Military Review

The big stick of the American fleet

107
The big stick of the American fleetThe American aircraft carrier is a warship, weapons which are more than 70 aircraft and helicopters, combined into one aviation wing. 10 multi-purpose aircraft carriers equipped with a nuclear power plant (AVMA), and 9 aircraft wings (Acres) of aircraft carrier aircraft represent the main striking force of the US Navy in combat using non-nuclear weapons. The first of 10 AVMAs of the new series of type “J.” will soon join the 68 NIMIC type AVMAs (CVN 11). Ford ”(CVN 78).


OCEAN OWNERS LOVE HEAT

The main tasks of aircraft carriers are to gain dominance at sea and air superiority, to strike at coastal targets, and to provide direct air support to ground forces. With the end of the Cold War and the loss of the enemy at sea, American aircraft carriers began to be used mainly for operations on ground targets in countries that are at war with the United States and are not at war against the United States. The high mobility of aircraft carriers allows them to quickly arrive in a given area of ​​aviation recovery, moving at a speed of more than 900 km per day. The aircraft carrier’s mobility is ensured by the use of weapons in coastal areas where the vast majority of the world's population lives. The technical resources of aircraft carriers are evidenced by such figures. AVMA type "Nimitz" for 50 years in the composition fleet it is designed for a maximum of 6 thousand days at sea, 3 million nautical miles, 500 thousand sorties / landings of aircraft and helicopters.

The performance of an aircraft carrier is the ability of its wing for a certain time to perform such a number of sorties, which is necessary in combat conditions to perform the full range of tasks (offensive and defensive, combat and rear support), and in normal times to maintain proper training of flight personnel. The final performance of an aircraft carrier is the number of destroyed, or neutralized, air, sea, and ground objects with the guaranteed survival of this ship.

The intensity of the use of aircraft of its aircraft (LA) depends on many factors, including its design, combat capability of the ship and its wing, weather conditions, the quality of weapons, the composition of the aircraft carrier strike group (AUG), the opposition of the enemy.

How is ship design related to its performance? The greater the length and width of the ship, the greater its displacement (in Nimitz, the total displacement is 88 thousand tons, the J. Ford has 90,7 thousand tons) and the smaller side and keel pitches (with side rolling more than five degrees and more than one degree flights are not conducted). The larger the area of ​​the flight and hangar decks, the more space there is for parking and repairing airplanes and helicopters (about half can be accommodated in a closed hangar deck, the other has to find a place in the parking spaces open to all the wind and precipitation of the flight deck) to accommodate aircraft lifts (there are four of them), aerofinishers (there are four of them, landing at the speed of one aircraft in 45 – 60 seconds), catapults for take-off from the nose and corner sections of the flight deck (for the Nimitz-type AVMA there are four steam cataps ty provide off three to four aircraft per minute at the AVMA type ". J. Ford" three electromagnetic catapults).

The greater the displacement, the more the aircraft carrier will place fuels and lubricants, ammunition, food, spare parts (AVMA can carry up to 8,1 thousand tons of fuels and lubricants and up to 2,7 thousand tons of ammunition and replenishes their stocks every six to seven days) and the less will depend on relatively low-speed universal transport supply. Practice has shown that aircraft carriers with a displacement of 80 – 90 thousand tons can use their aircraft on the Atlantic, on the Pacific Ocean, in the Indian Ocean 90% of the whole time (the remaining 10% comes from strong wind, visibility, precipitation, sea waves, air temperature). American aircraft carriers are heat-loving creatures, prefer to go as far as possible beyond the Arctic Circle. They avoid strong waves of the sea due to the large metacentric height. They move away from strong winds because the take-off and landing of the F / A-18C aircraft is limited by the wind speed over the deck at 18 and 10 m / s, respectively.

The saturation of an aircraft carrier with many types of equipment entails the need for frequent factory repairs. This circumstance significantly affects the performance of the aircraft carrier Acre throughout the entire life of the ship (the entire period of the ship’s stay in the fleet): to achieve trouble-free, the Nimitz type aircraft carrier turns out at the plant for various types of repair and maintenance on average every 1,5 of the year. Repair and factory maintenance lasts for 30 – 59 days (CIA), for 120 – 130 (SRA), for 135 – 190 (PIA), 245 – 610 days (DPIA), for 975 – 1280 days (ROH), for which accounts for 25 – 30% of the entire life of an aircraft carrier, and because of which only 33% is left to remain at sea - 6 thousand days.

CAPACITY

The combat capability of an aircraft carrier is the manning of the ship and its wing with material means, the manning of the ship and its wing with personnel, preparedness of the personnel of the ship and its wing. There are several categories of aircraft carrier combat capability according to these indicators (highest С1, acceptable С3, lower С5). The completeness of the wing of material means also including maintaining them in the appropriate technical condition. For example, during the US military operation against Iraq in 2003, the number of technically sound (MS) aircraft and aircraft carrier helicopters exceeded 75% and was at the level of 78,8 – 92,1 for all types of aircraft involved in the operation. Probably, it is appropriate to remind about the time between repairs in the US Navy for the aircraft hull (airframe) and aircraft engines. In the 2015 – 2017 fiscal years, with an annual raid in the US Navy and Marine Corps around 1 million hours on more than 4000 aircraft that have aircraft engines up to 8000, it was planned to ship annually up to 1800 aircraft engines and 400 gliders.

Crew preparedness is determined by a number of requirements. With a crew of 1,54 tactical aviation for each aircraft and an average monthly flight time of each crew in 18 hours, the average annual flight time can be 216 hours per crew and 333 hours per aircraft. The crew of the fighter-attack aircraft must be able to perform the following tasks: take-off from an aircraft carrier, piloting in any meteorological conditions, refueling in the air, landing on an aircraft carrier; Prohibition (that is, preventing the enemy from entering an aircraft carrier at sea and isolating a combat area on land and at sea); combat operations in the war at sea; escorting (escorting other aircraft); combat patrols in the air; interception from position of duty on the deck; maneuvering in air combat; suppression of enemy defenses; direct aviation support; the duties of the advanced aviation gunner; the use of aircraft to detect ground targets; the use of air-to-ground weapons; the use of aircraft to detect air targets; the use of air-to-air weapons; survival; management (i.e., execution of commands, issuing commands, sending and receiving reports on command execution) and maintaining communication; setting min; ability to act jointly (that is, in cooperation with ground forces and with aircraft of the Air Force, Marines and Ground Forces). Obviously, the pilots of Acre AVMA differ from others in their ability to take off using catapults and land using aerofinishers. With regard to combat training, it is worth noting that, with an annual expenditure on it in the Navy about 100 thousand aerial bombs, aircraft carrier aircraft accounted for the vast majority of this expenditure. Regarding the working out of the functions of the aircraft carrier’s anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses, it is difficult to say whether the tendency to reduce the importance of maneuvering in battle is taken into account (in one 2015 study, it was argued that in the 1965 – 2014 years in most fights, long-range missiles were used with minimal maneuvering of their carriers.

The combat readiness of the aircraft carrier is also related to its combat readiness.

The combat readiness of an aircraft carrier is the duty of a combat-ready ship to begin hostilities after a certain time after the order is given to these actions. During the cold war, an aircraft carrier was considered capable of launching the sea and commencing combat operations within one day after receiving an order and continuously being at sea for up to three weeks, or an aircraft carrier capable of launching seas and commencing combat operations up to four days after receive the order and be at sea (to be "deployed") for at least 56 days. At the beginning of our century, it was prescribed that the 12 aircraft carriers in the period up to 30 days should go to sea or be at sea six, and up to 90 days - eight aircraft carriers. The presence of 10 – 11 aircraft carriers and the problems that have recently emerged (an increase in the duration of aircraft carrier repair, a delay in setting up for repair) can make it difficult to fulfill such standards.

