Military Review

Ship-arsenal against aircraft carrier

111
Ship-arsenal against aircraft carrier


PART 1. SHIP - ARSENAL


Bloody oil

14 January 1991, the Red Sea includes a strike force of the US Navy, which includes the 2 of the newest warships of the Arsenal type. The grouping takes a position on the beam of the village. El-Wajh (Saudi Arabia) 1000 km from the border with Iraq. 17 January, at midnight GMT (at 3 hours of the night Baghdad time), the military machine of multinational forces is activated - the operation "Desert Storm" begins.

... System Status Indicators weapons blood-red lights were lit. The commander and the senior officer of the ship turned the start keys - the missiles stood on a combat platoon. The Tomahawks' 500 guidance systems woke up, the starting point coordinates flowed to their onboard computers (target coordinates and digital “pictures” of previously filmed areas of the area along the flight route are entered into the memory of the Togmagawks in advance).

- Start! - hundreds of rockets, one after another, soar upwards, the flashes of the torches of their engines are hellishly reflected on the surface of the Red Sea. Starting accelerators raise the "Tomahawks" to a three-hundred-meter height. There, on the descending branch of the launch site with a length of 4 km, wing consoles open up, air intakes are advanced, cruise engines are activated. Cruise missiles, guided by a semi-inertial guidance system, fall on a given course.

Here is the coast of Saudi Arabia. At an altitude of 20 meters at a speed of 880 km / h "Tomahawks" are included in the first area of ​​correction. Airborne radars come to life, kamikaze robots compare the data with the satellite “pictures” of the underlying terrain that are stored in their memory.
... Packs of "Battle axes" rumble over deserted stone wastelands of the Great Nefud desert. Saudi air defense periodically sees flashes on radar screens, but it is not possible to establish steady contact with low-flying targets. The Saudis warned of the impending attack and graciously opened their airspace for the passage of cruise missiles.

... 40 flight minutes, under the wing of the territory of Iraq. The fuel tanks are half empty - the speed of the order of the better “Tomahawks” passes for 1000 km / h. The rocket packs are divided, and the Tomahawks, invulnerable to Iraqi HPE, are pursuing their goals one by one.

The main danger to the Coalition is represented by the Iraqi air defense radar stations, air defense missile launchers, nuclear and chemical weapons production centers; airfields and military bases, fuel depots, launching positions of Scud tactical missiles. Rocket attacks on command centers and communications hubs destroyed the control system of the Iraqi army. Saddam Hussein and his generals lost control of the situation.

Subsequent waves of the Tomahawks struck important Iraqi industrial facilities, demolished power plants and set fire to oil wells ... After a week of missile blitzkrieg, Iraq agreed to comply with all the requirements of the UN resolution, Saddam Hussein’s troops left Kuwaiti territory ...

Of course, all this is just a parody of the “War in the Gulf”, nothing like this in reality could not and could not happen in the winter of the year 1991. Warships of the Arsenal type do not exist. Nonetheless, it was Operation Desert Storm that once again inspired dreams of such a missile system.

Arsenal-ship project

It is reliably known that work in this direction has been conducted in the USSR since the beginning of the 70s. On the dusty shelves of the Nevsky PKB archive, drawings of the 1080 Ave. missile cruiser were discovered - a kind of attempt to create an analogue of American aircraft carrier strike groups as a means of solving political problems in local conflict zones.



On the Soviet cruiser, the 200 tactical missiles Elbrus-M were supposed to be placed in four 50-charging vertical launchers (it is important not to get confused - the famous Elbrus R-17 liquid-propellant missile, the GRAU 8K14 index has no relation to 1080. ). As a result, the ship had an unusual architecture with two superstructures spaced to the bow and stern and a smooth deck in the middle. The 1080 X-NUMX armament complex included X-NUMX X-NUMX artillery systems X-NUMX caliber mm, Dagger anti-aircraft missile defense system and two AK-2 battery-cutter batteries. In the stern part they planned to place a helicopter hangar and a runway. With a full displacement of 726 76 tons, the travel speed reached 630 nodes. The only catch is that there was no operational tactical complex Elbrus-M with a range of 16 km. It was just a dream.

In the middle of the 90s, the heads of the American admirals suddenly came up with the idea of ​​creating a cheap ship with monstrous strike power. When creating "ships-arsenals", the Americans went even further than Soviet designers: "To hell with all unnecessary systems! The only combat task is to launch rocket attacks on the shore. ”
According to the Jesuit plan of its creators, the most important and expensive element of the “ship-arsenal” is its rocket weapon. As soon as the ship shoots all its Tomahawks' ammunition, it loses its combat value, turning into a self-propelled barge, which makes its subsequent destruction senseless for the enemy. Is ingenious? Assessing the prospects of this approach, engineers began to develop the idea:

First, it was decided not to equip the “arsenal ship” with the most complex combat information and control system “Aegis” - the target designation of the ship was to be received from external sources - DRLO planes and space satellites. In addition to a radical reduction in the cost of the entire system, this made it possible to abandon the developed superstructure with cumbersome antenna devices, which made the hull of the “ship-arsenal” extremely low and flat.

Secondly, on the basis of paragraph 1, when designing, a bet was made on stealth. Stealth technologies, which are based on elementary technical solutions (after all, everything ingenious is simple) made it possible to create an “invisible” ship. “Smooth” deck, on which only the most necessary equipment remains, a wide and low superstructure “from side to side”, gaps having a “saw-like” shape, parallelism of most surfaces and hull lines, radio absorbing coatings, known since 50's long time ago until the stealth program.

Some of the developers went even further by proposing such truly original ideas as the nose- “breakwater” (which allowed the “ship-arsenal” not to climb the crests of the waves), piled up “inside” of the board (as a result, the radio waves reflected in the sky, but not on the water surface, which under normal conditions gives a complicated interference pattern unmasking the ship). All this, in theory, made the "ship-arsenal" virtually indistinguishable at the border of two environments.



Third, in accordance with the concept of radical cost reduction, the “arsenal ship” was armed with exclusively cruise missiles (there were 500 “Tomahawks” in vertical launchers). Placement of any other weapon was not supposed!
Thanks to the “simplifications” and the high automation of all systems, the crew of the “ship-arsenal”, according to calculations, did not exceed 20 people.

The total cost of this offshore launch platform was within 1,5 billion dollars, and the cost of the ship itself did not exceed 800 million, the remaining 700 ... 800 million fell on Tomahawk missiles.

So what is the result? The US Navy received a unique ship, which has no equal in firepower? And the creators of the “ship-arsenal” were awarded the Medal of Congress for their outstanding contribution to the country's defense capability?

October 24 1997, when planning the budget for the 1998 fiscal year, the Arsenal project was denied funding. The development team was dispersed, and the results of their research, which cost the 35 budget millions of dollars (not a very large amount by the Pentagon standards), were transferred to the Bath Iron Works and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding corporations, which are developing the new generation destroyer of the project DD-21 (" Zumwalt ”).

So what is the reason for such an inglorious collapse of a brilliant project? Underestimated? Or did Arsenal become the victim of undercover intrigues in the Pentagon? What were the developers wrong? We will try to answer these questions today.




PART 2. AIRCRAFT CARRIER


Bloody oil. Reality

14 January 1991 of the Red Sea includes the US Navy carrier strike system, consisting of 2 AUG: CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt and CV-66 America. The grouping takes a position on the beam of the village. El-Wajh (Saudi Arabia) 1000 km from the border with Iraq. 17 January, at midnight GMT (at 3 hours of the night Baghdad time), the military machine of multinational forces is activated - the operation "Desert Storm" begins.

On the first day of the war aviation multinational forces performed 1300 sorties; the number of Tomahawks issued on the first day is 114 units.
In total, for the period of the 30-day campaign, aviation performed more than 70 000 sorties (of which 12 000 sorties fell on deck-based aircraft). At the same time, the number of launches of "Tomahawks" according to different data ranges from 700 to 1000 pieces. (total 1% from aviation actions)!
Here are other amazing numbers: the mass of the Tomahawk warhead is 450 kg. Those. in 30 days, cruise missiles delivered to targets 0,45 x 1000 = 450 tons of ammunition. At the same time, the deck aircraft wing of one aircraft carrier, on average, unloaded 1700 tons of bombs and precision weapons on the heads of Iraqis a day!

In other words, the participation of “smart and scary” cruise missiles in Operation Desert Storm was almost symbolic. Complicated and expensive "Tomahawks" can be used for strikes on key air defense posts, as well as on the most important military installations, well protected from air strikes. To impose on them all the tasks of aviation is too expensive, inefficient and unreliable.

Key errors of the "ship-arsenal" developers

Attentive readers have probably already guessed what I am talking about: the cost of a “cheap” arsenal ship, on closer inspection, becomes simply enormous.

The cost of the Tomahawk cruise missile is 1 500 000 dollars. Yes, it is 1,5 million. Warhead - 450 kg, can be presented in semi-slaughter, high-explosive, cassette or even nuclear.
At the same time, the cost of one hour of flight of the deck attack aircraft, depending on the type of vehicle, ranges from 10 to 15 thousand dollars. And the cost of an hour’s flight of a small F-16 Block 52 is even less — about 7000 dollars.
We have not considered something? The cost of the aircraft itself is sometimes very high - 55 million dollars for the F / A-18 SuperHornet. But the F / A-18 is designed for 2000 landings on deck. Hence, it is easy to calculate that the depreciation for each attack aircraft flight is 55 million / 2000 = 27500 dollars. It is a decent amount.

Below are the cost of the most common ammunition:
- Here is a 227 kg laser-guided GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombshell. Baby worth 19 000 dollars.
- Much more serious ammunition - heavy 900 kg guided bomb GBU-24 - cost 55 000 dollars.
- One of the most expensive aviation ammunition for “local wars” is the tactical planning bomb AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon. A stealth 700 kg, dropped from a great height, can fly 60 miles. Warhead contains 450 kg of explosives. The cost of gizmos ranges from 280 000 to 700 000 dollars, depending on the "stuffing". But! It is still several times less than the cost of "Tomahawk."

Of course, our calculations are very approximate, but the general tendency is easy to guess - the use of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk is justified only in exceptional cases. Rocket launching is much more expensive than the combat departure of the aircraft.
Someone may add that expensive planes tend to fall and crash, and pilots sometimes miss targets. Well, the rocket "Tomahawk" is also no different mind and ingenuity.

The next important point is that aviation has much greater flexibility of application; there are hundreds of combat load combinations for combat aircraft. Finally, aviation can strike from the “airborne alert” position, which is absolutely impossible for a one-time cruise missile.

Finally, the objective shortcomings of "ships-arsenals":
- 500 cruise missiles - too little for "local war"
- The “arsenal ship” is defenseless against any means of destruction, and an attempt to equip it with powerful self-defense systems leads to the loss of the “arsenal ship” meaning, turning it into an expensive heavy missile cruiser
- extremely low survivability, 500 huge rockets are not protected by anything, and the crew’s 20 are unlikely to be able to cope with an emergency on their own



Having considered all the pros and cons, the American admirals with horror and disgust recoiled from the project of the ship-arsenal: a monstrously expensive, not effective and extremely vulnerable means of striking the coast.

Nevertheless, currently there are several types of warships, which with a stretch can be called "arsenal ship". For example, the Russian heavy nuclear missile cruiser Peter the Great. Alas, it implements a completely different concept - a gigantic cruiser “to the eyeballs” is saturated with fire weapons and electronic systems, equipped with atomic reactors and has a crew of hundreds in 6. Instead of single-type cruise missiles, the entire range of weapons of our Navy is concentrated on the decks of the Peter.

Another similar case is the upgraded Ohio-type submarines. 22 rocket mines instead of SLBMs are occupied by the Tomahawk 154. Anyway, this is not at all like an “arsenal ship” with 500 missiles on board, especially the upgraded “Ohio” positioned as multifunctional submarines: with a torpedo weapon and a module for combat swimmers. Such a modernization of the "Ohio" - a necessary measure, 4 strategic submarine missile "did not fit" in the START Treaty.

Something reminiscent of the ship-arsenal Aegis-cruisers "Taykonderoga" and Aegis-destroyers "Orly Burk." Alas, on closer inspection, they have more differences than similarities. Of the 90 destroyer launch cells, only 7 eight-charge modules can be charged with Tomahawks (no more than 56 cruise missiles). Moreover, the priority task of these ships is air defense, hence the standard ammunition set of destroyers looks like this: 74 SAM “Standard”, 8 anti-submarine torpedoes and the whole 8 “Tomahawks”.

Simple answers to tough questions.

Probably, I tired the readers with my numbers, so I’ll allow some lyrics now. The very name of the AUG - carrier-based strike force - the fruit of imagination of Soviet translators. The original name of this structure is carrier battle group (combat group with an aircraft carrier) without placing any accents - “shock” or “defensive”. Indeed, AUG is multifunctional, it has a huge impact and defensive potential, has high mobility and is capable of controlling the sea and air situation hundreds of miles from its warrant.

The only unique component of the AOG is an aircraft-carrying ship, and all its destroyers, cruisers and submarines are standard components of any naval fleet, so the question "How much does AUG cost?" - incorrect. It’s more correct to talk about an increase in the costs of the Navy when aircraft carriers are included in its composition.
The AUG is just a tactic, the result of the close interaction of the ships in it. The AUG summarizes the capabilities of all its surface and submarine ships, while all the components of the AUG receive new properties and multiply their fighting qualities. Ships and deck aircraft cover each other, creating a deeply echeloned defense in all directions.

This also gives an answer to another question - why do numerous escorts go everywhere along with the “invincible” aircraft carrier (4-5 destroyers and URO cruisers, as well as several multi-purpose submarines). Weakness aircraft carrier?
By no means. The US Navy only works in a bundle, and really - why should the ships go alone, if you can form a decent squadron? Everyone benefits from this. The aircraft carrier receives an increase in air defense and anti-aircraft defense in the near zone, and escort ships provide cover for deck aircraft. As the Russian proverb says: “There is no warrior alone in the field.”

Perhaps with the development of air defense systems in the near future it will be too risky to appear over the battlefield in the cockpit. Does this imply a reduction in the role of aviation?
The trend is well traced now - increasingly, the tasks of manned aircraft duplicate unmanned aerial vehicles. Primitive RQ-1 Predator 10 has been involved in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for years. The Predator began his career with unpretentious reconnaissance missions, but now the new MQ-1 modifications are already mercilessly beating the Taliban with Hellfire.


UAV RQ-4 Global Hawk. Preflight preparation


2 July 2011 F / A-18 Hornet fighter-bomber landed on the deck of the Eisenhower aircraft in unmanned mode.
Finally, do not forget that 70% of the world's population lives no further than 500 km from the coastline.

Russian way

If Russia wants to become the "mistress of the sea", controlling the situation in all 5 oceans. If Russia wants to become a “world policeman,” projecting its power to anywhere in the world.
If the need arises to continuously monitor US Navy aircraft carrier groups in the oceans (as was the case during the Soviet years), in all these cases it will be necessary to build an ocean fleet, the backbone of which will be aircraft carriers. All other options and "asymmetric answers" are obviously losing. Soviet P-700 Granit missiles were good, but ... they need a Marine Space Intelligence and Targeting System, the operation of which requires half a billion dollars a year (ideally), in reality could well exceed 1 billion!
More information about this issue - http://topwar.ru/12712-sravnenie-stoimosti-avianoscev-i-raketno-kosmicheskih-sistem-protivodeystviya.html

If Russia is ready to limit itself to its “defensive” concept of development of the Armed Forces, then the reader will forgive me for a seditious thought, but maybe the Russian Navy does not need such a powerful tool as an aircraft carrier? The construction of 1-2 aircraft carriers is meaningless, America has 12 units, disproportionately more. Moreover, in this case, the whole meaning of the ocean fleet is lost; without an aircraft carrier, this is pure profanation. There is no need to build cruisers and other large ships. To demonstrate the flag and support the world community in the fight against piracy, a few ships of the frigate and destroyer classes are enough, and to ensure strategic nuclear deterrence - dozens of submarines of the Borey type.
After all, do Russians want war? The answer has always been loud - "No!"
Author:
111 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim 1 May 2012 07: 16
    +8
    Yes, what ideas were there in the 20th century!
    1. Winter
      Winter 1 May 2012 08: 43
      +17
      To the big ship - a big torpedo!
      1. re321
        re321 1 May 2012 11: 28
        -25
        It seems that the article is not bad, but some "bloopers" made me laugh a little:
        1. "The Tomahawk rocket is also not distinguished by intelligence and ingenuity" - for what mental development is this phrase? Yes, these missiles have been destroying everything in their path for 20 years! Huge experience has been accumulated in their application in various theaters. Plus the constant modernization of warheads and UMA! The number of missiles themselves and their carriers is simply enormous. Show me at least some more or less suitable analogue in the world?
        2. What is the passage about cost? For a Russian taxpayer? laughing Americans can afford the most, they are the richest and most intelligent, what can you do? yes
        3 Ohio for 4! Are missiles not floating arsenals? Yes, even with modules for fur seals? Well then, Mercedes is also not a car lol
        4. So the whole point is that the United States has achieved impressive results in the war by the "crowd" - that is, the complex use of forces and means! One in the field is not a warrior - absolutely right, SYSTEM is at war. No weapon, by itself, will win on the battlefield. Today, exploration and management are more important than TNT. The first one saw, the first one fired the “fire and forget” means - this is the answer to many questions for the local caps!
        5. Russian industry, in principle, is not capable of creating an aircraft carrier. How much longer can you "feed" yourself with such fairy tales? .. Descend from heaven to the sinful earth
        1. Kars
          Kars 1 May 2012 11: 33
          +16
          Quote: re321
          So the whole point is that the United States achieved impressive results in the war by the "crowd"



          Interesting numbers
          The grouping of the Navy The naval forces of the 14 countries of the Allied anti-Iraq coalition included more than 170 thousand people (over 30% of the total number of all multinational forces), 145 warships and more 50 auxiliary vessels, of which 92 of the US Navy ship, including 6 Multipurpose Aircraft Carriers, 2 battleships, 5 amphibious assault carriers, 2 versatile landing ships, 8 nuclear multipurpose submarines, 24 amphibious ships, etc. Of this composition, more than 20 ships were carriers of Tomahawk cruise missiles (about 500 missiles).

          During the 2 weeks of the war, the Allied aviation made more than 30 thousand sorties - (3,5 thousand of them were carried out by carrier-based aviation). At the same time, up to 260 Tomahawk sea-based missiles were used. As a result of these attacks, 44 (25%) were disabled from the 57 of Iraq's main airfields, and the rest were damaged. The intensity of the combat missions of Iraqi aviation immediately decreased. If on the first day of hostilities she completed 116 sorties, on the remaining days - until 30 — 40, and in the first ten days of February only single sorties were recorded. Since February 11, Iraqi aviation has been completely inactive.

        2. Santa Fe
          1 May 2012 12: 20
          +16
          Quote: re321
          Huge experience has been accumulated on their use in various theater products. Plus the constant modernization of warheads and UMA! The number of missiles themselves and their carriers is simply huge. Show me at least some more suitable analogue in the world?


          Nobody said the Tomahawk was a bad rocket. Another thing is that, like any aircraft, it is not insured against accidents and periodically goes astray.

          Quote: re321
          4 Ohio by 154! Are missiles not floating arsenals?

          Not. Have you read the article carefully?
          The arsenal ship is a dream of a cheap launch platform, which, after the ammunition is shot, depreciates into a rusty barge - without any unnecessary complicated and expensive electronic systems
          Nuclear "Ohio" worth several billion does not attract the "arsenal ship"

          Quote: re321
          Russian industry, in principle, is not able to create an aircraft carrier.

          Gorshkov somehow managed to upgrade
        3. beard999
          beard999 1 May 2012 17: 47
          +12
          Quote: re321
          Yes, these missiles have been destroying everything in their path for 20 years

          However, they have never been used against an adversary with modern aircraft. The enemy was always deliberately weaker, with outdated airborne weapons.
          Quote: re321
          The number of missiles themselves and their carriers is simply huge

          “Huge” is how much? A specific figure, with a link to the source, give?
          Quote: re321
          Show me at least some more suitable analogue in the world?

