Military Review

The Pentagon thought about the gradual abandonment of the carrier fleet

132
US Department of Defense intends to comprehensively study the need for further development of the carrier fleet country or gradual abandonment of it. As he writes Defense NewsUS Deputy Secretary of Defense Michael Griffin directly raised the question of the need for further funding for the construction of aircraft carriers.


The Pentagon thought about the gradual abandonment of the carrier fleet


Speaking at a press conference in the Pentagon, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Michael Griffin said the U.S. Department of Defense intends to carefully study the feasibility of investing in aircraft carriers or gradually reduce funding for the aircraft carrier fleet, redirecting funds to the development of other weapons, including the creation of hypersonic missiles.

Let's do a thought experiment. What do you think the Chinese leadership will be more afraid of: 2 thousand conventional missiles held by the United States and its allies in the Western Pacific, or one new aircraft carrier? Because these two points cost about the same money

- he said.

According to Griffin, there is no need to completely abandon aircraft carriers, but you need to think about the development of other weapons, especially since "US opponents have already found ways to fight aircraft carriers."

However, Griffin has opponents who believe that the so-called weapon a quick global strike cannot be considered an effective deterrent. According to them, the United States may not dare to strike with a hypersonic weapon, for example, on the territory of China, in response to an attack on American ships, since this could lead to an exchange of nuclear strikes.

Can you apply it against Iran or even North Korea, but against China? Chinese leaders have big doubts as to whether we will actually decide

- say opponents Griffin.

It is atomic aircraft carriers with their air wing that remain the most advanced weapons system - and will remain so in the future

- said a former US Navy pilot, Rear Admiral Roy Kelly.
132 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 16 October 2019 11: 17
    +8
    There are doubts that aircraft carriers, with their air wings, are the most advanced weapons system. Of course it poses a serious threat, but is perfection itself? The admiral praises "his swamp".
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2019 12: 24
      +1
      There is no such doubt :) Today the 2 postulate is unshakable:
      1) aviation is the best means of reconnaissance at sea.
      2) Only aviation can effectively protect surface ships and land targets from a properly organized air strike.
      As long as they are true, the dominance of naval aviation cannot be refuted
      1. maxim947
        maxim947 16 October 2019 12: 40
        +1
        What do you think the Chinese leadership will be more afraid of: 2 thousand conventional missiles, or one new aircraft carrier?

        They cited the Chinese as an example, which means they understand that the Russians are not afraid of either one or the other. )))
        1. Shurik70
          Shurik70 16 October 2019 12: 51
          +3
          Wild argument.
          "The leadership does not dare to hit China with missiles, because this will lead to a nuclear war. Therefore, we need to develop aircraft carriers."
          And what will the aircraft carriers decide? Or a strike on Shanghai with non-nuclear weapons will not cause a nuclear response?
          1. krot
            krot 16 October 2019 17: 49
            +1
            Wow !!! Even the striped ones thought about the high cost and uselessness of this iron! )
      2. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 16 October 2019 12: 48
        +8
        Remember how many combat sorties land aviation (and, accordingly, emitted bombs on the heads of the enemy) and deck, during the Gulf War? The difference is an order of magnitude. And the NATO generals and admirals themselves were well aware of this, the aggression began only after the land aviation completed the relocation and delivered everything necessary. So, what is there a purely financial dispute, who will get more money off the military budget? Boeing, Lockheed or General Dynamics?
        1. A5V
          A5V 16 October 2019 13: 13
          0
          Well, probably because the base aircraft then exceeded the deck quantitatively by the same order?)) This is an old and hackneyed topic that was tackled on the same site by uv. Andrey from Chelyabinsk. In terms of the number of sorties per plane, the air force and navy aviation in Iraq were almost equal.
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 16 October 2019 13: 47
            0
            What prevented the required number of aircraft carriers from being driven into the Persian Gulf? Everyone participated in the Coalition. One could attract British, French and even Italian, with Spanish. Well, clean neighing
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 16 October 2019 16: 27
              +2
              Quote: TermNachTER
              What prevented the required number of aircraft carriers from being driven into the Persian Gulf?

              Not practical. Why hammer a nail with a screwdriver if there is a cloud of hammers nearby?
              Now, if Iraq’s neighbors hadn’t provided the Coalition with airbases in such numbers, then yes, they would have overtaken a crowd of aircraft carriers. And since the same Gulf monarchies rushed to invite the Yankees to their airfields, it was a sin not to use them. smile
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 17 October 2019 09: 53
                0
                I asked a previous speaker who believes that in the Gulf, carrier-based aviation could handle itself without ground support. I understand perfectly well that ten huge troughs in the Persian Gulf is nonsense.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 17 October 2019 10: 32
                  0
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  I asked a previous speaker who believes that in the Gulf, carrier-based aviation could handle itself without ground support.

                  And where did he think that? Is there a Chapekovsky Imago? wink
                  The Gulf War example was yours. And this example is absolutely irrelevant. Just because the Coalition in this war did not need to massively use AB - Iraq’s neighbors on a silver platter presented them with a whole airfield network.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2019 17: 15
              -1
              Quote: TermNachTER
              What prevented the required number of aircraft carriers from being driven into the Persian Gulf?

              If you are attacked by a bully in the gateway, what prevents you from fighting with just one right hand? Maybe common sense?
              1. Vol4ara
                Vol4ara 16 October 2019 20: 43
                -3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Quote: TermNachTER
                What prevented the required number of aircraft carriers from being driven into the Persian Gulf?

                If you are attacked by a bully in the gateway, what prevents you from fighting with just one right hand? Maybe common sense?

                And when you urinate, also take off your pants as a whole, or are you content only with your pants? And what prevents you from taking off your pants every time? Could it be common sense?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2019 20: 50
                  +1
                  Quote: Vol4ara
                  And when you urinate also take off your whole pants

                  Also? So you shoot the whole thing? :)))) I'm not sure that you need to report this to the entire VO site, but of course, your business
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2019 17: 14
          +2
          Quote: TermNachTER
          Remember how many combat sorties land aviation (and, accordingly, poured bombs on enemy heads) and deck, during the Gulf War?

          I remember, and you? US carrier-based aviation, which had only about a quarter of the total number of American tactical aircraft, completed about a quarter of all sorties. At the same time, it provided 41,3% of all sorties of heavy fighters and 30,9% of all sorties of attack aircraft. At the same time, carrier-based aircraft made about the same number of sorties as land aircraft and carried almost the same bomb load.
          So what? What does this prove? Do you not understand that each kind of force has its own tasks? Do you seriously think that if land aviation dropped more bombs, then thereby it proved the uselessness of the deck? I hasten to note that for all the military conflicts of the Russian Federation in recent years (both Chechen, Georgian crisis, Syria), the strategic nuclear forces have never been used. Apparently, they are also not needed at all. Yes, and we also do not need military aviation - it did not help in the release of the Nord-Ost hostages ...
          By the way, tell the Americans that they need to abandon strategic bombers urgently. And then they, too, lost in the "bomb tonnage" of the tactical ground operation.
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 17 October 2019 09: 39
            0
            I read very different numbers and I believe them, because the volumes for placing fuel and ammunition on an aircraft carrier are by no means infinite. I don’t remember exactly, but with the intensive work of the aircraft carrier, the fuel and lubricants and aircraft need to be replenished every three to four days. And this is not a hell of a lot, and it’s not at all close to carry, not to mention spare parts and consumables for airplanes and helicopters. So, in the Gulf, carrier-based aviation showed that it is a very weak alternative to land, only in the case of complete absence of airfields.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 17 October 2019 10: 28
              0
              Quote: TermNachTER
              I don’t remember exactly, but with the intensive work of the aircraft carrier, the fuel and lubricants and aircraft need to be replenished every three to four days. And this is not a hell of a lot, and it’s not at all close to carry, not to mention spare parts and consumables for airplanes and helicopters.

