Military Review

What non-nuclear weapons can the US Navy strike aircraft carriers: some examples

331

Aircraft carriers - an essential component of combat power fleet probable adversary. Since Russia currently has only 1 aircraft carrier and it is being repaired, the question of how to hit enemy aircraft carriers remains extremely relevant.


Are American aircraft carriers invulnerable?


There is no doubt that a carrier can be sunk by a missile with a nuclear warhead, but in modern wars, a nuclear weapon not used (even in tactical execution).

Military история The twentieth century knows examples where surface ships and submarines managed to sink enemy aircraft carriers, however, these cases occurred during the Second World War, when aircraft carriers and the ships placed on them aviation have not yet possessed such power and ultramodern means of detecting and hitting targets, as today. So, the last aircraft carrier that sank as a result of an underwater attack was the Japanese ship HIJMS Shinano, which was hit by a torpedo in November 1944.

In modern conditions, according to military experts with extensive experience in the Navy, one ship or one submarine is not able to complete the task of destroying an aircraft carrier of the US Navy. Theoretically, everything can be, but the probability of successful completion of the task by the forces of one ship or submarine tends to zero. Therefore, for the successful struggle with enemy aircraft carriers, it was recommended to create a grouping that includes surface ships, submarines, and naval aircraft.



Granite, Caliber and Zircon


It is worth considering that every American aircraft carrier comes with a “guard” - cruisers, destroyers, multipurpose submarines and early warning aircraft. Therefore, it’s extremely difficult to get to the aircraft carrier at a distance of launch.

Antey class nuclear submarines armed with Granit anti-ship missiles have a chance of this. But for this, firstly, it is necessary to use several submarines, since it will have to provide at the same time a large number of missile launches. Secondly, submarines will need to secretly get close to the AUG.

According to experts, for the complete destruction of an aircraft carrier, about 20 hits of the Granit anti-ship missile are needed, for 6-8 hits for a missile, 3-5 hits for a half of an aviation wing, 1 hit for a few hours out of combat.

As we know, the Granit cruise missile anti-ship missile is one of the most powerful anti-ship missiles in the world and is specially designed to deal with powerful ship groups, including aircraft carrier strike groups. The high speed of the flight and the large mass of the rocket make them difficult targets for enemy anti-aircraft missile systems, so the Granit Rocket still has a chance to “break through” the aircraft carrier’s protection. It is no accident that the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, Army General Sergei Shoigu, called the Granit anti-ship missile system the main means of fighting aircraft carriers. So, the Omsk nuclear submarine is capable of accepting up to 24 such missiles.

Another potential means of destroying enemy aircraft carriers is the Caliber missiles. American experts believe that a submarine with Caliber missiles is capable of neutralizing an entire carrier group of the US Navy, but for this it will need to carry out a full salvo before it is detected by anti-submarine means of the enemy.

Currently, tests are continuing on the latest Zircon hypersonic missile, which has not yet entered service with the Russian Navy. This anti-ship missile is called the “killer of aircraft carriers” by many experts. Such missiles can be deployed on surface and submarines that were previously armed with Caliber missiles, including frigates and Antey class nuclear submarines.

There are no systems capable of intercepting such missiles in service with the US Navy, which makes the Zircon missiles a truly deadly threat to US carrier strike groups.

Additional resources


In addition to these options for defeating aircraft carriers, there is also the option of a massive attack using naval aviation. In other words, we are talking about the actual battle of two aircraft carriers, where the warship that has more advanced aviation wing, means of detection, combat support, air defense systems will have an advantage. But with a single aircraft carrier, such an option is hardly worth seriously considering as a worker for our fleet.
Author:
331 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 11 May 2020 13: 53 New
    -8
    there is also EW ... about which there is no mention in the article ...
    1. KVU-NSVD
      KVU-NSVD 11 May 2020 13: 56 New
      13
      Quote: Pvi1206
      there is also EW ... about which there is no mention in the article ...

      Etozh what means of electronic warfare can sink an aircraft carrier?
      1. Birch
        Birch 11 May 2020 14: 00 New
        -21
        Quote: KVU-NSVD
        Quote: Pvi1206
        there is also EW ... about which there is no mention in the article ...

        Etozh what means of electronic warfare can sink an aircraft carrier?

        Well, as far as I know, "Daggers" hypersonic holes make a specific hole in the Aircraft Carriers .. Well, there are "Zircons" "Bastions", etc.
        Not without reason, the United States decided to reduce the AUGs on duty in the world's oceans .. Too expensive and no longer scare anyone hi
        1. KVU-NSVD
          KVU-NSVD 11 May 2020 14: 07 New
          +6
          Quote: Birch

          Well, as far as I know, "Daggers" hypersonic holes make a specific hole in the Aircraft Carriers .. Well, there are "Zircons" "Bastions", etc.
          Н

          I repeat the question - what kind of electronic warfare systems can sink or harm an aircraft carrier?
          1. Birch
            Birch 11 May 2020 14: 41 New
            -13
            Quote: KVU-NSVD
            Quote: Birch

            Well, as far as I know, "Daggers" hypersonic holes make a specific hole in the Aircraft Carriers .. Well, there are "Zircons" "Bastions", etc.
            Н

            I repeat the question - what kind of electronic warfare systems can sink or harm an aircraft carrier?

            EW blinds, and then a technical matter .. The most effective is to extinguish the satellite through which the info goes to the electronics ..
            And so for a short time you can get the main control .. hi
            What are you torturing me as a Gestapo partisan ..)))))
            1. KVU-NSVD
              KVU-NSVD 11 May 2020 15: 08 New
              +7
              Quote: Birch
              B blinds, and then a matter of technology .. The most effective is to extinguish the satellite through which the info goes to the electronics ..
              And so for a short time you can get the main control ..

              Do you generally imagine the means and the order of their capacities to "blind" the aircraft carrier group and how to deliver these media to this very carrier group within the radius of their action? A satellite to "extinguish" is a sensible idea and even theoretically quite feasible with a single device, but the problem is that there are many satellites, and there are a couple of orders of magnitude more communication channels through them, and communication channels in general - add another order. In the light of all of the above, explain to me the technology and tactics of "extinguishing" everything and everything for AUG. Keep in mind that the AUG will not die without these channels, but will continue to defend itself and raise aircraft into the sky.
              1. Uncle Izya
                Uncle Izya 11 May 2020 20: 32 New
                +5
                And we must still timely detect this AUG
                1. Whiteidol
                  Whiteidol 12 May 2020 21: 18 New
                  +3
                  And give her target designation.
            2. Stalllker
              Stalllker 11 May 2020 16: 06 New
              +3
              Birch, grow up to BIRCH, then we'll talk on adult topics
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 May 2020 15: 02 New
          16
          Quote: Birch
          Well, as far as I know, "Daggers" hypersonic hole make a specific

          yes, if you persuade the aircraft carrier to stand somewhere on the spot, remove the guards and crew ... and, of course, turn off the electronic warfare
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 15: 35 New
            -17
            You personally did not try to think? at least sometimes?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 May 2020 15: 52 New
              13
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              You personally did not try to think?

              I tried, in early childhood. I liked this process, and now I think constantly, moreover, with my own head. Which I advise you.
              The dagger is designed to destroy stationary targets, this is an air-based Iskender.
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 16: 19 New
                -20
                It is clear that they did not try, maybe not given. What a Dagger is, I already know perfectly well, within the framework of the accessible and not only. And I would not be so concretely sure of what they tell you on TV. However, I will personally tell you one phrase from the past times of the war in the Pacific - the Hammer and Anvil reception of carrier-based aircraft. Think
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 May 2020 17: 26 New
                  12
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  Clearly did not try, maybe not given

                  Of course I didn’t. I tried :)))
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  And I would be not so reinforced concrete sure that they say to you on the box.

                  According to the box, they say that the Dagger drowns the USAG with one left aerodynamic wheel. And yet, yes, I do not believe it :)
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  However, I will personally tell you one phrase from the past times of the war in the Pacific - the Hammer and Anvil reception of carrier-based aircraft. Think

                  I will personally tell you that the funniest thing on the Internet is a person who is smartly trying to speak in vague phrases.
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 17: 31 New
                    -17
                    It is clear that they were amused with illiteracy, but not for the first time, and not for the last time, I suppose ... And by the way, did I say somewhere that the Dagger drowns the AUG with one left-hand drive?

                    And the last Grammar in the posts of opponents, those people begin to rule who have nothing to say on the merits ...
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 May 2020 17: 35 New
                      11
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      It’s clear that they were amused with illiteracy, but not for the first time, and not for the last time, I suppose ...

                      Have fun :))) Laughter for no reason, as you know ...
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      and by the way, I somewhere said that the dagger with one left rudder drowns AUG?

                      Maybe before you write, still learn to read? I wrote
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      According to the box, they say that the Dagger drowns the USAG with one left aerodynamic wheel.

                      Are you talking to me from the mailbox that you accepted this maxim in your account? Diogenes number two, apparently.
                      Quote: Cyril G ...
                      And the last Grammar in the posts of opponents, those people begin to rule who have nothing to say on the merits ...

                      And this is said by a man who managed to cheat on me and not say anything on the merits of the question ... However, it’s strange to expect anything else from those in the box
                      1. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 17: 41 New
                        -14
                        Laughter for no reason, as you know ...

                        To your displeasure, there are just reasons ...
                        and not say anything on the merits ..

                        I said more than, enough, the "Naval Expert" you think you are, should have had enough, in theory, to understand the essence ...
                        who managed to cheat on me

                        You have megalomania, you need someone .........
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 May 2020 18: 14 New
                        +9
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        I said more than, enough, the "Naval Expert" you think you are, should have had enough, in theory, to understand the essence ...

