Military Review

Dear Khrushchev, or How dangerous are the US aircraft carriers for Russia

242
Speaking about the further development of armaments and the possibility of a hypothetical confrontation between the armed forces of Russia and the United States, more and more foreign media and experts are thinking that the US attack aircraft carrier groups are not such a panacea for solving all problems.


Dear Khrushchev, or How dangerous are the US aircraft carriers for Russia


Much has already been said on this subject. Both Americans and Russians. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. But what is happening today in our army in terms of re-equipment, actually makes us somewhat rethink the understanding that has developed over the years.

11 US aircraft carriers with their almost 1 000 airplanes and helicopters is a really impressive force. Able to bring war (theoretically) to the territory of any country. In practice, everything is not so beautiful.

AUG is not a small target. This is a warrant of one to two dozen ships. Yes, there have been cases of “loss” of AUG, but this is more a part of the half-a-billdote.

In general, the AUG is dangerous on 100% for those countries that have nothing to oppose to the strength of the group. Countries whose military potential is comparable to the Yugoslav or Libyan countries, of course, can only “pinch” the AUG.

But when it comes to those countries that are armed with sufficient means of response, both quantitatively and qualitatively (Russia, China, India), the alignment changes.

Indeed, is AUG so terrible, how are we drawing it in the very near future? If you look at the classic composition, then yes, it looks impressive.

The flagship of the Nimitz or Ford-type aircraft carrier grouping with a deck regiment based on it aviation (60-80 aircraft and 10-12 helicopters).

The air defense division of the grouping is a 1-2 cruiser of the Ticondeur type. All Ticondeur-type cruisers are equipped with the Aegis Marine Management Complex (AEGIS) and Standart SAM systems (SM-2, SM-3), which are very modern. weapons. Some cruisers may be equipped with installations for launching Tomahawks.

3-4 destroyers of the Arly Burk type with depth charges and torpedoes to fight enemy submarines are responsible for anti-submarine defense, and some can also be equipped with Tomahawks.

AUG can also include in its composition and submarines of the type "Los Angeles" with torpedo armament and "Tomahawk" (with the launch through torpedo tubes).

Plus supply vessels. Up to 8 transports, tankers and other ships.

Overall, 14-15 ships. Pretty impressive goal, which is simply not able to quietly go somewhere. At least not in modern conditions.

I remember how in our youth we were frightened by these aircraft carriers. They say they will come and bring us war. And the States will sit there overseas. Well, about the thousands of missiles, cruise and conventional. Then the "Pershing" in Europe still stood.

But over time, understanding of the situation became more and more. It became clear that aircraft carriers are being created today in order to impose democracy on small and mostly defenseless states, examples have already been cited.

It is difficult to say whether the plans of the American command include the promotion of an AUG (or several) in the region of Kamchatka or the Kola Peninsula, but today such a strategy will surprise.

In general, if according to the mind, in the case of "what" all US aircraft carriers will not have to fly in full steam to the shores of Russia, but on the contrary, to drop as far as possible from them.

I am not an expert, but the logic of today's time simply does not allow us to imagine an attack on Russia with the help of aircraft carrier aircraft. This is too risky and (not least) expensive.

There is an opinion in expert circles that aircraft carriers as a means of fights between superpowers are somewhat outdated. And the matter is that, first of all, new weapons systems with which AUG cannot oppose anything, and secondly - again money.

Still, the aircraft carrier (since the Second World War) is a very fat target. And very expensive.

Nikita Khrushchev, who was criticized a lot for distortions, nevertheless hit the army hard and the fleet, deciding that you can fight only ICBMs. However, what we have today is surprisingly reminiscent of the Khrushchev era.

Yes, the fleet is like the American one. It is a fact. VKS quantitatively also inferior to the US Air Force. Also we will not argue.

But since we are fighting on our territory, we still have what? That's right, air defense for airplanes and missiles for ships. In addition to the capabilities of the fleet and VKS. And one more thing in the stash.

For example, "Zircon".

The rocket began to be made this year, and in 2018 will begin to enter service.

The flight distance is about 400 km, the speed to 6M (has reached 8M under test).
Warhead weight 400 kg.

And, of course, "Caliber" in all guises. Yes, it flies not so fast, but far away.

The most clever thing that the Russian designers could only do was to unify the launch containers. "Zircon", "Caliber", "Onyx" - no matter what. More precisely, what will be at hand, then run.

Yes, "Onyx" also should not be discounted.

Given that all three products exist in the surface, underwater and aeronautical variants, the breadth of application possibilities is impressive.

This is especially true of the hypersonic Zircon, which has already caused an unhealthy revival in the stalls. This refers to the October proposal from Great Britain (naturally, jointly) with the USA to Russia and China. Gentlemen have suggested abandoning the development of hypersonic weapons.

A certain report was presented in which the hypersonic weapon was recognized as a threat capable of starting the World War III on a par with the nuclear one.

It is clear that if such a weapon would appear to the British or Americans, then it would serve exclusively the cause of peace and stabilization. But Russia and China, of course, can only use it for aggressive purposes.

The American magazine National Interest, whose materials we often pay attention to, called the Zircon rocket a serious challenge for the US Navy. The Americans also noticed that the rocket is quite versatile, so not only Russian naval ships, but also other types of armed forces can use the Zircon.

Yes, “Zircon” can start from almost any platform: from cruisers, frigates, corvettes, boats. With nuclear and diesel electric shock submarines. You can start with Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22М3 bombers, Su-34 fighter-bombers and even Su-35 and MiG-35 fighters. In the end, this rocket can be based on the shore.

As well as a carrier may not necessarily be a cruiser or a submarine, but even an ordinary cargo ship with an installed container.

The latter, of course, did not make Americans happy.

But - they made it up themselves, and be upset.

But what most puzzled American experts was the price. 1,5-2 million dollars depending on the modification. It has already been considered that heavy injuries can inflict "Zircons" 7-10, both at the expense of the warhead, and at the expense of its own kinetic energy. 6M is a lot. Although one rocket, pierced the side and got into the gas storage facility will be more than enough for a show with special effects.

And, as American experts note, today the US Navy is virtually unable to oppose anything to Zircons. The chance of interception even by modern complexes is negligible.

Perspective, if 10 "Zircons" (worth 20 million dollars), caught in the aircraft carrier "Gerald Ford" (worth 12,8 billion dollars), will bring it down, for some reason extremely negative effect on the Americans.

Whether the price does not suit the rocket, and the US Navy aircraft carrier must be picked with products worth tens of millions, or the fact that if it is launched, it will definitely fly.

A lot of experts said that the Zircon rocket marked the end of aircraft carriers as platforms for modern warfare. Of course, a bit premature.

Carriers are still the perfect tool to frighten, threaten, intimidate and attack. For those who can not adequately respond.

So for a long time aircraft carriers have quite a normal future for themselves. Yes, from the point of view of morality, it stinks slightly, but there's nothing to be done about it. It happened historically, thanks to the glorious US Navy.

I am very pleased that in the United States they seriously think that Russian missiles pose a serious threat to the instruments of attack of the Americans. And that the appearance in the zone of action of our missile systems can entail a very tangible impact on both US property and reputation.

Today, maybe not by 100%, but in the near future, our army and navy will be able to fully protect themselves from any possible aggressions by the very same US Navy AUG, which has been a scarecrow for the whole world for a long time.

Russia has indeed made a huge step towards full security in the very industry that has always been difficult for the United States. Our missiles are far superior to all the potential ones possess. C-300 and C-400, "Onyx", "Caliber", "Iskander", "Zircon" - the whole complex of defense is able to resist the desire of any AUG to visit our waters.

Naturally, AUG will remain a significant force. In addition to the usual functions of the impact on the country, "demanding democratization," aircraft carriers can be a shield, a floating airfield on the approaches to the borders of the United States.

Another question: who needs the “menacing forces” to go to these very borders?

But the main thing is to forget about our borders. For the first time. And then we'll see.
Author:
242 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 17 November 2017 06: 31 New
    +6
    But the main thing is to forget about our borders. For the first time. And then we'll see further.


    The most important thing is not to forget about June 22, 1941 ... this date has cost our people dearly.
    Well, aircraft carriers are just a tool in the dirty and bloody hands of Americans ...
    but as they say on every nut there is a bolt ... never when I didn’t believe that the US aircraft carrier could not be destroyed in open combat ... it would be ... there would be a desire and incentive ... I’m sure our armed forces found ways and methods to do this .
    1. Orel
      Orel 17 November 2017 08: 19 New
      14
      I am not an expert, but the logic of today simply does not allow us to imagine an attack on Russia with the help of aircraft carrier aircraft.


      At least someone expressed a sober thought. AUGs are designed to solve the tasks of monitoring maritime communications, naval blockade, but as the main means of confronting a serious adversary, they are not suitable. Attacks of Russia can not be afraid. Over our history, we could be attacked so many times when we had nothing to answer, but there was no attack. After the revolution, during the civil war, it was easy to conquer us. Whole country. She really wasn’t even then. Nothing happened. After World War II, when the USSR did not have large human reserves and an atomic bomb, and the United States already had several dozen, a huge fleet of strategic bombers — they could destroy the whole country in a month — did not. Therefore, the horror stories about "The West, which wants to conquer and divide us" - this is for those who are dim-witted by the mind who do not know the history of the twentieth century.
      1. Varyag_0711
        Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 09: 27 New
        44
        Orel Today, 08:19 ↑ New
        Attacks of Russia can not be afraid. Over the course of our history, they have attacked us so many times.
        Aw, citizen, your last name is not Stankevich for an hour? Or you list how many times in our history we were attacked?
        After the revolution, during the civil war, it was easy to conquer us. Whole country. She really wasn’t even then. Nothing happened.
        Nothing straight? There were no British and Americans near Arkhangelsk? There were no French and British in the South and in the Crimea? There were no Americans and Japanese in the Far East? There were no British in the Caucasus and Central Asia? There were no Germans in Ukraine and Belarus? There were no whites in the end? Quickly to school, study, study and study again.
        After World War II, when the USSR did not have large human reserves and an atomic bomb, and the United States already had several dozen, a huge fleet of strategic bombers — they could destroy the whole country in a month — did not.
        Oh, wasn’t it? And the most efficient seven-million-strong army in Germany, capable of reaching the English Channel in a few weeks?
        How many bombs did the United States have at that time? And what about Churchill’s plan to attack the Soviet troops in Germany?
        Turns away from your demagoguery, you can immediately see the national traitor. Rhetoric like "no one will attack us" has never been brought to good, and in the end it has always cost us dearly. So get the citizen out of here while the wind is without stones. We ourselves will figure out how to protect our homeland.
        1. Orel
          Orel 17 November 2017 10: 51 New
          +3
          Quote: Varyag_0711
          Nothing straight? There were no British and Americans near Arkhangelsk? There were no French and British in the South and in the Crimea? There were no Americans and Japanese in the Far East? There were no British in the Caucasus and Central Asia?


          And what of this ??? Did they really decide to fight the USSR ??? There was no such thing, but if they had decided, then their victory would be only a matter of time. Explore the battles of the Czechoslovak corps when they drove whole armies of red. 1 building !!! And why? Because the personnel corps is the army, and the crowd of people with rifles is the crowd, and even if they are 20 or 50 times more. It’s just that the West didn’t want to occupy us and that’s it. They bet on whites, but not actively. They lost. They had no task to fight the USSR.
          1. Varyag_0711
            Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 11: 53 New
            28
            It’s just that the West didn’t want to occupy us and that’s it.
            Didn’t you want to? Never? And then why the hell did they forget here? Have you come on a tour?
            Your nonsense is even too lazy to comment, but unfortunately it is necessary.
            There was no such thing, but if they had decided, then their victory would be only a matter of time.
            Well, it is essential ... laughing Napoleon also thought that with the capture of Moscow, victory over Russia only It's a question of time. laughing laughing laughing And Hitler believed that with the access to the Arkhangelsk-Stalingrad-Baku line, the war with the USSR would end.
            The history of Russia and its people, you do not know from the word ABSOLUTELY! So I repeat, running to school and cramming, cramming and cramming ...
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 19 November 2017 22: 00 New
            +3
            Quote: Orel
            Because the personnel corps is the army, and the crowd of people with rifles is the crowd, and even if they are 20 or 50 times more.

            You already wrote this nonsense about the "crowd with rifles." The Red Army won (apart from other reasons) because it had ammunition production at its side. And your "regular military" were forced to go on bayonet attacks on Karl machine guns, on-machine gun bayonet attacks.
        2. Orel
          Orel 17 November 2017 10: 55 New
          +6
          Quote: Varyag_0711
          Oh, wasn’t it? And the most efficient seven-million-strong army in Germany, capable of reaching the English Channel in a few weeks?
          How many bombs did the United States have at that time? And what about Churchill’s plan to attack the Soviet troops in Germany?


          And the USSR’s plan to attack the Western countries, and the USSR’s policy of proclaiming world evil all the capitalist governments of the world ??? Devices of the world revolution with the destruction of statehood of all capitalist countries ???

          Or do you think that the West should have applauded us when we proclaimed such a policy ??? We already attacked them throughout the 20th century, and they defended themselves against communism, which we wanted to spread around the world by force. Therefore, you evaluate history in a complex and do not forget important facts.

          Turns away from your demagoguery, you can immediately see the national traitor.


          It’s immediately obvious that you are not a supporter of historical truth. It is beneficial for you to remember only what is beneficial, and not how it really was.
          1. Varyag_0711
            Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 12: 03 New
            27
            Orel Today, 10:55 ↑
            And the Soviet plan to attack the Western countries
            And what was such a plan? Can you give a proof? Or was this plan only in your delusional consciousness born under the plan? Dope should be consumed less.
            and the policy of the USSR to proclaim world evil all the capitalist governments of the world
            Do you think capitalism is universal GOOD? Nude ...
            That we have attacked them all the 20th century
            Oh how? Well, let’s omit Finland, for your sore consciousness the reasons for the Soviet-Finnish war are too difficult to explain. But I wonder, according to your logic, apparently the USSR attacked Nazi Germany? Apparently we attacked the "peaceful" Americans in Korea and Vietnam? About more than 70 conflicts unleashed by the United States, I will simply remain modestly silent.

            I repeat, your rotten logic stinks a mile away!

            It’s immediately obvious that you are not a supporter of historical truth
            I saw your "historical truth" together with similar solzhenitsino-rezunami in a coffin near white slippers.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 12: 51 New
              +4
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              Do you think capitalism is universal GOOD? Nude ...

