Military Review

Strategic Culture: aircraft carriers no longer rule the seas

61
Various publications regularly try to study Russian weapons and draw certain conclusions about their prospects. Each article of this kind attracts the attention of readers, as well as reprinted by a number of other publications. In recent days, several Russian media have turned their attention to one of the articles of the English-language publication Strategic Culture Foundation. This material was devoted to Russian anti-ship missiles that are part of the range of weapons of the Tu-22М3 long-range bomber.


The attention of the Russian press was attracted by the article “Russia's New Weapons: Aircraft Carriers No Longer Rule the Seas” (“New weapon Russia: aircraft carriers no longer rule the seas ") for the authorship of Alex Gorki. It should be noted that the online publication Strategic Culture Foundation published this material even 2 July of this year. Nevertheless, despite the rather large “age”, the article is of some interest and, as its recent reprints have shown, remains relevant.

The article on Russian weapons, A. Gorka, began with a reminder of recent events overseas. June 1 The United States naval forces received the lead aircraft carrier of the new type USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). In the foreseeable future, a ship worth 13 billion dollars will start a full service. It should have happened before the end of the summer. In the future, the US Navy will have to receive two more ships of the new project - John F. Kennedy and Enterprise.



The new ship differs from previous American aircraft carriers in increased dimensions, including a larger flight deck. It will be able to carry more aircraft, increased fuel capacity and aviation means of destruction for them. In addition, an important innovation is the electromagnetic catapult for accelerating aircraft on takeoff. Following the expected commissioning, Gerald R. Ford will have to undergo a series of checks. A full-fledged combat unit fleet the aircraft carrier will be in 2020.

The author of the Strategic Culture Foundation points out that aircraft carriers will be able to carry 75-90 aircraft. Ships in normal operation will be able to provide 160 sorties a day for 30 days. If necessary, this parameter can be increased to 270 departures.

A. Gorka also reviewed the current British aircraft carrier construction program. The largest and most powerful ship of the Royal Navy of Great Britain - HMS Queen Elizabeth - has a length of 280 m and displacement 65 thousand tons. It was put to the test in the sea 26 of June of this year. Already in the 2017 year it was planned to complete the necessary checks, and in 2018 the ship should be part of the fleet. In the summer it was supposed to lay the second ship of the new project, named HMS Prince Of Wales. Its delivery is scheduled for 2020 year.

New ships with a large flight deck are intended primarily for carrying aircraft vertical or short takeoff. The Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales Air Force will have to consist of F-35B Lightning II fighter-bomber and Merlin helicopters. The former will take over the functions of fighting enemy aviation and delivering strikes. Helicopters will be used for early detection of targets and combat submarines. Carriers will also be able to transport marines to 250 and ensure their combat operations.

Also, the construction of a new aircraft carrier is planned by the French military. According to various estimates, work on assembling the structures of this ship will begin only in 2020.

Leading NATO countries continue to build large and heavy aircraft carriers, regarded as the primary means of demonstrating power. Such ships were the most important participants in all major military operations since the Second World War. Ships with flight decks provide dominance at sea, allow you to project power and literally intimidate third countries. A. Gorka asks an important question: can large aircraft carriers be the means that will force Russia to "kneel down"? And then he gives the answer: no, they cannot. At least not today.

The reason for this answer is simple - the X-22 anti-ship missile, created at Raduga GosMKB. A. Ya. Bereznyak. The carrier of this weapon is a long-range Tu-22М3 bomber. The X-22 missile is capable of flying at a distance of up to 600 km (on the order of 320 nautical miles) and carries a combat unit with a mass of 1 t (2200 pounds). In theory, such a missile, having a high range and powerful warhead, is capable of seriously damaging any aircraft carrier with one blow. According to the author, the X-22 rocket with a powerful warhead can make a hole with a diameter of 5 m and a depth of 12 m in any ship.

An improved version of the product X-22 received the designation X-32. The updated project provides for the use of 1000-kg conventional warhead or nuclear warhead capacity 1000 CT. According to known data, at the time of writing this article, Russia was completing tests of a promising rocket. Like the basic X-22, the improved X-32 should be used by Tu-22М3 aircraft.