                        Yeah. “I’ll blurt out anything, but you’re smart, you’ll probably come up with something for me.”
                      3. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 19: 45 New
                        -17
                        Blur nonsense is not a thought, this is your kind style. Oh, what claims to me .... I painted the outfit of strength, ask the remaining questions strictly on the merits ....
          2. Charik
            Charik 12 May 2020 01: 59 New
            -1
            As my friend once told me, Think with your own head, I answered him, no, let’s think yours
            1. zenion
              zenion 15 May 2020 18: 19 New
              -2
              But you can use a volumetric explosion weapon. If this explodes on an aircraft carrier, or above it, what will remain there? He blazes like a firework.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 15: 47 New
        14
        The excitement is still removed, otherwise it will be dragged away by a dozen meters and the rocket will hit the water.
        So the aircraft carrier must be driven into the bay and anchored, or better yet stranded. Then it will definitely not be missed.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 May 2020 15: 52 New
          +3
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Excitement still to remove

          Hmm ... I repent, I somehow did not think about it laughing
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 16: 21 New
          -16
          Dumb? It happens ..... I just chewed at you why and how to do it right.
      3. Stalllker
        Stalllker 11 May 2020 16: 08 New
        -5
        I think "dagger" in half for security and electronic warfare
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 May 2020 17: 29 New
          10
          Quote: Stalllker
          I think "dagger" in half for security and electronic warfare

          Basically, you think right, because the dagger is not designed to hit moving targets. And since they will not use it for aircraft carriers, their protection and electronic warfare are really in half.
          1. Stalllker
            Stalllker 11 May 2020 18: 20 New
            -2
            So yes not so ... Quote from the wiki - "The Kh-47M2" Dagger "is a Russian hypersonic aviation missile system. The complex's hypersonic missiles are capable of hitting both stationary objects and surface ships: aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates"
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 May 2020 21: 23 New
              10
              Quote: Stalllker
              The complex's hypersonic missiles are capable of striking both stationary objects and surface ships: aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates "

              And also in the wiki it is said about the means of guiding the ANN rocket with the possibility of adjustment from the GLONASS system, AWACS, optical GOS. This set does not allow to hit moving sea targets.
              1. ser56
                ser56 11 May 2020 22: 04 New
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                This set does not allow to hit moving sea targets.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                optical gos.

                but somehow the first CDs were just so striking - on TV hi and then the KR coped using the optical (infrared) guidance channel ... hi e.g. P-15M
                by the way, Iskander - "Optical GSN 9B918 manufactured by NPP" Radar mms " is infraredand allows you to find the coordinates of the target using landmarks on the ground, even on a moonless night. The advantage of an optical seeker is its resistance to the enemy's use of electronic warfare equipment to suppress satellite navigation signals or radio commands [49]. "
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 17: 34 New
                  +2
                  Quote: ser56
                  but somehow the first CDs were just so striking - on TV

                  Do not confuse the optical homing head and telecontrol - these are two different things.
                  Quote: ser56
                  e.g. P-15M
                  by the way

                  Do not confuse the optical homing head and the thermal homing head - these are two different things.
                  1. ser56
                    ser56 12 May 2020 19: 28 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Do not confuse the optical homing head and telecontrol - these are two different things.

                    the difference is related to information processing systems - man / computer - no more ... request well, less dependence on the communication channel ...
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Do not confuse the optical homing head and the thermal homing head - these are two different things.

                    Quote: ser56
                    "Optical GOS 9B918 produced by NPP" Radar mms "is an infrared

                    Quote: ser56
                    then the KR coped using the optical (infrared) guidance channel ... hi for example P-15M

                    it would be nice if you just understood what you read request
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 20: 25 New
                    +2
                    Quote: ser56
                    the difference is associated with information processing systems - man / computer - no more.

                    Wrong
                    Quote: ser56
                    it would be nice if you just understood what you read

                    It would be nice if you understood what you were reading. I repeat once again - an optical GOS (working including in the infrared spectrum) is one thing, and a thermal GOS is another
                  3. ser56
                    ser56 12 May 2020 21: 04 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Wrong

                    in your incompetent view ... request
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    an optical seeker (operating including in the infrared spectrum) is one thing, and a thermal seeker is another

                    it’s the same thing, it’s just used to be divided because of the lack of development of digital image processing systems, and now even a miniature Willow has it ... request
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    It would be nice if you understood

                    and I’m pretty good at it, because I used the input systems of the image from the oscilloscope screen for a long time ... hi
          2. Stalllker
            Stalllker 12 May 2020 00: 01 New
            -6
            And you are the designer of this rocket and I see everything you know ?!
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 17: 35 New
              +6
              Quote: Stalllker
              And you are the designer of this rocket and I see everything you know ?!

              No, I'm not a constructor. I know the capabilities of optical GOS, this is not a secret :)
              And yes - no need to poke. I poke - you have a poke still not feathered
          3. Charik
            Charik 12 May 2020 02: 09 New
            0
            and optical GOS isn't it possible for moving targets to hit
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 17: 49 New
              +3
              Quote: Charik
              and optical GOS isn't it possible for moving targets to hit

              No, she's not for that.
              An optical seeker works like this - a satellite (or another spy) photographs the location of a stationary object and the object itself, then all this is digitized, and placed in the seeker. That, on approach, analyzes the visible area for compliance with the data laid down in it and adjusts the flight.
              This method works great because modern ANNs launch a missile with a deviation of several hundred meters maximum. Optics refills the target - and nothing more.
              And in order to hit a naval target .... everything is much more complicated there simply because of the complexity of issuing target designation. Writing to the same AUG control center in real time will turn out in 1 case out of 100, this even in the USSR did not work, even "Liana" gave a delay of up to an hour or more. That is why active GOS were needed, with their own radar, capable of detecting a target at a distance of tens of kilometers (at Granit, EMNIP 80 km)
              That is, purely theoretically, you can probably teach an optical seeker to direct a missile at a moving sea target. But for this, it is necessary to ensure a very accurate launch of the missile to the target by other means - the KVO should not exceed ... well, kilometers, probably. inertial dagger guidance systems (and no others) can provide anything of the kind. Again, in theory, the AWACS and U can do this. But who will allow him to hang out for a long time 400 km from AUG?
              1. ser56
                ser56 12 May 2020 19: 40 New
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But for this it is necessary to ensure a very accurate launch of the missile at the target by other means - the CVT should not exceed ... well, kilometers

                KVO Dagger according to open data - units of meters request
                1000 km at 10 M fly for 300 s, during which time AB will go to 30 uz 4,6 km from the aiming point ...
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                An optical seeker works like this - a satellite (or another spy) photographs the location of a stationary object and the object itself, then all this is digitized, and placed in the seeker

                not quite so - you can do a contrast analysis (the sea is not dry, it’s easier) and select targets, analyze their sizes and do guidance ... now it can be done digitally, earlier on thermal heads it was analog request The lines are analyzed to the maximum, then the maximums in the frame are analyzed and the target is selected -trivially ... hi
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                at a distance of tens of kilometers (

                why - leaving the target at 4,5 km in the limit ...

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Again, in theory this can be done by the AWACS and U

                The Container radar has a range of 4 km, at the entrance of the AB to this zone, you can aim the plane with the Dagger ... If the AB is outside the borders of this zone - its presence is not dangerous ... hi
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 20: 23 New
                +4
                Quote: ser56
                The radar container has a range of 4 km

                On air targets. But on the surface ... something I did not see more or less decent sources that would report this parameter. Above-water see other ZGRLS, but they have a much smaller detection radius. And many times there was infa that ZGRLS can not give TSU
              3. ser56
                ser56 12 May 2020 20: 59 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                On air targets.

                AB is dangerous when planes take off from it request When approaching the coast of a country with serious armaments, he will have to fly a DRLO aircraft into the air, otherwise there will be a danger of a sudden strike by RCC request Or a PLO helicopter will raise an escort ...
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                ZGRLS cannot give TsU

                their business is to discover goals that can be further explored hi
              4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 21: 05 New
                +3
                Quote: ser56
                AB is dangerous when planes take off from it

                Yes.
                Quote: ser56
                When approaching the coast of a country with serious armaments, he will have to fly a DRLO aircraft into the air, otherwise there will be a danger of a sudden strike by RCC

                Mandatory. But this will give information for a short time, while neither the direction nor the speed of the AUG will be known.
                Quote: ser56
                their business is to discover goals that can be further explored

                Absolutely right. But this requires forces and means,
        2. Whiteidol
          Whiteidol 12 May 2020 21: 34 New
          +3
          Andrey, tell me if you know ... How are we with target designation? AUG USA has Hawkeye DLRO. Does the Russian Navy have something similar, or only the A-50 (but this is for the Air Force)? I asked this question on the transfer to Baranets .. he didn't really say anything ... only that the Liana system was being tested. How then to detect the AUG and give target designation to the forces of the Russian Navy?
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2020 17: 22 New
          +3
          Quote: Whiteidol
          Andrey, tell me if you are in the know ...

          A bit in the know hi
          Quote: Whiteidol
          How are we targeting?

          Very simple. It is not that it is not at all, but it is absolutely not on a par with the tasks facing it.
          Quote: Whiteidol
          He asked this question on the transfer to Barents .. plainly he did not say anything ..

          So to say something and nothing.
          Quote: Whiteidol
          only that the "Liana" system is tested.

          Well, let's do it in order.
          A wonderful thing was done in the USSR - Legend is called. Satellites US-A (active radar) and US-P (radio intelligence station). The first ones were especially effective, they could actually reveal the location of enemy ships and issue a central command to them. While we had a sufficient satellite constellation of them, our aircraft carrier with "Basalts" in Mediterranean could receive information several times a day about the presence of aircraft carriers and other enemy ships in the Mediterranean and, on the basis of the data received, prepare a control center for its missiles. For example, TAKR Kiev, in about 2 months and a bit, the BS in the Mediterranean in 1985 made satellite communications 300 times, detected 1 surface targets with them, and worked out target designation almost 000 times. At the same time, the satellites showed him AV Eisenhower, Foch, Clemenceau, Illastries. But, of course, he did not constantly follow them - he received information during the satellite's flight over the water area.
          And yet this was not a real-time picture, and most importantly, the US-A were very expensive. The radar on them was powerful enough, and it worked a lot - no batteries would be enough, therefore the satellite was equipped with a portable nuclear reactor. But it still worked relatively little. And yes - I heard a lot from practitioners that in the real current service there were many problems with the Legend. That is, the reliability of the system did not differ from the word "in general", although sometimes it could show soooo :)))))))
          so Liana is a modern Legend. But there is no reactor on it, and therefore its capabilities are incomprehensible, and, most likely, inferior to US-A. In addition, now in space there are only two satellites of active and two of passive reconnaissance, one more satellite of each type of experimental, they operate in limited functionality. And, which is extremely unpleasant - their orbits are well known, so these satellites can be destroyed within XNUMX hours after the outbreak of hostilities, if not faster.
          What else? ZGRLS. But they have a problem - especially long-range ones (such as Container) seem to be able to see only aerodynamic targets, and those that can see surface ones work at a maximum of 400-500 km. That is, they require accommodation not far from the coast, where, generally speaking, nothing really prevents them from destroying their missiles from the same submarines or NKs at the very beginning of the conflict.
          And ZGRLS can neither identify the target nor give the target to it - further exploration is needed.
          The third is AWACS aircraft. Generally speaking, the A-50s work in the interests of the fleet, but we have few of these aircraft, and the A-50U is more or less appropriate for the time, and the cat really cried. I foresee that if it starts, no one will give the A-50U fleet. And of the naval aircraft, only the IL-38 with Novella can perform the DRLO functions, but from it the same DRLO can be performed as from a dagger with a two-handed sword. That is, on occasion, it can cut, of course, but in the right fight ...
          Fourth. These are stations like harpoon-B, which are installed on ships. This is generally a miracle of technology, because they really can not only detect surface ships, but also identify them with success by 300, or even 400 km by active means. But it still depends on weather conditions or something like that, and then - even 400 km will not be enough, but for such a distance - only on big holidays. EMNIP told me that it works confidently for 250 kilometers, maybe 300.
          That, in fact, is all - if you do not think about the rare Su-24s in the variant of a naval reconnaissance - like those still remain. And yes - there are a couple more Ka-31 AWACS helicopters, but they don't seem to be in operation. And then - the mail chain is small, the EMNIP is 250-300 kilometers away, and when the hanging antenna rotates, the helicopter should almost hang motionless (like the speed should not exceed several tens of kilometers per hour)
        4. ccsr
          ccsr 13 May 2020 19: 17 New
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In the USSR they did a wonderful thing - the Legend is called. Satellites US-A (active radar) and US-P (radio intelligence station).

