Defective aircraft carriers and their strange planes. Falklands and the Harriers


The victory of Britain at the Falklands created an exaggerated view of the capabilities of light aircraft carriers and aircraft with short / vertical take-off and vertical landing. Pictured is HMS Ark Royal, an Invincible sistership that was in the Falklands


In 2018, the press got statement by Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov that on behalf of the supreme commander in our country is the creation of a fighter with a short take-off and vertical landing (SCVVP). In fact, everything is somewhat more complicated, but Yu. Borisov did not begin to give any details then, and they are and have a meaning, but about them later.

This statement worked like an emergency valve. Immediately after him, a wave of publications broke through the press about how badly such a plane was needed, and immediately after ours the fleet An American fleet was set as an example, where universal landing ships are used as a tool for projecting force using short-take-off and vertical landing aircraft. A little later, as an example to imitate the Russian Navy, the Spanish UDC of the Juan Carlos type with the ubiquitous verticals was set.

The fleet on this subject is still silent. In the "Shipbuilding Program 2050" there is a certain "marine aircraft carrier complex", but without any details. Let's say right away, there is a certain consensus among military sailors that if you build an aircraft carrier, then normal and under normal aircraft. Alas, this point of view also has opponents. There are few of them, and they, as they are called, "do not shine." But the Internet is filled with calls to build large UDCs that can carry airplanes and develop vertical lines. This, incidentally, is also not just like that, and we will talk about this too.

Due to the fact that the idea of ​​replacing a normal aircraft carrier with catapults and air finishers with an ersatz with vertically soaring reincarnations “Jacob” clearly found its supporters, it’s worthwhile to sort this out a bit. An idea that has mastered the masses may well become a material force, and if this is a wrong idea, then it is worth slamming it in advance.

Light aircraft carriers and their aircraft in wars


Immediately you need to separate the flies from the cutlets. There is a concept of a light aircraft carrier - carrier of air defense system. There is a concept of a large universal landing ship - the carrier of the air defense missile system.

So, these are DIFFERENT concepts. An aircraft carrier, even a light one, is designed to provide deployment aviation, including aircraft, as part of naval units. UDC is intended for landing. They replace each other equally badly, and this issue will be dealt with too. In the meantime, it is worth taking a light aircraft carrier and aircraft based on it with short or vertical take-off and vertical landing as a starting point. How effective can such ships be?

The effectiveness of an aircraft carrier ship consists of two components: the strength of its aircraft group and the ability of the ship itself to provide the most intensive combat work of the aircraft group.

Consider how light aircraft carriers and their air groups show themselves from this point of view in comparison with a normal aircraft carrier and full-fledged aircraft.

The most striking and intense example of the combat operation of such ships is the Falkland War, where light aircraft carriers and vertical take-off and landing aircraft (in fact, short take-off and vertical landing) were used by Great Britain. Some domestic observers saw in this the gigantic capabilities of the Harriers and their carriers. Representatives of the military scientific community added fuel to the fire. For example, thanks to the captain of the 1st rank V. Dotsenko, from one domestic source to another, the myth long ago exposed in the West of the alleged use of vertical thrust by Harriers in air battles wanders, which allegedly determines their success. Looking ahead, let's say: with all the training of the Harriere pilots, which was at a very high level, they didn’t use any such maneuvers, instead of maneuvering fights in the air, in the overwhelming case there were interceptions, and the success of the Harriers as interceptors was there and then was determined by completely different factors.

But first the numbers.

The British used two aircraft carriers in battle: the Hermes, which was once a full-fledged light aircraft carrier with a catapult and aerofinishes, and which was already built under the vertical lines of the Invincible. On board the Hermes, 16 Sea Harrier and 8 Harrier GR.3 aircraft were deployed. On board the Invincible, at first there were only 12 Sea Harriers. In total, 36 aircraft were based on two aircraft carriers. Subsequently, the composition of the air groups of ships changed, some helicopters flew to other ships, the number of aircraft also changed.

And the first numbers. The total displacement of the Hermes could reach up to 28000 tons. The total displacement of Invincible is up to 22000 tons. We can safely assume that with about such a displacement they went to war, the British had no one to count on, they brought everything they needed with them, and the aircraft on ships were sometimes more than normal.

The displacement of the two ships, thus, amounted to about 50 tons, and they provided a base for a total of about 000 Harriers and during combat work there were about 36 helicopters, sometimes a little more.

Wouldn’t it be better at the time to spend money on one aircraft carrier of 50 tons?

An example of an aircraft carrier with a displacement of about 50 kilotons is the British aircraft carriers of the Audacious type, namely the Eagle, which, according to the results of the modernization carried out earlier, had a total displacement of about 54000 tons.

Defective aircraft carriers and their strange planes. Falklands and the Harriers

HMS Eagle after conversion to jet aircraft, 1964

The typical Igla air group in 1971 included: 14 Bakenir attack planes, 12 Sea Vixen interceptors, 4 Gannet AEW3 AWACS aircraft, 1 Gannet COD4 transport aircraft, 8 helicopters.


Bachenir carrier-based attack aircraft lands on Eagle aircraft carrier

By that time, it was already substantially obsolete aircraft, but the fact is that the ship was tested as a carrier of F-4 Phantom fighters. They were successfully launched from this ship and successfully landed on it. Of course, regular flights required additional modernization of catapults and gas deflectors - the Phantoms did not keep the regular hot exhaust, they needed liquid cooling.

Video with flights from the Deck of the Needle, including flights of the English Phantoms:




However, then the British decided to save money and cut their large aircraft carriers so that in just a few years they could lay down several new ones, albeit half as much. How many Phantoms could such a ship carry?

More than two dozen, this is unique. Firstly, the dimensions of the Bacenirs and Phantoms are comparable: the first has a length of 19 meters and a wingspan of 13, the second - 19 and 12 meters. The masses were also about the same. This alone suggests that the “Backeners” could be replaced by “Phantoms” as 1: 1. That is 14 “Phantoms”.

The Si Vixen was two meters shorter, but wider. It is difficult to say how many “Phantoms” would fit in the space that they occupied on the ship, but how much would fit exactly, no doubt. And there would still be five different “Gunnets” and 8 helicopters.

Again we ask ourselves the question: is a transport “Gannet” needed on such an expedition as the war for the Falklands? No, he has nowhere to fly. Thus, the place for the Phantoms among the British could be vacated by 12 Sea Vixen and one transport Gannet. A minimum of 10 "Phantoms" instead of them on board the ship would fit with a guarantee. What would make the following air group possible: 24 Phantom GR.1 multi-role fighters (British F-4), 2 search and rescue helicopters, 6 anti-submarine helicopters, 4 AWACS aircraft.

Let's count one more thing. “Gannet” with the wing folded was placed in a rectangle measuring 14x3 meters, or 42 square meters. Accordingly, 4 such aircraft - 168 "squares". This is a little more than you need to base one E-2 Hokai. Someone may say that one AWACS aircraft would not be enough, but in reality the British with their two light aircraft carriers AWACS did not have at all.

Moreover, an analysis of the performance characteristics of Argentinean aircraft could well have made it clear to the British that they would not attack targets at night, which would drastically narrow the time when the Hokai was needed in the air. In fact, the temporary “window” into which Argentina could massively attack British ships was “dawn + flight time to Falkland and minus flight time from base to coastline” - “sunset minus the time of return from Falkland to coastline”. With daylight in the spring in those latitudes at only 10 hours, this made it possible to really get by with one Hokai.

Moreover, the "Phantoms" the British bought. Could such a ship be modernized to accommodate normal AWACS aircraft on it? If you start only from the displacement, then probably yes. The Hokai carried ships much smaller in size and displacement. Of course, the height of the hangar, for example, could make adjustments, as well as the size of the lifts, but the same Americans are quite practicing deck-based aircraft parking, and there is no reason to believe that the British could not do the same.

True, the catapult would again have to be redone.

The meaning of all this is as follows. Of course, the Eagle with the AWACS on board looks a bit fantastic, but we are not interested in whether it would be possible to put it there, but how we could manage 50 thousand tons of displacement.

The British “made” of them two ships capable of carrying 36 Harriers, in the limit of about forty, zero AWACS aircraft and a significant number of helicopters.

And if in their place there would be a full-fledged 50000-ton aircraft carrier, and even, for example, the old man "Odessa" not remodeled a hundred times, but a specially built ship, for example, offered by CVA-01, then instead of the "Harriers" the Argentines will the place would have met several dozens of Phantoms with the corresponding combat radius, patrol time, the number of air-to-air missiles, the quality of the radar and the ability to fight. Perhaps, with the American AWACS aircraft, in the case of a specially built aircraft carrier - not one.

Again, we give an example: in addition to 26 combat aircraft, the French “Charles de Gaulle” has 2 AWACS aircraft, and it is 42500 tons. Of course, it is dishonest to compare a nuclear carrier with a non-nuclear one, it does not have the volumes occupied by marine fuel, but this is still significant.


De Gaulle and his air group.

Which is stronger: 24 Phantoms with a supply of missiles and fuel for air combat and, possibly, with an AWACS aircraft, or 36 Harriers, each of which can carry only two air-to-air missiles? What forces could form stronger air patrols? This is a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious. By the ability to patrol the Phantom, in the worst case scenario, he could spend at least three times as much time in the air (actually even more) than the Harrier, when flying from the deck he could have six air-to-air missiles and one outboard fuel tank. If we assume that by the time of patrolling he alone replaces three Harriers, and also three missiles (Harrier could not have more than two then), then to replace one Phantom, nine Harriers were needed, and it would be a poor and unequal replacement, taking into account at least the Phantom radar and LTH.


The crew of this Phantom shot down three MiGs in Vietnam. The aircraft was based on the aircraft carrier "Constellation". To replace such a Phantom in terms of the number of missiles, you need three Harriers (adjusted for the fact that a pair of missiles in the long-range photo and the old Harriers would not have stood up). But the “Phantom” is still stronger than the three “Harriers”

"Phantoms" would solve the air defense tasks of the English forces over the strait with a much smaller outfit of forces, firstly, with the removal of the line of interception for tens of kilometers from the ships, this is secondly, and with large losses of Argentines in each departure - thirdly. This is undeniable. It is also indisputable that one Phantom, when performing percussion tasks, would replace several Harriers.


"Deck" Phantom "over Vietnam. Six bombs and two UR explosives - the equivalent of eight Harriers in 1982. Only flies further and fights better

Now about how the ships themselves could support the tactical and technical characteristics of aircraft.

Active air operations during the Falkland War continued for 45 days. During this time, according to British sources, Sea Harriers completed 1435 sorties, and GR.3 Harriers completed 12, which in total gives us 1561 or a little less than 35 sorties per day. A simple calculation should, in theory, tell us that this is 17,5 sorties per day from each aircraft carrier.

But this is not so. The fact is that some part of the combat missions "Harrieres" performed from the ground.

Because of the clearly small combat radius, the British had to urgently build a temporary airfield on one of the islands of the archipelago. According to the original plan, it was supposed to be a refueling point at which aircraft would be refueled when operating outside the combat radius when flying from an aircraft carrier. But sometimes the Harriers carried out combat sorties directly from there, and these sorties also fell into statistics.

The base was designed for 8 sorties per day, when a reserve of material and technical means was created for it, and began to operate from June 5. From this day until June 14, as stated in English sources, the base "supported 150 sorties." How many departures were made from the base, and how many landings there were for refueling, open sources do not indicate, at least, reliable ones. It is unlikely that this is classified information, simply, most likely, no one made data summaries.


San Carlos FOB

Thus, the average daily 17,5 is not typed. The hottest for the Harriers was the day May 20, 1982, when all planes from both aircraft carriers completed 31 sorties. And this is the record of that war.

There is a "flawed" number of sorties, which could be provided by carrier ships of the "verticals". And this is logical. Small decks, insufficient space for repairing aircraft, plus the quality of these aircraft themselves led to this result. Compared with the American aircraft carriers, which easily “mastered” more than a hundred sorties per day, and the sorties of normal planes, each of which replaced several Harriers, the results of the British are simply nothing. Only the weakness of the enemy acting against them gave them the opportunity to achieve any significant results at the cost of such efforts. However, most sources indicate that the Harriers have performed well. It is worthwhile to make out this statement.

Super-successful Harrier


In order to understand why the Harriers have shown themselves as shown, it is necessary to understand in what conditions, how and against which enemy they acted. Just because the key to the success of the Harriers is precisely in the enemy, and not in their qualities.

The first factor is that the Argentines did not carry out air battles. Maneuverable aerial combat requires fuel, especially when it comes to maneuvering a nimble aircraft and you need to perform several turns or when the afterburner is to be put into operation.

The Argentine pilots never had such an opportunity. All those Russian-language sources that describe some kind of "dump" between the Argentine pilots and the English "vertical", give false information.

The situation in the air for almost the entire war was as follows. The British assigned a zone over their ships, limited in size and height, all aircraft in which, by default, were considered enemy and which opened fire without warning. “Harriers” had to fly over this “box” and destroy everything that enters it (rarely happened) or exits (more often). Inside this zone, ships worked for Argentines.

The Argentines, having no fuel to fight, simply flew into this “box”, made one approach to the target, dropped all the bombs and tried to leave. If the Harriers managed to catch them at the entrance to the zone or at the exit from it, then the British recorded their victory. The attacks of the Argentines were carried out at heights of a few tens of meters, and the Harriers at the exit from the zone, having a warning from surface ships about the target, attacked the Argentines in a dive from a many kilometers high. It is naive to think that under such a scenario of the battle some kind of “dumps”, “helicopter tricks” and other fiction, which has been fed the domestic reader for many years, were possible. Actually, checks from English sources speak directly about everything.

Everything, there was no more air war over the British fleet. No vertical drafts or other fabrications of Russian writers. It was different: the British knew the place and time where the Argentines would fly, and waited for them there to destroy. And sometimes they destroyed it. And the Argentines could only hope that the SAM, the turn from the cannon or the Sidewinder would not go to them this time. They had nothing else.

This, to put it mildly, cannot be considered an outstanding success, rather, on the contrary. How many British lost their ships characterizes the actions of the Harriers, which, we repeat, no one countered, not from the best side.

Especially worth mentioning is the ability of Argentines to plan military operations. So, they never managed to synchronize the strike of several groups of aircraft in time, as a result of which even ten aircraft did not immediately go out onto English ships at once. This in itself could not lead to anything but defeat. The synchronization of aviation operations is not an easy task, especially when striking at the ultimate combat radius.

But on the other hand, no one bothered the Argentines, they flew freely over their territory. Another example is wretched intelligence. So, the British landing was discovered only after the fact, when the soldiers were already on the ground. This is, frankly, amazing. The Argentines did not even have elementary observation posts of several fighters with a walkie-talkie. Not even messengers on motorcycles, jeeps or bicycles. They simply did not monitor the situation.

And even in such conditions, the performance characteristics of the Harriers worked against them. So, there was a case of a plane crashing into the water due to the full production of fuel. Twice, the Harriers were not able to reach the aircraft carrier, and they were put on Interport and Fireless landing ships for refueling.


He was supposed to fall into the sea, but reached the landing ship. Two times the British were lucky, once there were no landing ships nearby. We look at the combat load - this was the limit for acting as an interceptor

Harrier’s combat flight time could not exceed 75 minutes, of which 65 took a flight from an aircraft carrier to the area of ​​combat use and vice versa, and only ten remained to complete the combat mission. And this despite the fact that none of the Sea Harriers could carry more than two air-to-air missiles — the other two underwing suspension units occupied the suspension tanks, without which these modest figures would not have been possible.

To ensure the expansion of these modest combat capabilities, the British immediately after the landing began the construction of the already mentioned ground airdrome for refueling aircraft. Domestic sources managed to deceive here too, having spread information that this temporary airfield had a runway length of 40 meters, while in fact the San Carlos Forward Operation Base had a runway length of 260 meters, from forty “Harrier” would have taken off only without load and flew away would be close. This refueling point made it possible to somehow increase the combat radius of the Harriers. One can only wonder at the English pilots who were able to show something in these conditions.

By the way, if the enemy had at least some kind of military intelligence, the Daggers could break through to this airfield - at least once.

The Harriers, of course, made a decisive contribution to the victory of the British. But we must understand that this is largely due to just a combination of factors, and nothing more.

But the presence of the British several dozen normal fighters would change the course of hostilities in a much more substantial way - and not in favor of Argentina.

Many years after the war, the British estimated that on average one Sea Harrier made 1,41 sorties a day, and one Harrier GR.3 made 0,9.

On the one hand, this is close to how the Americans fly from their aircraft carriers. On the other hand, Americans with dozens of full-fledged cars on each ship can afford it.

But British naval pilots during the times of Korea and the Suez crisis showed completely different numbers - 2,5-2,8 sorties per day. The Americans with their four catapults on the ship, too, by the way, can, if they want. Could the Harriers from their tears of small decks surpass their own results - an open question. Because in no subsequent war did they show even this.

It's time to admit a simple fact: any other aircraft and any other aircraft carriers would have shown themselves at the Falklands much better than what was really used there from the British side. The British “rode out” on an amazing mixture of their professionalism, personal courage, perseverance, the enemy’s weakness, the geographical features of the theater of war and amazing luck. The absence of any of these terms would lead Britain to defeat. But the performance characteristics of aircraft and ships have nothing to do with it. The commander of the British forces, Vice Admiral Woodward, did not in vain doubt the victory to the very end - he had reasons to doubt it.


“Harriers” “jumped above their heads” in the Falklands, but this does not make the concept of such an aircraft useful. In the photo - the deck of the Hermes before leaving for war

Here's how to really evaluate the actions of British light aircraft carriers and aircraft in that war.

They won despite their military equipment, and not thanks to it.

Oh yes. We have forgotten something. The British were in a hurry to finish before the storms in the South Atlantic. And they were right.

The storm factor in relation to light and heavy aircraft carriers deserves a separate analysis.

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
US Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation, Seaforces.org, US Navy via D. Sheley, Royal Navy / UK MOD, National Interest, greenacre8 / flikr, grandlogistics.blogspot.com, https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/ san-carlos-fob /
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

235 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. strannik1985 April 28 2020 06: 18 New
    • 12
    • 2
    +10
    Thank you for the article.
    There is a good series of articles by U. Andrew from Chelyabinsk. EMNIP from May 1 to 25, Argentine planes attacked British ships 32 times, while the Harriers were able to intercept the attacking groups 9 times (all from the external command center) and thwarted the attack 6 times (-2 attacks that Woodworth deliberately made). There were 3 fights between fighters in the indicated period, in which the all-perspective AIM-9L provided an advantage to the Harriers.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Amateur April 28 2020 06: 26 New
    • 12
    • 1
    +11
    The Argentines, having no fuel to fight, just flew into this “box”, made one approach to the target, dropped all the bombs and tried to leave.