              Unfortunately, the universe has no other good for you.
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              for your sore consciousness, the causes of the Soviet-Finnish war are too difficult to explain

              Nothing complicated. To grab some more land, and in the USSR it was very few.
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              Apparently this USSR attacked Nazi Germany?

              Goebbels said that, it seems. There are other opinions. It consists in the fact that the German-Soviet Union could not end in anything other than war, the question is the timing. Absolutely all participants understood this, and many non-participants too. The war of the USSR and the Reich is a joint decision of two governments. Similarly, the war of Japan and the United States is a joint decision of both Tokyo and Washington. The difference is that the FDR set up well (although he did not plan to lose the Pacific Fleet, only the Philippines), and Comrade Stalin turned up much less successfully, barely dismissed it later.
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              Apparently we attacked the "peaceful" Americans in Korea and Vietnam?

              If we take communism as a disease, then yes, it does not start by itself.
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              About more than 70 conflicts unleashed by the United States

              Did you consider it yourself?
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 17 November 2017 15: 07 New
                10
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                About more than 70 conflicts unleashed by the United States
                Did you consider it yourself?

                70 this is greatly understated.
              2. Setrac
                Setrac 19 November 2017 22: 03 New
                +3
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Nothing complicated. To grab some more land, and in the USSR it was very few.

                You need to grab the brains - nothing complicated
              3. kitt409
                kitt409 28 July 2018 22: 35 New
                0
                Oh, how, well, you’ve decided right now to decide for the whole universe))) it happens ...
                As for Finland - didn’t they try to find and read the book of the Finnish professor?)
                And strictly facts - who nevertheless attacked whom? Or, in the US variant, has the USSR already attacked Germany? (
                As for communism, you tell the same famous British five)))
            2. Orel
              Orel 17 November 2017 13: 01 New
              +3
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              We omit Finland; for your sore consciousness, the causes of the Soviet-Finnish war are too difficult to explain.


              With this phrase you answered all your questions. Our “historical science” has been doing this for the entire 20th century - “omitting facts that are not profitable to recall.” And the paradox is that as a rule key facts are omitted, which can fundamentally change the whole assessment of history. I'm sorry that you taught this particular story. In part, I also found this, but when I saw logical inconsistencies, I began to analyze the issue in more detail and I think that the history of Russia over the 20th century is a big lie. Now they are trying to somehow lead to a less historical reality, but cheers-patriotism and anti-Americanism are here to the last. It is better to believe in the "humiliated and offended", which the whole world should give everything for free in the grave of life, than objectively evaluate history and its role in it.
              1. Varyag_0711
                Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 13: 08 New
                21
                Orel Today, 13:01 ↑
                It is better to believe in the "humiliated and offended", which the whole world should give everything for free in the grave of life, than objectively evaluate history and its role in it.
                Well, unlike you, I don’t lick the anus to Americans. If this is the norm for you, then the flag is in your hands.
                Such as you were the first and ran out to meet the invaders with bread and salt.
                1. Orel
                  Orel 17 November 2017 13: 15 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Varyag_0711
                  Well, unlike you, I don’t lick the anus to Americans. If this is the norm for you, then the flag is in your hands.
                  Such as you were the first and ran out to meet the invaders with bread and salt.


                  You only confirm my argument with this. Usually, when the arguments end, this is what happens. Actually, they shot at that time. If I do not agree with you, then for some reason I immediately became your enemy. Do not you think this is stupid and childish somehow?
                  1. Varyag_0711
                    Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 13: 23 New
                    18
                    You can agree or argue with someone who has their own opinion. Moreover, this should be precisely the opinion based on real facts, and not the facts of an alternative story born in the State Department. You are all just a repeater of the opinions of others, no more. You even have more imagination than relaying pro-Western bullshit. About your knowledge, I generally am silent, you do not have it.
                    Watering Russia with mud is not an alternative point of view, but a direct consequence of betrayal.
                    And with the enemies I have a short conversation, to the wall and a bullet in the back of my head.
                    1. Orel
                      Orel 17 November 2017 13: 27 New
                      +6
                      Quote: Varyag_0711
                      You can agree or argue with someone who has their own opinion. Moreover, this should be precisely the opinion based on real facts, and not the facts of an alternative story born in the State Department.


                      Understood) So your opinion is "your". And I mean "gosdepovskoe")))) You yourself do not assign the role of the Lord God by accident? Do not want to discuss - do not. And the transition to personalities is already superfluous. Have an honest debate)

                      Remember how in the movie: “Girl, are you the smartest here? Did someone tell you this? Or did you decide?” I do not deny you an opinion, but I challenge it. You go over to the person and deny me my opinion. This is unfair.
                      1. Varyag_0711
                        Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 13: 31 New
                        17
                        Orel Today, 13:27 ↑
                        Have an honest debate)

                        Dispute with whom? With you? Do not tell my slippers. I already wrote to you that a dispute can be waged with someone who has at least the rudiments of their own intelligence. You do not have any, and this is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.
                    2. Orel
                      Orel 17 November 2017 13: 29 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Varyag_0711
                      And with the enemies I have a short conversation, to the wall and a bullet in the back of my head.


                      Afraid of getting dirty?) It's not scary.
                      1. Varyag_0711
                        Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 13: 34 New
                        15
                        Orel Today, 13:29 ↑
                        Afraid of getting dirty?) It's not scary.
                        Getting dirty about you? I get dirty entering into polemics with you, and senseless. But to cleanse Russia from you and your kind is a good thing. Yes, it's a pity that now is not the 37th year.
                      2. CTABEP
                        CTABEP 17 November 2017 15: 05 New
                        +6
                        No, that's just such hysterics and not be afraid to get dirty. It was they who shot a bunch of people in the 30s - well, what do you have an opinion different from the course of the party and the comrade commissar - see the wall! Only then in the trenches later there were few such comrades, the rest either continued to search for the enemies of the people in the rear, or they stood at the same walls a year or two later.
              2. Setrac
                Setrac 19 November 2017 22: 06 New
                +2
                Quote: Orel
                the history of Russia for the 20th century is a big lie

                The whole history of the WORLD is a big lie and there is not a drop of truth in it.
              3. kitt409
                kitt409 28 July 2018 22: 36 New
                0
                As for Finland - didn’t they try to find and read the book of the Finnish professor?)
            3. Orel
              Orel 17 November 2017 13: 04 New
              +5
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              And what was such a plan? Can you give a proof? Or was this plan only in your delusional consciousness born under the plan? Dope should be consumed less.


              Quote: Varyag_0711
              Oh, wasn’t it? And the most efficient seven-million-strong army in Germany, capable of reaching the English Channel in a few weeks?


              You are very funny. Write yourself how the USSR was ready to reach the English Channel in a couple of weeks. This is of course without an attack plan)))

              You are confused in your own judgment.
              1. faridg7
                faridg7 17 November 2017 16: 35 New
                11
                Quote: Orel
                Quote: Varyag_0711
                Oh, wasn’t it? And the most efficient seven-million-strong army in Germany, capable of reaching the English Channel in a few weeks?



                You are very funny. Write yourself how the USSR was ready to reach the English Channel in a couple of weeks. This is of course without an attack plan)))
                Hey, do not distort. The ability to go to the lamb and the willingness to go to the lamb are two different things. You obviously have problems with cause and effect relationships. However, if you study the history of propaganda manuals and one-sided, then nothing surprising. People like you say that NATO was created in response to the signing of the Warsaw Pact.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 17 November 2017 15: 29 New
            +9
            Quote: Orel
            And the Soviet plan to attack the Western countries

            Can you name this plan? And then you can recall the similar plans of the other side - Dropshot and others.
            Quote: Orel
            and the policy of the USSR to proclaim the world evil of all the capitalist governments of the world ??? Devices of the world revolution with the destruction of statehood of all capitalist countries ???

            Welcome to the real story. In which the USSR is led by Comrade Stalin, while citizen Trotsky is thrown out of the USSR, from where he accuses Stalin of counter-revolutionary politics, compromising with the capitalists and betraying the cause of the world revolution. In response to this, Comrade Stalin hammered two nails into the coffin of the idea of ​​world revolution: one with an ice pick and the other with a feather, dismissing the Comintern.
            Quote: Orel
            We already attacked them throughout the 20th century, and they defended themselves against communism, which we wanted to spread around the world by force.

            That way they will soon argue that the future USSR attacked Poland during the Civil War. smile
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 15: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Stalin hammered two nails into the coffin of the idea of ​​a world revolution: one with an ice pick and the other with a feather, dismissing the Comintern.

              Well, you do not offend Comrade Stalin very much. Worldwide is not worldly, but he was not particularly planning to build socialism in a single country. And there were some results in the opposite direction.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              future USSR attacked Poland during Civil

              Are you talking about which one of the times?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 17 November 2017 17: 39 New
                +2
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Well, you do not offend Comrade Stalin very much. Worldwide is not worldly, but he was not particularly planning to build socialism in a single country. And there were some results in the opposite direction.

                There were. But they were not achieved by the classical methods of the world revolution propagated by citizen Trotsky. During the IVS, it was rather the return of the previously loved territories, and then the construction of the sanitary cordon on the contrary.
                By the way, the same Finns, instead of bringing them socialism to the same year in 1940 (when the guarantors of their independence had big problems), were left alone.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Are you talking about which one of the times?

                Counterattack of Tukhachevsky or There and back. smile
                About the very unfortunate time when one unrecognized genius about ... loved the campaign, which had every chance of ending with the border along the Curzon line.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 19: 49 New
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  not the classical methods of the world revolution propagandized by citizen Trotsky.

                  The opposition can afford the romance))
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  the return of previously loved territories,

                  Returning to where, sorry.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  loving

                  Liberated
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  bring them socialism in a year of 1940 (when the guarantors of their independence had big problems)

                  Comrade Stalin had no less problems. The clock was ticking. And Comrade Stalin’s cocktail did not disappoint. Only 2 months after the Moscow talks, it became clear that friend Adolf was going to success much faster than expected. When the guarantors really started having problems, Comrade Stalin was no longer in a hurry for Finland.
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 20 November 2017 10: 38 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Liberated

                    Temporarily Occupied. smile
                    This is me about the same Kresy Wschodnie with their pacification and other cute fun Poles.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    When the guarantors really started having problems, Comrade Stalin was no longer in a hurry for Finland.

                    And what did Comrade Stalin do in the summer of 1940, which physically could not show the SPF, but without the Mannerheim line?
                    The USSR had the opportunity to bring freedom and social justice to the oppressed Finnish proletariat and peasantry. But Comrade Stalin preferred the cause of the world revolution the strengthening of socialism in a single country.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 20 November 2017 22: 08 New
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      Kresy Wschodnie with their pacification and other cute Poles fun.

                      There everyone excelled. Poles slaughtered Ukrainians, Ukrainians slaughtered Poles. Until, finally, the forces of Good brought justice. Even three times. Without shoulder straps - one shoulder strap - two shoulder straps.
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      And what did Comrade Stalin do in the summer of 1940?

                      In winter, Comrade Stalin had a little less enthusiasm. Problems with future allies, which extend to the desire of the latter to bomb something, problems with the army, in which either all pests were shot, or those pests were shot. And in the summer France has already fallen. Not to the smallest detail.
        3. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 12: 58 New
          +1
          Quote: Varyag_0711
          immediately see the national traitor

          Yes it's me.
          Quote: Varyag_0711
          Nothing straight? There were no British and Americans near Arkhangelsk? There were no French and British in the South and in the Crimea? There were no Americans and Japanese in the Far East? There were no British in the Caucasus and Central Asia?

          It is ridiculous to recall, but the Entente was saving an ally dying from the color revolution paid by the German General Staff! Poorly saved, unfortunately.
          Quote: Varyag_0711
          There were no Germans in Ukraine and Belarus?

          And they were not called by the Bolsheviks in Brest-Litovsk?
          1. Varyag_0711
            Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 13: 04 New
            16
            Cherry Nine Today, 12: 58 ↑
            Quote: Varyag_0711
            immediately see the national traitor

            Yes it's me.
            I immediately realized this, so that they could not bother with the answer.
            It’s funny to remember, but the Entente was saving an ally
            Yeah, so "saved" that the first rushed to rob him.
            Discuss with you your alternative story, I see no reason.
            One question, what did you forget on this site? Immediately some “fools” and the patriots gathered.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 13: 57 New
              +2
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              Yeah, so "saved" that the first rushed to rob him.

              Rob a country in which there is a civil war? How is Syria now? Seriously?
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              One question, what did you forget on this site?

              I’m eating here, I wrote it.
              1. Ehanatone
                Ehanatone 18 November 2017 19: 27 New
                -1
                9 - excrement colors
                Why Maratza, responding to such distorters as you
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 19: 43 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Ehanatone
                  Why Maratza, answering

                  Well, intelligent people, when formulating their thoughts, can see gaps in them. For example, I was confused with aluminum. In one place I see Ulyanovsk, in another - Kamensk-Uralsk. Need to understand.

                  However, this only works with intelligent people, so I can’t insist.
              2. kitt409
                kitt409 28 July 2018 22: 41 New
                0
                That is, we are now robbing the ATS, right?)))
      2. Monarchist
        Monarchist 17 November 2017 09: 40 New
        +6
        Eagle, I know the story pretty well, and therefore, I think: WE IN THE VISIBLE FUTURE RELAX HARMFUL!
        1. Orel
          Orel 17 November 2017 11: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: Monarchist
          Eagle, I know the story pretty well, and therefore, I think: WE IN THE VISIBLE FUTURE RELAX HARMFUL!


          If so, I will not argue with you. I give you a "star") Maybe I have not studied enough the history of the 20th century, but here's the paradox. The more I study it, the more I become convinced that there was never any real goal to destroy the USSR. There were plans for a war, but no one wanted to start it first in the West and the goal of destroying the USSR was never set. Rather, they always looked for an opportunity to somehow get along on the planet with a country that wanted a world revolution.
          1. Usher
            Usher 17 November 2017 13: 47 New
            0
            He just said the opposite))) You do not understand the meaning of phrases?
            1. Ehanatone
              Ehanatone 18 November 2017 19: 32 New
              -1
              Do not be so upset - just another victim of the EGE, but he still has hope - there’s still a somewhat harsh pedagogical reception to the wall! ...
          2. CT-55_11-9009
            CT-55_11-9009 17 November 2017 15: 03 New
            +5
            Quote: Orel
            The more I study it, the more I become convinced that there was never any real goal to destroy the USSR.

