What are Kamikaze and P-700 Granite Similar to?

The trouble came from the air. Bismarck, Marat and Yamato became easy prey for pilots. At Pearl Harbor, the American fleet burned down at anchor. The fragile Swordfishi destroyed the Italian heavy cruiser Paul (as well as indirectly the cruiser Zara and Fiume) in a battle near the metro station Matapan. 20 Swordfish-Avosek was torn to shreds by Regia Marina during a raid on the GMBB Taranto. The real fun began when the Germans launched the Henschel.293 guided bomb - one squadron of the Luftwaffe recorded 40 British, American and Canadian ships.
Everyone knows sad history destroyer Sheffield. Few know how the Alpha-6 with USS Enterprise tore the Iranian frigate Sahand. On another occasion, the American Stark got hit by two missiles from the Iraqi Mirage on board ...

What I have listed is the tip of the iceberg, only a small part of all stories (for example, the Argentinean aviationin addition to the famous Sheffield drowned 6 British ships, including the Atlantic Conveyor helicopter carrier). In all cases, one thing remains unchanged - the ships died from the actions of aviation. Most often decked (which is logical - sea battles take place offshore).
The battle in the Coral Sea was the first naval battle without a single artillery shot, the opponents did not see each other from their decks. Then there were Santa Cruz and Midway, where deck aircraft decided everything.

Cruisers are completely defenseless in front of carrier-based bombers. The first to this was the ingenious Isoroku Yamamoto, who developed the concept of using aircraft carriers. The Americans learned the lesson from Pearl Harbor and developed the ideas of Admiral Yamamoto. During the Second World War, the American fleet received 24 (!) Heavy aircraft carriers of the Essex type, and not one of them was lost in battle. The Japanese simply had nothing to oppose them. The bold attacks of the "kamikaze" turned out to be powerless: only one out of ten could break through the fighter barrier and the fire of hundreds of anti-aircraft "Erlikon" escort ships. Figuratively speaking, the Japanese walked “with a pitchfork on Tanks».
It makes sense to pay attention to the phenomenon of "kamikaze." I will not sing the praises of the courage of Japanese pilots, I am interested in another point: these kind of "RCC", managed by the most reliable control system - man, could not cause serious damage to large ships, despite the fairly powerful charge on board. "Zero" in the version of the suicide bomber carried 250-kg bomb and outboard fuel tank under another wing. Reactive "Oka" carried up to 1,5 tons of ammonal. Very solid. Nevertheless, the fall on the deck, full of aircraft, did not lead to serious consequences (the only exception - "Bunker Hill", which is strongly burned out). This is the question of the survivability of the aircraft carrier.
Veterans of the Essex seem tiny compared to modern atomic floating airfields. How many hits do you need and how much power to disable them?

After all these facts, the Soviet admirals with diabolical perseverance argued that the aircraft carriers were instruments of aggression and the peaceful Soviet Union did not need them. Somehow it did not reach them that it was not only a powerful strike force against the countries of the 3 world, but above all - the only effective means of air defense of the naval grouping. Only the wing can reliably cover the space hundreds of kilometers from the ship.

Unknown of the known

Most sources proudly state that up to 90 aircraft are based on Nimitz. Of course, the real composition of the deck wing is much more modest. Otherwise, there are difficulties with the use of aircraft, their placement and maintenance.

Standard composition of the wing:
- two squadrons of naval aviation: 20-25 deck F / A-18 “Hornet” multipurpose fighters
- One Marine Corps Aviation Squadron: 10-12 F / A-18 “Hornet” multipurpose fighter aircraft
- DRLO squadron (4-6 E-2C “Hawkeye”)
- EW squadron (4-6 EA-6B “Prowler”)
- transport group (1-2 transport C-2 “Greyhound”)
- anti-submarine squadron (6-8 SH-60 “Seahawk”)
- search and rescue team (2-3 HH-60 “Pavehawk”)

The numbers change depending on the tasks facing the AMG. Among the most frequent guests on the decks are the CH-47 transport helicopters, the CH-53 heavy helicopters “SeaStyle”, “Huey” and “Cobras” of the Marine Corps ...
If necessary, the composition of the wing can be expanded by taking another squadron of multi-purpose fighters.
There is a constant re-equipment of the wing. F / A - 18C / D “Hornet” are actively replaced by F / A-18E / F “Super Hornet”. Soon the Marauders will completely disappear - specialized EW EA-18 Warblers will appear instead. As we see, the Americans are moving towards the full unification of carrier-based aviation, which should reduce costs and facilitate maintenance. By 2015 year awaits update squadron AWACS - the new E-2D "Super Hawkeye" is already being tested.

9 circles of hell

The basis of AMG air defense is combat air patrols patrolling in 100 - 200 miles from the grouping. Each consists of an ARLO aircraft and a 2-4 fighter. This gives AMG exceptional opportunities to detect air and surface targets. Any, even the best, shipborne radar can not be compared with the Hokaya radar station, raised above the surface by 10 kilometers. If the threat increases, the defense can be echeloned, pushing the aircraft even further. On the deck there are always duty fighters with different types of weapons for the rapid elimination of any threats.

If the destructive barrier is broken, the Aegis system of escort destroyers will be used. There are many questions to this system, for example, the AN / SPY-1 radar does not see a target at its zenith above itself. The stated detection range of two hundred miles applies only to objects in the upper atmosphere. Nevertheless, it is fully capable of finishing off single targets that have broken through the destructive barrier. Nobody demands more from it, AMG air defense depends to a greater extent on deck interceptors.

The last line of defense - the system of self-defense ships. Mk15 "Phalanx", SiSperrow, SeaRAM - a lot of designs that can hit targets at distances from 500 meters to 50 km.

The stories about spans over the decks of aircraft carriers of Soviet and Russian Tu-95 and Su-24 have no practical value - the planes flew in PEACE time. Nobody was going to knock them down, and there is no other way to counteract AMG in peacetime. Pilots Tu-22М3 recognized that they had little chance of hitting AMH in the North Atlantic, outside the range of their fighters. The rocket carriers will have to get too close to the grouping and enter the zone of the deck interceptors.

Anti-submarine capabilities at AMG modest, without external assistance, it can not do. On the transoceanic crossing, the grouping is covered by the R-3 “Orion” base patrol aircraft, which are guarding at course angles in the course of the AMG. Orion works simply: it puts out a linear barrier of a dozen sonar buoys with an interval of 5-10 for miles, then circles for several hours in the area, listening to the sounds of the ocean. When something suspicious appears, Orion places an annular (covering) barrier around the triggered buoy and begins to “work” with this zone in detail.
In the near zone, the PLO provides LAMPS helicopters and a multi-purpose submarine covering the dead zones under the ships' bottoms. Atomic submarines are necessarily included in the AMG after the case of K-10. In the 1968 year, during the typhoon "Diana", a Soviet submarine 12 hours secretly accompanied the aircraft carrier "Enterprise". The storm did not allow deck aircraft to take off, but there was no one to cover the AUG anymore.

In general, the conclusion here is the following: the AMG’s anti-submarine defense is fairly reliable — over the 60 years of continuous tracking of AUG (AMG) by Russian submarines, only a few cases of successful interception were recorded. I always wondered what practical value the passage of a nuclear submarine to the center of a carrier order has. Torpedo weapon it is useless to use against these monsters (for example, in a battle near Santa Cruz, 12 torpedoes got into a small USS Hornet, but he kept afloat until he was killed by Japanese destroyers. Nimitz is more than Hornet’s 5 times - draw your own conclusions ). When talking with Russian submariners, it turned out the following: it is not necessary to sink an aircraft carrier - it is enough to roll it a little, which will complicate the work of carrier-based aircraft. When I asked that the list can always be straightened by flooding the compartments of the other side, the guys just shrugged their shoulders: “That's all we can do. We shall perish, but we shall not surrender. ”

The strike capabilities of an aircraft carrier and a non-aircraft carrier are incomparable. A heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser, pr. 1144, casts 15 tons of explosives to a range of 150 ... 600 km. At the most modest counting, the deck wing can throw 30 tons to the range 750 ... 1000 km in ONE DEPARTURE. With the use of tanker aircraft, it is possible to ensure the destruction of sea and land targets at a distance of 2000 km.

Given the developed information support and support for EW aircraft, any naval target becomes an easy target for aviation. Two or three groups of carrier-based attack aircraft, attacking from all points under the cover of interference, will drown anyone. In turn, the AMG remains invulnerable - its “arm” is so long that the enemy does not have time to go the distance of using its weapons. The idea of ​​a cheap "mosquito" fleet AMG is untenable to counteract - AWACS aircraft see boats at a glance. An example is the “Ean Zaquit” - RTOs, pr. 1234 Libyan Navy, sunk in 1986. The small missile ship did not have time to get out of Benghazi, as it was discovered by the Hokai and brought deck attack aircraft at it.

Price issue

Usually, denying the need for aircraft carriers, Soviet theorists are frightened by the “exorbitant cost” of aircraft carrying ships. Now I will dispel this myth before your eyes.
Atomic aircraft carrier type "Nimitz" costs 5 billion dollars. A fantastic amount for any of us. But ... the cost of a promising Russian frigate, the 22350 Pr. Admiral Gorshkov, is 0,5 billion. The frigate displacement is 4500 tons. Those. instead of an aircraft carrier, you can build an entire 10 frigate (note - frigates, not even destroyers!), a total displacement of 45 000 tons. From here you can make another interesting conclusion - the cost of building a ton of an aircraft carrier is significantly less than any cruiser, submarine or frigate.
Another example? The cost of the Aegis destroyer of the Orly Burk type exceeds 1 billion dollars. Currently, the US Navy 61 has a ship of this type, with a total value of more than 60 billion dollars! The cost of aircraft carrier seems ridiculous against the background of this amount.

The next important point is that the service life of aircraft carriers exceeds 50 years, and taking into account the less complicated modernization and replacement of the wing, 50-summer ships are not inferior to their more modern sisterships.

In an effort to neutralize the threat of AUG, the USSR created the following constructions:
- 11 submarine pr. 949А (underwater displacement of each - 24 000 tons)
- 4 TARKR Ave 1144 (full displacement - 26 000 tons)
- 3 RKR pr. 1164
- missile systems П-6, П-70, П-500, П-700, П-1000
- sea space reconnaissance and target designation system (MKRTS) "Legend-M"
- T-4 bomber (did not go into the series)
- PKR X-22
- dozens of airfields of sea-launched missile aviation, with Tu-16, Tu-22М2 and Tu-22М3 based on them
- EK "Lun" (!)
- Titanium submarine pr 661 "Anchar"
- 45 DPL Ave 651 and submarine Ave 675, armed with anti-ship missiles P-6

All this enormous amount of technology had only one goal - the opposition of the AMG ... and, as we see from the first part of the article, in general, this was not done skillfully. It is easy to imagine the cost of these systems.

GVMB Norfolk

Miser pays twice. The USSR still had to create strange constructions called “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser” - four huge ships, each with a displacement of 45 and 000 tons. Aircraft carriers can not be called, because their main armament, the Yak-38, could not be the main thing - to provide air defense of the naval group, although as an attack aircraft, the Yak was probably not bad.

With the birth of TAVKR, another myth was born: “aircraft carriers without a wing are rusty targets, and our TAVKRs can stand up for themselves”. A completely absurd statement is the same as saying: “a hunter without a weapon is not a hunter”. Obviously, they never go unarmed to hunt. Moreover, the armament of the Kuznetsov is not much different from the Nimitz self-defense complexes.

As we see, the USSR had enough money to create a full-fledged carrier fleet, but the Soviet Union preferred to spend money on its useless Wunderwaffe. The economy should be economical!

Vitality

14 January 1969, a fire occurred on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier Enterprise. They detonated dozens of aerial bombs and rockets, 15 burned down fully fueled aircraft. 27 people died, more than 300 were injured and burned. And yet ... after 6 hours after the fire, the ship was able to send and receive aircraft.
After this incident, all aircraft carriers are equipped with a forced irrigation system for decks (when it is turned on, the ship looks like Niagara Falls). And the deck crews responsible for the movement of the aircraft received armored tractors in order to promptly push an emergency plane overboard.

To increase survivability, duplication, dispersal and redundancy are used. The design of modern aircraft carriers included steel armor 150 mm thick. Important spaces inside the ship are additionally protected with 2,5 inches kevlar layers. Fire compartments, if necessary, filled with hydrogen peroxide. In general, the first rule of American sailors is “the second specialty of a sailor is fire”. The struggle for the survivability of the ship has a significant training cycle.

The importance of repair work during the battle, the Americans realized during the Second World War. During the battle at about. Midway, Admiral Nagumo reported that he had destroyed the American aircraft carrier 3. In fact, not one. Each time the Japanese bombed the same attack aircraft carrier Yorktown, but emergency teams restored the ship right on the high seas and he, like Phoenix, rose from the ashes. This story shows that damage can be easily fixed on a huge ship.
The kamikaze attacks once again confirm the paradoxical conclusion - the explosion of even one ton of explosives cannot cause serious damage to the aircraft carrier. What Soviet designers were hoping for when creating Granit P-700 is unclear.

Not the saddest conclusions

Today, multi-purpose (shock) carrier groups of the US Navy do not pose a threat to Russia. The main objects are out of range of deck aircraft. Using AMG in the Gulf of Finland or the Black Sea is insane. For example, it is much easier to use the Incirlik air base in Turkey to defeat the bases of the Black Sea Fleet. For the protection of the bases of the Northern and Pacific fleets, coastal airfields with naval rocket-carrying aircraft and fighter jets are quite suitable (but the land aerodrome cannot move 1000 km within 24 hours, they will have to be built a lot).

Another thing, if Russia wants to go out into the world ocean, the creation of aircraft carriers will become a necessity. It’s time for the military-political leadership of Russia to understand that there is no cheaper and more reliable means for fighting AMG (and any other land and sea targets) than its own aircraft carrier.

Comments

[Professor]

A sensible article, correctly set out. I do not agree only in comparing the cost, which does not take into account weapons.

[2c4]

Hello everyone.
I read the article carefully.
And all the comments.
And I will say the following - the author does not understand a damn thing.
I read books - and decided to read the article.
This is proved in just one phrase.
Everyone carefully reads the article again, and searches.
Will not find after 2 days, unsubscribe, what exactly did I mean.

[Hans grohman]

And yet, the author either didn’t know, or didn’t knowingly point out, then when the USSR was in, the armed conflict with UWB, in almost all of the alleged options, became nuclear. Consequently, RCCs were equipped with nuclear warheads, and this radically changed the layout.

[Santa Fe]

The Third World and nuclear charges are a separate conversation.

The AUG of the US Navy has always solved completely different tasks and had nothing to do with nuclear parity. Local conflicts, support for allies, ensuring the security of transoceanic communications ...
The USSR Navy was oriented toward global war, although subsequent events showed the failure of this theory.

PS Nuclear charges do not change anything. There is still a problem with RCC carriers.

[Hans grohman]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The AUG of the US Navy has always solved completely different tasks and had nothing to do with nuclear parity. Local conflicts, support for allies, ensuring the security of transoceanic communications ...

It’s so, it’s three-and-a-half wrong - in the event of a nuclear war, local conflicts (at least in today's understanding of this term) would not exist. Further, AUG, and especially AUS, is an instrument of aggression (that is, offensive), which means that it was a primary goal (after SSBN). In short, if it started "like an adult", then the AUG in any scenario would take the most direct part in it, and it would not consist at all in ensuring transoceanic transport, but rather in finishing off the survivors of the naval base.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The USSR Navy was oriented toward global war, although subsequent events showed the failure of this theory

Do not wishful thinking, what further events are the collapse of the USSR? So the Navy’s orientation to global war has nothing to do with it! The USSR Navy was quite effective for its time, and carried out the tasks assigned to it, as if you did not want to.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Nuclear charges do not change anything. There is still a problem with RCC carriers.

Nuclear charges change EVERYTHING, absolutely everything! You thought up the problem with anti-ship missiles, they launch very well from surface and underwater missile carriers, and even, as you correctly pointed out in your article from ekranoplanes (although this option has not gone beyond the scope of the pilot project).
How does special. Warheads of defeat of AUG? Google the damaging properties of a nuclear explosion - understand. two or three rockets burst through, and there is no AUG.

Something like that.

[Santa Fe]

Do not wishful thinking, what further events are the collapse of the USSR?
Do you want an example? Well, there was a case: Doomsday War, 1973 year.
6 fleet was able to support Israel, the Soviet Navy could not help Syria and Egypt

Nuclear charges change EVERYTHING, absolutely everything!
Screaming is a bad argument. How to deliver a nuclear warhead to the AUG?

[Hans grohman]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Do you want an example? Well, there was a case: Doomsday War, 1973 year.
6 fleet was able to support Israel, the Soviet Navy could not help Syria and Egypt

This is more of a political than a military issue - a bad example.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Screaming is a bad argument. How to deliver a nuclear warhead to the AUG?

God be with you, who is screaming? How to deliver a nuclear warhead? Just like the usual one, they are initially interchangeable.

[Santa Fe]

This is more of a political than a military issue - a bad example.
Not true. Carriers provided significant assistance, as later in Lebanon
Obviously you don’t know anything about this conflict.

Just like the usual one, they are initially interchangeable.
Which carrier?

[MURANO]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

This is more of a political than a military issue - a bad example.
Not true. Carriers provided significant assistance, as later in Lebanon

True. The aircraft carriers therefore rendered ... because before that there was a POLITICAL DECISION TO PROVIDE.

[Santa Fe]

Deck aviation the entire conflict hung along the coast of Israel. Especially AWACS and EW aircraft, controlling the airspace of the war zone and draining Tsakhalu all information about the movements of the Arabs

USSR Navy, alas, could not help

[Insurgent]

Israel already had f-15s in service, and f-16s that they could create in a moment

[Hans grohman]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Not true

Reminds a conversation between a blind man and a deaf man.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Which carrier?

P-70 "Amethyst", P-700 "Granite", P-750 "Meteorite", P-1000 "Volcano", 65-76 "Kit", "Shkval" ...

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

USSR Navy, alas, could not help

He could, but no corresponding political decision was made.
I will add that what did not help does not mean at all that he could not help.

[Santa Fe]

Reminds a conversation between a blind man and a deaf man.
The answer is in the previous comment.

P-1000 "Volcano"
Launched from surface ships, no one will let them in the launch distance

P-750 "Meteorite
Vulnerable, has no chance

"Squall"...
The real range is 4 kilometers. Where there ...

I will add that what did not help does not mean at all that he could not help.
Shot Granites in Israel?

[MURANO]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

no one will allow them to run distance

I repeat once again. THAT'S FOR THIS WEAPON TRACKING WAS ORGANIZED IN PEACE TIME.
This means that the ships, while performing military service and tracking the AOG, were at a range of weapons. Even artillery.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Shot Granites in Israel?

Here you are right. Our fleet was imprisoned only against the NK.

[Santa Fe]

Resolve the question, MURANO, how long was the cruiser Ave. 1144 and 1164 stayed near AUG for the entire period of their service? Even in their best times, the beginning of 80x?

Here you are right. Our fleet was imprisoned only against the NK.
Returning to one of our disputes: you argued that there are no aircraft carriers and nothing terrible happened. As you see, it happened. Maybe Syria would not lose, receiving the same support from our fleet. The Doomsday War is not a pogrom in 1967. The Arabs launched the offensive very successfully.

[MURANO]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

what time is the cruiser

And it was not in vain that he wrote "even artillery".
And even RBUShny.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

. Maybe Syria would not lose, receiving the same support from our fleet.

If there was a political decision, support would be different.
Another question would help?

[Santa Fe]

And even RBUShny.
Yes you wit, MURANO
Probably during Varyag's visit to San Francisco? "Golden Gate" from RBU-6000

If there was a political decision, support would be different.
For example?

Another question would help?
I do not know. Arabs started sensibly

[MURANO]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Yes you wit, MURANO wink

Yes.
But it was not a joke.

[Hans grohman]

Congratulations, you touched me on this thread.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The answer is in the previous comment.

I repeat, this is not the answer.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Shot Granites in Israel?

Destroy the American AUG.

That's all.

[morpex]

Developer ICD "Rainbow"
X-90 GEL Designation
Codename NATO AS-19 "Koala"
Type strategic cruise missile hypersonic experimental aircraft
Inertial and radio command control system
Carrier Tu-95
Dimensions & Weight
Length, m approx. 12
Wingspan, m 6,8-7
Weight, kg
Number of 2 Warheads
Power point
Engine scramjet
Accelerator RDTT
flight data
Airspeed, M = 4-5
Height, m ​​start-up 7000
flight 7000-20000
Range, km 3000

[Insurgent]

This is for land objects and not anti-punitive

[Insurgent]

The USSR was developing a hypersonic missile like x-48 5-7 max speed to dry m-4 if it were problematic to kill such a missile

[soldier of fortune]

...................... Commands "HELP!" did not have!
The Navy is not a charity, it just doesn’t help :)

[alexander hjcnjd]

You do not remember something stubbornly about the nuclear winter. For even in the Patriotic War, none of the parties decided to use chemical weapons.

[soldier of fortune]

The USSR Navy also solved completely different tasks. Direct protection of the territory of the USSR on the entire length of the sea border, which is several times larger than the United States.

We never needed to transfer the air wing and AUG to another point on the planet, because officially we had a defense doctrine ............. We are peaceful people and our armored train ............ by the way, is still on conservation.

And thank God that this theory did not compete ......... although the United States at that time was the same.

....... Nuclear charges change everything, moreover, beyond recognition and only once.

Only you have a problem with media ..............
And the United States and the Russian Federation have an army, aviation and navy ............
....... Eh, and the world is wonderful, and there’s nothing in it .... (Poplar, Tu-95, Tu-160, Su-24, Su-34, BPC, UAV of various projects, PARK Typhoon and Borey projects)

[SAVA555.IVANOV]

2c4 There are many questions to this system, for example, the AN / SPY-1 radar does not see the target at its zenith. At the zenith and retribution will appear

[gor]

at least one of those who sorted out found. a hero who will sink an aircraft carrier from a slingshot))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[TRex]

Yes. The article is sensible, and the pictures are generally soulful, it smelled of homeland right ... Yes, yes - it smelledAnd not dying ...
The question is about cost: in 1961 the Enterprise cost 450 million hryvnias, and now a classmate costs 5 billion. Such inflation?
Fire-related question: does hydrogen peroxide fill fire hazardous compartments ...? Specialists - please explain.

[Santa Fe]

in 1961 "Enterprise" cost 450 million grins, and now a classmate - 5 billion. Such inflation?
Yes. 50 years have passed.

hydrogen peroxide fills fire hazardous compartments ...? Specialists - please explain.
I look you are the most attentive, no one except you noticed. Don't make a fool of yourself.
Carbon monoxide. one copy.

[Denis]

sorry professor, is that so?

Quote: professor

Effective article, correctly stated

This is the story of the comics, or as I would like Pindos
[hide] [/ hide] The trouble came from the air. Bismarck, Marat and Yamato

it's at least stupid to compare, "Marat" then continued to fight
I wonder if the author did not know about this or the bastard is over?

[Santa Fe]

it's at least stupid to compare, "Marat" then continued to fight
And all the battleships of Pearl Harbor, the stern of the 2x, generally returned to duty, like full ships
But after 1,5-2 of the year when they have already become useless

Battleship Marat after Rudel's bombs turned into a floating anti-aircraft battery with disabilities

[Denis]

Captain 3 of the rank L. E. Rodichev took command of the ship, under whose leadership the Marat combat capability was partially restored by the forces of the Kronstadt repair plant and surviving sailors, the remaining three gun turrets and anti-aircraft installations continued to be used until the end of the siege of Leningrad.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Battleship Marat after Rudel's bombs turned into a floating anti-aircraft battery with disabilities

three towers of the main caliber anti-aircraft?
misinterpreting history

[Santa Fe]

Once again I tell you: little is left of the former might of the "Marat".
The battleship completely lost its course, all the anti-mine artillery, two-thirds of anti-aircraft artillery, a superstructure with rangefinder posts, more than 300 people died, all the most difficult times (autumn 1941), the battleship could not help ... and all this was arranged by one small fragile and awkward airplane
Impressive? Or are you smarter than Admiral Yamamoto?

[Alexey Zan]

Oho! Pluralism of opinions in one head. However.

On the one hand, you are upholding the position: 1) anti-ship missiles of the tiap Granita will not cause significant harm to the aircraft carrier
On the other hand: 2) One small airplane disabled a much better protected battleship.

[Insurgent]

depending on where you hit everything you can tap just simply it will not get close

[Denis]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

two thirds of anti-aircraft artillery

where then the stories about floating anti-aircraft batteries?
logic is not visible

[gojesi]

Quote: professor

Effective article, correctly stated

Well, of course ... "smart"! There were idiots in the General Staff in the USSR! Put your tongue in place!
Does the author and the professor represent, at least approximately, what is an explosion of thermobaric munition weighing one kilogram indoors ??? Probably not, and so, a three-story cottage scatters and bricks in a radius of one hundred meters in the district ... And Granite carries 700 kilograms of brisant, with a speed of 1,5 sounds, with guaranteed penetration under the skin. Do you know what will happen when such a warhead explodes in a closed, albeit very large, room? And there will be the following, all the equipment in the hangar will be disabled, all the elevators and electronics will experience a huge temperature drop, as well as a pressure of several hundred atmospheres, everything will fail, and God will give and the deck will swell! Here, I assure you, even if all 4 sailors grab their fire extinguishers, they will not succeed! And then the second will fly in, and then the third, and then the fourth! And remember, there is also a nuclear power plant, and this is thousands of tons of superheated radioactive vapor ... This is simultaneously hundreds of corpses, and after a couple of hours, all corpses ... Such things! If AUG is attacked by Granites, then this is always a massive attack. Granites are intellectual, always low-flying, set on the side of the sun, and are distributed in advance to whom to beat, so that there is no dubbing ... And an aircraft carrier at this holiday of life always means 000 nishtyaks to guarantee its incapacitation and sinking ... If just a granite blank leaves a hole of 5/2 meters in the target, what will happen when 2 kilograms of a thermobar brisant fly in there? And it’s impossible to bring down Granite, even with our anti-aircraft defense and America’s air defense is still not approaching ... It’s with Granite, and supersonic Mosquitoes are already in service ... Onyxes have gone ...
Does the Author know how much it costs to service an Aircraft Carrier in a dock? at least represents? A million bucks a day! And with the Americans they are in the tropics and subtropics, and with us they can only be based on the northern and Pacific fleets, you know, and this is 2-3 times more expensive ... So not everything is in our ambitions and desires. Glory to the gods, that there are weapons with which we are guaranteed to beat them! Hooray!

[MURANO]

Quote: gojesi

always low-flying, set from the sun

Here is the pearl !!!!