    The main task of the Argentines was to fly and return, because everything happened at the limit of range. That’s the whole Harier secret.
  4. Lozovik April 28 2020 06: 29 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Comrade Timokhin does not know about the existence of the aircraft carrier Ark Royal (which is R09)?

    1. Lozovik April 28 2020 06: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Flight Day, 1975.

    2. strannik1985 April 28 2020 07: 13 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      These are the details. laughing
      Then it’s a hypothetical aircraft carrier of 50 tons and / and this CVA-000 "Queen Elizabeth" -01 tons of full displacement, the air group of 54 Phantom / Bukanir aircraft, 500 AWACS, 36 anti-submarine Sea King, transport Gannet COD.4 "and several search and rescue helicopters.
      1. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 16: 28 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        In the text of the article CVA-01 is mentioned, you need to be careful before you put emoticons.
    3. Usher April 28 2020 08: 47 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Comrade did not understand that this is only the first part?
    4. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 09: 42 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Why did you get the idea that I don’t know about the aircraft carrier "Ark Royal"?
      1. Catfish April 28 2020 10: 11 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Alexander, thanks for the article, really liked it. hi
        On the Phantom that started and sits down, the nose struts of the chassis are of different lengths, what is the reason for this strange design? Or did it seem to me?
        I well remember how at that time the whole country was following the events of the Falklands and how our men rejoiced in every sunken British ship. smile
        1. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 16: 29 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          The difference is how the British put the planes on the catapults - watch the video carefully. Therefore, all of their decks have telescopic front struts.
          Were
          1. Lozovik April 28 2020 21: 45 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Therefore, all of their decks have telescopic front struts.

            No, actually



            1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 13: 00 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I wanted to write all the deck Phantoms, I hurried.
      2. Lozovik April 28 2020 21: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Why did you get the idea that I don’t know about the aircraft carrier "Ark Royal"?

        Otherwise, why do we need this layer of text,

        The typical Igla air group in 1971 included: 14 Bakenir attack planes, 12 Sea Vixen interceptors, 4 Gannet AEW3 AWACS aircraft, 1 Gannet COD4 transport aircraft, 8 helicopters.

        By that time, it was already substantially obsolete aircraft, but the fact is that the ship was tested as a carrier of F-4 Phantom fighters. They were successfully launched from this ship and successfully landed on it. Of course, regular flights required additional modernization of catapults and gas deflectors - the Phantoms did not keep the regular hot exhaust, they needed liquid cooling.

        However, then the British decided to save money and cut their large aircraft carriers so that in just a few years they could lay down several new ones, albeit half as much. How many Phantoms could such a ship carry?

        More than two dozen, this is unique. Firstly, the dimensions of the Bacenirs and Phantoms are comparable: the first has a length of 19 meters and a wingspan of 13, the second - 19 and 12 meters. The masses were also about the same. This alone suggests that the “Backeners” could be replaced by “Phantoms” as 1: 1. That is 14 “Phantoms”.

        The Si Vixen was two meters shorter, but wider. It is difficult to say how many “Phantoms” would fit in the space that they occupied on the ship, but how much would fit exactly, no doubt. And there would still be five different “Gunnets” and 8 helicopters.

        if it is known that Ark Royal housed 14 Buccaneer (6 on the lower hangar deck, 8 on the flight deck) and 12 Phantom (6 on the upper hangar deck, 6 on the flight deck)?
        1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Ark Royal, like Eagle was tested with the Phantoms, they flew from it, but according to the results of these tests it was recognized that for the Phantom the ship is small and uncomfortable.
          Therefore, I did not mention it.

          In addition, this is also a light aircraft carrier, and if we discard that the planes on it are normal, then he had other problems of the light aircraft carrier, which will be written in the sequel.
          1. Lozovik 2 May 2020 14: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            A ship with a total displacement of 54 thousand tons and, until recently, the largest British aircraft carrier - light? This is, to put it mildly, an inadequate assessment.
            1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 15: 04 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Damn, I'm confused with you here. There are many of you, I am alone.
              No, of course it was not easy.
              The question is that the rebuilding was different than Eagle, and according to available documents, the rebuilding for basing modern aircraft was unsuccessful.
              1. Lozovik 2 May 2020 18: 23 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The question is that it was rebuilt differently than Eagle

                Of course, otherwise, Eagle under Phantoms was not finalized.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                and according to available documents, the restructuring for the basing of modern aircraft was unsuccessful.

                More?
                1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 18: 59 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  But under your photo Ark Royal there are key questions. About the Needle and the Phantoms.
                  And in the article there are two videos of flights of Phantoms from the Needle.
                  That's how you deal with them, and the nonsense about "not finished" will stop writing.
                  Not just refined - Eagle was much better suited for such airplanes, He and the restructuring came out more expensive in the end, but there was more sense from it.
                  And this is not counting the more convenient in terms of the "island" for deck work and head to head the best technical condition during the entire service life.
                  1. Lozovik 2 May 2020 21: 16 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Not just refined - Eagle was much better suited for such airplanes, He and the restructuring came out more expensive in the end, but there was more sense from it.
                    And this is not counting the more convenient in terms of the "island" for deck work and head to head the best technical condition during the entire service life.

                    With a smaller deck, cables flying into the sea, the absence of a complete set of aerofiners, etc.
                    1. timokhin-aa 3 May 2020 00: 53 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      With a smaller deck


                      and a smaller island

                      ropes flying away into the sea, lack of a complete set of aerofinishers


                      I agree with the finishers, but there was one. Phantoms flew with Eagle, I laid out the movie on purpose.
                      On the other hand, I will be glad to hear about the lateral catapult on the Arc Royal, or rather about its thermal protection.

                      You still forgot the reinforced gas deflectors on the Arc Royal.
                      What was his plus on the background of the Needle.
                      But you also forgot that this ship had much more failures than the Eagles, including when both of them were in service, and by 1982 its technical ability to simply reach Falkledn, if it was then alive personally under me a question.
                      Eagle served quite normally and had acceptable reliability, any British source confirms this, and confirms it against the background of the Arc Royal.
                      You just had to finish it, ext. finishers, thermal protection of the second catapult, gas scrappers, and less significant improvements - 30 million pounds or so. For the seventies would be managed.
                      And Ark-Royal was trite worse built.
                      1. Lozovik 3 May 2020 16: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        and a smaller island

                        Without specific area values, this statement is debatable. On the Arch, the superstructure was expanded towards the starboard side. Estimate the area, and even more so-called. "convenience" is visually impossible.



    5. Sergey Sfiedu April 28 2020 21: 32 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Google is such a complicated thing. So many words about the hypothetical Phantoms on the Eagle, and not a single one about real Phantoms (and even old, but still AWACS) on the Arc Royal. By the way, the Argentines climbed to the islands, only making sure that the “Arc Royal” was put to the needles. And the fact that one large aircraft carrier is better than the three light Invincibles can be argued. Three aircraft carriers - this is the minimum. - one is ready for military service, one in the current repair, one in the capital. And one aircraft carrier is like our poor Kuzya, which does not crawl out of repairs, we can say that Russia does not have an aircraft carrier.
      1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 15: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Google is such a complicated thing. So many words about the hypothetical Phantoms on the Eagle, and not a single one about real Phantoms (and even old, but still AWACS) on the Arc Royal.


        You did not notice the video with the flights of the hypothetical Phantoms from Needle in the article TWO of them there.
        1. Lozovik 2 May 2020 18: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And on the Arch TWELVE. Why re-count when everything has long been counted?

          1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 18: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Two videos in the article. Which you did not notice, rushing to invent my supposedly ignorance about Ark-Royal and its subsequent exposure under the spotlights.

            As a connoisseur, do you have a couple of questions - were the catapults on the Eagle and Arc Royal the same? And what did it affect?

            And then there is too much ponte from you, show the class do not be lazy.
            1. Lozovik 2 May 2020 21: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              As a connoisseur, do you have a couple of questions - were the catapults on the Eagle and Arc Royal the same? And what did it affect?

              The same. BS5 on the bow, BS5A on the corner deck.
              1. timokhin-aa 3 May 2020 00: 38 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                BS5A on the corner deck.


                Here she is what interests me, or rather, measures to protect her from the exhaust of the "Speev" afterburners.
                1. Lozovik 3 May 2020 16: 54 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Phantoms used both catapults. Each starting position is cooled, lined with heat-resistant aluminum alloy plates.

                  1. timokhin-aa 4 May 2020 22: 42 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    The crux of the matter is that the exhaust temperature of the Speys was much higher than that of the Bacenirs and Si Vixen engines. Due to the design of the English catapults, the exhaust was directed towards the catapult.
                    In the case of Phantoms, this could lead to the thermal destruction of her gutter.

                    This excluded the rise of all aircraft at once at the utmost pace, and required them to be raised in small groups.
                    Therefore, during the remake of the Needle, which was also to be used as a testing platform for Phantoms, the trench of the onboard catapult was reinforced with thick steel plates thick enough to not collapse when heated and dissipate heat. The nasal was not finalized, only one-time take-offs were possible with it, with cooling interruptions.

                    I was looking for such a refinement on Ark Royal and did not find it.
                    And it is critical for the rapid lifting of large forces into the air. In some Guatemala, a pair of Phantoms and four Bacenirs can do in every attack, there is no serious war.
                    1. Lozovik 5 May 2020 13: 15 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Due to the design of the English catapults, the exhaust was directed towards the catapult.

                      Are there fundamentally different designs?

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      In the case of Phantoms, this could lead to the thermal destruction of her gutter.

                      The engines are spaced relative to the aircraft construction axis, the temperature gradient outside the combustion front of the afterburner flame is very large, the take-off time is short (about 2 seconds, nx≈3). Thus, the thermal effect on the catapult track is not significant.

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      This excluded the rise of all aircraft at once at the utmost pace, and required them to be raised in small groups.

                      Is there a specific value for time intervals during take-off?

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Therefore, during the remake of the Needle, which was also to be used as a testing platform for Phantoms, the trench of the onboard catapult was reinforced with thick steel plates thick enough to not collapse when heated and dissipate heat. The nasal was not finalized, only one-time take-offs were possible with it, with cooling interruptions.

                      It would be interesting to read in the original source.
                      1. timokhin-aa 5 May 2020 22: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Are there fundamentally different designs?

                        Have you seen how the Americans start?

                        Thus, the thermal effect on the catapult track is not significant.


                        Well, the British had a different impression.

                        It would be interesting to read in the original source.


                        Generally speaking, this is even in the forgiveness of Lord Wikipedia. Although this is not the source. But I read in some English book a very long time ago, I didn’t load it from online, then it wasn’t interesting, now I regret it.
                      2. Lozovik 6 May 2020 04: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Have you seen how the Americans start?

                        Same.





                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Generally speaking, this is even forgive the Lord Wikipedia.

                        Is it?
                        During the Phantom FG1 trials (involving three newly delivered aircraft operated by 700P NAS) the longer waist catapult was used, and a thick steel plate was chained to the deck behind the catapult to absorb the heat of the Phantom's afterburners.
      2. Sergey Sfiedu 3 May 2020 21: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        On the video test flights. Actually, “Phantoms” on the “Needle” were not used. And on the "Royal Ark" it was, along with the "Bakkanirs" - based weapons. Feel the difference.
  • The leader of the Redskins April 28 2020 06: 39 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    The author is too keen on alternative history. Too.
    And if we assume that when planning the operation, the Argentine command updates the air fleet, checks and changes all the fuses in the air bombs, landed a more prepared assault force, equipped with equipment and an enhanced air defense group, and mine banks are installed in the places of the alleged base of the British Navy? What would happen then?
    And I, it seems, managed to write the same article!
    1. bk0010 April 28 2020 13: 15 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      And if we assume that when planning the operation, the Argentine command updates the air fleet, checks and changes all the fuses in the air bombs, landed a more prepared assault force, equipped with equipment and an enhanced air defense group, and mine banks are installed in the places of the alleged base of the British Navy?
      EMNIP, the problem of the args in that war was that they did not plan to fight (even the air finisers on the aircraft carrier did not update). There, the next military dictator needed some kind of spirit-lifting operation in order to distract the population from the economic crisis. It was hoped that the Angles would not fight, but Thatcher rested and everything went as it should.
  • Avior April 28 2020 06: 43 New
    • 13
    • 6
    +7
    It is good that the author made such an analysis, although not complete, and did not mention that the Argentines also had an aircraft carrier and just the one that the author considers the best is for horizontal take-off aircraft. And the supersonic French deck Superethandars, the latest at that time, were also. Although a little.
    Unfortunately, the author from the very beginning proceeds from a false thesis.
    Here it is
    Due to the fact that the idea of ​​replacing a normal aircraft carrier with catapults and air finishers with an ersatz with vertically soaring reincarnations “Jacob”

    The reader creates a false illusion that it is possible to build and maintain a “normal aircraft carrier with catapults and aerofinishes”, but in fact there is neither one nor the other, due to the high technical complexity and the enormous cost of both tasks.
    All further considerations in the light of this reality can be of only theoretical interest.
    The author of the right subsonic attack aircraft Harrier is not a child prodigy and no one planned to conduct air battles on them with supersonic fighters, which they had to do in the Falklands. Airplanes do for their tasks, and Harrier did not do so. And the fact that they showed themselves quite worthily in tasks that no one planned for them is a plus to them, but this does not mean that such an application can be considered normal.
    They generally ended up there miraculously, if the Argentines had the brains to wait another year, the war could have ended differently — the British aircraft carriers were on the verge of decommissioning due to the supposedly high cost of operation.
    Even at the last moment, land onshore Harrier was somewhat modified with blue electrical tape, and transported on something like an equipped merchant ship.
    About the fact that the British did not spend money on the AWACS helicopter before the war, and there’s nothing to talk about — they’re not just AWACS, in general, the aircraft carriers wanted to remove them. If only such a helicopter, the Argentines would have been very ill, and the losses of the British would have been much less. It was after the war that they caught on to acquire them.
    The fact that the Phantom is much more effective than Harrier in the general case is no secret. But Harrier was made just for the cases when conventional horizontal take-off aircraft are impossible or difficult to apply. Therefore, here the alternative is not a phantom or Harrier, but Harrier or nothing.
    From this point of view, it is necessary to consider the use of Harriers and generally VTOL
    1. Usher April 28 2020 08: 50 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      And you did not understand that the Falklands is an example? But not the topic itself?
      1. Avior April 28 2020 09: 44 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        So, I also wrote about the examples chosen by the author
        but it was impossible?
    2. NEOZ April 28 2020 14: 43 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Avior
      if the Argentines had the mind to wait another year, the war could end differently

      I think there would have been enough improved GDP in Port Stanley ...
    3. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 52 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      It is good that the author made such an analysis, although not complete, and did not mention that the Argentines also had an aircraft carrier and just the one that the author considers the best


      Having a piano at home does not automatically make a person a pianist - you must still be able to play it.
      Regarding the Argentine aircraft carrier - it was not enough for a normal AB. Not an option.
      Light aircraft carriers are flawed, wait for the continuation.

      The reader creates a false illusion that it is possible to build and maintain a “normal aircraft carrier with catapults and aerofinishes”, but in fact there is neither one nor the other, due to the high technical complexity and the enormous cost of both tasks.


      No, this is not a false thesis.
      The Britons cut the Eagle in 1976, not wanting to spend tens of millions of pounds on it.
      A couple of years later I had to start building ships, for a lot of money. And this despite the fact that they already bought and received Phantoms.
      Do you want to object to this?

      Regarding the Russian Federation - we are invited to invest money in the SKVVP and the "large" UDC.
      The SKVVP project is somewhere around 80-100 billion rubles and 15-20 years.
      And this despite the fact that we already have an aircraft carrier, we only need to repair it well and make the Navy finally bring it to the proper level of combat readiness.
      And we ALREADY HAVE ship (deck) aviation, already two incomplete regiments. And even with some kind of combat experience.
      Do you want to object to this?

      Well, for the future -
      https://topwar.ru/167092-avianosec-dlja-rossii-bystree-chem-vy-ozhidaete.html

      But Harrier was made just for the cases when conventional horizontal take-off aircraft are impossible or difficult to apply. Therefore, here the alternative is not a phantom or Harrier, but Harrier or nothing.
      From this point of view, it is necessary to consider the use of Harriers and generally VTOL


      And this, in the end, did not work. Like it or not, they just had to finish the aerofinisher and gas strippers on the Igla, and that’s all. And in 1978, instead of freak ships, build one CVA-01. They would have spent the same money, there would have been more sense at times.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu April 28 2020 21: 48 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        “you just had to finish the aerofinisher and gas strippers on the Eagle, and that’s all. And in 1978, instead of freak ships, build one thing CVA-01. You would have spent the same money, the aerofinisher, gas strippers would have done more than that at Ark Royale, "and .CVA-01 needed to be built in 1968, and not in 1978. But in the 1968s, the kingdom did not have money for aircraft carriers. Not at all. And there were no combat missions for aircraft carriers - Britain could not fight alone with the USSR under any circumstances, said goodbye to the colonies, and then they lived heart to heart with Argentina. All that was required of Her Majesty's fleet — to help the Americans drive Soviet submarines in the Atlantic — these were the invincibles that were built for this purpose, and were ideally suited for these purposes.
        1. timokhin-aa April 29 2020 09: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And there were no combat missions for aircraft carriers - Britain could not fight alone with the USSR under any circumstances, said goodbye to the colonies, and then they lived in perfect harmony with Argentina. All that was required of Her Majesty's fleet — to help the Americans drive Soviet submarines in the Atlantic — these were the invincibles that were built for this purpose, and were ideally suited for these purposes.


          This is simply a mistake in the goal-setting, 1982 showed that there are just tasks for aircraft carriers.
          And the aircraft carriers themselves were then in the seventies. The needles were cut in 1976.

          But I will come back to cost issues.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu April 29 2020 16: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "This is simply a mistake in the goal-setting, 1982 showed that there are just tasks for aircraft carriers" - one task - to recapture the Falklands from the Argentines. Despite the fact that the British, especially before Thatcher, did not hold on to these islands. If the Argentines agreed to the condominium, but in power they would not have had gorillas worse than Pinochet, the Britons would not have rested.
            The Eagles were cut in 1976 - and removed from the fleet in 1972. The Ark Royal - in 1979. The Hermes ceased to be an aircraft carrier in 1971. The Victories were not restored after a small fire in 1967. The history of the death of the latter The British aircraft carriers are sad and instructive, almost the same as the history of modern CVFs that ate more than one defense program, but still turned out to be strange, to put it mildly. Old Marx was a hundred times right when he wrote that the economy is primary.
            Your message is clear - a large aircraft carrier is better than a light one, and UDC with VTOL aircraft is not an aircraft carrier at all. But it's all about the price.
            1. timokhin-aa 1 May 2020 21: 32 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Your message is clear - a large aircraft carrier is better than a light one, and UDC with VTOL aircraft is not an aircraft carrier at all. But it's all about the price.