            [facepalm] General plan "Ost" to help you. Oh yes, for your sense of historians, this is a myth, a "linden" ...
            Quote: Orel
            Rather, they always looked for an opportunity to somehow get along on the planet with a country that wanted a world revolution.

            Ahem-ahem, and even then this country wanted a world revolution when it proclaimed "the building of communism in one particular country"?
          3. CTABEP
            CTABEP 17 November 2017 15: 10 New
            +3
            In fairness, already in the 1930s, the whole phantom of the world revolution was clear, and already from the 1950s the USSR was essentially the same empire, simply built on a kind of foundation and with its own cockroaches. Which, in the end, led to the collapse.
            And so, all these fascinating stories about a single West, a thousand years striving to destroy, enslave Russia, the essence is nonsense.
      3. voffchik7691
        voffchik7691 17 November 2017 11: 36 New
        +8
        "The huge fleet of strategic bombers - they could have destroyed the whole country in a month - did not."
        Do you know why? They simply calculated how many German bombers flew in to bomb Moscow and how many returned. That is, the effectiveness of air defense. Then they transferred it to their Air Force and realized that there would be no planes for the second raid, and they were afraid to fight with us on the ground for ...!
        “The West that wants to conquer and divide us” is for those who are near-minded people who do not know the history of the twentieth century.
        And what is it to believe in the kindness and philanthropy of the arrogant Saxons? Ask Saddam Hussein, Muammar Kadafi or Milosevic! You are our visionary!
        1. Orel
          Orel 17 November 2017 11: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: voffchik7691
          Do you know why? They simply calculated how many German bombers flew in to bomb Moscow and how many returned.


          Before the American strategists, the fighters of that time did not reach. Therefore, your argument is not good. They could bomb everything they wanted with impunity.

          In my opinion, the maximum was 12 km. I don’t know a single fighter that could fight at that height then. Therefore, if one wanted to launch a nuclear strike, no one could stop the United States. Full load of the aircraft is not necessary, only one bomb. Could destroy all the major industrial centers. But this was not.
          1. Varyag_0711
            Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 12: 09 New
            20
            Orel Today, 11:41 ↑
            Before the American strategists, the fighters of that time did not reach. Therefore, your argument is not good. They could bomb everything they wanted with impunity.
            FALSE, outright FALSE. Even the Germans reached their strategists in 1943. The USSR at the time of 1945 had something to get their bombers. And there wouldn’t be any reason for them to take off if the USSR would capture all the airfields in Europe on dry land.
            I am amazed how much rot you have accumulated.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 12: 33 New
              +3
              FOOD!
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              . The USSR at the time of 1945 had something to get their bombers.

              The English are asleep, perhaps.
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              The USSR would have captured all airfields in Europe on dry land.

              Jutland And no, not captured. In the situation of the summer of the 45th, the most realistic option is the border along the Rhine, the Alps and, possibly, the Kiel Canal. The time line, while the Americans are transferring their 10 million snouts.
              Quote: Orel
              Full load of the aircraft is not necessary, only one bomb

              But heavy. Although Moscow will fly from Norway. Gorky is no longer there. Baku and Leningrad will endure altogether in an instant.

              Quote: Orel
              but here is the paradox. The more I study it, the more I become convinced that there was never any real goal to destroy the USSR.

              To go nuts. Is this news for you?
              1. Orel
                Orel 17 November 2017 13: 09 New
                +3
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                To go nuts. Is this news for you?


                I was once a hostage to propaganda. Actually, the topic of history somehow brought me to my senses. When he began to compare and compare in detail. It is unpleasant to realize that all around you see and hear constantly lies. This is especially true of our TV and radio. This is just a disaster.
                1. Varyag_0711
                  Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 13: 27 New
                  18
                  Orel Today, 13:09 ↑
                  I was once a hostage to propaganda.
                  And you have not ceased to be. Only Soviet propaganda, you decided to replace with pro-American.
                  When he began to compare and compare in detail.
                  Do not tell me, in order to compare something, you need to have knowledge and a place where they are stored, that is, Moscow. You have both missing completely!
                  1. Orel
                    Orel 17 November 2017 14: 57 New
                    0
                    Quote: Varyag_0711
                    And you have not ceased to be. Only Soviet propaganda, you decided to replace with pro-American.


                    Everything is possible. Well, at least the lie of our propaganda has been revealed to me, but you still have everything, although you may live your whole life like that. Therefore, I'm here ahead)

                    Quote: Varyag_0711
                    Do not tell me, in order to compare something, you need to have knowledge and a place where they are stored, that is, Moscow. You have both missing completely!


                    When there are no arguments, then we can say that you have no education and make "fi". Or, for example, write that you are writing illiterate. Call an enemy of the people, and stop ... You have already ranked me as an enemy. Then you have to write about grammar yet. And then certainly I will have a clear victory)))
                    1. IL-18
                      IL-18 18 November 2017 11: 39 New
                      +7
                      In Soviet times there was a terrible shout of the SOVIET propaganda newspaper "Pravda". And this terrible press organ of the CPSU, as it turned out after the collapse of the USSR, never lied. This became the reason for his inefficient work. It is a pity in the 90s I did not have a computer. There was an interesting program: liberal-minded figures swaggered over the Soviet agitprop for the lack of courage to lie for something to fulfill the main task: the formation of public opinion in the right way.
                      And then, in 1993, I listened to selected chapters from the Icebreaker by Volodya Rezun on the kitchen radio (central, from Maskva). After these broadcasts, I was very disappointed in the ideas of liberalism, because I belong to the generation that the terrible Soviet regime forced to be educated. Believe me, it’s easier for me to explain or understand something in communication with a graduate of the Soviet vocational school than with the holder of a modern diploma of higher education.
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 14: 38 New
                  0
                  Quote: Orel
                  This is especially true for our TV and radio

                  Throw out the box. Now sports and TV shows can be watched in the internet. The rest of the TV production is also possible, but absolutely not necessary.
                  Quote: Orel
                  Actually, the theme of history somehow brought me to my senses.

                  If you haven’t seen it yet, read the “long telegram”. Very relevant text, unfortunately.
            2. Orel
              Orel 17 November 2017 12: 51 New
              0
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              FALSE, outright FALSE. Even the Germans reached their strategists in 1943.


              And which fighter could fight at an altitude of 12 km? Maybe I just don’t know something.
              1. Varyag_0711
                Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 13: 15 New
                12
                Orel Today, 12:51 ↑
                And which fighter could fight at an altitude of 12 km? Maybe I just don’t know something.
                And you don’t know anything, it’s a fact!
                During the war with Japan, the American B-29 was discovered by two pairs of Yak-9 aircraft, intercepted and fired at the Korean airfield Kanko, where the Soviet, 14th Pacific Air Force fighter regiment was based. As a result of the shelling of the B-29, the first engine (far left) caught fire, and he immediately landed at the Kanko airfield.
                [i] [/ i]
                1. Orel
                  Orel 17 November 2017 13: 36 New
                  0
                  Quote: Varyag_0711
                  Yak-9


                  It seems that there was a high-altitude modification, but the experimental one was more than 13 km. In the Air Force they were practically nonexistent. There was nothing to defend against a blow when applied. If you wanted to strike, there were no objective obstacles. Why are you arguing with this? And do not forget about the discovery. A single strategist at high altitude was not easy to find then.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 14: 29 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Orel
                    It seems that there was a high-altitude modification, but the experimental one is more than 13 km

                    As far as I remember, in the 45th there were three of them throughout the Union. One Yak and two And, like. Mostly in Moscow air defense were LL cars. Naturally, these were not H series Mustangs, which at that time appeared among the Americans.
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 15: 26 New
                  0
                  Quote: Varyag_0711
                  During the war with Japan, the American B-29 was discovered by two pairs of Yak-9 aircraft, intercepted and fired at the Korean airfield Kanko, where the Soviet, 14th Pacific Air Force fighter regiment was based. As a result of the shelling of the B-29, the first engine (far left) caught fire, and he immediately landed at the Kanko airfield.

                  You see, hunting super-fortresses is much easier if the Americans consider you an ally.
                  Speaking of that. Mustang pilots who attacked Kozhedub over Berlin, according to the captured prisoner, mixed up La with Foka. Which Japanese aircraft were mixed up with super-strength?
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 17 November 2017 15: 55 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Speaking of that. Mustang pilots who attacked Kozhedub over Berlin, according to the captured prisoner, mixed up La with Foka. Which Japanese aircraft were mixed up with super-strength?

                    Pfff ... well, our fighters and anti-aircraft gunners were able to confuse our Pe-8s with someone - and shoot them down (during the first four-engine flight to Berlin).
                    I'm not talking about a textbook case how the future air marshal Pokryshkin shot down the plane of the squadron commander, in which the future air marshal Pstigo served.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 16: 53 New
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      . Well, our fighters and anti-aircraft gunners were able to confuse our Pe-8s with someone

                      Colleague, do you really think that in the summer of 45, at a distance of 100-200 meters, you can mix up someone with Super Fortress in the Far East?
                      1. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 17 November 2017 17: 49 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Colleague, do you really think that in the summer of 45, at a distance of 100-200 meters, you can mix up someone with Super Fortress in the Far East?

                        I looked at the information on this occasion. Everything was much simpler: the Americans, instead of walking along the air corridor, systematically shortened the path, flying directly over our base and ignoring all warnings. And once the pilot flying to intercept could not stand it.
                        On August 29, 1945, in the Kanko area, where 14th IAP of the Pacific Fleet was based, at a height of 400-600 m, the US Air Force B-29 was discovered. A pair of Yak-9 flew out to intercept it (the leader - lt Feofanov, the follower - ml lt Zizevsky | After 10 minutes, the second pair was lifted (the leader - lt Velik, the follower - ml l-1 Mdivani). American fire opened Zizevsky on his own initiative, after which the B-29 sat on the Kanko airfield with a burning engine
                        © World of Aviation 1995 No. 02
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 22: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        I looked at the information on this occasion.

                        Thank you, it’s not always convenient to search from a tablet.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        at an altitude of 400-600 m

                        High Yaki disappeared, already good.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        World of Aviation "1995 No. 02

                        In source
                        http://www.rulit.me/books/mir-aviacii-1995-02-rea
                        d-222009-11.html
                        This story comes in two flavors. One option cited by you means that some psycho deliberately shot down an ally, the second option - after the war, in November, they fired on a plane that participated in the evacuation of American prisoners of war from Manchuria. Perhaps these are not two options, but two different stories.
                        Which do not honor the Soviet aviation.
              2. CT-55_11-9009
                CT-55_11-9009 17 November 2017 15: 08 New
                +1
                Of the German - Ta-152 definitely could. The Fw-190D at 12 km, if not mistaken, already had a ceiling nearby. From Soviet - there was an experimental Yak-3 machine with a VK-107 engine with which the ceiling went 13 km. These engines were installed on the post-war Yaki-9 (U, P and UT).
              3. faridg7
                faridg7 18 November 2017 12: 16 New
                +1
                Quote: Orel
                Quote: Varyag_0711
                FALSE, outright FALSE. Even the Germans reached their strategists in 1943.


                And which fighter could fight at an altitude of 12 km? Maybe I just don’t know something.

                This could have been the MiG-1, which began to enter the army as early as 41 years. Learn materiel
              4. sivuch
                sivuch 18 November 2017 15: 15 New
                +1
                Most likely, yes, you do not know.
                For example, how many B-29s were lost during World War II?
                Are you sure that all 700 (of the approximately 3700 built) were shot down by the Japanese at an altitude of 12km?
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 17: 41 New
                  +1
                  Quote: sivuch
                  Are you sure that all 700 (of the approximately 3700 built) were shot down by the Japanese at an altitude of 12km?

                  It is difficult to be sure of this, given that the losses from IA and ZA amounted to 147 vehicles. The rest are lost for other reasons. Including written off for combat damage, but not shot down. And cheating is not good.
                  Quote: faridg7
                  It could have been MiG-1, which began to enter the army as early as 41

                  MiG-3 already then. Climbing 12 km to B-29 and the late tenders on a half-wooden airplane and firing machine guns at them is the exquisite death of a real samurai. Very nice, thank you.
                  1. sivuch
                    sivuch 18 November 2017 18: 06 New
                    +1
                    Yes, only this does not apply to me. You claimed that the B-29 flew at an altitude of 12 km and therefore were completely unbreakable. Nevertheless, as it turned out, they were shot down in packs. Or do you think that the Japanese had better aviation than in the USSR in the summer of 45? If so, then let me disagree with you.
                    And I have data from here -
                    Balancer.Ru »forums» old »Airbase forums» Aviation »B-29 losses in WWII
                    http://forums.airbase.ru/2005/08/t34277--poteri-v
                    -29-v-vmv.html
                    772 - total lost, including the territory of the USA
                    502 - completely lost (20 AF, i.e., on the theater)
                    105 - transferred to the 2nd line (essentially - disassembled for parts) - 20 AF
                    414 - lost in sorties
                    of them
                    147 - lost from the actions of IA and FOR the enemy
                    And you understand very well that the main thing is precisely that they, the B-29s, were shot down for the Japanese, especially if they were for Soviet aviation.
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 18 November 2017 18: 36 New
                      0
                      Quote: sivuch
                      And you understand very well that the main thing is precisely that they, the B-29s, were shot down for the Japanese, especially if they were for Soviet aviation.



                      They were shot down for the Japanese because they did not bomb from a height of 12.000 meters. And mostly from 6-7.000. All the same they bombed with ordinary bombs. And it was necessary to fall into more or less targeted targets. Factories and so on.


                      140 shot down for thousands and thousands of sorties over the course of a year and a half - you call "shot down in batches"?


