HMS "Prince of Wales" coped with bad weather during tests: in Britain they boast of an aircraft carrier

The latest British aircraft carrier “Prince of Wales”, while undergoing sea trials in the ocean zone, was in adverse conditions for the ships, but successfully coped with the difficulties that fell to its lot. This was boasted in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance - a group of companies engaged in the creation of aircraft carriers.

HMS Prince of Wales first tasted the stormy sea

- noted in a statement by shipbuilders.

According to them, a ship with a displacement of 65 thousand tons collided with an 6-point wave of the sea, at which the wave height reached the height of an 2-story building, but the ship "cut through them relatively easily." According to the Beaufort scale, the wave height from 5,5 to 7,5 m indicates the strength of the wind, followed by the storm. Frankly, it would be strange if the modern aircraft carrier could not cope with the weather, at which the maximum wave height is 6 meters.

HMS Prince of Wales successfully passes the test program, this was our first real opportunity to test the outstanding capabilities of an aircraft carrier, demonstrating the high level of British engineering and production in general

- noted in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance.

Currently, the aircraft carrier has already exceeded the maximum speed in 25 nodes during testing of the power plant, sometimes bringing it to 30 nodes. In general, trials in the North Sea are evaluated very positively by shipbuilders. About the leak, which the newest British aircraft carriers have already encountered more than once, this time nothing was reported.

Comments

[Sling cutter]

Displacement of 65 thousand tons is a really hefty non-sinking iron.

[vadson]

yeah, not sinking. they also spoke about the Titanic)))

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: Stroporez

Displacement of 65 thousand tons is a really hefty non-sinking iron.

Well, that's another question.

HMS "Prince of Wales" coped with bad weather during tests: in Britain they boast of an aircraft carrier

Every time after the storm, they will drink champagne. sailors, your mother.

[Lexus]

Every time after the storm, they will drink champagne. sailors, your mother.

In one country, every ship launch at sea is now celebrated with fanfare ...

[kjhg]

Quote: Stroporez

Displacement of 65 thousand tons is a really hefty non-sinking iron.

Displacement TAVKR Admiral Kuznetsov is about the same. In your opinion is it also an iron?
In general, all this obscenity and belittling of someone else's weapons, with exaggeration and embellishment of one's own, is an indicator of a person's incomplete adequacy. In fact, Britain, smeared by all our "patriots", already has two newest aircraft carriers. Russia in the near future, even if it wishes, is not able to build even one such aircraft carrier. There are many reasons for this. Starting from the lack of a shipyard and money, ending with a technological lag. We even build a small frigate and Kuznetsov takes longer to repair than an aircraft carrier is being built in Britain. Hooray patriots of course can shout that we do not need them. This is another question - debatable. But the fact that today Russia cannot build them is a medical fact. Therefore, we will have to continue to discuss many times on VO about trivial, and not very, problems in the maintenance and operation of foreign aircraft carriers, exaggerated, inversely, to exactly the same values ​​to which our own problems are belittled. Against this background, the voices of reason, published by specialists and adequate to people, will be impossible to hear. It is sad.

[Sling cutter]

kjhg (gargantua) Colleague, you misunderstood my comment, it’s more like a mockery of the local uriapatriots with TVs instead of a head.
And I absolutely agree with your comment, I will only add that even this unfortunate Kuzya is not an achievement of the modern Russian Federation, but rather his grave. I bet 100 to 1 that Kuzya will return to the Russian Federation from the tea house exclusively in the form of needles, paper clips, pins and other small things with ali-espress ...
So I completely share your sadness.
Thank you for your sensible commentary, which now can be counted on the fingers.
Shake your hand!

[kjhg]

Quote: Stroporez

you misunderstood my comment, it’s rather a banter

I apologize

[Sling cutter]

kjhg (gargantua)
Dear Colleague, I do not belong to the number of touchy young ladies, ala evening M, so that everything is fine and I am pleased to meet an adequate interlocutor.
Hope to sing!