HOME SHOCKING POWER OF FLOATING AERODROMES

Aircraft carrier is more than 1100 airplanes and helicopters, which are reduced to homogeneous air wings. On the basis of the squadrons in their composition, nine numbered joint-wing aircraft wings of carrier-based aircraft (CVW) were formed in regular forces. This wing is heterogeneous in composition and multipurpose in essence, since it includes four squadrons of fighter-attack aircraft (up to 12 units F / A-18C / E / F each), one squadron of EW planes (4 units EA-18G), one a squadron of DRLO airplanes and control units (4 units E-2D), two squadrons of helicopters (up to 15 anti-submarine MH-60R and multipurpose MH-60S), one transport aviation unit (2 of C-2 aircraft), more than 70 aircraft. Each wing is assigned to a specific aircraft carrier, aircraft and helicopter wing flying from coastal air bases to an aircraft carrier when it goes to sea, and fly away from it before returning the aircraft carrier to the port of registry.

Carrier aviation is not a one-time, but a reusable ship weapon. For example, F / A-18E / F is designed for 6 thousand hours of use in the air (with repairs and upgrades to 9 thousand) with an average estimated annual flight time of 350. The F / A-18C aircraft carried out 4,5 departures per day at the exercises and two sorties per day in combat conditions, and its pilot made two sorties per day in the training and in combat operations. During the military operation in 2003, the 12 of the F / A-18E / F aircraft from the 115 th fighter-assault squadron of the ABMA Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) made 16 sorties in 560 days. This aircraft, with a maximum take-off mass of 30 t (empty 14 t weighs) and a landing mass of no more than 19,5 t (including up to 4 t of weapons) can carry up to 8 t of bombs, missiles and shells, can hold 6,5 t of fuel inside and 7 t in five tanks on five external suspension nodes, has a maximum speed of 1915 km / h. Possessing 11 suspension units, it can carry a select number of bombs and missiles at a distance of up to 1250 km without refueling in the air, determined by the mass of weapons and fuel on board.

The performance of the AVMA carrier-based aviation by the number of sorties can be divided into four types: calculated, maximum, daily, and operational.

Estimated performance Acre of an aircraft carrier is measured by the number of takeoffs / landings that will be performed from an aircraft carrier / aircraft carrier during the entire time that this ship was in the fleet. Since each AVMA is designed for 50 years of life and for performing 500 thousands of take-offs / landings for 6 for thousands of days at sea, for an aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type the estimated average number of departures per year of the ship’s life - 10 and a day in the sea - 27,4 departure of aircraft and helicopters. Of the 83,3, thousands of departures slightly more than 500% (over 22 thousand) will fall on helicopters and a little less than 110% (up to 78 thousand) - on airplanes, by the way, this percentage ratio coincides with the ratio of the number of helicopters and aircraft on the aircraft carrier.

Maximum performance is the ability of an aircraft carrier Acre to fly as many flights as possible in the course of one to six days in order to accomplish the assigned tasks, operating at about twice the load on 120 – 130 sorties. Not yet broken record AVMA "Nimitz", set to teach 1997 year. Its wing, reinforced by the flight-technical and support personnel, carried out 250 sorties per day for four days, of which 200 carried out fighters-attack aircraft, fighters and EW planes.

Daily performance is the intensity of the flights of Acre while on an aircraft carrier at sea (excluding flights of Acre while basing its aircraft and helicopters at US coastal airfields) under the conditions of regular combat training and participation in systematic combat operations and military operations. In 2014, AVMA “Carl Vinson” (CVN 70) celebrated the 230-thousandth landing using aerofinishers for 32,5 during the year they were part of the fleet. Consequently, the average number of sorties made up for the year of life of the 7077 ship (with calculated 7800) and for the day of life - 19,4 of departure (with calculated 21,4), which means that for 50 years, its aircraft can 360 thousand sorties (with estimated 390 thousand). In the same year, 2014 with AVMA “George Bush” (CVN 77) for 273 24 days of its deployment with a visit to six foreign ports and passing 73 400 miles 12 524 departure, of which 9689 aircraft (77,4%) and 2835 helicopters (22,6%) ). With an average number of departures per day at sea more than 49, its Acre per 6 thousand days at sea could perform up to 300 thousand departures (with the estimated 500 thousand).

As can be seen from the above examples, at least some aircraft carriers are still lagging behind the calculated ones (in terms of the number of all departures, only sorties), giving the impression that there is a “saving” on the service life of aircraft carriers in anticipation of a more turbulent future. With the daily activities, the aircraft carrier Acre performed over 70% departures during daylight hours and up to 30% during dark hours. With an average level of accidents in the US Navy aviation for 2004 – 2014 years in 0,88 on 100 thousand hours of flight, the loss of flight vehicles by aircraft carriers while at sea as a result of emergencies was several times lower than this level.

Operational performance is the intensity of use of aircraft carrier aircraft during the active period of a military operation. During the Cold War, it was believed that an aircraft carrier wing during combat operations could take flight days at 12 hours of flight and 12 hours of recovery with a flight cycle of 1 hours 40 minutes in eight groups at 15 – 17 planes in a group on 120 – 130 departures (with five or six flight days and one or two days of rest and recovery of combat capability per week). In military operations from 1991, it was confirmed that during combat operations during 15 – 16 hours a day the aircraft carrier sometimes makes up to 140 departures per day maximally (up to 90 departures of strike aircraft), according to 120 – 130 departures a day several days in a row during the week (maximum in 12 groups for 8 – 20 airplanes in the group), for 100 – 110 flights per day during the month. Here are the AVMA figures for Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). In a military operation against Iraq in 1991, its air wing for 39 flying days made 4149 sorties, of which 1624 (39%) to strike, 1240 (30%) to gain air superiority and 1285 (31%) to combat and rear support. The average flight day departures amounted to 106, and the maximum - 140 departures. The military operation against Yugoslavia in 1999, his wing, having 72-74 aircrafts for 56 flight day committed 4270 missions, including the impact 1580 (37%), applying more than 800 tons of ammunition on 535 objects (88 stationary, 447 tactical). The average flight rate was 76 flight hours.

One of the reasons for the decrease in operational performance was the increase in the arsenal of an aircraft carrier in the number of high-precision weapons (WTO). For the destruction of objects began to require less ammunition and, therefore, departures. The proportion of high-precision munitions used in military operations by the United States and its allies in relation to all used munitions increased from 8% in 1991 to 35, 57 and 68% in 1999, 2001 and 2003, respectively. The number of aircraft carriers used by the WTO increased from a fraction of a percent in 1991 to 37, 93 and 95%, respectively, in 1999, 2001 and 2003. The paradox turned out to be the fact that for the WTO with the probability of hitting the target at that time 0,7 – 0,75 (now no more than 0,98 with reliability above 0,95) there simply was a shortage of targets.

IN ANY CONDITION AND UNDER ANY WEATHER

Aircraft carrier aviators fly equally well under any lighting conditions. The high preparedness of the flight personnel of the aircraft carrier's wing for operations at night allowed it to operate during the duration of the flight period 15 – 16 hours per day up to gaining superiority in the air mainly at night, and then switch either to only night or day flight mode, or to mixed departure schedule. The operational performance is also influenced by the load on the technical and service personnel, since it is difficult to overlap the existing standards for both maintenance for each hour of an airplane’s flight, and ammunition suspension on airplanes and helicopters. During systematic combat, aircraft carrier aircraft carried out up to 97% of planned combat missions.