[gojesi]

Quote: professor

A sensible article, correctly set out.

no! A weekly article, and what is literate is only at first, an amateurish look! You should not think that in the USSR fools were in the General Staff!
Does the author, with the professor, represent what a blast explosive kilogram of explosives indoors? If the thermobaric kilogram charge explodes in a three-story cottage, then the roof flies off and the walls fall apart. And if 700kg flies into the aircraft carrier’s hangar and creates a temperature drop and a pressure of thousands of atmospheres, then not only the planes, but also the elevator lifts will fail. even 4 thousand soldier fire extinguishers will not help! When attacking an aircraft carrier order with Granites, for the main one, for an aircraft carrier, 5 nishtyaks are allocated to ensure its guaranteed failure or sinking. In addition to the hangars themselves, the aircraft carrier also has explosive rooms where the warhead is guaranteed to reach, these are warehouses for aviation ammunition, tanks with aviation kerosene, torpedo warehouses, and finally a nuclear power plant! When a rocket enters the reactor, thousands of tons of superheated steam will burst out, hundreds of instant deaths, and by the evening everyone will die !!! And then the second, third, fourth ... and luck will be so fifth ... and all things! With a cheerful gurgle, following the Titanic!
Now about the price ... Does the author and the professor know how much the day of idle aircraft carriers in the harbor? according to the latest reports, one million dollars a day! And they stand, mind you, in the tropics and subtropics. We can only keep ours either in the northern fleet or in the Pacific, and this is cold, everything freezes, freezes, ice crusts on ships, a huge aircraft carrier in drizzle and condensate! rust just instantly. After wintering - full painting!
TILL! we IMHO, do not need aircraft carriers. Not so far we are rich to maintain and build them, the real prerequisites for the construction of the AUG we will have in about 10-15 years! Then

[Dart weyder]

in general, it’s interesting, but in my opinion it’s so easy to write off anti-ship missiles from accounts — it’s also great stupidity, 2,5 cm of Kevlar and 150 mm of armor is good, but several tons of explosives crashes at high speed into the side of a vessel that is crammed with people and with fuel, explosives and other things - that's when it can withstand a real pair of hits - then we can talk about the indestructibility of AUG and the hopelessness of RCC. You can’t model it on a computer, especially the actions of the crew after such a shock.

[Santa Fe]

but in my opinion it’s so easy to write off RCC from the accounts - also a lot of stupidity
Well you! RCC is a great thing, you just need to launch it from an airplane. From other media, they work poorly.

2,5 cm of Kevlar and 150 mm of armor is certainly good
It's not even about Kevlar, but about the size of the ship and its ability to fight for survivability

but several tons of explosives crashes into the side of a vessel with great speed, which is crammed with people and fuel, explosives and other things - that's when it can withstand a real couple of hits
It was already in 1944, then in 1967 and 1967. As a result - all returned to the fighting structure.

[Santa Fe]

then in 1967 and 1967
in 1967 and 1969

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

It was already in 1944, then in 1967 and 1967. As a result - all returned to the fighting structure.

DID NOT HAVE

[2c4]

Hello everyone.
I read the article carefully.
And all the comments.
And I will say the following - the author does not understand a damn thing.
I read books - and decided to read the article.
This is proved in just one phrase.
Everyone carefully reads the article again, and searches.
Will not find after 2 days, unsubscribe, what exactly did I mean.

[alex-defensor]

Correctly wrote ...

I will not sing praises to the courage of Japanese pilots, I’m interested in another point: these peculiar RCCs, controlled by the most reliable control system - man, could not do serious harm to large ships, despite the rather powerful charge on board. “Zero” in the version of a suicide bomber carried a 250-kg bomb and an outboard fuel tank under another wing. The reactive Oka carried up to 1,5 tons of ammonal. Very solid. Nevertheless, the fall on a deck full of aircraft did not lead to serious consequences. (the only exception is Bunker Hill, which has been severely burned out). This is about the survivability of an aircraft carrier.

Hello, come ... since when are rockets, for example "granite" "fall on deck"... don’t you, dear author, know that torpedoes cause the greatest damage to ships, since they attack the board below the waterline ??? so, missiles act in the same way, the more penetrating ability of a warhead is incomparably higher than that of a Japanese aircraft. Dangerous is not a surface explosion, but an internal one. That is why the effect was small. A comparison of hypersonic missiles, crammed with modern electronics that reacts and calculates the trajectory millions of times faster than a person, and even at a greater distancewith rotorcraft controlled by kamikaze ... well, actually ...

Again, one must understand that even the F117 flight is controlled by computers, since the pilot is unable to cope with the "flying iron" and striving to "tip over" and become the grave of the pilot, it is controlled by electronics precisely because in many ways it has already bypassed a person ... in multitasking, but in solving narrow problems for sure.

I believe you, dear author - historian, that is humanist

[alex-defensor]

At the expense of identifying the author as a humanist historian, he hurried, wrote a comment before reading the article, but still ... I consider everything written except the last sentence significant.

At the expense of the aircraft carrier, I agree, but for this you need to decide to become a sea power ... this is difficult, for example, the United States, which has an awesome natural "moat" of two oceans, is much more suitable for the role of a sea leader, here we have a geographically not very favorable position ...

[Dart weyder]

And what shot at them !? the same exoset — it sent the frigate to the bottom with ease, and the Egyptian Israeli frigate with the P-15 missile, I’m silent that, compared to granite, these missiles are just scanty, and I think a group of 24 missiles would be able to pull the aircraft carrier warrant to a state of frustration , so there is a long argument!

[Santa Fe]

And what shot at them !?
The kamikaze jet "Oka" carried up to 1,5 tons of ammonal. Horizontal flight speed - 600-700 km / h. The dive speed is close to sound. The result is most often a miss (although it was controlled by a person), in rare cases it caused severe fires, but never led to the death of aircraft carriers.

"Zero" in the version of a suicide bomber: 250kg bomb under one wing, PTB under the other wing (more abruptly than warhead anti-ship missiles "Mosquito"). The speed at the moment of impact is 500-600 km / h. The result is most often a miss, in rare cases it caused severe fires. Sometimes it pierced the flight deck and exploded in the interior. To no avail.

1967 year. Fire on the aircraft carrier Forrestal. One and a half hundred killed. 21 aircraft burned down. 9 aerial bombs detonated (eight of them 1000 pounds), NUR and BC cannons, tons of fuel were splashed onto the deck - i.e. the total charge is many times higher than the warhead of the Granit anti-ship missile. The result - the ship afloat, kept the speed and ability to send planes (could not receive - the feed burned out nafig).

and the Egyptians the Israeli frigate missile P-15,
Eilat is a former British Z-type destroyer, built in 1944. Displacement - 1200 tons (less than a modern corvette)
By 1967, a rusty galosh, but began to sink only after the third hit of the P-3 "Termit" (warhead-15 kg)

[MURANO]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

1967 year. Fire on the aircraft carrier Forrestal. One and a half hundred killed. 21 aircraft burned down. 9 aerial bombs detonated (eight of them 1000 pounds), NUR and BC cannons, tons of fuel were splashed onto the deck - i.e. the total charge is many times higher than the warhead of the Granit anti-ship missile. The result - the ship afloat, kept the speed and ability to send planes (could not receive - the feed burned out nafig).

Well, this is not entirely correct. The explosions occurred on the deck, without penetrating inside. Accordingly, the energy went nowhere. Only an OUTDOOR fire.
And this is somewhat different than the explosion of warhead anti-ship missiles in the hull.

[Santa Fe]

And this is somewhat different than the explosion of warhead anti-ship missiles in the hull
During World War II, bombs often exploded in the below-deck hangar. This led to a maximum loss of part of the wing.

As for Forrestal, you are not entirely up to date. Explosions pierced the flight deck and burning fuel poured down. Such a huge number of victims, compared to the fire on the Enterprise - a consequence of the fire inside the ship, many suffocated. The hangar was on fire, the gallery deck of 6 more lower decks.

[J_silver]

As far as I remember, after a bomb hit and breaking through the deck, everything inside burned out to hell, and the aircraft carrier sought escort ships ....

[Santa Fe]

And mine Forrestal was written off in 1993

[J_silver]

I'm not talking about Forrestal at all ...

[Santa Fe]

Then who do you mean?

[J_silver]

I'm talking about the sunken aircraft carriers of the 2nd World ...
Announce the whole list, or what? Too lazy to get confused in these Akagi, Kagi, Hiru, Soryu and others ...

[Dart weyder]

good - you've read a lot, you will argue for a long time, just tell me, the first RPGs, like the same Faust, outlived themselves pretty quickly, and to the point of them, but more or less modern ones still work, and are able to disable a modern tank and with guided weapons, and it is not necessary to talk about the first anti-ship missiles as a perfect weapon, and it is quite difficult to compare, but more advanced models are another matter, and the likely enemy would not fuss as much as possible trying to protect the AUG from such threats , if only it was possible to destroy "primitive" nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles on board the USSR and other carriers of this weapon without problems and the likelihood of losing the entire order.

[counterpropaganda]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

but began to sink only after the 3rd hit of the P-15 "Termit" (BCH-500 kg)

Dear, these tales will tell mom and dad. "Eilat" went off the bottom after the first hit, the rest of the launches on the wreckage, which were mistaken for the approaching Israeli ships.

[2c4]

Hello everyone.
I read the article carefully.
And all the comments.
And I will say the following - the author does not understand a damn thing.
I read books - and decided to read the article.
This is proved in just one phrase.
Everyone carefully reads the article again, and searches.
Will not find after 2 days, unsubscribe, what exactly did I mean.

[alex-defensor]

Two weeks later, they will already forget about this article, write now, and my comment above - look.

[alex-defensor]

SWEET_SIXTEEN??? Are you 16 years old? judging by the nickname ...
You reason the same way ... only one question ... RCC is a rocket, right? Modern fighter-bomber also uses rockets, right? So what about the inefficiency of missiles ??? In modern conditions of development of missile defense / air defense, a rare aircraft will reach the distance of striking a missile cruiser, for example, Project 1144 Orlan.

Read my comment below ...

[Santa Fe]

Modern fighter-bomber also uses rockets, right?
Right.

So what about the inefficiency of missiles ???
I didn’t say that. You invented it yourself.
The problem was always with carriers: a ship or a nuclear submarine is too vulnerable.

In modern conditions of development of missile defense / air defense, a rare aircraft will reach the distance of striking a missile cruiser, for example, the 1144 Orlan project
It is not true. For example: the detection range of low-flying targets for the "Fort" air defense system is no more than 25 km.
Several groups of bombers attacking from all directions, under cover of a flurry of interference, will release so many "Harpoons" and "Harms" that any BIUS will melt, the ship will not have time to hit all targets

[Civil]

That's it, why the author did not indicate about PCR with special. warhead ah?

[Santa Fe]

1. Because at the moment they are not in service with the Navy

2. Nuclear warhead seriously limits the flexibility of using weapons. AUG, using conventional ammunition, is capable of blocking and unblocking naval communications, air defense and anti-aircraft defense in the combat conflict zone, special and transport operations, striking at any land and sea targets ...
A nuclear warhead allows you to arrange only a vigorous war))

3. And, perhaps, the main thing. Carriers of missiles with special warheads cannot reach the launch distance - they will be intercepted earlier

[Tatars]

I don’t think that AUG air defense can bring down supersonic anti-ship missiles.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

supersonic and low-flying anti-ship missiles (including Mosquito, Granite, Volcano) AUG could not bring down until about the beginning of the 2000's, even in principle. Now, with the advent of ESSM rockets, they seem to have learned, although this is not a fact.

[Santa Fe]

The launch range of low-flying supersonic anti-ship missiles is -150 km.
No one will let the media so close to the group.

Only the nuclear submarine of pr. 949A has a chance - to fire 1 volley with 8 Granites. The submarine will hardly have time to release the entire BC

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The launch range of low-flying supersonic anti-ship missiles is -150 km.

You are mistaken, Granites with Volcanoes also fly low. Strictly speaking, the Americans created their AEGIS / IJIS when our anti-ship missiles flew no lower than 100 m above the sea surface. CM-2 will not take anything below this level. And Sparrow and the phalanxes could not work effectively on supersonic targets.

[Santa Fe]

You are mistaken, Granites with Volcanoes also fly low
Nobody will let the media so close to the AUG

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Granite - from 550 to 625 km (there was such a modernization) basalts and Volcanoes - 500 then 700 then - 1000 km.
So the 949s could well pass, and the 1164s too.
Of course, it’s much better to have an aircraft carrier than not to have one. But the main plus of the aircraft carrier is not its invincible invulnerability, but the ability to carry out long-range reconnaissance by AWACS and electronic warfare aircraft.

[Jaguar]

At low altitude, they fly at a much shorter distance

[Santa Fe]

The range of 600 km for the "Granit" anti-ship missile system is provided only with a paraballistic trajectory with a summit of 15-20 km. In this mode, the RCC is too visible and vulnerable.

The flight range on the PMV at a speed of 1,5M is limited to 150 ... 200 km

[MURANO]

Not "paraballistic" at all. Normal high altitude flight using wing lift.

[Santa Fe]

Nothing like MURANO, the rocket first rises hollow, then hollow dives towards the target, developing the very same declared 2,5M
Pure paraballistic trajectory. Steam - because wing lift is partially used

[MURANO]

This is your guess. And I know the work of BASU every second.

[Santa Fe]

Your option, what happens to RCC after the start, how quickly it gains marching height. How down to the goal?

[MURANO]

The rocket is gaining height, let’s say in stages. There is an acceleration section.
On a marching section (14 km), it flies like an ordinary jet plane. Well, and dives ...
Of course, I won’t write more. The complex is still in service.
And where is the ballistics?

[urzul]

YES you still do not forget about X-101, the declared characteristics are amazing

[Santa Fe]

I've heard of the "top" of the flight path. From this I concluded about a paraballistic trajectory. Smoothly descending, the anti-ship missile system tries all the time to stay behind the radio horizon of the "potential enemy"
Or is this mode never applied?

[MURANO]

For this, the USSR organized "tracking with weapons" in peacetime.

[smirnov]

It sounds like a spell))) But what about the night, the storm and the attack from different points?

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Only the nuclear submarine of pr. 949A has a chance - to fire 1 volley with 8 Granites. The submarine will hardly have time to release the entire BC

And what is stopping her?

[Santa Fe]

Too many birds are flying in the air. After the first volley, there is a high probability of getting change without having time to send the next 8 anti-ship missiles to the target

[Kars]

A lot of birds? And how long is the reaction to an unknown point in 400 km from the order?

[Santa Fe]

Where is 400 from? Maximum 150-200

[Kars]

Where does 150-200 come from? Why not 20 -30?

[Urcom]

Well, what kind of stupidity you dear write here? where are 150-200 km from?
the launch range of the Pkr granite is about 600 km, the probability of the aircraft carrier being at the launch point with this radius of air defense tends to zero, at the final stage of the flight, the supersonic regime and vigorous maneuvers of the Pkr, plus electronic countermeasures.
And to compare the power of modern, heavy penetrating missiles with an airplane of WWII times is too neglected, can you know any other techniques for determining the power and effectiveness of ammunition? The one that you voiced here (the method of visual comparison of an airplane babe and a PKK) I recognize as insolvent, poorly reasoned, and not taking into account a lot of different factors.

[ytqnhfk]

Explain why 150 km? where did you get that granite is launched from such a distance !!!!!!!!!

[Santa Fe]

For the gifted

The range of 600 km for the "Granit" anti-ship missile system is provided only with a paraballistic trajectory with a summit of 15-20 km. In this mode, anti-ship missiles are too vulnerable and noticeable. She has no chance.

The flight range on the PMV at a speed of 1,5M is limited to 150 ... 200 km

[ytqnhfk]

Winged anti-ship missile P-700 "GRANITE"






The Granit universal missile system with the long-range anti-ship cruise missile P-700 of an underwater surface launch is designed to destroy NATO carrier groups.

The parent organization is an NGO of mechanical engineering. The chief designer is Vladimir Chelomey (since 1984 - Herbert Efremov).

Development was started in 1969.

The complex was presented for state tests in 1979. The tests were carried out on shore stands and lead ships: the submarine and the cruiser "Kirov". The tests were successfully completed in August 1983, and by Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of March 12, 1983, the Granit complex was adopted by the Navy.

In the process of creating the Granit complex, for the first time, all the main allied branches of branched cooperation worked out a lot of (up to one or two dozen) design options for a cruise missile, an onboard control system, and a submarine. Then these options were evaluated according to combat effectiveness, cost and terms of creation, feasibility, and based on the analysis, requirements for a cruise missile and other elements of the weapon system were formulated. As a result, the created complex for the first time acquired the opportunity to solve any task of naval combat with an outfit of fire weapons of one carrier.

Since the creation of the first anti-ship missiles capable of hitting surface ships at very long ranges, the question arose of providing anti-ship missiles with targeting data. On a global scale, this problem could be solved only with the help of spacecraft. The theoretical foundations of constructing such a space system, the parameters of their orbits, the relative position of satellites in orbits were developed directly with the participation of Academician M.V. Keldysh. The system consisted of several satellites of radar and radio reconnaissance, from which data on detected targets could be directly transmitted to the CD carrier or to ground posts.

In the west, the missile received the designation SS-N-19 "Shipwreck".

The composition of the P-700 "Granite"

The on-board autonomous selective RCC control system is built on the basis of a powerful three-processor computer using several information channels, which allows you to successfully understand a difficult jamming environment and identify true targets against any background of interference. The creation of this system was carried out by a team of scientists and designers of the Central Research Institute "Granit" under the leadership of its general director, Hero of Socialist Labor, Lenin Prize laureate V.V. Pavlov.

The 3M-45 (P-700) missile has several flexible adaptive trajectories depending on the operational and tactical situation in the sea and air space of the operation area. The maximum flight speed corresponds to M = 2,5 at high altitude and M = 1,5 at low altitude. The complex provides volley fire with all ammunition with a rational spatial arrangement of missiles and allows you to act against a single ship on the principle of "one missile, one ship" or "flock" against the warrant of ships.

In the mode of fluent fire, one missile acting as a “gunner” flies along a high path to maximize the target’s capture area, while other missiles fly along a low path. In flight, missiles exchange information about targets. If the “gunner” missile is intercepted, then one of the other missiles automatically assumes its functions.

The missiles themselves distribute and classify according to the importance of the target, choose the tactics of attack and the plan for its implementation. To eliminate errors when choosing a maneuver and hitting a given target, electronic data on modern ship classes are stored in the on-board computer (BCM). In addition, the BTsVM also has tactical information, for example, about the type of ship warrants, which allows the rocket to determine who is in front of it - an convoy, aircraft carrier or landing group, and attack the main targets in its composition.

The digital computer contains data on counteracting the enemy’s electronic warfare, capable of staging missiles to lead missiles from the target, tactical techniques for evading air defense weapons from fire. After the launch, the rockets themselves decide which one will attack which target and which maneuvers for this need to be carried out in accordance with the mathematical algorithms laid down in the behavior program. The missile also has means of counteraction to the anti-missiles attacking it. By destroying the main target in the ship’s group, the remaining missiles attack the other ships of the warrant, eliminating the possibility of two missiles hitting the same target.

The missile has a marching turbojet engine KR-93 (developed in the design bureau of the Ufa engine-building software under the guidance of chief designer Sergei Gavrilov) and a ring solid-fuel accelerator in the rear part, which starts working under water. A variant of the rocket with an experimental 4D 04 supersonic ramjet engine developed in OKB-670 under the leadership of Mikhail Bondaryuk allowed the rocket to reach speeds of up to 4M.

According to the experience of combat and operational training of the Navy, it is almost impossible to bring down such a missile. Even if you hit the Granite with a missile defense, the rocket, due to its enormous mass and speed, can maintain its initial flight speed and, as a result, fly to the target.

[MURANO]

Quote: ytqnhfk

In the mode of fluent fire, one missile acting as a “gunner” flies along a high path to maximize the target’s capture area, while other missiles fly along a low path. In flight, missiles exchange information about targets. If the “gunner” missile is intercepted, then one of the other missiles automatically assumes its functions.

The missiles themselves distribute and classify according to the importance of the target, choose the tactics of attack and the plan for its implementation. To eliminate errors when choosing a maneuver and hitting a given target, electronic data on modern ship classes are stored in the on-board computer (BCM). In addition, the BTsVM also has tactical information, for example, about the type of ship warrants, which allows the rocket to determine who is in front of it - an convoy, aircraft carrier or landing group, and attack the main targets in its composition.

Replicated fairy tale. Starting with "P-700". Correct-P-50

[Santa Fe]

The most interesting thing, MURANO, is that the Navy has never practiced the salvo launch of the P-700 Granit. To perfect such complex algorithms, constant testing and debugging is required.
Therefore, all statements about "rocket-leader" and "target selection" are lies from advertising brochures. Nobody knows how they will fly in a volley. Most likely - at random.

[MURANO]

They fired a salvo. Not only a 24-rocket.
There is simply no leader rocket. There is a selection. Only it all works wrong.

[Santa Fe]

2x rocket salvo worked out. But advertising brochures talk about "rocket packs"

[MURANO]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

But advertising brochures talk about "rocket flocks"

And rightly they say. And to evaluate the performance of the system, a full salvo is not necessary.

[2c4]

Hello everyone.
I read the article carefully.
And all the comments.
And I will say the following - the author does not understand a damn thing.
I read books - and decided to read the article.
This is proved in just one phrase.
Everyone carefully reads the article again, and searches.
Do not find after 2 days, unsubscribe, what exactly I had in mind.

[smirnov]

You’re such a saddened guy, you know everything about our Navy, but you praise the praises of the Pendossky AHG, which until time allows you to feel safe in Israel .. But it’s not always so, I think we’ll see how invulnerable they are, what are you trying to convince us of.

[Civil]

he is here at work, do not forget)

[2c4]

Hello everyone.
I read the article carefully.
And all the comments.
And I will say the following - the author does not understand a damn thing.
I read books - and decided to read the article.
This is proved in just one phrase.
Everyone carefully reads the article again, and searches.
Will not find after 2 days, unsubscribe, what exactly did I mean.

[Tatars]

2c4,

To date, carrier-based multipurpose (shock) groups of the US Navy do not pose a threat to Russia.

?

[Konstantm]

Not sad conclusions. But it makes me sad.

[J_silver]

A complete distortion of the facts!
Is Bismarck an easy target? In war, sometimes everything is decided by "His Majesty's chance", this is generally a chain of accidents! ONE torpedo, accidentally hitting the most vulnerable spot, decided everything!
And the death of the Japanese aircraft carriers as a result of a CASUAL coincidence of the arrival of lost American aircraft? Moreover, this coincided with the RANDOM moment of reloading aircraft by the Japanese on the flight decks of ammunition?
And how many planes simultaneously flew into Yamato in pieces?
Before writing boiling water with enthusiasm for aircraft carriers, it would be nice to recall that the number of aircraft on board an aircraft carrier exceeds the number of aircraft in many not the smallest countries, so two or three aircraft carriers are guaranteed to exceed the capabilities of most countries in the world ...
In real conditions, only an asymmetric answer can be opposed, and it is with such answers that there is so much tension ...

[Santa Fe]

ONE torpedo, RANDOMLY landed in the most vulnerable place, decided everything
Let's admit. Another torpedo "accidentally" hit the "Polu". Rockets from an Argentine plane "accidentally" hit Sheffield and Coventry. No, Silver, this is no accident. This is a pattern.

And how many planes simultaneously flew into Yamato in pieces?
EMNIP 250-300. Another thing is more interesting - the Japanese lost the Yamato and 5 escort ships, 3000 people. Americans -10 planes.
Soon after “Yamato” “Musashi” went to the bottom according to the same scenario.

In real conditions, only an asymmetric answer can be contrasted.
Well, please, hold the flag in your hands. The Soviet Union 50 years searched and found nothing

[J_silver]

At one time, it struck me that one rocket was enough for Sheffield - it became clear that the container was disposable ...
The cadres of burning British aircraft carriers in the same conflict were not forgotten ...
Yes, accidents - and hit the Bismarck torpedo elsewhere? How many more would he buy while retaining his mobility? So Hood "accidentally" got it ...
And 250-300 aircraft in one raid - this is not enough? It is clear that it will be impossible to fend off such a number ...

[Santa Fe]

At one time, it struck me that one rocket was enough for Sheffield - it became clear that the vessel was disposable.
So Silver, it hasn't exploded yet. The superstructure caught fire from the Exocet engine running)))

The cadres of burning British aircraft carriers in the same conflict were not forgotten ...
I do not remember such
Secondly, the British did not have full-fledged aircraft carriers, the Invincible did not have AWACS aircraft

Yes, accidents - but did a torpedo go to another place if you hit Bismarck?
I would have to fly again.

And 250-300 airplanes in one raid - this is not enough?
Such a specific use of weapons. The Japanese had a huge battleship and 8 escort ships, the battleship had hundreds of anti-aircraft guns. Lost with a crushing score.

[J_silver]

It’s strange that you don’t remember - there were a lot of photographs at one time ...
Yes, the aircraft carriers were "unfinished", and the planes were not very strong - but it seems that everyone got there, although only the Atlantic Conveyor went to the bottom ...
And in my opinion 250-300 planes are VERY much! And no anti-aircraft guns will help here if there is no comparable air cover ...

[Santa Fe]

like everyone got there, although only Atlantic Conveyor went to the bottom ...
6 pieces sunk: destroyers, corvettes, landing ships, helicopter carrier

And no anti-aircraft guns will help here if there is no comparable air cover ...
That's it.

[J_silver]

It was about aircraft-carrying ships - If memory serves, rockets fell into both aircraft carriers, caused quite significant damage, and the container ship went to the bottom with ends ...

[gojesi]

look at the range of these aircraft, with vertical take-off and landing, they can’t fly off an aircraft carrier more than 300 km away ... What protection is there! And then 250-300 aircraft, who told you this? The largest is the waves of 35-50 aircraft with an interval of half an hour, just recharge ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Such a specific use of weapons. The Japanese had a huge battleship and 8 escort ships, the battleship had hundreds of anti-aircraft guns. Lost with a crushing score.

Uh-huh. and now we translate into a balance of forces - "Essexes" took up to a hundred aircraft according to their passport, actually less. This means that the Essex air group had no more than 60 strike aircraft (torpedo bombers and bombers) - even less so.
in other words - ONE battleship of the five-sixth aircraft carrier aircraft group

[Santa Fe]

Wet 58 group.
They overwhelmed the Japanese group with almost no loss on their part

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Yeah. And tell the composition of 58 OS ?!
The 58 American operational compound in the middle of 1944 included 7 Essex aircraft carriers, 8 light aircraft carriers, 7 fast battleships, 13 cruisers and 58 destroyers. To the described events - even more

[urzul]

11 aircraft carriers and 386 aircraft against one battleship, one light cruiser and 8 destroyers !!!
The outcome of the battle was obvious to everyone, no one set them the goal of sinking 11 aircraft carriers !!!
And this, as can be seen from the article, almost half of the US carrier group

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Yes, accidents - but did a torpedo go to another place if you hit Bismarck?
I would have to fly again.

Is it chtoli in the harbor of Brest to drown Bismarck with Salffish against the Mesherschmites? It's not Italians for you

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

And 250-300 airplanes in one raid - this is not enough?
Such a specific use of weapons. The Japanese had a huge battleship and 8 escort ships, the battleship had hundreds of anti-aircraft guns. Lost with a crushing score.

And let's remember all the American armada in 1945 - Yamato was sent for slaughter anyway.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Soon after “Yamato” “Musashi” went to the bottom according to the same scenario.

Pancake. Learn the story, your mother !!! Musashi died before Yamato

[Santa Fe]

Andrey, keep yourself in control
I do not use Wikipedia

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Well, use any decent literature - well, at least read a Koffman monograph or something. Yamato died during the battle of Okinawa. And Musashi - during Ce1. - i.e. battles at Leyte Gulf

[Ascetic]

During the Cold War, the problem of countering the ACG of a potential enemy was very acute for the leadership of the USSR Armed Forces. As you know, the Soviet Union never had a powerful aircraft carrier fleet. For him, this toy was too expensive. Therefore, the Soviet methods of combating AUGs were much less expensive than the use of aircraft carriers, but at the same time quite effective. Of course, they can only be talked about their effectiveness, based on the calculations of Soviet military theorists, because today there is no proven methodology for the destruction of modern AUG. The weapon developed in the Soviet Union for these purposes in the 70 - 80-s, is in the service of the Armed Forces of Russia to this day. The methods of its application have not changed.
In the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the fight against the AUG (AUS) is assigned to attack groups of submarines and surface cruisers with anti-ship missiles, naval missile-carrying aircraft and long-range air forces. For fire destruction AUG specified forces are used in conjunction.
To date, anti-ship missile systems P-700 Granite and P-1000 Volcano can be considered effective enough to combat AUG weapons.

