Military Review

Why a powerful modern fleet is impossible without aircraft carriers

265

On the mistakes of others


One epoch replaces another, technologies change along with it, and methods of warfare change with technology. In 1906, Britain built the world's first dreadnought - HMS Dreadnought, which was destined to change the course of the world once and for all stories. The secret to success was simple: to leave as the main weapons only the same type of large-caliber guns or all-big-gun. The highest point in the development of this concept can be considered the Japanese battleships "Yamato" and "Musashi": heroically dead, but who did not bring de facto any strategic benefit to their command.




It’s hard to blame the Japanese for stupidity or misunderstanding of the issue. After all, it was they (and Pearl Harbor showed it well) that the battleships lost the evolutionary struggle to the aircraft carriers, leaving the world scene forever as the first violin of the naval war.

Moreover, the aircraft carrier, as a separate class of warships, also did not evolve overnight. The best example is the British aircraft carriers of the Second World War period, the Illastries type, which had excellent booking, but also an important drawback: a small number of fighters. Only three dozen winged cars. And although all four ships survived the war, experience clearly showed that the most important thing for an aircraft carrier is the number of fighters. And no anti-aircraft artillery and armor can replace them. Not to mention the absurd shock-offensive in this case weapons.



It is noteworthy that these obvious conclusions, whose strength only grew stronger in the post-war years, are still being called into question by many. Moreover, the authors are trying to find a variety of "loopholes" to show the reader that surface ships allegedly and so (that is, without cover aviation) can perform assigned tasks.

One example is a series of articles by Alexander Timokhin “Surface ships against airplanes”. First of all, I would like to thank the author for an alternative view of the history of naval conflicts. When someone has an opinion, it is always (or almost always) good. However, in the most interesting place of the narrative, logical inconsistencies and inconsistencies are found.

So, Timokhin, with reference to the combined arms committee of the Army and Navy JANAC приводит such data on the loss of warships that the United States inflicted on Japan in World War II. All USA sank 611 surface ships. From this number it was sunk:

“Submarines of the US Navy - 201;
Surface ships - 112;
Army Aviation - 70;
Navy Base Aviation - 20;
Navy Deck Aviation - 161;
Coastal artillery - 2;
Undermined by mines - 19;
Destroyed by other aircraft and agents - 26. ”

By themselves, this data is very, very interesting. However, the conclusion that the author then makes is, to put it mildly, strange. “Which of these is the conclusion?” And the conclusion is simple: in the presence of an aircraft carrier fleetwhen the aircraft carriers are the main warships and perform the main tasks, and at the same time in conditions of extremely intense air warfare waged by the base aircraft against the Japanese fleet (both army and navy), all types of aircraft sank less ships than surface ships and submarines. " - concludes the author.

I wonder what exactly Alexander wants to convey? That surface ships and submarines are one and the same? Or that army aviation is not “aviation”. Or that it is not deck aviation ...

After all, a simple mathematical calculation shows that if we summarize the Japanese losses caused by the actions of the army aviation, the naval base aviation and the naval carrier-based aviation, it turns out that it was the aircraft that sank the most Japanese ships. Where exactly the bombers and torpedo bombers were based no longer plays a big role.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the destruction of the Four Japanese aircraft carriers in the Battle of Midway, a turning battle in the Pacific War, was made possible almost exclusively thanks to the coordinated actions of the US carrier-based aircraft. The heavy Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers (not deck, of course) then also attacked the Soryu and Hiru aircraft carriers, but they failed to inflict damage on the ships. U.S. submarine forces played a role, of course, but far from the main one.

That is, if it were not for the Douglas SBD Dauntless deck-diving, the outcome of the entire war in the Pacific could hypothetically be different: although here you need to understand the potentially higher "safety margin" of the United States. That is, a more powerful military, economic and human potential, which gave the Japanese, frankly, not so many chances.



New and latest TSA


No less interesting is next - also a very voluminous part of the work of Alexander Timokhin. It refers to the "rocket era." The result of what the author said can be summarized as follows. “What did the Falkland War show?” She showed that surface forces can fight against aviation and win. It’s also very difficult to sink a ship that is on the open sea on the move and ready to repel an attack ... ”, Timokhin writes.

It's hard to argue here. Can surface forces fight against aviation and win? Of course they can. In theory, even a gunboat could sink a nuclear submarine that unsuccessfully surfaced nearby. A corvette can sink a cruiser with a rocket if its crew, for some reason, remains inactive all the time.

But the theory is theory, and the consideration of the capabilities of modern carrier-based aviation, and its potential is impossible without an analysis of modern aviation weapons. Of course, not all. It is enough to analyze the main and most significant promising TSA of carrier-based aviation. For example, the new American long-range anti-ship missile AGM-158C LRASM: a product with stealth technology and high accuracy.



It is worth saying that aircraft carriers used to have a long arm in the face of high-precision TSAs, for example, the famous Harpoon missiles. However, their range did not exceed 280 kilometers. The LRASM range, according to information from open sources, may exceed 800 kilometers. It’s worth adding the combat radius of the fighter plane (the rocket carrier has F / A-18E / F Super Hornet — it is more than 700 kilometers) and you get another mini-revolution in naval battle tactics. And if you equip stealth fifth-generation fighters, such as the F-35C or the hypothetical deck J-31, with similar missiles, you get a completely “interesting” situation.

However, even taking into account aviation weapons of the Cold War era and modern reconnaissance and detection tools (satellites, carrier-based AWACS, submarines, etc.), no non-aircraft carrier ship is likely to be able to approach an aircraft carrier attack group at a distance of attack . Not to mention the possibility of destruction and incapacitation of ships from the AUG. It is also worth adding that the aircraft carrier group traditionally includes nuclear submarines and numerous ships, whose tasks include anti-submarine defense.



Summarize. In modern realities, the role of aircraft carriers in the war has increased significantly in comparison with the times of the Cold War. Insofar as:

- Enhanced ability to identify enemy ships and ships;
- The combat radius of carrier-based fighters has increased;
- The potential of aviation weapons has sharply increased;
- The commissioning of "inconspicuous" carrier-based fighters and inconspicuous ASPs began.

Thus, the role of the “non-aircraft-carrying” fleet in modern warfare has decreased to a secondary, and to be even more precise, purely auxiliary. Unless, of course, we are talking about nuclear weapons and submarine ballistic missiles. That is, to put it simply, a nuclear war, for which no country in the world in their right mind would dare.
Author:
265 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NF68
    NF68 29 August 2019 18: 03 New
    +4
    How many articles have already been on this topic?
    1. ancestors from Don
      ancestors from Don 29 August 2019 18: 47 New
      -16
      Nonsense, an aircraft carrier loses to an aircraft carrier in all components both maneuverability and airborne armament, nuclear submarines in general, aircraft carrier killers, a cruise missile at a relatively low cost will at least put it out of action, with the development of shock drones, they will also cause irreparable damage, well, coastal and hypersonic airborne missile systems will not give them a chance of salvation, the result is an aircraft carrier a weapon of the last 20 century.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 29 August 2019 20: 00 New
        +6
        Quote: ancestors from the Don
        Nonsense, an aircraft carrier loses to an aircraft carrier in all components, both maneuverability and airborne armament

        Provided that he does not destroy it by crushing aviation superiority.
        1. ancestors from Don
          ancestors from Don 29 August 2019 20: 39 New
          -6
          Condition number two, if this deck aircraft will land where. This is not about North Korea and Iran.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 29 August 2019 20: 42 New
            +2
            Quote: ancestors from the Don
            if where will this deck aircraft land

            Back to the deck of an aircraft carrier.
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 30 August 2019 16: 29 New
            -1
            Air refueling in the air and sent to the ground airbase. And the aircraft carrier will become an underwater exhibit.
            A strange dispute: already all ((USA, China, Russia) have recognized that an aircraft carrier should focus on its main role, without losing volumes and space for unnecessary weapons that are placed on escort ships.
            1. Navigator111
              Navigator111 30 August 2019 16: 56 New
              0
              An aircraft carrier with its volumes .... you can shove everything.
              But. This is a hindrance to his primary task of gaining superiority in the air and ensuring the landing operations of the MP.
              :-) roles on the stage, he has tasks. :-)
            2. Cyrus
              Cyrus 6 September 2019 14: 13 New
              0
              Well, here I do not agree, Kuznetsov was designed and built by people who are much more knowledgeable than you or me and anyone who writes here.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 8 September 2019 06: 54 New
                0
                This is not an indicator. Designed by knowledgeable people, but for an erroneous, incorrect task. De facto - everyone recognized. China, India, Russia - all design full-fledged aircraft carriers, no hybrids, with truncated functions. Serious missile weapons on escort ships.
      2. vadim dok
        vadim dok 30 August 2019 14: 09 New
        +1
        And what is the difference between an Aircraft Carrier and an Aircraft Carrier in that the cruiser has missiles, and the aircraft carrier has the same missiles on escort ships, and the cruiser also has MUCH fewer air links and no AWACS!
        1. Navigator111
          Navigator111 30 August 2019 17: 01 New
          0
          An air link cannot be more or less. :-)
          Link, link is. Two pairs.
          AWAC was, but .... could not do, shrink in the volume of electronics.
          Soviet computers are the largest in the world, as they said then.
        2. Simargl
          Simargl 30 August 2019 19: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: vadim dok
          And what is the difference between an Aircraft Carrier and an Aircraft Carrier, in that the cruiser has missiles
          The presence of shock weapons. SAM is on all aircraft carriers.

          Quote: vadim dok
          the cruiser has MUCH fewer air links and no AWACS aircraft!
          This is the Thais and Italians have to say ... and the French, probably ...
          We do not have AWACS not because Kuzya is small, but because they are nishmagli.
      3. zxc15682
        zxc15682 30 August 2019 16: 20 New
        -1
        Constructive criticism +
      4. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 31 August 2019 14: 45 New
        0
        Quote: ancestors from the Don
        aircraft carrier loses to an aircraft carrier cruiser

        this aircraft carrier is inferior to the aircraft carrier in everything. The whole world has understood this, and they are building only "clean" aircraft carriers, not burdened with offensive weapons in the form of anti-ship missiles. The main striking (and defensive, too) force of AB is aviation. It is a floating airfield, and everything on it should be subordinated to one task - to ensure the work of the air group as efficiently as possible.

        But the USSR and Russia have their own approach, of course. Strike weapons were present only for one reason - due to the lack of an adequate air group on the deck. AWACS no, the Yak-38 in the form of an attack aircraft is very pale, but in the role of a fighter it is not at all. Especially considering its radius of action (it is not without reason that it was nicknamed the bitter nickname "mast guard aircraft"). And the Su-33, too, could not work on naval targets - except with free-fall bombs, which is now akin to suicide. So they carried the TAVKR on themselves in the form of Grantites, and the planes somehow tried to provide only the air defense of the KUG
      5. zenion
        zenion 4 September 2019 15: 59 New
        -1
        The most important thing that an aircraft carrier must do is be able to sail on water that is in the firmament. If it falls from there, then why are such aircraft carriers hard.
      6. Cyrus
        Cyrus 6 September 2019 14: 09 New
        0
        I agree, you really wrote a stupid thing: maneuverability - well, take and google the video of the Ford running tests, the state AVs do not know the maximum speed, presumably it is much higher than the stated one, a single submarine will be sunk by PLO aircraft, hypersonic missiles, nudes, where they are, how many are delivered into service? Are their carriers invulnerable? Opposition to them is not being developed ?.
    2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
      Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 29 August 2019 18: 54 New
      14
      Those same people who shake like written in a bag of knowledge of the magnificent US Navy maritime battles in World War II from the Coral Sea and Midway to the Philippine Airborne Operation forget that it’s the same as learning from the Borodino Battle to apply to Long-Range Aviation operations, armed X-101. To compare the heroic (and really replaceable at that time) USS Hornet with today's 13 billion mastodons, which require tremendous efforts and simply sky-high prices in protecting oneself dear, and those who themselves cannot really protect themselves are absurd. Putting by virtue of brilliant foresight, and by virtue of circumstances, the development of guided missile weapons, the Soviet Navy, and now the Russian Navy, which has a unique line of anti-ship missiles with excellent performance characteristics, even in difficult times, won strategically, ensuring the country's safety from the sea by virtue of the ability deploying a volley of anti-ship missiles sufficient to disrupt any task of the adversary against the territory of the USSR-Russia in the conventional version. Switching to hypersound, and even to a high one (M = 2,5-3,0) nullifies almost any means of naval air defense of the US Navy, because they have huge problems with this kind of anti-ship missiles.
      1. Navigator111
        Navigator111 29 August 2019 22: 42 New
        -7
        Well, let's shock our victories in the Second World War. We calculate the ratio of the dead, lost almost the entire regular army in 1941.
        Prl missiles are not necessary. How many Zircons, Poseidons and Vanguards.? How many pieces are in stock? Three, five, ten?
        Life has shown the Archangels that it is different from the animated one.
        And the "loshariki" are suspiciously silent.
        1. Saul_Rhen
          Saul_Rhen 29 August 2019 22: 51 New
          +4
          Minus from me. I do not like galloping
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. bulvas
              bulvas 30 August 2019 00: 37 New
              +4
              Quote: Navigator111
              But don’t allow bones, and no one will jump.


              And you teach how to create new, unprecedented, without errors and bones.

              In my youth, the tester tucked protective pants into his boots, instead of leaving them on top, he got a hyptil when removing the engine from the bench after washing.

              And in the evening with his family he walked in the park and lost consciousness. While the ambulance figured out what happened, figured out where it works, he died

              To hell with you such, the most intelligent, but the sense of you 0.

              Minus set
              1. Navigator111
                Navigator111 30 August 2019 01: 01 New
                -5
                There he is dear.
                There is a regulation, OZK, or L-1.
                If he is. Did he tuck his cloak into shoe covers? What is it like?
                Does the tester have a supervisor trained? Was he alone there?
                On Chumikan, heptyl was normally washed off, the residues during the landing of Bor.
                Our helicopter pilots told. The main thing is not to fall under the wind. Without any costumes, the equator. Hose, water, and then opened the capsule itself with KZA.
                Heptyl is more dangerous for the lungs.
                He walked with his family in those same pants?
                Understood nothing.
                1. bulvas
                  bulvas 30 August 2019 09: 29 New
                  +2
                  Pants from the suit were tucked into boots.
                  I don’t remember what the suit was called, it was a work suit, light gray, made of thick fabric, such as cloth.
                  There were OZKs too, we went into storage facilities and other places where there was contact with the components.
                  And the work suit was different.
                  The liquid spilled onto the trousers and hit the boots, then it was absorbed into the skin.
                  I had a similar case - slammed the nozzle - a trickle fell into my hand. Most likely it was water, because nothing had been disassembled yet, but I thoroughly washed it with a stream of water and warned people.
                  But he couldn’t rinse right away, and then it was too late ...
                  Wow, his jamb and his boss that violated the instructions did not follow, but speak
                  Quote: Navigator111
                  There he is dear.


                  - this is just too much called "dancing on the bones".

                  How many cases of serious accidents were, even during my short work experience at the stand

                  A jamb of one, but suffers a lot.

                  An explosion at the stand, five died, a dozen burned with an oxidizing agent, a cloud of oxidizing agent passed through the entire enterprise; those who did not have time to put on a gas mask were poisoned to various degrees.

                  Show your coolness carefully, it's not so simple
                  1. Navigator111
                    Navigator111 30 August 2019 10: 40 New
                    0
                    He worked at the Ministry of Emergencies for a couple of years. There are categories of the object, the same treatment facilities, storage facilities for chlorine, ammonia. There is a proven algorithm. There is a safety engineer, there is access to work, instruction with painting.
                    Sorry, but this is wildness. Especially with NDGRZ.
                    1. bulvas
                      bulvas 30 August 2019 11: 24 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Navigator111
                      what you said is wildness


                      What exactly is wildness?