                      Try to calculate the% shot down, say, with a single attack on the atomic bombing of 100 B-29 without reducing them by 6-7.000 meters .... they did not need special accuracy in that case. That's about it ...
                      1. sivuch
                        sivuch 18 November 2017 21: 25 New
                        +1
                        100 V-29?
                        in what year did they rivet so many vigorous bombs?
                        And actually I brought this up to the fact that fortresses would fly not at 12 km, and therefore they would be able to get off perfectly not only with sleeps, thunderbolts, doras and kingcobras, but also with ordinary La-7s.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 21: 58 New
                        0
                        Quote: sivuch
                        fortresses would not fly 12km

                        They have already explained to you three times that a decrease of 5-6 km was applied over the target to increase accuracy, as a rule - in connection with strong winds over Japan.
                        Quote: sivuch
                        asleep

                        1000+
                        Quote: sivuch
                        thunderbolts

                        200+
                        Quote: sivuch
                        dorami

                        Where will we get the pilots? The mechanics? How was the development of the same Cobra organized? Not to mention some problems with spare parts.
                        Quote: sivuch
                        kingcobra

                        Yes, I forgot about it. 2000+ However, in a battle with real high-altitude fighters, the R-63 has little chance. Alison is Alison, even supercharged.
                        Quote: sivuch
                        La-7

                        If you’re very lucky.
                    2. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 18: 46 New
                      +1
                      Quote: sivuch
                      And I have data from here -

                      That is, exactly these data you interpreted as
                      Quote: sivuch
                      all 700 (of the approximately 3700 built) were shot down by the Japanese

                      Charming.
                      Quote: sivuch
                      .You claimed that the B-29 flew at an altitude of 12 km and therefore were completely unbreakable

                      I argued that the Soviet aviation could not do anything with them. It should not be understood that superfortress was a galactic cruiser. This should be understood so that in the summer of 45 aircraft losses were less than 1 per 1000 sorties. In the most serious battle - a raid on Tokyo on May 25/26 - 26 of 464 vehicles were lost. The city was almost completely destroyed.

                      Naturally, during the raids on the USSR there could be losses. Especially if upon destruction, for example, Ulyanovsk (all Soviet aluminum) would have to decline in order to be guaranteed to get into the plant.

                      However, there are no chances to protect the city. This is called "could not do anything"
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 19: 03 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Ulyanovsk

                        About Ulyanovsk error. In the 45th year, the main Soviet aluminum smelters were located in the USA and Canada, and the non-core ones were located in the Urals. Dneprovsky - the largest - still stood.
                      2. sivuch
                        sivuch 18 November 2017 21: 30 New
                        +1
                        Yeah, there could be losses. Approximately, like at the level of the raid on Schweinfurt or a little higher.
                      3. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 22: 23 New
                        0
                        Quote: sivuch
                        Roughly at the Schweinfurt level

                        1. Schweinfruit did not save.
                        2. Just in the 43rd, the Germans explained to the Americans that flying without fighters is not worth it. The Americans remembered this well, it should be recognized.
                        Check the distance from Copenhagen to Moscow. Check the capabilities of the P-51H with PTB.
            3. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 17 November 2017 15: 36 New
              0
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              The USSR at the time of 1945 had something to get their bombers. And there wouldn’t be any reason for them to take off if the USSR would capture all airfields in Europe on dry land.

              In 1950, at the joint exercises of the Air Force and Air Defense of the country, air defense officers managed to pass a whole 45 tbad through the Moscow air defense zone.
              On the reflective side:
              1. The main defect in the actions of the reflecting side is the unpunished passage of the main forces of the attacking side's aviation (45 Tbad) through the Moscow Air Defense Region to a target located in the interior of the country.
              Despite the fact that the flight of the main forces and auxiliary groups of the attacking aviation was timely detected by the BNOC air defense service of the country, the command of the Moscow Air Defense District incorrectly assessed the air situation and did not attach importance to the reports of the BNOC posts on the rotation of the main forces to the south. A single aircraft, following a given route 400 km from the actual flight route of the main forces, was incorrectly and biasedly considered by the command of the Moscow Air Defense District as the main target, and it raised seven fighter regiments to reflect it.
              The command and the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces of the country not only did not correct this major mistake of the Moscow Region, but also exacerbated it, because by the order of the head of the BNOC Air Defense Forces of the country, all the radio stations of the western direction of the Moscow Region of the Air Defense were turned off, as a result of which why these main forces penetrated with impunity through the Moscow Air Defense Region to a target located in the interior of the country, having fulfilled their mission.
            4. a.sirin
              a.sirin 17 November 2017 16: 06 New
              +1
              No, the Soviet B-29 fighter aircraft could not "get" at the working altitude until the appearance of the jet Migov. Read La-9 Altitude Test Results. Neither in speed nor in height.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 02: 21 New
          0
          Quote: voffchik7691
          Do you know why? Just counted

          That the possible gain — the liberation of Poland, possibly Czechoslovakia — is not worth the possible loss — the loss of at least the right, and very possibly the left bank of the Rhine. Plus, the British planned, and the Americans continued to blunt. Without the Americans, such a combination was clearly non-violent.
      4. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 12: 19 New
        +3
        Quote: Orel
        Therefore, the horror stories about "The West, which wants to conquer and divide us" - this is for those who are dim-witted minds who do not know the history of the twentieth century.

        Yes, there is no need to go far. All patriots know that quite literally just recently, the drunk Yeltsin sold Russia wholesale and retail. However, the Americans, quite frankly, bought quite a bit, and what they bought was taken to their place. The native spaces, forests, fields and bowels of the enemy were seen in a coffin.
        1. Varyag_0711
          Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 12: 24 New
          12
          Cherry Nine Today, 12: 19 ↑
          Yes, there is no need to go far. All patriots know that quite literally just recently, the drunk Yeltsin sold Russia wholesale and retail. However, the Americans, quite frankly, bought quite a bit, and what they bought was taken to their place.
          Quite “not much” was just robbed for a couple of trillions, so little things. If only the flag of his mattress would not stick out for all to see.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 13: 25 New
            +3
            Quote: Varyag_0711
            Quite “not a lot” was just robbed for a couple of trillions, so little things.

            You, as usual, confuse something. A couple of trillions were not taken to the West by the Americans at all, but the most Russian (in the broad sense) people, almost all of them, are members of the CPSU. Some even candidates for membership in the Politburo, I remember.
            Quote: Varyag_0711
            If only the flag did not stick out their mattress

            )))
      5. igorka357
        igorka357 18 November 2017 04: 50 New
        +2
        At the end of the Second World War, the USSR had such a military machine that before the English Channel in a week, all the allied forces would simply be crushed instantly by the USSR army, which was gaining momentum, so don’t tell my sneakers, and the Soviet aviation, which by then dominated the sky 100% wouldn’t allow a single bomber to the USSR’s borders! You’ve forgiven some kind of nonsense!
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 17: 03 New
          0
          Quote: igorka357
          At the end of the Second World War, the USSR had such a military machine

          At the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union staked his army completely three times, and half finished the fourth. Divisions the size of a full regiment. There is no one else to call, ahead is hunger. The USA has just completed the deployment of a wartime army, approx. 10 million people. I do not consider allies.
          Quote: igorka357
          English Channel per week

          I remind my mother’s historians that from the Vistula to the Oder - 5 months, from the Oder to Berlin - 2,5. The English Channel is no closer, I assure you.
          Quote: igorka357
          Soviet aviation which by that time dominated the sky

          Soviet aviation has one relatively massive aircraft that can get a battlebox. This Nine Sleeps, there are a little more than a thousand of them.
          Quote: igorka357
          dominated the sky 100%

          Soviet aviation could not cope even with agonizing backlashes. If there was any improvement with front-line aviation in the 44th, then strategic was not like a class. This, by the way, is not so bad, the Americans, on the contrary, had almost no frontline, it cost them dearly.
          Quote: igorka357
          100% would not allow a single bomb to the borders of the USSR!

          The USSR is far away for Liberators. The task would be to isolate the East European theater of operations. There is nothing to be done with the B-29.
          But these are empty fantasies. The British staffers reported to Churchill that the task, as it was set, to mash up 6 Soviet fronts in Central and Eastern Europe, for a month to prepare, the Americans are not in the know, is unsolvable. A total war, yes, you can win, but the Americans have to decide, but they have not figured out who the enemy is now. In order to set such tasks — to return the USSR to the borders of the 39th year — it was necessary to somehow live differently the previous years of those 10. Moreover, Americans, and not English, would live differently.
          1. igorka357
            igorka357 20 November 2017 15: 16 New
            0
            It’s a pity you just can’t stick a smiley face, the text is too short .. but, laughing I can’t say anything else .. to my mom’s historians ..!
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 20 November 2017 22: 00 New
              0
              Quote: igorka357
              I can’t say anything else .. to my mom’s historians

              I looked casually at your activity for the last couple of months. There seems to be really nothing to tell you.
      6. Dimmedroll
        Dimmedroll 27 November 2017 15: 24 New
        0
        Well, you didn’t quite study the story or read the right sources.)
    2. max702
      max702 17 November 2017 09: 28 New
      +3
      By the way, the problem is not how WE will fight with the AUG (this is solved), but the main one is that with the advent of hypersonic anti-ship missiles and their availability for a wide variety of carriers there is a good chance for all the dwarf countries there against those very AUGs ... If forgotten by God a hole will be drowned by a dozen rockets by an aircraft carrier, such as the desire to carry democracy will immediately disappear .. how to ensure the presence of missile defense in this hole? This is a purely technical task, for example, a PMC will conclude a contract to protect the coast of this state, of course it will have all kinds of licenses and permits for this type of activity ..
      1. Krabik
        Krabik 17 November 2017 10: 01 New
        +2
        First you need to develop and make a hypersonic Zircon rocket, and only then think about PMCs.

        And if I remember correctly, this rocket to replace Granite and it is simply huge.

        Will stand only on the largest ships, if they can do it at all.
        1. max702
          max702 18 November 2017 00: 32 New
          0
          Quote: Krabik
          And if I remember correctly, this rocket to replace Granite and it is simply huge.

          In general, the “zircon”, as they say, is launched from the same launcher as the Caliber .. So why did you get that the size of the Granite is not clear ..
      2. 34 region
        34 region 17 November 2017 10: 48 New
        0
        max702 Today, 09:28. Dreams Dreams! And why then our glorious air defense does not bring down planes bombing our allies, Syria? After all, we have the best in the world!
        1. Usher
          Usher 17 November 2017 13: 49 New
          +5
          This is a political issue, not a technical one.
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 17 November 2017 13: 58 New
          +1
          I have mamad in my apartment, simply speaking, a bomb shelter. So when the Third World War begins, I will have a chance to survive. And you ?
          1. Varyag_0711
            Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 14: 16 New
            12
            sivuch Today, 13:58 ↑
            I have mamad in my apartment, simply speaking, a bomb shelter. So when the Third World War begins, I will have a chance to survive. And you ?
            Well, suppose you survived after an exchange of nuclear strikes and ...? WHAT'S NEXT?
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 17 November 2017 15: 21 New
              +1
              Next is silence. But a man from 34 regions suggested shooting down NATO planes. Therefore, the question was addressed to him
              1. 34 region
                34 region 17 November 2017 21: 48 New
                0
                sivuch Today, 15:21. But NATO planes bomb our ally and the war does not begin. Russia patted Georgia and squeezed Crimea, the war did not start. If our air defense knocks a couple of NATO aircraft, flights will stop. But NATO will not utilize the flying loot!
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 17 November 2017 22: 43 New
                  +1
                  An ally is not Khmeimim or Tartus.
                  Also, Crimea and Georgia are not NATO at all, especially not one of the states.
                  After a couple of shot downs (and you still need to be able to bring them down), flights may stop, or maybe something more interesting will begin.
                  1. 34 region
                    34 region 17 November 2017 23: 17 New
                    0
                    sivuch Today, 22:43. But in Georgia, our planes were able to bring down, and in Syria. NATO is not knocked down?
                    1. sivuch
                      sivuch 17 November 2017 23: 49 New
                      +2
                      Why unbreakable? I did not say such nonsense. Moreover, unlike most of my compatriots who sincerely believe that aviation is our everything and that air defense is not particularly needed, I believe that both are necessary.
                      But for the current air defense of Syria, even taking into account the latest supplies, yes, they are virtually unbreakable, as, indeed, Israeli ones. For anti-aircraft defense in Khmeimim and Tartus - it can be shot down, I hope it won’t reach the check. But speak in style Yes we have them! or, conversely, yes they are us! I do not want .
                      In Georgia, the situation was different in general, almost half of the losses were friendly fire. And by the way, when they started to fight seriously, that is. with the use of electronic warfare and the removal of air defense, the losses immediately stopped. Syria is the result of a mistake (who would have thought that they would attack). Another thing is that it is supposed to pay epaulets for such mistakes.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 02: 43 New
                        0
                        Quote: sivuch
                        For air defense in Hmeimim and Tartus

                        Downed _ once_ and only in the case of a first strike from the air defense. At the first strike from the large - there are three of them - to zero without options.
                        Quote: Krabik
                        Now tell yourself what the United States will do after the downed planes,

                        There is nothing to think about. Hello program oil in exchange for food. China, by the way, will gladly join it.

                        Quote: Krabik
                        when Russia climbed into the center of NATO countries

                        Russia and Assad in the Syrian scenario are two elusive Joe. The notorious NATO would most like to see Syria drown in the sea, there is nothing at all there but a headache. Even Israel, instead of one tiger (rather sluggish the last 30 years), received 1000 rats in the north, which is hardly good.
                  2. Krabik
                    Krabik 17 November 2017 23: 35 New
                    +1
                    States may lose significantly more in a batch than Russia.

                    After all, the United States is now the first country in the world in all respects.

                    After a skirmish with the Russian Federation, staff members will in any case fall from their unshakable pedestal, and China or the EU will take their place if we do not bomb the EU.

                    Now tell yourself what the United States will do after the downed planes, except for concerns and running around to Moscow.

                    Well, I can confirm the logic of my conclusions with the situation in Syria, when Russia climbed into the center of the NATO countries and bombed them with no shame;)
    3. Monarchist
      Monarchist 17 November 2017 09: 34 New
      +1
      Lech, about 1 years I agree to 941%. That's just my persistent suspicion that 1000 and the death of Stalin are interconnected. If only then things are bad: then at least the idea was, and now?
      1. Servisinzhener
        Servisinzhener 17 November 2017 11: 10 New
        0
        Sincerely amused with their suspicions lol
      2. Orel
        Orel 17 November 2017 11: 38 New
        0
        Quote: Monarchist
        That's just my persistent suspicion that 1941 and the death of Stalin are interconnected.


