Military Review

Russia against NATO. So what are US aircraft carriers for?

330
Having considered various options for the development of events, we come to the following possible types of conflicts between NATO and the Russian Federation:


Global nuclear missile - a conflict that begins with the full use of strategic nuclear forces by both sides. Regardless of whether such a conflict is sudden (say, as a result of an error in the warning systems of a nuclear attack) or preceded by a certain period of aggravation of relations, the United States, the Russian Federation and Europe will retain a certain military potential after the use of strategic nuclear forces and will be able to conduct ground-based and air battles, including with the use of tactical nuclear weapons. This is due to the fact that today's first-strike forces (of the order of 1500-1600 warheads for each side plus some amount of deployed nuclear weapons Britain and France will not have enough to completely destroy the economic and military potential of their opponents.

In such a conflict, the usefulness of U.S. aircraft carriers is not in direct participation in hostilities, but in the ability to remove a significant amount of deck from a strategic nuclear force aviation (we are talking about hundreds of aircraft), which, upon arrival in Europe, may turn out to be the decisive argument in the post-apocalyptic confrontation. In this case, aircraft carriers will turn into air transport and repair shops, but if it is in this form that they can contribute to winning the war - why not?



The second type of conflict is non-nuclear. It will begin with the use of conventional weapons, but it can be argued that any full-scale non-nuclear conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO, during which the parties will not find a diplomatic solution, with probability 99,99% will develop into a global nuclear missile.

This leads to the fact that such scenarios, such as, for example, a large-scale non-nuclear invasion of the Russian Federation with the aim of destroying its statehood (or vice versa, the “excursion” of the Russian Federation armed forces to the English Channel) cannot be undertaken due to the absence of any reasonable goal. If such an attempt is not reflected by conventional armaments, then nuclear will be used, and the invaders will suffer damage, putting the nation on the verge of destruction and multiply surpassing any possible benefits from the war. Consequently, the conscious unleashing of such a conflict is completely pointless for any of the parties.

Nevertheless, it is impossible to completely abandon the occurrence of a non-nuclear conflict. One of the possible scenarios is a clash between the armed forces of one of the members of NATO and the Russian Federation in “hot spots” like Syria, followed by escalation.

Here it is necessary to take into account the following: although human civilization will survive in the event of a global nuclear conflict, it will face so many negative consequences that it will be extremely difficult to “clear up”. No country that has entered into a nuclear war can count on a better prewar world — it will be many times worse for it. Accordingly, it can be expected that in the event of a non-nuclear conflict, the parties to it will postpone the use of nuclear weapons until the last, and use them only if it will be impossible to defend their interests with the help of conventional weapons.

It is absolutely impossible to imagine that a non-nuclear conflict will begin as a result of a sensible solution and the systematic preparation of one of the parties, in the image and likeness of how Hitler prepared himself, tying up his troops on the Soviet-German border before the invasion of the USSR. But it may well arise unexpectedly for both parties as a result of a tragic accident.

A non-nuclear conflict may begin as a result of someone's mistake or a planned action by one of the parties, confident that retaliation will not follow. As an example, the death of the Tu-154 in 2001 from the Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile or the destruction of the Su-24 by the Turkish Air Force in Syria can be given. In both of these cases, the conflict was settled through diplomatic channels, but it cannot be guaranteed that this will continue.

Thus, despite the impossibility of a pre-planned large-scale non-nuclear conflict, we cannot rule out an accidental clash between the armed forces of the Russian Federation and NATO at some hot spot. And if the injured party does not go through a political settlement of the incident, but strikes back, thereby opening up large-scale military actions, in this case a state of war may arise between the Russian Federation and the NATO member country.

The main scenarios are three possible scenarios:

1) Military actions will take a character limited in time, place and composition of the forces involved (like coercion to peace in Georgia), after which a diplomatic solution will be found and peace reigns

2) Military action will escalate into a full-scale non-nuclear conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO, which, however, will be able to stop and conclude an armistice before the full-scale use of strategic nuclear weapons

3) Military action will grow into a full-scale non-nuclear conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO, which will develop into a global nuclear war.

A non-nuclear conflict is unlikely to last for any long time - according to the author, from its beginning to a political settlement, or the nuclear-missile Armageddon will take no more than one and a half or two months, or maybe less. Long pauses like the one that preceded the “Bore in the Desert” are hardly possible. During the five months of inaction that the multinational force needed to gather the forces they needed for the war with Iraq, the Russian Federation and NATO would manage to agree on a compromise acceptable to all parties three times.

Accident and transience are two key features of a possible non-nuclear clash between NATO and the Russian Federation.

Obviously, the goal of both parties to a conflict of this kind will be to force the adversary to peace on the most favorable conditions for itself and before a nuclear war begins. This determines the strategy of the armed forces of both sides, whose main task will be to eliminate as quickly as possible the enemy’s military potential deployed against them in order to deprive him of the ability to “continue the policy by other means”. In essence, the early defeat of the adversary’s military group will put it in conditions when it is necessary either to accept the political conditions of the opposing side or to use nuclear weapons, which no one wants.

And to smash the enemy easier and faster, with superior forces. Accordingly, the rate of transfer of reinforcements to the conflict area is of paramount importance. And here the United States and NATO are not doing well.

Of course, the total non-nuclear military potential of the United States and NATO is many times greater than the Russian one. The United States Air Force (including the Air Force, the International Maritime Commission and the Aircraft Aviation) is many times superior in capabilities to the Russian Federation Air Force. The number of land forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is inferior to the number of land forces of Turkey alone. But the problem is that NATO needs considerable time to concentrate its potential in the right place, and in case of a sudden, unexpected armed conflict, they will not have such an opportunity.

In the previous article, we compared the forces of the NATO and Russian Air Forces in Europe to 2020 g and concluded that they, these forces, in the event of a sudden conflict and before the redeployment of the mass of the US Air Force to Europe would be quite comparable.



It is quite possible that this is an overly optimistic estimate for the RF ASC. It can be assumed that purchases of aircraft to 2020 g will not be as large-scale as the author suggested, and will be reduced or postponed to a later date in the new LG of 2018-2025. In addition, the VKS is not only the material part, but also the pilots, which Mr. Serdyukov’s efforts now lack. The destruction of educational institutions, the cessation of enrollment of cadets for nothing could not pass, and the scale of this problem, according to the open press, is, alas, indefinable.

But the Russian Aerospace Force of the Russian Federation has a single command, a powerful component of ground defense, and other advantages listed in the previous article. And this allows us to expect that even with the most negative assessments of the receipt of the material part and the number of trained pilots of the Russian Federation, in the event of a sudden start of the conflict, the NATO Air Force will still not have overwhelming air superiority. And it is very important, including because aviation is an excellent way to significantly slow down the enemy’s delivery of reinforcements to the conflict area.

In the previous article, we defined the number of combat-ready aircraft of the European countries of NATO and the Russian Federation to 2020 g roughly as 1200 versus 1000, not counting the US 136 aircraft on European bases and air forces of the CSTO countries. But it should be noted that much more modest forces can be sent to the area of ​​the alleged conflict, because both European countries and the Russian Federation will not be able to concentrate their air forces in full force. There are many reasons for this: this is both logistics and the need for air cover for other areas, and for some in NATO there is also a banal desire to avoid a fight, dissuading from lack of readiness, or just sending symbolic contingents. Therefore, we can probably talk about the opposition of air groups numbering hundreds (perhaps 600-800 on each side, but maybe less), but not thousands (and not even a thousand) of aircraft.

What role can US aircraft carriers play in this confrontation? Obviously - extremely high.

Suppose that at the time of the outbreak of conflict, the United States could bring into the sea only four of the existing ten aircraft carriers, two of which are in the Pacific, and two more - in the Atlantic. What does this mean?

Depending on where the conflict began (the southern, Black Sea region or the northern region closer to the Baltic Sea), a pair of US aircraft carriers, loading quite modern F / A-90E / F SuperHood into their overload to 18, can advance to the Mediterranean or to the coast of Norway. From there, part of the aircraft will fly to ground airfields, and the other part will be able to operate directly from the aircraft carriers themselves. How far? Well, for example, an aircraft carrier strike connection (AUS), which came out to Swedish Gothenburg, may well attack from its decks both St. Petersburg and Minsk (less than 1100 km) provided refueling, which it is not difficult to organize from Norway or Poland. Well, despite the fact that Sweden will allow to use its airspace, of course.

At the same time, the AUS itself remains virtually invulnerable, since, in addition to its own forces and means, it is covered by a whole network of ground and airborne air attack detection equipment, ships of the German and Polish Navy from the Baltic Sea, and expect an attack from the Norwegian Sea ... go north, take a big detour, rounding Norway and, passing along its coast, fly over the North Sea? And then attack, without having cover with fighters? This is even for a second-rate action movie, perhaps, it will be too. And what else? For coastal defense missile systems too far, and there are still problems with target designation. Baltic fleet? Now he is too insignificant to hope to break through with sufficient forces to the range of use of weapons to the AUS. Northern Fleet? Alas - to bring the submarines into the North Sea and under the USSR was a completely non-trivial task, and today, in the event of a conflict, our few submarines will be extremely necessary in order to provide at least some kind of cover for strategic missile submarines it will grow into a nuclear one. And this is a more important task than the liquidation of the AUS, so it is extremely doubtful that the Northern Fleet will even at least send something towards the Atlantic.

The situation is similar from the south - for example, in the event of a conflict with Turkey, nothing prevents the AUS included in the 6th fleet USA, move into the Aegean. Without even climbing into the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, maneuvering somewhere in the Izmir region, the AUS can attack with carrier-based aircraft and anti-ship missiles LRASM almost the entire Black Sea. From Izmir to Sevastopol in a straight line - less than 900 km ... Again, there is a situation in which the aircraft carriers themselves have almost absolute protection, since they can be attacked only through the territory of Turkey, covered by numerous fighters and, more importantly, by numerous radar detection air targets. For the Su-30 and Tu-22M3 in Crimea, the AUS in the Aegean Sea is a completely unattainable goal. In fact, only the Russian Mediterranean squadron can provide some sort of counteraction to the AUS, but frankly, the times of the 5th OPESK, when the USSR on a permanent basis had up to 30 surface and 15 submarines, not counting transports and support vessels, have long passed. And those one and a half ships that we can afford today in the Mediterranean Sea now, can only show that they know how to die with dignity.



As for the Pacific Ocean, here the AUS from a pair of aircraft carriers with escort ships can use the “hit-run” tactics, delivering unexpected strikes from a large distance on our coastal objects. They obviously will not do too much damage, but they will require a serious diversion of aviation forces for the air defense of the Far East. Obviously, in order to give battle to an AUS of two aircraft carriers with good chances for success, it is necessary to have at least two regiments of fighter aviation and a regiment (or better two, but no place to get) missile carriers, not counting aircraft to cover Vladivostok, Komsomolsk-on-air Amure, Kamchatka ... In essence, the presence of American AUS on our Far Eastern frontiers is justified by the fact that they will draw upon themselves large forces of the VKS to counter aircraft carriers. Neither the Pacific Fleet (now reduced to the nominal values), nor coastal missile systems can withstand AUS independently, without the support of ground-based aviation.

In the light of the above, we understand how deeply mistaken are those who consider US aircraft carriers to be conceptually outdated targets for Russian anti-ship missiles. Consider the "anti-avianos" argument:

Aircraft carriers carry too few aircraft to have a significant impact on the struggle of the air force

This is true only in conditions where there is time to concentrate the Air Force. But in the most likely scenario of a conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO (surprise!) This time will not be. And then the appearance in the initial stages of the conflict of a pair of aircraft carriers carrying 180 combat aircraft plus support and information aircraft provided with everything necessary (ammunition, fuel) can have a decisive influence on the air battles. Just because when 500 domestic planes are fighting against NATO 700, the addition of 180 machines in favor of NATO may be decisive.

The movement of aircraft carriers is easily controlled by space reconnaissance and over-the-horizon radar, and then they can be easily destroyed by cruise missiles.

In fact, the only space system that allowed targeting of anti-ship missiles existed under the USSR (Legend), but was lost by us due to its high cost and the inability to maintain the orbital constellation of satellites at the minimum sufficient level. But it should be understood that even in the best years, the Legend was not a “vundervaffe” and, by and large, was a good (but very expensive) space reconnaissance system (but not target designation). Alas - to this day, there are enough people who are confident that the 4 satellite of the new Liana system (two of which are not fully operational) can provide our ships with target designation at any time and at any point in the world’s ocean. The author does not intend to argue with such a point of view (especially since the real capabilities of the satellites are still classified), but recalls that in all contemporary conflicts, the standard practice of NATO was the first blinding blow, which deprived the adversary of its means of controlling the situation. And there is no doubt that in the event of a war, our ground-breaking systems, which are large stationary objects, as well as reconnaissance satellites (we try to track the trajectory of enemy military satellites, and we and the United States from launch) will be attacked and most likely destroyed.

In addition, among people far from military equipment, there is a misunderstanding that the anti-ship Caliber missiles have a much smaller range than cruise missiles designed to destroy stationary targets. This is a dogma, and not only for us. The United States, by adapting the Tomahawk cruise missile for use as an anti-ship, received a drop in range from 2500 km to 550 km (according to other sources - 450-600 km). Therefore, the scenarios in which enemy AUSs lie down on the ocean from satellites in real time, are then taken to escort the SGRRs and drown with Calibers launched from the coast at a distance of 2 000 km from our coastline, despite their attractiveness, are categorized as unscientific fiction.

Modern submarines alone can destroy AUG. 10 AUG - 10 APL, check and check, Yankees!



The most interesting thing is that in this statement is not so little truth. A modern nuclear submarine is indeed an extremely formidable weapon, which, under certain conditions and great luck, is capable of destroying an enemy aircraft carrier following in the guard of surface and submarine ships.

The only problem is that nothing is given for nothing. The cost of a modern serial submarine of the 885M project (“Yasen-M”) in 2011 g was determined in 32,8 billion rubles, which exceeded a billion dollars at the exchange rate at that time. However, there is information that even such a price did not reflect the cost of its manufacture and was subsequently increased to 48 billion rubles. for the serial boat, i.e. amounted to approximately 1,5 billion dollars per ship. The Russian Federation could not afford the massive construction of such submarines, limiting itself to a series of 7 hulls, and today only one Severodvinsk is in service.

The remaining multipurpose nuclear submarines of the Russian Navy are the old ships of the USSR times, but the problem is not even that - they knew how to build boats in the USSR, and the same “Pikes-B” are still a formidable opponent for any nuclear submarine in the world. The problem is their technical condition.

From the 27 nuclear submarine (for simplicity, we will call APKRKR and MAPL), listed in the Navy:
4 boats are in reserve
3 Boats - Pending Repair
8 boats - under repair and on modernization
12 boats - in service.

At the same time, the US Navy submarine fleet includes 51 multi-purpose submarines. Of course, some of them are also being repaired, but it is clear that, as a percentage, the share of American submarines in the ranks is significantly higher than ours. And this means that, having a list ratio of almost 2 American boats to one of ours, in the event of a conflict, we will have 3-3,5 (if not more) multipurpose US NPS against one of our boats. Of course, the situation can slightly improve the presence of a certain number of diesel boats - as long as we do not recall the submarines of the European countries of NATO.

In other words, under the water, we will be confronted by the enemy many times superior to us in numbers, if only it is only in numbers ... It would be strange to hope that the quality of the equipment of the latest Virginia does not exceed the same “Schuk-B”. In fact, on an equal footing with the "Virginia" and "Sea Wolves", it is likely that they can "play" the "Severodvinsk", but it is one, and the American submarines of the specified types - 18 pieces.

At the same time, for the Russian Federation in the event of a conflict with NATO, the task of extreme importance will be to cover the SSBNs with intercontinental nuclear missiles on board. They deployed about 700 warheads, which is more than 40% of their total number, ready for immediate use, and their preservation is strategically important. So it would not be a mistake to assume that the main forces of our atomicines will be deployed to cover the patrol areas of strategic missile submarines — on the threshold of Armageddon, this is a much more important task than chasing aircraft carriers. It may well be that the 3-4 of our submarines still venture into the ocean, but seriously expect that the pair of Anteyev 949A of the Northern Fleet is able to pass the Norwegian Sea to the North and there, using only its own means of detection, to identify the location of the AUS and strike at him ... Of course, miracles happen, but you can not build a strategy on them. But aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean with the beginning of the conflict are completely inaccessible to our submarines, because in wartime they will not pass through Gibraltar. Is that, fortunately, one of the "Anteyev" will be on a watch in the Mediterranean. But even there the chances of successful actions of a single ship tend to zero.

The saddest thing is that in the medium term the situation for us will only get worse. Of course, by the 2030, we will complete “Ash” with the following, but the following - the “Huskies” will be commissioned after 2030 g, and by this time the majority of our submarine fleet of the USSR heritage will exceed 40-year-old. It is possible that in the future we will be able to improve somewhat, having the 14-16 of the newest submarines in service, not counting those who are undergoing repairs, but this will not drastically change the situation.

Carriers - floating coffins, just one missile in the flight deck and all - the ship is disabled.

Even if it were like that, how could this rocket reach him? Until the aircraft carrier operating in the North or the Mediterranean, there is no move, neither our surface ship, nor the underwater, unless a happy accident. But aviation is also not an assistant here - how can I attack AUS from the same Izmir, or the entrance to the Dardanelles? Well, they gathered in the Crimea the regimental forces outfit in three, and then what? Their Turkish air defense aircraft, if it does not stop, then pinches so that there will not be any forces left for any AUS, and the losses will be beyond, because some of the damaged vehicles will not reach back across the sea.

Certainly, aviation is a formidable enemy of an aircraft carrier. Perhaps - the most formidable. But not in the case when she needs to fly for many hundreds of kilometers, to wade through air defense through enemy territory, and only then try to attack the advance warning and ready for defense, bristling with fighters and anti-aircraft missiles.

As for our Far Eastern borders, everything is more complicated and simpler with them. It is simpler, because between us and the enemy there is only sea water, and in this case both the NPS and the aviation have a chance to successfully counteract the AUS. It’s harder in the sense that in the Far East, Americans don’t need any kind of victory, they just need to pull off part of the VKS force, so they can use the “hit-run” tactic, and it’s much harder to counteract than to attack the AUS operating in one particular place.

In view of the above, it can be stated that the nuclear aircraft carriers of the United States retain their relevance today, and are able to have, if not decisive, then a very serious impact on the outcome of both the global nuclear missile and non-nuclear conflict of the Russian Federation and NATO.

Thank you for attention!

The end.

Previous articles of the cycle:

Russia against NATO. The ratio of the forces of tactical aviation

Russia against NATO. Background conflict

Russia against NATO. The role of aircraft carriers in nuclear conflict
Author:
330 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bongo
    Bongo 12 December 2017 06: 55 New
    +8
    Andrey, welcome!
    I agree with most of the above, with the exception of this:
    it can be argued that any full-scale non-nuclear conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO, during which the parties do not find a diplomatic solution, with a probability of 99,99% will develop into a global nuclear missile.
    Of course, I do not want to check, but it seems to me that this is not entirely true. Russia has multiple superiority over the USA in tactical nuclear weapons, and this trump card can be used to compensate for the superiority of our "probable partners", and this applies only to NATO forces. The use of tactical charges against enemy groupings on of its territory or in neutral waters with a high degree of probability it will not lead to sprawl into a global nuclear conflict.
    The Russian Aerospace Forces has a single command, a powerful component of ground-based air defense

    In fact, the only area covered by air strikes in our country is Moscow and the Moscow Region. You should also not overestimate our centralized control system and means of monitoring the air situation. The enemy, too, is not made with a finger, and will make every effort to destroy stationary radar units and disable the CP and communication centers. So that a significant part of the enemy will conduct military operations on their own.
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 12 December 2017 07: 07 New
      +8
      "This is due to the fact that today's first strike forces (about 1500-1600 warheads for each side, plus some deployed nuclear weapons from England and France) will not be enough to completely destroy the economic and military potential of the adversaries. "
      I'm afraid of this author
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 12 December 2017 07: 17 New
        +8
        Quote: Chertt
        I'm afraid of this author

        Don't be afraid for complete, will not be enough. no This is confirmed by calculations. A Russian strategic nuclear missile potential is enough to turn a territory the size of France into a zone of continuous destruction. As you know, the US area is slightly larger, the American population and enterprises are very spread throughout the country
        1. Victor_B
          Victor_B 12 December 2017 09: 14 New
          +1
          Do not be afraid, for the full, not enough. no This is confirmed by calculations.
          Poster for GO. Areas of destruction in an explosion of a warhead of 1 megaton. A radius of 15 (fifteen!) Km is a zone of WEAK destruction.
          We impose it on New York City, we estimate how many warheads 200-300 kt are needed (now it is no longer fashionable) so that it "burns out in a nuclear fire." All.
          And in the USA there are hundreds of large cities.
          And the strikes must be applied to the military structure, there are thousands of warheads needed.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 12 December 2017 10: 28 New
            14
            Quote: Victor_B
            We impose it on New York City, we estimate how many warheads 200-300 kt are needed (now it is no longer fashionable) so that it "burns out in a nuclear fire." All.

            But why?
            Enough of a tiny warhead. One. so that collapse comes. You can recall what happened during the "Katrina", or during the "Great Blackout" of 2003.
            And it will be much worse than the complete destruction of the city. So much effort will have to be made to maintain the state that it will certainly not be before the war. The same applies to Europe. But there the situation is even worse. They have much less ability to suppress the “declassed element”, and these people themselves are more, they are better adapted to self-organization
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 00: 42 New
              +3
              Quote: Spade
              So much effort will have to be made to maintain the state.

              Such ideas are based on the hypothesis that in the event of an external threat, Americans tend to cry and repent. And even better - to civilize a civil war.
              There are some doubts about this, despite the activities of B.K. Obama. On the Jewish, say, state, the external threat does not act at all like that.
          2. San Sanych
            San Sanych 12 December 2017 10: 31 New
            0
            Quote: Victor_B
            Do not be afraid, for the full, not enough. no This is confirmed by calculations.
            Poster for GO. Areas of destruction in an explosion of a warhead of 1 megaton. A radius of 15 (fifteen!) Km is a zone of WEAK destruction.
            We impose it on New York City, we estimate how many warheads 200-300 kt are needed (now it is no longer fashionable) so that it "burns out in a nuclear fire." All.
            And in the USA there are hundreds of large cities.
            And the strikes must be applied to the military structure, there are thousands of warheads needed.

            it is enough to “bomb” the 30 largest US cities with warheads of 1 megaton, this will be unacceptable damage to them.
            1. Foxmara
              Foxmara 12 December 2017 15: 33 New
              +3
              Quote: San Sanych
              it is enough to “bomb” the 30 largest US cities with warheads of 1 megaton, this will be unacceptable damage to them.