          In the version with SBCH - 3M10, with the usual warhead - 3M14. So what?
          Quote: re321
          they are the richest and smartest

          “Rich and smart?” Well, looking at these numbers, I wouldn’t be so sure of it http://www.usdebtclock.org/. 16 trillion dollars only external public debt. In addition, 46,3 million of these so-called “Smart” get food stamps http://www.goldenfront.ru/articles/view/talony-na-pitanie-i-bezrabotica-v-ssha-n
          ovye-pechalnye-rekordy. The costs of the Pentagon are also reduced http://www.arms-expo.ru/053049049048124050053056055049.html.
          The times when the United States could spend money almost unlimitedly are already behind. So, with your dreams, about “smart” and “rich”, you can end.
          Quote: re321
          The first one saw, the first one fired with a "fire and forget"

          So how does the “mob war” and “shoot and forget,” the US and its satellites, help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan?
          Quote: re321
          Russian industry, in principle, is not able to create an aircraft carrier

          Can you argue? Or are you just engaged in a treat?
          In general, the Russian Navy is not interested in classic aircraft carriers. Here is the opinion of Commander-in-Chief Vysotsky:
          “... the future ship of this class will not be a classic aircraft carrier. “He will be one step ahead. The ship will have to operate in all environments, that is, be multi-media, ”said Vysotsky.
          He explained that a modern aircraft carrier operates, in fact, in two environments - “air (aviation) or, at best, the lower space orbital group”.
          “But we want to go further - there is still space, there is an underwater part, there is a surface part with uncontrolled and controllable vehicles. That is, in other words, to make a combined medium that allows solving a whole range of tasks in almost all environments, ”said Vysotsky.
          At the same time, he noted that the main load will be on the aerospace component, because dominance in air and space determines dominance at sea. ”
          Source: http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20120209/560949821-print.html.
          The timing of the creation of the aircraft carrier was confirmed by the president of USC Roman Trotsenko - in 2014, the development of the terms of reference and the preliminary design will be completed. http://www.itar-tass.com/c96/404827_print.html.
          1. Tram boom
            Tram boom 1 May 2012 18: 29
            -26
            Quote: beard999
            However, they have never been used against an adversary with modern aircraft. The enemy was always deliberately weaker, with outdated airborne weapons.

            IT SAYS ONLY THAT THE US ARMY FOR GENERATION EXCEEDS ANY ARMY OF THE WORLD.
            When the Tomahawk was being developed (1980), Soviet engineers did not even understand what was happening, they could not create such a weapon. Thirty years later, they somehow copied the Tomahawk, creating the Caliber rocket, completely similar to the Tomahawk. But for America "Tomahawk" is already yesterday, a new cruise missile "Fasthawk" is being developed
            And there is no need to cite the example of a "Garnet" with a nuclear charge - the Soviet rocket did not come close to the Tomahawk in accuracy, versatility and the number of carriers


            Quote: beard999
            “Huge” is how much?

            Tomahawks can be launched from:
            - missile silos of submarines of the Ohio, Los Angeles, Virginia types
            - torpedo tubes of the nuclear submarine "Seawulf"
            - MK-41 vertical launcher mounted on 22 cruisers and 60 destroyers of the US Navy
            - 4-charge deck launcher PU Armored Launch Box (installed on battleships and destroyers in the 80s)
            - stationary launchers
            - bombers B-1, B-2, B-52
            ANYTHING SIMILAR TO BE CREATED IN THE USSR


            Quote: beard999
            In the version with SBCH - 3M10, with the usual warhead - 3M14. So what?

            And then. Tomahawk was created 30 years earlier
            The flight range ZM14 is 300 km, the ancient Tomahawk 1500 ... 2500 km.


            Quote: beard999
            So how does the “mob war” and “shoot and forget,” the US and its satellites, help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan?


            It is impossible to defeat the patient on the head of Afghanistan. They are born, take Kalashnikov, die, their children are born, take Kalashnikov, die ...
            This madhouse cannot be defeated. The only conclusion is to arrange genocide and "finally resolve the issue." But the Russians will whine that this is inhuman
            1. Ascetic
              Ascetic 1 May 2012 18: 59
              +23
              Quote: Tram boor
              IT SAYS ONLY THAT THE US ARMY FOR GENERATION EXCEEDS ANY ARMY OF THE WORLD.
              When the Tomahawk was being developed (1980), Soviet engineers did not even understand what was happening, they could not create such a weapon. Thirty years later, they somehow copied the Tomahawk, creating the Caliber rocket, completely similar to the Tomahawk. But for America "Tomahawk" is already yesterday, a new cruise missile "Fasthawk" is being developed


              In 1991. in the Yuzhnoye design bureau a multifunctional high-precision rocket was developed under the code name "Universal" (not to be confused with the UR NPO Mashinostroyenia), and even prototypes were tested. You will not find a word about this on the Internet. Like almost everything at that time, for obvious reasons, the series did not go. She surpassed the notorious "Tomahawk" in all respects, take my word for it,

              Quote: Tram boor
              ANYTHING SIMILAR TO BE CREATED IN THE USSR

              It was also much more effective than the amerovskie prodigies of the Soviet defense industry stolen or sold during the collapse of the Union. Tests were carried out of such things that no one dreamed of himself witnessed and participated in some of them. creation of "Bulava" The main problem is personnel and the level of the current chief designers of the project
              So you my friend full amateur in this matter
              1. Tram boom
                Tram boom 1 May 2012 19: 10
                -16
                Quote: Ascetic
                She surpassed the notorious "Tomahawk" in all respects, take my word for it,

                No, I won’t believe it. laughing
                In order to make such statements, you must first test weapons in army conditions, establish mass production, prepare carriers and test a missile in battle.
                How was your "Universal" launched? From a slingshot? Yes, there are thousands of such projects around the world, but only a few are brought to mind

                Quote: Ascetic
                Tests were carried out of such things that no one dreamed he himself was a witness

                laughing
                Though you call your grandmother for witnesses - I do not believe it.
                All this is stupid. Stupid and funny. You are given real facts (ALB, Mk-41, Ohio-class), and you can’t even give a simple answer - why are you going to launch your miracle rocket
                1. Ascetic
                  Ascetic 1 May 2012 21: 43
                  +9
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  gathered to launch their miracle rocket


                  "Bulava" was able to adapt to a sea carrier, which means that a completely new project will also succeed, "Bulava" is an intermediate version as well as the land-based YARS
              2. re321
                re321 1 May 2012 19: 55
                -19
                Ascetic,
                don't fantasize too much - it's ridiculous to grief! Tales today do not impress anyone. Show a real rocket standing in service and located on real carriers, and leave fairy tales for kindergarten
                1. Ascetic
                  Ascetic 1 May 2012 21: 39
                  +13
                  Quote: re321

                  Ascetic,
                  don't fantasize too much - it's ridiculous to grief! Tales today do not impress anyone. Show a real rocket standing in service and located on real carriers, and leave fairy tales for kindergarten

                  Coming soon, wait for the 5th generation ICBMs of MIIT and NPO Mashinostroyenia with a platform of 10 MIRVs. This intercontinental version of the "Universal" is already on
                  replace "YARS". In general, the "Universal" is a transformer in the ground version that can be used to combat the AUG who have approached, let's say, at the position to attack our CD targets. Three in one (actually more). One rocket starts and several arrive. Successful tests were carried out in 1992. Due to the high cost, it did not go into the series, but the project can be launched at any time. There is no analogue of such a transformer in the world.
                  1. Arc76
                    Arc76 1 May 2012 23: 01
                    -7
                    Do you want to fight the 800 miles per day ICBM? Original. How do you plan to induce?
                    1. Ascetic
                      Ascetic 1 May 2012 23: 19
                      +11
                      Quote: arc76
                      Do you want to fight the 800 miles per day ICBM? Original. How do you plan to induce?


                      One ICBM after launch after a short period of time transformed into the "family" of KR. There is no need to rush the surface and submarine forces (there is no question of aviation - they will destroy it). Quickly and effectively, plus a huge load on the air defense of the AUG.
                      1. Arc76
                        Arc76 2 May 2012 00: 20
                        -7
                        So the whole question is, who will give the target designation?
            2. Ascetic
              Ascetic 1 May 2012 22: 04
              +21
              Quote: Tram boor
              IT SAYS ONLY THAT THE US ARMY FOR GENERATION EXCEEDS ANY ARMY OF THE WORLD


              The attempt of the Americans to create in response to our “Satan” heavy ICBM of the “Piper” (“Peacemaker”) type failed miserably. The missile complex, the creation of which was spent, according to various estimates, up to a trillion dollars (including the costs of production and deployment of the 50 ICBM on duty), lasted less than twenty years and was removed from combat duty without any replacement! Particularly impressed by the crafty "justification" by the Americans of the refusal to create a combat railway missile complex (BZHRK) based on the "Piper": The length of railways in the US is too small to provide secrecy - and this, with their total length of more than 250 000 km!
              They tried to make a "subway" in Nevada too.
              The widely advertised company to create 500 light midget-type ICBMs, an analogue of our Topol, also failed. Only two test launches were carried out, one of which was completely unsuccessful - the rocket was destroyed by a signal from the test control center in connection with its getting out of control, the second was only partially successful. After that, all work on this project was completely frozen.
              Wrong country called Honduras
              1. Ares
                Ares 2 May 2012 11: 37
                +4
                Quote: Ascetic
                The Americans' attempt to create in response to our Satan a heavy ICBM of the Piskiper type (Peacemaker) failed miserably.


                Quote: Ascetic
                The sly "justification" by the Americans of the refusal to create a military railway missile complex (BZHRK) on the basis of Piskiper was especially impressive: the length of railways in the United States is too small to provide stealth - and this with a total length of more than 250 km!


                Ascetic, let's be objective to the end. With Piskipper, the Americans did not fail, but indeed created a full-fledged ICBM. But the fact is that by then
                1. The concepts of strategic nuclear forces have changed in connection with an unprecedented increase in the accuracy of missile launchers of ICBMs and SLBMs, in which the defeat of the silos was provided by 1-2 warheads with a probability of 0,9. In such circumstances, the Americans abandoned the risk of land-based deployment of such a heavy class of ICBMs, where in the event of a loss of only one silo, 10 nuclear warheads were immediately affected.
                2. The USSR collapsed and START-1 entered into force.
                3. Considering the power of the American fleet and the ability to cover submarines from any enemy forces, as well as points 1 and 2, a much simpler solution was to concentrate most of the strategic nuclear forces on the SSBN, which, unlike mine missiles and mobile wheel-based missiles (Topol) , provides much more stealth, combat stability and the inevitability of a retaliatory strike.
                4. And do not forget that according to points 1 and 2, the project of the Soviet heavy heavy ICBM R-36M3 Ikar was also stopped. And at present, we are focusing on significantly lighter Topol-M and RS-24 YaRS ICBMs, which in the future will form the basis of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces.

                The widely advertised company to create 500 light midget-type ICBMs, an analogue of our Topol, also failed. Only two test launches were carried out, one of which was completely unsuccessful - the rocket was destroyed by a signal from the test control center in connection with its getting out of control, the second was only partially successful. After that, all work on this project was completely frozen.


                Again you write "failed", which is not. The project was frozen for the same reasons as Piskieper. The Americans relied on SNF based on SSBNs, which IMHO is the most reasonable decision given their capabilities. And they created the Minidgement rocket itself and it is not an analogue of the "Topol", but a head superior to it in terms of weight and dimensions. This is the only light ICBM in the world. It could deliver a nuclear warhead with a capacity of 475kt at a distance of 11000 km with a rocket mass of only 13,6 tons. No one in the world could even get close to such indicators. Poplar, with a comparable power delivered by the warhead (550 kt), has a shorter range (10000 km) and more than 3 (!) Times greater launch weight (45 tons).
                In fact, the Mini-Management was a short-range missile (700-800 km) in terms of mass and size indicators, but at the same time it was an ICBM (11000 km).

                One ICBM after the launch after a short period of time is transformed into a "family" of CDs. There is no need to rush the surface and submarine forces (there is no question of aviation - they will destroy it). Quickly and efficiently, plus a huge load on the AUG air defense.


                This is not technically feasible. Not to mention the fact that even if we use tactical nuclear warheads and design, create and adopt a new ICBM complex only for the sake of combating AUGs, it would be archderex. Mobile complexes with medium-range missiles and tactical nuclear warheads may have a definite prospect, but again, you need to get out of political agreements and solve very complex technical problems in guiding and controlling hypersonic warheads in the final section of a moving target.

                Test results show that the issue of protecting ships from supersonic cruise missiles remains open.


                So it was in the 90s. Now the network is full of training results with successful intercepts of targets. It seems like recently even the French intercepted.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 2 May 2012 11: 52
                  +5
                  Quote: Ares
                  in which the defeat of the silos was provided by 1-2 warheads with a probability of 0,9.



                  But what's the point of hitting empty silos? Or does someone think that after the take-off of the first two ICBMs someone will leave their own in the mines?
                  Quote: Ares
                  This is the only sample of light ICBMs in the world. It could deliver a nuclear warhead with a power of 475ct to a distance of 11000 km with a mass of a rocket of only 13,6 tons.

                  And what's the difference how much weight? What does it carry to overcome missile defense?
                  Quote: Ares
                  adopting a new ICBM complex only for the sake of combating AUG

                  In a nuclear war, the AUG will last a maximum of 100 days, because the basing places will be destroyed in the first place for anyone - New Port, New York, Hawaii.

                  The fight against AUG is not the lot of nuclear states like Libya, Iran.
                  1. Ares
                    Ares 2 May 2012 12: 32
                    +3
                    Quote: Kars
                    But what's the point of hitting empty silos? Or does someone think that after the take-off of the first two ICBMs someone will leave their own in the mines?


                    Only with the concept of OVU. In real life, the concept of a retaliatory strike is considered likely.

                    Quote: Kars
                    And what's the difference how much weight?


                    smile

                    Quote: Kars
                    What does she carry to overcome missile defense?


                    The carrier has only an indicator for the cast mass of the head unit. Minidgement has it comparable to Topol. The "stuffing" of this block, based on the mass indicators and the required goals, is already arbitrary. Maybe even a nuclear warhead with false targets, even a satellite.


                    Quote: Kars
                    In a nuclear war, the AUG will last a maximum of 100 days, because the basing places will be destroyed in the first place for anyone - New Port, New York, Hawaii.


                    The fact is that with the development of missile defense, destroyers and cruisers with missile interceptors will be part of the AOG. So they will also be goals.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 2 May 2012 12: 53
                      +3
                      Quote: Ares
                      In real life

                      Really chtoli?
                      Do you think it is necessary to wait until the warheads explode after striking strategic targets, and only then strike back? Congratulations.


                      fool Now, to tell what a difference, and what it gives strategically, you can’t. It weighs easier --- cheaper to transport, what else?
                      Quote: Ares
                      So they will also be goals.


                      Why? Their ports will be destroyed, the supply cut off and they will quietly die in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. And so the ICBM trajectories will run through the North Pole - so what will they intercept there will be another question.
                      1. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 13: 26
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Really chtoli?
                        Do you think it is necessary to wait until the warheads explode after striking strategic targets, and only then strike back? Congratulations.


                        Read relevant literature on the dangers of OVD. Even with OVD, the count is struck approximately 25 minutes after detecting the launch of an ICBM. US SSBNs can approach a much shorter flight time.

                        Quote: Kars
                        here, to tell what a difference, and what it gives strategically


                        I did not think that it was necessary to answer such obvious things. Greater mobility, much smaller complex size and greater stealth. Great constructive simplicity.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 2 May 2012 13: 40
                        +4
                        Quote: Ares
                        Read relevant literature on the dangers of OVU


                        Read, read
                        Quote: Ares
                        US SSBNs can approach a much shorter flight time.

                        How is it? How much will they fit, such will be the flying time. And where will they still be? For a strike in central Siberia?
                        Quote: Ares
                        Great mobility

                        Do you laugh? Straight is such a big difference, as well as about stealth --- give a comparison of the dimensions

                        The only American mobile-based ICBM not adopted

                        Length 14 m
                        Diameter 1,17 m
                        Starting weight 13,60 t
                        Type of fuel solid mixed
                        Maximum range 11 000 km
                        Head Type Monoblock, Mark 21
                        The number of warheads 1
                        Charge power W87-1 475 ct
                        Base method mine, mobile
                        Launch history
                        Inactive Status
                        Adopted -


                        Number of steps 3
                        Length (with MS) 22,55 [1] m
                        Length (without MS) 17,5 m
                        Diameter 1,81 [1] m
                        Starting weight 46,5 [1] t
                        Drop weight 1,2 t
                        Type of fuel solid mixed
                        Maximum range 11000 [1] km
                        Type of warhead monoblock, nuclear, detachable
                        The number of 1 + warheads about 2 dozens of models
                        0,55 Mt Charge Power


                        that one that is huge as an elephant, and no fundamental difference in stealth or mobility.
                        Quote: Ares
                        I repeat, I have a radically opposite view of these issues


                        That is, submarines will be reloaded with new missiles after their salvo? Are you even sure that there is at least a second ammunition on the submarines?

                        So where, then, will the US missile defense offshore platforms be located off the coast of NORTH of Russia? Give a map?
                      3. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 14: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        That is, submarines will be reloaded with new missiles after their salvo? Are you even sure that there is at least a second ammunition on the submarines?

                        So where, then, will the US missile defense offshore platforms be located off the coast of NORTH of Russia? Give a map?


                        You draw the wrong conclusions based on the stated concept. The strategic nuclear forces must be prepared for any scenario development. The aggressor can start a nuclear war in the warm season, stealthily pulling up its naval missile defense component. If you heard that one of the points of the fierce debate of the Russian government about guarantees of the missile defense of the American missile defense is a written guarantee about the non-deployment of marine elements of the system off the coast of Russia. You can breed a lot of demagoguery, but the fact remains.

                        How is it? How much will they fit, such will be the flying time. And where will they still be? For a strike in central Siberia?

                        But what's the point of hitting empty silos? Or does someone think that after the take-off of the first two ICBMs someone will leave their own in the mines?


                        Sorry, but the dialogue has lost its constructiveness. It’s easier for everyone to stay with their opinion. I see no reason to prove obvious things.
                        If someone thought so, then in general all ICBMs would be mine-based. There would be no need for mobile systems or for an SSBN. And practice shows the exact opposite situation. Most of the nuclear charges are placed and will be placed on such launchers, which is reflected in the trends of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces and the realities of the Strategic Missile Forces of the United States, Britain and France.
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 2 May 2012 14: 24
                        +3
                        Quote: Ares
                        warm season


                        At the North Pole and beyond the Arctic Circle?
                        Quote: Ares
                        stealthily pulling up its naval missile defense component

                        Secretly? Is it like? In the Kara Sea the Aegis cruiser and no one will notice it? I’m not talking about the AUG already. And the radar on the pantone?
                        Quote: Ares
                        is a written guarantee on the non-placement of marine elements of the system off the coast of Russia

                        The written guarantees smiled.
                        Quote: Ares
                        It’s easier for everyone to stay with their opinion

                        Your problems.
                        Quote: Ares
                        I see no reason to prove obvious things.

                        If you can’t prove, then they are obvious only to YOU.
                        Quote: Ares
                        If someone thought so, then in general all ICBMs would be mine-based. There would be no need for either mobile complexes or an SSBN


                        You don’t know the idiom of not placing all the eggs in one basket? But the Rodovodny missile carriers appeared when the ballistic ranges were much more modest.
                        Quote: Ares
                        And practice shows the exact opposite situation

                        In response to your arguments --- so that the silos are already removed from duty?
                        Quote: Ares
                        England and France.

                        You can not touch these at all.
                      5. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 14: 54
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        You can not touch these at all.


                        The nuclear forces of France and Great Britain total about 500 warheads, which is about a third of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces. With their help, you can more than cover all large and medium-sized cities of the country. And all their nuclear forces are located in the "one basket" of 6 SSBNs. What is it for? After all, placing them in a mine base would be much easier and cheaper.

