Military Review

Triumph of deck aircraft in the sky of Vietnam

96



Questions about applying deck aviation USA in Vietnam (with answers).

The number of aircraft carriers taking part in the fighting? (Answer - 17 aircraft carriers).

The number of combat trips carrier strike groups to the shores of Vietnam? (Answer - 66 Battle Trips).

The total number of days spent by aircraft carriers at the position of “Yankee”? (Answer - 9178 days).

What is the position of “Yankee”? (The answer - the area of ​​military maneuvering American AUG off the coast of Vietnam, also known as the “Tonkin Yacht Club”).

Triumph of deck aircraft in the sky of Vietnam


Which of the aircraft carriers made the greatest contribution to the victory over the enemy? (The answer - the largest contribution was made by the nuclear power plant “Enterprise”, which made six combat trips. During that time, its air wing performed 39 thous. Sorties and threw thousands of tons of ammunition on Vietnamese 30 heads).

The value of carrier-based aviation in Vietnam? (The answer is a key element fleetable to independently solve any range of tasks, including strategic ones).

What is behind the abbreviation TF 77?

77 th operative connection (Task Force 77) - formerly designation of a carrier strike connection in the US Seventh Fleet (the fleet’s area of ​​responsibility is the entire western Pacific Ocean and the eastern Indian Ocean). Unlike domestic practice, where every warship is permanently part of a particular fleet or flotilla, the American Seventh Fleet exists only on paper: any ship that crosses the X longw long meridian of the western longitude is automatically included in its composition. If we are talking about the carrier strike group, the commander of the AUG is appointed to the post of commander of the Seventh Fleet.

In an effort to perpetuate the memory of the feats of naval aviation, the Americans after the war hastily renamed the 77 th operational connection to Guards 70 So that no one has any associations with heroes who threw bombs on Hanoi.

But these are all general comments. What were the details?

Let me quote the facts and excerpts from the chapter “US Navy Participation in the Vietnam War” (by V. Dotsenko), which describe the details of the organization and combat work of the 77 operational connection.


Ships 77-th operational connection, 1965 g.


To the solution of the tasks of destroying ground-based military and industrial facilities of the DRV, the Americans attracted considerable fleet forces. As part of the 77 th operational connection, there were constantly from 1 to 5 aircraft carriers with powerful escort, which included up to 5 missile cruisers, up to 15 squadron destroyers and frigates.

Despite the lack of opposition at sea, the American command carried out a full range of measures for the organization of all types of AUG defense. Middle order of protection, consisted of cruisers, destroyers and frigates that accompanied the aircraft carrier at a distance 20 - 30 cab. Airborne early warning aircraft patrolled around the clock, cover fighters on duty, either in the air or on the catapults in full readiness. The PLO was assigned to a specially organized anti-submarine search and strike group, incl. planes of the basic patrol aviation "Orion" and "Neptune" patrolling in the near and far zones.

The average duration of the presence of aircraft carriers in the 7 fleet left 175 — 250 days, including 5 — 6 exits to the combat zone for a maximum of 24 hours 50. The time spent by aircraft carriers in the combat maneuvering area was 108 — 136 days, the transitions were spent on average up to 45 days, and on parking in bases — up to 60 days. The current repair and combat training took on average from 170 to 210 days. The transfer of aircraft carriers from the US west coast to the operating zone of the 7 fleet occupied 14 days, and from the east - twice as long.

While staying in the combat maneuvering area, each aircraft carrier continuously participated in combat operations for one to two weeks, after which a day was provided for the rest of personnel and the repair of aircraft. When they were in the 3 area of ​​aircraft carriers, one of them, as a rule, was in reserve, with the other two aircraft operating an average of 12 hours per day.

The combat maneuvering area (“Yank”) of the forces of the 77 operational link from February 1965 to January 1973 was located in the Gulf of Tonkin. Its dimensions were 140x160 miles, and the distance from the coastline was 40 - 80 miles (the far edge - on 100 - 120 miles). Each of the carrier strike groups had its own subdistrict. Within this region, replenishment points were assigned, where one of the service connection groups, or the so-called “floating rear,” was constantly located. American aviation operated at distances of 200 - 650 km from the center of the combat maneuvering area (the front of the strikes reached 400 - 650 km).

The composition of the 77 aviation operational connection is estimated as follows: if aircraft carriers were present at the 2 position, 152 - 166 aircraft could take part in the combat operations (including 86 - 96 attack aircraft, 48 fighters); with 3 - 240 - 250 (including 130 — 150 attack aircraft, 72 — 84 fighter); with 4 - 312 - 324 (including 166 — 184 attack aircraft, 96 fighters). The change in the size of the wing was significantly influenced by the Vietnamese air defense system.

In total, during the war, the aircraft carriers of the 77 operational connection lost 860 aircraft (the main reason was the loss of combat).

Deck aircraft used with high voltage. In 1966, the 1 carried out an average 111 sorties per day from an aircraft carrier with 2, and from 178 1969. In 178, these numbers were 311 and 1972, and in 132, 233 and 1,2, respectively. At the same time, combat tense aviation was: for attack aircraft — 1,3 — 0,5 sorties per day; for fighters - 0,9 — 1,43; for EW aircraft - 1,7 — 1,25; for DRLO airplanes - 1,5 — 0,58; for reconnaissance aircraft - 0,83 — XNUMX.

From myself, I note that in the above figures there is a logical inconsistency. With two attack aircraft carriers on the position (86-96 attack aircraft, 48 fighter aircraft) and the specified combat use intensity (1,2-1,3 departure per day for attack aircraft, 0,5-0,9 for fighter aircraft), the 200-300 daily flight rate cannot be obtained. The actions of the REB, DRLO and reconnaissance aircraft can be neglected in the calculation due to their relatively small number.

In general, the indicated average (!) Number of sorties (178 from one AV per day, and more than 300 from two AV) causes great distrust.

A significant role was played by the emergence of new types of aircraft. By the time the war began (1965), two new aircraft were adopted by the navy, which significantly expanded the scope of carrier-based aircraft. We are talking about the E-2 “Hokai” long-range radar detection aircraft (replaced the outdated E-1 “Tracker” DRLO E-6) and the all-weather attack aircraft A-XNUMX “Intruder”, which, despite sluggish LTX, had an important advantage: it was able to act in the dark.

The attack aircraft was equipped with DIANE sighting and navigation system, consisting of two radars. The search radar provided tracking and attack of ground targets in any weather conditions. The second (navigation) radar served for automatic tracking of point targets and terrain mapping.