              I will touch on pricing issues a bit later.
      2. Avior April 29 2020 08: 20 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        . Do you want to object to this?

        I want to know smile
        There is no positive experience with the use of modern horizontal horizontal take-off aircraft on carrierless aircraft carriers.
        And practice is the criterion of truth.
        But there is a positive experience in the use of HSS in several conflicts, the most famous of which is the Falklands.
        Regarding the timing.
        Right now, there is accumulated experience with the su-57, and it just begs to use it to create a swap while it is fresh and hot.
        Especially if you bring to mind the engine of the second stage.
        An example of this approach is right before your eyes.
        You do not need to try to make a super-innovative aircraft, it’s just normal enough, then it won’t take 20 years, and in ten years it will be ready, at the same time as the UDC for it
        Even if he doesn’t succeed, the fishing rod will be a helicopter, he will also find use.
        And the plane itself can be used normally on Kuznetsov if it is repaired and put in order, as it was originally intended, and it will be a normal warship, and not a wheel of fortune, took off, and all the pilots’ training will not spin around these two operations- takeoff and landing.
        It is necessary to delete from the list his tasks - to defeat America, there are nuclear missiles for this
        An airplane is needed for limited conflicts.
        And UDC is still needed regardless of Kuznetsov’s state. UDC is something that can really be done in real time.
        So far, it is necessary not only to forget about the ejection aircraft carrier, but to forget about it for 20 years, and then it will be seen.
        hi
        1. timokhin-aa April 29 2020 10: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          There is no positive experience with the use of modern horizontal horizontal take-off aircraft on carrierless aircraft carriers.


          Well, in the failed Kuznetsov’s campaign, the sky-ready aircraft group, flying from the sky-ready aircraft carrier, showed a slightly smaller number of sorties per day than the Charles de Gaulle during the Libyan War.
          However, this will be continued.

          Right now, there is accumulated experience with the su-57, and it just begs to use it to create a swap while it is fresh and hot.
          Especially if you bring to mind the engine of the second stage.
          An example of this approach is right before your eyes.


          As if the engine of the second stage has a power take-off for the fan or additional afterburners ...
          Actually, it’s much easier to figure out the reinforced glider for the finished “stuffing” and make the Su-57K with a hook instead of a parachute.
          Now it will be really faster.
          And SKVVP - for many years with an unpredictable result.

          It is necessary to delete from the list his tasks - to defeat America, there are nuclear missiles for this


          Which will need to be applied at the right moment, while maintaining at least tactical surprise. And before that, you have to fight in a more or less traditional way.
          1. Avior April 29 2020 10: 24 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Well, in the failed Kuznetsov’s campaign, a sky-ready aircraft group, flying from a sky-ready aircraft carrier, showed a slightly smaller number of sorties per day

            an excellent way out, instead of war, explain this to the enemy.
            Kuznetsov’s failed march, as you write, showed that its combat use is a lottery even in the most hothouse, practically polygon conditions, in a warm sea and without the slightest opposition, with a free flight mode.
            What can we say about the real combat use.
            To spend a lot of money on Gorshkov's overhaul, you need to have evidence that after the repair he will become a warship, but they are not.
            For reference.
            Gorshkov’s repair is 10 years and $ 2,3 billion, with the participation of specialists from Nikolaev, by the way.
            Su-57K with a hook instead of a parachute.
            Now it will be really faster.

            and with completely unpredictable consequences.
            As if the engine of the second stage has a power take-off for the fan or additional afterburners ...

            will have the required power, and the fan is connected through the coupling on the common motor shaft - that is, you need to extend the shaft and put the coupling.
            no additional afterburners (is that, by the way?)
            1. timokhin-aa April 29 2020 10: 28 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Kuznetsov’s failed march, as you write, showed that its combat use is a lottery even in the most hothouse, practically polygon conditions, in a warm sea and without the slightest opposition, with a free flight mode.


              Kuznetsov’s failed campaign showed that it was necessary to prepare for war in this way, in Lenin's style.
              And nothing more.

              Up to 50-55 sorties per day, Kuzyu can be raped if the crew and air group are prepared. For a short period of time, at least.

              and with completely unpredictable consequences.


              An example of a Su-33 and MiG-29K shows that with predictable. Twice it happened, why the third will not work.
              You can’t say anything about the idea of ​​turning a heavy twin-engine fighter into a SCVVP.
              1. Avior April 29 2020 11: 37 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Kuznetsov’s failed campaign showed that it was necessary to prepare for war in this way, in Lenin's style.
                And nothing more.

                Up to 50-55 sorties per day, Kuzyu can be raped if the crew and air group are prepared. For a short period of time, at least.

                “necessary” and “if” is not a confirmation. more precisely, confirmation of the absence of confirmation smile and you want to throw at least 2,3 billion into an unconfirmed concept. Wide soul smile
                An example of a Su-33 and MiG-29K shows that with predictable.

                an example shows that with unpredictable even in greenhouse conditions.
                1. timokhin-aa 1 May 2020 21: 24 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I do not see your arguments in this comment.
                  1. Avior 1 May 2020 23: 51 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Sorry, but in my opinion, it's exactly the opposite
                    I did not see the arguments that Kuznetsov in a combat situation confirmed the real suitability of the scheme
                    Instead, I read from you why, in your opinion, he did not confirm the combat readiness.
                    Not arguing with your explanations as to why this happened, nevertheless I note that your explanations cannot be considered confirmation of combat effectiveness.
                    And as long as this confirmation is not there, I see no reason to invest such huge amounts in Kuznetsov.
                    1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 06 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      And where are the arguments that a hypothetical VTOL on a hypothetical large UDC will prove to be better? Why do you need to spend money on this?
          2. Cyril G ... April 29 2020 22: 39 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Well, in the failed Kuznetsov’s campaign, the sky-ready aircraft group, flying from the sky-ready aircraft carrier, showed a slightly smaller number of sorties per day than the Charles de Gaulle during the Libyan War.


            They write that in two months the pilots of "Admiral Kuznetsov" completed 420 sorties, including 117 at night! Attention is the question, but how many real sorties were performed from the deck. I suggest a third at best. Because the Su-33 is quite a glow in Khimki for sure.
            1. timokhin-aa 1 May 2020 21: 28 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              The Americans gave the numbers 154 departure to strike. They flew from the deck from November 15 to December 5, when the second plane was dropped.
              Then flew to Hmeimim.
              Total we have 7,7 sorties per day.
              The French from Charles with their experience and two catapults flew 12 to Libya.
              Both that, and another, of course, not a limit neither for Charles, nor for Kuznetsov.
              Everything is just known in comparison.
              1. Avior 2 May 2020 00: 26 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                The principal combat efficiency of a ship is not determined by the number of sorties
                The number of departures is generally determined by the number of tasks, there could be less of them
                The combat readiness and reliability of the De Gaulle scheme is confirmed by many years of experience in operating ejection aircraft carriers in different countries and in different conditions, therefore, by itself, it cannot be doubted if there are questions about a specific ship, and not its scheme.
                But the real combat effectiveness of the springboard aircraft carrier with horizontal aircraft has not been fundamentally confirmed by anyone at least.
                And Kuznetsov did not confirm her real combat effectiveness, and no explanation why she did not confirm can not refute this real fact.
                hi
                1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Facts need more interpretation. Well, what can prevent a springboard carrier from fighting? Not a mess in the Navy.
                  1. Avior 2 May 2020 12: 25 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Do you interpret Kuznetsov’s Syrian campaign as a confirmation of his ability to conduct military operations?
                    The explanation for itself, why it was not confirmed, is not an interpretation of the fact.
                    I'm not talking about the fact that it was a minimal check in the most greenhouse, almost polygon conditions.
                    But it would be necessary to check in real conditions, taking into account the opposition of the enemy, at least his simulation
                    Raise planes in the event of the sudden appearance of Aviation at a distance at which it would be necessary to raise air defense mode.
                    But they didn’t do anything.
                    And the fact that Kuznetsov’s boilers were not all right was irrelevant.
                    How fast and how much realistically he can lift into the air.
                    It is believed that no more than seven aircraft at a time in principle
                    Has anyone checked?
                    Just departures - they themselves are not very different from the landfill - you can fly, but you can not
                    Another thing is if this is direct support. There the call came, after a few minutes The car is in the air.
                    Have you checked this?
                    It just didn’t get to this, a crash happened on the simplest application
                    1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 56 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      I have two sets of facts.

                      1. The British experience in the Falklands. A couple of officers with a mid-Soviet level of training in Argentina and another military adviser with the rank of captain on the islands themselves, and the British would have merged the wars, on their own, for sure. It is about the cause of insufficiently powerful aviation.
                      2. TTK Kuznetsova, starting from which it is possible with some error (and in the next article this will be done) to evaluate how skillful personnel can use it.

                      What do you have?
              2. Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 00: 38 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Not funny with aircraft carrier masturbation?
                1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 10 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Yes, yes, we only need the IPC and minesweepers
                  1. Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 12: 27 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Yes, what do you think. Without a normal working OVR, all these aircraft carriers, SSBNs and other death stars are simply meaningless and useless.
                    1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 53 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      One does not contradict the other.
                      1. Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 13: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This is not so with us. Once again, only “battleships” are being built in our country, and when the roasted rooster was attached again, it turned out that we could not fight in the absence of light forces. Remember the beginning of the first and second world wars
                        The conclusion of the "battleships" in the absence of combat support forces is simply meaningless and useless. But light forces can somehow act independently. Albeit with less efficiency.
                      2. timokhin-aa 3 May 2020 14: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The conclusion of the "battleships" in the absence of combat support forces is simply meaningless and useless. But light forces can somehow act independently.


                        That's the joke, that no. These are two components of sea power and both are needed.
                        Moreover, with the caveat - in a defensive war.
                        If we beat first, then the need for light forces is absolutely minimal.
                        In short, I propose not to engage in oversimplification.
  • Sahalinets April 28 2020 23: 33 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Super Etandar - NOT Supersonic! Quite the usual lightweight deck attack aircraft, a modernization of the old Etandar IV.
    1. Avior April 29 2020 08: 26 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Dassault Super-Étendard (French Dassault Super-Étendard) - French supersonic deck attack aircraft.

      Formally - supersonic. Although a little bit
  • Sniper Amateur April 28 2020 06: 57 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    In 2018, the press got the statement of Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov that on behalf of the Supreme Commander in our country is the creation of a fighter with a short take-off and vertical landing (SCVVP). In fact, everything is somewhat more complicated, but Yu. Borisov did not begin to give any details then, and they are and have a meaning, but about them later.

    This statement worked like an emergency valve. Immediately after him, a wave of publications broke through the press about how much such an aircraft is needed, and immediately after our fleet an American fleet was set as an example, where universal landing ships are used as a tool for projecting force using short take-off and vertical landing aircraft. A little later, as an example to imitate the Russian Navy, the Spanish UDC of the Juan Carlos type with the ubiquitous verticals was set.

    The fleet on this subject is still silent. In the "Shipbuilding Program 2050" there is a certain "marine aircraft carrier complex", but without any details. Let's say right away, there is a certain consensus among military sailors that if you build an aircraft carrier, then normal and under normal aircraft. Alas, this point of view also has opponents. There are few of them, and they, as they are called, "do not shine." But the Internet is filled with calls to build large UDCs that can carry airplanes and develop vertical lines. This, incidentally, is also not just like that, and we will talk about this too.

    Your problem is that:
    1) in any case, you will not be able to do without UDC or at least DVTD;
    2) to have less than 6 “real” (atomic and tonnage not less than 50 thousand) aircraft carriers - it makes no sense to you.
    Will you pull?
    1. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 41 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0

      Your problem is that:
      1) in any case, you will not be able to do without UDC or at least DVTD;


      Not true in all cases.

      2) to have less than 6 “real” (atomic and tonnage not less than 50 thousand) aircraft carriers - it makes no sense to you.


      False completely.
      1. Sniper Amateur 3 May 2020 10: 42 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Your problem is that:
        1) in any case, you will not be able to do without UDC or at least DVTD;

        Not true in all cases.

        2) to have less than 6 “real” (atomic and tonnage not less than 50 thousand) aircraft carriers - it makes no sense to you.
        False completely.

        Wow! Justify, plz! I can justify my statements simply ...
        1. timokhin-aa 3 May 2020 14: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The question is that we do not have an aircraft-centric fleet, and there is no American scheme for the constant deployment of aircraft carrier groups at sea, so the wear and tear of aircraft carriers and the frequency of their calls for repairs can be regulated based on the political situation.
          1. Sniper Amateur 3 May 2020 15: 14 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Well OK - you have a submarine-based airborne missile-coastal Navy since the time of Gorshka. Okay.
            A simple task: to ensure a presence that exceeds the possible duration of the AUG campaign in a remote area of ​​the World Ocean? How to organize this, having less than 3 AvMA in the SF and in the Pacific Fleet?
            And how much does the DVTD need to ensure the constant (or simply long-term) presence of reinforced BMG MT in the Atlantic, Pacific-Indian zone, and Middle-earth?
            Americans are not planning on the size of their fleet at all from a flashlight ...
  • Dimon19661 April 28 2020 07: 28 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    Such an excellent article, a lot of photos, there is a video ...)))))) Direct alternative fiction.
    Dear author, any weapon of the military-industrial complex of any country is created according to the clear, distinct task of the customer, which is the country's armed forces. And it is the military who determine the tactics for using these weapons. As for the conflict with Argentina, do you recall the final figures of aviation losses? Yes, there’s no problem -10 aircraft Sea Harrier ”and“ Harrier GR.3 ”, Argentina lost about a hundred helicopters and aircraft. Of these, 33 belonged to attack aircraft. The command of the British naval group deliberately placed itself in more favorable conditions (distance from enemy airbases), de oralization of the military fleet of Argentina (the sinking of the cruiser "General Belgrano"), bombing by strategic Volcanoes. Argentina could not oppose anything, and in fact the entire conflict was a strategic initiative in the hands of the British. In this case, one should not dump the British military experience on land, and at sea + technological superiority (including in aviation).
    1. Avior April 28 2020 07: 35 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      And Argentina was 700 km from the theater of operations, and England was on the other side of the planet.
      1. bk0010 April 28 2020 13: 21 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        And the Angles dragged the submarines and that's it ... Passing these 700 km became more problematic than getting from the other side of the planet. The fleet remained at the bases, the war was lost. There was no way to win the war with such a quantity of aircraft as the Arg had (although the pilots acted quite heroically).
    2. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 39 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Dear author, any weapon of the military-industrial complex of any country is created according to the clear, distinct task of the customer, which is the country's armed forces. And it is the military who determine the tactics for using these weapons. As for the conflict with Argentina, do you recall the final figures of aviation losses? Yes, there’s no problem -10 aircraft Sea Harrier ”and“ Harrier GR.3 ”, Argentina lost about a hundred helicopters and aircraft. Of these, 33 belonged to attack aircraft. The command of the British ship group deliberately put itself in more favorable conditions


      Read the memoirs of the commander of the English group Woodward, they are translated into Russian and are on the network.
      Everything was, so to speak, the opposite.

      The Britons pulled out the war by a miracle.
      1. bayard April 29 2020 07: 55 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Greetings to Alexander.
        Thanks for the article, inspired ...
        No one reasonable, of course, will argue that normal aircraft based on a classic aircraft carrier are of much greater value and have incomparable potential with VTOL aircraft. In the case of this conflict, Argentina decided on a gamble precisely knowing that England did not have normal aircraft carriers, and those that were were not for war at such a great distance from the metropolis. Another thing is that having found themselves in such an uncomfortable position, it was the Harriers who allowed England to have at least some sort of combat aircraft as part of the expeditionary forces. If they were not available, it was impossible to count on any success in that expedition. The convenience and versatility of using VTOL aircraft from small decks and a patch of prepared take-off on land made almost impossible. This is what can be written into the VTOL asset when maintaining a database in very cramped conditions. When it is impossible to use normal planes.
        In the case of England, that is exactly what happened in that conflict. And they pulled out that war on the “Harriers,” which, being worse than any normal peer fighter, in that situation turned out to be irreplaceable in the full sense of the word.

        As for the possible future of VTOL aircraft for the Russian Navy and Russian Aerospace Forces ... the issue is controversial and depends on which fleet we are going to have. To base VTOL aircraft, either specialized aircraft carriers are needed (which is stupid and unjustified in comparison with classical aircraft carriers, albeit medium-sized aircraft), or UDC of a large aircraft. Even if such UDC (25 - 000 tons) will be built 28 pcs. , then quite a few such aircraft can be based on them - 000-6 pcs. on each ... albeit the same amount on the shore for a shift ... This is too little to start such a complex project.
        Another thing is if they are interested in the aerospace forces, for example, to organize duty on islands where it is impossible to have a classic airfield. And for covert base ... Or for combat use in the conditions of destroyed runways, for which "Harrier" was developed at the time.
        In any case, the series for such aircraft should not be less than 120 - 200 units, otherwise such an undertaking will never pay off with the result.
        1. timokhin-aa April 29 2020 10: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The question here is that in the 70s the Britons faced a choice - to keep their aircraft carrier and normal aviation for one money, or then to go into fornication for completely different money.

          They chose fornication.