                        But Rodovodny missile carriers appeared then when the range of the ballistic was much more modest.


                        Why are they being built today and are now striving to place most of the nuclear weapons on them?

                        The idiom of not placing all the eggs in one basket is unknown to you?


                        This idiom is absolutely inappropriate here. Spread silos across the country are virtually invulnerable to anything other than nuclear weapons. If for them there would be no threat of destruction by nuclear warheads during a preemptive strike, then these would be the most stable forces of the Strategic Missile Forces, because they are invulnerable to the navy and anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy as an SSBN, and invulnerable to sabotage groups as the mobile complex Poplars. They would then be completely invulnerable and there would be no need for other types of PU at all.

                        In response to your arguments --- so that the silos are already removed from duty?


                        Everything goes to that. France and England have already abandoned them. Americans are increasingly translating into the SSBN. Russia also relies on mobile systems and SLBMs. The share of silos is steadily decreasing from year to year.
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 2 May 2012 15: 05
                        +1
                        Quote: Ares
                        And all their nuclear forces are located in the "one basket" of 6 SSBNs

                        The British have this all together with the United States.
                        And so these little ghouls have too little territory, and there is hope that from the depths of the World Ocean whose rocket will not be identified.
                        Quote: Ares
                        Why are they being built today and are now striving to place most of the nuclear weapons on them?

                        Who? And what is the majority of it? Only in numbers. And given the decommissioning of submarines inherited from the USSR
                        Quote: Ares
                        France and England have already abandoned them

                        And they had them? I was not interested. It’s mostly bombs.
                        Quote: Ares
                        Americans are increasingly translating into the SSBN

                        How is it? Ohio is being converted for the Kyrgyz Republic, but are you telling something? There are references to the agreement even in this thread.
                        Quote: Ares
                        The share of silos is steadily decreasing from year to year.

                        It would also not hurt the numbers.

                        USA 8500
                        USSR / Russia —11000
                        Greatbear 225 [9]
                        France - - 350

                        So for fun.
                      7. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 16: 15
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        The British have this all together with the United States.


                        Not jointly, they just use the American Trident SLBMs, since they themselves failed to develop a missile with such performance characteristics. And by and large no one was able.

                        And so these little ghouls have too little territory


                        They have more than enough territory to place a hundred or two silos spaced apart to destroy each of which the very same 1-2 nuclear units will be required. To guarantee the destruction of silos, you need a very close nuclear explosion (several hundred meters from the mine)



                        Who? And what is the most part? Only in numbers.


                        England and France completely, mainly the USA. In Russia, a larger percentage of nuclear weapons on mine carriers than in the West, it is economically cheaper. But all the same, as part of the Russian strategic nuclear forces, there are 124 mine carriers capable of delivering 1056 nuclear warheads with 112 SLBMs capable of delivering 400 warheads, 204 mobile complexes capable of delivering 234 warheads and 844 airborne missile systems capable of delivering 844 warheads, respectively.
                        According to the START treaty, the number of strategic nuclear warheads in Russia will be in the region of 1700 units after 2012. According to plans, by 2020, 10 Borey SSBNs with 160 SLBMs carrying 960 nuclear warheads should be operational. Also in service will be more than 150 mobile systems and air-based missiles. Subtracting all this from 1700 charges, we conclude that the share of silos in the strategic nuclear forces of Russia after 2020 will be scanty.
                        More than 70% of all warheads are already based on the SSBN among Americans.

                        How is it? Ohio is being converted for the Kyrgyz Republic and are you telling something here?


                        They converted only those Ohio that fell under START restrictions on the number of maximum permissible SSBNs.

                        USA 8500
                        USSR / Russia —11000


                        These are numbers along with tactical warheads. Strategic charges for ICBMs, SLBMs and KR strategic aviation are much smaller. And tactical charges include even small ones with a capacity of several kilotons. Among them are charges for SAM missiles, anti-ship missiles, nuclear mines, warhead tactical missiles, etc.
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 2 May 2012 16: 32
                        +3
                        Quote: Ares
                        England and France completely

                        I asked for DIGITS. How many carriers from France and England have a range of over 3000 km
                        Quote: Ares
                        the composition of the Russian strategic nuclear forces 124 mine carrier allowing to deliver 1056 nuclear warheads with 112 SLBMs delivering 400 warheads

                        And that's it.
                        Quote: Ares
                        10 SSBN Borey with 160 SLBMs carrying 960 nuclear warheads

                        How much will Muren and Squid write off?
                        Quote: Ares
                        More than 70% of all warheads are already based on the SSBN among Americans.

                        Numbers please
                        So bring 1975
                        By US boats 41 USSR 55
                        On US missiles 656 USSR 725
                        What time is it now?
                        Quote: Ares
                        These are numbers along with tactical warheads.

                        what difference does it make for the Tomahawks and X-55 and Granites, too.

                        And how many of
                        Quote: Ares
                        France and Great Britain add up to about 500 warheads

                        should yours then be taken into account?
                        Quote: Ares
                        They converted only those Ohio that fell under START restrictions on the number of maximum permissible SSBNs

                        Well then, where does your STATEMENT
                        Quote: Ares
                        The Americans more and more are being transferred to the SSBN

                        And what do they translate more? Or are they building new submarines with ICBMs?

                        It can be seen that you select the topic on the go for yourself.
                      9. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 17: 18
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        And what do they translate more? Or are they building new submarines with ICBMs?


                        It is understood that with a reduction in deployed nuclear warheads under the START treaty, Americans seek to reduce primarily ICBMs in silos, rather than SLBMs. Consequently, the proportion of warheads on SLBMs of the total number of warheads is constantly growing.

                        I asked for DIGITS. How many carriers from France and England have a range of over 3000 km


                        All their carriers are strategic long-range strategic nuclear warheads. The UK has 2 SSBNs with 32 Trident2 with a range of 11300 km, France has 4 SSBNs with 64 M45 missiles with a range of 6000 km.

                        How much will Muren and Squid write off?


                        Gradually write off all.

                        Numbers please


                        After 2012, about 320 ICBM minutemans with the possibility of delivering 960 warheads and 14 SSBNs of Ohio with 336 SLB Trident2 with the possibility of delivering 2688 warheads should remain in service.

                        And how many of
                        Quote: Ares
                        France and Great Britain add up to about 500 warheads

                        should yours then be taken into account?


                        All. This is the number of static JLL. Tactical are not related to strategic nuclear forces.

                        And that's it.


                        Corresponding perspective figures were given and everything is clearly stated.
                      10. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 17: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Ares
                        The UK has 2 SSBNs with 32 Trident2


                        He specified that the UK has 4 Wangard-type SSBNs with 64 Trident2 missiles, respectively.
                      11. Kars
                        Kars 2 May 2012 18: 10
                        +2
                        Quote: Ares
                        I mean

                        Something strange you have. I SEE .. they are observing the contract and that’s it, and you’re already fantasizing.
                        Quote: Ares
                        All of their strategic carriers

                        Simply put, 96, but not 500, or a split-division warhead on them?
                        Quote: Ares
                        Gradually write off all.

                        Well, and so maybe everything will be as it is written in START 2 without your imagination? Borea will replace the old boats and that's it.
                        Quote: Ares
                        14 SSBN Ohio with 336 SLB Trident2 with the ability to deliver 2688 warheads.

                        A little more than 50 percent but not yours
                        Quote: Ares
                        More than 70% of all warheads are already based on the SSBN among Americans.

                        as the saying goes, deceit.
                        . As of 2010, Trident II is the only SLBM remaining in service with the US Navy SSBN and the British Navy. Warheads deployed on Trident II account for 52% of US strategic nuclear forces
                        Quote: Ares
                        Corresponding perspective figures were given and everything is clearly stated.

                        Is this something you again have in the VIEW?

                        But the most important thing for AUG and their necessity has nothing to do.
                        They simply do not need to cover the deployments, they only unmask boats in the Atlantic, and they are not needed shortly from their shores.
                        Also, nobody will give them chase for Ohio.
                      12. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 18: 33
                        0
                        But the most important thing for AUG and their necessity has nothing to do.
                        They simply do not need to cover the deployments, they only unmask boats in the Atlantic, and they are not needed shortly from their shores.


                        As for the AUG, everything has already been said, everyone can remain in their own opinion.

                        Borea will replace the old boats and all.


                        No, they will be 3 more than the current composition of the SSBNs and their SLBMs will carry a greater number of nuclear warheads (6 each), despite the fact that the total number of nuclear warheads will be less.

                        As of 2010, Trident II is the only SLBM remaining in service with the US Navy SSBN and the UK Navy. Warheads deployed on Trident II account for 52% of US strategic nuclear forces


                        This is as of 2010. In 2011, this figure was 60%, look, there is even an article on topwar with these figures. In 2012, about 70%, after 2012 - I have already given the ratio. Every year, Americans cut their Minuten.

                        Simply put, 96, but not 500, or a split-division warhead on them?


                        You don’t even know the performance characteristics of missiles on the topic under discussion, but you accuse someone of fantasies or deception. Of course they are separable. Trident can generally carry from 5 to 14 blocks.
                        The instability of silos to preventive nuclear strike is well known to all more or less knowledgeable people. This can be seen both from the performance characteristics and trends. Continuing the argument does not make sense.
                        Assessment of Lieutenant General of the Strategic Missile Forces Lev Volkov:
                        It makes no sense to invest in fixed launchers of the Strategic Missile Forces. With the accuracy achieved on the US Trident-II and MX missiles, our missiles are hit by one unit with a probability close to unity. This means that stationary launchers reinforce only the potential of a preemptive strike and cannot serve as a reliable means of deterrence.
                      13. Kars
                        Kars 2 May 2012 19: 16
                        +3
                        Quote: Ares
                        2012 of order 70%, after 2012 - I have already given the ratio

                        Give a quote with a link
                        Quote: Ares
                        A trident can generally carry from 5 to 14 blocks.

                        Provide a link to the Trident Equipment of England
                        Quote: Ares
                        Assessment of Lieutenant General of the Strategic Missile Forces Lev Volkov:

                        Well, the genius of some military people is well-known. So these trides will strike at silos located in a sparsely populated area, and most likely already empty. And so they will work out on infrastructure facilities, and the submarines on which will destroy Virginia on the 12-16 ICBMs and Los Angeles, and even a retaliation will not come out. As always, GENIALITY and the pret. Especially when the United States controls the World Oceans.
                      14. Nick
                        Nick 2 May 2012 19: 14
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        Only with the concept of OVU. In real life, the concept of a retaliatory strike is still considered probable.

                        In real life, a bet is placed on a retaliatory strike when a retaliatory strike is delivered in response to a preventive strike, when the aggressor’s combat units are still in flight and have not yet reached their intended goals. Kars is right, no one will wait for the arrival of combat units to the assigned targets. A retaliatory strike will be dealt even before their arrival. The only difference is that the aggressor will die five minutes later than the side that has attacked.
                      15. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 19: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Nick
                        In real life, a bet is placed on a retaliatory strike, when a retaliatory strike is delivered in response to a preventive strike, when the aggressor’s combat units are still in flight and have not yet reached their intended goals.


                        Then, in general, there is absolutely no need for either an SSBN, strategic aviation or mobile complexes. Because if we exclude nuclear weapons, the combat stability of silos in comparison with all other types of launchers is several orders of magnitude higher in all possible situations.


                        Quote: Nick
                        A retaliatory strike will be dealt even before their arrival. The only difference is that the aggressor will die five minutes later than the side that has attacked.


                        You are completely unfamiliar with the topic. Such a strike is called not retaliatory, but retaliatory-counter. Even in the case of OVD, it takes at least 25 minutes to launch their ICBMs after the enemy launches. In the case of the use of SLBMs, the flight time can be significantly less.
                      16. Kars
                        Kars 2 May 2012 19: 38
                        +3
                        Quote: Ares
                        . Even in the case of OVD, it takes at least 25 minutes to launch their ICBMs

                        So you need to reduce the time.
                        Quote: Ares
                        SSBN, neither in strategic aviation, nor in mobile complexes


                        it is necessary to diversify the delivery vehicles as much as possible so as not to facilitate the planning stage of the enemy.

                        But the nuclear weapons of long-range bombers are really optimistic.
                        Quote: Ares
                        In the case of the use of SLBMs, the flight time can be significantly less.


                        How much and WHERE is Russia taking up the 1 / 6 part of the land when it flies.
                      17. Nick
                        Nick 2 May 2012 20: 18
                        +2
                        Quote: Ares
                        You are completely unfamiliar with the topic. Such a strike is called not retaliatory,

                        Read the comment carefully. At the beginning of my comment, I designated it
                        .
                        Quote: Ares
                        Then, in general, there is absolutely no need for either an SSBN, strategic aviation or mobile complexes. Because if we exclude nuclear weapons, the combat stability of silos in comparison with all other types of launchers is several orders of magnitude higher in all possible situations

                        Is not a fact. You are not very familiar with the topic. For each silo you can prepare a sabotage group with a portable nuclear weapon. Which, in fact, was the United States in the 80's. I don’t know how things are with this now, but I think that there are similar groups now. That is why the nuclear triad is necessary to ensure high combat stability of the strategic nuclear forces.
                      18. Ares
                        Ares 3 May 2012 02: 53
                        -2
                        Quote: Nick
                        Is not a fact. You are not very familiar with the topic. For each silo you can prepare a sabotage group with a portable nuclear weapon. Which actually was the United States in the 80s. I don’t know how things are with this now, but I think that there are similar groups now.


                        Have you read the comics?) For whom the subversive groups are really dangerous, it’s for mobile complexes. Open vehicles with ICBMs and several security vehicles.
                        1. No sabotage groups will harm the silos. There is a guarded perimeter for kilometers around, for which it is virtually impossible to penetrate like at nuclear power plants. Their own special forces of protection, armored vehicles, dogs, thermal cameras, motion sensors, a security perimeter (unless of course you have seen enough of Rimbaud and it’s nothing for you)
                        2. Even if a group from Rimbaud would suddenly be able (theoretically) to penetrate into some strategic missile forces base (which is not realistic), then for efficiency, luck would have to smile to hundreds of such groups all over the country, moreover, synchronously. The probability of this tends to zero.
                        3. For the probable destruction of silos, a close (150-300 m) explosion of strategic-class ammunition (200-300 kilotons) is needed, and a portable nuclear weapon with a maximum power of several kilotons will not cause it any harm from outside the security perimeter.

                        Their success is unrealistic at the final stage, not to mention the fact that it is unrealistically difficult to undetect hundreds of sabotage groups across the country with hundreds of nuclear devices.
                        Therefore, all experts recognize the great stability of silos to the effects of everything except the strategic nuclear forces of the enemy.

                        Quote: Nick
                        That is why the nuclear triad is necessary to ensure high combat stability of the strategic nuclear forces.


                        Indeed, it is necessary to strike back after the enemy’s nuclear strike. Explore the topic.
                      19. Kars
                        Kars 3 May 2012 10: 02
                        +4
                        Quote: Ares
                        Therefore, all experts recognize the great stability of silos to the effects of everything except the strategic nuclear forces of the enemy.



                        And you cut them. On any silos there are at least two false positions, with a great diversity, and for example, the French 150 CT combat unit may not destroy the silos.

                        And why the United States is cutting Minutemans (I take your word for it) because they have expiration dates, and removing warheads from a rocket and telling that everything is reduced is easier than decommissioning the same Ohio.
                        Quote: Ares
                        Indeed, it is necessary to strike back after the enemy’s nuclear strike.


                        Are you sure that there will be anything to strike back? I'm personally not sure. Yes, and the number of carriers decreases in any case, so this is the wrong way. If anyone thinks of a nuclear strike, we won’t show their fingers on star-striped ones their Los Angeles and Sea Wolves were not far from the submarines of the Russian Federation and no ATsG of the Russian Federation can prevent this in any way in the Atlantic, and in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Barents Sea it is easier to do with numerous corvettes and anti-submarine vessels.


                        But the most important thing is that in this article, when comparing the ACG and the Arsenal ship, the arsenal won the points, it will destroy the infrastructure of the victim state with greater efficiency and cheaper, and the ground operation will still have to be carried out by the joint forces of the Navy, Air Force and the Army, and on the example of Iraq where 6 in capital letters SIX ACG had minimal impact on the enemy. And this is not taking into account that during ..work .. ACG involves more people and these people can be injured or killed.
                      20. Nick
                        Nick 4 May 2012 21: 13
                        +1
                        Quote: Ares
                        Have you read comics?)

                        No, I just served in the Strategic Rocket Forces.
                        Quote: Ares
                        No sabotage groups will harm the silos. There is a guarded perimeter for kilometers around, for which it is virtually impossible to penetrate

                        Yes, you obviously read the comics. Guarded perimeter approx. 90-100 meters from the silos, 300 meters maximum, but not at all sites.
                        Quote: Ares
                        His special forces of protection,

                        It was in a similar unit and served. Only it is called a little differently ...
                        Quote: Ares
                        Even if some group from Rimbaud would suddenly be able (theoretically) to penetrate some base of the Strategic Missile Forces

                        .And do you think the boys from the cutting and sewing courses serve there?
                        By the way, lieutenants and starleys were the main guardians on duty (not to be confused with the CDS). Every second of them was Rambo, judging by yours, since they penetrated into the perimeter quite easily. We knew some of the "chips" Yes, then they lay under the sight of the sentry until they were captured by the reserve unit. But this was due to the fact that these young letekhi, in violation of the UGKS, tried to check the vigilance of the guard by covertly approaching the posts. And if they decided to lay a nuclear mine, they would have acted completely differently (I will not tell the details), and the sentry might not have caught the eye. What we, with varying degrees of success, demonstrated in tactical-special classes.
                        And yet, as part of the enemy’s DG, there are professionals of the age of 26-30 years, in our guards boys-conscripts of 18-20 years. although past special selection. As the instructor in hand-to-hand combat claimed, - one American saboteur will easily cope in hand-to-hand combat with five six soldiers of the second year of service from our unit. I think that he did not lie too much.
                        And now there is no second year of service at all, unfortunately.
            3. Insurgent
              Insurgent 1 May 2012 22: 35
              +4
              Still in the 70s they developed the x-55 analog tamahawk
            4. beard999
              beard999 2 May 2012 16: 31
              +7
              Quote: Tram boor
              IT SAYS ONLY THAT THE US ARMY FOR GENERATION EXCEEDS ANY ARMY OF THE WORLD

              This is cheap demagoguery. These declarations are not confirmed in practice by anything. The United States has never in its history fought one on one with an equal strength opponent. In recent decades, the United States, together with NATO and other stray, defeated frankly weaker opponents, for the victory over which no special military power was required. When opponents of the United States received support from outside the United States, things were generally extremely deplorable. Recall Korea and Vietnam. And today, with all their "superiority", they are not able to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
              Quote: Tram boor
              When the Tomahawk was being developed (1980), Soviet engineers did not even understand what was happening, they could not create such a weapon. Thirty years later, they somehow copied the Tomahawk, creating the Caliber rocket, completely similar to the Tomahawk.