          Firstly, these are satellites of the type of the armed forces, secondly, in addition to them, we also had others, much more advanced, thirdly, the Navy had units of the main task force that could conduct direction finding from the coast, fourthly, the Navy had its own intelligence and intelligence ships sources, and most importantly, the main headquarters of the Navy constantly received information from other main headquarters and from the GRU General Staff, so the Legend was only a part, far from the most important, of the entire intelligence system of the Ministry of Defense.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          For example, TAKR Kiev in about 2 months and a little BS in the middle earth in 1985 went to satellite communications 300 times, discovered 1 surface targets with them, worked out target designation almost 000 times.

          Communication satellites are not reconnaissance - so you already decide to receive through them, or removed directly from the sides. As far as I know, at that time, sailors did not yet have their own optical-electronic reconnaissance systems to receive information directly on board a ship in real time, although I will not say so.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          therefore, the satellite was equipped with a portable nuclear reactor.

          The RTG is not a nuclear reactor, although it uses the received thermal energy from nuclear materials - it is a completely different system for generating electricity, which was used on some satellites.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In addition, now in space there are only two satellites of active and two of passive reconnaissance, one more satellite of each type of experimental, they operate in limited functionality.

          These are specialized satellites, and there are also dual-purpose ones, and they can be used to determine the coordinates of ships, at least by the radiation of ship radars, which operate constantly during the campaign. There are also other ways to obtain information about the location of objects, you just don’t know about them, so not everything is as sad as you describe, especially given the automation of the processing of different information that comes from AUG.
        5. Whiteidol
          Whiteidol 13 May 2020 21: 17 New
          +3
          Thank you very much for the detailed answer.
        6. NAVIAVI
          NAVIAVI 24 May 2020 16: 45 New
          +3
          Good day.
          Semenov.
          I chose the time I registered for the thirtieth time))).
          A person does not realize what he is writing.
          He can see the intelligence reports carried by the ensign.
          Never there coordinates were not indicated, especially "exact" ..... Tied to a settlement, as a last resort, In an area limited by coord.
          There is no need for "exact" ones ... While they have transferred-received-issued-brought .... everything is outdated.
          This is INTELLIGENCE information, not data for the PM.
          The question is solved simply, I wrote to him, you open the warrior and give out your VUS here. And everything is clear immediately. laughing
  • Editor
    Editor 11 May 2020 21: 33 New
    +1
    And it doesn’t say that moving ships ...
  • ser56
    ser56 11 May 2020 21: 56 New
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    aircraft carrier stand somewhere on the spot, remove the guards and crew ... and, of course, turn off the electronic warfare

    you are an expert, of course, but the media write - "The complex's hypersonic missiles are capable of hitting both stationary objects and surface ships:" and also "The missile searches for targets using an optical correlation seeker, which allows it to hit them with a deviation of about 1 meter."
    https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/20185211547-L3aOs.html

    Do you have more reliable sources? recourse
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 17: 50 New
      +3
      Quote: ser56
      but in the media they write

      The media generally write a lot. And for people unable to add 2 and 2, this scribble has a huge impact ...
      1. ser56
        ser56 12 May 2020 19: 42 New
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The media generally write a lot.

        Do you have other sources of information? bully
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And for people unable to add 2 and 2, this scribble has a huge impact ...

        you are self-critical ... bully
  • Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 12 May 2020 19: 19 New
    0
    Andrey, how do you look at this option:
    volley of 12 anti-ship missiles Zircon
    use 3 RCC Zircon with a thermonuclear warhead to thin out the path from SM-3, SM-6 missiles from destroyers and cruisers: at ranges of 60, 40, 20 km from the aircraft carrier
    + to neutralize Spike radar with neutron radiation than thermonuclear warheads are rich
    And the main strike of 6 anti-ship missiles against 6 destroyers and 3 anti-ship missiles against 1 aircraft carrier - with a conventional warhead
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 21: 04 New
      +4
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      Andrey, how do you look at this option:

      Everything is simpler. In the USSR, it was planned to plant 8 X-22 cruise missiles with special warheads there to identify the AOG - they had to provide EMR suppression to launch missile carriers.
      And still it was considered necessary to involve air divisions (two regiments of missile carriers) with support aircraft and fighter cover.
      In general, nuclear weapons make the task easier, but it does not make it simple.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 11 May 2020 18: 54 New
    +2
    Quote: Birch
    Not without reason, the United States decided to reduce the AUGs on duty in the world's oceans .. Too expensive and no longer scare anyone

    And taking into account the fact that our naval commanders will insist on the destruction of such a group in the first minutes of the war with a nuclear strike by our nuclear forces on duty, I consider all the arguments that we will destroy them as non-nuclear forces a profanity. I think that the author of the article is too naive to understand the real scenario of modern war, so he writes similar fantasies to be branded as an analyst at VO. I think that all his arguments cannot be taken seriously - we cannot risk the country like that, especially since we have a stock of nuclear charges and their carriers, which determine our actions to destroy any AUGs.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 19: 46 New
      -3
      That's right ....
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 11 May 2020 22: 04 New
        +2
        What kind of duty strategic nuclear forces can destroy an aircraft carrier if it is not anchored?
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 22: 13 New
          +5
          None. Comrade is joking.
          1. abvgdeika
            abvgdeika 12 May 2020 02: 23 New
            0
            You shouldn’t be so, you can get around soldier
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 12 May 2020 11: 33 New
              0
              Quote: abvgdeika
              You shouldn’t be so, you can get around

              They did not fall, as I understand it, but did an air or surface detonation.
            2. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 12 May 2020 18: 59 New
              +2
              Where to get? Finger to the sky? In half an hour the AUG will go to an unknown destination. There are no megaton-class warheads right now. Homing - too. Bombing the sea with a square-nested method is a great way to combat AUG, I'm afraid only warheads are not enough.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 12 May 2020 10: 20 New
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            None. Comrade is joking.

            Not at all. In vain do you think that in the Navy of the Main Staff of the Navy they ate nothing in vain - they had their own intelligence satellites since the late sixties. In the GSVG, we daily received a Baltic Fleet reconnaissance report with the exact coordinates of all the ships of the carriers of nuclear weapons and URO in their area of ​​responsibility - this was in the eighties. Do you think that nobody is doing this now?
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 10: 40 New
              +2
              Fiction on the second floor.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 12 May 2020 11: 30 New
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Fiction on the second floor.

                If you are not in the subject, then people do not need to hang noodles on their ears.
                13 launches of the Zenit-2 spacecraft were carried out, 3 of which ended in a launch vehicle accident. In total, as part of the normal operation, the Zenit-2 spacecraft was launched 81 times (7 launches ended in a launch vehicle accident at the active site). In 1964, by Order of the USSR Ministry of Defense, it was adopted by the Soviet Army. Serial production was organized at TsSKB-Progress in Kuibyshev. Since 1968, a gradual transition to the modernized Zenit-2M spacecraft began, and the number of Zenit-2 launches began to decline.

                https://topwar.ru/37962-kosmicheskie-razvedchikisovetskie-i-rossiyskie-sputniki-shpiony.html
                Among these satellites were those that worked only on the Navy.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 11: 42 New
                  +2
                  I remember the madness that you sometimes broadcast here,
                  then your RPPS will go closer to America, then something else.

                  In the 82nd year, the Navy's intelligence lost the Midway for a week. You don’t want to explain this in any way, but there were and are such examples in bulk in all fleets.

                  Zeniths threw down a capsule with reconnaissance equipment, the films were in it, let’s tell us how they could transmit something daily, very interesting.
                  What are the most accurate coordinates for the devil every day?

                  Understand already - that your fantasies seem convincing to you does not mean at all that reality will come in line with them.

                  Will not come.
                2. ccsr
                  ccsr 12 May 2020 11: 58 New
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  In the 82nd year, the Navy's intelligence lost the Midway for a week.

                  He was immediately found at the GRU as soon as the Navy intelligence asked for help. And it doesn’t say anything - just the reconnaissance of one of the fleets slurped up and was silent for a long time, and no more.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Zeniths threw down a capsule with reconnaissance equipment, the films were in it, let’s tell us how they could transmit something daily, very interesting.

                  This was the first stage that began in the sixties. In the seventies, negatives had already begun to be thrown off over the air - but this was an intermediate stage. But this is not the main thing, but the fact that the main information was given by the satellites of radio and electronic intelligence - the ship equipment of the aircraft carrier group is constantly working.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Understand already - that your fantasies seem convincing to you does not mean at all that reality will come in line with them.
                  Will not come.

                  Tell me honestly that you have no idea about the Kupavino center, and about what the naval units of the Special Forces Aviation Administration were doing at that time.
          3. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 12 May 2020 19: 01 New
            +2
            "In the GSVG, we received daily intelligence reports from the Baltic Fleet with the exact coordinates of all the ships of nuclear weapons and missile defense carriers in their area of ​​responsibility" - and how could you use this data to use strategic nuclear forces against aircraft carrier groups?
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 12 May 2020 19: 10 New
              0
              Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
              and how could you use this data to use strategic nuclear forces against aircraft carrier groups?