              I will tell you more. It is enough to disable energy and collapse is ensured. For this, you do not even need nuclear weapons - enough hackers. Given the level of computerization of the West.
              As for military operations - the author did not take into account one point - we also have means of blocking / destroying enemy satellites, and they have been available for a long time, the first time I heard about the test 10 years ago. The settings allow you to quench satellites or a GPS signal, there is no exact information, and if it were, I would not give it)). Cruise missiles certainly have overlapping guidance systems, but with planes and ships everything will be sadder. Someone without ZhPS may not be able to conduct combat operations at all ...
              1. Grits
                Grits 13 December 2017 04: 36 New
                +1
                I will tell you more. It is enough to disable energy and collapse is ensured.
                It seems to me that just one solid rocket is enough. In the vent of Yellowstone. Then the collapse will be much more fun.
          3. alstr
            alstr 12 December 2017 11: 00 New
            +9
            In fact, there are few large cities in the United States. Large cities with a population of more than 500 thousand. 35 pcs. More than 1 million (agglomeration) 15.
            In Russia, oddly enough, there are also 15 million-plus cities.
            With regard to infrastructure, the United States has the most vulnerable places - ports (because a lot of goods go through sea transport). There are a dozen of them.
            Plus in the USA there are only 15 large distribution nodes of electricity.

            We are not doing well either. In principle, we have 3 hub areas: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ekaterinburg. These are all major transport hubs. Destruction, which will create serious problems in logistics. Yes, and industry, too.
            1. Chertt
              Chertt 12 December 2017 14: 23 New
              +1
              Quote: alstr
              With regard to infrastructure, the United States has the most vulnerable places - ports (because a lot of goods go through sea transport). There are a dozen of them.

              Explanatory analysis. At least right now enter the coordinates in the aiming blocks. Although I think it's done a long time ago
              1. Foxmara
                Foxmara 12 December 2017 15: 35 New
                +3
                Quote: Chertt
                Explanatory analysis. At least right now enter the coordinates in the aiming blocks. Although I think it's done a long time ago

                Done. In nuclear planning, no fools sat. There even fractures of the crust are taken into account. One small head and half of California will slide into the ocean.
                1. MadCat
                  MadCat 13 December 2017 00: 12 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Foxmara
                  Done. In nuclear planning, no fools sat. There even fractures of the crust are taken into account. One small head and half of California will slide into the ocean.

                  in fact, the whole arsenal will not be enough for "sliding into the ocean", see less than RenTV.
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 00: 29 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Foxmara
                  One small head and half of California will slide into the ocean.

                  "Russia has two allies - the Yellowstone volcano and the San Andreas Fault." (c) Otto von Bismarck
                  1. MadCat
                    MadCat 14 December 2017 15: 14 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    "Russia has two allies - the Yellowstone volcano and the San Andreas Fault." (c) Otto von Bismarck

                    Well yes, iron proof non-existent quote by Otto von Bismarck fool
                    1. vredlo
                      vredlo 17 December 2017 15: 08 New
                      0
                      Quote: MadCat
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      "Russia has two allies - the Yellowstone volcano and the San Andreas Fault." (c) Otto von Bismarck

                      Well yes, iron proof non-existent quote by Otto von Bismarck fool


                      damn well it’s clear that a man jokes well so seriously
          4. KaPToC
            KaPToC 12 December 2017 20: 45 New
            +2
            Quote: Victor_B
            And in the USA there are hundreds of large cities.
            And the strikes must be applied to the military structure, there are thousands of warheads needed.

            Most people will die not of the damaging factors from the use of nuclear weapons, but of starvation. First, a system supplying food to three hundred million people will die, and then people will die.
          5. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 00: 31 New
            +2
            Quote: Victor_B
            We impose on the city of New York, pretend

            Similar calculations were made during the megrach after the first article of the cycle.
        2. parma
          parma 12 December 2017 14: 35 New
          +4
          Namely, according to the calculations of the TOTAL world arsenal, it is not enough to turn even a separate mainland into a nuclear desert. Emissions of dust / ash and so on into the atmosphere are also a bluff, because during the eruption of super volcanoes, the amount of dust (I don’t remember the mass or volume now) is tens of times more according to scientists, and the worst thing was the termination of flights over Europe in the last time. the main danger of nuclear strikes is only for countries that have been hit, and it consists in anarchy, destruction of infrastructure, production, etc., shoving into the Stone Age in short ... In other words, if tomorrow all countries with nuclear weapons and their allies get into a fight and get into each other missiles (China and Russia VS NATO, Japan, Australia and TD say), then just the day after tomorrow the world’s powers will be neutral and relatively developed countries like Brazil and South Africa (they’re just farthest from the point of attack).
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. AlexanderBrv
            AlexanderBrv 12 December 2017 18: 24 New
            +5
            Interesting remark! The seriousness of this approach is justified by our (not very distant - within 7500 years) history. As a result of the nuclear conflict, which ended in the victory of our Slavic ancestors, a powerful empire in the lands of Siberia and the Far East fell into decay. The "new" centers of civilization appeared in the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, etc. These events are not customary to recall in the West ...
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 12 December 2017 20: 51 New
              0
              Quote: AlexanderBrv
              (not very far - within 7500 years

              Here it is necessary to clarify - 7500 years according to the LUNAR calendar.
        3. opus
          opus 12 December 2017 23: 30 New
          0
          Quote: Bongo
          This is confirmed by calculations. The Russian strategic nuclear potential is enough to turn a territory the size of France into a zone of continuous destruction.

          Sergey do not be ridiculous.
          1.USA can not cope with the fire (and so every year, and in many places

          2. The same in Spain, Greece, Russia, etc.
          3. The same situation with the epidemic of influenza, diarrhea and others.
          Last year I remember, the collapse in the clinic.
          4. Disconnected plumbing, gas, cellular, lipestrichestvo: broke through the pipe line, the explosion of the substation.
          A single case, WITHOUT BOMBARDS, FIREED OUT, A BOTTOM OF Wounded - oops, full, the whole system sausage.
          And if a massive blow, Let the same miserable 500-600 BB.
          Amba
          It seems to me that modern civilization will have enough warheads with conventional explosives: nodal communications are breaking: substations, railway stations, highways, oil storages

          gas hubs, water supply systems (cleaning).
          We'll be drowned in a week in 0, we will die of thirst and wither in the elevators.

          No, well, you will survive there normally, you will go fishing and wait

          Quote: Bongo
          Russia has multiple superiority over the United States in the TNW

          So how is his darling to the US to deliver?
          By the sea? Will not pass
          Therefore, they are not very afraid of him.
          And on Europe, they wanted to crap.
          To occupy Russia is not enough even a mobilization resource.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 00: 36 New
            +3
            Quote: opus
            1.USA can not cope with the fire (and so every year, and in many places

            And you definitely do not confuse the number of fires and the number of cameras? By the way, "they can’t handle it," how many people died?
            1. opus
              opus 13 December 2017 09: 47 New
              +1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              And you just do not confuse the number of fires and the number of cameras?

              You have this specifics (fire) mean? or even?




              Quote: Cherry Nine
              How many people died?

              10
              More eight thousand firefighters are trying to put out the fire.
              Forest fires have already destroyed more than 3,5 thousands of buildings in an area of ​​68,8 hectares. About 25, thousands of people were forced to leave their homes.

              Imagine the situation:
              -not one fire, and 50 and not such, but man-made.
              - fire enough? doctors? A: there is not enough water to put out
              "About 25, thousands of people were forced to leave their homes." * 50 = enough bed nights to shelter them?
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 22: 56 New
                +1
                Quote: opus
                You have this specifics (fire) mean? or even?

                In your picture, the situation with fires in 300 million US is much better than in 140 million Russia, no?
                Quote: opus
                not one fire, but 50

                500 dead, 1,25 million lost their homes? Unfortunately, you greatly downplay the problem.
                Quote: opus
                enough shelters for shelters, what would they shelter?

                There will be no shelters. People will be taken home. Take an interest in how people lived who were stuck. God knows where 9/11 is when they stopped flights for several days.
      2. Cxnumx
        Cxnumx 12 December 2017 07: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Chertt
        I'm afraid of this author

        probably implied to the state of "the whole country to nuclear ashes."
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        12 December 2017 09: 26 New
        +5
        Quote: Chertt
        I'm afraid of this author

        Yes, I am like this laughing
      4. asavchenko59
        asavchenko59 12 December 2017 14: 15 New
        0
        Yes, after the first nuclear explosion, America will plunge into chaos of turmoil (remember a simple blackout or flood!), I'm not talking about gay ... hey! These pid .... s, having lost spare tights and lipstick, will have a massive rest in an ugly state. Fighting ability and ability to survive will be only for our people and our army.
        It’s even funny to read the author: inept dreamer and all-crawler!
        1. Shkodnick
          Shkodnick 12 December 2017 15: 58 New
          +1
          According to the yellowstone a small charge, and nothing more
        2. 97110
          97110 12 December 2017 17: 24 New
          +4
          Quote: asavchenko59
          It’s even funny to read the author: inept dreamer and all-crawler!

          On the contrary, the Author for some reason does not want to see the most likely scenario for a conflict with the West. Given the advanced age of those who make decisions there (in the U.S., nobody else calls their macrons), psychological readiness to get into a war, a political system that forces politicians to be belligerent in order to stay in politics, the willingness of the U.S. people to risk the possibility of a conflict starting for a Russian robbery as a sudden, "disarming" strike by NATO, I believe close to 100%. There is also a chance of error, but this can be neglected in preparation for a sudden blow. Slow escalation of non-nuclear conflict into nuclear? Our President is able to crank such a feint down to a diplomatic decision. But he does not have a partner on the other side. It’s not necessary to occupy the head with this nonsense. Once already "did not succumb to provocations." On the contrary, NATO must be confident in our immediate retaliatory strike, even ahead of schedule. Peaceful rhetoric must be maintained, And create confidence in the blow. It is urgent that Pentagon leaders jump in the windows. And our President and IO will express condolences through Masha. And concern.
        3. vredlo
          vredlo 17 December 2017 15: 17 New
          0
          Quote: asavchenko59
          Yes, after the first nuclear explosion, America will plunge into chaos of turmoil (remember a simple blackout or flood!), I'm not talking about gay ... hey! These pid .... s, having lost spare tights and lipstick, will have a massive rest in an ugly state. Fighting ability and ability to survive will be only for our people and our army.
          It’s even funny to read the author: inept dreamer and all-crawler!


          Well, Amers have quite sane people, Texans, for example, and in Alaska, I think there are enough people who in our conditions will survive well, like we have individuals who can’t stand the lack of hot water, take the same annual cries for emergency situations in Moscow where it’s terrible the cold at - 15 paralyzed everything that could be imagined (I still remember going to school - 37 (classes were canceled at - 40) and on TV the cries of the guard in Moscow - 20 were all gone)
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 09: 26 New
      +4
      Good day!
      Quote: Bongo
      Russia has multiple superiority over the USA in tactical nuclear weapons, and this trump card can be used to compensate for the superiority of our "probable partners", and this applies only to NATO forces. The use of tactical charges against enemy force groupings on their territory or in neutral waters with a high degree of probability will not lead to an expansion into a global nuclear conflict.

      Maybe, but then it will end diplomatically :)
    3. user
      user 12 December 2017 10: 51 New
      +4
      I agree with most of the above


      But not me.
      If you throw away all the snot about world peace, then there will be no direct hit. Our likely adversary has a well-developed coastal zone and, naturally, a concentration of economic interests and logistics in the same place, and if we clash seriously, everyone will remember our liberal peacemaker Andrei Sakharov’s proposal, remember the reaction of the sailors “We are not killers” (although we paraphrased several times in different sources) . This is me about a nuclear torpedo-killer of cities, well, or about its more modernized version, and not necessarily only in North America, but it is also possible in coastal Europe, Holland, for example, or the Danish Straits or the islands of England. Well, if you add a blow to California here (remember the sleeping super volcano).
      This is why I started it all, there will be no one-sided strike from aircraft carriers on a defenseless RF, but there will be a mutual exchange on especially painful points of the enemy.

      Well, I think it will look something like this.
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 12 December 2017 11: 52 New
        +2
        no one for some reason does not write articles on the topic:
        how to try to break through our air defense and what forces and what unacceptable losses
        because it is not real
        Kaliningrad and the missile defense base in Poland, it will be quietly destroyed by OTRK Iskander
        and also BPRK Bastion - quietly works on land objectives (example. Syria)
        SLCM - intercepted by army air defense systems Tor, Buk
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 00: 49 New
        0
        Quote: user
        remember the reaction of the sailors "We are not killers" (although several times they paraphrased in different sources)

        More precisely, they explained to him that the bottom topography on the American shelf prevents the occurrence of a tsunami. This is if not a bike at all.
    4. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 12 December 2017 11: 33 New
      +1
      article full crap
      if we consider the conflict and our military doctrine and hypothetically do without a preventive nuclear strike
      Our air defense will cause unacceptable damage to all US and NATO aircraft
      3 of dangerous directions loom over the article, in responsibility:
      6-th Army of the Air Force and Air Defense (North and Peter): 1-th and 2-I Brigade of the East Kazakhstan region: 9 ZRP: 296 PU - 1184 SAM + 1544 ZRP S-300В4 + 1 ZRDN Buk-M1
      11 AK (Kaliningrad): 1 ZRP: 16 PU - 64 SAM + 1 ZRDN S-300В4
      4 Air Force and Air Defense Army (Crimea): 51 and 31 Air Defense Divisions: 4 Air Defense Forces: 120 Air Defense - 480 SAM
      11 Air Force and Air Defense Army (Far East): 25, 93 Air Defense Divisions: 160 PU - 640 SAM + 2 ZRDN S-300В4 + 1723 ZRP 2 ZRDN Buk-M3
      Total: in salvo 2368 SAM, excluding C-300В4 and our aviation.
      I do not envy these suicide bombers in F-22, F-16, F-18
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        12 December 2017 11: 53 New
        +6
        Quote: Romario_Argo
        I do not envy these suicide bombers in F-22, F-16, F-18

        Young man, read the practice of using air defense systems in conflicts :))) You will be severely disappointed :)
        1. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 12 December 2017 12: 00 New
          +1
          completely forgot about the brigade ACS Polyana and radar Sky
          the same Peter (BF) is covering 5 air defense missile systems S-300ПМ and С-400 + mixed air division with Su-30 in Karelia
          and near Luga there’s still a C-300В4 Brigade, from the 6 Army and another Tor air defense system under 30 pieces (240 SAM) and Buki
          and also in the Meadow Brigade OTRK Iskander .....
          a "tangle" of all that we
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 December 2017 15: 05 New
          +2
          Greetings! hi
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Young man, read the practice of using air defense systems in conflicts :))) You will be severely disappointed :)

          Yeah ... the analysis of the Syrian air defense actions in 1982 is especially good for getting rid of pink glasses. In fact, it was the same air defense of the USSR, moreover, led by our advisers.
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 12 December 2017 13: 57 New
        +4
        Quote: Romario_Argo
        article full crap

        Sorry but complete crap you write:
        Quote: Romario_Argo
        Total: in the volley 2368 missiles, excluding C-300В4 and our aircraft.

        It is not necessary to consider the missiles in the launcher, but the guidance stations and the number of targets that they can fire. And also take into account the combat readiness of the Zrd. Or do you want to say that all S-300PS divisions are in combat readiness? no
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 12 December 2017 14: 30 New
          +1
          Quote: Bongo

          Sorry but complete crap you write


          Romario_Argo's love of numbers reminds me of Sivkov’s authorship ...
          The same lover of spherical horses in a vacuum ...
          Sivkov came to our site personally?
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 December 2017 16: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: Bongo
          It is not necessary to consider the missiles in the launcher, but the guidance stations and the number of targets that they can fire.

          You also suggest taking into account the positions of regiments and divisions on the ground (in the same St. Petersburg it is A-120 circular concrete). laughing
          For example, how and with what does the zrp on the southern part of the ring, at Novolisino, help in repelling the blow from the Karelian Isthmus?
    5. andj61
      andj61 12 December 2017 14: 05 New
      +2
      Quote: Bongo
      Of course, I do not want to check, but it seems to me that this is not entirely true. Russia has multiple superiority over the USA in tactical nuclear weapons, and this trump card can be used to compensate for the superiority of our "probable partners", and this applies only to NATO forces. The use of tactical charges against enemy force groupings on their territory or in neutral waters with a high degree of probability will not lead to an expansion into a global nuclear conflict.

      It would be nice if it were so ... But imagine - we are using nuclear weapons in our territory or near its borders - with all the extremely adverse consequences from this. And the main enemy hid behind the ocean and does not suffer a bit! He still adds these adverse effects to their TNW! In addition, in conventional, non-nuclear forces, we are 8-12 times behind NATO. It turns out that there is not the slightest sense in waging battles on our territory - we are weakening from this, not only the military, but also civilians, infrastructure, industry are suffering. I believe that if we allowed such a situation, we ALREADY lost: we don’t have armored armada capable of reaching the English Channel in a few days! In the event of a conflict on our territory, the enemy’s nuclear weapons are a strategic weapon for us with all the ensuing consequences. Therefore, ANY conflict between Russia and NATO will be accompanied by immediate strategic nuclear blackmail. They did not take blackmail seriously, did not go to a settlement — that is, they threatened the very existence of Russia — with all the ensuing adverse consequences for all. hi
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 12 December 2017 14: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: andj61
        It would be nice if that were so ...

        I think that I will not reveal great military secrets if I say that such a scenario was considered at the exercises held several years ago in the Far East. In the course of the exercises, the use of nuclear weapons in their territory was considered as the only way to restrain the advance of many times superior enemy forces. As for the "adverse effects", the modern charges in air blasting are relatively "clean" and the risk of loss of territory, independence and sovereignty outweighs the danger of "consequences". hi
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 00: 56 New
          +3
          Quote: Bongo
          I think that I will not reveal great military secrets


        2. opus
          opus 13 December 2017 10: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Bongo
          then modern charges with air blasting are relatively “clean” and the risk of loss

          TNW does not imply air blasting.
          ZBV3 do air blast meaningless, and not safe, by the same shooting (using)


          just because of the concept

          Quote: Bongo
          The use of tactical charges against groups of enemy troops on its territory or in neutral waters with high probability will not lead to an expansion into a global nuclear conflict.

          The use of tactical nuclear weapons is still outside the competence of the tactical link of the Armed Forces.
          The use of nuclear weapons is a political decision (of the country's leadership).
          Consequently, meaning is lost in its efficiency.
          And if the "babakhnut" and zadut "their" nuclear weapons, it will arrive in response.
          And since it is difficult to tighten the TNW (and use) near our borders (EKO, air defense, etc.), it will arrive at a strategic response (CD, ICBM).
          And this will definitely lead to otvetkoy = result Armageddon


          after applying ... "later" - will not.
  2. shinobi
    shinobi 12 December 2017 07: 43 New
    +3
    If this were all so, our country would not have existed for a long time. And so, the importance of the aircraft against the continental enemy is greatly exaggerated. In the event of a spontaneous conflict, even if they manage to get to the transfer distance, who will let them do it without hindrance? despite the fact that with such a driving distance they will be empty and dry. And this is the time for refueling and loading weapons. And at the same time hollowing out locations will be all available means. For some reason, most analysts have forgotten that the AUG was originally intended for a war at sea against the same AUG. The maximum is to sustain the landing in the complete absence of coastal defense by the enemy. Or the weapons of the enemy at the level of banana republics.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 09: 30 New
      +6
      Quote: shinobi
      If this were all so, our country would not exist long ago

      Where does this conclusion come from? Do you seriously think that the United States and the West are ready to pay with the lives of tens, if not hundreds of millions of people, and a “jerk in the Stone Age” for the destruction of the Russian Federation? :)
      Quote: shinobi
      In the event of a spontaneous conflict, even if they manage to approach the transfer distance, who will let them do it unhindered

      Who will interfere? Old man Hottabych? Have you read the article? :))) We have nothing to do
      Quote: shinobi
      This is despite the fact that with such a driving distance they will be empty and dry

      ??
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 12 December 2017 10: 32 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Who will interfere? Old man Hottabych?

        The threat will hinder.
        Question: Will the Americans move the AUG at the highest probability of its complete destruction?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 10: 47 New
          +4
          Quote: Spade
          The threat will hinder.

          The threat of what? We have nothing to threaten them with. Do you think that in the USA they cannot add 2 + 2?
          Quote: Spade
          Question: Will the Americans move the AUG at the highest probability of its complete destruction?

          There is not something to destroy - there are almost no chances to scratch. And yes, of course, in the case of a big mess, they would have prepared for that.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 12 December 2017 10: 51 New
            +4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The threat of what? We have nothing to threaten them.

            Submarines drowned, container ships prohibited by the Convention? 8)))
            "Chef, everything is lost" ...
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            There is not something to destroy - there are almost no chances to scratch.

            It’s from your position as a fan of the idea of ​​depriving the army and aviation of financing in favor of building unnecessary monsters
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 December 2017 11: 01 New
              +5
              Quote: Spade
              Submarines drowned

              Article not mastered? They are at 12, will be involved in the protection of the SSBN
              Quote: Spade
              "Chef, everything is lost" ...

              In essence, objections will be? Or so, again, common words?
              Quote: Spade
              It’s from your position as a fan of the idea of ​​depriving the army and aviation of financing in favor of building unnecessary monsters

              Have I even talked about Russian AB somewhere here? fool
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 12 December 2017 11: 10 New
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Article not mastered? They are at 12, will be involved in the protection of the SSBN

                I missed something, and you command the Russian fleet?

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In essence, objections will be? Or so, again, common words?

                Well yes. Have you safely “not noticed” my mention of container ships going under “convenient flags”? So far, "common words and the use of assumptions as unshakable postulates is your tactic.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Have I even talked about Russian AB somewhere here?

                Do not consider opponents brainless
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  12 December 2017 11: 21 New
                  +7
                  Quote: Spade
                  I missed something, and you command the Russian fleet?

                  You were told the number of multipurpose submarines on the go :)))
                  Quote: Spade
                  Well yes. Have you safely “not noticed” my mention of container ships going under “convenient flags”?

                  So this is bullshit, because we don’t have such ships, and even if we did, we would not be able to strike at AUG outside the limits of visual visibility.
                  Quote: Spade
                  Do not consider opponents brainless

                  Even if they strongly convince me of this?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 12 December 2017 11: 39 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You were told the number of multipurpose submarines on the go :)))

                    However, after that there was a “feint with ears” - you on the blue eye transferred your speculations about their possible use to the category of unshakable truth.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    So this is bullshit, because we don’t have such ships

                    ??????????????????????????
                    We have no container ships?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    So this is bullshit

                    And this is an attempt to put pressure on the opponent in the absence of arguments. 8)))
                    We have developed container systems for launching PC missiles and we have ships capable of moving them to the area of ​​application. It is a fact.
                    To which you can only answer with exclamations about "bullshit"



                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Even if they strongly convince me of this?

                    Ah, here's how ... Then be prepared that you will be judged by the same parameter- "there are two opinions, mine is right and the minds are brainless" ...
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      12 December 2017 11: 57 New
                      +6
                      Quote: Spade
                      You, on a blue eye, have transferred your speculations about their possible use to the category of unshakable truth.

                      Do you think that they will be pulled from the SSBN and driven to slaughter in the North Sea?
                      Quote: Spade
                      We have no container ships?

                      missiles - of course not, who will install them there? :)))
                      Quote: Spade
                      We have developed container systems for launching PC missiles and we have ships capable of moving them to the area of ​​application. It is a fact.