His one aircraft development during the Vietnam War was the light-carrier attack aircraft A-7 “Corsair II”. Created on the basis of and externally little different from the F-8 Fighter "Kruseyder", the new widow attack aircraft surpassed the outdated SkyHawk A-4.


Battle formation of US Navy carrier when attacking ground targets


Powerful warships, the most modern aircraft, well-thought-out measures to organize defense and attack in any conditions. Sophisticated tactics when attacking ground targets. High precision weapon air-to-surface.

The American plan of attack on Vietnam had 100 advantages, and only one drawback. He flew to hell.

* * *


As we already know, deck aircraft is a unique fleet instrument capable of solving strategic tasks. Before you take this statement for truth, let me know the size of Vietnam. (The answer is that the area of ​​Vietnam is 2% of the area of ​​the Russian Federation).

When do Americans celebrate the day of victory over Vietnam? (The answer is never; the war was lost).

Then how are the statements about the “strategic nature” of the carrier groups and the shameful loss of a local war connected? (The answer is no. Two dozen AUGs couldn’t do anything with a country the size of Tomsk Oblast).

Having tied up the abyss with the height
The triumph of victories with the shame of defeats ...


Well, let's continue our acquaintance with little-known facts about the Vietnam War.

Who and where did the main blows to Vietnam come from? (The answer - the main part of the American tactical aviation was located at the air bases of Korat, Takli, Udon Tani and Ubon in the territory of nearby Thailand).

What airbases were used directly on the territory of Vietnam? (The answer is that the most famous were Saigon International Airport (Tan Son Nat) and the Cam Ranh airfield, later transferred to the USSR and turned into a Soviet outpost in Southeast Asia).

Where did strategic bombers B-52 fly from? (The answer is that part of the strategists was located at U-Tapao airbase in Thailand, the other part operated from the base on Guam).

The main type of strike aircraft that performed the 75% strike missions in the initial period of the war? (The answer is F-105 “Thunderchief”).


Elements of the onboard electronic equipment of the Thunderchiff fighter-bomber (beginning of the 60-ies)


Due to the high LTH and exceptional capabilities of their on-board electronic complex (NASARR), capable of directing the aircraft at a target in any conditions and flying at an ultra-low altitude, automatically distinguishing the features of the terrain, determining the slant distance to the selected point and signaling obstacles along the course, used to attack the most important and well-protected targets. Among them are the main tank farm in the suburb of Hanoi, the metallurgical plant in Taynguyen, the railway bridge across the Red River on the border with China, the Katbi airfield where the helicopters delivered from the USSR were assembled, the main "MiGs lair" - Fukyen airbase.

The intensity of the use and role of the US Air Force in the Vietnam War is eloquently shown by the loss: 2197 of the aircraft that did not return.

The air force bore the brunt of the air battles and executed 2 / 3 sorties in that war. In absolute terms, about a million sorties, twice as many as the wings of all AUGs made during sixty-six combat trips to the coast of Vietnam.

Fans of carrier-based aviation will rightly note that this structure did make a significant contribution to the war. At the same time, they themselves are not amused because:

a) 17 aircraft carriers “blown” war with a tiny coastal country;

b) it turned out that even in a war with a tiny coastal country I had to completely rely on classical air forces.

Such is the natural ending of the epic with deck aircraft and fleet attempts to declare itself in the sky over land.



The article used materials from the book V.D. Dotsenko “Fleets in local conflicts of the second half of the twentieth century”.
Author:
96 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 18 May 2018 05: 12
    +13
    It is strange to attribute defeat in war only to carrier-based aviation. As far as I remember in the victory over Iraq in 1991, Oleg Deck Aviation refused, but on the contrary, it looks bad.
    The reason for the defeat of the United States is the rejection of a ground operation against northern Vietnam, nothing more. What is the point of destroying the enemy’s resources if this is not followed by the capture of remnants and the establishment of control over the border? If the enemy ally makes up for losses while maintaining potential?
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 05: 43
      +2
      probably the Chinese gifts in Korea were remembered well, in which case they would have left Saigon even faster and the author is wrong, from one Danang Air Force (without Thai and other South Vietnamese bases) flew 10-20 times more per day than naval aviation
    2. Santa Fe
      18 May 2018 05: 52
      +9
      Show at least one local conflict in which US carrier-based aircraft played a prominent role.

      This article sorted out Vietnam, it turned out really ugly. If supporters of AUG say that they have played a prominent role, then it will be a disgrace - they have lost the war.

      Ps The enemy turned out to be an ally, and that’s it, 20 aug is no longer good for anything))) haha
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 18 May 2018 08: 41
        +4
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Show at least one local conflict in which US carrier-based aircraft played a prominent role.

        From how it is. You can also continue, "Show at least one local conflict in which the US nuclear submarines played a prominent role"
        The submarine of the United States participated in many local conflicts, but the pancake did not play a significant role, under the knife of them?
        Probably not, because they played an auxiliary role, like aircraft carriers. But that does not make them useless.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 May 2018 09: 17
          +3
          Quote: Puncher
          The submarine of the United States participated in many local conflicts, but the pancake did not play a significant role, under the knife of them?

          US submarine fleet did not participate in any maritime conflict since the end of WWII

          if you are talking about using the Tomahawk CRDB from submarines, these are optional tasks. submarines are always positioned as pure naval weapons

          Ochichie from AB, which "project force" on other countries (in fact - impotence)
          1. YELLOWSTONE
            YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 20: 56
            0
            tomahawks from boats allowed
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2018 10: 52
        +11
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Show at least one local conflict in which US carrier-based aircraft played a prominent role.

        Almost everything - Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc.
        Quote: Santa Fe
        This article sorted out Vietnam, it turned out really ugly. If supporters of AUG say that they have played a prominent role, then it will be a disgrace - they have lost the war.