          Today we have the same choice.
          1. bayard April 29 2020 10: 27 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            I agree that this choice seems to be worth it, and we have already discussed it more than once. The trouble for VTOL aircraft when used from an aircraft carrier specialized for them is that it is possible for them to provide AWACS ONLY with AWACS helicopters. If the catapult is wise on the aircraft carrier, then why all the fornication with VTOL aircraft.
            If it weren’t for this problem, then the issue could be discussed (regarding the type of aircraft carrier), because for an VTOL aircraft carrier the aircraft carrier is not an example easier and cheaper to build and operate (lack of catapults and aerofinishes).
            ... But VTOL can be based on the UDC, to provide air defense and air support to the expeditionary forces, when escorting them by a classic aircraft carrier is impossible.
            In any case, this choice is for the rich and ambitious. Are we at the moment ... it's hard to understand.
            But UDC should be laid the other day ...
            In any case, the fate of the VTOL aircraft will be decided positively ONLY if they are interested in the aerospace forces. For one naval aviation, such a project is prohibitively expensive.
            hi
            1. Newone 7 May 2020 23: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              DRLO for them it will be possible to provide ONLY DRLO helicopters

              Why? Ground-based AWACS aircraft can cope if you do not drive the KUG into the southern hemisphere.
              1. bayard 7 May 2020 23: 41 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                How do you imagine the constant duty of AWACS aircraft, say in the North Atlantic, the South China Sea, and the Indian Ocean. After all, they need not only to fly to the duty station, but also to work there for several hours, and then be replaced by the same plane. Your offer is suitable only for the coastal zone, where the aircraft carriers themselves are not particularly needed.
                Let's just say, if you build aircraft carriers, then only for classic aircraft - with a catapult and an aerofinisher, we have already gone through the rest. And the conclusion at the sunset of the Soviet era was one - the classic aircraft carriers "like everyone else." Therefore, they planned to build 4 pcs. type "Ulyanovsk" and two transitional type "Gorshkov". Even for "Gorshkov’s steam catapult was created, tested, produced and delivered to the Nikolaev Shipyard (the electromagnetic catapult was also created and tested as an alternative) ... but they didn’t install it and it stayed there ..." wallow. " (analogue of "Hokai") - the AWACS plane, and in general - by trial and error came to the classics.
                But did not have time.
                A VTOL aircraft is good for expeditionary forces based on UDC helicopter carriers and mobilized rollers, container carriers and tankers, which was actively worked out by the Soviet Navy.
                1. Newone 8 May 2020 00: 02 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  In the North Atlantic, the South China Sea it is easy: "A-100 can be in the air at a distance of 1000 kilometers from the base for up to 6 hours." Accordingly, at a distance of 2000 km -4 hours. and this is without refueling in the air. Refueling in the air makes this time limited by the crew’s working capacity.
                  The Indian Ocean will certainly require diplomatic work with Iran.
                  1. bayard 8 May 2020 01: 36 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Newone
                    A-100 can be in the air at a distance of 1000 kilometers from the base for up to 6 hours. "

                    This plane is simply NOT. As there is no base for it yet (IL-76MD-90A in serial production). I'm not talking about hardware saturation - it’s just sadness ... apparently the problems with the domestic element base and the inaccessibility of the imported one are affecting.
                    We have not even talked about the modernization of the A-50 weapons in service, for several years now, like the first 4 units. upgraded, and silent ... the program hung. I don’t know what it is, but most likely it’s the same notorious elemental base, or rather its absence. And it would seem that it is easier to change the hardware saturation of the finished glider ... A joke of humor - we have neither gliders nor hardware saturation.
                    My classmate flies on the A-50 ... it seems like it is still ... although she’s not already retired.
                    1000 km. and six hours to barrage, this is certainly good.
                    But.
                    The duty areas indicated by me are much further.
                    Quote: Newone
                    Accordingly, at a distance of 2000 km -4 hours. and this is without refueling in the air.

                    But this is no longer true, for the cruising speed of the Il-76 is 700 - 750 km / h, and with the "mushroom" it does not exceed 700 km \ h.
                    So there will be no more than 100 hours left on duty for your hypothetical A-3, which is unforgivably small. And how often they will have to change to ensure constant duty, say for one or two days ... I’m even scared to think. A radar coverage of the area of ​​maneuvers KUG or defective AUG must be secured continuously. Therefore, you can not do without your own funds. And this is either AWACS helicopters based on the UDC or on an inferior aircraft carrier without catapults, or an AWAC decked aircraft - the new iteration of the Yak-44.
                    Quote: Newone
                    Refueling in the air makes this time limited by the crew’s working capacity.

                    Believe me, today we have a shortage of not only AWACS aircraft, but also refueling aircraft. So for now there will be nobody and nothing to fuel. And what is, as in the "Trishkin's caftan" - for patching holes.
                    Quote: Newone
                    The Indian Ocean will certainly require diplomatic work with Iran.

                    Iran is still an ally, we recall the story of the jump airfield for our aviation at the very beginning of the Syrian campaign and many other tricks. The partner is extremely agile and unreliable. At least in politics, even in business, even in military affairs. It’s easier already to agree with Yemen - they called.
                    1. Newone 8 May 2020 17: 01 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      This plane is simply NOT
                      This aircraft is undergoing flight tests. Tests of this technique last for more than one year. E-3 first flight in 1972. The Air Force received its first aircraft in 1977.

                      We have not even talked about the modernization of the A-50 weapons in service, for several years now, like the first 4 units. modernized, and silent ...

                      What for? A-100 on tests and not only flight, but also detection equipment. Gliders are old (metal fatigue and other troubles). It is better to spend the same money on a large series of A-100.

                      The duty areas indicated by me are much further.

                      Air refueling. A-100 (and A-50, A-50U) can hang in the area as long as the crew’s working capacity is enough.

                      So there will be no more than 100 hours left on duty for your hypothetical A-3, which is unforgivably small

                      Hypothetical so far decked AWACS with aircraft carriers. A-100 with refueling in the air can hang as much as needed.
                      Believe me, today we have a deficit of not only AWACS aircraft, but also refueling aircraft

                      1) Deficit and absence are essentially different things.
                      2) Refueling tanker aircraft and building several additional A-100s for the fleet is somewhere an order of magnitude or even two cheaper and easier than developing and building aircraft carriers with carrier-based AWACS and infrastructure for them.
                      Iran is still an ally
                      This is true. But frankly, the water areas indicated by you do not at all coincide with those where it is critically necessary for us to have a CGM. The Barents Sea to cover the Northern Fleet’s strategic nuclear forces and to protect against attacks from the Arctic Ocean. The Okhotsk, Chukchi and Japanese Seas in the Pacific Ocean.
                      1. bayard 8 May 2020 20: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Newone
                        This aircraft is undergoing flight tests. Tests of this technique last for more than one year

                        I’ve heard about him somewhere since 2010, but the army didn’t come from that, and the success of the tests is also silent. They assembled one glider (a mushroom was attached to Beriev Design Bureau) for a long time, but since then - silence.
                        For this - the past time, the entire A-50 fleet could be dragged through modernization. They don’t have any metal fatigue - they were put into service in the mid-late 80s / early 90s, and in the post-Soviet era they flew very little, so the glider’s life there is still with a mountain - it’s boldly enough for 20 years. Refresh avionics, change engines - here you have the A-50U. They would now have in service up to two dozen such sides, which would be enough until the time the A-100 arrived.
                        So it was planned.
                        But - did not grow together. And the reason most likely is the lack of its electronic component base. And the inaccessibility of import after the introduction of sanctions.
                        Therefore, “Premier” does not fly.
                        There will be import substitution, and there will be AWACS aviation.
                        Quote: Newone
                        Air refueling. A-100 (and A-50, A-50U) can hang in the area as long as the crew’s working capacity is enough.

                        Yes, there are neither those nor the other (4-5 pcs. Do not count), nor the third - tankers. And those tankers that are, are assigned to Long-range aviation, and even they are not enough for it.
                        With the launch of the IL-476 series (as IL-76MD90A was called for some time), it was planned to transfer 50 Beriev design bureaus for the construction of the A-100 (50 pieces), 50 sides for retrofitting to tankers, and about 100 sides in the BTA. They planned to build up to 36 aircraft per year. Since 2012 Now they promise to start production from this year (the first aircraft will leave no earlier than the end of the future), the first batch - 8 pcs. (Per year), and by the middle of the decade to reach 18 pcs. in year .
                        How much time will it take to get only bases for future special aircraft?
                        Mystery.
                        So there was an alternative idea to build 50 AWACS aircraft on the basis of not the IL-76MD90A, but on the basis of the Tu-214. True, there is still no clarity, he will have a mushroom on his back, or a flat fin with a double-sided AFAR.
                        So for now, just throwing.
                        Quote: Newone
                        To refuel refueling aircraft and build several additional A-100s for the fleet is somewhere an order of magnitude or even two cheaper and easier than developing and building aircraft carriers with carrier-based AWACS and infrastructure for them.

                        Yes, there would be at least AWACS helicopters with their acidic characteristics, and that’s a help.
                        And the aircraft carriers, if it ever comes to them, will be developed in conjunction with everything that is due - aircraft and carrier-based helicopters, airplanes and / or AWACS helicopters, supply ships and military security ... These are just dreams for the future.
                      2. Newone 8 May 2020 21: 13 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And the reason most likely is the lack of its electronic component base. And the inaccessibility of import after the introduction of sanctions.

                        The import base is now available to us in exactly the same degree as it was (officially not available). Just look at the deadlines for repealing the Jackson-Venik Amendment and the deadlines for introducing new restrictions.
                      3. Newone 8 May 2020 21: 18 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        As for the mass A-50U in the troops, so "Container" showed itself. He closed the problem with radar lighting. Of course, he cannot induce air defense means, but there is a MIG-31 for this.
  • Maks1995 April 28 2020 08: 50 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Good article. Thank.
  • sevtrash April 28 2020 09: 21 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    War is the art of the possible. After World War II, the British kept the fleet that they could economically, and taking into account a completely different enemy and taking into account the fact that their fleet, like all the armed forces, was in the wings of the United States. A completely different enemy appeared, but they solved this problem, the aircraft carriers with the Harriers played one of the main roles, and played well. Since the British made aircraft carriers for themselves already at 70 thousand tons under, again under vertical lines.
  • Cyril G ... April 28 2020 10: 15 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    I object both in principle and in substance.
    - for starters, if you need to solve problems far from your coast, buying from savages, or capturing any acceptable airport will be orders of magnitude cheaper. Along its shores Avinosets meaningless. The states of Kuznetsov will slam easily and naturally in any possible situation. Playing the Ozawa gambit is somehow stupid.
    - 30 years of experience in operating deck aircraft from Kuznetsov clearly shows that it was both expensive and difficult to train deck pilots and for more than a quarter of a century it was not enough for Kuznetsov's air group to become combat-ready. In our situation, doing this is unreasonable. There is an opinion that it is much easier to prepare a pilot for SKViVP (short take-off and vertical landing aircraft). And this is the main and critical factor. Defining our case.
    For us, it will be enough if all goes well 3-4 AVL-UDC, providing basing of the squadron SKViVP ...
    In addition, we must understand that as was the Navy's MA in the "Slender" naval structure than something superfluous and obscene, it remains
    Therefore, the question of the future of aircraft carriers must be approached reasonably. Especially considering that in the case of serious military conflicts for Russia, 1-2 aircraft carriers will not play much of a word.
    1. Alexey RA April 28 2020 12: 55 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      Along its shores Avinosets is meaningless. The states of Kuznetsov will slam easily and naturally in any possible situation. Playing the Ozawa gambit is somehow stupid.

      If we are talking about a big war, then the task of AB is to give half an hour to the life of the SSBN. After that, his task will be completed. And survival in this war is not a priority - anyway, forty-five minutes after the start of the great war, he and everyone else will have nowhere to return.
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      - 30 years of experience in operating deck aircraft from Kuznetsov clearly shows that it was both expensive and difficult to train deck pilots and for more than a quarter of a century it was not enough for Kuznetsov's air group to become combat-ready.

      Have they really been cooked all these quarter centuries? Or did they try to do at least something within the allocated funds and the available technical capabilities? Especially taking into account the technical condition of our only AB, for which every exit from the base is akin to an epic feat.
      We do not have a formidable aircraft carrier, we have a springboard for flying achievements, from time to time giving the course and occasionally providing flights of naval aviation with even more rarely working radio equipment.

      We do not have an aircraft carrier, we have a barge with individual randomly preserved radio-electronic elements that will require tens of millions and many months to recover, and we represent the division commander to the admiral, and the commander of the ship breaks into the General Staff Academy instead of procuring rusks.
      © attributed to Vice Admiral Radzevsky
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      There is an opinion that it is much easier to prepare a pilot for SKViVP (short take-off and vertical landing aircraft).

      Seriously? That is, for a pilot doing the same thing as on a regular airplane (including a short take-off from the springboard, and a normal landing with the aerofinisher), and in addition to this, it is also necessary to perform vertical take-off and landing, is it easier to prepare? belay
      I’m not talking about the fact that we do not have SECS. There are developments thirty years ago made by retired designers based on long-outdated systems and materials produced in currently non-existent factories.
      1. Cyril G ... April 28 2020 13: 10 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        Gene Radzevsky was incredibly cool.
        But I didn’t come up with the pilots. I read the tester somewhere. It is necessary by the way to remember exactly where.
        If we are talking about a big war, then the task of AB is to give half an hour to the life of the SSBN.

        Why is the SSBN half an hour, and what can AB do here? Cosplay Ozawa in December 1944? Ozawa and even though the reasons were to do so.
        Well and most importantly with regard to the training of decks.
        https://shoehanger.livejournal.com/685404.html
        I know the truth how much truth is there. But the result of the application of the Su-33 and MiG-29K in Syria is more than eloquent.
        1. Alexey RA April 28 2020 16: 12 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Why half-hour SSBN

          In order to get a start order and execute it.
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          and what can AB do here? Cosplay Ozawa in December 1944?

          Nope, cosplay the fighter aviation airfield on the right flank of the "bastion" of the SF. In those parts where the reserve from the nearest coastal airfield flies only to hat analysis - when the on-duty group of fighters has already been shot down, the naval group has already met with "harpoons", and the enemy’s strikers have already wiped out.
          1. Cyril G ... April 28 2020 21: 31 New
            • 1
            • 4
            -3
            Our aircraft carrier in any situation slam like an annoying fly. Easy and not forced. So what's the point?

            In order to get a start order and execute it.

            You know this already is the level of spells .. Having received an order from the SSBN, it is able to shoot from anywhere, immediately after the emergency preparations for the battle and the campaign are over. So what's the point?
            1. Alexey RA April 29 2020 12: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              You know this already is the level of spells .. Having received an order from the SSBN, it is able to shoot from anywhere, immediately after the emergency preparations for the battle and the campaign are over. So what's the point?

              The point is that by the time the order to launch is issued (and this is not an instant process - starting with the detection and confirmation of the reliability of the enemy’s BR launches) it would be someone to execute. To launch, the SSBN in the position area must survive.
              And about the "shoot at any point" ... if you lay on the launch from the base, then you can immediately forget about the SSBN. Because there are very good chances that the SSBNs that did not go to sea during the threatened period will be covered with the base (medium and short range ballistic missiles, short range ballistic missiles, short-range ballistic missile systems) - and this will begin a big war.
              And in general, if we were going to not release the SSBNs at sea and shoot from the base, then why do we need them at all? For the same money, it’s better to buy a PGRK - they have higher combat stability than the RPKSN in the database. Especially considering the fact that the PGRK bases are much further from the border than the naval base of the SSBN.
              1. Cyril G ... April 29 2020 20: 34 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                So I agree with you, with that organization, that bish mess that takes place to be in the Navy SNF is simply a window of vulnerability and an absorber of dough ..... Because IAD is on its last legs, there are no effective mine action weapons. Fleet aviation is simply a diverse set of aircraft. There are exactly 22 modern IFIs, I'm talking about the Su-30SM and another 22 decked MiGs. What the aircraft carrier can help here is unknown to me. For a quarter century to this day, we have not had a properly trained air group. Conclusion - AB for the leadership of the Russian Navy Chemondan without a handle.
      2. Avior April 28 2020 15: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Another takeoff from the springboard and landing not at the finish line, there is a completely different technique, with a low landing speed
        1. Alexey RA April 28 2020 16: 30 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Avior
          Springboard take-off other

          Judging by the video from Queen Elizabeth, the take-off from the springboard there is in many ways similar to a conventional aircraft - the nozzle at the entrance to the springboard is deployed along the axis of the aircraft and turns down only before the car leaves.
          Quote: Avior
          and landing is not at the finish line, there is a completely different technique, with low landing speed

          Yes, here you are right - the F-35B landing on the deck is akin to a helicopter.
          However, the usual landing of pilots also needs to be taught - when landing on a coastal airfield, to save fuel.
          1. Avior April 28 2020 17: 00 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            There are still nuances
            Ordinary aircraft need to take off at sufficient speed to take off, so that the wing provides sufficient lift, and the slightest shortage of speed threatens to stall.
            SVVP is not necessary, during take-off additional lift is provided by the fan and the deviation of the engine thrust vector, transferring the engine power from acceleration to lift mode, really, in a certain average position determined by the computer
            First, the nozzle stands straight, providing the maximum possible acceleration, deviates before separation and at the same time the coupling connects a lifting fan
            After separation, as the acceleration accelerates, the engine nozzle gradually deviates into a horizontal position
            In practice, this means more you have accelerated, less, anyway, the lifting force is provided, that is, stability and safety of take-off are ensured.
            With a vertical landing, they have full automation - they sit on the video like a carbon copy, this simplifies the process, of course.
            There is also a landing mode with slippage when the horizontal speed is lower than the stall speed, and the lack of wing lift at low speed is again automatically compensated by turning the nozzle and connecting the fan.
            I don’t know the landing speed with slippage at f35, I read that Harriers could land like that up to a speed of 90 km per hour
            As you know, to sit at a speed of 90 is much easier than at a speed of 200.
            1. Alexey RA April 28 2020 19: 51 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Avior
              SVVP is not necessary, during take-off additional lift is provided by the fan and the deviation of the engine thrust vector, transferring the engine power from acceleration to lift mode, really, in a certain average position determined by the computer

              I am in the know - “Ship planes” Pavlenko are standing on a shelf. smile
              He has a short take-off (for the Harirer) well illustrated - with polygons of power when taking off from a straight deck and springboard and with a section for compensating for the lack of lift due to a change in the thrust vector. And given the options for the trajectory during normal operation and in case of failure of the nozzle rotation system.
              This rotation system is annoying. In a classic airplane, the main thing is to gain the speed you need for your take-off mass. And at SKVVP it is necessary not only to gain speed, but also to hope for the normal operation of the system, working in fairly intense conditions of temperature.
              However, maybe my suspiciousness is connected with the transfer to the “Penguin” of not the best statistics on the domestic “Yak - on the shmyak deck”.
              1. Avior April 28 2020 20: 35 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                F-35 has only two key assemblies — a coupling that connects the engine to a lifting fan and a deflectable nozzle.
                both nodes, I understand there, are reliable, the raid is already decent, but there are no problems on this part.
                Harrier has four nozzles, but two of them drive air, only the rear ones are hot. And there is no afterburner
                In a classic airplane, the main thing is to gain the speed you need for your take-off mass.

                at a conventional aerodrome, this is decided by the choice of decision speed. not scored on time, brakes.
                but it won’t come out of the deck like that. and just in this case, the maximum load on the engines - you have to quickly pick up speed, afterburner to full speed, and this situation did not pick up, it's too late to slow down.
                If the catapult takes over part of the acceleration, this significantly removes the load from the engines and gives a guarantee.
                And without it, how will it go.
                1. maximghost 3 May 2020 10: 01 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  If the catapult takes over part of the acceleration, this significantly removes the load from the engines and gives a guarantee.