[kjhg]

Quote: Stroporez

I do not belong to the number of touchy young ladies, ala evening M

Thanks to BG, in the evening, they indicated the real place where he belongs to the place - near couples .. Saasibo him for it

[Sling cutter]

Quote: kjhg

Quote: Stroporez

I do not belong to the number of touchy young ladies, ala evening M

Thanks to BG, in the evening, they indicated the real place where he belongs to the place - near couples .. Saasibo him for it

Mdya, at the evening m heavily bombed And then Father Sergius posted a petition to save the "talented m" from the influence and clawed paws of the decaying West You can’t let such a glorious patriot go to Lake Como, you need him here and always In general, for the insight of the scrapers

[Moskovit]

And what do these aircraft carriers give Britain? With the catastrophic decline of the army. Yes, probably the British shipbuilders are great, but in the steppes of Ukraine or in the deserts of Syria, the Prince and the Queen will be hard.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Why is England an army? :)

[Sling cutter]

Andrei Duc blurted it out, just to blur it, forgetting at the same time that Britain is an island

[lucul]

In general, all this obsessing and belittling other people's weapons, while exaggerating and embellishing one's own, is an indicator of a person’s incomplete adequacy.

You tell the Jews this.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Stroporez

Displacement of 65 thousand tons is a really hefty non-sinking iron.

That is yes. But to manage to shove an air group of only 65 aircraft on an AB at 36 kt, and KVVP - it was necessary to try.

[Mic1969]

Of course, where are they up to your mosquito fleet. You have for every 165 tons of admiral displacement ...

[Mountain shooter]

Not drowned in a six-point storm? Bravo, Britain! It is enchanting. Admiral Nelson rolled over in his grave after hearing this ...

[Ravil_Asnafovich]

Not drowned in a six-point storm? Bravo, Britain! It is enchanting. Admiral Nelson rolled over in a coffin after hearing this ... The second eye opened ?!

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

Not drowned in a six-point storm? Bravo, Britain!

The storm starts at 7 and 6 is normal working weather. Exactly! Viva HMS! "Glory to Britain, Glory to the seas!"

[rocket757]

It would be a BIG embarrassment if such a BIG one could not cope.

[knn54]

Victor, then there would be a different story:
Three wise men of gotham,
They went to the sea in a bowl,
And if the bowl had been taken
My song has been longer.

[rocket757]

Nicholas
We can of course be ironic, but we have lost a lot more. "British lion" and really "moth-eaten" ... but they still finished building a large combat unit.
Although they and we have something to remember and what to regret .... the fate of the former empires!

Quote: knn54

Three wise men of gotham,

English wise men / scientists, if they are given free rein, order / pay, they can prove that even in the trough you can cross the sea! Here they are .... if they are!

[Ah]

Despite the whining of inconsequentiality, the aircraft carrier fleet is a real force and a threat to the enemy. Anyway.

[FenH]

Quote: AH

Despite the whining of inconsequentiality, the aircraft carrier fleet is a real force and a threat to the enemy. Anyway.

This is cheaper and more efficient than an aircraft carrier, plus the development of its own space program
https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/477282-smertonosnyy-dozhd-iz-kosmosa-novyy-vid-orbitalnogo-oruzhiya/

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

All this is bullshit, arch-road to the same

[FenH]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

All this is bullshit, arch-road to the same

A plane carrier order, such as cheap? Justify nonsense about nonsense?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Carrier warrants will be much cheaper.
Firstly, the article you cited is absolutely illiterate economically. To date, there are no technologies that would make reusable ships cheaper than disposable. And even if it would be possible in the long run, the cost of a kilogram of payload will still be pulled by hundreds of dollars. Only transportation.
And such a system will also require the most powerful space reconnaissance and target designation system. Which, for a second, was not pulled either by the USSR or the United States separately. The USSR never deployed the Legend in sufficient volume. The United States, considering what it would cost a satellite system capable of targeting with an delay of an hour and a half (Discovery 2) refused to deploy it.
That is