              Your knowledge of the issue under discussion is depressing.
              1. The RGM / UGM-109A was put into service in 1983 (st.weight (with CDS) - 1480 kg, diameter -531 mm, maximum range - 2500 km)
              3M10 was adopted for service in 1984 (senior mass - about 1700 kg, caliber -510 mm, maximum range - 3000 km)
              Both missiles had a UBC and the same construction of guidance systems - autonomous inertial with correction from a relief-correlation-extreme system. The CVO claimed by the Americans is 80 m. The CVO of the Russian Kyrgyz Republic was not disclosed. But taking into account the equipment of its MSC it is quite obvious that for the stated purposes it was absolutely sufficient.
              So the “Soviet engineers” understood everything perfectly and created a domestic SLCM which, in terms of performance characteristics, was in full compliance with the “Tomahawk”.
              2. "Caliber" is not a rocket, but an integrated missile system. And "Tomahawk" no one copied. Just look at the appearance of the products.
              At one time, Americans based on the RGM / UGM-109A with SBN, began to create modifications of missiles with conventional warheads. OKB "Novator" went the same way. But unfortunately, the collapse of the USSR and the lack of funding did not allow in the 90s. to complete these works. Like the American counterpart, the Russian conventional KR 3M14 KR was created on the basis of 3M10 with UBC. The first open information about it appeared back at MAKS-1999. The first version of the RGM / UGM-109C (Tomahawk Block II) with the conventional warhead appeared in Americans in 1986. So there is no difference in 30 years, do not compose.
              3. In order to talk about "similarity" you need to know the characteristics of both products. Do you know the characteristics of the Caliber IRS? Tell us? (I emphasize not the characteristics of the Club system, but the Caliber system !!!).
              For example, according to the variation of basing, the KR 3M14 and Tomahawk, in your opinion, are identical?
              KR 3M14 as part of the integrated caliber missile system are used as part of:
              Sea-based submarine systems "Caliber-PL".
              Sea-based systems for surface ships "Caliber-NK."
              Transported container complex missile weapons "Caliber-K."
              Mobile coastal missile system Caliber-M.
              Aviation complex missile weapons "Caliber-A."
              As we know, “Tomahawk” today is armed only with NK and submarines. And this is where all the options end.
              Quote: Tram boor
              no need to cite the example of a "Granat" with a nuclear charge - the Soviet missile was not close to the Tomahawk in accuracy, versatility

              1. Do you know KVO 3M10? Call with a confirmation link?
              2. Initially, the Tomahawk missiles were armed with NK and submarines. Then, a modification of the BGM-109G was launched, launched with ground-based control system. Airborne variants of the Kyrgyz Republic “Tomahawk” were not available.
              For the Soviet Navy, only the Kyrgyz Republic was required to launch from the nuclear submarines, so this missile was not created for the NK. The ground complex RK-55 "Relief" with the KR 3M10 in the USSR was also created and mass-produced.
              So all the “universality” of the KR “Tomahawk” consists only in equipping the NK. The USSR did not put forward such requirements at one time. Now it has appeared, and Russian NKs with the Kyrgyz Republic have appeared.
              Quote: Tram boor
              But for America "Tomahawk" is already yesterday, a new cruise missile "Fasthawk" is being developed

              This KR was supposed to go into service in 2010. And where is it?
              Quote: Tram boor
              The flight range ZM14 is 300 km, the ancient Tomahawk 1500 ... 2500 km.

              Link, to an official source, can you give me where it says that the KR 3M14 has a range of 300 km? I want to say right away that there is no need to give links to the KR 3M14E of the Club system. This is an export system with the Kyrgyz Republic with a range of up to 300 km (according to relevant international treaties). Only information on KR 3M14 intended for Russian aircraft is of interest. Waiting for links.
              For information. The Americans, when replacing the warhead system in the RGM / UGM-109A KR (starting weight 1480 kg, launch range 2500 km) with a conventional warhead, received conventional KR with a starting mass of 1490-1580 kg, warhead weight 365-465 kg and a launch range of 870-1600 km .
              OKB "Novator" based on the KR with SBCH 3M10 (starting weight of about 1700 kg, launch range of 3000 km) created a conventional KR 3M14. Then continue the thought yourself, or do you need to chew it by all means?
              Quote: Tram boor
              It is impossible to defeat the patient on the head of Afghanistan.

              The Americans created the "sick on the head of Afghanistan" when they organized the Taliban. So let them beat themselves at the back of the head. They have no one to complain to. Nevertheless, you should not keep Americans for full nerds. Do you seriously believe that the United States, with NATO and other packs, entered Afghanistan without the intention of winning? I believe the State Department and the Pentagon with your thought, "Afghanistan is impossible to defeat" is unlikely to agree.
              Quote: Tram boor
              The only conclusion is to arrange genocide and "finally resolve the issue." But the Russians will whine that this is inhuman

              “The Russians will whine,” right? Will democrats be silent around the world? And, of course, it’s only the United States and Israel that you can slaughter everyone indiscriminately and indiscriminately. For, by definition, they are busy with a “holy” business. When it is strongly necessary to “finally resolve the issue”, the “genocide” is quite suitable for the USA. I look, you are demonstrating a model of thinking of Western democracy, in all its "beauty" ...
              1. Tram boom
                Tram boom 3 May 2012 00: 04
                -1
                Quote: beard999
                Both missiles had a UBC and the same construction of guidance systems - autonomous inertial with correction from a relief-correlation-extreme system. The CVO claimed by the Americans is 80 m. The CVO of the Russian Kyrgyz Republic was not disclosed. But taking into account the equipment of its MSC it is quite obvious that for the stated purposes it was absolutely sufficient.
                So the "Soviet engineers" ... created a domestic SLCM which, in terms of performance characteristics, was fully consistent with "Tomahawk."


                A pitiful excuse, the "Pomegranate" turned out to be 1,5 times longer than the "Tomahawk" and had a 20% greater mass (which, logically, given the general lag in the technological and design base of the USSR)

                Also, given the serious lag of the USSR in the field of electronics, absolutely obvious that "Granat" had an order of magnitude less accuracy.

                Soviet engineers were never able to create a missile system with high flexibility of use: the "Granat" had only SBS, while a dozen conventional warheads (semi-armor-piercing, cluster, HE) were developed for the Tomahawk to defeat various targets
                й


                Quote: beard999
                In order to talk about "similarity" you need to know the characteristics of both products. Do you know the characteristics of the Caliber IRS? Tell us? (I emphasize not the characteristics of the Club system, but the Caliber system !!!).
                For example, according to the variation of basing, the KR 3M14 and Tomahawk, in your opinion, are identical?

                Tomahawk is a well-developed system that took a massive part in the battle, infrastructure has been developed for it, carriers have been trained, and personnel trained.
                "Caliber" is an air show rocket for show, a dream rocket that has nothing to do with Russian reality. To work out such complex flight algorithms embedded in modern tactical missile launchers. it takes a long time to work them off, preferably in combat conditions - Tomahawks have been destroying everything in their path for 20 years, constantly improving, and no one has seen the Caliber. Another bluff of the Russian military-industrial complex, which have performance characteristics at the level, at best, of the Tomahawks of the 80s


                Quote: beard999
                This KR was supposed to go into service in 2010. And where is it?

                And where is "Caliber"? laughing

                Quote: beard999
                The Americans created the “Sick Head for Afghanistan” when they organized the Taliban.

                Disgusting knowledge of history, young man. The "Afghan swamp" was created in the XNUMXth century by the British Empire, in order to avoid the breakthrough of Russian troops into India

                In principle, the Americans settled well in Afghanistan - an excellent springboard in the region. Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia - everything is under control. And after 10 years in Russia there will be no one to join the army because of the heroin.
                For all this buzz, the U.S. Army suffered modest losses, factor of smaller than Soviet soldiers-internationalists


                Quote: beard999
                I look, you are demonstrating a model of thinking of Western democracy, in all its "beauty" ...

                And you, a young man, are an excellent example of Pharisaism and stupid infantile humanism..
                1. beard999
                  beard999 3 May 2012 04: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  A pitiful excuse, the "Pomegranate" turned out to be 1,5 times longer than the "Tomahawk" and had a 20% greater mass (which, logically, given the general lag in the technological and design base of the USSR) Also, given the serious lag of the USSR in the field of electronics, it is quite obvious that "Granat" had an order of magnitude less accuracy. Soviet engineers were never able to create a missile system with high flexibility of use: "Granat" had only SBS, while a dozen conventional warheads (semi-armor-piercing, cluster, HE) were developed for the Tomahawk to defeat various goals

                  3M10 with large weight and size characteristics and had a large range of 3000 km. Its length was due to the TA armed with multipurpose submarines of the USSR. That's all. There were no problems making the CR in the size of Tomahawk. I will prove it with an example. As is known, apart from SLCMs, in the USA and the USSR at the same time ALCMs were created - AGM-86 and X-55, we compare the characteristics, respectively: length 6320 mm / 5880 mm, case diameter 620 mm / 514 mm, starting weight - 1450 kg / 1185 kg, warhead mass - 123 kg (150 Kt) / 130-140 kg (200 Kt), maximum launch range - 2400/2500 km. Conclusion - the Soviet missile had smaller overall dimensions, carried a large payload (both in kg and CT), fired further (albeit a hundred kilometers and nonetheless ...). And the most important thing was done during the Reagan sanctions against the USSR, on the existing technological base!
                  As I understand it, in addition to your “thoughtful” conclusions about the “serious lag of the USSR in the field of electronics”, you do not have any exact data on KVO KR 3M10. Well then, I’ll tell you what exactly is known - the X-55 ALCM in terms of TTZ had a KVO of 100 m (which is completely normal for a missile having a nuclear charge of 200 kt as a warhead). In this case, the BSU X-55 and 3M10 are identical. KVO 100 m in Russian missiles and 80 m in American. Well, where did you find the difference “at times”?
                  I repeat once again, the Soviet engineers could not “fail”, but WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL to create conventional KR, before the collapse of the USSR. Work on them began in 1986 (source “The Fiery Sword of the Russian Navy” p. 317).
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  "Caliber" is an air show rocket for show, a dream rocket that has nothing to do with Russian reality. To work out such complex flight algorithms embedded in modern tactical missile launchers. it takes a long time to work them off, preferably in combat conditions - Tomahawks have been destroying everything in their path for 20 years, constantly improving, and no one has seen the Caliber. Another bluff of the Russian military-industrial complex, which have performance characteristics at the level, at best, of the Tomahawks of the 80s

                  Yes, you personally can believe in any tales. This in no way will affect the real state of things. We decided to engage in self-deception - for God's sake. I’m not going to convince you.
                  You apparently are completely unaware of the topic under discussion, since you do not know that UVP 3S14 has already been installed on Russian NK projects 11356M, 11661K, 20385, 22350, on Indian ships of project 11356 ... Do you think this is all a “bluff”?
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  "Caliber" is an air show rocket for show, a dream rocket that has nothing to do with Russian reality. To work out such complex flight algorithms embedded in modern tactical missile launchers. it takes a long time to work them off, preferably in combat conditions - Tomahawks have been destroying everything in their path for 20 years, constantly improving, and no one has seen the Caliber. Another bluff of the Russian military-industrial complex, which have performance characteristics at the level, at best, Tomahawks of the 80s Quote: beard999 This CD should have entered service in 2010. And where is it? And where is the Caliber? Quote: beard999 "Sick Afghanistan" was created by the Americans themselves when they organized the Taliban. Disgusting knowledge of history, young man. The "Afghan swamp" was created in the nineteenth century by the British Empire, in order to avoid the breakthrough of Russian troops into India. In principle, the Americans settled well in Afghanistan - an excellent foothold in the region. Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia - everything is under control. And in 10 years in Russia there will be no one to go to the army because of herpoin. For all this buzz, the US army suffered modest losses, several times smaller than the Soviet soldiers-internationalists Quote: beard999 I see that you demonstrate the model of thinking of Western democracy, in all its "glory" ...

                  Yes, you personally can believe in any tales. This in no way will affect the real state of things. We decided to engage in self-deception - for God's sake. I’m not going to convince you.
                  You apparently are completely unaware of the topic under discussion, since you do not know that UVP 3S14 has already been installed on Russian NK projects 11356M, 11661K, 20385, 22350, on Indian ships of project 11356 ... Do you think this is all a “bluff”?
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  Disgusting knowledge of history, young man. The "Afghan swamp" was created in the nineteenth century by the British Empire, in order to avoid the breakthrough of Russian troops into India. In principle, the Americans settled well in Afghanistan - an excellent foothold in the region. Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia - everything is under control. And in 10 years in Russia there will be no one to go to the army because of herpoin

                  Are you sure that I am a “young man” for you?
                  And you are completely in vain trying to teach me history. And you cannot turn out references to the British Empire (which itself has repeatedly raked in Afghanistan in full), to get away from the topic of conversation. The bottom line is that the United States is currently fighting not with the mythical "Afghan swamp", but with the Taliban themselves and created. Moreover, they openly lose this war to them.
                  The availability of this bridgehead depends on the countries surrounding Afghanistan. There will be no bridgeheads without transit. And no way Americans can influence it.
                  As for your heroin spells. You care better about your health. I will not be lazy and repeat the links personally for you - 56% of the world's drug addicts are registered in the USA http://narkotiki.info/world/statistics_usa.php and http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/international/2012/05 / 120430_us_infant_opiate_withd
                  rawal.shtml. You will take a break from drugs earlier.
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  For all this buzz, the U.S. Army suffered modest losses, many times smaller than Soviet soldiers-internationalists

                  "High" do you call about 2000 killed and over 15700 wounded Americans? Well, what can I say, let them “get high” on.
                  At the same time, the number of Taliban militants opposing the United States is several times less than there were spirits who fought against the USSR in the 80s. The Taliban are armed much worse (there are practically no full-time mines, MANPADS, light MLRS). The United States is fighting with the support of its satellites, as well as those recruited from all over the world by ChOPovtsy. The USSR fought with the spirits of which the West supported, one on one. This is where the “smaller losses" come from. Only the USA then came to Afghanistan not for “smaller losses”, but for victory. Otherwise, they don’t start wars. And yet, the US LOSES this war.
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  And you, a young man, are an excellent example of Pharisaism and stupid, infantile humanism.

                  With you, the young man is even simpler - you are simply a cheap demagogue. You have 0 knowledge in the topic under discussion. You are not able to present anything but slogans.
                2. beard999
                  beard999 3 May 2012 04: 09
                  +4
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  A pitiful excuse, the "Pomegranate" turned out to be 1,5 times longer than the "Tomahawk" and had a 20% greater mass (which, logically, given the general lag in the technological and design base of the USSR) Also, given the serious lag of the USSR in the field of electronics, it is quite obvious that "Granat" had an order of magnitude less accuracy. Soviet engineers were never able to create a missile system with high flexibility of use: "Granat" had only SBS, while a dozen conventional warheads (semi-armor-piercing, cluster, HE) were developed for the Tomahawk to defeat various goals

                  3M10 with large weight and size characteristics and had a large range of 3000 km. Its length was due to the TA armed with multipurpose submarines of the USSR. That's all. There were no problems making the CR in the size of Tomahawk. I will prove it with an example. As is known, apart from SLCMs, in the USA and the USSR at the same time ALCMs were created - AGM-86 and X-55, we compare the characteristics, respectively: length 6320 mm / 5880 mm, case diameter 620 mm / 514 mm, starting weight - 1450 kg / 1185 kg, warhead mass - 123 kg (150 Kt) / 130-140 kg (200 Kt), maximum launch range - 2400/2500 km. Conclusion - the Soviet missile had smaller overall dimensions, carried a large payload (both in kg and CT), fired further (albeit a hundred kilometers and nonetheless ...). And the most important thing was done during the Reagan sanctions against the USSR, on the existing technological base!
                  As I understand it, in addition to your “thoughtful” conclusions about the “serious lag of the USSR in the field of electronics”, you do not have any exact data on KVO KR 3M10. Well then, I’ll tell you what exactly is known - the X-55 ALCM in terms of TTZ had a KVO of 100 m (which is completely normal for a missile having a nuclear charge of 200 kt as a warhead). In this case, the BSU X-55 and 3M10 are identical. KVO 100 m in Russian missiles and 80 m in American. Well, where did you find the difference “at times”?
                  I repeat once again, the Soviet engineers could not “fail”, but WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL to create conventional KR, before the collapse of the USSR. Work on them began in 1986 (source “The Fiery Sword of the Russian Navy” p. 317).
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  "Caliber" is an air show rocket for show, a dream rocket that has nothing to do with Russian reality. To work out such complex flight algorithms embedded in modern tactical missile launchers. it takes a long time to work them off, preferably in combat conditions - Tomahawks have been destroying everything in their path for 20 years, constantly improving, and no one has seen the Caliber. Another bluff of the Russian military-industrial complex, which have performance characteristics at the level, at best, of the Tomahawks of the 80s

                  Yes, you personally can believe in any tales. This in no way will affect the real state of things. We decided to engage in self-deception - for God's sake. I’m not going to convince you.
                  You apparently are completely unaware of the topic under discussion, since you do not know that UVP 3S14 has already been installed on Russian NK projects 11356M, 11661K, 20385, 22350, on Indian ships of project 11356 ... Do you think this is all a “bluff”?
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  Disgusting knowledge of history, young man. The "Afghan swamp" was created in the nineteenth century by the British Empire, in order to avoid the breakthrough of Russian troops into India. In principle, the Americans settled well in Afghanistan - an excellent foothold in the region. Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia - everything is under control. And in 10 years in Russia there will be no one to go to the army because of herpoin.

                  Are you sure that I am a “young man” for you?
                  And you are completely in vain trying to teach me history. And you cannot turn out references to the British Empire (which itself has repeatedly raked in Afghanistan in full), to get away from the topic of conversation. The bottom line is that the United States is currently fighting not with the mythical "Afghan swamp", but with the Taliban themselves and created. Moreover, they openly lose this war to them.
                  The availability of this bridgehead depends on the countries surrounding Afghanistan. There will be no bridgeheads without transit. And no way Americans can influence it.
                  As for your heroin spells. You care better about your health. I will not be lazy and repeat the links personally for you - 56% of the world's drug addicts are registered in the USA http://narkotiki.info/world/statistics_usa.php and http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/international/2012/05 / 120430_us_infant_opiate_withd
                  rawal.shtml. So who earlier from drugs will be bent is not yet known.
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  For all this buzz, the U.S. Army suffered modest losses, many times smaller than Soviet soldiers-internationalists

                  "High" do you call about 2000 killed and over 15700 wounded Americans? Well, what can I say, let them “get high” on.
                  At the same time, the number of Taliban militants opposing the United States is several times less than there were spirits who fought against the USSR in the 80s. The Taliban are armed much worse (there are practically no full-time mines, MANPADS, light MLRS). The United States is fighting with the support of its satellites, as well as those recruited from all over the world by ChOPovtsy. The USSR fought with the spirits of which the West supported, one on one. This is where the “smaller losses" come from. Only the USA then came to Afghanistan not for “smaller losses”, but for victory. Otherwise, they don’t start wars. And yet, the US LOSES this war.
                  Quote: Tram boor
                  you young man are an excellent example of pharisaism and stupid infantile humanism

                  With you, the young man is even simpler - you are simply a cheap demagogue. You have 0 knowledge in the topic under discussion. You are not able to present anything but slogans.
          2. re321
            re321 1 May 2012 19: 51
            -17
            beard999,
            1. Who is the enemy of the United States in the world with "modern" military equipment? Name the countries. Is Iraq, armed and trained in 1991, a weak adversary? lol The US Army is at least one generation ahead of the rest of the army!
            2. First, study the combat composition of the US Navy, and only then get into the topic.
            3. And the fact that compare the range and accuracy of the defeat of these samples and do not ask stupid questions.
            4. Answer yourself the question: who manages world finances?
            5. The United States is doing its job in Afghanistan - in 5-7 years, there will simply be no one in the army to go to Russia because of heroin.
            6. To begin with, try to build some remotely resembling analogue of "Orly Burke", at least in a single copy, and only then aim at something more
            7. Who is Vysotsky? I want to hear Putin on this issue
            1. brr77
              brr77 1 May 2012 20: 34
              +9
              If you are so correct and knowledgeable, why did you change your place of residence. And now you teach life because of the "hillock". You are like an intelligentsia in the 20s of the 20th century: as you ran away after the revolution of 1917, then you sighed languidly from abroad. If you can make a better rocket than Tomhawk.
            2. Alekseev
              Alekseev 1 May 2012 21: 09
              +4
              America is strong, who argues ?!
              Iraq was not a rival for the United States, especially for a coalition.
              Even strong US forces cannot oppose modern strategic weapons, at least for the time being. And they are afraid of them like fire (glory to the fathers!)
              The Russian fleet (and naval aviation) must ensure the deployment of NSNF, the rest of the tasks are secondary, and perhaps an analogue of the Burk will not be required.
              This is quite enough and the task of creating such a fleet is quite feasible.
              The range and accuracy of the destruction of the "specified samples" is "reliably" known only to the civilian dolbo ... m
              You can want to hear Putin, it’s not harmful.
              Happy Victory Day, expert! (or not an expert? bully
            3. Ascetic
              Ascetic 1 May 2012 21: 52
              +8
              Quote: re321
              The US Army is at least one generation ahead of the rest of the army!

