Military Review

David and Goliath. Concepts of sea battle

126



The ship goes through the veil of vacuum. Ideas are born in its spherical flows. Bold guesses destroy stereotypes. For example, what if ...

What if the Nimitz all wing is loaded “to the eyeballs” with anti-ship missiles and takes off. Without any defensive weapons, only offensive weapons - PKR AGM-158C LRASM. Spherical vacuum promotes and even encourages such tactical madness.

How many rockets can planes make?

Answer: 40 fighter “Hornet” (the typical number of three fighter squadrons) will be able to carry on their last flight 80 anti-ship missiles.

A destroyer going abreast also carries no weaponsexcept LRASM. In this case, he will be able to fire a volley from 96 anti-ship missiles.

A very unexpected result, isn't it?

Local experts will find it incorrect (and even outrageous) to compare the strike potential of ships by the number of missiles in a volley. Where are the detection capabilities and launch lines for various carriers taken into account?

Where take into account the time required to ensure the take-off of three squadrons (many hours) and the efficiency of launch from the destroyer launchers. In theory, “Burke” is able to shoot your ammunition in a couple of minutes. In practice - a little longer.

These are the realities of the modern Navy. Ships of different classes use weapons with similar characteristics. And the range of the missiles (hundreds and thousands of kilometers) finally erases a clear distinction between carriers.



The hypothetical example of the number of CRPs is only terrible hint at what opportunities are hidden in the bowels of the missile destroyerEquipped with dozens of launch shafts and the latest generation combat control system.

This circumstance gives the right to talk about the comparison of the AB and the ten-fold smaller destroyer.

* * *

With the development of rocket weapons aviation lost one of the main "trump cards" - the use of ammunition of heavy weight.

David and Goliath. Concepts of sea battle

German SC.500 - weight and size analogue of combat units "Caliber" and "Tomahawka"


During the attack on Pearl Harbor primitive by today's standards, the bombers of “Nakajima B5N” (max. Take-off weight - 4 tons) attacked the enemy with 800-kg bombs! In fact, instead of bombs, 356-mm projectiles with welded-on stabilizers were used. Under normal conditions, an 356 mm caliber projectile required an 86 t artillery mass, of course, without taking into account the mass of actuators and ammunition systems. To handle such a bulky art. the system required the calculation of dozens of sailors. This is a weapon of battleships. Ships that have in the distribution of weight loads on weapons, more than 5 thousand tons were allocated.

The installation of guns of this caliber on ships with a standard displacement of less than 30 thousand tons was out of the question.

During the Great Patriotic War, not every ship could even fire 150-kg shells. This required guns with a caliber of at least 8 inches (203 mm), which were intended to arm heavy cruisers. The most modest of which (“Washingtonians”) had a standard displacement from 10 thousand tons.

What do we have today?

With a standard configuration of weapons, the Burke class destroyer is capable of having about fifty cruise missiles in combat readiness without compromising its defensive capabilities (medium-range and long-range 50-60 anti-aircraft missiles).

50 “tomahawks” or anti-ship LRASM equipped with 450-kg warhead.

This is the equivalent of the 460-kg Mk.83 aerial bombs containing 202 kg of tritonal. Being one of the main types of NATO air munitions, they are used as a CU for guided bombs with laser-guided bombs (GBU-16 “Paveway”) and bombs with GPS-guided GBU-32 JDAM.

In modern conditions, even such ammunition is considered redundant. The bulk of strike weapons are represented by 227-kg (500 pound) ammunition and Mavrik-type air-to-surface missiles. More modern designs are even smaller, for example, 119-kg planning SDB.


Combat air patrol over Afghanistan. On the pylons of the deck fighters there is a noticeable assortment of weapons, among which are “cast iron” with an integrated GPS kit (JDAM) and a laser-guided bomb.

By the power of high-precision weapons, ship-based equipment has long become equal to aircraft munitions and in some cases surpasses them.

As for the launch range, then yes, you are absolutely right. Compared to art. systems of the past observed 50-fold increase in firing range. At the same time, without loss in accuracy: the Calo and Tomahawks QUO is calculated in few meters.

Conventional “Ax” - 1600 km. In the same range is the launch range “Caliber”. That is comparable to the maximum combat radius of fighters.

The stated launch range of the anti-ship LRASM is 300 nautical miles (560 km). In this case, launching from a ship or aircraft will no longer have the catastrophic difference that was observed in the era of Yamato and the piston Corsairs.



500 km - a considerable distance. Being located in the central part of the Mediterranean Sea, you can shoot through such a rocket any area of ​​the water area from the coast of Africa to Europe, including the territory of Greece, Italy and Tunisia. There is hardly ever any practice of shooting at maximum range.

This idea has been repeatedly voiced by various sources. For punitive strikes with 200-300 units of high-precision weapons in order to disrupt the operation of the airbase / militant training camp / warehouse or re-evaluate the next king, the destroyer with guided missile is most effective.

Operational accuracy, surprise factor. No noise and “air parades” of dozens of aircraft. In the absence of the risk of loss of aircraft costing half the destroyer. In general, any risk to the attacking side.

Fit for this purpose a nuclear trough with the crew of 5000 people. and an honorary escort of ships, with the cost of providing combat missions, training pilots and the cost of the aircraft themselves ... It must be pretty. But it will be cheaper to shoot a blaster from an orbital station: pi-piu.

(225 - the number of dropped air bombs by AV Charles de Gaulle wing during Operation Odyssey.)

For serious combat work, the presence or absence of floating airfields does not matter. As practice has shown, in the event of a full-scale war with a country of the Iraq level (1991), dozens of air bases, thousands of aircraft and tens of thousands of sorties are required. If there is no place to put money, you can drive the top five “Nimitsev”. If there is no such option, no one will notice the difference.

AB value in a sea battle

I will not rewrite the beaten truths. A typical controversy on that topic looks like this: a destroyer always acts in proud loneliness. He makes desperate attempts to determine the location of the opponent's AUG. Decker aircraft, of course, are the first to detect the target and strike.

Gentlemen, this is fundamentally unfair. Why was the destroyer alone? Always and everywhere need an integrated approach. What are the options, except for the construction of "Nimitz"?

For example, for a small part of the savings, you can purchase an unmanned reconnaissance squadron.

Let the experts explain how the Global Hawk high-altitude UAV or the Triton maritime MQ-4C differ in their abilities from the deck of the AEW aircraft. Only by seeing Triton from kilometers above 18 more and farther than Hokey flying 9 kilometers?



According to the developer, during a single shift (30 hours), the scout explores the water area of ​​7 million square meters. kilometers - 3 times the area of ​​the Mediterranean Sea.

The equipment of the drone, in addition to the radar with AFAR, includes optical and IR cameras and means of electronic reconnaissance. It would be naive to believe that the enemy AUG, while in the Mediterranean or the South China Sea, will be able to avoid detection of such a drone for a long time.

The variant with the oncoming battle of AUG coming out of Los Angeles and the KUG coming out of Vladivostok is not considered somewhere in the central part of the completely deserted ocean, due to its absurdity.

When the battle begins. Modern 10 thousand ton destroyer, even when using part of the cells to accommodate defensive weapons, is capable of launching dozens of cruise missiles in one volley. Let's say more correctly: the number of RCC, comparable in number to the means of air attack of the strike group of carrier-based aviation.

In this righteous fire, everyone will burn. The aircraft carrier will finish the escort ships that survived. His opponent - the KUG of a pair of destroyers will repeat the feat of “Varyag” and “Korean”. Scout "Triton" will be shot down. “Hornets” from the combat air patrol will crash into the sea with empty tanks.

In principle, fair exchange.

* * *

Before starting the discussion I will try to answer the first question from readers. And “Nimitz”, and “Burke” and “Triton” - all the means available to one country. And what should we do?

In the framework of the debate “Who to be: rich and healthy or poor and sick?” The answer is quite obvious. I chose Burke and LRASM as an example in order to study naval weapons created on the basis of the most promising technologies.

I believe that the day will come, and some “Chameleon” UAV “MiG” will fly into the sky.

The main thing is not to waste money on the rapidly becoming outdated concept of “floating airfields”.