                  In general, take-off from a catapult is carried out by bringing engines to the afterburner. So that it does not remove part of the load.
              2. maximghost 3 May 2020 02: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                However, maybe my suspiciousness is connected with the transfer to the “Penguin” of not the best statistics on the domestic “Yak - on the shmyak deck”.

                In fact, these statistics greatly spoil the opinion of VTOL in general. In fact, the semi-experimental aircraft, which was originally being prepared for the replacement, was brought to the end of operation, and the prepared replacement almost managed to collapse the country for which it was built. Plus, the dislike of the sailors laid claim to it - due to the fact that for them the planes were an additional haemorrhoids, and pilots who were not given classes because of the small raid, which was such, including due to the fact that the number of sorties was reduced as they could.
            2. EvilLion April 29 2020 12: 02 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Yak-38 EMNIP also knew how to such a game. And the auto-catapult, because on it, unlike the "harriers," they still survived.
          2. Avior April 28 2020 17: 59 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1

            take-off landing f-35
            when landing, the exact same procedure
            you can see the deviation of the nozzle during take-off, about which you wrote
  • pmkemcity April 28 2020 10: 40 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    They won despite their military equipment, and not thanks to it.

    Lucky the strongest. And then the British sucked it all in for a lot of money.
  • Doccor18 April 28 2020 11: 17 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    The only problem for aircraft carriers, in my opinion, is their technical and financial UNIQUENESS. They are extremely complex and extremely expensive. Whoever said anything, but any admiral would feel confident if his squadron included a full-fledged aircraft carrier with 3-5 squadrons on board. An aircraft carrier is a very strong rival for any ship. And only one problem holds back their mass construction - the same complexity and high cost. Comrade Timokhin and many others are right in the fact that a full-fledged aircraft carrier devotes any “aircraft carrier half measures” with VTOL aircraft, ski jumps, AWACS helicopters, etc. And Russia must have long decided on its status on the world stage. If we are a SuperPower, then we just need to have full-fledged nuclear carriers in the Navy.
    And it's not about finances. We simply must have them. And if we are just a country with a large area, then of course, we will manage the frigates of the far sea zone. We can’t fight the giants .......
    1. Cyril G ... April 28 2020 14: 52 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      The main problem of aircraft carriers in Russia is that they don’t even need the navy “hitch”, they do not see the coastal navy aviation at point blank range. There are many problems, unusual, difficult.

      And as one worthy representative of the admiral tribe said to the OKVS officers 15 years ago, what are you going to seriously fight. So forget about aircraft carriers. A ship is senseless and unnecessary for us.
      First arrange admirals cleaning, up to and including capreza it is necessary to educate personnel, then aircraft carriers should be built
      1. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 36 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        The logical contradiction is the problem in the admirals, but you need to forget about the aircraft carrier.
        1. Cyril G ... April 28 2020 21: 23 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          You didn’t understand anything after the Syrian campaign.
          And there is no contradiction here. With the current fleet command, we can build a piece of iron, only it won’t be from the word at all. So as you clean up the maritime department, grow new personnel, and come with aircraft carrier plans. And before that, these are all meaningless and useless "Prisons of the Peoples"
          1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 52 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Replacing the command is a matter of five years with a competent approach.
            And this is another question, not the one discussed here.
            1. Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 13: 03 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              This is very closely interconnected and in this case flies cannot be separated from cutlets.
  • iouris April 28 2020 11: 27 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Or it may be strange that Britain has both overseas territories in the South Atlantic and military doctrine.
  • Lavrenty1937 April 28 2020 12: 12 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    How many aircraft carriers should be in the Navy? Given that two general battles are to take place: in the north-east of the Atlantic and in the north-west of the Pacific Ocean, there should be at least two of them. However, at least two groups will be created on each naval theater of operations (respectively, with the participation of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet): 1. To defeat the ship (aircraft carrier) group of the likely enemy. 2. For the protection (defense) of naval strategic nuclear forces - strategic missile submarines (SSBNs). The first grouping should include missile-carrying aviation (long-range, strategic) and nuclear-powered submarines with anti-ship missiles for strikes at the AUG. To increase its stability (protection from enemy weapons - mainly from aircraft), an aircraft-carrying ship (AK) should be allocated to it. Desirable aircraft carrier. The second group (to protect the SSBN) should include anti-submarine ships, aircraft, non-nuclear and nuclear submarines. To increase resistance to nuclear weapons and enemy aircraft, AK should be included in it. This may be an AB, a helicopter carrier, UDC with powerful anti-submarine weapons and fighter aircraft. So, in the Navy there should be two AKs with mainly fighter carrier-based aircraft and two AKs mainly with anti-submarine aircraft, as well as fighters.
    Now we have one AB - Admiral Kuznetsov. The new AB will begin to build at best in the late 20s. Finish somewhere by 2040. Kuznetsov by this time should be written off. The construction of three more ABs will take another 25 years (by 2065). And how (what) will all these 45 years ensure the stability of the four anti-aircraft groups and the SSBNs? Obviously, helicopter carriers with SCVVP, helicopters anti-submarine AWACS and U. But no one is thinking of building helicopter carriers. But the other day they should lay UDC, and then the second. In the late 20s will go into operation. Depending on the situation in peacetime and wartime, they can be used for landing (air-defense missile systems and combat-transport helicopters) or to increase the stability of groups: anti-aircraft or RPKSN defense (air defense, anti-submarine helicopters). Definitely: it’s better to wait 45 years for the construction of AB and simultaneously build any helicopter carriers (UDC) than just wait for 45 years for the construction of AB and during this time lose the war.
    1. bk0010 April 28 2020 13: 30 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Lavrenty1937
      Given that two general battles are to take place: in the north-east of the Atlantic and in the north-west of the Pacific Ocean, there should be at least two of them.
      In order for one aircraft carrier to be at sea at a random moment in time, the country must have at least six of them. Aircraft carrier - a large ship requiring repair, the amers have a 33-month cycle of aircraft carrier service, of which only 6 months at sea, the rest of the time at the pier, in various degrees of readiness. That is, in your opinion, we need 12 aircraft carriers (well, or the Americans are not starting a war, but we, then two are enough). But the main question: where did you get the idea that there will be some kind of general battle, where will an aircraft carrier be needed?
      1. Lavrenty1937 April 28 2020 14: 51 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Quote: bk0010
        But the main question: where did you get the idea that there will be some kind of general battle, where will an aircraft carrier be needed?

        In the war of the states having a fleet there must be naval battles. In the U.S. Navy, the main ship group is the AUG. And if they fight with someone at sea, then only with their use. General battles take place where the outcome of the war at sea will be decided. Well, if not in the north-east of the Atlantic and the Far East, then, obviously, general battles should unfold only in the remaining coastal and inland seas: the Baltic, Black, Azov and Caspian. There is where to turn around 20 AUG.
        1. bk0010 April 28 2020 15: 46 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          I do not see fleets that could "generally fight" (such as Jutland) with the US fleet. Even the Chinese fleet is not yet mature. These states will try to impose a general battle, so that then they will reign supreme at sea, albeit with lesser forces. The rest will need to "torment" their formations and individual ships (if they become so impudent that they will run one by one) with blows where they managed to gain an advantage in forces (something like a joint strike of coastal defense and aviation means, which will fly up about 10 minutes later after the passage of the last shock wave and impedes the struggle for survivability) or to ensure their surprise (for example, a missile strike from an undetected nuclear submarine on the AUG). Fortunately, there are means for delivering really heavy blows.
    2. FIR FIR April 28 2020 14: 44 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Eka You have enough, 45 years!
      During this time, swarms of shock UAVs will appear and greatly change the whole nature of the war.
      Or maybe they will come up with something else ...
      It was necessary to build aircraft carriers 19 years ago. And to this day, okromya Kuznetsova,
      would have 2 more new ships, albeit not like the Ford, albeit 50 thousand tons, but new.
      And by the year 35, a couple more would have been easily built. Already four. Two in each SF and Pacific Fleet.
      And all this is not fiction, but a reality that would have been if management needed
      BATTLE Navy. But they do not need him. 30 years marking time.
      Although, for me, the Russian Navy needs 6 aircraft carriers like that. 3 for each ocean fleet.
      1. bayard April 29 2020 09: 26 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        But why did you get the idea that aircraft carriers can only be built sequentially, with the laying of the next after the delivery of the previous? Nobody in the world has thought of such stupidity.
        A power builds a fleet if it has the means (material and technical) and the need for it.
        Let's say there is money, there is a need too ... let's just say that the Russian leadership makes such a decision and allocates enough funds for this. For this we need a shipyard. In a convenient location for logistics and with the necessary infrastructure. At the moment, it is ONLY the Gulf Shipyard in the city of Kerch, where there is a 400 m dock. Huge supertankers, rollers and lighter carriers were built before ... even one atomic one.
        What is needed for that ?
        Money, plan, competent leadership.
        For the buildup of this enterprise, he needs less complicated orders, let’s say so - warm-ups, for the return / acquisition of newly necessary competencies.
        A series of UDK VI 25 000 - 28 000 tons. Will be quite suitable. Moreover, there is the possibility of the simultaneous construction of several such ships at once on the slipways (for the start of 2). After launching one of them, it is transferred to the completion wall, where it continues to be completed afloat, and the next ship is laid on the vacant slipway. According to the work schedule, docking is carried out with completion in the dock.
        It is just as possible to carry out work (and so they are carried out everywhere) and with the construction of the AB series ... let's say not nuclear, but on gas turbines, of medium displacement (45 - 000 tons), under the wing of 50 fighters, 000 - 24 AWACS aircraft and a squadron (up to 2 pcs.) Of helicopter submarines.
        Building on a stream is much faster and cheaper - fewer downtime, teams of specialized specialists move from hull to hull as the work is done, cooperation suppliers have large orders for similar products and a clear delivery schedule (these are not piece products for a single unique ship). So you can get a new ship every 2 to 3 years, albeit with a construction cycle of 7 to 10 years (but medium-sized aircraft carriers in the GTA will be built faster than nuclear ones). And this pace - without much overstrain and rut.
  • Demagogue April 28 2020 13: 23 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Alexander is cunning, of course. What is the point of considering the efficiency of Harriers in the Falkland now, when there is f-35? A lot more efficient aircraft. Secretive, with powerful radar, capable of essentially playing the role of a drlo plane. And the financial aspect is not affected at all. In addition, we cannot have less than 2 aircraft carriers on a TVD, since one of the two will be under repair. We will not pull 4 large aircraft carriers. And 4 small under the vertical yes. And 4 aircraft carriers (actually 2) in the last battle of Armageddon with the Americans, all one is not enough. And for the local crush and vertical bars enough.
    1. Looking for April 28 2020 14: 46 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Yes, you fully correspond to your nickname.
    2. Cyril G ... April 28 2020 14: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In general, the correct point of view.
    3. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 35 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      What is the point of considering the efficiency of Harriers in the Falkland now, when there is f-35? A lot more efficient aircraft.


      The question is that its “vertical” version will in any case be inferior to normal fifth-generation aircraft at about the same technical level, and from the point of view, also with its own F-35s with horizontal take-off and landing.
      I will raise this topic in the following parts.
      1. EvilLion April 29 2020 11: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And what to raise? Normal F-35 carry 2 bombs of 901 kg, invalid F-35B only 454 kg.
  • Lavrenty1937 April 28 2020 14: 23 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    If we act symmetrically with the actions of the US Navy - to increase the number of ABs - we will be left without pants. We must act asymmetrically - not to increase the number of ABs to 10 American (more than 20 in NATO, taking into account the withdrawal from the reserve), but to stop at 2-4. But even these 2-4 ABs will be defeated in direct confrontation with the NATO Navy's AB. Therefore, the destruction of NATO AUGs should not be our ABs, but missile-carrying aircraft and nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles with a launch range of more than 1000 km. But our AB, being at a distance of 1500-1600 km from the enemy’s AB (in relative safety and possibly under the umbrella of the Air Defense Division) should ensure the safety of our strike nuclear submarines and missile-carrying aircraft located 1000 or more km from the enemy’s ASG from attacks by its aircraft. Such actions can occur, for example, in the Norwegian Sea. At this time, our SSBNs will be located in the eastern part of the Barents Sea and the western part of the Cape, that is, for several thousand kilometers from the enemy. And so the stability of anti-submarine forces in the defense of the SSBN can be carried out by a helicopter carrier or UDC with a dozen anti-submarine helicopters and a dozen SSKVVP. A similar situation may arise in the Far East. I repeat, the AB and the helicopter carrier (UDC) do not fight the enemy’s AAG, but ensure the stability of the anti-aircraft group and the SSBN (from defense)
    1. bk0010 April 28 2020 15: 59 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      with anti-ship missiles with a launch range of more than 1000 km.
      Launch range where? How to solve the issue of reconnaissance and target designation? The AUG has an air group working for this, we once had Tu-95RTs, but they seem to have already been written off. About Mustache Legends is better not to remember. How long will missiles fly per 1000 kilometers? More than an hour (in super sound only very large missiles can fly so far, there are none). Why the ships from there in this hour do not sail away? If we have the means to detect groups of ships at large distances, we will need to return to anti-ship ballistic missile projects and hrenchat them along the AHG from somewhere near Ryazan or Irkutsk.
      1. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 33 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        If we have the means to detect groups of ships at large distances, we will need to return to anti-ship ballistic missile projects and hrenchat them along the AHG from somewhere near Ryazan or Irkutsk.


        Ballistic targets are either intercepted or fly in such a dense cloud of plasma that excludes homing on the target.
        A waste of effort, time and money.
        1. bk0010 April 28 2020 21: 06 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But what about Pershing? They completely carried out additional exploration. And Radag is a technology from the 70s. Yes, and we had ballistic anti-ship missiles made (https://topwar.ru/36200-protivokorabelnye-ballisticheskie-rakety-dalnego-deystviya.html), but because of the agreements we decided that a strategic missile was more useful than an anti-ship one.
          1. timokhin-aa April 29 2020 09: 51 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            In Pershing-2, the head part was slowed to M = 2 in order to circumvent these effects.
            Now this is a guaranteed defeat for such a goal.
            1. bk0010 April 29 2020 12: 03 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It’s just that the war block is getting complicated. As an option, the separation of warheads into a guidance unit and a lesion unit. The guidance unit is slowed down even to 0, at a high altitude it performs additional reconnaissance (because of which false targets are senseless for it, it will give out radiation) and gives a correction to the combat unit. There will not be much plasma behind the warhead, but you can also duplicate the radio channel with optics (the warhead remembers where it broke up with the guidance block and will figure out where to look about). As long as the enemy’s missile reaches the guidance unit (80 kilometers only in height), a correction will already be issued, even if it knocks down. If the enemy still manages to intercept, then equip the guidance unit with a small interceptor missile (there is a radar, the target itself is approaching).
              1. timokhin-aa 1 May 2020 21: 31 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                As an option, the separation of warheads into a guidance unit and a lesion unit.


                Very interesting you think, I tell you ...
        2. Cyril G ... April 28 2020 21: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is certainly not the case. Guidance has a chance to provide. And therefore, the PKBR is in fact the right decision. As an element of the anti-avian operation of the forces of the CC group.
          And by the way, I came across an “absolutely peaceful” solution to the problem of communication with SA in a plasma cocoon. So PKBR is an objectively solved problem, unlike the aircraft carrier ala Rus.
          1. timokhin-aa April 29 2020 09: 52 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This is certainly not the case. Guidance has a chance to provide. And therefore, the PKBR is in fact the right decision.


            The enemy will just need a new rocket in the MK41 and that’s all, this will depreciate investments in mega-projects like "R-27 of the 21st Century".

            In addition, the tasks of an aircraft carrier to attacks on ships are not reduced once.
            1. Cyril G ... April 29 2020 11: 59 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Just ???? !!!!
              Abaldet. Yes, and at the same time a new UVP for a different size yes? In short, the solution to the problem will cost the mini many times more expensive, if not an order of magnitude.
              1. timokhin-aa 1 May 2020 21: 30 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                No, the energy of the real SM-3 shows that the right rocket can be entered into Mk.41
                1. Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 00: 36 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Will not work. We need a new UVP.
                  1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Missiles from the existing one are hit by satellites in low Earth orbit, ballistic missiles in the autonomous region and ballistic blocks in a decrease. Why a new UVP?
                    1. Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 12: 31 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Incorrect interpretation. They really can hope that they can hit the BMD. Mustache. Essentially, in this size, missiles are simply ineffective. The idea that a missile defense system needs a different size and not mine at all, but theirs.
                      1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The fact is that the ballistic target can be intercepted on the existing technological base.

                        But how to ensure reliable guidance of the warhead on a small boat?
                      2. Cyril G ... 2 May 2020 12: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I didn’t read long ago what appears in the plasma cocoon. There are windows of radio transparency in the microwave range. This was in the context of communicating with the lander. but we know how to use it.
                      3. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 13: 03 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This has long been known, but the question is in the notorious Kilobits / sec.
                        How much will such a communication channel miss?
      2. bayard April 29 2020 10: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        So PKBR is an objectively solved problem, unlike the aircraft carrier ala Rus.

        And how much time will it take to create it?
        How much will it cost, along with its infrastructure?
        And the tool is almost ready. Moreover, with no less flying speed and not an example of a more convenient way of basing - Zircon air-based. If you place it on, say, a Su-34 specialized marine version, then the radius of the target’s destruction, from the base point, will be at least 2000 - 2500 km. , and taking into account refueling in the air - and even more.
        The creation of naval anti-ship missile-carrying aircraft based on the Su-34 is a very convenient, affordable and not very expensive way to solve many problems. And most importantly - it is much faster than building a sufficient number of ships - carriers of anti-ship missiles.
        Even a fleet of 120 such aircraft (at the rate of a modern aviation regiment of 24 aircraft, these are 5 regiments of missile-carrying aviation) is capable of drastically improving the position of Russia in the matter of the security of its sea borders.
        - two regiments in the Pacific Fleet (Primorye, Kamchatka),
        - regiment in the SF,
        - regiment at the Black Sea Fleet,
        - regiment in the Baltic.
        And if you expand the fleet of marine missile aircraft to 240 Su-34MR units (marine missile carrier), you can deploy some of them at our overseas bases (Syria, the Suez Canal district in Egypt, Venezuela) and have some reserve for emergency amplification of any direction in case of threat.
        Moreover, this would be a very budgetary solution to the issue. For Tu-22M3 is much more expensive, there are few of them, and as a carrier of Zircons it will not pull more than 2 (due to the limitation of landing characteristics). In addition, half of the available Tu-22M3 will be carriers of 2 X-32 each, and only the second half of them - also 30 boards, can be upgraded to Zircon carriers, which is of course extremely insufficient.
        In speed and flight time to the target, the Zircon will not be inferior to any medium-range ballistic missile, but in price and ease of use, it is much more interesting. yes
        1. Cyril G ... April 29 2020 12: 07 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          -And how much time will it take to create it?

