from Britain itself (if there are local airfields), to give them a cue cloud of air tankers, to build a route with approaching a target from the enemy’s deep rear was possible only in one case - solving a particularly important problem.

            It was for this reason that the bombardment raid was synchronized in time with a demonstrative frontal attack by carrier-based aircraft - in order to distract the air defense radar operators from an attack from the rear. Your assumption about the need to separate the main and distracting blow in the field of air defense in time is not related to reality from the word at all - the adversary always seeks to instantly overload the air defense guidance channels.

            A limited number of SAM (Libyan / Soviet) radar operators expectedly focused on the front sector, from where carrier-based aircraft were approaching from the sea side. At the same time, the decks struck at real, but secondary (in this operation) targets, forcing the air defense to come to grips with them and use limited guidance channels.

            At this time, from the opposite direction at low altitude, the F-111F came out on the main target, who were able to operate in a much simpler combat situation. They fully completed the combat mission - they bombed a complex of government buildings in Tripoli, where, according to US intelligence, Muammar Gadaffi was supposed to be. The latter was lucky - he was in a different place, but his family members died.

            PS In addition to reading sources of information, it is advisable to analyze what they read.
            1. Santa Fe
              16 December 2016 22: 43
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              To drive bombers for 4000 km from Britain itself (if there are local airfields),

              Italy, Spain and France refused to provide their airfields to strike Libya
              1. Operator
                Operator 16 December 2016 23: 59
                +1
                There were also Malta, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus.
          2. Santa Fe
            16 December 2016 22: 38
            +2
            According to Eldorado Canyon:
            One of the goals was to check the possibility of long-range combat missions for the F-111.

            Eldorado - point operation, action of intimidation. Libya did not intend to cause significant material damage

            Libya’s air defense and Iraq’s air defense even purely in the number of air defense missile systems differed at times
            ___________________________________
            Funny, the fact that despite the fifty attack aircraft - the damage across the country is almost imperceptible. because in real wars the score of combat missions goes to tens and hundreds of thousands

            Why during the course of the Storm do not trust important targets for the felines? Because it was no time for jokes, the Yankees even deliberately drove stealth and hundreds of three other first-class cars.
            1. Operator
              Operator 16 December 2016 23: 51
              +1
              Checking the capabilities of the F-111F to carry out long-range sorties was carried out much earlier - in October 1985 during the training operation Ghost Rider.

              The test involved ten F-111F from the 48 TFW wing, based at the Lakenhit airbase in Britain. The target (aerodrome runway) was in Canada at a distance of 5000 km. The bombers escorted 17 KS-10 tankers, providing 4 with fuel for each bomber whose bomb load was 12 227 kg of freely falling inert bombs.

              The approach to the target and its attack were carried out at an altitude of 400 feet. Half of the bombs hit the target.
  22. Alex_59
    Alex_59 16 December 2016 12: 51
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    That is, to you, finally doperlo!? Congratulations\

    It dawned on me right away, but not what you mean. That which dopered up to me - before you sodoproly, somehow. smile
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    What is their task in a land war?

    The concept of "land war" was introduced not by me, but by you. It is difficult for me to communicate in such an unconventional "conceptual apparatus". Is the Gulf War a land war? Was the operation against Libya in 1986 a land war? Since I do not understand what it is, I will answer as best I can. The military has the concept of "air-ground operation" or "air-sea operation". If the main role in the operation is assigned to the actions of the Ground Forces and the Air Force, but the BD theater borders on the sea, then in such an "air-ground" operation the role of the Navy's aviation is modest - strengthening the air force strikes by its actions, supporting the coastal flank of ground forces. Maybe something else. In general, the participation of the Navy in the "air-ground" operation can be ruled out altogether due to the absence of seas nearby or their remoteness. This is actually normal. In an "air-sea" operation, for example, the participation of ground forces can be completely excluded, but no one uses this as an argument in justifying the uselessness of ground forces.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Did the deck Hornets and Intraders have a stealth?
    Or system LANTIRN
    Or combat load like the F-111
    Stealth and avionics have nothing to do with "deck". I would like to hear about the features that are inextricably linked to the need to fly from the deck. Does the presence of a folding wing or the presence of a brake hook radically hinder the modernization of avionics or the introduction of stealth? Only the "combat load" is taken into account, which is actually somewhat less for the deck ships, but not in principle.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    why are you laughing?