                      And another fact - a container ship going to sea, in the event of a conflict, can only rely on the radars available to it, i.e. in fact a little better than binoculars
                      Quote: Spade
                      Ah, here's how ... Then be prepared that you will be evaluated

                      The ratings of such people are not important to me
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 12 December 2017 12: 18 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Do you think that they will be pulled from the SSBN and driven to slaughter in the North Sea?

                        Are you sure that they will not "rip off"? Once again, do you lead the Russian fleet?


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        missiles - of course not, who will install them there? :)))

                        Workers There are such specialties, crane operator and slinger. Did not hear?

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And another fact - a container ship going to sea, in the event of a conflict, can only rely on the radars available to it, i.e. in fact a little better than binoculars

                        Materiel. The composition of the complex.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The ratings of such people are not important to me

                        Is everything complicated by megalomania?
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        12 December 2017 12: 46 New
                        +6
                        Quote: Spade
                        Are you sure that they will not "rip off"?

                        I am sure
                        Quote: Spade
                        Once again, do you lead the Russian fleet?

                        No :))) In order to do the simplest logical conclusions, the admiral does not need to be
                        Quote: Spade
                        Workers There are such specialties, crane operator and slinger. Did not hear?

                        I heard. But you didn’t seem to hear that the decision to install such weapons systems is not made by crane operators or slingers.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Materiel. The composition of the complex.

                        That's exactly what materiel. W exactly what the composition of the complex. Go teach
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 12 December 2017 15: 28 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I am sure

                        Correctly. Because otherwise all your conclusions, piled up in the article, do not make sense?
                        Therefore, by your own willful decision, you yourself have determined the place of the submarine in a possible conflict.
                        8)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        No :))) In order to do the simplest logical conclusions, the admiral does not need to be

                        "The most logical conclusions" that the only means of submarine defense are the very atomarians who can ruin a beautiful picture in an article?
                        Well, naturally 8))))))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But you didn’t seem to hear that the decision to install such weapons systems is not made by crane operators or slingers.

                        The question again arises: Do you happen to command a fleet?
                        Or is it also “the most beautiful conclusions” in order to create the right picture?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That's exactly what materiel. W exactly what the composition of the complex. Go teach

                        That is, they decided that you are already so smart, and there is nothing for you to bother with such nonsense as a materiel. How is it, "I'm not a rocketeer"?

                        Well, I’ll remove this claim if you give me binoculars that can detect a target at the same range as the radio monitoring station and UAV included in the complex.
                  2. KaPToC
                    KaPToC 12 December 2017 21: 41 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You were told the number of multipurpose submarines on the go :)))

                    And a lot is not necessary - one for each "aircraft carrier on the go."
                    1. Krabik
                      Krabik 15 December 2017 01: 24 New
                      0
                      They described to you in an article on 1 of our hunter only in the USA 18 of their hunters.

                      Add allies, developed coastal infrastructure, surface fleet, naval aviation, sonars controlling all the oceans and you will understand that it’s impossible even in theory to swim to the aircraft carrier group.
                      1. KaPToC
                        KaPToC 15 December 2017 19: 50 New
                        0
                        Quote: Krabik
                        They described to you in an article on 1 of our hunter only in the USA 18 of their hunters.

                        Who cares how many hunters they have. We need 6-7 pieces - according to the number of aircraft carriers of the enemy.
                    2. Krabik
                      Krabik 15 December 2017 20: 40 New
                      0
                      We need 6-7 pieces - according to the number of aircraft carriers of the enemy.


                      6-7 pieces if the boats are not vulnerable, and the crews are immortal.

                      And vulnerable boats during the threatened period will not be allowed to reach the AUG and will be driven by their hunters and later sunk.

                      About the same as Yamato, only a submarine will have one torpedo from Poseidon.
                      1. KaPToC
                        KaPToC 15 December 2017 21: 04 New
                        0
                        Quote: Krabik
                        6-7 pieces if the boats are not vulnerable, and the crews are immortal.

                        Quote: Krabik
                        And vulnerable boats during the threatened period will not be allowed to reach the AUG and will be driven by their hunters and later sunk.

                        How many kilometers will not be allowed? One hundred? They play with missiles for five hundred kilometers.
                    3. Krabik
                      Krabik 15 December 2017 22: 06 New
                      0
                      They play with missiles for five hundred kilometers.


                      If the boat is "driven" from the base, then they will sink immediately in the threatened period.
                      500 km is the subsonic speed, such are easy to intercept if DRLO planes fly around AUG.
                      And for supersonic it is already necessary to swim close to the AUG.

                      And again, the AUG speed is 30 knots, the boat can quietly sail at a minimum speed of 0-5 knots, otherwise it will be “heard”, Poseidon will fly up and drop the torpedo.

                      That is, many factors need to coincide, Severodvinsk needs to be “on the go,” it must slip into the ocean quietly, Poseidon patrol planes should not notice it, 18 Virginia submarines should not detect it, and an aircraft carrier should sail near the ambush.

                      Not everything happens.
                      For example, Rambo was able to kill an entire battalion of Soviet soldiers alone.
                      1. KaPToC
                        KaPToC 15 December 2017 23: 04 New
                        0
                        Quote: Krabik
                        That is, many factors need to coincide, Severodvinsk needs to be “on the go,” it must slip into the ocean quietly, Poseidon patrol planes should not notice it, 18 Virginia submarines should not detect it, and an aircraft carrier should sail near the ambush.

                        You have suffered in the wrong steppe, they will come to us, no one should be chased.
                        The system is not perfect, which means
                        Quote: Krabik
                        If the boat is "driven" from the base, then they will sink immediately in the threatened period.

                        They may lead, or they may lose.
                        Quote: Krabik
                        500 km is the subsonic speed, such are easy to intercept if DRLO planes fly around AUG.

                        It is not so easy to destroy 24 supersonic missiles.
                        Quote: Krabik
                        And again, the AUG speed is 30 knots, the boat can quietly sail at a minimum speed of 0-5 knots otherwise it will be "heard"

                        They won’t even know what to “run away” from the Russian submarine, but if they decide what they need, they won’t know which way.
                    4. Krabik
                      Krabik 16 December 2017 01: 17 New
                      0
                      Let me remind you of the article.
                      The article talks about the locations of AUG plying in the Aegean and Norwegian Sea.

                      These seas are not on our borders, but on the borders of NATO countries.

                      To understand the geographical location, see the map, the Aegean Sea is located in Greece, and the Norwegian Sea is in Norway.

                      And it is we who will have to swim there.

                      Onyx missiles have 2 flight modes: subsonic and supersonic, and their supersonic range is less than 100 km.
                      And on the fly, they are easily intercepted by enemy aircraft or missiles.

                      As a result, our one boat, against their 18 boats, our 1 missile, against their 100 missiles, our 1 plane against their 10.

                      I think Rambo would have won even if there were 100 enemy submarines and he is on 1 submarine, but he is American!
          2. max702
            max702 12 December 2017 11: 11 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The threat of what? We have nothing to threaten them with. Do you think that in the USA they cannot add 2 + 2?

            Uh, excuse me, but where will they transfer their planes? probably to bases and airfields? Well, there are not so many of them who are intended for this .. and something tells me the coordinates of them are well known, that’s what they will be crushed by including tactical nuclear weapons .. “Sleeping” will most likely help with targeting, or do you think that Do we have them only? and indeed the conflict will very quickly develop into nuclear armageddon ..
            a conflict of the type of "Syrian" is possible, but there AUG is not needed there bases at the adversary to a fig ..
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 December 2017 11: 58 New
              +4
              Quote: max702
              probably to bases and airfields? Well, there are not so many of those who are intended for this.

              Over 1800 in Europe
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 12 December 2017 12: 21 New
                +1
                Exactly. You see, sometimes you have sound thoughts. Have you added small airfields? And also direct sections of the autobahns that can be equipped as runways?

                One question remains: why should the aircraft carriers be dragged there ... 8)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  12 December 2017 12: 42 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Spade
                  One question remains: why should the aircraft carriers be dragged there ... 8)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

                  You have ammunition depots at every Autobahn, a bunch of technicians (25 man-hours of service for 1 hour of flight) a lot of fuel ....
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 12 December 2017 12: 45 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You have ammunition depots at every Autobahn, a bunch of technicians (25 man-hours of service for 1 hour of flight) a lot of fuel ....

                    This can be done in an order of magnitude less time than the passage of the AUG across the Atlantic.
                    Well, about the maintenance of aircraft on an aircraft carrier, I already wrote ....
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      12 December 2017 12: 48 New
                      +5
                      Quote: Spade
                      This can be done in an order of magnitude less time than the passage of the AUG across the Atlantic.

                      March to learn materiel "Desert Shield"
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 12 December 2017 15: 43 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        March to learn materiel "Desert Shield"

                        No problem.
                        If you give me a link to the placement on this theater "over 1800" (c) airfields. Well, at least 900.
                        The aerodrome network in the Persian Gulf does not even reach the European

                        So stop bustling and moving away from the answer.
                        - There is a developed aerodrome network capable of taking orders of magnitude more combat aircraft than the entire NATO bloc has
                        - There is a powerful ground-based infrastructure for repair and maintenance
                        - There are stockpiles of ammunition, fuel and other consumables.
                        - There are aircraft, starting with the “strategists” of B-2 and ending with a bunch of various types of airfield-based UAVs. Which can be transferred to the European theater in time, an order of magnitude less than the transfer of AUG.

                        The question is: why carry aircraft carriers ?????
                        Someday will follow him specific answer?
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        12 December 2017 18: 16 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Spade
                        If you give me a link to the placement on this theater "over 1800" (c) airfields. Well, at least 900.

                        Lopatov, will you teach the materiel at all? How much more should I listen to this nonsense? WHAT DOES THE AIRLAND HAVE? laughing Can you even imagine the volume of cargo that a hundred combat aircraft consumes in a week of intensive work? That is the problem, and not that the planes from the airfield to the airfield overtake.
      2. 27091965
        27091965 12 December 2017 11: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Who will interfere? Old man Hottabych?


        In the United States, there are not only supporters, but also opponents of aircraft carriers. They believe that by 2030 the vulnerability of aircraft carriers from cruise, ballistic missiles and stealth submarines will increase significantly. Therefore, for the fleet it is enough to have 4-5 aircraft carriers. They view this in "Options for the Navy's future fleet." and other similar publications.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 11: 22 New
          +4
          Quote: 27091965i
          They consider

          They think so from the last century :))) They write a lot about the fact that aircraft carriers have outlived their own, admired our TAKR ... and continue to improve their atomic monsters
          1. 27091965
            27091965 12 December 2017 11: 42 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            and keep improving their atomic monsters


            I do not dispute this, they have many views on the development of the fleet. But the fact that they are swaying on this topic from side to side is a fact. Just look at their throwing with your super destroyer.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 December 2017 12: 41 New
              +4
              So there is no reel. They wanted to make a replacement for Arly. Such ... ehhkm ... it turned out :)))
              1. 27091965
                27091965 12 December 2017 16: 01 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                So there is no reel. They wanted to make a replacement for Arly. Such ... ehhkm ... it turned out


                They have enough reel. Arly wanted to replace the cruisers, and they wanted to cancel the program for the construction of Zamvolt, for the construction of six aircraft carriers CVN-21.
              2. 27091965
                27091965 12 December 2017 16: 10 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Wanted to make a replacement for Arly

                I apologize, I did not correctly state the idea. Eight cruisers planned to be built, it was decided to replace the improved Arly Burke. hi
      3. andj61
        andj61 12 December 2017 14: 19 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Where does this conclusion come from? Do you seriously think that the United States and the West are ready to pay with the lives of tens, if not hundreds of millions of people, and a “jerk in the Stone Age” for the destruction of the Russian Federation? :)
        Quote: shinobi
        In the event of a spontaneous conflict, even if they manage to approach the transfer distance, who will let them do it unhindered
        Who will interfere? Old man Hottabych? Have you read the article? :))) We have nothing to do

        We are unlikely to be able to prevent them from transferring aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean and North Seas. Unless, of course, we take into account a single nuclear submarine, which will already be located somewhere in the Atlantic, and which will be hunted by all NATO forces and means.
        Target designation, of course, to get into an aircraft carrier when the AUG is in the position area is difficult to get ...
        But is it necessary, is target designation? The main thing is to know the location of the AUG. As there - the inaccuracy of our missiles is compensated by the power of the nuclear warhead. With an underwater nuclear explosion of a hundred kilotons at a depth of, for example, 200-300 meters, even a dozen kilometers from the AUG, even an aircraft carrier to survive is an unsolvable task. IMHO.
        And talk about a nuclear-free conflict is permissible in a conflict with an approximately equal adversary. And NATO in conventional forces surpasses us by 8-12 times. hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 14: 44 New
          +3
          Quote: andj61
          As there - the inaccuracy of our missiles is compensated by the power of the nuclear warhead. With an underwater nuclear explosion of a hundred kilotons at a depth of, for example, 200-300 meters, even a dozen kilometers from the AUG, even an aircraft carrier to survive is an unsolvable task. IMHO.

          Ten kilometers from the AUG, he doesn’t even notice a submarine explosion of 100 Kt, a megton class. hi
          Quote: andj61
          And NATO in conventional forces surpasses us by 8-12 times

          But he cannot immediately concentrate them where necessary, and this can even give us parity (I examined in the last article on the example of aviation)
          1. andj61
            andj61 12 December 2017 15: 41 New
            +2
            [quote = Andrey from Chelyabinsk] At ten kilometers from the AUG, he doesn’t even notice a submarine explosion that is not 100 Kt, a megton class. [/ quote]
            In an underwater nuclear explosion of the order of 100 kt at a depth of 200-300 m, almost all water in a diameter of 1-2 km evaporates. Next is a wave comparable in height to the depth of a nuclear explosion. The main thing is that the depth should not be shallow - at least 500-600 meters - to ensure the volume of evaporated water. Aircraft carrier located 10 km from the epicenter will withstand a wave height of about 100 m? I doubt it very much!
            [quote = andj61] And NATO in conventional forces surpasses us by 8-12 times [/ quote]
            But he cannot immediately concentrate them where necessary, and this can even give us parity (I examined it in the last article using the example of aviation) [/ quote]
            This is so - and there can be parity - but only local, and short time, most likely calculated in days. Getting involved in a conflict, hoping for local and temporary parity is a pretty reckless thing!
            hi
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 December 2017 18: 10 New
              +2
              Quote: andj61
              In an underwater nuclear explosion of the order of 100 kt at a depth of 200-300 m, almost all water in a diameter of 1-2 km evaporates. Next is a wave comparable in height to the depth of a nuclear explosion. The main thing is that the depth should not be shallow - at least 500-600 meters - to ensure the volume of evaporated water. Aircraft carrier located 10 km from the epicenter will withstand a wave height of about 100 m?

              Saving :))))) Yes, there is no wave there :))))
              5 km from the 1 Mt epicenter at a depth of 100 m, the ships are not damaged, although they can stun fish. At 3 km, the base wave turns into a cloud with rain :)))
            2. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 01: 09 New
              +2
              Quote: andj61
              almost all water in a diameter of 1-2 km evaporates. Next is a wave comparable in height to the depth of a nuclear explosion. The main thing is that the depth should not be shallow - at least 500-600 meters - to ensure the volume of evaporated water. Aircraft carrier located 10 km from the epicenter will withstand a wave height of about 100 m? I doubt it very much!

              Is that what you took?
              1. andj61
                andj61 13 December 2017 08: 39 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Saving :))))) Yes, there is no wave there :))))
                5 km from the 1 Mt epicenter at a depth of 100 m, the ships are not damaged, although they can stun fish. At 3 km, the base wave turns into a cloud with rain :)))

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Is that what you took?

                Calculate how much thermal energy will be released from the explosion in 1 Mtn. It will be 4x10 in the fifteenth degree kJ - at least 2 million cubic meters of water will evaporate. And, accordingly, 2 million cubic meters of water will immediately take the place of evaporated. Do you think the waves will not be? In vain!
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  13 December 2017 09: 27 New
                  +2
                  Why guess if there are sane descriptions of the consequences of the explosion? In addition, Vsa has a mistake - you believe that all energy will go to the evaporation of water, but this is not so
                  1. andj61
                    andj61 13 December 2017 09: 52 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Why guess if there are sane descriptions of the consequences of the explosion? In addition, Vsa has a mistake - you believe that all energy will go to the evaporation of water, but this is not so

                    So I also did not consider a shock wave with a hydroblow ....
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 17: 40 New
                  +1
                  Quote: andj61
                  At least 2 million cubic meters of water will evaporate.

                  I will not count the cubes. Suppose it is.
                  2 million cubic meters is a bar 100x100x200 meters. And what is the tragedy?
        2. alstr
          alstr 12 December 2017 15: 29 New
          +1
          In order to prevent the transfer of something to the Mediterranean, two nuclear warheads (Gibraltar and Suez) are enough. On the channel, however, it is possible not to waste nuclear weapons but to shoot them with calibers.
          After that, the sea will become a lake.
          By the way, the aircraft carrier in the Aegean Sea will not be able to work normally, because there is little space.
          And in the Norwegian Sea, our submarines will work on AUG. At the same time, we do not forget that the areas of concentration are limited and have long been known.

          Yes. still do not forget that the indicated radius of the aircraft (1000 km) implies a limited load and also does not imply serious air battles.
          1. Victor_B
            Victor_B 12 December 2017 16: 25 New
            0
            In order to prevent the transfer of something to the Mediterranean, two nuclear warheads (Gibraltar and Suez) are enough.
            Good grass! share it.
            About Suez - no questions asked, but about Gibraltar ...
            There, even Kzkin’s mother will warm the water and the next day shipping in full.
            Well, the population on the banks will thin out.
    2. VlK
      VlK 13 December 2017 12: 44 New
      0
      ACGs primarily serve to control approaches to the American continent - a strong ground adversary can reach the US only by sea. The aircraft carriers must sink and shoot down all surface and air targets, with the exception of ballistic missiles, to cover missile defense and anti-submarine aircraft. To provide the line of defense of the western hemisphere at distant approaches as part of ship’s groupings and, possibly, cover sea lanes to supply deployed contingents in other parts of the world. Everything else is an additional and secondary task, and with a really serious aggravation of the situation, I think they will be involved primarily in its intended purpose. Moreover, the actions of an aircraft carrier against the shore are, in a sense, the butt of a whale with an elephant on land - i.e. conditions are not in his favor. AUG is an instrument of struggle at sea. Yes, and too expensive a tool for land comes out - with the loss of aircraft and, most importantly, crews, there will be nothing to replace them at sea. Much more logical to strike along the coast with cruise missiles, as in Syria.
  3. Azim77
    Azim77 12 December 2017 07: 47 New
    +2
    The first photo allows you to really compare the size of an aircraft carrier. And these sizes are impressive.
    1. shinobi
      shinobi 12 December 2017 07: 58 New
      0
      I mean, impressive as a big target?
      1. Azim77
        Azim77 12 December 2017 08: 13 New
        +4
        No, a large target size (as in a dash) is not so important for modern weapons to hit a target. Simply impressive as the design of a floating airfield. Built by man, if you do not take ownership into account. You recall a story about Gulliver, about a flying island. It's floating here.
    2. Bongo
      Bongo 12 December 2017 08: 14 New
      +6
      Quote: Azim77
      The first photo allows you to really compare the size of an aircraft carrier. And these sizes are impressive.

      For a number of signs, it looks like photoshop. request Here are the real pictures taken in the waters of the Navy:






      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        12 December 2017 09: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: Bongo
        For a number of signs, it looks like photoshop.

        This is for what, let me ask?
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 12 December 2017 10: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This is for what, let me ask?

          Andrey, there are several of them ... most importantly, I don’t recognize the location. request
          Apparently in the picture, decommissioned USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). EMNIP he was based at Mapport in Florida.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            12 December 2017 10: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: Bongo
            Andrey, there are several of them ... most importantly, I don’t recognize the location

            So 99% is not based, but the answer is
  4. sevtrash
    sevtrash 12 December 2017 07: 53 New
    +4
    The main impact on the outcome of a nuclear conflict will be the ratio of the effectiveness of nuclear delivery vehicles and missile defense. Carriers have nothing to do with it. It is the American missile defense that is the main and determining threat of the possibility of a nuclear conflict with minimal or no consequences for the United States - while the threat is largely promising, but now it seems quite real for the near future.
    Talking about a non-nuclear conflict between NATO and Russia is pointless; the forces have not been equal for a long time. You can get a little fuss, but with effective nuclear weapons, and with this there may be problems due to the same missile defense.
    The main thing now is completely different - the economy needs to be built. Everything depends on her.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 12 December 2017 08: 20 New
      +3
      Quote: sevtrash
      The main impact on the outcome of a nuclear conflict will be the ratio of the effectiveness of nuclear delivery vehicles and missile defense.

      Do you obviously mean the global conflict with the use of ICBMs?
      Do not forget that a significant part of our TNW, and almost everything American is on aircraft carriers.
      Quote: sevtrash
      The main thing now is completely different - the economy needs to be built. Everything depends on her.

      But you can not argue with that. yes
    2. 89513026469
      89513026469 12 December 2017 09: 24 New
      +2
      Much depends on the economy. But not all. If it’s not difficult for you, compare the economy of the USSR to the 2nd world and the economies of other countries. Both allies and opponents. And you will understand that completely different factors are needed for war. As an example, France before the war))) Her economy, which was several times larger than the USSR, helped her? Or United Kingdom? I look they straight Wehrmacht crushed croissants with stew.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 12 December 2017 09: 53 New
        +3
        Quote: 89513026469
        Much depends on the economy. But not all.

        Without a strong and technologically advanced economy, there can be no modern army.
        Quote: 89513026469
        I look they straight Wehrmacht crushed croissants with stew.

        Do not confuse "sour with purple." France quickly lost due to the leadership's inability to take action. By the way, not the fact that our current "elite" is better.
      2. AlexKP
        AlexKP 12 December 2017 12: 38 New
        +1
        By the total volume of gross domestic product and industrial production, the USSR in the mid-1930s took first place in Europe and second place in the world, losing only to the USA and significantly surpassing Germany, Great Britain, France
  5. Vard
    Vard 12 December 2017 08: 25 New
    +1
    The author is a maximalist ... You don’t need to sink an aircraft carrier, it’s enough to deprive him of the ability to take planes ... and about the range of carrier aircraft ... please see how much load the aircraft that has risen from an aircraft carrier carries ... this is one ... Unlike that in Western Europe, in Russia, almost half of the households drown with wood ... and that means bombing a couple of power plants ... and there will be no electricity, and therefore no gas ... that is, it will be like ours ...
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 12 December 2017 09: 01 New
      +3
      Quote: Vard
      In contrast to the same Western Europe, almost half of households are heated with wood in Russia ... and this means bombing a couple of power plants ... and there will be no electricity, and therefore no gas ... that is, like us ...

      In Europe, the climate is mostly different, not the same as in Siberia or the Far East. As for the level of gasification in our country, this is a topic for a completely separate conversation.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 12 December 2017 09: 08 New
      0
      It’s in your Kyivsho already being stoked with firewood. There is nothing to project your barbaric realities on civilized Russia.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 09: 32 New
      +5
      Quote: Vard
      No need to drown an aircraft carrier, just deprive him of the ability to take planes ...

      Lies, maneuvering areas I sketched for you
      Quote: Vard
      and about the range of carrier aircraft ... please see how much load the plane that has risen from an aircraft carrier carries ... this is one ..