                      Accidents, victims?
                      Explosions during fire tests of rocket engines?

                      1. Navigator111
                        Navigator111 30 August 2019 13: 59 New
                        0
                        Wildness refers to the rules and their health.
                        There is force majeure and do not care.
                        Remember the death of Nedelin and how they worked on the rocket and what they violated.
                      2. ser56
                        ser56 30 August 2019 16: 02 New
                        +1
                        Quote: bulvas
                        What exactly is wildness?

                        non-compliance with TB regulations ... request I have seen enough. as people don’t wear respirators so where r / a aerosols ... what
                        Quote: bulvas
                        slammed the nozzle - a trickle hit my hand.

                        and protective gloves were not supposed to?
                      3. bulvas
                        bulvas 30 August 2019 19: 37 New
                        0
                        Quote: ser56
                        and protective gloves were not supposed to?


                        After a thorough washing, it was believed, and they were not going to pick it yet, he still hung on the stand

                        Yes, and I don’t remember all the details, many years have passed
                  2. yehat
                    yehat 30 August 2019 13: 56 New
                    +1
                    security measures cannot prevent absurd accidents and just human stupidity. For example, at my enterprise the train moved a man’s neck with all the consequences. Have you seen at least once in your life that a man is a neck on the rail?
                    What was the likelihood of such an event?
                    or another example - repairmen walked along the rail to finish work, one tripped and fell forehead on the rail. Well, what are you changing security rules here? And you won’t get enough of all the rules.
                    and the given example, it seems to me, rests on the wrong procedure for preparing for work. If it is important how you put on a protective uniform, and how you finished the day, you need to do a full examination of each before and after work, as is done at enterprises working with radiation.
                    1. Navigator111
                      Navigator111 30 August 2019 17: 10 New
                      0
                      :-) why did he go along the rail? Just wondering, the distance is a height of 180, rail, that is, walked on the ties Inside the rail? What can I catch on to? Only for the sleepers walking on them.
                      Do not go along the roads, do not stand under the arrow, do not get in killing .... we know from childhood what? We stand, we climb we climb :-)
                      Slavic god of RANDOM Luck-Avos.
          2. Ka-52
            Ka-52 30 August 2019 05: 17 New
            +1
            I had 21200 or 21300 minuses last week. So what?
            Come on, don't be shy.

            found something to brag about. There is constructive criticism, but there are screams. The first, although there will be minuses from the cheers-patriots, but there will be pluses from people who understand. You can only be seen screaming rich. So catch only the cons.
            1. Navigator111
              Navigator111 30 August 2019 08: 26 New
              +2
              And who said that I am showing off? :-)
              It’s a principle to say what I think. Yes, and it’s better to brag about courage than cowardice and shake for every minus.
              Like the iron-born from the "Thrones" - Kta is banned, it cannot be banned. :-)
              1. Ka-52
                Ka-52 30 August 2019 09: 05 New
                +3
                It’s a principle to say what I think. Yes, and it’s better to brag about courage than cowardice and shake for every minus.

                the courage to say what you think has no value in itself, without the objectivity of what is being said. I try to be objective and do not shake the cons. I now won over the comment that the Red Army troops invaded Poland patriots threw minuses. But I wrote about historical reality. It was? It was impossible to erase from history, despite the fact that someone does not like it. But at the same time, the truth should not be biased.
                1. Navigator111
                  Navigator111 30 August 2019 10: 43 New
                  0
                  Are you sure that the patriots pushed you the minuses?
                  Did you consider how, with dozens of minusers, karma flies by thousands?
                  Not everything is so simple here :-)
        2. Navigator111
          Navigator111 30 August 2019 14: 02 New
          +1
          Arithmetic. We still do not know the exact number of deaths, the accuracy of a couple of millions in different directions.
          My uncle went missing in 1941. With the outbreak of war, he served on the border.
          Do you like the word "Jump"?
      2. smart ass
        smart ass 30 August 2019 05: 43 New
        0
        Who about what and lousy about the bath.
      3. 3danimal
        3danimal 30 August 2019 17: 08 New
        0
        Now they will come running with accusations of being unpatriotic and explain that thousands of Zircons are about to appear, making the United States tremble with fear and give up the rank of superpower.
      4. Oleg1
        Oleg1 25 October 2019 13: 03 New
        0
        And the key to the room where the money is not needed? Give him the number of zircons! Get admission to owls. Then ask for secret information, one thing is for sure, the cost of an Ameri aircraft carrier is many orders of magnitude higher than the cost of the Zircon missile, and one or two of its hits even in the non-nuclear version of an aircraft carrier and an aircraft carrier has just not sunk a burning big barge ...
        gyyyyyyy ....
    3. Kalmar
      Kalmar 30 August 2019 12: 18 New
      +2
      Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
      Comparing the heroic (and really replaceable at that time) USS Hornet with today's mastodons for $ 13 billion, which require tremendous efforts and simply sky-high prices in protecting yourself expensive, and those who themselves can not really protect, is already absurd.

      First, talking about value in isolation from an understanding of financial opportunities is pointless. If the military budget allows you to build aircraft carriers for 13 lard, then why not. If it does not allow, then there is nothing to talk about.

      Secondly, the thesis of the inability to protect oneself is not constructive. Say, a modern tank cannot protect itself from an attack helicopter. A long-range bomber can do very little to counter a fighter. Etc. Should we consider that the indicated classes of combat vehicles are inexpedient and not needed?

      In modern naval combat, apparently, the principle "one in the field is not a warrior" rules: a single ship (regardless of type) is capable of little. And an aircraft carrier in the AUG is a very serious force.

      Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
      The Soviet Navy, and now the Russian Navy, which has a unique line of anti-ship missiles with excellent performance characteristics, even in difficult times, won strategically, ensuring the country's security from the sea due to the ability to deploy a salvo of anti-ship missiles

      And here everything is very ambiguous.

      On the one hand, the rate on anti-ship missiles for the Russian Navy looks right: they are still cheaper. In principle, we cannot and will hardly ever be able to spend as much on the fleet as the Americans.

      On the other hand, unequivocally arguing about a strategic gain will be somehow too arrogant. How effective the existing Russian anti-ship missiles are against American missile defense systems is an open question. And the zeroing of the capabilities of this missile defense system alone with an increase in speed raises a lot of doubts.
    4. 3danimal
      3danimal 30 August 2019 16: 33 New
      -2
      What did the Union win and where is it ??
      The US and its allies did not have the first plans of attack on the territory. Weapons (heavy anti-ship missiles) were created precisely as a cheap alternative for combat with fleets in the ocean.
      1. Navigator111
        Navigator111 30 August 2019 17: 41 New
        0
        The question is of course interesting. There is a topic that I raised, but there are no people according to the level of tolerance. More precisely, they are, but they are silent.
        It is about preparing the first strike.
        The article "War in the" Process "and a smart navigator."
        Everything is reliable, since he himself took part.
        http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/war.shtml
  2. Ka-52
    Ka-52 30 August 2019 05: 27 New
    +5
    . I thought there would be a detailed analysis, prepared to read .... and here a couple of commonplace, a couple of pictures and all. The author, if you wanted to oppose something to Timokhin, then failed miserably. Little did not reveal the topic, so also such pearls were allowed
    I wonder what exactly Alexander wants to convey? That surface ships and submarines are one and the same? Or that army aviation is not “aviation”. Or that it is not deck aviation ...
    After all, a simple mathematical calculation shows that if we summarize the Japanese losses caused by the actions of the army aviation, the naval base aviation and the naval carrier-based aviation, it turns out that it was the aircraft that sank the most Japanese ships. Where exactly the bombers and torpedo bombers were based no longer plays a big role.

    Timokhin’s conclusion that carrier-based aviation sank fewer ships is clearly visible from the comparison. Deck! Not based on field airfields. From here he concludes that surface ships and submarines are superior to carriers deck aviation. This conclusion is controversial (because the tactics of application and goals are completely different), but we are discussing it. Your argument for combining the results of carrier-based and army aviation is generally no side to the subject of the dispute.
    In general, Ilya, for the week the second publication on VO in the furnace. Minus definitely
    1. smart ass
      smart ass 30 August 2019 05: 46 New
      +3
      It also matters which ships and what rank were sunk. I am sure that almost all victories pl were over transports. What is more important to sink 4 aircraft carriers or 100 transports?
      1. Navigator111
        Navigator111 30 August 2019 08: 29 New
        0
        If this is the first fleet operation, it is natural to knock out AMG. If the blockade or operation DESO, of course transports.
      2. SVD68
        SVD68 30 August 2019 08: 36 New
        0
        Shinano, Taiho and Shokaku are sunk by submarines. But aviation, of course, is sunk more.
      3. Ka-52
        Ka-52 30 August 2019 09: 38 New
        +3
        What is more important to sink 4 aircraft carriers or 100 transports?

        depending on which transports. Sometimes transports are more important than aircraft carriers. For example, disruption of communications can leave a large group of enemy troops without supplies and put them on the brink of survival. After all, transports are fuel, spare parts, machinery, manpower, food. I don’t even speak about landing disruption - then the primary goals were landing barges, and not convoy ships. So, as the daughter of a Japanese officer said, things are not so simple with us in Okinawa
    2. Navigator111
      Navigator111 30 August 2019 11: 16 New
      -2
      I will correct it.
      Airfields by class. Field, this is a field with grass :-)
      More precisely, stationary, or basic.
      In WWII, lodi were not very different from nc, since only 5–7% of the time was under water.
      However, this was also in the 60s when they demanded 95% to be under the RPD, to hold on to the charge of the acc, for training in ptsku missiles.
      On what Kobzar turned his neck with K-129.
      I had an article. The death of K-129 ... Just a version.

      http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/tragediak-129z.shtml
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 30 August 2019 12: 22 New
        +2
        Airfields by class. Field, this is a field with grass :-)

        The class of an aerodrome having one runway is determined by the class of the runway. And the AP determines it by the length of the runway
        if memory serves no such type of GDP "field with grass" winked there is dirt.
        and field are temporary, advanced (operational) airfields.
        If we go back to the rams of the American actions against the Japanese, then on the islands they only built these - with one runway and a dirt surface
        1. Navigator111
          Navigator111 30 August 2019 13: 36 New
          0
          Google well. There is an emoticon. :-)
          Field are not considered ..... etc. Especially advanced :-)
          And the Japanese built it that way. My post, how we roamed in the Kuril Islands

            Excursion to the Kuriles. Roundtrip. https://m.fishki.net/1364674-jekskursija--na-kurily-quottuda-i-obratnoquot.html
          Concrete was built on Sakhalin. Leonidovo. Even with a heated runway.
          The Americans built for fighters, but laid them with metal sheets. Ours received according to l. Lisa.
          1. Ka-52
            Ka-52 2 September 2019 08: 23 New
            +1
            Google well. There is an emoticon. :-)

            ahhh, sorry, it’s obvious you are the only one who is the carrier of information. You can see the rest ahead of time only by Wikipedia users. Very stupid of you. You do not know anything about the interlocutor. Where he served, where he studied, which is his foundation of knowledge. I do not like conceit based on anything.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Simargl
          Simargl 30 August 2019 19: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Ka-52
          and field are temporary, advanced (operational) airfields.
          How many copies were broken off in the next branch claiming that landing on the track is a crazy thing.
          1. Navigator111
            Navigator111 30 August 2019 20: 23 New
            -1
            It is difficult to say. In 1945, there was a way out of German roads when the airfields became wet.
            At modern speeds, it’s not an easy process. Such an element was worked out by both the norgs and the Germans. Expediency? Dispersion of equipment upon impact on speakers?
            1. Simargl
              Simargl 31 August 2019 05: 51 New
              0
              Quote: Navigator111
              Expediency?
              Do you think that in the event of war they won’t hammer at existing airfields? Even a small hole for several hours of the runway will disable.
              And so - the dispersal of technology.
              1. Navigator111
                Navigator111 31 August 2019 12: 34 New
                -3
                Go around the hole :-)
                And if Betab, then bad.
                Retreat. At the school, on vacation, they kept gouging for a week and gave a demobilization chord. We repaired the washbasin and dangled cement of brand 700 from the storage crate, specifically for closing holes on the runway. You start to bother him, for five minutes and don’t pull out a shovel, grabbing it dead.
                1. Simargl
                  Simargl 31 August 2019 18: 34 New
                  0
                  Quote: Navigator111
                  cement of brand 700 dangled from a warehouse
                  I was looking for the M1000 countertop. So he gained strength for a week.
                  But if 1: 100 silicate glue smells ... it’s only with the quality of straining.

                  Quote: Navigator111
                  Go around the hole :-)
                  Yeah! Jump over! True, it will fly into the second.

                  Quote: Navigator111
                  And if Betab, then bad.
                  Yes, close up longer. But a simple land mine is not a joke either.

                  Quote: Navigator111
                  You start to bother him, for five minutes and don’t pull out a shovel, grabbing it dead.
                  Do you think the pit on the runway is so easy to close up on technology?
                  1. Navigator111
                    Navigator111 31 August 2019 19: 27 New
                    0
                    There gypsum is still added. 700 with a letter.
                    Gravel, cement, gravel, cement, tamping, grinding.
                    By memory.
                    Betab-500 shp, is on the network.
                    Although yes, I am not special in this, they are the rear.
                    General knowledge :-)
                    But the runways are different. Some may be, as in Saki or in Bagerovo. You are tormented to plow everything.
    3. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 1 September 2019 11: 27 New
      +1
      Hence, he concludes that surface ships and submarines are superior to carrier-based carriers


      Not really. I concluded that in some cases surface ships without support from their aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers can fight against deck or base aircraft and win.

      In general, this does not negate the colossal significance and capabilities of aircraft carriers. It just gives a number of chances to those who do not have them.

      In general, an aircraft carrier is a powerful trump card in a large war at sea, and it can be used in very different ways.
      1. Navigator111
        Navigator111 1 September 2019 19: 59 New
        0
        They can.
        In cover of the air defense continent and in the air defense radius.
        Otherwise, they will be blown away by interference, PRLS missiles, they will knock out ammunition and drown if they fail to report and run away in time. Transports with fuel and missiles will drown boats.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 1 September 2019 20: 50 New
          0
          The question is - who in general decided that the air defense aviation within its radius can protect the KUG / KPUG from an air strike? For me, this is not at all obvious, you, as a headquarters officer, can even try to calculate approximately the situation when a patrolling VVS A-50 detects a "strike" going to the KUG from a distance of two hundred kilometers from the target. Well, three hundred. Taking into account the fact that you have two interceptor units on duty in the air, let’s say there is enough fuel for them on the shore 200 km (substitute your own) from the KUG in the other direction at the airfield, the interceptor regiment in readiness number 2.

          And?

          Otherwise, they’ll spell it with interference, PRLS missiles, knock out the ammunition and drown it if it doesn’t


          This is in a stupid situation, when the enemy, with his own reconnaissance means, discovered the KUG, and the commander chewed snot before the air strike. Then yes, they'll kill you like ducks. But there are other options as well. I once wrote about the American and American-British exercises, when the URO ships "sunk" the aircraft carrier, in the case of the Amers it was a missile cruiser for the first time and the Spruyans the second time, and the Britons had a destroyer of 42 projects (which later fought in the Falklands) ...
          https://topwar.ru/158716-kak-raketnomu-korablju-potopit-avianosec-neskolko-primerov.html
          It is clear that everything was on the verge of a foul and such tricks will not always work. But sometimes there will be, especially if the commander of the IBM has attached aviation "on the shore", and can assign tasks to it in the interests of the IBM.

          Transports with fuel and missiles will drown boats.


          Missiles at sea cannot be reloaded. Only "Uranus" on corvettes, that's all. But this is not fundamental.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 3 September 2019 18: 59 New
              0
              So long ago decided. For this, air defense overflights are carried out upon request. Intercepting targets at landfills. Shooting.
              Distribution by sector. C-300 and Mig-31.