It is argued that a new type of missile will be almost invulnerable to the means of air defense and missile defense of a potential enemy. Immediately after launch, the rocket should rise to an altitude of about 40 km, into the stratosphere. On the final part of the trajectory, it will fall on the target with a large dive angle. It is expected that the firing range of the new missile will reach 1000 km against 600 km in the serial X-22. Flight speed, according to various estimates, will reach 5000 km / h. A special combination of speed and altitude profile of the flight will reduce the likelihood of successful interception of the rocket.

Long-range bombers Tu-22М3 will carry advanced weapons. A. Gorka reminds that these airplanes are intended for use in long-range and naval aviation. The machine with variable sweep of the wing is able to rise to an altitude of 14 km with a climb of 15 m / s. Cruise speed of the aircraft is 900 km / h, maximum - 2300 km / h. Flight range - 7 thousand. Km. Bombers can be equipped with in-flight refueling facilities, which greatly increases the combat radius.

According to the author of the Strategic Culture Foundation, there are currently more than 60 long-range Tu-22М3 bombers in the Russian aerospace forces. The program of modernization of this technology is being implemented. Until the end of next year, all existing machines of this type will be repaired and updated.

In the early summer of this year, American director Oliver Stone presented the four-part documentary film The Putin Interviews. In this film, the Russian president mentioned a promising rocket with uniquely high performance. As stated, a new weapon is capable of much. Among other things, the rocket will be able to overcome any existing and future defense systems. A. Gorka reminds that it was about the 3М22 Zircon, a new Russian hypersonic anti-ship missile.

According to a foreign author, the 3М22 rocket can reach speeds at the level of 4600 miles per hour (7400 km / h) - five times faster than the speed of sound. Flight range will reach 260 miles (400 km). Thus, from the launch of the rocket to its hitting the target at the maximum possible distance, the entire 3 minute 15 seconds will pass.

State tests of the Zircon rocket were planned to be completed before the end of the current 2017 year. Serial production of such weapons should begin in the 2018 year. Thanks to this, Russia will become the first country in the world to master the serial production of hypersonic weapons. Russia will leave behind other countries, including the United States.

According to known data, the first 3М22 “Zircon” missiles will be deployed on naval platforms operated by the military fleet. The result of the deployment of such weapons was described in colors by the executive editor of The National Interest, Harry J. Kazianis. He believes that new Russian missiles can turn supercarriers into multi-billion dollar cemeteries for thousands of sailors. Even a small ship armed with Zircon-type missiles becomes a serious threat. Ways to protect against such weapons are not yet available.

A. Gorka recalls that modern aircraft carriers are powerful ships with the most ample opportunities. However, they can not be considered light targets for anti-ship systems of a potential enemy. The carrier strike group is quite difficult to find on the high seas; no less difficult is the guidance of missiles for such purposes. However, the days when aircraft carriers guaranteed superiority on the seas are likely to end. If current projects succeed, the Russian armed forces will receive advanced weapons with the highest characteristics. They will adopt new tools to successfully attack and sink aircraft carriers.

***

The publication of the Strategic Culture Foundation published its article “Russia's New Life Russia's Weapons: Carriers No Longer Rule the Seas” in the middle of summer, but since that time this material has not had time to lose its relevance. Moreover, over time, the threats described by Alex Gorka become more and more real. For example, over the past few months, Russian specialists have been able to perform certain work, bringing the Xirum 3 Zircon rocket closer to adoption and launching mass production.

As the author recalls, as early as next year, a hypersonic Zircon rocket will enter service. This weapon, first of all, will be installed on warships of various classes and types. Subsequently, the creation of an air-based modification is not excluded. Anyway, in the very near future, the Russian Navy will receive a unique weapon from which it is currently impossible to defend.

In the meantime, a cruise missile has already been adopted, significantly increasing the potential of combat aircraft. The order for adopting the X-32 missile appeared at the end of last year. There is information about the order for the mass production of such products. In addition, in order to fully exploit new weapons, part of the existing Tu-22М3 bomber will have to be upgraded according to the T-22М3М project.

According to reports, the X-32 rocket is a deeply upgraded version of the older X-22 system. Rocket X-22 was adopted for use in the early seventies, and long ago was outdated. The effective use of such weapons was hampered by the characteristics of the guidance systems and the power plant. The radar homing head operated only at fixed frequencies, which simplified its electronic suppression. The components of the liquid fuel used by the rocket were highly toxic. Because of this, in combat units they preferred to reduce the number of gas stations and filled up fuel only before real launches.