              With the well-organized work of the rear, this is not a problem. The US floating rear has enough transports and tankers to organize a "conveyor" for the supply of actively operating AUG. If you poison the transport from the base once every four days, then the AUG will replenish supplies every four days.
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 17 October 2019 10: 33
                0
                And I read the opposite, that the mattresses with the rear are not very good now. Admirals are sounding the alarm. 10 AUG - this counts three vehicles in two days. And if on the way they get into a storm. Do you know how long it takes to load 10-15 thousand tons of general cargo onto a ship?
      3. srelock
        srelock 16 October 2019 13: 25
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        There is no such doubt :) Today the 2 postulate is unshakable:
        1) aviation is the best means of reconnaissance at sea.
        Yes, but not an aircraft carrier.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        2) Only aviation can effectively protect surface ships and land targets from a properly organized air strike.
        Modern aviation is more of a percussion weapon; the air defense functions are very limited.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. A5V
          A5V 16 October 2019 13: 32
          +4
          Yes, but not avian

          At sea - deck and is. Aircraft AWACS (the same E-2, for example) have a huge advantage over any non-aircraft carrier, therefore they are not shackled by the radio horizon.

          Modern aviation is more of a percussion weapon; air defense functions are very

          Can you give arguments in defense of this stupidity? :)
        3. Alex_59
          Alex_59 16 October 2019 14: 25
          +4
          Quote: srelock
          Modern aviation is more of a percussion weapon; the air defense functions are very limited.

          Not true. Aviation is the main air defense force. Ground-based air defense systems only complement and strengthen aviation.
          1. srelock
            srelock 17 October 2019 02: 07
            0
            Hmm ... Once upon a time, but times have changed. wink
            In a nutshell, then modern aviation performs the air defense functions according to the residual principle, i.e. there and in those cases where it is not possible to solve the problem by ground or surface air defense forces.
            For example, it is a long-range interception, patrolling or organizing a remote time zone, escort services smile , and the list of goals, by modern standards, is very small.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 17 October 2019 10: 38
              0
              Quote: srelock
              In a nutshell, then modern aviation performs the air defense functions according to the residual principle, i.e. there and in those cases where it is not possible to solve the problem by ground or surface air defense forces.

              And what ground-based air defense forces does the same hegemon? Well, or tell us about the mighty ZRV of Germany, France or the UK.
              The task of gaining dominance in the air by NATO countries is solved precisely with the help of the Air Force. And this is the first and main task of their Air Force in any conflict.
      4. basmach
        basmach 16 October 2019 15: 09
        -1
        Your postulates are based on obsolete capabilities. I have already written about aircraft carriers. To begin with, take-off and landing are possible in calm weather, not more than 3 points. Because the aircraft carrier goes against the wind at full speed to facilitate takeoff and landing. The second point is bandwidth. I met numbers here, which is the maximum, 360 flights per day. Ie 15 aircraft per hour. When working on targets covered by coastal defense, an aircraft carrier will not come closer than 500-600 km. To deliver an acceptable strike against targets covered by anti-aircraft defense will require at least two units. That is, to assemble a group of 8 aircraft, it will take half an hour. The first one to take off will burn kerosene in vain, reducing the radius of combat use.
        In general, the postulate that these troughs are irreplaceable has been going on since WWII. But ... then there really were problems with reconnaissance at sea. But aircraft carriers were used in large quantities, providing a large one-time departure. And not one at a time, which gave effect. Plus, the air defense system of the ships could not cope with the raid of 15-20 aircraft at the same time (single ship) However, the conditions changed. Everything is ever becoming obsolete.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2019 17: 29
          -3
          Quote: basmach
          I have already written about aircraft carriers.

          And I already explained to you the whole depth of your wrong.
          Quote: basmach
          To begin with, take-off and landing are possible in calm weather, not more than 3 points.

          Lies, flights can be carried out up to 5 points, with experienced crews - up to 7. That is about the same as cruise missiles.
          Quote: basmach
          The second point is bandwidth. I met numbers here, which is the maximum, 360 flights per day. Ie 15 aircraft per hour.

          I'll explain to you in a simple way. On average, one combat aircraft during the day makes 1,2-2 sorties (if necessary, maybe more) - we look at the statistics for the same "Desert Storm", where it almost never exceeded 1,5. So, if there are 70 aircraft on AB and the standard of 140 sorties per day, we get 2 sorties. In other words, carrier-based aircraft can take off at exactly the same frequency as ground aircraft.
          Quote: basmach
          When working on targets covered by coastal defense, an aircraft carrier will not come closer than 500-600 km.

          He breaks up the coastal defense and then comes closer
          Quote: basmach
          To deliver an acceptable strike against targets covered by anti-aircraft defense will require at least two units. That is, to assemble a group of 8 aircraft, it will take half an hour.

          Instead of carrying fierce nonsense, just watch a video of how American planes REALLY take off from an AV. There is a car and a small trolley of such videos in the internet, but if it's lazy - for example, here in this article https://topwar.ru/31458-nekotorye-osobennosti-ispolzovaniya-palubnoy-aviacii-superavianoscev-tipa-nimitz-ch1.html
          Video No.2. If you look lazily, I report that 5 aircraft with 2 catapults started in 6 min 26 sec. And the American AB, for a second, has 4 catapults
          Quote: basmach
          In general, the postulate of the indispensability of these troughs dates back to WWII

          Let's dwell on the fact that you know nothing about the times of WWII, nor about the operation of AB today. And judging by the fact that our previous discussion disappeared in vain, you don’t want to know
          1. basmach
            basmach 16 October 2019 19: 04
            -3
            Have you ever seen what 5 points are. First look what’s with the ship, then write. Than gouging the coastal defense. Your optimism? Or will the command of this defense sit and stupidly wait? And 360 sorties per day is the maximum. Ie one plane in 4 minutes. I did not serve on the AB, but I served on the concrete and TEC, what flights and training are, I know firsthand. And do not rub me about catapults and stuff. The aircraft must be rolled out, fixed, prepared. Since the catapult is nearby, it is done alternately so that the afterburner does not burn. This strip allows you to fly four.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2019 20: 40
              -3
              Quote: basmach
              Have you ever seen what 5 points are. First look what’s with the ship, then write.

              Have you ever been on an aircraft carrier?
              Quote: basmach
              Than gouging the coastal defense. Your optimism?

              Missile bombing under the guise of EW and AWACS aircraft, as was usually done
              Quote: basmach
              Or will the command of this defense sit and stupidly wait?

              In the entire history of wars, there is NOT ONE case when land aviation successfully opposed carrier-based aircraft. Who knows the story - draws conclusions. Who doesn’t know ...
              Quote: basmach
              And 360 sorties per day is the maximum. Ie one plane in 4 minutes.

              You still do not understand that the "formula"
              the number of flights per day / number of minutes per day = the speed of lifting the air group

              Categorically not true? I am truly sorry for you. That is, you can’t even believe your eyes when they give you a video
              Quote: basmach
              And do not rub me about catapults and stuff. The aircraft must be rolled out, fixed, prepared.

              Oh, finally something began to reach you. That's exactly what you need to take to the deck, give after-flight service, refuel, arm, pre-flight training, and only then you can fly again. And that 140 standard sorties are limited precisely by the capabilities of an aircraft carrier PREPARE planes to take off, SERVICE AFTER them, and then PREPARE REPEATED FOR THE SCHOOL, And the climb of the air group takes a minimum of time.
              1. basmach
                basmach 17 October 2019 00: 26
                -3
                No again. You will not be able to build a squadron on the deck immediately, there is no place. The landing deck must be free! Accordingly, it is necessary to lift from the hold, where they have already been tested and prepared. Lifting, leveling planes, docking with a catapult, inspection, this is what eats up time.
                Give me examples of the victory of naval aviation over land with an equal number of aircraft. They do not exist. In order to apply RBU, it is necessary to suppress coastal air defense, the radius of which is greater than the radius of the aircraft SD. . One regiment Tu-22m3 is guaranteed to destroy an aircraft carrier. And further. Look at any video of flights. You will not see much excitement anywhere. It can’t be put on a swinging deck. With 7 points you can’t stand on deck, let alone landing. This is a storm and all that is not fixed on the deck is overboard. This alone gives you out as an amateur, the sea is only in YouTube, planes are there
                I understand that arguing with a sofa expert is useless.
                He himself served in the 523 Orsha Apib, at the same airdrome as the TU-22 regiment. The task is to destroy the aircraft carrier. Often flew with the X-22. And then he himself served in special units with them
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 17 October 2019 10: 42
                  0
                  Quote: basmach
                  Give me examples of the victory of naval aviation over land with an equal number of aircraft.