Author:
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. komvap
    komvap 6 December 2017 07: 36
    10
    Confusedly, but the general message is correct.
    Large ships, at the current level of technology, electronics and programming, are a waste of money.
    1. seos
      seos 6 December 2017 14: 27
      +3
      Oleg actually campaigns for destroyers in this article, BUT the essence of the article explains their inferiority ... Now in a naval battle, the main thing is to be the first to find the enemy, but there is always something to hit him with ...
      That’s why I’m campaigning for helicopter carriers who can detect a target that is not available to any destroyers and attack it ...
  2. demiurg
    demiurg 6 December 2017 07: 39
    11
    That the author Oleg is clear from the first lines. But why not a word about the reservation, and guns GK?
    But seriously, why is there no mention of submarines and YES?
    By the way, is the cost of one hornet departure for bombing barmalei with 2 tons of load and the cost of 4 SLCM comparable?
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 6 December 2017 08: 28
      0
      Incomparable and not in favor of the Kyrgyz Republic. And in general, there are all kinds of Iskanders.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 6 December 2017 08: 47
        +4
        Iskander en masse? belay
        If SLCM is expensive to fight, then OTR is simply prohibitively expensive.
      2. Santa Fe
        6 December 2017 09: 45
        +4
        Quote: demiurg
        By the way, is the cost of one hornet departure for bombing barmalei with 2 tons of load and the cost of 4 SLCM comparable?

        all weapons are worth the money

        variant with hornet - plane with rockets
        option with SLCM - all the same, but without an airplane
        _________ Example #1__________
        The Link-16 data link allows you to use the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet to transmit information about targeting to weapons. After this initial test, the navy is expected to undergo more extensive tests to ensure that the requirements of combat are fulfilled. With the new datalink weapons will be able to enter the safe exchange of military tactical data of the Navy, the transfer of mission data, target selection, movement of targets and other teams. The cost of JSOW-C1 is still unknown, but is considered to be significantly higher than the original JSOW, sold at a price of about 700 000 dollars apiece.

        _______________ Example #2_________

        Working with the French air force and French naval aviation, AASM is produced by a subsidiary of Safran Sagem DS. The weapon was first deployed in Afghanistan with the French Rafale in 2008. The AASM basic kit includes an INS / GPS guidance system designed for standard 250 kg bombs (500 lbs). The AASM family will eventually include 125, 500, and 1000 kg versions (250, 1000, and 2000 lbs.) The cost of the basic AASM will continue to be about 300 000 US dollars (200 000 euros).
      3. ZVO
        ZVO 6 December 2017 12: 11
        10
        Quote: EvilLion
        Incomparable and not in favor of the Kyrgyz Republic. And in general, there are all kinds of Iskanders.


        Iskander with a range of 300 or a maximum of 550 - do you consider it an important weapon?

        KR from Burke’s arsenal costs $ XNUMX million.

        The cost of an hour of Hornet is about 35 thousand dollars.
        But this is Hornet himself.
        When you find out the real cost of operating the Hornet under the conditions of operation of the aircraft carrier (i.e., you will not collect the price of one match, but the cost of a trip to the city for matches in newly purchased clothes for the city), it will turn out 10-15 times more. Hornet also needs an anti-ship missile. Which also costs a million, or even more.

        Same thing with Burke.
        And it turns out in the end so that the cost of:
        1. launch of the Kyrgyz Republic with a berk cost $ 2 million.
        2. launch of the Kyrgyz Republic from Hornet, based on an aircraft carrier - the same 2 million, or even 3 million dollars ...

        Something like this.
        Oleg correctly said about "spherical vacuums."
        The cost of one rocket cannot be considered.
        It is necessary to take into account the cost of the entire infrastructure that allows launching this rocket.!
        1. parma
          parma 6 December 2017 14: 39
          0
          And why doesn’t anyone ever take into account that with an equal range of missile launch from an aircraft and a ship (and by the way, it can be achieved with a smaller mass of air-based missiles), can an aircraft carrier be 200-300 km further?
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 6 December 2017 14: 56
            +7
            Quote: parma
            And why doesn’t anyone ever take into account that with an equal range of missile launch from an aircraft and a ship (and by the way, it can be achieved with a smaller mass of air-based missiles), can an aircraft carrier be 200-300 km further?


            Not even 200-300? but much more.
            The real combat radius of the F-18 with 2 Harpoons and 3 PTBs is almost 1000 kilometers.
            15 aircraft will be hung up with an air-to-air refueling system and PTB.
            They will ensure that the first strike aircraft hang in the air for a subsequent balanced and uniform strike by the formed strike group.
            I think that even the stubborn one will not doubt it because the catapult works "well."
            The presence of the F-18 suspension refueling system can increase the radius of the combat anti-ship group to 1300 km. Reducing the number of strike aircraft of the group.
            Reducing the flight altitude of a group of aircraft 200 km to a target to an altitude of 80-100 meters will give the Fort group a point of detection of about 50 km range.
            Accordingly, a "flock of harpoons" will be launched in advance, and even unnoticed by the defender.
            Reloading air defense at a time.
            And Peter will never cope with the 40-60 Harpoons that appeared at the same time, which he will find at a distance of 25-30 km ....

            Romario - don't listen. He is a fan of spherical vacuums.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 6 December 2017 23: 01
              0
              Quote: ZVO
              The real combat radius of the F-18 with 2 Harpoons and 3 PTBs is almost 1000 kilometers.
              15 aircraft will be hung up with an air-to-air refueling system and PTB.

              There are a few objections.
              Firstly, catapults, the take-off speed from them is not as fast as from the springboard, the first take-off pair will hang in the air, wasting fuel waiting for the next pair to take off, and the larger the group of planes, the smaller the flight radius.
              Secondly, we still have one aircraft carrier and the enemy will be met by some group of carrier-based aircraft, that is, part of the Hornets must be armed for air combat.
              Thirdly, you correctly said about harpoons, for there are no armaments at the moment.
              Fourth, the article does not take into account submarine missile carriers, the capabilities of Russian submarine anti-ship missiles are an order of magnitude higher than similar American ones.
              Quote: ZVO
              And Peter will never cope with the 40-60 Harpoons that appeared at the same time, which he will find at a distance of 25-30 km ....

              He will not be alone? Harpoons will be discovered much earlier.
              Quote: ZVO
              Accordingly, a "flock of harpoons" will be launched in advance, and even unnoticed by the defender.

              Harpoons do not know how to act in "swarms", a coordinated blow to the Americans is impossible to achieve physically.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 7 December 2017 11: 08
                +4
                Quote: KaPToC
                Firstly - catapults, the pace of take-off from them is not as fast as from a springboard

                The rate of take-off from the catapult is determined by the presence of vehicles on the flight deck and the rate of lift of aircraft from the hangar. EMNIP, Nimitz can lift 35 cars, which are standardly located at the software, in half an hour.
                The only difference between the catapult and the springboard is that on the catapult the plane is attached to the shuttle, and on the springboard to the stopping devices. And the time of the return of the shuttle of the catapult does not play a role - during this period of time, both the catapults and the springboard take off the plane from an adjacent starting position, so that the "used" starting position is temporarily blocked.
                Technical "rate of fire" of the catapult - 1 plane in 2 minutes.
                Quote: KaPToC
                Fourth, the article does not take into account submarine missile carriers, the capabilities of Russian submarine anti-ship missiles are an order of magnitude higher than similar American ones.

                How long? How many Russian submarines do we have? Zero. How many Russian ICAPL do we have? One.
                Quote: KaPToC
                He will not be alone? Harpoons will be discovered much earlier.

                Who! RLD ships? Hello. Sheffield
                And most importantly, to detect и hit - these are two different things. What is the use of seeing RCC on VIKO if there is no capture? What is the use of having a missile with a range of 250-400 km, if the TsU can be issued to her only at 25-35?
                Although there is no sense, long-range air defense systems do not allow the adversary to use the most advantageous flight profile and stupidly shoot anti-ship missiles from 60-80 km, from medium altitudes, with radar visibility of the target.

                By the way, to the old dispute “AB or basic aviation”: at the Air Base, they somehow laid out a piece from an old Yankee study on this issue:
                During the Vietnam War, a force assessment was carried out. necessary to replace one AB. It turned out that to ensure the same number of departures that 1 AB performs, 5 ground-based squadrons and 20 KC-135 tankers are required. The cost of ground infrastructure for these forces was estimated at $ 1 billion.
                During the raid on Tripoli, the equivalent of two ABs were 2 airbases with a capacity of 1 air wing each for attack vehicles and three more air bases for tankers. The cost of building and maintaining these bases was several times higher than the cost of an AB with an air wing. In addition, it suddenly turned out that the two airbases planned for the strike in Spain, for which the United States had been paying rent since WWII, were not available at the right time - the Spanish government refused permission to use them. The rent for these bases was equal to the cost of eight fully equipped ABs.
                1. igorka357
                  igorka357 8 December 2017 16: 04
                  0
                  Something is wrong with arithmetic, 35 planes in half an hour, with the technical ability of a catapult, 1 plane in 2 minutes, or you figuratively put it about 35 machines .. wink ? So, with the declared capabilities, in one of the exercises, in the presence of high ranks of the Navy .. Nimitz could not provide half of the declared flights, although the team was .. and the planes were on Fox .. On a piece of paper this is one thing, but in deed completely different!
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 6 December 2017 15: 01
          0
          And what for me decking? However, the Americans just take everything into account. And the question was not about the KR from the Hornet, but about a certain load. Well, the cost of this load compared to the cost of a penny missile.

