Russia has something to drown American aircraft carriers

115

Cheaper and more efficient!


The US military budget is larger than the next nine countries combined. Russia in this list of states in terms of expenditures for military defense needs is only the fifth line. Sergei Shoigu, Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, well and accurately explained this phenomenon.





“Gigantic money is being spent in the USA on private military companies, on aircraft carrier groups. But does Russia really need its five to ten aircraft carrier groups, if we are not going to attack anyone? We need funds that could potentially be used against such enemy carrier groups in the event of aggression against our country. And it is incomparably cheaper and more effective! And such weapon in the arsenal of the RF Armed Forces ”,

- said Shoigu.

Russia is indeed engaged in the design and development of these types of deadly anti-ship weapons. The latest Russian-built hypersonic missiles can also be used against surface targets of any size or displacement. Moreover, due to the speed exceeding the speed of sound by an order of magnitude, it is technically impossible to shoot down such a missile at the moment. And such a bulky vessel as an aircraft carrier could hardly avoid it.

At the same time, the cost of an aircraft carrier and a hypersonic missile, even their kit, are incommensurable. So, the leader of the carrier group of the US Navy Gerald Ford (USS Gerald Ford) costs about forty billion dollars. But he is vulnerable to modern percussion instruments. aviation and artillery of the RF Armed Forces. In the event of war, such iron monsters will be sunk in the first place, or they will not be used in combat operations at all.

In addition to cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles are moving to the forefront of a formidable weapon for ships. China and Iran say they will soon be ready to sink US warships with combat drones - these are the same kamikaze aircraft, only without the suicide pilot himself. The recent attack by the Houthis on Saudi oil refineries using UAVs is a convincing example of this.

Convincing example


The Saudis are protected by the modern American Patriot air defense systems, and not one of their sets: the defense in depth missile and air defense are built on their basis. It turns out that Saudi Arabia paid in full for protecting its sky and oil resources, but the American defense did not work: the refineries were successfully attacked and then burned for several days, like torches. No wonder Riyadh after this incident immediately became interested in the Russian S-400 Triumph air defense systems.

According to independent military experts from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the attack on the Saudi refineries is a frank signal to the Pentagon that the era of American dominance on the ground and in the air of the Persian Gulf is over, and the United States now has a monopoly on ultra-precise powerful weapons. No. Moreover, we are talking about semi-handicraft UAVs of the Houthi production. These drones are made according to Iranian technology, but not by the Iranians themselves, who are now rightly called "masters of drones».

Noteworthy Imbalance


Noteworthy in this situation is a significant imbalance between expensive and cheap weapons. On the one hand - penny, but deadly drones and cruise missiles. On the other - fabulously expensive air defense systems and the latest generation aircraft, which in fact turned out to be helpless in front of inexpensive Hussite unmanned aerial vehicles. It turns out that there is no need to work significantly on expensive types of weapons if the simplest missiles and drones put them checkmate, especially in case of an unexpected attack.

Russia has the Onyx anti-ship missile, and the Chinese have the Dongfeng 26. Both of them are considered real fighter ships, including especially large craft such as aircraft carriers. These killer missiles make the whole US naval strategy worthless. And the Pentagon has no other for the near future.

Moreover, we must remember that in the arsenal of the RF Armed Forces there is also a Zircon rocket, whose speed exceeds the speed of sound six times. In addition, the naval military of the design bureau of Russia is actively developing underwater unmanned vehicles, some of their models will be equipped with nuclear power plants. These half-submarines are also a deadly weapon against the carrier groups of a potential enemy.

Technically undeveloped Hussite rebels carried out a successful attack on Riyadh's oil infrastructure. They not only halved the production of black fuel in the SA, but showed how vulnerable the United States and all its allies in the Middle East, and the North Atlantic Alliance, too.

This incident, unpleasant for the whole Western world, was accurately described by the ex-diplomat of Her Majesty Alastair Crooke. He called this puncture of American air defense systems "a targeted and accurate blow to the authority of the United States." Indeed, it is difficult to disagree with this.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

115 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    30 September 2019 04: 36
    In the event of war, such iron monsters will be sunk in the first place, or they will not be used in combat operations at all.

    In fact, aircraft carriers have an escort.
    China and Iran argue that soon they will be ready to launch the bottom of the US military vessels using combat drones - these are the same kamikaze aircraft

    And why only the Chinese comrades aircraft carriers are building? Dilemma...
    The author, and what kind of noise our Onyxes make, do not know?
    1. +3
      30 September 2019 05: 20
      And what's up with the noise?
      1. -7
        30 September 2019 05: 29
        Quote: Andrei Gurov
        And what's up with the noise?

        Yes, the higher the speed of the torpedo, the greater the noise.
        1. KCA
          +14
          30 September 2019 05: 35
          How long has Onyx become a torpedo? Although the idea is not bad, 600km’s anti-ship missile flies in front of the aircraft carrier at the 2.5MAX speed and dives into the water and torpedoes it
          1. 0
            30 September 2019 05: 55
            Quote: KCA
            How long has Onyx become a torpedo? Although the idea is not bad, 600km’s anti-ship missile flies in front of the aircraft carrier at the 2.5MAX speed and dives into the water and torpedoes it

            I confess, I’m guilty, I write about Onyx, and in my mind there is a Flurry. sad Probably you need to drink less. crying One hell alone Onyx can not sink this vessel. The Japanese tried, little they did. But there were still kamikaze. They stuffed a full plane with explosives.
            1. AAK
              +4
              30 September 2019 08: 57
              Colleague, the Shkval's range is up to 20 km maximum and is it more of an anti-submarine weapon, or do you dream of Russian kamikaze submariners?
            2. 0
              30 September 2019 17: 11
              Two US aircraft carriers nearly drowned from an accidental explosion of their own 127 mm Zuni type NURS aboard ... So everything is relative ... A missile flies on the wings of chance and where it goes, God knows ... So, for example, in 1982, the British the destroyer died from just one RCC Exoset, the warhead of which did not even explode, but the remaining fuel of the rocket exploded, causing a severe fire, which caused the death of the ship.
          2. +1
            30 September 2019 15: 41
            Moreover, we must remember that in the arsenal of the RF Armed Forces there is also a Zircon rocket, whose speed exceeds the speed of sound six times.

            In the arsenal of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation there is no RCC ZIRCON yet ... it is only being tested. To date, the most advanced anti-ship missiles not only here, but also in the world, this is ONIX-M, with a range of 800 km.
          3. The comment was deleted.
    2. +1
      30 September 2019 05: 23
      In fact, aircraft carriers have an escort.

      Yes yes smile aircraft carriers are generally immortal and unsinkable in principle ... the main thing is to surround them closely with an escort, stuff them with radars, missiles and planes ... to publicize the whole world about the unsinkability of the AUG, and all doubters to be strangled by force of conviction of the invincibility of American weapons.
      In my opinion, we already went through this at the beginning of the Second World War on the invincibility of German weapons ... and the same shnyagu are again being pumped into our brains.
      Aircraft carriers are good for guarding maritime communications at distant frontiers ... what the Americans are doing and the Chinese are also preparing to defend their interests in foreign countries.
      It is clear that the US AUG at our borders will be an excellent target and will certainly be at least neutralized ... nullifying all the advantages of aircraft carriers.
      1. 0
        30 September 2019 05: 36
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        Aircraft carriers are good for guarding maritime communications at distant frontiers ... what the Americans are doing and the Chinese are also preparing to defend their interests in foreign countries.