The new project X-32 provides for the preservation of the airframe and some common systems while simultaneously replacing the means of guidance and the power plant. The new active radar seeker is protected from interference. Flight and operational characteristics increase due to a new engine with different parameters and greater safety. To fully realize the potential, the X-32 rocket requires a modernized carrier aircraft. Work on upgrading equipment has already begun and should be completed in the foreseeable future.

The development of Russian strike missile weapons continues and leads to the emergence of new complexes. By presenting a certain threat to the projection of the power of a potential adversary, such weapons contribute to the security of the country.


The article "Russia's Best New Weapons: Aircraft Carriers No Longer Rule the Seas":
https://strategic-culture.org/news/2017/07/02/russia-new-weapons-aircraft-carriers-no-longer-rule-seas.html
Author:
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ism_ek
    ism_ek 30 November 2017 06: 42
    +1
    To fully realize the inherent potential of the X-32 rocket, a modernized carrier aircraft is needed. Work on updating equipment has already begun and should be completed in the foreseeable future.
    This is the main problem. Engines for TU-22m3 have not been produced since the 90's. PAK-DA will appear no earlier than in 10 years and will be subsonic.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 30 November 2017 09: 31
      10
      Quote: ism_ek
      This is the main problem. Engines for TU-22m3 have not been produced since the 90's. PAK-DA will appear no earlier than in 10 years and will be subsonic.

      The problem is not only this. In 2011, during the years of "rising from the knees" and "giving a new look", the Sea missile-carrying aircraft were eliminated. Tu-22М3 capable of flying into the air passed to the Long-Range Aviation. Currently, all Tu-22M3 are concentrated in the European part of the country, mainly at the Shaykovka and Olenya aerodromes. At the same time, most of the cars need repair and modernization; there are about 30 aircraft in flight condition, which mainly work out blows by free-falling bombs. As for the X-22, they no longer correspond to modern realities due to low noise immunity and the use of toxic fuel and caustic oxidizer. The bulk of the missiles have already exhausted their resources. As for the "new" X-32, there is no reliable information about their adoption.
      1. novel66
        novel66 30 November 2017 09: 45
        +3
        Tu -95 could well bear the x-22
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 30 November 2017 11: 26
          +5
          hi Hi flyer!
          You just need to take something away !! lol
          1. novel66
            novel66 30 November 2017 12: 13
            +5
            greeting! hi hi I’m not greedy, I’m homey!
          2. Vovanfalcon
            Vovanfalcon 30 November 2017 13: 41
            +1
            In aviation, we have so ... leaving the airport - take something for the house, even drag a rusty nail, you are the owner, not the guest)))))) ... hi
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 5 December 2017 08: 28
              0
              and the pieces of the plate carried away?
              1. Vovanfalcon
                Vovanfalcon 5 December 2017 10: 59
                0
                I did not participate and did not see, but I heard such stories ... in particular, in the 90s on Baikonur dashing Kazakhs managed to rip off a stove and take it away with a Ural motorcycle. But I repeat - at the level of rumors))))) fellow
        2. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 30 November 2017 17: 47
          0
          everything is much more complicated
          on the PLARK ave. 949A we plan to replace the 24 anti-ship missiles P-700 Granite on the 72 anti-ship missiles P-800 Onyx
          replace part of 30 torpedoes and PLURs with 10 anti-ship missiles 3М54 Caliber
          8 PLARKS + 30 Tu-22M3 - good symbiosis
          not the same carcasses make their way to the AUG
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 30 November 2017 09: 52
        +1
        . As for the “new” X-32s, there is no reliable information about their adoption.
        -------------------------------------------------
        ---------
        Sergey, actually, really new. And official information about the adoption was in service. But the real number of the missiles themselves and their carriers, as well as their completeness - well, I think this is interesting to many.
      3. Alex_59
        Alex_59 30 November 2017 10: 15
        +1
        Quote: Bongo
        As for the "new" X-32, there is no reliable information about their adoption.