      Bears as much as land, flies as far as land
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 12 December 2017 10: 45 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Bears as much as land, flies as far as land

        ??
        Not at all a fact. You do not consider the possibility of refueling in the air. Carriers have an order of magnitude worse. And the situation is complicated by a much longer time for raising the strike group into the air. What will make airplanes spend fuel on hold. There will also be landing problems. Not only will have to be expected, and for a very long time due to the presence of damaged aircraft and wounded pilots, landing on an aircraft carrier itself requires more fuel.

        Moreover, an aircraft carrier cannot provide the same capabilities for servicing, repairing and restoring aircraft, and cannot prepare aircraft for a new departure with the same performance. The risks associated with aircraft maintenance are an order of magnitude higher.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 11: 23 New
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          Not at all a fact. You do not consider the possibility of refueling in the air. Carriers have an order of magnitude worse

          Read the article - step march. What are their problems with refueling over the territory of Norway, Germany, Turkey?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 12 December 2017 11: 45 New
            +4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Read the article - step march. What are their problems with refueling over the territory of Norway, Germany, Turkey?

            Huge.
            Airfields were destroyed by nuclear weapons and tankers were destroyed along with them. Indeed, only in this case it makes sense to transfer aircraft carriers instead of a much more expeditious and safe transfer of aircraft to a European theater of operations.
            Well, to apply as the truth in the last resort their own conjectures and assumptions set forth in the article is not quite the right tactic.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 December 2017 12: 38 New
              +4
              Quote: Spade
              Airfields were destroyed by nuclear weapons and tankers were destroyed along with them. Indeed, only in this case it makes sense to transfer aircraft carriers instead of a much more expeditious and safe transfer of aircraft to a European theater of operations.

              hand face
              Here I am crucifying an article about 1800 European airfields, about the difficulties associated with the transfer of land aviation ... It flew into one ear and flew into the other.
              And the good would somehow refuted me. But no - just completely ignoring my argument
              After this we are still offended by who I consider you to be?
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 12 December 2017 12: 51 New
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I’m crucifying an article about 1800 European airfields

                Hand face.
                Damn, you finally explain to me why then drag aircraft carriers, if there are so many airfields ?????????????

                And then these "1800 European airfields" (c) at the same time suit you, and do not suit you. Depending on the context.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  12 December 2017 12: 57 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Spade
                  Damn, you finally explain to me why then drag aircraft carriers, if there are so many airfields ?????????????

                  They explained to you 100500 times, well, you don’t perceive simple Russian words
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 12 December 2017 15: 45 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    They explained to you 100500 times

                    Where?
                    Point with your finger!
              2. Airman
                Airman 12 December 2017 15: 08 New
                +1
                Dear, where does the info about 1800 airdromes come from? I’ve lived in Germany for 8 years. Land Rhineland-Pfaltz, well, I haven’t seen many airdromes there, and that’s it. There’s Google for this. Sit down in the evening, take a look. And the sites that can receive Cesna, and others like that, by a third, unpaved from the total number of similar ones. Don’t make an elephant out of a fly. I understand figures, like facts, are stubborn, but ... did you count them? :)
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  12 December 2017 15: 37 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Povshnik
                  Dear, where does the info about 1800 airfields come from? Well, I’ve lived in Germany for 8 years. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, well, I haven’t seen many airfields there, and that’s it.

                  Statistics, however. By the way, did you notice that this is not about Germany, but about ALL Europe?
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 December 2017 15: 59 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Lies, maneuvering areas I sketched for you

        By the way, the northern area of ​​maneuvering should be more extended to the northeast. In the 80s, Americans experimented on exercises with the deployment of AB in the Norwegian fjords. The results were pretty good (for them) - finding AV in them was almost impossible. Even on take-off planes.
  6. komvap
    komvap 12 December 2017 08: 40 New
    +3
    Aircraft carriers, like other large military ships, are needed only by thieves, stupid and despicable politicians, and sofa megalo-marsh-wreckers.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 12 December 2017 09: 04 New
      +5
      Quote: komvap
      Aircraft carriers, like other large military ships, are needed only by thieves, stupid and despicable politicians, and sofa megalo-marsh-wreckers.

      What a biting, and most importantly, highly interactive comment! wassat But I, too, consider aircraft carriers to be a very serious means of warfare. Which of the categories listed by you do you belong to? lol
      1. komvap
        komvap 12 December 2017 09: 25 New
        0
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        Quote: komvap
        Aircraft carriers, like other large military ships, are needed only by thieves, stupid and despicable politicians, and sofa megalo-marsh-wreckers.

        What a biting, and most importantly, highly interactive comment! wassat But I, too, consider aircraft carriers to be a very serious means of warfare. Which of the categories listed by you do you belong to? lol

        to the category "girl friend and helper"
        1. komvap
          komvap 12 December 2017 09: 34 New
          0
          and also to the category "fill the semantic void like cool emoticons"
        2. Bongo
          Bongo 12 December 2017 09: 45 New
          +3
          Quote: komvap
          to the category "girl friend and helper"

          I mean, "friend of man"?
          Quote: komvap
          and also to the category "fill the semantic void like cool emoticons"

          This is excusable to a girl, although regarding Olya, in terms of “semantic emptiness”, I assure you, you got very excited. In some, including technical issues, she understands much better than other guys.
          1. komvap
            komvap 12 December 2017 10: 47 New
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            Quote: komvap
            to the category "girl friend and helper"

            I mean, "friend of man"?
            Quote: komvap
            and also to the category "fill the semantic void like cool emoticons"

            This is excusable to a girl, although regarding Olya, in terms of “semantic emptiness”, I assure you, you got very excited. In some, including technical issues, she understands much better than other guys.

            I did not write about Olya, but about her "type of caustic" post.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 12 December 2017 18: 08 New
              0
              [quote = komvap]
              [quote] Aircraft carriers, like other large military ships, are needed only by swindlers, thieves, stupid and vile politicians, and sofa megalomaniac droschers. [/ Quote]
              Warships are not needed at all.
      2. Airman
        Airman 12 December 2017 15: 21 New
        0
        IMHO of course, but the loss of an aircraft carrier as a combat unit causes significant damage by the loss of a fairly large number of combat-ready units of aircraft. "Yes, I can put an aircraft carrier to the bottom! ... If you are lucky of course)))" (c) .. .I mean that in our General Staff, there are no oaks either. And the war is this: you won’t protect yourself from everything .... Therefore, the loss of a couple of annoying aircraft carriers with the whole economy will significantly affect both afford and combat readiness.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 12 December 2017 18: 00 New
      0
      Quote: komvap
      sofa megalomaniac drocher.

      What kind of animals are they?
  7. EvilLion
    EvilLion 12 December 2017 09: 07 New
    +2
    Yes, damn it, well, land planes in Hokkaido and no longer need an aircraft carrier. The whole question is that the United States has so many bases, and significant wars do not occur in the center of the Pacific Ocean, but on land, which makes the task of stunt tricks to land an aircraft on a ship meaningless. Not because, allegedly, the X-22 will melt them (as practice has shown, one NAR can be enough for a long repair, crowding and a huge amount of fuel with ammunition are a dangerous combination), but because you can do without it.

    It’s just that one organizational structure (Fleet) needs to hang around and prove its identity to another, more important (Army), and to the heap there is still an ILC with its own troubles, which would have been different from those of naval men and army men.

    And another coincidence - it’s like Greece and Turkey, whose fighters periodically shoot down each other. One pilot flew out in the morning in a good mood, and a colleague across the sea in a bad mood, and something was wrong for him at a meeting. And nobody the day before the incident thought or knew that it would be so. This could very well happen somewhere over Syria when someone in the cockpit is scared, reinsured, or freaking out. This will not cause any war, neither world nor local, just as the “tomahawks” would not have caused it, and indeed any shelling of unmanned vehicles will never lead to war.

    And when the equipment is transferred from the USA for weeks, it’s not an accident, it’s serious questions that you didn’t go there for an hour, and, perhaps, preventive strikes after demanding to leave Eurasia.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 09: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: EvilLion
      Yes, damn it, well, land planes in Hokkaido and no longer need an aircraft carrier

      And the Japanese so joyfully rush into battle against a nuclear power?
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 12 December 2017 09: 47 New
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And the Japanese so joyfully rush into battle against a nuclear power?

        Andrey, I'm afraid no one will ask them. I don’t have to list the American bases in the Japanese islands, and which airplanes of the US Air Force and Navy are based there on an ongoing basis?
      2. BAI
        BAI 12 December 2017 17: 47 New
        0
        And the Japanese so joyfully rush into battle against a nuclear power?

        Where will they go? This will happen automatically, as I wrote in the comments on the previous article. Striking an American base in Japan is tantamount to declaring war on Japan. Moreover, Russia is an aggressor.
        1. Krabik
          Krabik 15 December 2017 05: 50 New
          0
          I am sure that the Japanese will somehow survive the nuclear strike on American bases in Japan and may not get into a meat grinder.

          Better to lose thousands of citizens and save the country than millions with ruins;)
          If the Americans run into this, most of the allies will wait quietly on the sidelines and not breathe%)

          But the winner in a nuclear war will dictate terms to the whole world, even if he himself will be all in radioactive ruins.
      3. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 01: 19 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And the Japanese so joyfully rush into battle against a nuclear power?

        This is assuming that Japan is not a nuclear power at the time of the conflict.
  8. Eurodav
    Eurodav 12 December 2017 10: 08 New
    +9
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk, as always, on a pessimistic note!
    Read it, spoil the mood and nerves ...
    "In view of the foregoing, it can be stated that US nuclear carriers are guarding their relevance ..."
    Who is arguing? Therefore, they are under our control, in order to die among the first goals ...
    "In such a conflict, the usefulness of US aircraft carriers is not in direct participation in the hostilities, but in the ability to remove a significant amount of carrier-based aviation from the attack of strategic nuclear forces (we are talking about hundreds of aircraft) ..."
    Are you sure about aircraft carriers? And then I didn’t hear something about an aircraft carrier emerging from an anti-ship missile strike ... Does the AUG system intercept missiles? Very funny...
    The Jewish "Wooden Kumpol" is a good example! We are not talking about submarines that also control the enemy caravan ...
    And there is the opinion of experts that in a serious mess, none of the countries with aircraft carriers will endanger them! This opinion must also be reckoned with, because it is one thing to bomb a small, oil-rich state with the help of AOG, which does not even have the means, at least some kind of counteraction, but it’s quite another to collide with a seasoned adversary and catch sailors from Matrasia from the ocean. If the author is talking about the future tense, then this will be added in the near future "... The radius of the coastal electronic warfare complex" Murmansk-BM "is five thousand kilometers. The equipment placed in seven trucks analyzes the activity on the air, intercepts enemy signals and suppresses they can’t be saved by the old tricks such as frequency tuning from Murmansk. The complex’s antennas are 32 meters high. Simply put, as NATO approaches Russia, NATO’s planes and ships will go blind and go deaf. The destroyers in Cherny Ore stop working air defense systems and missile defense (as has already happened with "Donald Cook"), a US spy plane over the Baltic Sea and the Pacific Ocean will lose communication with the command and etc ... "
    "... In this case, the aircraft carriers will turn into air transport and repair shops ..."
    For future generations who will get them from the bottom, perhaps they will turn into something!
    "... inaccessible to our nuclear submarines, because in wartime they won’t pass through Gibraltar ..."
    What are you talking about? Agreements between countries exist to change them periodically, something Erdogan after the recent events is not the same! Agreements between countries exist in order to circumvent them periodically, for example, Mattress ... So I wouldn’t say confidently about the ban on passage ...
    Not urapatriotizma, but optimism to the author and all of us! Someone faces the whole story, but each time Russia fought back!
    According to the calculations of our great historian S.M. Solovyov, from 1055 to 1462 Russia suffered 245 invasions, and in the period from 1240 to 1462 there were 200 of them, that is, almost every year! For the period from 1365 to 1893, for 525 years - 305 years, Russia spent fighting. With the West, 39 wars lasted 288 years. The rest were east, south, where Turkey and the Crimean Tatars, instigated by England, devastated the southern outskirts of the Russian state.
    So all of this is familiar to us and no one has succeeded in scaring our people! But inside the country, the "Augean stables" are crowded, a cleaning is necessary !!!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 10: 14 New
      +6
      Quote: Evrodav
      Who is arguing? Therefore, they are under our control, in order to die among the first goals ..

      Will you be able to give any arguments in defense of this position (preferably not one that was refuted in the article?) Besides the holy faith in your own words?
      Quote: Evrodav
      And then I didn’t hear something about an aircraft carrier emerging from an anti-ship missile strike ...

      What missiles, who launched? :)
      Quote: Evrodav
      ! We are not talking about submarines that also control the enemy caravan ...

      As I understand it, you could not read the article
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 12 December 2017 10: 48 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What missiles, who launched? :)

        Peaceful Sudanese container ship 8)))
      2. andj61
        andj61 12 December 2017 14: 37 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Evrodav
        And then I didn’t hear something about an aircraft carrier emerging from an anti-ship missile strike ...
        What missiles, who launched? :)

        So you yourself brought the distance to AUG - 900-1000 km to the position area near Izmir, 1000-1100 km to the Gothenburg region or the north-west coast of Norway. Gauges with nuclear warheads will be completely reached. And destroyed. Although the modern version of the RSD-10 would be more appropriate. If the United States withdraws from the treaty, maybe we will wait until it. Or spend several strategists on these AUGs - they, unlike the Caliber, are unlikely to be knocked down. hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 15: 13 New
          +3
          Quote: andj61
          Gauges with nuclear warheads will be completely reached.

          In the RCC version - no, they are much less long-range. And given the fact that they fly through the information space of Europe with their herds of Sentry and land radars ...
          1. andj61
            andj61 12 December 2017 15: 47 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: andj61
            Gauges with nuclear warheads will be completely reached.

            In the RCC version - no, they are much less long-range. And given the fact that they fly through the information space of Europe with their herds of Sentry and land radars ...


            Quote: Alexey RA
            At 900-1000 km, the "caliber" flies only in the version of a cruise missile. And not anti-ship, with GOS.


            Yes, I do not need RCC here! Only KR with BAB. The caliber in the version of the Kyrgyz Republic flies farther than 1000 km. And, of course, a ballistic missile would be more appropriate - it’s much easier to shoot down a Caliber. hi
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 13 December 2017 09: 59 New
              +1
              Quote: andj61
              Yes, I do not need RCC here! Only KR with BAB.

              The size of the position area is 300x300 miles. How many subsonic uncontrolled missile defense systems will be required to guarantee the failure of an AB located somewhere within this region? Given the fact that the AUG has air defense. smile
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 01: 24 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            . And given the fact that they fly through the information space of Europe with their herds of Sentry and land radars ...

            Oh, I have to. The continental part of the USA didn’t stop you from asking all this for strategic Kyrgyz Republic from the Arctic Ocean wassat
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 13 December 2017 10: 02 New
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Oh, I have to. The continental part of the United States to you all this strategic strategic KR from SLO did not stop

              The key is highlighted. Canada (especially in the northern part) and UTVD are hardly comparable for the same radar coverage and for the "power" of the air defense system.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 December 2017 15: 16 New
          +4
          Quote: andj61
          Gauges with nuclear warheads will be completely reached. And destroyed.

          What will destroy? A circle in the sea with a radius of 5-6 km, in which there is either an ACG or not?
          At 900-1000 km, the "caliber" flies only in the version of a cruise missile. And not anti-ship, with GOS.
      3. Airman
        Airman 12 December 2017 15: 37 New
        0
        Reading you, one gets the impression that your affiliation with Chelyabinsk is very arbitrary ..: (((.. But what about: “Chelyabinsk guys are so severe ...” This is not trolling. It’s just the impression that you, either "fsepropalschik", or not from Russia at all.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 18: 04 New
          +3
          Quote: Povshnik
          It’s just the impression that you are either “fsepropalschik” or not from Russia at all.

          We pass from the subject of discussion to the personality of the opponent? Well, well :))))) Yes, of course, in your understanding, anyone who does not scream urya with a system is either an all-crawler or a spy
    2. andrew xnumx
      andrew xnumx 12 December 2017 19: 05 New
      0
      Wisely and everything is very right! We can be defeated only from within and we must fight against potential traitors. As political scientists say, we need nationalization of the elites. The country will not survive the new collapse. But you still need to prepare for the attack seriously. And it will be either BSU or actions of a superior number of Western aviation, which means aircraft carriers will still take part in the attack, but not at the first stage.
  9. ZVO
    ZVO 12 December 2017 10: 15 New
    +6
    Andrew!
    Thank you!
    A real description of the real state of affairs.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 10: 50 New
      +4
      Thank you!:))) hi I already expected that in addition to "we will destroy them first" and "they are under our hood" I’m in the discussion thread and will not read anything :)))))
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 12 December 2017 11: 14 New
        +7
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Thank you!:))) hi I already expected that in addition to "we will destroy them first" and "they are under our hood" I’m in the discussion thread and will not read anything :)))))


        Well, I'm a skeptic ...
        Until I have a 2-fold quantitative and 2-fold technological advantage - I will be a skeptic.
        For the grandfathers went through the war. and one remained in a foreign land at the end of the war.
        It's a shame to everyone, the whole war passed, less than a month before the end of the war did not survive ...
        Date of departure - 12.04.1945/3/34, Place of departure - Austria, Burgenland, Oberwart, northwest, XNUMX km, alt. XNUMX

        Therefore, to all the idiots and hat-takers I have a personal account and contempt ...
        For 50 million Soviet lives.
        It is they, the goofs of those years and are to blame for so many deaths.
        I do not want a repeat of 1941.
        I heard too much about the war from my grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and most importantly - from my grandmothers - they nevertheless painted much more honest pictures ... Not a war-pih, pih .... nifiga, and the hungry and cold rear. Blockades.

        Too bad it's all forgotten ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 11: 26 New
          +3
          I have one sapper all the war, I reached Berlin, the second - long before the war I climbed one blockhead to save (pulled into the machine) 2,5 fingers lost. He worked throughout the war on the Chelyabinsk tank hi drinks
        2. Airman
          Airman 12 December 2017 15: 48 New
          0
          Facespalm !!! Another one !!! You counted them? And what is 50? Write 100 right away! The digit will be more circular !!! Where do you get all these numbers from!
          .... My grandmother’s brother, also died shortly before the victory: 08.03.1945/XNUMX/XNUMX, near Koenigsberg. Most recently, his name was immortalized on the plates of the Bratsk grave, in the village of Lugovoy ... But what does it mean? that we filled up the Germans with corpses? Yes, this is nonsense! Read more. Analyze. Are your children (or grandchildren, sorry, I don’t know your age), who know about that war? Do they know enough about it to appreciate the Victory in that war, and honor until the very last day, The memory of those who laid down their lives in the name of the Great Victory?
          If you want to change the world around you, start with yourself!
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 12 December 2017 18: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: Povshnik
            You will also say that we filled up the Germans with corpses?

            In places it was like that.
          2. ZVO
            ZVO 12 December 2017 19: 51 New
            0
            Quote: Povshnik
            But what does the cap-slandering have to do with it? You will also say that we have filled up the Germans with corpses? Yes, this is nonsense!
            If you want to change the world around you, start with yourself!


            Moreover.
            . movies pre-war look. on which our grandfathers grew up ...

            In the battle for Moscow, more than 30 Soviet citizens died from September 1941, 20 to April 1942, 2.400.000. Only in the battle for Moscow.
            But there were more than one such battle.
            Employees of the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences of the USSR came to the conclusion that at least 800 thousand people died of starvation in Leningrad during the fascist blockade.
            What about Poland? with its 600 thousand, it is not clear why the dead ...
            Poland is not enough for everyone?

            27 million died only on the battlefields and in the occupied lands.
            But you will not see the number of dead in the rear.
            And there, too, many millions died ...
            Have you seen post-war crime statistics?
            the bill on death after the war went to millions ...
            The death penalty was abolished in 47 only because. that the executions of criminals were massive. If continued at such a pace, they would have caused irreparable and irreparable damage to the male population and the country would no longer be pulled out of the demographic pit.
            Just because. that their crimes were the same killings for any reason.
            Weapons were unmeasured.
            They shot right and left.
        3. KaPToC
          KaPToC 12 December 2017 22: 09 New
          0
          Quote: ZVO
          For the grandfathers went through the war.

          Quote: ZVO
          Well, I'm a skeptic ...
          Until I have a 2-fold quantitative and 2-fold technological advantage - I will be a skeptic.

          However, the grandfathers won with a twofold advantage of the enemy
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 13 December 2017 11: 45 New
            0
            Quote: KaPToC
            Quote: ZVO
            For the grandfathers went through the war.

            Quote: ZVO
            Well, I'm a skeptic ...
            Until I have a 2-fold quantitative and 2-fold technological advantage - I will be a skeptic.

            However, the grandfathers won with a twofold advantage of the enemy


            Well, you still climb into historical articles. That would not carry nonsense.
            34 million soldiers exhibited the Soviet Union.
            Will you find the number of Germans with hangers-on yourself?
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 13 December 2017 19: 08 New
              0
              Quote: ZVO
              Will you find the number of Germans with hangers-on yourself?

              The population of the Third Reich with satellites exceeded the population of the USSR almost twice. When attacking the USSR, the Wehrmacht with satellites had more than one and a half times the advantage of 5.5 million soldiers against 3.2 million soldiers of the Red Army.
              Moreover, I note that in the forty-second year, when the USSR lost its western, densely populated territories, numerical inequality was greatly exacerbated.
  10. San Sanych
    San Sanych 12 December 2017 10: 21 New
    0
    The United States is obliged to reduce the number of its aircraft carriers to 2 or 3 units, for this it is necessary to organize a conference on the limitation of naval weapons similar to Washington in 1922.
  11. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 12 December 2017 11: 00 New
    +2
    Drain beech ..., drain beech ..! It’s crazy you can go, the author has planted a whole rumAn. The author assumes that ACG is not a strategic object and, therefore, is not a priority for nuclear weapons strike. Based on what such an assumption. Further reading was not interesting.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 12: 00 New
      +4
      Quote: bratchanin3
      The author assumes that ACG is not a strategic object and, therefore, is not a priority for nuclear weapons strike.

      I see that the article was not read. Same
      Quote: bratchanin3
      Drain beech ..., drain beech ..!
  12. vvvjak
    vvvjak 12 December 2017 11: 03 New
    +3
    "Tu-22M3 in Crimea AUS in the Aegean Sea is a completely unattainable goal." Quite controversial statement. How will the Hornets or Turkish fighters (mainly f-16) prevent Tushka from using the X-22 on the AUS if they are physically unable to intercept it? And what is the "absolute" protection of the AUS? About American submarines, too, not everything is so rosy for them. How many missiles can an American submarine launch simultaneously (or in one trip) - one? But strategists with x-101, who can "work" on the target without entering the enemy’s air defense zone? There are still various anti-ship missiles of the Russian Federation, and torpedoes should not be written off. I believe that it is problematic to approach the AUS at a distance of effective action (at least 700 km) to the borders of the Russian Federation. And refueling in the air is a good thing, but with a massive raid it is not very feasible
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 11: 27 New
      +4
      Quote: vvvjak
      How the “Hornets" or Turkish fighters (mainly f-16) will prevent Tushka from using X-22 on the AUS

      To use missiles, AUS needs to be found. With what?
      Quote: vvvjak
      About American submarines, too, not everything is so rosy for them.