          The rocket is already there. It is necessary to her a new head part with GOS.

          - How much will it cost, along with its infrastructure?

          The infrastructure is already there

          - And the remedy is almost ready.

          Do you know what Zircon is? I dont know.

          Regarding the need to strengthen the MA, the Su-34 agrees. But this will not happen. Admirals MA ignore.
          1. bayard April 29 2020 13: 42 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            Do you know what Zircon is? I dont know.

            Surprisingly, if you do not know about Zircon, then what do you know that it is?
            Couldn't it be about Ash-tree ICBMs?
            Or "Mace"?
            Are you seriously ?
            About them ?
            But this is an ICBM !!!
            Well, not because of the Urals, do you want to shoot at the Black Sea?
            Or to the Sea of ​​Japan?
            The Chinese have a similar missile made on the basis of the BRRS and has a range of 2000 km.
            We have a dagger at that range. yes
            And most likely there will be a Zircon on Tu-22M3 suspensions, in any case, such tests have already been carried out. And the range at Zircon air-based is slightly higher than at ground / surface launch - up to 1500 km. It was about this rocket that I spoke.
            I know what the Zircon is. I also know about the Cold program (it was closed by Gorbachev after the first practical launch of the prototype, and the materials on which the Americans took out and tried to implement the X-51 hypersonic missile in their program ... unsuccessfully). This is not a fake and not a cartoon, but a very real practical ammunition in several variants of basing. I even know the principle of cooling the sock.

            And your proposal is similar to the request of one of the USSR defense ministers to Academician Utkin to adapt it for attacking the AOG with target designation from the Legend satellites, its missiles ... He really intended to boil the oceans while working on the areas with powerful nuclear warheads, since from the moment the AUG was discovered by a satellite, until the moment of approaching the goal, the information was very outdated ...
            Even the USSR abandoned such an undertaking. request
            Today we already have enough tools (weapons) to destroy the AUG. And the “Zircon” is only one of them, and even that is not yet in service. For existing carriers, the X-32 with the Dagger is enough.
            For Zircon, carriers can be Tu-160, Tu-22M3M (after modernization), as well as tactical aircraft - Su-30 or Su-34 (the latter is preferable for a number of reasons).
            But there is no reaction from the admirals and the Moscow Region for another reason - naval aviation is only now being revived and there are stupidly lacking pilots, as in the whole of the Aerospace Forces, personnel shortage is the scourge of aviation, and not only marine.
            1. Cyril G ... April 29 2020 16: 09 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Surprisingly, if you do not know about Zircon, then what do you know that it is?

              Many beech. And nothing to the point.
              I heard that there is supposedly Zircon.
              I repeat the question do you know what it is. What is the start-up, marching speed, speed at the target, warhead weight, what gos, what engine.
              I suppose you don’t know. So the point is to continue.
              An anti-ship ballistic missile was developed in the USSR in the 70s, on the basis of the R-27 ICBM. It was named R-27K. And you did not know yes?
              1. bayard April 29 2020 23: 27 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Cyril. smile Are you serious ?
                Where have you read this?
                The R-27K missile WASN’t adopted in the mid-70s !!! And had a range of TOTAL 800 - 900 km.
                TOTAL !
                The same "Dagger" has a range of 2000 km. And this is without refueling.
                And the X-32 range, even after starting from the carrier, is MORE than your counterpart.
                It is not just not there, it has never been in service with the Soviet Navy.
                I mentioned to you an attempt to make an anti-aircraft version of the Voivode rocket. Using up to 10 (!!!) warheads with a capacity of 750 kt.
                And they also refused it. For anti-ship missiles of a heavy class, ship and air-based proved to be sufficiently effective at that time.
                Now, too, there are such missiles. These are Onyx, Volcano, Granite, Basalt, X-22, X-32 and Dagger. This is a much more flexible and practical weapon.
                Do not fly in the clouds and tales of the past. The present is much more interesting.
                Zircon is a real rocket that has a very long history. Work on this particular version of hypersonic RCC has been going on since zero years. Now its refinement is ending. Mainly by launch modes and optimization of flight modes. Under it are built warships - surface and underwater. But besides her there were safety options that are already in service with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. It's about the same "Dagger" and the X-32.
                The missile you indicated was NEVER in service with the USSR Navy, there were only prototypes that WERE NOT accepted.
                LONG TIME!
                In the mid 70's.
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                I repeat the question do you know what it is. What is the start-up, marching speed, speed at the target, warhead weight, what gos, what engine.

                Enough open data for you. They are known and published - take an interest, everything is in the public domain. Speed ​​from 7M to 9M, tests were at different speed modes in order to optimize speed mode and flight altitude. When attacking a target, hypersonic speed is maintained and even increases in diving. You should not know more. In a year or two, it will go into service, and the carriers for it are already ready. And there are a lot of them.
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                Many beech.

                Do you have problems with grammar, Cyril?
                Or is Russian not native?
                Get a normal education, graduate from high school and university, work in production or serve on this profile ... and it will be easier for you to understand the letters.
                1. Cyril G ... April 29 2020 23: 50 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Get a normal education,


                  You obviously didn’t receive it. Once in a case, write

                  Enough open data for you. They are known and published - take an interest, everything is in the public domain. Speed ​​from 7M to 9M, tests were at different speed modes in order to optimize


                  Then it's bullshit. And then I will consider it bullshit.

                  The missile you indicated was NEVER in service with the USSR Navy, there were only prototypes that WERE NOT accepted.
                  LONG TIME!


                  Big letters say a sign of tantrum? I wrote somewhere that it was adopted, even I don’t understand! Further, what is the problem with range? This is the end of the 60s. Do you now also think that the range of the PKRB will be 900 km? Well, get acquainted with the performance characteristics of Pershing of the 80s, and the Chinese anti-ship Dongfeng or something.

                  By the way, why did you decide that the dagger anti-ship missile, let me ask?

                  For anti-ship missiles of a heavy class, ship and air-based proved to be sufficiently effective at that time.


                  And so the enemy was able to quickly parry them with Tomket, and then Aegis appeared. And therefore, it was possible to break through the AUG defense only with a massive salvo of anti-ship missiles. And only MRA was capable of such a thing, with the issuance of the Central Administration for PAD 949 project boats, there were big system problems.

                  But to fight ballistic missiles today is, to say the least, a big problem.
                  1. bayard April 30 2020 02: 51 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    You obviously didn’t receive it. Once in a case, write

                    I, Kiril, received a good Soviet education, including a higher military education, and served at a fairly large command post as an officer in combat control. I hope the word RIC says something to you.
                    Phrase
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Many beech.

                    indicates both the level of education and the mentality. So don’t mess up. request
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Then it's bullshit. And then I will consider it bullshit.

                    If the report of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief on this topic indicating a number of characteristics is not enough for you (and as a rule they don’t lie at this level - the price is too high), then stay with your bullshit. And I have enough conversation with some involved.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    I wrote somewhere that it was adopted

                    You, Cyril, wrote that "there is such a rocket."
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Chet I do not understand!

                    But this is evidence: age, education, upbringing. yes
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Further, what is the problem with range? This is the end of the 60s. Do you now also think that the range of the PKRB will be 900 km?

                    I know well about this project, but it was closed.
                    There is no such missile.
                    And there wasn’t. In service.
                    And about range capabilities, I also pointed out to you in the example with the Voyevoda version of the missile as an anti-ship long range (up to 13 km.), Which Utkin asked to create. And such studies were carried out, but later refused. This was already in the 000s. I personally knew many of the leading employees of the KB Yuzhnoye and Yuzhmash (as well as the Pavlograd Mechanical Plant), there were many interesting programs.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Well check out the performance characteristics of Pershing's 80s

                    I remember the beginning of their deployment in Europe.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    and the Chinese anti-ship Dongfeng

                    I am familiar with Dongfeng. The Chinese do not have anti-submarine missile-carrying aircraft of adequate quality, which is why they resorted to the experience of Soviet developments. A lot of specialists from the former USSR left there and helped. But the effectiveness of these missiles on real ships traveling and maneuvering at a speed of 30 knots has not yet been proved in practice. Only on landfill.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    By the way, why did you decide that the dagger anti-ship missile, let me ask?

                    This is a universal missile, but its main specialization is marine moving targets. You can argue, you can not believe it - your right.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...

                    For anti-ship missiles of a heavy class, ship and air-based proved to be sufficiently effective at that time.


                    And so the enemy was able to quickly parry them with Tomket, and then Aegis appeared

                    These missiles appeared earlier than the Tomket, especially since the combat readiness of the Phoenix missiles, even in the late 80s, was not achieved. This information is not from periodicals, but from reconnaissance bulletins, which I then regularly read. So do not overestimate them.
                    In addition, in war conditions, these (our heavy anti-ship missiles) should have been used not only in large numbers, but also according to a certain algorithm, when one missile with nuclear warhead was ahead and was detonated at the turn of the expected interception. The next one is already closer to the AUG. And the rest of the deaf and blinded ships were already working out in their own way. What will happen to the enemy’s interceptors under the influence of electromagnetic radiation, I hope it’s not necessary to clarify - they should have been the first victims of this raid. Yes, and these (our) missiles were not so simple - they had their own means of electronic warfare and suppression.
                    And Aegis appeared later, at the turn of the epochs, just before the collapse of the USSR.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    with the issuance of the TSU to the PAD 949 project boats, there were big system problems.

                    There were problems, they were solved ... yes, most of these same 949 project boats were still on the slipways - at the time of the collapse of the Union. By their entry into operation, no systemic problems would have been in sight.
                    Target designation is given not only by naval reconnaissance satellites of various types, but also naval reconnaissance aircraft, direct tracking ships, MAPL, which landed on the tail of the AUG and accompanied them for a long time.
                    Combat control is a complicated thing, but specially trained people knew how and could. I hope now they have not forgotten how.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...

                    But to fight ballistic missiles today is, to say the least, a big problem.

                    But what about your favorite Aegis?
                    Isn't he omnipotent?
                    Just kidding.
                    Russia does not have medium-range ballistic missiles (as China did not have an agreement with), but there is a “Dagger” that replaces both long-range ballistic missiles and anti-ship missiles. Maybe it can be in a special version.
                    The promising "Zircon" is also good because it is convenient in basing and application. It can be part of naval armaments (both surface and submarine), as part of an anti-ship coastal missile system, as part of the Iskander brigades of the Ground Forces, and on suspensions of both Strategic Aviation and Naval Missile Aviation. This is a very promising product, universal in application and basing.
                    But while the tests continue.
                    And we will hear about their progress - this year several times.
                  2. Cyril G ... April 30 2020 09: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    indicates both the level of education and the mentality. So don’t mess up.

                    .............
                    You, Cyril, wrote that "there is such a rocket."

                    I said development was underway. The fact that I am instructed by a person who made three right there !!! Grammar mistakes right funny. In the word crazy, and in the name of Cyril. There are two L, not one.

                    Do not blame (blame) - Ustar. In speech etiquette: please do not blame; sorry for anything unforeseen, lost. Do not blame, do not blame, cover our stupidity with your affectionate mercy (Melnikov Pechersky. On the mountains). Sit down, Micah Zotych, the hostess invited. Not…


                    Naval Missile Aviation.


                    MRA has long been gone.

                    Target designation is given not only by naval reconnaissance satellites of various types, but also naval reconnaissance aircraft, direct tracking ships, MAPL, which landed on the tail of the AUG and accompanied them for a long time.

                    We have a systemic problem with reconnaissance at sea.

                    There were problems, they were solved ... yes, most of these same 949 project boats were still on the slipways - at the time of the collapse of the Union. By their entry into operation, no systemic problems would have been in sight.


                    This is not so, you simply do not know, but you tried to work out in the period from 1987 to 1994. And not a large part, after the disaster, 5 boats went into operation, before it 7. (2 949 ave., 5 949A) ... So there was something to check the theory with. It didn’t work out very well.

                    And Aegis appeared later, at the turn of the eras, just before the collapse of the USSR


                    You are wrong again. The first Tika went into operation in 1981, the First Tika with UVP in 1985. This is not a synonym for "just before the collapse."

                    You can argue, you can not believe - your right.

                    I do not argue, I argue, this is not for the MC, it is a replacement for the infantry fighting system for stationary purposes in Europe. To work on the MC, ARGSN is needed. With this, Iskander is bad. From the word in general. However, I am ready to change my TZ if you talk about practical shooting at the MC with a hit on the target ship.

                    The Chinese do not have proper anti-submarine missile-carrying aircraft,

                    Now you actually wanted to say something.

                    especially since the combat readiness of the Phoenix missiles, even in the late 80s, was not achieved.

                    This is not true. If Aglitsky understand, then it is quite possible to find about practical firing and about the combat use of the Phoenixes. There were enough holes there, but the fact that the target was intercepted at an altitude of 15 meters is obvious ts ....

                    If the report of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief on this topic indicating a number of characteristics is not enough for you (and as a rule they don’t lie at this level - the price is too high), then stay with your bullshit.


                    This is not my bullshit, but those who hang this noodle on the ears of both the Supreme High Command and the people.
        2. bk0010 April 29 2020 16: 37 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Admirals MA ignore.
          So nefig include them in the fleet. Make a direction in aviation. And to send naval directors, like aircraft guides. There will be more sense.
          1. Cyril G ... April 29 2020 16: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Here I agree to all one hundred pizzas. The Germans, for example, did not have naval aviation, in fact, but the backlashes acted very effectively against ships. With a stretch, because anyway the Luftwaffe, only the KG40 (there were many sailors in the past) who conducted anti-convoy operations in the Atlantic can be called such. By the way, examples when the Su-34 are working against naval targets of anti-ship missiles still exist in the press.
  • Fedorov April 28 2020 14: 49 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    If Yak-141 had been brought to mind, then it would have been a good thing, otherwise everyone had to steal it, and it would have to be all over again. sad I’m not talking about aircraft carriers.
    1. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 32 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      There is nothing "first" to eat MiG-29K. We need a modification with a new radar and a reduced landing speed, that's all.
      1. Cyril G ... April 28 2020 21: 39 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        How are you going to reduce speed?
        1. timokhin-aa April 29 2020 09: 57 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Changing the shape of the wing and the use of aerodynamic brakes when landing.
          The speed is inversely proportional to the square root of the coefficient of lifting force, and it depends on the shape of the wing.
          Everything is solvable.
          1. Cyril G ... April 29 2020 11: 55 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, in general, you suggest developing a new aircraft. So they would say right away.
            1. timokhin-aa 1 May 2020 21: 28 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Develop a glider based on an existing one. It’s never the same thing to take and gash the SKVVP now. A completely different scope of work.
      2. Firelake April 29 2020 14: 23 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        He will not fly far with a load. It is necessary to do for with one engine from su57 and that would carry a rocket a la brahmos.
      3. Lozovik April 29 2020 19: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        There is nothing "first" to eat MiG-29K. We need a modification with a new radar and a reduced landing speed, that's all.

        Do you know under what condition the minimum speed of the MiG-29 is limited and the reason for this limitation?
        1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It is limited for all by the coefficient of lifting force.
          1. Lozovik 2 May 2020 14: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            It is limited for all by the coefficient of lifting force.

            Speed ​​limited by 24 ° angle of attack. When you understand why 24 °, the absurdity of the statement will become apparent.
            1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 15: 34 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It is installed for a specific aircraft with its aerodynamics.
              In another aircraft with different aerodynamics, it will be different.
              1. Lozovik 2 May 2020 18: 27 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                It is installed for a specific aircraft with its aerodynamics.

                And for a specific reason. But which one?

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                In another aircraft with different aerodynamics, it will be different.

                The Su-27, say, for a similar reason, also has 24 °.
                1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 19: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And F-18, F-4, Raphael, etc.
                  1. Lozovik 2 May 2020 21: 28 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Taki left the point.
                    1. timokhin-aa 3 May 2020 00: 59 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      The crux of the matter is that an airplane with a different aerodynamics will have a different lift coefficient. And from here - another landing speed.
                      1. Lozovik 3 May 2020 17: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Landing speed is determined not only by the bearing properties of the wing and body. There are other properties by which restrictions occur earlier (i.e., at high flight speeds).
                      2. timokhin-aa 4 May 2020 22: 43 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        In any case, you have no right to deny that the creation of an aircraft with a landing speed lower than that of the current MiG-29K is possible.
                      3. Lozovik 5 May 2020 13: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It will be another plane. However, I do not understand the desire to reduce speed, the MiG-29 in all versions has high takeoff and landing characteristics.
                      4. timokhin-aa 5 May 2020 22: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You have not heard about the detachment of the retina from pilots-decks from overload during landing?
                      5. Lozovik 6 May 2020 05: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Sounds far-fetched.
  • Lavrenty1937 April 28 2020 16: 27 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: bk0010
    I do not see fleets that could "generally fight" (such as Jutland) with the US fleet. Even the Chinese fleet is not yet mature. These states will try to impose a general battle, so that then they will reign supreme at sea, albeit with lesser forces. The rest will need to "torment" their formations and individual ships (if they become so impudent that they will run one by one) with blows where they managed to gain an advantage in forces (something like a joint strike of coastal defense and aviation means, which will fly up about 10 minutes later after the passage of the last shock wave and impedes the struggle for survivability) or to ensure their surprise (for example, a missile strike from an undetected nuclear submarine on the AUG). Fortunately, there are means for delivering really heavy blows.

    The main (key) task of the Navy at the present time is to prevent the enemy from dominating the sea. This is a purely defensive task. The Navy will not be able to accomplish the offensive task - supremacy at sea, because for this it must advance by crushing one NATO group in two oceans that includes 20 AUGs. This is unrealistic. Therefore, the main efforts of the Navy should be aimed at preventing the domination of the enemy in the north-east Atlantic and in the north-western part of the Pacific Ocean in areas: from which strikes will be carried out against enemy groups, the SSBN military service, naval bases (Navy), and communications. It is from these areas that relying on the airborne forces (long-range, strategic, fighter aviation, coast-based, air defense divisions), coastal missile systems (DBK), anti-aircraft groupings (missile-carrying aircraft and nuclear submarines) will be able to defeat the advancing AUG (AUS) of a potential enemy.
    1. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 31 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      The main (key) task of the Navy at the present time is to prevent the enemy from dominating the sea. This is a purely defensive task. The Navy will not be able to accomplish the offensive task - supremacy at sea, because for this it must advance by crushing one NATO group in two oceans that includes 20 AUGs.