                  The first phase of the battle for the Mariana Islands. The 1st Kakuta Air Fleet included 1000 aircraft. A week later, at the time of the Ozawa formation approach, the Japanese coastal aviation was zeroed by Spruence.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2019 18: 30
                  -2
                  Quote: basmach
                  You will not be able to build a squadron on the deck immediately, there is no place. The landing deck must be free! Accordingly, it is necessary to lift from the hold, where they have already been tested and prepared. Lifting, leveling planes, docking with a catapult, inspection, this is what eats up time.

                  Basmach, well, people are already good at making people laugh.
                  First, the landing deck MUST NOT be vacant. Read at least some specialized imported literature on this matter. The rise of a large air group is based on the fact that the planes "locking" the landing deck take off first - that's all.
                  Secondly. Take any photo of Amer's AB and count the number of aircraft that are placed on the flight deck outside the landing deck. There are much more 2 squadrons typed. Here you have, for example, a diagram from an American technical publication

                  Can you count? :)))
                  Thirdly. Aircraft are NOT PREPARED in the hold. They are not even prepared in the hangar. They are prepared directly on the flight deck. Although there is an opportunity to prepare planes for departure in the hangar, you can use it only in case of emergency - refueling and suspension of weapons in the hangar are a little troublesome
                  Fourth. I understand that the Chukchi is not a reader, a Chukchi writer, but in the video that I cited in my article, the link to which I gave above, it is clearly seen that the plane could well call into the catapult with its wings folded and lay them out there already. The time for this is measured in seconds.
                  Quote: basmach
                  Give me examples of the victory of naval aviation over land with an equal number of aircraft. There is none of them.

                  I already realized that if you do not know something, then it is not. And by the way, dear Alexei has already given you a canonical example - the battle of the Mariana Islands, when the Yankees devoured 800 Kakuta planes without a snack for less than 1000 aircraft. There were other cases - for example, a raid on Taranto.
                  But the funny thing is that you don’t even understand what absurdity you write. An aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield, that is, a tool that can concentrate more aircraft in the right place :))) That is, the use of aircraft carriers just allows the side that they have to achieve an advantage in the number of aircraft over the side that does not use them. And to say after that "but if we had the same number of planes" ... To put it mildly, very childish.
                  Quote: basmach
                  in order to apply RBU, it is necessary to suppress coastal air defense, the radius of which is greater than the radius of the aircraft SD.

                  Such nonsense ... March to learn materiel on tactics of using aviation! You can even use the examples of the Arab-Israeli wars and the war in Vietnam.
                  Hint - practically NOTHING depends on the radius of action of ground-based air defense systems and the range of armament of the aircraft. The second clue is the horizon.
                  Quote: basmach
                  One regiment Tu-22m3 is guaranteed to destroy an aircraft carrier.

                  Really? :)))
                  Quote: basmach
                  He himself served in the 523 Orsha Apib, at the same airdrome as the TU-22 regiment. The task is to destroy the aircraft carrier. Often flew with the X-22. And then he himself served in special units with them

                  I don’t understand - either you are lying without blushing, or you had no idea where you are serving.
                  I talked with a number of people who flew on the Tu-22 or other missile carriers. Many of them were present at VO. And their opinion was as follows - to destroy or completely disable ABs as part of the AOG, you need 2 Tu-22 air regiment with additional aircraft providing them (RTR, etc.) + fighter cover, while the probable losses could reach 80% of the number of attacking air groups.
                  Quote: basmach
                  And further. Look at any video of flights. You will not see much excitement anywhere. It can’t be put on a swinging deck. With 7 points you can’t stand on deck, let alone landing. This is a storm and all that is not fixed on the deck is overboard.

                  Surprisingly, this is perhaps the only question where you are at least a little bit right.
                  Despite the fact that in the press, including the specialized one, there are very many opinions that aircraft carriers such as American supers can provide flights up to 7 points, I can admit that this is not the case. Yes, one "sofa expert", Captain 1st Rank Georgiev, pointed out in his article "Organization of Flights on US Navy Aircraft Carriers" (ZVO 1988 No. 6) the possibility for AV to receive aircraft in waves of up to 7 points. Another "sofa expert", V Abidin (only the leading designer of the YAK OKB) wrote in the article "Ship aviation: what is beyond the horizon"
                  Thus, the research results show that with conventional ship fighters (aerofinishing landing) from 82.000-100.000 tons of aircraft carriers in the North Atlantic, 6 points ensure the combat effectiveness of the air group for 67-70 percent of the time, and with aircraft with 60.000 displacement of 8 points only during 41 percent and XNUMX percent of the time for fighters of catapult and springboard takeoff respectively.

                  Three more sofa experts - the authors of the book "Aircraft Carriers and Helicopter Carriers" in 1972 (USSR) also write that Forrestols are capable of receiving aircraft up to 7 points, Essexes - up to 5 points.
                  And quite professional naval-technology.com for some reason for the French Charles de Gaulle, who, well, Nimitz has never written in size
                  The carrier is fitted with the SATRAP computerised, integrated stabilization system designed to maintain stabilization to within 0.5 ° of horizontal, allowing aircraft to be operated up to sea state 5 / 6.

                  That is, that his landing system is capable of landing planes when excited up to 5-6 points. There is still a lot of evidence both in English and in Russian, but oh well.
                  Nevertheless, there is a very reasonable opinion that they were all mistaken for one reason or another, and that in fact the limit of aircraft carriers is 5 points.
                  And, interestingly, with 5 points, it was possible to fly even without a catapult, on Kuznetsov:
                  On November 17, for the first time, the military test pilots of the Air Force Research Institute of the Air Force - V.N. Kondaurov (on the MiG-29K) and Yu.A. Semkin (on the Su-27K) started off from the Tbilisi deck for the first time. They took off from the springboard, sequentially increasing the take-off mass of their cars, with sea waves up to 4 - 5 points, different ship speeds and headwind.

                  The specified information (about flights on 4-5 points) is given not only by Zablotsky, but also by Fomin in his book Su-33: A Ship Epic, where the reviewers include, for example, such a "sofa expert" as Colonel-General V.G. Deineka. Well, where is he to you, of course, you stood next to the Tu-22, and even more than once ...
          2. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 17 October 2019 09: 48
            +1
            Andrei, I’m a sailor, albeit a fisherman, and I’ll tell you that with 5 points, our little ship is not an aircraft carrier, of course, but also rather big - it was merciless to roll from board. Take-off under such conditions is theoretically possible using a catapult. Landing - this is clearly beyond common sense. And 7 points is already a normal storm, when even a person walks on the deck only if there is something to hold on to. So you are, to put it mildly, mistaken. For everything else, you give American theoretical calculations for ideal conditions. There are no ideal conditions in a war, even on a toy one like in the Gulf. any problems always arise.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 October 2019 18: 31
              -1
              Sorry, I answered this above Basmachu, could you read there? Just copy-paste to VO is not accepted.
              Quote: TermNachTER
              For everything else, you give American theoretical calculations for ideal conditions.

              Actually, I cited data on a more than real Desert Storm. And as for the AB’s ability to raise the air group - my article on this subject was reviewed by professionals
      5. antivirus
        antivirus 16 October 2019 21: 18
        0
        long-term policy - draw into an alliance with the usa - sell 2 pcs Brazil and indians
  2. Sergey39
    Sergey39 16 October 2019 11: 18
    -2
    Late in the afternoon they caught on.
  3. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 16 October 2019 11: 20
    -4
    But what about the control of maritime communications? Showdown with countries without nuclear weapons ...? The question is the amount of AUG.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 16 October 2019 11: 29
      -3
      I think a destroyer with two hundred different missiles will be much more effective than this huge vessel, which also needs to be protected. For no one canceled the radio-controlled boats from the BB, not to mention the anti-ship missiles, for which a lone aircraft carrier is just a tasty target.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 16 October 2019 11: 31
        -2
        And the purpose is an indication? What about the search? Aviation covers a vast area. And not everything needs to be atomized; the ship’s radar has limitations and the ship will not be in time everywhere.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 16 October 2019 11: 50
          -3
          Aviation covers a vast area.