    To maintain ease and ease of conversation. smile
    1. Santa Fe
      16 December 2016 22: 26
      +3
      Quote: Alex_59
      In an "air-sea" operation, for example, the participation of ground forces can be completely excluded, but no one uses this as an argument in justifying the uselessness of ground forces.

      Aexa again bears the wrong place
      Forget finally about tanks and aircrafts, talking about ground and ship-based aviation

      In the "air-ground operation" the role of the naval av. insignificant
      In "air-sea" - it is still unknown whether the Air Force will be able to fully replace the aviation of the Navy, some facts say yes (history of the Falklands War, 5th generation cruising supersonic, no need to fight far from the coast)
      Quote: Alex_59
      Stealth and avionics have nothing to do with "deck".

      As you see. AB practically did not use bombs from Laz. hover (read% of total)
      And there was no stealth among them.

      If you speak in general, then yes, with the growth of taxiway RD, the development of computers and stealth 2-th generation, the performance characteristics of the deck aircraft technicians came close to the air force planes. - example F-35

      But anyway, they will be limited to take-off weight, I don’t think that Superhornet will lift the anti-bunker 2200-kg ammunition from the deck (in the photo). And it will never be equal to the F-22, or the Su-34 is a front bomber with an take-off mass of 45 tons
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 17 December 2016 15: 33
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But anyway, they will be limited by take-off weight, I don’t think that the Superhornet will raise 2200-kg anti-bunker ammunition from the deck

        Oleg?
        Four 84-kg Mk 907 bombs, two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles and a fuel tank suspended under the fuselage
        1. Operator
          Operator 17 December 2016 15: 46
          +1
          Trim sturgeon - F / A-18E Super Hornet's glider flight resource is 100 deck landings per year.

          Those. month of intensive combat work as in the Persian Gulf in 1991 year and regret shaving - in overhaul bully
        2. Santa Fe
          17 December 2016 19: 03
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Four bombs Mk 84 caliber 907-kg

          And weakly for one 2200 holder? ))

          And I’m sure that he carries four 900 fours only during the parade, coming in from the ground runway
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 18 December 2016 15: 30
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And weakly - on one holder 2200?

            The F-18 has a maximum weight of 1100 kg at the weapons suspension point, although the PTB 1970 kg is suspended.
            How many Eagles dropped 2200 bombs in Operation Desert Storm? That would not waste your time, none. two bombs were dropped from the F-111f. hit the target for sure
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And I’m sure that he carries four 900 fours only during the parade, coming in from the ground runway

            They flew to bomb Saddam airfields.
  23. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 December 2016 19: 08
    +5
    Uuuuu, how everything is running :))))
    Write another article, perhaps ... since such a controversy has begun? :))))
    1. DM51
      DM51 17 December 2016 16: 17
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Uuuuu, how everything is running :))))
      Write another article, perhaps ... since such a controversy has begun? :))))

      Andrei, please write, it’s very hard for some to come up with, they would have to write fiction, but how it comes to that, juggling with statistics, numbers, half-truth begins, and all this is covered by a huge ego the size of a good aircraft carrier
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 17 December 2016 17: 07
        0
        Quote: DM51
        Andrey, please write, otherwise it very hard for some

        some will not reach. no matter how dear Andrei writes.
  24. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 December 2016 19: 13
    +1
    Oleg, there is only one question. I, on your numbers, proved that carrier-based aviation was practically not inferior to land in terms of the number of sorties and the mass of ammunition carried. Why are you writing
    The only problem is that, based on the results of the Gulf War, carrier-based aviation “blew through” all points at once. A scanty number of sorties and dropped bombs, less combat load

    Out of habit, or will there be some kind of argumentation? :)
    1. Santa Fe
      16 December 2016 22: 08
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      on your own figures, he proved that carrier-based aviation was practically not inferior to ground aircraft in terms of the number of sorties

      Only you immediately specify - in absolute (total) or specific values ​​(departures for each aircraft)

      And then it will immediately be seen that on the scale of the operation, the role of the SIX AUG turned out to be:
      - 15% by number of departures
      - 20% by weight of bombs dropped
      - 0% in the number of aircraft shot down by the Iraqi Air Force
      -% share of the number of abandoned bombs with manholes. guidance
      - deck aviation was not involved in the destruction of critical targets

      In aggregate, taking into account other episodes (the location of half of the AB in the Red Sea, a three-day delay in the introduction of Roosevelt into the war, the presence in the Air Force of ultimatum military equipment F-111, F-15E, F-117A, F-15C, which was not close fleet aviation).
      All this shows that the presence of the AB did not affect the course of the war, and if they did not suddenly become, then nothing would have changed
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      On your own figures, I proved that the carrier-based aviation was practically not inferior to the ground aviation either in the number of combat sorties or in the mass of worn ammunition.