              This will not work. You have to get in the way of the strike group before it gets the ship group, and with superior forces. This is unrealistic if the enemy achieved surprise at the stage of raising his air group from AB.

              The trick is that coastal air defense cannot protect ships. So it goes. Well, or almost can not.
              1. Short story
                Short story 4 September 2019 01: 00 New
                0
                So let it turn out, for this intelligence exists.
                Coastal air defense does not protect ships, it controls airspace. And ships use :-)
                1. Short story
                  Short story 4 September 2019 01: 01 New
                  0
                  I forgot about KPUNIA.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 4 September 2019 11: 44 New
                    0
                    KPUNIA will not help. Not in time.

                    We think logically. Raising the regiment of interceptors in pairwise take-off - minutes 30-45. Well, for example, we will have two units in the air and one squadron in the Goth.nom.2. Let us raise it and put it on course in 10-15 min.

                    She fly, for example, to KUG 150 km. MINUTES 5. Total we have that about 20 minutes we have before the arrival of aid to the ships, and before them only two links would fit into the fray.

                    On the other hand, the A-50, if it detects the strike group of decks going to the KGB, for the same 5-10 min. Let the enemy pick up 48 vehicles of which 12 is an escort with air-to-air missiles, the rest are drums and electronic warfare.

                    As a result, our 4 interceptors must mate with 12 opponents, and the drummers are guaranteed to have time to work on the KUG and turn home. When the squadron arrives from the ground, it will be too late.

                    And this is all "under the shore", and a little further?

                    It’s unrealistic for 50 years to train to catch amer intelligence on the rise and gathering of an air group, how to hide this moment from the enemy, and not from the abstract but from the concrete — from us.

                    The "Air Defense Umbrella" is a myth. It does not exist.

                    Americans, incidentally, were preparing to fight against the MRA not only by interceptors, and not even so much by them. For a similar reason.

                    You can answer in zhezhe if there is a ban.
  • Theodore
    Theodore 29 August 2019 18: 09 New
    0
    And how was it treated during the Union? Although there were aircraft carriers cruisers.
    1. Saul_Rhen
      Saul_Rhen 29 August 2019 22: 53 New
      +3
      Alas, here the USSR Navy is a vivid example of how not to do it. Minus did not set
    2. Nestorovich
      Nestorovich 30 August 2019 00: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Theodore
      And how was it treated during the Union? Although there were aircraft carriers cruisers.

      very simply "got by", decided to build in the future nuclear aircraft carriers ...
    3. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 11: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Theodore
      And how was it treated during the Union?

      with a creak. Pre-Aircraft carriers (TAVKR with VTOL aircraft) were building, because they understood that without any aircraft in the sea they were tight, but they were looking for an asymmetric answer (in the form of nuclear submarines and all kinds of missiles), but they could not find an adequate one. As a result, they decided to build aircraft carriers as the only reasonable solution, they even managed to lay down nuclear Ulyanovsk, but here the USSR, alas, died ...
      1. ser56
        ser56 30 August 2019 16: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Gregory_45
        In the end, we decided to build aircraft carriers,

        losing time and spending a lot of money on "your way" - three loaves of displacement as a normal AB .... request so for the money spent on nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles it was easy to build 6 normal ABs .... request
        We consider (underwater displacement):
        949 / 949A - 2pcs * 22ct and 11pcs * 24ct = 308ct
        670 - 11pcs * 5 = 55ct
        670M - 6pcs * 5,5 = 33ct
        675 - 29pcs * 5,7 = 165ct
        Total: 561ct ... it should be borne in mind that nuclear submarines are more expensive by tons of displacement than AB ... request
  • Graz
    Graz 29 August 2019 18: 12 New
    -1
    That is, to put it simply, a nuclear war, for which no country in the world in their right mind would dare.
    __________________________
    The main erroneous conclusion in the article
  • borys
    borys 29 August 2019 18: 17 New
    +7
    The era of aircraft carriers ends. Most likely over.
    Last year’s campaign of two aircraft carriers to the shores of Korea is
    showed very well. The result of the trip is zero, costs
    big ones. Koreans did not think to be scared. Eun didn’t go to the states,
    but Trump came to meet him in Korea.
    1. ancestors from Don
      ancestors from Don 29 August 2019 18: 58 New
      -7
      Aircraft carrier is a barge with a motor.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 30 August 2019 11: 44 New
        0
        Quote: ancestors from the Don
        Aircraft carrier is a barge with a motor

        an aircraft carrier is a floating self-propelled airfield
    2. Destiny
      Destiny 29 August 2019 18: 58 New
      +4
      Quote: borys
      Last year’s campaign of two aircraft carriers to the shores of Korea is
      showed very well. The result of the trip is zero

      The result of the campaign is such because of the lack of political will of the US leadership (that is, the absence of the order of the Commander-in-Chief to the sailors for the full use of the AUG), nothing more ..
      Quote: borys
      the campaign of two aircraft carriers to the shores of Korea is
      showed very well.

      THREE AUG. There would have been an order, I have no doubt never, together with the South Korean Air Force "would have been bombed into the Stone Age," as it has become fashionable here ... Aircraft carriers have not "outlived their days."
      "Who rules the seas - he rules the worlds" by Alonso Arjuna. It is still relevant ...
      1. ancestors from Don
        ancestors from Don 29 August 2019 19: 07 New
        -4
        This is a saying from the Stone Age, a modern interpretation sounds like this: "Whoever owns technology and Space, he owns everything and rules the solar system"
      2. common man
        common man 29 August 2019 20: 48 New
        0
        Quote: Destiny
        THREE AUG. There would have been an order, I have no doubt never, together with the South Korean Air Force "would have been bombed into the Stone Age"

        And without 3 AUG, Just the US Air Force, together with the South Korean Air Force, as I understand it, would they be able to do nothing with the DPRK?
      3. Hog
        Hog 29 August 2019 22: 41 New
        +2
        Just a question, what would then be left of South Korea?
        Or do you think the North Koreans would sit and watch them being bombed?
        1. Nestorovich
          Nestorovich 30 August 2019 00: 37 New
          -4
          Quote: Hog
          Just a question, what would then be left of South Korea?
          Or do you think the North Koreans would sit and watch them being bombed?

          Yes, there would be nothing special, there would be some losses among the civilian population no more. That antiques that they have except in the museum.
      4. smart ass
        smart ass 30 August 2019 05: 51 New
        0
        I remember how the Americans in Vietnam were bambling in the Stone Age ... they only used their entire arsenal besides deck aviation, including b 52 and orange, the result is so-so
        1. Navigator111
          Navigator111 30 August 2019 08: 32 New
          +1
          And you ride there, for example in Camran, where ours sat and eat bananas :-)
          So this is on the territory of the former Amer base. It’s clean, if through the strait to the continent, there’s generally atas with the environment. E. orange.
  • certero
    certero 29 August 2019 18: 17 New
    13
    You can write as much as you like on the topic of the pros and cons of aircraft carriers, only Russia has no money for them.
    1. lelik613
      lelik613 29 August 2019 18: 25 New
      -8
      We do not need aircraft carriers by definition, but we do not plan to send a full-blooded ACG to Donald’s friend for the introduction of democracy by bringing them into the Stone Age.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 30 August 2019 11: 46 New
        -3
        Quote: lelik613
        We don’t need aircraft carriers by definition, we don’t plan to send a full-blooded ACG to Donald’s friend for the introduction of democracy

        ABs are needed primarily to give combat stability to its own fleet (take, for example, the deployment of the same SSBNs)
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 30 August 2019 20: 18 New
          -1
          Quote: Gregory_45
          AB is needed primarily to give combat stability to its own fleet
          Absolutely not needed. Even AUG will not help.
          Aircraft carriers are needed for projecting forces on third countries and gaining a foothold on the shores of such countries. All. But they are needed.
          ACG in the global war is a target.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 August 2019 15: 36 New
            -1
            Quote: Simargl
            Aircraft carriers needed for projection of force on third countries

            this is only one of their many tasks, and far from the main one. How are you all blinkered ((
            See how many sorties can be made by the AB Air Group (which has a limited number of aviation fuel and ammunition), and how much is land aviation, and you will see that the first loses outright. What is the projection of power?

            ABs were created primarily to combat the enemy fleet in the ocean, and to give combat stability to their own fleet. AB is an opportunity to have airplanes where they are needed here and now.

            between the words an aircraft carrier and aviation, you can put an equal sign. If they say that AB is not needed, then they say that aviation is not needed. Because AB is just an airfield. Floating and self-propelled.
            Let’s then abolish aviation in general, because it is not needed?
  • Spambox
    Spambox 29 August 2019 18: 19 New
    +1
    An aircraft carrier is an expensive pleasure.
    Is there any money? Build. And if there is no money, then you need to look for asymmetric solutions.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 11: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Spambox
      And if there is no money, then you need to look for asymmetric solutions

      The USSR spent so much money on asymmetric solutions that it was possible to build and maintain 7 full-fledged AUGs
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 11: 51 New
      0
      Quote: Spambox
      Is there any money? Build. And if there is no money

      then one must ask why they are not in one of the richest countries in the world, who is to blame and what to do. And do not make the fleet a scapegoat, depriving it of warships.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 29 August 2019 18: 19 New
    +2
    The conclusion is very unexpected and incomprehensible! belay So aircraft carriers are the necessary ships for the armed forces, or an extra-expensive and extremely complicated burden, author, please specify! hi
    1. certero
      certero 29 August 2019 18: 32 New
      0
      It’s good to be rich and healthy. Good to have 10 AUG.
      And if there is no money to build at least 5, then it is better to spend money on something else.
      1. Graz
        Graz 29 August 2019 18: 36 New
        0
        that is, frankly speaking, a good thing, but not necessary right, let alone a continental nuclear power
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 30 August 2019 11: 49 New
          0
          continental power, as I understand it, in your opinion, is it Russia? Nitsche, washed by 3 oceans and having the longest sea border in the world?
      2. tkoh
        tkoh 30 August 2019 07: 44 New
        0
        It’s better to buy a couple of yachts to your friends
  • Taoist
    Taoist 29 August 2019 18: 29 New
    +4
    To put it mildly, we are again looking for a child prodigy ... He is not. Today, the issue is not aircraft carriers. The question is in setting tasks for the fleet.
    1. Navigator111
      Navigator111 29 August 2019 19: 06 New
      0
      "New means of production give rise to new production relations" (c)
      New tools will appear, tasks will change.
      I'll quote myself, sorry. This is about anti-submarine warfare.
      "If you look from the height of the years passed, all our activities personally seem to me like this. I stand with a stick at the door of the house, brushing off a pack of wolves. Sometimes I manage to charge one or the other along the ridge. But this does not particularly upset him. Until finally, I gave up, went into the house and left the wolves to roam freely in my former yard. And there were fewer wolves ... What am I to them? There is no threat. "
    2. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 29 August 2019 19: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      Today, the issue is not aircraft carriers.

      That's for sure. Not in aircraft carriers. The fact is, who steers the economy.
      If the government is liberal, then it will ruin the country with aircraft carriers even faster than without aircraft carriers.
      1. Saul_Rhen
        Saul_Rhen 29 August 2019 22: 56 New
        +2
        Minus from me. The country has already been ruined and by no means liberals.
  • Potter
    Potter 29 August 2019 18: 38 New
    0
    The author draws distorted conclusions due to his incompetence. Could put 8 minuses - would put. Reading is not interesting. The author is tired.
  • Potter
    Potter 29 August 2019 18: 47 New
    -4
    Aircraft carrier is a good big target for modern medium-range delivery vehicles for special charges. After which the aircraft carrier proudly goes to the bottom of the ocean with 5000 crew members and air group.
    1. Nestorovich
      Nestorovich 30 August 2019 00: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: Potter
      Aircraft carrier is a good big target for modern medium-range delivery vehicles for special charges. After which the aircraft carrier proudly goes to the bottom of the ocean with 5000 crew members and air group.

      good tale, but hard to believe.
    2. Simargl
      Simargl 30 August 2019 20: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Potter
      After which the aircraft carrier proudly goes to the bottom of the ocean with 5000 crew members and air group.
      Drowning is unlikely to succeed, even with a special charge. But to withdraw from the game - completely.
  • mark2
    mark2 29 August 2019 18: 50 New
    +1
    If I remember correctly, that is the expression: if you want to bring down the economy, build a battleship. So with the aircraft carrier. Expensive, long and with a very dubious need.
    First you need to understand for what purpose you need an aircraft carrier fleet?
    Can he just amuse his self-conceit or really hammer a knowingly weak adversary into the Stone Age?
    Maybe it’s better to focus on measures to counter AUG?
    Russia is a continental power and its most significant victories were on land.
    Having destroyed the enemy’s aug, Russia immediately becomes the dominant force on the continent. Already equalizes the chances so accurately.
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 29 August 2019 19: 20 New
      +3
      Mark2 hi "If you want to ruin the state, give it a cruiser" !!!
      1. mark2
        mark2 29 August 2019 19: 56 New
        0
        Right Thanks for the amendment. hi
    2. Ezekiel 25-17
      Ezekiel 25-17 29 August 2019 22: 56 New
      0
      Aircraft carriers are needed for projection of forces where ground forces, the Air Force, and ordinary ships cannot reach. The whole question rests on money, but there are none.
    3. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 11: 59 New
      0
      Quote: mark2
      First you need to understand for what purpose you need an aircraft carrier fleet?
      Can he just amuse his self-conceit or really hammer a knowingly weak adversary into the Stone Age?
      Maybe it’s better to focus on measures to counter AUG?

      and it never occurred to you that AUG is not only a means of "driving into the Stone Age"? With which the avaigroup of the aircraft carrier copes well, not that very well compared to the land aviation. Assuming that the AUG is needed to support the actions of the forces of its own fleet? Imagine what it would be like without air support at sea, with the enemy dominating the sky?

      Quote: mark2
      Russia is a continental power and its most significant victories were on land

      you don’t know the story very well, alas ... the Russian fleet was famous for naval victories (Sweden and Turkey eventually ceased to exist as naval powers), and they brought a lot to the empire (both politically and in terms of territories).
    4. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 12: 00 New
      -1
      Quote: mark2
      If I remember correctly, that is the expression: if you want to bring down the economy, build a battleship.

      a little wrong. I don't remember who said, but it sounds like this: "If you want to ruin small country, give her a cruiser "
  • Stas1973
    Stas1973 29 August 2019 18: 59 New
    +2
    Once again I have to write that even a spherical horse cannot be attracted. AUG, as it was a means of developed anti-aircraft defense and air defense, has remained so. The author's attempts to tighten the impact properties of the AUG against the full-fledged KUG are ridiculous and not convincing. And, by the way, the concept of the scoop, where AB played the role of the "umbrella" of the KUG in the first place, and the shock component in the second, is more relevant and in demand at the current moment.
    1. common man
      common man 29 August 2019 21: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Stas1973
      And, by the way, the concept of the scoop, where AB played the role of the "umbrella" of the KUG in the first place, and the shock component in the second, is more relevant and in demand at the current moment.