          The range of 300 km, and especially 500 in many conflicts, is more than sufficient, the "caliber" is a strategic weapon.
  3. Serg65
    Serg65 6 December 2017 07: 58
    12
    What do we have today?

    laughing Today we have the Cold War escalating between supporters and opponents of aircraft carriers from a sluggish stage to a hotter one!
    And so gentlemen, Oleg against Andrei !!! bully We bet gentlemen!
  4. Serg65
    Serg65 6 December 2017 08: 15
    +6
    AB value in naval combat !!!
    When the battle begins. Modern 10 thousand ton destroyer, even when using part of the cells to accommodate defensive weapons, is capable of launching dozens of cruise missiles in one volley. Let's say more correctly: the number of RCC, comparable in number to the means of air attack of the strike group of carrier-based aviation.

    what As I understand it, Oleg, threw his beloved Zamvolt into the battle against AB, accompanied by Burkov? Oleg, with your permission, I’ll try to stop this booth! To disable an aircraft carrier, the missile launcher of your KUG must fly at least 700 km, while the commander of the KUG must contrive and catch the moment when the Hokai or X-47B are at a distant point in the radius of the patrol. Even to take into account that everything worked out for you and the AB burns with a blue flame, how will you get rid of those planes that managed to take off? After all, on your destroyers, according to your order, a minimum of defensive weapons!
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 6 December 2017 08: 28
      +4
      It won’t beat off, but unlike the Varyag, the result in the form of a blazing aircraft carrier will take place.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 6 December 2017 08: 32
        +6
        Quote: EvilLion
        but unlike the Varyag, the result in the form of a blazing aircraft carrier will take place.

        But will this result?
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 6 December 2017 15: 02
          0
          The chances are good, but there are a lot of things to burn on an aircraft carrier.
    2. Djusha
      Djusha 6 December 2017 08: 35
      +4
      those planes that managed to take off will drop excess cargo into the water and will try to reach the shore. I do not believe in mass heroism
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 6 December 2017 08: 39
        +5
        Quote: Djusha
        those planes that managed to take off will drop excess cargo into the water and will try to reach the shore.

        My friend, to which coast? The maximum that pilots can count on is the escort ships!
    3. netslave
      netslave 6 December 2017 08: 39
      +1
      After all, the author wrote:
      In this righteous fire all will burn

      The question is which is cheaper: lose 2-3 destroyers or 1 aircraft carrier.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 6 December 2017 08: 42
        +7
        Quote: netslave
        After all, the author wrote

        laughing Man, there are a lot of things written on the fences, too, out of curiosity, I looked at the fence - there’s a complete deception belay
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 6 December 2017 08: 44
          +6
          Quote: netslave
          The question is which is cheaper: lose 2-3 destroyers or 1 aircraft carrier.

          The question is whether the destroyers can fulfill the order or not.
          1. netslave
            netslave 6 December 2017 10: 39
            +2
            I wrote it myself - I answered it myself? laughing
            My friend, why do you equate Oleg’s work with the folk habit of painting fences?
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 6 December 2017 11: 09
              +5
              laughing Yes, because Kaptsov’s article is folk art!
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 6 December 2017 15: 03
        0
        And a hundred planes aboard an aircraft carrier.
  5. Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 6 December 2017 08: 34
    +3
    In fact, instead of bombs, 356 mm shells with welded stabilizers were used

    In preparing the article, this issue could be clarified - the Japanese used BR bombs created on the basis of the materially processed 410mm. projectile (the shape of the hull is changed and the volume of the cavity for explosives is increased).
  6. spech
    spech 6 December 2017 08: 42
    0
    To local experts, it would seem incorrect (and even outrageous) to compare the striking potential of ships by the number of missiles in a salvo.

    Now the "armored connoisseur" will put "local connoisseurs" in their place laughing
  7. 75 hammer
    75 hammer 6 December 2017 09: 04
    +2
    THANKS to the author for the analysis of possible situations! I repeat once again for a comprehensive analysis of very little data, it is not known what conditions will be at the time of the use of weapons (which weapons from the WMD series will be used or cyber weapons, EMP, etc.), and so it is possible to compare missiles and aviation, for what purpose, the development of all industries is necessary preferably without excesses! GENERALS are always preparing for past wars!
  8. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 6 December 2017 09: 25
    +4
    In this righteous fire, everyone will burn. The aircraft carrier will finish the escort ships that survived. His opponent - the KUG of a pair of destroyers will repeat the feat of “Varyag” and “Korean”. Scout "Triton" will be shot down. “Hornets” from the combat air patrol will crash into the sea with empty tanks.

    complete nonsense.
    RKR Ave. 1164 has 3 level of air defense and 3 type missiles: Wasp - 20 km, Fort -120 km and 250 km.
    Em Ave. 956 - 48 SAM 75 km. (9М317МД with AGSN)
    BOD Ave. 1155 by 64 ZUR Dagger
    KUG impact features:
    RKR Ave. 1164, Em 956, 2 - BOD 1155, 2 - SPARK 949A, BOARDS 971 - 84 RCC with a minimum distance of 500 km.
    All American subsonic SLCMs - Osa, Dagger, Hurricane will be quietly shot down
    All American anti-ship missiles have a range of 280 km, they will not even reach the line of attack since their carriers will be destroyed!
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 6 December 2017 09: 29
      +6
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      All American subsonic SLCMs - Osa, Dagger, Hurricane will be quietly shot down

      laughing Dear Romario, all this is correct, but according to Kaptsov’s scenario, we are attacking AV USA !!!
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 09: 52
      +6
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      RKR Ave. 1164 has 3 level of air defense and 3 type missiles: Wasp - 20 km, Fort -120 km and 250 km.

      Wrong. The fort has a range of 75 km, then the ship’s version of the OMS cannot give him target designation
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      All American subsonic SLCMs - Osa, Dagger, Hurricane will be quietly shot down

      Never consider the missile defense capabilities of ships on missiles :))) A missile attack is a process that happens very quickly. For example, a missile flying at a speed of 850 km / h will reach the cruiser in just over 2 minutes after leaving the radio horizon (for example, even 30 km). And during this time, the rocket must not only be detected, but also its parameters determined, target designation used, weapons used, and in life everything is much more complicated than even during testing. A simple example - the English "Sea Wolf" in the tests intercepted 114-mm shells in flight. But in life (near the Falkland Islands) often did not have time to use weapons to subsonic Skyhawk aircraft, although this is a much easier target.
      In general, proceed from the fact that modern RKR can intercept several missiles. The Americans believed that 7-8, but here, I think, we were not very flattered by either. When I spoke with experienced people who knew the capabilities of missiles and missile defense, let’s say, if a group of three ships is attacked by 12-16 harpoons, something will certainly reach the target.
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      All American anti-ship missiles have a range of 280 km

      + 700 km combat radius of carrier-based aviation :))) And yes, now the USA is putting LRASM into service - those with a range of up to 980 km
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 6 December 2017 10: 10
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The fort has a range of 75 km, then the ship’s version of the LMS cannot give him target designation

        Come on. What’s wrong with the LMS, what's next 75?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 10: 17
          +5
          Quote: Alex_59
          Come on. What’s wrong with the LMS, what's next 75?

          But I don’t know. But for 75 km we really got the only S-300FM standing on Peter the Great - that one has 93 km
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 6 December 2017 10: 36
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But beyond 75 km, we really got one single C-300FM standing on Peter the Great - that 93 km

            Where does this infa come from? Here everything is differently painted: http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/fort/fo
            rt.shtml
            1144 1 case - 75, 2 case -93, 3,4 case - up to 150.

            75-km is an early rocket 5В55, (it went to С-300ПТ) and then from the middle of 80-х went 48Н6 (С-300ПС). "SLA allowed ..." - this is primarily a question of the trajectory of the missile launch. From 75 to 93, growth was apparently still ensured by constructive changes in the hardware, i.e. the rocket itself. And from 93 to 150 - this is already a trajectory. Ballistic.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 10: 51
              +3
              Quote: Alex_59
              Where does this infa come from? Here everything is differently painted

              Let's read together :)))
              The Admiral Nakhimov cruiser (Project 1144.2, the third in the series) has an improved version of the S-300F complex with the 48N6 missile, unified with the S-300PM ground complex. Since the 48N6 missile is larger in size than the ZUP 5V55RM missile, the B-203A launcher was modified for it. The 48N6 missile has a maximum range of up to 150 km, but the control system that existed in 1993 allowed a range of only 93 km.