        Well, since about 80% of our Russian fleet fly under foreign flags, the conclusion suggests itself that we do not need aircraft carriers either. Khrushchev also drowned for missiles, with him the whole fleet was sawed.
        1. +4
          30 September 2019 06: 34
          Khrushchev also drowned for missiles, with him the whole fleet was sawed.
          Khrushchev broke firewood no less than Gorbachev and inflicted a lot of economic damage on the USSR ... one campaign with corn is worth something.
        2. 0
          30 September 2019 14: 32
          Well, since about 80% of our Russian fleet go under foreign flags

          good good good
          Under the control of teams "all over the world", very conditionally fluent in Russian.
        3. +1
          30 September 2019 15: 08
          Khrushchev also drowned for missiles, with him the whole fleet was sawed.

          It so happened that we often have everything "not thanks to, but in spite of." “Khrushchu” is still far from the “humpback” and his followers, who marked the entire defense industry “for demolition”, with him at least the missile direction, at least, did not suffer, and the Strategic Missile Forces and Air Defense Forces still guarantee our right to exist.
          1. +4
            30 September 2019 16: 15
            Quote: lexus
            “Khrushchu” is still far from the “humpback” and his followers, who marked the entire defense industry “for demolition”,

            And if you look from the other side, then after Khrushchev’s report on the cult of Stalin’s personality, China broke away from us, which Stalin respects greatly. We have lost almost one and a half billion people of the allies and inflicted discord in the communist movement. They didn’t get anything in return. And Gorby just broke the start. Brezhnev suspended the scrapping of the USSR, but did not return the Stalinist model of the economy, no one would understand such fluctuations and vacillations. IMHO.
            1. -2
              30 September 2019 17: 21
              I’m afraid if that report had not happened, we would have come to the current format of cooperation with China - resources and technology in exchange for junk and migrants - sooner or later, because Mao has already self-appointed himself as a standard embodiment of the ideas of Lenin and Stalin. And the Red Guards still in Korea "ran", pursuing, first of all, exclusively their own goals.
              1. +1
                30 September 2019 17: 40
                Quote: lexus
                I’m afraid if that report had not happened, we would have come to the current format of cooperation with China - resources and technology in exchange for junk and migrants - sooner or later, because Mao has already self-appointed himself as a standard embodiment of the ideas of Lenin and Stalin. And the Red Guards still in Korea "ran", pursuing, first of all, exclusively their own goals.

                Or maybe not. Introduce China Conveyor Operated Technology. They wouldn’t have to steal anything. In addition, we already built the auto industry for them. Perhaps such a symbiosis would turn out to be a much working version of the USSR.
    3. KCA
      +11
      30 September 2019 05: 26
      And what threatens the noise of a supersonic rocket? First she will fly, then the noise
      1. -2
        30 September 2019 05: 43
        Quote: KCA
        And what threatens the noise of a supersonic rocket? First she will fly, then the noise

        The author wrote about Onyx. And for some reason, he cited the Chinese torpedo as an example, but for some reason, China needs aircraft carriers, with Onyx analogues. Contradiction, don’t you?
        1. KCA
          +5
          30 September 2019 05: 51
          Why are you so crushed? Dongfeng-26 medium-range strategic ballistic missile, its anti-ship modification DF-26D
          1. +2
            30 September 2019 06: 00
            Quote: KCA
            Why is it flattering you like that?

            Yes, the fact that the whole thought of the author comes down to the fact that we do not need aircraft carriers. The topic of rockets with a bald maize passed.
        2. bar
          -5
          30 September 2019 07: 58
          Quote: Mordvin 3
          but for some reason, China needs aircraft carriers

          China is a more "sea" country than Russia. China needs the sea for communication and trade with the rest of the world. Russia is less tied to this, I am full of land routes to the "civilized world".
          1. +5
            30 September 2019 08: 11
            Quote: bar
            China is more "sea" country than Russia

            belay wassat Yes, what are you doing ?? ... the length of the maritime borders of Russia do not recall? .....
            1. bar
              +4
              30 September 2019 08: 24
              And do you have a weak look at the map on the land borders of China on the map? And I'm not talking about size (in this case, it does not matter, like the size of the sea borders of Russia), but about who these borders are with. You can also check the number of seaports of China and Russia and compare cargo through them. If you cut off China's maritime trade, it will bend very quickly. Unlike Russia. And that makes a big difference.
              1. +2
                30 September 2019 15: 48
                The big difference is that China has money for the construction of aircraft carriers, and Russia is poor, that’s the power that is justified by the fact that aircraft carriers defy as they can.
                And the rejection of aircraft carriers suggests that Russia will not be able to dictate its will anywhere in the world, but will silently swallow snot when other countries do their deeds everywhere in the world. In Syria, we snapped only due to relative proximity, and if you need to protect an ally in the other hemisphere?
                1. bar
                  +1
                  30 September 2019 16: 02
                  The big difference is that China has money to build aircraft carriers, and Russia is poor

                  The big difference is that China really needs aircraft carriers to cut it to squeeze its Chinese seas off the stripes, the blockade of which is a disaster for the Chinese economy.

                  And the rejection of aircraft carriers suggests that Russia will not be able to dictate its will anywhere in the world

                  Get off the armored car, the USSR is over. And it ended, not least because he tore his pants, dictating his will in all corners. It is necessary to think about one’s own country, and not worry about the last effort for Honduras.
                2. -1
                  1 October 2019 03: 17
                  Quote: Fan-Fan
                  due to relative proximity, and if you need to protect an ally in the other hemisphere?

                  Well, such a protection company will get $ 200 in budget lards if that, I'm afraid it will tighten the belts not on the belly, but on the neck of the population ...
          2. 0
            30 September 2019 15: 44
            Quote: bar
            China is a more "sea" country than Russia.

            Are you serious? Nothing that the borders of our shores have access to three of the four oceans?
            Quote: bar
            China needs the sea to communicate and trade with the rest of the world.

            Do we not? wassat
            Quote: bar
            Russia is less tied to this, I am full of land routes to the "civilized world".

            Right? And in Africa, America, too, we all deliver on land? wassat
            1. bar
              +2
              30 September 2019 16: 15
              Are you serious? Nothing that the borders of our shores have access to three of the four oceans?

              Nothing, it's like "Moscow is the port of five seas". Arouses pride, but nothing more.
              I'm serious. I suggested comparing cargo through the ports of Russia and China. It’s not difficult for me to see for myself. So, the total cargo turnover of Russian ports is about 600 million tons, and Chinese - 2,5 billion tons, 4 times more. Well, who is more maritime power?

              And in Africa, America, too, we all deliver on land?