        Do not “be led” not by the “logic” of Oleg - in this way you can "justify" the unnecessaryness of any kind of troops. Germany built more than 1000 submarines, they inflicted serious blows, but Germany lost the war - submarines are not needed. Iraq had thousands of tanks, but lost the war — no tanks needed, etc.
        As a matter of fact, Oleg again uses fraud:
        1) Aircraft carriers NEVER positioned themselves as a means of replacing the Air Force. Therefore, making round eyes (OH! And the Air Force made more sorties!) Is stupid. Aircraft carriers complement the Air Force.
        2) “17 aircraft carriers could not win the war in the Tomsk region, on their needles!” - this is Oleg’s slogan. At the same time, he himself showed that the Air Force did more than AUG. Accordingly, the slogan "the Air Force could not win the war in the Tomsk region, on their needles!" - even more legitimate, right? :)))))
        The message was initially incorrect - neither the AUG nor the Air Force alone won a land war. What does not make them useless
        1. Santa Fe
          18 May 2018 11: 20
          +2
          Andrew, answer the simple question - how many aug's military campaigns will be required for the destruction of the country's military and civilian infrastructure the size of Iran))

          Or is it easier - can the 1-2 of Nimitz (the news about the appearance of which in the Arabian Sea immediately becomes the one being discussed) cause any damage noticeable across the country
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 18 May 2018 11: 46
            +2
            Andrew, answer the simple question - how many aug's military campaigns will be required for the destruction of the country's military and civilian infrastructure the size of Iran))

            Are you tired of arguing with yourself?
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2018 14: 44
            +3
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Andrew, answer the simple question - how many aug's military campaigns will be required for the destruction of the country's military and civilian infrastructure the size of Iran))

            I'm tired of counting. Because “the entire warrior cavalry and the warrior’s army” of the multinational forces, for all the time “Storm in a Glass” didn’t even come close to the “destruction of the entire military and civilian infrastructure” of Iraq - the air force’s achievements of the leading world captains coupled with aircraft carrier aviation and the ILC much more modest.
            Therefore, excuse me, but your question is categorized as “Can Nimitz make an areological excavation on the Moon”. It is clear that it cannot, but what does this have to do with its combat effectiveness?
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Or is it easier - can the 1-2 of Nimitz (the news about the appearance of which in the Arabian Sea immediately becomes the one being discussed) cause any damage noticeable across the country

            Yes they can
        2. Santa Fe
          18 May 2018 11: 26
          +1
          German submarines inflicted many times greater damage to the Allies, exceeding the costs of their construction.

          The article is not so much about winning / losing. And about the situation when the invincible ages of eight years cannot bomb a tiny country. And in fact, it turns out that where even the air force cannot cope, there is nothing to catch deck aircraft

          17 aircraft carriers down the drain
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 18 May 2018 12: 59
            +11
            Carriers allow the United States to wage war not heroically defending its territory, but hundreds and thousands of kilometers from it.
            It is possible to build 100,000 S-500 systems. In three rows they poke all the borders along the perimeter of Russia. But they will not change the fact that it is a passive defense. Which is easy to break through because it is passive.
            And aircraft carriers are an active and flexible factor. And they are a hundred times more useful than missile defense, for example,
            1. CentDo
              CentDo 18 May 2018 14: 10
              +3
              Well, then why do you need the Iron Dome, David Sling, etc.? Is it a useless, passive defense that is easy to break through? When to wait for an Israeli aircraft carrier?
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 18 May 2018 18: 40
                +4
                Israel constantly and massively uses aviation, if you notice. This is an active factor. And air defense / missile defense - an appendage (which is really easy to break through, like any air defense).
                Carrier ships (with the F-35B, for example) would be useful, but finances do not allow.
                1. CentDo
                  CentDo 21 May 2018 10: 01
                  +1
                  No, dear, do not switch from aircraft carriers to the Air Force. Your phrase:
                  And aircraft carriers are an active and flexible factor. And they are a hundred times more useful than missile defense, for example,

                  So I ask, why does Israel spend money on developing air defense, instead of building an aircraft carrier? After all, will it be a hundred times more useful?
                  Israel constantly and massively uses aviation, if you notice. This is an active factor. And air defense / missile defense - an appendage (which is really easy to break through, like any air defense).

                  The same can be said of Russia, or do you think that in the event of an armed conflict, the aerospace forces will sit at airfields, and only air defense systems will work?
              2. YELLOWSTONE
                YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 19: 09
                +1
                they have a diaspora for this
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2018 14: 46
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            German submarines inflicted many times greater damage to the Allies, exceeding the costs of their construction.

            well, the multinational forces could not inflict "many times more damage than the costs of their construction" neither to Iraq nor Yugoslavia. AND?
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 18 May 2018 16: 46
              +1
              In LJ there was a discussion of the Battle of the Atlantic. The figures are such-the cost of construction of all German submarines is 2,76 billion dollars. The allies spent 26,4 billion dollars on the fight against them.
              But, as I understand it, the operational ones were not included in the assessment, for the training of crews, etc., the anti-aircraft defense forces were used, including against Italy and Japan, and they could be used also against surface forces.
              Well, the goals, someone fulfilled, but someone did not.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2018 17: 36
                0
                Quote: strannik1985
                In LJ there was a discussion of the Battle of the Atlantic. The figures are such-the cost of construction of all German submarines is 2,76 billion dollars. The allies spent 26,4 billion dollars on the fight against them.

                It’s even scary to imagine who counted and how.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 18 May 2018 20: 17
                  0
                  Why not, because in their number and AVE probably counted, but where they just did not use. Yes, and in the Pacific Fleet PLO actively fought.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 May 2018 23: 57
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Why not, because in their number and AVE probably considered

                    So what? They were worth a penny.
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 19 May 2018 08: 53
                      0
                      Maybe, no matter how much I was looking for a calculation method, I could not find it.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 May 2018 16: 27
                        0
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Maybe, no matter how much I was looking for a calculation method, I could not find it.

                        Everything is very simple - the actual cost of the seven destroyers was 22-30 million rubles, submarines - 10-22 million rubles. That is, roughly instead of one 1 full-fledged destroyer, it was possible to build 2 -3 boats maximum. It is clear that all kinds of corvettes there were much cheaper than the destroyer. AVEs did not cost much, they were generally riveted almost by the standards of the merchant fleet.
                        Well, in Germany more than 1000 boats were built. This is not counting the titanic efforts to preserve them (concrete bomb shelters alone are worth what). How, well, HOW did you manage to calculate ten times the amount for PLO costs? :))))) I understand that this is not a question for you, you didn’t consider it.
        3. tchoni
          tchoni 18 May 2018 14: 03
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: Santa Fe
          Show at least one local conflict in which US carrier-based aircraft played a prominent role.

          Almost everything - Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc.
          Quote: Santa Fe
          This article sorted out Vietnam, it turned out really ugly. If supporters of AUG say that they have played a prominent role, then it will be a disgrace - they have lost the war.