      Not special, but logically I support. Need AB defense to cover the nuclear submarines and KUG. Even in their territorial waters there are zones (north and Kuril Islands) where the ground air forces have a long response time, the distance from the airfield to the database zone. And carrier-based aviation, as a means of advanced application, is necessary. Or for example, to cover reconnaissance aircraft, PLO aircraft and strategists at a distance from their shores. Even an AB without its own AWACS aircraft, coupled with something like the A-50, can effectively solve problems in operational proximity to its territories.
  • Navigator111
    Navigator111 29 August 2019 19: 01 New
    -1
    Ilya, thanks for the article.
    However, if you take your SUMMARY, but consider the increased opportunities of the opposing side, then the question is who has the advantage.
    At the moment, the thing in "Flitex-82" from the Americans would not work.
    But then there was a problem to detect, but there was something to beat. Now the opposite. :-)
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 29 August 2019 21: 45 New
      +4
      Ilya heard a ring, but did not understand where he is.))))
      He criticizes me as if I were against aircraft carriers)))

      And I am in favor. Those articles were about something else.
      1. Navigator111
        Navigator111 29 August 2019 23: 15 New
        -2
        Conspiracy
        Once gathered Balabin-Titarenko, Andrey-Operator and Ilya Legat.
        And they decided to pay with the foretaste for the foremost :-)
  • Stas1973
    Stas1973 29 August 2019 19: 02 New
    +2
    Modera, but why cut the text, and in bot mode? The meaning is lost, there were no curses and insults. Please restore the text
  • A good one
    A good one 29 August 2019 19: 04 New
    +2
    With this question, the admirals, together with the General Staff, are tied to military doctrine, and here politics, finances, opportunities and Wishlist are tied.
  • E.S.
    E.S. 29 August 2019 19: 15 New
    -3
    Here's the point on the conclusions:
    1) Yes. And that’s why AB will be discovered and cooked in full long before it approaches the departure range of carrier-based aircraft
    2) The radius of action has increased so much that it has already decreased and caviar throwing on the topic of unmanned tanker aircraft has begun
    3) The potential was to carry nuclear weapons from carrier-based aviation, where else to grow? Weapons still bombed bridges in Vietnam. But the supersonic CD is no longer
    4) Here are the words "inconspicuous" in the text in quotes - that's right, that's honest!
  • E.S.
    E.S. 29 August 2019 19: 18 New
    -4
    Quote: certero
    It’s good to be rich and healthy. Good to have 10 AUG.
    And if there is no money to build at least 5, then it is better to spend money on something else.

    On tanks and airborne. Just the Chinese dig a tunnel from Chukotka to Alaska. The Channel has already been resolved, everything is fine there already, only tanks are needed
  • kunstkammer
    kunstkammer 29 August 2019 19: 23 New
    +3
    Quote: Spambox
    And if there is no money then ..

    Well, it was said! Hold on! How can people not understand that the best financiers in the world in Russia pray every day for the benefit of the people, their American army and navy ... all foreheads have been shattered.
  • borys
    borys 29 August 2019 20: 19 New
    +2
    For destiny.
    If there is no political will to use aircraft carriers, then
    Why spend money on them at all? The only thing begs
    a reasonable explanation - cut the budget, admiral posts,
    and loading shipyards.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 29 August 2019 20: 26 New
    -1
    On the planet there are a couple, a troika with a trump half, poles of strength ...... and the rest of the Papuans who do not know who to sell themselves to.
    To poles on all these AUG-to-chhat! And the rest is still no matter where you stick!
  • General failure
    General failure 29 August 2019 20: 28 New
    +3
    Building mega-pots like the American Ford is mega-stupidity.
    Losing such a ship is worse than winning any advantage at the risk of it.
    The classic "dreadnought trap" of the First World War.

    And now, the free flight of the mind. There is no need to call the orderlies - I'm just having fun.
    If we are to build an aircraft carrier, then something small is cheap and fast, with a maximum of a dozen aircraft (which are not cheap in and of themselves). But to build a lot.
    The application is something like this - the plane takes off from the ship - landing is not provided - and does the combat mission. The ship is small, therefore, the use of fierce rocket boosters for takeoff is inevitable.
    Landing an airplane — on water — will have to give birth to some kind of technology for this — some kind of thread, fast-inflatable floats, or something else.
    After the release of the air group, a "transport-loading ship" arrives at the "aircraft carrier" and quickly loads a new air group onto it.
    After that, the "transport-loading ship" returns to the landing area to collect the planes that have splashed down.

    Pros:
    - Low vulnerability. The loss of one such "aircraft carrier" is not critical.
    - If we work as a landing on the coast, then very soon, as the bridgehead expands, the air group smoothly sits on the airfields of the bridgehead.

    Cons:
    - The extremely controversial technique of landing on water - will require specialized aircraft, and not just minimal alterations.
    - Greater vulnerability to sea surface conditions (storm or not). Both for landing aircraft on water and for "recharging" aircraft carriers with new aircraft.
    1. English tarantas
      English tarantas 29 August 2019 22: 00 New
      +2
      Thank you, neighing from the heart)
      1. General failure
        General failure 29 August 2019 23: 02 New
        -1
        Above the British idiots that they began to fly on land planes from the deck and everyone neighed on it, too, I suppose.
        The idea of ​​a super-large and super-expensive ship has exhausted itself - this is clear to everyone.
        For, any small tub with several anti-ship missiles on board has a very good chance to disable it, no matter how you protect it. The same "calibers" have a version with a low-altitude supersonic stage, and unified in the launch container.
        ... But the idea of ​​a "floating airfield" is still very tasty.
        Therefore, I fantasize - like eating a fish, and not collecting adventure adventures.
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 30 August 2019 01: 14 New
          +1
          Above the British idiots that they began to fly on land planes from the deck and everyone neighed on it, too, I suppose.

          I doubt. Is the deck solid? Yes. Is the runway solid? Yes.

          You generally make some strange conclusions. Why do I need three ships, if one is possible? Big ships are big targets, and you can’t argue with that, but what can you do? You seem to live and fight in ranks in the 18th century, an aircraft carrier is not a cruiser or battleship a la WWII, it should never be on the cutting edge. But the aircraft carrier will provide the fleet with a significant component of modern combat - aviation, and the more the better, and the aircraft carrier is an airfield anywhere in the world where you need, and not where you are allowed. A large country needs large aircraft carriers, and small ones are needed, if there is no money for large ones, then only small ones, but not at all — stupidity in the presence of a fleet.
          For, any shallow basin with several anti-ship missiles on board has a very good chance to disable it, no matter how you protect it.

          I think that people who make aircraft carriers do not slurp their bast shoes, and he will not go to the bottom from a pair of anti-ship missiles. And to be sure, with an aircraft carrier there is: aviation PLO, and a whole AUG.
          1. General failure
            General failure 30 August 2019 01: 27 New
            -2
            Is the deck solid? Yes.

            But short :)

            Why do I need three ships, if one is possible?

            Because if you drown one ship out of three, then two more remain.
            And if you drown one large and expensive vessel, then there will remain zero and a very strong burning lower than the back.
            Remember why Jutland happened already in the middle of WWI?

            I think people who make aircraft carriers do not slurp soup with bast shoes, and he will not go to the bottom from a pair of anti-ship missiles

            And do not drown him.
            Damage it well enough so that it crawls out to be repaired for a year or so by two.
            The problem is that at the present time, anti-ship missiles have become very small and convenient, and aircraft carriers the farther, the fatter.

            For example, if a commander of a diesel submarine releases all his ammunition and drowns a trough of the "Ford" type, then he can easily die - his name will forever remain in history next to the name of Marinesko and "Gustlov".
            And the glow from the flames in the Pentagon's asses will illuminate the entire western hemisphere.
    2. Saul_Rhen
      Saul_Rhen 29 August 2019 23: 02 New
      +2
      Funny, but it was already called hydro-air transport, it seems.
      1. General failure
        General failure 29 August 2019 23: 03 New
        -1
        Duc, "everything has already been stolen before us" :)
    3. LastPS
      LastPS 29 August 2019 23: 05 New
      +2
      - The extremely controversial technique of landing on water - will require specialized aircraft, and not just minimal alterations.

      In general, it is impossible to create a digestible aircraft for such purposes, even huge flying boats are extremely sensitive to excitement, to say nothing of other types. There may be a UAV exit, but I really can’t understand how effective or ineffective the electronic warfare systems are against them. Perhaps there will be a sense from UAVs with AI. In any case, the landing problem remains. Perhaps it will be possible to build a relatively small aircraft carrier, launching UAVs in groups from one lane, with something like bursts, automation will allow this to be done quickly and safely, but this is a matter of a very distant future.
      1. General failure
        General failure 29 August 2019 23: 18 New
        -1
        Nuuu, the landing speed of a modern aircraft is 200-250 km / h.
        It can be effectively lowered with a braking parachute right in the air, as it was recently demonstrated on the Su-57 that the plane simply “flopped” into the water at near-zero speed.
        Floats can be inflated very quickly right from the turbines of the engines, through the gearbox - very strong fabrics nowadays are not at all scarce.

        The main problem is all the tender aircraft stuffing, including the engines, will be in very close to very unfriendly and chemically active sea water.
        And the combat load, if it was not shot, after such a landing is guaranteed to go to waste.
        1. LastPS
          LastPS 1 September 2019 08: 48 New
          0
          It’s too risky - there will be a failure in the float exhaust system and the car will go to the bottom for tens of millions of rubles, and this is the standard procedure that the plane performs every flight, in addition, all these additions reduce the payload, and the reusability is ensured by the same task, again hydroplanes structurally very specific, it is impossible to make a fighter-bomber using such a scheme, and other schemes for landing on water are not suitable, because
          all tender aircraft stuffing, including engines, will be in very close to very unfriendly and chemically active sea water.
          A small aircraft carrier - well, ok, maybe it makes sense, but otherwise is unpromising.
          1. General failure
            General failure 1 September 2019 17: 32 New
            -1
            Yes - risky.
            But, at landing speed, clinging hook to the cable of the aerofinisher (one of three) is that crazy balancing act.
            Very fraught with a plane crash, damage to the ship and / or air group on the deck. Oblique landing deck of course minimizes the consequences, but does not guarantee anything.

            The seaplane has one thing but - it must take off from the water, which in this case is not required. It is enough to prevent the aircraft from drowning for a reasonable period of time - 6 hours. What can be provided by rather compact inflatable floats and a compact auxiliary installation for their pressurization.

            The risk of landing on the water is about the same as that of conventional aircraft carriers, but only the plane will be able to drown. And the pilot simply catapults in case of emergency.

            The main problem, as I said, is that the plane communicates very closely with sea water and the cycle time of the preparation of the aircraft for the second flight.
            I think the steps of this cycle can be somehow optimized, as the crazy procedure for flying from the deck of existing aircraft carriers has been optimized.

            Ida, what the hell is not joking? Maybe someone thread honors my nonsense will try to implement them?
      2. abc_alex
        abc_alex 2 September 2019 09: 48 New
        0
        Quote: LastPS
        It’s generally not possible to create a digestible aircraft for such purposes,

        Wing space. Already created.
    4. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 29 August 2019 23: 52 New
      +1
      "If we are to build an aircraft carrier, then something small, cheap
      and fast, for a maximum of ten planes "////

      good
      This is what everyone is doing now: they are remaking helicopter carriers and UDCs into mini-aircraft carriers.
      Japanese, Italians, South Koreans, Spaniards.
      Because the first suitable aircraft for mini-aircraft carriers was the F-35B.
      Neither catapults, nor springboards, nor aerofinishers are needed.
      There would be a piece of a flat deck and all.
      1. General failure
        General failure 29 August 2019 23: 57 New
        0
        The F-35B still has the same drawback with vertical take-off aircraft - reduced combat characteristics.
        When meeting with a normal enemy aircraft - a guaranteed star on board a normal aircraft.
        A plane of clear sky, that is.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 30 August 2019 00: 05 New
          -3
          The only reduced characteristic of the F-35B is a reduced combat radius
          actions (fan instead of additional tank). Otherwise, it is no different
          from version "A". EPR is the same.
          According to the results of exercises in the USA, the F-35 pair easily outperforms twice as much
          groups F-15 or F-16. Those (conditionally) are shot down long before they discover
          the presence of F-35 in the air.
          (This is for you to note about "asterisks" smile ).
          1. General failure
            General failure 30 August 2019 00: 09 New
            -2
            Until he goes to battle, there’s nothing to talk about.
            F-117 was also a super-duper, but lay down from the ancient C-125.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 30 August 2019 00: 20 New
              0
              On F-117 there was no weapons at all
              air battles. And only one plane was shot down for several
              hundreds of complex strike missions in dense air defense.
              Record low loss result.
              Neither the Su-35 nor the MiG-35 were in the battles - so what? You do not consider them
              helpless? I consider them very battle-worthy machines.
              Therefore, the results of training air battles are a normal criterion
              assess the combat effectiveness of fighters.
              In the US Air Force it is believed that to successfully counter the pair F-22
              need at least 6-8 4th generation fighters supporting
              each other, and against a pair of F-35 - by less than four pieces.
              1. General failure
                General failure 30 August 2019 00: 36 New
                -1
                Well, the Su-35 and Su-57 still managed to check in in Syria, Migu - it is too early.
                Unlike the Israeli F-35, by the way.
                More and more Javrians with Hezbollah f-16 missiles are firing. And F-35 in the field for some reason do not display.
                They hide the invisibility from the S-400, which are on guard of Russian objects?
                Yes, and Turkey because of the purchase of the S-400 in the acquisition of the F-35 refused - a coincidence?

                Personally, my amateurish suspicion - all this bodyagie with a decrease in EPR - is a very, very overvalued thing. And the history of the use of 5th generation American aircraft - or rather, the lack of it - only strengthens suspicions.
                Something like that.
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 30 August 2019 00: 50 New
                  -1
                  Well, the Su-35 and Su-57 still managed to check in in Syria, Migu - it is too early.
                  Unlike the Israeli F-35, by the way.
                  -----
                  Well, it’s you just not up to date. Israeli F-35 constantly
                  in business - about it on VO article by article for a year and a half.
                  And the F-22s were in the Middle East and bombed ISIS - just like that,
                  like a su-35. And the American F-35s bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
                  They wrote about all this and discussed it. hi drinks
                2. English tarantas
                  English tarantas 30 August 2019 01: 01 New
                  -1
                  Well, the Su-35 and Su-57 did manage to be noted in Syria

                  Yes, in general, any aircraft adopted for service: flies, attacks and uses avionics. And the fact that the Su-35 took off over Syria and dropped the bomb does not make much difference between the fact that it took off over the landfill and dropped the bomb. And by the way, what marked the Su-57, it’s a fighter, did I miss the news about his participation in the air battle?
                  More and more Javrians with Hezbollah f-16 missiles are firing. And F-35 in the field for some reason do not display.

                  Well, you don’t go in shoes of the garden)
                  Yes, and Turkey because of the purchase of the S-400 in the acquisition of the F-35 refused - a coincidence?

                  Not a coincidence, you have obsessive mania. This is not physics, but politics is involved.
                  Personally, my amateurish suspicion - all this bodyagie with a decrease in EPR - is a very, very overvalued thing.

                  The fact is that DILETANIAN, I myself am not an expert, but something physics lessons from school tell me that you are drawing too hasty conclusions.
                  more precisely, the absence thereof

                  It's a question of time.
                  1. General failure
                    General failure 30 August 2019 01: 13 New
                    -2
                    And the fact that the Su-35 took off over Syria and dropped the bomb does not make much difference between the fact that it took off over the landfill and dropped the bomb.

                    The difference is that the landfill is familiar to the last bump, and here is a completely unfamiliar area.
                    However, the same applies to the American combat missions on the F-35 - they also threw bombs at the barmels unable to respond.
                    In air battles, neither one nor the other did not agree with anyone.

                    2 "voyaka uh" - about the combat use was wrong - used the F-35 - found an article here.

                    The fact is that DILETAN, I myself am not an expert

                    Exactly. Neither you nor I know what happens with noticeability when the stealth turns on the radar.
                    And how is he generally looking for air targets without a radar.
                    How well and how far the stealth is visible in the optical systems that Russian warplanes are equipped with. In short, there are many questions, and no one will answer the answers, for it is secret.
                    1. English tarantas
                      English tarantas 30 August 2019 01: 26 New
                      -1
                      The difference is that the landfill is familiar to the last bump, and here is a completely unfamiliar area.
                      However, the same applies to the American combat missions on the F-35 - they also threw bombs at the barmels unable to respond.
                      In air battles, neither one nor the other did not agree with anyone.