The missile cruisers of the 1164 Atlant project - Moscow, Varyag, and Marshal Ustinov, after modernizing their armaments, carry the Vulcan complexes on the 16 (previously they carried the same anti-ship missile system Basalt, which are now outdated).

10 Project 949A Antey nuclear-powered submarine cruisers each carry 24 Granit anti-ship missiles. Two Project 1144 heavy nuclear missile cruisers - "Peter the Great" and "Admiral Nakhimov" each carry 20 missiles of the same class, and the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" - 12 anti-ship missiles.

Long-range aircraft, capable of solving the tasks of defeating the AUG, are the Tu-22m long-range bombers. These aircraft can carry from 1 to 3 X-22MA air-to-surface missiles with a range of destruction of naval targets up to 400-550 km.
The most advanced Russian anti-ship missiles today is Vulkan. Currently, there are no analogues to this rocket in the world. Its flight range is 700 km. This is a hundred kilometers longer than the range of anti-ship modifications "Tomahawk", almost three times the flight range of the main American ASM "Harpoon", and approximately corresponds to the radius of action of carrier-based fighter F / A-18. The marching speed of the "Volcano" is 660 meters per second, in the last section of the trajectory - a kilometer per second, which is three times the speed of the "Harpoon" and "Tomahawk" and twice the maximum speed of the F / A-18 fighter. "Volcanoes" carry a warhead (warhead) containing 500 kilograms of powerful explosives, the TNT equivalent of which, according to various sources, ranges from 1000 to 1500 kilograms. The power of the Vulcan warhead significantly exceeds the 454-kilogram TNT warhead of Tomahawka and the 227-kilogram warhead of Harpoon. The power of the "Volcano" allows you to destroy any destroyer or cruiser with one hit. In addition, missiles of this type can be equipped with nuclear warheads, which do not require a direct hit to destroy a ship. The enemy’s air defense breakthrough for Vulkan facilitates the reservation of the warhead and important components, which reduces the likelihood of the destruction of anti-ship missiles by close detonation of an anti-aircraft missile and low altitude. RCC "Volcano" - a highly intelligent weapon that can carry out "collective" actions, counteract enemy air defense and independently choose the most important target. In the computer memory of missiles, there are so-called “portraits” of radar for all ships, and information about all possible versions of orders is also included. Missiles attack along the most rational trajectory, having built themselves as a warrant and exchanging information with each other. As already mentioned, in the salvo of one project 949A submarine there are 24 missiles, each of which also has its own false targets for breaking through the missile defense. 23 missiles go low above the water, one rises higher, periodically turning on the radar to aim at the target. It determines the number of targets and distributes them between other missiles. In the case of the destruction of the "leader", his place is taken by the next rocket. The largest target, that is, an aircraft carrier, in the warrant of ships is automatically determined by missiles. After a breakthrough, missiles distribute targets according to their importance in order to ultimately ensure the defeat of an aircraft carrier. First, cover ships standing in the way of the missiles are destroyed, and then a strike is struck on the aircraft carrier.

One rocket, when blown up in the vicinity of the side of the ship, makes a hole with an area of ​​about 30-45 sq. M and a depth of 25 m. To bring an aircraft carrier out of action, it is necessary to hit 8-10 anti-ship missile systems "Granite" with conventional equipment. When breaking through missiles to an aircraft carrier, up to half of the security ships must also be destroyed. Taking into account the anti-aircraft defense, for guaranteed destruction of the AOG, it is necessary to use 70-100 anti-ship missiles from all types of carriers in one stroke.

Striking such a power requires a well-coordinated operation of grouping ships in combination with the actions of the Air Force.
In addition to the air defense and missile defense forces themselves, the AUG has such a powerful combat tool as electronic warfare systems. During the development of methods for the destruction of AUGs by Soviet pilots, it was noticed that when approaching U.S. aircraft carrier formations due to the influence of interference caused by electronic warfare equipment, it is practically impossible to direct missiles at targets. Therefore, an attack plan was developed, in which 8 X-22 missiles with nuclear warheads were first launched over areas. It was assumed that after this the power of the electronic warfare will significantly decrease, and it will be possible to launch a second wave of missiles for specific purposes.
As for the chances of defeating the AUG with URA cruisers of the Glory type (proudly referred to as “killer aircraft carriers”), even with the Vulkan anti-ship missile, they are small. Undoubtedly, the firepower of the Slava-type cruisers is extremely high, but when approaching the line of missile launch, this ship will inevitably be detected by means of AWG and attacked by carrier-based aircraft. Despite the rather serious air defense system of these cruisers, he could not resist the AUG air wing. Seriously talking about the AUG attack by surface URO ships is possible only if they are covered by a powerful aviation group. In the open sea, such a cover can be provided only by one ship in the Russian fleet - Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR. In principle, a squadron consisting of a TAVKR and a cruiser of the Glory type, better than two (plus several destroyers of the URA), can pose a rather serious threat to the AUG. However, all three Slava cruisers are dispersed across different fleets of the Russian Navy, and in the event of hostilities, only one of them, Marshal Ustinov, can be covered by aviation.
However, a certain probability of the defeat of American aircraft carriers, apparently, exists - primarily in the coastal zone. In practice, everything can depend on many circumstances, and it is hardly possible to predict the course of hostilities in advance.
An adversary with such a powerful means of aggression as aircraft carriers is always stronger. In order to stop him, you will need such things as EXPLOSION and SELF-DONATION. The breakthrough of the AUG defense (AUS) is likely to be fraught with heavy losses, if not with the complete extermination of the attackers. To incapacitate, let alone destroy such a military machine, it will require supercompetent strategists, and also a team of sailors and pilots of the highest courage and professionalism. A country that does not have such human potential is unlikely to be helped by any weapon ...

[Zhylan]

In the main, I agree with you. But I cannot imagine a major military conflict between Russia and the United States without the use of nuclear weapons. also you forget about the underwater component. Submarines carry up to 24 cruise missiles. There are also torpedo missiles that do not allow you to determine the location of the underwater missile carrier at the place where the rocket leaves the water. God forbid if such a battle takes place, the battle will take place between squadrons and not individual ships. I think that our squadron will have that with the use of nuclear weapons that with the use of conventional weapons destroyed. But the aircraft carrier obviously will not be able to leave alive after this battle, as long as the aircraft destroy our surface squadron, the submarines will do their job. Regarding the electronic warfare - I don’t know how far the technology has gone, but to close the ship with a displacement of 75000 tons with electronic warfare equipment? I don’t even know how they will succeed.

[Dart weyder]

Therefore, an attack plan was developed in which at first 8 X-22 missiles with nuclear warheads were launched across the areas - and what after such "probing" will work on vessels from AUG! ??? - unless there are latrines, and then - because there is water by gravity! I see that even if you forget many of the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion, it will be enough to use one electro-magnetic impulse to make an ACG — a pile of metal! moreover, that all radars and other systems, the wing electronics, are covered with a copper basin, then there’s no sense in transferring the missiles to them

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Soon after “Yamato” “Musashi” went to the bottom according to the same scenario.

Uncle Musashi drowned before Yamato

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Rockets from an Argentine plane "accidentally" hit Sheffield and Coventry.

It wasn’t accidentally destroyed but destroyed because of the design - without an armor and with an aluminum superstructure --- The exosets didn’t even explode but the fuel spill set off a fire and the aluminum superstructures burned with a blue flame

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Well, please, hold the flag in your hands. The Soviet Union 50 years searched and found nothing

The leadership of the USSR did not understand that in their case it was not necessary to search for anything --- there was enough nuclear threat, then any conflict would still turn into a nuclear one - even start a battle only our aircraft carrier and the American

[Skiff]

Nimitz-class nuclear carrier costs $ 5 billion. A fantastic amount for any of us. But ... the cost of a promising Russian frigate, Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov, is $ 0,5 billion. The frigate's displacement is 4500 tons. Those. instead of an aircraft carrier, you can build only 10 frigates (mind you, frigates, not even destroyers!), with a total displacement of 45 tons. One more interesting conclusion can be drawn from this - the cost of building a ton of aircraft carrier is much less than any cruiser, submarine or frigate.
And the cost of airplanes is not taken into account, because an aircraft carrier without an airplane is a coffin, then how many resources an air support group eats .... like one-sided.
In general, Satya is generally interesting, I learned a lot, thank the author.

[Kars]

If it’s good to contract the contractors, then the cost of the frigate will drop significantly, since it includes not only a boat, but also several summer residences, Mercedes cars and this is only for military acceptance officials.

[Forward]

Sensibly! I am also for the aircraft carrier fleet

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Osspada :)))) The author of the article would not hurt at least a little bit to understand the questions he writes about :))) It would not be a shame for the years spent aimlessly.
In principle, one author is right - the fleet of the USSR / Russian Federation needed full-fledged aircraft carriers. But everything else ...

Standard composition of the wing:
- two squadrons of the Navy: 20-25 deck multipurpose fighter A / 18 “Hornet”
- One Marine Corps Squadron: 10-12 F / A-18 “Hornet” multipurpose fighter aircraft"
That's what it means - two squadrons of the Navy - 20-25 aircraft? In the US, what, there is no single state squadron? In fact, the standard wing includes the 48 Hornet. This number came from deep antiquity when there were no station wagons and aircraft carriers carried the X-NUMX F-24 and 14 fighter planes.
Well, marine aircraft generally have nothing to do on aircraft carriers, although sometimes they happen there.
The stories about spans over the decks of aircraft carriers of the Russian Tu-95 and Su-24 have no practical value - the planes flew in PEACE time. Nobody was going to knock them down, and there is no other way to counteract AUG in peacetime.
There is. This is a "box" built by fighters from an aircraft carrier. The game is like this - they managed to spot our planes, managed to lift their own aircraft into the air and intercept ours - the win for the states. We didn't have time ... that means we were late :))) And, despite the very difficult conditions (it is not easy for our aircraft to break through to the range of using weapons), they still break through.
On the whole, the conclusion is as follows: the AUG’s anti-submarine defense is quite reliable — in the 60 years of continuous tracking of the AUG by Russian submarines, only a few cases of successful interception were recorded.
Yeah :))) Apparently in the remaining 100050000 cases, the successful interception of the AUG by our submarines was never recorded by the Americans.
In fact, there were plenty of cases, and the American PLO ... is strong, of course, but passable. Recall the tests of their underwater antenna (already in 2 km long) that was needed for fixing our submarines - it was really discovered by our submarine during the tests ... when it wound the indicated antenna on a screw and had to float. The Americans almost went crazy - they were already going to ram our NPS that had lost its course, so as not to give out a fragment of a super-secret antenna - then our second NPS (!!!) with open torpedo caps surfaced ...
Or the situation when our submarine surfaced and asked for help - just on board the submarine was a successful operation of a crew member, but he needed inpatient treatment, which could not be on the submarine ... The English helicopter took ours and drove us to the US - but was wild scandal, came to Congress. And all because our submarine surfaced in the very center of anti-submarine exercises (!), But until she gave a signal to the SOS did not know about it :)))
You can still remember how the entire 6th fleet was chasing our Kursk - did not catch up :)))
It is useless to use torpedo weapons against these monsters (for example, in a battle near Santa Cruz, 12 torpedoes got into a small USS Hornet, but kept afloat until it was finished by Japanese destroyers. Nimitz is more than a Hornet in 5 times - draw a conclusion yourself).
It's just awful. The Hornet was hit by only 3 Japanese torpedoes and several bombs, as a result of which the aircraft carrier was completely out of order and the crew abandoned the ship. The remaining 9 torpedoes were driven into the abandoned ship by the Americans themselves. they urgently needed to leave the area, but they wanted to be convinced of the death of the ship.
The Japanese aircraft carrier "Shinano" was killed by 4 torpedoes (although it weighed about 70 thousand tons, against 97-102 thousand tons of "Nimitsa")
And finally, a word to American Admiral Otto Trost. When in the USSR heavy torpedoes were developed, guided by a wake, they asked him - how is the US Navy going to save aircraft carriers from these torpedoes? The answer was simple - "we will put a cruiser in the wake of each aircraft carrier" ... And you say - an American PLO :)))
Usually, denying the need for aircraft carriers, Soviet theorists are frightened by the “exorbitant cost” of aircraft carrying ships. Now I will dispel this myth before your eyes.
Dispelling myths about the high cost of aircraft carriers is a must. Only now it is not necessary to compose others instead of some myths :))) If you take the cost of our frigate "Gorshkov" - then compare the cost of MODERN aircraft carriers. The cost of building Gerald Ford is to strive for $ 9,5 billion, and if we also count the development costs, it turns out to be $ 16 billion. Now only the hull of an aircraft carrier costs $ 4,5-5 billion. At the same time, even in the amount of 9,5 billion, the cost of the air wing was not taken into account. So just count, the promising air wing is supposed to equip the F-35S at least 112 million apiece - in total, it turns out that 48 aircraft of the standard air group will cost another 5,4 billion dollars ...

14 January 1969, a fire occurred on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier Enterprise. They detonated dozens of aerial bombs and rockets, 15 burned down fully fueled aircraft. 27 people died, more than 300 were injured and burned. And yet ... after 6 hours after the fire, the ship was able to send and receive aircraft.
Remind me, from what happened above fire? From what worked 127 mm unguided rocket Zuni. The result was 27 dead, 343 injured, 15 aircraft destroyed (cost 5 – 7 million dollars each). Damage to the ship was estimated at 6,4 million dollars
The Zuni warhead weight didn’t exceed the 25 kg. Compare with Granite 700 kg and draw conclusions :)))
The kamikaze attacks once again confirm the paradoxical conclusion - the explosion of even one ton of explosives cannot cause serious damage to the aircraft carrier. What Soviet designers were hoping for when creating Granit P-700 is unclear.
Another pearl. Kamikaze usually turned out like this - they took a fighter and "thrust" a 250 kg bomb into it. It is clear that the mass of explosives in this bomb was much less than 250 kg. Usually the amount of explosives ranged from 0,1 to 0,7 to the total mass of the bomb, so at best it was about 175 kg. Again, compare with 700 kg of warhead granite. And also remember that kamikaze planes (conventional fighters) had up to 600 km / h speed, compared to our supersonic missiles - whoever has not forgotten the formula e is equal to ms square will draw conclusions himself But even kamikaze inflicted very shocking damage to aircraft carriers
Miser pays twice. Vseravno USSR had to create a strange design called "Heavy Aircraft Cruiser" - four huge ships, with a displacement of 45 000 tons each. Aircraft carriers can not be called, because their main armament, the Yak-38, couldn’t have been able to provide the air defense of the naval group, although as an attack aircraft, the Yak was probably not bad
This, alas, is true - the monstrous TAVKRs were completely useless - but even here the author could not resist a blunder - the Yak-38 was not a good attack aircraft.
During the battle at about. Midway, Admiral Nagumo reported that he had destroyed the American aircraft carrier 3. In fact, not one. Each time the Japanese bombed the same attack aircraft carrier Yorktown, but the emergency teams restored the ship right on the high seas and he, like Phoenix, rose from the ashes. This story shows that damage can be easily fixed on a huge ship.
Mysticism. The author again got it all mixed up - 3 hits 250 kg of bombs and 2 torpedoes were enough for the aircraft carrier to receive the hardest damage and roll in 27 hail - even the crew were removed from the ship, leaving only repair batches. In the end, the aircraft carrier was finished off by a Japanese submarine.
To date, the US Navy Airborne Strike Force does not pose a threat to Russia. The main objects are out of range of deck aircraft
Nonsense is complete, forgive me. And yet the conclusion:
It is high time for Russian sailors to understand that there is no cheaper and more reliable means to combat AUG (and any other land and sea targets) than your own aircraft carrier.
Absolutely correct. despite the mistakes in the text :)))

[Santa Fe]

If anything, all the answers are in the article.
Stay with your opinion.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

If anything, all the answers are in the article.

The article has the blunders, not answers. Moreover, the article is practically the whole and consists of the roughest blunders
That's why you have nothing to say.

[Roman Skomorokhov]

Europe for Iran is not the main consumer of hydrocarbons, so the cessation of oil supplies to the European Union will not turn into a catastrophe for Tehran. Moreover, this “portion” of oil for Europeans may well be bought by China and Russia for two.

Andrew, where can I find out more about this case?

[Roman Skomorokhov]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Recall the tests of their underwater antenna (already in 2 km long) that was needed for fixing our submarines - it was really discovered by our submarine during the tests ... when it wound the indicated antenna on a screw and had to float. The Americans almost went crazy - they were already going to ram our NPS that had lost its course, so as not to give out a fragment of a super-secret antenna - then our second NPS (!!!) with open torpedo caps surfaced ...

Andrew, where can I find out more about this?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Offhand I won’t give you links, but I’ll look for sure - I will unsubscribe a little later :)))

[mga04]

http://www.atrinaflot.narod.ru/81_publications/accidant.htm
The version is a little different, but the general meaning is the same

[Santa Fe]

The Bernstein-class frigate (built in the 50s) was unable to detect the Russian nuclear submarine, which wound its towed GAS on its propeller.
The case is funny, but you should not draw any serious conclusions from it. Bernstein - the equipment was obsolete by then, what else to expect from it?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Bernstein - the equipment was obsolete by then, what else to expect from it?

Yeah. And what was tested as if the latest system, nothing? :)))

[Santa Fe]

This GAS could not be the latest system.
The US Navy abandoned towed ASGs back in 70.

[MURANO]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The US Navy abandoned towed ASGs back in 70.

Are you seriously??

[Santa Fe]

Seriously, really.
There are no towed ASGs in either the Sprouts, the Tykondorogs, or the Arly Berks.



AN / SLQ-25 Nixie is a towed anti-torpedo protection station and is not related to the CEO. Jammer
Actually she was wound on a screw.

[MURANO]

And SQR-19 doesn’t tell you anything?

[Santa Fe]

MURANO, as far as I know, is a gas towed by a helicopter

[MURANO]

AN / SQR-19 We stood on the Spruyens, frigates of O.H. Perry, cruisers of the URO of Ticonderoga, em. URO of O. Burke. This is immediately offhand. They are distinguished by modifications.

[FREGATENKAPITAN]

Oh guys .... This was a fact, but no more (like the second submarine surfaced) ..... I will post the material and photo ......

[Filin]

On October 31, 1983, a boat under the command of Captain 2nd Rank V.A. Terekhin monitored the USS McCloy frigate, recording the operating parameters of the TASS (Towed Array Surveillance System) secret submarine detection complex. While passing behind the stern of the frigate, the boat touched the towed low-frequency hydroacoustic antenna of the complex with a screw, which was a long cable with sensors. The antenna wound around the propeller of the boat, the submarine almost lost its course and made an ascent. Arriving at the scene, the American destroyers Peterson and Nicholson escorted the boat for 10 days, trying to return the antenna. To prevent possible capture, the boat was prepared for an explosion. The arriving Soviet ship Aldan towed a K-324 to Havana, from where the antenna was delivered as quickly as possible by plane to the USSR for study. The boat underwent necessary repairs in Havana and resumed combat duty, which lasted another two weeks.

Details here;
http://www.rg.ru/2004/04/30/peretagivanie.html

[smirnov]

http://www.atrinaflot.narod.ru/1_submarines/03_pla_671/1_671rtm.htm Вот ещё ссылка,кстати неплохой сайт.

[smirnov]

Yeah ... I think you wiped your nose, 16th ...

[urzul]

Yeah :))) Apparently in the remaining 100050000 cases, the successful interception of the AUG by our submarines was never recorded by the Americans.
In fact, there were plenty of cases, and the American PLO ... is strong, of course, but passable. Recall the tests of their underwater antenna (already in 2 km long) that was needed for fixing our submarines - it was really discovered by our submarine during the tests ... when it wound the indicated antenna on a screw and had to float. The Americans almost went crazy - they were already going to ram our NPS that had lost its course, so as not to give out a fragment of a super-secret antenna - then our second NPS (!!!) with open torpedo caps surfaced ...
Or the situation when our submarine surfaced and asked for help - just on board the submarine was a successful operation of a crew member, but he needed inpatient treatment, which could not be on the submarine ... The English helicopter took ours and drove us to the US - but was wild scandal, came to Congress. And all because our submarine surfaced in the very center of anti-submarine exercises (!), But until she gave a signal to the SOS did not know about it :)))
You can still remember how the entire 6th fleet was chasing our Kursk - did not catch up :)))

Thank you, I completely agree with you !!! about the submarine, honestly pride in ours !!!

[Roman Skomorokhov]

Quote: urzul

Recall the tests of their underwater antenna (already in 2 km long) that was needed for fixing our submarines - it was really discovered by our submarine during the tests ... when it wound the indicated antenna on a screw and had to float. The Americans almost went crazy - they were already going to ram our NPS that had lost its course, so as not to give out a fragment of a super-secret antenna - then our second NPS (!!!) with open torpedo caps surfaced ...

Andrew, where can I find out more about this?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

To recall the source, there are a LOT of such stories here :))) But I will try to find and post a link

[karbofos]

Guys nasheeeel !!!!! http://www.atrinaflot.narod.ru/81_publications/accidant.htm

[Ascetic]

Quote: urzul

Thank you, I completely agree with you !!! about the submarine, honestly pride in ours !!!

We can be proud not only of the Premier League

“When we return to Portland” or naval fairy tale №4

... They, who served on diesel submarines, were called "tractor drivers"
... The exit was announced suddenly. He struck out like a bolt from the blue. Yesterday nobody suspected anything and the boat was preparing for a planned exit to the landfill. And already today the commander sticks out from the division commander with a wound, and the suppressed from their zeal the suppliers supply dark-thrown things into the iron. Lunkov, as if he was scalded with his eagles, loaded grubs into the bowels, spare parts, and hell-knows-what, according to thirty-three statements at once. He was nowhere and everywhere at the same time. Oral, urged, kicked, demanded and threatened. When I finally got hoarse, I climbed onto the pontoon and nervously lit it. Lunkov, taking advantage of the moment, taxied him and quietly inquired:
- Pal Sanych, where is this us?
The senior assistant flinched, almost dropping his bald cigarette. Turned around:
- Lunkov, you will not believe! Therefore, I will not tell you anything before the removal ...
The torpedoes were taken, as bull-three put it, “full ausways”. Those. all 18 "eels". Of these, only 2 is practical, and the rest are more combative. After that the soaring agitation was rotten and crumbled.
“Boys, we seem to be going to war,” said the doctor.
- Pip you ... "Shilo" accepted? - grunted a senior officer.
“Yes, Comrade Lieutenant Commander,” the doctor barked. And voiced displacement.
“Kuyasa! ..” the young navigator marveled at what he heard, “Well, with such ammunition we also have World War III knee-deep.”
In response, for some reason, no one laughed.
They were filmed in the evening quietly. Without pump. There was neither an orchestra, nor a crowd of tearful children, wives and mistresses. A triumvirate in the face of the division commander, a base commander and a representative of the fleet headquarters was sticking up on the wall with grayish faces.
- In places to stand, with mooring removed! Comrade commander, the submarine is ready for battle and march. Personnel checked, there is. Steering - from the bridge.
- welcome. Skhodnyu remove. Give aft. Give nasal.
- There is! Moorings are given. Turn on the running lights! CPU, entry in the logbook: removed from the mooring to go to the area in accordance with the military order on the campaign.
- Small back left steering ...
And they went.
... In the closet mess of the company, knee-deep in boxes of canned food, the head of the RTS, who had changed from the watch, eagerly destroyed hot tea with lemon. Vydiv glass to the end, Starley exhaled loudly and smiled:
- Jeka, and not whether you sbatsat something, eh? For cheer up?
With relief, Lunkov put aside the instructions read to the holes and pulled out a guitar. It was then that for the first time during that crazy march in the bowels of the boat, it sounded:
The night before the storm on the mast
Candles are burning Saint Elmo
Warming our souls
For all the past year.
When we return to Portland,
We will be gentle, like sheep,
But only to return to Portland
We will never have to.
... For the first week they had a galley burning. Over and over again, the compartments shook with the sounds of a fire alarm. Then the starpom’s patience was exhausted, and he announced that from now on he would personally dwell on the site of the emergency. Control the clawfish. And sleep right there under the stove, strewn the body with aluminum spoons. After this, the galley half-halt stopped immediately. Or everything just burned out there that could burn
... In violation of all staff recommendations, the Danish Straits were held at night in the surface position and with all the lights laid down according to MPSPS-72. "So, God forbid, what a piece of iron has not moved us," the commander commented on his decision. Idea prokanaet. Then, not identified, they dived under the RDP and went to the Shetland Islands, bending around Misty Albion from the north ...
... It is best to sleep, hiding with a blanket with his head and his nose buried in a pillow. Otherwise, the condensate from the ceiling will not let you fall asleep, gently tapping the pioneer dawn with drops on your forehead. - taught subordinates Lunkov.
Those nodded understandingly in response.
... At a hundred meters - the rite of initiation. The ceremony of initiation into submariners. The salagam was assigned a combat mission - to blow out a ceiling of salty sea water and sniff a sledgehammer suspended in the CPU.
- Tarsch commander, maul in grease.
- Kiss her, you’ll be a submariner.
Salaga stretches to a sledgehammer. The boat shakes and otavochennaya piece of iron splits lip ...
- Well done, sailor! A senior officer, to give a certificate to sailor Fedyukin that he now has real advice ... a Russian submariner!
Have a give out!
A warden in the dim light of the plafonds on duty blows the bilge, rubbing blood in two with grease on his face, a typewritten sheet
... The North Atlantic met them with a five-meter wave. For two days there was no way to refuel, and they turned around in a submerged position around the tanker, like a hungry cat around a caged cream lid. Finally, the fierce northeast quieted down and from the tanker threw legost. She came right in the forehead of one of the boatswain's team ... A sailor-boat swimming in an unconscious buoy in his life jacket was caught, pumped out, hoses were taken, flooded with diesel fuel under the cork and moved further, permanently buried from the Orion NATO screaming over their heads ...
... The second refueling was just as successfully carried out aboard Finisterre ...
... Teachings, teachings, teachings. Working out combat missions. Filling out the documentation. Issue of a combat sheet. The editorial board, headed by the dock, sticking out their tongues from zeal, draws a wall newspaper. "The personnel on the campaign must be absolutely busy, otherwise the personnel will begin to engage in kuinoy!"
Six days later, on the seventh, a movie was played. And again teachings, teachings, teachings. "Either we meet the standards, or you, and I am the head of the madhouse!" The first mate would blindfold the youngsters and use the stopwatch to see how long it took a person to run from the first compartment to the sixth. When someone crashed at full gallop into another boat piece of iron, he said admonishingly: "And because you need to know the materiel. Know and love! .."
... When a day remained before Gibraltar, the commander gathered all those involved in the mess room:
- Comrade officers, I bring to your attention the order of the commander ...
... Now they knew.
NATO conducted the operation "Allied Force" against Yugoslavia. Aviation operated from air bases in southern Italy in Serbian cities. The American aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt and the English Invincible were circling in the Adriatic Sea with escort forces. To control the NATO terminators, the Motherland from the Black Sea sent a small antediluvian radio reconnaissance ship “Liman”. Looking at this tub, for the voyage of which Ivana allegedly scraped fuel from the entire Black Sea fleet, the enlightened West laughed like an abnormal one. By the way, in vain szhal. For while on top of a pimple on a flat place next to the “Roosevelt”, there was the “Estuary”, from the bottom, in the footsteps of the same American AUG, “just for every fireman” two experienced atomic predators sneaked around. The huge "loaf" of the 949A project with the "Granites" is at the ready and the animal is smaller, but also quite toothed with the 671-RTM project.
“And we,” the commander finished, will in this company play the role of an awl sticking in the ass of the Sixth US Navy. Those. We will divert attention from colleagues from the Seventh Division of the Premier League. In the event of a collision with NATO forces, we are ordered to act according to the situation. All clear?
- Yes, Comrade Commander.
Yes, everything was clear to everyone. Do not shoot first, but if they press, then bite to the last.