              Do we supply a lot of things to Africa and America? And will our economy collapse if these supplies stop? And for the sake of this it is necessary to put the country in cancer and build aircraft carriers, which the striped ones will easily block the exits to "three oceans out of four"?
              Exhale already. Our main deliveries, which feed the country, generally go through pipes.
      2. -4
        30 September 2019 08: 07
        I heard that hydroacoustic speakers hear supersonic anti-ship missiles at very low altitudes long before they appear above the horizon, I don’t know how true.
        1. +1
          30 September 2019 08: 37
          Curious ... I've never heard of such a detection method. And the sound from the surface of the water is not reflected? It seems like a medium of a different density ...
          1. 0
            30 September 2019 09: 42
            I mean the flight on the ultra-small, such as 10 meters.
            1. +1
              30 September 2019 14: 37
              You are the victim of someone not clever joke. Under water, you cannot hear sounds that are heard in the air. Just like in the air you will not hear sounds whose source is under water. At the boundary of two media with different densities, the wave front will be refracted and reflected, in my opinion this was what I was taught in a Soviet school in a physics lesson more than a quarter century ago ...
              1. +1
                30 September 2019 15: 53
                Guys, but I’m a fisherman and I’ll tell you so - the sound in the air still goes into the water, even a loud conversation scares the fish. I didn’t want to, it’s a shame, but still I’ll give an example: I somehow farted inadvertently while fishing, all of a sudden, all the fry were scared, jumped out of the water.
                1. 0
                  7 October 2019 01: 59
                  Quote: Fan-Fan
                  Guys, but I’m a fisherman and I’ll tell you so - the sound in the air still goes into the water, even a loud conversation scares the fish. I didn’t want to, it’s a shame, but still I’ll give an example: I somehow farted inadvertently while fishing, all of a sudden, all the fry were scared, jumped out of the water.

                  It is not from sound. They sensed the gases, especially asphyxiating.
              2. 0
                30 September 2019 18: 09
                Under water, you cannot hear sounds that are heard in the air.

                poorly taught, not only is the conclusion wrong, so apparently you just don’t understand what you are writing.
                Security Question:
                and the boundary of two media with different densities will occur refraction and reflection of the wave front,

                And during refraction, how does the direction of wave propagation change? Or a little bit differently than how refraction differs from reflection?
                or a little more complicated and what sound is the wave?
                1. +1
                  30 September 2019 18: 21
                  Perhaps I did not quite correctly put it, please forgive me. Without going into theoretical details, tell me the main thing: will a sound be heard under water if its source is in the air? I am specifically interested in the sea or the ocean.
                  1. 0
                    30 September 2019 18: 26
                    Will a sound be heard underwater if its source is in the air?

                    It all depends on the power and frequency, and of course at what depth. You were correctly pointed to the fish finders, you can buy a WINTER sonar that works THROUGH ICE at any fishing store. That is the sound twice perfectly passes the ice-water border.
                    Specifically about "they hear the anti-ship missiles from over the horizon, I doubt it," but one must count, maybe they do.
                2. +1
                  30 September 2019 18: 27
                  As far as I remember, the sound should be reflected at the border of two media, in this case at the border "air - water".
                  1. 0
                    30 September 2019 18: 52
                    As far as I remember, the sound should be reflected at the border of two media, in this case at the border "air - water".

                    http://hssco.ru/rasprostranenie-otrazhenie-i-prelomlenie-uprugix-voln/
        2. 0
          30 September 2019 11: 30
          Quite possible. The speed of sound in water is about 1500 m / s, so if the speed of the rocket is 3-4M, then it will be heard before arrival.
          1. 0
            30 September 2019 14: 29
            No Unfortunately. Sounds that are heard in the atmosphere will not be heard under water. And vice versa: to hear sounds under water, you need to immerse your head in it.
        3. +2
          30 September 2019 17: 23
          The fact is that many missiles that are called supersonic, in fact, are not quite so ... The marching section of the rocket goes at normal, subsonic speed, but in the final section they switch to supersonic and begin to perform anti-missile maneuvers, moving away from anti-aircraft missiles of the ship attacked by them ... Of course I can hear them underwater, on modern submarines, just like an airplane, but the fact that they are so well heard far away, fairy tales ... Everything is relative ... depends on many reasons, in specific place at a specific time.
    4. +8
      30 September 2019 07: 42
      And why only the Chinese comrades aircraft carriers are building? Dilemma...

      Absolutely not a dilemma, if you try to think - why do aircraft carriers are needed in principle, and the Chinese in the above privacy. And they are needed to quickly build up striking forces far from their bases and as close to the theater of operations as possible. Among the Chinese, in particular, such goals are associated with their attempts to dominate in Southeast Asia and all the seas surrounding it.
      1. +2
        30 September 2019 15: 05
        Quote: Designer 68
        Among the Chinese, in particular, such goals are associated with their attempts to dominate in Southeast Asia and all the seas surrounding it.

        Not only Southeast Asia. China is actively exploring Africa, and unfriendly India hangs over its communications with this continent.
        1. +1
          30 September 2019 16: 00
          Quote: Alexey RA
          China is actively exploring Africa

          It's like that. I was in Djibouti, the year in 2015, I saw the Chinese naval base. Even earlier, in 2008, I saw the Chinese in Nigeria, but these were not military sailors, but some technical specialists. I also thought: where is China, and where is Nigeria, and you go ... and there is already no passage from you ...
    5. -1
      30 September 2019 09: 03
      So again, everyone is ready to start a turf war? Analysts are sofa.
    6. +2
      30 September 2019 10: 01
      Quote: Mordvin 3
      And why only the Chinese comrades aircraft carriers are building?

      Carriers are built solely to defend their interests far from the metropolis. AUG is very expensive and not so much the cost of the aircraft carrier itself (which is a lot), but rather logistics. Escort, bases and contents thereof. This is possible for China and mattresses. We ... are very controversial.
      1. +1
        30 September 2019 15: 15
        Quote: edeligor
        Carriers are built solely to defend their interests far from the metropolis.

        Or to support their forces in areas where the reserves of base aircraft do not have time to cover ships before enemy attack aircraft.
        In our country, such an area begins 400-500 km from the nearest airfield. Without AW, even in the north, we cannot build a PLO line - the right flank turns out to be "naked".
    7. +1
      30 September 2019 12: 01
      Not only Chinese comrades. The United States, by and large, has a lot more aircraft carriers. For some reason, they take UDC into account. UDC is not only more than 1600 paratroopers, but also an air group, usually 12 MV-22, 6 F-35B, 4 ΑH-1Z, 4 ΜΗ-53, 3 UH-1 or 22 F-35B.
      They have 10 such ships. In 2017, the construction of the eleventh began.
  2. +1
    30 September 2019 05: 42
    Well, firstly, you cannot sink an aircraft carrier with one missile, and secondly, unlike the Saudi refineries, aircraft carriers and escort ships have effective short-range air defense. In addition, UAVs against ships must be made heavier and more dimensional: long range, causing the necessary damage. Their carrier-based aircraft will interrupt on the way.
    1. -1
      30 September 2019 07: 56
      // Well, firstly, you won’t sink an aircraft carrier with one missile, //