        If this happened in 1941, then I would agree with you. I read such information, but I don’t know how historical this is, but there are indirect confirmations. When the USSR was attacked, Stalin did not lead the country in the first days, but sat in the country. I sincerely expected that they would come to arrest him now. Therefore, it was not Stalin who first delivered the speech on the defense of the country. Maybe the truth. Logically, it seems, because Stalin could not help but understand that it was precisely his miscalculation as leader that led to such an initial disaster in the war and that this could now be used to displace him.
        1. Varyag_0711
          Varyag_0711 17 November 2017 12: 12 New
          17
          Orel Today, 11:38 ↑
          When the USSR was attacked, Stalin did not lead the country for the first days, but sat in the country. I sincerely expected that they would come to arrest him now.
          Again liberal FALSE. This is easily verified by the visit log. This liberal agitation has already been refuted 100500 times. Your imagination is not enough, and apparently you haven’t brought up new manuals from the State Department?
          1. Orel
            Orel 17 November 2017 13: 23 New
            +1
            Quote: Varyag_0711
            Again liberal FALSE. This is easily verified by the visit log. This liberal agitation has already been refuted 100500 times. Your imagination is not enough, and apparently you haven’t brought up new manuals from the State Department?


            This does not convince me. You can fake anything. But the historical fact remains and no one can clearly explain it. The leader was not the first to speak. Why??? This could not be in the USSR. But it happened. So there was some very, very important reason why this did not happen. There is still no clear explanation.
            1. uskrabut
              uskrabut 17 November 2017 14: 32 New
              +4
              Quote: Orel
              The leader was not the first to speak. Why???

              Why spit it out! The main thing is that he mobilized the USSR, organized defense and arms production for the Victory over fascism, that he did not allow inflation (this is during the war!), And after the Victory he was able to organize the restoration of the destroyed, the development of missiles and nuclear weapons. So is the matter in words? The point is the talent of the Head!
              1. Orel
                Orel 17 November 2017 15: 02 New
                0
                Quote: uskrabut
                Why spit it out! The main thing is that he mobilized the USSR, organized defense and arms production for the Victory over fascism, that he did not allow inflation (this is during the war!), And after the Victory he was able to organize the restoration of the destroyed, the development of missiles and nuclear weapons. So is the matter in words? The point is the talent of the Head!


                This is clear. However, I still wonder purely from a historical point of view. The fact is amazing for the then order and situation. And so far inexplicable.
        2. 34 region
          34 region 17 November 2017 21: 58 New
          +1
          Orel Today, 11:38. Not Stalin’s miscalculations, but sabotage and betrayal of some responsible persons who ignored Stalin’s orders. If tomorrow is war. What orders will Putin give and how will they be implemented? How to fulfill Putin’s order if your money and property are with the enemy? And if you are an ideological opponent of Putin in a leadership position? What will our liberal public do? Where are they rushing?
    4. Cyrus
      Cyrus 17 November 2017 20: 51 New
      0
      In open battle, you can destroy everything and American AB and our TARK.
  2. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 17 November 2017 06: 38 New
    0
    In the event of a conflict, surely the Americans would have received many surprises ..
    If you dream up - For example, the activation of an ancient bookmark of a nuclear mine at the exit from the base ..)
  3. tlauicol
    tlauicol 17 November 2017 06: 44 New
    +7
    Good article .. for kindling a stove

    Ps. sin on Kaptsov, but without him there’s nothing to read negative
    1. domokl
      domokl 17 November 2017 07: 12 New
      +2
      A comment from the series “I don’t like a rabbit, but I will eat it” ... It seems to me that when discussing, it is necessary to voice some thoughts. Among us, not all sailors ...
      1. Krabik
        Krabik 17 November 2017 10: 08 New
        +3
        Zircon is not in nature and the whole article revolves around non-existent weapons.
        1. Cyrus
          Cyrus 17 November 2017 20: 52 New
          0
          Yeah, I totally agree.
  4. askme
    askme 17 November 2017 06: 48 New
    +9
    Alas, ignorant analysis. There are no alternatives to aircraft carriers in the open ocean. Add to the AUG "Kraukha", "Lever" and so on. electronic warfare systems, including space-borne EWs, covering the colossal hemisphere with an EW cap, add directional broadband EMR generators, microwave guns, burning off RCC warhead electronics and ... you will see that the aircraft carrier is not at all helpless AS a PLATFORM for aviation in the ocean. Here, usually in a dispute, they begin to peel at ICG ICBMs in a square-nested manner. But this is an argument for stupid people. Because it is applicable in both directions (the AUG can also include a submarine carrier of SLBMs and other "cleaners" of TVD spaces).

    In general, leave the template of the times of the USSR that an aircraft carrier an instrument of imperialism to the past. If you have a goal of operating tactical aircraft away from the coast or against the coast, when you have no ground bases near the theater of operations, there are no alternatives to aircraft carriers. Until star cruisers appear. Other - from ignorance.
    1. domokl
      domokl 17 November 2017 07: 09 New
      11
      Quote: askme
      . There is no alternative to aircraft carriers in the open ocean

      And what to do aircraft carriers on the high seas? The task of such ships is to ensure supremacy in the sky over coastal areas. Hang out from the coast and be a target for submarines?
      In fact, the AUG should be to the coast on 400-600 km. To ensure the normal operation of aviation at the maximum range. And this is already a zone of defeat by missile complexes .... It seems to me that aircraft carriers are weapons against Papuans. China and Russia have already solved or almost solved this problem ...
      1. CTABEP
        CTABEP 17 November 2017 07: 38 New
        +6
        11 AUG - about 1000 aircraft capable of relatively quickly and under the cover of air defense warrants to turn around anywhere in the oceans.
        The Russian Air Force, excluding long-range, special and transport aircraft — about 1400 aircraft, the Chinese Air Force about 1300, their air defense will travel on the ground, and airfields are also needed for deployment. I think you can not write about other world armies.
        Yes, pointless bullshit, what there.

        And the price tags for 2 million. $ for "Zircon" (which has not yet flown, has not hit educational goals) I personally think from the realm of fiction - "Caliber" for 6,5 million. stand, and here is a supersonic heavy rocket. Again, some hatred - we have no AUG, and we do not need them for nafig, because shit. We don’t need them (yet) because of our currently limited finances, but not because they don’t work - Admiral Kuznetsov plows to wear and tear, and does not stand in the dock.
        1. parma
          parma 17 November 2017 08: 03 New
          +2
          I would rather say that the AUG has few chances against an equal opponent in the presence of closed "reservoirs" (Baltic, Mediterranean, Black Sea, in general, the western part of the Russian Federation), but where the open space has great advantages! Our anti-ship missiles from the coast need to fly 600-800 km to the AUG, than the means of destruction of the AUG! And if we take into account that NATO has enough bases on the western borders (although on the eastern borders, taking into account the South Caucasus and Japan), I wouldn’t bury Aviki .. Or, on the principle of “what’s not there, that’s not necessary because there’s no reason?
        2. domokl
          domokl 17 November 2017 09: 09 New
          +4
          Quote: CTABEP
          11 AUG - about 1000 aircraft capable of relatively quickly and under the cover of air defense warrants to turn around anywhere in the oceans.

          So what? You look at the range of these aircraft. 650-700 kilometers. And then, how do you imagine the concentration of these AUG in one place?
          block sea routes, block the coast without modern missile systems and scare the presence they can. But to take these ships seriously as the decisive factor of victory is not serious
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 17 November 2017 11: 27 New
            +3
            Quote: domokl
            You look at the range of these aircraft. 650-700 kilometers

            I think the reality is less, F18 combat radius 720 km, cruising speed 1060 km / h, which means that in the air it can be about 1,5 hours in the air, but it needs to go deeper into the enemy’s land territory, plus it needs time to complete the combat mission, let's say it takes 30 minutes for this purpose, which means that the range will be reduced by 500 km, as a result, we get a real combat radius to the coastline of not more than 400 km, and since the planes take off sequentially, when flying in a group, waiting for each other, maneuvering, and then it’s still possible waiting for the landing, then 350 km altogether.
      2. Rokossovsky
        Rokossovsky 17 November 2017 08: 41 New
        14
        Quote: domokl

        In fact, AUG should be towards the coast at 400-600 km. To ensure the normal operation of aviation at maximum range.

        In fact, you are right! It is hard to imagine the ACG hanging out idle in the middle of the Atlantic, the Pacific Ocean or in any other place, more than 1000 km away from the coast. Stupid and expensive, even for the USA!
        But at the same time, the recent voyage of our ships to the Mediterranean Sea vividly showed the entire questionable potential of the CUG.
        And funny and sad ...
        Especially considering the fact that even in the best of times, the 5 operations did not have a chance and was only capable of decently pinching the NATO fleet, while dying heroically!
        But back to the winter hike ...

        The presence of an American AUG nearby would completely level the potential of our forces. Wrong weight category! Conditionally battle-ready Kuznetsov, with a conditionally battle-worthy air cover, Peter, like a formidable, but still not able to fight the AUG cruiser alone! I will not say anything about two BODs - with such air defense they have no chance! What can I say ?! We drowned two fighters without any resistance! True, unfortunately, their ...
        And these were the best forces! We kind of started scaring the Americans! Project any terrible power there!

        And the statements of Skomorokhov on the release and entry into service of the Zircons are without comment at all! Probably only he saw them on the conveyor! Actually, like the container Club! Less need to read local dreamers like Damanceaa!
        For some reason, it has become a good tradition for us to scare Americans with non-existent weapons!
        And so, yes! In the competition “Who will throw the hat next”, Roman is out of competition today!
        PS Comrades, who will water me with feces below, please, bring the facts! Especially as regards the presence in the troops of all sorts of wunderwaffles!
        Arguments such as “but someone will tell you this” or “we have them, but it's a secret” will not be accepted for discussion!
        1. domokl
          domokl 17 November 2017 09: 14 New
          +4
          Quote: Rokossovsky
          But at the same time, the recent voyage of our ships to the Mediterranean Sea vividly showed the entire questionable potential of the CUG.

          I think today our admirals have no thoughts of engaging in a sea battle with the Americans. Too much difference and potentials.
          And before that there was no such task. We have different concepts of warfare. We are "mainland", the Americans are "expeditionary" ... Therefore, it will be necessary to sink transports, and scare AUG off the coast ...
          1. Krabik
            Krabik 17 November 2017 10: 23 New
            +3
            America needs a fleet to control trade routes and protect its coast.

            For the land war against us, they will use Ukraine, Poland, and for the supply and replenishment bases of the material part Germany and France.

            Actually now they are strengthening these countries by transferring equipment and reserves, building missile bases with medium-range missiles, which fly from Poland 15 minutes to Moscow.
            1. askme
              askme 17 November 2017 14: 35 New
              0
              Exactly. In a major war, it was aircraft carriers who should protect communications on transoceanic and transatlantic routes - sea and air. Therefore, if Russia wants to interfere with such communications, cut them, you cannot do without aircraft carriers. From the word "completely."

              Another example of the lack of alternative aircraft carriers - the coast of Norway (that "around the corner"). Basic fighter aviation of the Russian Federation gets there with great difficulty, therefore, aircraft carriers have no alternative there, that is, to prevent the Trident from launching from there, Russia has no forces without creating an AUG.
              1. Krabik
                Krabik 17 November 2017 20: 28 New
                0
                Only AUG will be able to perform the functions of AUG, but we may have another task, for example, guarding the Strategic Missile Forces or the threat / destruction of AUG.

                And these tasks can already be completed without any aircraft carriers and much cheaper.
                1. askme
                  askme 18 November 2017 00: 16 New
                  0
                  The fact that something can be done without AUG does not mean that without AUG it can be done more efficiently. Why - I showed above.
                  Relatively "much cheaper" - stupidity. If you look at the USSR ...
                  1. Krabik
                    Krabik 18 November 2017 00: 23 New
                    0
                    What can prevent the AUG from launching the Trident?
                    1. askme
                      askme 18 November 2017 00: 31 New
                      +1
                      Not only AUG with its anti-submarine capabilities. Most importantly, the AUG will be able to provide basic anti-submarine aviation with air cover. It will also be able to effectively destroy anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy, which also hunts for our submarines in the search zone ... Is that more clear?
                      1. Krabik
                        Krabik 18 November 2017 01: 13 New
                        0
                        Trident-2 has a range of 8 km.
                      2. askme
                        askme 18 November 2017 07: 05 New
                        0
                        see above - the coast of Norway ("around the corner"), from where the flight time to the Moscow region is 10-15 minutes ...
        2. Bastinda
          Bastinda 17 November 2017 10: 56 New
          +4
          Zircon - range 400 km. AUG's area of ​​responsibility is about 1000 km. Kamikaze pilot?
          And who will detect and give target designation to Zircons?
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 18 November 2017 11: 01 New
            +1
            Sure 400?
            Are you talking about a pilot with a Georgian surname - a Zircon pilot, or what? And, most importantly, TSU - where? If in the center of the Indian Ocean, then, indeed, there is no one, if 400 km from Vladik, then it should be. At least from ZGRLS and / or ground RTR
            1. Bastinda
              Bastinda 18 November 2017 17: 03 New
              +1
              http://alternathistory.com/o-vozmozhnostyakh-avia
              nostsev
              Let it not bother you, the name of the site, the article is sensible, and without URY !!!
        3. vvvjak
          vvvjak 17 November 2017 12: 31 New
          +1
          "Conditionally battle-ready Kuznetsov, with a conditionally battle-worthy air cover, Peter is kind of formidable, but still not able to fight the AUG cruiser alone!"
          And 12 "Granites" with a range of defeat of 700 km on Kuz is not an argument for AUG? Personally, I would not risk sending the AUG to a closer distance.
          1. Rokossovsky
            Rokossovsky 17 November 2017 14: 05 New
            +1
            Quote: vvvjak
            And 12 "Granites" with a range of defeat of 700 km on Kuz is not an argument for AUG? Personally, I would not risk sending the AUG to a closer distance.

            At leisure, take an interest in what condition there are launchers for Granites wink
            1. vvvjak
              vvvjak 17 November 2017 14: 10 New
              +2
              Ask for your opinion? Or are there other sources?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 November 2017 14: 22 New
                +1
                Are you not aware that PU long ago was not operational?
                1. vvvjak
                  vvvjak 17 November 2017 14: 30 New
                  +2
                  No, I do not know. Is there a link to the source?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 November 2017 16: 41 New
                    +1
                    Of the serious links - this is militaryrussia.ru, they have already thrown it to you, and so - I have this information from those who served on Kuznetsov
              2. Rokossovsky
                Rokossovsky 17 November 2017 14: 32 New
                0
                Quote: vvvjak
                Ask for your opinion? Or are there other sources?