Take a look at the operational performance of the carrier strike connection (AUS). In the military operation 1991 of the year against Iraq, five AVMs and one US AVMs for 42 calendar days performed about 18 thousand sorties (42% per strike, 27% for air superiority, 31% for security) with an average number of sorties per day 430 per AUS and 72 for one aircraft carrier (on the last day of the war AUS carried out about 600 sorties). Of the 252 possible days for AUS aircraft carriers, only 201 day (80%) turned out to be flight days. Thus, the average operational performance of one AUS aircraft carrier was 90 sorties per flight and 72 per calendar day. In the military operation 2003 of the year against Iraq, the US Navy airborne grouping, which simultaneously included two AVMs and three AVMAs, for 30 calendar days made 8945 sorties, showing a lower productivity compared to 1991 year.

What is the performance of the aircraft carrier by the number of objects hit, the quantity and quality of the weapons used and its mass? Officially, it was reported that an aircraft carrier could hit 680, then 1080, or 380 objects in one day. The possibility of hitting 1994 objects per day with 680, apparently, required confirmation by conducting the previously mentioned experimental exercise of AVMA “Nimitz” in 1997. The possibility of defeating 2007 objects per day at a distance of 1080 km, which appeared from 370, was probably based on the following calculation: the aircraft carrier makes 250 departures, 180 out of them to use weapons, each of the 40 combat-ready fighter-attack planes delivers six WTO units to the target, making on 4,5 departure per day). The ability of an aircraft carrier to make 2013 departures every day using 95 aerial bombs weighing 380 kg, announced in 900, probably comes from this premise: the aircraft carrier makes 120 departures daily, of which 95 use weapons, each of the 38 combat-ready fighters carries attack aircraft bears four WTO units, departing 2,5). Of course, all these numbers (680, 1080, 380) are correct only under certain conditions, including without taking into account the opposition of the enemy.

In the military operation 1991 of the year AVMA "Theodore Roosevelt" for 39 flight days spent 2450 tons of ammunition (average 63 tons per day), and the consumption of six aircraft carriers for total 201 days flight amounted to 12 thousand tons (on average almost 60 tons per one aircraft carrier per day). In systematic combat operations during a single deployment of six to nine months, the aircraft carrier once spent 700 – 800 t, and, for example, in the 2015, it could use 226 t ammunition (according to published reports, in 2014 – 2016, during systematic combat operations sometimes carried out during the deployment of 2050 – 3250 sorties during deployment on 2014 – 77. The intensity of the use of precision weapons depended on the specific circumstances. In 232, AVMA “George Bush” (CVN 2016) spent only 75 precision bombs and missiles, and in 1598, AVMA “Harry Truman” (CVN 71) used 1074 WTO units, breaking the previous record of AVMA “Theodore Roosevelt” (CVN 2003) ) 30 high-precision ammunition. In the 5297 military operation of the year for 5068 calendar days, five aircraft carriers used 34 bombs and missiles, including 71 high-precision (the average consumption per aircraft carrier is 2001 high-precision ammunition per day). For the first 4 day of the military operation against Afghanistan in 80, two AVMAs on a calendar day with 4 – 150 departures used 63 – 4 bombs and missiles (on average, both used 2250 of such ammunition per day). Taking into account some rounding of the numbers, it turns out that both aircraft carriers of almost 4500 thousands of sorties made 84 sorties for the use of weapons on the 16 target objects, while targeting each aircraft using one to five objects (an average of two objects). It is noteworthy that at 80% of sorties for the use of weapons was achieved destruction / damage of at least one object (in 1500% of sorties there was a miss), and in 2000% on average two objects. At the same time, the mass of weapons used was somewhere between 93 and XNUMX t, with the total number of high-precision weapons in XNUMX%.

As can be seen, the declared capabilities of the aircraft carrier, by the maximum number of sorties, units of weapons used, and the targets hit, for a certain period of time differ from those actually shown in combat operations in regions distant from the USA.

When flying to the use of weapons affects the dependence of the aircraft carrier Acre from refueling aircraft in the air. During the military operation 2003 of the year against Iraq, the commander of one wing once complained that due to the lack of refueling aircraft (SZA), he could carry out only 20 sorties instead of 72 to the range indicated to him. At the time, such figures testify to the weakness of aircraft carrier refueling aircraft. On the 232 fighter-assault aircraft (ISHA) of all aircraft carriers accounted for 52 SZA; During this operation, ISHA performed 5568 sorties, and refueling aircraft 2058 sorties, transferring all 4200 tons of fuel (excluding emergency refueling of an aircraft carrier when returning airplanes to it). To the rescue of aircraft carrier aircraft always came SZA US Air Force type KS-10 and KS-135. However, just as equipping several F / A-18F aircraft carrier aircraft with removable fueling equipment (a tanker aircraft can transfer no more than 11,3 tons of fuel), so much desired service of the Air Force SZA not only leads to a gain in increase or combat radius (up to 1500 km) , or the time spent on the burglary for operating an ISHA and EW aircraft carrier aircraft (up to four hours), but also to a loss in the form of reducing the number of such flights. Therefore, the test aircraft carrierless unmanned aerial vehicle will only become a tanker aircraft.

VICTORY AND LOSS

The operational performance of an aircraft carrier is influenced not only by the estimated probability of hitting an object with a single aviation ammunition, the estimated amount of ammunition needed to destroy an object, but also the estimated number of ammunition and airplanes in departure to destroy an object taking into account losses from enemy counteraction. The losses of aircraft carrier during the war against Vietnam are no longer remembered. It was also forgotten how, at some periods of the Cold War, it was believed that during actions against the main enemy, the loss of the aircraft carrier attack aircraft would amount to 10 – 20% to take off. In the "colonial" wars from 1991, the combat losses of aircraft carrier aircraft were less than the expected damage to one aircraft per thousand sorties. The availability of spare aircraft on the shore as a fund for changing or compensating for losses (on eight aircraft carriers there can be a maximum of 384 from 584 purchased aircraft F / A-18E / F) provides a fairly quick replenishment of aircraft carrier losses in the flight technique. By completing the 1,5 crew for one aircraft, a quick recovery of losses is achieved in the aircraft crew composition. As for the aircraft carrier itself, while its "immortality" is guaranteed in case of emergency, escort ships (one or two cruisers, two or five destroyers, one or two submarines), their own wing and their own means of self-defense.

Let's compare the effectiveness of aviation of all types of armed forces in military operations of the USA and its allies (all figures are rounded). In 1991, during the short-term war, the United States and its allies against Iraq, with almost 21 thousand bomber, assault and fighter aviation sorties, 29 thousand air munitions (bombs and missiles) weighing about 15 thousand tons in 20 thousand points were used aiming to destroy / damage the same number of objects. Then, for the destruction / damage of one object, an average of 1,5 aviation munitions was required (with their total mass in 750 kg). From August 2014 to August 2016, while fighting in Iraq and Syria against the caliphate forces, the United States and its allies performed 20 thousand sorties on weapons using 55 thousand air munitions to destroy / damage 30 thousand objects. In the active phase of the 2001 military operation of the year in Afghanistan, US carrier aircraft sought to destroy / damage objects with the least amount of weapons spent on the object.

Regarding the prospects for the performance of the new American aircraft carrier, it was reported that the number of sorties of its strike aircraft will increase by one third. Consequently, the aircraft carrier type "J. Ford will be different from the AVMA type "Nimitz" greater maximum and operational performance. If the “Nimitz” with reinforced personnel performed the maximum 250 sorties per day, then “J. Ford "without such an increase with the usual staffing will be able to perform maximum 270 departures. If the Nimitz type aircraft carrier was designed for normal operational performance of 120 – 130 daily departures, then the J. Ford is scheduled for 160 departures per day.