              No way - we took this information into account in order to take into account the POSSIBLE blow to our group from the fleets of NATO countries. You apparently did not understand that I cited this example to show that even at a lower level, ships of a smaller class were being tracked, i.e. it was a level of operational intelligence. And the strategic and operational intelligence of the Navy is engaged in AUGs, and besides, the specific intelligence of air defense and the air forces in Soviet times - do you understand the difference in levels?
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 12 May 2020 10: 07 New
        -1
        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
        What kind of duty strategic nuclear forces can destroy an aircraft carrier if it is not anchored?

        Of the triad - aviation and strategic missile forces. Any movement of the AUG even in Soviet times was monitored in real time, speed and course were predicted, so for an X-101 type cruise missile with a nuclear charge it would not be a problem to hit an aircraft carrier. At least for a long time it will fail to guarantee it. It was also possible for the Strategic Missile Forces to introduce a flight mission just before launch - so technically this was all implemented thirty to forty years ago.
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 12 May 2020 10: 13 New
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          Any movement of the AUG even in Soviet times was monitored in real time.

          Nonsense!
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 12 May 2020 11: 24 New
            0
            Quote: Bez 310
            Nonsense!

            Enlighten
            Amber-Terylene(started from 28.12.1982/XNUMX/XNUMX) became the first Russian digital reconnaissance platform to transmit collected data via Potok-type relay satellites to a ground station in close to real time mode. In addition, the Yantar series devices became the basis for the development of the later satellites of the Orlets, Persona reconnaissance systems and the Resource-DK civilian Earth remote sensing satellite.

            https://topwar.ru/37962-kosmicheskie-razvedchikisovetskie-i-rossiyskie-sputniki-shpiony.html
            And this is not counting maritime radio engineering reconnaissance by parts of the Special Forces Aviation Aviation Administration, which carried round-the-clock duty and direction finding HF radio stations AUG
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 11: 43 New
              +3
              You argue with a man who received money from the state for the search for aircraft carriers and preparing attacks on them for many years.
              Do not disgrace already.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 12 May 2020 12: 01 New
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                You argue with a man who received money from the state for the search for aircraft carriers and preparing attacks on them for many years.

                At what level - don't you enlighten? And then I have seen enough of many "experts", and when you start to clarify, it suddenly turns out that the person, to put it mildly, even did not serve in the headquarters of the fleet, but learned all the secrets of conducting reconnaissance of the Navy.
              2. Bez 310
                Bez 310 12 May 2020 12: 23 New
                +3
                As in our Navy "Any movement of the AUG ... was tracked in real time", you can read the links in one of my posts under this article. In order to realize the whole chasm ... you do not need to serve in the headquarters of the fleet, it is enough to take part in "tracking".
                And I have not yet told how one of the MPA regiments went on the attack on the AVM.
                In general, you can stay in your "satellite" world, relying on the data received from the TV.
              3. ccsr
                ccsr 12 May 2020 12: 36 New
                -1
                Quote: Bez 310
                In order to realize the whole chasm ... you do not need to serve in the headquarters of the fleet, it is enough to take part in "tracking".

                Finally, it becomes clear who you are dealing with, or one wise guy here has already attributed to you what you set your goals - after all, he lies, because scouts and operators serve in different departments of the fleet headquarters.
                Quote: Bez 310
                In general, you can stay in your "satellite" world, relying on the data received from the TV.

                What a nafig TV - in 1988 we already had "Most" at the GSVG headquarters, not counting the brigade and five regiments of the main troops on constant duty, and at best you served in the naval brigade, and I represent your level.
              4. Bez 310
                Bez 310 12 May 2020 12: 43 New
                +4
                I have no "level", I am "from the trench", and not from the headquarters.
                Have you tracked AUG many times? Do you understand something about striking an AVM? Or just like that, they ran into the light to share knowledge on the technical equipment of the GSVG headquarters? Sorry, I don’t understand anything in the GSVG, I can’t support the conversation ...
              5. ccsr
                ccsr 12 May 2020 13: 04 New
                -1
                Quote: Bez 310
                Have you tracked AUG many times?

                Even without the AUG, I had enough of my priorities - we had only a thousand of nuclear weapons of nuclear weapons on the CE of the theater of operations, and each was registered. And these are inconspicuous objects with a speed above sound, and the ass was sometimes sweaty. So your groups did not interest us, but were only taken into account according to the daily naval intelligence, if they could hit the GSVG troops.
                Quote: Bez 310
                Or just like that, they ran into the light to share knowledge on the technical equipment of the GSVG headquarters?

                I carried six combat missions a month - so believe me, you know better how they organize everything, especially since I know where and what we got, including from the Navy.
                Quote: Bez 310
                Sorry, I don’t understand anything in the GSVG

                The point is not even in the GSVG, but in the principles of reconnaissance and assessment of priority threats. If you understand all this, then it immediately becomes clear that the author of the article is nonsense, telling the gullible public how to destroy the AUG as ordinary rockets or sea torpedoes as possible - this whim has no basis.
              6. Bez 310
                Bez 310 12 May 2020 13: 49 New
                +3
                A conversation makes no sense. An article about the possibility of defeating AVM with conventional weapons, and you inform us about the organization of reconnaissance on a ground theater. In general, everything is like Chekhov’s - “They want to show their education and always talk about the incomprehensible.” Excuse me...
              7. ccsr
                ccsr 12 May 2020 14: 11 New
                -2
                Quote: Bez 310
                An article about the possibility of defeating AVM with conventional weapons, and you inform us about the organization of reconnaissance on a ground theater.

                You watched the discussion inattentively, because the idea was expressed that our nuclear forces on duty would not be able to hit moving AUG objects, and I said that it was stupid, because intelligence systems appeared in Soviet times that made it possible to track such groups in real time. And this made it possible to hit it based on the predicted course and speed. Moreover, information about such AUGs could already be technically obtained at the headquarters of any fleet in their area of ​​responsibility. And now I’m sure that there are modern intelligence systems that allow you to track AUGs in real time in any region of their application, which means it will be decided whether this is the primary goal or not. Further action is obvious.
              8. Bez 310
                Bez 310 12 May 2020 14: 32 New
                +2
                Quote: ccsr
                I am sure there are modern intelligence systems that allow you to track AUGs in real time in any region of their application

                I will repeat my comment - "Nonsense".
                But I stop talking with you about AVM, as you are not a specialist in this matter, and retell the editorials of the military media. You would have quoted the MO site here.
              9. ccsr
                ccsr 12 May 2020 17: 45 New
                -1
                Quote: Bez 310
                I will repeat my comment - "Nonsense".

                Repeat at least ten times, but I'm sure you have no idea how strategic intelligence systems work, so you don’t understand how not only orbital constellation is used, but also dual-purpose satellites.
                Quote: Bez 310
                But I stop talking with you about AVM, as you are not a specialist in this matter, and retell the editorials of the military media.

                I served for eight years at a point for monitoring space objects and luminaries, so it's not up to you to judge what I know and what not. By the way, the naval ones were weaker in this matter - they just have more linear objects, and radars work constantly.
                Quote: Bez 310
                You would have quoted the MO site here.

                Why - I already go to veteran meetings regularly, so I have some idea. Enlighten yourself - this is the zero years station, which even in Chechnya was used
              10. Bez 310
                Bez 310 12 May 2020 18: 32 New
                0
                how strategic intelligence systems work

                Calm down please don't be nervous. I was never interested in the structure of "strategic intelligence systems", I was only interested in the result of their work. Unfortunately, even now these results "do not shine" ...
                But do not strain with the answer, take care of yourself, this dispute is "nothing", and no one needs it.
              11. ccsr
                ccsr 12 May 2020 18: 53 New
                -1
                Quote: Bez 310
                I was only interested in the result of their work. Unfortunately, even now these results "do not shine" ...

                And you did not serve in this link - how can you determine whether they shine or not?
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 17: 55 New
          +3
          Quote: ccsr
          and I said that this is stupid, because already in Soviet times there were intelligence systems that in real time allowed tracking such groups

          With all due respect, ALL sources refute you. Including quite serious ones, like the GRKTs of Makeev
        3. ccsr
          ccsr 12 May 2020 18: 19 New
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          With all due respect, ALL sources refute you.

          I don’t know what sources you have, but since 1978 we have been on combat duty, but we have worked on other facilities more important than some AUGs. And the capabilities of our systems in the eighties made it possible to track the movement of objects in real time after the appearance of repeaters. And now, when we have more than 150 devices, and two-thirds of them are military, to organize AOG tracking in general as two fingers on asphalt, the more so their linear dimensions are so large that even civilian sensing satellites can fix them. And if you consider that they work on their satellite lines, then information can be obtained quickly enough.
        4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 21: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          I don’t know what sources you have

          I repeat - EVERYTHING. Starting with the basics, Cousin and Nikolsky. do not confirm your words and the developers of the ICRC Zemlyanov, Kossov, Taube. As I have already said, the story of the creation of the R-27K, described in SKB-385, contradicts you. GRC named after academician Makeev (a book edited by academician RARAN, moreover, written in close contact with specialists of the GRC).
          Neither Legend nor other reconnaissance satellites allowed the effective use of ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons to defeat AUGs. In order to make such a missile, it had to become self-guiding, and it was precisely such work that was carried out in Makeevo.
        5. ccsr
          ccsr 13 May 2020 11: 08 New
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Neither Legend nor other reconnaissance satellites allowed the effective use of ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons to defeat AUGs.

          You confuse warm with wet, because reconnaissance structures track targets, but operational structures decide which tools to use to destroy them. So before deciding what the experts from a respected design bureau say there, at least first study how the information is processed before it will be given out to those who decide what to destroy the AOG, based on the weapons available. Here is what is available on the network, although this information is outdated and incomplete:
          In addition to the 6th Directorate, the activities of several other GRU units and services were related to radio intelligence. So, the GRU command post, which carried out round-the-clock monitoring of the appearance of signs of an impending attack on the USSR, also used the information received by the 6th Directorate. The information support departments carried out work on the assessment of intelligence reports received from the 6th department. The decryption service was engaged in cryptanalysis of intercepted encrypted messages. She was directly subordinate to the head of the GRU and was located on Komsomolsky Prospekt in Moscow. The main task of the decryption service was to read cipher messages from tactical military communications networks. The GRU special computer center processed the incoming information, which was obtained by means of radio intelligence using computer technology. The Central Research Institute in Moscow developed specialized equipment for conducting radio intelligence, and the GRU's operational and technical department was responsible for its production and maintenance. Foreign radio interception centers are operated by the Sixth Directorate of the GRU together with the FAPSI, for example, the famous electronic center in Lourdes in Cuba.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In order to make such a missile, it had to become self-guiding, and it was precisely such work that was carried out in Makeevo.