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

That is, if you try to deploy such a system, you will end up with something at the price of 5-6 AUG, which will work poorly and will not be able to do almost anything that AUG can

[FenH]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

That is, if you try to deploy such a system, you will end up with something at the price of 5-6 AUG, which will work poorly and will not be able to do almost anything that AUG can

How much does one aircraft carrier cost, and how much did the Spiral project cost?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

How many? Let's get in the numbers please. And keep in mind that the weapons system you are writing about will be several orders of magnitude more expensive than the spiral

[FenH]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Carrier warrants will be much cheaper.
Firstly, the article you cited is absolutely illiterate economically. To date, there are no technologies that would make reusable ships cheaper than disposable. And even if it would be possible in the long run, the cost of a kilogram of payload will still be pulled by hundreds of dollars. Only transportation.
And such a system will also require the most powerful space reconnaissance and target designation system. Which, for a second, was not pulled either by the USSR or the United States separately. The USSR never deployed the Legend in sufficient volume. The United States, considering what it would cost a satellite system capable of targeting with an delay of an hour and a half (Discovery 2) refused to deploy it.
That is

I did not mean ships, but tungsten crowbars, as a weapon.
12 carriers and three oceans do not require as many satellites as for the global Internet. So anything is possible.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

I know what you had in mind, and, I repeat, you simply don’t understand the complexity of the space system that can put crowbars into a moving ship. And why are you attracting the Internet, it’s generally impossible to understand. Do you even know that in order to ensure the operation of radars capable of controlling the surface of the earth from space, US-A Legends satellites, which alone could give an acceptable control center for missiles on a moving target, had to put in nuclear reactors? Or for you all the satellites on one person - that the Internet repeater, that the most powerful and expensive junction with an active radar - is monoenergetically?

[FenH]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I know what you had in mind, and, I repeat, you simply don’t understand the complexity of the space system that can put crowbars into a moving ship. And why are you attracting the Internet, it’s generally impossible to understand. Do you even know that in order to ensure the operation of radars capable of controlling the surface of the earth from space, US-A Legends satellites, which alone could give an acceptable control center for missiles on a moving target, had to put in nuclear reactors? Or for you all the satellites on one person - that the Internet repeater, that the most powerful and expensive junction with an active radar - is monoenergetically?

For "liana" nuclear reactors are not needed, plus kinetic weapons are not prohibited in space. And all the complexity did not stop Soviet scientists in the 60-70s, when they were developing systems to destroy aircraft carriers from space.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

There is practically no Liana - there is one and a half satellites in low orbit with parameters known to the whole world. And do not confuse arch-complexity and arch-expensiveness. The same Liana is not too archaic and can be created as a space intelligence system. But there is no money for it. At the same time, it is extremely doubtful that Liana is capable of giving TS for crowbars. I believe that the capabilities of its satellites are good if they correspond to the Legend. And Soviet scientists could develop anything, but the fact is that it wasn’t able to pull out even the USSR intelligence system on a carrier system

[FenH]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

There is practically no Liana - there is one and a half satellites in low orbit with parameters known to the whole world. And do not confuse arch-complexity and arch-expensiveness. The same Liana is not too archaic and can be created as a space intelligence system. But there is no money for it. At the same time, it is extremely doubtful that Liana is capable of giving TS for crowbars. I believe that the capabilities of its satellites are good if they correspond to the Legend. And Soviet scientists could develop anything, but the fact is that it wasn’t able to pull out even the USSR intelligence system on a carrier system

There is no money for a vine, but you want a full-fledged AUG, for which you also need "Liana", otherwise you will not have information about your AUG. Kamikaze satellites are much cheaper and more real. And they are not more complicated than an aircraft carrier. Liana hangs in a 100-kilometer orbit, unlike its predecessor. And they did not stretch it out, because the same clever people who said that we did not need kebernetics ruined all research on destruction from space. The same "Buran" could do a lot of things, for which it was destroyed as a project

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Firstly, the article you cited is absolutely illiterate economically. To date, there are no technologies that would make reusable ships cheaper than disposable.