      I would not speak so categorically.
      The incidents with Forestol and Enterprise have shown that an elementary fire caused by technical reasons can put avik on the edge. But there was not originally a warhead explosion!
      So if a decent anti-ship missile gets into the aircraft carrier (with penetration of the hull and an explosion of warhead inside), then it will definitely suffer severe damage.
      Of course, it’s not necessary at times, but even one decent RCC has good chances of causing such fires and secondary explosions that this will lead to the death of the aircraft carrier.
      1. +3
        30 September 2019 08: 48
        what do you think, why after those two cases during 2 years in the 60s, for 50 years such stories have not happened?
        1. +3
          30 September 2019 15: 23
          This photo shows the "water curtain" system in operation. In general, its main purpose is to protect a ship (or a vessel) from weapons of mass destruction and the consequences of using it, the fire-fighting function is its "bonus". Accidents with weapons (known, in any case) did not become for another reason. But I will not voice it here, so as not to upset dear readers. If only very briefly ... Smart people learn from mistakes, their own and those of others.
        2. -1
          30 September 2019 17: 04
          // what do you think, why after those two cases during 2 years in the 60s, for 50 years such stories have not happened? //

          But really, why is this photo?
          You want to say that the Americans still had situations with unexpected large-scale fires? And only thanks to this new watering was it possible to quickly solve the problem? When and where was it?
          1. 0
            30 September 2019 17: 07
            Not to mention the fact that this sprinkler will not help in the case that I describe:
            RCC penetrates the body, explodes inside. Causes fires inside.
          2. 0
            1 October 2019 08: 48
            in fact, it was I who asked you the question, and you, without answering it, answer the question with the question.
            But if you already asked ...
            After those cases, the Americans took a set of organizational and technical measures to increase the combat stability and fire safety of aircraft carriers.
            Judging by the fact that such cases were no longer repeated, successful.
            A universal deck irrigation system for fire protection and protection against weapons of mass destruction is just one of such measures.
            And about PKR, it breaks through and explodes inside.
            Only inside along the sides are auxiliary rooms, further an armored partition.
            There are no parts of the ship that are significant for combat readiness, unlike the deck on which the fire was.
            hi
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. +1
        30 September 2019 08: 51
        and there was still sheffield
      3. +3
        30 September 2019 08: 58
        Just not a fact. An elementary fire on Amer AB is a fire of ammunition on the flight deck, hence the problems. A missile that hits the corps will not create such
        1. +2
          30 September 2019 15: 08
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Just not a fact. An elementary fire on Amer AB is a fire of ammunition on the flight deck, hence the problems. A missile that hits the corps will not create such

          This is if the AB commander did not give an order, due to the high intensity of departures, to refuel the aircraft and suspend the aircraft not only on the flight deck, but also in the hangar. The commander has the right, the technical capabilities of the AB allow the hangar to be used in this way, and such instructions also provide for instructions.
          1. 0
            30 September 2019 15: 46
            Yes. But provided that the hit happened just at such a time that the rocket hit the hangar, exactly at the place where the aircraft was prepared, and that its warhead caused detonation ... In general, many stars should converge :)
        2. +1
          30 September 2019 19: 20
          // Just not a fact. An elementary fire on Amer AB is a fire of ammunition on the flight deck, hence the problems. A missile that has fallen into the hull will not create such ones.

          On the one hand, you correctly noticed that on aircraft carriers they install weapons and pour fuel almost always on the upper deck. And in the lower decks the planes (as a rule) stand without weapons and with empty tanks.
          But. You did not ask yourself a question:
          Why is this happening?
          Indeed, on the upper deck there is a constant rush, with wild crowding! Most of the upper deck is used only for take-off and landing. Another part of the remaining deck area is used for elevators, for airplanes and ammunition. And only a small piece of the deck is used to prepare the aircraft for flight (weapons suspension and fueling). And the processing of returning aircraft (remove unused ammunition and drain fuel).
          Just imagine:
          A little in front, so close that it nearly knocks down a jet, the plane starts. To the left, just 20 meters away, another plane is rattling into the finishers. Another plane is attached to the catapult. Several aircraft are immediately prepared for either launch or descent. Then a piece of deck crashed down (the elevator went to get the ammunition), and there, on the contrary, the elevator lifts the plane from below. And all this at the same time !! And among all this, people rush about carrying bombs and missiles on carts. Unwind the fuel hoses.
          What are Americans fools? They don’t understand that the combination of starting and landing jet aircraft and ammunition and fuel hoses located in different places on this deck is a huge risk? Risk due to any accident quickly get a massive fire and detonation. And after all, such a risk is great enough. Just because there are such things as the human factor and probability theory.
          It would seem much more reasonable and safer to arm the aircraft and refuel them on the lower decks. Spread on different decks, the work that is done only on the top. And even reduce the likelihood of accidents.
          Why aren’t they doing this?
          And the answer is obvious.
          Fire and possible detonation on the upper deck is certainly not an ice. But the fire on the lower decks is P ...., and with a capital letter ZhO.
          How is the fire on the open deck different for the better, compared with the fire in the interior?
          1) In the open air, you can put out the fire without the use of special equipment. On the lower decks without individual breathing apparatus it is practically impossible to extinguish the fire, due to poisoning by combustion products. Well, because of the thick smoke, to extinguish by touch, is also an unpromising occupation.
          2) Burning equipment and ammunition can be quickly pushed overboard. Burning fuel with brigade boom can again be washed overboard.
          Naturally, nothing of the kind can be done on the lower decks. Attempting to extinguish spilled fuel will cause it to burn on the surface of the water. And with water it can flow into neighboring rooms and on the lower decks (if there are holes).
          And besides, the fire usually spreads upstairs. So if a fire starts on the lower decks and cannot be controlled, the upper deck will still burn out.

          That is why the Americans are doing their best to reduce the likelihood of a fire on the lower decks. Even at the cost of increasing such a probability on the upper deck.
          1. -1
            30 September 2019 19: 41
            Quote: Serg4545
            But. You did not ask yourself a question:
            Why is this happening?