As can be seen, the performance of an American aircraft carrier over a certain period of time in terms of the number of sorties, the number of weapons used and the targets hit depends on many internal and external factors, including the conditions and requirements of the situation.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2016-12-16/1_930_flot.html
107 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. Same lech
    Same lech 18 December 2016 06: 50
    +16
    For aircraft carriers, I think the main drawback is the vulnerability from breaking through

    rockets or combat aircraft.
    A strike on the flight deck instantly incapacitates an aircraft carrier as a combat unit.
    Despite the powerful combat escort, there are no guarantees that a torpedo or anti-ship missiles will not be covered up on an aircraft carrier.
    An example of the work of US aircraft carriers in the war with Iraq or SERBIA ... this is an example without enemy fire on it ... sterile working conditions, the relative safety of which cannot be enjoyed by a weak enemy.
    1. 1Markus
      1Markus 18 December 2016 08: 40
      +13
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      An example of the work of US aircraft carriers in the war with Iraq or Serbia

      Saddam had all kinds of missiles, the Air Force and a millionth army, hundreds of tanks. I would not call it by any means styry conditions ...
      1. common man
        common man 18 December 2016 10: 40
        +13
        Quote: 1Markus
        Saddam had all kinds of missiles, the Air Force and a millionth army, hundreds of tanks.

        All kinds of missiles, do you mean Scuds? And as for tanks, try to destroy an aircraft carrier standing in the Red Sea, from a tank standing on the 5th in Iraq or Kuwait.
      2. igorka357
        igorka357 18 December 2016 11: 32
        +2
        All types of missiles that were destroyed by axes ..)))
        1. Glory1974
          Glory1974 19 December 2016 22: 08
          0
          Saddam did not lose a single Scud launcher from the "axes". Information from other types of weapons is contradictory, but in general, the US plans to destroy the launchers have failed.
      3. Maz
        Maz 18 December 2016 13: 19
        +11
        Quote: 1Markus
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        An example of the work of US aircraft carriers in the war with Iraq or Serbia

        Saddam had all kinds of missiles, the Air Force and a millionth army, hundreds of tanks. I would not call it by any means styry conditions ...

        Nuno forgot about obsolete weapons, desert conditions, complete encirclement, the absence of satellites, the absolute superiority of the United States and its allies in the air, international isolation, twenty-fold superiority in number and technical equipment and modern types of destruction. Shaw, memory bothers?

        Look who's Talking. Yeah, But the Jews in the IDF sterilely work in the desert greenhouse with a complete set of the triad of the Air Force, Tanks, Navy, drones, artillery, missile weapons, satellites and robots against Arabs with machine guns. Toto, you are taking an example from the American Army, there aren’t only aircraft carriers, but there are already six submarines.
      4. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 December 2016 19: 33
        +1
        Saddam had an army of 400k people, against 500-550k of the allies. So do not let bubbles into the puddle, and generally lie.
        1. 1Markus
          1Markus 18 December 2016 21: 11
          +3
          91 year
          Iraqi forces were estimated at between 750 and 900 soldiers and officers, over 5 tanks, over 700 aircraft, 7,5-8 guns and mortars, and up to 500 SCAD installations. In the southern regions of Iraq and Kuwait there were up to 500 thousand soldiers and officers (about 40 divisions), about 4 thousand tanks and over 5 thousand guns and mortars.
          http://historiwars.narod.ru/Index/XXv/saddam/sadd
          am3.htm
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 18 December 2016 22: 43
            0
            And where is the million? Not like in Kuwait, but in general.
            1. 1Markus
              1Markus 19 December 2016 01: 24
              +3
              Quote: 1Markus
              Iraqi forces were estimated at between 750 and 900 soldiers and officers

              Is this not enough? Armed to the teeth with the latest Soviet technology at that time?
              1. East
                East 20 December 2016 01: 44
                +1
                I remember anal politics predicted the big problems of the coalition in the fight against Iraq ..
                Ended up in defeat.
              2. max702
                max702 31 July 2017 20: 01
                0
                Quote: 1Markus
                Armed to the teeth with the latest Soviet technology at that time?

                Neighing good , keep up the good work and you will see armored cavalry Buryat divers in Ukraine ...
          2. Charik
            Charik 17 March 2017 14: 47
            0
            only they didn’t know how to swim
    2. Kenneth
      Kenneth 18 December 2016 10: 50
      +11
      As far as I remember, an aircraft carrier is able to withstand several torpedoes or missiles on board without loss of incapacity. It’s necessary to hit the deck with a slide, which is also not so simple. Plus an aircraft carrier protects his escort. So this is a very difficult goal.
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 18 December 2016 11: 17
        +2
        Quote: Kenneth
        As far as I remember, an aircraft carrier is able to withstand several torpedoes or missiles on board without loss of incapacity.

        Are you in the advertising brochure on the purchase / sale of aircraft carriers? Or maybe they did a full-scale experiment in the country? Or maybe Sivkov himself told you?
        1. Cat
          Cat 18 December 2016 12: 22
          +4
          One example of survivability of aircraft carriers!
          During the Cold War, our nuclear submarine managed to surface under the bottom of the post-war non-nuclear aircraft carrier America. Proportioned his belly for 40 square meters. the carrier was badly damaged but did not drown. True, our nuclear submarine did not receive any damage at all, except for the navigation equipment of the cabin.
          Putting one torpedo on board is not enough!
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 18 December 2016 12: 59
            +6
            Quote: Kotischa
            Putting one torpedo on board is not enough!

            It was estimated that for guaranteed sinking of an aircraft carrier, from 6 to 12 anti-ship missiles of the Granite class are needed. To disable it, one is enough if it lands on the runway of an aircraft carrier, which will prevent the planes from rising from it and landing.
            For cruiser Tikanderog enough 3 RCC Granite.
            But all this is conditional, because in order to pass the ABM PROG in a salvo there must be at least a hundred anti-ship missiles in order to be guaranteed to pass this echeloned missile defense, and this salvo must be from several directions.
        2. Kenneth
          Kenneth 18 December 2016 15: 50
          +1
          Forgive me, my grandfathers read who are supposed to know what and how much.
      2. PPD
        PPD 18 December 2016 11: 22
        +3
        The Americans have always had and have problems with interception:
        a- supersonic
        b-mass.
        Mot Mirage events 888 fired 2 missiles at 1 target. Although the target boat.
        On the machine. Out of habit.
        PC Yes. and if it is in- immediately massive and supersonic, then the escort will only take a selfie against the background of a sinking aircraft carrier.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 December 2016 19: 35
        +1
        Not able to drown. Just the stock of buoyancy he has is much greater than the stock of real combat capability.
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 18 December 2016 11: 23
      +11
      "A blow to the flight deck instantly disables the aircraft carrier as a combat unit" ///

      Does not display. Trained teams are on the ship, task
      which ensure its survivability. They put patches, shields in places
      holes. There are welders, carpenters (shields, oddly enough, are made of boards).
      Fuel and ammunition are not kept on deck now, as in World War 2.
      Served by elevators just before the plane takes off.
      The Japanese experience of the Americans has taught a lot.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 18 December 2016 13: 16
        +6
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Does not display. Trained teams are on the ship, task
        which ensure its survivability. They put patches, shields in places
        holes. There are welders, carpenters (shields, oddly enough, are made of boards).

        If PKR Granit, which has a warhead of up to 750 kg, gets into the take-off runway, you will not putty in the result of the hit. At the same time, the time to eliminate the consequences of the hit is also limited, since the duration of the flight of the deck F-35, for example, is 2,6 hours, after which they will begin to stupidly fall into the sea. And all this must be done in conditions of battle and repulsing attacks of anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, etc. ...
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The Japanese experience of the Americans has taught a lot.