          You just have no idea how to strike AUGs, including by detonating a powerful high-altitude or surface nuclear charge in the area where the group is located, after which the ships will need a lot of time to restore at least antenna and other external ship equipment.
        6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 May 2020 16: 43 New
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          You confuse warm with wet

          Me not. But you are undoubtedly.
          Quote: ccsr
          because intelligence structures track targets, but operational structures decide which tools to use to destroy them.

          Yes, at least some. We talk about your postulate
          Quote: ccsr
          The idea was put forward that our nuclear forces on duty would not be able to hit moving AUG objects, and I said that it was stupid, because in Soviet times intelligence systems had appeared that made it possible to track such groups in real time. And this made it possible to hit it based on the predicted course and speed.

          Now you are refusing this postulate, they say it’s our business to scout, and then the operational structures of the adversary will be pecked there - not my concern.
          You already decide - or the defeat of naval goals - not your diocese (department, structure, etc.) and then you should admit the falsity of your thesis, which I quoted above. Or, explain how, based on the intelligence you indicated, the operational structures could hit the real-time target you tracked, as you postulated.
          Quote: ccsr
          You just have no idea how hit AUG

          I may not have it, but to say the same thing about the developers of the R-27K - it's you, to put it mildly, got excited
          Quote: ccsr
          including by undermining a powerful high-altitude or surface nuclear charge in the area where the group is located, after which the ships will need a lot of time to restore at least antenna and other external ship equipment.

          I repeat. The creators of a medium-range ballistic missile (900 km) designed to defeat AUG claim that, despite the presence of an atmospheric correction and the equipment of a special warhead of 0,65Mt, the rocket could not satisfactorily destroy AUG, and therefore work on it was curtailed in favor of cruise missiles . And the development of the AUG ballistic means of destruction was continued, but only towards the creation of homing warheads capable of homing in the atmospheric portion of the flight.
          This opinion of professionals completely refutes your point of view. It turns out that the country was trying to create special ballistic missiles to defeat AUG, faced with problems, tried to create a GOS capable of working in the atmosphere with hypersound, but in fact, in your opinion, none of this was needed and the AUG was easily slammed with standard strategic nuclear forces.
        7. ccsr
          ccsr 13 May 2020 18: 44 New
          -2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Now you are refusing this postulate, they say it’s our business to scout, and what then the operational structures of the adversary will hammer - it’s not my concern

          You didn’t understand that already in the eighties tracking of top-priority in real time was required - we technically came to this opportunity thanks to the orbital constellation and the advent of new reconnaissance satellites. You probably don’t know that the satellite early warning system could also track a massive launch in real time as well as over-the-horizon radar systems and all this was combined into a single system so that the MO could make a decision at a critical moment.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You already decide please - or the defeat of naval targets

          You apparently are not aware that the AUG is not a priority for us, as long as its aircraft does not pose a real threat to our most important command centers and military potential of the country. That is why they are constantly monitored to always know what level of threat they pose.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You already decide - or the defeat of naval goals - not your diocese (department, structure, etc.) and then you should admit the falsity of your thesis, which I quoted above.

          Sorry, but you are nonsense, and any professional understands that you have porridge in your head about priority goals. So you can’t understand how and where the enemy’s enemy groups will be strengthened, in the form of the sea, air and land component, which theater of operations they will choose and what we should do so that we do not suffer significant damage from them due to the short arrival time.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The creators of a medium-range ballistic missile (900 km) designed to defeat AUG claim

          Yes, we are not talking about this class of missiles - they are not strategic, you do not seem to understand what they mean by the strategic nuclear forces on duty.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          It turns out that the country was trying to create special ballistic missiles to defeat AUG,

          Do not smack nonsense - firstly, I didn’t say that, secondly, it’s not my fault that you have such fantasies, and thirdly, these are too insignificant goals to develop strategic ballistic missiles for them. It’s like firing a cannon at a sparrow.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I tried to create a GOS capable of working in the atmosphere with hypersound, but in fact, in your opinion, none of this was needed and the AUGs were easily slammed with standard nuclear weapons.

          So before the development of hypersonic weapons, such an option was supposed to be if only the AUG would be close to our territory and pose a real threat to our country. In general, we have too much speculation about carrier ships, which is why our industry is trying to integrate some weapons systems to combat them - you just don’t know how all this happens.
        8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2020 16: 38 New
          +3
          Quote: ccsr
          You did not understand

          Quote: ccsr
          You apparently do not know

          Quote: ccsr
          Sorry, but you are nonsense

          Quote: ccsr
          Do not smack nonsense

          All this, of course, is interesting, but you are diligently avoiding the answer to one simple question. I will repeat it. You wrote
          Quote: ccsr
          The idea was put forward that our nuclear forces on duty would not be able to hit moving AUG objects, and I said that it was stupid, because in Soviet times intelligence systems had appeared that made it possible to track such groups in real time. And this made it possible to hit it based on the predicted course and speed.

          In response to this, I reminded you that work was underway in the USSR to create a specialized ballistic missile with a range of 900 km (i.e., a relatively short approach time) with a nuclear warhead of 0,65 MT and with additional pressure on the transatmospheric flight section. In addition, the Legend, which with its US-A really approached real-time target control, was supposed to give it to TsU.
          And all this did not work.
          So, attention, question. How was it impossible for Makeev Center to create a specialized nuclear ballistic missile in the 80s to defeat AUGs, while in your 80s AUGs NON-SPECIALIZED SNF weapons slam AUGs easily?
          As soon as I beg you, I don’t need this spreading cranberry again, about which I know, but about which I do not know. Answer a simple question :))))
          "Do not go into yourself the mechanic. There you will be found in no time" (c)
        9. ccsr
          ccsr 14 May 2020 21: 04 New
          -2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In response to this, I reminded you that work was underway in the USSR to create a specialized ballistic missile with a range of 900 km (i.e., a relatively short approach time) with a nuclear warhead of 0,65 MT and with additional pressure on the transatmospheric flight section.

          You didn’t seem to understand that at that time we were betting on nuclear weapons of greater power, which hit squares by high-altitude or ground detonation, rather than aiming at objects, which is why we didn’t bother with precision weapons at that time. Having intelligence data, you can actually calculate how long the AUG will be at a certain point moving at a constant speed and without changing course. It remained to solve the problem of introducing new coordinates, which did not seem to be an insoluble task already at the level of then-class computers of the EU class.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In addition, the Legend, which with its US-A really approached real-time target control, was supposed to give it to TsU.

          The legend is just a species reconnaissance system, and they could use the forces of the Strategic Missile Forces or strategic aviation against the AUG without the data of this reconnaissance system - if such a task were set, then it would be solved without naval systems. Technically, this was all feasible.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          How did the Makeev center in the 80s failed to create a specialized nuclear ballistic missile to defeat the AUG,

          And why was it created if we had regular missiles in the Strategic Missile Forces, which could hit European NATO countries, including coastal ones, such as Italy or Great Britain.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Answer a simple question:

          You yourself have written some unthinkable theory about the controlled ballistic part for AOG, and you do not want to point blank that using a surface or high-altitude nuclear charge of 8 Mt against such a group at the heading of the group will put it out of action for a long time. To do this, it was necessary to obtain information about the ACG in real time, to calculate the flight time of our warhead and no more. Defense intelligence systems already had the opportunity to do this, even without naval systems. However, you are unlikely to understand this.
        10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2020 21: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: ccsr
          You do not seem to understand

          Yes, I understood everything long ago. Behind your verbal husk there is NOTHING. Here you turn up your nose diligently: "You don't know", "You don't understand", "Achinea" - but you yourself are not aware of elementary things
          Quote: ccsr
          You didn’t seem to understand that at that time we were betting on nuclear weapons of greater power, which hit squares by high-altitude or ground detonation, rather than aiming at objects, which is why we didn’t bother with precision weapons at that time.

          I will disappoint you - just then, in the 70s and 80s, a bet was placed precisely on high-precision weapons, which is why in the strategic nuclear forces we moved away from monoblocks of 25 and 8 Mt to RGCh IN with 1 Mt or less.
          Quote: ccsr
          The legend is just a species reconnaissance system, and they could use the forces of the Strategic Missile Forces or strategic aviation against the AUG without the data of this reconnaissance system

          No matter how much you say "halva", your mouth will not become sweeter. The fact that it was supposedly possible is nothing more than your idle speculation.
          Quote: ccsr
          You yourself wrote some unthinkable theory about a controlled ballistic part for AUG

          That is, you "in the presence of two people with a university education allow yourself, with absolutely unbearable swagger, to give some advice of a cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity" (c) and you yourself are not even aware of the main SNF systems and developments based on them.
          Study for a start at least the history of the creation of the R-27K, "expert".
        11. ccsr
          ccsr 16 May 2020 11: 39 New
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I will disappoint you - just then, in the 70s and 80s, a bet was placed precisely on high-precision weapons, which is why in the strategic nuclear forces we moved away from monoblocks of 25 and 8 Mt to RGCh IN with 1 Mt or less.

          How can you disappoint me if I found the time when you began to remove nuclear weapons for air defense missiles around Moscow, because even in the sixties special charges were armed even with their missiles. Their principle of action against ballistic warheads was precisely not to fall into them, but to create a shock wave in the way of their flight and thereby either destroy them or change course. The same could be done with our strategic nuclear forces, using large-capacity charges for large areas. And the separation of warheads did not occur due to the fact that we needed high accuracy, but only in order to hit a large area - you are not here in the subject.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The fact that it was supposedly possible was nothing more than your idle speculation.

          You will never understand that real-time information is not needed to determine the coordinates of stationary targets for strategic nuclear forces - it does not become obsolete so quickly. But the creation of a satellite system for detecting targets in real time was just what was needed to be able to track not only sea surface targets, but even the concentration of large enemy groups on any theater of operations, and this was a more difficult task than determining the coordinates of the ACG. It’s just that even at the level of the functioning of the entire system of the armed forces, your ideas are too naive - it’s clear that you are off topic, so you are rushing about with Makeev’s missiles, completely not understanding how all this was carried out in the Soviet Union at the level of combat use.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and they themselves are not even aware of the basic systems of strategic nuclear forces and developments based on them.

          What does development and combat use have to do with it? The developers weren’t close to operational planning. Who do you want to hang noodles on your ears, a specialist from the university who did not sit on combat duty for a day?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Study for a start at least the history of the creation of the R-27K, "expert".