            Really?:)))))
  3. sen
    -2
    30 September 2019 05: 56
    Russia would also benefit from a missile like the Chinese Dong Feng 26, but with a controlled unit like the Avangard.
    1. +8
      30 September 2019 08: 07
      Forgot more Armature on the side to weld and suspended under the Su-57
    2. +1
      2 October 2019 05: 05
      The Chinese have this, DF-17 is called.
  4. -8
    30 September 2019 06: 33
    Now liberals-skeptics will come, and, first of all, they will “convincingly prove” to themselves that, like with Poseidon, there are no such missiles at all, or at best a dozen of them, instead of them, mass and size models are launched in the exercises, and the real basement of the Kremlin. ..
    1. +9
      30 September 2019 08: 05
      There are rockets. But alas, this does not give a favorable picture drawn by the author of the article.
      AUG, of course, can be destroyed. But for this it is necessary to have an effective system of naval reconnaissance and target designation, and we have no sufficient outfits of forces, neither of them today.
      In the USSR, by the way, there was also a moment of missile dominance in the 80's, when we had rockets capable of attacking at supersonic speeds at low altitude - the US Navy did not have such weapons of destruction. Nevertheless, the USSR understood that to realize this advantage, dozens of carriers were needed and they built surface and underwater missile cruisers. And aircraft carriers to cover them. We are....
  5. +2
    30 September 2019 06: 44
    No one wanted to .... check!
    So it will be, no one needs particularly critical problems now. However, even then they are unlikely to start them.
  6. +5
    30 September 2019 07: 14
    We will definitely melt all "their" aircraft carriers ... and hoist the Russian flag over the Capitol ... Deripaska and Abramovich will hoist ... smile
    1. 0
      30 September 2019 08: 52
      Georgian would be necessary, for identity
      1. -1
        1 October 2019 03: 26
        Quote: novel xnumx
        Georgian would be necessary, for identity

        Georgians will replace Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. And Abramovich will finally return the subjects to the British Queen! laughing
  7. +4
    30 September 2019 08: 30
    The economy wins the war. All weapons, all means of destruction, all troops - the essence of its continuation. No matter how trite it may sound, but we need to focus on the development of our economy and the human potential of the citizens of our country, and everything else will follow, including weapons. But for now, “the cart goes ahead of the horse” and our “horse” is our decrepit nag, the military “gallop” cannot stand it, it will die. The USSR defeated fascist Germany, primarily economically. In case of war, will we be able to surpass the economy of the USA or China? As Kiselyov said: “I don’t think” ...
    1. -1
      30 September 2019 18: 15
      In case of war, will we be able to surpass the economy of the USA or China?

      In case of war there will be no transcendence. You won’t be much better in a day, but in a day there’s nothing left of our economy of Amer’s.
      1. +1
        30 September 2019 18: 58
        War can also be waged with conventional "conventional" types of weapons, not necessarily nuclear ones. At least until now, this is exactly what happens. I meant this scenario. And in this case, we have already blown through a possible war, either to China or to the United States. Why, I think, there is no need to explain? I get the impression that we rely too much on our nuclear missile triad, but this is a dead-end path of evolution: we will simply leave this world by loudly "slamming the door". Is it really necessary to strive for this in our development? And it is precisely the lack of intelligent management that prevents us from developing normally. Look at the US and China. Since the mid-2000s, I have been hearing nonsense that "the dollar is about to collapse," but so far only the ruble is "falling"; China has already become a leader in the world economy; and only we have a permanent leader and "stability". A country of thieves, cops and the military ... In the event of a full-scale war with the use of all forces and means, we will only have to, yes, - to use our nuclear weapons; kill everyone and yourself, because our economy simply will not survive wars of attrition. I would very much like to be mistaken in my conclusions.
        1. 0
          1 October 2019 11: 53
          A war can be waged with conventional "conventional" types of weapons. And in this case, we have already blown a possible war, either to China or to the United States.

          That's right, I’ll tell you more, you think primitively: it’s not only and not so much the economy, evaluate human resources, evaluate the geopolitical situation, evaluate the logistics capabilities, etc. etc. In general, build a matmodel. Get an unambiguous result. The Russian Federation loses in a conventional war, and the USSR also could not win whatever they say. Therefore, a deterrence weapon was made, that is, a weapon IN ANY EVENT CAUSING UNACCEPTABLE DAMAGE TO AN ENEMY. So do not hope - the war will be nuclear and that is why it will not be. LEARN DIAMAT
          1. +1
            1 October 2019 12: 17
            You are right in everything, but you are wrong in one: the war will be. The one you are talking about.
  8. +5
    30 September 2019 08: 36
    The whole world is being built by aircraft carriers and UDC, it’s just a boom now, like a rebirth, but the Russians have their own pride. Why, Russia beyond the oceans, there’s no one to attack.
    It remains to find out who overseas and seas were going to attack Italy or Turkey.
    In the days of Khrushchov, rocket mania was so full that until the end of the USSR they could not build a balanced fleet. How can you bet on missiles if they can actually be used only under some special set of circumstances?
    Neither full-fledged target designation, nor evaluation of the results of application. So they will be rolled for thirty or forty years to no avail, and then they will be written off, not the first time. But aircraft carriers have actually been used all these years.
    And now on the same rake, everyone is waging war with the American aircraft carriers, and here already some Spain or Italy would be defeated at sea. The Americans will not fight anyway, they will be afraid directly, they don’t need a nuclear war.
    hi
    1. 0
      30 September 2019 15: 12
      Quote: Avior
      It remains to find out who overseas and seas were going to attack Italy or Turkey.

      Italy has eternal phantom pains about its southernmost part - called North Africa. smile
      And the Turks need a landing fleet to solve problems with another NATO member. With which they had already managed to fight 45 years ago.
      1. 0
        30 September 2019 15: 48
        It is with whom did the Turks manage to fight and solve the problems that the two UDC gathered?
        If you are about Greece, they didn’t fight, and it’s ridiculous to land troops in UDC with Greece.
        And what kind of Italy is located in North Africa, what can you do without aircraft carriers?
        1. 0
          30 September 2019 17: 18
          Quote: Avior
          If you are about Greece, they didn’t fight, and it’s ridiculous to land troops in UDC with Greece.

          To mainland Greece, yes. But there are also "passing islands" in the Aegean Sea off the coast of Turkey, currently owned by Greece. In Soviet times, in the same Western Military District, it was noted that part of the Greek armed forces was in fact deployed for a war with a NATO ally, which has its own views on these islands. Plus, the Turks have half of Cyprus.
  9. +6
    30 September 2019 09: 05
    Mildly about the article we can say: the author of all has already won. The only problem is that the Americans still do not know about it. And when they find out, they will slightly disagree with the author. In general, how can I write this? At what level is it designed for schoolchildren? Specialists have already proved many times that the aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy can only be damaged in one case: when the strike group is in the tracking position of the ASG at a distance that allows our anti-ship missiles to reach the enemy. In all other cases, the chances of incapacitating AUGs are extremely small, as no one will close our KUG and shock submarines.
    Before the Russo-Japanese War, our press also wrote articles in a similar cheers style. And then Tsushima was and put everything in its place. And the current state of the Navy is much worse than then.
    1. +1
      30 September 2019 16: 02
      Thank God there are still adequate commentators here, and then sheer hatred.
    2. 0
      1 October 2019 03: 38
      Quote: kjhg
      Mildly about the article we can say: the author of all has already won. The only problem is that the Americans still do not know about it.