      The fleet cannot "defend"; the fleet solves defensive tasks exclusively by offensive methods.
      20 full-fledged AUGs in the world are not in principle.
      1. Lavrenty1937 April 29 2020 03: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The fleet cannot "defend"; the fleet solves defensive tasks exclusively by offensive methods.

        According to B. B. Gervais:
        “In the case of offensive tasks, naval force must certainly strive for supremacy at sea, that is, to destroy the enemy fleet or to close his exit from the harbors. In the case of defensive tasks, the naval force should mainly strive to maintain its combat effectiveness and freedom of access to the sea, i.e. to prevent the enemy from dominating the sea. ”
        That is, sea power can solve a defensive task. But defense can be passive (positional) and active (offensive). Passive defense for the Navy's death is similar. Victory can only be achieved by active offensive defense.
        Again B. B. Gervais:

        “A small, but correctly composed, combat-ready naval force, relying in its operations on a well-equipped base, can, with bold and vigorous actions and skillful command, succeed in the fight against the strongest fleet, forced to operate off the coast of others and not having close to them its base. "
        "Avoiding a decisive battle in the open sea with the strongest fleet of the advancing side, the defending fleet must retain the ability at all times to leave its base and strike the enemy, and if he is lucky, then attack the latter and destroy it."
        “The correct composition of naval power, the art and courage of its personnel and the presence of a well-equipped base, make it possible for the significantly weakest fleet to successfully challenge supremacy at sea with the strongest enemy, and thereby prevent it from fulfilling its final tasks, that is, the termination of maritime communications of the defending side with the outside world, the landing of troops on its coast and the provision of assistance to its army operating in the coastal areas of the land theater of war. "
        “The purpose of hostilities on the sea of ​​the weakest, defending, naval force is to challenge the dominance of its stronger opponent. To do this, the defending naval force, avoiding an exalted battle with its adversary, must direct all its energy to weaken and fatigue the enemy blocking its fleet by launching attacks on it with its submarines and destroyers; attacks, with concentrated forces, on his individual detachments, and complete readiness to deliver a decisive blow to him, if he is weakened. To accomplish all this, the weakest naval force must retain complete freedom of access to the sea, at any time, from its base, which should be adequately equipped for this in peacetime. ”
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        20 full-fledged AUGs in the world are not in principle.

        Then we do not have a single full-fledged AUG
        1. timokhin-aa April 29 2020 10: 11 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, re-read your same quotes to Gervais - to solve defensive problems you need to ATTACK. About which I wrote to you.
  • Connor MacLeod April 28 2020 17: 17 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    In fairness, it is also worth considering the experience of using carrier-based aircraft in Vietnam. The Americans caught up with a bunch of aircraft carriers packed with phantoms and what’s the result? Not only didn’t achieve anything on the battlefield, but also military spending led to the collapse of the entire financial system (a huge public debt generated not least by the construction of aircraft carriers affected). Hardly twisted out ...

    Or take today, well, they have 10 aircraft carriers and what does it give? An opportunity to win a war that never happens? As well as a public debt of over $ 20 trillion, a significant part of which belongs to China. Economically, the US has already lost. But even if they had the opportunity to realize their military potential, in the war against Iran, for example, the result would be exactly the same massacre as in Vietnam. Endless air war against Russian and Chinese air defense systems.

    And what do you suggest going the same way? From past experience it is clear that megalomania does not lead to anything good ...
    1. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 29 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      The Americans caught up with a bunch of aircraft carriers packed with phantoms and what’s the result?


      As a result, from the middle of the war, it usually took 10-15 minutes from the request of the ground forces for an airstrike to the very strike, and often - 5. The air forces from their air bases would never have time - Vietnam is a strip of land along the sea, except for the north, planes from aircraft carriers have always been many times faster than the air force.
      Regarding aircraft carriers in Vietnam, the question must be correctly formulated, and it is like this: "How quickly would the United States merge and with what losses if they did not have aircraft carriers at Dixy Station?"
      and high-precision weapons in North Vietnam are also mainly a fleet.
      1. Connor MacLeod April 29 2020 00: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        As a result from the middle of the war from a ground forces request for an airstrike to the very strike, it usually took 10-15 minutes, and often 5. The Air Force from its airbases would never have time - Vietnam is a strip of land along the sea, except for the north, aircraft from aircraft carriers have always been several times faster than the Air Force.

        So they came very close. I wonder why the USSR did not supply DBK to the Vietnamese? It was delivered to Cuba ...

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        By aircraft carriers in Vietnam it is necessary to correctly formulate the question, and it is this: "How quickly would the United States merge and with what losses if they did not have aircraft carriers at Dixy Station?"
        and high-precision weapons in North Vietnam are also mainly a fleet.

        But does it really matter? The main thing is that they merged. And the aircraft carriers did not help ...
        1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So they came very close. I wonder why the USSR did not supply DBK to the Vietnamese?


          Meaning? Americans beyond the radio horizon, Central Bank of DBK can not get. Everything, the end.
          Well, he will turn on his radar for radiation - he will receive PRR in the cockpit immediately and that’s all.
          1. Connor MacLeod 3 May 2020 01: 49 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Meaning? Americans beyond the radio horizon, Central Bank of DBK can not get. Everything, the end.

            Why beyond the horizon? You yourself said that the flight time was 10-15 minutes, so the distance to the aircraft carrier is 150-250 km, you can probably see this colossus on the radar at such a distance. And even if not, then it is possible to calculate the approximate location along the aircraft trajectory and release RCC into this area.

            Well, that’s it. Even one hit is enough for most of the air group to burn out. Examples are the fires at USS Oriskany (1966), USS Forrestal (1967) and USS Enterprise (1969). Aircraft carriers are very vulnerable.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Well, he will turn on his radar for radiation - he will receive PRR in the cockpit immediately and that’s all.

            Well, radiation comes from the aircraft carrier itself - communications and onboard radar. All this can be detected by RTR stations and at the same time it doesn’t burn.

            As for the PRR, they are by no means faulty, because there were ways to get away from Shrike in Vietnam, the radars were turned off, and so on.

            Still, in vain we did not supply the Vietnamese with DBK ...
            1. timokhin-aa 3 May 2020 14: 47 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Why beyond the horizon? You yourself said that the flight time was 10-15 minutes, so the distance to the aircraft carrier is 150-250 km, you can probably see this colossus on the radar at such a distance.


              Nope. It is impossible. This is the trick.

              Well, radiation comes from the aircraft carrier itself - communications and onboard radar. All this can be detected by RTR stations and at the same time it doesn’t burn.


              It is necessary to take bearings from several points in order to get an accurate control unit. It is very difficult technically. When surface ships practiced such things, it happened for many hours along the radar field to go to take an approximate bearing on the target.
              Plus, the then missiles went at high altitude and not as far as modern ones, but the Yankees had something to shoot them down with.
  • Dimon19661 April 28 2020 17: 32 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Now we are witnessing a situation where the influence of aircraft carriers on a large war with an equal or superior enemy tends to zero. At one time this happened to battleships — it was aircraft carriers who buried this class of ships. The last use of the battleship Missouri in 1991 as part of a squadron against a frankly weak enemy who does not have any serious means of defeating such targets. (It would even be ridiculous to imagine, for example, an attempt to shell this Primorsky Territory with this battleship; ) .Currently, carrier groups can be regarded as a serious help, and even the main striking force only in local conflicts with a obviously weaker enemy. The first bell about the insolvency of aircraft carriers rang out in Vietnam, when a replaceable carrier group (16-17 units) in principle did not solve any of the ultimate tasks of that war. At this time, at least two countries (Russia, China) have the absolute possibility of destroying an aircraft carrier group on a distant cordon without carriers entering the air defense zone of the group. This is one of the reasons why the Russian military cannot unambiguously confirm the reasonableness of building a full-sized aircraft carrier for the needs of the fleet. At present and for the foreseeable future, the Russian Armed Forces have practically no potential adversary in a remote theater requiring the use of aircraft carriers. Almost all of NATO comes from weapons systems already in service. Some East Asian countries are also in the zone of destruction of such systems. The main enemy is constantly monitored by the Strategic Missile Forces, which makes more shuyu war obviously impossible.
    1. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 26 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      This is worthy of the Murzilka magazine - from the first to the last letter. I wanted to make out the comments, I read it - I was horrified, 100% discrepancy with reality in each statement.
      Can not be so.
    2. Diverter April 28 2020 23: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It certainly can be so. But here from Syria greeted you.
      At your leisure, you can reflect on what and how to do with air support if the next time Syria is somewhere in Africa or America.
      1. EvilLion April 29 2020 11: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        For starters, make an air base in the territory controlled by at least someone who can accept us. Otherwise, a landing of several thousand people will not solve anything.
        1. Diverter April 29 2020 21: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Airbase of course it's good. HOW WILL YOU GET IT? ?! For example, Venezuela. Europe may not open the air, and the range exceeds the LTX of any drying.
  • Lavrenty1937 April 28 2020 17: 36 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Connor MacLeod
    In fairness, it is also worth considering the experience of using carrier-based aircraft in Vietnam. The Americans caught up with a bunch of aircraft carriers packed with phantoms and what’s the result? Not only didn’t achieve anything on the battlefield, but also military spending led to the collapse of the entire financial system (a huge public debt generated not least by the construction of aircraft carriers affected). Hardly twisted out ...

    Or take today, well, they have 10 aircraft carriers and what does it give? An opportunity to win a war that never happens? As well as a public debt of over $ 20 trillion, a significant part of which belongs to China. Economically, the US has already lost. But even if they had the opportunity to realize their military potential, in the war against Iran, for example, the result would be exactly the same massacre as in Vietnam. Endless air war against Russian and Chinese air defense systems.

    And what do you suggest going the same way? From past experience it is clear that megalomania does not lead to anything good ..


    I do not suggest going the American way (10 AB). On the contrary, I propose to have 2 helicopter carriers (UDC) for the defense of the SSBN and 2 AB (in their absence - helicopter carriers or UDC). And this is another way.
    1. Connor MacLeod April 28 2020 19: 36 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      There is no money for aircraft carriers and UDC. And will not be.

      Better is simply an improved Ivan Gren (with a battalion-tactical group and 2-3 helicopters) and in addition to it a small helicopter carrier (10 tons, 000-10 helicopters, a special forces company). For 15 BDK and 2 helicopter carrier in the Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet and Black Sea Fleet, it is quite realistic. Plus frigates, corvettes, DEPLs and MAPLs (small, less hefty fools like Ash) to support landing operations. Here it is. Weapons of the 1st century!

      And of course the brains! The full mobilization of all intelligence, diplomatic and media resources in order to know for sure where, when and how to deliver a decisive lightning strike. And most importantly, why? What are the specific benefits for our country in monetary terms that carry out certain military operations abroad?
    2. Diverter April 28 2020 23: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I kaneshno wildly apologize, but how will an amphibious assault ship armed with amphibious assault and attack helicopters, personnel of the Marine Corps with BTT defend the SSBN ?! Will release combat swimmers with knives? Or will a tank shoot through an open hatch? What do you smoke?
      The SSBNs should be guarded by 1-2 multipurpose nuclear submarines, (PLARK \ PLAT), and when leaving the base, coastal aviation and diesel boats.
      1. Lavrenty1937 April 29 2020 06: 22 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Saboteur
        I kaneshno wildly apologize, but how will an amphibious assault ship armed with amphibious assault and attack helicopters, personnel of the Marine Corps with BTT defend the SSBN ?! Will release combat swimmers with knives? Or will a tank shoot through an open hatch? What do you smoke?
        The SSBNs should be guarded by 1-2 multipurpose nuclear submarines, (PLARK \ PLAT), and when leaving the base, coastal aviation and diesel boats.

        The SSBNs can be destroyed by multipurpose nuclear submarines and anti-submarine aircraft covered by fighters of a potential enemy. What can we oppose them? Several surface ships (NK) with several anti-submarine helicopters, a pair of nuclear submarines. All. Very little. This is against the Premier League. And there is nothing against aviation. If we have a UDC, for the defense of the SSBN it can also be allocated. Are we continuously and non-stop conducting airborne operations? But, in fact, to ensure them, it is necessary to attract almost the entire SF or Pacific Fleet. Having seized the ships from the anti-aircraft group and defense of the SSBN. At least, at the beginning of the defensive war, we will not conduct any landing operations. Is that to his rear. Therefore, UDC can be used for the defense of the SSBN and in the absence of an AB (and this will certainly be) for at least some kind of cover for the anti-aircraft group. If the UDC replaces transport-combat helicopters with anti-submarine ones (about a dozen), then the anti-submarine capabilities of the group increase significantly. If there are a dozen airplanes on the UDK SKVVP (they are on it and in the landing assault), dozens of aircraft will not allow enemy anti-submarine aircraft to search for our SSBNs and nuclear submarines for a long time. So is it possible to use UDC in operations to protect the SSBN and anti-aircraft? Definitely, YES.
        1. Diverter April 29 2020 21: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I have no time and desire to explain the basics of military science to everyone. somehow yourself.
  • Lavrenty1937 April 28 2020 17: 39 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: bk0010
    Launch range where? How to solve the issue of reconnaissance and target designation? The AUG has an air group working for this, we once had Tu-95RTs, but they seem to have already been written off. About Mustache Legends is better not to remember. How long will missiles fly per 1000 kilometers? More than an hour (in super sound only very large missiles can fly so far, there are none). Why the ships from there in this hour do not sail away? If we have the means to detect groups of ships at large distances, we will need to return to anti-ship ballistic missile projects and hrenchat them along the AHG from somewhere near Ryazan or Irkutsk.

    You can determine the coordinates of the target AB using over-the-horizon radar (ZGRLS). Simple calculations are given in message No. 2823 of the theme Doctrine - Strategy - Ship, FLOT.com
    1. Connor MacLeod April 28 2020 19: 02 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Lavrenty1937
      You can determine the coordinates of the target AB using over-the-horizon radar (ZRLS).

      ... quickly deployed by our paratroopers on captured Spitsbergen laughing
      1. Lavrenty1937 April 29 2020 02: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Connor MacLeod
        quickly deployed by our paratroopers on captured Spitsbergen

        In Kovylkino in Mordovia for 1500 km from Severomorsk
    2. timokhin-aa April 28 2020 19: 24 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      You can determine the coordinates of the target AB using over-the-horizon radar (ZGRLS).


      Which does not give them accurately enough, does not allow to classify the target, does not allow to determine its motion parameters, and most importantly - will be destroyed in the first hours of the conflict.

      No stationary systems outside peacetime will be used, for details in the article "Building a fleet. Wrong ideas, wrong concepts"
      https://topwar.ru/163939-stroim-flot-oshibochnye-idei-nepravilnye-koncepcii.html
  • LeonidL April 28 2020 21: 32 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    So "In the" Shipbuilding Program 2050 "there is a certain" marine aircraft carrier complex, but without any details. "- Self-taught Admiral Mr. Timokhin (Mr. Timokhin will not be offended by me, he wrote that he does not even have an education , and he did not serve the military in general, did not participate, etc., but he always passionately loved the Fleet and engaged in self-education. It is commendable.) pleased us with a new article. Thank! The article can be conditionally divided into two parts that are not equivalent in importance to the size. First, the echoes of some gossip and rumors that reached the author and the "2050" program ... Rumors reach Mr. Timokhin. I recall today in the 2020 calendar and the height of the pandemic, the economic crisis and the unpredictable future. T e what in advance on the topic of "nothing" generally break spears? What carriers will be needed and whether they will be needed at all is still unknown. Another thing is known - all wars with the participation of aircraft carriers of various types after 1945 are the wars of great powers against third world countries, and neither the USSR nor the Russian Federation participated in them and, apparently, they are not going to participate in the future. Of course, it is always advisable for sailors to have all the best and a whole lot ... alas, their appetite always limits their budget. Moreover, the history of the Navy of the USSR demonstrates a sad story when large beautiful ships end their life on cutting nirazu without participating in the "great sea battles".
    The second part of the article is interesting in describing the Flockland “battle”. The usefulness of this experience is increasingly depreciating over the years and it is not very correct to take it for the standard. If only because the author does not take into account the disgusting preparation of the Argentines for a war for which they did not count. In particular for maintenance and ammunition testing. How many of the bombs and missiles that hit the English ships did not explode?
    If Russia is going to wage wars like the wars of the NATO countries against third-rate countries, and wars in which the participation of countries of the "first rank", primarily NATO, are excluded, then in this case the experience of Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Falkland is useful. If not, then only in a certain illustrative plan. Therefore, the article of Mr. Timokhin, as always, has a hidden implication - to build full-fledged aircraft carriers now and a lot without looking back ... you need it or not, there is money and resources or not. ... Useless hype. Readers of Timokhin should understand that the author is by no means a professional and not an expert in declaring that with such fervor. Mr. Timokhin is, at best, an ardent graffoman, an activist and social activist. At the level of the so-beloved Murzilka.
  • Demagogue April 28 2020 22: 22 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    What is the point of considering the efficiency of Harriers in the Falkland now, when there is f-35? A lot more efficient aircraft.


    The question is that its “vertical” version will in any case be inferior to normal fifth-generation aircraft at about the same technical level, and from the point of view, also with its own F-35s with horizontal take-off and landing.
    I will raise this topic in the following parts.


    Only the United States has normal aircraft carriers. We cannot build enough aircraft carriers to confront the US Navy. Yes, there can be no such thing between nuclear powers. So initially aircraft carriers can be useful to us only in local conflicts. Where the enemy will not have full-fledged aircraft carriers. Therefore, pocket aircraft carriers with a naval aircraft are quite enough for us. In addition, if one of the sides of the attack aircraft stealth drills, opponents become ineffective. If there is an effective sword, then the shield may not be available. The number of sorties does not matter. Their effectiveness is important. You can pick up three squadrons of 4th generation aircraft from a large aircraft carrier and lose them all, and a couple of stealth in one departure can cause unacceptable losses. Everything is relative.
    1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      We cannot build enough aircraft carriers to confront the US Navy.


      This is a cliche. Actually, there are dozens of scenarios of this confrontation, and not all of them need aircraft carriers at all. For example, a sudden nuclear strike against the United States can do without them.

      And most importantly - it does not come down to the United States.
      1. Demagogue 2 May 2020 13: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        A cliche is a template, a typical layout. This is reality, but what you offer is fantasy. Our fleet cannot serve one aircraft carrier, and you want to build 4 more in the conditions of economic recession. They say this is faster than developing an SVVP plane. Not faster. The construction and commissioning of the lead ship will take at least 12 years. A Mistral aircraft carrier can be made in 6 years. Yes, there will be no SVVP for 6 years, but during this time it is possible to make helicopter drills with afar and plos. Take the path of the Japanese. After 6 years, we will have a ship capable of providing the exit of the same strategists. Su-57 is far from ready and has a number of birth defects. This is a maximum air defense fighter. Need a light aircraft based on a yak. Full stealth. Cheap with one engine. Using the experience on the su-57, it can be done in 10 years. Just afar will finish it.
        1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 14: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          A cliche is a template, a typical layout.