              THAT is what we see? We have an old woman 5V55 which was put on a cruiser, including the first 2 hulls of 1144, its range is 75 km. At the third TARKR, a modernized installation is installed, which allows the use of 48N6E, these have a range of 150 km, but due to the limitation of the LMS, only 93 km can be fought. But this is still the S-300F. And they put one S-300FM on Veliky, it turns out that it can beat up to 150. Total we have
              1164 - all 75 km
              1144 - the first two - 75 km
              1144 third - 93 km
              Peter - 93 km + 150 km
              So?
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 6 December 2017 11: 00
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                So?

                Well, apparently so. But with the first 1144 cases it is strange of course. Especially with the third. For the LMS there should differ only in software. Really not "reflash"?
                Apparently on this example, you can clearly see the principle of "residual" attention of the country's leadership to the Navy. Everything went off with great enthusiasm in the air defense forces, and before the collapse of the USSR, the Navy did not bother to introduce what air defense officers had become consumer goods by the end of the 80's.
          2. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 6 December 2017 11: 01
            +1
            you have some kind of primitive understanding,
            Fregat-MA naval surveillance radar (BPC 1155) provides target illumination up to 300 km.
            A radar of an air defense system gives a command center for example, as you have written up to 75 km
            and then the JMA comes into operation
            and accordingly AGSN SAM for example 9М96Е2
            the algorithm is
            having a control center from a Frigate-MA radar at a range of 150 km
            MSA launches missiles
            at a distance of 100 km from a missile launcher, an AGSN with a range of 25 km is included.
            target interception occurs
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 11: 22
              +8
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              you have some kind of primitive understanding,

              Never rush the words "primitive". Especially towards the person, "from the height of whose origin the difference between you and the king is completely invisible"
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              Fregat-MA naval surveillance radar (BPC 1155) provides target illumination up to 300 km.
              A radar of an air defense system gives a command center for example, as you have written up to 75 km

              Learn the concept of a "horizon". The radar range may be 100500 kilometers, but she will see a low-flying target at 25-30 km. Because the radar beam does not bend along the ground, and what the radar does not see beyond the horizon
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              at a distance of 100 km from a missile launcher, an AGSN with a range of 25 km is included.

              Please study the performance characteristics of the guns at least at the wikipedia level. S-300 has NO missiles with AGSN
              1. Romario_Argo
                Romario_Argo 6 December 2017 11: 45
                +1
                I repeat again
                AT Fort has SAM with AGSN 9М96Е2 with a range of 135 km.
                according to the radio horizon, in addition to the air defense system as part of the KMG from the 1164 air defense system, the 2 air defense system, the 1155, the 1 and the 956 are 5 helicopters
                and a minimum 1 Ka-27RC helicopter with a viewing range of 250 km and a horizon of 150 km.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 12: 10
                  +5
                  Quote: Romario_Argo
                  I repeat again

                  No need to repeat, need to learn the materiel
                  Quote: Romario_Argo
                  AT Fort has SAM with AGSN 9М96Е2 with a range of 135 km.

                  The Fort SAM does NOT have such a missile. Firstly, because this missile is not a Fort SAM, but a Poliment Redoubt SAM. And secondly, because this missile has not yet been adopted.
                  Quote: Romario_Argo
                  according to the radio horizon, in addition to the air defense system as part of the KMG from the 1164 air defense system, the 2 air defense system, the 1155, the 1 and the 956 are 5 helicopters

                  No helicopter is capable of targeting or guiding missiles.
                  Quote: Romario_Argo
                  and a minimum 1 Ka-27RC helicopter with a viewing range of 250 km and a horizon of 150 km.

                  For RCC ONLY.
                  1. Romario_Argo
                    Romario_Argo 6 December 2017 13: 13
                    0
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk

                    Well .... Well, there will be a surprise for mattresses ...
                    1. ZVO
                      ZVO 6 December 2017 14: 37
                      +3
                      Quote: Romario_Argo

                      Well .... Well, there will be a surprise for mattresses ...


                      He invented himself, he believed ...
                      I put surprises for everyone ...
                      Logic, bullshit ...
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 6 December 2017 10: 34
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        modern RRC can intercept several missiles. Americans believed that 7-8,

        hi Greetings Andrew!
        I'll fix you a little ...
        In the mid-90s, the Americans calculated the need for the number of Tomahawk anti-ship missiles to disable our ships and the required number of missiles in a salvo to complete this task.
        For RKR pr. 1164 "Glory" and BOD pr. 1134B "Nikolaev" (they have similar air defense) aboard 4 and 10 anti-ship missiles in a salvo ...... but these are purely American calculations. In KUG, there will most likely be 2 RRCs, 2 EMs and a pair of BOD + a couple of PLARK 949A from another direction.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        a missile must not only be detected, but its parameters must be determined, target designation calculated, and weapons used

        At the same time, based on the Soviet concept of the use of anti-ship missiles, missiles will fly from different directions and necessarily with a simultaneous exit from under the horizon, and this is not even the Falklands No.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 11: 41
          +2
          Quote: Serg65
          For RKR pr. 1164 "Glory" and BOD pr. 1134B "Nikolaev" (they have similar air defense) aboard 4 and 10 anti-ship missiles in a salvo .....

          I remember reading analytics (import) there on RKR gave more than on BOD. Somewhere on the computer lies infection ... I can not find repeat
        2. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 6 December 2017 12: 04
          0
          KRK Ave. 1164 has 16 anti-ship missiles and the Argon control system allows salvo firing with all missiles. Target designation over a distance of over 500 km is provided by the Korvet ICRC system complex, as well as information reception equipment from both Tu-95RC airplanes, and from Ka-27TS airborne helicopters, as well as Liana ICRC.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 12: 12
            +5
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            Target designation over a distance of more than 500 km is provided by the Korvet ICRC system complex, as well as information reception equipment from both Tu-95RTS airplanes, and from Ka-27TS airborne helicopters, as well as Liana ICRC.

            Corvette is a ship equipment for receiving data from space. Liana today has only two satellites operating at full capacity (and dozens of them are needed). Today, the Ka-27RC is basically incapable of approaching the AUG in combat conditions.
            1. Romario_Argo
              Romario_Argo 6 December 2017 13: 17
              0
              read an article on our site for 2012 year, so to speak learn materiel
              https://topwar.ru/21427-vertolet-drlo-ka-31.html
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 14: 08
                +3
                Where is there even a word about guidance missiles? :))) Do you know how many Ka-31 we have in service? 2 (TWO) pieces. And the article does not say that in the radiating mode the Ka-31 is practically unable to move (at first it stood still, now it seems like 40 kilometers in a straight line)
                1. Romario_Argo
                  Romario_Argo 6 December 2017 14: 17
                  +1
                  Where is there even a word about guidance missiles?

                  think primitively
                  data from a helicopter radar arrives at the ship’s ACS - this is enough
                  from the ACS through the LMS of the air defense system, the coordinates are entered into the SAM.
                  Do I need you to specify the exact gateways ???
                  (a gateway is a hardware router for interfacing computer networks)
                  and by the way, ICRC Liana is an 4 satellite and it is an 100% configuration.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 14: 35
                    +4
                    Quote: Romario_Argo
                    data from a helicopter radar arrives at the ship’s ACS - this is enough

                    hand face.
                    Never fantasize about weapons - learn materiel
                    1) A radar that is capable of directing missiles must meet certain criteria that the Ka-31 radar does not meet.
                    2) By this method, even in theory, it is only possible to direct missiles with AGSN of which the fleet does NOT.
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 6 December 2017 13: 15
            +4
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            The issuance of target designation over a distance of over 500 km is provided by the complex of the Corvette MKRC

            Well, at the expense of Corvette - 1143 is understandable, but will Liana in the near future be able to provide quality target designation?
            1. Romario_Argo
              Romario_Argo 6 December 2017 13: 56
              0
              Well, at the expense of Corvette - 1143 is understandable, but will Liana in the near future be able to provide quality target designation?

              ICRC Liana operates on all 100%, I already gave detailed comments on this topic in previous articles, as well as links to articles on our website!
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 14: 35
                +4
                Quote: Romario_Argo
                ICRC Liana operates at 100%,

                all two satellites, yes :)))
                1. The comment was deleted.
              2. ZVO
                ZVO 6 December 2017 15: 23
                +3
                Quote: Romario_Argo
                Well, at the expense of Corvette - 1143 is understandable, but will Liana in the near future be able to provide quality target designation?

                ICRC Liana operates on all 100%, I already gave detailed comments on this topic in previous articles, as well as links to articles on our website!