To be continued

[Ascetic]

Well, if there is no return to Portland,
Let us wear a black sail.
Let the Jamaican rum be sweet
Everything else is nonsense!
When we return to Portland,
By golly, I repent of everything
But only to return to Portland
We will never have to!
... Gibraltar, they were on the already familiar scenario. At night, with lights, on the surface, masquerading as non-combatants. Snuggle up to the Moroccan shore. There was no wind and the heat was terrible. The head of the RTS was sitting in a sturdy case in front of his units with a wet towel on his head. Stunned and sweaty watch hung on the bridge in the non-statutory pants. The commander languidly fanned the pages of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of ​​1982 on the part of the Straits used for international navigation. The signalmen chewed the sausage. From this, in the surrounding palev, they were sick, but even that was a dream. The senior officer migrated around the perimeter of the bridge and meticulously checked that everyone looked strictly into their own sector. If one of the signal-bearers “climbed into someone else’s garden” out of excessive zeal, Pal Sanych quietly leaned toward the guilty one and said in a whisper: “Kill, contagion!” That was enough. Two hours before dawn, they passed the Cape of Almina. The commander listened to another radiometrist's report, slammed the convention loudly and announced in a voice that was utterly agitated:
- Well, it's time and bainki ... All down! In places to stand, to dive! ..
Issuing tall fountains of scuppers, the boat dived into piercing blue ...
... At the edge of the Libyan tervod they waited for the supply ship. Then there was a dotted line across the Mediterranean to the Adriatic. Above the Balkans, the echoes of NATO bombs screamed, and from the southwest quarters at the periscope depth they sneaked up to Roosevelt and his company. An Italian destroyer spotted them in the Strait of Otranto, but did not figure out who he was dealing with and profukal the Russians for nothing. Then the Amers' deck planes hung over his head. No one knew for sure if our atomarins were already in the Adriatic, but the diesel commander decided it was time to make some noise. Colombina defiantly put all of her retractable devices on the surface in clear light, waited for two Yankovsky frigates to land on her tail, and then famously went under the jump layer. Americans pushed for a day at the point of loss of contact, but the Russian “Kilo” fully justified its nickname “black hole” ...
... When it came off, the cap ordered all the watch to issue out above the fixed ptyuha "Abrau-Durso" ...
... For the next month, the Columbine did not allow Amer and Britt to quietly carry democracy to the masses. Ventilation and regeneration could not cope - inside the body could hang an ax. The valve was undercut and sometimes the pressure jumped to three atmospheres. A headache was cracked from a constant headache. From surge, everything in the compartments looked like vampires - with hollow red eyes and twisted fingers ...
.., you, the Mediterranean! So warm, so sweet and so transparent. On a calm and sunny day, the eye easily pierces the water column 60 meters deep - try to hide! ... They went out in training torpedo attacks on foreign aircraft carriers with cruisers and in the first compartment with a gloomy face sat as a chief officer, carefully watching that the gavriki from BC-3 did not really drown anyone. They pretended to be an Italian or a Greek submarine, then they just brazenly climbed on the rampage. They were spotted, thrown with buoys. Los Angeles, Sea Kings, Vikings, Spruance and Perry clung to their hem. A cap on electric motors crawled along the bottom of the “Los Angeles”, which for some reason he called “primus”. I just put the cap on the rest. The acoustics' ears swelled from the hum overhead and the sounds of fucking lobsters. It seemed that the Adriatic Sea was about to splash out onto land due to thousands of tons of steel scurrying through the water ...
... They were trying to squeeze, lift from the depths, drive them to completely discharge the batteries, “take in a bag” and flog openly. And they fled, slept, slept off and went back to work. They raised such tarars in the Adriatic that under its cover it was possible to drag twenty-two atarins to the AUG. And then knock on the side of the Roosevelt and shout: "Hey, Johnny, we're here!" And they would all be sprinkled there. The NATO members, who were bewitched by this protracted performance, turned to Moscow with a protest against the actions of the “Russian flying Dutchman”, but in the Kremlin they pretended that they lost the Adriatic on maps ...
The atomic "Kursk" with the "Pike" guarding it was not found by the Yankees.

... A month later, the tractor driver said: "Basta!"
Someone agreed with someone upstairs, and they were allowed into Syrian Tartus. For the first time during the hike, they were able to relax, knock outboard fittings and swim. Then there was a way back. In the darkness of Crete, a Greek patrolman got to the bottom of them, but the Columbine, in full compliance with the adventure genre, blossomed with yacht lights, and the VHF chief officer sang to the Hellenes in a drunken voice that this was a Ukrainian cruise ship, Chervonomaidannik Taras Bulba. They could not repeat this name on the sentryman and got rid of ...
... In the return, Gibraltar passed under the water, using the current for the most part. Then there were Biscay, again a hook around England, the North Sea, the Skagerrak, the Kattegat and Tyda. In the cabin company Lunkov habitually yayrival “Portland”. The senior officer included the broadcast and the voice of the lieutenant resounded hollowly on all the boat nooks, enclosures and skerries ...
... On the way to Baltiysk they were met by fog. Not even fog - fog. If you piss from the deck, you can't see where the jet is falling into the sea.
Walked to the touch, according to the radar and radio beacons. The beach said that on the occasion of such a shitty weather, no one will meet them. Neither the port boats, nor the division commander, nor the OVR. And in general, it would be better to wait until it shatters ... But the commander, as well as the entire crew, who was fucked up on the iron during the bustle of the Mediterranean, and back, was ready to jump to his native wall with his legs. Straight on the water.
They crossed themselves, set a double upper watch and started crawling at the smallest one at the FVK - the fairway of warships.
At the same time, along the neighboring fairway intended for the civilians, for a rendezvous with a dry cargo ship, the tug puffed. The skipper on the eve was an anniversary, and on this anniversary the skipper ate something wrong. In the end, having remembered the unkind word of the stomach, the skipper handed over the command to the helper and flew off to eagle. The assistant, who was also not a fool, walked around the wheelhouse and found that he was out of smoke. He scratched his head, ordered the intern on the wheel "to rule right there" and ran to the cabin. The next five minutes, the tug chapal in the fog, until it jumped out for milestones and was not on the FVK.
The skipper groaned in the latrine, the assistant rummaged in the nightstand, and the trainee executive kept the steering wheel straight.
A warning about the notch of an approaching target came in time from the boat radar. The commander calmly ordered to get in touch with this monster and explain that he was wrong. There was no answer. The radio was towed in the wheelhouse, so neither the skipper nor the assistant heard the call, but the trainee ... The trainee taxied. The mark of an unknown vessel was approaching. Already a little nervous, the captain ordered to give a siren and continuously call shit on VHF. Zero result. Ten seconds passed, and a dull iron nose jumped out of a cotton foggy snowdrift. He aimed right under the wheelhouse
- To the left! Distance one and a half cable - tug!
The signalman's yell was still ringing in everyone’s ears when the cap snatched the loudspeaker from the foreman’s hands and yelled through the money boxer:
- HEY YOU, IN A TUG, @ OUTDOOR OW, WHERE ARE YOURSELF, @ ICE? !! ..
That saved everyone.
Hearing an animal roar right on the nose, the skipper carried out the door of the latrine, flew into the wheelhouse with his pants down and with one jerk turned his barb to the right. The boat also lay in the right circulation, and they parted with the tug in a decorous and noble manner in full compliance with the rules of navigation. Red side fire to red. At a distance of five meters.
- Well, tractor drivers, we will live. - summed up the incident cap and, giving vent to the rage that had accumulated during the hike, threw the “mother-head” overboard ...

To be continued

[Ascetic]

Well, if there is no return to Portland,
Divide the gold like brothers
Since the money is strangers
Do not get without difficulty!
When we return to Portland,
Homeland will embrace us,
But only to return to Portland
Do not give us, God, never.
... They returned to base as they left. No noise and dust. Without a ritual pig and, again, without an orchestra. The first mate came to the radio operators to deliver a song about a tired submarine, which “will come home from the depths,” but the commander had nerves already to hell ... In short, they did not.
Sekretchik collected from all subscriptions, they say, on the landfill did not walk anywhere. So the whole campaign and protorchali in his tervodah ...
They stuck their shabby side into the mooring wall, moored, reported, and stormed into the bathhouse, where everyone fell asleep and fell asleep. As a result, no one was awarded, but no one was punished. Amba
The country honored its paratroopers, who, like a hussar, flew into Pristina almost hitchhiking. No one honored tractor drivers.
A skipper of a tugboat was early retired. Assistant slammed official inconsistency. The intern got off with forty minutes of prophylactic mat.
At the end of September, the colombine, escorted by screams of scandalous gulls, left Baltiysk east.
Soon, still ill from the land, the abnormal air and the fact that there were women on the planet, the navigator on the outskirts of Kronstadt wandered to a kindergarten. It was already evening. The children were dismantled and the only remaining person in the garden was a watchman. He sat hunched over on a children's swing and cried softly. It was a former skipper of a tugboat ...

Lunkov still dozed off. In a dream, he, for some reason, coupled with some busty blonde, did his best to complete the task of fighting for survivability. Then someone rudely shook the lieutenant over our shoulder into our reality.
- BUT? What? ..
The distorted face of Tanechka leaned over him:
- Jeka, trouble! Just handed over - “Kursk” drowned! ..
The lieutenant looked sternly at the librarian and slowly stood up. He grabbed a bottle of champagne, knocked the cork out of it and, without being embarrassed, blew the contents out of his throat until he poured from his nostrils.
- Jeka, Jeka, what are you doing? Do you have someone familiar on Kursk? ..
Lunkov put the bottle in place, wiped the foam from his face:
- We have there, Tanya, all the friends ... in absentia ...
For some reason my head was spinning:

But only to return to Portland
Do not give us, God, never.

[Santa Fe]

The atomic "Kursk" with the "Pike" guarding it was not found by the Yankees.
This is the most important moment of the whole story.

It is impossible to get into the Mediterranean Sea undetected. "Exercises" of Russian nuclear submarines were previously agreed with NATO representatives

[MURANO]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

It is impossible to enter the Mediterranean Sea undetected. "

Unambiguously, nothing can be said on this issue. There are a lot of examples of PLO failure both in our country and in them. Yes, and you can lose contact later.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

It is impossible to get into the Mediterranean Sea undetected.

Right. But here's the thing - you can become undetected later :)))

[Santa Fe]

But this has no confirmation.

In all articles the same thing - they came unnoticed, abused the 6 fleet in the Adriatic, left unnoticed. Somehow, trust in such sources is immediately declining.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Yeah. But conspiracy theories about the collusion of NATO and Yeltsin, you have confidence

[Ascetic]

During the NATO operation against Yugoslavia, "Kursk" was in the Mediterranean Sea and secretly controlled the US aircraft carriers, aircraft from which attacked Yugoslavia.
http://funeral-spb.narod.ru/necropols/serafimofskoe/tombs/kursk/kursk.html

In 1999, K-141 Kursk made a successful military campaign in the Atlantic, for which its commander, captain 1st rank Gennady Lyachin was going to submit to the title of Hero of Russia, and the crew of the boat received the title of "The best submarine crew of the Northern Fleet"
http://www.militaryparitet.com/html/data/ic_news/55/

- What tasks did the Kursk perform on that trip?
- This is the only declassified official document. I read the following excerpt: “In the course of fulfilling the tasks of combat service in the Mediterranean Sea, the Kursk anti-aircraft missile system acted in the conditions of the overwhelming superiority of the anti-submarine forces of the likely enemy. Carried out the task of monitoring the enemy carrier strike multipurpose groups. He carried out surveillance of them and conducted a search for foreign submarines in a parallel manner, while maintaining secrecy and combat stability. Following the results of combat service 72 crew member submitted to the government awards. Captain I rank G. Lyachin submitted to the title of Hero of Russia. "
- Lyachintsy already in our time has shown that Russian submariners can cross the Faroe-Icelandic anti-submarine line and go to the western shores of Europe. Back in the 50s, the United States deployed a special SOSUS system along this “border” - instruments on the ocean floor that record the noise of submarine propellers. And “Kursk”, thanks to the skill of the crew, slipped unnoticed. Thus, our sailors proved that we can break through any defense. No invulnerable missile defense and PLO. And in vain the Americans give them huge amounts of money. Anti-submarine and missile defense are billions of dollars thrown to the wind. Previously, in Soviet times, Gibraltar overcame submarines, hiding behind a civilian vessel. Some old cargo ship was sailing, rattling with screws, and below it was an atomic submarine secretly walking. But now it is forbidden. Lyachin for the first time managed to break through unnoticed through the Strait of Gibraltar on his own. And how he did this, will remain a military secret for a long time.
Gene Lyachin, as during the Great Patriotic War the legendary submariner Marinesco, was declared a personal enemy. Only not the Fuhrer and great Germany, but America and its naval intelligence. He dealt a crushing blow to the vanity of the American admirals. After all, after the Kursk campaign, several prominent naval commanders, including the commander of the anti-submarine defense of the Gibraltar zone, immediately lose their posts. By the way, the commander of the American submarine Memphis, who lost our Kursk in the Mediterranean, was severely punished. “They spent only $ 10,5 million on fuel to search for our boat, plus, plus other expenses, searching and trying to track our boat cost $ 20 million.
- You will not believe but, having received the order, Lyachin could well have crushed the US 6 fleet. The 949 project, which was the Kursk, is armed with 24 cruise missiles of the Granit type. They are able to break through any ship defense. Yes, torpedoes with nuclear warheads. When our newest boat arrived in the Mediterranean Sea, there was just a change of US and NATO aircraft carrier groups. One went to her base in Norfolk, the other just arrived. The task was to detect and track both the first group and the second. The crew of the "Kursk" found them. And the Lychynians even conditionally fired five missile firing: three in one group, two in the other. In reality, the aircraft carriers from which Serbia was being bombed at that time could have been sunk.

Retired Captain I rank Vitaly Lyulin, former commander of a nuclear submarine:
- The commander of Memphis has repeatedly received a click on the nose from Gena Lyachin. In the Mediterranean, the Americans were “flogged” more than once because he missed the Russian submarine ... Let me remind you that at the end of 1999, at the height of the Yugoslav crisis, the Kursk really badly spoiled the nerves of NATO, suddenly appearing in the Mediterranean Sea. An experienced, feisty commander exhausted all his nerves, tracking him down. And then fate again brought them together with Lyachin ... To hush up the scandal, on August 17 - on the fifth day after the disaster! - CIA director George Tenet flew to Moscow incognito, in a private plane ...

in 1999, the Kursk nuclear submarine was ready to sink the US Navy aircraft carriers from which at that moment they bombed Serbia. Thus, at a critical moment, the Russian leadership declared a position on the "Balkan issue." It is worth recalling that at that moment Russia was one step away from the collapse. After the resignation of Yeltsin B.N. from the presidency, according to the plans of the "globalizers" of the Russian Federation, it was supposed to go into oblivion. However, this did not happen. Therefore, it can be argued that the Kursk crew, having navigated the submarines imperceptibly through the Strait of Gibraltar, the presence of a submarine equipped with cruise missiles in the Mediterranean Sea prevented the development of events according to the scenario of Russia's dismemberment in line with the Harvard Project. For this, commander Gennady Lyachin was introduced to the title of Hero of Russia, the Kursk nuclear submarine was noted as the best submarine of the Northern Fleet.

Source: http://www.simvolika.org/partner_01.htm

[MURANO]

Quote: Ascetic

Yes, torpedoes with nuclear warheads

Such mistakes do not give faith in the professionalism of the interviewee.

[Ascetic]

Torpedoes of the class "Torpedo" Kit No. 65-76 - MAY be equipped with nuclear warheads
Armament
Torpedo tubes: 4 650mm
Torpedo tubes: 4 533mm
Anti-ship systems: 24 P-700 Granit
Mines: 2
Anti-submarine systems: RPK-2 Vyuga
Anti-submarine systems: Waterfall

Complex "Waterfall" is fired from a torpedo tube. Taking a trail under water and entering the data into the onboard computer, the long "cigar" soars up from the sea, including the rocket engine. Falling into the waves at the calculated point, "Waterfall" will penetrate the water column as a homing torpedo.

The “Waterfall” is equipped with both a special warhead and a homing small-sized torpedo UMGT-1 (developed by NPO Uran).

The VYUGA missile system is designed to destroy submarines and is in service with multipurpose nuclear submarines of the Russian Navy.

Shooting is done through torpedo tubes with 81P missiles. A missile is fired from a horizontal torpedo tube from a depth of ~ 50 meters. With the help of the starting engine, the rocket turns in the underwater section of the trajectory and leaves the water. In the air, a solid propellant marching engine is turned on.

An autonomous inertial control system stabilizes and controls the missile in the initial underwater, active and passive sections of the air trajectory. The operating time of the main engine is determined by the required flight range (from 10 to 35 km). As a single control on all sections of the trajectory, the rocket has lattice stabilizer bars that open after the rocket leaves the torpedo tube. Since the missile does not have a homing head, the warhead was equipped with a special charge.
Diameter 533 mm
Length 6500 mm
Starting weight 1800 kg
Firing Range 35 km
Warhead type nuclear

[MURANO]

Quote: Ascetic

CAN be equipped with nuclear warheads

Mogut. But it was a concrete campaign. Where there were no JLLs.

[Ascetic]

And how do you know this, because the campaign was classified? Do you accuse Baltina of the deceased of incompetence? Maybe the journalist distorted? In any case, no one will say this now. There is practically no public information about the campaign. According to competent sources, the version of Baltin is somewhat embellished but closest to the truth.

[MURANO]

Quote: Ascetic

And how do you know this, because the campaign was classified?

All are classified.
Tactical nuclear weapons have been gathering dust in warehouses for a long time. As with us, so are they.

[DYMITRY]

They were removed from constant duty, but in 99, especially if there was a serious probability of the onset of a large naval beast, they could have been delivered. Probability cannot be ruled out.

[karbofos]

thank you very much waiting

[Tyumen]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

(worth $ 5-7 million each). Damage to the ship was estimated at 6,4 million dollars

Explain.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

And what needs explanation here? Does the price seem small to you? So this is 1969 year, do not forget

[Tyumen]

Many pieces of 5-7, and all together - 6,4?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

here the flies are separate, and the cutlets are separate :))) it means that 15 planes died for 5-7 lyam each, and additional damage to the ship was additionally caused (meaning hull there, deck and other structures and mechanisms) for 6,4 million

[karbofos]

Andrey, if it's not difficult for you, give a link about the actions of our submarines in the enemy camp, and the hunt for "Kursk". very interesting but unfortunately I have no information about it. or tell us more about it. with SW. Sergei

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

He wrote from memory and lied to something, but anyway - the bill is in our favor :)). About the described cases - links here
http://submarine.id.ru/sub.php?671rtmk
and here
http://www.baplpskov.ru/news/nashi_shhuki_i_delfiny_porvut_ljubye_seti_ssha/
somewhere there was a whole selection of situations like those described above. And at least I can’t find her.
I’ll search, as I find - I’ll inform you

[gojesi]

Quote: kalbofos

give a link about the actions of our submarines in the camp of the enemy, and the hunt for "Kursk

best of all, the captains of the submariners explain the situation with Kursk. There is a book, it is called in the materials of the KOB "Dead Water", "What really happened to the" Kursk "Look. But in short, Kursk was accidentally attacked by the Americans, in automatic mode ... This is a tragedy! Hurray!

[altman]

If Russia wants to be a great power - aircraft carriers are needed .. again, everything rests not only on their construction, but also on their basing and maintenance .. Soviet aircraft carriers were "tied to a rock" .. Raid eats a ship .. look at the Norfolk photo, how Americans are based ..
The Soviet Union would also eventually come to the construction of clean aircraft carriers, only they would not have to be built at the Black Sea factories ..

[J_silver]

No aircraft carriers can be dispensed with - at the moment there are no goals for them, no tasks. to be addressed ...
Even 4 AUGs, which is generally unrealistic in modern conditions, will not solve anything - only additional goals for defeating the enemy ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: J_Silver

It is quite possible to do without aircraft carriers - at the moment there are no goals for them, no tasks. which need to be addressed ..

Yep to cover the deployment of SSBN what will? And if the Japans did take a stroll on the Kuriles?

[J_silver]

And from the coast of the Kuril Islands to protect weakly? Where do you put the AUG? To the straits? Or from that side of Japan? Or are you few Tsushima in those parts?
And how to cover the deployment of the SSBN is real, if there are other people's coasts, and the enemy at the sea is knowingly more than multiple?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: J_Silver

And from the coast of the Kuriles to defend poorly?

What coast? They are actually at Japan's side.

Quote: J_Silver

Where are you putting AUG? In the straits? Or from the other side of Japan?

why - put the AUG in 300 km from the Kuril Islands - from such a distance, our missiles will slay any troops, but the Japanese will only reach the AUG with the submarines (which can be solved, we also have the PLO helicopters) and aviation. But Japanese aviation will be hard for AUG can enjoy the support of our mig-31.

Quote: J_Silver

And how to cover the deployment of the SSBN is real, if there are other people's coasts, and the enemy at the sea is knowingly more than multiple?

SSBNs need to cover the north, and not so much the aircraft (although from them too), but rather from the shock submarines.
As for the TOF, the multiplicity of the Japanese would not help them in this question.

[Dart weyder]

in my opinion, in terms of the Japanese, you can get by with airfields in the coastal strip, but as for the quiet and Atlantic and Indian oceans, there is no doubt about the AUG!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

There is a nuance - the Kuril Islands. Defend your own territory - it would be quite enough airfields.
But there is also a nuance. A full-fledged military airfield (so that with shelters for aircraft and stocks of weapons and fuel and lubricants, and with air defense coverings) is VERY expensive. It is interesting that someone who knows the thread would compare the cost of the airfield and AB. It’s clear that an airfield is cheaper, but how many airfields can be built instead of one AB?

[Alexey Zan]

Runways, taxiing, parking with open earthen caponiers - all this costs a penny in comparison with the body of an aircraft carrier (certainly not billions of dollars). Fuel is also relatively cheap. The rest - airplanes, radar, air defense, aviation ammunition can be moved there during the threatened period.

[Dart weyder]

and in any case - in a collision, the aircraft carrier if it fails - it’s fast, and the airfield (runway) can be patched up, + the nomenclature of aircraft (including transports, and bombers, and the number of aircraft can be accommodated, since the aircraft carrier is not capable of its air wing confront the navy and air force of a country like japan

[J_silver]

And 300 km from the Kuril Islands - where will it work? Would you even look at the map or something ...
Actually, the SSBN, it seemed to me, didn’t need to be covered by Norway, but a little further, and there were definitely no friends there ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: J_Silver

And 300 km from the Kuril Islands - where will it work? Would you even look at the map or something ...

100 km from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, but what?

[J_silver]

Are you planning to protect the Kuril Islands from the Sakhalin people? I mean, Japan can be seen from the troubled islands in fine weather ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

And what about Sakhalin? We put the AMG somewhere between Sakhalin and Kamchatka, so that the Kuril Islands are between Hokkaido and the AMG. Let's just say - a pair of submarines with lionfish kilometers in 250 from the same Iturup, and kilometers in 200 behind the 9 submarines and 450 from Iturup) - TAVKR with protection. As a result, it turns out that the nuclear submarines, together with the TAVKR aircraft, can greatly offend any naval landing, while the TAVKR aviation is covering them. The positions of our nuclear submarines are also covered from diesel Japanese submarines by PLO helicopters from TAVKR, and deck aircraft are capable of even covering the Kuril Islands themselves. although it’s not so easy, with 450 kilometers.
What is bad?

[J_silver]

And to snarl at once with a rocket from the same Sakhalin?
Cheap and reliable, and no one seems small ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: J_Silver

And to snarl at once with a rocket from the same Sakhalin?

The Kuril Islands are small; there is no air defense aircraft there. It is also unsafe on Sakhalin - the air forces of the Japanese are decent, they can also be gouged, especially if with a preemptive strike. And to build anti-aircraft defense exclusively on coastal air defense systems is also a bit skully. Of course, you can saturate the very Kuril Islands with air defense systems and anti-ship missiles, but there is a great chance to lose them if the air defense does not stand. The radars in the Kuril Islands should, in theory, be mandatory, but if the japas push through the air defense, then there will be a radar khan, and then the anti-ship missiles from Sakhalin will lose TS and will not fly away anywhere.

[Alexey Zan]

The fact of the matter is that first of all AUG is a floating airfield, which can be located almost anywhere in the world’s oceans. But Russia has all its interests, in order to ensure which it is ready to use military force - lie along its borders.

Therefore, reflections on why Russia needs AUGs come down to the thought: If there were AUGs, there would be goals.

About your suggestions.
1) The SSBN cover in deployment areas can also be provided with basic anti-submarine aviation, because with the modern range of ICBMs they do not need to be shipped to the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean.

2) And you did not think that the airfield on any of the Kuril Islands would in itself represent an unsinkable aircraft carrier. And mind you, it will be ten times cheaper.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Well, let's assume that in order for the TAVKR to be able to provide round-the-clock duty for a pair of PLO helicopters, an air group in 16-18 helicopters is required. Now we will take into account that the TAVKR is nearby, and the airfield is a little further away and we will estimate how much basic aviation is needed. 36? 48? I remember that in the USSR they believed a similar relationship as 1 to 6. Xnumx machines?
Well, from the Kuril Islands, the aircraft carrier is quite a fig - there is hokkaido nearby, and there are a lot of evil Japanese planes. And the airfield is a stationary target. breaking it is not very difficult

[Alexey Zan]

Why helicopters? Tu-142 / IL-38 is much better here. And why round-the-clock duty? It was most likely only about covering the submarines during the exit from the bases. If the duty areas are located in the Arctic Ocean, then surface ships and anti-submarine aircraft are useless there.

Is your aircraft carrier invulnerable to Japanese aircraft? A coastal airfield covered by air defense is in no way worse than an aircraft carrier, if only because it does not need to worry about anti-submarine defense. In addition, he is a much more dispersed target over the area, so getting individual ammunition is less painful for him than for an aircraft carrier.

[dmitri077]

“But Russia has all its interests, in order to ensure which it is ready to use military force, lie along its borders.” - for sure! huge problems with the defense of most of our own territory, but "we will go without pants, but we will create aircraft carriers in spite of the States"! who will design them? who will build them? what kind of electronics will be there? the anecdotal situation with the creation of Glonass only confirmed the serious problems with the creation of products that only want to get closer to the concept of "high-tech"! the problem is the creation and maintenance of AUG in combat readiness .... they will make some noise and calm down

[mengeleff]

dmitri077
we want to create an aircraft carrier ..
make noise and calm down

[MURANO]

Quote: dmitri077

who will design them? who will build them? what kind of electronics will be there? the anecdotal situation with the creation of Glonass only confirmed the serious problems with the creation of products that only want to get closer to the concept of "high-tech"! ..

He came, blurted out, left.
Another "specialist".
Tired of amateurism.

[dmitri077]

"He came, blurted out, left.
Another "specialist".
I'm sick of dilettante "- I completely agree with you! Dilettante! But just answer, please, all my questions ... your submarines are on fire! and you, "proffie", talk about aircraft carriers like small children ... ARGUMENTS AND FACTS, but not "Wishlist"

[MURANO]

Everyone has fires and accidents.
Design will be Northern PCB.
Build Sevmash.
What questions do you have for electronics? Modern BIUSES and SU weapons already exist now.
What is GLONASS?