      With a ratio of 4 to one?
      Quote: vvvjak
      How many missiles can an American submarine launch simultaneously (or in one trip) - one?

      Rebuilt Ohio - EMNIP 154 or 156, Virginia - 12 PU Tomahwk not counting missiles that it can take in place of a part of the torpedo ammunition
      Quote: vvvjak
      I believe that it is problematic to approach the AUS at a distance of effective action (at least 700 km) to the borders of the Russian Federation.

      The article clearly explains why they DO NOT have to do this.
    2. andrew xnumx
      andrew xnumx 12 December 2017 14: 00 New
      0
      I agree. Of course, aircraft carriers are a formidable force and very dangerous. But if we fully equip aviation and the fleet with cruise and hypersonic missiles, then even with our lag in the surface fleet, we will be able to reduce the threat from aircraft carriers and significantly. If only the leadership of the state had not forgotten that cruise missiles in this difficult situation for our country are our main hope !!
  13. omit
    omit 12 December 2017 11: 05 New
    +1
    But it’s interesting if Russia had many times more weapons than the USA and NATO. How would Russia behave? After all, when there was parity, the USSR was very warlike. Just don’t have to talk about grandma, okay?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 December 2017 11: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: omit
      But it’s interesting if Russia had many times more weapons than the USA and NATO. How would Russia behave?

      In the Middle East, the Arabs have the most weapons. And Israel behaves most brazenly. Do not you think that there is no direct dependence?
      1. omit
        omit 12 December 2017 12: 05 New
        +1
        Lopatov
        When the Arabs had more weapons, they attacked. And now is not the time, they know that they will rake in full.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 12 December 2017 12: 27 New
          +3
          Quote: omit
          When the Arabs had large arms

          There are more of them now. And only American diplomacy protects you, do not overestimate yourself.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 12 December 2017 13: 08 New
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            Quote: omit
            When the Arabs had large arms

            There are more of them now. And only American diplomacy protects you, do not overestimate yourself.

            Did American diplomacy help Jews win air battles and tank battles? Rather, it prevented them from pushing the Arabs somewhere to the Maghreb and the Caucasus
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 December 2017 15: 48 New
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Did American diplomacy help Jews win air battles and tank battles?

              Rather, it did not allow the Arabs to unite.
              Israel’s relatively recent attempts to hit Iran, archived due to the lack of Washington’s “endorsements,” clearly indicate a measure of dependence on the United States.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 12 December 2017 15: 51 New
                0
                double two: Rather prevented them from throwing the Arabs somewhere to the Maghreb and the Caucasus
                Quote: Spade
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Did American diplomacy help Jews win air battles and tank battles?

                Rather, it did not allow the Arabs to unite.
                Israel’s relatively recent attempts to hit Iran, archived due to the lack of Washington’s “endorsements,” clearly indicate a measure of dependence on the United States.

          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 01: 30 New
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            Only American diplomacy protects you, do not overestimate yourself.

            Oh. And from whom? It is believed that it protects just Iran.
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 12 December 2017 11: 59 New
      +1
      What was militancy expressed in? The fact that they did not give shit anywhere? Even at its peak, the USSR and a tenth of foreign military bases weren’t ... And about the number of ongoing hostilities ... I’m silent ... Or is it bothering you that the Arabs were helped then? Well, then, to the kerosene, then, in that bonfire, who just didn’t pour ... exactly the same as now. Despite the fact that they "genocide" everything and with pleasure ... Another question is that there were resources behind the AHG on the heels ... and they knew that we were walking ... But now ... and the likelihood of war only increased.
    3. Airman
      Airman 12 December 2017 15: 51 New
      0
      How warlike?
    4. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 12 December 2017 18: 46 New
      0
      Quote: omit
      But it’s interesting if Russia had many times more weapons than the USA and NATO. How would Russia behave?

      And without the armament of the USSR, no one stopped Russia in Syria.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 01: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        nobody stopped Russia in Syria.

        Didn't stop, you're right. Did someone really want to?
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 13 December 2017 19: 42 New
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Didn't stop, you're right. Did someone really want to?

          Of course you would like to think the United States in Syria sat from nothing to do, they fought with ISIS, they fought, they fought and did not get out.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 23: 02 New
            +2
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            you might think the US in Syria sat from nothing to do,

            1. Pure truth.
            3. And now they are sitting. And tomorrow they will.
  14. vvvjak
    vvvjak 12 December 2017 11: 43 New
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    Will you be able to give any arguments in defense of this position (preferably not one that was refuted in the article?) Besides the holy faith in your own words?

    There used to be an article on MO (too lazy to look for a link). Its essence is that the United States exercises (KSH) were held, in which the Iranian army played the role of the Reds, and the US strike group led by the AUG played the role of the Blue. So the “mosquito” fleet of the Reds dealt the AUG. The blue fatal damage and the KShU had to be replayed in order to save face.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 12: 04 New
      +3
      Quote: vvvjak
      Its essence is that the United States exercises (KSH) were held, in which the Iranian army played the role of the Reds, and the US strike group led by the AUG played the role of the Blue.

      Ah, "The Challenge of the Millennium" ... I studied in due time, analytics here http://alternathistory.com/vyzov-tysyacheletiya-r
      azbor-poletov
      In short, the conclusions
      1) Against 30 ships and 120 US aircraft were deployed and operated numerically superior forces.
      2) Van Rieper's victory was achieved in the worst traditions of kamikaze - when for every really warship / aircraft capable of breaking into the enemy’s throat and gnawing it into battle, 10 ships / planes were sent that could neither evade American missiles nor even scratch the sides of American ships.
      3) US Navy commanders made a number of unforgivable mistakes, the main one being an attempt to land on an unsuppressed coastal defense in the face of numerically superior enemy air forces and combat-ready Navy
      4) Even under the conditions of clause 1, clause 2, clause 3, the tactics of Van Ripper worked only because the geography was most favorable to his plans, and in the first place, he guaranteed the successful reconnaissance of the location of the opposing forces.
      In fact, the “Millennium Challenge” is a sad story about how the United States tried to conduct a strategic operation with insufficient forces, ignoring the fact that the plan of the operation is known to the enemy, and relying, in general, solely on its technical superiority and the best tactical training.
      1. Airman
        Airman 12 December 2017 15: 55 New
        0
        What difference does it make? The fact remains: winners are not judged!
    2. Soho
      Soho 13 December 2017 05: 54 New
      +1
      Yes, this is a well-known story about the Millennium Challenge 2002 and the retired General Van Rieper (although Ripper probably is more correct), who showed what tactics mean by advantage in strength. It may or may not work. But the story is full of examples when tactics strike force. In this regard, the article gives a clearly superficial assessment of the results of the confrontation. Since Andrey makes an analysis close to mathematical (it is indisputable that 2542235441 is more than 987989658). But tactics can help to cause unacceptable damage, even in conventional warfare. Let the keyword here “can”, but this is an analytical function that can seriously change the equation
  15. Old26
    Old26 12 December 2017 11: 58 New
    +6
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk

    Quote: Victor_B
    Do not be afraid, for the full, not enough. no This is confirmed by calculations.
    Poster for GO. Areas of destruction in an explosion of a warhead of 1 megaton. A radius of 15 (fifteen!) Km is a zone of WEAK destruction.
    We impose it on New York City, we estimate how many warheads 200-300 kt are needed (now it is no longer fashionable) so that it "burns out in a nuclear fire." All.
    And in the USA there are hundreds of large cities.
    And the strikes must be applied to the military structure, there are thousands of warheads needed.


    About how much to estimate - no problems are visible. Take the usual simulator of the use of nuclear weapons (in the internet you can download it). Set the place (target) and power of the warhead. And get some concentric rings. You understand that these are affected areas.
    The fact that the Americans have hundreds of large cities - I would not say. The main thing is to consider a large city. 100 thousandth? half a million? millionaire?
    Unfortunately, the file downloaded from the Internet is lost, where the author considers this problem quite extensively. So, based on a number of statements by American political and military leaders about unacceptable damage, the author of that work (unfortunately did not even retain the name) estimated what was needed to get the US out of the war (not defeating it by hoisting the flag over the White House, not to destroy, but simply to withdraw from the state of war, making it impossible to continue it. So, the author of that article believes that for this it is necessary to strike at:
    • 9 millionth millionths, having spent on it 6-12 BG (depending on power, that is, 6 at 300 ct or 12 at 100 ct)
    • 28 large cities and industrial centers, spending 3-6 BG per target (as you can see, such target cities are by no means hundreds)
    • 25 power plants x 1 BG
    • 22 large transport hubs, spending 1-2 BG per target
    • approximately 6 naval bases
    • approximately 15 air bases
    • about 60 military facilities.
    TOTAL. approximately 165 targets and approximately 266-426 warheads. As you can see, there’s no talk of thousands of warheads


    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Victor_B
    We impose it on New York City, we estimate how many warheads 200-300 kt are needed (now it is no longer fashionable) so that it "burns out in a nuclear fire." All.

    But why?
    Enough of a tiny warhead. One. so that collapse comes. You can recall what happened during the "Katrina", or during the "Great Blackout" of 2003.
    And it will be much worse than the complete destruction of the city. So much effort will have to be made to maintain the state that it will certainly not be before the war. The same applies to Europe. But there the situation is even worse. They have much less ability to suppress the “declassed element”, and these people themselves are more, they are better adapted to self-organization

    Of course, you can count on a declassed element, but often this does not have an effect. It’s one thing to do a natural disaster like a hurricane, it’s quite another thing when you have an enemy ready to destroy this very declassed element. It is hard to say how this element will behave. But I think that this is not the resource to be counted on. The same US Ministry of Defense at one time clearly defined unacceptable damage to the United States (it must be understood with this element in mind). Namely, the death of a third of the population and 60% of industry

    Quote: shinobi
    If this were all so, our country would not have existed for a long time. And so, the importance of the aircraft against the continental enemy is greatly exaggerated. In the event of a spontaneous conflict, even if they manage to get to the transfer distance, who will let them do it without hindrance? despite the fact that with such a driving distance they will be empty and dry. And this is the time for refueling and loading weapons. And at the same time hollowing out locations will be all available means. For some reason, most analysts have forgotten that the AUG was originally intended for a war at sea against the same AUG. The maximum is to sustain the landing in the complete absence of coastal defense by the enemy. Or the weapons of the enemy at the level of banana republics.

    Even if the enemy’s armament is not at the level of banana republics, it’s quite difficult to resist aircraft carriers. So you ask the question, who will let them approach the distance of the "throw". But you can ask a counter, but what can prevent this, who and what will interfere?

    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Who will interfere? Old man Hottabych?

    The threat will hinder.
    Question: Will the Americans move the AUG at the highest probability of its complete destruction?

    That's just the highest probability of its destruction is not. If we consider Russia as an adversary, then what used to be a threat to the ACG, namely, the MPA no longer exists. Naval missile-carrying aviation has now become land, the number of bombers of this class (TU-22M3) is now significantly less (in total) than before there were only machines in the MPA. Since a large number of TU-22M2 were decommissioned. In addition, the training of naval pilots is still somewhat different from the training of a land pilot, this should also be borne in mind.
    At one time there was a book by Admiral Kapitanets "Battle at Sea" (EMNIP). Here, he very accurately described the outfit of forces (in particular, anti-ship missiles) necessary to damage and destroy an aircraft carrier and security ships (cruisers). An X-22 missile with a nearly 1 tonne of BG was considered as a striking force. In order to disable an aircraft carrier, according to the same admiral, it was necessary to hit 8-10 X-22 cruise missiles in it. For drowning - 11-12. Not without reason, for the destruction of the AUG, the EMNIP detachment was assigned to the aviation regiment of bombers-missile carriers in the Soviet Army
    What can we oppose to these cruise missiles now? Onyx with a goal of 300 kg? So the usual TNT equivalent conversion suggests that one X-22 is equivalent to three onyxes. In addition, the types of warheads are incomparable. In one case - a high-explosive-cumulative (on the X-22), in the second - just a high-explosive one.
    What else do we have? The famous "Caliber" which everyone is not lazy. Remembered at the level of "prodigy." So, unlike Onyx, it’s generally subsonic and will cut its 350-400 km in half an hour. How many such missiles will be in salvo? If with a submarine of project 636 - then 4-6. If with a missile system like "Buyan-M", then a maximum of 8. No one knows if such a boat will go into the ocean. Especially not having its own air defense. And who will let him go at a volley distance. At a distance of about 400 km from the AUG, the G600s cut their AWACS aircraft. Which can also survey the surface at a distance of XNUMX km? So what will do? What is the threat?

    Quote: Vard
    The author is a maximalist ... You don’t need to sink an aircraft carrier, it’s enough to deprive him of the ability to take planes ... and about the range of carrier aircraft ... please see how much load the aircraft that has risen from an aircraft carrier carries ... this is one ... Unlike that in Western Europe, in Russia, almost half of the households drown with wood ... and that means bombing a couple of power plants ... and there will be no electricity, and therefore no gas ... that is, it will be like ours ...

    That's just the deck you need to get. See what I wrote above. Well, the fact that almost half of households are stoked with wood in Russia is a strong argument. That's just where these households are. Any city, not to mention millionaires, even half-millionths, depends on electricity. Therefore, it is mutual. Not only in the west, but also in our country the failure of power plants has led to disastrous results
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 December 2017 12: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Of course, you can count on a declassed element

      To count?
      8)))))
      Is it possible to expect that there are houses in the city?
      This is an objective reality.
    2. andrew xnumx
      andrew xnumx 12 December 2017 14: 12 New
      0
      Everything is correct and very reasoned. But nevertheless, it is possible to give a more precise answer to the main question: "Can we at least somehow neutralize the AOG, if they come closer to our shores in the conditions of hostilities? Or are we deprived of such opportunities?"
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 02: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      just to get out of the state of war, making it impossible to continue it.

      Quote: Old26
      approximately 165 targets and approximately 266-426 warheads.

      Sensible estimation, if you justify strategic offensive arms. But for talking about nuclear ashes ...
      1. Minweil ​​in Russia? Suppose that on the second day of the war, the United States is withdrawn from the game. And what did they do on the first day? Yes, and deduced - in what time perspective? Will it stop the army? The Wehrmacht, for example, did not stop particularly. By the way, JBCh in American warehouses will not go anywhere either.
      2. And how many warheads are there really? That is, can they be delivered? And after the counterstroke?
      3. What is the time for preparation? The main problems with the nuclear bombardment of cities are burns, damage to eyesight, hearing, cuts from glass. All this is well countered by the correct GO. If the main factor will be a shock wave - the victims (wounded) are already an order of magnitude smaller. If the bourgeoisie manage to make bunkers, it will be beautiful in general. We will bomb them, and they will sit like Naf-Naf behind a meter of concrete and laugh at us.
      1. Soho
        Soho 13 December 2017 06: 13 New
        +1
        Cherry Nine Today, 02:09 AM
        All this is well countered by the correct GO.

        what nonsense are you writing? GO in Manhattan? Among office hamsters? Even to more or less accustom a significant part of the population to emergency actions takes time, a real threat as an incentive, a prepared base (instructors, information media, warning equipment, shelters and much, much more). And so 99% of idiots will be staring at a nuclear explosion and shoot it on iPhones.
        If the bourgeoisie manage to make bunkers, it will be beautiful in general. We will bomb them, and they will sit like Naf-Naf behind a meter of concrete and laugh at us.

        write at least the approximate dimensions of such bunkers with a "meter of concrete", to shelter the population of the average American millionaire. Not to mention New York, with its 8,5 million only officially resident
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 08: 01 New
          +1
          Quote: Soho
          Even to more or less accustom a significant part of the population to emergency actions takes time, a real threat as an incentive, a prepared base (instructors, information media, warning equipment, shelters and much, much more).

          I wrote, it depends on the time. To return the situation to the state at the end of the 50s, as then, 5-10 years are needed.
          Quote: Soho
          bunkers with a "meter of concrete" to shelter the population of the average American millionaire

          In the 50s, everything was counted. He bent at the expense of a meter, 0,61 can withstand any air explosion of existing warheads.
          The main task is not to dig megabunkers for 8 million people, but not to allow their concentration in skyscrapers. Now it is much easier than in the 50s, and already goes by itself for economic reasons.
  16. Old26
    Old26 12 December 2017 12: 01 New
    +2
    Quote: San Sanych
    The United States is obliged to reduce the number of its aircraft carriers to 2 or 3 units, for this it is necessary to organize a conference on the limitation of naval weapons similar to Washington in 1922.

    Are you obligated?. Unfortunately, they are not obliged to anyone. They have remained the only superpower in the world to date.
    And we have what FORCE them do it? By the way, the Washington Conference least hit the United States. And such a conference will meet again, and the Americans will declare. Yes, we agree if Russia reduces its bomber aviation to 2 air regiments, or a surface fleet to 5 ships per fleet. How is that option? Will we agree?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 02: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      The Washington Conference least hit the United States.

      Not quite. The United States was the only country at that time for which the abandonment of the arms race was a matter of desire. For the rest - a necessity. They bargained this position well, but not well.
      Quote: Old26
      how to force them to do this? TO

      It was the Americans who forced them there. They promised the Japanese that if they did not accept 5: 5: 3, then the Americans would build two LCs for each Japanese. Or three, I don’t remember. What is important - they could afford it.

      Quote: Old26
      Yes, we agree if Russia reduces its bomber aviation to 2 air regiments, or a surface fleet to 5 ships per fleet. How is that option?

      It doesn’t. What is the Russian fleet with bomber aircraft and so violet.

      Is that a global ban on nuclear weapons. But this is out of the question. Even Russia will not do this, not to mention Kim.
  17. Taoist
    Taoist 12 December 2017 12: 05 New
    +1
    I don’t know about you, but I'm sad ... And the point is not that we normally cannot block the AUG. And the fact is that in fact all these calculations of pure water are transfusion from empty to empty ... We are pressed and not by military force, and will be crushed - simply because we play by their rules. And if the gentleman does not like the rules, he changes them - i.e. we obviously sat down to play with a sharpie and even his deck. Therefore, in fact, how much AUG they have and what it will look like. There is no alternative. Basically. Of the options, we either merge or “Armagedets” ... and total. In neither case is our further existence provided.
    1. prodi
      prodi 12 December 2017 12: 26 New
      +1
      why? AUG is a legitimate and desirable goal for the use of nuclear weapons outside the territorial waters of the United States
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 12 December 2017 15: 57 New
        +1
        NF is not a weapon, it is a deterrent - a threat to cause unacceptable damage if something happens. That is why the goals for nuclear weapons are cities and infrastructure nodes. The use of nuclear weapons is already the final. Since mutual unacceptable damage will be done ... And if of course we do not die out, then at least we will cease to exist in the modern world. The end of the story is not at all about Fukuyama.
        1. prodi
          prodi 12 December 2017 17: 39 New
          0
          that’s how I pointed out - it’s an exclusively practical weapon. Armageddon will begin only with the use of nuclear weapons on the mainland territory of the enemy. In extreme cases, a couple of rusty cruisers or destroyers will be sunk in international waters - a good change
  18. vvvjak
    vvvjak 12 December 2017 12: 09 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Rebuilt Ohio - EMNIP 154 or 156, Virginia - 12 PU Tomahwk not counting missiles that it can take in place of a part of the torpedo ammunition

    I’m not talking about how many NATO submarines can carry missiles, but about how many missiles it can APPLY in one trip. It’s just that there are cases when, after ONE launch of a Virginia-class submarine, it went to the dock to repair the hull of the boat. In this scenario, 4 to 1 is nothing at all.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 12: 14 New
      +3
      Quote: vvvjak
      It’s just that there are cases when, after ONE launch of a Virginia-class submarine, it went to the dock to repair the boat’s hull

      New ships are being finalized, this is normal. And they will not destroy our submarines by missiles
  19. SMP
    SMP 12 December 2017 12: 13 New
    +1
    In such a conflict, the utility of US aircraft carriers lies not in direct participation in hostilities, but in the ability to remove a significant amount of carrier-based aircraft (these are hundreds of aircraft) from the impact of strategic nuclear forces, which, upon arrival in Europe, can be a decisive argument in postapocalyptic confrontation. In this case, aircraft carriers will turn into air transport and repair shops, but if it is in this form that they can contribute to winning the war - why not?

    In view of the foregoing, it can be stated that US nuclear carriers maintain their relevance today, and are capable of having, if not decisive, then very serious impact on the outcome of both the global nuclear missile and non-nuclear conflicts between the Russian Federation and NATO.


    The author does not write nonsense, do not mislead people.
    The explosion of any atomic torpedo that all submarines of the Russian fleet are equipped with without exception destroys the entire aircraft carrier group together with the aircraft carrier.


    No need to give out their fantasies, for the truth.
    Mlyn .... the consequences of EG are simply a disaster for the next generation .....
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 12: 33 New
      +5
      Quote: SMP
      The author does not write nonsense, do not mislead people.

      What a pathetic! :)))
      Quote: SMP
      The explosion of any atomic torpedo that all submarines of the Russian fleet are equipped with without exception destroys the entire aircraft carrier group together with the aircraft carrier.

      laughing fool
      Go learn the match, "Pepsi generation." On the damaging factors of an underwater nuclear explosion
  20. vvvjak
    vvvjak 12 December 2017 12: 16 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    To use missiles, AUS needs to be found. With what?

    AUS is a very big goal (just a huge one). If the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation cannot even find it, then there can be no talk of any confrontation of either the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation against the NATO Armed Forces or the Air Force. Just as the RF Armed Forces at the same time manage to track the starts of even individual US bombers (a thing like "Voronezh"), the mind is incomprehensible - they probably lie.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 12: 37 New
      +3
      Quote: vvvjak
      Just as the RF Armed Forces at the same time manage to track the starts of even individual US bombers (a thing like "Voronezh"), the mind is incomprehensible - they probably lie.

      Firstly, Voronezh, it’s a ZRLS tracking air targets, so as an aircraft carrier flies somewhere, it will certainly notice :)))) And secondly, YES READ THE SAME ARTICLE BEFORE HOW TO COMMENT !!! am
      And there is no doubt that in the event of a war, our ZGRLS, which are large stationary objects, as well as reconnaissance satellites (we try to track the trajectory of enemy military satellites and we and the United States from the moment of launch) will be attacked and, most likely, will be destroyed.
      1. vvvjak
        vvvjak 12 December 2017 12: 52 New
        +1
        WHAT are destroyed? Okay satellites, the Russian Federation will only benefit from this (without them, NATO will not be able to fight at all). ZGRLS how to destroy, if the AUS has not even moved, ICBMs? So we do not consider the option of nuclear weapons (their ZGRLS will immediately detect even when the satellites will shoot down). Spiritual? it's funny. What kind of weapons does NATO have?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 12: 55 New
          +4
          Quote: vvvjak
          WHAT are destroyed?

          Cruise missiles. For example, with a submarine. JASSM-ER with tactical aircraft. Huge options
          Quote: vvvjak
          Okay satellites, the Russian Federation will only benefit from this (without them, NATO will not be able to fight at all).

