Military Review

Study: aircraft carrier size matters

87
The American Strategic Research Center RAND has published the results of its study of the dependence of the combat capabilities of an aircraft carrier on its size and cost. Warspot with a link to the resource scout.com.




The research was commissioned by the Pentagon, whose command decided to test "how much the development strategy of the Navy and the Marine Corps is justified in terms of costs," vitality "and projected force."

It is noted that "the ships that are already part of the American fleet, as well as concepts in the form of aircraft carriers of the "middle" and "mini" classes. "

The researchers divided the aircraft carriers on the 4 conditional class:

- CVN 8X - the prototype served as aircraft carriers of the type Gerald R. Ford, having a displacement of order 100 000 t;
- CVN LX - the concept of an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 70 000 t. Such a ship will cost the fleet cheaper, but will be more limited in size of the wing, as well as the supply of fuel and ammunition for it;
- CV LX - aircraft carrier concept with a 40 000 ton displacement. The prototype was an UDC of the America type. In comparison, considered the version of the aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant;
- CV EX - the concept of a light aircraft carrier with a displacement of 20 000 t.


According to the results of the research, analysts reported that "now and in the foreseeable future, the variant of the aircraft carrier CVN 8X (Gerald R. Ford) is optimal." The 100 000 ton displacement ship "is capable of carrying and maintaining the combat readiness of 80 combat aircraft, which is sufficient to project force according to US military doctrine."



At the same time, savings in choosing aircraft carriers of the CVN LX class (70 000 t) will not be justified due to their limited capabilities.

And the CV LX and CV EX formats are generally considered not practical and do not meet the requirements of the current military doctrine. They are more dependent on supply ships and require a different approach to the formation of aircraft carrier groups.

Study: aircraft carrier size matters
USS Gerald R. Ford.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com, navyrecognition.com
87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Corsair0304
    Corsair0304 19 October 2017 15: 50
    +7
    More aircraft carrier - more target))
    1. Komsomol
      Komsomol 19 October 2017 15: 54
      21
      laughing Do not exaggerate, you’ll torment him with a horde of retinue and airplanes, like a swarm of wasps circling him next to him ... wink
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 19 October 2017 16: 00
        +8
        laughing Do not exaggerate-drown torment him with a horde of retinue and airplanes, like a swarm of wasps circling him next ...

        To undermine a couple of atomic warheads of 1 Mt along the path of an aircraft carrier and there is no escort ... and then you can put into operation TU-22M3 with its missiles ... this is just one option. smile
        1. Kasym
          Kasym 19 October 2017 16: 06
          16
          Against an equal opponent (China, Russia, India) it is difficult to use AUG. But against small countries militarily AUG is very effective. hi
          1. Shurik70
            Shurik70 19 October 2017 21: 00
            +1
            Quote: The same Lech

            Undermine a couple of atomic warheads of 1 Mt along the aircraft carrier and there is no escort ...

            So these "researchers" just abut that the big ship is its own base and escort, and the small one needs to be equipped and escorted.
            In general, I have the impression that the probable loss in battle was initially taken as zero, and all other calculations come from this. Yes, a large air group protects their ship better, but there are no invulnerables. But there is no protection at all from a modern flock of missiles actively maneuvering at low altitude. Even atomic ammunition will destroy only part of the flock; they go widely both along the front and along the time interval.
        2. tol100v
          tol100v 19 October 2017 17: 21
          +5
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          . This is just one of the options.

          In addition, we can say that the large cabinet is falling louder! Disabling only the deck, turns all this colossus into a barge with flying rubbish! And as the fireman said about his favorite musical instrument: the piano! And why?! Burns longer!
        3. NEXUS
          NEXUS 19 October 2017 18: 21
          +7
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          Undermine a couple of atomic warheads of 1 Mt along the aircraft carrier and there is no escort ...