          But is it often necessary for 24 / 7 to control a huge area within a radius of 1000 km? One ship of course has a limitation, but for the price of Avik, you can build several of these ships! Hanging a balloon with a radar to them and the same area will be under control much cheaper.
          A more or less technologically advanced adversary will not let the AUG itself close, at a distance of an effective strike. Which was demonstrated by North Korea. AUG spun outside the zone of destruction of coastal missiles and dumped into the sunset. And she did it right, for the losses would be not only in the iron and lives, but also in the status of the US military power.
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 16 October 2019 13: 12
            -2
            Quote: Wedmak
            Hanging a balloon with a radar to them and the same area will be under control much cheaper.


            A balloon with a radar at an altitude of at least a couple of kilometers is 1) a good target 2) the conventional sign "ships are here".
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 16 October 2019 13: 33
              -3
              Yeah, that is, glowing like a Christmas tree on all AUG radars, is this a bad target and a conventional sign "there is nobody here"? ))
              Are you sure that you will generally notice a balloon the size of a passenger car from a distance of 40-50 km? (I.e., beyond the horizon)
              By the way, for that matter, the secrecy of the detachment of relatively small destroyers marching in parallel courses over a large area is higher than the heap-walking AUG.
              1. Good_Anonymous
                Good_Anonymous 16 October 2019 13: 38
                -2
                Quote: Wedmak
                Yeah, that is, glowing like a Christmas tree on all AUG radars, this is a bad target


                I am glad that there are no objections to the balloon. And no, AUG does not shine on all radars. Maybe on the horizon, but according to their instructions you can’t shoot.

                Quote: Wedmak
                and the conventional sign "there is nobody here"? ))


                The AWACS aircraft revolves hundreds of kilometers from the AUG, so it is a sign "there is an AUG within a radius of 300 km." Calculate the area of ​​a circle with a radius of 300 km yourself.
                1. Something
                  Something 17 October 2019 00: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: Good_Anonymous
                  I am glad that there are no objections to the balloon. And no, AUG does not shine on all radars. Maybe on the horizon, but according to their instructions you can’t shoot.

                  You are mistaken about the balloon and target designation from over-the-horizon radars! Do not forget to read with parameters of ZRLS "Mineral", Monolit-Binstalled on ships ...
                  Quote: Good_Anonymous
                  The AWACS aircraft revolves hundreds of kilometers from the AUG, so it is a sign "there is an AUG within a radius of 300 km." Calculate the area of ​​a circle with a radius of 300 km yourself.

                  Will not fly, will be shot down by a long-range rocket Polyment-Redoubt with ARGSN with a range of D = 400 km.
                  1. Good_Anonymous
                    Good_Anonymous 17 October 2019 10: 48
                    -1
                    Quote: Something
                    You are mistaken about the balloon


                    Tell me what my mistake is. I believe that a balloon at high altitude is just a target, large and slow.

                    Quote: Something
                    Do not forget to familiarize yourself with the parameters of the Mineral and Monolith-B air defense systems installed on ships ...


                    I got acquainted. "Mineral": detection range in active mode - up to 250 km, range on emitting targets - 80-450 km. "Monolith-B": also up to 250 and up to 450 km. I'm not impressed. If the aircraft carrier is in radio silence mode, it can approach the ZGRLS for 250 km (purely for fun).

                    Now name the ships on which ZGRLS are installed.

                    Quote: Something
                    Will not fly, it will be shot down by a long-range rocket Polyment-Redoubt from the ARGSN with a range of D = 400 km.


                    Just because she has a range of 400km. Nothing more is needed. And it doesn't matter that the E-2C discovers a destroyer with 500km
                    1. Something
                      Something 18 October 2019 00: 46
                      0
                      Quote: Good_Anonymous
                      I got acquainted. "Mineral": detection range in active mode - up to 250 km, range on emitting targets - 80-450 km. "Monolith-B": also up to 250 and up to 450 km. I'm not impressed. If the aircraft carrier is in radio silence mode, he can approach the ZGRLS for 250 km (purely for fun).

                      Dear Dobry_Anonymus (Vasily), the above Russian ZRLS detect targets, including surface ones at ranges up to 450 km, due to reception own reflected sounding signals, and therefore the radio silence of the aircraft carrier does not play a role at all ... You, like many here, make a gross mistake.
                      Quote: Good_Anonymus (Vasily)
                      Quote: Something (SET)
                      Will not fly, it will be shot down by a long-range rocket Polyment-Redoubt from the ARGSN with a range of D = 400 km.

                      Just because she has a range of 400km. Nothing more is needed. And no matter what
                      E-2c will find the destroyer from 500km.

                      Good_Anonymus (Vasily)! Are you sure that the E-2C will detect a destroyer with 500 km? I will disappoint you that the E-2C will not be able to detect the destroyer from such a distance! E-2C will detect it with only 422 km. You forgot about radio visibility. But at the same time it will be detected by the Poliment-Redut radar and then it will receive a 40N6 missile (no one knows the parameters). The range is not the same compared to the launch range. I will "disappoint" you, the range will be at least 450 km.
                      Quote: Good_Anonymous
                      Now name the ships on which ZGRLS are installed.

                      On frigates of the project 22350, 11661K and so on.
                      1. Something
                        Something 18 October 2019 01: 05
                        0
                        No! For the actinic mode, the range D = 450 km is given.
                        https://topwar.ru/11820-monolit-b-beregovoy-kompleks-dlya-razvedki-vozdushnoy-i-nadvodnoy-obstanovki.html
                      2. Something
                        Something 18 October 2019 01: 49
                        0
                        Good_Anonymus (Vasily), forgot the Ka-25Ts targeting helicopter. A helicopter is capable of patrolling the water area at a distance of up to 200 km from the base ship, to perform radar patrol and target designation in a radius of 250 km and to provide relaying in a radius of 250 km. Therefore, the aircraft carrier, unnoticed, at a distance of 250 km to the destroyer is not suitable. Closer than 450 km is not suitable.
                        And you forgot the Liana satellite reconnaissance and target designation system, which is in trial operation.
                      3. Good_Anonymous
                        Good_Anonymous 18 October 2019 01: 20
                        -2
                        Quote: Something
                        The above Russian ZRLS detect targets, including surface targets at ranges up to 450 km, by receiving their own reflected sounding signals


                        ...those. active radar. I quote: "the detection range of surface targets of the active radar, km: ... in conditions of super-refraction up to 250". 450 km is exactly the passive mode.

                        Quote: Something
                        Are you sure that the E-2C will detect a destroyer with 500 km? I will disappoint you that the E-2C will not be able to detect the destroyer from such a distance! E-2C will detect it with only 422 km. You forgot about radio visibility.


                        If by "radio visibility" you mean a radio horizon, then yes, I did not take it into account. Correcting myself - at an altitude of 10600m (service ceiling E-2D) the radio horizon is 424 km. Still outside of the Polyment defeat.

                        Quote: Something
                        40H6 (no one knows the parameters)


                        Well, why mention it?

                        Quote: Something
                        Quote: Good_Anonymous
                        Now name the ships on which ZGRLS are installed.

                        On frigates of the project 22350, 11661K and so on.


                        34K1? I did not find its characteristics on the network.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. Something
                        Something 18 October 2019 11: 50
                        0
                        Good_Anonymus (Vasily), this is the above calculation from the surface target - my big mistakeand for E-2C there will be a radio horizon of 399,62 km. So Hokai will see the target at a distance of 399,62 km and for him it will be a radio horizon from an altitude of 9400 km.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. Good_Anonymous
                        Good_Anonymous 19 October 2019 11: 10
                        -2
                        Quote: Something
                        Good_Anonymus (Vasily), this is the above calculation from the surface target - my big mistakeand for E-2C there will be a radio horizon of 399,62 km. So Hokai will see the target at a distance of 399,62 km and for him it will be a radio horizon from an altitude of 9400 km.