                At the end of the 1990's, the combat post of the Granit missile system was disabled - as a result of erroneous actions of the crew, it was flooded with fuel when refueling the ship and cannot be restored (information is not confirmed).
                http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-398.html
                An indirect confirmation is that Kuznetsov did not shoot Granite for a very long time.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Rokossovsky
                    Rokossovsky 17 November 2017 16: 20 New
                    0
                    Quote: vvvjak
                    youtube.com ›watch? v = 0w1Baz5Y2u4. Start of anti-ship missiles Rocket 1994 The only Russian TAVKR carries 12 anti-ship missile launchers ... The aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov terrifies American warriors!

                    So what?
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ku5duf3PR8
                    Shot of 406 mm guns of the main caliber of the battleship New Jersey. Bears nine of these guns. He terrified Japanese warriors!
                    1. vvvjak
                      vvvjak 17 November 2017 16: 27 New
                      +1
                      In 1994, there are “Granites” on Kuz. And then only OBS (one grandmother said).
                      1. Krabik
                        Krabik 17 November 2017 20: 38 New
                        0
                        Nobody will personally allow you to delve into Kuz to search for evidence.

                        And even if another wiseacre will appear, who will deny everything.
      3. Cyrus
        Cyrus 17 November 2017 20: 54 New
        0
        You are not right.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 17 November 2017 09: 14 New
      +4
      Quote: askme
      Alas, ignorant analysis

      How dare you write such a thing about Roman <BAN FOR THE WEEK> by Skomorokhov, but it can be unpleasant for him to read it. A banhammer will take it and it won’t clatter.
      Quote: domokl
      The task of such ships is to ensure dominance in the sky over coastal territories

      Nonsense. Carriers carry out three main tasks.
      The first and most important. They protect the budget and staff of the US Navy from other military branches.
      The second, auxiliary. Show off.
      Third, misuse. Someone to bomb a little. Although Gaddafi was once bombed from England.
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      It is difficult to imagine the AUG hanging out idle in the middle of the Atlantic, the Pacific Ocean or in any other place more than 1000 km from the coast

      They did this all the second world war. And then 50 years preparing for the 41st year, as the notorious 10 thousand Soviet tanks in Europe. At the same time, I would say that there was more benefit from the Aviks.
      And the idea of ​​fighting the forces of aircraft carriers with Russia is a favorite topic inadequate. At the moment, American tanks are 700 km from Moscow. And most of the Russian economy belongs to offshore companies, which you can easily get yourself from American courts. Only the Americans and Aviki remains in the Sea of ​​Azov to adjust, what else should they do, really.
      1. Cyrus
        Cyrus 17 November 2017 20: 55 New
        0
        Go learn schoolboy
      2. Mordvin 3
        Mordvin 3 17 November 2017 21: 07 New
        +3
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        How dare you write such a thing about Roman <BAN FOR THE WEEK> Skomorokhov

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Quote: domokl
        The task of such ships is to ensure dominance in the sky over coastal territories
        Nonsense.

        But right now Domocles will be offended, and he will take his banhammer. laughing
    3. Usher
      Usher 17 November 2017 13: 50 New
      0
      And here Krasukha, etc. This is our weapon, not ov.
  5. andrewkor
    andrewkor 17 November 2017 06: 55 New
    0
    I want to add to the anti-aircraft weapons and ballistic missiles that the Chinese announced, I hope that Russia has something similar in the nest egg, although it is not advertised!
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 November 2017 08: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: andrewkor
      I want to add ballistic missiles to anti-aircraft weapons

      Right Nuclear in the United States.
      Achilles' fifth AUG is the supply. Well, how much can they "raise"? From strength for a couple of weeks of active hostilities. And where will they get everything from if the surviving US authorities spend the remaining few resources on overcoming the consequences and trying to keep the country from collapse?
      1. max702
        max702 17 November 2017 09: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Quote: andrewkor
        I want to add ballistic missiles to anti-aircraft weapons

        Right Nuclear in the United States.
        Achilles' fifth AUG is the supply. Well, how much can they "raise"? From strength for a couple of weeks of active hostilities. And where will they get everything from if the surviving US authorities spend the remaining few resources on overcoming the consequences and trying to keep the country from collapse?

        That's it! Somehow everyone forgets that if we are at war with the AUG, this means the 3rd world war with all the consequences .. And whether the AUG will participate there is not important!
      2. andrewkor
        andrewkor 17 November 2017 13: 42 New
        0
        Well, why so radical? For a start it’s a ballistic missile, if there is such a target like AUG in an endangered period!
        1. Krabik
          Krabik 17 November 2017 20: 43 New
          +1
          Why beat a bully with a bat, if you can hit the bully himself so that he does not beat you with a bat ?!

          If the Americans began to attack our territory and kill us, only a massive nuclear strike.

          But after we are discharged, it will not make much sense to fire nuclear weapons at us, because the surviving remnants of the Americans will have to live somewhere%)
      3. Cyrus
        Cyrus 17 November 2017 20: 56 New
        0
        And what will the remaining resources with us be spent on?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 November 2017 21: 03 New
          +2
          On the same thing. Therefore, the jerking of the AUG near our shores will not be interesting to us.
          1. Cyrus
            Cyrus 17 November 2017 21: 32 New
            0
            Hiroshima residents disagree with you.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 17 November 2017 21: 37 New
              +4
              Hiroshima is not a product of mutual assured destruction.
              1. Cyrus
                Cyrus 17 November 2017 21: 51 New
                0
                Mutual annihilation is a bluff and Japan is a witness to that.
  6. Herculesic
    Herculesic 17 November 2017 07: 43 New
    +2
    Roman, "zircon" is not just one rocket, but a whole line with a range of much more than 400 km!
    1. vvvjak
      vvvjak 17 November 2017 12: 38 New
      +1
      I read somewhere about the Zircon range estimates in the region of 1000 km. If so then AUG is really a big target. It is not for nothing that the Americans are alarmed and want to prohibit hyperweapons; the trochs know the campaign more than the author of the article.
      1. arkadiyssk
        arkadiyssk 17 November 2017 16: 11 New
        0
        What does the Zircon range of 400 or 1000 km have to do with it? It is more important at what height he gives these 4-8 meters, not 20 meters, but if it’s 25-30 km, then there is no particular sense from such a rocket. For Americans, the SM-3 is already knocking down targets at speeds of 10km / s. In the meantime, while we will be adopting Zircon, they will modernize it 100 times along with guidance radars.
        1. Herculesic
          Herculesic 17 November 2017 16: 39 New
          +1
          Zircon is the first and only hypersonic rocket maneuvering in dense layers of the atmosphere in the world, it’s going to bring it down, because the interceptor will have to withstand overloads under 200 G in dense layers of atmosphere !!!!
        2. sivuch
          sivuch 17 November 2017 18: 45 New
          +2
          But is it that the SM-3 is not sharpened at all against aerodynamic targets? This is a missile defense in its purest form
          1. Krabik
            Krabik 17 November 2017 20: 47 New
            0
            To get started, find out what PRO is ...
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 17 November 2017 22: 38 New
              +1
              Are you talking to me ? No, of course, how do I know?
              Here, however, they write
              Standard-3 (SM-3 / RIM-161) is an American anti-aircraft guided missile of the Standard family, part of the ship-based missile defense system (ABM) and designed to intercept medium and shorter-range ballistic missiles in the upper atmosphere and in the atmospheric section.
              The Mk 142 interception stage is a homing device, on board of which there are a matrix IR-GOS with a cryogenic unit, several processors, a solid propellant maneuvering and orientation installation (DACS), a power source and a number of other subsystems.
              http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/sm3/sm3
              .shtml
              Really lie?
              1. Krabik
                Krabik 17 November 2017 23: 57 New
                0
                No, they don’t lie, but your logic is lame and something else.

                ABM - missile defense.
                SM-3 - logical on ballistics.

                "not sharpened against aerodynamic targets? Is it a missile defense in its purest form" - not logical%)

                A missile defense in its purest form is a defense against missiles, and missiles are aerodynamic targets, but not all of them have a ballistic flight path.

                The devil is in the details;)
                1. sivuch
                  sivuch 18 November 2017 11: 08 New
                  +1
                  So, SM-3 with its third stage is only against ballistic targets at altitudes of 70 km and higher. DACS works where there is no air anymore. And against aerodynamic targets - SM-2 and SM-6. And here’s what a max. the height of the lesion in the latter is an interesting question.
    2. Cyrus
      Cyrus 17 November 2017 20: 57 New
      0
      But has it already been adopted?
  7. Olfred
    Olfred 17 November 2017 08: 28 New
    +4
    Perspective, if 10 "Zircons" (worth 20 million dollars), caught in the aircraft carrier "Gerald Ford" (worth 12,8 billion dollars), will bring it down, for some reason extremely negative effect on the Americans.
    Do we have at least 1 racket? that is, the author suggests destroying aircraft carriers with future missiles now? wassat hi
    1. domokl
      domokl 17 November 2017 09: 15 New
      +2
      laughing And what, the Americans have attacked? The novel, I think, writes about the near future ...
  8. Vard
    Vard 17 November 2017 08: 39 New
    +3
    Life experience shows ... The main purpose of an aircraft carrier ... is to land aircraft on it. If this is not possible, then all issued planes cease to perform the combat mission and try to escape ... And completely destroying the AOG in any form is enough ... it is enough to deprive the aircraft carrier of the ability to take planes ... and for this it is enough to arrange a small fire on the flight deck. .. And that’s ... What seems to be a completely difficult task ... any missile ... just one ... that got into an aircraft carrier ...
    1. domokl
      domokl 17 November 2017 09: 18 New
      +2
      bully It is quite logical. But in principle, the task is quite doable. Even for the masked fleet ... Unless of course he can get close. For example, in the Persian Gulf it is quite possible to arrange something like this ... Depths there are off the coast ... only for boats ...
    2. Cyrus
      Cyrus 17 November 2017 20: 58 New
      0
      Yeah, one cigarette can burn your house.
  9. common man
    common man 17 November 2017 09: 53 New
    +8
    Quote: domokl
    The task of such ships is to ensure supremacy in the sky over coastal territories. Dangling away from the coast and being a target for submarines? In fact, the ACG should be 400-600 km to the coast

    Let's try to consider the likely areas and goals of the ACG in the event of US aggression against Russia.
    The areas are the Far East and North. Goals, destruction of enemy infrastructure and support of ground forces during the seizure of territory, that is, landing.
    The Far East, primarily Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. I think the goals are quite serious for the AUG, with a developed system of airfields, coastal missile systems, the possibility of replenishing ammunition and equipment, and personnel. Now the rest of the coastal territory. Let’s say the states will land troops somewhere between Vladivostok and Magadan, or Cape Dezhnev. What's next? The same goes for the North. Murmansk I hope in the sense of defense "tough nut". Arkhangelsk is already the inland of the country. Landing on the Yamal under the cover of AUG-from the realm of fantasy. In any case, carrier-based aviation will not be able to operate at a distance of more than 500 km from the coastline. Therefore, even with the complete achievement of her superiority in the air, this is very unpleasant but not fatal. All the same, "our sizes protect us."
    much more dangerous is NATO strategic aviation, acting under the cover of ground aviation from the European theater of operations and from the south. And medium-range missiles, including destroyers and cruisers
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 November 2017 12: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: man in the street
      The Far East, primarily Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. I think the goals with the developed aerodrome system are quite serious for AUG

      Yeah. Exactly 4 military airbases on the entire coast, one of which is a two-regiment structure, the rest are single-regiment.
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 17 November 2017 16: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yeah. Exactly 4 military airbases on the entire coast, one of which is a two-regiment structure, the rest are single-regiment.

        Because they don’t expect anything serious, there are no suicides, but even if there is an idiot in the world, they will send them a couple of Calibers as a gift, with special ammunition, consistently ..., out of “respect”, maybe the Bulava will fly ..., or maybe all together, in short send a nuclear pass to the side of the United States, let them choose in what way to die?
    2. Usher
      Usher 17 November 2017 13: 52 New
      0
      Have you forgotten about the Black Sea?
    3. Cyrus
      Cyrus 17 November 2017 21: 06 New
      0
      Of course, and then the whole thought ended, the brains dried up? Multiply AUG by 5th time; dominance in the air is 50/60% of victory is two and field airfields no one has canceled this three.
      1. Krabik
        Krabik 18 November 2017 00: 09 New
        0
        First you need to figure out what you mean by the word "victory" ?!
  10. Shukshin
    Shukshin 17 November 2017 09: 57 New
    0
    Carriers and other ocean ships are needed.
    Petty-Bertan and American crooks are building them for good reason.
  11. BAI
    BAI 17 November 2017 09: 58 New
    +2
    Aircraft carriers are 100 years old (in the literal sense of the word). As much as they exist, so are ways to deal with them. In general, I think that they are close to the decline of their existence, and in the not very distant future they will go down in history as battleships. The main characteristic - the "big target" has not been canceled.
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 17 November 2017 21: 08 New
      0
      I agree, of course, they will leave ... together with aviation, but we will not survive until this moment.
  12. Monarchist
    Monarchist 17 November 2017 10: 02 New
    +2
    Roman, I’ll say without flattery: Your publications are interesting, but in this case I don’t agree with you a little: Zircon is certainly a good tub of cold water for hot heads, but they will be used only in 2018 and given the complexity and high cost of their missiles FEW. Onyx seems to be a simplified version of Caliber? Somewhere infa flashed that "Onyx" is already a little outdated. I do not know a specialist.
    Somehow, about the C300, we had an article that it was vulnerable and, in general, we are “weaklings” next to the Americans. It would be nice if comrade Bongo or someone else in the know enlightened about the vulnerability of C300 or C400.
    Regarding AUG, here you are right: the truth, somewhere between the legs. And N.S.Nam has done so many blunders that it will turn me off then any of his innovations
    1. Usher
      Usher 17 November 2017 13: 52 New
      0
      Who hung such noodles on your ears?
      1. Monarchist
        Monarchist 17 November 2017 16: 11 New
        +1
        On our site, an article flashed somehow that the C300 had a "dead zone of destruction" on Rene about the same thing was said about this summer
        1. Usher
          Usher 21 November 2017 12: 33 New
          0
          Well? For this, there is a layered air defense system. Do you think the Patriot has no dead spots? She herself is the whole dead zone :)
    2. vvvjak
      vvvjak 17 November 2017 14: 05 New
      +2
      Quite enough, even one or just rumors. If there is a chance of at least 1% loss of an aircraft carrier, the Americans will not approach the borders of the Russian Federation (or potential carriers of the Zircon) per 1000 km. What is the risk of drowning 12 lard (and what will be the loss of image for the hegemon), it is much easier and cheaper to invest 6 lard in state. coup in a border country and racket heat with other people's hands. What actually happened in Ukraine.
      1. Cyrus
        Cyrus 17 November 2017 21: 10 New
        0
        I’ll tell you one little secret, not everyone in this world decides money, but where politics and national interests do not solve anything.
  13. First iron-faced
    First iron-faced 17 November 2017 10: 17 New
    +4
    In my opinion, AVMs pose a greater danger to the surface fleet in the open sea (oceanic) than the territory of the Russian Federation or the coastal infrastructure of the Navy, provided that the fleet has developed basic fighter-assault aircraft and layered air defense system.
    It would be necessary to develop air defense of the fleet, i.e. carrier-based aircraft (fighter-assault), retrofitting surface ships of long-range air defense systems (class Kr and EsM).
    1. First iron-faced
      First iron-faced 17 November 2017 17: 44 New
      0
      Quote: First iron-faced
      ... to the surface fleet on the high seas (oceanic) ...