                Yes. look at these satellites in space already ...
                Head think later
                first
                https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=36095
                second
                https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=40358
                Take a look. with what order they fly.
                Once again.
                They do not give target designation to the final consumer. - ship, submarine, plane, etc.
                They give the coordinates of the targets only on the CCP.
                In the Moscow region.
                Transferring data from a data center to a carrier ship is not end-to-end.
                Requires a change in data format during transmission.
                The reaction time is several tens of minutes.
                By definition, there can be no real target designation in Liana ...
      3. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 6 December 2017 10: 43
        0
        Wrong. The fort has a range of 75 km

        RKR 1164, SAM Fort has several types of missiles, unified for ACS of this complex i.e. carrier.
        9М96Е2 4 missiles at 1 TPK, on ​​average 4 UVP at 8 TPK x 8 missiles = 128 missiles with a range of 120-135 km.
        other 4 UVPs along 8 missiles 5В55РМ = 32 missiles with a range of 75 km
        total BK SAM Fort: 160 SAM and 6 TsU
        2 BPCs 1155 have a common ammunition base on the air defense system Dagger 128 SAM with a range of up to 20 km target speed up to 700m / s. (2520 km / h) total 4 radar x 4 channel = 16 TSU
        1 EM 956 has a Hurricane SAM with BC = 48 SAM with a range of up to 75 km. up to 6 TSU
        Americans believed that 7-8

        Total 1 -1164, 2 -1155, 1- 956 = 28 TSU
        those. can simultaneously attack in the interval 3 seconds: 8 targets
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 December 2017 14: 50
          +4
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          9М96Е2 4 missiles at 1 TPK, on ​​average 4 UVP at 8 TPK x 8 missiles = 128 missiles with a range of 120-135 km.

          The S-300F does not have these missiles - they have only been declared for the long term.
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          other 4 UVPs along 8 missiles 5В55РМ = 32 missiles with a range of 75 km

          Fine. And now the question is - how can these missiles be fired at at targets beyond the radio horizon that the air defense radar does not see?
          And yes, do not forget that the S-300F radar works without a do-it-yourself in the 90-degree sector, and the nose nose is completely closed to it.
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          2 BPCs 1155 have a common ammunition base on the air defense system Dagger 128 SAM with a range of up to 20 km target speed up to 700m / s. (2520 km / h) total 4 radar x 4 channel = 16 TSU

          Or 1 radar (4 channels) per ship, and just the same does not work on the bow KU.
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          1 EM 956 has a Hurricane SAM with BC = 48 SAM with a range of up to 75 km. up to 6 TSU

          Again, provided that the dumb enemy goes to the target at medium or high altitudes. smile
    3. Alex_59
      Alex_59 6 December 2017 11: 59
      0
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      complete nonsense.

      The only reliable statement in the post))))
      Plus set - I liked it. )))
    4. 27091965
      27091965 6 December 2017 16: 48
      +1
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      All American anti-ship missiles have a range of 280 km, they will not even reach the line of attack since their carriers will be destroyed!


      Americans have long developed a doctrine for defense against cruise missiles at sea and on land. There is a concept " Active defensive operations", one of the points provides for a massive attack by cruise missiles of land and sea carriers of missiles. They believe that the enemy’s ships will, if not destroyed, suffer very severe damage and will not be able to carry a potential threat to the US Navy.
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 6 December 2017 17: 06
        +1
        I think that an armed conflict between the ships of the Russian Navy and the US Navy is possible
        BUT! very local and not long
        who will win?!
        the loss of the Kursk submarine so no one has clearly and not yet explained
        1. 27091965
          27091965 6 December 2017 17: 28
          0
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          I think that an armed conflict between the ships of the Russian Navy and the US Navy is possible
          BUT! very local and not long
          who will win?!


          Commentary was not related to naval combat, but to the possibility of air defense to repulse a massive strike. The Americans believe that with such an attack, they will not be able to intercept all the missiles and the main task is to get minimal damage.
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 09: 34
    +4
    Let the experts explain how the high-altitude Global Haw UAV or the MQ-4C Triton UAV differ in capabilities from the AWACS

    The fact that the UAV will be identified and destroyed long before it can detect someone. Alas, Oleg, UAVs can operate successfully only in the area of ​​dominance of his native aviation, or where there is no airborne threat at all
    1. Santa Fe
      6 December 2017 10: 38
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The UAV will be identified and destroyed long before it can detect someone.

      Will not be. He will not be able to get knocked down instantly, as soon as Triton gets close to an order for 500-600 km
      This is unlikely

      Many patrols will be required, otherwise who guarantees that the hockey will be in the direction of the UAV approach. The second point: from the discovery of a scout to destruction will take forever (by the standards of digital data processing and transmission technologies)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 11: 42
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        It will take a lot of patrols, otherwise who guarantees that the hokai will be in the direction of approach of the UAV

        The UAV scans in active mode. In this form, it will be copied even by electronic warfare, even by AWACS in the passive long before reaching a distance that allows you to identify an order
        1. Santa Fe
          6 December 2017 12: 09
          +2
          Yes, as the light beacons AB and destroyer radars shine, this will remain inconspicuous. The UAV is also equipped with an RTR intelligence complex.

          2. So they did not find out how to patrol patrols, to control 360 c. to shoot down anyone who approaches 500-600 km and do it immediately
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 12: 50
            +3
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Yes, how the AB drive beacons and destroyer radars shine

            No way. Drive - weak, and the destroyer will shine except in the RLD patrol
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The UAV is also equipped with an RTR reconnaissance complex.

            And the radar. But in its capabilities, this is far from Hokai
            Quote: Santa Fe
            They didn’t find out how many patrols were needed, to control 360 gr. to bring down all who approach 500-600 km and do it immediately

            One is in the direction of a potential threat. War is not a sphero-horse in a vacuum
            1. Santa Fe
              7 December 2017 00: 18
              +1
              I understood correctly: just supporters of AUG abandoned radar tools
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But according to its capabilities, this is far from Hokai.

              According to the descriptions, he has a decent radar
              AB sriset hundreds of miles

              How about thermal visibility
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              One - in the direction of a potential threat

              Against the apparatus, which operates with a range of tens of thousands of km

              No, Andryukha, according to the rules of the headquarters game - you have the length of the 3000 + km lines, ensure their protection
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 December 2017 08: 48
                +2
                Quote: Santa Fe
                I understood correctly: just supporters of AUG abandoned radar tools

                They abandoned them. Allah knows how much time ago :))) You simply do not know that the main form of intelligence is passive, and AWAC is pre-intelligence.
                Quote: Santa Fe
                According to the descriptions, he has a decent radar

                The radiation of which (as with any radar) is easy to copy long before the UAV sees something
                Quote: Santa Fe
                How about thermal visibility

                Thermal visibility WHAT? Do you imagine how many ships in the ocean? :)))
                Quote: Santa Fe
                No, Andryukha, according to the rules of the headquarters game - you have the length of the 3000 + km lines, ensure their protection

                So - the war of the Russian Federation against NATO has begun, the US AUS is operating off the coast of Norway. What 3000+ km are you planning to fly to? From a secret base in the Atlantic? From foggy Albion? Or, perhaps, through Norway, where all of the 100500 Sentries are illuminated? :)))) War, this is not a sphero-horse in a vacuum, AB is a part of the general armed forces and they act together
                And in the ocean ... in the ocean, against such an UAV there will be enough patrol directly above the aircraft carrier. He passively scribbles his radiation and within 15 minutes introduces the fighters
                1. Santa Fe
                  7 December 2017 10: 10
                  +1
                  the ships are silent - the radar of the aircraft is working.
                  No.2. RTR is a double-edged weapon. who will guarantee that the drone will not go into passive mode either

                  Among the unmasking factors in the IR:
                  for example, engines located on the deck of aircraft, in takeoff mode

                  And overheated steam catapult, and auxiliary SU for aircraft, and other thermal emissions 300-meter aerodrome.

                  How to distinguish AV from a tanker - in the declared DB 1000-mile zone. Most civilians will leave. If someone wanders by accident - there are 2 variants: a) a suspicious ship is being fired at, we do not have 5 missiles for the entire fleet as it was on Falklands; Maybe this is our goal

                  b) the tanker can be distinguished from AB by comparing studies in the thermal and radio wave ranges. AV: 300-meter hulk, radiating in the heat, but even without navigation radar, agree, it looks suspicious

                  3000 + km is the circumference. You set yourself the task - instantly knock down any object that approached the order for 500 km. Here I am interested in how many patrols are required.

                  Direction of a potential threat - any direction, the drone has no limitations on the flight range (within the limits of the situation we are discussing)
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 7 December 2017 11: 12
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  They abandoned them. Allah knows how much time ago :))) You simply do not know that the main form of intelligence is passive, and AWAC is pre-intelligence.