EMNIMS, according to "shuttles" was the calculation of economic efficiency: to compete on equal terms with disposable spacecraft "shuttle" had to fly somewhere twice a month.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Dear Alexei, here your memory failed you. At 2 launches per month, the shuttle program was self-sustaining, but it could never compete with one-time carriers

[Alexey RA]

Thank you for correcting!

“Desperate situation,” he said. - After all, I remember something! “Ha ha ha! There will be something to feast on: a horse - for lunch, well done - for dinner ... "Where would this come from? And Ivan, you know - answers, “Oh, you filthy monster, without catching the white swan, you eat!” Then, naturally, a red-hot arrow, all three heads down, Ivan takes out three hearts and brings, a nerd, to his mother’s home ... What a present! The cat laughed sardonically, then sighed. “There is still such a disease - sclerosis,” he said.

© ABS. PNVS.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Nevertheless, the Strugatskys are eternal

[abc_alex]

Quote: FenH

Justify nonsense about?

No object leaves orbit in a straight line. Even if you "hang" in space exactly above the object and drop something "down", this something "down" will not fall, it will continue to rotate with you, but in a different orbit. After some time, it will begin to fall to the Earth. And during the fall, it will begin to experience a large amount of stress, both mechanical and thermal. If you, for example, throw steel scrap from orbit, then by the time it falls, it can twist in a very bizarre way. This means that it will be extremely difficult to predict its ballistics.
Moreover, the Earth rotates by itself. And as the speed of "something" decreases, it will begin to "leave". And it's good if the plane of your bomber's orbit coincides with the plane of rotation of the Earth. Then the target will begin to move only in one direction. And if not? Then two.

[FenH]

when descending from orbit, use the principle of an adjustable warhead for a cassette, with a scrap of scrap in the atmosphere

[abc_alex]

Quote: FenH

when descending from orbit, use the principle of an adjustable warhead for a cassette, with a scrap of scrap in the atmosphere

Time. Descent from orbit is a rather long process. This is not a second, this is a watch. Any moving target will move in an unpredictable way until the cassette drops to the drop point. Or you need to shoot not just cassettes, but full-fledged spaceships with their own powerful engine, providing active maneuvering in orbit. By the way, there was such a project, the possibility was being considered of using kk Buran as a carrier of submachine guns in the dimensions of the BOR used as nuclear weapons.

[FenH]

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: FenH

when descending from orbit, use the principle of an adjustable warhead for a cassette, with a scrap of scrap in the atmosphere

Time. Descent from orbit is a rather long process. This is not a second, this is a watch. Any moving target will move in an unpredictable way until the cassette drops to the drop point. Or you need to shoot not just cassettes, but full-fledged spaceships with their own powerful engine, providing active maneuvering in orbit. By the way, there was such a project, the possibility was being considered of using kk Buran as a carrier of submachine guns in the dimensions of the BOR used as nuclear weapons.

How long does the warhead leave the orbit? The same principle, only the launch is made from space, and in the atmosphere it is like a cluster bomb. The dimensions of boron are large, it is almost impossible to shoot down the rod

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Listen, well, it's just some kind of holiday. Don’t you understand the difference in energy and the direction of movement of the ICBM warhead and the satellite hanging in orbit? Maybe then at least learn the basics first?