                      The difference in landscapes does not affect the characteristics of the aircraft, it is the gunners who can shoot all positions, but the sky is one. As for the incapable, you can at least google about the use of MANPADS.
                      Exactly. Neither you nor I know what happens with noticeability when the stealth turns on the radar.

                      I know that radar radiation is always visible, but in passive mode it is not.
                      And how is he generally looking for air targets without a radar.

                      Or passively, i.e. the radar does not emit and accepts the reflected, but only accepts the incoming. Or from external target designation. Or himself, optics.
                      How well and how far the stealth is visible in the optical systems that Russian warplanes are equipped with. In short, there are many questions, and no one will answer the answers, for it is secret.

                      Well, such values ​​as: how far and how obvious, I won’t tell you, but I think there are people who can tell you a lot.
                      1. General failure
                        General failure 30 August 2019 01: 37 New
                        -1
                        As for the incapable, you can at least google about the use of MANPADS.

                        Tell you about the combat characteristics of MANPADS? And why do not Russian planes below 5000 fly in Syria?
                        The same applies to amers - they threw planning bombs from afar.

                        Or from external target designation.

                        Well yes. As someone here said, "Americans cannot fight without an Awax."
                      2. English tarantas
                        English tarantas 30 August 2019 01: 42 New
                        0
                        And why do not Russian planes below 5000 fly in Syria?

                        Because there were already domestic pilots captured by Muslim nations. And why did you mention the characteristics of MANPADS, to praise or to blame? Something you confuse yourself, first you are about the helpless, then about the characteristics of MANPADS (it seems that they are low), then about 5000 and KR.
                        Well yes. As someone here said, "Americans cannot fight without an Awax."

                        Enviously? They have it, so they use it, why blame them?
                      3. General failure
                        General failure 31 August 2019 20: 43 New
                        -2
                        And why did you mention the characteristics of MANPADS

                        To the fact that you obviously do not know them, but you have your own opinion.
                        Take the trouble to learn at least something, at least from Wikipedia and not to carry nonsense.

                        Enviously? They have it

                        What are you talking about? Everyone has Avaks, actually. They are called differently simply.
                        But there is a reason to reproach, for Avax is a very strange thing. There he is, and a rocket has arrived - and he is already gone.

                        And how then to fight?
                      4. English tarantas
                        English tarantas 31 August 2019 23: 38 New
                        -2
                        Yes, I have an opinion and have every right to do so. I doubt that you, too, remember the exact performance characteristics of MANPADS, but at least I can imagine the approximate values. And in general, it was about the fact that you think that the "barmaley" are helpless against aviation, and I replied that the Americans, and not only, suffered losses from low-echelon air defense, which you seem to have forgotten. And about AWACS, you shouldn't even remember phrases like: Americans cannot fight without support / AWACS and they also need juice and toilet paper, by God as children, either REN TV, or Zadornov teach people this.
                      5. General failure
                        General failure 31 August 2019 23: 50 New
                        -2
                        I understood you. You are an expert and a figure.
                        But, only in the eyes of your fans.
                        Something like that.
      2. Navigator111
        Navigator111 1 September 2019 20: 05 New
        -1
        It's just that the Weasel got off the ground, flying the same route three times and working with the same callsign. Moreover, the Russian Federation issued data on the departure of the aircraft and data from the RZK.
      3. abc_alex
        abc_alex 2 September 2019 09: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        only one plane was shot down for several
        hundreds of complex strike missions in dense air defense.


        Correct, one plane was shot down for an insignificant number of simple operations in the conditions of suppressed or absent air defense.
        wink
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 2 September 2019 10: 02 New
          -1
          When air defense is ineffective, then it is declared depressed. smile
          The number of F-117 sorties is online - look. About a thousand.
          1. abc_alex
            abc_alex 3 September 2019 09: 52 New
            0
            Could it be that you decided to call Serbian air defense powerful and modern? Panama, Iraq and Yugoslavia - these are the three countries against which the nighthawks used, tell me more quickly which of these countries had an air defense system?
            I’ll add to you: the operations were not only simple but also meaningless, and even performed under conditions of multiple numerical superiority in the air. None of them had military significance, these were pure PR actions aimed at justifying the enormous costs of the program, the result of which was an airplane that no one needed.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 3 September 2019 10: 57 New
              +1
              "these were pure PR actions ..." /////
              ----
              Invincible logic! laughing
              Commercials can declare absolutely any weapon used in war as a "PR action". Can not argue with that. fellow
              If you turn to the Syrian campaign ... PR campaign on PR campaign.
              But some call it:
              "the use of the latest weapons in wars" smile
              1. abc_alex
                abc_alex 4 September 2019 09: 57 New
                0
                At the time of the last war in Iraq and Yugoslavia, nighthawks were no longer the newest. During this period, they were already on the verge of writing off, and therefore a PR move was needed with their participation. Otherwise, Congress might not understand why "stealth rattles" are needed at all and cut the Raptor's budget. Just Raator was then really the newest and by 2003 there were 20-30 production cars in the state. But they didn’t show up in Iraq.
                And what can you say, the latest in a blind bomb carrier from the LTX of the times of 2MB? :)
                Some may call any technical failure a "technology demonstrator." It never ceases to be a failure.
              2. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 4 September 2019 10: 04 New
                0
                "During this period, they were already on the verge of being written off," ///
                -----
                Several pieces are still flying (formally decommissioned). The latest technologies and weapons are being tested on them.
                A raptor is a fighter for gaining dominance in the air. Iraqi aviation was not in the air. smile
                What was needed there: to bomb accurately, without fear of missiles. What did the F-117. By the way, I was wrong. They had not a few hundred in Iraq, but more than 1200 sorties. Such a PR for 1200 laughing
              3. abc_alex
                abc_alex 5 September 2019 01: 40 New
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                What was needed there: to bomb accurately, without fear of missiles. What did the F-117.

                As well as all other US Air Force planes. wink in Iraq, the nighthawks did little of the combat work. The old F-111 and B-52 did much more. Without any "stealth" and also without losses (combat from air defense).

                Quote: voyaka uh
                Several pieces are still flying (formally decommissioned).

                And what does that prove?

                Quote: voyaka uh
                Such a PR for 1200

                End of PR. It was required to show the extreme degree of demand for "stealth". She was composed as much as possible. It turned out not that much. Since the real combat work during more than 30 thousand sorties was done by completely different machines. I'm not even talking about the massive use of cruise missiles and helicopters. Nighthawks flew, of course, but they did not perform specific tasks to overcome air defense. All their work, without prejudice to the maintenance of the database, should be performed by other aircraft.
              4. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 5 September 2019 10: 03 New
                0
                "All their work, without prejudice to the maintenance of the database mrgli, to perform other aircraft" ////
                -----
                Demagogy.
                Flying fortresses of the times of World War II could also have completed all their work.
                All VKS work in Syria COULD be performed by IL-2 laughing
                But work in modern armies is usually done with modern weapons. It was nice to talk. hi
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 30 August 2019 05: 36 New
    +2
    According to the results of exercises in the USA, the F-35 pair easily outperforms twice as much
    groups F-15 or F-16. Those (conditionally) are shot down long before they discover
    the presence of F-35 in the air.
    (This is for you to note about "asterisks" smile).

    do not drag the ears of the results of those exercises. They have so many questions that there is no room for answers. No.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 30 August 2019 12: 27 New
      -1
      The commander of the "aggressor squadron", in which the best retired fly
      aces on not the most modern, but the most maneuverable aircraft, after
      training against the F-35 said disappointedly: “We need to change planes.
      we can’t sneak up on the F-35, we don’t know where they are. They knock us down, and
      we don't even see them. "
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 30 August 2019 12: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        after the teachings against f-xnumx said disappointedly

        He personally told you this, or can you read about it somewhere?
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 30 August 2019 12: 47 New
          0
          I occasionally look through the English-language popular science press.
          If something interesting flickers, I put it into posts on the topic. hi
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 30 August 2019 13: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            If something interesting flickers, I put it in posts on

            Alexey, you understand perfectly well that without reference to the source, such "statements by the commanders of the aggressors", ahem ... are unconvincing request
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 30 August 2019 13: 13 New
              -3
              I stopped giving links to VO, as I was convinced that it was useless.
              Those who trust my posts will continue to trust, and those who trust
              for some reason they treat me personally (or to Israel as a whole)
              hostile, in any case, either they do not understand, or they cannot read
              or just run around smile without even reading. I am wasting my time looking for an article I’ve wasted a month or three ago. Why do I need it?
              1. Ingvar 72
                Ingvar 72 30 August 2019 18: 49 New
                0
                Lyosh, you must remember the saying "Trust but verify."
                And yet, I personally have for you (although I am anti-Semitic), the attitude is normal, in contrast to the attitude towards Israel. Therefore, you should not identify with politicians who rule the state with a Nazi accent.
  • Navigator111
    Navigator111 30 August 2019 11: 19 New
    -3
    About megagloop :-)
    By the way.
    And to conduct the winter Olympics in the sub tropics is wisdom.
    Humor.
  • Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 30 August 2019 12: 09 New
    -1
    Quote: General Failure
    The application is something like this - the plane takes off from the ship - landing is not provided

    cool))) Ie deliberately damage or disable for a short time an expensive aircraft, which (because expensive) cannot be many. The pilot will not be buried in such a landing on an unintended "runway"?

    Quote: General Failure
    "transport-loading ship" arrives

    the size of a good Ford under 100 thousand tons, right? So that the planes and BC were enough for at least three or four sorties for "small aircraft carriers."

    Quote: General Failure
    The loss of one such "aircraft carrier" is not critical

    and a transport-loading ship, in combination with a floating workshop and air transport with a hundred aircraft? also not critical?

    Quote: General Failure
    will require specialized aircraft

    and very expensive aircraft
  • ser56
    ser56 30 August 2019 16: 24 New
    0
    Quote: General Failure
    The application is about this

    was already in the 1MV Orlits Aviamat ... bully
  • Simargl
    Simargl 30 August 2019 20: 29 New
    0
    Quote: General Failure
    The application is something like this - the plane takes off from the ship - landing is not provided - and does the combat mission. The ship is small, therefore, the use of fierce rocket boosters for takeoff is inevitable.
    Landing an airplane — on water — will have to give birth to some kind of technology for this — some kind of thread, fast-inflatable floats, or something else.
    Have you copied this tactic from a penguin? They are just designed for takeoff from a barge and a vertical landing when it is already unloaded.
    1. General failure
      General failure 31 August 2019 20: 22 New
      -1
      I sketched the application from the aerodrome-free launch projects, where the MiG-17 took off from a catapult equipped on a car trailer.

      This idea was hacked on the grounds that an airplane landing on an unequipped landing site and organizing a second departure is too long a matter.
  • Lontus
    Lontus 29 August 2019 20: 57 New
    0
    The gigantic aircraft carrier lobby will never rest.
    Hope to break through common sense.
  • Drswarce
    Drswarce 29 August 2019 21: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Destiny
    Quote: borys
    Last year’s campaign of two aircraft carriers to the shores of Korea is
    showed very well. The result of the trip is zero

    The result of the campaign is such because of the lack of political will of the US leadership (that is, the absence of the order of the Commander-in-Chief to the sailors for the full use of the AUG), nothing more ..
    Quote: borys
    the campaign of two aircraft carriers to the shores of Korea is
    showed very well.

    THREE AUG. There would have been an order, I have no doubt never, together with the South Korean Air Force "would have been bombed into the Stone Age," as it has become fashionable here ... Aircraft carriers have not "outlived their days."
    "Who rules the seas - he rules the worlds" by Alonso Arjuna. It is still relevant ...

    And where THEY are now scraping three AUGs, will they drive them from all fleets? Expand the topic please, otherwise even in the light of recent events, pind0с0v has become a shame
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 29 August 2019 21: 55 New
    +3
    I wonder what exactly Alexander wants to convey?


    What Alexander wanted to convey was highlighted in bold and the heading "CONCLUSION".
    wink

    I don’t even know what else I could do so as not to raise questions.

    After all, a simple mathematical calculation shows that if we summarize the Japanese losses caused by the actions of the army aviation, the naval base aviation and the naval carrier-based aviation, it turns out that it was the aircraft that sank the most Japanese ships. Where exactly the bombers and torpedo bombers were based no longer plays a big role.


    Well, not too lazy to repeat. So, the statistics.

    “Submarines of the US Navy - 201;
    Surface ships - 112;
    Army Aviation - 70;
    Navy Base Aviation - 20;
    Navy Deck Aviation - 161;
    Coastal artillery - 2;
    Undermined by mines - 19;
    Destroyed by other aircraft and agents - 26. ”

    Sunk by airplanes - 251
    Surface ships and submarines (that is, what was designated in previous eras by the word "fleet") - 313

    Articles, by the way, were not about the fact that aircraft carriers are not needed or overestimated, really something, but I would never have written such a thing. Articles about the fact that operational and tactical schemes that allow the surface fleet to defeat aviation under certain conditions exist. That airplanes are never an absolute weapon. For all their danger to the ships, it’s very real and very high.

    But, apparently, no matter how you chew, someone will read something of their own between the lines.
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 29 August 2019 22: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      Articles about the fact that operational and tactical schemes that allow the surface fleet to defeat aviation under certain conditions exist.

      The weak point of these articles was that these very "under certain conditions" are far too far-fetched. The only thing you mentioned is that disguise as peaceful traffic is unlikely in pre-war conditions. You had no more convincing arguments for a surface ship against an aircraft carrier.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 30 August 2019 09: 31 New
        0
        Just the same in the Pre-war conditions with peaceful traffic everything will be all right.

        Well, somehow you have greatly simplified it. Three articles on 100000 signs reduced to this one.

        Everything is harder, but you need to train properly

        "... They discovered at the Mech station the work of the radio-technical means of the American destroyer. In order to maintain combat readiness and practice the ship's combat crew, the first mate announced a" drill "to deliver a simulated missile strike with the main complex. After making a series of maneuvers, creating a" base " determining the distance, and having determined that the target was within reach, while continuing to observe secrecy, not including additional radio equipment for radiation, they inflicted a conditional missile strike with two P-100 missiles.When performing the missile attack, the complex of all measures according to the classical scheme of the schedule And the overheated crew was shaken from the drowsiness caused by the heat. Visually the foe was not detected or identified, nor did they strive for this, following strictly according to the transition plan. Radio-technical search station MP-401S repeatedly discovered beyond the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, at the exit to the Indian Ocean, the operation of the radar station of the American carrier-based aircraft AWACS "Hokkai". Obviously, from the AVM "Constellation", which, according to intelligence reports from the 8th OPESK, regularly arriving at the "Boevoy", is on combat training in the Arabian Sea. Passive search and reconnaissance tools help out a lot. This is our trump card. ALLOWING TO REMAIN INVISIBLE, "highlight" the surrounding situation, WARNING OF THE APPROACH OF AIR ATTACK, OF MISSION HAZARD, of the presence of enemy ships, weeding out civilian targets. The cassettes of the stations' memory blocks contain the data of all existing radio equipment of the ships and aircraft of the potential enemy. And when the operator of the Mech station reports that he is observing the operation of an air detection station of an English frigate or a navigation radar station of a civilian ship, reporting its parameters, then this is so.
        ..."
        1. Navigator111
          Navigator111 30 August 2019 18: 07 New
          -1
          Just read :-)
          This is the first strike against an adversary in a permanent BG. If the level is higher, the number will not pass.
          Further, the enemy also has the means of pp and rtr. And it is possible that he also worked out a conditional strike at that time. But he had more complete information, at least due to AWACS. A ship does not arise out of nowhere. The whole situation is underway.
          And finally, he didn’t work at all? No navigation radar, no communication, no applications in a very busy shipping area.?
          Everything was, just do not consider the enemy stupid. Well, believe the reports of the commander. Normal move after BS, buy cheaper, sell more expensive.
          Well, you know how we fought with the Chapaevsky antics of the Warsaw commanders in the Kuril Islands.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 30 August 2019 22: 17 New
            0
            Yes, I do not insist, although for some time they could actually go even without a navigation radar, only on the passive detection of other radars.