          Do not “be led” not by the “logic” of Oleg - in this way you can "justify" the unnecessaryness of any kind of troops. Germany built more than 1000 submarines, they inflicted serious blows, but Germany lost the war - submarines are not needed. Iraq had thousands of tanks, but lost the war — no tanks needed, etc.
          As a matter of fact, Oleg again uses fraud:
          1) Aircraft carriers NEVER positioned themselves as a means of replacing the Air Force. Therefore, making round eyes (OH! And the Air Force made more sorties!) Is stupid. Aircraft carriers complement the Air Force.
          2) “17 aircraft carriers could not win the war in the Tomsk region, on their needles!” - this is Oleg’s slogan. At the same time, he himself showed that the Air Force did more than AUG. Accordingly, the slogan "the Air Force could not win the war in the Tomsk region, on their needles!" - even more legitimate, right? :)))))
          The message was initially incorrect - neither the AUG nor the Air Force alone won a land war. What does not make them useless

          I applaud standing to this comment!
  2. demiurg
    demiurg 18 May 2018 05: 20
    +6
    That's right, aircraft carriers are unnecessary. It was necessary to roll out to the coast of Iowa and Des Moines. They have both armor and large, no huge trunks (a joke of humor).
    But at the same time, Vietnam did not even try to attack the AUG, as all the DRV Air Force didn’t have a half chance of a successful attack, or rather the chances were possible, but the losses would exceed all possible profits. A PL AUG performed ground-based aircraft.
    Any fleet needs aircraft carriers; they complement and expand its capabilities. We just made a fetish from an aircraft carrier. Right now, the Russian Federation in the fleet has several much more important problems, these are ships of the first and second rank, and the submarine fleet.
    By the way, why exactly did carrier-based aviation have to win? With the same success, strategic aviation proved to be useless. The Americans used everything that was possible to use. They gained invaluable experience, nearly burned the poor fellow Forrestal, and again McCain was held captive by the Vietnamese, so that their brains in the left hemisphere would not soar the rest of them.
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 18 May 2018 05: 46
      +6
      Quote: demiurg
      Any fleet needs aircraft carriers

      Opponents of aircraft carriers forget that the sea is the same battlefield on which the side that has aviation takes precedence. After all, no one doubts the need for aviation on land, so why is it not needed at sea?
    2. aristok
      aristok 18 May 2018 12: 32
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      at the same time, Vietnam did not even try to attack the AUG, as all the DRV Air Force didn’t have a half chance of a successful attack, or rather the chances were possible, but the losses would exceed all possible profits.

      This applies even more to the US Air Force bases.
      So there is no plus to aircraft carriers from this argument.
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 19: 12
        0
        partisans attacked the bases, with an aircraft carrier it would be more difficult
  3. tasha
    tasha 18 May 2018 05: 21
    +3
    That's interesting.
    Oleg, you don’t know if there were attempts to attack the American strike groups, with what result or why didn’t you? There was nothing ( wink some Vietnamese submarine and its commander Mor Kow Kin?) or some political considerations?
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 05: 52
      +2
      The USSR, while providing military assistance to North Vietnam, directly forbade this, they said there would be even more escalation, all the same, almost all the raids were not from ships
      Americans in response to this were rarely allowed to attack areas with the S-75
      at the Pleiku airbase, Vietcong frolic
  4. strannik1985
    strannik1985 18 May 2018 06: 36
    +8
    a) 17 aircraft carriers “blown” war with a tiny coastal country;

    You give 100500 comments under the next article with distortions.
    In Vietnam there was a local conflict of low intensity, the reason for the defeat was that the armed forces could not isolate the theater of operations from the enemy, following this logic, everyone in the Vietnam War lost the war, including the Army, Air Force, and Navy. In the same way, the USSR lost the war in Afghanistan. It follows from this that the ground forces and the air force are untenable? No, just like aircraft carriers.
    1. Soho
      Soho 18 May 2018 12: 49
      0
      In the same way, the USSR lost the war in Afghanistan.

      what nonsense. The USSR did not set itself any tasks for victory in the war. We performed specific tasks there, most often related to the protection of communications and individual nodes located in the NP. As well as the suppression of arms supplies. Military operations were not total, but rather organized in response to the too arrogant behavior of the gangs in certain areas.
      1. Bad thing
        Bad thing 18 May 2018 15: 06
        +3
        He himself understood what he wrote, tell the mothers of the deceased that the task was not so. Just introducing troops to the Politburo did not know what to do next, what tasks to set, and it seemed a shame to leave. In the meantime, all the "progressive mankind" rendered assistance to the Mujahideen, and we regularly raked there, when a little bit, and when very seriously. But it could be the other way around, the Americans would have entered there (as they said at the time of the deployment of the INF), or some other NATO, and the USSR would have helped the Afghan people in the fight against the invaders. the result is about the same, only the corpses of others.
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 19: 14
          0
          most of all the Chinese provided
          1. Bad thing
            Bad thing 25 May 2018 13: 13
            0
            Chinese there was about the packs.
            1. YELLOWSTONE
              YELLOWSTONE 25 May 2018 14: 13
              0
              directly too
        2. Soho
          Soho 21 May 2018 06: 47
          0
          Plohish (Vladimir) May 18, 2018 15:06
          He himself understood what he wrote, tell the mothers of the deceased that the task was not so


          unlike sofa experts like you, I served there from 1986 to 1987, until I was seriously injured. After which he served in the Union.
          we raked there regularly, when a little bit, and when very seriously