        You don’t have it, Sergey))) In fact, there is a rocket, it’s really new. Passing tests. Fly in the ointment - the tests are not without problems. However, where is now something without problems ... The era is ...
        Quote: Bongo
        As for the X-22, they no longer correspond to modern realities due to low noise immunity and the use of toxic fuel and caustic oxidizer.

        Electronics in the rocket is new, that's for sure. Well, fuel - yes, the fuel seems to be old.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 30 November 2017 11: 37
          +4
          Quote: Alex_59
          The era is such

          hi Welcome Alex!
          The era is really interesting, look, nothing, and then shit. why, where did God come from! It seems there’s no where to come from, everything is in ruins, but it came from bully
        2. Bongo
          Bongo 30 November 2017 12: 35
          +4
          Quote: Alex_59
          You don’t have it, Sergey)))

          Not only me ... request They are not in combat regiments. The fact that she "passes the test" has been said for more than 5 years.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 30 November 2017 12: 42
            +1
            Quote: Bongo
            They are not in combat regiments.

            This is unknown to me. I know for sure that there is such a rocket and it flies successfully. I have people ... there, in these of your Olenegorsk. ))))) And here Kaptsov was hacked again because it was impossible — a rocket in the X-22 body to fly at 1000 km at an altitude of 40-45 km.
            The fact that 5 years, well, in principle, this is not a vice. And in better times, some products brought to mind ten years. The main thing is to bring in the end. To read about the same X-22, how much torment there was with her ... Even at the first Tu-22 without a letter. In fact, it became a combat-ready product only in the middle of the 70's. And it was created from the beginning of the 60's.
            Quote: Serg65
            It seems there’s no where to come from, everything is in ruins, but it came from

            I'm shocked myself. Our won PD-14 almost brought to mind, but it all looked like an "end". Full. And it turns out to be still a might. Moreover, that characteristically pensioners of the Soviet school were dispersed by more than 2 / 3. Those. This engine is made by people of my age and younger.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 30 November 2017 13: 05
              +2
              x32 sawn 25 years, to be exact. Then Comrade Rushnairfors wrote about the extreme trials two weeks ago - sadness! And the rest, a beautiful marquise ..
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 30 November 2017 13: 49
                +1
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Then Comrade Rushnairfors wrote about the extreme trials two weeks ago - sadness!

                Well, yes, that is, that is. We somehow fail in the majority to soberly assess the situation, which is actually very multifaceted. We are slipping either into “everything is lost” or “cheers, we are invincible”. Well, what do these words mean - "sadness"? Well, yes, there are problems there. Have you read about how you brought the original X-22 to mind? There was not sadness, but SORROW. And this is in the USSR. Happenes. Bring to mind.
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 30 November 2017 14: 42
                  +1
                  Brought in n years and dollars. The rockets are riveted. They will disperse and reassemble the last carcasses. And there it’s time to write off.
                  The same thing with the rearmament of the old BOD, nuclear submarines and Nakhimov
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 30 November 2017 15: 11
                    +1
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    Brought in n years and dollars. The rockets are riveted. They will disperse and reassemble the last carcasses. And there it’s time to write off.
                    The same thing with the rearmament of the old BOD, nuclear submarines and Nakhimov

                    Well, I convinced, I’ll go hang myself.
                  2. glasha3032
                    glasha3032 1 December 2017 00: 18
                    +1
                    "..reflect rockets ..." - a factory where they “riveted” the flight control system - ordered them to live long .... Yes, and the assembly plant in Dubna is also said to not be engaged in them anymore. Not soon X-32 will appear if they appear ....
                    1. KCA
                      KCA 1 December 2017 03: 57
                      0
                      On the DMZ website, in the "Products" section, everything is as always, the "120" product is a subsonic missile launcher, the D-2 product is a supersonic missile launcher for long-range bombers, all the information :-) So think, "D-2" is X- 22 or X-32, or something else
            2. ZVO
              ZVO 1 December 2017 13: 09
              +1
              Quote: Alex_59

              I'm shocked myself. Our won PD-14 almost brought to mind, but it all looked like an "end". Full. And it turns out to be still a might. Moreover, that characteristically pensioners of the Soviet school were dispersed by more than 2 / 3. Those. This engine is made by people of my age and younger.