[dmitri077]

"Everyone has fires and accidents.
Design will be Northern PCB.
Build Sevmash.
What questions do you have for electronics? Modern BIUSES and SU weapons already exist now.
What about GLONASS? "- no need to speak for everyone, it's better for yourself! What exactly has SPKB designed for the last 21 years of scale of the Aircraft Carrier-cruiser? What personnel potential and modern production base does Sevmash have? Show VIDEO for clarity! Build a smartphone, tablet first , a Russian laptop .... and most importantly, its own processor base! Where did the domestic BIUSES AND SUs show themselves in "action"? Show the video of the military operations of our Navy! With GLONASS the following: a FEW years delay with the creation (according to the program statements of Comrade Ivanov), compare personally, for clarity, the devices themselves ... due to WHAT and WHOM did we "catch up" to the States in this technology? have we really made a revolution? that's when in the Caucasus massively apply the Russian similarity to the American JDAM AND SHOW THE VIDEO OF THIS PROCESS, that's only then you can will say something ...

[MURANO]

Quote: dmitri077

SHOW VIDEO OF THIS PROCESS

But how many do you want?
Even if you show, you will not believe it and will again stand on your own. You have the same thinking, "everything is ok and everything is bad"
It is treated with successes IN YOUR life.

[dmitri077]

"Do you want a lot? Wink
Even if you show, you won’t believe it and will again stand your ground. You’re thinking like “everything is ok and everything is bad” - this is the smallest thing I want In contrast to the evil "Pindos", create your own channel on TV like "Discovery" and show around the clock the greatest achievements in the history of the universe from the Russian military-industrial complex! what problems? WEAK? so that a malicious tanned "Pindos" would lie somewhere on the beach in Miami and choke on a bastard with his cocktail with strawberries at the sight of a mighty Russian aircraft carrier dissecting the vastness of the Bolshoi Theater ...

[MURANO]

Quote: dmitri077

create

Who are you talking to?

Quote: dmitri077

on TV like "Discovery" and show around the clock the greatest achievements in the history of the universe from the Russian military-industrial complex! what problems? WEAK?

So there is already! "Impact force"

[dmitri077]

"So it is already! Wink" Impact force "" - my weak heart and upset psyche could not bear all the episodes of this wonderful transmission for the level of "patsriots" of the local spill is quite good

[MURANO]

Discovery no less than your shakes my frustrated psyche.

[DYMITRY]

Maybe present the appropriate tolerance to show the video?

[Speedy]

I wonder how many planes need to be "removed" for an aircraft carrier to cease being an aircraft carrier .... You don't have to sink it .... There are "unacceptable losses" after which the air group cannot perform a combat mission ....

[Santa Fe]

The counter question is how much loss you need to incur in order to scuff the wing

[Kars]

In the USSR there was a standard --- 3 regiment Tu 22М3 on AUG --- decent exchange

[gojesi]

one boat, with granites, if they do not find preparation for a salvo, will take the entire order. And she couldn’t be alone, and there is also a cover, hunters and planes ...

[Genry]

And what, you can not overtake the aircraft on their own, accompanied by a refueling tank.

[gojesi]

Quote: Sorrow

I wonder how many planes need to be "removed" for an aircraft carrier to cease being an aircraft carrier ...

one Granite, mosquito or Onyx in the hangar - the deck will swell. And the other to the waterline or nuclear power plant.

[MURANO]

A good article, though with bloopers. (And who doesn’t have them? )
The fact that aircraft carriers are a good and necessary thing is a fact. But before deciding how much and where we need them, we need to clearly decide WHAT TASKS the fleet and the aircraft as a whole need to face.
The struggle against the USAG is to be removed from the fleet’s tasks. Firstly, in the foreseeable future, this is unrealistic, and secondly (and most importantly) it is not necessary. Why? Because if it comes to this, then it’s all war. .And here all the ways are good. And the decisive actions WILL NOT BE AWAY OUT OF DIFFERENCE with AUG.
The main task of the fleet and the Armed Forces as a whole is to prevent war. "Prevention" is carried out by the enemy's awareness of possible LARGE and VERY LARGE losses in both human and economic (I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about the destruction of industrial potential) resources.
In order to carry out such deterrence, there is no need to threaten, let alone climb into the AUG. Territories must be threatened.
And so, the tasks of the fleet:
1. Ensuring the guaranteed deployment of SSBNs and submarines with missile defense (this is work for the NK).
2. Patrolling in the oceans with the task of striking missiles and ballistic missiles in the territory of the enemy (task PLA and SSBN).
3. Protection of the interests of the country (union obligations) beyond its territory (task of expeditionary forces and submarines with the Kyrgyz Republic).
4. Demonstration of the flag and the fight against piracy (NK).
The implementation of the first two points will ensure (ensures) that no ACS is a threat to us.
We only need aircraft carriers for task number 3. 2-3. On the Pacific Fleet.
Small aircraft carriers (PLO) are needed for task No. 1 on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. By 2.
Something like that.

[Genry]

If there is at least one task where the aircraft carrier is indispensable, then it is definitely needed. How many times the elbows bit, that is not.

[soldier of fortune]

............. actually, never!
one aircraft carrier will not do the weather, but in the vastness of our homeland - you are useless ............. Ponty alone!

AUG is an expensive pleasure, it is easier to follow territorial waters from coastal bases.
There was never a need for the transfer of large fleet and aviation forces to another part of the planet ............ we are not American salesmen selling democracy :)

[valerei]

To determine the tasks of the army and navy, there is a Military Doctrine, which has already been published and Russia will build ships for it. Guessing us with you about, in this case, the tasks of the fleet, at least, is pointless. But there is such an axiom: "Generals are always preparing for the last war." One of the greatest Russian admirals, Makarov, said that battleships were not built for sea battles, but to demonstrate the power of the state. I agree with one thing that if (God forbid, of course!) A major turmoil begins, then the use of nuclear weapons, at least against aircraft carriers, is inevitable, and this - see the chronicle of nuclear tests. Well, after that - it's like "the curve will take out", but good for Russia is not to be expected.

[Santa Fe]

To determine the tasks of the army and navy there is a military doctrine
The doctrine of the Russian Navy was written in order to write something. Useless scraping. No objective threats are reflected in it, continuous "modernization"

Makarov said that armadillos were built not for naval battles, but to demonstrate the power of the state
He meant the Russian fleet

a big mess starts
Somehow, local conflicts are much more likely to occur, where AUG is more useful
Or does the Russian Navy have only one task - the destruction of planet Earth?

[J_silver]

And who else really fought on armadillos at that time?
American-Spanish war? It’s not funny, the Spaniard half-timber ships were razed there ...
And the Russian-Japanese war forced to review almost all views on shipbuilding ...
But even so, until the end, many did not understand anything, which was confirmed by the First World War ...

[valerei]

About which he wrote: It was to the past war. The Second World War showed that in an extremely short time the old ones were modernized and new weapons systems were urgently created. Without change, only a few systems reached the end of the war. The same applies to strategy and tactics.

[valerei]

On the first note: I agree, and wrote about this: "to the last war."
According to the second remark: I did not understand the thought.
On the third remark: I am sure that the AUG are intended for "third" countries (gunboat diplomacy), but for Russia, with our spaces and good air defense, it is certainly dangerous, but not fatal. Much more dangerous and what we, dear bloggers, hardly talk about, is “chaos in our heads”, in ours, of course. The overwhelming majority of Russia's troubles were brought by ourselves. And finally, our President said that we have the right to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia. Everyone knows its power and the consequences as well. It is not at all necessary to apply it directly outside the territory of the attacking country. A nuclear winter will freeze everyone and the living will envy the dead. It has been proven that one salvo of just one nuclear submarine does not matter where, it is enough to upset the balance of nature, and this is the end of all life on earth and under water.

[Railways]

St. Lo sank from getting one kamikaze. Lexington had two torpedoes.
In general, RCC is a good tool.

[Genry]

The Chinese intend to deal with aircraft carriers using guided ballistic missiles. It is very difficult to manage them, but nothing is impossible.

[J_silver]

If you need to drown AUG, then everything else will no longer matter - it’s better to press all the buttons at once, so that you suffer more in short ...

[Dimka off]

and yet I think that RCC is an effective weapon. I agree that 2-3 hits can not do much harm, but if you make 10-15 or more hits? I agree it will be difficult, but war is war, it cannot be easy, and even in our time.

[MURANO]

Quote: Dimka off

and yet I think that RCC is an effective weapon.

So no one argues. Question with carriers.

[Foamas]

Question targeting resolved positively?

[Rusal]

and yet I think that with this money it’s better to build modern submarines with RCC and more
if we build 2-3 aircraft carriers, then our entire fleet will go to their escort ...
Well, in terms of the construction of the submarine they win
Well, their amers are a little afraid :)

[Genry]

1. We already have submarines, and no one is going to refuse them (if the person is not a liberal).
2. Aircraft carriers are designed for their tasks (especially assault) and here the submarines are already ineffective.
3. The surface fleet is cheaper than the submarine.

[MURANO]

Quote: Ascetic

The enemy’s air defense breakthrough for Vulkan facilitates the reservation of the warhead and important components, which reduces the likelihood of the destruction of anti-ship missiles by close detonation of an anti-aircraft missile and low altitude. RCC "Volcano" - a highly intelligent weapon that can carry out "collective" actions, counteract enemy air defense and independently choose the most important target. In the computer memory of missiles, there are so-called “portraits” of radar for all ships, and information about all possible versions of orders is also included. Missiles attack along the most rational trajectory, having built themselves as a warrant and exchanging information with each other. As already mentioned, in the salvo of one project 949A submarine there are 24 missiles, each of which also has its own false targets for breaking through the missile defense. 23 missiles go low above the water, one rises higher, periodically turning on the radar to aim at the target. It determines the number of targets and distributes them between other missiles. In the case of the destruction of the "leader", his place is taken by the next rocket. The largest target, that is, an aircraft carrier, in the warrant of ships is automatically determined by missiles. After a breakthrough, missiles distribute targets according to their importance in order to ultimately ensure the defeat of an aircraft carrier. First, cover ships standing in the way of the missiles are destroyed, and then a strike is struck on the aircraft carrier.

Everything is mixed in a heap and does not correspond to reality. There is no reservation. The volcano "collectively" (like Granite) does not work. Targeting is carried out not independently (like Granite), but by the operator.
And again this rocket is the "leader"

Quote: Ascetic

however, when approaching the line of missile launch, this ship will inevitably be detected by means of AWG ALCD and attacked by carrier-based aircraft.

I repeat, for this there is a mode of tracking weapons in peacetime.

[wall]

Here, about two or three weeks ago, in the comments under one article, there was a discussion about whether it was worth adopting from the Americans their methods of waging wars. Some comrades were terribly minus for such proposals, for some reason they confused the methods of waging wars with the reasons for waging wars. I like some of their aspects of information interaction between branches of the military on the battlefield. As I understand it, they create a kind of "cap" over the area of ​​operation of their troops, where they completely control the information about what is happening. I emphasize! Information. The situation can always get out of control, people are not omnipotent. But the one who controls the information flows from the battlefield always has a much greater chance of getting out of a difficult situation with fewer losses, and perhaps even turning it around in his favor. This is the aspect I would like to see in our Army. But, unfortunately, our generals have been preparing for the "good old" World War II since 45, and the Americans learn their lessons from each new conflict, and therefore they are ahead of the rest of the world in the tactics of warfare.

[Alexey Zan]

I am extremely negative about the plans for the construction of aircraft carriers by Russia, and I hope that they will never be realized. Because in the absence of geopolitical interests in remote areas of the oceans, they become a useless and very expensive toy in the spirit of the battleships of Nicholas II.

And for those who complain that the USSR has not created full-fledged ABs, I propose to conduct such a retrospective experiment. Let's say in the 80s the USSR built, say, 2-4 nuclear aircraft carriers that Russia would have got in 91. Try to answer two questions 1) What would be their fate? 2) How many times would they have been useful to Russia over the past 20 years?

[Santa Fe]

Following your logic, you should completely abandon the Ocean Fleet, forget about Camran, Guantanomo and support for fraternal regimes. If today's Russia is ready for this, then the USSR was not ready for this.
As we have already found out, there is no ocean fleet without aircraft carriers.

Try to answer two questions 1) What would be their fate? 2) How many times would they have been useful to Russia over the past 20 years?
They would be sold to China.
But we are talking about the times of the USSR

[Alexey Zan]

It would be something to refuse ... The nuclear submarines are definitely needed as part of the strategic nuclear forces triad, and the rest is a whim for which there are no tasks. For me, surface ships larger than EM Russia are not needed.

By the way, every time Russia forgets about it and starts building a "big fleet" something bad happens to it.

[altman]

and not vice versa? Russia is building a large fleet in response to emerging threats, but more often than not ..

[Alexey Zan]

No. Just the construction of a large fleet is a symptom of degradation of the system, because there are no threats from the sea requiring the creation of a large fleet in Russia.

By the way, this was clearly shown by the WWII and the Second World War, when the effectiveness of actions like ships and its tonnage had an inverse relationship.

[altman]

complete nonsense .. building ships before both wars - the answer to the threat !! The degradation of the system under Stalin at the end of the 30s .. well, utter nonsense !!! I don’t know how old you are .. but for Stalin in 30-40 years old ordinary people would have cut your throat, believe me .. and you are a degradation ..

[Alexey Zan]

You are mistaken if you think that the harsh language makes you convincing.

What threats should Russia respond by creating an ocean fleet? Protecting nonexistent colonies or nonexistent ocean communications?

Regarding the Stalinist program for building a large fleet, it was delusional not only because of the lack of tasks for the fleet, but also because of the lack of technological capabilities for its implementation. And the post-war sober revision of the program actually led to its cancellation, which once again emphasizes the original fallacy.

[altman]

do not mix flies and cutlets ..
First of all, determine for yourself: Russia is a sea power or not? if so, then a large ocean fleet is needed, if not, then there is no court ..
regarding the curtailment of the delusional program .. After the Second World War, there was simply not enough money for the large ocean fleet, so the construction was curtailed .. and after the development of missile weapons it led to the construction of a completely different fleet ..
but about threats .. then the country had two hands .. the ground forces and the navy .. a country without a fleet is a one-armed country ... we could not escort the same convoys from Great Britain because there was no ocean fleet

[Alexey Zan]

First of all, define the term itself: "Sea Power". And all the more, there is no need to put me in the conditions of a false dichotomy.

In its entire history, Russia has never participated in maritime conflicts outside the seas directly adjacent to its territory (maximum against Turkey in the Mediterranean). Did she need an ocean fleet? The obvious answer is no.

Those. I certainly do not mind if someone kind gives Russia and maintains an ocean fleet, even if there are no tasks for it. But the problem is that you need to build and maintain it with your own money, for which there are dozens and even hundreds of much more urgent methods of application, including in the defense sphere.

Even the richest countries have no "extra money". If it increases somewhere, it means it decreases in another place. If, before WWI, Tsar Niki hadn't jerked off to big iron ships like cousin George and cousin Willie, but spent these funds on modernizing the land army, then you see, the collapse of Russia would not have happened, which in the 20th century cost us 70-80 million people.

P.S. Escort of convoys from Britain, from Australia or from Mars is a completely atypical situation for Russia. Even in the 40th year, the Soviet leadership could not even dream about this in a terrible dream. And it is logical that no one created a fleet for this.

P.P.S. Read the book "Stalin's Sperlinkors", there is enough detail about the technological capabilities of the USSR to build such ships.

[J_silver]

And what is the matter of Russia to Kamrani? Do not remember when and who refused it?
What matters to Guantanamo, the AMERICAN base in Cuba? We already have nothing to do with Cuba ...
Remind me - which regimes are currently in the category of fraternal ones?

[Santa Fe]

What matters to Guantanamo, the AMERICAN base in Cuba?
EMNIP somewhere in those places was a Russian base

Remind me - which regimes are currently in the category of fraternal ones?
And then the USSR was proud of its influence on the whole world.

[Region71]

J_Silver many of you minus you, people do not like the truth of the womb, but sooooo much you are right lame pirate.

[dmitri077]

"Following your logic, you should completely abandon the Ocean Fleet, forget about Cam Ranh, Guantanomo and support for fraternal regimes" - dear colleague on the site, you no longer live in the USSR .. what kind of "ocean fleet" are we talking about? it is tens of years and tens of billions of dollars! who will create all this and how? Even the USSR had only a few dry naval bases around the world, all our "friends" for some reason "froze" to let us visit! ask this question! and most importantly: who were these very friends? and look at the basing system of the US Navy ... NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE ?! .. Russia's "fraternal regimes" are generally a joke

[Santa Fe]

We discussed the USSR. About Russia, and so everything is clear

[FREGATENKAPITAN]

...... About Guantonamo did not confuse anything?

[saruman]

Aircraft carriers fascinate with their power ...
Currently, I also see no reason in the construction of aircraft carriers. We urgently need to build ships and submarines to cover the sea borders and marine economic regions of Russia. So far, we have no geopolitical tasks for the carrier fleet.
Another thing is that you will need to have a technological reserve for the construction of aircraft carriers (in which case). To do this, keep the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov in working order and, most importantly, train the pilots. It is possible to build another medium-displacement aircraft carrier, following the example of France.

[ab]

Quote: saruman

Perhaps build another medium-displacement aircraft carrier, following the example of France.

Exactly, buy in France or remake Mistral
For the construction of aircraft carriers it is necessary to solve several problems.
1. design
2 construction (build a new shipyard)
3. The creation of the entire spectrum of carrier-based aviation
4 crew training
5Pilot training
6.cyl escort building
7 base point + infrastructure
Set real goals. None of these points Russia is currently unable to fulfill. This is a problem in the case of 20 years

[dmitri077]

"I have an extremely negative attitude to Russia's plans to build aircraft carriers, and I hope they will never be implemented. Because in the absence of geopolitical interests in remote areas of the world ocean, they become useless and very expensive toys in the spirit of the battleships of Nicholas II." - and it is right The "mosquito" fleet is a more realistic prospect, + the coastal defense needs to be put in order ... but don't fantasize: either by aircraft carriers or by marines in the deserts of Africa ...

[MURANO]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

But we are talking about the times of the USSR

The joke is that nothing happened without aircraft carriers.

[Santa Fe]

True remark, MURANO, but you are judging from the position of 2012 of the year.
And in 1970x, when the concepts of the use of the Navy were developed, no one knew that the USSR would disintegrate and the fleet would become useless to anyone.
And the decision to build titanium nuclear submarines and "Smart" Granites instead of AUG does not seem to be the most competent decision.

In the end, the aircraft carriers could have gone to the Russian Federation, perhaps it would not have been necessary to buy Mistrals

[FREGATENKAPITAN]

... And the decision to build titanium nuclear submarines and "Smart" Granites instead of AUG does not look like the most competent decision ....
... Oracles, you got your stupidity ............ no one has yet proved that the Soviet Naval Doctrine was wrong, or is this article a bible that does not require proof? ..... The author is trying to manipulate historical facts here and is completely incompetent in matters of tactics of use and strike submarines, and in general the use of anti-ship missiles ... doggy ...

[2c4]

Hello everyone.
I read the article carefully.
And all the comments.
And I will say the following - the author does not understand a damn thing.
I read books - and decided to read the article.
This is proved in just one phrase.
Everyone carefully reads the article again, and searches.
Do not find after 2 days, unsubscribe, what exactly I had in mind.

[Perch_xnumx]

No need for Russian aircraft carriers. For one simple reason, there is no money for this; the navel will simply be untied. To create even one AUG is just a lot of money. Money has not yet been printed and distributed to the rest of the world. We need an asymmetric answer. For example, stealth missile boats and improved RPC trajectory and visibility. Or even simpler like China's anti-aircraft ballistic missiles. Fight on equal terms with suicide in America. You may have to repel the attack of democracy, off the coast of the homeland. This is where the asymmetric answer comes in handy.

[Railways]

Well, Iran in Hormuz will definitely do it. He has Chinese Yj-82 (Yj-83), Yj-62, most likely.

[ICT]

quote: although as an attack aircraft, Yak was probably not bad.

in general, under the Union, he was called the "Dove of Peace"

[Santa Fe]

A formidable Yak is flying in the sky - Yak on the deck @ Uyak

Of course, it was a shitty plane, although with the use of a takeoff takeoff its performance characteristics improved markedly. How will the attack aircraft go if there is nothing else

[ab]

The construction of a kilometer of four-lane road in the EU countries costs $ 6,9 million, in the USA - $ 5,9 million, in China - $ 2,9 million, in Brazil - $ 3,6 million, in Russia - almost $ 13 million. This is the average price. Moscow has its own records. The construction of new roads in the capital is more expensive than the tunnel under the English Channel. For example, the cost of a kilometer of the Fourth Ring of Moscow is estimated at about $ 400 million (74 kilometers), and a 50-kilometer tunnel cost the British and French $ 12 billion.

Imagine how much the advance group will cost

[FREGATENKAPITAN]

.... Translate to hamburgers, you better get it!

[ab]

Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN

.... Translate to hamburgers, you better get it

that besides hamburgers nothing comes to mind?
Esquire magazine calculated how high a layer of black caviar, foie gras or shredded Louis Vuitton bags would be if the Adler-Krasnaya Polyana Olympic road (227 billion rubles for 48 kilometers) were built from these materials.
Bags Louis Vuitton 9 cm
When calculating the thickness of the layer, the price of a Louis Vuitton Knightsbridge bag (1 euros per piece) was used
Black caviar 1,1 cm
When calculating the thickness of the layer, the manufacturer’s wholesale price for a can of beluga caviar weighing 30 grams (1 rubles) was used.
Oysters 6,37 cm
When calculating the thickness of the layer, the price of oysters used in Moscow restaurants (120 rubles apiece) was used.
US dollars 0,028 cm
When calculating the thickness of the layer (two bills), banknotes of 100 denominations were used (each thickness is 0,014 cm).
Hennessy Cognac 13,85 cm
When calculating the thickness of the layer, the price of Hennessy VSOP cognac in the volume of 1 liter (3 rubles) was used.
everything as requested

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Uh-huh. Only you forgot to mention WHAT this Olympic road is. Yes, of course, that's what the calculation is for - to blur the "road" of "forty-eight kilometers" - and everyone at once imagines a kind of broken-down route between Kitezh-city Zazvezdyunsky-Zauralsky.
That's what this Olympic road is.
Firstly, it is not only automobile, but also railway.
Secondly, there are 12 tunnels with a total length of 30 kilometers.
Thirdly, there are over 30 bridges and overpasses
But you somehow "forgot" about all this
I do not argue that the Olympic is expensive - dope is heinous and drank dough there too, but not at all as epic as you would like :)))
Well, your numbers on the construction of roads-complete bullshit from Nemtsov and comrades. The refutation of the nonsense quoted by you here - http://www.inright.ru/articles/id_298/

Let's figure out how much it is necessary to spend in Russia on the construction of a road in comparison with other countries. The question immediately arises - which one? Primers? City street? Or a multi-lane backbone? For example, let's take the high-speed highway Moscow - St. Petersburg with the number of lanes 4, 6, 8, and 10. Its one kilometer is estimated at an average of 907 million rubles, or? 24,5 million. We discard 20% for the purchase of land, and it turns out? 19,6 million per kilometer. The cost of a similar highway in Germany is? 19,15 million per kilometer, in Sweden -? 25,76 million per kilometer, in Norway -? 23,57 million per kilometer. In Switzerland, due to the most difficult mountainous terrain, it turns out to be significantly higher -? 45 million per kilometer. So the objective costs are quite comparable. At the same time, if you do not take large projects, the cost of building roads in Russia, in principle, is very low. For example, in 2009, a total of 3000 km of roads were built, for which 342 billion rubles were spent. It turns out that the average cost of one kilometer was? 3 million per kilometer. "

[ab]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Well, your numbers on the construction of roads-complete bullshit from Nemtsov and comrades.

I didn’t know that the program * maximum * and * man and law * was led by Nemtsov. He, like the many-faced Janus or Satan, changes his guise. Choose what is closer to you

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Sagging ... you also took numbers from a box? Expert:))))
In general - read the refutation and do not disgrace

[Santa Fe]

DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH FROGEN CAPTAIN. He is insane

[dmitri077]

"imagine how much the advance group will cost" - haa, thanks for the statistics! very interesting figures .. autobahns in Russia, judging by the prices, are the best in the world! "fascists" cry bitterly in the corner AUG will never be in Russia! it is impossible in principle. Hire better than the Swedes and Norwegians and they will build an inexpensive normal coastal fleet for you ... that's enough

[Tyumen]

You, the provocateur, are trying so hard today, you shit everywhere. True, sometimes you forget yourself, and instead of YOU out of habit you say WE, Judas.

[dmitri077]

"You, a provocateur, are trying so hard today, you shit everywhere. True, sometimes you forget, and instead of YOU, out of habit, you say WE, Judas." - have you been watching me for a long time? if I’m a provocateur, so lead me under the little white hands to the competent comrades from the Lubyanka, let them sort it out in proletarian terms ... I remember everything perfectly, because I try to think before writing ... sometimes it turns out and whom did I betray? don't talk nonsense anymore, I ask you ... I don’t know the truth who you are ..

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Well what can I say?

[common man]

Author's quote: "In 1968, during Typhoon Diana, a Soviet submarine secretly escorted the aircraft carrier Enterprise for 12 hours. The storm did not allow carrier-based aircraft to take off, and then there was no one else to cover the AUG. "
And that we have few days a year with stormy weather? Especially in the North, or in the "Roaring Forties". Wait for stormy weather and calmly attack with bombers. Or than others.
I am not against aircraft carriers, but I cannot consider them a panacea for all ills.

[ab]

Quote: man in the street

The storm did not allow carrier-based aircraft to take off, and then there was no one else to cover the AUG. "
And that we have few days a year with stormy weather? Especially in the North, or in the "Roaring Forties". Wait for stormy weather and calmly attack with bombers

Just before the war, do not forget to warn, start only in a storm, otherwise we do not agree

[common man]

Do you think the war ends on the same day that it begins? This is not a war, but an apocalypse is obtained. Thermonuclear.

[Tyumen]

Quote: ab

otherwise we do not agree

What do you have to do with it?

[Eugene]

A good article. It cools hot heads a little. Guys, well, there is no equipment, there are no specialists. Everything went to the oil industry, to offshore.

[zavesa01]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The Americans almost went crazy - they were already about to ram our submarine, which had lost its course, in order to give away a fragment of a top-secret antenna - then our second submarine (!!!) surfaced with torpedo caps open ...

Where is this infa from? Something says that from OBS (one woman said). Our boats are much noisier than the American ones. The ONLY really low-noise boat is "Warsaw".
And here not so long ago a real case: from the Avatinsky gulf nuclear submarines like Los Angeles were kicked out. This is a word about our CEO. Because they noticed it with IL-38 VISUALLY, the good transparency of water allowed, but they were sure that we practically did not have anti-submarine aircraft.

I already wrote about the flights OVER the deck of the WAR; this is a VIOLATION of the STATE BORDER of the flag state i.e. international scandal.

For ASKET: did you serve in the Navy? How do you imagine going to the APL pier WITHOUT the help of tugboats, into the fog. Generally - this is called swimming in a complex GMO which can lead to at least a navigational accident.

In my opinion, the article certainly has mistakes, but like many other things, it has the right to life. Truth is born in a dispute. And to write such a thing for the sake of a beautiful word is a sin.

[Rusal]

after the descent of Pike-B, at least no worse than Pindos
that's the way she popped up on exercises

[Santa Fe]

If you follow to the end of this story, it turns out that AN / SLQ-25 Nixie was wound on a screw. The anti-torpedo protection system (a false jamming target) which has nothing to do with the GAS.

Navy bike, which has become the doctrine of the use of the submarine fleet in the mouth of many

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

If you follow to the end of this story, it turns out that AN / SLQ-25 Nixie was wound on a screw. The anti-torpedo protection system (a false jamming target) which has nothing to do with the GAS.

None, AN / SLQ-25 but TASS (Towed Array Surveillance System)
And you can see here http://submarine.id.ru/sub.php?671rtmk
so again - past :)))

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

See here http://submarine.id.ru/sub.php?671rtmk

[Eugene]

By the way, one torpedo and a moron commander had enough of the avionics Taiho to turn into a torch. But Forrestal received serious damage from one unfortunate tiny Zuni and EMNIP he could not take any aircraft.