[FenH]

"

Wands from God "- a project of a weapon complex based on the use of kinetic energy. A constellation of two satellites can reach the target within 45 minutes. A metal rod, released from orbit, rushes to the ground at the speed of a meteorite and causes damage comparable to the use of small A single shot from such a complex can wipe out a military base, a research institute or an important communications hub

What prevents your aircraft carrier from drowning?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Still unclear :? The immense high cost of your proposed system. And its complete inefficiency. The author of the idea does not even understand what he is writing about, he obviously skipped physics at school. I suggest - the Chelyabinsk meteorite had orders of magnitude greater energy. And where is the explosion comparable in energy to a nuclear one? :) In general, study physics, and do not get fooled by frankly illiterate nonsense

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

You read my nickname - what will your Wiki tell me about the meteorite? :)
We did not have significant damage, although individual fragments of the meteorite weighed up to half a ton. And there was much more energy in them than in the house from orbit. And the aircraft carrier will not kill the invented crowbar, nobody canceled the physics
Not just a lot, but 99,99% of what science fiction writers wrote not only seemed, but turned out to be nonsense in practice. And only where the Fantasts were very seriously puzzled by science ... Yes, and it often didn’t work out there either. So what Jules Verne tried, but where is Nautilus Nemo, and where are modern diesel-electric submarines?
In space, the United States and I are far from equal - we do not have the means to deploy even the minimum necessary satellite constellation, and here you offer death stars to stamp in droves

[FenH]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

You read my nickname - what will your Wiki tell me about the meteorite? :)
We did not have significant damage, although individual fragments of the meteorite weighed up to half a ton. And there was much more energy in them than in the house from orbit. And the aircraft carrier will not kill the invented crowbar, nobody canceled the physics
Not just a lot, but 99,99% of what science fiction writers wrote not only seemed, but turned out to be nonsense in practice. And only where the Fantasts were very seriously puzzled by science ... Yes, and it often didn’t work out there either. So what Jules Verne tried, but where is Nautilus Nemo, and where are modern diesel-electric submarines?
In space, the United States and I are far from equal - we do not have the means to deploy even the minimum necessary satellite constellation, and here you offer death stars to stamp in droves

And you propose to stamp AUG, which without satellite support, a bunch of expensive scrap metal.
And I brought the wiki about the equivalent of the explosion

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

AUGs can do a lot even with the existing satellite constellation, and they can do much more than the crowbars you offer. And about the equivalent of the explosion - note that it is semi-megaton. Nuclear weapons of such an equivalent would ditch half of Chelyabinsk. Meteorite - knocked out a certain amount of glass from the windows. I mean, the energy that an object possesses and the scale of its destruction are two big differences.

[FenH]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

AUGs can do a lot even with the existing satellite constellation, and they can do much more than the crowbars you offer. And about the equivalent of the explosion - note that it is semi-megaton. Nuclear weapons of such an equivalent would ditch half of Chelyabinsk. Meteorite - knocked out a certain amount of glass from the windows. I mean, the energy that an object possesses and the scale of its destruction are two big differences.

We do not have AUG, we have no experience in using AUG, to create a kamikaze satellite for space, which either found or destroyed the target on a tip, is not a problem. Soon they will remove Voevoda from combat duty and the experience of using combat missiles as carriers for satellites , too. So, it's not so expensive than "Storm" and "Leaders", there would be a desire

[NordOst16]

It is necessary to place a sufficient number of carrier satellites in orbit. Provide target designation. Provide scrap guidance at the final stage. And this is all in the conditions of powerful electronic warfare (and the power plant of the destroyer can give oh how much energy to provide all the charms) and the active counteraction of air defense of the ship’s formation. And yes, satellites in orbit are a very vulnerable target, and raising them to the geostationary is much more expensive and longer they will go down from orbit. As a result, the price of the system will not be much cheaper than the construction of a full-fledged AUG, but the latter will be a much more flexible system.