              Well yes. If you consider that the PD-14 is the re-marked Soviet PS-12 .... But nifiga can not ...
        3. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 12: 49
          +2
          Quote: Alex_59
          Actually there is a rocket, it is really new. Passing tests. Fly in the ointment - the tests are not without problems.

          That is, there is something, but it was not accepted for service, I understand correctly?
      4. ism_ek
        ism_ek 30 November 2017 11: 09
        0
        Heptyl missiles are used in both the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy. Inconvenient, non-environmental, but there is no other way.
      5. SPACE
        SPACE 30 November 2017 19: 48
        +1
        Quote: Bongo
        The problem is not only this. In 2011, during the years of "rising from the knees" and "giving a new look", the Sea missile-carrying aircraft were eliminated. Tu-22М3 capable of flying into the air transferred to the Long-Range Aviation

        As for the MRA, it really is not needed, from the word at all, this specialized unit of long-range or naval aviation is all the cost of squandering the naval leadership of the USSR, I will say more, and naval aviation as a separate subspecies of aviation is also not needed. Moreover, the range of tasks previously solved by these forces will remain and will be fulfilled, already as part of the tasks assigned to them, by long-range or strategic or bomber, missile-carrying aircraft. Unified management, unified supply and maintenance bases, less bureaucracy and fewer places for mediocre generals, but pilots need to become more universal, more knowledgeable, and even more professional in their field.
        1. nPuBaTuP
          nPuBaTuP 30 November 2017 21: 11
          +4
          I will say more and naval aviation as a separate subspecies of aviation is also not needed.

          Judging by the flag, Russia generally does not need aviation ....from the word at all
        2. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 2 December 2017 02: 23
          +2
          Quote: SPACE
          that MRA, it really is not needed, from the word at all,

          stop So you can agree, to the point that we don’t need combat aircraft at all. fool So one can argue only one who either justifies any criminal act of the current government, or a frank enemy of Russia. And yet it is not known what is worse. negative
      6. 7gor
        7gor 4 December 2017 00: 13
        0
        Well, why, you are all-knowing, talk here about this ??????
    2. Sensatus
      Sensatus 30 November 2017 09: 31
      0
      This is the main problem. Engines for TU-22m3 have not been produced since the 90's. PAK-DA will appear no earlier than in 10 years and will be subsonic.

      And why did you get the idea that the problem is in the engines or that supersonic is needed to launch these missiles? Maybe you just need to upgrade avionics?
      Therefore, if not in the subject, then do not guess on the coffee grounds.
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 30 November 2017 11: 11
        0
        Supersound is needed to get closer to the aircraft carrier, and then get away.
  2. Dedmazay
    Dedmazay 30 November 2017 07: 05
    +1
    All the best to American children and their parents !!!
  3. Deck
    Deck 30 November 2017 07: 38
    +2
    In recent days, several Russian media have paid attention to one of the articles of the English-language publication Strategic Culture Foundation


    The attention of the Russian press was attracted by the publication of the Russian press! That is, we translate from Russian into English, then back and then discuss.
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 30 November 2017 07: 40
    +4
    As for the refueling in the air of the Tu-22М3, the American author slightly bent. Someone Gorbachev, by their agreements with the United States, deprived these aircraft of such an opportunity. Whether the air refueling system will be returned to these bombers with the new modernization is a mystery. Although logic suggests that this should be done.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 November 2017 13: 00
      +4
      Quote: inkass_98
      As for the refueling in the air of the Tu-22M3, the American author slightly bent. Someone Gorbachev, by their agreements with the United States, deprived these aircraft of such an opportunity.

      Actually, not Gorbachev, but Brezhnev. Tu-22M of all modifications lost refueling after signing the OSV-2 - for this they were excluded from the number of strategic bombers / carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic.
  5. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 30 November 2017 08: 12
    +3
    A. Gorka asks an important question: can large aircraft-carrying ships be the means that will make Russia "kneel down"?