              Complete nonsense - quantitatively yes, but the quality leaves many questions. Our new generation multi-purpose nuclear submarines have repeatedly overcome the AUG PLO, and missile defense is yet another fix idea such as SDI for mastering green papers and brainwashing like enthusiastic taxpayers with hamburgers instead of brains and knowledge of the real situation
              1. Arc76
                Arc76 1 May 2012 23: 24
                -3
                Don't write nonsense about the PLA, you probably think you can do it anytime you want? At the 30 knots (aug speed) that you need to develop in order to get close to the aug, the submarine will become a roaring cow. And even if you are lucky and the order will come out by itself (at 5-7 knots the boat has good chances) for you 150 kilometers (as was the case in the cases that you indicated), you will not be found by frigates plo, Orion planes and others, you will go unnoticed all the frontiers, there is the main question is who will give target designation to your missiles? As you know in the USSR, this is exactly what the Legend was developed for, precisely because the GSS led the missile to a false target. Now there is no such system and your cruise missiles can only hit aug there, where you can cover the drlo plane from carrier-based fighters. That is (in the absence of the Russian aircraft carrier) within the range of coastal-based aviation. This is not counting the Aegis system that will try to shoot down your missiles, I do not take it into account because changes have not yet been and the capabilities of this system are not known (only theoretically). As, incidentally, there was no salvo firing of granites with apl.
                1. Ascetic
                  Ascetic 2 May 2012 00: 43
                  +10
                  Quote: arc76
                  . As well as nebylo and volley firing of granites with apl.


                  The parent organization is an NGO of mechanical engineering. The chief designer is Vladimir Chelomey (since 1984 - Herbert Efremov). Development was started in 1969. The complex was presented for state tests in 1979. The tests were carried out on shore stands and lead ships: a submarine and the cruiser Kirov. The tests were successfully completed in August 1983, and by Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of March 12, 1983, the Granit complex was adopted by the Navy.
                  November 20, 2009, at 13:44 Moscow time (10:44 UTC), the Space Forces performed a successful launch of the Soyuz-U launch vehicle. The launch was made from launcher No. 2 of launch complex No. 16 of the Plesetsk cosmodrome. The spacecraft delivered to orbit was designated Cosmos-2455. He is a satellite of the next generation of electronic intelligence Lotos-S.

                  Cosmos-2455 received the international designation 2009-063A and number 36095 in the catalog of the US Space Command. According to the latter, the spacecraft is placed in orbit with an inclination of 67.2 degrees, a period of revolution of 96 minutes, an apogee of 905 km and a perigee of 200 km (the perigee of the orbit will most likely be adjusted upward, so that the working orbit will be close to circular).

                  This is the first launch of a spacecraft of the Lotus-S type. According to press reports, these spacecraft, together with the spacecraft of the Peony type (the launch of which has yet to be carried out), will operate as part of the Lian system. This system is being developed to replace the US-PU / Legenda marine reconnaissance and target designation system and the Tselin-2 radio reconnaissance system. The last spacecraft of the US-PU system was Cosmos-2421, operating from June 2006 to February 2008. It was reported that Cosmos-2428, which was launched in June 2007, was the last spacecraft of the Tselin-2 system. (At the same time, according to Kommersant’s report, Ukraine pledged to deliver four 11F644 Tselin SCs to Russia by January 2012, which may indicate that the launches within the program could continue.)

                  The launch of the Lotus-S spacecraft was originally scheduled for July 28, 2009, but was delayed due to a malfunction of one of the spacecraft subsystems. The spacecraft was returned to the developer, the MRZ Arsenal in St. Petersburg. The development of the spacecraft was also attended by TsSKB Progress in Samara.

                  Update as of November 23.11.09, 890: As expected, the spacecraft was put into orbit with a perigee of 905 km, a climax of 103 km and a circulation period of about XNUMX minutes.
                  My webpage
                  SECRET
                  Ex. ? __

                  Breakthrough ship air defense probable enemy
                  missiles of the "Moskit" complex
                  Target designation at maximum ranges was carried out using the "Success-U" system, in which the elements of reconnaissance were Tu-95RTs aircraft and ship-based Ka-27Ts helicopters (currently the system no longer possesses the required combat resistance), as well as using spacecraft US-A and US-P (US-PU) of the global marine space reconnaissance and target designation system MKRTs 17K114 "Legend". Currently, work is underway to deploy a new Liana global maritime reconnaissance and target designation system, which will include the Lotos-S radio reconnaissance satellites (the first launch of the device took place in 2009, the need for global coverage of all operational areas is XXXX satellite).
                  At short and medium distances, the location of the target is determined by a radar surveillance system (on missile boats - the Monolit radar, on destroyers and BOD - the Mineral radar) installed on the carrier itself.
                  As a result, we obtain a preliminary conclusion that does not take into account the capabilities of the ship's electronic warfare: the missile and artillery air defense systems in service with the ships of a potential enemy are currently NOT ABLE TO INTERCEPT the supersonic cruise missile 3M80 / 3M82 of the Mosquito anti-ship complex
                  The US naval forces have made repeated attempts to acquire Mosquito missiles to work out forms and methods of counteraction. They even talked about a contract for the supply of about a hundred missiles to the United States, but these plans were not destined to come true. Nevertheless, the United States has managed to acquire Kh-31 aircraft cruise missiles, which fly at a speed close to that of the Mosquito. In addition, the US Navy received the GQM-163A supersonic targets, which are being used to counter the 3M80 / 3M82 missiles. The test results show that the issue of protecting ships from supersonic cruise missiles remains open.
                  Moreover, realizing the low combat effectiveness of the 20-mm six-barreled anti-aircraft artillery Mark-15 "Phalanx", American shipbuilders, starting in 2009, on newly built destroyers of the "Arleigh Burke" type, generally excluded this system from the ship's armament.
                  Currently, R&D is underway in the United States to develop combat lasers with a radiation power sufficient to damage an attacking cruise missile. As it was stated in the American open press, the adoption of such anti-missile lasers by the US Navy is expected not earlier than in 20 years. The creation of missile defense lasers will undoubtedly require amounts that are incommensurate with the costs of maintaining the combat readiness of the Moskit anti-ship missile system in the Russian Navy - even in the conditions of the rapid aging of existing carriers.
                  My webpage

                  Even the Mosquito with the use of the Liana MKRTs provides a breakthrough in the air defense of the AUG, not to mention the Granites
                  1. Arc76
                    Arc76 2 May 2012 21: 38
                    0
                    Carefully study the Legend and Lian systems. The main advantage of the Legend system was satellites equipped with radar that could constantly illuminate targets on the surface of the ocean, Liana is a passive radio intelligence system that does not have such satellites. Moreover, it does not even cover the entire surface of the ocean at the moment. Pion-type spacecraft, which are planned to carry out passive tracking, have not yet been put into orbit, so there is no one to give out target designation for anti-ship missiles. The effectiveness of this system is generally doubtful, due to the absence of a radar on it. I read the article of Sukonkin, all his constructions are based on the fact that according to his calculations, which he took from the ceiling, the operators will not have time to bring the air defense systems to a state of combat readiness, which is quite ridiculous in modern combat. Regarding his calculations, in 2001, the SeaSparrow missile successfully intercepted a target simulating a supersonic pcr. A MQM8G Vandal target capable of flying at a speed of M2,1 and a height of 3,6 m was successfully hit. So your hat-thinking mood regarding the fight against AUG is not appropriate. Hunting for an aircraft carrier is an extremely difficult and difficult enterprise and much depends on luck (you have to catch the moment the aircraft carrier approaches you), time of year (different sonar conditions in the Barents and Norwegian seas ( we don’t even need to talk about the open ocean) and the possibilities of Ajis, and we didn’t recognize the achievements of our PCs because we didn’t let them go in one gulp. Again, Liana’s possibilities in target designation are extremely doubtful for the above reasons.
                  2. Tram boom
                    Tram boom 2 May 2012 23: 23
                    +1
                    Quote: Ascetic
                    Currently, work is underway to deploy a new Liana global maritime reconnaissance and target designation system, which will include the Lotos-S radio reconnaissance satellites (the first launch of the device took place in 2009, the need for global coverage of all operational areas is XXXX satellite).


                    Quote: Ascetic
                    Even the Mosquito with the use of the Liana MKRTs provides a breakthrough in the air defense of the AUG, not to mention the Granites


                    Surprising NAGLOUS AND CINEMAL LIES of Ascetic misleading naive members of the forum

                    For all-day and all-weather detection of the location of AOG in the Ocean, you need a satellite with an active radar station in low orbit (200 km).

                    The specific operating conditions of the apparatus require a nuclear reactor on board, which is too expensive, difficult and dangerous. 3 times, the launches of Soviet US-A satellites with a nuclear power plant ended in accidents - the wreckage fell on Canada, the USSR paid compensation

                    The last spacecraft of the US-A series was launched into orbit on March 14, 1988, the spacecraft has been operating for 45 days. Without these satellites, Granit missiles are NOT ABLE TO DETECT TARGETS AND ARE RUSTY BOLS

                    ASKET, TIME TO LOOK IN THE EYES AND DO NOT DO CAPPERSHIP

              2. Kasym
                Kasym 2 May 2012 00: 11
                +5
                Stanislav (+), I admire your erudition and comments. I would like to add: superiority of the Russian Armed Forces in such types of weapons as air defense (not to mention the ability to build an echeloned system - from Igla-S to S-300 (400)), MLRS (from Grad to Smerch) , armored forces (especially their quantitative aspect), means of radio-electronic warfare. And also scientific and technical groundwork - for example, ekranoplan, mobile missile systems, railway systems, which you have already mentioned. The only advantage that the US Armed Forces have is the quantity in the navy and aviation, but not their quality. Yours faithfully
            4. beard999
              beard999 3 May 2012 04: 13
              +3
              Quote: re321
              Who is the enemy of the United States in the world with "modern" military equipment? Name the countries. Is Iraq, armed and trained in 1991, a weak enemy?

              1. You force to tell trivial things. USA is a country with strategic nuclear forces. And any comparison with modern armed forces without taking into account strategic nuclear forces is pointless. Russia possesses quite modern strategic nuclear forces, which make it possible to confront the USA on an equal footing and implement nuclear deterrence. Strive for this and China. I believe that only these two countries today are capable of not losing the US war.
              The superiority of the US Armed Forces in conventional weapons alone does not guarantee victory in the war. So it was in Vietnam, so it is now in Afghanistan.
              2. Of course, Iraq in 1991, for a coalition of 41 countries led by the United States, was a weak adversary. For example. What, in fact, was the air defense of Iraq - the S-75 air defense system was created around 1955 (36 years before 1991), the S-75M was created around 1960 (31 years of difference), the S-125 was created around 1960 . (31 years of difference), S-125M was created around 1965 (26 years of difference), SAM “Square” was created in 1971 (20 years of difference), SAM “Strela-10” was created in 1974 (17 years of difference) ) etc. Which of these can be called modern in 1991? Never mind!!! Modern for 1991 were the S-300PS, S-300V, Buk-M1, Tor-M1, Tunguska-M, Igla, MiG-31M, Su-27P and Su-30 fighters with UR V-V R-73, R-27ER / EP / ET, R-33E, R-37. Here, just, there was nothing like that in Iraq, in 1991.
              Quote: re321
              The US Army is at least one generation ahead of the rest of the army!

              Once again, this is demagogy. You need to look at real affairs, not on declarations. They are worth little in war. For example, I can remind you how the "Patriot" American antiaircraft missile system was "one generation ahead of the range" and could not effectively intercept the Iraqi "Scuds" of the development of the late 50s. Or, about how the US Air Force unsuccessfully chased mobile SPUs of the same Scuds, which produced, according to various estimates, within 88-96 launches. And it’s not hell that “one-generation lead” did not help the Americans.
              Quote: re321
              To begin with, study the combat structure of the US Navy, and only then get into the topic.

              As far as I understand, this is your answer to my question: “Huge” is how much ”? And judging by your ambition, you "got into the topic by studying the military composition of the US Navy." So? Well, it’s good to cormorant, name specific numbers. And how you make statements about “huge” is easy for you, but how to give specific numbers is someone else should do it for you.
              Once again, what “huge” amount of missiles do the US Navy have today?
              Quote: re321
              And the fact that compare the range and accuracy of the defeat of these samples and do not ask stupid questions.

              And why are you so “smart”, do not make comparisons yourself? So far you have just thrown shit at the fan, and you are not able to prove anything. Zero full.
              I brought all the numbers above. Can you refute with your numbers or again get off with cheap demagogy?
              Quote: re321
              Answer yourself the question: who manages world finances?

              Is that all you can give back? Quite blown away?
              Quote: re321
              The USA is doing its job in Afghanistan - in 5-7 years, there will simply be no one in the army to go to Russia because of heroin.

              1. "Own business" the United States in Afghanistan definitely lose. And no one and nothing, they will not help.
              2. 56% of drug addicts in the world are registered in the USA http://narkotiki.info/world/statistics_usa.php and http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/international/2012/05/120430_us_infant_opiate_withd
              rawal.shtml. So, soon there will be no one to protect the dermocracy all over the world. In the USA, methamphetamine rules.
              Quote: re321
              To begin with, try to build some remotely resembling analogue of "Orly Burke", at least in a single copy, and only then aim at something more

              And what is the relationship between the promising Russian aircraft carrier and the destroyer Arleigh Burke? You argued that "Russian industry, in principle, is not capable of creating an aircraft carrier." So where is the evidence? Again, one empty bazaar on your part.
              Quote: re321
              Who is Vysotsky? I want to hear Putin on this issue

              Yes, you can want anything. This does not bother anyone. So interrupt the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vysotsky.
        4. Ascetic
          Ascetic 1 May 2012 22: 39
          +11
          Quote: re321
          So the whole point is that the United States has achieved impressive results in the war by the "crowd" - that is, the complex use of forces and means! One in the field is not a warrior - absolutely right, SYSTEM is at war. No weapon, by itself, will win on the battlefield. Today, exploration and management are more important than TNT. The first one saw, the first one fired the “fire and forget” means - this is the answer to many questions for the local caps!


          PRO SYSTEM
          The planned European missile defense system cannot threaten (SNF) with Russia's strategic nuclear forces. The anti-missile SM-3 Block IA, which is in service with NATO, can only be opposed with operational-tactical missiles, and not all. So far, our Iskander-M is too tough for anyone.
          The Block IB modification that they are currently testing has a slightly higher altitude and interception range, but it will be very difficult for her to shoot down even medium-range missiles. By 2016–2017 in the United States it is planned to create new modifications of its missile defense. As they said, the missiles will be able to intercept targets at a bottom range of more than 1500 km and hit ICBMs. But not everyone is hit, but only those with a launch range of up to 6000 km
          It would seem that these missiles will indeed be able to pose at least some threat to the missile divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces, which are stationed in the European part of the Russian Federation. Their launching ICBMs do not even have time to finish dispersal, separate the stages, push the combat blocks and release the means that could help overcome the missile defense system. Our missiles, which can launch against targets in the United States, bypassing the North Pole from positions in the division of the Vladimir Rocket Army, cannot intercept the American antimissiles. Since they will need to catch up with them from a very awkward position. But if we attack with rockets, for example, England, then they will intercept. But this variant of the expenditure of missiles closest to Europe is practically impossible - such targets are being developed by other means of SNF from other regions.
          1. Ares
            Ares 2 May 2012 11: 57
            +2
            Quote: Ascetic
            As for our missiles, which can launch to targets in the United States, bypassing the North Pole from positions in the division of the Vladimir Missile Army, I cannot intercept American missiles.


            The fact is that to intercept these missiles, the Americans plan to deploy offshore platforms with interceptors off the northern coast of Russia. Therefore, I propose the creation of 2-3 AUGs in the Russian fleet that have the ability to accurately determine the location of such groups through their AWACS covered with carrier-based fighter aircraft and capable of delivering an accurate strike (using targeting AWACS) missiles with tactical nuclear warheads (of which Russia has different storage data about 8000) for superior enemy forces. In fact, such an asymmetric response will be inexpensive by the criterion of efficiency / cost and will increase the combat stability of the strategic nuclear forces by an order of magnitude.
        5. alex-defensor
          alex-defensor 2 May 2012 12: 07
          +5
          Quote: re321
          1. "The Tomahawk rocket is also not distinguished by intelligence and ingenuity" - for what mental development is this phrase? Yes, these missiles have been destroying everything in their path for 20 years! Huge experience has been accumulated in their application in various theaters. Plus the constant modernization of warheads and UMA!


          The author of the article means that a person (pilot) is smarter than a car. In addition, the Tomahawk is far from the best in all respects, although this is not the point ...

          Quote: re321
          2. What is the passage about cost? For a Russian taxpayer? Americans can afford the most, they are the richest and most intelligent, what can you do?


          Not the "Americans" are the smartest, but members of the "world government" (for them the people are always a herd and "cannon fodder").

          At the expense of the richest - I agree.

          The US Army is not the most skilled, but the richest.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFHTjKGJpoQ

          The United States took advantage of the fear of the European and other regional elites of the communist threat. Simply put, the moneybags all over the world began to shake with the terrible thought of losing their power and wealth, and therefore "raised" a new Hegemon on the basis of the United States, as opposed to the USSR.

          Of course, if the United States prints money endlessly, then they can buy everything for themselves. How much dough is needed, so much will be printed. True, such a system worked while it was supported by the rest of the world.

          But now the picture of the world has changed - the unlimited power of the USA is coming to an end.

          Quote: re321
          3 Ohio for 4! Are missiles not floating arsenals? Yes, even with modules for fur seals? Well then, Mercedes is also not a car


          And from this statement of yours, you might think that you did not quite understand the message of this article.

          Quote: re321
          4. So the whole point is that the United States achieved impressive results in the war with a "crowd" - that is, the complex use of forces and means!

          Alone in the field is not a warrior - absolutely true, SYSTEM is fighting. No weapon model in itself will win on the battlefield. Today, intelligence and control are more important than the TNT equivalent.

          The first one saw, the first one fired with a "fire and forget"

          - This is the answer to many questions for local haters!


          1. Yes, the United States generally fights well with the "crowd" when it has a multiple advantage in quantity and quality, with all sorts of Libya and Iraq, and with the comprehensive support of Europe and the Regional States. Studying the military history of the United States, only one conclusion can be drawn - Americans do not know how to fight, but know how to trade well (sell, sell) - that’s all the world is being told about their invincibility.

          2. At the expense of an integrated approach to war - thank you, enlightened, otherwise before you, we didn’t know this .... may invite you to conduct "smart" lectures at the Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Federation, eh? Teach us mind to mind?

          3. On account of "shoot and forget." The effectiveness of the US "fire and forget", as well as the UAV in a real war with the large-scale use of electronic warfare has never been tested.

          SM3, in spite of the fact that it shot down its own satellite going on a constant course in the orbit known to the Pentagon, also did not prove its effectiveness. The idea of ​​a "bullet in a bullet" is delusional against a maneuvering supersonic target (I'm not talking about a hypersonic target, which is the last ICBM "Ash").

          4. At the expense of haters. Reading your comment, it seems as though you are having an orgasm while talking about "The Power of the USA". I hope the towel is always with you?

          Quote: re321
          5. Russian industry, in principle, is not capable of creating an aircraft carrier. How much longer can you "feed" yourself with such tales?


          Personally checked? In my work, I visit large industrial enterprises of the country, and so, in spite of corruption (which, of course, must be dealt with), there is development. New workshops are being introduced, old ones are being modernized, production is increasing, including defense products. The gas order for shells and missiles has increased several times (I know from the words of those working in factories that they complain that the volume of work has increased many times, but the salary has not increased significantly). Like this. So do not be so categorical, modernization and shipyards are going on, wait and see.