      Well, now to drive all the bullshit is the height of patriotism, and in order to increase the pride of the population for the state, to trick a holy cause.
  10. +4
    30 September 2019 09: 06
    Yes, to drown, that is, what there are no questions about, but is there something to timely detect and issue a central bank without collecting forces and means from half of the country, and so to speak in a regular mode and in all directions? Or do they hope that the Americans turn out to be so dumb that they fit a line of sight?
  11. -2
    30 September 2019 09: 41
    Aircraft carrier in our time, it is like a beautiful lover at the aligarch. And at best, they are needed to protect their geopolitical interests on distant approaches. Russia went the other way, building airbases. I think it's cheaper than an aircraft carrier + escort ships
    1. +1
      30 September 2019 15: 02
      Where is he building? I only know about one air base in Syria. Well, and how will it help us to defend our geopolitical interests, for example, in Southeast Asia? If we (Putin and his clan) today have a thirst for gums with China, this does not mean that there can be no war with him tomorrow. And how will Russia, in this case, help the air base in Syria? And his aircraft carrier will help China ...
  12. 0
    30 September 2019 10: 19
    You write Oleg Orlov
    Russia has something to drown American aircraft carriers

    —- I agree, maybe 2-3 aircraft carriers in a regime close to “at the same time”.
    -I believe that a strike on an aircraft carrier, AUG, is a political decision equivalent to a political strike on a megalopolis.
    —- However, what does this mean? I think that at present this is a blow in the process of nuclear war. Attacking an aircraft carrier is not a separate operation for a tactical advantage. By results, this is a strategic battle.
    -Since there are no cases of “escalation for de-escalation”, and I do not expect the advantages of the first nuclear strike by either side, I see no alternative to a nuclear war after which “why do we need peace in which there is no Russia ?!”
  13. -5
    30 September 2019 10: 46
    Shchaz will be attacked by local Russophobes with foreign funding and how three times three will prove that Shoigu understands nothing in military affairs laughing
    1. +2
      30 September 2019 16: 07
      And he doesn't really need to understand, deputies and advisers should chew everything up for him, because he is not a military man by profession, he is a builder by profession and, by the way, the founder of the United Russia party. So in military affairs, he is definitely not strong.
  14. 0
    30 September 2019 14: 36
    Russia has something to drown American aircraft carriers

    Not only commentators of patriotic resources will lose their bile until they lose stability / buoyancy.
  15. +3
    30 September 2019 14: 52
    Quote: Avior
    I mean the flight on the ultra-small, such as 10 meters.

    I don’t remember how things are with our potential opponents, but when I was a cadet, I was taught that a Mosquito rocket flies up to a target at an altitude of at least 15 meters above sea level. When they were just testing it, they decided to make the flight altitude 3-5 meters in the final section, like, it would make it difficult to detect and intercept ... But: "It turned out smoothly on paper, but they forgot about the ravines, and walk along them ...", - either they forgot or did not take into account that the sea is not a swamp. There are waves in the sea, sometimes large and high enough ... in short, so as not to ditch the rocket on the wave, the height of the attack was increased. Now "Mosquito" does not fly below 15 meters, I don't remember about other missiles, I studied for a long time.
  16. 0
    30 September 2019 14: 52
    "the budget is larger than that of the next nine countries put together" - a rich country can afford, unlike Russia. Why count other people's money?
  17. +5
    30 September 2019 15: 02
    The Saudis are protected by the modern American Patriot air defense systems, and not one of their sets: the defense in depth missile and air defense are built on their basis. It turns out that Saudi Arabia paid in full for protecting its sky and oil resources, but the American defense did not work: the refineries were successfully attacked and then burned for several days, like torches.

    Assessing the capabilities of American air defense systems by their results in the hands of the Saudis is like evaluating Soviet weapons based on the results of the Arab-Israeli wars.
    Technically undeveloped Hussite rebels carried out a successful attack on Riyadh's oil infrastructure.

    Technically Advanced Hussite Rebels are armed with OTRK and SCRC. And successfully apply them.
    Stop repeating this pattern about "Houthi rebels" after the Western media. There is a full-fledged civil war in Yemen, weighed down by the intervention. And not only "rebels in slippers with Kalash" are fighting against the Saudis and their Coalition, but also part of the regular army of Yemen (actively supported some from the other side of the Persian Gulf).
  18. +2
    30 September 2019 15: 09
    Moreover, we must remember that in the arsenal of the RF Armed Forces there is also a Zircon rocket, whose speed exceeds the speed of sound six times. - and then ostap suffered ...
  19. +2
    30 September 2019 15: 11
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    A missile that hits the corps will not create such

    Wouldn't it create? And if the rocket, or its fragments, fall into containers with aviation fuel? The aircraft carrier carries its own fuel in double bottom tanks, but aircraft fuel is stored above the waterline. And not only fuel ... Ammunition.
    1. 0
      30 September 2019 16: 10
      And what kind of fuel does the aircraft carrier have if there is a nuclear installation in which fuel is loaded immediately and at the base.
      1. +1
        30 September 2019 16: 28
        But not all aircraft carriers in the world are nuclear powered. Chinese "Liaoning", for example, no. And British Queen Elizabeth is not. Okay, I'm just trying to get out ... At the same time, are the consumable containers with aviation fuel on the US Navy's nuclear aircraft carriers stored above the waterline, or not? And ammunition for aircraft?
      2. 0
        30 September 2019 18: 36
        What kind of fuel does the aircraft carrier have?

        AIRCRAFT laughing
  20. +1
    30 September 2019 15: 47
    Quote: Serg4545
    even one decent RCC has good chances of causing such fires and secondary explosions that this will lead to the death of an aircraft carrier.

    The ship commander has an interesting reference book in his safe. There, next to the photograph of a simulated enemy ship, it is written how many missiles it, this ship, needs so that it is guaranteed to cease to be a combat unit. For example (speaking conditionally), the commander of the only destroyer of the "Sovremenny" type, which remained on the move in the Pacific Fleet, opens such a book on the page with the world's best URO cruiser of the "Ticonderoga" type, and reads: "Two Mosquito missiles. submarine commanders also have such books, only in them, in addition to the required number of missiles (who has them), they also contain the number of torpedoes from those with which the submarine is usually armed. Smart people in the corresponding research institutes and headquarters have long calculated how much someone needs what " weighed "so that, if not drowning, then at least guaranteed to disrupt the fulfillment of a combat mission. We are not the only one so smart, this is a worldwide practice. We have also been" cheated "long ago.
  21. -1
    30 September 2019 16: 15
    Quote: Fan-Fan
    Guys, but I’m a fisherman and I’ll tell you so - the sound in the air still goes into the water, even a loud conversation scares the fish.

    Sound in the air does not penetrate water. If we consider your case specifically, I can tell you that the fish "heard" you through ... the bottom of your boat. The sound that you inadvertently emitted from a distance passed through your body and the hull of the boat. The hull of the boat involuntarily acted as a radiating "antenna", and the larger its geometrical dimensions, and the denser the material, the "more" sound will be transmitted to the water. Well, in water the speed of sound is about 1400-1500 m / s, it is not surprising that the fish heard you perfectly. Try to put microporous material under your points of contact with the boat hull, I assure you that the fish will become much worse "hearing". And how do you have the patience to sit with a fishing rod? I use a grid ... more fiddling with it, but the "efficiency" is higher.
    1. +1
      30 September 2019 18: 35
      I use a grid ...