      Sorry, meant ocean fleet.
  14. aws4
    aws4 17 November 2017 10: 17 New
    +2
    wow how many pluses the article was instructed .. then all the same people believe in similar fairy tales and they like to believe it
  15. Taoist
    Taoist 17 November 2017 10: 59 New
    +5
    the author, in my opinion, makes one mistake, the AUG is generally not a means of a “first strike” - they don’t even say that it would be such a serious strike weapon in a global war (I hope everyone understands that when attacking the Russian Federation the war will immediately become global) - it is an excellent means of "projection of force" in peacetime. And most importantly, it is a means of controlling water transportation. The “Battle for the Atlantic” with the absolute dominance of aircraft carrier aircraft ... To counter precisely this hypostasis, the MRA was created in the USSR, which, combined with attack submarines armed with heavy KR, gave the Soviet Navy a chance to really compete for control over transportation. Today (in spite of all the achievements in the Kyrgyz Republic), we are practically devoid of strike components and the maximum we can rely on is control of our coastal zone, which is of course enough to counteract landing operations but absolutely does not constrain the transfer of enemy forces and resources.
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 17 November 2017 21: 12 New
      0
      I absolutely disagree - the goals in the war are different and not for the sake of any goals they will rattle the atom.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 November 2017 12: 34 New
      0
      ACG in general is not a means of "first strike" - they do not say at all
      that would be so serious a shock in a global war "////

      1) Aircraft carrier can effectively destroy an enemy surface squadron
      in the open ocean.
      2) An aircraft carrier can effectively support its landing operation
      troops, ensuring air supremacy and suppressing air defense and ground firing points.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 19 November 2017 17: 47 New
        +2
        1) Do we have large surface squadrons in the open ocean? For us it is irrelevant from the word at all. We do not need to transfer troops across the ocean.
        2) But this is a very relative question - any aircraft entering the coastal aviation coverage area will be destroyed. Those. AUG can support airborne operations, but only if coastal infrastructure has already been destroyed and there is no opposition in the air. AUG is of course gunboat diplomacy - but the strike capabilities of AB relative to coastal bases are incomparable. (Naturally, if it is not used against the "Papuans")
  16. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 17 November 2017 14: 30 New
    +1
    The air defense division of the group is the 1-2 cruiser of the Ticonderoga type. All cruisers of the Ticonderoga type are equipped with the Aegis marine control complex (AEGIS) and Standart air defense systems (SM-2, SM-3), very modern weapons. Some cruisers may be equipped with installations for launching the Tomahawks.

    Ummm ... what year is the article? What means some cruisers may be equipped with Tomahawks launchers? All remaining in service Tiki and all Burki are equipped with universal UVP, in the cells of which are loaded SAM, PLUR or KR. And after fine-tuning the ship LRASM, the RCC will also be stationed at the UVP.
    Here, rather, it should be said that the CD of some ships from the AUG escort may include the Kyrgyz Republic.
    AUG can also include in its composition and submarines of the type "Los Angeles" with torpedo armament and "Tomahawk" (with the launch through torpedo tubes).

    25 again! The last "moose" and "virginia" have long been standing either vertical shafts or turret launchers for 12 "tomahawks."
    For example, "Zircon".
    The rocket began to be made this year, and in 2018 will begin to enter service.
    The flight distance is about 400 km, the speed to 6M (has reached 8M under test).
    Warhead weight 400 kg.

    The ambush is that the depth of air defense of the AUG reaches 600 km. It was not from the good life of the USSR that at one time it was monitored by air-based monstrous anti-ship missiles.
    Today, maybe not by 100%, but in the near future, our army and navy will be able to fully protect themselves from any possible aggressions by the very same US Navy AUG, which has been a scarecrow for the whole world for a long time.

    Yeah ... in this very in the nearest future will go under the cancellation by age of the submarines and ICAPL Soviet-built - which now form the basis of the anti-aircraft forces of our Navy. The fleet has no snoring either.
    1. Monarchist
      Monarchist 17 November 2017 16: 05 New
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The air defense division of the group is the 1-2 cruiser of the Ticonderoga type. All cruisers of the Ticonderoga type are equipped with the Aegis marine control complex (AEGIS) and Standart air defense systems (SM-2, SM-3), very modern weapons. Some cruisers may be equipped with installations for launching the Tomahawks.

      Ummm ... what year is the article? What means some cruisers may be equipped with Tomahawks launchers? All remaining in service Tiki and all Burki are equipped with universal UVP, in the cells of which are loaded SAM, PLUR or KR. And after fine-tuning the ship LRASM, the RCC will also be stationed at the UVP.
      Here, rather, it should be said that the CD of some ships from the AUG escort may include the Kyrgyz Republic.
      AUG can also include in its composition and submarines of the type "Los Angeles" with torpedo armament and "Tomahawk" (with the launch through torpedo tubes).

      25 again! The last "moose" and "virginia" have long been standing either vertical shafts or turret launchers for 12 "tomahawks."
      For example, "Zircon".
      The rocket began to be made this year, and in 2018 will begin to enter service.
      The flight distance is about 400 km, the speed to 6M (has reached 8M under test).
      Warhead weight 400 kg.

      The ambush is that the depth of air defense of the AUG reaches 600 km. It was not from the good life of the USSR that at one time it was monitored by air-based monstrous anti-ship missiles.
      Today, maybe not by 100%, but in the near future, our army and navy will be able to fully protect themselves from any possible aggressions by the very same US Navy AUG, which has been a scarecrow for the whole world for a long time.

      Yeah ... in this very in the nearest future will go under the cancellation by age of the submarines and ICAPL Soviet-built - which now form the basis of the anti-aircraft forces of our Navy. The fleet has no snoring either.

      I agree with you: not everything is as rosy as it seems to Roman
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 19 November 2017 22: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And after fine-tuning the ship LRASM, the RCC will also be stationed at the UVP.

      They will not, RCC with acceptable parameters will not be shoved into the MK41.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 20 November 2017 10: 51 New
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        They will not, RCC with acceptable parameters will not be shoved into the MK41.

        LRASM test launches from the Mk.41 have been running since 2014.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 20 November 2017 18: 33 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          LRASM test launches from the Mk.41 have been running since 2014.

          III ?? Go and go. Primitive subsonic missile. they failed to shove the supersonic into the MK41.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 20 November 2017 21: 55 New
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            Primitive subsonic rocket

            You see. A primitive subsonic missile is much better than a perfect hypersonic missile.
            I remind you that Zircon "told TASS a source in the military-industrial complex." Moreover, if TASS itself was still a little shy, then such "sources" as
            https://topwar.ru/113537-novaya-ugroza-pro-ssha-c
            irkon-dostig-8-skorostey-zvuka.html
            or
            http://www.ng.ru/armies/2017-04-18/8_6976_cirkon.
            html
            or
            https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2017/04/15/10627877.sh
            tml # page1
            or
            https://news2.ru/story/492413/
            without pissing posted here are these photos of the new rocket

            or

            Can you determine the plane yourself, or tell?
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 21 November 2017 09: 54 New
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              You see. A primitive subsonic missile is much better than a perfect hypersonic missile.

              You, in your Russophobian frenzy, in praise of everything western, have forgotten that Russia has ALREADY ONYX available. The United States has nothing of the kind and is not expected.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 21 November 2017 22: 23 New
                0
                Quote: Setrac
                ALREADY NOW Onyxes. The United States has nothing of the kind and is not expected.

                I mean, a huge high-speed rocket, take the last battle? Yes, it is not expected. The Americans experimented with RIM-8 Talos on this subject and took a different path.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 21 November 2017 22: 39 New
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  The Americans experimented with RIM-8 Talos on this subject and took a different path.

                  We experimented with machine guns and returned to the muskets.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  I mean, a huge high-speed rocket, take the last battle?

                  Which will be able to break through enemy air defenses, unlike a small slow-moving harpoon.
  17. Orel
    Orel 17 November 2017 14: 51 New
    0
    Varyag_0711,
    Dispute with whom? With you? Do not tell my slippers. I already wrote to you that a dispute can be waged with someone who has at least the rudiments of their own intelligence. You do not have any, and this is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.


    "And the enemy runs, runs, runs." You are credited with a technical defeat)
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. Monarchist
    Monarchist 17 November 2017 15: 43 New
    0
    Quote: Orel
    Quote: Varyag_0711
    Nothing straight? There were no British and Americans near Arkhangelsk? There were no French and British in the South and in the Crimea? There were no Americans and Japanese in the Far East? There were no British in the Caucasus and Central Asia?


    And what of this ??? Did they really decide to fight the USSR ??? There was no such thing, but if they had decided, then their victory would be only a matter of time. Explore the battles of the Czechoslovak corps when they drove whole armies of red. 1 building !!! And why? Because the personnel corps is the army, and the crowd of people with rifles is the crowd, and even if they are 20 or 50 times more. It’s just that the West didn’t want to occupy us and that’s it. They bet on whites, but not actively. They lost. They had no task to fight the USSR.

    Eagle, in that the regular army above the reorganization of the crowd I myself agree, and then it is debatable
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 17 November 2017 21: 16 New
      0
      Dear Monarchist, you will not argue that everything is good for a specific historical period, and in a future war no one will give time for regrouping, evacuation of industry and the main thing will be decided in the first hours / days.
      1. Looking for
        Looking for 17 November 2017 22: 26 New
        -1
        Tell me honestly, you respect this "monarchist" Or you are the same as those who our opponents -USA call- "our overseas colleagues !!!!!!"
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 19 November 2017 22: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Seeker
          "our overseas colleagues !!!!!!"

          That's right - our overseas PARTNERS.
  20. Monarchist
    Monarchist 17 November 2017 16: 01 New
    +1
    Quote: Servisinzhener
    Sincerely amused with their suspicions lol

    Glad you have fun. And now the arguments: Mukhin cites data suggesting treason in the upper echelon of the Red Army. After the Second World War, Stalin became preoccupied with the question of what each general did on the eve of June 22, and probably he had reason to at least doubt the sincerity of individual comrades. Imagine how Stalin will react if he receives evidence of treason, and the radishes will wait until they are “torn out”? Agree that there is logic in my assumption
  21. arkadiyssk
    arkadiyssk 17 November 2017 16: 16 New
    0
    Quote: man in the street
    In any case, carrier-based aviation will not be able to operate at a distance of more than 500 km from the coastline. Therefore, even with the complete achievement of her superiority in the air, this is very unpleasant but not fatal. All the same, "our sizes protect us."

    Do you know that Mosul in Iraq is 900 km from the coastline and successfully rolled aircraft from the Persian Gulf? And in general, is it more interesting that the Americans have more than 500 tankers and can they easily operate at any range in any situation? And how many tankers do we have? 28 pcs?
    1. Disorder
      Disorder 17 November 2017 17: 29 New
      0
      Quote: arkadiyssk
      Do you know that Mosul in Iraq is 900 km from the coastline and successfully rolled aircraft from the Persian Gulf?

      With the complete absence of air defense, it is possible for 1000 km. to fly.
      Quote: arkadiyssk
      And in general, is it more interesting that the Americans have more than 500 tankers and can they easily operate at any range in any situation?

      Do we need it so much?
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 17 November 2017 18: 50 New
      +1
      That's right in any situation? And in the depths of the enemy territory with unsuppressed enemy air defense and air force? And the question of how much TK we have does not apply to anything at all. Is someone going to bomb Arizona?
  22. SPACE
    SPACE 17 November 2017 16: 47 New
    +1
    Quote: Krabik
    America needs a fleet to control trade routes and protect its coast.

    Quote: askme
    Exactly. In a major war, it was aircraft carriers who should protect communications on transoceanic and transatlantic routes - sea and air.

    Quote: Taoist
    it is an excellent means of "projection of force" in peacetime. And most importantly, it is a means of controlling water transportation. "Battle for the Atlantic" with the absolute dominance of carrier aircraft

    The third year in 10 times the aircraft carriers are discussing and the third year is the same thing, see again a new replenishment, a green undershot))), probably the schoolchildren are impressive, harmless, they read garbage and carry nonsense, there’s nobody to teach them to do homeless children.
    They decided to transfer communications lol peaceful means of control of shipping bu-ha-ha, file my slippers lol laughing crying is it ten augs? The circus that has already left? ...laughing I wonder where? Along or across the Atlantic, or maybe in the Pacific Okiyan? Two AUGs and even the Mediterranean lake spruce-spruce will be able to keep under control wassat
    The imorists would have looked at the map. Interestingly, they will guard a bunch, or what? One AUG per thousand and under constant control? and the navel does not get loose? Each time, the children are getting dumber and dumber. fool what request
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 17 November 2017 21: 21 New
      +1
      I agree with you AUG (AUS) is intended to create local superiority in a particular theater of operations at a particular moment.
  23. First iron-faced
    First iron-faced 17 November 2017 17: 19 New
    +3
    I read in the comments that, allegedly, the AUG, when conducting active combat operations, will experience supply problems (probably with aviation fuel and ammunition). Rather, it refers to the experience of the Persian Gulf war (1990-91), where AVMs were used for the sole purpose of maximizing the attraction of ACGs to databases of a similar scale and intensity (for the first time after the Vietnam War), mining or ext. the development of the concept of their combat use, the acquisition of experience by the crews of the AVM and the flight crew of air wings. Although in D.S. there was enough air force grouping (the same, as it turned out, in the case of the land grouping, the experience of the 2003 war confirmed this). Those. there was no operational need for so many ACGs, given Iraq’s “fleet” and its lack of allies.