                  Yeah ... back in the shaggy 80s they wrote that the standard outfit of AWACS forces was Hokai + Proler. This RL / RTR-watch works away from the AUG, while the Hokai sits quietly, like a mouse under a broom, working with passive means and conducts a single circular search only once every few minutes.
                  Like a Christmas tree, it begins to glow only if the enemy has detected AUG - then there is no point in playing silence.
    2. Santa Fe
      6 December 2017 11: 01
      +1
      Wait, another 10-20 years will pass, the bpla will be able to break in and the Hornet and Hockey))
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 6 December 2017 19: 46
        0
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Wait, another 10-20 years will pass, the bpla will be able to break in and the Hornet and Hockey))

        From the side of the AUG in 20 years there will also be UAVs, but at the moment with a speed of 600 km / h and low maneuverability, they have no chance against the Hornets
    3. ZVO
      ZVO 6 December 2017 12: 42
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

      The fact that the UAV will be identified and destroyed long before it can detect someone. Alas, Oleg, UAVs can operate successfully only in the area of ​​dominance of his native aviation, or where there is no airborne threat at all


      Not sure.
      An excellent radar stands on Triton. 200 miles however.
      Excellent means of RTR, radiation detection, jamming.
      I do not think that such a device is naked and completely defenseless.
      I think they always have time for maneuvers.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2017 16: 05
        +2
        Quote: ZVO
        An excellent radar stands on Triton. 200 miles however.

        No matter how powerful the radar, during its work it has an agro-mining zone where its signal hits, but is too weak to return. This is the global minus of any radar - a passive scout will calculate it long before the radar approaches it at a detection range.
  10. Alex_59
    Alex_59 6 December 2017 10: 08
    +7
    Carriers for the United States are not outdated and do not expire even once. The basis of all the calculations is one basic mistake - the experience of the past. Everyone thinks that the war will be about the same as WWII, only modern toys. But this is not so. There will be no tank hordes, there will be no Pearl Harbor. Nobody will attack Russia so stupidly and primitively openly, and even less so they will attack the USA. Everything is much thinner and more elegant. Because just to take and kill all Russians (or Americans) - there is no such purpose. There is a goal to squeeze the opponent’s sphere of influence, regions in which you can steer markets and exhausting useful resources. Because of this, no one wants to turn to ashes.
    Aircraft carriers and destroyers will bite around the edges, fighting not with the strong and still capable of causing "unacceptable damage" to the Russian army. They will trample on our allies and those who dare to enter into close and mutually beneficial economic relations with us. Only a blind man does not see this, as our sales markets and spheres squeeze out influence - and no tank hordes, no sea battles (Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Georgia, Libya, Syria). Not everywhere is successful. But the methods are visible. These mini-wars merge into one permanent hybrid war and resemble the shooting and beating of the weak. Someone listed could drown an aircraft carrier? And there the aircraft carriers play a significant role. Not the main thing, and not always. But it may be necessary to overcome not only mainland Ukraine or Georgia, where aircraft carriers are not needed at all. And, for example, if you play in a "friendship with Putin" - the Philippines, or some other island state. After all, the role of aviation is not limited to ground strikes. And there are not always goals for the Kyrgyz Republic. If this is a gang of Basmachi in the jungle - then you can’t help with the strike of the Kyrgyz Republic. Aircraft are flexible weapons - here are reconnaissance, air defense and maneuver and change of target after launch, and attack of small mobile targets. The role of aircraft carriers is declining, but they are not outdated. At least for the USA. The Russian Federation and without AB have tasks on land borders.
    1. Santa Fe
      6 December 2017 10: 44
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      If it's a gang of basmachs in the jungle

      It is necessary to send an aircraft carrier

      If Madur is worried about a gang in the jungle, let him buy a link from Tsesna Kombat Caravan
      Quote: Alex_59
      Aviation is a flexible weapon - here both reconnaissance, and air defense, and a maneuver and a change of target after launch, and an attack of small mobile targets.

      No one denies the importance of the Air Force.
      But why should the fleet climb into the jungle?)
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 6 December 2017 10: 54
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        But why should the fleet climb into the jungle?)

        I do not know. Ask your sailors what they have been looking for so long in the jungle from 1965 to 1973. Apparently there was something to do.
        Quote: Santa Fe
        It is necessary to send an aircraft carrier

        Yes, you can not send anyone at all. But sending flying robots for the Stone Age Basmachi also looks somewhat funny. Just not so epic. But essentially the same thing.
        1. Santa Fe
          6 December 2017 11: 05
          +2
          Quote: Alex_59
          Ask your sailors, why are they in the jungle from 1965 to 1973 looking for so long

          Sailors were not there. There were soldiers. and in the air - the Air Force

          if you're talking about AV - they were there for a dancer, as usual
          Quote: Alex_59
          But sending flying robots to the stone age basmachs also looks somewhat funny.

          what robots
          If Madur is worried about a gang in the jungle, let him buy a link from Tsesna Kombat Caravan
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 6 December 2017 11: 47
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            if you're talking about AV - they were there for a dancer, as usual

            Youthful maximalism is charming. ))))))))
            Well, yes, at the dance, approx. Soloist maestro McCain. ))))
            1. Santa Fe
              6 December 2017 12: 03
              +2
              Rationalism

              Soloist - F-105 thunderchief, why you pulled out McCain did not understand, or seriously think that the example with a make-up will impress me. No, deck av. the role did not play there

              For Vietnam, the war of Vietnam was the hour of truth. It was F-105, not the overly popular Phantoms and B-52, that were the main striking force in the early years of the war (75% of all strike missions). Later, they excelled. when they were replaced by their successors - the "Phantoms" and the bombers of the new generation F-111.


              They flew the most, they trusted the most dangerous missions and the attack of the most protected objects. The main tank farm in the suburbs of Hanoi, the metallurgical plant in Taynguyen, the railway bridge across the Red River on the border with China, the Katbi airfield where the helicopters delivered from the USSR were assembled, the main "MiGs lair" - Fukyen airbase
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 6 December 2017 12: 20
                0
                Quote: Santa Fe
                I don’t understand why you pulled out McCain, or do you seriously think that the example with Macain will impress me.

                Well, apparently impressed, so many beeches in response scribbled))) Although I did not try, you are not a young lady, why should I impress you? )))
                Quote: Santa Fe
                No, deck av. didn’t play a role there
                Yes, if so philosophical approach to the issue, then in general there the whole American army did not play any role. ))))
          2. seos
            seos 6 December 2017 14: 40
            0
            The gang in the jungle has patrons ....
      2. VlK
        VlK 6 December 2017 13: 41
        0
        Quote: Santa Fe
        No one denies the importance of the Air Force.
        But why should the fleet climb into the jungle?)

        But he won’t climb - he simply blocks access by sea and by air - and with our help we won’t be able to get there on time or at all. And the earth is full of such countries, but almost all without a land border with us.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 6 December 2017 11: 06
      +5
      hi Welcome Alex!
      Quote: Alex_59
      There will be no tank hordes, there will be no Pearl Harbor

      laughing Well, let a person play war games that you have the right word!
      Quote: Alex_59
      Not everywhere is successful. But the methods are visible

      And here I very much agree with you! After all, in the USA, they are not fools at the helm and they do not need a big war. Moreover, having successfully tested their main weapon - the dolar, they have already put into practice the concept of its use! Here, many talk about a new weapon of the future, but somehow they did not turn to a really new US weapon called Betcoin, and this is insurance of the dollar system!
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 6 December 2017 11: 48
        0
        Quote: Serg65
        Betcoin, but this is insurance for the dollar system!

        I do not rummage. )))) May be.
    3. a.sirin
      a.sirin 6 December 2017 14: 03
      +1
      You understand the question. +
    4. KKND
      KKND 6 December 2017 16: 12
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      The basis of all the calculations is one basic mistake - the experience of the past.

      Hurray, the future has come, there will not be big wars in it !!!! 1111 Darwin would be very surprised.
      Quote: Alex_59
      Because just to take and kill all Russians (or Americans) - there is no such purpose.

      Natural selection, no, not heard?
      Quote: Alex_59
      These mini-wars merge into one permanent hybrid war and resemble the shooting and beating of the weak.

      This is so they will be at war with us for 1000 years. The poor are tormented.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 6 December 2017 19: 22
        +2
        Quote: KKND
        Hurray, the future has come, there will not be big wars in it!

        The future has come, yes. Only the conclusion is wrong - a big war is on. Right now, while we are knocking on keyboards. The form and methods of this "big war" just changed. Instead of one massive banazai attack on the forehead, point operations are now being carried out all over the globe. Right now, at the moment there are fights in Syria, in Ukraine, in Yemen, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, Iraq. Temporary lull and stabilization of the front in Abkhazia, Korea. If you consider all the listed theaters of operations to be unconnected by a single plan, then you are a victim of distracting enemy activities.
        Quote: KKND
        Natural selection, no, not heard?