          What does this have to do with the operational plans of the GOMU GSH? Do you think that you are showing your cleverness with this indication? In vain, I already realized that you have no idea how the entire system for detecting and destroying the primary targets of the enemy during the Soviet era functioned, and how the real degrees of threat from different enemy weapon systems were determined.
        12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 May 2020 13: 47 New
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          And the separation of warheads did not occur due to the fact that we needed high accuracy, but only in order to hit a large area - you are not here in the subject.

          No, you are not in the subject, once again confusing the warm with the soft, or rather, placing the cart in front of the horse, and at the same time - confusing it with the engine.
          In order for the RGCh with IN to hit the designated targets, high accuracy of guidance was required - otherwise the warhead would fly where God would put his soul and defeat was not guaranteed. Accordingly, the R-36 had a CVT of about 1,3 km, and was equipped with either a monoblock of 8 or 25 Mt or 3 combat units of 2,3 Mt without individual guidance. But in order to be able to successfully shoot a dozen warheads of near-megaton class (including yes, and for area targets), their accuracy had to be increased by several times - only this way it was guaranteed to cover, say, a large area of ​​damage.
          I’ll tell you one more military secret - in the 80s we worked on warheads with radar guidance for the strategic nuclear forces - 0,15 MT and 80 meters of air defense. Almost completed, by the way.
          So "I congratulate you sovramshi" once again
          Quote: ccsr
          You will never understand that real-time information is not needed to determine the coordinates of stationary targets for strategic nuclear forces - it does not become obsolete so quickly.

          I understand that much better than you
          Quote: ccsr
          But the creation of a satellite system for detecting targets in real time was just what was needed to be able to track not only surface sea targets, but even the concentration of large enemy groups on any theater of operations

          Right. But at the same time, the strategic nuclear forces could not hit naval targets from the word "absolutely" - neither Legenda nor other means of SMRTs provided such opportunities.
          Quote: ccsr
          It’s just that even at the level of functioning of the entire system of the armed forces, your ideas are too naive - it’s clear that you are off topic, so you are rushing about with Makeev’s missiles, completely not understanding how all this was carried out in the Soviet Union at the level of combat use.

          Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. I do not "carry around with Makeev's missiles", but I asked you a simple question - how could the strategic nuclear forces hit a sea target if it could not (all other things being equal, that is, with all the reconnaissance means you mentioned) a specialized ballistic missile. And no sane answer from you followed.
          That is, I just gave you the most striking example, which refutes your mind-building in the bud - and that’s all.
          Quote: ccsr
          What does development and combat use have to do with it? The developers weren’t close to operational planning.

          I will explain to you, moreover. When a new weapon is created, first TK is written on it, and it is written by those who use it later. That is, those involved, including operational planning :))) They needed specialized weapons to defeat the AUG, which is why they ordered it to Makeevites.
          And in your funny universe, the developers, picking their nose, decided for themselves what it was they should develop, right? :)))) Well, let me disappoint - although in some cases the initiative developments did take place, some serious work on them could start only after the approval of the customer, in our case, the fleet.
          Quote: ccsr
          What does this have to do with the operational plans of the GOMU GSH?

          The most immediate. With certain reservations, the USSR Armed Forces nevertheless represented a system in which the development of new types of weapons was carried out from the concept of using the aircraft, and it, in turn, from the tasks that were set for them. Sometimes mistakes were made (they didn’t choose the best tool for solving problems), but it was not a habit to conceive the most complicated and expensive NIIR for solving an already solved problem.
          Quote: ccsr
          In vain, I already realized that you have no idea how the whole system of detecting and destroying the enemy’s primary goals worked during the USSR

          Obviously, it is you who have no idea. That is, I can quite admit that you understand how the detection system worked, but that and how it could strike what it discovered you obviously didn’t
        13. ccsr
          ccsr 16 May 2020 14: 17 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I’ll tell you one more military secret - in the 80s we worked on warheads with radar guidance for the strategic nuclear forces - 0,15 MT and 80 meters of air defense. Almost completed, by the way.
          So "I congratulate you sovramshi" once again

          You are just verbiage - for a charge of even 100 Kt, an accuracy of 80 or 800 meters does not play any role. Congratulations, you have once again shown that you are a complete amateur in military affairs, and you have no idea how the zones of destruction of nuclear charges are calculated.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Right. But at the same time, the strategic nuclear forces could not hit naval targets from the word "absolutely" - neither Legenda nor other means of SMRTs provided such opportunities.

          After all, you're lying, and you aren’t blushing - the Legend has nothing to do with it, and the requirement to observe an object in real scale is not an end in itself, but first of all the requirement to determine the exact coordinates for striking at enemy’s mobile groups.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          how could strategic nuclear forces hit a naval target if it couldn’t

          Do you deny the possibility of air or surface detonation of a nuclear charge a few kilometers from the AUG? Is everything all right with your head?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          When a new weapon is created, first TK is written on it, and it is written by those who use it later.

          Firstly, TTZ Gensakazchik writes and approves, you here have managed to show your ignorance, and secondly, it NEVER prescribes how to use the product in combat - in a word I was once again convinced that you are just a dreamer who decided to demonstrate his wisdom in those matters which you have naive ideas.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: ccsr
          What does this have to do with the operational plans of the GOMU GSH?

          The most immediate. With certain reservations, the USSR Armed Forces nevertheless constituted a system in which the development of new types of weapons was carried out from the concept of the use of aircraft,

          You’re lying insolently - the GOMU GSh, about the plans of which I spoke, has never been a gas supplier for armaments and military equipment, so do not la-la.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Obviously, it is you who have no idea. That is, I can quite admit that you understand how the detection system worked, but that and how it could strike what it discovered you obviously didn’t

          You generally carry nonsense about how military planning was carried out in terms of defeating priority goals, which is why you never understand what kind of outfit of forces and equipment could be used to destroy them. So hang noodles to illiterate citizens, but not to military experts who simply do not take you seriously.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 13: 15 New
    +2
    Clearly above yours. Ask him directly, you are talking here.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 12 May 2020 13: 17 New
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Clearly above yours. Ask him directly, you are talking here.

    I already understood that you didn’t understand what he was doing, but his hint was enough for me.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 13: 19 New
    +2
    What he did and in what position is not a secret even once. Man himself writes about this on the Internet.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 12 May 2020 13: 24 New
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    What he did and in what position is not a secret even once. Man himself writes about this on the Internet.

    What he writes does not mean anything yet. But the fact that he does not know that the "Bridge" and the fleets should have been, suggests that he did not reach the level of understanding how they received and processed information from reconnaissance satellites in the district-fleet link.
    In 1988, the commander of the districts and fleets presented this equipment in Belarus in the classes held by the NSSh Akhromeev with the highest military leadership of the country and who needed to see this.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 12 May 2020 19: 17 New
    +3
    "so it won't be a problem for X-101 type guided cruise missiles with nuclear warheads to hit an aircraft carrier." - yah? How many hours does the Tu-95 / X-101 bunch fly to the target, do you remind me? And how many miles can the AUG get away from where the X-101 is aiming during this time? And the enemy will be so stupid as not to track our Tu-95s? They write that the X-101 can receive information about the target already in flight - well, that's something, only the LRASM experience shows that everything is not so simple. In principle, an anti-ship missile can be made on the basis of the X-101 (and maybe they did) an anti-ship missile) - but then a nuclear warhead is not really needed. Well, the cherry on top - the Kh-101 missile does not have an SBS. The missile with a nuclear warhead is called the Kh-102.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 12 May 2020 19: 41 New
      -1
      Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
      How many hours does the Tu-95 / X-101 bunch fly to the target, don’t you remind? And how many miles AUG can go from the place where the X-101 is aimed at?

      You apparently do not quite understand that if there are real signs of an impending attack, the strategic aircraft will be on duty all the time to strike at priority targets. If any AUG is recognized as a primary goal, then our planes will be where the flight of their missiles will take tens of minutes or an hour or so.
      Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
      And the enemy will be so stupid that he will not track our Tu-95?

      Of course it will, but the whole point is that they will not be able to hit them while they are out of the reach of the aircraft of the aircraft carrier.
      Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
      They write that the X-101 can receive information about the target already in flight - well, this is something, only the experience of LRASM shows that it is not so simple.

      This was laid at the design stage, so there is such an opportunity, which means it will be used by experienced crews.
      Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
      In principle, on the basis of the X-101 it is possible to make (and probably did) an anti-ship missile) - but then a nuclear warhead is not really needed.

      We have few carriers, and spending such equipment on non-nuclear charges or traditional anti-ship missiles is simply criminal. But they are envisaged to solve local wars near our borders - for example, I wonder why Tbilisi was not hit by cruise missiles from Tu-95 aircraft several hours after the outbreak of war.
      Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
      A missile with a nuclear warhead called X-102.

      What fundamental significance does this have for operational use, when the issue is decided in favor of a nuclear charge in any situation in a war at sea, and which is undermined without contact with the object.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 12 May 2020 20: 45 New
        +2
        "the flight of their missiles will take tens of minutes or a little over an hour" - it is absolutely pointless to launch the Kh-102 for tens of minutes or over an hour. The Kh-102 is a rocket for a flight of several thousand kilometers, but not hundreds or even one thousand. For short distances it is easier, faster and safer to send Backfires with X-22 or X-32 (and in the future with Daggers). But "Backfires" with anti-ship missiles are not strategic nuclear forces. And about being on duty in the air, that's good. How many Tu-95s do we have, what will be the real order for duty, how long will the resource last if the enemy decides to wear us down with waiting?
        "but the point is that they will not be able to hit them while they are out of the reach of the aircraft carrier's aircraft" - firstly, if you launch the X-102 with a flight time of tens of minutes or even an hour, then the carriers will be in the range fighters from an aircraft carrier, and secondly, by tracking our bombers, a potential enemy will be able to predict the intended targets for cruise missiles and take measures to neutralize them.
        "We have few carriers, and it is simply criminal to spend such equipment on non-nuclear charges or traditional anti-ship missiles" - yeah, and to develop three super-expensive anti-ship (i.e. anti-aircraft) hypersonic missiles at once, practically competing with each other - of which it seems , two are already starting to deploy - isn't it criminal? An aircraft carrier is our primary enemy, in the event of a non-nuclear conflict with the West, it is one of the main tools for attacking Russia, and it is not surprising that so much attention is paid (and has been paid before) to the anti-aircraft direction.
        "What is the fundamental importance of this for operational use, when the issue is decided in favor of a nuclear charge in any scenario in a war at sea, and which is undermined without contact with the object" - Are you really eager to burn our planet in a nuclear oven? .Oh okay, thirsty! It is not necessary to brandish a nuclear club of great intelligence, but remember that in 2020 Russia should have had only 102 strategic nuclear charges left. For everything - about everything. You don't have to scatter too much. You wrote that a moving enemy aircraft carrier must be hit by "duty strategic nuclear forces." I ask you to clarify - which ones? The X-XNUMX is a frankly weak tool for this purpose. Too slow, unsuitable for hitting moving targets, their carrier is too slow-moving, unobtrusive and vulnerable, too dependent on external target designation during the flight. What other "SNF on duty" means are you going to destroy the AUG?
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 13 May 2020 10: 28 New
          0
          Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
          "the flight of their missiles will take tens of minutes or a little over an hour" - it is absolutely pointless to launch the Kh-102 for tens of minutes or over an hour.