                        But why 9400m? Practical ceiling E-2D - 10600m.
        2. Crimean partisan 1974
          Crimean partisan 1974 16 October 2019 15: 54
          0
          and if, on the way to the AUG, some half-rusty diesel-electric submarines put up a couple of dozen PMR-2s? where will the deck aircraft be? answer
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 18 October 2019 01: 28
            -3
            Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
            and if some half-rusty diesel-electric submarines are en route along the AUG


            And how does DEPL learn the route? And why does the regular AUG PLO not detect a half-rusty diesel-electric submarine?
            1. Crimean partisan 1974
              Crimean partisan 1974 19 October 2019 08: 55
              0
              And how does DEPL learn the route? ....... for this, all submarines have a good old hydrophone, as well as extended cable tracks of hydrophones that catch noise for 1000 km, and the second. Extended radio antenna. which allows in the underwater position to receive signals from surface sources of information
              And why the regular PLO AUG does not detect ........ there are many factors. but the first speed of sensing the PLC under the thermocline is not more than 3-4 knots, but the second, the diesel-electric submarine does not need to enter into "knife" contact with the AUG, once again in black in Russian, it is enough to place mines like PMR-2 well, or more modern thread that no one will find the diesel-electric submarine at the bottom, it is more difficult for nuclear-powered submarines, they cannot lie on the ground, since the bottom silt can get into the cooler of the reactor's secondary circuit
              1. Good_Anonymous
                Good_Anonymous 19 October 2019 11: 09
                -2
                Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                But how does DEPL learn the route? ....... for this, all submarines have a good old hydrophone, as well as long cable routes of hydrophones that catch noise for 1000 km, and the second. Extended radio antenna


                And all this allows us to predict where and what course AUG will go to. Clear.

                Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                And why the regular PLO AUG does not detect ........ there are many factors. but the first sensing speed of the PLC under the thermocline is no more than 3-4 knots, but the second, the diesel-electric submarine does not need to enter into "knife" contact with the AUG, once again in black in Russian, it is enough to place mines like PMR-2 well, or a more modern thread


                That is, PLO AUG is useless. Clear.

                Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                DEPL


                That is, AUGs go only in shallow water. Clear.

                In general, you convinced me - on AUG 1 rusty diesel-electric submarine is enough. In the Soviet Union, obviously, an outfit of forces to destroy the AUG was considered by fools, not that.
                1. Crimean partisan 1974
                  Crimean partisan 1974 22 October 2019 09: 05
                  0
                  And all this allows us to predict where and what course AUG will go to. .... doubted in vain, Friedrich Gutenbergen confirms this. when Ark Royal sank, and the Americans also did not lag behind on the drowning of Japanese aircraft carriers
                  That is, PLO AUG is useless ....... absolutely necessary. since the main enemy of the AUG is nuclear submarines, and they cannot lie on the ground, and the reactor cannot be turned off either, but yong bastard "whistles"
                  That is, the AUG go only in shallow water ... and the AUG has no other choice, the radius of combat use of aircraft does not exceed 600 km. therefore we have to work on the shelf. and there the depth is just no more than 600 meters. just for the installation of PMR or Keptor, especially since the Foxtrots have a critical tensile strength suitable for such depths. I'm not even mentioning "Varshavyanka"
                  1. Good_Anonymous
                    Good_Anonymous 22 October 2019 10: 17
                    -2
                    Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                    Friedrich Gutenbergen confirmation of this


                    In general, no. He could meet Ark Royal just by accident.

                    Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                    AUG’s main enemy is submarines


                    How is it that, after all, 78 years ago a diesel engine sank Ark Royal.

                    Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                    AUG has no other choice, the radius of combat use of aircraft does not exceed 600 km. therefore we have to work on the shelf. and there the depth is just no more than 600 meters. just for the installation of PMR or Keptor, especially since the Foxtrots have a critical tensile strength suitable for such depths. I'm not even mentioning "Varshavyanka"


                    The "Varshavyanka" has a maximum diving depth of 300m, and the "Foxtrot" - 380m. At a depth of 600m, they can only go to the bottom once.
                    1. Crimean partisan 1974
                      Crimean partisan 1974 22 October 2019 11: 27
                      0
                      In general, no. He could meet Ark Royal just by accident ...... not at all, data on the caravan were obtained from the posts of the hybrid. and to go on the caravan route was only a matter of professionalism, it should be noted that Friedrich successfully managed this despite the fact that he was attacked after a couple of hundred remote places, so DEPL should not be buried like that
                      Varshavyanka has a maximum diving depth of 300m, and Foxtrot has a maximum diving depth of 380m ........ this is called the working diving depth. critical 500-600 meters in reserve of threefold strength of double-hull plating, "filling" 20 PMR is more than enough
                      1. Good_Anonymous
                        Good_Anonymous 22 October 2019 12: 16
                        -2
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        data on the caravan were obtained from the posts of the Gibraltar. and getting on the caravan’s route was only a matter of professionalism


                        The Gibraltar posts could only say that "the aircraft carrier is out there." But it is not clear from which Gibraltar the "rusty diesel" will receive the data, and how she will guess where the AUG will go in a few hours (the diesel puts a mine, and does not fire a torpedo like "Gutenbergen").

                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        Varshavyanka has a maximum diving depth of 300m, and Foxtrot has a maximum diving depth of 380m ........ this is called a working diving depth


                        Only you call this the working depth of the dive. Other sources believe that the working depth at Varshavyanka is 240m. 300m (according to other sources, 350m) - this is the ultimate.

                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        critical 500-600 meters


                        As you say.
      2. Aerodrome
        Aerodrome 16 October 2019 11: 33
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        lonely aircraft carrier

        What is it like ? where is the warrant?
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 16 October 2019 11: 40
          -3
          I say that in addition to avik, a warrant for the guard ships is also needed. While they themselves, without the help of aviation, can control a fairly vast water area.
      3. Alex_59
        Alex_59 16 October 2019 14: 31
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        For no one canceled radio-controlled boats with explosives

        You wanted to say "no one has applied yet" laughing Not a single aircraft carrier in history has yet suffered from a boat with explosives.
        Quote: Wedmak
        a destroyer with two hundred different missiles will be much more effective

        Especially when attacking targets with previously unknown coordinates.
        Quote: Wedmak
        RCCs, for which a lone aircraft carrier is just a tasty target.

        Alone a destroyer with two hundred missiles is an even more delicious target for anti-ship missiles.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 16 October 2019 14: 42
          -4
          Not a single aircraft carrier in history has yet suffered from a boat with explosives.

          A matter of time ...
          Especially when attacking targets with previously unknown coordinates.

          Unmanned aerial vehicles, satellites, ground aviation?
          an even more delicious target for RCC.

          This is no longer a fact. Of these two hundred missiles, half can be anti-aircraft. Destroyers are much more armed than an aircraft carrier.
          Due to the growth of rocket technology and the flight range of ground aviation, aircraft carriers as such ceased to be strike ships. This, with the propeller and the beginning of the era of jet aircraft, needed to bring the aircraft closer to the enemy’s coast, this was important because they wouldn’t get their way. Now ... drones fly for days, satellites can see how many people got on the bus, missiles fall into the circle of 10 meters from a distance of 2-3 thousand km.
          Against an adversary technologically less developed this is enough to drive him further into the Stone Age, without taking his ass off the chair. And without chasing an expensive aircraft carrier. With an equal much more serious, here Avik is just a target. And the priest will have to be picked up and hidden in a deep bunker in advance.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 16 October 2019 15: 07
            +3
            Quote: Wedmak
            UAVs

            Both drones of our lone destroyer were shot down by the enemy or their reconnaissance equipment was suppressed by the enemy's REB.
            Quote: Wedmak
            satellites
            The frequency of updating information a couple of times a day. The last satellite that gave us the info left 4 hours ago, the next one will be in 8 hours. On the shore, the conditional basmachi are finishing off our conditional reconnaissance group, which urgently needs to be supported. Waiting for 8 hours of the next satellite to look at the corpses of their scouts?
            Quote: Wedmak
            ground aviation
            Then the destroyer is also not needed.