          ??? Destroy our Liana and spies, why should they destroy their own?
  21. Sergey Cojocari
    Sergey Cojocari 12 December 2017 13: 41 New
    0
    [in Russia, almost half of households are drowned with firewood ... and that means bombing a couple of power plants ... and there will be no electricity, and therefore no gas ... that is, it will be like ours ... [/ quote]

    -You made me a day today !!!
  22. Old26
    Old26 12 December 2017 13: 44 New
    +3
    Quote: Spade
    Is it possible to expect that there are houses in the city?

    That is, you can say with 100% certainty that the looting and rampant of this element in a hurricane will be repeated in a nuclear strike in cities? That is, when impacted, for example, by 6-12 moleheads in New York, this element, instead of being saved, will arrange a buch, will begin to loot? In the radioactive ruins?

    Quote: SMP
    The explosion of any atomic torpedo that all submarines of the Russian fleet are equipped with without exception destroys the entire aircraft carrier group together with the aircraft carrier.

    For a change, read the reports of the same Americans (or ours, no matter) about underwater tests. How many plains and where were sunk, how many remained whole. In order to strike a nuclear torpedo at an AUG, one still has to approach it at a distance of several kilometers, a maximum of a dozen. And acoustics from a dozen surface ships and submarines located within a radius of 50-100 km from the aircraft carrier will listen to you. We have not yet mastered the zero transportation of our boats and torpedoes inside the warrant ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 December 2017 16: 03 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      That is, you can say with 100% certainty that the looting and rampant of this element in the case of a hurricane will be repeated in case of a nuclear strike on cities?

      With 1000% certainty.
      For a very simple reason: after the hurricane, everyone was sure that this period of anarchy would not last long, and the authorities would again put the “walk-field” into a tight framework. After a massive blow, such confidence will not be.

      Quote: Old26
      That is, when struck, for example, by 6-12 moverheads in New York, this element instead of being saved will arrange a buch

      Why so much, one is enough for the eyes.
      It’s like in the situation with the dead and wounded, the latter divert a lot more resources.
  23. andrew xnumx
    andrew xnumx 12 December 2017 13: 46 New
    0
    Yes, this is serious and very dangerous. It is necessary to equip aviation and the navy with a large number of cruise missiles.
  24. Pbs
    Pbs 12 December 2017 13: 51 New
    +2
    The author began by counting the strategic nuclear forces and concluding that aircraft carriers would survive and begin to steer in a world without nuclear weapons. I did not read further. Something Topvar has slipped in recent months, I hope it will be released after the election.
  25. vlad007
    vlad007 12 December 2017 13: 51 New
    +3
    The article is serious and the argument is interesting. Dear author, you don’t have the feeling that the United States wants to destroy us economically and the aircraft carriers will not need this from the word “completely”. Enough to develop strong competition in the hydrocarbon market. This is the most realistic option and it scares much more than quantitative superiority in armaments. It is terrible to think what will happen if another Gorbachev comes to power.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 14: 08 New
      +3
      Quote: vlad007
      Dear author, but you don’t have the feeling that the United States wants to destroy us economically and the aircraft carriers will not need this from the word "completely

      I will answer with the old adage: "Eat it, eat it, but hto give it to him?" laughing
      A series of articles does not consider the confrontation between the Russian Federation and the USA, but just a local issue of the utility of US aircraft carriers in a full-fledged conflict with us :) hi
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 02: 32 New
      0
      Quote: vlad007
      Enough to launch strong competition in the hydrocarbon market

      Why competition? You can just wrap the faucet. The Germans will be against it, but you can agree with the Germans if you so desire.
      1. Soho
        Soho 13 December 2017 06: 55 New
        +1
        Cherry Nine Today, 02:32 AM
        You can just wrap the faucet. The Germans will be against it, but you can agree with the Germans if you so desire.

        Yes of course. Something the Americans did not help the status to maintain their own shale industry. As it did not help to get into the European market with its liquefied liquid.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 07: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Soho
          the status did not help maintain its own shale industry.

          Oh. And where did she go?
          Whatever. Well, really wanted to agree?
  26. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 12 December 2017 14: 19 New
    +3
    Amateur alarmism for ladies, not an analyst. CSF will not pass from the Norwegian Sea to the North? Will not be able to suppress the naval and air bases of ANY enemy in Scandinavia? This enemy will not pass from the North to the Norwegian, even if he goes with all the cash NORTH ATLANTIC naval and air force! KBF will not be able to achieve maritime and air supremacy at sea and in the air in the Baltic? With 10-15 real naval bases of the enemy on a theater of operations? For each of which it is possible to bring down NON-NUCLEAR warheads and air bombs with a capacity of 3000 to 9000 kg? As for the KChF, in the event of a war with NATO, the enemy’s water area and ports will be completely cleared throughout the Black Sea and Caliber will work on ALL NATO bases in the Mediterranean Sea, both from launchers in the Crimea and the Caucasus, and in the Middle East, starting from Syria. Moreover, the network of potential “jump airfields” on this theater will effectively suppress ANY enemy bases and groups from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean. So far, only the Pacific theater of operations can be considered problematic for Russia, and here the positions of the Navy and the Russian Air Force are urgently needed, now they are not enough even for effective defense. Both quantitatively and qualitatively, in the possibilities of sufficient rear support. But - there we have allies that are entirely possible, which in their own interests will at least remove even the Philippines and South Korea from participation in hostilities, and also divert the bulk of Japan's forces (in constant readiness towards the DPRK and PRC). By the way, Japan is extremely vulnerable to a powerful blow to volcanoes even by non-nuclear weapons, and if nuclear weapons are used, it is generally doomed to catastrophe, so its participation in the war against the Russian Federation is under a huge question mark. Against China - a question mark is much less, since the Japanese know the feelings of the Chinese and Koreans towards them since the war and war crimes in China and Korea since the 30s. The war between them can be a war of revenge for maximum destruction. That’s the whole basic layout for our military construction, which certainly should be SPEEDED and IMPROVED on all potential theater of operations.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 14: 36 New
      +6
      In! good
      I'm amazed:))))
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      CSF will not pass from the Norwegian Sea to the North? Will not be able to suppress the naval and air bases of ANY enemy in Scandinavia? This enemy will not pass from the North to the Norwegian, even if he goes with all the cash NORTH ATLANTIC naval and air force!

      Every time I think that now the limit of cheers and patriotism is finally reached, someone appears and takes new horizons :))))
      Yes, indeed, one and a half ships of the Northern Fleet, which still need to somehow ensure the safety of the SSBNs, will easily go to the North Sea and will not allow the NATO fleets to operate there wassat
    2. ZVO
      ZVO 12 December 2017 15: 12 New
      +7
      Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
      Amateur alarmism for ladies, not an analyst.


      Gauges. are you talking
      Are you all trying to destroy the Caliber?
      Answer yourself how many Caliber carriers we have?
      And here at the same time write ...
      Accordingly, find a plan for the production of these missiles - it’s not so difficult, by public procurement you can find out ...
      Less than 70 launchers and less than 200 missiles. It seems so now.

      Look at how many Tomahawks - the twin brothers of the Caliber - are with the Amers.
      It seems to me that about 7 thousand ..
      Take a look. how many Tomahawks carriers are in service and how many they will be able to launch missiles in one salvo.
      In my opinion, the volley will be equal to 5500 missiles.

      Now look at our defense system, on the other hand.
      From the attack side.

      You have 5000 CR.
      You have a couple thousand aircraft.
      You have hundreds of air bases.
      You have dozens of submarines and dozens of submarines.
      Hundreds of PLO aircraft.
      A hundred heavy bombers.

      A chess player must be able to play alone.
      Spinning a chessboard.

      If you are unable to look at any situation from 2-3-4 sides, then do not fumble further than tic-tac-toe ...
      General.
      Learn to think with your head and look at the situation from different angles ...
      1. prodi
        prodi 12 December 2017 15: 54 New
        0
        It seems to me personally (if you play it alone) that everything, absolutely all foreign military bases are a liability, because they can be destroyed first (which is important) with absolute impunity
    3. andrew xnumx
      andrew xnumx 12 December 2017 19: 18 New
      0
      Right, extremely right. And the conclusion is the maximum saturation of our fleet and aircraft with cruise, and then hypersonic missiles. Relying on this type of armament can greatly compensate for our lag in many areas.
    4. looker-on
      looker-on 13 December 2017 14: 07 New
      +1
      We have to listen to you so we have thousands of aircraft with a range of 5 thousand km and solid allies around the world. In fact, you have Belarus and the territory of Russia. Where and on what will you fly? And most importantly, who will give you?

      Andrey, thank you very much for the analysis. Your historical articles are simply reference. In analytics, you are clearly developing in the same way. Your regular reader.
  27. Sergey Alekseev
    Sergey Alekseev 12 December 2017 14: 26 New
    +2
    [quote = Andrey from Chelyabinsk] Even if they strongly convince me of this? [/ quote]
    Ah, here's how ... Then be prepared that you will be judged by the same parameter- "there are two opinions, mine is right and the minds are brainless" ... [/ quote]
    It is impossible to discuss with this comrade. He poured the idea from granite into his head - aircraft carriers are everything, and all arguments against are not analyzed, not considered, this is the collapse of the whole worldview). When there is nothing to answer the opponent’s questions, he tries to arrogantly crap, quickly slipping to insults. Do not bother a person to live in a world of powerful and invincible American AUG.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 14: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: Sergey Alekseev
      It is impossible to discuss with this comrade

      Yeah. Arguments are needed in a dispute with me. I laid out several articles with a justification for my point of view, and in response I hear baby talk completely ignoring everything that I wrote
      There would be constructive criticism of the theses that I proposed for discussion - there would be an appropriate answer.
      Quote: Sergey Alekseev
      When there is nothing to answer the opponent’s questions, he tries to arrogantly crap

      Nope. When the answers to the questions are given in the article, but alas they are not read by the “critic”, then yes, I become arrogant.
      1. Sergey Alekseev
        Sergey Alekseev 12 December 2017 15: 04 New
        +3
        Here's baby talk - this is the 2nd article about aug. They grabbed fragmentary knowledge from the wiki at a glance, dazzled from it, proceeding from its logic, a thought, and that’s all. Arguments are given to you, you consider them not as a possible option, but as a pre-erroneous statement requiring immediate refutation and looking for counterarguments, without even trying to think, maybe you are wrong? You cannot refute, here you are trying to turn on an arrogant snob (unsuccessfully, however) or ignore it.
        How many times has it been written before, where did you calculate the effect of the almost simultaneous explosion of so many nuclear warheads? In which research institute professionally dealing with this issue? There is no effect, that's all, and no nails. I already wrote about drugs, but still. The argument is this: for my 30 years I have already eaten more than 3000 tablets of diphenhydramine (conditionally) and I didn’t have anything, so if I eat so much at a time, it will be exactly the same.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 15: 11 New
          +2
          Quote: Sergey Alekseev
          How many times has it been written before, where did you calculate the effect of the almost simultaneous explosion of so many nuclear warheads?

          My dear, the burden of proof lies with the theorist. If you believe that undermining "so many" warheads will give something, then prove it.
          There is an opinion about a nuclear winter, yes. There are calculations, but they were made on an erroneous basis, which I pointed out with links to criticism of these calculations. That emissions of the same dust and soot into the upper atmosphere during mass use of nuclear weapons will be orders of magnitude lower than those taken in the calculations. So I justified my position.
          Where is your rationale?
          1. Sergey Alekseev
            Sergey Alekseev 12 December 2017 15: 18 New
            0
            Justification - link to an article of the same "expert". This is not an argument. And let's without familiarity, from your manner of communication jarring.
            Usually pseudo-intelligentsia suffers from this style of communication, I'm not dear to you, ok?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 December 2017 15: 35 New
              +2
              Quote: Sergey Alekseev
              Justification - link to an article of the same "expert". This is not an argument.

              It’s quite an argument. I do not like? It will be easier for you to refute me.
              But while you are demonstrating what you reproach me with, you dismiss the opponent’s argument
              Quote: Sergey Alekseev
              And let's without familiarity, from your manner of communication jarring.

              What are you saying? The man who wrote about me
              Quote: Sergey Alekseev
              trying to arrogantly crap

              suddenly remembered manners? wassat You either remove the cross or put on your underpants, okay? I am in the sense that I am ready to respect the opponent, and even with pleasure, but only on the condition of reciprocity, which I have not yet observed
  28. vvvjak
    vvvjak 12 December 2017 14: 30 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Cruise missiles. For example, with a submarine. JASSM-ER with tactical aircraft. Huge options

    So almost all cruise missiles are positioned by satellite. Without satellites AUS Aegean Sea will not find, get lost. And given that there is no connection, the Pentagon will not be able to give her a command. And aviation (at least modern models) is unlikely to be able to fly. In this situation, we are already starting to discuss the "eternal" topics of O. Kaptsov, how many strike battleships NATO needs. And the satellites get confused (as far as I know, maybe wrong) with ICBM analogues, explosions in orbit, and they "cut out" everything in a row in the region of the explosion, not particularly versed in belonging to the country. ZGRLS stations are almost all located in the depths of the Russian Federation, they still need to be reached (well, maybe with the exception of Kaliningrad) and the air defense is very covered. So there are no mass options.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 14: 41 New
      +2
      Quote: vvvjak
      So almost all cruise missiles are positioned by satellite. Without satellites AUS Aegean Sea will not find, get lost.

      I repeat the question, where did the satellites go? What happened to them? :))))
      1. vvvjak
        vvvjak 12 December 2017 15: 10 New
        +1
        "as well as reconnaissance satellites (we are trying to track the trajectory of enemy military satellites, and we and the United States from the moment of launch) will be attacked and, most likely, will be destroyed."
        So YOU ​​destroyed them in a conflict. Or will someone destroy only reconnaissance satellites, and the rest will remain? And how to determine them, and the dual-use satellites and communications will be intact or they cannot be used for military purposes? Or do you already have weapons such as SDI, selectively "cut out" with a laser? What GPS satellites are communications, intelligence or military? Same with GLONASS? And the “axes” do not fly without GPS satellites.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 15: 32 New
          +3
          Quote: vvvjak
          So YOU ​​destroyed them in a conflict

          Once again :))) There are GPS / GLONASS satellites that are not any intelligence :))) And there are specialized spies, like the same Liana.
          The Americans are quite able to cut out our satellite constellation, including the liana, and GLONASS. Their GPS (and this is the American system) and scouts will remain with them, that is, for them everything will be as it is, and will remain
          1. vvvjak
            vvvjak 12 December 2017 15: 36 New
            +2
            And who is stopping the Russian Federation to destroy their satellites? Or do you consider the conflict of the blind with the healthy.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 December 2017 16: 06 New
              +3
              Quote: vvvjak
              And who is stopping the Russian Federation to destroy their satellites?

              With what?
              1. vvvjak
                vvvjak 12 December 2017 16: 46 New
                +2
                "Yars", "Governor", "Nudol" (rumored), theoretically S-400. Even the cargo "Progress" can be quickly adapted to this matter. All that satellites launches into orbit can cut them out.
                1. ZVO
                  ZVO 12 December 2017 19: 59 New
                  +1
                  Quote: vvvjak
                  "Yars", "Governor", "Nudol" (rumored), theoretically S-400. Even the cargo "Progress" can be quickly adapted to this matter. All that satellites launches into orbit can cut them out.


                  Well, somehow I would doubt it after the last start of the Union
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  12 December 2017 21: 07 New
                  +2
                  Quote: vvvjak
                  "Yars", "Governor",

                  ICBMs have nothing to do with the destruction of satellites
                  Quote: vvvjak
                  Nudol (rumored)

                  Not rumored, but it is, but in development
                  Quote: vvvjak
                  theoretically S-400.

                  Very theoretically :))))) Can not yet, in fact
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 12 December 2017 21: 38 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                With what?

                What is GLONASS?
                The X-37 flies at an altitude of up to 1000 km and GLONASS with an Amer analogue at an altitude of 20000 km, there seems to be no means to shoot down satellites at this altitude.
        2. Foxmara
          Foxmara 12 December 2017 15: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: vvvjak
          And the “axes” do not fly without GPS satellites.

          Fly. The guidance system is duplicated there. Just worse.
          1. vvvjak
            vvvjak 12 December 2017 15: 51 New
            +2
            Come on. Topographic maps in the memory of the “ax”, it’s just that you wouldn’t “snoop” uphill by accident.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 December 2017 16: 08 New
              +6
              Quote: vvvjak
              Come on. Topographic maps in the memory of the “ax”, it’s just that you wouldn’t “snoop” uphill by accident.

              Wrong. Inertial + TERCOM worked perfectly without any GPS
              1. Soho
                Soho 13 December 2017 07: 25 New
                +1
                Andrey from Chelyabinsk Yesterday, 16:08
                wrong. Inertial + TERCOM worked perfectly without any GPS

                acceptable but not great. The Americans themselves determine the percentage of ISN failure without satellite correction support at ~ 25-30%. Even if these numbers are overly cautious, it’s still not a little.
      2. alstr
        alstr 12 December 2017 15: 50 New
        0
        A satellite with nails in orbit happened.
    2. Soho
      Soho 13 December 2017 07: 18 New
      +1
      So almost all cruise missiles are positioned by satellite.

      this is a known misconception. In the guidance system, GPS plays a corrective function. In addition to him, the Kyrgyz Republic has:
      ANN (Inertial Navigation System) is an autonomous control system incorporating linear acceleration sensors (accelerometers) and angular velocity (gyroscopes or pairs of accelerometers measuring centrifugal acceleration). With their help, the deviation of the coordinate system associated with the device’s body from the coordinate system associated with the Earth is determined, obtaining orientation angles: yaw (course), pitch and roll.
      TERCOM - relief system for the correction of the trajectory of cruise missiles when they are guided. The principle of the system is to measure the height of the terrain under the CR based on the difference in the readings of the bar altimeter and the radio altimeter and comparing it with the reference data of a digital map of the terrain embedded in the on-board control system before launch. Information about the selected route is stored in the memory of the onboard computer.
      DSMAC (Dzhismek) - this system uses digital "pictures" of preliminary captured areas of the terrain along the flight route. The system begins to operate in the final flight segment after the last TERCOM correction. With the help of optical sensors, the areas adjacent to the target are inspected. The resulting images are digitally entered into a computer. He compares them with the reference digital "pictures" of the districts embedded in his memory, and issues corrective commands.
      Moreover, if DSMAC is used on the final part of the trajectory, then TERCOM is on the march
      1. vvvjak
        vvvjak 13 December 2017 09: 19 New
        +2
        Well, you are aware, it is likely that the Americans themselves recognize the low efficiency of TERCOM and DSMAC for the relief and climatic conditions of the Russian Federation, the ANN gives a very large deviation from the target. And in general, “axes” are considered by them auxiliary weapons, used when there is no longer any means of counteraction.
        1. Soho
          Soho 14 December 2017 11: 52 New
          +1
          of course. I previously (above in comments) have already answered Andrey.
  29. KCA
    KCA 12 December 2017 14: 37 New
    +3
    For some reason, it seems to me that after the exchange of nuclear strikes, American sailors and pilots completely lose the desire to row across the seas and oceans and conquer Russia, they have enough affairs and off the coast of the United States, at least to provide cities with electricity and drinking water
  30. ZVO
    ZVO 12 December 2017 14: 54 New
    +2
    Quote: Spade

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And another fact - a container ship going to sea, in the event of a conflict, can only rely on the radars available to it, i.e. in fact a little better than binoculars

    Materiel. The composition of the complex.


    Alas, if suddenly the RTR means of the Carrier Group (and this is also shipboard and especially AWACS aircraft) - they find radar signals that correspond to military models of equipment, but not civilian ships, such a ship will be destroyed just instantly ...
    Each radar has its own personality.
    Do not you know about it.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 15: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: ZVO
      Alas, if suddenly the RTR means of the Carrier Group (and this is also shipboard and especially AWACS aircraft) - they find radar signals that correspond to military models of equipment, but not civilian ships, such a ship will be destroyed just instantly ...

      Yes, I know :)))) As well as the fact that the container ship does not deploy means of over-target designation. But my opponent again remembers the container caliber in vain :)))))))))
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 12 December 2017 16: 00 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But my opponent again remembers the container caliber in vain :)))))))))


        I wrote to him ... -)
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 12 December 2017 16: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        As well as the fact that the container ship does not deploy means of over-target designation

        But why?
        Well, you see, you made the classic "feint with ears" with space-based detection tools, very, very diminishing their capabilities.
        For a container ship, there is no need to know the exact coordinates of the aircraft carrier in real time. It is enough to pull it into the reach of the RCC, and this is not particularly difficult for the satellite constellation of the Russian Federation

        For a container ship, there is no need to use active radars. Because AUG is emitting. No, not like that, it IS RADIATING, and therefore passive radio-technical intelligence will be quite enough for guidance.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 16: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          Well, you see, you made the classic "feint with ears" with space-based detection tools, very, very diminishing their capabilities.

          (heavy sigh) Unlike you, I am a little aware of their capabilities. USSR The legend is not pulled. The United States was thinking of doing Discovery 2, which would be able to give TS with a delay of HOUR. Refused - too expensive.
          None of the modern satellite of the Russian Federation does not give MC for a moving target is POSSIBLE with the exception of Liana. And there are already 4 of them, two are working normally. And they will be torn down in the event of a conflict
          Quote: Spade
          For a container ship, there is no need to know the exact coordinates of the aircraft carrier in real time. It is enough to pull it into the reach of the RCC, and this is not particularly difficult for the satellite constellation of the Russian Federation

          Pulled out plus or minus several hundred kilometers. AND?
          Quote: Spade
          For a container ship, there is no need to use active radars. Because AUG is emitting. No, not like that, it IS RADIATING, and therefore passive radio-technical intelligence will be quite enough for guidance.

          How did you get the idea that AUG IS RADIATING? :)))))) Well, I really want it, but why? :))) And you will not do triangulation with a passive, and you won’t determine the coordinates
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 12 December 2017 18: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            (heavy sigh) Unlike you, I am a little aware of their capabilities.

            Exactly what is a bit. However, in doing so, take the liberty of drawing far-reaching conclusions.
            Since you have boasted of your knowledge ... Can a satellite capable of tracking a missile launch from an underwater position pop off a “torch” of an airplane taking off from an aircraft carrier?
            Could the satellites of reconnaissance intelligence detect the AUG route, or are their equipment turned off over the ocean, so God forbid they did not?
            Can RT reconnaissance satellites detect very intense RT radiation from AOG facilities?
            You will answer all “no” and start telling stories about “Legend” again?

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Pulled out plus or minus several hundred kilometers. AND?

            Passive radio intelligence. Notched missile launch.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Where did you get the idea that AUG IS RADIATING? :)))))) Well, I understand, I really want to, but why? :)))

            Uh ... I don’t even know how to answer this. Radars do not work, no radio communication ???

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You will not do triangulation with a passive, and you won’t determine the coordinates

            8))))))))))))))))))))))))))
            And if the station is moving? Damn, is it really difficult? Now, such systems even install light UAVs
            8))))))))))))
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 December 2017 15: 21 New
      +4
      Quote: ZVO
      Alas, if suddenly the RTR means of the Carrier Group (and this is also shipboard and especially AWACS aircraft) - they find radar signals that correspond to military models of equipment, but not civilian ships, such a ship will be destroyed just instantly ...