            I won’t argue here, I wasn’t there, I just wanted to ask my interlocutor not to simplify the situation unnecessarily. A lot of things can happen at sea, including in a combat situation.

            Roughly speaking, the aircraft carrier was stronger when he timely spotted the enemy, raised airborne reconnaissance, provided the command center in real time and sent an attack group to the NK. Then, yes, there are boats for water, if there is anyone there will be at least one living boat.

            And outside of this scheme, options begin that are not described by any equations. And the aircraft carrier has an advantage there too, but there is one mistake when planning the departure, and it will not be there.

            Well, you know how we fought with the Chapaevsky antics of the Warsaw commanders in the Kuril Islands.


            In this story, I was shocked not so much by the presence of such a ram in the ranks of submarine commanders, but by the lack of a clear reaction from the command.
            Sheep ashore, a senior commander in the WRID of the commander, to explain what kind of relapse will go to jail - I would do so right away, after the first time. I don’t understand how you were so liberal there.
            1. Navigator111
              Navigator111 30 August 2019 23: 02 New
              -1
                He is also a commander in Africa .... The commander did not give them offense, and if he arranged a harassment, then in private. I thought about it, I even made something: "Commanders do not become if they are not born." http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/komander.shtml I was present once, when the flotilla 2 lump ... was also there, I will copy my writings. We were talking with Dudko, as I ate, although it was encrypted. Some things are distorted and begin to live their own lives :-) :-) :-) ..... "-When I went to the flotilla commander to sign an urgent report, I saw on the table under the glass a photograph of a submarine at periscope depth. I understood everything, it was a picture taken by the crew of a Be-12, ie K-492. Pointing to the photo, he asked, 'Do you recognize?' and further: 'of course, it was unpleasant for me when the pilots handed me this photo with a grin. " I answer: "I was present, together with the navigator of the squadron Valentin Molchanov, at this analysis at the headquarters of the 10th DIPL. The documents (tracing paper and photos) were transferred to the NSh division as a chipboard. With what grin? I myself removed this tracing paper from the map, put a stamp and ordered a photo in AFS (as the ZNSh of the Be-12 squadron then.) I handed, then the starley, the NSh division capraza Valuev. And what, I had to grin at him? Aviation Kataev would be like that ... flew in ... He grinned))) Especially since the NSh of Aviation knew me as flaky, he himself transferred me from Nikolaevka to Elizovo, went to him for talks a couple of times at the aviation headquarters. And how did Lump of the flotilla beat two commanders of the submarine on the nose with these photographs, he doesn't want to write about it? The torpedoes were supposed to be fired according to the SAC data. man, they took it off after the boat was drowned in Sarannaya in 1984. ".. Well, this is the only case. And so Lump relied on them and forgave a lot. In addition, for example, Klimov believes that everything is correct. The commander must give his acoustics a bite of the live meat. Work with real Los, feel confident. We worked for the future, the commanders for ourselves. That's the whole difference.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 30 August 2019 23: 12 New
                0
                Well, I don’t know, this is all a direct violation of the order, and the periscope, and parcels in the forehead of Los Angeles.

                The latter with consequences of operational significance.

                I had moments in my biography when I didn’t take out a complex team, and instead of dictatorship I had to play politics with my subordinates. But in any case, the only difference was that there was a conversation in front of the press, and the press began after the second jamb.

                For consecutive multiple disruptions of the GAP recording of an enemy submarine and the "illumination" of the enemy of his "spectrum", such a commander would be erased into slime. The second time the maximum. The stakes are too high. I don’t understand such softness in general.

                I know the opinion of Maxim from these events, I do not agree with him in this case.

                Work with real Los, feel confident.


                So he would hang on his tail, write a piece of the portrait with impunity.
                Here it is - confidence then. It's much cooler, even psychologically.
                1. Navigator111
                  Navigator111 31 August 2019 12: 03 New
                  -1
                  The headquarters employee is office plankton.
                  Above me is the head of the PLB department, then the NS flotilla.
                  Well, maybe they will listen to my boss.
                  Sometimes it was possible to push something into Moscow (ideas), thanks to a good relationship with Garik Yazov, especially when he did not drink and stood with me in a pair of melee :-)
                  And advise the boat commander ..... He politely listens, they are all with shells on the ass :-)
                  He acts on the basis of his ideas on tactics.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 31 August 2019 12: 19 New
                    0
                    So the question is not for staff.
                    1. Navigator111
                      Navigator111 31 August 2019 13: 11 New
                      -1
                      Yes, but our ideas.
                      Again, I returned to Masha, who is not a mistress of her own hands :-) And the principle is that We don’t give our own.
                      You want it, you don’t want it, and again the furniture maker, ducks, batuds, Fedya with a button ....
                      You kind of wrote about the purchase of engines, an officer who was against .... Mina’s adventures ..... an article about Evmenov is here.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 31 August 2019 14: 29 New
                        0
                        Well, there was the order to conduct, the commander of the operation, tasks, etc. The fact that everything from the filing of the head wiseacres of this whole aggregate does not cancel. And according to common sense, everything was thought up well and correctly.

                        Oh well.
                      2. Navigator111
                        Navigator111 31 August 2019 18: 03 New
                        -1
                        It’s more difficult to stick a lump. under the signature what I came up with :-)
                        I was able to write the reason.
                        They were afraid to get involved. And the people in our department got cool. And there one search engine, the second, and the authority gained.
                        Nothing too complicated, zeal, desire, and so that they do not really interfere.
                        The American boat is always there, just give out strength. Where will she go :-)
  • TochkaY
    TochkaY 29 August 2019 22: 39 New
    0
    But aren’t aircraft carriers necessary for intimidation? Who tested them in real combat conditions and with an enemy not of the type of North Korea?
    Well, a military town the size of 2–3 football fields is floating, and what advantages will it receive in a real war, a war in which there will be strategic bombers, nuclear powered ships, cruise missiles, hypersound, and other weapons of a non-Papuan level?
    Scare, scare. Only, it seems, the Americans themselves frighten others for their impunity. That is, they flaunt large boats.
    1. Navigator111
      Navigator111 29 August 2019 23: 25 New
      +3
      I wrote earlier in the article "How much is needed to destroy an aircraft carrier ..."
      Here among the commentators there are those who saw the AMG alive, with their own eyes, at a distance of three hundred meters.? With a hanging Tomket and a screeching disco in the form of STR And the signal is not intermittent, but constant
      And so yes, the trough is floating .... what garbage.
    2. Nestorovich
      Nestorovich 30 August 2019 05: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: TochkaY
      bombers, nuclear powered ships, cruise missiles, hypersound, and other weapons of a non-papuan level?

      and these non-Papus are able to give target designation to all this prodigy, and what ???
      Quote: TochkaY
      hypersound

      and how many of these wudelwafels are in service? everything is beautiful by cartoons, but really? 3 instants redone? Americans are already terrified, yeah.
      1. Eroma
        Eroma 31 August 2019 14: 48 New
        0
        As far as we know, there are horizontal radars that Avik do not distinguish from a tanker ship, but they see some sort of target!

        If you use kr with pl, apl and coast on the principle of wetting all who swam where you can not! That AUG will be difficult to constantly fight back and he will either leave or drown.
        1. Navigator111
          Navigator111 31 August 2019 18: 09 New
          -1
          Weapon resource. One salvo in milk, the second .... and then on board? :-)
          Good weapons are expensive and not many.
          As a young man, I was interested in-Why not equip all 24 missiles with a poisonous warhead.
          The answer was, several nuclear bores are commensurate in value with a submarine. Not the fact that the target will be hit by the first attack.
          1. Eroma
            Eroma 31 August 2019 18: 55 New
            0
            I think in case of war, 200-300 and even 1000 missiles will be affordable
            Moreover, the price of 1000 missiles is the cost of just a single annual maintenance of AUG.
            1. Navigator111
              Navigator111 31 August 2019 19: 20 New
              -1
              Not so much.
              The Tu-22m2 division is two BC. These are 50 X-22 and 80 DAC different.
              Mongohto.
              Already gave a link.
              Semyonov "Aircraft carrier, answers to questions." Read the comments too.

              http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/avianosec-1985-86.shtml

              As it was, it’s much worse now.
  • Vladimir Lenin
    Vladimir Lenin 29 August 2019 23: 08 New
    -1
    And can you install deflector shields for this miracle? I think no. What about phasers and disruptors? Apparently not either. Well, at least it can be put into low Earth orbit? I'm afraid not too! Then for hell we generally need it !!!!
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 29 August 2019 23: 59 New
    -2
    initially erroneous concept, there are no numbers, Begins a deep lie on the dreadnoughts, for the information of the author, the first "dreadnought" was built in Russia in 1872, 30 years before the British, and served by the way 90 years ..... admiration for the West! They forgot the achievements of their native country, they praise the British. Now about AB, the whole article is one water, what the Japanese thought there and how they fought in world war ... nonsense, now there are missiles, that's what determines the outcome of the battle, now all means of destruction are mobile and the main thing is that they have this stealth, stealth and stealth ..... in this regard, AV is an easy target and nothing more, only submarines are effective at sea, and on land, something that quickly changes position and hides in the bushes. Why write about the world war of the last century, and in the conflict inside Ukraine they do not even use planes because of their visibility .... this is already there to talk about surface ships.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 August 2019 11: 58 New
      -1
      Quote: vladimir1155
      the first "dreadnought" was built in Russia 1872

      is it "Peter the Great" or what? Well, nothing is a dreadnought, however))) Rather, it is a non-armored bearer. Distinctive features of the dreadnought: guns of the main (one) caliber, in a much larger number than those of battleships (in the reason for the rejection of numerous medium-caliber artillery). High travel speed comparable to cruisers. Due to the advantage in speed, the new battleship could choose an advantageous battle distance and, thanks to the large number of 305-mm guns, had undeniable tactical advantages over any battleship of that time.
      This is why HMS Dreadnought ushered in a new era. Just like the T-44 and T-64, they marked a new era in tank building.

      Quote: vladimir1155
      Lost achievements of their native country, praise the British

      just know the story. But you distort it.

      Quote: vladimir1155
      now there are rockets, that’s what determines the outcome of the battle

      Missiles, missiles, the point is not in them, but in the carrier. And the aircraft as a carrier of these missiles is a very effective thing. Now tell me where to get the plane into the ocean, in the absence of aircraft carriers?

      Quote: vladimir1155
      AB light target

      utter nonsense. Or only in your fantasies.

      Quote: vladimir1155
      only submarines are effective at sea

      Yeah, Germany, remember the times of the second half of WWII. Did you do a lot of war on the Dolenitz submarine? How many aircraft drowned them? It was she (aviation) who broke the ridge of the Nazi submariners. By themselves, submarines (without ensuring their actions) mean nothing.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 31 August 2019 21: 26 New
        -1
        an aircraft carrier is an easy target, ...... you couldn’t reject it, you don’t have any arguments, you surrendered ...... the planes are vulnerable, and AB is generally very vulnerable, missiles can be delivered to the ocean on a submarine, or long-range aviation. ..and why by the way so far from their native coast?
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMPZ1xEFnAk
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 31 August 2019 21: 56 New
          0
          Quote: vladimir1155
          you have no arguments

          yeah, it's just that your ears are covered with noodles, they don’t hear and don’t want to hear - that’s the whole secret.
          As I understand it, it makes no sense to explain something stubborn, they, even screwed up, will repeat that the interlocutor is wrong.
          What can I say? Fight without aircraft, but - preferably, away from us. So that you die a hero, but - alone, because of your own stupidity.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 1 September 2019 13: 00 New
            -2
            Quote: Gregory_45
            As I understand it, it makes no sense to explain something stubborn, they, even screwed up, will repeat that the interlocutor is wrong.
            What can I say?

            you again showed the absence of arguments, you couldn’t list a single one even from the third time .... yeah ... ...... no supporters of aircraft carriers and generally large surface link-esincephregate cruisers have none !!!!! argument !!!!!!! no one!!!!!
  • Chaldon48
    Chaldon48 30 August 2019 00: 34 New
    0
    It seems that the conclusion suggests itself, aircraft carriers need to be built and preferably nuclear.
  • Captain flag
    Captain flag 30 August 2019 01: 12 New
    +3
    In my amateurish opinion, the title of the article does not quite correspond to its content, due to the fact that the article does not indicate the reason why the aircraft carrier is simply necessary, and the arguments presented (in short, the growth of aviation characteristics), in my opinion, are not significant, since the growth of performance characteristics occurs everywhere, including in the means of protection against aviation. More weighty arguments could be the answers to the following questions: "What is an aircraft carrier capable of that cannot be dispensed with? Is the cost worth it? Can these functions be passed on to someone else?" There is practically no analysis of the role of the aircraft carrier.
    And the part of the article devoted to the Falklands War leaves a strange impression. At the beginning, the author seems to be going to challenge the conclusions of Alexander Timokhin, but instead of analyzing those events from a different point of view, the phrase “it is difficult to argue here” with subsequent reflections in the spirit of “well, anything can happen in war” goes.
    1. bugagich
      bugagich 30 August 2019 14: 19 New
      +1
      Quote: Captain Flag
      "What can an aircraft carrier do that you can't do without? Is the cost worth it? Can these functions be passed on to someone else?"

      The article, of course, not wow ... But it, as I understand it, is somewhat in the context of the cycle of articles by Alexander Timokhin "Surface ships against aircraft."
      And the questions you posed on the VO have already been sucked-reshipped a very long time ago. Although, they still suck, and suck, and there is no end in sight to this sucking ...
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 August 2019 12: 01 New
      0
      Quote: Captain Flag
      the article does not indicate the reason why the aircraft carrier is simply necessary

      only for one reason, and it is indicated in the article. aircraft carrier - floating self-propelled airfield. Aviation is a very serious force, without it it is almost impossible to win a battle. And since there are no airfields in the sea, this is the reason for the need for an aircraft carrier. It allows you to have aviation here and now. where it is needed.
  • Roster
    Roster 30 August 2019 01: 34 New
    +2
    This is my second post, same question. Does the Author of the article have not "oh god we have nothing" or "the USA is a super technology of the future"?

    The opinion of moderators, if any, is interesting.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 30 August 2019 01: 37 New
    +1
    This was all before the era of nuclear relations !!!!!! Any attack on Russia will inevitably lead to a mutually destructive reaction !!!!!! However, we should not sit and scratch turnips !!!!!!
    1. Navigator111
      Navigator111 30 August 2019 10: 08 New
      +2
      Assault assault.
      A certain country in the competition of economies nevertheless came to the finish line, on the legs of a bush, as it threw off its own.
      Notice! Nobody attacked :-)
      1. Alien From
        Alien From 30 August 2019 10: 32 New
        0
        Yes, that is right. But here we are only talking about a military solution to the issue. However, the West should learn to do business.
        1. Navigator111
          Navigator111 30 August 2019 11: 21 New
          0
          Under Stolypin, the world learned from Russia to do business.
          Then came the Sharikovs, to take and divide. That's how we live :-)
  • Vladimir Nizhegorodsky
    Vladimir Nizhegorodsky 30 August 2019 02: 24 New
    -5
    ALL THEY LIE.
    POSSIBLE WITHOUT AN Aircraft carrier.
    AS RUSSIA HAS "ZIRCON" HYPERSound.
    BEFORE THIS ON MY WAS "GRANITE" AND BEFORE THIS SUPER SOUND.
    SORRY DEAR PARTNERS.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 30 August 2019 05: 58 New
    0
    All in the same way, but it would seem that they are needed, but the purpose of their application is where. It is clear if the country's policy is focused on aggression and the seizure of colonies, where then order must be maintained. Then the stump is clear, oh, how they are needed, the same France to drive the natives in their overseas lands. Actually, the consumers of aircraft carriers in Russia can be only two fleets, the North and the Pacific, Black and Baltic, these are puddles shot by modern SCRC. So the need is real, a couple of and no more to resolve local conflicts, such as Syria. And so it is necessary to recall the Soviet experience, anti-ship systems complexes based on ICBMs with a range of 4000-6000 km, so that they could receive love from Russia at any point in the water within half an hour. Such complexes can be placed inland, and even with a simple missile head it is necessary to have, even in local conflicts, if the enemy has an air defense system, then it is better to save airplanes, it will be clear expensive, but people are more important.
  • Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 30 August 2019 09: 07 New
    0
    Fun outlined
  • Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 30 August 2019 10: 02 New
    +1
    Well eper theater. The question is incorrectly posed.