          If war, then with the United States and NATO.
          If the war is with the United States and NATO, but you need a numerical superiority in forces and means.
          Etc.

          These are the very template patterns, cliches that people wear in their heads.

          . This is reality, but what you offer is fantasy. Our fleet is not able to serve one aircraft carrier, and you want to build 4 more in an economic downturn


          I have never suggested this.

          They say this is faster than developing an SVVP plane. Not faster. The construction and commissioning of the lead ship will take at least 12 years.


          Well, yes.
          And VTOL - somewhere around 20 years minimum.
          And about 1 / 5-1 / 6 of the cost of an aircraft carrier is only for OCD, that is, at the time of construction of the first (ONE) production aircraft.
          Which a priori will be flawed in comparison with normal aircraft.

          Yes, there will be no SVVP for 6 years, but during this time it is possible to make helicopter drills with afar and plos. Take the path of the Japanese. After 6 years, we will have a ship capable of providing the exit of the same strategists.


          No, it will not. Just because in order to “ensure the exit of strategists,” it is necessary, first of all, to shackle the United States Naval Forces and their allies into battle for at least a hundred hours, and at the same time suppress the actions of the BPA in its area of ​​responsibility.
          This is unrealistic with helicopters. Although I am for the development of helicopters, but this is a separate issue.

          A Mistral aircraft carrier can be made in 6 years.


          What for?

          Need a light aircraft based on a yak. Full stealth. Cheap with one engine.


          I'm not against. But this should not be VTOL, it just needs such an aircraft for the VKS and the Navy.
          https://topwar.ru/156064-o-neobhodimosti-vozvrata-k-legkim-odnodvigatelnym-istrebiteljam-dlja-vks-rf.html
  • Diverter April 28 2020 23: 05 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    To start with the author. History has no subjunctive ....... then you yourself know. Or if yes, then my grandfather would have mushrooms in his mouth. The past must be disassembled in order to gain experience. To think that if, if only, then! do not waste energy.
    About aircraft carriers.
    My opinion is that for a state that has a very large territory (from ocean to ocean) or many overseas territories, the presence of several light aircraft carriers is good.
    War is also an economy on the one hand, but on the other hand it is better to have a couple of light aircraft carriers in the right places than to drive one big one back and forth. You don’t have to be in time.
    Provided that the fighters are normal.
    Provided that 24 fighters + a couple of PS helicopters and an AWACS link are based on such a ship ..
    It turns out an air regiment of 2 squadrons. A 24-side air regiment is power.
    About airplanes.
    Aircraft GDP is the stage of development of aviation half a century ago. You need to forget it. Helicopter carriers need vertical-take-off vehicles for various purposes - helicopters are called. Here their LTH is worth developing. I’m also sure that any task force to capture the bridgehead will be sent by both a helicopter carrier and a light aircraft carrier (or maybe two if any), where the helicopter carrier will land and support it, and the aircraft carrier will provide air cover and air strikes. Thus, everyone will do their own thing.
    1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 43 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      The past must be disassembled in order to gain experience. To think that if, if only, then! do not waste energy.


      You can go even further and generally use the brain to a minimum. He consumes a breakthrough energy, but where is the work? They can neither dig, nor wear, nor load.

      How to evaluate the correctness of past decisions? Only by comparing them with those decisions that could have been made, but were not, and with their non-occurring consequences.
  • PilotS37 April 29 2020 00: 19 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The Si Vixen was two meters shorter, but wider. It is difficult to say how many “Phantoms” would fit in the space that they occupied on the ship, but how much would fit exactly, no doubt.

    Here, it would be very appropriate to compare a very well-known hole with an equally well-known core, because Si Vixen

    was just a deep modernization of the Vampire created by the other during the years of the war and by the standards of this war ...
    [/ Center]
    And the Phantom was already a plane from sa-a-afsem of another era ...
    [Center]
  • 911sx April 29 2020 00: 34 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Article plus. Since the time of YAK 38, it has been clear that vertical lines are flawed in everything. And the Falkland War confirmed their weakness if the Argentines had all the bombs detonated, and didn’t simply pierce the decks and sides, and the French didn’t stop delivering Exocet, (there are actually more reasons), the British would have been tight. Harrier, and this is really the best swvp, couldn’t do anything with Superetandar if he had that fuel supply. And there was only enough fuel there and back, with refueling in the air there was nothing. But strangely enough, it was the pilots in that war (Argentinean) who fought most effectively and until the last Exocet. The sailors were sitting in the bases, afraid of the British submarines, and it would be better to keep silent about the infantry because only obscene expressions come to mind. If the British had AWACS and normal (horizontal take-off) fighters, Argentina in that situation would lose all of its attack aircraft in a few days.
    1. Avior April 29 2020 07: 08 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      If the British did not have aircraft carriers at all, they would lose the Falklands and would not even try to send a fleet there
      And they had such a plan - their aircraft carriers were on the verge of decommissioning, only the Argentines hurried and did not wait for the British to write them off for scrapping. And the British made the helicopter AWACS as a result of the war
      And the Argentines had tankers and drills
      1. g1washntwn April 30 2020 06: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Avior
        And the Argentines had tankers and drills

        Neither the first nor the second really flew. Argentina did not use civilian sides as sea scouts from a good life, and AWACS did not go further than the coastline. It's like today (when they solder Kuznetsov) screaming that Russia has a sea-based air group.
        The whole circus of this conflict was that the possibilities (or rather, their absence) were approximately equal.
        1. Avior 2 May 2020 00: 53 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Both were and flew
          https://www.google.com/amp/s/inosmi.by/2013/04/08/folklendskaya-vojna-udar-po-esmincu-sheffild/amp/
  • Hippo April 29 2020 01: 36 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Thanks for the competent article!
    ... Still, the head of the GRU, Peter Ivanovich Ivashutin, was wrong then - he considered the defeat of the British in the Falklands as the most likely scenario.
    1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      He was the most likely.
  • EvilLion April 29 2020 11: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Plane. Should. To be. Big.
  • EvilLion April 29 2020 12: 38 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3



    Correct planes of the right take-off with the right supply of rockets and kerosene.
  • Andrey787 April 29 2020 21: 53 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Let's imagine that by the beginning of the 80s, England had an aircraft carrier of 50-55 thousand tons with formidable Fantomi and all seeing Hokai.

    Argentina is waiting for this aircraft carrier to undergo scheduled repairs (and this is 1,5-3 years) ... attacks and wins :)))
    1. EvilLion April 30 2020 09: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And if Hermes stood up, what would have changed? Would one cripple be enough?
      1. Sergey Sfiedu 2 May 2020 04: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Woodworth said bluntly, "If we lose Invincible, the operation will be extremely difficult to carry out; if we lose Hermes, the operation will become impossible." Extra evidence that one aircraft carrier has never been an aircraft carrier. You need at least three, preferably more.
        And if the Britons timely deployed a small garrison on the islands with the appropriate weapons, then all this masturbation would not be needed. But there were signals that the Argentine "gorillas" were a little insane people.
    2. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The British had more than one aircraft carrier
  • bk0010 April 30 2020 12: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    By the way, today is the anniversary of an interesting event: on April 30, one English bomber with the help of 82 (!) Tankers and a PLO plane dropped a bomb (dropped several, but got one) on the runway of Port Stanley Airport.
  • calm 1 May 2020 19: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Thank you for the article. When I was young, I read in those days the journal Foreign Military Review, there was an article about the actions of the Harriers. The main emphasis was on the fact that the “Harrier” could, by changing the thrust vector, reduce the translational speed and go into the tail of the Argentinean “Mirage” III with their large turning radius. Do not forget that the Harrier FRS.1 is significantly inferior to FRS.2, which entered service later and had a powerful radar and AIM-120 missiles.
    1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 12: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The main emphasis was on the fact that the “Harrier” could, by changing the thrust vector, reduce the translational speed and go into the tail of the Argentinean “Mirage” III with their large turning radius.


      There was no such thing. Harriers dived from 10 km to a fighter out of attack at 60 meters altitude.
      1. Lozovik 3 May 2020 17: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        There was no such thing. Harriers dived from 10 km to a fighter out of attack at 60 meters altitude.

        The tactics of the British Navy fighters have been studied. The combat control officer from the destroyer led the pair to a reference height of 3000-5000 meters. At the command of the crews, they switched on radar for radiation, detected and allocated targets. This was followed by the dissolution of the pair, the leader attacked the closing pair (the Argentineans link, as a rule, went in columns) in the teaching staff from a small angle. The lead maneuver went to the ZPS, the angle of attack is large. After exiting the attack, the pair gathered.
        1. timokhin-aa 4 May 2020 22: 53 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Yes, you are right with the height, the minimum mark was 10 feet, not meters, and that’s exactly 000 meters.
          ... I invented the simplest possible plan, which, if I didn’t rule out shooting at mine, I would at least guarantee that it would be infrequent. We initially identified a zone that covered the eastern part of the Falklands Strait from the northwest of the island to Cape Fanning and the area around the Carlos Bay. I knew that inside this zone there would be basically all British troops, landing ships, ships, transports and warships. Above it, a "ceiling" was installed at a height of ten thousand feet, which formed a kind of massive air "box" about ten miles wide and two miles high. I ordered our “Harriers” not to go into this “box”. Inside it, our helicopters could deliver anything from the coast to the ships and vice versa, but they must quickly hide whenever an enemy aircraft enters this area.
          In the "box" will only fly enemy fighters and bombers, if they want to threaten landing.
          I decided that it would be more expedient to give our troops and ships complete freedom to shoot at any aircraft they found inside the "box", since it should only be Argentine. Meanwhile, the Harriers must wait at a higher altitude, knowing that any aircraft departing from the box should only be Argentine, since our planes are not allowed to enter there, and our helicopters are not allowed to fly out of it. The most dangerous in this case was the situation when the Mirage, pursued by the Harrier, enters the “box”.
          In this case, the latter could be shot down by one of our frigates. Accident or even poor interaction is possible, but poor planning is unforgivable. Keep in mind that it will take only ninety seconds for the Mirage to cross the box at a speed of four hundred knots until it flies out of it on the other side, having the Harrier swooping down like a falcon on top of it ... I just hoped for it.


          This is from the recollections of the commander of the English forces Woodward.
  • Demagogue 2 May 2020 15: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    A cliche is a template, a typical layout.


    If war, then with the United States and NATO.
    If the war is with the United States and NATO, but you need a numerical superiority in forces and means.
    Etc.

    These are the very template patterns, cliches that people wear in their heads.

    . This is reality, but what you offer is fantasy. Our fleet is not able to serve one aircraft carrier, and you want to build 4 more in an economic downturn


    I have never suggested this.

    They say this is faster than developing an SVVP plane. Not faster. The construction and commissioning of the lead ship will take at least 12 years.


    Well, yes.
    And VTOL - somewhere around 20 years minimum.
    And about 1 / 5-1 / 6 of the cost of an aircraft carrier is only for OCD, that is, at the time of construction of the first (ONE) production aircraft.
    Which a priori will be flawed in comparison with normal aircraft.

    Yes, there will be no SVVP for 6 years, but during this time it is possible to make helicopter drills with afar and plos. Take the path of the Japanese. After 6 years, we will have a ship capable of providing the exit of the same strategists.


    No, it will not. Just because in order to “ensure the exit of strategists,” it is necessary, first of all, to shackle the United States Naval Forces and their allies into battle for at least a hundred hours, and at the same time suppress the actions of the BPA in its area of ​​responsibility.
    This is unrealistic with helicopters. Although I am for the development of helicopters, but this is a separate issue.

    A Mistral aircraft carrier can be made in 6 years.


    What for?

    Need a light aircraft based on a yak. Full stealth. Cheap with one engine.


    I'm not against. But this should not be VTOL, it just needs such an aircraft for the VKS and the Navy.
    https://topwar.ru/156064-o-neobhodimosti-vozvrata-k-legkim-odnodvigatelnym-istrebiteljam-dlja-vks-rf.html


    1) I wrote to you at the very beginning that we will not have a war with the United States. There may be a local conflict. I did not write with whom exactly. What are the patterns here?

    2) A small aircraft carrier will allow to strike at targets beyond the radio horizon. SVVP airplanes may not carry PKR at all and be only a tsu tool. Give meaning to our barges with gauges. Moreover, a cheap tool. In my opinion, everything is obvious. Plus the gain is plos.
    3) We do not have communications for the defense of which may require aug or several. Limited use in some conflicts is possible. Against the enemy without large aircraft carriers. So why spend billions? What is the ultimate goal?
    1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 16: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      2) A small aircraft carrier will allow to strike at targets beyond the radio horizon. SVVP airplanes may not carry PKR at all and be only a tsu tool. Give meaning to our barges with gauges. Moreover, a cheap tool. In my opinion, everything is obvious. Plus the gain is plos.


      This possibility can be realized by launching an UAV or helicopters from URO ships, if we consider it by itself. In reality, if you build an aircraft carrier, then it’s normal, from which you can fly at least three points.

      3) We do not have communications for the defense of which may require aug or several. Limited use in some conflicts is possible. Against the enemy without large aircraft carriers. So why spend billions? What is the ultimate goal?


      You will spend no less on ersatz. However, about the prices in the next part.
      1. Demagogue 2 May 2020 17: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        1) You will not place any supersonic UAVs on frigates. Reusable essna. Disposable will take the place of missiles and you will not stockpile them. A powerful radar with afar will not be there. As for flying in difficult weather, Harrier only had landing problems. On f-35 and yak more advanced design. The Americans paid Yakovlevites for the technology. F-35 is very easy to plant, everything is automated. Harrier had his pluses. With limited visibility, you can slowly fly up and sit down.
        2) Lay out, discuss.
        1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 18: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          1) You will not place any supersonic UAVs on frigates.


          What for? There are subsonic ones. The superiority in speed over NK is in any case 10 times or more.

          On f-35 and yak more advanced design. The Americans paid Yakovlevites for the technology. F-35 is very easy to plant, everything is automated.


          The question is that the F-35 vertical is worse than the F-35 horizontal, and that difficult weather is pitching. It’s the problem, not the wind.
          1. Demagogue 2 May 2020 18: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            1) you were discovered by the enemy aug, which is 500 km from you. You urgently need to get a tsu for a volley, and you will launch a model, which will dig 100 km / h towards the enemy?
            2) and where does the information on problems with pitching from the f-35 come from? Vertical landing will be easier to pitching something. And British mastered the landing with rolling in addition.
            1. timokhin-aa 2 May 2020 19: 03 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              How do I know that I urgently need to get a DG for a salvo? From which data source? The model can be disposable, stuck in the UKKS, with a jet engine and transonic or supersonic speed, this is a purely technical issue.
              The ground crews got UAVs thrust missiles from the MLRS into warheads, why is the fleet worse?

              In any case, making a disposable missile gunner is much cheaper than a disposable aircraft carrier.

              But where does the information on problems with pitching from the f-35 come from?


              It's not about the F-35, but the nature of such a thing as "Vertical pitching." She doesn’t care what kind of "F" is there.
              1. Demagogue 2 May 2020 20: 22 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                1) UAV from RSZO is good. Where is the same rzzo on the pot? And again, the ship’s bq is limited, you can’t save a lot of UAV for RSZO and their sensors are weaker than that of an airplane. You can understand the location of aug by signal interception, radar aircraft detection, etc. In any case, a 5th generation aircraft is a tremendous force. In the confrontation with the enemy, who does not have an aviation umbrella over the ships, this is an unbeatable trump card. Yes, and against the aug with a pocket aircraft carrier, too, if you were the first to discover. By the way, no one bothers to let heavy UAVs with lha. With them it is possible.

                2) on pitching, I did not understand what the f-35v on lha would lose instantly with kuzi according to the possibilities of launching pitching.
                1. timokhin-aa 3 May 2020 00: 33 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I didn’t understand on pitching what the f-35v on lha would lose instantly with kuzi according to the possibilities of launching pitching.


                  The fact that pitching is eliminated only by the size of the ship and nothing more. Other things being equal (the presence of sedatives, etc.), a large ship pumps much less than a small one.

                  And the situation when our planes are no longer flying, and the enemy is already flying is quite real.
                  1. Demagogue 3 May 2020 08: 29 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    This is all good. Only a question for connoisseurs: at what pitching the f-35v will not be able to take off? And for comparison, the data on the moment of kuzi? What you write is true for ordinary takeoffs and landings. But if you land and take off vertically, then the advantage of the f-35v. Which is as if obvious.
                    1. timokhin-aa 3 May 2020 14: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      This is all good. Only a question for connoisseurs: at what pitching the f-35v will not be able to take off?


                      There is no advantage in the F-35, a reinforced chassis does not give decisive superiority in this case. Okay, about pitching in the next part, I still planned exactly that.
                      1. Demagogue 3 May 2020 21: 07 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It would be nice if in the next part we considered not antediluvian experimental harriers, but f-35v with a twice as large radius during vertical take-off. Yes, and in conjunction with the American light aircraft carriers, Vospam and other Americas, half of which is enough to grind our fleet. And we are discussing the confrontation with Nimitsy and Fords))
                      2. timokhin-aa 5 May 2020 10: 49 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It will be in the third part
  • voyaka uh 6 May 2020 16: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The Harriers, of course, made a decisive contribution to the victory of the British.
    But you need to understand that this is largely due to just a combination of factors,
    and no more than that. "////
    -----
    Interestingly, does the author understand the absurdity of his own phrase?
    All wars, battles are a combination of factors. And nothing more. laughing
    But those who have these factors "flow" in the right direction at the right time - win.
  • con_nick 17 May 2020 14: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Do you speak two aircraft carriers?) Have you heard anything about the Atlantic Conveyor container ship? The British won precisely because they were able to mobilize civil ships and land "Harriers" for a war at sea. This is the main reason. And further. "Harrier" is an archaic, modern KVVP are in no way inferior to the decks of a catapult launch, and surpass them in some respects. So, everything that is written is no longer relevant, and a long time ago)))) You live in the past, dear.
  • Hydrogen 3 June 2020 17: 28 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    An interesting article. I heard about the Harriers, and what did the Argentines fly on, what kind of aircraft was it, and by whom?
  • certero 25 June 2020 14: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    No need for Russian aircraft carriers. Neither for verticols, nor for ordinary ones. The future belongs to autonomous drones and only such aircraft should be based on ships.