      I immediately remembered the Libyan MRC, which tried to approach the AUG, disguising itself as a fisherman. It was classified, issued by the control center, and launched the anti-ship missile system after the only inclusion of the radar.
  31. Old26
    Old26 12 December 2017 15: 22 New
    +8
    Yes, a masterpiece. In the best traditions of Soviet propaganda

    Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
    CSF will not pass from the Norwegian Sea to the North? Will not be able to suppress the naval and air bases of ANY enemy in Scandinavia? .

    What, dear? Of the naval fleets, 1 cruiser of project 1164, 1 Peter the Great, 3 BOD of project 1155, 1 destroyer and 2 missile regiments of project 12341 ???
    With eight pennants, are you going to crush the air and naval bases of ANY enemy in Scandinavia?

    Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
    This enemy will not pass from the North to the Norwegian, even if he goes with all the cash NORTH ATLANTIC naval and air force! .

    Yes, knowledge is like that. Can you even imagine what outfit NATO can put on this theater? What will you hold him back? Six ships of the 1st rank? of which three (BOD project 1155) do not carry shock weapons

    Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
    KBF will not be able to achieve maritime and air supremacy at sea and in the air in the Baltic? With 10-15 real naval bases of the enemy on the theater of operations? For each of which it is possible to bring down NON-NUCLEAR warheads and air bombs with a capacity of 3000 to 9000 kg?

    O most powerful fleet. As part of 1 TFR, 1 destroyer, 4 corvettes and 4 RTOs of project 1234. Will you be scattering non-nuclear warheads from the Kaliningrad region? Is there enough sillenok to throw 700-800 km with the Iskander? Well, you’ll be throwing 9-ton bombs with holy spirit. Or in a balloon? Teach the materiel where the machines are based, capable of raising such bombs, how many of them. At the same time, read any handbook on aviation in the Baltic countries.

    Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
    As for the Black Sea Fleet, in the event of a war with NATO, the enemy’s water area and ports will be completely cleared throughout the Black Sea and Caliber will work on ALL NATO bases in the Mediterranean Sea, both from launchers in the Crimea and the Caucasus, and in the Middle East, starting from Syria. .

    Who will clean it? Turkey alone has a stronger fleet in the Black Sea than the entire Black Sea. In fact, the fleet has 3 patrol vessels without striking weapons, as many as 4 RTOs with striking weapons and 2 new frigates. Only such can shoot at NATO bases in the Mediterranean Sea from launchers in the Crimea and the Caucasus URYAKALKA, how are you. Teach the materiel about the 3M14 missile guidance and navigation system - and then bring this blizzard that we will tear everyone from the Caucasus into the Mediterranean Sea ... Caliber launchers in the Middle East in Syria? And they are there. And of course, to shoot “Caliber” with submarines in the amount of 4-6 pieces at barmaley and at NATO bases - the same thing. Connoisseur, pancake

    Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
    Moreover, the network of potential “jump airfields” on this theater will effectively suppress ANY enemy bases and groups from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean.

    And where did you find the jump airfields in that region? Really in Iran, the air base of which we were allowed to use once, twice allowed to shoot at Syria through the territory of Iran and allowed the passage of our bombers through the airspace. You found these jump airfields there. Of course, any bases and groups But nothing that one of our bomber will have 10-15 of their fighters in the region "from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean" ???

    Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
    So far, only the Pacific theater of operations can be considered problematic for Russia, and here the positions of the Navy and the Russian Air Force are urgently needed, now they are not enough even for effective defense. .

    Well, thank God, at least we have some problems here. And then I thought that there we all tear ...

    Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
    But - there we have the possibility of allies who, in their own interests, would at least withdraw even the Philippines and South Korea from participation in hostilities, and also divert the bulk of Japan’s forces (in constant readiness towards the DPRK and PRC). .

    Oh, we have two allies there. Moreover, with no agreement on a military union. Will China subscribe for us? Sorry, are you out of your mind? Why does he need this? For China, weakened Russia is an opportunity to resolve its territorial interests. Well, such a formidable ally as the DPRK - tremble everything. Damn, Japan will pull on itself. Besides rockets he has THERE IS NOTHING. What will it delay * Boats with a range of 180-200 km and two torpedoes? Aircraft IL-28 and MIG-17?

    Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
    By the way, Japan is extremely vulnerable to a powerful blow to volcanoes even by non-nuclear weapons, and if nuclear weapons are used, it is generally doomed to catastrophe, so its participation in the war against the Russian Federation is under a huge question mark. .

    And I was waiting. When the Yellowstone Volcano appears on the horizon. Not wait. Japanese volcanoes appeared and the need to hit them with non-nuclear weapons? The funny thing is that volcanologists DON'T IMAGINE what the power of the charge that got into the vent of the volcano should be. In the oar, Karl !! How do you deliver the charge to the vent. So They do not represent how much. It will be required. 10 MT, or 50, or we are talking about gigatons. Volcanologists do not represent specialists, and someone Mikhail Zubkov knows that ordinary, non-nuclear bombs will do for this

    Quote: Mikhail Zubkov
    That’s the whole basic layout for our military construction, which certainly should be SPEEDED and IMPROVED on all potential theater of operations.

    Yes, such URYAKALKI LONG TIME the resource was not. Have you tried to write alternative fiction ???
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 16: 05 New
      +4
      Quote: Old26
      Yes, such URYAKALKI LONG on a resource was not. Have you tried to write alternative fiction ???

      I apologize, but with such enchanting “baggage of knowledge”, he will be kicked out of any somewhat serious alternative historical resource in five minutes. There, too, they do not like dreamers :)))
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 December 2017 16: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      For China, weakened Russia is an opportunity to resolve its territorial interests.

      Rather, raw materials. For China, even the areas south of our border are for the most part sparsely populated.

      Quote: Old26
      What will it delay * Boats with a range of 180-200 km and two torpedoes? Aircraft IL-28 and MIG-17?

      Well, why so omit the DPRK? They definitely have a MiG-29 - Eun was photographed against the background of this machine.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 13 December 2017 02: 47 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Rather, raw

        Why so much fuss? The Chinese still have something to sell in Siberia?
    3. arturpraetor
      arturpraetor 12 December 2017 16: 12 New
      +3
      Have you tried to write alternative fiction ???

      I’ll ask alternatives and science fiction writers not to offend to such an extent)) We are at least peculiar people, but at least have a bite when we drink and materiel we try to smoke in details, and not as part of general educational campaigns.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        12 December 2017 16: 43 New
        +2
        Oh ho, dear colleague, are you this? :)
        1. arturpraetor
          arturpraetor 12 December 2017 16: 46 New
          +2
          I thought, checked, google - like me)) Greetings, dear colleague!
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            12 December 2017 17: 51 New
            +2
            Glad to see you! drinks
            1. arturpraetor
              arturpraetor 12 December 2017 17: 59 New
              +1
              So I am glad to see you) Although, strictly speaking, I have seen you here before - your posts are the only reason why I suffer with Topvar reading it)) But the articles themselves in general and the comments in particular are worth it. Now I’m re-reading the Yellow Sea cycle)
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 December 2017 19: 12 New
        +1
        Quote: arturpraetor
        Have you tried to write alternative fiction ???

        I’ll ask alternatives and science fiction writers not to offend to such an extent)) We are at least peculiar people, but at least have a bite when we drink and materiel we try to smoke in details, and not as part of general educational campaigns.

        Hihix ... I remember how on Tsushima strictly within the framework of the incinerated materiel created a battleship with casemate GK. laughing
        And what kind of shipbuilders were the alternatives who reached for SpringSharpe ... ICH, everything is strictly in the scientific and technical framework of this program for calculating ships.
        1. arturpraetor
          arturpraetor 12 December 2017 19: 52 New
          0
          Hihiks ... I remember how on Tsushima strictly within the framework of the incinerated materiel they created a battleship with a casemate GK. laughing

          And it, if you are very interested in the materiel of the fleet, often pulls something to finish or saw off during the "smoking" of the materiel of real ships, and if it starts to like it, it goes into the chronic phase and long-term dependence bully Himself so hooked. Alt-fleet has been a favorite pastime for quite some time, but in order to deal with it one way or another you have to tighten your equipment too, otherwise the persistent feeling of hack yes In the meantime, "smoke" materiel - more options for alternatives appear, and so on in a circle ...
  32. Livonetc
    Livonetc 12 December 2017 15: 40 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Chertt
    I'm afraid of this author

    Yes, I am like this laughing

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsgIhELobo
  33. Foxmara
    Foxmara 12 December 2017 15: 40 New
    +1
    mm .. still thought. Does anyone know how many containers with clubs are floating in the world? Well, except for Shoigu, of course .. Calculating is unrealistic. Really suddenly raking in sensitive places. Airfields, ports, stations ..
  34. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 12 December 2017 15: 45 New
    +3
    In principle, I agree with the assessment. Aircraft carriers they pull up
    certainly not scared to help NATO, but to crawl deep into them
    inland seas will not. That is, if the ground forces
    Russia will begin to attack, then the aircraft carriers will be useful,
    and if, on the contrary, NATO starts to advance, then it’s useless
    (do not reach).
    But the usual American Air Force will have to cut in Europe
    in full force.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 December 2017 16: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      That is, if the ground forces of Russia begin to advance, then the aircraft carriers will be useful, but if, on the contrary, NATO starts to advance, then they are useless (will not reach).

      The worst thing is that the AB reach all the SSBN bases. Moreover, several AUGs can provide overwhelming superiority in the air in the area of ​​these bases (especially on maintenance).
  35. BAI
    BAI 12 December 2017 16: 01 New
    0
    then in this case a state of war may arise between the Russian Federation and a NATO member state.

    The key word is a NATO member country, but not the United States. As it turned out recently, in the event of a conflict, the United States does not enter the war automatically, but based on its own interests.
    By the way, in the photo the boat will be small.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 12 December 2017 22: 03 New
      0
      Quote: BAI
      By the way, in the photo the boat will be small.

      There is one launcher on this boat, this is a laboratory. But not a warship.
      1. BAI
        BAI 13 December 2017 10: 37 New
        0
        The Americans, of course, are not a decree for us, but they have a different opinion.
  36. a.sirin
    a.sirin 12 December 2017 16: 11 New
    +5
    Most critics of your article, Andrei, did not read it very carefully.
    The main one is their mistake, in my opinion, that you correctly pointed out the desire of the parties to try to avoid the use of nuclear weapons at all stages. In response - "and we will flap nuclear weapons at the airfields."
    Here, apparently, there is an intuitive understanding that in the non-nuclear phase of the conflict Russia will slowly and uncontrollably lose
    Generally a very decent article with elements of healthy analytics.
    1. a.sirin
      a.sirin 12 December 2017 16: 13 New
      +2
      I forgot to add “traditionally from myself”: already at the very early stage of the conflict, the USA will impose extremely broad economic sanctions
      1. a.sirin
        a.sirin 12 December 2017 16: 15 New
        +2
        Those. if we “slid into conflict” then we either transfer it to the force phase or we slowly recede. In the first case, we become "arsonists" - and no Sino-allies, in the second - global isolation
        1. prodi
          prodi 12 December 2017 16: 26 New
          0
          why are we stepping back and not translating into a nuclear conflict? Why not check who has stronger eggs?
          1. a.sirin
            a.sirin 12 December 2017 16: 32 New
            +3
            Because they have solid ones too. The check will lead to the fact that everyone who remains on the planet after the use of nuclear weapons will introduce a new Olympic sport: find and kill a Russian
            1. prodi
              prodi 12 December 2017 16: 50 New
              0
              Well, you, my friend, are an optimist. In the sense of those who see only pluses in the cemetery
  37. Old26
    Old26 12 December 2017 16: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: Foxmara
    mm .. still thought. Does anyone know how many containers with clubs are floating in the world? Well, except for Shoigu, of course .. Calculating is unrealistic. Really suddenly raking in sensitive places. Airfields, ports, stations ..


    Zero. The developer did not release a single one. There were no sales contracts. Just read the annual reports.
    In addition, the developer proposed this complex in foreign countries, which cannot contain a large or at least medium navy, well, which have at least ships capable of transporting containers. It was proposed to equip these ships with this container complex in order to make some sort of auxiliary cruiser out of these cargo ships. This vessel had to carry the naval flag of its state, for if it would carry the “Civil” (trade) flag of its country, the use of weapons from such a civil vessel could be equated to an act of piracy.
    But, in addition to the container with launchers, a military-style locator is included in the delivery package. If you want to strike at the ships and ships of the enemy, then you will have to use this radar as a means of target designation. Moreover, in these containers it was proposed to place exclusively anti-ship missiles such as "Uranus" or "Caliber", but not a missile for firing along the shore. To do this, an over-the-horizon location would be needed, which the merchant does not have. A military-style radar is detected. Since it is different from civilian radar. If you are a country like Kenya or something like her, you can take advantage of such a complex. Provided that your opponent is at your level. If your opponent is more advanced, calculating you will be a matter of minutes for him. And missiles in containers, by the way, are subsonic. This means that even for 100 kilometers they will go for several minutes, which is enough to bring them down.
    Well, to dream that they used a 3M14 missile from such a container ship - it’s better to abandon these dreams. A lot of a thousand-dollar rocket will go nowhere, because it should not be launched at a very great distance from the coast, so as not to go beyond the correction zone due to the inevitable accumulation of errors in the ANN
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 December 2017 18: 14 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Zero.

      Do you also command the Russian fleet?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 December 2017 18: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      But not a rocket to shoot along the shore. To do this, an over-the-horizon location would be needed, which the merchant does not have.

      If you shoot at stationary targets, then ZGRLS is not needed. All you need is an exact binding of the PU (provided that you can’t rely on GLONASS and the KR will go according to the ANN).
      ZGRLS is needed to work on goals. who change their coordinates. That is - on the ships.
      Quote: Old26
      Well, to dream that they used a 3M14 missile from such a container ship - it’s better to abandon these dreams. A lot of a thousand-dollar rocket will go nowhere, because it should not be launched at a very great distance from the coast, so as not to go beyond the correction zone due to the inevitable accumulation of errors in the ANN

      Ahem ... did the Yankees somehow solve this problem on the Tomahawks?
  38. Tektor
    Tektor 12 December 2017 16: 41 New
    0
    Even if that were the case, how could he reach it with this rocket? Until the aircraft carrier operating in the North or the Mediterranean Sea, there is no progress neither on our surface ship, nor underwater, unless a fortunate occasion. And aviation is also not an assistant here - how to attack the AUS at the same Izmir, or the entrance to the Dardanelles?
    This is called an impact drone. The apple, for example. Its feature is an electronic warfare system and a low-altitude breakthrough with a 250 kg bomb on a ram with anti-aircraft maneuvers. A more reliable option is the Su-34 squadron with Khibiny + Tarantula EW and Onyxes, which also have an EW system. Accompanied by a Su-35 squadron providing air defense. In the south - from the central part of the Black Sea, and in the north - from the Kaliningrad region. The data from the control center are received from communication ships.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 12 December 2017 16: 56 New
      0
      Well, mine the likely area for maneuvering the AUG. This, by the way, is the very option when it is impossible to immediately determine the enemy. And afterwards it will not be easy either. Yes, you can solve the problem of aircraft carriers and other fleets by provoking megatsunami, which will require 2 additional warheads.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 December 2017 19: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: Tektor
        Well, mine the likely area for maneuvering the AUG. This, by the way, is the very option when it is impossible to immediately determine the enemy.

        Go ahead and with the songs. The mining of territorial waters of the same Norway is casus belli. And to determine the enemy is easier than ever - by the appearance of the first mine, which will be shown by an uninhabited device by the SCREW.
        And in neutral waters you have to put mines at depths of 2-3-4 km.
  39. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 12 December 2017 16: 42 New
    +5
    To discuss the hypothetical war of the Russian Federation and its allies with NATO, this is a spherical horse in a vacuum. A lot of unaccounted for details.
    Yes, and the author is a proverb. You criticize - offer, offer - do.
  40. AN26
    AN26 12 December 2017 17: 10 New
    +1
    Good afternoon. Before expressing my thought, I want to warn you right away that I just stumbled upon this article and I am not a guru in the field of armies and everything related.

    It was written quite interestingly, although a number of questions arose that I would like to clarify:
    1. Does the author simulate a situation of post-nuclear conflict or just the use of aircraft carriers in a conventional war?

    If the option is a post-nuclear conflict, then the references to the possibility of “loading with an overload of up to 90 superhornets” look a little strange, since, in my opinion, the infrastructure of the enemy’s armed forces will be the primary targets of nuclear attacks. Based on this, my voluntary assumption, the naval bases where the aircraft carriers are now, will receive not one or two charges. It is likely that not only the destruction of the infrastructure of the base itself, which, unlike the personnel, cannot be hidden in the bunker, but also the possible damage to the aircraft carriers themselves, standing at the pier. Nobody says that we will melt them in the ports, but I think the probability of getting damage that does not allow sailing is great.
    Also, in the event of a nuclear conflict, the question arises of who will refuel aircraft wing aircraft in the air over Poland and Norway, as the author also wrote in the article. I do not have data on the number of tankers in Europe, but even on the wing of one aircraft carrier, they should need not one or two. Moreover, the refueling will probably have to be done at the same time, if the aircraft carrier launches all of its grouping at once. And this, according to open sources, is 48 CX. I am far from aviation, but I can hardly imagine maneuvers of this scale in the air. And as far as I know, none of the countries conducted such exercises as the simultaneous refueling of the 4th squadron. Alternatively, at this moment, all aircraft are extremely vulnerable and if the Hornets can still maneuver and engage in battle with our aircraft, then the KC-135 or KC-767 are very good targets. I suppose that they can even be tried to destroy ground-based missiles. There is a gap in the knowledge of the technical characteristics of such weapons.

    The second option, war without the use of nuclear weapons. It can be lightning and sudden only if the adversary, in this case our country, does not see anything at all and does not hear and does not track the enemy in any way, and the intelligence capable of learning about the decision to attack and warning is absent as a class. In this case, the aircraft carriers calmly crossed the oceans in a few days and reached the places of the intended strike, while calmly unloading the taken extra "superhornets" along the way. The Armada took off, flew, simultaneously refueled and flies to our borders. At the same time, cruise missiles are massively launched at infrastructure facilities. All radars and missile defense strongholds are asleep and do not see a threat, as a result of which they are destroyed at their base. Well, then check and checkmate and one hope for a nuclear club, which will frighten the enemy.
    True, the question arises of the existence of the rest of the country. From the indicated locations, enemy air groups can strike in the coastal regions of the Black Sea, in the central / metropolitan part of Russia, covered by the most powerful air defense umbrella and in the Far East. I also don’t know the country's economy very well, but I can assume that most of our strategic facilities are still a little further than the actions of the strike groups of aircraft carriers, in the interior of the country. Therefore, even the strike of all 10 air groups from 10 aircraft carriers will not give the enemy a strategic advantage, and the government and the Commander-in-Chief must be evacuated. Then everything goes into the stage of positional war and ground operations.

    2.
    And then the appearance at the initial stages of the conflict of a pair of aircraft carriers carrying 180 combat aircraft, plus support and information support aircraft, provided with everything necessary (ammunition, fuel), can have a decisive influence on air battles.


    Nevertheless, I allow myself to think that aircraft carriers carry 48 CX and, accordingly, there will be 96, not 180. Since 90 planes per aircraft carrier, this is your calculation about overload, that is, a situation when an aircraft carrier carries two aircraft wings, but protrudes in this case, only by sea, and not by a floating airfield. Therefore, he must first dive in the States, then sail, then unload at a suitable port for this, and only then proceed with the conduct of hostilities. Even if we allow the fact that the pilots and technical personnel for these aircraft will not be transferred to the aircraft carrier, but in another way, for example, civilian or military transport aircraft, then this is a very lengthy process that does not fall under the doctrine of a surprise strike.

    In general, I agree with most arguments that dispel myths and hatred regarding the “uselessness” of aircraft carriers, but in my opinion these are all conclusions for private situations that do not take into account the link directly to the places of warfare.
    Here are a few, in my opinion, quite important nuances that the author has missed.
    1. Stock of ammunition and fuel of the aircraft carrier fleet. That is, how many sorties can an air wing make without replenishment? After all, why try to destroy a protected aircraft carrier with security ships, when it is easier to destroy the cargo convoys going to it.
    2. The probable combat and non-combat losses of an air wing during air raids? After all, there are only 48 attack aircraft for one aircraft carrier. And here it’s important not even to lose the aircraft, which is easy to take from the reserve and overtake at least one of the additional ones that aircraft carriers can bring to Europe, how much the loss of a pilot is important, since its training takes more than one not two months, but the training of the sea pilot even more.
    3. Not invented or missed.

    There may be more points that I missed.

    Based on this, my opinion is that an aircraft carrier, like the entire group, is still only an auxiliary and reinforcing tool in the event of a non-nuclear conflict. In the event of a nuclear conflict, it is just a floating city with a bunch of people who can only become a shtetl prince in a certain region. Since its resources, as already mentioned above, will be quickly exhausted.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 18: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: AN26
      The author simulates a situation of post-nuclear conflict or just the use of aircraft carriers in a conventional war.

      Both that, another, for each conflict - the scenario
      Quote: AN26
      If the option is a post-nuclear conflict, then the references to the possibility of “loading with an overload of up to 90 superhornets” look a little strange, since, in my opinion, the infrastructure of the enemy’s armed forces will be the primary targets of nuclear attacks.

      We cannot use the deployed 1600 warheads to crush the United States and destroy 1800 European airfields. A significant part of European infrastructure will survive
      Quote: AN26
      Also, in the event of a nuclear conflict, the question arises: who will refuel aircraft wing aircraft in the air over Poland and Norway, as the author also wrote in the article

      This is all in the first article of the cycle, there are links at the bottom
      Quote: AN26
      Despite the fact that the refueling will probably have to be done at the same time, if the aircraft carrier launches all of its grouping at once

      Take off, sit on the jump airfield, refuel, take off :))))) Refueling does not have to be in the air at all :)
      Quote: AN26
      The second option, war without the use of nuclear weapons. Lightning fast and sudden it can be

      Please re-read the article again - there are answers to all the questions you raised.
      Quote: AN26
      Nevertheless, I allow myself to think that aircraft carriers carry 48 CX and, accordingly, there will be 96, not 180.

      This is wrong, since nothing prevents to take 90 cars and send half of them to fight at land airports
      Quote: AN26
      Therefore, he must first dive in the States, then sail, then unload in a suitable port for this, and only then proceed with the conduct of hostilities

      No, this is not necessary, the cars just fly to the airfield and that's it. If you pick up as many cars as you fit on the deck, without the possibility of take-off / landing, then on one AB not 90, but all 150 cars can be planted
      Quote: AN26
      Ammunition and fuel stock of the aircraft carrier fleet. That is, how many sorties can an air wing make without replenishment?

      About 2 weeks of intensive work
      Quote: AN26
      Likely combat and non-combat losses of an air wing during air raids?