      Appearance? Are you into the rectum or directly into the vein? Efficiency
      1. 0
        30 September 2019 19: 19
        I do not use. And do not joke about my guts and veins, they do not concern you. I’m embarrassed to ask ... Do you do everything in life according to the letter of the law?
        1. -1
          1 October 2019 10: 38
          I also used to dabble in networks before, but now it’s too expensive, the license to use networks has risen in price. Although I catch fish mainly for pleasure and let go of a small one, I recently scammed three nets at my own risk and threw it with a friend, for the winter they filled the freezer with fish.
          And with the fact that the sound from the air does not go well into the water, I agree, but still I think a little passes. The case that I described above was not in the boat, but I stood on the shore, in addition, then experimented, i.e. I tried to clap my hands and the fry's reaction was the same - the fry was scared. But still, I admit that the sound from the palms passed through the body, then the earth and fell into the water.
          1. -2
            1 October 2019 17: 28
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            Although I catch fish mainly for pleasure and let go of a small one, I recently poached three nets at my own risk and threw a friend, for the winter they filled the freezer with fish.

            Good boy, law-abiding. Yes And how many are wise in the country. belay
        2. -2
          1 October 2019 17: 34
          Quote: Brylevsky
          Too shy to ask...

          Not forbidden Yes
          Quote: Brylevsky
          Do you do everything in life according to the letter of the law?

          Do not flatter yourself how much the rope can not curl, and crocodile tears can not be avoided. wink
    2. +1
      30 September 2019 21: 16
      Quote: Brylevsky
      the fish "heard" you through ... the bottom of your boat.


      So with the same rocket. The jet stream from her engine diverges in all directions. Part of this jet hits the water, disperses the waves, raises clouds of spray, which then roll back like a waterfall. This is probably audible.
      1. 0
        1 October 2019 11: 28
        So with the same rocket. The jet stream from her engine diverges in all directions. Part of this jet hits the water, disperses the waves, raises clouds of spray, which then roll back like a waterfall. This is probably audible.

        In general, I was deeply interested in this topic. Until that moment, I believed that, in general, I satisfactorily know physics, but, as you can see, I was wrong laughing Maybe the nature of this phenomenon, about which the discussion unfolded, is hidden in something else: a rocket or plane, when overcoming the sound barrier, forms a "shock wave", the human ear perceives it as an explosion thunder. Perhaps the frequency and amplitude of the oscillations of this shock wave are such that they partially pass through the interface between the "air - water" media - I do not know for sure, it is necessary to calculate by the formulas. So, if this is really so, if sound vibrations from the shock wave pass into the water, then this "bike" about how acoustics listen to cruise missiles flying at supersonic speed may really turn out to be true, and this is amazing! I wonder to myself why I haven't heard this before ... Although, stop ... The main anti-ship cruise missile, the longest section of its path, overcomes at an altitude of several kilometers. In any case, there will not be enough shock wave energy to excite secondary waves in an elastic medium, which is sea water. And only a few miles before the target (I don't remember how many) the rocket drops sharply to a height of about 15 meters ... So, the rocket will overcome these few miles in supersonic ... it's too lazy to count, but very quickly. Fast enough for the ships' acoustics to give out target designation. It turns out that "the game is not worth the candle," and this story can be perceived as an amusing scientific curiosity, nothing more. Apparently, it has no practical application, otherwise everyone would already know about this method of detecting attacking anti-ship missiles.
        1. +1
          1 October 2019 18: 41
          Quote: Brylevsky
          It turns out that "the game is not worth the candle," and this story can be perceived as an amusing scientific curiosity, nothing more. Apparently, it has no practical application, otherwise everyone would already know about this method of detecting attacking anti-ship missiles.


          Undoubtedly.
  22. +3
    30 September 2019 17: 40
    Some kind of grace)) Here are just a couple of "buts".

    The latest Russian-built hypersonic missiles can also be used against surface targets of any size or displacement

    The author about "Zircon" or what? He was somehow adopted into service. We haven't even finished development yet.

    Moreover, due to the speed exceeding the speed of sound by an order of magnitude, it’s technically impossible to shoot down such a missile at the moment

    "By the order" - is it 10 times? "Zircon", I see, every year faster and faster.

    "Gerald Ford" (USS Gerald Ford) is worth about forty billion dollars

    The Americans claim that there are still 13 lards. Well, the author certainly knows better.

    But he is also vulnerable to modern strike aircraft and artillery of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation

    Artillery ?!

    China and Iran argue that soon they will be ready to launch US military vessels with war drones

    To scratch your tongue, you know, not to roll bags. But the show "Iranian drones against American aircraft carriers" I would watch, yes)

    The recent Hussite attack on Saudi oil refineries using UAVs is a convincing example.

    The author, apparently, does not see the difference between an attack on a plainly unguarded factory and an attack on an AUG. Oh well.

    On the one hand - penny but deadly drones and cruise missiles

    I apologize wildly, but don't rockets need never-penny carriers? You can't launch the Onyx inflatable boat.

    Russia has the Onyx anti-ship missile, and the Chinese have Dongfeng (Dong Feng 26). They are both considered true ship fighters.

    Well, "Onyx" is fine, but on the DF-26 there seems to be still no consensus regarding their real ability to work on ships. And the mass launch of the MRBM can be misunderstood by other owners of strategic nuclear forces, early warning systems and other terrible abbreviations.

    Moreover, we must remember that in the arsenal of the RF Armed Forces there is also a Zircon rocket, whose speed exceeds the speed of sound six times

    So 6 times or an order of magnitude? And how long has she been in the arsenal?

    In addition, the naval military of the design bureau of Russia is actively developing underwater unmanned vehicles, some of their models will be equipped with nuclear power plants. These half-submarines are also a deadly weapon against the carrier groups of a potential enemy.

    Is it true?

    Technically undeveloped Hussite rebels carried out a successful attack on Riyadh's oil infrastructure. They not only halved the production of black fuel in the SA, but showed how vulnerable the United States and all its allies in the Middle East, and the North Atlantic Alliance, too.

    A bunch of hicks kicked in the ass a bunch of slobs who were "guarding" something there. And immediately such powerful conclusions.

    In general, fun, entertaining, encouraging. It’s a pity that only a fairy tale.
    1. 0
      30 September 2019 18: 18
      "By the order" - is it 10 times?

      maybe two laughing
  23. 0
    30 September 2019 18: 32
    In principle, the author is somewhere right. but it would be more correct to write, the Russian Federation has means of defeating AUG. But there are no systems for detection, target designation and combat control yet. But Shoigu is right in any way and the point is not only that such a system is cheaper than 10 AUGs, the point is that our competencies are located precisely in these areas and not at all in the construction of aircraft carriers. This was the case under the USSR, and it is now, and probably will continue.
  24. +2
    30 September 2019 20: 50
    Why attribute this or that type of weapon to the purpose for which it is not intended. No one is building aircraft carriers (and all world powers are building them!) For global conflict, they are being built to transmit their strength to a specific, usually remote area. To control transport arteries, to exert pressure, to dominate in local conflicts, to block. Certainly, US carrier groups are not the most important argument in the strategy of a global conflict with China or Russia. An aircraft carrier is rather a strong argument in defense of confidence in the dollar around the world, it is more a gendarme than a soldier.
  25. +2
    30 September 2019 21: 17
    Quote: Mordvin 3
    I guess you should drink less

    Remember, the namesake, such a disease as acute respiratory infections (very abruptly tied) to the good does not lead ... laughing

    Quote: Sapsan136
    Two US aircraft carriers nearly drowned from an accidental explosion of their own 127 mm Zuni type NURS aboard ... So everything is relative ... A missile flies on the wings of chance and where it goes, God knows ... So, for example, in 1982, the British the destroyer died from just one RCC Exoset, the warhead of which did not even explode, but the remaining fuel of the rocket exploded, causing a severe fire, which caused the death of the ship.