Therefore, here's how lucky. And so, the aircraft carriers also have many interesting places: the arsenals of the aviation group, fuel for aircraft, steam catapults, too, if it is damaged, the aircraft carrier may not even lift its entire wing (who said that it is all in the air)?

And by the way, no one remembered the incident when our boat (forgot what it was called) surfaced right under the belly of the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier and left an impressive hole with a propeller on the bottom of it.

[Santa Fe]

And Forrestal suffered serious damage from one unfortunate tiny Zuni
Not certainly in that way. If you carefully study the history of ANY catastrophe, it always occurs through the fault of some screw, spark or microcrack.
SSBN "Yekaterinburg" suffered billions of damage due to a broken ceiling and violation of safety.

Still, the ship retained its course and partially combat readiness, despite the detonation of 9 bombs and a hundred tons of flammable fuel

It is worth recalling another case - in 1974, the Otvazhny BPK died on the roadstead of Sevastopl from the explosion of 1 Volna air defense missile system.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

It is worth recalling another case - in 1974, the Otvazhny BPK died on the roadstead of Sevastopl from the explosion of 1 Volna air defense missile system.

I generally bastard from the selectivity of your memory. The bombs that exploded on Forrestal counted meticulously. And the fact that on the BOD actually detonated the entire stacking of missiles - they forgot!

[Santa Fe]

Bombs detonated from 1 Zuni fire
The aft cellar of the Otvazhny BPK detonated from a fire caused by 1 missile defense system of the Volna complex

In the fodder of the "Brave" in 2 drums there were 14 combat missiles and 2 training blanks. Half of the 14 missiles detonated + later the helicopter fuel tank ignited (4,5 tons). The ship burned up and sank.

Any other questions, Andrey

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

In the fodder of the "Brave" in 2 drums there were 14 combat missiles and 2 training blanks. Half of the 14 missiles detonated + later the helicopter fuel tank ignited (4,5 tons). The ship burned up and sank.

Yeah, schazz :)))
At 10.00, crew members close to the aft rocket cellar heard hissing, popping, popping. A minute later, a marching engine of one of the rockets in the aft cellar spontaneously occurred. Through 25 - 30, the starting engine of the second rocket, then the others, went off ... Three successive explosions of aft battery rockets sounded. The roof of the aft superstructure along with the launch pad was torn down and thrown onto the aft chimneys. The main transverse bulkheads on the 191 - 215 frames turned out to be destroyed, cracks and tears formed in the ship's hull, and the 24 crew member died. Three compartments flooded with water (No. 10 — 12, from 164 to the 233 th unit) and the room of the chiller No. 3 (9 compartment). Already 8 minutes after the explosion, the ship had a roll to the starboard side up to 12 ° with a trim at the stern of 1,5 m. By 10.20 the fire intensified and the stern began to spread in the stern from ignition of the escaping fuel (fire to the 164 st.). In order to avoid detonation from a burning BOD, five combat torpedoes were fired overboard. Approaching the "Brave" DBK "Conscious" (project 56A) landed in 10.56 emergency rescue team (ASG) of ten people and began towing a burning ship to the shore. In 11. 45 LNG from 11 people landed on the "Courageous" and with the RCB "Bedovy". Because of the jammed steering wheel, towing was slow, but in 11.43 "Conscious" mixed up the teams and stopped towing, chopping off the ends. Within an hour, the towing of the “Brave” did not resume. The Komsomolets of Ukraine who came to the rescue tried to bring down the flames in the area of ​​cellar No. 10 with water jets (from 12.19 to 12.45), but was forced to step aside. With 12.45 towing of the “Brave” began “Bedovoy” (up to 15.41) at a speed of 2 - 3 knots and towards the open sea. The PDS-123 and the tug SB-15 tried to extinguish the fire on the "Brave". But the roll to the starboard side had already exceeded 16 ° by that time, and the fire had displaced the crew fighting for the survivability of the ship into the bow. In 14.00, the wounded and injured were removed from the board of the “Valiant”, and after another 10 minutes, they started feeding foam into the feed machine. In 14.45, the ammunition of depth bombs exploded in the cellar No. 10 from heating, and the fire spread to the cubes No. 5 and 6. The explosion destroyed the bulkheads on the 233 - 251 th frames and flooded compartments No. 13, 14. The ship has already taken 2200 tons of water, almost 40% of the length of the hull was flooded. The kerosene storage exploded. The Valiant’s roll increased to 27 °, and it was already impossible to save him (the trim on the stern was 6,5 m, and the upper deck went into the water to the barb of the aft artillery tower). From 15.03 to 15.24, personnel left the doomed ship. Roll to starboard increased to 32 °. From the loss of longitudinal stability, "Valiant" rose vertically in the water, with his nose pulled up, and went aft down, without capsizing. He completely sank in 15.57 at a depth of 125 m. Subsequently, equipment was dismantled from the sunken ship, and the hull was blown up on the ground.
http://army.lv/ru/proekt-61-poyushchie-fregati/istorija/712/445
Those you again "modestly" kept silent about the explosion of depth charges. Well, okay, God be with you.
Do you have any idea what these "14 combat missiles" are? no? so I'll tell you
The first stage of the B-600 rocket was the PRD-36 powder propellant engine equipped with 14 single-channel cylindrical powder bombs (from NMF-ZK brand powder) with a total weight of 280 kg. On the case of the first stage, four stabilizers were opened that were opened after the start.

The second stage is a rocket made according to the aerodynamic "canard" configuration with cruciform wings and rudders. The second stage engine was also a powder, but equipped with only one checker weighing 125 kg, the gunpowder brand NM-4SH.

The warhead of the 4-90 missile is a high-explosive fragmentation with ready-to-use striking elements. The total weight of the warhead - 60 kg,
In other words, EVERY rocket is 405 kg of gunpowder and 60 kg of explosives.
And 14 combat missiles are 5,6 tons of gunpowder and 840 kg of explosives. To a ship with a standard displacement of 3,5 thousand tons
More questions?:)))

[Santa Fe]

And what did you tell me new?

1. Not all missiles detonated.
2. The total weight of the warhead is 60 kg. Right. But is it warhead or purely explosive?

The ratio remained true. The frigate drowned. Forrestall, receiving an order of magnitude higher dose, remained in the fleet

PS Mark32 Zuni is not a small racket))) 20 kg warhead
How many detonated them?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Firstly, that the explosion of deep bombs joined the explosion of missiles, is it really reluctant to read like that?
Secondly - here you explain to me who you need to be in order to put on one board the ship 100 thousand tons of displacement and the ship in 3,5 thousand tons of displacement?
Thirdly, who told you that not all SAMs detonated? I do not have such data, do not get a reference? And along with the information, where exactly 4,5 tons of helicopter fuel were taken from.
According to warhead - there are about 50 on 50 BB and damaging elements. In US ammunition, too, striking elements have a place to be.

[755962]

Clearly like a day, aircraft carriers need justification that these are floating targets in the past. The financial component is important, but even this can not be compared with the power that it carries. Filling such a floating airfield is also not so simple. And it looks like we began to think about it seriously. At the moment, the Russian fleet is completing the formation of the terms of reference for an aircraft carrier. In 2012, the primary appearance of the new ship will be determined. The final project of the aircraft carrier is planned to be prepared by 2017. In this case, as the president of USC Roman Trotsenko stated earlier, the ship will be launched in 2023. May God grant.

[Alexey Zan]

Clear as day, aircraft carriers needed

Ahem, if this is so clear, can the rest explain why Russia needs them? Against whom will she use them?

[755962]

Demonstrate the FLAG for especially greyhounds!

[Alexey Zan]

Do not you find that a little expensive show-offs are obtained?

[755962]

Not more expensive than money, health is more expensive

[Alexey Zan]

In our country, are more and more urgent problems solved in the state? Or maybe there is some extra money?

You only confirm my words above - aircraft carriers for Russia are a meaningless and expensive (and therefore harmful) posturing.

[atesterev]

"Fire-hazardous compartments are filled with hydrogen peroxide if necessary."

Oh! How is that?

[2c4]

You first found this phrase after me)))
One she shows how the author is an "expert" in the issue of the fleet

[Santa Fe]

probably carbon. black spot

[Eugene]

Hydrogen peroxide is like a clause. Pretty rough. I noticed immediately, but still ....

[nnz226]

The question is where the anti-ship missiles hit: the catapult area was hit, out of order and we have a barge for $ 5 billion, because the planes will not take off. Crashed into the wheelhouse - the flight control system was disrupted, it was difficult to control takeoffs and landings from the hold. Torpedoes will not drown such a colossus, but once they hit the propellers or the steering group of the ship, they make it uncontrollable, which is necessary to ensure flights. There are no "ideal" unsinkable and undamaged super-protected ships. Again, the Granite anti-ship missile system can carry 20 Kt in a warhead, but nothing will save you from this .... If the United States and Russia clash in a straight line (not in the style of Vietnam), then atomic weapons will certainly be used

[Santa Fe]

Catapults are dispersed, a couple on the bow, a couple on the corner deck.
You need two hits, at least

[pavelk]

Catapult alone under the canvas. It’s just saying a big balloon with steam. To do several of them - the take-off of the aircraft will not be extended.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/aircraftcarriers/carriers.html

And one hit on the take-off deck is enough to break the chains - and for a couple of days it's just a barge with a reactor.

[Andy]

the explosion of even one ton of explosive cannot cause serious harm to an aircraft carrier. What Soviet designers hoped for when creating the P-700 Granite is unclear.

the author said stupidity. But are missiles more powerful or something? Already this completely negates the meaning of the article. As for missile cruisers, they must act in conjunction with an aircraft carrier, like submarines. Kuznetsov is also capable of combining another aircraft carrier’s battle and covering up the apl and surface attack ships to launch an attack. and in the conditions of air opposition it’s not so easy to find apl. it’s clear that throwing them into battle alone is a heroic but ridiculous death. and the designers hoped that they would use them wisely. The Union began to build aircraft-carrying cruisers (Kuznetsov, Varyag + nuclear carrier Ulyanovsk ) ... it is impossible to blame the political catastrophes and the failure of the entire program on the creators of weapons.
By the way, Kuznetsov is a universal ship, a combination of an aircraft carrier with a reduced air wing and a cruiser. its purpose is the protection of its ships from enemy aircraft. in essence, an escort aircraft carrier. and Amer’s aircraft carriers were originally designed to operate on foreign shores, an airfield and no more. The rest are functions for an escort.

Both types of ships are needed — and an aircraft-carrying cruiser and a full-fledged, heavy aircraft carrier. to complement each other. for in some cases an aircraft cruiser is preferable. in general it all depends on the situation and tasks. in the meantime, there’s nothing (except a single Kuznetsov) and they’re not planning to build (beyond talking) everything to a war on paper — whoever will take

[750]

Another proof that the pros are leaving, they are left alone as they are there, who put out the fire with hydrogen peroxide, write about 2,5 inches of Kevlar, the inefficiency of 1 ton of warheads, and other Brad. I found an interesting article about P 700 http://military.tomsk.ru/blog/topic-398.html much more informative. Portal editor, stop filling up ether with chyuha, and immature brains !!!

[MURANO]

Quote: 750

http://military.tomsk.ru/blog/topic-398.html

The correct link.

[Region71]

I can confidently assert that the historical facts are somewhat distorted in the article. The losses of the Navy are described, but how many planes were destroyed during these attacks are not described. For example, Bismarck was not such an easy target, and Marat was able to be lowered to the ground only because he was immovable target. However, it was not possible to destroy it to the end. The US fleet in Pearl Harbor burned down precisely because it was anchored, the Japanese attack was a complete surprise, in fact, the destruction of targets for which at first was not There was no anti-aircraft fire at all. If you look at a closer story, the American STARK received 2 anti-ship missiles from the Iraqi mirage as a result of the crew’s banal negligence. Moreover, one missile did not explode then. The automatic air defense tracking and destruction system was disabled on the ship. I cannot objectively judge other cases of attacks by aircraft, but if you think about new anti-ship missiles, sea-based missiles are much more likely to destroy an enemy ship than carrier-based aircraft.

[Kars]

And I like this video, albeit from an American movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhj8ITvp-pw&feature=related

[soldier of fortune]

A very emotional, very subjective and, as a result, a lot of controversy and criticism of the article. It is immediately evident that the author is very fond of aircraft carriers and will give a lot of reasons "FOR", and ignore all the arguments "AGAINST". This, in fact, distinguishes a specialist from an amateur.

1. There were no unsinkable ships in history. And everyone who thought so about themselves only confirmed this truth. Let's remember! : "Titanic", "Bismarck", "Yamato". (For a big ship - a big torpedo! ............. well, or an iceberg ........ or a reef, .... or a rocket, - how it goes!)
2. The whole point of any fight (power confrontation - war): In defense - do not miss (and it is better already at distant approaches), in attack - beat for sure (and it is better from far).
Therefore ............... maybe AUG and "will not let you in," but no one will ask too much. Rather, on the contrary, they will try to break through by any possible and not very ways.
3. The meaning of all anti-ship missiles and torpedoes is to stoke any existing ship. That is why all anti-ship missiles are obliged to break through to the target and punch the body for undermining inside (undermining in a confined space is an order of magnitude more destructive) and therefore have an armored head.
500kg of special explosives is at least a hole of more than 10m in diameter and more than 20m deep considering kinetic energy due to the square of supersonic speed. 20m - half the width of the aircraft carrier along the waterline.
And if the rocket comes along the edge of the water, then with saba it will drag 1000 tons of the ocean per second. After 1 min, this is half the ship's displacement. Even with all the warped bulkheads, shell-shocked, burnt, wounded, and choking, the team to localize the flooded compartments will take a very long time (tens of minutes). About getting RCC into the wheelhouse, engine room, stern (steering wheels, propellers, aerofinishes) I don’t speak at all
Even without a leader rocket ........... the main thing is to break through :)

And you keep silent about the 533 and 650 hummingbird torpedoes ........... 400kg of explosives per meter under the bottom is more powerful than any rocket (water is not compressible, hydrodynamic shock is much more powerful than aerodynamic) ....... ...

...... and there are already 4 of them in one gulp!
Even if it does not break ......... it will not float away :)

4. For every tricky ................... there is ................. (nowadays with any thread) .
Even the bourgeoisie recognize that aviation has not been a panacea for a long time. The modern development of air defense systems is ensured by the defeat of aircraft with a coefficient. 0,9. And some say 0,98. So that the AUG, or rather its air wing, will in turn encounter the same problems. (how to break through, how to eat ... to eat?)

There are a couple more .... three tricks, but this is a military secret :)

[Santa Fe]

All this was in World War II. Paradoxically, the fact - air bombs, torpedoes, explosions in the interior, kamikaze attacks did not lead to the loss of an NIOD ship. Fires on aircraft carriers in 60x demonstrated the same thing.
It is an illusion that 750 kg of explosives is an invincible power, for huge ships it is not serious.

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

but the fact - air bombs, torpedoes, explosions in the interior, kamikaze attacks did not lead to the loss of an NIOD ship

Uncle, what are you smoking? How did half a hundred only aircraft carriers go down? For example, Elastriess? Ark-Royal? Odessa? Hiryu? Sinano?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kars

Uncle, what are you smoking? How did half a hundred only aircraft carriers go down? For example, Elastriess? Ark-Royal? Odessa? Hiryu? Sinano?

Dear Kars, most likely the aircraft carriers you specified (and many, many others) went to the bottom simply by making yourself hara-kiri because of contempt for the enemy :)))

[Kars]

I completely agree with you regarding the 20 sunken Japanese aircraft carriers, but what about the 19 aircraft carriers in England and the United States?

[soldier of fortune]

Yes, you are generally, I do not look a serious person ............ you have already listed so many facts with the names of the sunken ships, which are known to everyone, and you all the same do it yourself.
Moreover, mind you, huge ships sank all and sundry with missiles and torpedoes, and even the iceberg took part

And at the expense of the Second World War, you don’t have to go far, ................ most of the losses of the USSR fleet (craiskra, destroyers, submarines) occurred from air raids (while not all ships sank. ............... however, they were no longer able to fight, and until the end of the war they stood for repair)

[Alexey Zan]

You yourself understand very well that the comparison of heavy RCC and kamikaze of the Second World War is not that it is not correct, it is blatantly delusional.

The detonation of 250 kg (100-150 kg of explosives) of air bombs and a couple of hundred kilograms of kerosene on the flight deck you equate to detonation of 750 kg in the interior.

[viruskvartirus]

something is doubtful))))

[Dart weyder]

Mlyn - you're stubborn !!!!! of course - in our time 750-kg explosive is not serious, technology has stepped !!!! so maybe the tank (you certainly immediately thought about Abrams or Mekava! ???) 20 kg of explosives to one place! ???? not buzi - stay with your own, and the rest with your own opinion, why amuse the child - he is trying to increase his self-esteem, to hell with him, it’s useless to prove anyway .... although he would put him on some Enterprise thread - and with him permissions (if you agree) sometimes, or more of the same Ganites, we thought - b!

[Ramses_IV]

And you still forgot to mention torpedoes with SBC. This one doesn’t even have to get into the aircraft carrier, but just an explosion nearby is enough.

[MURANO]

Quote: soldier of fortune

therefore have an armored warhead.

It is more correct to write "penetrating warhead." Or they use a cumulative high-explosive one.

[soldier of fortune]

No, Dear! Correctly "armored", as the manufacturer determined. It is already penetrating by definition. There are no non-penetrating anti-ship missiles (there is no point in them, the fire deck and a couple of demolished superstructures are not too much damage). And they arm it just so that no small interference (in the form of non-armor-piercing bullets and steel fragments of anti-missile missiles did not damage the warhead, including the electronic filling, and could not displace the anti-ship missile system from the uncontrollable last section of the glide path).

High explosive cumulative warheads in RCC ???
You hike, SHIPS and TANKS confuse! There wasn’t, there isn’t and will not be such warheads in RCC - this is stupid! High-explosive shaped-charge warheads are designed to break through homogeneous (up to 1000 mm) or multilayer steel armor. At the same time, the hole, independent of the mass of the explosive, will be no more than 50 mm across (no one will notice it, but they will notice it ............ they plugged it with an old ragged toe).

You won’t dodge such a trickle of molten metal in the tank, and the ammunition pack can hit on hit (although I saw tanks with three such holes from different directions and nothing - it blew! Crews escaped with a light fright .......... jet flew without hooking anyone! But this is a rarity.)

[MURANO]

Quote: soldier of fortune

And they book it just so that no small interference (in the form of non-armor-piercing bullets and steel fragments of anti-ballistic missiles, would damage the warhead including electronic stuffing, and could not shift the anti-ship missiles from the uncontrolled last section of the glide path).

Have you seen RCC? And in the context? Did you feel the insides?
NO. So do not fantasize.

Quote: soldier of fortune

High explosive cumulative warheads in RCC ???

Yes. They stood on the following anti-ship missiles of our Navy: P-15, P-35, P-6, Basalt, Amethyst, Malachite.

[soldier of fortune]

In order not to be unfounded .............. discard the link to the constructive scheme. And I will show you what, where, and how it costs. Particularly interested in where you saw the cumulative high-explosive section in the context?
RCCs of previous generations can be viewed online and in museums across the country.
The fact that now on combat duty no one will see, cut and touch will not give!

[MURANO]

Quote: soldier of fortune

throw off the link to the design diagram.

I have not seen such links.

Quote: soldier of fortune

And I will show you what, where, and how it costs. Particularly interested in where you saw the cumulative high-explosive section in the context?

To show something, you need to know. I would have shown.
And in the context he saw and wrote notes about her at the school.

Quote: soldier of fortune

RCCs of previous generations can be viewed online and in museums across the country.

Yes? And Malachite, Basalt?
For infa-cumulative excavation of Basalt in diameter of about 50 cm. It is located in the lower part of the warhead (resembles a standard iron barrel) and the axis of the future plane at an angle to the horizontal plane.

[soldier of fortune]

And here I met! ............... prokhor-tebin.livejournal.com .................. http: // young .rzd.ru / isvp / public / young? STRUCTURE_ID = 5043 & layer_id = 3833 & id = 51448 ........ http: //www.rucompany.ru/company.php? id_company = 1771

I don’t know what you saw and what the notes were written, but apparently it didn’t help you. Maybe you do not believe your eyes?

In my opinion, everything is perfectly visible ............ Armored ECU, warhead, too. What else does?
And what kind of vocational school prepares such specialists?

Yes! And Malachite and Basalt, and many more interesting things are in museums (Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc.)

[MURANO]

Quote: soldier of fortune

And here I met!

Happy for you.
And what's in the first link?
On the second link-KR Granit. Bch-penetrating, as I wrote. There is no special armor. But the rocket is tenacious due to the fact that it is designed for underwater launch (respectively, thick walls). Unlike the western ones, which start in the capsule. Well the survivability of the BASU is affected by the design feature of the BASU rocket located in the central body.
By the way, the author reprinted my own phrases from the site http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/index-439.html which I helped the respected DIMMI.
Where are the rebuttals about high-explosive cumulative warheads other than Granite, Volcano, Mosquito, Onyx, Uranus?
And you won’t find it. Because I wrote the truth. And any specialist-winger will confirm it.

Quote: soldier of fortune

but apparently it didn’t help you.

Believe me, this is not for you to judge.

Quote: soldier of fortune

Armored computer

Circle the circle?

Quote: soldier of fortune

And what kind of vocational school prepares such specialists?

You do not compare with your education.
And I studied at the Higher Naval School named after P.S. Nakhimov. ChMUPS on slang. Faculty of the Kyrgyz Republic. Submarines. My students were-2. Takhtarov, 2. Sidelnikov. and further down the list.
What about your education?

Quote: soldier of fortune

And Malachite and Basalt, and much more is in museums

In a section? It is interesting to look.

[IrOqUoIs]

I read the article, and so it sucks, at least shoot ... But then I came across a soldier of fortune post and I feel letting go ... One thing is clear, at one time in the USSR whole institutes worked and did not sleep at night, racking their brains over how sink these bourgeois floating airfields. I think they broke these convolutions not in vain - there is an adequate answer ... Everything is not so bad!

[viruskvartirus]

a person can forever break what another has done .... remember Bismarck and Tirpitz .... aviation put a cross on them .... and I tell you missiles will put an end to aircraft carriers ....

[gojesi]

Tirpitz, this is Marinesco ...

[Denis]

Quote: gojesi

Tirpitz, this is Marinesco ...

we do not confuse anything, Marinesko - "Wilgel Gustlov" and others, this is in the Baltic, and the attack of "Tirpitz" - Lunin, North Atlantic

[gojesi]

less beer and TV, then you will perceive reality more adequately. Learn to draw the right conclusions from what you know ... We will win anyway ... Hurray!

[viruskvartirus]

I read all these stories ala who is stronger than a tiger or a lion))) and made the following conclusions: 1. RCC can reach the Pendosovsky aircraft carrier.
2. even one hit will certainly not sink him, but given that taking off and landing on such garbage is not a simple matter and taking into account the possibility of getting into unpleasant places (by balls)), at least it will greatly complicate the work of aviation. 3. in order to hurt such healthy bullshit, you need to give her a good pendal ... tobish a powerful warhead or high speed, which is preferable from the point of view of overcoming all attempts to avoid the pendal.
4. so that the evil pendos did not escape the pendal, you need to do it from afar ... And then it turns out the trouble big pendosovskoy garbage can be brought in such ways: 1. a large TU 160 with 12 long-range and fast missiles, and preferably 12 small SU-34 planes with one such missile ... 2. Premier League think I can do a lot of good .... 3. and that you kind of missed everything ... sea mines .... I know minesweepers, underwater vehicles ... but that did not stop the pendos from running into the penny old Iranian mine .... and modern mines are not khukh mukhras ....

[AlexMH]

Aircraft carriers are a weapon against the weak. In the event of a big war, these are just big targets. Leaving aside all large-caliber wake-guided torpedoes, anti-ship missiles with nuclear warheads and massive launches of air-to-surface missiles from a distance greater than the aircraft carrier's defense zone, I recall that in Soviet times there was a simple project for the simultaneous destruction of all US aircraft carrier groups in the event of nuclear war. They are perfectly tracked from space, each group is fired with a Topol-type ICBM, during the missile's flight time (20-30 minutes) the aircraft carrier group does not have time to leave the radius of destruction of a megaton warhead. And they abandoned this idea mainly because the aircraft carrier groups no longer had real combat value in the event of a nuclear war, and it is more profitable to use missiles to strike cities and missile bases.

[viruskvartirus]

yes, I don’t like his last method at all .... (

[Kyrgyz]

the poplar will not fall on the aircraft carrier, the launch of the poplar is the beginning of the apocalypse, and nothing will be unimportant

[J_silver]

And where is the megaton warhead on Topol?
For half an hour AUG quietly snaps almost 20 kilometers

[soldier of fortune]

And for what half an hour?
BR Poplar from Plesetsk to Kamchatka (Kura training ground) flies 24min (7000km). By AUG in the ocean, from Plesetsk will only shoot full!

They will beat for sure, almost point blank (from the coast). So that the flight time does not exceed 5-10 min max.

[J_silver]

So it seems to me that a ballistic missile somehow turns out wrong ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

People, do not fantasize :))) First of all, in order to hit a ballistic ballistic missile against AUG you need to know its location absolutely precisely, which is actually impossible without the same AWACS. Secondly (and most importantly) for 5-10 min AUG moving at a speed of 30 knots will go to 4,6 - 9,2 km. And this is provided that exactly 0 seconds elapse between the appearance of the AUG coordinate data before the ballista’s launch, which again is impossible (flight task must be entered)

[SAVA555.IVANOV]

Put the thruster

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

The approach is generally correct. But the problem is that this problem could not be solved in the USSR (although they were engaged in nipadetski) We, if we are very puzzled, this may be solved. China, I think, drives the blizzard. But it is unlikely that we are going to do it now - the fact is that correction is possible only in the upper atmosphere, then the warhead will still fall ballistic, and there it is - quite easy to catch for СМ3 standards.
Hypersonic RCCs as promising topics for development in my opinion look much more attractive :)))

[ward]

Then a friend correctly noted ... The aircraft carrier, in principle, is against the weak ... 100-200 tons for combat sortie, but with good air defense ... It's a penny .... In general, the effectiveness of modern aviation, as recent wars have shown, to put it mildly, not very ... Yes, and it’s expensive ... And what will they do when their electronics sprinkle, and it sprinkles ..... Breaking down does not build .... It’s for nothing that Tahran quickly, quickly got into a cough for the suppression system ... Here they’re afraid of her ...

[AlexMH]

J_silver,
The warhead there is 0,9 Mt. And 20 km is just about the radius of destruction, given that the aircraft carrier is not very streamlined and highly combustible :) And then, 20 km is if it goes at full speed, and changing course, that is, it knows what it is scorching. On cruising - still easier.

[J_silver]

Where is 0.9 from? There was no such data, it seems, anywhere ...
Many of the claims to Topol included a small power of charges ...

[viruskvartirus]

I do not agree that the aircraft carrier is against the weak, its aircraft can be carriers of nuclear weapons ... !!! And as for the strike from outer space ... I read that warheads are now maneuvering, which means that if you have guidance it can be slightly corrected ... but it seems to me the most antidote to them, shackling minefields with all sorts of tricky mines and hypersonic missiles .. .

[Prometey]

The article is interesting, but somehow the problem is considered one-sidedly. Why does the author believe that the aircraft carrier will survive the impact of torpedoes and missiles, but the enemy’s ships will not survive the air raids. The example of the Second World War is somehow not very correct - the power of charges is not comparable. After all, the opposing AUG ships will also not be empty. In fact, even a patrol ship, not to mention the TARK, is a floating air defense battery. And I would like to ask specialists a question - at what distance can an aircraft hit a target and will it not fall into the air defense of the ship itself? And if so, then the chances are balanced.