[FenH]

Quote: NordOst16

It is necessary to place a sufficient number of carrier satellites in orbit. Provide target designation. Provide scrap guidance at the final stage. And this is all in the conditions of powerful electronic warfare (and the power plant of the destroyer can give oh how much energy to provide all the charms) and the active counteraction of air defense of the ship’s formation. And yes, satellites in orbit are a very vulnerable target, and raising them to the geostationary is much more expensive and longer they will go down from orbit. As a result, the price of the system will not be much cheaper than the construction of a full-fledged AUG, but the latter will be a much more flexible system.

The main target designation is just satellites, plus satellites can maneuver, so getting on them is not so simple. And the rest is based on the principle of separable warheads, such as avant-garde, only launch not from the earth, but from space

[abc_alex]

Quote: FenH

The main target designation is just the satellites, plus the satellites can maneuver, so getting on them is not so simple.

You are mistaken, there are practically no satellites capable of such maneuvers. The bulk of the satellites are only able to keep themselves in orbit, and then not for very long. Active maneuvering is not available to them. Or you will need to put in orbit a real such monster with the possibility of receiving supply ships (hello to the Energy-Buran program!).

[FenH]

In striped ones, one of these flies. Which very much resembles our "bast". These are the "bast shoes" we need, which will monitor the AUG and launch a warhead at the right time. And "Buran" is really a pity, it was not in vain that it was destroyed so quickly

[abc_alex]

Quote: FenH

These are the "sandals" we need, which will monitor the AUG and launch the warhead at the right time.

What the striped bast shoe did there and what it can do at all is a dark matter. The program and its goals and its results are classified. But that is not the point.
Look, in near-Earth space, satellites can only stay in orbit around the planet. Simply put, they can rotate either in parallel or along the meridians. For example, spy satellites rotate along meridians. And I do not know a single case where a satellite could change the direction of rotation.
Ships move across the ocean in any direction, along the meridians, along the parallels, and it is simply not possible to follow them in space. Or you need to fence a GLANASS-like system with a network of satellites in geostationary orbit.

[FenH]

Quote: abc_alex

.

"Rods from God" is a weapon complex project based on the use of kinetic energy. A constellation of two satellites is capable of reaching a target within only 45 minutes. A metal rod discharged from orbit is carried to the earth at the speed of a meteorite and causes damage comparable to the use of a small nuclear charge. One shot from such a complex can wipe a military base, a research institute, or an important communications hub
https://life.ru/t/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81/1061900/riepiei_protiv_zhiezla_bogha_ghonka_vooruzhienii_v_kosmosie_nabiraiet_oboroty
It would be a desire, the stripes are working on it, and the chances of Russia to do the same or better are much higher than creating their own aug

[abc_alex]

Quote: FenH

"Rods from God" is a weapon complex project based on the use of kinetic energy. A constellation of two satellites is capable of reaching the target within 45 minutes. A metal rod ejected from orbit sweeps to earth at the speed of a meteorite and causes damage comparable to the use of a small nuclear charge

Well, listen, are you not used to the fact that the scale of lies coming from the US military-industrial complex knows no boundaries? And even more so if this is a retelling of the same state journalists?
Everything that is written in the article is pure Hollywood, which does not negate what I said above. To throw an object out of orbit, it must be decelerated. It is kinetic, parametric, optical or electro-chemical. It needs to be slowed down. This means either to shoot them against the movement of the satellite, or to "bomb" them with spaceships. It is clear that when it falls, it can accelerate to meteorite speeds, but the question is not how to accelerate it, but how to get them somewhere! It is difficult to aim from orbit. All the more in a movable object. Even in those 45 minutes, while the satellites from the imagination of the authors of the article will occupy a position, a target such as an aircraft carrier will be able to move 30 kilometers. In any direction.

[NordOst16]

The head parts of transatmospheric interceptors will still have an advantage in overloads. Because the mass of such satellites will be tens of tons (superheavy launch vehicles will be needed for their launch) and they are unlikely to be able to allow such overloads. Well, or the mass of satellites will completely become indecent. For each eld will be a mass of 8 tons, how much will the entire satellite weigh?
So the satellites will always be in full view and they can be destroyed by a sudden blow in a couple of minutes (the time in which the interceptors reach the height at which these satellites are located, and this is a matter of minutes), the United States has a lot of missile carriers for this.