      You considered specific values ​​and that was your mistake.

      Besides, you forgot that if necessary, the air force can still increase the intensity of strikes, using your "Shock Eagles", "Anteaters" and other menagerie. And naval aviation has nowhere to grow - it was already at the limit of its capabilities
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 December 2016 09: 03
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        You looked at specific values ​​and that was your mistake

        Nope :))) Because it is the specific value that characterizes the effectiveness of a particular type of weapon. And we see that a deck aircraft is no worse than a land plane.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And then it will immediately be seen that on the scale of the operation, the role of the SIX AUG turned out to be:
        - 15% by number of departures

        You see, what’s the matter - for some reason you are comparing the work of carrier-based aviation with ALL aviation of the Ministry of Taxes and Duties. But it is necessary - only with US aviation. Because only then we will understand what place in the efforts of the country's armed forces occupy the AUG. It turned out - almost a quarter.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        All this shows that the presence of the AB did not affect the course of the war, and if they did not suddenly become, then nothing would have changed

        Funny as it may seem, given the actual training of the Iraqi ground forces, the same can be said about all the air forces. But this does not prove anything - they were there and played a role, as well as carrier-based aircraft
        1. Santa Fe
          17 December 2016 12: 04
          +1
          You stupid excuses
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Because it is the specific value that characterizes the effectiveness of a particular type of weapon.

          Well, how about the specific value of Eagle and Tomcat?

          Distribution of precision weapons?
          Priority goals?
          you are afraid to talk about these things, because you understand everything yourself
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You see, what the matter is - for some reason you are comparing the work of deck aircraft with ALL aircraft MNS. And it is necessary - only with US aircraft

          In Iraq, there was no US aircraft
          de facto Americans did not need military assistance

          Allies invited for the sake of the political status of the international operationso that there is less dispute in the UN. If it were not - the Yankees didn’t cost anything to drive a couple of hundred of them., even more efficient machines than any A-4 and Italian Tornado

          Allied aircraft, for political reasons, took a place that could be used to house the US Air Force. And they became a single acting force - the MNS aviation

          Therefore, there is not a single reason to "delete" some of the aircraft from the contest because they were allies. And try to justify AUG by such clumsy manipulation of numbers
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          It turned out - almost a quarter.

          No need for absurd excuses
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          . Only this does not prove anything - they were there and played their part, as well as deck aircraft.

          The question is whether it was possible to do with the forces of the Air Force alone.
          The answer is yes

          What would change if you replaced Tomkata with Eagles?
          Increased efficiency in air battles.

          What would change, replacing part of the Hornets with F-15E and 111, the answer is nothing in the conditions of that war (in other conditions it could increase)

          AUG demonstrated any unique advantages compared with the Air Force?
          The answer is no

          Can the Desert Storm be considered proof of the need for AUG?
          The answer is no. At least, this operation is definitely not suitable as an example.

          That's all the answers to your questions, without juggling numbers
  25. 1Markus
    1Markus 16 December 2016 21: 34
    +1
    ?
    According to the estimates of naval experts, an aircraft carrier is a multi-purpose (universal) missile carrier carrier (main weapon) for performing combat missions in a naval warfare, which implements the constant presence of ship (deck) aviation in combat formations, with the highest strike and defensive potential ; performing various strike and defensive combat functions and tasks: the destruction of submarines, surface combat ships, ships, ground targets and targets, as well as ensuring combat stability (fighter cover from the air) of naval forces of the navy and performing a number of other tasks in any combat conditions during naval operations.

    Do you think the given wording belongs to Western experts? You are mistaken. This is a fragment from just one document prepared by the National Research University and the Main Staff of the Navy in the 1970-1980s. In total, there were many such justifications for the need for aircraft carriers for the fleet.
    as if the opinion of the author after this can be ignored laughing
    1. Santa Fe
      16 December 2016 21: 49
      +1
      Quote: 1Markus
      This is a fragment of just one document prepared by the National Research University and the General Staff of the Navy in 1970 – 1980-s.