          who you are? What is the military unit in which they served, the term of service and the full name of the commander of the unit. And then we’ll discuss your “constantly raking”. Another balabol turned up
      2. Tomato
        Tomato 21 May 2018 23: 15
        +1
        Dear, esteemed friend.
        Do not listen to your opponents. They are just jealous. You have made a revolution in military science. You are a GREAT strategist. All the well-known commanders whom we previously admired earlier, against YOUR background, are simply miserable, empty pawns.
        To start a war without setting any tasks is, without a doubt, a brilliant solution.
        Do you hear the roar? These are textbooks thrown from military academies around the world. They are hopelessly outdated.
        1. Soho
          Soho 22 May 2018 07: 59
          +1
          Do not puff, squeezing out sarcasm. It seems more stupid to you. Military operations have a different purpose and purpose. For example, a humanitarian operation. A limited contingent for a local operation is being introduced into a country covered by civil war - ensuring the delivery and preservation of humanitarian supplies, the protection of civilian humanitarian missions, and ensuring the safety of civilians. Now try to think with what you usually think there (or think what you think): this contingent is not tasked with conducting large-scale military operations until a victorious victory over one of the parties. Further, the contingent in the DRA was not tasked with defeating the war. The main task of the limited contingent in the DRA (I hope the phrase "limited contingent" at least says something to you) was to support the regime of Najibula. At the time of entry, this support consisted of monitoring large cities, protecting the locations of Soviet troops and infrastructure, supporting the DRA army and training, guarding communications and caravans with cargo. And measures to prevent arms traffic from Pakistan and Iran. It was assumed that the main burden of the clashes would fall on the green. And even at the height of the war, for example, in 1984-85, the main hostilities were fought by special forces. Large-scale military operations were carried out infrequently and had a specific goal - the defeat of large basmachi support centers. And only after the hopes that the Afghan army itself would pull out the war did not materialize, and local measures could not ensure the security of our deployments and commutations, the 40th army began to draw more and more into the war.
          So the next time you try to learn to read and comprehend what you read before trying to show off supposedly wit
          1. Tomato
            Tomato 22 May 2018 08: 47
            +1
            Sorry, I didn’t read it. "Limited contingent" - from the same series as the "liberation campaign." There are real goals, but there are "for the general public." The second is not interesting.
  5. sevtrash
    sevtrash 18 May 2018 06: 40
    +1
    Having presented and compared the sizes, equipment, maintenance personnel, the possible composition of the ground-based air base of the Air Force and the aircraft carrier, of course you will conclude that the first is great. Except for the main quality of an aircraft carrier - its mobility.
  6. ICT
    ICT 18 May 2018 07: 08
    0
    Which of the aircraft carriers made the greatest contribution to the victory over the enemy


    did I miss something ?
  7. Alex_59
    Alex_59 18 May 2018 07: 42
    +3
    Then how are the statements about the “strategic nature” of the carrier groupings and the shameful loss in a local war connected? (The answer is no. Two dozen AUGs could not do anything with a country the size of the Tomsk region).

    Two dozen AUGs could not do anything with a country the size of the Tomsk region? What, what, excuse me ??? Monsieur Oleg! Have mercy, but with the country the size of the Tomsk region, the US Air Force could not do anything either! Gosh, this is an epic fail!
    Given that the ground forces put in a lot of effort, puffed, tried, even connected the B-52 strategists, and the result, as it were, was the same - defeat in the war. In short, with such a system of logic and arguments, I would first write off all US ground aviation (including all strategic), and with it the marine corps and ground army. Because they all could not do anything with a country the size of the Tomsk region! ))))))))))))))))))))
    The air force bore the brunt of the air battles and executed 2 / 3 sorties in that war. In absolute terms, about a million sorties, twice as many as the wings of all AUGs made during sixty-six combat trips to the coast of Vietnam.

    - I went to the Chongar gat twice! With music!
    - Yes, all the provinces spit on your music!
    )))))))))))))))))))))
    1. Santa Fe
      18 May 2018 08: 20
      +4
      Alex is emotional as always, but couldn’t consider the essence

      It's simple: Any news about the aircraft carrier - bestseller, the media and the public admire the power of aircraft carrier connections and discuss ways to combat this terrible threat. Even in the book presented here by the distinguished V. Dotsenko it is written about solving their strategic tasks.

      What do we actually have? 17 AUGAM It took 8 years to pat the infrastructure of a small country. In reality, it is still more sad - to independently slap Vietnam with the same result, they would need 20 years, the benefit of the Air Force intervened and took on the bulk of the tasks.

      It’s not hard to imagine how long it will take to break up military and civilian objects somewhere in Iran. Nimitsev will take forever

      And after that - so much attention is paid to the aircraft carrier theme ... the ability to solve strategic problems ... It seems ridiculous to me and I always get the hang of AUG lovers
      ____________________
      that before losing the war, Vietnam has once again shown that aviation is not capable of using conventional weapons to break down and "bring to its knees" even a small backward country (of course, if its people are ready to fight the aggressor to death). And again, if thousands of Air Force aircraft failed to do this, what can hundreds of Navy aircraft hope for under such conditions? In my opinion, everything is too obvious
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 18 May 2018 08: 48
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Any news about an aircraft carrier - a bestseller, the media

        Oleg, if once they create an air base that can change its position in space, then journalists will also pay attention to it.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 May 2018 08: 59
          +4
          Quote: Puncher
          if once they create an air base that can change its position in space

          why change position in space if there are dozens in every country (there are hundreds in the norms of countries) of prepared airfields and airports

          Aviation can be quickly deployed to any part of the planet where everything is ready for it. Tested in practice a hundred times already
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 18 May 2018 09: 24
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Alex is emotional as always

        hi
        Quote: Santa Fe
        but could not consider the essence

        Oleg, as always, manipulates the content of the “essence” and monopolizes the right to decide what the “essence” is.
        The bottom line is that the war is lost. And this is an occasion to make complaints to those who made the greatest efforts to ensure that the defeat does not happen. In light of your logic, the Air Force has made the greatest effort. But the result is sad. I specifically write this to show the fallacy of such logic. Indeed, any type of armament can be pulled out of the context in this situation and declared that it is defective. Marines fought? And how! But the war is lost. So your marines aren't capable of anything, by your logic? This, in theory, should lead you to the idea that the matter is not in a specific type of armament or type of troops. That's all lost. There should be a suspicion that the problem is in the politics and strategy of warfare and some more global issues than the local weakness of aircraft carriers or someone else.
        But you painted so beautifully the efforts of ground aviation in contrast to deck aviation that you would think that the ground forces won the war. But this is not so. And this is even more shameful for the Air Force, because their efforts were even greater.
        Quote: Santa Fe
        It's simple: Any news about an aircraft carrier - a bestseller, the media and the public admire the power of aircraft carrier formations and discuss ways to deal with this terrible threat.
        Do not read the media. This is pulp fiction for housewives.
        Quote: Santa Fe
        What do we have in practice? 17 AUGs took 8 years to tear down the infrastructure of a small country.

        Yes, still worse. All the armed forces of the strongest country in the world took 8 years to ultimately lose the war in some Vietnam with shame.
        Quote: Santa Fe
        the ability to solve tasks of a strategic nature ... It seems ridiculous to me and I always joke on fans of AUG
        Duck from your text it turns out that B-52 is the same object for banter. Least. A strategic bomber was brought in to bomb a second-rate country the size of the Tomsk Region, and the result was a war lost. But you cite the efforts of the B-52 (among other things) as a counterbalance to the efforts of the decks. WTF ???? request
        At the same time, I do not really argue with the thesis that carrier-based aviation is weaker than land-based aircraft, and aircraft carriers are hardly capable of solving strategic tasks. This is all true. But the examples and logic used in your article to justify this thesis are simply none and rather prove not the weakness of deck aviation, but the weakness of ground aviation. Which, by the way, in the Vietnam War is not at all connected with technology and tactics, but rather with US strategies and policies.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 May 2018 09: 40
          +2
          By monopolizing the essence - there are objective factors. And I already brought them

          About Boulevard Pulp Fiction - monograph Dotsenko not Pulp Fiction.