        The Japanese had neither Onyxes nor Granites nor Volcanoes.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 18 December 2016 13: 35
          +6
          "At the same time, the time to eliminate the consequences of a hit is also limited,
          mk flight duration deck F-35 for example - 2,6 h "///

          During the fighting, AUGs do not go alone. Two or three.
          And they insure each other.

          "The Japanese had neither Onyxes, Granites, nor Volcanoes" ////

          The Japanese had better - kamikaze Zero with explosives am .
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 18 December 2016 13: 44
            +3
            Quote: voyaka uh
            During the fighting, AUGs do not go alone. Two or three.
            And they insure each other.

            When was the last time US carriers carried in pairs? Moreover, now the composition of the AUG is greatly truncated and there are no more than 100 different ships in it. And the second one. Even if, as you say, there will be a couple of aircraft carriers, the question is, will one aircraft carrier be able to receive and fly the number of aircraft for two aircraft carriers?
            Quote: voyaka uh
            The Japanese had better - kamikaze Zero with explosives.

            Well, yes ... and the penetrating effect of the anti-ship missiles apparently you do not take into account, as well as the speed of these missiles, in comparison with the turbo screw Zero ...
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 18 December 2016 14: 20
              +7
              "When was the last time US aircraft carriers went in pairs?" ///

              In both Iraqi wars.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 18 December 2016 14: 23
                +2
                Quote: voyaka uh
                In both Iraqi wars.

                You did not answer-Will one aircraft carrier be able to receive and fly into the air the number of aircraft for two aircraft carriers?
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 18 December 2016 16: 10
                  +9
                  Of course not. But he will be able to take planes from the damaged
                  aircraft carrier.
                  I can also ask: can Russian missile cruisers
                  to launch the KR if their launches are riddled with attacking American planes?
                  These questions are pointless. It’s not easy to either neutralize an aircraft carrier or shut up
                  missile cruiser.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 18 December 2016 16: 33
                    +3
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    These questions are pointless. It’s not easy to either neutralize an aircraft carrier or shut up
                    missile cruiser.

                    Here I’m talking about ... only there is one thing ... In the case of the deployment of a satellite constellation capable of providing target designation to our anti-ship missiles, our ships with anti-ship missiles will not need to enter the coverage area of ​​the AUG wing.
                    1. 1Markus
                      1Markus 19 December 2016 03: 56
                      +1
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      only there is one but ... In the case of the deployment of a satellite constellation capable of giving target designation to our RCC

                      But this group is not there, is it?
                      1. dimast
                        dimast 19 December 2016 11: 27
                        0
                        Americans were afraid of the Legend - but they developed a tactic of false orders. quite an effective way to combat satellite intelligence. And directly - US-A in the distant past, apparently nothing of the kind is planned. passive intelligence is not a target designation at all.
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 19 December 2016 10: 09
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                In both Iraqi wars.

                In the first company, in one AUS, there were four aircraft carriers, and in the second three, respectively, with all its retinue
      2. Maz
        Maz 18 December 2016 13: 34
        +4
        Yeah, let’s recall all the accidents on aircraft carriers, as a rule, detonation and fires of aircraft in the parking lot, fuel, ammunition in the stems and boxes, and this is simply due to an unsuccessful landing or spontaneous launch of missiles, when 700 kg warhead Granita detonates everything that happens next - God forbid then to repair in the port in a year, and the deck will tear like a newspaper. Therefore, they hit them with a nuclear charge, at the same time zeroing all the electronics around on escort ships. You can simply smack the El-magnetic bomb - and humanely, people are safe - and hand over the iron to scrap metal in Israel
        1. urman
          urman 23 October 2017 22: 29
          0
          Quote: Maz
          Yeah, remember all the disasters on aircraft carriers,

          And keep in mind that although Grandpa McCain can’t fly anymore, we have sleeping young agents - pilots and they took into account the experience of Grandpa Mack, the destruction will be much more photographic. So cruisers are not necessary, Grandpa Mac’s students are on the alert.
      3. demiurg
        demiurg 18 December 2016 14: 11
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "A blow to the flight deck instantly disables the aircraft carrier as a combat unit" ///

        Does not display. Trained teams are on the ship, task
        which ensure its survivability. They put patches, shields in places
        holes. There are welders, carpenters (shields, oddly enough, are made of boards).
        Fuel and ammunition are not kept on deck now, as in World War 2.
        Served by elevators just before the plane takes off.
        The Japanese experience of the Americans has taught a lot.

        Forrestal burned for more than a day. And then trudged into the repair.
        Why didn’t ship supermarios themselves repair the ship?
        You are a serious man, what kind of boards will boarding the flight deck? There, a 150-200 beam is needed in two rows at least. A hole in a torn shape, but with curved edges ....
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 18 December 2016 14: 22
          +2
          Boards from boards are knocked together to quickly close underwater holes.
          And the deck is repaired with steel.
          1. demiurg
            demiurg 18 December 2016 14: 45
            +2
            For a long time indulged in welding? To weld steel and even highly alloyed, thick, with torn edges, can you imagine how long it takes? And you need to cook evenly.
            And under the deck there are all kinds of trumpet-beams, which also intertwined and broke from the explosion, and in order to work properly, you must first cut them out.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 18 December 2016 16: 14
              +12
              Let’s do this: Russia will build an aircraft carrier similar to Nimitz,
              and I will take a welding course.
              What happens faster, he will win our argument drinks .
              1. demiurg
                demiurg 18 December 2016 16: 18
                +4
                So I promised to argue with the Israelis crying

                Do not be your welder lol love
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 19 December 2016 10: 21
              0
              Quote: demiurg
              with torn edges

              And why with torn edges? They are circumcised.
      4. Operator
        Operator 18 December 2016 17: 01
        +5
        Oil painting - aircraft carrier carpenters hollow out a steam catapult from a pine laughing
      5. kuz363
        kuz363 24 December 2016 06: 09
        +1
        Well, does the example of Kuzi with a cliff of cables teach nothing?
  2. quolta
    quolta 18 December 2016 06: 53
    +3
    a lot of numbers are obtained somewhere around 2.5 departure per day, if compared with ground-based aviation, this figure can be completed in 12 hours
  3. demiurg
    demiurg 18 December 2016 07: 17
    +8
    In a war of equal rivals, the main enemy of aircraft carriers will be submarines. Just one torpedo or mine placed in the path of the AVM can give the aircraft carrier a roll of 3-5 degrees, incapacitating it.
    1. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem 18 December 2016 08: 28
      +3
      Aircraft carriers go as part of the AUG, layered defense of attacks from the air, from the sea and from under the water, covering an area of ​​hundreds of square miles.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 18 December 2016 08: 42
        +6
        This echeloned defense in a closed theater of operations with shallow depths, and with the support of coastal aircraft, the PLO cannot find two "loaves".
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 18 December 2016 11: 35
          +1
          Sorry, but as soon as two loaves shoot, they will be discovered, and the escort has a chance to protect the aircraft carrier, but the loaves have a chance to leave zero!
          1. kote119
            kote119 18 December 2016 12: 06
            +5
            there’s always a chance to leave, you don’t have to make kamikaze from submariners, even if you find the prospective launch area of ​​the PKR, you need to get to it, find the boat, and successfully use anti-submarine weapons on it, always thinking in your mind how not to turn from a hunter into sacrifice hi
          2. NEXUS
            NEXUS 18 December 2016 13: 39
            +3
            Quote: igorka357
            Sorry, but as soon as two loaves shoot, they will be discovered, and the escort has a chance to protect the aircraft carrier, but the loaves have a chance to leave zero!