          Wow, everything is so simple ... and we’ll suck target designation from a finger for warheads? Let me remind you that AUG is a fast moving target, not a stationary house.
          Maybe a torpedo with nuclear warheads? Only our submarine should still come at a distance of launching a torpedo, despite the fact that the AUG is hiding not only from the air, but also under water, too.
          Remains from the air ... if it’s near our coasts, it’s still possible ... but the AUG is the most invulnerable in the open ocean, and today we can hope to destroy such a group by striking from several directions, that is, from under water from the air and from the sea, which does not guarantee a successful outcome.
          We will have target designation systems that online will correct the flight of the same rocket over the horizon, taking into account the movement of the AOG, then we can talk about nuclear charges and simple missiles and so on ... and until the village, so far we have little effective means of destruction of the AUG, taking into account its retinue-guard and the radius of its air wing. Naturally, the conversation is about the destruction of such a group in the open ocean.
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 19 October 2017 19: 26
            +5
            Nexus ... everything is complicated for you .. To begin with ... where will the AUG come to attack the territory of the Russian Federation? To the Baltic? Black Sea? From the Pacific?
            TsU? Already established .. The legend rested in the Bose, but it is replaced by Liana, with a higher orbit, which means the number of satellites is less. Well, and you don’t know .. UH a lone TARK or PARK will not attack. An attack of such a connection is possible only complex .. by all necessary means of destruction.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 19 October 2017 20: 25
              +4
              Quote: dvina71
              The legend rested in a Bose, but it is replaced by Liana,

              Namely, it only replaces.
              Quote: dvina71
              An attack of such a connection is possible only complex .. by all necessary means of destruction.

              I’m talking about this ... from all available directions. hi
              1. Thor
                Thor 19 October 2017 20: 50
                +2
                Soon, the US Strategic Research Center will release a study that generally “the size of any ship matters” laughing
                Winners of the Shnobel Prize ..
              2. dvina71
                dvina71 19 October 2017 21: 02
                +1
                Well, it’s so impossible to put all the satellites into orbit at once. How many of them are there now .. it’s known for sure “not everyone”.))) The main thing is that this system is a network.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 19 October 2017 21: 08
                  +5
                  Quote: dvina71
                  Well, it’s so impossible to put all the satellites into orbit at once.

                  Therefore, I said that while we have an effective system of purpose, there is no purpose.
                  1. Talgat
                    Talgat 21 October 2017 08: 40
                    +1
                    Yes, I also read about Legend and Liana. Liana seems not so bulky and based on new technologies

                    If everything is true and target designation is reborn, then, in principle, Russia has a very cheap chance to confront the giant fleets of opponents

                    Atomarines - and especially new ones - will always have good chances to approach the distance of a volley of onyxes

                    It is clear that aviation will not be allowed to reach the AUG, but if the Tu22 will have the planned x32 with 1000 km in range, then these 30 new carcasses, if necessary, will sink several AUGs who dared to approach the coast of Russia

                    Left without AUG air defense fighters, destroyers and cruisers will be accessible to naval aviation and anti-ship missiles. Yes, and coastal corvettes and RTOs will be able to enter into a completely equal battle with them
          2. NOVERU
            NOVERU 23 October 2017 02: 52
            0
            why do we put the submarine’s network of sensors and torpedo launchers with apples and everything is spectacular like a terrorist attack or with a road HE and a black cat can be searched in all the dark corners of an individual if it’s not there
        4. Alex_Rarog
          Alex_Rarog 20 October 2017 09: 39
          +1
          Here you are maniacs))) 1Mt. Or you dear do not understand all the power or joking) even an aircraft carrier will be enough 50-100Kt.
        5. Nikolai Grek
          Nikolai Grek 20 October 2017 21: 25
          +4
          Quote: The same LYOKHA
          Undermine a couple of atomic warheads of 1 Mt along the aircraft carrier and there is no escort.