As for the striking qualities - undoubtedly, drun weighing 8 tons looks frightening, but would it not happen that these crowbars will only pierce the ship through without causing catastrophic damage, for at such a speed they will pass through the ship like a hot knife through oil and all their energy to transmit not to the ship, but to the water under it?

Quote: FenH

And the rest is based on the principle of separable warheads, such as avant-garde, only launch not from the earth, but from space

Shared warheads carry out the correction even in airless space, and then fly by inertia and so far there are no warheads that could carry out the correction on the final stretch of the path because everything is not clear and known with Vanguard. And whether he possesses such properties as are attributed to him.

Quote: FenH

The main target designation is just satellites

The distance from the satellite to the Earth is very large and the ships themselves can afford to drown out this signal by electronic warfare. At the same time, I’m not talking about the fact that you can place small satellites in orbit, which in the event of a conflict will begin to jam jamming systems of drums and gain time to destroy these carriers.

And finally, if all these problems are solved, then it will be much more efficient to place compact thermonuclear charges on space platforms (for cities and important objects - 150kt, and enough for ships and 1-2kt). But this will already be worse than medium-range missiles in Poland or Cuba.

[abc_alex]

Quote: NordOst16

Because the mass of such satellites will be tens of tons (superheavy launch vehicles will be needed for their launch) and they are unlikely to be able to allow such overloads. Well, or the mass of satellites will completely become indecent.

And do not forget that firing passive crowbars from orbit will take place according to Newton's third law. And the satellite with each shot will be forced to correct the orbit.

[KVU-NSVD]

Apparently there were no other reasons for bragging. It would be cool if he did not cope with this "almost storm"

[tihonmarine]

According to them, a ship with a displacement of 65 thousand tons collided with an 6-point wave of the sea, at which the wave height reached the height of an 2-story building, but the ship "cut through them relatively easily."

Our fishermen work in the north for 9-10 months, so there such weather for happiness and displacement is twenty times less. HMS dropped below the baseboard. A shame.

[NordOst16]

Not lower than Kuznetsov.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: NordOst16

Not lower than Kuznetsov.

That the aircraft carrier, that "Kuznetsov" are ships, and the ship does not need to be hacked, they were built well, and the Angles are smart shipbuilders. I'm talking about HMS, about their "Mareman"

[NordOst16]

Well, what can you do if for a long time there was no one who would make them remember their days was glory. The main thing is that the technology is modern and there is financing. And the rest will follow

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

No one went down, just the ship in the test fell into a storm and everything worked properly. What the Angles rejoice at, and have every right to. I was also happy when PAKFA first flew into the air, although it was stopped by hundreds of millions of planes since the time of the Wright brothers and even earlier.

[Ah]

Quote: FenH

Quote: AH

Despite the whining of inconsequentiality, the aircraft carrier fleet is a real force and a threat to the enemy. Anyway.

This is cheaper and more efficient than an aircraft carrier, plus the development of its own space program
https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/477282-smertonosnyy-dozhd-iz-kosmosa-novyy-vid-orbitalnogo-oruzhiya/

Very effective, but very, very expensive. This is a program with an actual swing to the far corners of the cosmos - and this is not the muhra muhra. Here the bill is not billions, but trillions.
Therefore, while the aircraft carrier fleet steers.

[FenH]

Quote: AH

Quote: FenH

Quote: AH

Despite the whining of inconsequentiality, the aircraft carrier fleet is a real force and a threat to the enemy. Anyway.

This is cheaper and more efficient than an aircraft carrier, plus the development of its own space program
https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/477282-smertonosnyy-dozhd-iz-kosmosa-novyy-vid-orbitalnogo-oruzhiya/

Very effective, but very, very expensive. This is a program with an actual swing to the far corners of the cosmos - and this is not the muhra muhra. Here the bill is not billions, but trillions.
Therefore, while the aircraft carrier fleet steers.