            It is foolish to think that AUG will only attack from under water. The attack will be complex, both from the air and from the sea, and from under the water. And I doubt very much that in this case, the means to combat the AUG submarines will be before these submarines. But there is one thing ... in a volley of one shot, more than a dozen RCCs are required, and from different sides.
            Here, a space constellation of satellites would be very useful to us, giving target designation to our missile launchers before the missile itself captures the target. And in this case, the same Caliber and sea targets will be able to sink at a distance of 1500 km, which is twice the radius of action of the AUG air wing.
            1. Krabik
              Krabik 18 December 2016 23: 37
              0
              Caliber on the ground has the simplest design, and therefore flies so far.

              And on the RCC, you have to put the guidance head to search for targets and on the same Granites an engine to accelerate to supersonic so that the target could not shoot it from cannon weapons on approach.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 19 December 2016 00: 16
                +3
                Quote: Krabik
                And on the RCC, you have to put the guidance head to search for targets and on the same Granites an engine to accelerate to supersonic so that the target could not shoot it from cannon weapons on approach.

                That is why I said that we need a satellite constellation that would correct target designations along the entire flight path of the RCC, until the rocket itself captures the target. And then, in the presence of such a satellite constellation, our anti-ship missiles, the same Caliber, will be able to operate on naval targets for 1000-1500 km, which is two times the radius of operation of the AUG air wing.
                1. Krabik
                  Krabik 19 December 2016 00: 22
                  0
                  It’s clear, but you missed such a trifle as supersonic in the final section of the flight.
                  She eats the lion's share of the distance at the rocket.

                  And the satellite constellation is already there (GLONASS) and I think that the missile is enough for accuracy of 1-5 meters.

                  Which conclusion can be drawn ?!
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 19 December 2016 00: 30
                    +2
                    Quote: Krabik
                    It’s clear, but you missed such a trifle as supersonic in the final section of the flight.
                    She eats the lion's share of the distance at the rocket.

                    Perhaps so ... only you did not take into account one trifle ... I deliberately voiced the figure for the Caliber of 1500 km ... but in fact, the flight range of these missiles is much larger. Why? There was such a rocket as the Grenade back in the 70s, and in those years it flew 2500 km. I believe that the Caliber is capable of flying at least 3000 km (or maybe more), and therefore, I think, it will have enough fuel for both supersonic and maneuver.
                    1. Krabik
                      Krabik 19 December 2016 00: 39
                      0
                      Yeah, 1500km in the normal version and 2500km in the nuclear for calibers, and grenades only with apple.
                      Because nuclear warhead is 2 times lighter.

                      It seems that you did not make any conclusion ...
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 19 December 2016 01: 23
                        +2
                        Quote: Krabik
                        It seems that you did not make any conclusion ...

                        No, it seems you haven’t made any conclusion ... 1500 km on the sea target will be enough for Caliber. And with regards to the Grenade, it was created almost 50 years ago! on Iskander-M. At the same time, for half a century do you seriously think that you have not created a new fuel for such a rocket?
                        I repeat, everything depends on the satellite constellation and the stability of its work on target designation along the entire flight path of RCC. As for the range, 1000-1500 km is quite enough to level the advantages of the AUG air wing.
                    2. DM51
                      DM51 19 December 2016 01: 44
                      +2
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Quote: Krabik
                      It’s clear, but you missed such a trifle as supersonic in the final section of the flight.
                      She eats the lion's share of the distance at the rocket.

                      Perhaps so ... only you did not take into account one trifle ... I deliberately voiced the figure for the Caliber of 1500 km ... but in fact, the flight range of these missiles is much larger. Why? There was such a rocket as the Grenade back in the 70s, and in those years it flew 2500 km. I believe that the Caliber is capable of flying at least 3000 km (or maybe more), and therefore, I think, it will have enough fuel for both supersonic and maneuver.

                      Damn, you would at least google, Caliber which is 2.5 t.km., only for ground targets, and which on surface 360-500 km. maximum! They reach the target in subsonic mode, when the second stage (booster accelerator) is switched on for a few kilometers to the ship and further on in supersonic mode. What are AB 1500 km.? lol
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 19 December 2016 09: 23
                        +2
                        Quote: DM51
                        Damn, you would at least google, Caliber which is 2.5 t.km., only for ground targets,

                        You would at least carefully read ... on naval targets, Calibers hit 300 km, since there is no satellite group that would correct the RCC flight to a MOVING SEA GOAL. That’s why I said that it is the satellite constellation that is needed, and then in this case, Caliber will no matter whether it travels 1500 km to a stationary ground target or a moving sea one. lol
                    3. Krabik
                      Krabik 19 December 2016 11: 41
                      0
                      "NEXUS
                      The calibers hit 300 km, because there is no satellite constellation that would correct the anti-ship missile mission to a MOVING MARINE TARGET "

                      The satellite constellation covers 99.9% of the earth, as they wrote on the Glonass website.

                      Caliber 3M-14E guidance head:
                      ARGS-14E
                      It provides detection of ground targets in the sector of angles in azimuth ± 45 °, in elevation - from + 10 ° to −20 ° along various trajectories.
                      The maximum range is up to 20 km.

                      Do you think?
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 19 December 2016 14: 48
                        +2
                        Quote: Krabik
                        Do you think?

                        Dear, besides GLONASS, there is LIANA-1 of the spacecraft Lotos-S (14F138, Kosmos-2455); 1 spacecraft of the Lotus-S1 (14F145, Cosmos-2502) ;, Optoelectronic intelligence complex-2 KA Person N2, N3 (Cosmos-2486, Cosmos-2506 on the LCI), 2 Bars-M spacecraft (Cosmos-2503, Cosmos-2515).
                        And in the 20th year they will put into operation the Obzor System of Remote Sensing Earth Sensing ...
                        Do you think not?
                    4. Krabik
                      Krabik 19 December 2016 15: 20
                      0

                      NEXUS
                      Do you think not?


                      To be honest, it is already with difficulty%)

                      Is there a Caliber for 2500 km with a capture head of 20 km, the Legends grouping is being updated, and missiles never fly at sea targets at 2500, but only on the ground?

                      But the ancient Granite, like the trunk of a dead mammoth, flies 700km and the satellite constellation does not bother them.

                      Where is the truth brother ?!
              2. kuz363
                kuz363 24 December 2016 06: 14
                0
                The gun does not have to aim at the rocket at supersonic speed. There is such a thing as barrage. Here it also needs to be applied. Only know the direction of approach and the range of the rocket.
          3. max702
            max702 31 July 2017 20: 14
            0
            Quote: igorka357
            Sorry, but as soon as two loaves shoot, they will be discovered, and the escort has a chance to protect the aircraft carrier, but the loaves have a chance to leave zero!

            it’s just that the submarines have all the chances to go unscathed, because after it discharges its ammunition load on the AUG, the last one will obviously not be until the search for the submarine ..
            rs: I hope everyone understands that the submarine in the AUG will work as special ammunition because the USA and its comrades (China we don’t think yet) have ACGs, but they have only one opponent for us today ... that is, the loaf is vigorous and that's it ... 45 -60 min life of the planet earth .. finish ...
    2. Kenneth
      Kenneth 18 December 2016 10: 52
      +1
      Only if it is atomic. From ordinary roll straighten pumping ballast
    3. igorka357
      igorka357 18 December 2016 11: 34
      0
      Ah, a Specialist, but about counter floods ... no, I have not heard ..)))
    4. CTABEP
      CTABEP 18 December 2016 12: 16
      +2
      Has counter-flooding of compartments with a view to leveling the roll been already canceled?
  4. Octopus
    Octopus 18 December 2016 07: 42
    +5
    Explanatory educational program.
    Thank you.
  5. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 18 December 2016 07: 53
    +2
    Thank you for the article, this is essentially the answer to our skeptics that Russia also needs to have its own carrier fleet. It was Syria that answered the question about the need for aircraft carriers as part of our military fleet.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 18 December 2016 09: 39
      +1
      You don’t need to have it, but it would be nice to have, there would be 6 of them to the ideal Russian fleet, but in the current reality you can do without aircraft carriers.
      1. ydjin
        ydjin 18 December 2016 11: 05
        +2
        Quote: Cartalon
        You don’t need to have it, but it would be nice to have, there would be 6 of them to the ideal Russian fleet, but in the current reality you can do without aircraft carriers.