          and then nothing will have to be done, because the aircraft carrier will disappear along with the escort !! wassat wassat lol lol lol
      2. Korney84
        Korney84 19 October 2017 16: 08
        +8
        It’s enough to hammer on the deck and the whole swarm will land on the water)) winked
        1. syndicalist
          syndicalist 19 October 2017 20: 28
          +2
          Remained bullshit - fuck repeat
      3. bagr69
        bagr69 19 October 2017 16: 20
        +4
        It’s not necessary to drown at all, to damage the takeoff, and the command post will, in principle, produce a voluminous steel trough. We have funds for these purposes, but there are big questions regarding the possibilities of counteracting our funds from their carrier group, are they effective?
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 19 October 2017 21: 49
          +1
          It’s not necessary to drown at all, to damage the takeoff, but the command post
          As an option, several missiles aboard with the creation of a roll that cannot be compensated by counter-flooding of the compartments .. And that’s it. With sideways oblique deck, too, can not take off.
          1. Galleon
            Galleon 20 October 2017 01: 05
            +3
            For this type of aircraft carrier, the underwater side is duplicated five times, the bottom - three times - in order to increase survivability. A pile of ballast tanks. To heel it, you have to get to the same place twice or thrice. And so there were at least two such places. But in general, you are right - the critical roll for take-off and landing is 5 degrees.
            1. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 20 October 2017 15: 04
              0
              To heel it, you have to get to the same place twice or thrice.
              critical roll for take-off and landing - 5 degrees.
              This is clear. The fool is healthy and well thought out. But this is one of the options for the failure of an aircraft carrier without its sinking.
      4. d ^ Amir
        d ^ Amir 19 October 2017 16: 40
        +7
        why drown ???? to spread the upper deck and that’s all ... the planes do not take off and land ... and even though there will be protection around it at least five rings ..... without planes or without the possibility of using planes this is a useless iron box in a very large puddle ... .
      5. Großer feldherr
        Großer feldherr 19 October 2017 17: 13
        +1
        If the Katays have already added ballistic missiles to work on ships, ours has long had these technologies, there’s no reason to just advertise.
      6. Esoteric
        Esoteric 19 October 2017 18: 16
        +2
        Quote: Komsomol
        Do not exaggerate, drown torment him with a horde of retinue


        Yeah ... The Titanic was also unsinkable. You, my dear man, cannot imagine the full power of anti-ship missiles. So they are famously managing these AUGs like locusts with a wheat field ... belay
        1. syndicalist
          syndicalist 19 October 2017 20: 30
          +1
          Until it comes to real combat use, this is all speculation. Maybe it is, and maybe not at all
    2. Nasrat
      Nasrat 19 October 2017 16: 06
      +9
      Quote: Corsair0304
      More aircraft carrier - more target))


      More ship - more money .... you can squeeze !!! wassat That's all the analytics! bully
    3. newcomer
      newcomer 19 October 2017 16: 14
      11
      more aircraft carrier_ more air wing, more air defense, more mine / torpedo protection, etc., etc. and so, purely theoretically: you can sink, destroy, burn, disable any type of weapon. Well, down with the military-industrial complex?
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 19 October 2017 16: 59
        +2
        Quote: bagr69
        it’s not necessary to drink at all, to damage the takeoff, and the command post will, in principle, produce a voluminous steel trough. For these purposes, we have funds

        And what are these "means" if it is not a "military secret"?
        1. tol100v
          tol100v 19 October 2017 17: 25
          +1
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          And what are these "means" if it is not a "military secret"?

          We have them! And for the time being we will not provide them! Although you can ask D. Cook, he is in the know!
      2. Esoteric
        Esoteric 19 October 2017 18: 23
        +2
        Quote: newbie
        more aircraft carrier_ more air wing, more air defense

        More ... more ... thicker ... Yes, the aircraft carrier has one purpose - a floating military base for resolving local conflicts in countries with poorly developed air defense and aircraft systems. So that, God forbid, in a direct collision, the “lyuley" did not hang, they came up with this "long arm" ...
        What is the use of all this retinue if a superhigh-speed anti-ship missile is not intercepted? And two things prick it "trough" like a walnut. And the cost of RCC is not comparable with the cost of an aircraft carrier.
        1. newcomer
          newcomer 19 October 2017 19: 11
          +5
          Esoteric, the cost of the tank is also incomparably lower than the cost of the tank, (do you want to continue the analogy?). and what, tanks we’ll shout at, we’ll arm the tankers with tank guns? and by the way, my colleague, I’m not particularly pleased with your excessive (don’t you find?) attention to me. I ask you to cool down. because I have to take retaliatory measures. and I don’t even look that I literally left the “bathhouse” because of the same “guardian”. nothing to do, run in the air.
        2. Pan_hrabio
          Pan_hrabio 20 October 2017 10: 19
          0
          Yes, the aircraft carrier has one purpose - a floating military base for resolving local conflicts in countries with poorly developed air defense and aircraft systems.