            In short, an aircraft carrier and a destroyer should not be opposed to each other. They complement each other. Without aviation and aircraft carriers, the US Navy would not have been able to solve a significant part of its tasks with the same efficiency. And they won’t get their aircraft carriers anywhere - they will continue to build.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 16 October 2019 15: 28
              -2
              Both drones of our lone destroyer were shot down by the enemy or their reconnaissance equipment was suppressed by the enemy's REB.

              Aircraft from Avik cannot approach the shore, because they are crushed by the calculations of electronic warfare and air defense systems. And avik itself is beyond the scope of RCC. Together with the guard ships.
              On the shore, conditional basmachi finish off our conditional reconnaissance group

              In the presence of downed UAVs and the use of electronic warfare, the conventional basmachi will already try to get the ship that launched them. The issue of brutal slaughter will stand in growth.
              Waiting for 8 hours of the next satellite to look at the corpses of their scouts?

              The corpses of the reconnaissance group have already been issued, because We didn’t bother with the disguise made in advance by reconnaissance, introduction, and other delights of covert intelligence. By the way, sub for what? She went ashore, carried out reconnaissance, took the reconnaissance group, and quietly washed off.
              Avik is again out of work.
              And they won’t get their aircraft carriers anywhere - they will continue to build.

              Here ... these are THEIR problems! The hegemon is squeezing, not as fast as we would like, but wrinkles are already visible. Let them build what they will do with them later, violet.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 16 October 2019 15: 58
                +2
                Quote: Wedmak
                Aircraft from Avik cannot approach the shore, because they are crushed by the calculations of electronic warfare and air defense systems.
                With an air group in the 60-70 aircraft, an Avik can plan its work much more flexibly than a destroyer with a pair of UAVs. The loss of both UAVs for the destroyer means a return to the base, the loss of two aircraft for the Avik is not a problem.
                Quote: Wedmak
                The corpses of the reconnaissance group are already issued
                Not at all necessary. In Afghanistan, our reconnaissance groups were repeatedly disclosed by the Mujahideen with the correct disguise and casting. And sometimes they were pulled without loss. Turntables came and took away.
                Quote: Wedmak
                She went ashore, carried out reconnaissance, took the reconnaissance group, and quietly washed off.
                Float up and quietly pick up a reconnaissance group when they wet it with direct fire? What a charm, the Basmachi will also credit the boat. No, the arriving "penguins" isolate the battle area with greater efficiency, and there it is already at least by boat, even by helicopters.
                Out of Somalia, in general, one BDK took away neither destroyers, nor aircraft carriers, nor boats. Give to the construction of one BDK!
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 16 October 2019 16: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Out of Somalia, in general, one BDK took away neither destroyers, nor aircraft carriers, nor boats. Give to the construction of one BDK!

                  From Yemen, the evacuation of ours in general to the SSV / SRZK "Priazovye" was organized. So "Charlie Charlie Bravo" is our everything! smile
  4. Operator
    Operator 16 October 2019 11: 24
    +5
    US Deputy Secretary of Defense was able to make my day - imagine how now the local Russophobes bombed laughing
    1. den3080
      den3080 16 October 2019 11: 35
      0
      Quote: Operator
      US Deputy Secretary of Defense was able to make my day - imagine how now the local Russophobes bombed laughing

      But I think that for the pops behind the wall, on the street ...
      and this Russophobian farts are torn! laughing
    2. svalx
      svalx 16 October 2019 12: 46
      +5
      The expression "make my day" tracing copy from English "make my day". So the hero of the American TV series "Dirty Harry" loved to say. The tendency to "Americanize" our society makes me feel depressed.
  5. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 16 October 2019 11: 25
    +6
    One can see so many AUGs becoming too heavy a burden, even for the USA. And you can see there are sober heads, who understand this. And such statements themselves from persons of the second rank in the Pentagon are similar to sounding the soil on this issue.
  6. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 16 October 2019 11: 25
    +7
    What do you think the Chinese leadership will fear more ...
    China today is certainly not afraid of either American aircraft carriers (they even "solemnly" accompanied one recently), or showing their own missiles at the parade. But the fact that the American leadership is thinking about the effective distribution of the allocated funds gives rise to thinking about the sanity of individuals of the War Department.
  7. gabonskijfront
    gabonskijfront 16 October 2019 11: 28
    +3
    Everything, the last romanticism leaves the seas and oceans. Faceless stealth and soulless drones fill the space. There will be no more calls to the ports of big beauties, drunken sailors, port fights and pogroms of brothels. They walk, slouch along the dark streets
    And flares caress new breeze.
    They go to where you can easily
    Find yourself both women and wine.
    1. den3080
      den3080 16 October 2019 11: 36
      +4
      Quote: gabonskijfront
      Everything, the last romanticism leaves the seas and oceans. Faceless stealth and soulless drones fill the space. There will be no more calls to the ports of big beauties, drunken sailors, port fights and pogroms of brothels. They walk, slouch along the dark streets
      And flares caress new breeze.
      They go to where you can easily
      Find yourself both women and wine.

      It will be like in S. Lem's novel “Invincible”
      1. gabonskijfront
        gabonskijfront 16 October 2019 11: 45
        +2
        Now I turned on the audiobook of your "invincible", I will "read". I heard about Lem, but not about his creations. Here is where the net benefit from this resource.
  8. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 16 October 2019 11: 29
    -1
    "will be more afraid: 2 thousand conventional missiles, which the United States and its allies have in the Western Pacific, or one new aircraft carrier" ////
    ----
    Of course, an aircraft carrier.
    2 thousand missiles are not more than 1 thousand tons of explosives. (1000 lbs maximum warhead = 450 kg)
    Aircraft carrier aircraft can deliver tens of times more explosives.
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 16 October 2019 11: 36
      +5
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Aircraft carrier aircraft can deliver tens of times more explosives.

      wassat can they take off? there will be no overload? and perhaps the "airfield" will sink while they fly.
    2. rocket757
      rocket757 16 October 2019 11: 38
      +3
      Key
      Quote: voyaka uh
      can deliver

      or they may not deliver, and not swim!
      Shot down 2 thousand missiles is NOT! if you wave them in a solid volley!
      1. Avior
        Avior 16 October 2019 12: 09
        +2
        It is impossible. But in response, you can get nuclear from China.
        And if the conflict is purely at sea, then it is highly likely that it will end at sea, it will not affect the land.
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 16 October 2019 12: 19
          +2
          Quote: Avior
          And if the conflict is purely at sea

          There is a high probability that at sea it simply will not end when so many "exceptional" citizens go to the bottom or to feed the sharks!
          1. Avior
            Avior 16 October 2019 13: 56
            +1
            It seems that the Americans themselves believe that this probability is much lower than if you shoot missiles on land.
            The Chinese, it seems, also think so, otherwise the navy would not have been built
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 16 October 2019 14: 04
              0
              Quote: Avior
              It seems that the Americans themselves consider

              Consider, plan, analyze analysts, experts, MILITARY!
              When it starts to sink and burn, who makes all sorts of schizos and other decisions ??? by pressure from the public, voters, the media and all sorts of other things !!!
              Are you sure that those .... decision-makers are so sane or something like that?
              I have NO such confidence.
              Moreover, various surprises cannot be ruled out.
              In my opinion, a military clash of serious, all the more vigorously armed powers is IMPOSSIBLE! Well, except that in a drunken Kabat fight, the faces will "correct" each other, they will make holes in someone by accident ...
              1. Avior
                Avior 16 October 2019 20: 38
                0
                Apparently, those who make such decisions know better what and what is fraught.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 16 October 2019 12: 13
        -1
        Well, 2 thousand missiles, equal to 2 thousand half-ton air bombs, fell?
        What's next? The cost of each rocket is at least a million dollars.
        They also need to run from some platforms. And these platforms too
        can be destroyed.
        And with a pair of aircraft carriers they arrange multi-day roundabouts - continuous
        bombing as from a jump airfield.
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 16 October 2019 12: 17
          +4
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And with a pair of aircraft carriers they arrange multi-day roundabouts