          B-52 is nowhere to be an object for banter. The carrier of nuclear weapons. The fact that bombing by conventional bombs is ineffective is known from the 40's, the Yankees stepped on the old rake. By the way, by 1991 they realized this and began to behave differently

          wtf - I can explain again. There is a widespread view of the importance of AUG and their ability to project force onto any country. Vietnam showed that in 8 years of 17, augs failed to bomb the country's infrastructure with the size of 2% from the Russian Federation. Moreover, Vietnam has shown that such a task is beyond the power of even an order of magnitude more powerful air force. Therefore, a common opinion about the great abilities of AVs, their meaning and their fear of them is wrong

          What are still questions
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 18 May 2018 10: 00
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            What are still questions

            I didn’t have any, I said my opinion. An understanding of the essence is erroneous, logic and reasoning are doubtful. But aviks, yes, are not so cool as they are promoted.
            That's all I wanted to say. ))))
          2. strannik1985
            strannik1985 18 May 2018 10: 08
            +1
            Vietnam showed that for 8 years 17 augs failed to bomb the country's infrastructure with a size of 2% of the Russian Federation.

            He showed nothing. For a military victory in that war, the occupation of North Vietnam (or the isolation of South Vietnam by another method) was needed, and this action was limited by purely political reasons. Just like in Afghanistan, the combined efforts of the 40th army and the air force did not give the desired result, since they could not ensure isolation of the theater of arms from the supply of weapons, money, and militants.
      3. demiurg
        demiurg 18 May 2018 14: 42
        +2
        Do not forget, Vietnam had no problems with weapons, and with the training of specialists. Everything was imported quite officially and in any quantities needed.
        The most important example of Vietnam is that no superpower can capture a country supported by another superpower. And here it doesn’t matter how much aviation will be involved and where it will take off from an aircraft carrier or from a ground airfield. The second example is Syria. In Syria, even more clearly. Literally penny costs (a consolidated air regiment and an instructor + equipment from warehouses, which would never be returned to combat units), multibillion-dollar investments in barmalei of various stripes are neutralized.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 May 2018 08: 49
      +1
      Yes, in spite of the fact that most of the conquerors were recaptured and more bombs were poured than in WWII, however, it is not entirely clear where, to bomb the jungle a little, and still drain. And you did not make the right conclusion. And the correct conclusion is that several aircraft carriers and separate units of the marines are not able to solve any serious tasks, which means that if you really need to win, it will take much more effort than just "projecting force" by sending somewhere a couple of aircraft carriers.
      1. max702
        max702 18 May 2018 10: 49
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        And the correct conclusion is that several aircraft carriers and separate units of the marines are not able to solve any serious tasks, which means that if you really need to win, it will take much more effort than just "projecting force" by sending somewhere a couple of aircraft carriers.

        I completely agree! Oleg forgot to say such a thing, namely, the costs of creating and operating the AUG ... It is possible that if you hadn’t fooled around and used these funds for the classic Air Force, you would have received 3-4 more classical airplanes, and possibly with multiple by increasing the number of sorties, the goals of the war could be achieved .. I repeat I MAYBE it would be enough for Vietnam. And the conclusion is that AUG is expensive ineffective crap that does not have any real combat value, even in a low-intensity conflict ..
  8. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 18 May 2018 07: 44
    +3
    I heard such a tale: In a country friendly to the USSR, there was a “mess”: Tolley unworthy lackeys revolted, or the radish neighbors invaded .... in general, when it began to itch at the fifth point of the country's leadership, it turned to the Union .And then, by chance, near the coast of the country there was an aircraft carrier cruiser with Yak-38 vertical lines ... Well ... "An order was given: to him ..." - in general, they indicated where it should be ... As soon as the cruiser approached the coast, the hostilities on the coast near the capital ceased, and the hostile "lackeys-neighbors" hastily retired alis in the jungle on the farther from stolitsy.Takim way, "Soviet aircraft carrier" without a single takeoff Yak-38 (or .... ups ... still have no slaughter? what ... forgot!) saved the back of friendly leadership! What are you doing? Aircraft carriers suck; "verticals" th ..... garbage! stop
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 May 2018 08: 45
      +1
      Well, yes, there wouldn’t be enough destroyers with marines ...
      1. max702
        max702 18 May 2018 10: 54
        +1
        Quote: EvilLion
        Well, yes, there wouldn’t be enough destroyers with marines ...

        Nikolaevich I (Vladimir) forgot to say the most important thing whose flag was developing over these ships .. It seems to me that it was this factor that made the rebellious zusuls keep silent, and not the aircraft power of this compound ...
  9. parma
    parma 18 May 2018 08: 00
    +2
    The main reason for the defeat is that North Vietnam was able to inflict unacceptable damage on the USA, but the USA could not answer ... The reason is that the bombing of the territory of North Vietnam was not frequent and not total, and the material damage inflicted was immediately replenished by the allies in the USSR and China ...
    In other words, if the United States decided to occupy all of Vietnam, they would have won the war with a 90% probability (although they would have received partisanism, but of much lower intensity)
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 May 2018 08: 30
      +1
      They would still be sitting there, and maybe the USSR would laugh at them.
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 18 May 2018 16: 31
      +2
      Quote: parma
      the bombing of the territory of North Vietnam was not frequent and not total,

      And remind me how many combat “supermodern” (at that time, of course ...) planes were shot down over North Vietnam? And how many planes (in general, and B-52 in particular) took part in the last "Great Air Offensive" of the USA? How many planes were shot down then? How many B-52?
  10. Strashila
    Strashila 18 May 2018 08: 13
    +2
    After reading the article, you can actually get the answer ... why the USSR did not build aircraft carriers.
  11. EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 May 2018 08: 29
    +1
    And there, on land, half a million American men were in different infantry, artillery and rear. Did not help. As well as the presence of the whole of South Vietnam and its army.
    1. Santa Fe
      18 May 2018 08: 40
      +2
      Here it is not the victory / defeat itself that is important, but the damage done to Vietnam. 17 augs 8 for years dug into military and civilian sites in a small country And all the gouging could not

      So what should be the conclusion about the offensive capabilities of AUG, what they matter in a local war
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 18 May 2018 09: 58
        +1
        17 augs, 8 years, slaughtered military and civilian facilities in a small country

        Following your logic, the Air Force, which quantitatively and qualitatively, had been slaughtered for more than 8 years by military and civilian facilities in a small country and nothing came of it.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 May 2018 10: 12
          +2
          The ineffectiveness of air strikes using conventional bombs is known from the Second World War.