      At the U.S. ground aviation level. Statistics confirm
      1. AN26
        AN26 12 December 2017 21: 50 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        We cannot use the deployed 1600 warheads to crush the United States and destroy 1800 European airfields. A significant part of European infrastructure will survive


        Why destroy airfields? According to your calculations, there are only a little more than a thousand aircraft, and therefore the pilots there. Enough to destroy them. And given that the fighting will be conducted on the defensive, the losses of air groups should be assessed not only by the number of aircraft, but also by damage from air defense forces.
        Infrastructure of course will survive, but not in full.

        Please re-read the article again - there are answers to all the questions you raised.


        Reread, did not see. Be so kind as to quote yourself on matters of troop deployment and support so that it is invisible from the side of the enemy. And also, if not difficult, name at least five ports in Europe that can provide unloading / loading of an aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type. Again, if there are jump airfields for refueling, then why do we need an aircraft carrier, essentially a flying airfield? It is much easier to relocate the Hornets by conventional transport routes and place them at the borders of our country, without the millions of expenses for promoting an armada of a floating airfield. True, this does not take into account the issue of politics in terms of who will gladly agree to host a squadron of a third-party state, knowing that it will be a priority target for the strike.

        [quoteThis is wrong, since nothing prevents you from taking 90 cars and sending half of them to fight at land airports] [/ quote]

        I agree with you, simply indicate in your article the timing of such a redeployment of the second strike air wing. Or at least a way to transfer these 40 planes from an aircraft carrier to land airfields in the field.

        No, this is not necessary, the cars just fly to the airfield and that's it. If you pick up as many cars as you fit on the deck, without the possibility of take-off / landing, then on one AB not 90, but all 150 cars can be planted


        Again, if it does not bother you, confirm this thesis with numbers. It is possible elementary, from the section of mathematics, the area of ​​one aircraft in relation to the useful area of ​​the typical "Nimitz", that is, the take-off deck and hangars. I think if you can put 150 CX on one aircraft carrier, then you will be happy to be heard at the Pentagon.

        About 2 weeks of intensive work


        Even making two sorties a day, an aircraft carrier’s air group will need 18 thousand tons of fuel in two weeks, please tell me the model of those US fleet tankers who can provide such an amount of aviation fuel only? Not counting the amount of fuel needed by other escort ships that do not have a nuclear installation.

        At the U.S. ground aviation level. Statistics confirm


        Again, is it possible in numbers? Even in the current. Forget about the fact that not a single US Air Force combat operation took place against opponents with echeloned defense of air defense and fighter aircraft. Again, we will not pay attention to the fact that the CX is a multipurpose fighter-bomber. That is, he needs either fighter cover to carry out full-fledged attacks on the target or he is a castrated bomber and, due to the availability of weapons for air combat, cannot carry a full bomb load.

        And yes, a question for all participants in the discussion. What is an aircraft carrier after the destruction of an air wing?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 December 2017 22: 18 New
          +2
          Quote: AN26
          Enough to destroy them.

          Enough for what? You still do not forget about the US Air Force, because they also need to be killed, otherwise they will come. In the USA, by the way EMNIP about 5 paved airfields
          Quote: AN26
          Reread, did not see.

          It’s sad. Am I really so incomprehensible? Well, OK.
          Quote: AN26
          Be so kind as to quote yourself in matters of troop deployment and support so that it is invisible from the side of the enemy

          What for? We have a sudden conflict, the reasons and the course of development are described in the article. Naturally, in parallel with military operations, troops are being transferred, including the Air Force, to the conflict area.
          Quote: AN26
          And also, if not difficult, name at least five ports in Europe that can provide unloading / loading of an aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type.

          Absolutely any port accepts a standard AUG supply vessel, which then overloads the cargo received on board the AB
          Quote: AN26
          It is much easier to relocate the Hornets by conventional transport routes and place them at the borders of our country, without the millions of expenses for promoting an armada of a floating airfield

          You do not understand one simple thing, you can transfer planes. But it will be scrap. We need staff, we need fuel, we need ammunition, and so on and so forth. And that’s all - it’s complicated, because the transportation possibilities are VERY limited, see Operation Desert Shield. Not so great army with reserves for a month of military operations was transferred 5 months. The aircraft carrier is good because it can quickly transfer not only planes, but also staff with reserves without loading the transport fleet and transport aviation
          Quote: AN26
          Or at least a way to transfer these 40 planes from an aircraft carrier to land airfields in the field.

          The rise of an air group of 40 aircraft for about half an hour, flight, landing.
          Quote: AN26
          Again, if it does not bother you, confirm this thesis with numbers.

          Here is one of the schemes for placing aircraft on US AV

          50 aircraft on the upper deck with 3 free catapults. And in the presence of heavy Tomkats occupying a lot of space. With a half-empty deck.
          Quote: AN26
          Even making two sorties a day, an aircraft carrier air group will need 18 thousand tons of fuel in two weeks,

          ??? Detail the calculation, please. But in general, US Aviation hosts 10,6 million liters of jet fuel and about 2,6 thousand tons of ammunition
          Quote: AN26
          Please tell me the model of those tankers of the US Navy who can provide such an amount of aviation fuel only?

          Henry J. Caser. Carries 28 620 tons of aviation / or ship fuel, not including other cargo. The US Armed Forces include 18 such tankers
          Quote: AN26
          Again, is it possible in numbers?

          Bure's software in the desert - here https://topwar.ru/105522-i-esche-nemnogo-pro-avia
          noscy.html
          Quote: AN26
          Again, we will not pay attention to the fact that the CX is a multipurpose fighter-bomber. That is, he needs either fighter cover to carry out full-fledged attacks on the target or he is a neutered bomber

          ??? Listen, well, here you generally said something hilarious :))) And how do you think the air forces of the countries of the world live? Bypassing fighter-bombers? :)))
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 13 December 2017 10: 14 New
          0
          Quote: AN26
          Again, if it does not bother you, confirm this thesis with numbers. It is possible elementary, from the section of mathematics, the area of ​​one aircraft in relation to the useful area of ​​the typical "Nimitz", that is, the take-off deck and hangars. I think if you can put 150 CX on one aircraft carrier, then you will be happy to be heard at the Pentagon.

          Keywords - "without the possibility of takeoff / landing." In this option, the AB turns into air transport, the task of which is to simply transfer planes from point A to point B. That is, a completely clogged deck (except for one catapult) and tight packing of aircraft in the hangar, not designed for quick transportation to aircraft lifts and refueling / suspension BP
          In short, something like this:
  41. Educoh
    Educoh 12 December 2017 17: 16 New
    0
    To begin with, there will be no non-nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia by definition. Further, the author suggests that aircraft carriers will avoid destruction after exchanging nuclear strikes. First error - more than half of the existing aircraft carriers are under repair / maintenance at their home ports, which are the number one target. Secondly, the mistake is that the remaining 4-5 ACGs are goal number two, in particular, what do you think, what are the Russian SSGNs and multi-purpose nuclear and diesel submarines doing? I’ll say more: to guarantee the destruction of the USAG, one full salvo (32 missiles) not only of the newest Severodvinsk, but also quite an old Voronezh or Smolensk (24 missiles) is enough. AUG will kill even one that burst out of several dozen launched, because in the event of a nuclear conflict no one is going to bullet blanks. And on combat duty there are more than a dozen multi-purpose and strike submarines of Russia, which for five even AUG is enough with excess))). So what are aircraft carriers needed for. Let's say briefly, to scare all sorts of zusuls)))
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 17: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: EDucoH
      To begin with, there will be no non-nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia by definition.

      Down with the weapon! Peace Labor may!!
      Quote: EDucoH
      First error - more than half of the existing aircraft carriers are under repair / maintenance at their home ports, which are the number one target.

      Apparently, genetic, since you have not noticed that in an article from 10 AB USA only 4 take part in a hypothetical conflict
      Quote: EDucoH
      Secondly, the mistake is that the remaining 4-5 ACGs are goal number two, in particular, what do you think, what are the Russian SSGNs and multi-purpose nuclear and diesel submarines doing?

      Have you tried to read the article? HOW MUCH do we have nuclear submarines on the move, and HOW MUCH of them must be used to guard the IWR to cover the SSBN?
      Quote: EDucoH
      And on combat duty there are more than a dozen multi-purpose and strike submarines of Russia, which for five even AUG is enough with excess))).

      (heavy sigh) Well, yes, one submarine can easily disassemble a dozen destroyers into a pair of aircraft carriers, four multi-purpose submarines covered additionally by NATO fleets.
      One left, cho ..
  42. AN26
    AN26 12 December 2017 17: 29 New
    0
    Quote: a.sirin
    Because they have solid ones too. The check will lead to the fact that everyone who remains on the planet after the use of nuclear weapons will introduce a new Olympic sport: find and kill a Russian


    For those who remain on the planet after a full-scale nuclear war using the entire arsenal, then for several generations the main thing will survive. I am not good at post-apocaleptic calculations, but I tried to imagine what would happen in a city with a population of over 100 thousand people if they just turned off the lights.
  43. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 12 December 2017 17: 48 New
    0
    Quote: omit
    But it’s interesting if Russia had many times more weapons than the USA and NATO. How would Russia behave? After all, when there was parity, the USSR was very warlike. Just don’t have to talk about grandma, okay?

    The USSR had the Armed Forces of 5 million people (1,7 of them were “built” at construction sites) and 66 thousand tanks with crews of 4 people per tank and a soldier’s service for a period of 2-3 years. Of these tanks, it’s good if 6 thousand traveled constantly and in training at the tank dromes and fired from cannons, and more often from 30 mm extension barrels. But the tanks were in the closed boxes of the tank parks, serviced by crews, checked by commissions, and in which case they could go out on alert to concentration areas or to loading stations to go "to Europe". It was a huge and expensive training and combat tank economy, and it balanced all American superiority in other weapons and types of aircraft. And provided the WORLD. Now we have about 20 thousand tanks left, but by their strength they are no worse than those 66 thousand, although they are more expensive to produce every 10 times. There is no certainty only that the crews of year-old soldiers are trained like those Soviet "3 - "year-olds" or former Russian "2-year-olds". Therefore, the recipe for PEACE is this: to teach a soldier as best as possible. Teach, Teach and Teach!
  44. Old26
    Old26 12 December 2017 18: 10 New
    +2
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Well, why so omit the DPRK? They definitely have a MiG-29 - Eun was photographed against the background of this machine.

    If I take a picture against the background of Admiral Kuznetsov or “Buran” this will not mean that we have enough of them. So with Eun. He has these MIGs about 18 pieces, and the first modification. Accordingly, with the first variants of missiles. Terrible power, nothing to say. But he has on a par with this one hundred MiG-17 and MiG-19. Compared to them, of course, "class"

    Quote: arturpraetor
    I’ll ask alternatives and science fiction writers not to offend to such an extent)) We are at least peculiar people, but at least have a bite when we drink and materiel we try to smoke in details, and not as part of general educational campaigns.

    Your Majesty! Please accept my apologies and assurances of the utmost respect to you ...
    I offer my deepest apologies to the worthy tribe of science fiction and alternative artists. Some eclipse came upon me and I took the above Mikhail Zubkov for representatives of this worthy captive (the demon beguiled)
    Therefore, I apologize again ........

    Quote: prodi
    why are we stepping back and not translating into a nuclear conflict? Why not check who has stronger eggs?

    Well, be it North Korea with its 2 dozen charges could have been translated. And when THREE nuclear countries are against you, moreover, one of them has approximately the same number of nuclear charges with you - to transfer - this means voluntarily destroying its population
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 12 December 2017 18: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      when THREE nuclear countries are against you, and one of them has approximately the same number of nuclear charges with you — to transfer — this means voluntarily destroying your population



      Including a warlike tribe of Internet science fiction alternatives .... this is probably the only plus from a global nuclear strike ... there is no silver lining without any kind of good)
    2. prodi
      prodi 12 December 2017 19: 29 New
      0
      amendment, destroy the population of all three of them - again not a bad exchange
    3. arturpraetor
      arturpraetor 12 December 2017 19: 46 New
      0
      So again, I apologize

      There would be something to forgive laughing I’m just an alternativeist, a science fiction writer, and an alternative science fiction writer, but the scenario described above, on the account of which you made a remark ... Uhhh ... To put it mildly, overly optimistic in the framework of any of the three crafts, and is an uncharacteristic phenomenon for them in hi That little shame was for the comparison))
  45. AlexanderBrv
    AlexanderBrv 12 December 2017 18: 33 New
    0
    In essence, the article - the main conclusion about the role of the USA AUG corresponds to the current situation! It is extremely difficult to neutralize deployed in remote areas. It is necessary to restore (create) the space reconnaissance and target designation system, which provides the possibility of launching a missile strike at the ASG from the territory of the country (and possibly from space)!
  46. ausmel
    ausmel 12 December 2017 19: 19 New
    0
    Delirium of the amateur
  47. Operator
    Operator 12 December 2017 19: 39 New
    +2
    The author continues to demonstrate "kindergarten - pants with straps":
    - in the Russian Federation, all RTR satellites are beaten in FIG, and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the RF Armed Forces will not lift a finger;
    - after which the US AUG strike units will advance to a distance of 2000 km to targets on the territory of Russia, and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief will again hesitate to order reconnaissance small ships under the flag of third countries disguised as civilian vessels, advance to the AUG deployment areas and monitor their movement using UAVs RTR;
    - the adversary will inflict a point missile strike on the Container ZGRLS in the Nizhny Novgorod Region, which detects surface targets in the waters of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, the Baltic, Mediterranean and Red Seas within a radius of 6000 km, and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief will again not take any retaliatory measures such as striking on all AUGs in the combat radius of Tu-22М3М with X-32 missiles on board (~ 4000 km);
    - after all this, how 900 Super Hornets take off from enemy aircraft carriers, how they launch 1800 Tomahawks with conventional warheads, how they strike at targets (based on 60 missiles per airfield according to Syria's experience), how suddenly all Russian Torahs, Buks, fail C-300 / 400 will hit the adversary of 30 targets on the territory of Russia with the help of the entire armada of carrier-based aviation in the USA.

    After which the author and his fans will immediately run to surrender to the nearest US consulate bully
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 21: 16 New
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      The Supreme Commander-in-Chief is again embarrassed to order small reconnaissance ships flying the flag of third countries, disguised as civilian vessels, to advance to the AUG deployment areas and monitor their movement with the help of the RTR UAV;

      Tie up with hard drugs, it is bad for health :))))
  48. find2312
    find2312 12 December 2017 20: 19 New
    +2
    Let me ask a question, the author’s map shows the maneuvering areas of the AUG in the Norwegian and North Seas, if hostilities take place, for example, in the autumn-winter period, if weather conditions are taken into account, I mean the impossibility of take-off landings when the side roll is more than 4 ° and keel more than 2-3 °, the restriction on landing when the wind in nature is more than 15-17 m / s along the satellite track after the aircraft carrier, i.e. at the command of the “war” the aircraft carrier will not be able to launch airplanes and will have to change the maneuvering area, even more severe conditions for carrier-based aviation arise at night, and in winter at these latitudes it’s a polar night.
    According to the visibility of the AUG, especially when the landing is taking place, the aircraft carrier is like a Christmas tree, radar, driving beacons, radio communication between the crew are operating. What to do with this?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 21: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: find2312
      if hostilities take place, for example, in the autumn-winter period, if hydrometeorological conditions are taken into account, I mean the impossibility of take-off landings when the side roll is more than 4 ° and keel more than 2-3 °, the restriction on landing when the wind in nature is more than 15-17 m / s satellite track of the aircraft carrier, i.e. on the command "war" the aircraft carrier will not be able to release aircraft

      Let's clarify - the weather conditions in which the flight of deck aviation is impossible, correspond to those of land aviation. (EMNIP 7 points). So the decks will stick to the AB under one condition - the same will be with the landmates.
      But AB can leave the bad weather zone. stationary airfield - no :)
      Quote: find2312
      even more severe conditions for carrier-based aviation arise at night, and in winter at these latitudes a polar night.

      Where did you see the polar night there? I literally a couple of Meiats came from Severodvinsk - cod in bulk, but somehow the polar nights somehow didn’t do that :)))
      Quote: find2312
      According to the visibility of the AUG, especially when there is a landing, the aircraft carrier is like a tree

      Corresponds to a regular airfield and doesn’t look like a spruce. I’ll tell you more AB can carry out take-off and landing, quite intelligently disguising itself as a large transport :) You can split, but this is far from a "Christmas tree"
      1. find2312
        find2312 13 December 2017 01: 22 New
        0
        Excuse me, Andrei, you drew the AUG patrol area in the Norwegian Sea, the northern border of your area adjoins the Lofoten Islands, they are located beyond the Arctic Circle, according to the geography textbook there’s a polar night, I’m glad for your visit to Severodvinsk, but it is quite far from the Arctic Circle this time.
        I can tell you a lot of interesting things about the hydrological conditions of the northern seas, I have been to the sea on ships more than once, I allow myself to say that the weather in the North Atlantic and the surrounding seas is ambiguous, especially for flights on deck aviation, and it’s not about the predefined 7 points, as you say , the fact is that in the North Atlantic and adjacent open seas there is such a thing as an ocean swell, these are echoes of a storm, the swell wavelength usually exceeds 300 meters and does not coincide with the direction of the wind, i.e. as you know, an aircraft carrier unfolds when the aircraft is released strictly against the wind, and when landing strictly at the direction of the angular deck against the wind, and the swell hits at an angle to the diametrical axis of the ship, accordingly, pitching and keel and airborne exceeding the parameters necessary for a safe landing, even the sizes of aircraft carriers they won’t help, I personally saw how container ships and tankers are pumping more than 100 thousand tons on swell, the swell continues for weeks after the storm.
        You didn’t answer about a wind of more than 15 m / s, but I want to assure you that there are often winds of such strength in these latitudes, the question is, how do you imagine landing a Hornet-class plane on a ship, can you imagine how the pilot will be fight with the so-called "braking" before passing the stern at a height of 4 ÷ 5 meters from the deck, "braking" for information is when the air flow behind the stern flows down and, accordingly, the aircraft is affected by an effect similar to an air hole, but at a very low altitude cause airplanes deck aircraft are limited by max. air flow speeds of 15 ÷ 17m / s, by the way, the flow velocity is the sum of the wind speed and the aircraft carrier’s speed, and the minimum required speed of 4 ÷ 5 knots, 2 m / s, for the aircraft carrier to control the steering efficiency. Apparently for this reason, during the period from November to March, I have never seen the USA AUG in the North Atlantic, maybe in the summer they were earlier about 25 years ago, I didn’t see them in the winter, especially since I didn’t have regular flight shifts in these latitudes, all of me.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 December 2017 13: 41 New
          +1
          Quote: find2312
          Excuse me, Andrey, you drew the AUG patrol area in the Norwegian Sea,

          And in the north.
          Quote: find2312
          the fact is that in the North Atlantic and adjacent open seas there is such a thing as an ocean swell

          Even in the fjords? :)))
          Quote: find2312
          the swell wavelength usually exceeds 300 meters and does not coincide with the direction of the wind, i.e. as you know, an aircraft carrier unfolds when releasing aircraft strictly against the wind

          Already not necessary.
          Quote: find2312
          Apparently for this reason, in the period November ÷ March, I have never seen the USA AUG in the North Atlantic,

          I’ll just quote a remark to one of my first articles here

          Thank you for your work, for a layman a worthy article. As a specialist (I have been "supervising" the Navy and the US Air Force and NATO for more than 20 years) I will allow myself some comments
          The first one. The size of the strike group may well reach 40 units. For some reason, you forgot that crews that flew earlier than others do not always need even a PTB: planes will be sequentially refueled in a special area according to the appropriate schedule. And, thus, they will leave the zone of building BP (battle formations) with approximately the same fuel supply.
          The second one. One of the main tasks of the AMG of the United States Navy (aircraft carrier multi-purpose groups) during the Soviet era was the buildup (strengthening) of aviation groups on advanced theater of operations. For example, in the operational zone of our Northern Fleet, the combat area of ​​the two AMGs was the West Fjord, where they (AMG) deployed in advance from the Western Atlantic and dispersed their aircraft to the airfields of Northern Norway (Bodø, Banak, Bardufoss, Alta, etc.). And, of course, they brought the maximum possible number of aircraft there (up to 90 units on each aircraft carrier). The AMG ships themselves and their entire air group were under the cover of continental air defense and it was very difficult to “take” them!
          1. find2312
            find2312 13 December 2017 14: 51 New
            0
            Andrey, you exclude the maneuvering area in the Norwegian Sea, leave it in the North, I understand you correctly?
            As you understand, carrying out flights from an aircraft carrier in the fjord is nonsense, not to mention the size of the water area, the surrounding mountains make air flows in the fjord impossible for aviation flights, and even soaring of water at minus temperatures creates winter fogs.
            You can certainly use aircraft carriers in Norway, like air transport, brought planes, entered the fjord, unloaded planes, brought them to the nearest airfield, but why not transport planes on a container ship, cheaper and more efficient?
            Once again I will repeat the take-off and landing operations from aircraft carriers in the northern seas is very difficult due to weather conditions, in order to understand this you need to read a flight of certain areas, I’m sure that the Americans read them, so aircraft carriers never fly in winter in northern Europe, in the region Scandinavia.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              14 December 2017 13: 27 New
              +1
              Quote: find2312
              Andrey, you exclude the maneuvering area in the Norwegian Sea, leave it in the North, I understand you correctly?

              Exactly the opposite.
              Quote: find2312
              Once again I will repeat the take-off and landing operations from aircraft carriers in the northern seas is very difficult due to weather conditions, in order to understand this you need to read a flight of certain areas, I’m sure that the Americans read them, so aircraft carriers never fly in winter in northern Europe, in the region Scandinavia.

              Sorry, but there is an indisputable fact - the Americans planned to deploy AUS off the coast of Norway. And yes, I think so, they read the licenses
    2. AN26
      AN26 12 December 2017 21: 56 New
      0
      I am not an author, but I can guess the answer.

      No to the first paragraph. "Not noticeable" on the second.
  49. Strategy
    Strategy 12 December 2017 20: 38 New
    +1
    Good article with good analysis. It is possible to accept when forecasting options for starting a war even at the level of the General Staff of the Armed Forces.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2017 21: 22 New
      +1
      Thanks for your kind words! hi
  50. Old26
    Old26 12 December 2017 21: 38 New
    +3
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Old26
    Zero.

    Do you also command the Russian fleet?

    No. But instead of blah blah like your "You are also commanding the Russian fleet," I took it and for the sake of variety I read the company's reports for about 10 years. Very interesting reading. And especially if you read the report of various companies - even more interesting. You can find a lot there. How much and why and when it is delivered. And most importantly where. So - NOT THERE WAS NO ORDER over the past 10 years. While other weapons systems of the company are described in great detail.
    So the one who wants to know something - is looking for a way, who does not want to - is looking for excuses. After all, it’s easy to dream how a cloud of “Caliber” will fall upon the adversary from containers. It’s harder to find out that none of this can be

    Quote: Spade
    Why so much, one is enough for the eyes.
    It’s like in the situation with the dead and wounded, the latter divert a lot more resources.

    Well, it seems to you that one is enough. It is enough to look at a map of the city and possible goals in order to understand that no one will be limited to ...

    Quote: Alexey RA
    Ahem ... did the Yankees somehow solve this problem on the Tomahawks?

    So, in any case, there are correction points.

    Quote: prodi
    amendment, destroy the population of all three of them - again not a bad exchange

    At the same time, ditch your own?