          Question. And who will give them a couple of days to merry-go-round?
          Or, again, about banana republics, and not a country that has an anti-ship, effective and in sufficient quantity?
        2. K-612-O
          K-612-O 16 October 2019 12: 58
          +1
          Look at how many sorties the aircraft carriers provided during the Gulf War, 1/20 of the total number of sorties from ground airfields, while at the same time no more than 30-35 aircraft can be in the air from the entire air wing, and it’s much easier to shoot down an aircraft than a missile.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 16 October 2019 13: 09
            -3
            When there are ground airports nearby, aircraft carriers are not needed.
            But not everywhere for thousands of kilometers, someone will kindly provide you
            ground airport, as did the Saudis and Kuwaitis.
            And then the aircraft carriers are indispensable.
          2. Avior
            Avior 16 October 2019 13: 58
            0
            One aircraft carrier per day is capable of providing 250 sorties without straining, and can maintain such a pace for a long time.
            On the network you can find a description of the Nimitz test - about a thousand sorties in 4 days.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 16 October 2019 14: 54
              0
              Even as a strain ... After such work, he will have to go to repair, because at least the deck and finisher cables are not eternal. The second question: where will they take fuel and ammunition for thousands of flights? Will tankers with bulk carriers go caravans?
              And I suppose, all these 4 days Avik no one interfered with flights? Nobody bothered to fly airplanes too?
              And this ... 250 sorties for a day and about a thousand sorties for 4 days somehow diverge in numbers ... at least for 250 sorties. And do not forget, every sortie is the risk of losing the plane and the pilot, this is several hours of waiting, this is the possible repair work of the aircraft, refueling, etc. So, in my opinion, 250 departures per day are a bit much, even considering the 90 LA on board.
              1. Avior
                Avior 16 October 2019 17: 05
                +1
                250 per day for four days is a thousand. This is a real test.
                The numbers, of course, are not round in fact.
                According to the test results, the number of departures was limited by the number of ground personnel - they didn’t have to prepare for departures, so that the losses of planes and pilots are not very squeezed on departures, to some extent, essno ...
                A thousand sorties with 6-8 tons of fuel per flight are 8000 tons of fuel, a couple of tankers.
                Not to mention the fact that in the sea, thousands of sorties will be enough for any fleet.
                Aerofinisher cables - consumable ....
              2. Oyo Sarkazmi
                Oyo Sarkazmi 16 October 2019 17: 14
                +1
                Quote: Wedmak
                And I suppose, all these 4 days Avik no one interfered with flights? Nobody bothered to fly airplanes too?

                To bomb Vietnam, US planes departed from ANCHORED aircraft carriers.
                This speaks to how the United States "feared" the Vietnamese.
                During WWII, aircraft carriers, yes, were out of competition - a battleship salvo per ton could reach only 18-40 km, while a one-time sortie took 20 tons of explosives up to 200 km.
                Now the aircraft carrier is a Very Large Landing Ship. Deliver the marines and cover them up in the banana republic.
              3. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 16 October 2019 18: 36
                +1
                Quote: Wedmak
                The second question: where will they take fuel and ammunition for thousands of flights? Will tankers with bulk carriers go caravans?

                The floating rear of the fleet and the supply of ACG at sea were worked out by the Americans back in WWII. By the end of that war, they even learned to load ammunition directly on the high seas.
                Throughout the Cold War, AUG USN fled with high-speed tankers and high-speed supply transports.

                These transports in size and displacement were close to the AB pre-atomic period, which the American admirals used from time to time, placing them in the warrant in place of the AB and forcing our reconnaissance aircraft to reconsider the warrant visually (or give the wrong place to the coast AB).
                Moreover, this was only the first echelon of the floating rear - the "consumable warehouse", directly accompanying the AUG. The basis of the floating rear was deployed at the bases and parking areas closest to the area of ​​action, and "on call" from there, transports of aviation fuel, ammunition, repair ships, etc. were sent to the AUG.
  9. rocket757
    rocket757 16 October 2019 11: 29
    +2
    What is logical and what is tradition .... who is who?
    1. novel66
      novel66 16 October 2019 11: 34
      +2
      urraaa !!! I knew! I believed!!!
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 16 October 2019 11: 40
        +3
        Roman, but what about the dream of some \ many to drown the whale carrier? After all, colleagues from the site break off in their dreams / fantasies!
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Crimean partisan 1974
          Crimean partisan 1974 22 October 2019 11: 58
          +1
          but what about the dream of some \ many to drown an aircraft carrier of whales? ... and what’s a dream there, it was carried out by the K-314 crew in March 1984 when the belly of Avik Kitty Hawk broke through, so without any anti-ship missiles, rocket and torpedoes, he barely reached the nearest base
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 22 October 2019 12: 04
            0
            The new generation should have its own dreams.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
      3. Leopold
        Leopold 16 October 2019 19: 10
        +3
        Roman, you can't see an aircraft carrier. He has already been "drowned".
  10. dzvero
    dzvero 16 October 2019 11: 34
    +4
    Unexpectedly ... Is this their asymmetrical response to Zircon-ah? And if they go in this direction, then Poseidon can generally refuse them from the fleet? In short, we are waiting for an announcement like "AUG is on sale, unbroken, repainted, in running condition, without a run across Russia, discounts to wholesalers are possible" smile
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 16 October 2019 11: 48
      +3
      Quote: dzvero
      Unexpectedly ... Is this their asymmetrical response to Zircon-ah? And if they go in this direction, then Poseidon can generally refuse them from the fleet? In short, we are waiting for an announcement like "AUG is on sale, unbroken, repainted, in running condition, without a run across Russia, discounts to wholesalers are possible" smile

      the lot goes to the Chinese ...
  11. Private-K
    Private-K 16 October 2019 11: 36
    -1
    Aircraft carriers are a symbol of the USA. They will never be abandoned.
  12. Masha
    Masha 16 October 2019 11: 41
    +6
    Let's do a thought experiment.

    wow ... have something? I think that this experiment will come to a standstill ...
  13. Gardamir
    Gardamir 16 October 2019 11: 59
    -3
    Vaaapros, why when I write about it is useless and aircraft carriers throw minuses at me? But how glad everyone was that the Americans were thinking about the benefits of Aviks!
    1. bar
      bar 16 October 2019 12: 43
      -3
      Vaaapros, why when I write about it is useless and aircraft carriers throw minuses at me?

      And you are not alone in this
    2. FenH
      FenH 16 October 2019 13: 40
      0
      Quote: Gardamir
      Vaaapros, why when I write about it is useless and aircraft carriers throw minuses at me? But how glad everyone was that the Americans were thinking about the benefits of Aviks!

      For the money that they want to pull out on an aircraft carrier, it would be possible to hang a bunch of satellites with tungsten crowbars, and no air defense can save them
      1. Leopold
        Leopold 16 October 2019 19: 22
        +2
        With what, excuse me, crowbars? And how, sorry, do they get somewhere from orbit? Equipment has not yet reached this point. hi
        1. FenH
          FenH 17 October 2019 06: 21
          0
          Quote: Leopold
          With what, excuse me, crowbars? And how, sorry, do they get somewhere from orbit? Equipment has not yet reached this point. hi

          So far yes, but work is going on
          https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/477282-smertonosnyy-dozhd-iz-kosmosa-novyy-vid-orbitalnogo-oruzhiya/
  14. spech
    spech 16 October 2019 12: 01
    0
    - said a former US Navy pilot, Rear Admiral Roy Kelly.

    -And now the word is taken by mccain (senator and flight pilot), and by the way, where is he?
    1. FenH
      FenH 16 October 2019 13: 44
      0
      Quote: spech
      - said a former US Navy pilot, Rear Admiral Roy Kelly.