          Bomber aviation is rightly criticized for its low efficiency, which does not interfere with aircraft carrier lovers promoting their wunderwallers; in their opinion, one ship with several dozens of aircraft can represent significant power across the state. Oh well
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 18 May 2018 10: 33
            +1
            The ineffectiveness of air strikes using conventional bombs is known from the Second World War.

            Inefficiency regarding what? The theoretical possibility that a country can be defeated exclusively by bombing? Who claimed it and where?
            1. Santa Fe
              18 May 2018 10: 49
              +1
              From theorists - Giulio Due
              To develop the theory in practice tried the Yankees and the Angles
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 18 May 2018 10: 52
                +1
                Examples when "exclusively bombing" does not complicate?
                1. Santa Fe
                  18 May 2018 11: 10
                  +1
                  https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дуэ,_Джулио


                  https://vbulahtin.livejournal.com/1771986.html
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 18 May 2018 11: 25
                    +1
                    And where did you find examples here? Against Japan, North Vietnam fought solely by the Air Force / Navy?
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 18 May 2018 10: 34
        +3
        Quote: Santa Fe
        17 Augs 8 years hollowed military and civilian facilities in a small country. And all could not be gouging
        So what should be the conclusion about the offensive capabilities of AUG, what they matter in a local war

        The whole American army 8 years of hollowing and all the gouging could not. So what should be the conclusion about the offensive capabilities of the American army and what value do they have in the war? ))))))))
        1. Santa Fe
          18 May 2018 10: 57
          +1
          Quote: Alex_59

          The whole American army 8 years of hollowing and all the gouging could not. So what should be the conclusion about the offensive capabilities of the American army and what value do they have in the war? ))))))))

          Purely in military terms, there is no doubt: The United States could destroy Vietnam in a few days simply by killing the entire population of Yao.

          To establish control over the territory required other measures. The limited contingent and bombing with conventional bombs could not help.

          Ps. I’m more interested in the damage done to the country's infrastructure for 66 fighting campaigns aug
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 18 May 2018 11: 53
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The United States could destroy Vietnam in a few days, just by killing the entire population of yao

            For example, to fit one aircraft carrier and strike at major cities of North Vietnam with carrier-based nuclear bomb aircraft. Finally, no problem. )))))))))))
            By the way, Dotsenko himself wrote about this, pointing to the capabilities of carrier-based aviation to solve strategic problems. But some read it and do not catch up with what is written. )))))
            1. Santa Fe
              18 May 2018 18: 46
              +1
              Task for a boat with polaris

              When the Vigilant began to enter service, its main task was to deliver a nuclear weapon over a long distance. However, at this time, the deployment of nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles "Polaris" began, and the need for carrier-mounted nuclear weapons disappeared. When striking conventional free-fall bombs, the A-6 bomber Intruder was preferable to the Vigilant in terms of cost-effectiveness. The US Navy found that they got a very expensive aircraft (each car cost about 10 million dollars in 1960 prices), which was not used. As a result, in the 1963 year, the production of the bomber was discontinued. Under these conditions, the command of the Navy decided to turn A-5 into a long-range reconnaissance scout. The reconnaissance version of the RA-5C has been delivered to combat units since July 1963

              A-5 is the last carrier carrier of yao. However, it is difficult for amateurs to argue with the obvious
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 18 May 2018 11: 04
          +3
          It's good that the battleship came to the rescue am Fired thousands of shells, killed 157 Vietnamese! - still 6000-7000 years and would win the war yes
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 May 2018 10: 59
        +1
        In fact, they gouged absolutely everything that is larger than the workshop in the house. And the battle in the air was won simply because of the incommensurability of forces. Losses from MiGs and missiles did not seriously bother them. Here are just residents who were not spoiled by civilization before who were not afraid of the loss of infrastructure, weapons went through China. And they did not have contingents of infantry that could completely crush a small but densely populated country. To do this, it is estimated that 20-25 soldiers are needed for the 1000 population, for Iraq with 20 million people this gives 400-500k people in the occupying army, even more are needed for Vietnam, especially since the northerners with the help of the USSR and China were far from partisans with guns.
  12. antiexpert
    antiexpert 18 May 2018 08: 35
    +2
    “Americans are not at all capable of waging a great war. All their strength is in raids, the atomic bomb ... America cannot defeat little Korea. They hope for an atomic bomb, air raids. But this does not win the war. We need infantry, but they have few infantry and it is weak. They are fighting a small country, but in the USA they are already crying. What will happen if they start a big war? Then, perhaps, everyone will cry. "
    © 1950 Son of the washerwoman and shoemaker, simple Georgian man Joseph)))
  13. EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 May 2018 08: 55
    +1
    Oleg, you’re mocking me rightly, but the people completely did not understand you. It doesn’t reach him that a serious military operation requires the use of a huge number of ground forces, and the theoretical possibility of building another couple of “Kuz” and tearing an aircraft from the Air Force for their air group has nothing to do with solving problems far from borders.

    What Syria actually shows, where it is necessary to bomb not so much, the Syrian Air Force could only a little sense, but also solve a huge number of other tasks, and first of all, strengthening the Syrian ground forces proper, without the success of which flights with Khmeinim are just a waste of kerosene and resource materiel.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 18 May 2018 11: 28
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      and the theoretical possibility of building another couple of "Kuz" and tearing an airplane from the Air Force for their air group to solve problems far from borders has nothing to do.