How much does an aircraft carrier cost, an air wing on it, escort and cover ships, fuel for planes and escort ships, their repair? And how much did the project cost?
http://www.buran.ru/htm/spiral.htm

[rotmistr60]

turned out to be in adverse conditions for the ships, however, he successfully coped with the difficulties that fell to his lot

Found something to brag about. So if it weren’t a British ship, but another, would it be sure to sink? Nelson rolls over in his coffin. She was the mistress of the seas, she became a grandmother with a broken trough.

[faterdom]

What an expensive wave cutter! Or a breakwater with a nuclear power plant?

[Laughtermaster]

Two MT60 kerosene kerosene stoves from Boeing 777

[Laughtermaster]

Who set the minus? If I have false information, offer your own, correct.

[Agronom]

The United States, like infa, is going to deliver its AUGs to metal. NOBODY is already afraid of them, but the huge costs for these galoshes ...
But the Britons still hope to intimidate the Scots, or maybe the Irish? Or maybe Germany? heh heh ..

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

USA infa about the abandonment of aircraft carriers is already 50 years. But today it’s not about refusal, but about reduction, and even that will not be

[Agronom]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

USA infa about the abandonment of aircraft carriers is already 50 years. But today it’s not about refusal, but about reduction, and even that will not be

Here is Andryukha, explain to me the old one, why are they AUG ..? In Syria, I remember scaring Russia with Syria and even tried to launch lionfish (which they shot down) .. To the DPRK, even two groups were driven up and again the tail tails went away so quickly ....
Who now can these galoshes scare, Somalia, Grenada, Brazil, Nicaragua, Cuba? Or Serbia again ...?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Agronom

Here is Andryukha, explain to me the old one, why are they AUG ..?

Well, just world domination :)))) A country with the world's strongest fleet controls almost all international trade, 90% of which goes by sea. Look, whose currency was considered global and when, if you do not believe it :)))

Quote: Agronom

In Syria, I remember scaring Russia with Syria and even tried to launch lionfish (which shot down)

Who brought down something? :)))) Do you like science fiction, as I look :))) But for a second, in Syria, the Americans did not threaten the use of AUG.

Quote: Agronom

To the DPRK, even two groups drove and again tails tucked away so quickly

I understand that it is very pleasant to think so, but, to put it mildly, it is not true. "Scare AUG" looks like this. ADS is adjusted to the territory of a certain country. Then comes an ultimatum, backed up by the threat of force. And in the event that the ultimatum is not fulfilled, this very force is applied.
In fact, there was the following. North Koreans gathered to conduct another test of nuclear weapons. The world community has habitually been indignant. Trump decided to put pressure on Kim properly and, as a demonstration of his readiness for action, sent aircraft carriers there.
But Trump did not set ultimatums - he was not going to fight North Korea, but wanted to assemble a coalition that would put pressure on Kim. But the Chinese, whom Trump had counted on, refused. Then Trump said (but again - not North Korea!) That the United States can solve this without China. And here South Korea spoke, saying that she would do her best to prevent war in the region :))))
So Trump took the AUG.
In other words, Trump tried to put together a coalition that would decisively put pressure on Kim, but initially he was not going to do it by the forces of the United States alone. This is all politics. And reduce her to

Quote: Agronom

To the DPRK, even two groups drove and again tails tucked away so quickly

This is a complete misunderstanding of the processes in the region. But you really want AUG to become fearless, right? :)))))

[polar bear]

And what about us, that a more advanced aircraft carrier was launched and tested? No. We all have the same old floating, ever-breaking mountain - Kuzya. Therefore, one should not be like the Ukrainian prancing macaques that, while building machine-gun "armored boats", grimace in the direction of the Russian fleet.