          Just the same, this is a secondary goal, which they were taught relatively recently. The main goal of aircraft carriers and, in general, AUGs, in which case to maintain dominance in the oceans, to ensure the safe transfer of troops for example to Europe.
        3. Kyzmich
          Kyzmich 20 October 2017 15: 37
          0
          Somewhere they quoted the cost of our aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov equal to the cost of two Antey nuclear submarines
          And this is 48 RCC “Granite” in a salvo.
          And how many of these “antes” will “CV J Ford” pull?
    4. zivXP
      zivXP 19 October 2017 17: 15
      +1
      Yeah, it's hard to miss here smile
    5. San Sanych
      San Sanych 19 October 2017 17: 42
      +1
      Quote: Corsair0304
      More aircraft carrier - more target))

      a large cupboard falls louder laughing
    6. iouris
      iouris 20 October 2017 11: 51
      0
      Such a conclusion has great scientific significance and practical value.
  2. Dezinto
    Dezinto 19 October 2017 16: 03
    +8
    One hit on the deck and the whole function the whole point of his sailing ends. Although he is super huge. A torpedo, a rocket, - and failed. It is only necessary to get through the "retinue". What else was checked by Soviet submariners being directly inside the AUG.
  3. Herculesic
    Herculesic 19 October 2017 16: 08
    +2
    And what's the point? ?? fool And so it is clear that a larger aircraft carrier has more capabilities than a smaller aircraft carrier, there is no one canceled the factor of sufficient reasonableness - sometimes, a smaller aircraft carrier will do for certain tasks!
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 19 October 2017 16: 46
      +3
      Quote: Herkulesich
      And what's the point? ?? fool

      Across the ocean from time to time rises are raised on the topic "which is better: one big or many small?". In our case, due to the lack of AUG and money for it, these sacrachics quickly fade. So this analysis was commissioned by supporters of large and expensive aircraft carriers.
  4. Fkjydjckfrgh
    Fkjydjckfrgh 19 October 2017 16: 14
    +2
    Quote: Corsair0304
    More aircraft carrier - more target))

    And also more funds can be mastered during construction and operation. Kickbacks are appropriate. Here everyone shouts with one voice; "Donald is an idiot, he will start World War III." forgetting that he is a businessman, not a "fiery imperialist." He will calmly “arm” the exceptional ones, not forgetting to put aside the dowry of the Golconda .. ugh, Ivanka, your “legitimate” “dohrenilliard”.
  5. kind
    kind 19 October 2017 16: 16
    0
    And if you destroy planes from this aircraft carrier in the air, then what is it for?
    1. Sharansky
      Sharansky 19 October 2017 16: 21
      10
      It's so easy to take and destroy several dozen combat aircraft in the air. Especially not having in the air.
      1. Esoteric
        Esoteric 19 October 2017 18: 27
        +1
        Quote: Sharansky
        It's so easy to take and destroy several dozen combat aircraft in the air.

        In vain you do not underestimate the possibilities of electronic warfare. How flies get into stormy (or calm) ocean waters ... lol
        1. Sharansky
          Sharansky 19 October 2017 18: 27
          +4
          Exhale soon
  6. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 19 October 2017 16: 16
    +2
    Given US policy, aircraft carriers with a large displacement are beneficial to them.
    And for example, Italy in the Mediterranean, they are useless. France also does not build large ships, because they have no use. Even their aircraft carrier according to the American classification is not what it needs ..)
    The construction of the fleet is completely subordinate to the ongoing foreign policy.
    1. 34 region
      34 region 19 October 2017 17: 08
      0
      16.16. Intelligence Fight! Well, it depends on how you consider the benefits. If purely for money, then it is possible at a loss. The cost of the aircraft carrier itself, plus aircraft, plus guarding ships, plus weapons, fuel and lubricants and ammunition, plus the cost of maintenance ... It’s a little expensive. And they are under repair for how long. And this is without combat damage! If you count on the economic benefits of the suppression of dissenting Papuans, it is beneficial. If you count on a collision with a strong opponent, then perhaps these are just losses and no gain.
    2. Kurare
      Kurare 19 October 2017 18: 27
      +4
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      The construction of the fleet is completely subordinate to the ongoing foreign policy.