      The construction of two aircraft carriers is an opportunity to project the strike capabilities of aircraft in any region of the world. The adversary - the same Qatar - this "barking mouse" - who finances terrorist groups, including in Russia, will have to reckon with this. And at the same time, a large US military base is located on its territory. An aircraft carrier off the coast of Qatar would make the crown prince think that money does not always provide impunity for their affairs ...
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 May 2018 15: 21
        0
        You have been given an example in the article that 17 aircraft carriers could not do anything with the country of the 3 world, and the whole ground army, against which these aircraft carriers were generally lost, could not. To fight it is necessary VERY much strength.
  14. Key 32
    Key 32 18 May 2018 09: 56
    +1
    In competition with modern air defense, an aircraft carrier will quickly run out of planes. As strike aircraft, it is easier, faster, and cheaper to transfer a ground-based consolidated regiment. As a result, in modern reality, an aircraft carrier is needed only to drive the Papuans, excuse me - projecting power ..
  15. tlauicol
    tlauicol 18 May 2018 10: 59
    +4
    Did I miss something ? 17 aircraft carriers purged the war with Vietnam, and all these land bases in Thailand, Guam, etc. etc., having made 2/3 sorties won it? With the support of CA! request
  16. jurijsv
    jurijsv 18 May 2018 11: 08
    0
    I liked Forestall more.
  17. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 18 May 2018 11: 20
    0
    Good analysis Oleg! Without unnecessary emotions :)

    From myself, I note that in the above figures there is a logical discrepancy. With the presence of two attack aircraft carriers (86-96 attack aircraft, 48 fighters) and the indicated intensity of combat use (1,2-1,3 sorties per day for attack aircraft, 0,5-0,9 for fighters), it is impossible to obtain the daily rate 200-300 sorties.


    Their number of take-offs did not coincide with the number of landings for 860 pieces ...
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 19: 27
      0
      this despite the fact that most of the aviation of the Navy and ILC flew from coastal airfields
  18. tchoni
    tchoni 18 May 2018 13: 59
    +1
    Olezhika winders ... Either the aircraft carrier - Kaka - the battleship steers, then the aircraft carrier - Kaka steers the ground fighter. The conclusion is one "aircraft carrier-kaka!" Hurray comrades, Amen brothers and Ylooykhii genossa.
  19. Bad thing
    Bad thing 18 May 2018 15: 07
    +1
    Quote: Soho
    what nonsense. The USSR did not set itself any tasks for victory in the war

    why start if you didn’t intend to win.
  20. strannik1985
    strannik1985 18 May 2018 15: 39
    0
    Quote: CentDo
    When to wait for an Israeli aircraft carrier?

    But they cannot, the United States and Europe have their own interests in the region, the "final solution" of the Palestinian question is not included in them. Therefore, we have to pervert with air defense.
  21. Old26
    Old26 18 May 2018 15: 40
    0
    Quote: tasha
    That's interesting.
    Oleg, you don’t know if there were attempts to attack the American strike groups, with what result or why didn’t you? There was nothing ( wink some Vietnamese submarine and its commander Mor Kow Kin?) or some political considerations?

    I don’t know if this is true or a bike, but there were rumors that there was one attempt to attack the US destroyer using the AN-2 as a bomber
  22. Yak28
    Yak28 18 May 2018 17: 59
    +2
    In any case, it is better with aircraft carriers than without them, and if Russia does not have aircraft carriers and cannot afford them, this does not mean that they are bad. We do not have vertical take-off and landing aircraft, so they are also bad. , everyone will immediately shout what kind of thing this is, and how it raises the prestige and power of the Russian fleet.
    1. YELLOWSTONE
      YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 19: 16
      0
      still ekranoplanes are bad, tiltrotoplanes and high-speed helicopters, and airships, they don't need kerosene to hang like a helicopter, even if it suddenly ends yes
      1. Yak28
        Yak28 18 May 2018 20: 47
        0
        By the way, I’m 100% sure that if the US adopts ekranoplanes, then ours will do the same wink
        1. YELLOWSTONE
          YELLOWSTONE 18 May 2018 20: 57
          +1
          with konvertoplanami and all the rest something in no hurry yes
  23. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 18 May 2018 21: 23
    +1
    But could this war have been won in any other way than by the introduction of the hundreds of thousands of occupation contingent into the territory of the DRV and the destruction of the overwhelming majority of the population?
  24. Tomato
    Tomato 21 May 2018 23: 37
    +2
    As I see it, the author of this interesting article has little knowledge of the history of the Vietnam War. Like some commentators.
    Until now, some gentlemen represent that war like this:
    It was the state of Vietnam. The US attacked him, bombed, tried to capture, but lost the war, fled from occupied Saigon.
    This is a bit wrong.
    There were 2 countries: North and South Vietnam. The Northern (communist) flagrantly violated neutrality, intervened in the confrontation in the South (helped the local maydanut). Moreover, NE troops regularly penetrated into the territory of SE. "Ho Chi Minh Trail" - I hope everyone heard.
    The United States was in SE at the invitation of the government, well, as it were ours in Syria. It is completely legal.
    The escalation of the conflict increased, there to write for a long time. The important thing is that the United States did not step on the territory of NE. The aggressors were just communists. The USA repulsed the advance of the North.
    In the end, they were tired of fighting, peace agreements were signed in Paris, and the Americans were dumped from SE.
    Then the commies (as always, vilely violated the truce) and launched the offensive. The SE regime was rotten, incompetent, in addition, socialist ideas were popular in those years, and Saigon fell.
    In addition, the United States sharply reduced aid to SE, while assistance from the USSR went in a continuous stream.
    In short, somewhere like that.
    Hatred Americans are still fiercely, furiously hated in Vietnam:
    “Thus, by the end of 2017, Vietnam’s total foreign trade exceeded $ 400 billion: exports amounted to almost $ 214 billion, and imports - $ 211 billion. The United States remains the main trading partner.”
    http://vovworld.vn/ru-RU/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE
    %D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BA
    %D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B8-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8A
    %D0%B5%D0%BC-%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%BD%D0%B5
    %D0%B8-%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB
    %D0%B8-%D0%B2%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC
    %D0%B0-%D0%B2-2017-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83-%D0%B
    F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB-400-%
    D0%BC%D0%BB%D1%80%D0%B4-607530.vov
  25. Bad thing
    Bad thing 24 May 2018 16: 56
    0
    Quote: Soho
    who you are? What is the military unit in which they served, the term of service and the full name of the commander of the unit. And then we’ll discuss your “constantly raking”. Another balabol turned up
    Do you know everyone who was there? sad I was not there, and you were not where I was. But among my superiors and subordinates there were many officers who went through this war, they had something to tell and compare with the one in which we participated together. I don’t know your education, but you don’t have a team profile.
  26. dog of war
    dog of war 31 May 2018 08: 42
    0
    Already tired of all this talk about deck aircraft vs Air Force. And so it is clear that an aircraft carrier is a weapon for gaining supremacy on the sea, and all these bombings of "popus" are caused by the fact that the American fleet did not have a collision with a serious opponent from 1945 of the year.