          Quote: Winter
          To the big ship - big torpedo!
          winked feel
          Already swimming love
        6. wind
          wind 2 May 2012 14: 10
          +2
          And one warrior in the field, if tailored in Russian
      2. lotus04
        lotus04 2 May 2012 06: 14
        +3
        Yeah! Cool target! There will be fireworks if the "mosquito" bites him!
      3. awg75
        awg75 2 May 2012 18: 29
        +1
        I agree, a large American ship, a large Russian torpedo
  2. patriot2
    patriot2 1 May 2012 08: 03
    +17
    Article +
    Russia needs a powerful Fleet, capable of solving strategic tasks. AUG is responsible for the Fleet just need, the only question is their quantity! yes
    Well, an arsenal ship can be embodied as a prototype, although even access to the ocean requires escort of frigates, corvettes or nuclear submarines. Such a ship is easily captured by landing or pirates. recourse
    1. Neighbor
      Neighbor 1 May 2012 08: 27
      +6
      Quote: tronin.maxim
      Yes, what ideas did not exist in the 20th century

      And what ideas are not there now!
      Here I looked - 2015 - a forecast of the development of events. Americosia sent its fleet to Russia (Sbisi platforms, aircraft carriers) - with a demand to give control over resources. The ultimatut showed shorter. Sail to the shores of the Russian Federation and here from the depths of the sea autonomous unmanned mobile vehicles surfaced, equipped with high-precision missiles and torpedoes - well, they take the sight - the entire Amer Fleet.
      What was next? Amer turned around - and went home - to Yusey.
      Of course - the video is just a forecast of the development of events - but still!
      For every Amer aircraft carrier - there will always be a Russian torpedo or rocket!
      1. party3AH
        party3AH 1 May 2012 09: 12
        +8
        Nothing, but they have top-level funding, we have everything in our "pockets" damn it.
    2. Sokol peruna
      Sokol peruna 1 May 2012 08: 36
      +10
      Without an increase in the funding of the Navy, the AUG will be just a pipe dream.
      Today, Russia spends on defense about the same as Great Britain. Moreover, the cost of the Navy in the UK is one third higher than in Russia. The fleet of Her Majesty itself can be somewhat exaggerated can be compared with the Federation Council of Russia.
      Now the UK is building 2 Aircraft Carriers, etc. CVF HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. Moreover, the latter, due to problems with financing, can immediately be put into reserve immediately after construction. Those. the richer fleet of Great Britain can afford to keep in service no more than 1 AUG.

      Oleg for the article certainly +.
      1. zardoz
        zardoz 1 May 2012 15: 17
        +3
        Well, small Britain controls 1/6 of the land and it has the largest land border. It is not entirely correct to compare the directions of defense budget spending by the UK and Russia.
    3. Redpartyzan
      Redpartyzan 1 May 2012 08: 41
      +5
      So it is so, only this pleasure is excessively expensive. Even such an industrial giant as the Soviet Union realized that he could not afford it and created submarines - "aircraft carrier killer" remember. In terms of AUG, we have never had parity with the United States. Russia needs a powerful fleet, but if you look at the realities, it will not be based on Aircraft Carriers.
    4. Vito
      Vito 1 May 2012 11: 25
      +4
      patriot2 GREETINGS! I absolutely agree with you, we are a sea power. A SHIP Arsenal for the first time can be made from our rusting submarines of the shark class (according to our classification), or typhoon (west.)
      1. Santa Fe
        1 May 2012 12: 14
        0
        Quote: Vito
        A SHIP Arsenal for the first time can be made from our rusting submarines of the shark class (according to our classification)


        Are we going to press Nigeria?
        Why do we need an arsenal ship?

        Quote: Vito
        make a shark class of our rusting submarines

        I think the schoolboy? smile
        1. Vito
          Vito 1 May 2012 17: 11
          +3
          SWEET_SIXTEEN the fleets of our closest neighbors Japan and Turkey in the number of combat units are two or three times higher than our Pacific Fleet and the Black Sea. The striking power of their fleets is therefore also two, three times greater than ours. This I will explain to preschoolers! And let Nigeria live in peace!
          1. Santa Fe
            1 May 2012 18: 46
            +1
            And where does the arsenal ship?
    5. Civil
      Civil 1 May 2012 13: 30
      0
      Yes, here every week we discuss about AUG for the Russian Federation)))
      1. Sergh
        Sergh 1 May 2012 15: 48
        +2
        Where are our drones with the proven base "Buran", the equipment was installed on the Tu-154, which also flew with landing in an unmanned mode? Looks like it doesn't really justify itself, or maybe it's just a cheat, spending a super-rocket for one or two terrorists in half a dollar, some kind of obsurt.
      2. Nickname
        Nickname 1 May 2012 19: 59
        +3
        Well, in the end, everyone agrees that only another AUG can be put up against the AUG. But the article is excellent.
  3. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 1 May 2012 08: 51
    +5
    And in my opinion the idea of ​​an arsenal ship is just wonderful!
    Only it should be loaded not with super-duper fancy Tomahawks, but with cheap missiles, and it is extremely important that they can take off in an extremely short time! The launch of five hundred missiles will carry away any missile defense and air defense from any state - are you going to win, or what?
    Let the Americans rush about with their stupidities of ostentatious humanism - an arsenal ship in the relative proximity of their shores is much more dangerous than any AUG ...
    1. montemor
      montemor 1 May 2012 23: 56
      +2
      Yes, Iran has probably riveted dozens of such arsenals. A couple of suicide bombers from the IRGC, a rusting barge with a dozen Iranian anti-ship missiles, what is not an arsenal for?
  4. Kars
    Kars 1 May 2012 09: 21
    +8
    If Russia is ready to limit itself to its “defensive” concept of the development of the Armed Forces, then the reader will forgive me for seditious thought, but maybe the Russian Navy does not need such a powerful tool as an aircraft carrier at all? The construction of 1-2 aircraft carriers is meaningless,

    Read more: http://topwar.ru/13998-korabl-arsenal-protiv-avianosca.html


    The article is interesting as always ---- but it ignores the fact that for the war with Iraq, the United States didn’t need aircraft carriers at all ------ they could calmly strike at Iraq - (which by the way they did) from airfields in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain, Oman.
    From where helicopters Apache, Tornado took off.

    So the aircraft carriers drove only due to the fact that they are and they need to be used at least somehow, otherwise they will have to cut it.


    And let's not forget that Iraq did not have powerful means of counteracting ships, as, for example, Iran now has, which leads to the fact that the United States has not attacked yet, despite all the demarches of Ahmennijad.


    And now the most important thing is the result of these wars .. FOR OIL .. in the USA, gas prices are equal to world prices, and private companies that successfully launder money through offshore companies receive super profits, and the USA has the largest public debt in the world. even draw a parallel between Aircraft carriers = State duty.

    But the heavy strike missile cruiser standing in the 8-10 aircraft carrier, and capable of destroying the AUG, is the way out.
    1. Kars
      Kars 1 May 2012 09: 50
      +3
      Correct me if I'm wrong ---- lately only one conflict can be considered Aircraft Carrier is the Falkland War when the British fleet relied only on its 3 or 4 light aircraft carrier, against pure land Argentina (that aircraft carrier did not use, and its air group worked from the shore)

      And what can I say virtually, Britain lost, if all the bombs and rockets that Argentinean pilots on Daghera and Etandar bombed were bombed, Royal Navk would have lost at least 13 ships, without large-scale landing operations and minimal fortifications in Port Stanley.
      1. Zerkalo
        Zerkalo 1 May 2012 11: 05
        +8
        The fact is that we did not actually experience RCC. After all, how many laudatory articles about our cruise missiles (the same exoset is much inferior to them, and one missile was enough to sink the English ship).
        Indeed, it is interesting how many Granites are enough to sink an aircraft carrier, are they as good as they say. After all, trials are trials, and war is war. God forbid, of course ...
        How many articles are now on the topic of obsolescence of aircraft carriers as a concept. All due to the development of RCC, but in fact they did not check it)
        1. Kars
          Kars 1 May 2012 11: 11
          +8
          Quote: Zerkalo
          the same exoset is much inferior to them. and one missile was enough to sink the English ship).


          Note that he didn’t even have to explode.
          And so Soviet missiles drowned Eilat.

          But I like the idea, as long as I could get where the aircraft carrier is as a target, otherwise I’ll be close to letting my Iranians go.
          1. Santa Fe
            1 May 2012 12: 05
            +6
            Quote: Kars
            Note that he didn’t even have to explode

            Kars, I don’t want to raise the topic of ship survivability again.
            Sheffield is not a benchmark. A delusional story - starting from a disabled radar, missing self-defense complexes and the most common accidents.
            Do not forget - the total displacement of Sheffield 4500 tons. Here is such a destroyer smile
            1. Kars
              Kars 1 May 2012 12: 17
              +5
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Sheffield's full displacement 4500 tons



              and what to forget? Sheffield is what? This is a warship of the British Navy that took part in the Falkland War.
              And the story can’t be delusional, there is a fact --- it’s the fire and flooding of the BC EVK Sheffil from the non-exploding RCC Exoset and that’s it. You can imagine what would happen to him if he hit his 6 with an inch shell of some kind of coastal battery.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Crazy story

              So you can only recapture Argentina’s unexploded ordnance - and the destroyer that received the unexploded bomb was forced to leave for repair, where it stood for a couple of months. If everything was hit, there would be nothing left from the UK strike group. Each sunken ship would lighten the Air Force Argentina attacks the remains of the squadron with increasing efficiency.
              1. Santa Fe
                1 May 2012 12: 30
                +4
                Quote: Kars
                And the story can’t be delusional, there is a fact --- it’s a fire and flooding of BC EVK Sheffil from the non-exploding RCC Exozet

                There are reasons for everything that you try hard not to notice.

                Quote: Kars
                what would happen to him if his 6 hit with an inch shell any coastal battery

                What else could you expect from a warship with a displacement of 4500 tons, to the limit saturated with weapons

                Although there is another precedent - the frigate Stark. 4500 tons
                Exozeta warhead worked normally. Result - the ship stayed afloat
                1. Kars
                  Kars 1 May 2012 12: 43
                  +5
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  There are reasons for everything that you try hard not to notice.

                  What exactly? Or maybe I sent Shefield to the shores of Argentina?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Although there is another precedent - the frigate Stark. 4500 tons

                  But completely lost combat capability, do not be a solo plane
                  In fact, the Iraqi pilot has already launched two Exozet rockets, which AWACS did not notice. Similarly, the electronics of the Stark did not notice anything, only the signalman managed to notice the rockets a few seconds before the hit, but no one had time to do anything. Both missiles hit the left side of the frigate, and only one exploded. A strong fire started on the frigate, the fire broke into the combat information center of the ship, and the power supply system failed. In a word, the story of Sheffield was exactly repeated.

                  The frigate broadcast a distress signal on the radio, and the AWACS crew radiated two F-15 Saudi fighters in the air to destroy the Mirage. But the flight control officer of the Dahran air base replied that he did not have the authority to permit such an attack, and the Iraqi plane safely disappeared.

                  The Stark got a huge 3 hole at the 4 meter and was saved only because the sea was perfectly calm. The ship was badly damaged by the fire, but stubborn Americans restored it, most likely, from the principle, as was done with the ships sunk in Pearl Harbor. Only after this visual lesson did the Americans realize that the experience of the Falkland War extends to them, and began to take the same measures to increase the survivability of ships as the British
                  1. Eugene
                    Eugene 1 May 2012 16: 18
                    +3
                    Andrei and Sheffield had a delicate moment there, firstly, it didn’t sink right away, but as a result of a long fire during towing, and secondly, the EMNIP, his entire superstructure was of AMG alloy, which started to burn, which determined the result. Subsequently, AMG was not so widely used on warships.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 1 May 2012 16: 32
                      +2
                      The moment is of course subtle Evgeny. But the vet and the rocket didn’t explode. Yes and let it be towed to the port --- all the same, the repair would cost him a pretty penny.
      2. chukapabra
        chukapabra 1 May 2012 13: 40
        +5
        Quote: Kars
        And what can I say virtually Great Britain lost

        What is it like ? lose virtually, but actually win.
        This reminds me of an old joke about the difference between theoretically and practically.
        Little Vovochka comes to dad and asks:
        - Dad, Mary Ivanna explained the difference between "theoretical" and "practical" to us at school, but I didn't understand shit ....
        Father grins, lights a cigarette, and says:
        - Son, there is nothing easier! Here go to the kitchen, now your mother and sister are there. And ask each of them - is she ready to surrender to the first peasant she met for a million bucks?
        Little Johnny leaves, after a while he returns:
        - Dad, they are both consonants!
        - You see, son, theoretically - we are currency millionaires. And practically - in our house there are two bl.di.
        1. Kars
          Kars 1 May 2012 14: 08
          +2
          Quote: chukapabra
          What is it like ? lose virtually, but actually win.

          It’s just that if the bombs that hit the English ships explode, it’s EXACTLY --- England would lose. Clean luck.
          And without any jokes. And why did you forget your grandfather?
    2. Santa Fe
      1 May 2012 12: 51
      +5
      Quote: Kars
      but why is it ignored that for the war with Iraq, the US did not need aircraft carriers at all ------ they could calmly strike at Iraq

      On the one hand, you're right. The contribution of carrier-based aircraft to the Desert Storm is small, only 17% of sorties
      On the other hand, aircraft carriers are a naval weapon, originally created for operations in the open ocean, against a sea enemy. The fact that they take part in shock operations along the coast only speaks of their universality

      Of the important advantages of AUG is the ability to quickly deploy to a theater.
      Preparations for the Desert Storm took six months, even taking into account the transfer of thousands of tanks, a significant period.

      Quote: Kars
      lately only one conflict can be considered aircraft carrier is the Falkland War

      True, Britain would not have won the war without aircraft carriers.
      But the Falklands cannot be the benchmark for the following reason - the aircraft carriers and SiHarrier of Great Britain - a parody of carrier-based aviation. Invincibles were deprived of the main thing - early warning aircraft, without them, everything turned into a bloody mess.

      Quote: Kars
      And here is a heavy strike missile cruiser standing in the 8-10 aircraft carrier, and capable of destroying the AUG

      Not an option, we talked about it. Cruiser needs a billion-dollar space targeting system per year
      The AUG has no such problem - a combat air patrol as part of an AWACS aircraft and a pair of cover fighters control the sea and air situation hundreds of miles from the ship (even old Neptune with a refusing radar at one time discovered little Sheffield for 130 miles)
      1. Kars
        Kars 1 May 2012 13: 08
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        On the one hand you are right

        I am right from all sides.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The fact that they take part in shock operations along the coast only speaks of their universality

        This suggests that it’s just being applied wherever, not paying attention to the criteria of efficiency-value only because they exist, and it is not desirable to send it to the reserve.
        And so could do without them.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Of the important advantages of AUG is the ability to quickly deploy to a theater.
        Preparations for the Desert Storm took six months, even taking into account the transfer of thousands of tanks, a significant period.


        Did he understand what he wrote? The AUG quickly turned around and the grandmothers stupidly fired waiting for the preparation to pass, so what's the point? Of course, you can adjust the AUG to a small country like Grenada.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        True, Britain would not have won the war without aircraft carriers.

        Not true, without defective French Exosets and unexploded Argentinean bombs.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        British aircraft carriers and SiHarrieres - a parody of carrier-based aircraft

        And Argentina is not the standard of a powerful modern-day armed state, and if they did not fight for an islet, England would have no chance against the continental Argentina.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Cruiser needs a billion-dollar space targeting system per year

        Not necessarily.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        space system

        That’s what, and this is a truly universal, necessary thing - which is not only a target indicator, but also a reconnaissance and meteorologist and communications.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        combat air patrol as part of an AWACS aircraft and a pair of cover fighters

        They are much easier to shoot down, especially since there are not so many AWACS, and there are no obstacles to using ground-based AWACS.
        1. Santa Fe
          1 May 2012 13: 58
          -1
          Quote: Kars
          This suggests that it’s just being applied wherever, not paying attention to the criteria of efficiency-value only because they exist, and it is not desirable to send it to the reserve.

          Pure conspiracy theories, without evidence.
          Why since the time of the Tempest in the desert have 6 or 7 new Av been built?

          Quote: Kars
          AUG quickly turned around, and grandmothers stupidly fired waiting for the preparation to pass, so what's the point?

          AUG approached 14 January, for 3 days before the operation

          Quote: Kars
          Not true, without defective French Exosets and unexploded Argentinean bombs.

          In turn, the British did not have AWACS aircraft. Even in such flawed conditions on both sides, the victory went to Britain.

          Quote: Kars
          Not necessarily.

          Is there another way of over-the-horizon guidance?

          Quote: Kars
          They are much easier to shoot down, especially AWACS are not so many

          1. Shoot them down is very difficult, because Hawkai controls the situation for hundreds of miles around.
          2. Aircraft AWACS enough - 4 ... 6 cars on each ship

          Quote: Kars
          and there are no obstacles to using ground-based AWACS.

          Yes - extremely vulnerable to AUG interceptors, as there is no one to cover it above the ocean
          The second problem - deployment time, while it crawls - it will be late
          1. Kars
            Kars 1 May 2012 14: 14
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Why since the time of the Tempest in the desert have 6 or 7 new Av been built?

            Do you want the ruin of US shipbuilders? And do not forget that the United States prints dollars.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            AUG approached 14 January, for 3 days before the operation

            Moreover, where did they go if they worked from the Mediterranean Sea.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In turn, the British did not have AWACS aircraft. Even in such flawed conditions on both sides, the victory went to Great Britain

            Pure chance.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Is there another way of over-the-horizon guidance?

            And helicopters? Or UAVs
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Yes - extremely vulnerable to AUG interceptors, as there is no one to cover it above the ocean

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It’s very difficult to bring them down. Hawkai controls the situation for hundreds of miles around.

            Answered for himself bully
            so choose
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            2. Aircraft AWACS enough - 4 ... 6 cars on each ship

            And on land even more and they are not limited by the dimensions of the aircraft carrier wassat
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The second problem - deployment time, while it crawls - it will be late

            Where creeps, what time? What are you talking about? There is patrolling
            1. Santa Fe
              1 May 2012 15: 47
              +6
              Quote: Kars
              Moreover, where did they go if they worked from the Mediterranean Sea.


              Didn't you know that? smile
              AUGs did not work from the Mediterranean Sea. The main forces arrived in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea on January 14.

              Quote: Kars
              And helicopters? Or UAVs

              Ka-31:
              Detection range is: for aircraft 100 — 150 km, for surface ships 250 — 285 km. Duration of patrolling 2.5h when flying at an altitude of 3500 m.
              Disproportionate to Hawaii’s capabilities

              For a serious UAV you need ... an aircraft carrier laughing

              Quote: Kars
              And on land even more and they are not limited by the dimensions of the aircraft carrier

              Where did land aircraft come from in the middle of the ocean? And even if they fly, who will cover them?

              Do not forget: an aircraft carrier is a naval weapon.
              1. Kars
                Kars 1 May 2012 16: 11
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Didn't you know that?

                What exactly?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The main forces arrived in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea on January 14

                Can I have a schedule?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Ka-31:

                Other promising helicopters do not come to mind?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                For a serious UAV you need ... an aircraft carrier

                Nifiga like that.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Where did land aircraft come from in the middle of the ocean?

                And who said that in the middle of the ocean? In the middle of the ocean, there is no one double the AUG, and don’t forget about the islands.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Do not forget: an aircraft carrier is a naval weapon.

                So let the whales fight.

                All battles take place on any coast --- Vietnam, Falklands, Desert Storm, Midway, Pearl Harbor.
                1. Santa Fe
                  1 May 2012 18: 43
                  +2
                  Quote: Kars
                  Can I have a schedule?


                  On 14 of January the AUG CV-61 Ranger entered the Persian Gulf. On the same day, an aircraft carrier strike force (AUS) arrived from the Western Atlantic as part of the 2 AUG: CVN-71 "Theodore Roosevelt" and CV-66 "America". Subsequently, the AUG "Theodore Roosevelt" went to the Persian Gulf.

                  Quote: Kars
                  Other promising helicopters do not come to mind?

                  Other promising AWACS aircraft do not occur?
                  The altitude of Hawkai is 10 kilometers. Helicopter Flight Height - 3,5 Kilometers

                  Quote: Kars
                  Nifiga like that.