[DYMITRY]

IMHO you can do without AUG, you can fight and drown too (and sometimes you even need to). But if the means make it possible to have them better.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Dear Dimitri! I declare to you with all responsibility - if we do not have AUG, then AUG will have us

[DYMITRY]

Greetings fellow countryman! I can not accept your point of view completely, the Navy of the USSR coped with the help of asymmetric answers. Moreover, the development of aviation smoothly leads to the fact that in the foreseeable future (50-100 years) aircraft carriers will not be needed at all, since any point on the planet will fall into the coverage area of ​​aerodrome aviation (not strategic). Plus, back in Soviet times, R&D on transatmospheric machines was started, and now they continue. I think the probable enemy is also working in these areas. With the advent of such devices, AUGs instantly become an anachronism. So it is very necessary to think whether to invest in the construction of the AUG, or to use these funds to speed up development in the above areas. Judging by the amount of funds allocated from the budget for R&D (according to some reports, more than 30% of 20 trillion), the decision was made to go up to the second option above.

[sheih_merden]

Interestingly, and "Granite" can be equipped with volumetric charges, and launch it in flight in ekranoplan mode?

What will happen if a simultaneous explosion of 24 space charges is made, what area is covered. Maybe flying close is not required. Surrounded and rushed.

And in the ekranoplan mode, as I understand it, the flight altitude will decrease, and the range will increase, and on approach you can shoot even like a rocket with all its supersonic gadgets. To teach more to dive.

And if you drop them from outer space or from a stratospheric aerostat, an airship (from 20-30 km in height). The speed can turn out to be completely unrealistic, it is possible without a charge through and through, an aircraft carrier and a nuclear submarine under it. However, the savings.

[Filin]

I read this about unsinkable aircraft carriers and I wonder. And a friend who is 16 years old ... so he claims that NO aircraft carrier drowned from bombs and torpedoes.
Here is a brief selection of drowned aircraft carriers;

1. On September 17, 1939, the Korejig aircraft carrier, which launched its second anti-submarine campaign, was 350 miles from Cape Landz End. At 18.00, the aircraft carrier was spotted by a U-29 submarine. At this point, 2 out of 4 escort destroyers separated to help the merchant ship. Only after 2 hours, the submarine managed to launch an attack, and that was only because the aircraft carrier turned against the wind to receive the plane. U-29 fired 3 torpedoes at it, 2 of them hit the target. After 15 minutes, the Koreges sank, taking with them 519 officers and sailors out of 1260 crew members.
Note: Koreges is a battleship converted to an aircraft carrier. Carried several seaplanes.

2.September 15, 1942, During the I-19 attack, the Wasp aircraft carrier was preparing to refuel aircraft, and its main lines were filled with aviation gasoline. This circumstance played a fatal role. The on-board power supply system was damaged during the torpedo attack, and the emergency shipments of Wosp were unable to deal effectively with the large fires that arose. Nearby were the Japanese aircraft carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku, ready to strike at any time. The team left Wosp, and it was sunk by torpedoes from the Lansdowne destroyer [7] [8].

3.On October 25, 1944, a kamikaze squad led by Yukio Saki attacked an American aircraft carrier formation in the east of Leyte Gulf. The first Zero hit the stern of the Senti aircraft carrier, killing 16 people in an explosion and causing a fire. A few minutes later, the aircraft carrier “Swaney” was also disabled. Fires caused by a kamikaze entering the deck of the Saint-La escort aircraft carrier soon caused the detonation of the arsenal, as a result of which the ship was torn to pieces. Killed 114 crew members. In total, as a result of this attack, the Japanese sunk one and disabled six aircraft carriers, losing 17 aircraft.

4.On November 26, kamikaze attacked vehicles and cover ships in Leyte Bay. The destroyer “Cooper” was sunk, the battleships “Colorado”, “Maryland”, the cruiser “St. Louis” and 4 more destroyers were damaged. In December, the destroyers "Mahen", "Ward", "Lamson" and 6 transports were sunk, several dozen ships were damaged. On January 3, 1945, a kamikaze hit the Omani Bay aircraft carrier caused a fire; soon, as a result of detonation of ammunition, the ship exploded and sank, taking 95 sailors with it. On January 6, battleships "New Mexico" and "California" revived after Pearl Harbor were damaged.
In total, as a result of the kamikaze actions in the battle for the Philippines, the Americans lost 2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers and 11 transports, 22 aircraft carriers, 5 battleships, 10 cruisers and 23 destroyers were damaged. On April 3, the Wake Island aircraft carrier was disabled. On April 6, the Bush destroyer, which crashed 94 aircraft, was destroyed along with the entire crew (4 people). The destroyer Calhoun was also sunk. On April 7, the Hancock aircraft carrier was damaged, 20 aircraft were destroyed, 72 were killed and 82 injured.
Until April 16, another destroyer was sunk, 3 aircraft carriers, a battleship and 9 destroyers were disabled. On May 4, the Sengamon aircraft carrier with 21 aircraft on board completely burned down. On May 11, two kamikaze hit a fire at the Bunker Hill aircraft carrier, which destroyed 80 aircraft, killed 391 people and 264 were injured.
By the end of the battle for Okinawa, the US Navy lost 26 ships, 225 were damaged, of which 27 aircraft carriers. Nevertheless, the measures taken by the Americans to protect themselves from kamikaze gave the result - 90% of Japanese aircraft were shot down in the air.
This is a word about kamikaze.

5.February 21, 1945 as a result of fires caused by a kamikaze hit, the Bismarck Sea aircraft carrier burned and sank (318 people died), the Ticonderoga aircraft carrier was also damaged, its losses amounted to 140 people.

6.On the night of November 12-13, 1941, U-81 under the command of Friedrich Guggenberger passed the Strait of Gibraltar on the surface. In the early morning of November 13, the submarine headquarters ordered U-81 and U-205 to attack the British squadron of the battleship Malaya, the aircraft carrier Arc Royal, the small aircraft carrier Furies and the escort destroyers, which were heading west after the attack. on a German convoy heading for Africa.
The submarine U-81 turned back towards Gibraltar. According to Guggenberger's calculations, British ships should approach this place at about 15.00. Around 14.20:81 pm, Guggenberger saw three ships heading straight for him. The echeloned formation was heading to the left of the U-81. Ahead was the battleship "Malaya", followed by the aircraft carrier "Ark Royal", then "Furies"; six destroyers were guarding. After the bow of one of the ships appeared in the periscope, Guggenberger fired four torpedoes and plunged swiftly; during the dive, the crew heard two deaf explosions. The escort destroyers immediately began to drop depth charges, a total of one hundred and thirty pieces in almost three hours, but the U-XNUMX managed to leave and continue the fighting.
In fact, only one torpedo hit the Ark Royal aircraft carrier with a displacement of 22600 tons and carried 63 aircraft (only 9 aircraft managed to take off from the aircraft carrier, which then landed at the airfield in Gibraltar), but only one torpedo hit, but it got a strong list, and the British had to tow the ship to Gibraltar. A few hours later, fires started on the aircraft carrier, and the next morning it sank just 25 miles from the port and probable escape.

7.Leaving La Spezia on August 5, 1942, the U-73 submarine under the command of Helmut Rosenbaum was tasked with attacking American and British ships off the coast of North Africa. On August 11 at 11.28:13.15 the submarine tried to attack the battleship Nelson, but to no avail. On the same day at 38 at 05 ° 03 'N. and 02 ° 73 'east longitude U-13 spotted a convoy that included the aircraft carriers Eagle, Furies, and Indomitable, the battleship Nelson, a group of cruisers and 10 destroyers as close escort. The boat ducked under guard, passed between the third and fourth convoys of transports and attacked the British aircraft carrier Eagle from close range, firing four torpedoes in a fan at intervals of 13 seconds. The aircraft carrier zigzagged at 22600 knots. Neither the boat nor the traces of torpedoes from the ships were found. All four torpedoes hit the Eagle with a displacement of 1160 tons, which rapidly banked to its port side and sank eight minutes later. Of the 260 crew members of the warship, XNUMX were killed.
U-73 tried to attack an escort on its way back from Malta, but to no avail - it failed to hit the damaged cruiser Nigeria, which had previously been torpedoed by the Italian submarine Aksum

[Filin]

June 8, 20, 1944 A lone Japanese bomber, Judi, appeared from behind a low cloud and headed toward Princeton. Although fire was immediately opened on the bomber, it managed to drop a bomb directly onto the flight deck of the aircraft carrier Princeton. A fighter from the Langley shot him down as he was retreating from the attack. Soon a strong fire started on its hangar deck, and while fighters were being released to repel the attack, planes armed with torpedoes were placed on this deck. Flames and smoke could be seen pouring out of holes in the side of the aircraft carrier. Suddenly there was a huge explosion and a plume of smoke rose several hundred feet into the air. It was the torpedoes that exploded on the hangar deck. The explosion tore off the flight deck, and the fire spread along the entire length of the ship among aircraft loaded with gasoline, ammunition and torpedoes. While Birmingham was standing alongside Princeton, serving as a fire service tug, that is, supplying water to the burning ship with its hoses, the aircraft carrier's aft gun store exploded, and Birmingham was covered in debris. 255 people were killed on the upper decks of the cruiser. Many, including the cruiser commander, were wounded. Now Princeton was a flaming ruin that would only hinder us in the upcoming battle the next morning with the enemy aircraft carriers drifting to the north. Admiral Mitscher ordered me to remove all personnel from the aircraft carrier and then sink it. No matter how sad it was for me to destroy such a valiant ship, it was the most reasonable thing that could be done. Just after dark, the cruiser Reno sank her with torpedoes.

[J_silver]

And there were no Jews there (see the name of the plane)....

[Filin]

On October 24, in the afternoon, the large aircraft carrier Juikaku received heavy damage. It was the last Japanese aircraft carrier that took part in the attack on Pearl Harbor that had not yet been destroyed. Having been hit by numerous bombs and torpedoes, blazing and belching smoke, the aircraft carrier, on which a huge battle flag was flying, capsized and disappeared under water at 14.30.
Half an hour later, Zuiho, already heavily damaged, received further hits from bombs and torpedoes and also sank. Far to the south, Chitose, the only remaining aircraft carrier, sat motionless on the water, abandoned by its escort ships, awaiting its end.
(Battle in Leite Gulf, Cape Engaño)

[Captain]

The conclusion is obvious. The author clearly overestimates the combat effectiveness of the AUG and underestimates the capabilities of modern anti-ship missiles and other means of combating aircraft carrier formations.

[Veteran]

I propose to divide the topic into 1) the problem of the need for Russia to have aircraft carriers and 2) the problem of defeating enemy aircraft carriers in the event of his aggression against the Russian Federation.
On the 1st problem. The Navy's naval personnel are created based on the tasks assigned to the Navy, which in turn are determined by emanating threats to the country's security and the state interests of the Russian Federation, listed, as a rule, in the Military Doctrine, Naval Doctrine, Fundamentals of the Russian Federation's policy in the field of naval activities and other doctrinal documents. In shortened version tasks facing the Navy, can be represented in three groups:
1: 1a) Support of the activity of the MSNF.
1b) A naval presence in important regions of the world with the aim of maintaining peace and stability, and preventing the escalation of armed conflicts.
1c) Ensuring the safety of navigation, shipping, all types of activities of Russia in the oceans, the suppression of illegal economic and piracy.
1) Protection of the state border in the underwater environment. MSON are being solved.
2. Reflection of aggression from maritime directions, conducting constraining actions on communications and against the territory of the aggressor. Responsible for the MNRF (mainly submarine forces) in cooperation with the forces of other branches and types of armed forces, and, if necessary, also for the strategic nuclear forces.
3. Strategic nuclear deterrence from the use of military force. It is entrusted to the MSNF.
Solutions 1st group of tasks can be very diverse - from demonstrating military force to conducting military operations against states that infringe on the interests of Russia. In this case, it becomes necessary to operate one’s own forces at a considerable distance from the main bases, and high efficiency and minimal losses can be ensured by conducting a combat mission in the form of an air-ground (sea) operation. Then the basis of the naval forces should be air forces in the form of AMG (carrier multi-purpose groups, 1 AMG - Av, up to 8 MCC, 1-2 submarines) and amphibious forces (UDK, BDK, attracted civilian ships). In the coastal zone, small high-speed multi-purpose missile defense systems (corvette class) will be required.
To protect our submarines and cover them in ocean areas from enemy carrier-based and base anti-submarine aircraft, it is necessary to have groups of heterogeneous forces, again based on aircraft-carrying ships capable of carrying up to 50 air defense fighters, 10 anti-submarine aircraft, etc. This will allow 1,5 - Increase the efficiency of our submarines 2 times and significantly reduce possible losses. The cost of preserving submarines and objects on Russian territory is tens and hundreds of times higher than the cost of building a series of 5 - 6 Av with 70 - 80 aircraft and helicopters on board.
Av is the most universal system of naval weapons, equally suitable for participation in both general nuclear and non-nuclear war, as well as in local conflicts and even for the purposes of military-political demonstration. It is capable of solving problems inherent in almost any ship, but not a single ship can replace Av. Calculations of the combat capabilities of the combat system have shown that in the majority of combat situations there is no real alternative to aircraft carriers.
Thus, based on the 1st group of tasks, the basis of the MNRF should be 4 - 5 operational squadrons (maritime mobile forces for rapid deployment), each consisting of: 1 Av, 6-8 MTsK, 1-2 submarines, 3 MTsch, 1 UDC and 2-3 BDK with MP, supply ships.
From the 2nd group of tasks The main thing is to repel an attack from sea directions, for which the Navy must have submarine and surface forces of the MNRF. An analysis of recent local wars shows that in a modern war the first strike will be a massive fire strike from sea directions (the launch of more than 4 thousand SLCMs at strategic targets on the territory of the Russian Federation). It will be applied by high-precision missile defense (CR) from carriers of submarines, NK, air force forces - from strike lines located 1 - 2,5 thousand km from the targets, far from the coast. In this case, our maritime databases should be offensive in nature with the goal of defeating enemy strike groups in the far sea zone of the fleets. The forces capable of influencing enemy groups before they approach the strike lines and thwarting a missile and air attack are operational groupings of diverse naval forces, including multi-purpose nuclear submarines and anti-ship missiles with high-precision strike and anti-submarine weapons, effective means of self-defense and aviation assets integrated into a single automated control loop. As part of the surface MNRF, aircraft-carrying ships are again needed to provide air defense to the operational formations of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. Without such cover during combat operations, even submarine forces will suffer unacceptable losses and will not be able to complete their assigned tasks. It is necessary to have at least 2 multi-purpose aircraft carriers for each ocean fleet. The fleet database must be conducted in cooperation with the forces of other branches and branches of the armed forces and coordinated with them. Taking into account the diverse military-geographical conditions of Russia, the composition of the forces involved in repelling aggression and the nature of the armed struggle in different theaters of operations will be significantly different.
But the current state of the RF Armed Forces, and above all the Navy and its composition, does not ensure the success of a pre-emptive strike against the created groupings of aggressor forces in areas of their concentration using conventional (non-nuclear) warheads. This task can currently only be accomplished with the use of nuclear weapons. Russia needs to create a strategic metasystem of non-nuclear deterrence with aerospace information support. And again, aircraft carriers fit into it, which should be included in the Russian Navy.
Actually, consideration of the tasks of the 2nd Group Navy automatically begins to include the solution to the problem of defeating enemy aircraft, i.e. 2nd problem. We can expect the use of AUG in all theaters, with the exception of the Arctic seas of Russia. Attention should be paid to the following circumstances: 1) the force control headquarters is located on a specially designated control ship located outside the AUG operation zone; 2) at the preparatory stage of the operation, before the missile strike, the main protected objects are the NK - carriers of the missile, and the rest of the group of ships, including Av and submarines, perform the task of covering the strike forces; 3) numerous NK guards of the Av make it difficult to identify a limited number of CD carriers (“the effect of false targets”), which increases the combat stability of the strike group; 4) with their high COI, the United States will be able to deploy up to 9 AUGs by the beginning of aggression.
Here we get the task of repelling an air attack. The basis for its solution may be a different method of combating the aggressor’s AMG, different from the USSR Navy. It may be advisable to move from the task of destroying an aircraft carrier to the task of destroying carrier-based aircraft in air battles, because it was in the air that aviation suffered the greatest losses in all wars. By drawing carrier aircraft into group air battles and shooting down up to 40% of aircraft, you can stop the air offensive. In this case, there is no need for MRA, especially since it is planned to be transferred to the DA. In this case, the ship's personnel will have to be reinforced with coastal aviation aircraft of the Navy and Air Force. Then, naturally, the database will have to be maintained in the vicinity of its shores. For a successful defense it will be necessary to have at least 75% of the number of attacking aircraft. It is preferable to have 200 aircraft on Av and 300 shore-based units (reserve of carrier-based aircraft). An aviation group of 300-350 aircraft should be able to quickly redeploy from one region of the country to another.
I outlined considerations that are independent of my attitude towards the author of the article, with whose opinion I often disagree.

[Michael-rl]

Aircraft carriers are a good and necessary thing. But they are needed only by a powerful strong fleet. After the disastrous 90s for the army and navy, the primary task is to restore at least conventional warships and submarines. And at the moment, 10 frigates will bring more benefit to us than 1 aircraft carrier.
And to compare, as the author does, the survivability of aircraft carriers against Japanese bombs and torpedoes from World War II and current anti-ship missiles is stupid.

[alex popov]

Alas, the topic has been moved away.
Regarding the article itself, I apologize if I’m repeating myself, I didn’t read all the comments.
Why didn’t the author mention the results of the “Millennium Challenge 2002” exercise (Pindos really like pompous names)? Didn’t consider it worthy of mention and just didn’t mention it? Or because the results of these exercises completely refute his article???
The brilliant American General Paul van Riper, playing for a “probable enemy” in conditions when everything was arranged for the victory of the US Navy, having at its disposal light aircraft and a “mosquito fleet”, in conditions of total superiority of the US Navy in weapons, equipment, electronic warfare and guidance, without having any ultra-modern technical means, managed to “sink” this very fleet.
In order not to lose face, the fleet command announced that “buoyancy was restored to the sunken ships” and, naturally, “the elves won.”
After this, streams of dirt poured on Van Riper in the American media in attempts to discredit him, in order to thereby belittle the results of the exercises, but the essence did not change - the vaunted “high-tech tactics” turned out to be powerless against a poorly equipped, but competent, cunning, inventive enemy willing win.
It is 100% that the results of the exercises and the exercises themselves, which took place as an act of intimidation, were studied by the Iranians inside and out and the experience of the mentioned general was not in vain.
Z.Y. There were also “heretics” in the US Army who believed that this result of the exercises was predetermined, since some “went to die, but to win,” while others “had a fun and entertaining time.”

[Santa Fe]

Alex, I’ll probably answer you
The 2002 Millennium Challenge is fake. A setup in purely Russian traditions.
Let's start with the fact that the game was more computer than real.

General Riper's decisions look funny, but nothing more. One of the most striking is the use of couriers on cars and motorcycles, instead of conventional radio communications. Naturally, in real conditions this is a guaranteed pogrom - as soon as one of the couriers is killed, the entire operation is jeopardized.


"Millennium Challenge 2002" has no relation to reality:
- 20 years before it was the Gulf of Sidra, where the Libyans, despite the presence of the S-200 air defense system, the latest MiG-23 and other modern weapons, did not achieve a single hit
- 14 years before it, Operation Praying Mantis was carried out in the Gulf of Hormuz - the Iranian fleet was defeated, American losses were zero,
Then there was Desert Storm and the second invasion of Iraq - in both cases, almost without losses, although they were opposed by a fairly strong Iraqi army

Yes and no General Riper in Iran. Such Officers can only be found in the armies of decent states (in which the command staff thinks about combat training, and not about where to screw something up, sell it and make a fortune)

[alex popov]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Let's start with the fact that the game was more computer than real.

??
The exercises took place “in full size”; something like 250 million was spent.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

General Riper's decisions look funny, but nothing more. One of the most striking is the use of couriers on cars and motorcycles, instead of conventional radio communications. Naturally, in real conditions this is a guaranteed pogrom - as soon as one of the couriers is killed, the entire operation is jeopardized.

1. This is just a fake. Discrediting, ridiculing the disgraced general in order to belittle the result of the maneuvers. But sometimes jesters say the most terrible things that not a single “serious person” has the courage to talk about.
2. The conditions were such that on one side there were all electronic warfare forces, on the other side nothing. So, Iran managed to intercept the super secret American wunderwaffle with the help of its electronic warfare forces. And this is not Stone Age technology at all.
3. Actually, messages are duplicated in such cases. And no one will particularly hunt for single motorcyclists, carrier-based aircraft are not provided for this, and there will be no ground operation until complete air superiority is achieved.
4. Are there other examples of “funny solutions”? Do you want a version? They grabbed the general's most controversial decision and circulated it online. If there were other “controversial decisions”, people would make fun of them too. And so...))

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

"Millennium Challenge 2002" has no relation to reality:

The main thing is that the American admiral generals understand this as clearly as you do and try harder to get into the mousetrap. The likelihood of conflict is growing before our eyes, and my sympathies are not at all on the side of the “star-striped” aggressor.
And there is nothing more “pleasant” than putting down a strong and extremely self-confident opponent.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

- 20 years before it was the Gulf of Sidra, where the Libyans, despite the presence of the S-200 air defense system, the latest MiG-23 and other modern weapons, did not achieve a single hit

What do the S-200 Anti-Aircraft Missile Systems and sunken aircraft carriers have to do with it?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

14 years before it, Operation Praying Mantis was carried out in the Gulf of Hormuz - the Iranian fleet was defeated, American losses were zero,

They learn from mistakes.
The Americans get involved in military adventures time after time, the right people “master” huge amounts of money, and the military always remain the last ones. From Korea to Libya.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Yes and no General Riper in Iran.

That's for sure. What is not there is not. But he has experience.
Did the Iranians study it? I think it was taken apart down to the screw.

[Santa Fe]

??
The exercises were held “life-size”, something like 250 million was spent
Pfft, alekh, there is no sea in Nevada.
The nautical elements of the game were developed on the computer.

Discrediting, ridiculing the disgraced general in order to belittle the result of the maneuvers
Are you kidding? Can you name an article from an American newspaper that ridicules the general? So no need to compose))
Who needs Riper? Who needs games if there is reality. A year after the exercises there was a lightning victory in Iraq, last year in Libya (air defense and fleet were destroyed in the first hour)

Actually, messages are duplicated in such cases. And no one will particularly hunt for single motorcyclists, carrier-based aircraft are not provided for this, and there will be no ground operation until complete air superiority is achieved.
By the time the courier gets to point B by car, point A will already be bombed and the situation will change dramatically. It’s night, the electricity is out, and he has to go God knows where, and then deliver the answer - he’ll need several hours. Guaranteed defeat.

Are there any other examples of “funny solutions”? Do you want a version? They grabbed the general's most controversial decision and circulated it online. If there were other “controversial decisions”, people would make fun of them too. And so..
With pleasure)))
The general proposed using kamikazes on light aircraft. I remember the Japanese MASSIVELY used much more sophisticated technology, but the suicide bombers could not sink a single large ship.

The general proposed using obsolete missiles against ships. But the AUG never comes close to the shore. But not a single SCAD reached targets in Israel (1990) - all were intercepted by Patriots.

The main thing is that the American admiral generals understand this as clearly as you do and try harder to get into the mousetrap.
A year after the 2002 Millennium Challenge exercise, Iraq was defeated with minimal losses.

What do the S-200 Anti-Aircraft Missile Systems and sunken aircraft carriers have to do with it?
Despite the fact that General Riper allegedly shot down half of the AUG carrier-based aircraft

Did the Iranians study it? I think it was taken apart down to the screw. They learn from mistakes.
Have Saddam and Kadafi learned a lot?

From Korea to Libya.
What about Korea? The US Army won there, just like in 2 wars with Iraq and Libya.

In short, alekh, you are cleverly selling me nonsense. Who needs small, half-computer exercises when there are real combat operations? And no unnecessary words are needed.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Pfft, alekh, there is no sea in Nevada.
The nautical elements of the game were developed on the computer.

This was a staff exercise

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Who needs games if there is reality.

To those who CARRY them out

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

By the time the courier gets to point B by car, point A will already be bombed and the situation will change dramatically. It’s night, the electricity is out, and he has to go God knows where, and then deliver the answer - he’ll need several hours. Guaranteed defeat.

You are simply fatally mistaken. See the history of fighting in Yugoslavia

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The general proposed using kamikazes on light aircraft. I remember the Japanese MASSIVELY used much more sophisticated technology, but the suicide bombers could not sink a single large ship.

Oh mother bozka!!!! Large American WWII ships had up to a hundred or more anti-aircraft guns. dozens of station wagons, with shells with radio fuses. and they, if something happened, simply created a wall of fire against which Japanese squadrons crashed
And now there is none of this. Air defense is entrusted to missiles - but here’s the thing, the missile defense system will never target a light aircraft. So, only Phalanxes (one or two per ship, and even then not for each) and the service personal weapons of naval officers can repel an attack by light-engine kamikaze aircraft.
This is what Reaper took advantage of.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The general proposed using obsolete missiles against ships. But the AUG never comes close to the shore. But not a single SCAD reached targets in Israel (1990) - all were intercepted by Patriots.

The Patriots' efficiency is about 40%. During the Millennium exercises, the AUG CAME close to the shore.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

What about Korea? The US Army won there,

Yeah, in Vietnam too
Well, you should at least read about these teachings, or something :)))))

[alex popov]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Oh mother bozka!!!! on large American ships WWII there were up to a hundred or more anti-aircraft guns. dozens of station wagons, with shells with radio fuses. and they, if something happened, simply created a wall of fire against which Japanese squadrons crashed
And now there is none of this. Air defense is assigned to missiles - but here’s the thing, the missile defense system will never target a light aircraft. So, only Phalanxes (one or two per ship, and even then not for each) and the service personal weapons of naval officers can repel an attack by light-engine kamikaze aircraft.
This is what Reaper took advantage of.

Yeah. ) By the way, in the case of Iran, taking into account the fairways, the AUG will not be able to move further than 200-250 km from the coast of Iran, due to the characteristics of the coastline and the very shape of the bay. When Iraq was bombed, the AUG was located at a more distant distance, so to speak, in the longitudinal plane of the strait. This is also an important thing.

[alex popov]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The nautical elements of the game were developed on the computer.

Thank you.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Can you name an article from an American newspaper that ridicules the general?

"Army Times". The link is not active. Alas.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Who needs Riper? Who needs games if there is reality. A year after the exercises there was a lightning victory in Iraq, last year in Libya (air defense and fleet were destroyed in the first hour)

The air defense forces of Iran and Libya, as well as the navies of Iran and Iraq, are incomparable.
I won’t analyze Libya at all, that’s okay. War with grasshoppers.
In Iraq.
1. The balance of forces is 450 carrier-based aircraft and 400 ground forces against 300 Iraqi ones, some of which never even took off due to the old age and cowardice of the crews. overwhelming advantage of the coalition naval forces: 115 ships, including 29 carriers of sea-based cruise missiles (18 ships and 11 nuclear submarines). Plus, Iraq does not control the exit from the Strait of Hormuz, had no coastal defense, and a weak Navy
and did not prepare for war at sea. With Iran it’s the complete opposite, I won’t decipher it, ok?
And with all the overwhelming advantage in weapons, electronic warfare, reconnaissance, target designation and control, US losses ONLY ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL DATA (who believes them?): 69 aircraft. and 28 vert., including the prodigy F-117. According to some analysts, based on the analysis and state of the aviation fleet Before and After the conflict, losses exceeded 300 units. But everything is debatable here; it seems to me that “the truth is somewhere in the middle.”