      That is what should be put at the forefront when designing and ordering such weapons. Americans make their aircraft carriers based on their strategy of "projecting power" anywhere in the world.

      In general, the RAND study is very similar to the order: "we are doing everything right, we ordered the right ships, we sawed the loot correctly."
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. Gransasso
        Gransasso 20 October 2017 10: 21
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        With France and Italy everything is easier - babla.net. They would be happy to build a normal big AB - but you have to fit into the budget. Nevertheless, they are attempting to build aircraft carriers larger than those available.




        You're wrong. And this bpmd article is full of inaccuracy and outright fakes.
  7. family tree
    family tree 19 October 2017 16: 19
    0
    No research.
    There are Marines with CTF, with DCBF there are, from one CSF, separately, to pull half-areas
    commander, robbing a couple of generals on the way.what
    No, witnesses for the USSR are still alive
  8. Gardamir
    Gardamir 19 October 2017 16: 33
    +1
    I do not understand articles about aircraft carriers.
    When the sons of Amaterasu approached the aircraft carriers bombed Pearl Harbor, this is understandable. Now why do we need this? Or we support the aggressive policy of the American military. We will also create aircraft carriers to bomb penguins if they have oil.
    From morning to evening, we are now being told everything by Caliber, Caliber! That none of the calibers will not be able to break through the defense?
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 19 October 2017 18: 04
      +5
      Quote: Gardamir

      From morning to evening, we are now being told everything by Caliber, Caliber! That none of the calibers will not be able to break through the defense?

      Will be able.

      Provided that:
      1. AUG will be practically motionless.
      2. There will be a hurricane / typhoon - in which there will be no opportunity to keep Hokai in the air.
      3. Simultaneous approach of more than 80-100 Gauges, walking along a low-altitude trajectory (without a high-altitude marching section).
      Only then is it possible to destroy the AUG with Caliber.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 20 October 2017 10: 24
      0
      Quote: Gardamir
      When the sons of Amaterasu approached the aircraft carriers bombed Pearl Harbor, this is understandable. Now why do we need this? Or we support the aggressive policy of the American military. We will also create aircraft carriers to bomb penguins if they have oil.

      We need AB for exactly the same purpose for which the USSR Navy required them: first of all, to ensure the combat stability of the fleet forces covering the positional areas of the SSBN.
      It is impossible to provide air defense for these ship groups by surface ships and coastal aviation: air defense systems are limited by the radio horizon, and the approach time of reinforcements from coastal airfields is longer than the time that aircraft carriers reach the launch distance (based on the fact that the cover line should be allocated from the naval base and regions - somewhere to Svalbard).
      Normal AB is, first of all, an opportunity to see enemy aircraft beyond the horizon and intercept carriers before they reach the launch line of the RCC. In addition, the presence of AB cover forces in the composition forces the enemy to reduce the number of vehicles in the strike group due to the need to allocate part of the forces to the air clearing and cover group of strike machines. Moreover, to counteract our aircraft carrier aviation, the outfit of "clearing and covering" forces should be greater than in the case of the same coastal aviation forces - because the aircraft carrier will be able to quickly reinforce the duty forces with reserves.
  9. Altona
    Altona 19 October 2017 16: 35
    +4
    Quote: Herkulesich
    And what's the point?