        I heard that this is not the goal, this is the consequences. The goal is for the Russians to have nothing to eat and they would degrade and scatter themselves from envy to Western comfort. To do this, you do not need to substitute for the bullets and shells of these Russians (you can get injuries, ruin your hair, manicure). It is better to send Ukrainians, Georgians, Arabs. On other fronts - propaganda, economic strangulation (sanctions), moral suppression (removal from the Olympic Games). The USSR has already collapsed. The scheme is the same.
        1. KKND
          KKND 6 December 2017 20: 31
          +1
          Everything is so, only a banzai can come without an intention. Simple natural selection. Well, 300-500 million will die, for the species it is not fatal, but on the contrary it will only benefit.
          Quote: Alex_59
          The goal is for the Russians to have nothing to eat and they would degrade and scatter themselves from envy to Western comfort.

          The goal of the Russians is for the banker in the USA or Switzerland, not only to eat the truffle, but to think about how to save the “soft” place. laughing
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. BAI
    BAI 6 December 2017 11: 16
    +1
    For some reason, it seems to me that nuclear weapons will be used against the aircraft carriers and will go to the entire group at once. One (and even two) missile with a conventional charge does not sink it.
  13. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 6 December 2017 11: 19
    +1
    "40 Hornet fighters (typical number of three fighter squadrons)
    will be able to carry in their last flight 80 anti-ship missiles "////

    Why the last? Hornets try not to approach enemy ships
    at a dangerous distance for contact with their air defense. Launch CR with maximum effective
    distance, keeping low at sea. Moreover, specialized directors fly in front of them
    interference for air defense / missile defense - Hornets-Grolers (there are one-third of them on each aircraft carrier).
    They shot back ... and back to the aircraft carrier - for the next batch of missiles.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 6 December 2017 19: 36
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Why the last?

      The author indicated that they will have nowhere to land.
  14. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 6 December 2017 12: 32
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "40 Hornet fighters (typical number of three fighter squadrons)
    will be able to carry in their last flight 80 anti-ship missiles "////

    Why the last? Hornets try not to approach enemy ships
    at a dangerous distance for contact with their air defense. Launch CR with maximum effective
    distance, keeping low at sea. Moreover, specialized directors fly in front of them
    interference for air defense / missile defense - Hornets-Grolers (there are one-third of them on each aircraft carrier).
    They shot back ... and back to the aircraft carrier - for the next batch of missiles.

    And if the aircraft carrier is already gone? Of course you can land on an air base on land, but then why do you need an aircraft carrier?
  15. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 6 December 2017 13: 19
    +1
    During the attack on Pearl Harbor, primitive by today's standards, Nakajima B5N bombers (max take-off weight - 4 tons) attacked the enemy with 800-kg air bombs! In fact, instead of bombs, 356 mm shells with welded stabilizers were used.

    Kaptsov such Kaptsov.
    800-kg armor-piercing aerial bomb arr. 99 mod. 5 was made of armor-piercing artillery shell 41-cm arr. 3 / arr. 5 for guns 41 cm / 45 arr. 3 -

    The ballistic (1) and armor-piercing (2) tips, as well as leading belts (6), were dismantled at the shell. The cylindrical part of the projectile, which did not affect armor penetration, was turned on a cone (5) to reduce the weight of the bomb to the B5N acceptable for the Nakajima carrier-based strike aircraft. The internal cavity (4) was increased, which also reduced the weight, significantly increased the explosive charge, and in addition, an aluminum damper (3) was installed there, following the model of new Japanese armor-piercing shells, which reduces shock loads on the explosive charge. A new screw bottom (7) was also made for two fuses (8) of an aircraft type and with a protrusion for attaching the stabilizer block. Plus, the stabilizer block itself (9), which was probably the simplest in this whole conversion. The result was a completely independent new ammunition, for which the original artillery shell served as nothing more than a blank with suitable dimensions and strength characteristics.
    © midnike
  16. antivirus
    antivirus 6 December 2017 13: 52
    +2
    read everything
    to say the least eccentrics
    all
    a donkey with a bag of gold will solve most issues before any salvo
    this is the difference between arithmetic (km. radius and etc.) from the tower (probability) + marketing (psychology)
    donkeys always go for carrots
    sometimes the bags are returned without spilling gold.
    only sometimes
  17. tchoni
    tchoni 6 December 2017 16: 25
    +2
    Kaptsov, as always shocking! -)))
    Let the experts explain how the high-altitude Global Haw UAV or the MQ-4C Triton UAV differ in capabilities from the DRLO deck aircraft.
    They differ as a means for conceiving children from a means of manipulating a spoon)))
    DLRO has a circular overview and the ability to map the terrain and the possibility of additional exploration of individual sites. Hawk - only intelligence along the flight path. Hawk does not scout aerial targets. It costs almost like a hokai.
    Well I told you - write links)))
  18. groks
    groks 6 December 2017 16: 43
    +1
    The general premise is fraudulent. We do not have aircraft carriers, but there are no missile destroyers. Buzzards have a small number of not the newest anti-ship missiles. UAVs like Triton do not launch from destroyers. Yes, we seem to have no such UAVs. Good - they will. We will launch them from the coast - airfields will be under the gun of the American nuclear submarines.
    Aircraft carriers are used, as shown by the rich experience of the USA, not for the oncoming battle with other ships. And their destroyers are not quite for this. Bombs, even adjustable ones, are incomparably cheaper than the Kyrgyz Republic.
    The small ships that we are currently building can be used with great difficulty in the open ocean. For an effective ATG attack by them, it is necessary to collect a dozen of them in order to exceed the capabilities of the AUG air defense. And this squadron will probably be a one-time ....
    About old artillery ships. There was such a good phrase that, unlike any missiles, shells are not affected by electronic warfare. In general, they are not affected in any way, where they released, they will fly there. For modern ships from ... tin, even one hit of a "suitcase" will be a sentence. But WWII battleships showed monstrous stability. But this is so, by the way.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 December 2017 17: 34
      0
      Quote: groks
      About old artillery ships. There was such a good phrase that, unlike any missiles, shells are not affected by electronic warfare.

      The phrase, of course, is biting - but incorrect since the time of entering artillery radar in the SuAO. For where the projectile flies is decided by the SUAO. And it provides data for firing, based on data including from the radar of the UAO. Barrage interference - and you have to switch to optics, losing in range and accuracy. The leading interference is even worse, the SUAO begins to prepare data on the basis of incorrect initial data.
      Quote: groks
      But WWII battleships showed monstrous stability.

      To unguided weapons - yes. But against even a primitive URO - not so much. LC "Roma" was enough for only two UAB.
      1. groks
        groks 6 December 2017 18: 43
        0
        I do not absolutize. But. You can dream up. After all, no one will forbid LC to use modern guidance tools - space, UAVs. And if all this is brought down and drowned out in the conditions of a global war, then the LC will have at least some means of guidance, the rest will be completely blinded. A large number of aircraft from the AUG will very much help out.
        In the case of “Roma”, the point is probably not the possibility of guidance. He survived the previous 4 hits. They also hit. “Fritz” consisted of such a quantity of steel, which in mass is higher than the starting mass of “Onyx” one and a half times! This is more than GBU-28, which can penetrate 7m of concrete and then fly another XNUMX km.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 December 2017 10: 00
          +1
          Quote: groks
          In the case of the "Roma", it's probably not the possibility of targeting. Previously, the 4 hits he endured.

          ??
          1. Santa Fe
            7 December 2017 10: 19
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In the case of the "Roma", it's probably not the possibility of targeting. Previously, the 4 hits he endured.

            Well, not in Roma, other LCs got

            I counted 9 cases when large-caliber BB bombs dropped from high altitude against battleships (including 2 x 907 kg unguided, accidentally caught in Littorio).

            The result - only 1 ship sunk. And only from the second attempt
            And, under unclear circumstances - according to eyewitnesses, the explosion after the hit of the 2 Fritz also did not happen immediately. The question is whether the Italian sailors fought with fire or did the demoralized crew abandon everything and run away from the burning MO, the war for them had already ended the day before
          2. groks
            groks 7 December 2017 13: 41
            0
            ??

            5 and 23 allies planted two bombs. but they were ordinary plain (however!) and could not ditch the ship.
  19. Fedorovich
    Fedorovich 6 December 2017 16: 56
    0
    The author should contact a narcological clinic.
  20. uskrabut
    uskrabut 6 December 2017 17: 17
    0
    You can even do without destroyers. On a conventional container ship, you can also carry CD in container launchers.
  21. Operator
    Operator 6 December 2017 18: 28
    0
    The author made a fundamental mistake: the combat radius of the ACG ~ 2000 km (RNUMX km of aircraft + 1000 km RCC), the combat radius of the ACG ~ 1000 km (RCC). Therefore, the first enemy will always beat the second (with equal opportunities for external target designation).