    The right question is - who needs aircraft carriers, if they are needed in principle.

    The United States, sitting overseas and waging wars on other continents - is very necessary. They just need supremacy in the ocean to supply troops thousands of miles without problems.

    Russia, which occupies half the continent and does not wage full-scale wars across the oceans, doesn’t. We will only need aircraft carriers when the tanks are located on the English Channel on one side and somewhere on the border with Thailand on the other. And this is already a fantastic scenario.
    1. Navigator111
      Navigator111 30 August 2019 11: 45 New
      +2
      If the empire does not fight on foreign territory, it fights on its own (s)
      Why the English Channel and Thailand, when on its territory a fire, a flood, something explodes and drowns? I remembered Dunno on the Moon.
      Julio Sprutso-Why should we clean up? When we mess up this room, we will move to another one. :-)
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 30 August 2019 15: 20 New
        0
        I do not think that in London at the end of the 19th century there were no social and sanitary problems;)
  • pavelty
    pavelty 30 August 2019 10: 06 New
    0
    Because it is possible ...
  • Looking for
    Looking for 30 August 2019 13: 14 New
    0
    The question is, can anyone give an example of an aircraft carrier floating in the northern latitudes? not to mention the release and acceptance of aircraft at temperatures below 0 degrees?
    1. Navigator111
      Navigator111 30 August 2019 13: 53 New
      0
      What a tenacious bike.
      In the Aleut region in winter, at points 5-6, icing, Tu-16 Yelizovo circled around the Americans, released and received aircraft from an aircraft carrier. .
      I agree that not all wing pilots are prepared for such conditions.
      This is 1985, February.
    2. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 30 August 2019 15: 21 New
      +1
      More interesting, why is there to do this if you have your own land in any quantities?
    3. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 16: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: Seeker
      The question is, can anyone give an example of an aircraft carrier floating in the northern latitudes? not to mention the release and acceptance of aircraft at temperatures below 0 degrees?


      During WWII, aircraft carriers operated in the northern latitudes during the Norwegian operation, posting convoys to the USSR, etc. Received and released aircraft. There are interesting photos on the net how sailors clean the deck littered with snow and icy planes in the parking lot.

      Aircraft carriers flew in northern latitudes during the Cold War. In 2018 "Harry Truman" went to Norway.

      By the way, a remark for steam catapults, which supposedly should freeze inappropriately. The barrel of the catapult is heated. What the Americans have, what is the domestic project of a steam catapult (which they wanted to put on Ulyanovsk) The question of "freezing catapults" is an invention of home-grown trampolines.

      Well, a couple of photos for example

  • yehat
    yehat 30 August 2019 14: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Ka-52
    depending on which transports. Sometimes transports are more important than aircraft carriers. For example, disruption of communications can leave a large group of enemy troops without supplies and put them on the brink of survival.

    exactly what happened after the interception of a caravan of English sailing ships by the Spaniards. The British miserably lost military operations in India.
    And so it happened when Marinesko torpedoed "Wilhelm Gustlov".
  • ser56
    ser56 30 August 2019 15: 55 New
    0
    "And if you equip stealthy fifth-generation fighters, for example, the F-35C, with similar missiles."
    and they will enter unless in internal compartments? hi and if the external suspension, then goodbye stealth ... request
  • Maxim364364
    Maxim364364 30 August 2019 16: 18 New
    0
    In the USSR, no matter what fools might say, aircraft-carrying cruisers were built with the main goal of providing SSBNs with the possibility of a full salvo in a given area, and then, if "lucky" to stumble upon the AUG alone or as part of several ships, sell life at a higher price. In the event of a global war, only these two tasks will be of importance, for the wars of conquest waged by the United States and something like mistrals can be built if you really want to have troughs for colonial travel.
  • yehat
    yehat 30 August 2019 17: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Navigator111
    Inside the rail?

    something was lying on the embankment, he stumbled there, didn’t walk along the sleepers.
    1. Navigator111
      Navigator111 30 August 2019 20: 29 New
      0
      Clearly, just out of luck (((
  • Spambox
    Spambox 30 August 2019 18: 19 New
    +2
    Quote: Gregory_45
    It was possible to build and maintain 7 full-fledged AUG

    And where do we keep these 7 groups? In the north, to put it mildly, climate and ice conditions are not ice) in the Baltic or in the Black Sea? Are the water areas not enough for AUG? Only the Pacific Fleet remains. So, in my opinion, the Soviet Union acted correctly, based on the geographical position of the country.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 30 August 2019 19: 01 New
      0
      Not seven, to have one AB in the sea you need to have at least three in the fleet. 5,8,17 OPESK. Ships 7 OPESK (Atlantic Ocean) served in the North, Central, South Atlantic.
    2. Navigator111
      Navigator111 30 August 2019 20: 31 New
      +2
      I read the cost of a nuclear carrier and an air wing, about a third of the cost of infrastructure and training of personnel.
  • Clone
    Clone 31 August 2019 02: 18 New
    +3
    Yes, the Moremans will forgive me for overland amateurism, but what's the point in building 1-2 of our aircraft carriers against 11 American ones? Just to "bulo"? Amuse vanity that we can? In any case, we are already catching up ... will "our partners" continue to maintain aircraft carriers or, on the contrary, will curtail their construction until the "airfields" are fully retired.
    How long does it take to build one? 10 years with all project documentation available? Five years on "construction"? Equipment of construction sites and parking lots ... Let's add domestic slovenliness and other "little things" ... In total, 20 years or more. Where will naval thought in particular and military thought in general go during this time? Maybe it's worth bringing to mind the entire maritime "unfinished" with cruisers, destroyers, submarines and corvettes ... with missiles, finally, and only then aim at something truly epochal?
    And to grab onto everything at once - we are not so rich, even taking into account the increased number of billionaires.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 August 2019 11: 42 New
      0
      Quote: Clone
      What's the point in building 1-2 of our aircraft carriers against 11 American ones? Just to "bulo"? Amuse vanity that we can? In any case, we are already catching up

      but do not set a goal to overtake and overtake. We are not playing catch-up, but we are providing our own military-technical needs. It makes no sense to chase the United States (and NATO) by the number of AUGs. We need to have them so much that (taking into account maintenance and repairs) to meet the needs of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. To ensure the actions of the fleets. Those. 3-4-5 AUG.
      China is an example for you. There are not going to troit 11 AUGs, they will limit themselves to 4-5, providing the needs of the fleet in the region.

      Quote: Clone
      will "our partners" continue to maintain aircraft carriers or, on the contrary, will curtail their construction until the "airfields" retire.

      As practice and reality show, nobody refuses to build the AB. On the contrary, the number of aircraft-carrying ships is only growing.

      Quote: Clone
      And grab onto everything at once - we are not so rich

      really rich. Only money is in the wrong hands and is spent on the wrong needs.
  • SVD68
    SVD68 31 August 2019 09: 01 New
    +1
    Ships, including aircraft carriers, this is a means of fighting at sea. To select a tool, you must first determine the goals (the desired result). Then the method is the strategy. And only then the means - the ship’s composition and tactics of its application.
    Goals are global (including the entire oceans) and local (including local water areas).
    There are usually two marine strategies: gaining dominance at sea and refusing the enemy control of the sea.
    So the US Navy has a global goal - domination of the oceans and the provision of action on the enemy coast.
    The Chinese Navy has a local goal - the denial of control of the US Navy off the coast of China. And global goals are domination in the Pacific and Indian oceans, if the US is neutral.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 31 August 2019 10: 13 New
      +1
      since the Russian Federation does not have predatory targets, then AB is not needed from the word at all, submarines and long-range aviation can exercise control of distant ocean lines, and marine areas including approaches to nuclear submarine bases, coastal aviation and coastal missile systems ..... need develop the necessary and refuse the unnecessary
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 31 August 2019 11: 34 New
        0
        Quote: vladimir1155
        ontrol of distant ocean frontiers can be carried out by submarines

        the experience of WWII (especially Germany) proved that submarines alone do not solve anything.
        Quote: vladimir1155
        and long-range aviation

        it is worth the adversary to raise fighters into the air, and YES, without covering their own fighters, will be a target.
        In addition, we need not only DA aircraft, but also attack aircraft and fighters. Where to get them in the ocean?

        Quote: vladimir1155
        you need to develop the right and abandon the unnecessary

        those. either sit on the shore without protruding, giving the ocean to the enemy, or build aircraft carriers. For there are no other airfields in the ocean. Which option is preferable?
        1. Eroma
          Eroma 31 August 2019 15: 05 New
          0
          Apple listens to the sea, having heard an interesting (similar to AUG) coordinates through space, then the satellites identify the target, then a white swan flies and sticks a DAGGER into the avik carcass!

          What can AUG resist this algorithm?
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 August 2019 15: 16 New
            0
            Quote: Eroma
            What can AUG resist this algorithm?

            the scenario is delusional nonsense. Baby talk.

            The composition of any AUG includes at least one nuclear submarine hunter. Not to mention the fact that the AUG air group and basic aviation are engaged in patrolling and search. And now there are drones.

            the satellite subsystem for exchanging information with submarines only works when the latter are in the water position

            Quote: Eroma
            further satellites identify the target

            satellites do not hang over any particular exact all the time. They move in orbits. Surveying some part of the Earth’s surface for a short time. But that, apparently, is unknown to you. reconnaissance satellites are not communications satellites.

            Quote: Eroma
            then a white swan flies

            which intercept aircraft AUG

            Quote: Eroma
            and sticks the DAGGER in the carcass of Avik!

            most likely this is a pair of AMRAAM stuck in a swan carcass.

            Py Sy So, for the sake of interest - Daggers, how much has been done at all, and what are its chances to overcome the air defense / missile defense, even if the carriers are not shot down?
            1. Eroma
              Eroma 31 August 2019 18: 16 New
              0
              Your answer is based on the belief that they are getting better! So does not channel.

              The Premier League listener, also generally a universal apl-hunter and a meeting of two hunters, how the BIG question will end!
              Apple in the AUG should protect against attacks from under water, i.e. those who get closer, the listener does not need to get closer, so the meeting of hunters is a matter of probabilities.
              At what distance can you spot a crouching apl and at what distance apl can be heard the noise of an aircraft carrier, I think these numbers are not comparable!
              Is the connection with the APL WITHOUT the last, or are the missile carriers also surfacing for communication?

              10 pieces of daggers say there is, the launch range is large 1500 km, this is beyond the range of carrier-based aircraft, it’s even beyond the means of detecting air targets at the AUG, so the Swan is out of danger AT ALL!

              DAGGER will be held PRO AUG with high probability, because there are simply no such targets, we won’t start working out the defense. There are no special zuras against hypersound!

              This is 10 pieces of daggers today, and tomorrow a massive volley! What then? Until I see how AUG can answer
              1. Navigator111
                Navigator111 31 August 2019 19: 37 New
                -2
                I’ll tell you a secret.
                They have much better, more convenient and with high performance.
                From a good life they copied B-29s, bomb sights, missile guidance systems, the secrets of nuclear weapons .....
                You are currently sitting at a computer whose production, in whose OS. Whose production is your phone, refrigerator, microwave and more.
                Do you think the army is better? Yes, there were breakthroughs in certain areas, but this is not a system, this is an episode.
                1. Eroma
                  Eroma 31 August 2019 23: 58 New
                  +3
                  I do not question the possibility of foreign weapons, even Chinese! There are no fools doing business there either.
                  Household technologies and VPK, things are different, because the economy there is very different, but they give ideas for the military-industrial complex I do not argue.
                  But our weapons are just as dangerous for our potential enemies! And I believe in our people that, as it has been for centuries, we have defeated those who willow ryp for this, we have the appropriate weapons. Fortunately for us, they understand this too.
              2. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 August 2019 21: 48 New
                0
                Quote: Eroma
                the listener does not need to get close

                then she is nichrome and will not hear. Or do you have GAS working for 155000 thousand km? Sci-fi messed up?

                Quote: Eroma
                and the meeting of two hunters, what will end the BIG question!

                not only nuclear submarines with nuclear submarines, but boats with all anti-submarine forces ensuring the actions of an aircraft carrier. The forces are not comparable.

                Quote: Eroma
                or missile carriers also pop up for communication?

                for satellite communications - yes. Did you not know?

                Quote: Eroma
                10pcs daggers say there is

                achrine amount)))

                Quote: Eroma
                launch range large 1500km

                dissemble. 1500 km - taking into account the radius of the aircraft, i.e. carrier. The rocket itself will fly no more than 500 km.
                Quote: Eroma
                this is beyond the range of carrier-based aviation, it’s even beyond the means of detecting air targets at the AUG, so the Swan is out of danger AT ALL!

                it's just an attacker. The DRLA detection range is 400-500 km, plus 300 km of patrolling distance from the AUG. Those. The dagger carrier will be discovered before the launch line. and destroyed by an air patrol.

                Quote: Eroma
                DAGGER will pass PRO AUG with high probability

                what is this statement based on? I’ll say no. How are you arguing?

                Quote: Eroma
                There are no special zuras against hypersound!

                and the dagger is not hypersonic, suddenly)

                Quote: Eroma
                Until I see how AUG can answer

                the destruction of the enemy ship group and the interception of carriers before the launch of anti-ship missiles. Nothing new(

                You are very naive, or rather, biased. Do not want to look at things soberly. AUG with a kondachka cannot be destroyed, nor even incapacitated. She is a very, very serious adversary. in every way. No wonder the USSR paid a lot of attention to the fight against AUG. This has always been a headache for Navy command. You do not consider the Soviet admirals idiots?
                1. Eroma
                  Eroma 31 August 2019 23: 49 New
                  +2
                  I do not consider AUG a whipping boy! And I am aware of the power of the aircraft carrier and its retinue, and especially the power of the aircraft carrier fleet! But AUG is not an absolute weapon, an absolute weapon does not exist!
                  The AUG has a powerful PLO, but the Swedish submarine conventionally sank an aircraft carrier during the exercises, i.e. PLO does not provide 100% protection, it is a fact! So apl also has chances and normal.
                  Towed GAS as they say, hears loud targets for hundreds of kilometers, but apl is detected in tens of kilometers in the best case, and at 3 knots, almost at point blank (so they write).
                  I don’t know about the connection, but the ascent of a missile carrier is absurd and I'm just sure that it is carried out without ascent, there are some buoys, but in general I heard that certain wavelengths pass into the water, a matter of depth.
                  Wikipedia says Dagger has a radius of more than 1000 km without a carrier (ground flies 500, from the air exactly further). This is still beyond the capabilities of the AUG to bring down a missile carrier. AUG will only see approaching rockets. And 10 strokes is suddenly hypersound and it doesn’t matter if the technology meets the concept or not, the main thing is flying.
                  Our designers also know the matter and are counting on overcoming, and our rockets are recognized as the best by the whole planet, not for nothing, probably. The flight altitude is 40-50km, the IJIS has only one SIM3 model capable of catching at such an altitude, and at what distance? and if the DAGGER can interfere, with its speed it will fail in seconds and that’s it ... late!