        Where to get the money? It’s easier to come up with a means of hitting an aircraft carrier, PKK or underwater drones.
      2. Kostya Andreev
        Kostya Andreev 18 December 2016 12: 25
        +9
        take courage and correct you! it would be nice to have, not 6, but 26, and even better 36, no 46 is the best option, because there are four fleets, and if 46 divided by 4, then for each fleet, there will be 11.5 pieces, but since the floor of the aircraft carrier floats badly, then of the halves you can collect 2 aircraft carriers for the Caspian flotilla. So Russia needs to have 11 aircraft carriers in each fleet. for example, in the Baltic, aircraft carriers can be thrust stern to our shore, and nose to the adversary’s shore, the same thing can be done in the Black Sea and the Caspian flotilla, and in this way they can be used as bridges, taking payment so that there is money for maintenance, in the Pacific use them as barges for the transportation of building materials for the Kuril Islands, but this is when the money for development appears. of these islands, in the north it is possible to fish with norgs, and many are indignant that it is not profitable to fish with us, and it will be great: the pilot landed, and instead of pulling the butt and garbage loitering, he will stand on a winch and lunch will catch, and the country's fishing industry will support. and the VUS will be with him. deck-based fishing pilot trawl operator.
        When asked where to get money for the construction of 6, excuse me, 46 aircraft carriers? I’ll answer, disperse the managers. dealers, shmilerov make them work in factories, no factories? we’ll build, together with the ideal fleet of Russia, we’ll also squeeze the traders, otherwise you don’t want to work in the factories that we will build together with the fleet, we will also take money from the rich who drink blood from the people, we will force everyone who sits behind our monitor to sit back, commentators We won’t touch on VO, because here there are experts, economists, generals and naval commanders to raise them Russia and build aircraft carriers for them !!!!!!!!!!!!
        And I don’t care that the United States and Russia have different economic conditions, the main thing to set the goal is the aircraft carriers and not turn off the road. Only in this way Russia will become a world power, because for this everything has been done both in the internal and external economic and political, money is still so much that there is nowhere to go, only aircraft carriers are not enough.
        1. Krabik
          Krabik 18 December 2016 23: 42
          +1
          In my opinion, 46 is too much even for us.

          We do not have as many combat-capable ships in the entire fleet, even taking into account boats and tugs;)
          1. Kostya Andreev
            Kostya Andreev 19 December 2016 08: 50
            +1
            Everything is clear with you! you don’t understand anything because you are a liberal. or a marketer or manager is effective !!! )))
            1. Krabik
              Krabik 24 December 2016 12: 30
              0
              I'm a Komsomol member;)
              1. max702
                max702 31 July 2017 20: 19
                0
                Quote: Krabik
                I'm a Komsomol member;)

                Khodorkovsky is also a Komsomol member like Abramovich, and many others ..
      3. kuz363
        kuz363 24 December 2016 06: 16
        +2
        Absolutely no need to have. The experience of Syria has already been proven.
    2. Operator
      Operator 18 December 2016 17: 06
      +1
      Glory to the Russian Navy led by the aircraft carrier "Khmeimim" laughing
  6. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 18 December 2016 08: 28
    +1
    Pretty detailed and clear. Plus.
  7. Kenneth
    Kenneth 18 December 2016 10: 52
    +1
    We are waiting for Oleg Kaptsov.
  8. Barakuda
    Barakuda 18 December 2016 12: 55
    +2
    The question of a land couch general - And if a dozen (just one submarine can easily carry) run along the AUG, well, there Bramosa-Granite-Caliber. And if a second salvo, a third? What will all this crap turn into? I understand that for this it is necessary to approach 400 km, well, so this is completely solvable.
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth 18 December 2016 15: 46
      +1
      Especially with target selection. Well, yes AUG will certainly suffer. But as he discovers, he will build his escort between missiles and an aircraft carrier and will work from all that is. And these are hundreds of air defense missiles and hundreds of barrels. And EW. Better loaf is better.
  9. Maz
    Maz 18 December 2016 13: 27
    +3
    Quote: 1Markus
    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    An example of the work of US aircraft carriers in the war with Iraq or Serbia

    Saddam had all kinds of missiles, the Air Force and a millionth army, hundreds of tanks. I would not call it by any means styry conditions ...

    Quote: Kenneth
    As far as I remember, an aircraft carrier is able to withstand several torpedoes or missiles on board without loss of incapacity. It’s necessary to hit the deck with a slide, which is also not so simple. Plus an aircraft carrier protects his escort. So this is a very difficult goal.

    Here is a clever girl. And it’s worth remembering about fires.
  10. Operator
    Operator 18 December 2016 16: 56
    +1
    "... when rolling more than five degrees and pitching more than one degree, flights are not carried out", - with greater rolling, AB turns into a floating trough laughing

    Resource glider F / A-18E is 100 landings using the aerofinisher, then overhaul. With the estimated performance of the 120-130 aircraft carrier departures per day and the number of attack aircraft on board in 48 units, the development of the AB air wing resource will occur in a month of combat use, and after all the 45 days, all US carrier-based attack aircraft will fail, including the reserve.

    Blitzkrieg however am
    1. svp67
      svp67 18 December 2016 17: 08
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      Blitzkrieg however

      Yes, only they have in the "stock" equipment for a couple of such blitzkriegs,

      and it’s more difficult with us ...
      1. Operator
        Operator 18 December 2016 17: 09
        +1
        All aircraft in the photo - with a developed resource.
        1. svp67
          svp67 18 December 2016 17: 34
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          All aircraft in the photo - with a developed resource.

          Mabud, mabud ... that's just when it is necessary, they very quickly "put on the wing." As recently the F-18 was sent to the KMP from this "dump" ...
          1. Operator
            Operator 18 December 2016 17: 58
            0
            How much time did you spend on bringing the F-18 to the ILC?

            In addition, F-18 KPMs do not land using aerofinisher.
            1. svp67
              svp67 18 December 2016 18: 07
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              How much time did you spend on bringing the F-18 to the ILC?

              Much less than producing a new one. For a total war, just ...
              Quote: Operator
              In addition, F-18 KPMs do not land using aerofinisher.

              Yes, but there they still have enough F-14 deck ...
              And the saddest thing is that they will find the pilots on them in the proper amount ...
              1. Operator
                Operator 18 December 2016 20: 37
                +1
                The recovery time of the F-18 after long-term storage in the open air and even with the extension of the resource takes six months, despite the fact that the throughput of the repair facilities is not rubber.

                You can forget about the F-14 - spare parts for it are no longer manufactured, the Iranians exploit the latest machines by cannibalism. The U.S. Navy F-14 has not been operating for a quarter of a century, there are no production and repair facilities, technology is lost, there are no practicing technicians left, and the few surviving pilots of retirement age if they can, then just fly a pancake.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 18 December 2016 21: 39
                  0
                  Quote: Operator
                  The recovery time of the F-18 after long-term storage in the open air and even with the extension of the resource takes six months, despite the fact that the throughput of the repair facilities is not rubber.