    ----------------------------------
    Yes, nothing. Great ocean nonsense to scare Aboriginal people armed with weapons 70 years ago. In the presence of more or less developed air defense and coastal anti-ship batteries, the Tomahawks submarines are the first to enter the business, trying to destroy radar and air defense control posts. When all this is suppressed, then aviation will fly out and bomb ground targets that cannot answer it, mainly armored vehicles and warehouses. So, an aircraft carrier with the whole AUG will not be the first to do business until the enemy’s air defense assets are cleared.
    1. Partyzan
      Partyzan 19 October 2017 16: 54
      +6
      Quote: Altona
      to scare Aboriginal armed men

      such yes?
    2. ZVO
      ZVO 19 October 2017 18: 05
      +1
      Quote: Altona
      Quote: Herkulesich
      And what's the point?

      ----------------------------------
      Yes, nothing. Great ocean nonsense to scare Aboriginal people armed with weapons 70 years ago. In the presence of more or less developed air defense and coastal anti-ship batteries, the Tomahawks submarines are the first to enter the business, trying to destroy radar and air defense control posts. When all this is suppressed, then aviation will fly out and bomb ground targets that cannot answer it, mainly armored vehicles and warehouses. So, an aircraft carrier with the whole AUG will not be the first to do business until the enemy’s air defense assets are cleared.


      Well, not quite like that.
      Radar / RTV should be suppressed even during the Tomahawks strike.
      Therefore, the aircraft carrier will always be near during the first strike.
      Growlers, Hokai - will always participate in the first wave.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 20 October 2017 14: 42
      0
      Quote: Altona
      In the presence of more or less developed air defense and coastal anti-ship batteries, the Tomahawks submarines are the first to enter the business, trying to destroy radar and air defense control posts.

      Or "hornets" with a PRR with cover and a control unit from an "electronic hornet" EW. The same HARMs allow launching without preliminary capture of the target, in the area of ​​the probable location of the radar - that is, they can be launched from MV and PMV because of the horizon.
  10. Ingvar0401
    Ingvar0401 19 October 2017 16: 39
    +1
    To the big ship - big reefs ...
    1. igordok
      igordok 19 October 2017 17: 17
      +1
      Kaptsov is not on you.
  11. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 19 October 2017 16: 40
    0
    hypothetically
    if, for example, equip the American aircraft carrier Ford with our air defense systems, will its survivability increase?
    For example, put 6 air defense missile system Carapace-S1 and 32 air-guided missiles according to 8 air defense missile system Redut, and also PTZ 4x4 Package-NK -?
    ?
    I think that with our technologies even the American trough will not become sinking (!)
    1. 34 region
      34 region 19 October 2017 17: 12
      +5
      16.40. Romario! And if you let a civilian cargo ship onto a ram, then the aircraft carrier will receive significant damage incompatible with the performance of combat missions! wassat Cases of ramming ships of the US Navy are available! wassat The rams were successful! wassat
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 19 October 2017 17: 23
        0
        The rams were successful!

        If everything suits you ?!
        - then you can send a letter of thanks to the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy
        1. 34 region
          34 region 19 October 2017 17: 33
          0
          17.23. Romario! A letter of thanks and an order were sent and handed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy! soldier
      2. NOVERU
        NOVERU 23 October 2017 03: 27
        +1
        especially if packed with explosives
    2. ZVO
      ZVO 19 October 2017 18: 14
      +4
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      SAM Redoubt


      It cannot be brought to mind for 20 years.
      1 rocket is only working out of 3.
      Radar - half-working.
      He will take up combat duty in a full and sufficient form at best in 5-6 years.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 20 October 2017 19: 28
      +1
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      if, for example, equip the American aircraft carrier Ford with our air defense systems, will its survivability increase?
      For example, put 6 air defense missile system Carapace-S1 and 32 air-guided missiles according to 8 air defense missile system Redut, and also PTZ 4x4 Package-NK -?

      What for? The aircraft carrier’s air defense and aircraft defense are provided by the AUG defense system, which includes the air group AB, NK and PL escort, basic patrol aviation, and receives data for its work as from its own forces. so from the neighbors and "from above." Why put on the AB SAM air defense if they are on 4-5 escort ships?
      Any weapon system on an AB is minus the area of ​​the deck and hangar. Plus the issue of radar EM compatibility.
  12. Nikolay Fedorov
    Nikolay Fedorov 19 October 2017 16: 47
    +2

    Study: aircraft carrier size matters
    The more - the better, such is the verdict of analysts of the non-profit organization RAND ....