    It sounds so crazy that it’s useful to check. Indeed, "Will the large ships be effective platforms to make Russia kneel?"
    Well, if you look at the other publications of Comrade Gorky on the mentioned resource, it becomes clear that we are dealing with the Star channel in English. Congratulations to Mr. Ryabov on this new acquisition, apparently we will hear about him more than once. One mahamajar, or whatever it was, became more.
    1. Cxnumx
      Cxnumx 30 November 2017 09: 47
      +2
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      it becomes clear that we are dealing with the Star channel in English.

      but I like the "star", especially the "military acceptance." this program has done a lot for the world in Russia, because after this program you involuntarily think: "Is it worth it to go to those who have such weapons?" in general, the creators of this program are great, and to Aleksei Egorov, the lead / author is a huge plus.
      1. AUL
        AUL 30 November 2017 15: 53
        +1
        Those who decide to "climb or not climb" use other sources of information than the Military Acceptance. This program is purely for internal use.
        1. Cxnumx
          Cxnumx 1 December 2017 07: 47
          0
          Quote: AUL
          Those who decide to "climb or not climb" use other sources of information than the Military Acceptance. This program is purely for internal use.

          yes, you know, I’m not sure that their sources provide really more useful information)) otherwise our military. technologies abroad would creep out in all sectors - but no, and then they have a completely different way (and worse), and this is done differently (and also not “fantasy”). and ordinary citizens do not have other such sources at all, and, by the way, they watch the program with pleasure)
  6. BAI
    BAI 30 November 2017 10: 25
    +1
    hole 5 m in diameter and 12 m deep.

    I think this is not too serious for an aircraft carrier. Only a nuclear charge will "help" him.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 30 November 2017 10: 57
      +3
      This is a guaranteed loss of combat capability for a certain period. And then, as the card goes down, sometimes one McCain is enough.
      Although, it seems to me, an explosion over the flight deck would have caused much greater damage.
      1. Mikado
        Mikado 30 November 2017 16: 45
        +2
        Shirokorad wrote about the Mediterranean squadron, which served in the direct visibility of the American AUG. It was even easier there. A volley from the cruiser of project 68 bis would be enough to pull the aircraft carrier out of the game. You're right! hi
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 30 November 2017 11: 29
      +4
      Quote: BAI
      I think this is not too serious for an aircraft carrier

      laughing And where you get !!! If we are lucky in the hangar then the salute will be good
  7. Magic archer
    Magic archer 30 November 2017 11: 06
    +3
    But I am more concerned with the problem of target designation and detection. Having such weapons, you must still be able to use it correctly. Do not shoot at random
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 30 November 2017 11: 33
      +4
      Quote: Magic Archer
      And I'm more concerned with the problem of target designation and detection

      good But this is the biggest intrigue! Once upon a time, the Soviet Navy adopted the P-1000 and everyone wondered ... who will direct it? And here once the ICRC Legend has appeared! Maybe today some kind of joker is waiting for us?
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 30 November 2017 20: 21
        0
        Quote: Serg65
        But this is the biggest intrigue!

        good The orbiting satellite constellation of Russia as of May 2017 of the year consisted of the 121 device. In principle, all these satellites have an astro correction system, photo and video equipment ... what and Earth remote sensing satellites ... recourse
        1. MadCat
          MadCat 30 November 2017 21: 44
          +3
          Quote: SPACE
          The orbiting satellite constellation of Russia as of May 2017 consisted of 121 vehicles. In principle, all of these satellites have an astro correction system, photo and video equipment ... what and earth remote sensing satellites ... recourse

          and all this "wealth" is able to control what area? A couple of percent?
  8. Bronevick
    Bronevick 30 November 2017 11: 19
    0
    Is this exactly the rocket that interferes with the normal operation of the flaps?
  9. Sivasa
    Sivasa 30 November 2017 12: 57
    +4
    The Soviet doctrine of counteraction to AUG was built on 2 pillars. The first is the ability to CONTINUOUSLY support the orbital constellation of 2 types of satellites. And in the conveyor mode launched these satellites were several dozen. The second is the ability to simultaneously raise dozens of bombers into the air and use nuclear submarines in a massive manner. Today, such resources are not close.
  10. Curious
    Curious 30 November 2017 13: 08
    +3
    "The updated project provides for the use of a 1000-kg conventional warhead or nuclear warhead with a capacity of 1000 kt."
    1000 ct is 1 mt. One megaton warhead with a direct hit on an aircraft carrier ... I wonder what remains of it?
    Or the author of what confused?
  11. iouris
    iouris 30 November 2017 13: 29
    +2
    I think the point is not that “aircraft carriers no longer rule the seas,” but that, given the state of the enemy (now “in law”), the Yankees set themselves the task of defeating aircraft carriers without loss.
  12. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 30 November 2017 20: 22
    0
    it’s good that the Russian Federation has missiles, the Americans will not be able to take away oil and gas
  13. Fedya2017
    Fedya2017 30 November 2017 23: 39
    +4
    Carriers ruled the seas. rule and will rule for a long time ... No wonder the Chinese. Indians and even small Britons began to build aircraft carriers and create their own AUGs. Only we can not afford it. so reassure such clever experts.
    1. BABAY22
      BABAY22 1 December 2017 01: 41
      0
      So let yourself rule these self-propelled airdromes over all the seas. By all, but not by those who have Russian interests, because you can come closer to us closer to 1000 km only with good intentions, otherwise we will drown and the hand will not tremble.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 1 December 2017 06: 04
        +4
        Quote: BABAY22
        because it’s possible to approach 1000 km closer to us solely with good intentions, otherwise we will drown and the hand will not tremble.