      -And now the word is taken by mccain (senator and flight pilot), and by the way, where is he?

      He died
    2. Leopold
      Leopold 16 October 2019 19: 26
      +2
      "Glued the fins" yes
  15. Avior
    Avior 16 October 2019 12: 07
    0
    In the place of the Americans, it would make sense in the current conditions to shift somewhat from aircraft carriers to UDC.
    For example, the AUS from an aircraft carrier and two or three UDCs will be noticeably cheaper in cost than two aircraft carriers, and if possible, it will be similar or even superior.
  16. maden.usmanow
    maden.usmanow 16 October 2019 12: 13
    +3
    Missiles are exclusively striking means, and fully replace aviation, they will not be able to

    Will reconnaissance, electronic warfare, missile defense, support the landing, missile defense tasks, air supremacy, will also provide missiles?

    2000 thousand missiles of which some will be knocked down, some will miss, a one-time strike, after which one way or another the infrastructure and manpower will be preserved.
    Aviation is more universal, and it can be used for a long time, performing a variety of tasks
    Successfully rockets can destroy only stationary objects on land.
    Aircraft carrier can do much more.

    ACG in the ocean, sees further, any other connection, and ground-based radar.
    In addition to striking the ground, it can withstand both aviation and submarines, and any non-naval surface ships, for aviation these are whipping boys.
    2000 thousand missiles; cannot replace an aircraft carrier.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 16 October 2019 12: 28
      -3
      Everything is fine.
      One problem is he alone. Well, that is, all these features are directly tied to one place. And if suddenly (and the probability of this is high with new types of weapons) a polar animal comes - then all this fabulous power will be instantly covered by a furry hat.
      And this is wrong, the worst solution is to put all the eggs in one basket.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Gust
      Gust 16 October 2019 12: 36
      0
      Quote: maden.usmanow
      ACG in the ocean, sees further, any other connection, and ground-based radar.
      In addition to striking the ground, it can withstand both aviation and submarines, and any non-naval surface ships, for aviation these are whipping boys.
      2000 thousand missiles; cannot replace an aircraft carrier.

      They can. Progress in the field of artificial intelligence, means of central control, the aggregate base of the Kyrgyz Republic will do so in the near future. Radio and optical reconnaissance satellites for detection, drones for additional reconnaissance (can be launched from the same mines as the KR), heavy CRs with a radius of 5000 km are already a reality today. As for the Russian Federation, only a small amount of the above funds does not allow to nullify the threat of the USA AUG, and everything has been resolved qualitatively long ago.
      1. Good_Anonymous
        Good_Anonymous 16 October 2019 13: 17
        -1
        Quote: Rafale
        2000 thousand missiles; cannot replace an aircraft carrier.

        They can. Progress in the field of artificial intelligence, means of central control, the aggregate base of the Kyrgyz Republic will do so in the near future.


        There will be the same progress in aviation. But no progress will make the missiles reusable.
        1. alstr
          alstr 16 October 2019 23: 43
          0
          Progress in aviation is limited by human capabilities.
          For example, according to the statement of one of our designers, not all pilots who have mastered the Su-35 will be able to fly the SU-57 with the engine of the 2nd stage, because medical requirements for them will be higher.

          In the end, everything goes to unmanned systems. And rockets are one of their kind.
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 17 October 2019 11: 01
            -1
            Quote: alstr
            Progress in aviation is limited by human capabilities.


            Progress in the "aggregate base" and means of control center is limited by human capabilities, seriously? And yes, unmanned aviation is also aviation (this is to your remark on the development of AI). So there will be exactly the same progress in aviation, but aviation is fundamentally reusable.

            By the way, aviation will even take advantage of all the progress in missiles :)
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. bar
      bar 16 October 2019 12: 41
      0
      US Department of Defense Intends to Thoroughly Invest in Investing in Carriers

      This is as long as the AUG swims the oceans and scares off sharks and submarines. But most of the wars are waged on land, and in order to participate in them, the AUG must at least come to the shore. And here it turns out that there is a lot to do with them, and there are many things that can "resist" them.
      1. Good_Anonymous
        Good_Anonymous 16 October 2019 13: 24
        -4
        Quote: bar
        This is until the AUG swims across the oceans and scares off sharks and submarines. That's just the majority of wars are fought on land


        On land, infantry will fight, of course. And aircraft carriers will cover the landing and isolate the enemy infantry from the supply.

        Perhaps the United States understands that the case of a global nuclear war is uninteresting - in it, all participants can cause unacceptable damage to each other. But the case of limited non-nuclear conflict is another matter. For example, China’s naval blockade will bring it to its knees, but whether China will start a suicidal nuclear war because of this is a big question.
        1. bar
          bar 16 October 2019 13: 30
          0
          For example, the sea blockade of China

          In one of the discussions on aircraft carriers, I wrote that China is a more "naval" power than Russia, much more dependent on the sea, and therefore much more in need of aircraft carriers than we are. For which he shot a bunch of minuses from fans of proud floating airfields.
          1. Good_Anonymous
            Good_Anonymous 16 October 2019 13: 33
            -4
            China, of course, is a more maritime power - it lives on trade and is completely dependent on shipping.

            Quote: bar
            For which he chopped a bunch of minuses from lovers of proud floating airfields.


            I think it was still the proud haters of aircraft carriers.
  17. Pavel57
    Pavel57 16 October 2019 12: 20
    0
    If there is no dollar, as the world’s contribution, then the question of structure will become relevant.
  18. Cheerock
    Cheerock 16 October 2019 12: 20
    +2
    Griffin, by the way, is a very competent guy, and a former rocketeer. But it is unlikely that he will be allowed to overcome the aircraft carrier lobby.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 16 October 2019 12: 31
    +2
    The Pentagon thought about the gradual abandonment of the carrier fleet
    Thinking to whom to sell?
  21. bar
    bar 16 October 2019 12: 36
    -3
    US Department of Defense Intends to Thoroughly Invest in Investing in Carriers

    Well, this has already begun to reach them.
  22. yfast
    yfast 16 October 2019 12: 51
    +3
    Do airplanes from an aircraft carrier always have flying weather?
    1. yaros
      yaros 16 October 2019 13: 56
      0
      Something I introduced a proud aircraft carrier at the North Pole or close, ATP for a joke ....
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. A5V
    A5V 16 October 2019 13: 00
    0
    Well, not for the first, and not the last time)) In the United States, proposals for abandoning large aircraft carriers (and sometimes aircraft carriers in general) have been heard since WWII, but so far common sense has clearly won and there are no hurries to refuse these ships there. 2 Gerald Fords are under construction, and 2 more are ordered.

    It is atomic aircraft carriers with their air wing that remain the most advanced weapons system - and will remain so in the future

    And there is.
  25. yaros
    yaros 16 October 2019 13: 46
    0
    Quote: maden.usmanow
    AUG in the ocean, sees further, any other connection,

    And I thought, a sinful thing, that from outer space a greater review ...))
  26. NF68
    NF68 16 October 2019 14: 37
    0
    But how then to spread democracy around the world?
  27. Evil 55
    Evil 55 16 October 2019 14: 41
    +1
    That's right ... Put your "galoshes" on a joke and the world will breathe a sigh of peace, and in time it will forget about the "mattress" in the form of a flag on the grotto and jack ..
  28. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 16 October 2019 14: 47
    0
    have the Americans decided to abandon their main weapon of aggression and annexation? sent to build aggressive plans around the world, to sow death and destruction in peaceful countries, to kill women and children? I do not believe it, although aircraft carriers will probably not be useful against the Russian Federation and China, they are intended for annexations and aggression against non-nuclear states
  29. Cro-Magnon
    Cro-Magnon 16 October 2019 15: 36
    -1
    Finally, it came to be floating guano. Shoigu was absolutely right. Aircraft carriers have outlived their age. The future belongs to submarine missile carriers and stealth frigates / corvettes with hypersonic missile weapons.
  30. Berkut24
    Berkut24 16 October 2019 19: 03
    0
    I think that Congress will not hear this thought. Cover such a laundering shop ....