    AVMs even in a global conflict will be used precisely to maintain dominance in the oceans, i.e. the struggle against enemy naval formations, here it also implies the promotion of fleets on islands and archipelagoes adjacent to the theater of war, usually with underdeveloped infrastructure. And for these tasks, the supply of Amer. the fleet is debugged, including the ship's composition of the ILC (command of maritime transport)
  24. MadCat
    MadCat 17 November 2017 17: 46 New
    0
    The "experts" build their entire calculation on the destruction of the aircraft carrier group from the fact that they will dutifully wait for the rocket to board frozen in place and of course not honestly resist! laughing
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 17 November 2017 18: 52 New
      +3
      On the contrary, experts believe that destroying the AUG is inhumane, and not necessary. It is enough to make a suitcase without a handle from AB. And if you're lucky, one or two McCains will be enough.
  25. Cyrus
    Cyrus 17 November 2017 20: 28 New
    0
    That's right, you are not an expert, you are nothing! We have NO Zircons, no, but they have 11 ABs and it will not be difficult to create an operational connection from them and that you will oppose 5/6 ABs with escort groups combined into one structure in a specific combat area (well, at least in the Pacific )?
    1. Cyrus
      Cyrus 17 November 2017 20: 37 New
      +1
      PS You .... hurray patriots, finally forget about the AUG (this is the same as the Soviet cadre divisions), but rather go to school and learn the story (if at one time you did not consider it necessary to do_) and understand to withstand the strike aircraft carrier formation (on the Pacific Ocean is 58/38) you need an ocean fleet and a point.
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 17 November 2017 22: 49 New
      +1
      Young man, maybe you will stop being rude and start to communicate humanly. Firstly, not you, but you, since you and I are not close relatives or friends of childhood. Secondly, it will be later.
      So far, I’m not sure it’s worth continuing to communicate.
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 19 November 2017 22: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Cyrus
      NO we have Zircons

      We have onyx and caliber (anti-ship), the US has nothing of the kind.
  26. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 17 November 2017 20: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: Orel
    Quote: Monarchist
    Eagle, I know the story pretty well, and therefore, I think: WE IN THE VISIBLE FUTURE RELAX HARMFUL!


    If so, I will not argue with you. I give you a "star") Maybe I have not studied enough the history of the 20th century, but here's the paradox. The more I study it, the more I become convinced that there was never any real goal to destroy the USSR. There were plans for a war, but no one wanted to start it first in the West and the goal of destroying the USSR was never set. Rather, they always looked for an opportunity to somehow get along on the planet with a country that wanted a world revolution.

    Somehow you study one-sided history. If we had not detonated our bomb in 1949, we would have been gouged. By the way, even the presence of atomic weapons in our country did not prevent the mattresses from bombing our Far East after the war, not to mention reconnaissance aircraft. What a howl the mattress covers would have lifted if ours began to fly over America! And our military has always worked out plans and the deadlines were shorter: to the English Channel in three days! laughing laughing
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 03: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: Dzafdet
      If we hadn’t detonated our bomb in 1949, we would have been gouged

      By the way, this was a characteristic moment. Everything with the Bolsheviks is already clear, and they have already stolen even AB, and even a war is already underway with them (Korea), and Senator McCarthy is sweeping away the red rot that Roosevelt has bred (it doesn’t clean it out well, but at least). America is in danger, it would be necessary to urgently resolve the issue while the Bolsheviks do not have delivery vehicles (medium-range R-12, which could threaten European allies - the 61st year, the first normal Soviet ICBM - R-16 - the 63rd year).
      But no. They did not finally decide the issue, even when the fate of America was at stake, and there was almost no risk.

      Which is funny. Exactly this same focus of the Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama administration was done with Kim. 5, 10, 20 years ago to crush this klopovnik would be much cheaper.
  27. Fedya2017
    Fedya2017 17 November 2017 21: 12 New
    0
    Still, it’s fun to read the assurances of the “boots” about how they will push the Americans to the bottom of the AUG ... Ha ha ha hahaha !!!!!
  28. Looking for
    Looking for 17 November 2017 22: 04 New
    -1
    Quote: domokl
    And what to do aircraft carriers on the high seas? The task of such ships is to ensure supremacy in the sky over coastal areas. Hang out from the coast and be a target for submarines?

    Yes, it's best to hang out off the coast and be a target for everything from submarines to pioneer slingshots.
  29. Looking for
    Looking for 17 November 2017 22: 19 New
    -1
    I consider aircraft carriers to be the weapon of warm seas. Zero excitement, perfect visibility and PLUS WEATHER. Someone can give an example of the most successful application of aircraft carriers in northern latitudes, fog, snow charges. Icing, in the end, in such circumstances, the aircraft carrier is practically helpless . since deprived of its MAIN WEAPON-aviation. and can only rely on the "missile" umbrella of escort ships.
    1. askme
      askme 18 November 2017 00: 28 New
      +2
      Stupidity is utter. Since the Nimitz air force can currently operate in a 5-point storm, this is the time. And two - a fully automatic landing on an aircraft carrier - have long been implemented in Nimitz. These are all-weather, round-the-clock platforms. Valid up to 5 points. By the way, the vast majority of ships in all fleets of the world can also use weapons only up to 5 points.
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 18 November 2017 11: 11 New
        +1
        Yes, I remember that the lads from the 51st department said that up to 5 points were for ships of the main classes (we then talked about 956 and 1155). But for coastal anti-ship missiles, I think, there are no such restrictions.
      2. Sivasa
        Sivasa 20 November 2017 16: 05 New
        0
        Even with 3 points, the number of take-offs and landings is sharply reduced. But your opponent, in principle, is wrong: the actions of aircraft carriers and their aircraft in the conditions of the North Atlantic were worked out in WW2.
  30. IL-18
    IL-18 18 November 2017 11: 53 New
    +2
    Cherry Nine,
    The B-29 performed combat missions at altitudes of up to 9000 m, a practical ceiling of up to 11000 m. Chasing a separate instance of a bomber with record-breaking characteristics should be a separate instance of a fighter with record-breaking characteristics. And they were in the USSR.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 18 November 2017 16: 12 New
      0
      Quote: IL-18
      Chasing a single bomber with record-breaking performance

      Colleague, have you fallen from the moon? Almost 29 thousand were made in the B-4. A little less than the Panther, a little more than the IS-2.
  31. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 18 November 2017 19: 05 New
    0
    wrote everything right
  32. sivuch
    sivuch 19 November 2017 00: 44 New
    +1
    Cherry Nine,
    So Copenhagen has already been freed. Nowhere to fly
  33. sivuch
    sivuch 19 November 2017 00: 48 New
    +1
    Cherry Nine,
    What is it like ? In Japan, had to decline over the goal, but over Russia, no?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 19 November 2017 01: 06 New
      0
      Quote: sivuch
      Japan had to decline over the goal, but over Russia, no?

      Depends on the weather. The ratio of losses and departures for the summer of the 45th I brought to you. The number of Soviet aircraft capable of climbing to the working height of the battle boxes is also. What will be the loss of fighters - see Reich air defense. It's minimum. All other planes are clearly defined front-line ones. MiG-3 has not been produced for a long time, and the sense of it ...
      Quote: sivuch
      So Copenhagen is already freed

      By whom? From whom? Do you know that Zealand is an island? Yes, and Jutland, too, in fact.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 20 November 2017 11: 10 New
      0
      Quote: sivuch
      What is it like ? In Japan, had to decline over the goal, but over Russia, no?

      And it depends on what the task of departure. If you need to disable the aircraft factory, then you can not go down.
      December 18th. After lunch, the Superstrongs returned again and attacked Nagoya a second time. They hit the Mitsubishi aircraft factory where I worked. As soon as the sirens howled, warning of an air raid, we ran away from the factory buildings and jumped into the “trenches” and “shelters” prepared in the dispersal area. Sheltered from the shock wave and splinters, we looked at the sky, looking for bombers. We noticed several waves of "Super Fortresses" that seemed pure white. They flew at an altitude of, as I determined, about 30000 feet. Huge planes went in a clear formation, dropping bombs in one gulp, as if they had laid a path across the factory from west to east. This was the first time that I was under a strong air attack, and I well remembered the whistle of falling bombs and the incredible sound of explosions. My ears rang and I went deaf for several hours.
      December 19th. The head of the Mitsubishi plant ordered the start of an urgent dispersal program. We feared that the bombers would return in even greater numbers. If the machines are subjected to new blows of “Super Fortresses”, then production will stop altogether. People began to transport machine tools to school buildings and small factories in and around the city.

      But if you need to arrange a fire storm in a city of a solid area - then yes, you have to work with CF.
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. intuzazist
    intuzazist 20 November 2017 12: 26 New
    0
    Quote: Orel
    Attacks of Russia can not be afraid. Over our history, we could be attacked so many times when we had nothing to answer, but there was no attack. After the revolution, during the civil war, it was easy to conquer us. Whole country. She really wasn’t even then. Nothing happened. After World War II, when the USSR did not have large human reserves and an atomic bomb, and the United States already had several dozen, a huge fleet of strategic bombers — they could destroy the whole country in a month — did not

    My friend! They took the nickname EAGLE and croak like a crow !!! Would have taught history! In July 1946, the United States had only 9 bombs, two of which were spent on experiments. By mid-1947, there were only 13 bombs in the arsenal !!! The Red Army totaled more than 5 million fired soldiers, mobilized industry !!! And that’s why the Americans and all their allies stuck their tongues in the opera and agreed to divide Europe !!! And about the revolutions, both the Americans and the Japs tried to introduce expeditionary forces to the Far East! Ogrebdisyp full and dumped, taking with you! Read at your leisure, if you haven’t read books at school ............ http://slavyanskaya-kultura.ru/slavic/history/zab
    ytaja-okkupacija-amerikanskaja-intervencija-v-ros
    siyu-v-gody-grazhdanskoi-voiny.html
  36. Sivasa
    Sivasa 20 November 2017 15: 58 New
    0
    Even in the USSR, at its peak, the defeat of the AUG was planned to be achieved exclusively by a combined strike of long-range aviation and nuclear submarines. At the same time, the NK were to conduct an active battle, clearing positions for boats. It was supposed to simultaneously hold dozens (!!!) of bombers in the air. Now there are fewer planes, and the cat has cried, but I’ll keep silent about the NK (I think that the entire Northern Fleet will be able to carry out only one full-fledged operation against the AUG in the North Atlantic.
  37. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 28 November 2017 17: 23 New
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: voffchik7691
    Do you know why? Just counted

    That the possible gain — the liberation of Poland, possibly Czechoslovakia — is not worth the possible loss — the loss of at least the right, and very possibly the left bank of the Rhine. Plus, the British planned, and the Americans continued to blunt. Without the Americans, such a combination was clearly non-violent.

    Another milestone was the "Dropshot", which appeared at the end of 1949. It was already loaded with 300 atomic bombs and 250 tons of conventional bombs. At the same time, it was planned to drop 25 atomic bombs on Moscow, 22 on Leningrad. After that, the defeated territory was divided into 4 large zones (the Western part of the USSR, the Urals with Central Asia, Siberia and the Far East), which would be occupied by several American infantry divisions. The repressions against partisans and other resistance forces were supposed to be carried out by the hands of collaborators in order not to make foreign aggressors out of martyrs.

    It should be noted that by that time the USSR already had its own atomic bomb and this did not add enthusiasm to the developers of the invasion operation. According to their calculations, it turned out that in the event of an attack, the probability of combat losses in bombers would be more than 55%. They did not exclude a retaliatory strike on their own territory. Nevertheless, according to preliminary estimates, the total number of dead Soviet citizens as a result of nuclear attacks would be about 100 million people.

    Such kind, affectionate mattress covers. And only after the appearance of ICBMs with us in 1959 did they subside. After all, they are not interested in receiving 100 megatons of mattress in response .. wassat
  38. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 29 November 2017 17: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Krabik
    Zircon is not in nature and the whole article revolves around non-existent weapons.

    And there’s no spoon either, right Neo? Why is she bending? ... laughing They write to you: they passed successful tests of the Zircon rocket! Otherwise, the arrogant Saxons would not yell about their ban ... wassat
  39. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 2 December 2017 07: 32 New
    0
    Quote: Krabik
    America needs a fleet to control trade routes and protect its coast.

    For the land war against us, they will use Ukraine, Poland, and for the supply and replenishment bases of the material part Germany and France.

    Actually now they are strengthening these countries by transferring equipment and reserves, building missile bases with medium-range missiles, which fly from Poland 15 minutes to Moscow.

    It flies once, then an otvetka and there is neither Poland, nor Germany, nor France with England. And there won’t be any mattresses either ... Any AUG is destroyed by a missile with a nuclear warhead. At the current level of technology, this is not difficult. You just need to revive the topic on the R-27K to a new level ..
    1. mac789
      mac789 16 December 2017 20: 03 New
      0
      Can you tell me about r-27k
  40. mac789
    mac789 16 December 2017 08: 23 New
    0
    An aircraft carrier is a tool ... An aircraft carrier is a fat target ... An aircraft carrier is a stick and a scarecrow for the weak and defenseless ... The main task of the AOG is to ensure the launch of ICBMs from submarines. And here AUG is almost perfect. And as a cover for the nuclear submarines, and as a false target.
  41. Conserp
    Conserp 27 February 2018 18: 31 New
    0
    Back in 2008-2011, the US Navy conducted extensive research on the combat stability of the fleet with the involvement of the then-newest aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan and the special ship SDTS. According to their results, a major scandal came out in 2012.
    Even from the unclassified part of the report, it is obvious that ALL the fleet’s air defense systems — and radars were noted — were completely unsuitable for intercepting anti-ship missiles. Note that there have not been any Zircons yet.
    For the same reasons, Coyote missiles are purchased at 5-6 pieces per year. The huge fleet does not conduct any training firing.

    AUGs have been a purely anti-Papuan weapon since the time of the Basalts.