          Nonsense, because our planes can get quite close to the targets, especially if the enemy’s air defense systems cannot hit them for various reasons.
          Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
          An X-102 missile for flying over several thousand kilometers, but not at all for hundreds and not even for one thousand.

          This is so, but at their speed of less than 1000 km / h they will fly for several hours, and the whole war can last several tens of minutes. Therefore, for a nuclear strike, range does not play a special role, because the main parameter is time. The maximum distance is important for non-nuclear strikes - that's why two versions of this missile are created.

          Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
          For short distances it is easier, faster and safer to send Backfires with X-22 or X-32 (and in the future - with Daggers).

          They are not suitable for long duty on air, and they have less ammunition.

          Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
          and it’s not criminal to develop three super-expensive anti-ship (i.e., anti-avian) hypersonic missiles that practically compete with each other - of which two, it seems, are already starting to deploy - is not criminal?

          This development does not mean adoption, especially as new missiles can be used for other purposes. So this is a common practice when competing firms are given money for R&D for developing a new product. Even the Kalashnikov assault rifle was selected from several prototypes submitted to the commission, but here the issue is about missiles.
          Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
          Are you really thirsty to burn our planet in a nuclear stove?

          No, but as long as we have such an opportunity, we can survive in this world and will be reckoned with us.

          Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
          What other "SNF on duty" means are you going to destroy the AUG?

          I already reported this before, but if you do not understand this, then this is your problem. The minimum flight range of our ballistic missiles is about 1500-2000 km, so if the AUG appears in the Mediterranean Sea near Turkey, then it and several other targets, like the Incirlik base, can be hit with a missile from our launch mines, if such a task is set.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 May 2020 17: 51 New
    +2
    Quote: ccsr
    And taking into account the fact that our naval commanders will insist on the destruction of such a group in the first minutes of the war with a nuclear strike by our nuclear forces on duty

    Yes they will not. Nothing.
    Quote: ccsr
    I think that all his arguments cannot be taken seriously - we cannot risk the country this way, especially since we have a stock of nuclear charges and their carriers, which determine our actions to destroy any AUGs.

    Do not determine. Our strategic nuclear forces are focused on the defeat of stationary objects, moving they cannot hit
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 12 May 2020 18: 27 New
      -1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Yes they will not. Nothing.

      I do not believe.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Do not determine.

      Constantly determined.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Our strategic nuclear forces are focused on the defeat of stationary objects, moving they cannot hit

      Tell this to someone else, especially when the carrier group conducts exercises in the Mediterranean Sea at the entrance to the Bosphorus. By the way, where did you get the idea that our aviation strategic nuclear forces cannot destroy such a grouping at our borders?
  • fa2998
    fa2998 16 May 2020 10: 33 New
    +1
    Are you a witness? How many times have you shot a Dagger at aircraft carriers? Or at proportionate ships? Tales and theory and fantasy. hi hi hi
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 6 September 2020 09: 08 New
    0
    Is there an example of a naval battle where the Dagger made a specific hole in AB?
  • Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
    Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 11 May 2020 14: 01 New
    15
    This means that the SU-24 arrives, turns on the khibiny, and the aircraft carrier's crew runs overboard. The turbopatriots won't let you lie. Well, either the author of the previous comment meant that the P-700 "Granit" tube missiles, which were put into service in the shaggy 1983, are not very effective against modern electronic warfare systems.
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 11 May 2020 14: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
      So the SU-24 arrives, includes the huts, the crew of the aircraft carrier runs overboard.

      Dancing a Kalinka-raspberry and an apple. Some of you are not humane. Overboard it can be cool to catch a cold yet.
      Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
      lamp missiles P-700 "Granit", which were put into service in the shaggy 1983, are not very effective against modern electronic warfare systems.

      Missiles that have no analogues in the world cannot be ineffective, especially on harsh Soviet lamps. This is not a pampered bourgeois chip.
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 11 May 2020 15: 01 New
        +2
        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
        Dancing a Kalinka-raspberry and an apple.

        You will have an Indian aircraft carrier then winked
  • abvgdeika
    abvgdeika 12 May 2020 02: 21 New
    +4
    First channel can
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 11 May 2020 13: 59 New
    +2
    Quote: Pvi1206
    there is also EW ... about which there is no mention in the article ...

    Explain to me how electronic warfare systems can destroy an aircraft carrier?
    1. abvgdeika
      abvgdeika 12 May 2020 02: 25 New
      +1
      Nexus, NO
  • Birch
    Birch 11 May 2020 14: 02 New
    -11
    Quote: Pvi1206
    there is also EW ... about which there is no mention in the article ...

    In general, you’re right .. It’s possible to dazzle AUGs, but so far they keep it a secret and do it right hi
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 11 May 2020 14: 21 New
      +6
      Quote: Birch
      It’s possible to dazzle AUGs, but so far they keep it a secret and do it right

      Do you really think that it is so simple and it will require very few electronic warfare systems? Is there anything that AUG has means of counteracting EW effects, as well as its own EW systems?
      1. Birch
        Birch 11 May 2020 14: 37 New
        -10
        Quote: NEXUS
        Do you really think that it is so simple and it will require very few electronic warfare systems? Is there anything that AUG has means of counteracting EW effects, as well as its own EW systems?

        I suppose that they even create developments in our military-industrial complex, and maybe they are available .. Not for nothing that our people behave confidently in the confrontation with the USA and others .. soldier
        Now is not the 90s ..!
        1. Cyrus
          Cyrus 11 May 2020 14: 45 New
          +1
          A good show is more expensive than money, but in a military sense, the show should be confirmed by real forces, otherwise there is a considerable chance to swim in your own blood.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 May 2020 17: 51 New
        +8
        Quote: NEXUS
        Do you really think that it is so simple and it will require very few electronic warfare systems? Is there anything that AUG has means of counteracting EW effects, as well as its own EW systems?

        Hehehehe ... in Soviet times, the only reliable means of suppressing EW AUGs was considered to be launching anti-ship missiles from the UBC to the area of ​​the alleged AUG location. For which EW stations you don’t put on an airplane, the ship’s energy is still more powerful. smile
      3. ccsr
        ccsr 12 May 2020 10: 35 New
        -2
        Quote: NEXUS
        Is there anything that AUG has means of counteracting EW effects, as well as its own EW systems?

        So, the destruction of the ACG located in the danger zone for us will be planned with a combined strike, where a charge with a powerful electromagnetic pulse can be previously blown up - at least there are such charges.
        Under the action of a converging pressure wave, cesium iodide generates a superpowerful electromagnetic pulse, the electron stream generates gamma radiation in the plutonium, knocking out neutrons from the nuclei, thereby initiating a self-propagating fission reaction, x-ray radiation compresses and heats lithium deuteride, the neutron flux generates tritium from lithium, which enters in reaction with deuterium.

        https://topwar.ru/155757-razvitie-konstrukcij-jadernyh-zarjadov.html
    2. abvgdeika
      abvgdeika 12 May 2020 02: 27 New
      +2
      Believe me, they will never tell
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 15 May 2020 13: 06 New
    -2
    EW will reduce the likelihood of damage 2-3 times.
  • iouris
    iouris 11 May 2020 13: 59 New
    10
    What kind of ideological diversion? Non-nuclear weapons aircraft carriers let Argentina hit.
    1. 16329
      16329 11 May 2020 14: 09 New
      -1
      Quite right, why shoot at aircraft carriers with conventional ammunition, as it makes no sense, although at one time it was proposed to use SLM against aircraft carriers to destroy everything on deck and settings
    2. Birch
      Birch 11 May 2020 14: 46 New
      -4
      Quote: iouris
      What kind of ideological diversion? Non-nuclear weapons aircraft carriers let Argentina hit.

      Also an option ! Let them catch shells from small boats, as in Iran ..
    3. Cyrus
      Cyrus 11 May 2020 14: 47 New
      -1
      That's right, and the next time you cross the road in the wrong place, it's easier to shoot you, right?
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 14: 01 New
    -3
    ... a missile with a nuclear warhead, however, in modern wars, nuclear weapons are not used (even in their tactical design).


    What kind of heresy, someone seriously believes that we will even play a local war with the USA without tactical nuclear weapons?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 May 2020 18: 24 New
        +4
        Quote: Cyrus
        I think so, unlike you near, in the gene. the headquarters of both sides are reasonable people who do not seek to turn into radioactive ashes in solving local geopolitical problems

        The sinking of a nuclear carrier is clearly beyond solving local geopolitical problems. For this, in response, they can already beat the tactical UBC
    2. iouris
      iouris 11 May 2020 18: 18 New
      +1
      Local war with the USA is impossible.
      1. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 11 May 2020 22: 39 New
        +3
        Quote: iouris
        Local war with the USA is impossible.
        they go constantly, you just didn’t want to notice ...: Korea, .. Afghanistan ... Ukraine ... Belarus is approaching, which are especially nice to me, and therefore I didn’t want the Ukrainian scenario for them ...
  • KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 11 May 2020 14: 04 New
    +8
    An aircraft carrier can hit everything that reaches it through a sieve of fighters and air defense guards. This is the problem. Not for nothing in the USSR for the fight against them whole KUG were created. A single missile launcher has few chances - unless with Zircons, from a long distance and with a reliable targeting channel, and even a single launcher is unlikely to cope.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 15: 14 New
        -10
        And what are you jumping a hamster?
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 15: 16 New
      -3
      From 120 to 150 anti-ship missiles in the strike with a minimum range of volley, the strike should be applied from 3 to 4 directions
      So think about what dress of forces should be involved.
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 11 May 2020 15: 23 New
        +5
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        From 120 to 150 anti-ship missiles in the strike with a minimum range of volley, the strike should be applied from 3 to 4 directions

        Yes .. it will be a blow to the hammer in the egg .. without a chance .. The only question is where to get the squadron for such a volley. Unless in Worldships ... And strategically, the idea is almost quite sensible ... recourse recourse
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 15: 29 New
          -6
          Count if, for example, an operation is carried out by USC North, for example, AIC missile launcher pr. 885 ave., AIC missile launcher pr. 949, Voronezh BAP on SU-34 — 30 aircraft, a MiG-31K unit, in the cover of bombers 159 IAP on Su- 35 and bits 279 KIAP. Total on carriers 32 Onyx, 120 X-31AD, 4 Daggers. Quite enough without TNW, but no one will do so. APKR pr.949 of the project in this case strikes in the second wave on finishing.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 May 2020 18: 28 New
            +6
            EMNIP, in Soviet times (the second half of the 80s) in the North for the guaranteed destruction of the AB operating as part of the AUG, it was considered necessary to use at least two pr.949, two pr.670M and two mraps.
          2. Aag
            Aag 13 May 2020 11: 45 New
            +2
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            Count if, for example, an operation is carried out by USC North, for example, AIC missile launcher pr. 885 ave., AIC missile launcher pr. 949, Voronezh BAP on SU-34 — 30 aircraft, a MiG-31K unit, in the cover of bombers 159 IAP on Su- 35 and bits 279 KIAP. Total on carriers 32 Onyx, 120 X-31AD, 4 Daggers. Quite enough without TNW, but no one will do so. APKR pr.949 of the project in this case strikes in the second wave on finishing.