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

By the time the courier gets to point B by car, point A will already be bombed and the situation will change dramatically. N

The general showed ingenuity and ingenuity, and the computer appreciated it. In addition, there is a wired connection, and Iran’s electronic warfare capabilities are not so scarce; the episode with the loss of another prodigy is proof of this.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The general proposed using kamikazes on light aircraft. I remember the Japanese MASSIVELY used much more sophisticated technology, but the suicide bombers could not sink a single large ship.

The general proposed using obsolete missiles against ships. But the AUG never comes close to the shore. But not a single SCAD reached targets in Israel (1990) - all were intercepted by Patriots.

see above. ingenuity and hopelessness.
missiles against obsolete ships were fired in a massive salvo, which overloaded the missile defense and air defense systems.
As for the Scuds, 45 fell on the UAE, killing them, incl. and US citizens, 42 for Israel. Patriot... almost made it. Moreover, these were not the R-14 Scud itself, but their modified Iraqi version of the Al-Hussein and Al-Abbs, with an increased range, but with a reduced warhead, unstable and inaccurate. if Saddam had been even half as much of a cannibal as he was described in the media, he would have used chemical weapons and the Jews would have cried bitter tears... but that’s just poetry.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

A year after the 2002 Millennium Challenge exercise, Iraq was defeated with minimal losses.

wow "minimal losses")) and 3 aircraft 850 lost. With complete superiority in electronic warfare and so on.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Despite the fact that General Riper allegedly shot down half of the AUG carrier-based aircraft

It is not technology that fights, but people. It depends on who taught the air defense personnel and how.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Have Saddam and Kadafi learned a lot?

Gaddafi and Saddam soon fell victims of betrayal. And Gaddafi also managed to outwit himself, hoping that the status of “his guy” would protect him better than the reliable Navy and Air Force. Because of his example, it is clear that it is useless to negotiate with America; they will abandon it without a second thought.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

What about Korea? The US Army won there,

Sorry, a little later in Korea, time is running out.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

In short, alekh, you are cleverly selling me nonsense.

No, I look quite shabby.)

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Who needs small, half-computer exercises when there are real combat operations? And no unnecessary words are needed.

The United States has not had real combat operations with an equal enemy for a LONG TIME.)
You are right, there is no need for unnecessary words.

[Santa Fe]

Army Times". The link is not active. Alas.
That's the whole conversation about the "media-harassed" truth teller general. If the VT2002 exercise had the importance that Russian online media ascribe to it, the publicity would have been wider.

The general showed ingenuity and ingenuity, and the computer appreciated it. In addition, there is a wired connection, and Iran’s electronic warfare capabilities are not so scarce; the episode with the loss of another prodigy is proof of this.

Iran does not have modern technology. funds, no training of personnel, no General Riper. Shooting down 1 experimental drone is not yet an indicator (by the way, where is the confidence that it landed with the help of the Iranians? Did they show a photo of it? Maybe it was a technical accident)

The ratio of forces is 450 carrier-based aircraft and 400 ground forces against 300 Iraqi forces, some of which never even took off due to the old age and cowardice of the crews. overwhelming advantage of the coalition naval forces: 115 ships, including 29 carriers of sea-based cruise missiles
That’s the whole price of talking about parasitic fears that threaten to tear the “bloody United States” to shreds. If Saddam had enough money for gilded statues, but not enough for the defense industry, this is his personal problem. This is called complete military superiority.
2. The Kyrgyz Republic is not held in high esteem by the Americans. It is more efficient and cheaper to raise one squadron of deck attack aircraft.

US losses ONLY ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL DATA (who believes them?): 69 plane. and 28 vert.
These are losses for the entire 9 years of the operation. The destruction of the Iraqi army itself required much less money. Just like the Desert Storm war

if Saddam had been even half as much of a cannibal as he was described in the media, he would have used chemical weapons and the Jews would have cried bitter tears...
If Saddam had used CW, he would have tried on a hemp tie back in 1990.

It is not technology that fights, but people. It depends on who taught the air defense personnel and how.
Soviet military specialists

Gaddafi and Saddam soon fell victims of betrayal.
Saddam was forgiven for his ugly act of occupying Kuwait in 1990. But he did not understand and went back to his old ways. In 2001-2002 I understood, but it was too late to drink Borjomi.
Gaddafi thought that he could continue to mock the West, paying off with petrodollars. The first time he was very scared was after the collapse of the USSR - he immediately paid 2,5 billion for the terrorist attack on Lockerbie. Then he realized that Europe was weak and continued to mock. Until I got everyone.

The United States has not had real combat operations with an equal enemy for a LONG TIME
This is called complete technical and military superiority. Any military leader always hopes for this, because... It is preferable to kill enemy soldiers than to kill your own. Or did the USA need to get Phantoms out of museums, so that would be fair?)))

[alex popov]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Saddam was forgiven for his ugly act of occupying Kuwait in 1990. But he did not understand and went back to his old ways. In 2001-2002 I understood, but it was too late to drink Borjomi.

?? What did you mean?
The rest of the point of view is clear.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

This is called complete technical and military superiority.

weak reason for pride.)

[Santa Fe]

?? What did you mean?
What do you think caused Desert Storm?

weak reason for pride.)
Yes?? Genghis Khan, Queen Victoria or General Hoth would not agree with you.
Military superiority is not a sudden gift, but the result of many years of development of the state

By the way, yesterday you distorted the comparison between the Iraqi and Iranian armies. 10 years of bloody Iran-Iraq war....the result is a draw.
So the Iranian army is not much different from the Iraqi

[alex popov]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

What do you think caused Desert Storm?

Answer a question with a question? ))
I would like to hear YOUR point of view, what did you mean “I didn’t understand and started doing the old thing, I understood but it was too late”??? This is the first time I have come across exactly THIS interpretation.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Military superiority is not a sudden gift, but the result of many years of development of the state

Yes, you don’t understand.))
Nobody downplays the importance of the military-industrial complex. That's not what we're talking about.
I will say in other words, FC Barcelona is unlikely to be proud of the victory over the mm-mm clubs of FC Fakel and write it into the victorious history.
Is the analogy clear? )

[Prometey]

Where does the data come from that SCAD missiles did not reach Israel? Even as they arrived, the Patriots were unable to intercept them. One of the SCADOVs hit an army barracks during Desert Storm - killing 150 Americans - the largest single loss for the coalition.

[alex popov]

I wrote about the first war in Iraq. Why did you start with the first one?
After the first war, when the air defense and missile defense infrastructure was completely destroyed, and 13 years of sanctions did not make it possible to make up for the losses, Iraq could only rely on a ground force. There was no trace of any air war, naval war, air force or air defense war. Hence the small losses in aviation.
So:
Operation Iraqi Freedom: The initial force, numbering about 300 thousand conditional bayonets, 750 tanks, 600 artillery pieces, over 2 thousand combat aircraft and helicopters, more than 60 warships, including aircraft carriers and cruise missile carriers from the coalition.
Iraq: 320 thousand people, 5900 armored vehicles, 4500 guns and mortars, 330 aircraft, 40 OTR launchers.

Losses (coalition): 487 killed, 131 missing, 118 tanks, 170 infantry fighting vehicles, 15 aircraft, 22 helicopters. Plus hidden losses from "friendly fire". The data is again official. Unofficial figures are much higher. At the same time, air defense and missile defense were almost completely non-functional, there was no coastal defense, and aviation did not work. The country, after 13 years of sanctions, looked like a dying veteran.
Conclusion: Such low losses are due to the weakening of the Iraqi Armed Forces by the previous war and many years of sanctions, betrayal in the highest echelons of power and the military command of Iraq. And yet, until the “vertical” crumbled, the resistance was more than stubborn. Well, the fact that Baghdad was surrendered “almost without a single shot” characterizes the top command more than eloquently.
The sensation of the 2003 war was the massive failures in the WTO systems. The NAVSTAR satellite navigation did not work, the Tomahawks sent to the city of Ann Nasiriyah flew to Turkey, probably more than once. Analysis of what was happening made it possible to reveal the cause of frequent failures of complex electronics. According to the coalition command, they were caused by Russian passive jammers, simple and cheap, but obviously incredibly effective and capable of greatly reducing the combat effectiveness of an army relying on the “golden” weapons of the WTO.
Were there purchases of such jammers by Iran? Let them guess at the Pentagon.
Output.
Iran is not Iraq 8 years ago. It won't be an easy walk.

[Santa Fe]

alex, now I’ll tell you a few facts. Combined with your numbers, the picture turns out to be quite funny:

Iraq: 320 thousand people, 5900 armored vehicles, 4500 guns and mortars, 330 aircraft, 40 OTR launchers.
Let's remember who fought in Afghanistan? Basmachi. Beggars, ragamuffins. They had no aviation, tanks, heavy artillery or operational-tactical missiles AT ALL. No S-75, S-125 or S-200 air defense systems. All air defense of the spirits was represented by 500 Stinger MANPADS (of which half were captured by Russian special forces or bought back after the war) and DShK machine guns.

Losses (of the coalition): 487 killed, 131 missing, 118 tanks, 170 infantry fighting vehicles, 15 aircraft, 22 helicopters... Unofficial figures are an order of magnitude higher.
According to official data, the 40th Army Air Force lost from 1979 to 1988 511(!) aircraft (specifically, 178 airplanes and 333 helicopters), not counting the loss of aviation from friendly regiments of the Afghan army.

So what is the reason for such a huge difference? Did a 300-strong professional army with thousands of tanks, aviation and full-fledged air defense systems still fight in Iraq? It turns out that our pilots suffered heavy losses from Berdan guns and MANPADS?

Iran is not Iraq 8 years ago. It won't be an easy walk.
10 years of the Iran-Iraq war with a draw indicate the opposite - the armies of these countries are the same.

[alex popov]

OK. Let's talk about “warm” and “soft”.
If veterans who went through Afghanistan come here, they will write better than me.
I was studying at school at that time, but the narrow experience of war was taught to us in the second or third year quite well; most of the teachers had gone through Afghanistan.
This may be a military secret for you, but only the tactics of “guerrilla warfare” slightly equalize the military potential of the parties, while the aggressor’s losses grow faster than in direct combat clashes, when the difference in military potential is fully manifested.
Therefore, it would be more logical to compare two guerrilla wars: our Afghanistan and Vietnam.
Let’s compare: in Vietnam, the United States lost 58 thousand people killed over eight years, of which 47 thousand were combat losses. Aviation losses amounted to 3339 aircraft (including 30 B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers), and this did not include losses of army aviation aircraft. Helicopter losses reached 4892 aircraft.
Next.
The Taliban and Iraq managed without outside support.
The USSR fully helped Vietnam. The “Basmachi”, as you called them, “spirits” or “Mujahideen”, enjoyed the support of Pakistan, the USA, Iran, Israel, China, Egypt, England and so on. They were supplied with weapons, and not only by “stinegrs”. Anti-aircraft mountain installations ZGU, ZU-25-2, ZU-23-4 produced in China, the USSR, Czechoslovakia; Small caliber anti-aircraft guns "Oerlikon"; MANPADS "Strela-2" China, Egypt, "Jevelin", "Blowpipe" - England, "Stinger", "Redeye" - USA; DShK 12.7 mm caliber made in China; hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers RPG-2, RPG-7 made in the USSR, China, Volsknet - Switzerland, Lantse-2 - Germany, M72 LAW - USA, Sarpak - France, " Picket" - Israel; recoilless rifles of 75 mm and 82 mm caliber made in China, Pakistan and the USA; mortars - 60 and 82 mm; Chinese PURS; And also money, bases, instructors, intelligence, target designation, and so on.
Feel the difference?
There is also a difference between direct combat clashes in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the intensity of guerrilla warfare.
This is a topic for a thesis, by the way. ))
But the war in Afghanistan, carried out by the United States, can also be compared.
Taking into account the fact that the technologies of the Mujahideen-Taliban remained at the same level and they received almost no support from OUTSIDE (latent participation of Pakistan?)
The United States, on the other hand, possessed an order of magnitude more high-tech weapons than even the USSR 30 years ago, plus, soon after the end of direct combat clashes, the coalition switched to different war tactics (they used the experience of the USSR, which is quite logical), abandoned control of territories, entrenched themselves in bases and switched to carrying out targeted strikes using UAVs, precision weapons and special forces.
Moreover, this contingent of the COALITION (not one country, but 49 countries) at peak times is more than 220 thousand people (108 thousand people max. USSR). At the same time, aviation losses: 59 helicopters and 18 aircraft due to UAVs, data is not given. This is the official data...
The withdrawal of troops has begun, but...the war is not over.
The results ended wars: the hasty, panicked evacuation of US troops from Vietnam, and the operation to withdraw OKW troops from Afghanistan, are two completely different results of the operation.
Yes, quite important. Goals of the war:
USSR: "Support the friendly Afghan people, as well as the creation of favorable conditions for prohibiting possible anti-Afghan actions on the part of neighboring states."
After the withdrawal of USSR troops from Afghanistan, the government held out until 1993, outlasting the USSR. If the USSR had been alive, it is not known how long the DRA would have lasted.
The purpose of the war in Afghanistan is:
overthrow of the Taliban regime,
liberation of the territory of Afghanistan from the influence of the Taliban,
capture and trial of al-Qaeda members.
AND????????? Besides “overthrowing the Taliban”????
Control over government troops and coalitions ends within the boundaries of military bases; not everyone dares to stick their nose out further.
There was no trial (!!!!!!!!!) of Al-Qaeda to present “irrefutable evidence”; even the “destruction of Bin Laden” is more like the plot of a Hollywood action movie; no one saw him or the top officials of Al-Qaeda in court. Why? )))
The USSR left behind infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals. The coalition leaves behind endless poppy fields.
We will see how long the government will last in Iraq and Afghanistan in “our time.”

[Denis]

Quote: alex popov

the aggressor's losses grow faster than in direct battles

one of the reasons for the losses, if not the main one, has somehow been forgotten by you - many guys saw the mountains in real life only across the river, and there are a hundred of their own unequal problems

[boris.uryadkin]

True written.

[Santa Fe]

You are trying in vain to confuse yourself and me. Although the truth lies on the surface. According to your words, “the USA had an order of magnitude more high-tech weapons than even the USSR 30 years ago.” Right. That’s all the explanation for the coalition’s much smaller losses.

The “Mujahideen” enjoyed the support of Pakistan, the USA, Iran, Israel, China, Egypt, England and so on. They were supplied with weapons, and not only “stinegras”. Anti-aircraft mountain installations ZGU, ZU-25-2, ZU-23-4 produced in China, the USSR, Czechoslovakia; Small caliber anti-aircraft guns "Oerlikon"; MANPADS "Strela-2" China, Egypt, "Jevelin", "Blowpipe" - England, "Stinger", "Redeye" - USA...
It's funny how you throw around names without paying attention to the quality characteristics of the weapon))) So:
- MANPADS "Blowpipe" - destruction range in altitude 1,5 km, warhead mass - 0,6 kg, could not shoot in pursuit, manual guidance system, which made the Blowpipe effective only against helicopters.
- MANPADS "Jevelin" - development of the "Blowpipe", warhead increased to 1 kg. Quantity supplied - several units
- MANPADS "RedI" - the same thing, contact fuse. the missile was easily deflected by decoys.
- MANPADS "Stinger" - a qualitatively new level. The ceiling of the rocket is 5 kilometers, the mass of the warhead is 3 kg. Automated to the limit. Powerful weapon. But...
at one time, the USSR supplied Vietnam with 95 S-75 air defense systems and 7500 missiles for them (!). Launch range - up to 30...40 km, altitude range - up to 20...30 km. The mass of the warhead is 200 kg (!) A completely different level. It’s stupid to compare the Stinger with the S-75.
And here’s another fun fact - the main losses of the 40th Army Air Force suffered even BEFORE THE APPEARANCE OF THE STINGERS
http://www.skywar.ru/afghstatloss.html - тут есть некоторая статистика
But that is not all. What are the Chinese DShK or ZU-23-2 worth compared to hundreds of MiGs in the skies of Vietnam. Hence the losses - 3339 aircraft.
Well, naturally, the Vietnamese had self-propelled ZSU-57 and Strela-1 air defense systems, which the ragged Basmachi never had

The Taliban and Iraq managed without outside support.
Iraq has accumulated such a quantity of weapons that CIA agents would not have been able to deliver to Afghanistan in 100 years))) But... a full-fledged army was swept away in 1990 with minimal losses

the hasty, panicked evacuation of US troops from Vietnam, and the operation to withdraw OKW troops from Afghanistan, are two completely different results of the operation.
Well, of course, there is nothing to compare the scale of hostilities with bandits and a full-fledged army equipped with the most modern technology.
By the way, you promised to write about Korea)))

After the withdrawal of USSR troops from Afghanistan, the government held out until 1993, outlasting the USSR. If the USSR had been alive, it is not known how long the DRA would have lasted.
The DRA government was illegitimate and was supported only by “Russian bayonets.”

The USSR left behind infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals
Yes, I see you, a humanist.))) Leave the sugary-sweet stories about the virtue of the 40th Army for another occasion. And now here are the facts:
Until 1979, Afghanistan was a SECLIC COUNTRY. Wild tribes from the mountains got along well with developed cities, where girls went without headscarves (fact!). The country gradually developed, maintaining economic ties with the whole world. The USSR was considered a reliable friend and ally, which is worth the Salang pass built by Russian specialists (EMNIP - 60s)
As a result of the Politburo's adventure in December 1979, the sleepy country turned into a nest of the global drug trade and became one of the poorest in the world. The civil war has not stopped for 30 years. Afghans are grateful to the Shuravi for the 2 million killed (official figures) and the millions of mines that littered the entire country.
So there is no need to talk about hospitals and schools, the 40th Army led the country to an economic and social catastrophe

The coalition leaves behind endless poppy fields
Pathetic, but, alas, not true. Just look at South Korea or Taiwan - the leading countries of the world

[alex popov]

SWEET_SIXTEEN,
Well, you yourself started comparing the 2 wars. I answered you that it would be more accurate to compare 2 other wars. I wrote the reasons.
In terms of losses. Until that moment, the USSR had no experience of war on such terrain, there was no experience in fighting MANPADS, many conscript soldiers saw mountains only in pictures... all experience came with blood.
And yet, the USSR controlled ALL of Afghanistan, and did not surrender a single city to the Mujahideen for 10 years. "Coalition"? ))

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Iraq has accumulated such a quantity of weapons that CIA agents would not have been able to deliver to Afghanistan in 100 years))) But... a full-fledged army was swept away in 1990 with minimal losses

Compared to Vietnam, losses can be considered minimal. It can be assumed that conclusions were drawn from the Vietnam War. To avoid high losses ... they began to attack weaker countries.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The DRA government was illegitimate and was supported only by “Russian bayonets.”

The same can be said about the current Afghanistan and Iraq. How long will they last without outside support?
More than 4 years? Not even a year will pass in Afghanistan, you can bet on anything. Either Karzai himself will “get in trouble” (sorry for the jargon), or the Taliban will simply sweep him away. Taking into account the reports that are leaking even now about Karzai’s negotiations with the Taliban, he may not wait for the final withdrawal of coalition troops.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Pathetic, but, alas, not true. Just look at South Korea or Taiwan - the leading countries of the world

We were talking exclusively about Afghanistan. What was and what became.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Until 1979, Afghanistan was a SECLIC COUNTRY. Wild tribes from the mountains got along well with developed cities, where girls went without headscarves (fact!). The country gradually developed, maintaining economic ties with the whole world. The USSR was considered a reliable friend and ally, which is worth the Salang pass built by Russian specialists (EMNIP - 60s)
As a result of the Politburo's adventure in December 1979, the sleepy country turned into a nest of the global drug trade and became one of the poorest in the world. The civil war has not stopped for 30 years. Afghans are grateful to the Shuravi for the 2 million killed (official figures) and the millions of mines that littered the entire country.
So there is no need to talk about hospitals and schools, the 40th Army led the country to an economic and social catastrophe

1. The country has been at constant war for the last 200 years. With England, for example. And not the last 30.)) The expression “Afghan veteran” appeared in England in the century before last.
2. A “sleepy country,” as you put it by 1979, had experienced 2 revolutions, several uprisings and was in a state of civil war over the past 7 years.
3.The period that you describe refers to an earlier period from the 30s to the 73.
4. "Nest of drug trafficking." OK. What kind of habit is it to attribute the merits of others?
Opium production from 2001 to 2009 (that is, during the “CONTROL” of Afghanistan by coalition forces) increased from 185 tons to 6900 tons. In 2011, according to the State Tax Committee of the Russian Federation, 5800 tons. The Taliban were engaged in poppy seeding even before 2001, producing peaks of up to a thousand tons, but not in such quantities as now, “under the control of the coalition.” (((
Can you provide data on Afghanistan during the USSR? About 400 TONS (not thousands of tons), incl. for the production of soap, dyes, for livestock feed....
And it will not be possible to refute the construction of schools-hospitals-roads-infrastructure.)
You can also separately examine what happened and what happened to Iraq after “democratization.” Over the 8 years of “democracy”, no significant breakthroughs have been observed in this area, but a decline in the general standard of living, population safety, and Islamization are observed everywhere. Just like in Libya....
In summary, the conclusions are not reassuring.
You are right about South Korea, I don’t understand about Taiwan. I’ll write about the Korean War a little later. They analyzed it in great detail at ViM, I need to find the saved link from my old computer. I'll find it and publish everything. Take your time.)

[Santa Fe]

And yet, the USSR controlled ALL of Afghanistan, and did not surrender a single city to the Mujahideen for 10 years
Come on Alex, fill in the nonsense)))
Control over the territory of Afghanistan was lost by the summer of 1980. The soldiers were afraid to go beyond their checkpoints. Only the cities were partially controlled, in a ring. Are place names like Pandshir or Hazarajat familiar to you?

It can be assumed that conclusions were drawn from the Vietnam War. To avoid high losses ... they began to attack weaker countries.
The Korean War does not fit into your concept)))
By 1990, Iraq possessed a huge army equipped with the most modern technology. The result is zilch.
The reason is simple - technical and military superiority

The same can be said about the current Afghanistan and Iraq. How long will they last without outside support?
Absolutely.

The country has been fighting permanent wars for the last 200 years, not the last 30.))
You are smiling in vain, minor conflicts and performances of the mountaineers of the early twentieth century are not much like a disruptive full-scale war of all against all. And it all started with a “limited contingent”

“a sleepy country,” as you put it by 1979, had experienced 2 revolutions, several uprisings and was in a state of civil war over the past 7 years.
You are falsifying the facts. The political squabble between Taraki and Amin was of little concern to Afghan society. There were no prerequisites for the occupation of the country (especially since Taraki, like Amin, were on good terms with the USSR and were essentially controlled by the Kremlin)

Opium production from 2001 to 2009 (that is, during the “CONTROL” of Afghanistan by coalition forces) increased from 185 tons to 6900 tons. In 2011, according to the State Tax Committee of the Russian Federation, 5800 tons. Even before 2001, the Taliban were engaged in poppy seed production, producing peaks of up to a thousand tons, but not in such quantities as now, “under the control of the coalition”
Sounds corny. but I have reason to believe that the numbers were pulled out of thin air by Russian journalists.
Secondly. the increase in opium poppy production is the result of increased demand, but this is a question for those who introduced a visa-free regime with Tajikistan.

Yes, and it will not be possible to refute the construction of schools-hospitals-roads-infrastructure
The Soviet army is the most humane army in the world)))
Firstly, the bad, worthless coalition is also building something. For example roads.
Secondly, the USSR (like the coalition) began to change sides. There was no point in rebuilding anything in Afghanistan until peace was restored there.
Thirdly (and most importantly), the vast majority of the facilities were built before 1979 and have little to do with the “exploits” of the 40th Army

You can also separately examine what happened and what happened to Iraq after “democratization.” Over the 8 years of “democracy” there have been no significant breakthroughs in this area, but there has been a decline in the overall standard of living and public safety
I do not argue that oil was at the heart of the conflict. But American soldiers would be glad if the Iraqis stopped harassing them and each other and went to work. There you also see what the problem is, Iraq is 4 parts: Shiites, Sunnis, the rich South and frostbitten Kurdistan. The United States carried out a brilliant military operation, but it is powerless to restore order in peacetime. And any country would be powerless. Gordian knot.

Just like in Libya....
Well, what does the bad, worthless USA have to do with it? Gaddafi himself brought the country to this state.

When a decent leader, like Vaclav Havel or Pinochet, dies, a normal decent country remains a monument to him.
Ben-Ali was lawless for 20 years - the result of the Carnation Revolution and dozens of dead
Mubarak was lawless for 30 years - hundreds of people were killed
Gaddafi was lawless for 40 years - the count went into thousands
Sooner or later this had to happen, Gaddafi led the country into a dead end from which there is no other way out, only a bloody mess.
You don’t have to tell Eastern tales about the kindest ruler and a well-fed life in Libya - this is a setup like Maternal Capital and “modernization.” The country was poor and forgotten by everyone. Note that tourists never went there, unlike Tunisia, Morocco or Egypt.
Well, things like Lockerbie, Bulgarian nurses or the All-African Congress (decided that Europe should pay Africa 200 billion for oppression) ultimately decided the fate of the old lawless man.

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

By 1990, Iraq possessed a huge army equipped with the most modern technology. The result is zilch.

I’m asking another question - from what oak tree did you fall? Where did Iraq get the most advanced weapons?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

You are smiling in vain, minor conflicts and performances of the mountaineers of the early twentieth century are not much like a disruptive full-scale war of all against all. And it all started with a “limited contingent”

Why not from the British in 1840?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The United States carried out a brilliant military operation, but it is powerless to restore order in peacetime. And any country would be powerless

It’s just so brilliant? And they found a weapon of mass destruction? And to call it brilliant - an operation against a country that was in an economic blockade for 12 years and under the shares of Oil in exchange for food is simply shameful

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

It's funny how you throw around names without paying attention to the quality characteristics of the weapon)))

How interesting you are about such little things as the height of the theater above sea level and the terrain.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

But that is not all. What are the Chinese DShK or ZU-23-2 worth compared to hundreds of MiGs in the skies of Vietnam. Hence the losses - 3339 aircraft.

Do you really think that flashes can create problems for phantoms? This is not like you --- and still, the contribution of the Vietnamese Air Force to these thousands is minimal.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Iraq has accumulated more weapons than CIA agents could deliver to Afghanistan in 100 years.

but with what the United States accumulated (which, by the way, was not under an embargo, and whose radars were not turned off by the French), they are incomparable.

Why did you miss the Taliban so easily - the United States has been fighting with them for 11 years, and this despite the fact that the KGB and Uzbekistan do not supply them with Strela 2 and DShK.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Well, naturally, the Vietnamese had self-propelled ZSU-57 and Strela-1 air defense systems, which the ragged Basmachi never had

Yes, I can imagine carrying the ZSU 57 along mountain trails, but what is Strela 1 cooler than the Javelin?

[MURANO]

Quote: alex popov

betrayal in the highest echelons of power and the military command of Iraq.

This was decisive. The Americans bought them.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Soviet military specialists

And that’s good. The issue is the students and the whole picture as a whole.

[doxtop]

After all it's burning! Walk away! )))
But in general... I would advise the author of this opus to first thoroughly familiarize himself with all the performance characteristics of the participants in the process he describes and the maximum possible mention of the real application of these participants in the process.
All in all... ! Like farting in the water!
I’ll add on my own behalf: Yes, aircraft carriers are important! Yes, aircraft carriers are needed! However, without all this motley AUG, the aircraft carrier itself is just a huge piece of floating garbage hanging out for the amusement (and torn to pieces) of its enemies in the ocean.
Deprive any (even an ultra-modern aircraft carrier) of its defenders... destroyers, submarines, and the only thing it will be capable of is to proudly go to the bottom!