                  Explain your thought

                  Quote: Kars
                  And who said that in the middle of the ocean? In the middle of the ocean, there is no one double the AUG, and don’t forget about the islands.

                  Because, if the need arises, they will meet our squadron of missile cruisers in the middle of the ocean, where it is defenseless
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 1 May 2012 19: 33
                    +2
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    14 January

                    As always, an indicator of surface information processing
                    As of August 3, in the conflict zone, the fleet forces had 15 warships, including 6 in the areas of the Persian and Oman gulfs, 2 in the northern part of the Arabian Sea (300 miles southeast of the island of Masirah), 7 - in the Indian Ocean (500 miles south of Ceylon) and 76 warplanes.

                    On August 7, Saratoga left the Mayport base and on August 23 began combat patrols in the northern Red Sea. From October 27 to December 2, it was located in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea, after which it again occupied the combat mission area in the northern part of the Red Sea. On August 23, John F. Kennedy went from Norfolk to the Mediterranean Sea, who was from the 31 of August to the 15 of September and from 27 of October to the 2 of December in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea, and the rest of the time in the northern part of the Red Sea. From 12 December 1990 to 14 January 1991 AUG The US carrier group of the 3 fleet carried out the transition from the San Diego area to the Persian Gulf and remained there until the end of hostilities, in late December from Norfolk to the northern part of the Red Sea the aircraft carrier America came out, and Theodore Roosevelt entered the Gulf of Aden. Both aircraft carriers arrived in the combat mission area only on 16 of January 1991. It should be emphasized that hostilities began when the deployment of part of the strike forces to the areas of their combat mission was incomplete. So, the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt at that time was on the transition from the Gulf of Aden to the Persian, and the use of the aircraft based on it began only on 20 on January 1991. It is noteworthy that this aircraft carrier made a redeployment from the Red Sea to the Aden and then to the Persian Gulf. at a speed of 32 nodes.

                    On 1 of September 1990, the Blue Ridge headquarters arrived in the Persian Gulf area, and the flagship command post of the combined Navy Naval Forces was deployed on it. The multinational forces of the anti-Iraq coalition were led by the commander of the joint command, General N. Schwarzkopf, the Air Force, General C. Horner, the Ground Forces, General G. Lan, and the Navy, Vice Admiral H. Mauz (commander of the 7 m US fleet).

                    Thus, as a result of the carefully planned and well-organized operation “Desert Shield”, the countries of the anti-Iraq coalition led by the USA were able in a short time to create a powerful grouping of various types of armed forces and prepare it for large-scale military operations. Multinational forces were represented directly or indirectly by 34 countries and included more than 700 thousand people, more than 4 thousand tanks, more than 3700 field artillery and mortar guns, about 2 thousand aircraft and up to 200 warships and auxiliary vessels. It is noteworthy that for the first time after 1945, at the same time, 50% of American aircraft carriers (6 of 12 which were part of the Navy of the United States Navy) simultaneously participated in the hostilities. About 80% of these forces and assets were American. In addition to the US troops, the most significant were the groups of the ground forces of Great Britain, France, Egypt and Syria.

                    The grouping of the Navy The naval forces of the 14 countries of the Allied anti-Iraq coalition included more than 170 thousand people (over 30% of the total number of all multinational forces), 145 warships and more 50 auxiliary vessels, of which 92 of the US Navy ship, Including 6 multipurpose aircraft carriers, 2 battleships, 5 amphibious assault carriers, 2 multipurpose amphibious ships, 8 atomic multipurpose submarines, 24 amphibious assault ships, etc. Of this composition, more than 20 ships were carriers of Tomahawk cruise missiles (about 500 missiles).

                    The operational construction of the combined naval forces provided for the possibility of combat action on Iraq from three directions - [382] from the Persian Gulf, the northern part of the Red Sea and the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. In the Persian Gulf, the main striking forces of the combined fleet operated. The basis of this grouping was an aircraft carrier strike force (“Zulu”), two missile strike groups and landing forces.

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Other promising AWACS aircraft do not occur?
                    The altitude of Hawkai is 10 kilometers. Helicopter Flight Height - 3,5 Kilometers


                    They come, but we don’t have to fly to 1000 km. It’s enough to have data and guidance at a distance of 400 km from the TKR, and for this it is not necessary to fly further from 200 km.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Explain your thought

                    We launch a rocket accelerator, saditsa with a parachute.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Because, if the need arises, they will meet our squadron of missile cruisers in the middle of the ocean, where it is defenseless


                    why? whom does the AUG dangling in the middle of the ocean hinder? let it torment you, but all you have to do is to catch supply vessels, you won’t be able to cover all the aircraft carriers. And let's not take the United States, that the light has wedged on it? considering that this is a nuclear war. or debts from Venezuela to beat out.
          2. Ares
            Ares 1 May 2012 15: 02
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Pure conspiracy theories, without evidence.
            Why since the time of the Tempest in the desert have 6 or 7 new Av been built?


            In principle, the very concept of AUG, where an aircraft carrier is a floating airfield, despite the fact that aviation is now a shitty striking force, speaks for itself. At one time, battleships became not competitors to aircraft carriers in the confrontation at sea, although the aircraft had to fly into their air defense zone for bombing and torpedo launches. In the era of high-precision weapons, everything has become easier, now aircraft can sink ships without flying into their air defense zone. Ships cannot withstand aviation - this is a one-sided game. In fact, aviation can shoot ships with salvo launches of anti-ship missiles, and ships are only forced to passively defend themselves against already fired missiles. The super-mobile air wing will simply "peck" any naval squadron at a great distance from the warrant until it is drowned. Given the reconnaissance capabilities of the AUG, it is unrealistic to approach it at the launch line, an aircraft carrier with a speed of over 30 knots will keep a comfortable distance from any threatening squadron while its air wing systematically destroys it.
            1. Kars
              Kars 1 May 2012 15: 09
              +4
              Quote: Ares
              the air wing will simply "peck" any naval squadron at a great distance from the order


              And yes, of course, he has ammunition equal to infinity, RCC infinity, fuel for planes infinity. And air defense simply does not exist.
              1. Ares
                Ares 1 May 2012 15: 36
                +2
                Quote: Kars
                And yes, of course, he has ammunition equal to infinity, RCC infinity, fuel for planes infinity. And air defense simply does not exist.


                It is obvious that if one ship group has the opportunity to massively attack another, and the second does not have such an opportunity, then the first has a complete advantage over the second.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 1 May 2012 16: 01
                  +1
                  Quote: Ares
                  It is obvious that if one ship group has the opportunity to massively attack another, and the second does not have such an opportunity, then the first has a complete advantage over the second.


                  A strange conclusion, especially when the wing is knocked out.
                  1. Ares
                    Ares 1 May 2012 16: 31
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    A strange conclusion, especially when the wing is knocked out.


                    Nothing strange. Air defense ships are not able to intercept carriers of anti-ship missiles. Neither the missile range, nor the radio horizon will allow this. RCC launches are always carried out before entering the air defense zone.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 1 May 2012 16: 37
                      +1
                      Quote: Ares
                      RCC launches are always carried out before entering the air defense zone.

                      So it turns out that PKR is a salutary weapon? Then nothing shines for the aircraft carrier in the fight against the coast? There are also planes and PKR there.
                      1. Ares
                        Ares 1 May 2012 17: 01
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        So it turns out that RCC is a salutary weapon?


                        Not to say absolute, but today, with the saturation of a volley, close to this. Ships cannot independently counter aviation with anti-ship missiles. The only way to deal with carriers, only with the help of their aircraft.

                        Quote: Kars
                        Then nothing shines for the aircraft carrier in the fight against the coast? There are also planes and PCRs there.


                        Coastal anti-ship missiles do not reach the aircraft carriers; it will be a battle of aviation. Everything will simply depend on the correlation of forces of aircraft connections in a given section of the theater of operations. Which applies to the confrontation between the opposing air forces and the land.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 1 May 2012 17: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: Ares
                        applicable to confrontation between the opposing air forces over land.

                        Simply put, don't shine anything on an aircraft carrier --- 10 Nimitsov —900 planes, nothing against the coast of the Papuan.
                        Quote: Ares
                        cannot independently counter aviation with anti-ship missiles.

                        They will be able to, why they put anti-aircraft missiles, fast-firing guns, radar guidance, interference supporters on them. The armor can be returned against light anti-ship missiles such as Harpoon, Exocet.
                        Quote: Ares
                        at saturation of a volley

                        maybe it’s easier to drop a nuclear bomb? One or two AUGs against a promising group of heavy missile cruisers-arsenals can’t do anything special.
                      3. Ares
                        Ares 1 May 2012 17: 54
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        Simply put, don't shine anything on an aircraft carrier --- 10 Nimitsov —900 planes, nothing against the coast of the Papuan.


                        smile

                        Quote: Kars
                        They will be able to, why they put anti-aircraft missiles, fast-firing guns, radar guidance, interference supporters on them. The armor can be returned against light anti-ship missiles such as Harpoon, Exocet.


                        With all this, they will be able to withstand only issued anti-ship missiles with a certain probability, but not aviation itself. And therefore it is a one-goal game.


                        Quote: Kars
                        can it be easier to drop a nuclear bomb?


                        Apparently a rhetorical question.


                        Quote: Kars
                        One or two AUGs against a promising group of heavy missile cruisers-arsenals will not be able to do anything special.


                        Here our opinions differ radically.
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 1 May 2012 19: 21
                        +2
                        Quote: Ares
                        And therefore it is a one-goal game

                        If the AUG has the task of bolting in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, but all that needs to be done is to sink the supply vessels.
                        Quote: Ares
                        Here our opinions differ radically.

                        C'mon, they are nothing against Iraq either, simply saying AUG especially 1 or two is NOTHING, a waste of money. If against Iraq they had to attract six pieces, then they provided 4-6% of the impact.
                      5. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 12: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        ovorya easier AUG especially 1 or two is NOTHING, a waste of money


                        Based on this logic, the same can be said of the Air Force, in which there will also be several times fewer fighters than in the US Air Force. But at the same time, everyone understands that the army, whatever its size, should be balanced and the ground forces cannot do without aviation. At sea, the same thing.
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 2 May 2012 12: 09
                        +1
                        Quote: Ares
                        in which there will also be several times fewer fighters than in the US Air Force

                        Fighter jets are much easier to build on a massive scale. Yes, and US fighters, well, very far to fly to the borders of Russia.
                        And again I repeat --- do not try to take the United States as an appanent --- this is a nuclear war.

                        Are you not Frost's reincarnation by the way?
                      7. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 12: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Fighter jets are much easier to build on a massive scale. Yes, and US fighters, well, very far to fly to the borders of Russia.


                        Inappropriate analogy.

                        Quote: Kars
                        And again I repeat --- do not try to take the United States as an appanent --- this is a nuclear war.


                        Even in a nuclear war, ACGs matter. This is the cover of patrol areas of the SSBN, determining the location of marine missile defense elements and delivering strikes against them with nuclear warheads.


                        Quote: Kars
                        Are you not Frost's reincarnation by the way?


                        Frost is Andrey, my colleague and friend. We studied together, now for six months now we have been working together in Tashkent. The local aviation plant got up, sold in pieces, and there were still a few assembled but unprepared for the radio-technical part of the IL-76. There are no local specialists, therefore private firms from St. Petersburg are attracted.
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 2 May 2012 13: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: Ares
                        Inappropriate analogy.

                        Is it true? Why did you bring her then?
                        Quote: Ares
                        so it can be said about the Air Force, in which there will also be several times fewer fighters

                        your saying.
                        Quote: Ares
                        Even in a nuclear war, ACGs matter

                        They will not have any significance in a nuclear war.
                        Quote: Ares
                        This is a cover for the SSBN patrol areas


                        Why do the submarines shoot themselves and nobody needs them anymore, they hope that the ports will remain untouched stupidly. The patrol areas are perfectly covered by ordinary corvettes. And the direction of the AUG to the Barents Sea, or to the Chukchi Sea, is already a clear signal of a nuclear war.
                        Quote: Ares
                        location of marine missile defense elements

                        It meant placing them, according to your words they will be in the ice of Arkite and Off the coast - the attention of the COAST of the north of Russia.
                        Quote: Ares
                        Americans plan to deploy offshore platforms with interceptors off Russia's northern coast



                        And the best defense of Russian submarines is HIDDENITY, and you shoot them with AUG for cover, you will collect all Los Angeles in the district.
                        Quote: Ares
                        Frost is Andrey

                        Immediately noticeable influence of the views of Frost, already De Javier.
                      9. Ares
                        Ares 2 May 2012 13: 17
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Immediately noticeable influence of the views of Frost, already De Javier.


                        IMHO, rather my influence on him. All the same, I had more to do with military topics than Andrei.

                        Why do the submarines shoot themselves and nobody needs them anymore, they hope that the ports will remain untouched stupidly. The patrol areas are perfectly covered by ordinary corvettes. And the direction of the AUG to the Barents Sea, or to the Chukchi Sea, is already a clear signal of a nuclear war.

                        It meant placing them, according to your words they will be in the ice of Arkite and Off the coast - the attention of the COAST of the north of Russia.

                        They will not have any significance in a nuclear war.


                        I repeat, I have a radically opposite view of these issues.
                      10. Arc76
                        Arc76 2 May 2012 00: 00
                        0
                        Therefore, as Admiral Kasatonov wrote in "300 years of the Russian fleet," the Soviet leadership in the early 80s faced the question of either building a huge network of airfields along the coast of the USSR, or its own AUG.
                  2. Arc76
                    Arc76 1 May 2012 23: 56
                    0
                    This is fantastic, and in general all the arguments of the Kars are alternatives, air defense which knocks out the entire air group, an uav with a parachute, a drone helicopter with a view of 1200 km, a combat radius of f-18. remember the fate of Yamato.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 2 May 2012 00: 19
                      +1
                      Quote: arc76
                      Drill helicopter with an overview in 1200 km


                      Read carefully,
                      Quote: arc76
                      a carrier with a long arm will have an advantage over short-range weapons

                      Until the moment his planes are shot down.
                      Quote: arc76
                      For clarity, let us recall the fate of Yamato.

                      And what about Yamato? If he were to face him alone with Essex, they would see whoever. Only fuel Yamato drip.
                      Quote: arc76
                      air defense which knocks out the entire air group

                      Does she have options --- invulnerability?
              2. Santa Fe
                1 May 2012 15: 41
                +3
                Quote: Kars
                And yes, of course he has ammunition equal to infinity, RCC infinity, fuel for aircraft infinity


                During the Gulf War, an 1 aircraft carrier spent an average of 1700 tons of ammunition and 2000 tons of jet fuel per day.
                In this mode, AUG can work for a week.

                Compare this with the S-300 ammunition on the 1164 cruiser (64 SAM)
                1. Kars
                  Kars 1 May 2012 16: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  1700 tons of ammunition


                  Or maybe you want to say that these 1700 tons are all Ura? You just hit me with such a blunder

                  and mobile objects over 88 thousand tons of aviation ammunition, of which 81,9 thousand tons of unguided bombs


                  Will extinguish
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Compare this with the S-300 ammunition on the 1164 cruiser (64 SAM)

                  Two per plane, and so on normal TKR should be at least 200 C-400
    3. vpm
      vpm 1 May 2012 15: 44
      +3
      Quote: Kars
      The article is interesting as always ---- but it ignores the fact that for the war with Iraq, the United States didn’t need aircraft carriers at all ------ they could calmly strike at Iraq - (which by the way they did) from airfields in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain, Oman.
      From where helicopters Apache, Tornado took off.

      So it is, in the first company the main attacks were carried out from the territory of the allied countries in the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Oman), as well as Turkey. Probably part of the flights were made from Guam and from somewhere else. In general, the aircraft carriers must have played some role in the operation, but certainly not the main one:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_United_States_Air_Force_Units_in_th
      e_Gulf_War
      In any case, out of 100,000 USS sorties, Theodor Roosevelt made 4,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Theodore_Roosevelt_%28CVN-71%29#Gulf_war), Nimitz played a supporting role as it seems and everyone else (http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier#1990.E2.80.932000).
      It turns out that the share of departures from aircraft carriers in the first Iraqi campaign accounted for 4%, possibly 5-6% of all sorties.
      In Libya, the situation was similar - they flew mainly from Italy, from Malta and Greece, while treating the territory first with the Tomahawks (to the author's conclusion that the use of tomahawks is limited - it is limited, but it is still critical in the first phase of the invasion, when a massive strike Tomahawks destroys a significant part of the military infrastructure, including air defense, only on the first day of the war with Libya, 110 were released).
      By the way, Charles De Gaulle was the only aircraft carrier in the Libyan operation - his air wing flew 1,350 sorties and out of a total of 19,000 (as of August 2011 - http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iwPIjVTq38bU-qQs4UEnV4RsWJfw?
      docId=CNG.f83ec61b463c427ae51d6ee4c5c2e5c7.751), что тоже меньше 10%.
      It turns out that for ground operations the role of aircraft carriers is still limited and more likely auxiliary. The main load is still taken by ground airfields, which lack many of the shortcomings of aircraft carriers. The aircraft carrier is also quite vulnerable in such a place as, for example, the Persian Gulf. And this despite the fact that the cost of both maintenance and construction of an aircraft carrier is very high, which can be compared not only with the cost of other ships, but above all ground airports (I think for the same several billion dollars that it costs to build a modern aircraft carrier one).
      Now, regarding the history of the use of aircraft carriers. In many respects, Pearl Harbor was the most successful operation using AUG - the Americans subsequently did not come close to such an effective attack using AUG. By the way, the Japanese were also the first to assemble a full-fledged AUG (the Japanese generally distinguished themselves - the only ones in the history of World War II bombed the territory of the United States - with ... a submarine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carriers_of_Japan). But for the most part, these are naval operations without developed anti-aircraft defense and in the absence of modern anti-ship missiles, it is difficult to say how the AAG will behave in a military conflict with an adversary with advanced anti-missile defense. I think they’ll simply be taken away from the VD zone and will give a very limited concealment of air cover / limited and targeted strikes where there is no immediate threat to the aircraft carrier.
      1. Ares
        Ares 1 May 2012 16: 25
        +1
        Quote: vpm
        I think they’ll simply be taken away from the VD zone and will give a very limited concealment of air cover / limited and targeted strikes where there is no immediate threat to the aircraft carrier.


        Just the opposite. They will be the main striking power. His wing with the advent of anti-ship missiles can sink ships much more efficiently. Chewed topic. There is nothing to detect, archi is difficult to get close to and in the ocean it is impossible to fend off aviation if there is no aviation.
        1. vpm
          vpm 1 May 2012 16: 49
          +1
          In the ocean confrontation - yes, 100%. In ground operations, the situation is more complicated - there the aircraft carriers are largely redundant. In the same hypothetical conflict with Iran, aircraft carriers are unlikely to be based directly in the Persian Gulf, rather in the Indian Ocean, where their RCCs simply cannot be reached and are less likely to undermine the Strait of Hormuz when passing through it.
          Carriers are needed precisely for controlling the oceans in the first place, which implies the doctrine of dominance in a particular theater. When the Japanese built their fleet, the goal was precisely such a goal - control of the Pacific Ocean and sea trade throughout Asia. If all the main ground battles of the Second World War took place in Europe, then all the main naval battles took place in the Pacific Ocean. If we are building aircraft carriers, it means we are directly challenging the states - one or two can’t get off in this case, building ten with the appropriate displacement is very expensive and will take decades.
          1. Ares
            Ares 1 May 2012 17: 34
            0
            Quote: vpm
            If we build aircraft carriers, then we directly challenge the states


            Then we can say that if we are building nuclear submarines, missile cruisers, or even have a fleet, then we are challenging. And since we have a fleet, it must be full and effective. I hope it never occurs to leave the army without the Air Force because they will be smaller than the US? At sea, everything is exactly the same as on land, there should be air support.
            1. vpm
              vpm 1 May 2012 18: 39
              0
              No, it’s just that for AUG the only worthy task is to control significant water areas. Building them to support ground operations is simply wasteful. States are a maritime empire, so any creep on maritime supremacy is taken at their own expense. In total, we are building aircraft carriers - sooner or later we will face the states at one or another theater. T.O. the doctrine, if adopted, should ultimately be calculated on the standoff and superiority precisely to the states, and therefore be expensive and long-term. In the interval, it’s good that there was even an aircraft carrier - there is a place for working out the application, but alone or even alone, it will not make the weather.
  5. st. michman
    st. michman 1 May 2012 09: 49
    0
    "Antey" is planned to be refurbished. What is not an arsenal ship. Underwater only.