        What will you drown? what
        1. BABAY22
          BABAY22 1 December 2017 08: 11
          0
          Have you tried to read the article?
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 1 December 2017 12: 43
            +4
            Quote: BABAY22
            Have you tried to read the article?

            The article is simply rave... negative The few Tu-22М3 that do not have anti-ship missiles, reconnaissance equipment, and coastal airfields cannot pose any threat to the ACG.
          2. ZVO
            ZVO 1 December 2017 13: 12
            +3
            Quote: BABAY22
            Have you tried to read the article?


            And there, is something true written?
            You yourself then tried to read other sources?
            To analyze?
      2. Fedya2017
        Fedya2017 1 December 2017 18: 57
        +2
        Quote: BABAY22
        because it’s possible to approach 1000 km closer to us solely with good intentions, otherwise we will drown and the hand will not tremble.

        Dear, do not read the moronic patriotic nonsense from urrryaaa - patriotic authors. These "writers" are either fools or paid propagandists. There is a lot of material on the Internet on the topic, see if there is a desire ... There are specialist forums where they consider all the pros and cons. You will understand why in the USSR they came to the conclusion that their AUGs were created, and began to build aircraft-carrying heavy cruisers to gain experience in construction and operation, before creating full-fledged strike aircraft carriers. Have at least the most beautiful anti-ship missiles, but they will not help you. The carrier-based AWACS aircraft from the aircraft carrier will be the first to discover you and give target designation to their attack aircraft and missile destroyers, cruisers and submarines from the aircraft carrier escort and guard group. And your ships will see a swarm of missiles flying at them only at the last moment, and to repulse such a blow is already impossible. This is a summary ... Read more - search and read by yourself. It is not difficult if there is interest to begin to understand the problem.
  14. dDYHA
    dDYHA 1 December 2017 07: 29
    +2
    Yes, the United States is well aware of what aircraft carriers are for. And no one in a major war with a strong enemy will ever put them under attack and will not bring them into battle until the means of counteracting them are practically destroyed. This is a pure demonstration of power in any region in essence to any government. It is our experts who put everything upside down and make a weapon of them, almost a miracle, and then destroy it on paper to smithereens. Honestly, kindergarten. And my brother is stronger and he will beat you, and my uncle is a champion in sofa karate.
    1. iouris
      iouris 1 December 2017 12: 45
      +3
      Quote: dDYHA
      The United States is well aware of what aircraft carriers are for.

      I would say the fleet in general. Our outdated ships look very impressive against the background of ships built using stealth technology.
  15. Antares
    Antares 2 December 2017 23: 47
    0
    and although everything happens in life, in the cinema Tu 22 even damaged an aircraft carrier

    nevertheless, it is recommended to look at everything in symbiosis. And not a separate aircraft carrier and attacking the 22, as in this film and article.
  16. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 6 December 2017 23: 12
    0
    A. Gorka - forgot about the project, which not only leveled the aircraft carriers, but also surpassed them in combat deployment and use, but which unfortunately did not go into industrial production, but remained design - “KM” (Caspian Monster).
    With proper funding and further development, this project is many times superior to aircraft carrier formations with their air group.
    When using several dissimilar (assault and landing) ships of this type in one combat formation, it allows solving strategic tasks of deep penetration.