    The more, the better - our Russian developers of anti-ship missiles fully agree with Western sworn partners. good
  13. San Sanych
    San Sanych 19 October 2017 17: 36
    0
    The greater the displacement, the less restrictions on weather conditions for the wing, 100 ctn is the most, but the thing is that aircraft carriers are weapons against the weak, against Grenada and Libya, and they do not roll against Russia and China yes even though they will be 200 ctn laughing
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 19 October 2017 18: 30
      +4
      Quote: San Sanych
      even though they will be 200 ctn laughing


      Why?
      Here Russia and Japan clung to Kunashir.
      Here the Japanese landings went to Kunashir.
      How to hammer down the landing ships and the landing themselves then?
      When they are covered by their warships and Japanese airfields nearby ...
      With Exaltation? What a couple of thousand fly? Or fly directly through yap?
      There remains only the Falcon, but the Smirny? For 600-700 km?
      And 200 ctn - it can be adjusted for 150 ...
      1. San Sanych
        San Sanych 19 October 2017 18: 38
        0
        Do we have poplars? let them not even dream of our Kuril Islands
      2. NN52
        NN52 19 October 2017 20: 30
        +8
        Are us and the Smirny and Falcon alive?
        Have you missed anything?
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 October 2017 18: 37
      +1
      Given the fact that aircraft carriers have nuclear weapons on board, they are even rolling.
  14. Old military officer
    Old military officer 19 October 2017 18: 33
    0
    Better are those aircraft carriers on which you can weld more. This is the main task of RAND.
  15. yashka12007
    yashka12007 19 October 2017 18: 46
    +2
    And why did we and our Kuznetsov crap against the Papuans to the fullest. Probably the sizes are not the same. We need to urgently build a barrage or whatever they call it 100-150 thousand meters of water and then do it even more. Yes, for this money it’s better to use a targeting system in space and do calibro-zircon moulin.
    1. NN52
      NN52 19 October 2017 20: 36
      +9
      Regarding Kuznetsov ...
      You change diapers pzhl ..
      The tests were even more than successful.
      1. yashka12007
        yashka12007 19 October 2017 21: 51
        +1
        A couple of sorties and 2 dug-in planes are successful, maybe it’s for the sake of what the hell 30 years old they contained this colossus + airliner + all kinds of threads if, as a result, all sorties were from the ground. I did not hear that the ship's commander and other involved were removed.
  16. Cyrus
    Cyrus 19 October 2017 20: 04
    +3
    And no one is embarrassed that the AUG is a structure of peacetime and that during the war there will be operational formations, and this is a completely different collinkor and possibilities.
  17. dubovitskiy.1947
    dubovitskiy.1947 19 October 2017 22: 05
    0
    The big ship is a big shipwreck.
  18. Sige
    Sige 19 October 2017 22: 12
    0
    "A ship with a displacement of 100 tons" is capable of carrying and maintaining the combat readiness of about 000 combat aircraft, which is sufficient to project force according to the US military doctrine. "