                  Yeah, that is, the bandwidth is known and what is it?
                  Quote: Operator
                  You can forget about the F-14 - spare parts for it are no longer manufactured, the Iranians exploit the latest machines by cannibalism. The U.S. Navy F-14 has not been operating for a quarter of a century, there are no production and repair facilities, technology is lost, there are no practicing technicians left, and the few surviving pilots of retirement age if they can, then just fly a pancake.

                  What prevents the Americans, having a supply of F-14 to engage in similar cannibalism? Yes, and I'm sure that somewhere in the bins there are still spare parts ... Let not a lot, but a couple of squadrons is enough.
                  And at the expense of the pilots, so during the reanimation of the aircraft, they will have time to retrain the required number of pilots from those that are in stock, especially since they have enough ...
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 18 December 2016 21: 45
                    +2
                    Repair with the extension of the resource - at the squadron level in half a year.

                    Before proceeding to the cannibalism of F-14, it will be necessary to restore the technology of their repair with an extension of the resource, then the actual repair with disassembly for parts, then, on the basis of the first repaired machines, to train young pilots, and there the war will end.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 18 December 2016 21: 58
                      +1
                      Quote: Operator
                      then, on the basis of the first repaired vehicles, to train young pilots,

                      here you are mistaken. By the time of the appearance of combat-ready aircraft, they will already be prepared for flights on them. Time does not stand still, new training technologies on simulators allow you to do this. And who told you that they are YOUNG. In the current reserve of deck aviation, the US Navy is quite well combat-ready, and most importantly having sufficient experience flying on ship pilots. It would not hurt us to learn from them how to create such a reserve.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 18 December 2016 22: 07
                        0
                        Young pilots - in the sense of a lack of practical experience flying on the F-14 and even in conditions of deck operation.

                        In addition, aircraft repair facilities with known coordinates will be one of the primary goals in the event of a large-scale war using aircraft carriers.
              2. max702
                max702 31 July 2017 20: 23
                0
                Quote: svp67
                For a total war, just ...

                In the event of a total war, this site will look like a large funnel with a coating of glass ..
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 18 December 2016 19: 42
              +1
              In addition, F-18 KPMs do not land using aerofinisher.


              The level of schizophrenia is defined as the limit. Even the slow-moving WWII did not sit down without an aerofinisher.
              1. svp67
                svp67 18 December 2016 20: 01
                +1
                Quote: EvilLion
                The level of schizophrenia is defined as the limit. Even the slow-moving WWII did not sit down without an aerofinisher.

                You diminish the level of passions ... KMP planes, and this is the United States Marine Corps for the most part are ordinary land planes landing on land runways, and on them like aerofinishers of a different type than on aircraft carriers ...
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 18 December 2016 22: 47
                  0
                  So are we discussing land aircraft, or not?
      2. kuz363
        kuz363 24 December 2016 06: 18
        0
        Russia is 4 times inferior to the United States in the total number of aircraft, and 2 times in combat-ready
  11. Uncle Dima
    Uncle Dima 18 December 2016 19: 36
    0
    So many mistakes that in half of the article, reading became intolerable!
  12. Flinky
    Flinky 18 December 2016 19: 41
    +1
    In 2018, no aircraft carrier will crawl out of the home port. It will be bored.
  13. EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 December 2016 19: 41
    +2
    In this whole stream of words, I did not find anything that would somehow characterize the aircraft carrier itself, and not planes that could just as well fly from the ground. As if the accuracy of hitting a target in the F / A-18 will change whether it takes off from the deck, or from land.

    A pathetic attempt to gloss over the uselessness of aircraft carriers as a class after the advent of jet aircraft, and especially the Su-27 with its range.

    If the Yankees have set up 10 aircraft carriers with a fool, then, of course, they will drive them into a big war and they will have a certain percentage of sorties. But more ground bases and normal land aircraft could just as well be built. The result would be the same, and, most likely, much cheaper, and certainly there would be no risk of repeating the achievements of the Forrestall Lighter.
  14. Wolka
    Wolka 19 December 2016 09: 13
    +1
    for all indicators of combat power, well, very expensive toys, because their tactical use is not always justified ... in addition, the Yankees were forced to build aircraft carriers, because all military conflicts of the 20th century then occurred in the eastern hemisphere, today, as events in Syria have shown, modern types of weapons allow us to solve similar problems without the involvement of aircraft carriers ...
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. DM51
    DM51 19 December 2016 12: 42
    +1
    NEXUS,
    The difference is still what - the rocket has to carry a second step along the warhead with its own engine and the homing head - this is a decent mass, but the dimensions are the same. I also want us to have the best weapons, but we must be realistic, if we give our Wishlist as truth - we won’t have a prodigy
  17. Glory1974
    Glory1974 19 December 2016 22: 17
    +1
    Quoting from the article: Maximum performance is the ability of an Acre aircraft carrier to continuously perform as many flights as possible for one to six days in the interest of fulfilling the assigned tasks, working approximately twice as intensive as the load in 120 – 130 sorties. Until the AVMA Nimitz record set at the 1997 training year was broken. Its wing, reinforced by the flight technical and support staff, carried out 250 sorties per day for four days, of which, according to 200 sorties, fighter-attack aircraft, EW fighters and aircraft.

    Recently, the site had an interview with the former commander of the Mediterranean squadron in the 70-80 of the Soviet Navy. So he said that each aircraft carrier was monitored from our ships. And the figure in 250 sorties per day from an aircraft carrier was a stable result for Americans during training flights, and not something outstanding.
  18. Glory1974
    Glory1974 19 December 2016 22: 19
    0
    The artillery cruisers of the Soviet Navy accompanied the carrier groups with the task of hitting the flight deck with their main caliber at the "X" hour. By all accounts, the cruiser died, of course, but the aircraft carrier also failed.
  19. Looking for
    Looking for 21 December 2016 21: 54
    -1
    I’ll write one thing: have you seen at least one photo of American aircraft carriers in the northern seas? I haven’t seen it. They’re free to sail in the Caribbean, and dismiss them in the North or Barents Seas. So that Grandfather Frost will bring all the benefits.
  20. VladimS
    VladimS 24 December 2016 18: 21
    0
    Quote: 1Markus
    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    An example of the work of US aircraft carriers in the war with Iraq or Serbia

    Saddam had all kinds of missiles, the Air Force and a millionth army, hundreds of tanks. I would not call it by any means styry conditions ...

    Well, do not call! Well this is just your opinion.
    But did Hussein’s army show any worthy of mention, resistance to the aggressor?
    I don’t remember something!
    Quote: Seeker
    So that Santa Claus will bring all the benefits.

    Not only Santa Claus. But grandmother - Pitching.
    Above, the author cited the parameters of successful take-off and landing.
    In the North, such a rarity, rather, on the contrary, 70 percent of the entire time of the year,
    take-off is not possible.
    1. Parsec
      Parsec 24 December 2016 20: 33
      0
      Quote: VladimS
      But did Hussein’s army show any worthy of mention, resistance to the aggressor?
      I don’t remember something!


      You have nothing to remember, because you do not know the course of the war.
      Basra Until the failure of the attack and the demand for the replacement of the contingent. Not Saddam, the coalition.
      Loss of control and interaction in the coalition and non-fake paragraph in the near future to the entire contingent.
      1. VladimS
        VladimS 24 December 2016 21: 11
        0
        Oh yo yo! What are we important.
        Quote: Parsec
        Basra Until the failure of the attack and the demand for the replacement of the contingent. Not Saddam, the coalition.
        Loss of control and interaction in the coalition and non-fake paragraph in the near future to the entire contingent.

        You personally attended and saw a loss of control ...?