    No one is immune from accidents. But this does not mean that each time the aircraft carrier will sink from the explosion of a 127-mm NURS. And Sheffield burned and our ships burned. What to do if, at a certain stage, a stake was made on light but flammable materials.

    Quote: NEXUS
    Moreover, we must remember that in the arsenal of the RF Armed Forces there is also a Zircon rocket, whose speed exceeds the speed of sound six times.

    In the arsenal of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation there is no RCC ZIRCON yet ... it is only being tested. To date, the most advanced anti-ship missiles not only here, but also in the world, this is ONIX-M, with a range of 800 km.

    Andrew! Began "For health, and finished for the repose" ?? After all, they wrote correctly: NO RCC "Zircon" yet, and Immediately say that the most perfect is "Onyx-M", which MORE EVEN NOT STARTED TO PASS FLY TESTS... There is still neither "Zircon" nor "Onyx-M"

    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    Yes yes smile aircraft carriers are generally immortal and unsinkable in principle ...

    Well, you shouldn't be mischievous. AUG is actually a very difficult target to defeat, especially when it comes to conventional weapons. And you can sink them by hitting them with a dozen X-22s or Granites. Probably the leadership of the USSR Air Force was far from stupid, if it allocated almost a division of missile bombers for the sinking of the AUG
    If we take the TNT equivalent of "Onyx". compared to "Granit" (or X-22), the equivalent of "Granit" is 3-4 (more likely even 4 "Onyx" in explosives. Escort of an aircraft carrier is still not 4-6 ships of the class of our "Buyans" These are destroyers with a hundred launchers, most of which will be loaded with anti-aircraft missiles with a range of 1,5 hundred kilometers. Of course, it is possible to sink, but it is very, very difficult ...

    Quote: bar
    Get off the armored car, the USSR is over. And it ended, not least because he tore his pants, dictating his will in all corners. It is necessary to think about one’s own country, and not worry about the last effort for Honduras.

    Nevertheless, you read some topics, so we must protect Venezuela by force of arms and bases, and Cuba.
    And the Union did not dictate will to anyone even in its prime. There was no strength. The "carrot" method was used. that is, a rampant infusion of finance into any country that has declared that it is following the "socialist path of development." Money and technology were "fed". but the will to dictate, alas, was not strong

    Quote: Sapsan136
    The fact is that many missiles that are called supersonic, in fact, are not so ... The marching section of the rocket goes at normal subsonic speed, but in the final section they switch to supersonic and begin to perform anti-missile maneuvers, moving away from anti-aircraft missiles of the ship attacked by them ..


    Well, dear, on the example of one rocket do absolutely wrong conclusions.
    Of the existing anti-ship missiles, only one missile, the 3M54, has such a flight profile. The marching section at a speed of 6M and only 0,8 km from it the combat stage is separated, accelerating to a speed of 20M. Everyone else - be it Onyx, Granite, Vulcan, aircraft Kh-2,9 and Kh-22 - has supersonic speeds. The flight at low altitudes of the Onyx, Granit, Vulcan rockets of course takes place at a slightly lower speed - for example, at a speed of 31-1,5M, but still this speed is supersonic

    A missile defense maneuver is most often a snake, but even here the situation may arise that the seeker will lose its target due to such maneuvers. Well, 3M54 will be able to do something in 20 seconds of flight, when it only accelerates from 20 to 0,8 to 2,9M these XNUMX seconds

    Quote: Stalllker
    Russia went the other way, building airbases.

    True, this air base can be called a very big stretch. A civilian airfield was taken, surrounded on all sides by towns, villages, gardens and mountains and was made from this airfield airbase.
    It’s another matter if Assad Papa didn’t take offense at us in the 80s and we would create a full-fledged naval base in Syria with an airfield, where we planned to place up to 4 aircraft regiments. It would be an air base that would control if not the whole Mediterranean, then at least half

    Quote: Kalmar
    Well, "Onyx" is fine, but on the DF-26 there seems to be still no consensus regarding their real ability to work on ships. And the mass launch of the MRBM can be misunderstood by other owners of strategic nuclear forces, early warning systems and other terrible abbreviations.

    Kamrad. Although you are answering "urya-post", I will clarify. The anti-ship missile is the DF-21D ballistic missile. Not DF-26, but DF-21. Deployed in the amount of 18 pieces with a conventional warhead. In 2013, it was tested on a test site, on which the outline of an aircraft carrier was drawn. The Chinese themselves disavowed earlier statements made in the media that it could be used against a moving target. Only on standing in the base, motionless.

    Quote: Kalmar
    So 6 times or an order of magnitude? And how long has she been in the arsenal?

    As for speed - no one knows. Maybe an order of magnitude, maybe 6 times. Well, in the arsenal she recently (I'm afraid only to make a mistake, well, I think the error is not so significant) - since 2022 as (maybe laughing )

    Quote: Kalmar
    Is it true?

    Didn't you know? Well, at least you have heard of Poseidon? And similar one-and-a-half-torpedo-half-boats Amphitritrite, Neleus (not to be confused with the proposal "Don't drink"), "Pelias" are also being developed ...
    1. 0
      30 September 2019 21: 49
      AUG is actually a very difficult target to defeat, especially when it comes to conventional weapons. And you can sink them by hitting them with a dozen X-22s or Granites.

      Well, the AUG cannot be destroyed by a dozen granites, it will turn out less than 2 missiles per ship. And an aircraft carrier is probably possible, but dozens of missiles are needed in a salvo. But to be honest, I don’t understand this, the destruction of the AUG is a war with America, the war with America will be nuclear in any way, why put up a whole Tu-22 division, if only one, well, two missiles with UBCs is enough?
  26. +3
    1 October 2019 10: 59
    Quote: bk316
    AUG is actually a very difficult target to defeat, especially when it comes to conventional weapons. And you can sink them by hitting them with a dozen X-22s or Granites.

    Well, the AUG cannot be destroyed by a dozen granites, it will turn out less than 2 missiles per ship. And an aircraft carrier is probably possible, but dozens of missiles are needed in a salvo. But to be honest, I don’t understand this, the destruction of the AUG is a war with America, the war with America will be nuclear in any way, why put up a whole Tu-22 division, if only one, well, two missiles with UBCs is enough?

    You are right, the namesake, I have a mistake. A dozen missiles hit the aircraft carrier, not the AUG.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"