    The situation is completely different in the situation of ACG against nuclear submarines: the first enemy has a combat radius of ~ 0 km (no external target designation means), the second ~ 1000 km (there are external target designation in the form of satellites and radio reconnaissance UAVs).
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 December 2017 19: 51
      0
      Quote: Operator
      The author made a fundamental mistake: the combat radius of the AOG ~ 2000 km (1000 km airplane + 1000 km of ASR), the combat radius of the ASG ~ 1000 km (ASR).

      Here you need to look at the download. EMNIP, in the 80s, the standard strike scheme at a distance of 600 miles included two “Harpoons” on a carrier + tankers in the air.
      Quote: Operator
      A completely different situation in the situation of the AUG against the nuclear submarines: the first enemy has a combat radius of ~ 0 km (there are no means of external target designation)

      You are mistaken. "Viking" was removed from the decks only because the Soviet Navy and its submarine fleet died. The airborne anti-aircraft missile defense systems AB simply did not have any opponents - the basic anti-aircraft missile defense and the "moose" coped with the scumbags of former power.
      As soon as the number of our submarines reaches the threatened value, the Viking “10” “on board” and anti-submarine-strike wings will immediately return.
      Quote: Operator
      (there are means of external target designation in the form of satellites and UAVs of electronic intelligence

      And how will the RTR UAV transmit data? By radio channel? Type blink a flashlight in a dark room and hope no one sees this? wink
      Pomnitsa, on the Bigler, very tasty described how, in 1986, Slava spotted negotiations with the VHF aircraft and the exchange of data between AUG ships, when the RKR was near Sicily, and the AUG that had not been seen by anyone left Suez.
      1. Operator
        Operator 6 December 2017 20: 20
        0
        What will the 10 Viking deckers in the 3 million square kilometers area be able to do round-the-clock against the strike submarine operating at 5 knots?

        On the good old radio channel: UAV (with directional antenna) - satellite - nuclear submarines.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 7 December 2017 05: 17
          +1
          We didn’t and don’t have a "good old radio channel" dron-satellite-apl
          1. Operator
            Operator 7 December 2017 09: 03
            0
            Quote: Tlauicol
            We didn’t and don’t have a "good old radio channel" dron-satellite-apl

            You do not have.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 December 2017 10: 00
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              You do not have.

              You also do not, but it seems to you that is.
              Oh, you do not protect yourself :)))
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 7 December 2017 11: 59
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And how will the RTR UAV transmit data? By radio channel? Like, blink a flashlight in a dark room and hope that no one sees this?

        You can do that no one will see. No problem. It depends on the radiation pattern of the antenna that will form this stream. You can form a narrow beam, if you know exactly where to shine, outsiders will not be able to wedge into it. Secondary waves reflected from the terrain will not be enough to read the information from somewhere far away from the line of exchange. And the flashlight example is also not fully developed. You can make the flashlight such a directional diffuser that the observer standing on the side of the light will not see. You don’t see the laser thread, unless you stand next to its source or to the place where it shines.
        1. Operator
          Operator 7 December 2017 21: 42
          0
          Already done - "Messenger-M".
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 8 December 2017 08: 23
            0
            Quote: Operator
            Already done - "Messenger-M".

            I do not understand where does the messenger. There are thousands of such antennas and communication systems in the worlds. And a messenger, and a reaper, and a playman on a pipe.
            1. Operator
              Operator 8 December 2017 08: 29
              0
              The messenger-M - in the sense that for us it is no longer “possible”, but “is”.

              This is the answer to Chelyabinsk thlaucols.
  22. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 6 December 2017 19: 33
    0
    Let the experts explain how the Global Hawk high-altitude UAV or the Triton maritime MQ-4C differ in their abilities from the deck of the AEW aircraft. Only by seeing Triton from kilometers above 18 more and farther than Hokey flying 9 kilometers?

    The main thing is that Hokai will definitely see UAVs, but UAVs do not have an escort in the form of a Hornet that will quickly get rid of UAVs, AUG will change course, security will be on high alert, Hokai will scour search for KUG and find it, then there are several options for AUG and all of KUG not so easy.
    By the mid-70s, Soviet long-range missile carriers could confidently hit a target, such as an aircraft carrier, without entering the fighter's coverage area. The Hokai-Tomcat bundle was tasked with shooting down not the carriers, such as the Tu-22M, but the missiles themselves, and this task was completely solvable, which they could not believe in the USSR for a long time. And when they believed it, they had to make a new generation of missiles capable of breaking through the sharply increased air defense of an aircraft carrier warrant. Fortunately, it was not possible to verify who won this duel of minds, the USSR or the USA, in practice.
  23. Eflintuk
    Eflintuk 6 December 2017 20: 24
    +1
    The US Navy simply has no one to conduct naval battles with, so it turned out to be an exciting fantasy. And aircraft carriers as a floating base and the core of the fleet will not go anywhere, for an island nation - an irreplaceable thing. It’s somehow uninteresting to consider hopping our entire fleet against one AUG (30 or 40 minutes), so it’s clear that the task of these suicide bombers 1164, 1144, 956 in time to release as many anti-ship missiles as possible (to discuss the condition of these ships and their armaments will be too much) )
  24. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 6 December 2017 21: 23
    0
    the author forgot about the submarines, and forgot that the destroyer itself is also a target
  25. 3danimal
    3danimal 7 December 2017 04: 19
    +2
    Quote: Alex_59
    not a goal, it's consequences. The goal is for the Russians to have nothing to eat and they would degrade and scatter themselves from envy to Western comfort.

    Have you ever thought that in terms of worsening living standards, our government and local officials will give 100 points ahead of the "State Department"? And the exported (by them, including) $ 2 trillion (to the west, where the children of most of them live) could go for development, jobs and repair of worn-out infrastructure? A law passed this year (surprisingly fast), exempting from the payment of taxes affected by the sanctions of the oligarchs?
    And the paid propagandists, like Zhenya Fedorov, explain to the naive masses that the State Department spoils the roads, does not pay / does not increase houses and salaries.
    Do not be among the naive;)
    1. Santa Fe
      7 December 2017 04: 31
      +6
      Russia has only two ally - the Army and Navy

      And two enemies - the people and the government
      1. Operator
        Operator 7 December 2017 09: 05
        +1
        Speak for yourself - the “God-chosen” people and their representatives in the government.
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 7 December 2017 12: 05
      +2
      Quote: 3danimal
      Do not be among the naive;)

      Thanks. Good advice.
      As a person who has already lived and seen, I am firmly convinced that life is the result of many different vectors. This is the deliberate impact of opponents (the Americans really do us dirty tricks), and their own sloppiness, and deliberate wrecking. And at all levels. And officials, and ordinary people. These negative vectors, in turn, are somehow and somewhere compensated by positive vectors. Namely, the industriousness of some of our officials and ordinary people, as well as sloppiness in the American administration (and it also exists there, moreover, on a scale comparable to our own).
      So this is not Masonic sabotage. This is a banal life.
  26. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 8 December 2017 02: 45
    0
    Fine! And rightly so.
  27. 3danimal
    3danimal 9 December 2017 14: 57
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    This is the deliberate impact of opponents (the Americans really do us dirty tricks), and their own sloppiness, and deliberate wrecking. And at all levels. And officials, and ordinary people.

    Here is an example: the Americans are going to apply their legislation against money laundering for a large number of officials and oligarchs who exported ~ 1 trillion to the United States. $ and block it. (A separate topic about the fact that this is a robbery of the millennium)
    What will the government and the thought do? Introduce new taxes and requisitions, reducing even more the standard of living of the already poor majority of the population. Perhaps they will try to start a "small victorious war" in order to divert the attention of the discontented. There are many options, but all of them will not be in the interests of the people.
    Today, I am afraid, the greatest danger comes from within the country, from the exorbitantly drunken class of bureaucracy (right up to the very top), already dreaming of a new monarchy in some places.
  28. Usher
    Usher 9 December 2017 15: 56
    0
    In short, we need light aircraft-carrying ships. With drones on board + anti-submarine and landing helicopters + universal cells on board the ship.
  29. Phoenix_L'vov
    Phoenix_L'vov 10 December 2017 15: 54
    0
    What article Kaptsov wrote, I guessed right after reading the second paragraph ...
  30. dog of war
    dog of war April 10 2018 14: 29
    0
    So there is a big difference between the Hokai and the Triton, the DRLO aircraft has a much greater capability of reconnaissance and target designation, not to mention that the deck fighters will simply intercept the “helpless” drone.