      Cabinet rats and opportunists who wrote the next report or "scientific work" to write something. This is their job.

      possessing the highest percussion

      1. Operator
        Operator 16 December 2016 22: 27
        +2
        The document itself is null and void, since begins with the sacramental phrase "According to estimates of naval experts ...", which translated from the Soviet means that the leadership of the National Research University and the Main Staff of the USSR Navy did not want to take responsibility for the subsequent blah-blah-blah about the wunderwaffle-aircraft carrier.

        Among the leadership of the fools was not responsible for the AB properties sucked from a finger, which would have contracted to zero when trying to use it in combat.
        1. Petio
          Petio 16 December 2016 23: 51
          +1
          But in 1998, in the operation Desert Fox, only batters and strategists flew.
          Then in Afghanistan in 2001, the operation was started by strategists and 2 AUGs. Tactical Air Force began to fly later and smaller - the base was very far away. F-16s set records flying 12-13 hours from Kuwait and F-15E generally set a record for tactical aircraft -15.5 hours.
          1. Santa Fe
            17 December 2016 05: 54
            +1
            Quote: Petio
            But in 1998, in the operation Desert Fox, only batters and strategists flew.

            And what were the results?
            Many targets destroyed?

            Who then fought with 2003?
            Quote: Petio
            Then, in Afghanistan, strategists and 2001 AUG began the operation in 2.

            Inspirational operation was too, for chickens to laugh
            Bobmardirovki on missing targets, villages and dvulam Basmach
            Air defense is absent as a concept
      2. DM51
        DM51 17 December 2016 00: 47
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: 1Markus
        This is a fragment of just one document prepared by the National Research University and the General Staff of the Navy in 1970 – 1980-s.

        Cabinet rats and opportunists who wrote the next report or "scientific work" to write something. This is their job.

        possessing the highest percussion

        Kaptsov’s self-confidence is simply unbelievable - he lowered the entire headquarters of the USSR Navy, and he means smarter than everyone and everything, and his insane utterances are the ultimate truth
        1. sniper
          sniper 17 December 2016 13: 16
          +1
          Quote: DM51
          Kaptsov’s self-confidence is simply unbelievable

          Yeah ... ChSV like a sneaker inflated ... That's the whole Oleg .... bully
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 22 December 2016 21: 53
      +2
      But the Ulyanovsk was designed on the basis of purely interceptor weapons, since it was not supposed to bomb someone, but the cover of their ships in the ocean could be required. In theory.
  26. tchoni
    tchoni 17 December 2016 05: 54
    0
    stzhzhot laughing he would have written novels on the naval naval theme, would have earned money for a battleship long ago hi
  27. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 18 December 2016 14: 44
    +1
    In the Middle East around Iraq, the Americans had many airfields.
    Therefore, it was possible to vary land and sea aviation.
    But such a laf is not always the case.
    Sometimes an aircraft carrier is the only option for air support.
  28. Tarikxnumx
    Tarikxnumx 22 December 2016 03: 29
    0
    "Accidental meeting". The US Air Force F-15C and A-4KU look at each other in surprise. There is a temporary gap between them in 20 years.

    Here Kaptsov likes to compare the incomparable and cram the unbearable. laughing Nothing that the A-4 is an attack aircraft, and the F-15 is a lightweight fighter to gain superiority? And what do most successful attack aircraft have a life cycle many times longer? And skyhawk is quite a successful stormtrooper.
  29. EvilLion
    EvilLion 22 December 2016 21: 52
    0
    In principle, if money had not been spent on AUG, then it would have been possible to have more bases. This is the question of turning grandmother into grandfather. Only the ability to wage war does not change. If there were a purely ground forces, or purely decked, only the ratio of the number of sorties of those and others would change.
  30. 9lvariag
    9lvariag 25 December 2016 00: 31
    0
    Hosting, caddy, will you be all right?
    They just managed to get people to the "Varshavyanka" and they already have 5 Russian AUGs on the RK! :) am sad
    And why is this? In the USSR, how many were there?
    In general, kapets - the poor "Kuzyu", which the Ukrainians built for campaigns no further than Aden, sucked everything. The question is: do you think the US laurels haunt you? Or, as in the case of the Mistrals, we gathered to capture someone for 5-7 thousand. km. from the Russian Federation and also in tropical seas! Maybe enough "Kamasutra" and other nonsense in the fleets of the Russian Federation?
    And then there is the battle of the Mariana Islands, give hot to the little ones.