                  You are engaged no less than mine, but I don’t understand why.

                  I want to see an algorithm for protecting an AOG from a missile strike, but it is not. AUG if it takes the initiative, then to all the khan, if he yawned and made it possible to attack himself, then it would not be sweet for him either, and he would not fight, according to the principle of who or whom, but hide himself to attack again and not otherwise.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 1 September 2019 08: 31 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Eroma
                    I don’t know about the connection, but the ascent of a missile carrier is absurd and I'm just sure that it is carried out without ascent

                    satellite communications - only from the surface. Since the higher the frequency of the signal, the worse the radio waves penetrate the water column. Communication with the satellite is carried out at high frequencies.
                    There are other methods of communication - at ultra-low frequencies (but only one-way - from the coast to the submarine) - these are the Soviet Zeus system and the American Seafarer. Communication in the Far East with the help of towed antennas or buoys, communication through a special repeater aircraft. But such a connection, in contrast to a narrowly directed beam to a satellite, you understand, is easy to find, and what will happen to the boat later is a big question.

                    Quote: Eroma
                    And 10 mach is suddenly hypersonic

                    Of course, everything above 5M is hypersound. Only there are doubts about the reality of 10M, and even if the numbers are correct - it is not clear in which section. Flying at hypersound in the atmosphere (and the height of the active section of the Dagger is declared at 20 km), the object is covered by a cloud of plasma that does not transmit radio waves. How to direct a rocket?
                    Or slow down in front of the target, in order to be able to capture the target of the GOS - but in this case the missile becomes the target for air defense

                    Quote: Eroma
                    I want to see the anti-missile strike defense algorithm

                    this is achieved by multilevel (layered) air defense and anti-aircraft defense
                    1. Eroma
                      Eroma 1 September 2019 09: 59 New
                      0
                      So in my algorithm, apl cannot be a scout, but only a weapon, because communication does not allow this.
                      Then probably the ocean without AUG is also much less effective to control, probably I will agree winked
                      I'm not special, but about 20km flight height for the Dagger, this is bullshit! It seems to me that the MIG31 is used as the first step, accelerates it and drops it at an altitude of about 20 km, and then it flies like an ordinary ballistic missile, at what altitudes they do it (80-100km). A dagger is an analogue of the Chinese DF, only within the framework of a treaty that is no longer present. It is induced by conventional guidance systems somewhere in the upper layers of the atmosphere until a plasma is formed, and then it flies into the blind, it just jumps through the plasma section in seconds and the target does not have time to fall down. Balistic missiles fly fast and fail well, even with SIMs, I think they will destroy a single missile. If there is a volley, then something will be patted.
                      While 10 daggers, if everything is in a bundle, then they plan more.

                      I would have enlightened about the control of the earth by satellites, optics are very helpful in cinema, and about radars in orbit, they write that even our POPLES to sing in the forest is useless, these orbital radars are easily distinguished from trees.
                      If there are a couple of satellites, why can't they control the planet?
                  2. mik193
                    mik193 1 September 2019 09: 23 New
                    0
                    I will try to explain a little. GAS with GPBA (flexible extended towed antenna) can indeed detect targets at long distances, including by removing the antenna from the ship's own noise. It works in the infrasonic range and the detection is carried out mainly by discrete components of the NK or PL noise. These components originate from the operation of the target mechanisms and do not particularly depend on the target speed. For example, on a Los Angeles-type submarine, a turbo-generator produces a current of 440 V 60 Hz. So they are looking for it by the 60 Hz component and multiples of it. But in this range, due to the low accuracy of direction finding, the use of weapons is impossible and you still have to approach before contact with the target according to the main SAC.
                    About communication. Yes, there is communication on waves that can penetrate into depth, but the data transfer rate is very low. Therefore, literally one letter is transmitted, which has a code value, for example, "pop up for a communication session". The boat simply "slows down" and the towed communication antenna, which has positive buoyancy, floats to the surface, where there is a confident reception of a communication session in normal ranges.
                    And still, periodically, at least for a few minutes, you have to surf at the periscope depth to correct your coordinates for the given accuracy of rocket fire. At the same time, take a communication session.
                    1. Eroma
                      Eroma 1 September 2019 18: 12 New
                      0
                      If it’s not difficult, explain: apl is capable of hearing aug, to give out a square or area in which it hears, even from a periscope depth?
                      And how much does such a transfer unmask it, will it be able to react to such a transfer, or will it be far enough and safe?
                      Is there a fundamental possibility, according to the received data, to reconnect the target with a satellite?
                      1. mik193
                        mik193 1 September 2019 18: 24 New
                        0
                        Message transmission is possible, but even if it is not decrypted, it can be unambiguously detected. Wherever possible, any submarine should refrain from any operation of active means of detection and communication. Naturally, when radiation is detected, anti-submarine forces will be sent to this area and there will be a corresponding reaction of AMG (now it is not AMG that is designated AMG - an aircraft carrier multi-purpose group). The AMG defense zone extends over several hundred kilometers, so there are no security guarantees. An additional reconnaissance of the target and the issuance of target designation by satellites can naturally be carried out. When the Union there was a system of MKRC - marine space reconnaissance and target designation.
                  3. SVD68
                    SVD68 2 September 2019 08: 23 New
                    0
                    Quote: Gregory_45

                    You are very naive, or rather, biased.

                    Sorry, but you are no less biased. For some reason, you postulate that an AWACS aircraft from an aircraft carrier is invulnerable. But this is the number one goal when attacking an aircraft carrier. And he will be shot down or driven away to the order of the ships. After that, missile-carrying bombers will be able to reach the line of missile launch unnoticed.
                  4. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 4 September 2019 09: 10 New
                    0
                    the ocean is large and even if the apl will go briefly to the periscopic depth at a distance of 50-100 km from the aug (and this is very close!), and will begin to receive satellite signals, it is very likely that it will not be detected, it will calmly return to the depth, or it will give a volley guaranteed destroying AOG the enemy, and then hide in the abyss and will not be detected
            2. Eroma
              Eroma 31 August 2019 18: 19 New
              0
              I forgot about the satellites, the question is in the orbital grouping, with the right number of satellites, there are no problems with the right speed to view the area.
              Moreover, optics are not particularly needed, there are high-resolution radars, which reduces the size of the orbital constellation
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 August 2019 22: 07 New
                0
                Quote: Eroma
                the question is in the orbital grouping, with the right number of satellites, there are no problems with the right speed to view the area of ​​problems.

                you have absolutely no control over the question, sorry
          2. Navigator111
            Navigator111 31 August 2019 18: 12 New
            0
            How many Daggers are in stock now? :-)
            The Tu-160 has its own goals.
            1. Eroma
              Eroma 1 September 2019 13: 18 New
              0
              I heard it on the news that a Tu-160 somewhere in the ocean conditionally destroyed a surface target, then there was no dagger. Those. PCR is also hung on Swan, i.e. Tu-160’s goals are different, including and marine. Moreover, the swans again to rivet the beginning, to know that would be enough for all purposes fellow
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 31 August 2019 21: 34 New
          -1
          Quote: Gregory_45
          Submarines alone do not solve anything.

          ask Marinesco about it .......
          Quote: Gregory_45
          not only DA aircraft are needed, but also attack aircraft and fighters. Where to get them in the ocean?
          why and how much? Three pieces are enough that only your vaunted aircraft carrier is capable of releasing? and where should they return because your vaunted carrier will drown with a bang from the first missile and or torpedoes or mines?
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 August 2019 22: 10 New
            0
            Quote: vladimir1155
            ask Marinesco about it .......

            Marinescu decided the outcome of the war?
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Three pieces are enough that only your vaunted aircraft carrier is capable of releasing?

            oh, you don’t even know how much AB aircraft can carry and release? Then where do you go with your amateurish ignorance?

            Quote: vladimir1155
            and where should they return

            back to AB. To replenish the ammunition.

            Quote: vladimir1155
            because your vaunted carrier will drown with a bang from the first rocket

            these are your fantasies that have nothing to do with reality.

            Heal)
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 1 September 2019 13: 13 New
              0
              you need to be treated for amateurism !!!! Yes, the fleet did not decide the outcome of the war, but the hero Marinesco in a small boat and a small crew did more than the entire surface fleet with its battleships. So the American submariner drowned the Japanese super battleship. As for the aircraft carrier’s wing, read dear Andrei from Chelyabinsk, having aircraft on board and releasing them into battle is not the same deck is limited, lifts, time, guarantee of returning to free runway, Russian and French Chinese aircraft carrier simultaneously produces 3-5 aircraft no more and the American is up to 10 ....... here is a lesson for amateurs! and of course there is nowhere to return to the planes, for the AB will drown from the first missile, but you have no arguments, no. !!!!! The concept of Kuznetsov’s use is as follows: it is located in the Barents Sea since it is a coastal aircraft carrier, launches airplanes and immediately drafts to Murmansk, and the airplanes return to coastal airfields, the terrible accident rate during landing is reduced and the aircraft carrier himself will be saved from being hit by the first missile .... . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_wopnTZT4s
  • E.S.
    E.S. 31 August 2019 11: 36 New
    -1
    Quote: Navigator111
    About megagloop :-)
    By the way.
    And to conduct the winter Olympics in the sub tropics is wisdom.
    Humor.

    There were four winter Olympiads in the USA, and the USA ends just at the latitude of Crimea, please joke in that direction.
    1. Navigator111
      Navigator111 31 August 2019 12: 23 New
      0
      Hello, the younger group of kindergarten :-) I haven’t had such fun for a long time.
      The magic words are ecliptic and 23,5 degrees.
      If it’s difficult, you can see on the map what is in the European part at the latitude of Magadan ... well, and compare the weather.
      52 lard. ... fifty two and three with the Americans.
      10 lard is an atomic carrier. :-) :-) :-) :-)
      1. E.S.
        E.S. 31 August 2019 14: 11 New
        0
        There, joke, a specialist in kindergartens, they began to compare the climate - compare to the end, they began to compare costs - also compare the placement of athletes in prison cells (literally) with the newly built city.
        1. Navigator111
          Navigator111 31 August 2019 17: 03 New
          0
          Are you offended? And what should I think, since the inclination of the earth's axis and the reasons for the climate change take place on geography in grade 5.
          I won’t say about accommodation, I saw it. And about the difference in the placement of us and amers I can.
          If not laziness, in search of Semenov Sweet songs of the political.
          There are my photos from the base of Thule and memories. I do not think that athletes were placed worse than their sergeants :-)
          http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/zampolitsuka.shtml

          http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/zampolitsuka.shtml
          And about the money .... here weep that there is no money for an aircraft carrier. That is why they are not.
          Few lessons of sports facilities in Moscow by 1980 that were abandoned?
  • Alecsandr
    Alecsandr 31 August 2019 16: 48 New
    +2
    If you want to dictate your will and your "Wishlist" to the whole world, then you need an aircraft carrier. If you are going to defend only your country, it is too expensive. Better to limit yourself to smaller ships with good anti-ship missiles and long-range aircraft with hypersonic missiles. Coastal missile batteries. with a long range is also a good help in the fight against aircraft carrier groups.
  • E.S.
    E.S. 31 August 2019 17: 18 New
    0
    Quote: Navigator111
    Are you offended? And what should I think, since the inclination of the earth's axis and the reasons for the climate change take place on geography in grade 5.
    I won’t say about accommodation, I saw it. And about the difference in the placement of us and amers I can.
    If not laziness, in search of Semenov Sweet songs of the political.
    There are my photos from the base of Thule and memories. I do not think that athletes were placed worse than their sergeants :-)
    http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/zampolitsuka.shtml

    http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/zampolitsuka.shtml
    And about the money .... here weep that there is no money for an aircraft carrier. That is why they are not.
    Few lessons of sports facilities in Moscow by 1980 that were abandoned?

    Yes, God forbid that you be offended, it's me, and you didn’t swim in Moscow in the pool built for the Olympics-80, and it was me, and not you flew to Sochi at the airport built for the Olympics-2014, rode along the Doubler of Kurortny Prospekt, walked around Imeretinka and noted his wife’s DR on Rosa Khutor :-))
  • E.S.
    E.S. 31 August 2019 17: 29 New
    0
    Quote: Navigator111
    Are you offended? And what should I think, since the inclination of the earth's axis and the reasons for the climate change take place on geography in grade 5.
    I won’t say about accommodation, I saw it. And about the difference in the placement of us and amers I can.
    If not laziness, in search of Semenov Sweet songs of the political.
    There are my photos from the base of Thule and memories. I do not think that athletes were placed worse than their sergeants :-)
    http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/zampolitsuka.shtml

    http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/zampolitsuka.shtml
    And about the money .... here weep that there is no money for an aircraft carrier. That is why they are not.
    Few lessons of sports facilities in Moscow by 1980 that were abandoned?

    List of abandoned objects please announce.
    And at the same time tell us about the German aircraft carrier "Schönefeld Airport", which has been rebuilding since 2008 and into which 12 euros have already been buried.
    And then watch a video tour of the new Adler airport.
    What was in its place you are not a sight but I saw. And I saw Sochi in 2001, and I understand what has been done in the city
    1. Navigator111
      Navigator111 31 August 2019 18: 15 New
      0
      Sorry, was wrong.
      Communication finished :-)
  • E.S.
    E.S. 31 August 2019 17: 31 New
    +2
    Quote: Alecsandr
    If you want to dictate your will and your "Wishlist" to the whole world, then you need an aircraft carrier. If you are going to defend only your country, it is too expensive. Better to limit yourself to smaller ships with good anti-ship missiles and long-range aircraft with hypersonic missiles. Coastal missile batteries. with a long range is also a good help in the fight against aircraft carrier groups.

    And some men can even send a round-robin Korean without a stump, and three AUGs slowly decrease in the indicated direction :-)
  • mik193
    mik193 31 August 2019 19: 13 New
    +2
    Another battle about the need for aircraft carriers. Well, if you can’t afford it, we will do with what we have, but without pretense of global dominance in the oceans. For starters, we would need to reliably cover our near sea zone and the SNF rpk on combat patrol.
    1. Eroma
      Eroma 1 September 2019 14: 46 New
      0
      I don’t think that Russia can’t afford the Avik, we have all the rules with money. The problem is more technical and, in the light of recent missile achievements, conceptual.
      Just common sense: the beauty of Avik is that it is invulnerable! To attack him, you must first win the air battle, then break through the air defense of the AUG. Those. without aviation there is no chance, so purely theoretical if the stars converge as it should even for missile carriers because the launch range is possible only in the coverage area of ​​carrier-based aviation!
      All things being equal, a large hangar gives an advantage in battle and therefore large aviks rule! If one AUG is suddenly missing, you can drag 5 and, again, without asking the Aviks to break everyone.
      In short, those who don’t have aviks have no chance. So it was, but today the missile launch range of 1000 km or more is becoming the norm, which means you can hit an avik without entering into an air battle! Impact potential remained, but you can lose Avik like any other ship. So everyone thinks how now Avik live
      1. mik193
        mik193 1 September 2019 20: 38 New
        0
        Still, you are wrong. The presence of an aircraft carrier - this means a trained aircraft wing, a prepared basing system, trained escort forces (guarding an aircraft carrier) - we still do not have all of this in full. Therefore, so far, as I wrote above, we have to do with what we have. The first task is the protection of the near sea zone, naval bases and the provision of combat patrols of the RPK SN. In the far zone so far - only submarine operations.
      2. SVD68
        SVD68 2 September 2019 08: 30 New
        0
        Aircraft carrier is invulnerable only in the open sea. When approaching an enemy coast for attack, it becomes vulnerable to attack by coastal enemy aircraft.