    Beat the weak US military doctrine. Weak aircraft carrier will not be able to sink, so the more the better.
  19. Fedya2017
    Fedya2017 20 October 2017 00: 15
    0
    Wow, how many "sinkers of aircraft carriers" write their opinions ... Ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! With his caps ... With his caps! And then you can throw it with your tarpaulin boots. Catapult boots or hat easily wedge ... And fffsёё !!! We are not Papuans like the Chinese or the Indians, who hastily create their own aircraft carriers ... We have enough hats with boots against the aircraft carriers. Eh, tankers, you know everything ... from your tank.
  20. Galleon
    Galleon 20 October 2017 01: 23
    +4
    The bulk of comments are frivolous: "a large cabinet falls louder", etc. It is always good to joke, but one must remember that that country has the greatest experience in the operation of such ships and in destruction. How many Japanese aircraft carriers went down during the war? About two dozen?
    This type of ship has tremendous survivability and 144 vigorous ammunition on board. Each - for 144. Aircraft carriers about ten (late already, count yourself who wants it). How many total? No jokes yet?
    Our fleet has no task more difficult than to get to this scum and hit it. Despite all our good equipment (including ships) - it is simply not enough for all AUGs. 4-5 air regiments are sitting on each such monster: all that is needed: AWACS, electronic warfare and reconnaissance, attack aircraft, rescuers ...
    All your laughter from the fact that you are not responsible for the fact that all this armada went to fish to entertain with their appearance. And you don’t need to make fools of amers, but you need to say thank you, that battleships like Iowa are again in conservation. I well remember the BF chuck, when one such steel dreadnought ran into the Baltic in 1986. Armor of the citadel - 800-1000mm - deck from 80 to 200 - how do you take it ?? The whole Baltic Fleet (that Baltic Fleet was more than the current one) was practically powerless. For comparison: the armor penetration of the French Exocet RCC - 80mm. Ours - I do not know. But 80mm versus 800! Here you can laugh nervously.
    Well, a modern aircraft carrier from a military point of view will be abruptly more than an 80-year-old battleship.
    1. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem 20 October 2017 17: 28
      0
      Citadel Armor - 800-1000mm

      Divide into two - you will not be mistaken.
  21. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 20 October 2017 12: 34
    0
    You can sink anything. The larger the ship, the more its owners tremble for it, which means the more escort ships. Those. with an increase in displacement, the group grows almost nonlinearly. Talk that one large aircraft carrier will be able to defend himself is pretty smiley. This has never been and never will be. no matter how many planes he carries on board and no matter what classes they are. In short, a large carcass falls louder.
    And yes, against Kalash and coast guard boats, that’s it. )))
  22. Fkjydjckfrgh
    Fkjydjckfrgh 20 October 2017 13: 06
    0
    Quote: Galleon
    The bulk of comments are frivolous: "a large cabinet falls louder", etc. It is always good to joke, but one must remember that that country has the greatest experience in the operation of such ships and in destruction. How many Japanese aircraft carriers went down during the war? About two dozen?
    This type of ship has tremendous survivability and 144 vigorous ammunition on board. Each - for 144. Aircraft carriers about ten (late already, count yourself who wants it). How many total? No jokes yet?
    Our fleet has no task more difficult than to get to this scum and hit it. Despite all our good equipment (including ships) - it is simply not enough for all AUGs. 4-5 air regiments are sitting on each such monster: all that is needed: AWACS, electronic warfare and reconnaissance, attack aircraft, rescuers ...
    All your laughter from the fact that you are not responsible for the fact that all this armada went to fish to entertain with their appearance. And you don’t need to make fools of amers, but you need to say thank you, that battleships like Iowa are again in conservation. I well remember the BF chuck, when one such steel dreadnought ran into the Baltic in 1986. Armor of the citadel - 800-1000mm - deck from 80 to 200 - how do you take it ?? The whole Baltic Fleet (that Baltic Fleet was more than the current one) was practically powerless. For comparison: the armor penetration of the French Exocet RCC - 80mm. Ours - I do not know. But 80mm versus 800! Here you can laugh nervously.
    Well, a modern aircraft carrier from a military point of view will be abruptly more than an 80-year-old battleship.

    One, well, two (not 144th) vigorous ammunition. From the MiG on the 31st
    1. Galleon
      Galleon 20 October 2017 15: 45
      +2
      We have about 5000 of these ammunition. Will we spend one for each cruiser? But there are much more important goals. How do you imagine the flight of the MIG-31 through 3 regiments of fighter-attack aircraft? You see, there are more questions than answers. It is not that simple.
      1. Fkjydjckfrgh
        Fkjydjckfrgh 20 October 2017 17: 29
        0
        1 why would MiG, with its LTH, even enter the coverage area of ​​the wing?
        2. It is necessary to destroy or damage the Tokmo aircraft carrier, the rest of the bastard remaining afloat will float (namely, float) home, because left without air cover, and the exceptional ones do not fight like that (not the 41st)
  23. Green Chukotka
    Green Chukotka 20 October 2017 22: 51
    0
    the larger the cabinet, the louder it falls (s)