    And here is the question. In AUG, who protects whom and provides b \ actions, an aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers warrant, or vice versa? The experience of World War II does not count. There, the realities from today were very different.
    A ship-arsenal is a barge with missiles. She also needs security and security. Aircraft is being replaced by missiles, by smart missiles. And this resembles the concept of confrontation aircraft carrier-missile cruiser or submarine. Which is cheaper, more efficient and functional?

    And here is the question. In AUG, who protects whom and provides b \ actions, an aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers warrant, or vice versa? The experience of World War II does not count. There, the realities from today were very different.
    A ship-arsenal is a barge with missiles. She also needs security and security. Aircraft is being replaced by missiles, by smart missiles. And this resembles the concept of confrontation aircraft carrier-missile cruiser or submarine. Which is cheaper, more efficient and functional?
  6. st. michman
    st. michman 1 May 2012 09: 53
    +4
    And here is the question. In AUG, who protects whom and provides b \ actions, an aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers warrant, or vice versa? The experience of World War II does not count. There, the realities from today were very different.
    A ship-arsenal is a barge with missiles. She also needs security and security. Aircraft is being replaced by missiles, by smart missiles. And this resembles the concept of confrontation aircraft carrier-missile cruiser or submarine. Which is cheaper, more efficient and functional?

    They plan to re-equip Antey, so we will have an arsenal, only underwater
    1. Ares
      Ares 1 May 2012 10: 47
      +3
      Quote: st.michman
      And here is the question. In AUG, who protects whom and provides b \ actions, an aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers warrant, or vice versa?


      This is mutual. Imagine a squadron of 10 missile destroyers / cruisers deprived of an aircraft carrier. The detection range of enemy ships will immediately fall 3-4 times, anti-aircraft capabilities will be reduced at least 2 times, the range of interception of air targets will be reduced by about 10 times, the squadron will lose a long arm in a massive accurate attack of enemy ship formations at a distance of about 1000 km, the possibility of strikes along the coast will be reduced dozens of times.
      The addition of an aircraft carrier alone increases the combat effectiveness of the squadron by an order of magnitude and this is advantageous from the efficiency / cost ratio. Over land and by and large over the sea, today everything is decided by aviation.
      1. st. michman
        st. michman 1 May 2012 13: 09
        +2
        I’m talking about it
  7. altman
    altman 1 May 2012 10: 04
    +5
    You can argue as much as you like, but it is unlikely that we will get the correct answers without another war (God forbid, of course !!)
  8. Kostjan
    Kostjan 1 May 2012 10: 28
    +1
    A large and powerful fleet is good, but for some reason everyone forgets that the former USSR has a very long land border and the neighbors are generally not quite friends. The fleet is needed and it is there and all our "friends" are shielding with it, of course it would be time to update it and judging by the latest news, this is not a zap. And I think there is no need to compare NATO countries with the Russian Federation
    1. st. michman
      st. michman 1 May 2012 13: 33
      0
      We do not have a fleet today. There is a parody of what we once had. There is no even less clear concept of what to build and how much this is needed. The military-industrial complex is more concerned with making money in its pocket.
  9. SAVA555.IVANOV
    SAVA555.IVANOV 1 May 2012 11: 01
    +3
    "Admiral Kuznetsov" with the same order + 1-2 missile destroyers for the destruction of aircraft and one "Antey" will wait on the sidelines for a "control shot".
    A missile-torpedo or torpedo missile generally capable of breaking through to a target in two environments alternately hiding from torpedoes or interceptor missiles in the opposite environment (such as flying fish) is the best option for conducting modern naval combat.
    1. Zerkalo
      Zerkalo 1 May 2012 11: 14
      0
      Well, it's like a means of counteraction ... But in order to gain a foothold in the water, how many such groups are needed? How much does it cost?
    2. Zerkalo
      Zerkalo 1 May 2012 11: 15
      0
      Well, it's like a means of counteraction ... But in order to gain a foothold in the water, how many such groups are needed? How much does it cost?
    3. Nickname
      Nickname 1 May 2012 20: 32
      0
      Yeah. I thought the same. 3 aircraft carriers will not see further than one. And whoever has more and better missiles)). As Bonaparte said - "The main thing is to get involved in a fight."
  10. Kars
    Kars 1 May 2012 11: 25
    0
    Quote: Zerkalo
    But in order to gain a foothold in the water, how many such groups are needed?


    How is it fixed on the water?

    And by the way, they still forgot to mention in the article that despite the super-puber, the US aircraft carriers and their coalitions still could not escape the ground operation to liberate Kuwait. Yes, and for this they needed to use the territory of third countries, rather than being fixed on the water, drive through three nine ground 3000 tanks and create a quarter millionth grouping of ground troops with MLRS artillery and so on.
    1. Zerkalo
      Zerkalo 1 May 2012 11: 31
      +1
      Well, I mean, so that we have aircraft carrier groups that could quickly respond, like the same States, just a couple of AUGs are brought to the "aggressor" country
    2. Santa Fe
      1 May 2012 11: 59
      +3
      Quote: Kars
      And by the way, they still forgot to mention in the article that, despite the super-puber, US aircraft carriers and their coalitions still could not escape the ground operation to liberate Kuwait


      The ground operation cannot be avoided in any case. The territory will have to be "cleaned" and controlled.
      Another thing is that 30 days of continuous air strikes tore apart not the weakest army (4 place in the world in the number of tanks, 8 years of experience in the war with Iran) to shreds. And the coalition has single losses.

      Or do you dream of not doing anything, and the war is won by itself? smile
      1. Kars
        Kars 1 May 2012 12: 20
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Or do you dream of not doing anything, and the war is won by itself


        No, I just give facts to your article about super aircraft carriers --- pay attention
        Quote: Kars
        including 6 multipurpose aircraft carriers,

        Quote: Kars
        30 thousand sorties - (3,5 thousand. of which performed deck aviation).


        Six aircraft carriers, and only a little more than 10% of departures ---- frankly, without aircraft carriers, they couldn’t have done it directly.
        1. Santa Fe
          1 May 2012 12: 25
          +3
          Quote: Kars
          Six aircraft carriers and just a little over 10% sorties


          17%
          Detailed answer see above
          1. Kars
            Kars 1 May 2012 12: 45
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            17%


            What uos

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Detailed answer see above


            Хde?
  11. ward
    ward 1 May 2012 11: 31
    +3
    The AUG crew has several thousand people ... Money loves EVERYTHING ... buy ... intimidate ... etc. a small impulse directional satellite direction finder ... this is one option ... the second aircraft carrier is big ... somewhere in the bowels there is a Conder farad on 1000 ... voltage, well, let's say 10 000 V .... an impulse to the onboard network ... and two months to replace all electrical equipment ... Conclusion if you want to turn AUG into a pile of scrap metal is easy ... there would be a desire ...
    1. Santa Fe
      1 May 2012 11: 54
      +3
      Money loves EVERYTHING ... buy ... intimidate ... a small pulsed directional satellite direction finder ... voltage well let's say 10 000 V .... an impulse to the on-board network ...

      You have an interesting train of thought, but it diverges from practice smile

      This has not been observed in the entire history of naval battles. And do not forget that your offer is a coin with two sides
      1. Kars
        Kars 1 May 2012 16: 59
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This has not been observed in the history of naval battles.

        Again, a poor knowledge of history ----- the spies of Germany and France carried out subversive activities with ships in the First World War.
        1. Santa Fe
          1 May 2012 18: 07
          +2
          Despite the spoiled guns and disabled battleships, the Jutland battle still took place.

          laughing
  12. APASUS
    APASUS 1 May 2012 11: 35
    +1
    Such a ship needs protection no less than an aircraft carrier, otherwise one torpedo is enough for a large salute
  13. SAVA555.IVANOV
    SAVA555.IVANOV 1 May 2012 11: 36
    0
    Nobody forbids us to go out into the ocean, there are no pirates (except Somalia), no one refuses to help civilian ships, no one simply attacks them in the open ocean. But coastal and bordering neutrals need to be protected, maybe it will be destroyers with an air defense system, but this does not mean that the "American" who is protecting into neutral waters should be sunk
  14. Yura
    Yura 1 May 2012 11: 45
    +2
    Everything or almost everything can be done from the sky, and even more so from space, some funds are needed there for development, it may turn out that it will not be more expensive or maybe cheaper.
    1. st. michman
      st. michman 1 May 2012 13: 39
      +2
      You can do almost everything, would be a desire. And the amount of money spent is a figment of imagination, conscience and politics.
  15. Opertak
    Opertak 1 May 2012 13: 21
    -6
    The article is a typical example of outdated thinking. AUG in general have nothing to do with the modern WAR. This means peacetime (political pressure on underdeveloped countries) and for military conflicts of low intensity with a knowingly weaker enemy. In the event of a military conflict between Russia and the USA, where will the ACG be? In the hollow! Those. just do not go to sea, because if an American aircraft carrier suddenly literally evaporates in neutral along with all escort ships, this WILL NOT be a serious reason for retaliating against the TERRITORY of Russia.

    The world is on the verge of qualitative changes in military affairs and this is not associated with missiles, tanks or, especially, AUGs, but with the development of means for practically instant delivery of personnel to anywhere in the world. Purely for example: one North Korean special forces battalion, suddenly found in Washington, will tear America to pieces. These are not fantasies, these are the results of a situational simulation by the Americans after 10 (13?) DPRK Special Forces almost WITHOUT WEAPONS, without any military equipment, reinforcement and support, practically seized the palace of the President of South Korea, which at that time was better protected than the White House .
    1. Ares
      Ares 1 May 2012 14: 33
      +1
      Quote: OperTak
      The world is on the verge of qualitative changes in military affairs and this is not associated with missiles, tanks or, especially, AUGs, but with the development of means for practically instant delivery of personnel to anywhere in the world. Purely for example: one North Korean special forces battalion, suddenly found in Washington, will tear America to pieces. These are not fantasies, these are the results of a situational simulation by the Americans after 10 (13?) DPRK Special Forces almost WITHOUT WEAPONS, without any military equipment, reinforcement and support, practically seized the palace of the President of South Korea, which at that time was better protected than the White House .


      This is apparently a joke like this?) Why are people naive)
      1. Opertak
        Opertak 2 May 2012 19: 41
        0
        Quote: Ares
        This is apparently a joke like this?) Why are people naive)


        Naive is the one who did not understand what I wrote. Either he is an enemy of Russia, judging by the gray corporal’s tag :))
        1. Ares
          Ares 2 May 2012 19: 59
          +1
          Quote: OperTak
          Either he is an enemy of Russia, judging by the gray corporal’s tag :))


          The definition of the enemy of Russia now corresponds to the color of the virtual tag on the forum. Not surprisingly, this thought is not disfigured by intellect just as much as the last post about teleporting the omnipotent North Korean special forces battalion, which will smash the whole of America.
  16. Commodus
    Commodus 1 May 2012 14: 27
    +3
    I wonder why, instead of creating a specialized arsenal ship, not to use the existing bulk carriers and tankers. In full disguise, hiding behind that this is a peaceful transport, the ship sneaks up to the coast. And in fact. Instead of ordinary shipping containers, it has cruise missiles. Moreover, containers with missiles can be installed on any flat surface, including on land. The crew simply brings the ship to the launch zone. The top cover slides apart, the rocket rises to a vertical position. Senior ships provide target designation. After that, having received confirmation of the command to start, the missiles strike at the enemy's coastal targets, the crew of the "peaceful tanker" leaves the ship and or begins to withdraw it from the retaliatory strike zone. Although even this is not necessary after the launch of all missiles, the ship is a dummy.
    Doesn’t work either?
    1. Santa Fe
      1 May 2012 16: 57
      +1
      Quote: Commodus
      Doesn’t work either?


      It won’t work. Each rocket costs 1,5 million dollars - a little expensive
    2. Aeneas
      Aeneas 1 May 2012 21: 17
      +1
      I agree that an arsenal ship can be rather created on the basis of "peaceful ships". But the “secretive” approach scenario is not justified. the enemy will be "on the lookout" and will not allow you to approach or will keep "at gunpoint". Therefore, the arsenal ship must reliably provide air defense, anti-aircraft defense, missile defense, with the help of ships of the order. Well, or strike at a distance (Tomahawks have a long range), although again it is necessary to cover, but with smaller forces from more obvious threats.
  17. M. Peter
    M. Peter 1 May 2012 14: 30
    +2
    Our fleet (s) needs an aircraft carrier for anyone.
    Air support for ships, what is an example of outdated thinking? No. With the United States, we have a difference in approach to aircraft carriers. They have this main weapon of the fleet, while our aircraft carrier is a shield for all missile carriers, both underwater and surface.
    1. Nickname
      Nickname 1 May 2012 20: 42
      +2
      Need of course!
      Vysotsky admits this too. In the summer they promise to resume regular patrolling of SSBNs after 20 years of "rest" and here you like it or not, escorts will be needed in the ocean. Well, we'll take a look.
  18. anti-communist
    anti-communist 1 May 2012 17: 36
    0
    interesting, but can the APL-941 be modernized for this project? I ask the experts.
  19. SAVA555.IVANOV
    SAVA555.IVANOV 1 May 2012 18: 16
    +2
    Let's dream !? And if you invent a rocket that will not immediately shoot down the plane, but some part will separate and "stick" to the plane and fly with it to the aircraft carrier and explode there at a full stop, we will clog the deck, we will disable specialists, they will wait with horror return of planes.
    The world does not stand still, but we will take a quick wit yes )))
  20. pinachet
    pinachet 1 May 2012 19: 49
    0
    Here is the coast of Saudi Arabia. At an altitude of 20 meters at a speed of 880 km / h, the Tomahawks enter the first correction area. Airborne radars come to life, kamikaze robots verify the received data with the satellite “pictures” of the underlying relief embedded in their memory

    and if our fighters change their terrain overnight?)) will the missiles fly back))?
  21. vlakprof
    vlakprof 1 May 2012 20: 00
    +1
    The calculation of profitability in comparing cr and aircraft is very incorrect.
    It is necessary to compare the price of the rocket + carrier consumption with the integrated price of bomb + capitalization of the aircraft + aircraft carrier at the time of the bomb drop.
    On airbase, someone has already compared.
    It turned out - a cruise missile is half the price.
  22. Aeneas
    Aeneas 1 May 2012 21: 07
    +1
    The arsenal ship has unbalanced armament. In fact, it is a barge with expensive rocket armament, which at any moment threatens to turn into a box with firecrackers from one torpedo, "flying" missile or bomb. This expensive barge will also need a warrant no less than an aircraft carrier because it will be a priority target. The aircraft carrier is of course more balanced and more flexible thanks to its aircraft component. Maybe someday the arsenals will be useful for very important, but local tasks. It's like in the Second World War there were escort aircraft carriers, ships of the Liberty class, tank-landing ships ... Rather, a former tanker or another type of peacetime ship will be converted into an arsenal ship.
  23. kagorta
    kagorta 1 May 2012 21: 54
    0
    We have already invented everything - a container ship with clubs. And no warrant needed.
  24. Aeneas
    Aeneas 1 May 2012 22: 13
    0
    Quote: kagorta
    We have already invented everything - a container ship with clubs. And no warrant needed.
    The club is not a cheap rocket and the container ship is a very contrasting target. Here is something smaller, some fishing seiner with a kamikaze crew, that’s it!
    1. kagorta
      kagorta 1 May 2012 22: 45
      +1
      And understand this is a peaceful container ship, or a container ship with clubs. Until he fired.
  25. Per se.
    Per se. 1 May 2012 22: 22
    +4
    Intertwined in the article, the ship-arsenal, the aircraft carrier, and, apotheosis - "Russian way", as a summing up. In general, "arsenal" means a warehouse of weapons and ammunition, speaking of an arsenal ship, we get something over which the author of the article is not a sin to be ironic, namely, a floating "powder keg", an expensive thin-walled barge with explosives. So the idea of ​​a powerful missile ship turns into a laughing stock, but in vain, a missile battleship may still be in demand as artillery ammunition and missile weapons develop. Another topic, painful and popular, is why Russia needs aircraft carriers. Finally, we must understand once and for all that an aircraft carrier is not an end in itself, we need aviation over the sea, which is achieved by the “long arms” of the aircraft carrier, its planes. The opponents of aircraft carriers are opponents of naval aviation, opponents of military-technical progress. The "Russian way" in the article is, in fact, a verdict-a mockery of the Russian ocean-going fleet, with the "iron" logic that if Russia cannot build more aircraft carriers than the United States, there is no need to build them. We won't build more destroyers with frigates than the States, so we won't have them either? Whether the Russians want war, or no, they don't want to, but if you want peace, get ready for war, and you don't need to muddy the waters with the uselessness of powerful missile ships and aircraft carriers for the Russian fleet. The fleet must be full-fledged, the avaricious pays twice for the "EXPENSIVE", and who does not want to support his army, will, as you know, support and feed someone else's. Russia is a rich country, the dohara of billionaires has grown divorced, they need to save on them, and not on the army and navy.
  26. drago36
    drago36 2 May 2012 14: 22
    +3
    According to the Jesuit plan of its creators, the most important and expensive element of the “arsenal ship” is its missile weapon. As soon as the ship shoots its entire ammunition “Tomahawks”, it loses combat value, turning into a self-propelled barge, which makes its subsequent destruction meaningless for the enemy. Ingenious?
    This part just killed, no one will drown him, they will not wait until it is recharged and will sail back)))
  27. denkastro
    denkastro 2 May 2012 14: 45
    +2
    If the amers, along with their henchmen, could divide Russia, they would have already done it. They don’t have such an opportunity and are unlikely to have it. And our allies (army and navy) have a big bone in their throat. And it’s good that this bone gaining weight and strength.
    1. Tram boom
      Tram boom 3 May 2012 00: 13
      -2
      Quote: denkastro
      And our allies (army and navy) they have a big bone in their throats


      I think, after all, oil and gas. Europeans themselves do not want to hunch back at the Nefteyugansk mines. The current state of affairs suits everyone.
      The merger of capital and production is the main guarantee of security in the modern world.


      Quote: denkastro
      and fleet) they have a big bone in their throats

      laughing
      The army still went wherever the fleet laughing
      The Russian fleet never posed a threat to anyone, our sailors only knew how to sink to the bottom with honor
      laughing
      1. zardoz
        zardoz 3 May 2012 22: 11
        0
        http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0
        %BE%D0%B5_%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5
  28. 8 company
    8 company 2 May 2012 19: 05
    +2
    Thanks to the author for an interesting article. Amer, of course, control the oceans. Given their enormous external debt, such costs withstand Pts. heavy. Let's hope that sooner or later they will collapse under the weight of their problems, because no empire lasts long.
  29. oksana212
    oksana212 3 May 2012 02: 45
    0
    National data search open. Allows you to learn everything about any person. Do not hesitate here you will find any information that you want to find about any person.
    http://russweb-ru.com/nations/?rid=61477&c=10
  30. denkastro
    denkastro 3 May 2012 12: 19
    +1
    Quote: Tram Ham
    The Russian fleet never posed a threat to anyone, our sailors only knew how to sink to the bottom with honor
    , A dumb, stupid troll is all that you can think about. I will never comment on you again. To communicate with you is like a poop.
  31. 755962
    755962 3 May 2012 20: 44
    +3
    One thing is clear! We need to build a powerful Ocean Fleet! And thank God that the Fleet began to be reborn in spite of spiteful critics and unbelievers!
  32. saw486
    saw486 11 March 2014 11: 31
    0
    If the arsenals are not profitable, why do ours want to create an arsenal ship on the Kirov base ?!