            I would like to know what is happening on the rest of the theater of operations at this time, why will we fight back there?
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 13 May 2020 12: 26 New
              +2
              You are sorry, of course, but I didn’t start working on this sphere of vacuum, they asked me - the outfit of forces I absolutely honestly indicated which in my opinion is needed, then a number of citizens who did not know the issue began to pour from empty to empty, but the Americans are invincible, but they see everything, all the missiles they defeat also have a similar nonsense, that is, they began to engage in real scholasticism. In order to answer your question, the General Staff writes hundreds of folders for each scenario with an analysis of the situation, action plans in a particular case, projected losses, etc. In this case, the discussion of this scenario is something very limited in space and time. For example, the USN forces decided to squeeze the New Earth from our example. Why ask? I do not know. I wanted a pancake. And when the citizens did not like the results, they began to come up with the idea that the aircraft carriers were not 1, but 3, and even five. Do not think shorter. As a result, in any other scenario, the situation quickly unfolds before the global thermonuclear war. And that is why the Russian Federation and the United States are limited to accepting warlike poses and are limited to verbiage. And I hit each other through the gasket.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 15: 36 New
        +8
        From 120 to 150 Su-30SM converted to Onyx, up to 40-45 Su-35 for an escort, 10-16 jammers, 1 SdRLO, 8-10 MiG-31 in the SdRLO escort.

        Refueling - depending on the range on which the blow is struck.

        But all this is possible provided that:
        1. AV is detected and continuously monitored.
        2. The airfields from which the aircraft should start are not destroyed and it can be subdued from there.
        3. There are airplanes themselves.

        None of this really exists.

        Therefore - to strip off the defense of external ships in the warrant. Found the AUS - hit the two destroyers left. Repeated reconnaissance, again found, a new blow, again around the edges.

        Aircraft with AB pull out to strike at the KMG, ready to repel it, and, together with their aircraft, crush them in this strike, regardless of the losses.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 15: 41 New
          -5
          Which of these is really not?
          - Su-34 Air Force, which the last few years are constantly shining on anti-ship exercises?
          - And how much KR should be spent on each nuclear power plant, provided that they will really hide behind the AIA? And we have air defense systems and plans to cover airbases, too.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 15: 57 New
            +6
            - Su-34 Air Force, which the last few years are constantly shining on anti-ship exercises?


            How many Onyx do they carry? X-35 want to work? Well, that’s what it rolls into the guard ships, and these missiles cannot go through the entire battle formation to the main target.

            - And how much KR should be spent on each nuclear power plant, provided that they will really hide behind the AIA? And we have air defense systems and plans to cover airbases, too.


            100 CR + time synchronized strike aircraft. Part with small-sized CD, part with PRR, plus jammers.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 16: 25 New
              -5
              I kind of never refuted the thesis that the husk from the bulb should be removed in layers ....
            2. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 20: 01 New
              -5
              And yet, I don’t know how much the Onyx aircraft weighs, but there is reason to think that in the Su-34 part one can be hung on the bridge between the engines without alterations, and maybe 2 more on the underwing nodes at least a photo with 2 3-ton PTBs under the wings of the Su-34, I saw as far as I remember. In general, IMHO you need a missile simulator with a lens that simulates Onyx ESR, without warhead and ARGS but a powerful engine for maximum saturation of a volley ...
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 20: 02 New
                +5
                Onyx in the aviation version - 2,5 tons.

                It seems that under the wings of the Su-34 should hang normally, but where is it?
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 20: 06 New
                  -3
                  Must. And because all the same, the Su-34 VKS, and they were cut into tasks nemerianno, the Navy from Budun decided to buy the Su-30SM. You are already aware of all this swine with admiral dances on a rake .... What are the MA functionaries actively helping them with.
                  1. Uncle Izya
                    Uncle Izya 11 May 2020 20: 35 New
                    0
                    Su-34 like the air force and not the navy tu22m3m can carry more
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 21: 39 New
                      -3
                      The Navy Tu-22M3 is not there either. However, with 37 VA, that is to say, YES, nobody removed the task of defeating AUG
              2. dog of war
                dog of war 11 May 2020 23: 09 New
                +1
                The question is not whether the Su-34 can physically carry Onyx, the rocket electronics must be compatible with the electronics of the aircraft, that is, the aircraft must have the appropriate electronics and software, but a change needs to be made to the rocket itself.
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 23: 26 New
                  -3
                  Su-35, Su-34 and Su-30 from the Anti-Ship were taught to wear and use the X-31 and X-35. What could be the problem with Onyx, given that similar work on the Su-30MKI and Bramos has been completed?
                2. Pavel57
                  Pavel57 17 May 2020 11: 41 New
                  0
                  Modern aircraft are built on an open architecture, that is, any new weapons are easily introduced into the LMS, and universal data exchange buses allow the missile to be included in the weapon system without any modifications to the architecture of the data exchange system.
        2. FIR FIR
          FIR FIR 11 May 2020 17: 54 New
          +3
          The United States has 11 nuclear carriers! Let 7 of them be in scheduled repairs. But if it smells fried,
          which will prevent the US Navy from sending 2 or 3 aircraft carriers to the "hot region", as well as 4-5 Ticonderogs
          and 6-12 burke. What then? Do you need 450 pcr?
          In my opinion this is ridiculous. It’s just to count arithmetically how long it takes for an aircraft carrier to sink ...
          If it comes to the point that Americans will need to be drowned, then this is war. World War!
          With all that it implies ... What arithmetic is there.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 18: 59 New
            +1
            11 aircraft carriers of which, if prepared in advance for war, can be put into the sea 8-9, divided by the Pacific Ocean and the North, we get two aircraft carrier formations, two aircraft carriers on each theater of operations, and one to the Middle Sea, taking into account the real availability of aviation, this is 96 aircraft per North and Pacific Theater and 48 on the Mediterranean Sea.

            This is a force, I do not argue, but you do not need to crawl to the cemetery in advance.

            Arithmetic, she is so ...
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 19: 49 New
              -4
              That’s all right, but again you are releasing, I consider again the issue of the number of combat-ready squadrons on the Hornets
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 20: 26 New
                +2
                9 full air groups or so with them. Reserves can be said no.
                So what?
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 21: 47 New
                  -2
                  No, this is not about that. It is necessary to count by squadrons. Staffing should be 4 Hornets. Now, according to rumors, 3 or even 2 escs are being carried to the sea .... However, this should be carefully checked. However, there is no smoke without fire, the Air Force has been whining for years about problems with the flight crew. Do you think everything is cool in the Navy? It is unlikely that there may already be talk of 9 combat-ready air groups.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 21: 54 New
                    +2
                    It is unlikely that there may already be talk of 9 combat-ready air groups.


                    Well, for now, if you believe the Americans, then so much is gained, in the limit.
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 22: 02 New
                      -1
                      Examples of AUG in the sea with a reduced composition were. Versions of hamsters that they say staff left at the base, but if that they arrive, I sweep. So things are not done with them, at least from the point of view that, the pilot of naval aviation must fly from the deck constantly, so as not to lose the skill. Especially remember the collisions of destroyers and conclusions. And other jokes. I'm not talking about throwing hats. Not enough hats then. But the situation must be adequately perceived and studied windows of vulnerability ..
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 22: 06 New
                        +1
                        No matter how you say it, you cannot break through even frail air patrols and Aegis Korbali without huge losses.
                        Although there are vulnerabilities, at least not.
                        Respectively - chop the tail in parts. No options.
                      2. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 23: 28 New
                        -1
                        Have I challenged this concept somewhere? I, on the contrary, initially promote it, adnaka.
          2. FIR FIR
            FIR FIR 11 May 2020 20: 01 New
            -1
            "This is power, I do not argue, but you don't have to crawl to the cemetery in advance."
            No one is going to the cemetery. I say that the arithmetic calculation of PCR for the destruction of augs is ambiguous and difficult to implement. I would say that two or three 4th generation APLs with serious
            hook and long-range torpedoes made it much better and more realistic.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 20: 28 New
              +2
              This is just more complicated than an air strike. And there are more risks.
        3. Editor
          Editor 11 May 2020 21: 42 New
          +3
          The fact is that it’s a crazy idea to sink the AUG at any cost if there are underwater cruisers in the ocean with 150 tomahawks on board ... and for this purpose, several boats in the USA are being remade for carrier cruise missiles ...
      3. ser56
        ser56 11 May 2020 22: 07 New
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        1. AV is detected and continuously monitored.

        over-the-air radars ... request planes with AB will take off or helicopters ...
        Quote: timokhin-aa

        Therefore - to strip off the defense of external ships in the warrant.

        Are you serious ? if it came to a strike on US Air Force, then this is a global nuclear war ... request
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 16: 30 New
    -5
    can hit everything that reaches him through a sieve of fighters and anti-aircraft defense.


    How's that?
    AVMA's own self-defense systems are minimal. On the near line, the Aircraft Carrier can do little, the main hope for fighters, on the issue is to prevent carriers from entering the launch zone, and to the escort SAM.
    1. KVU-NSVD
      KVU-NSVD 11 May 2020 16: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      How's that?

      This is so - an aircraft carrier can be obtained only by breaking the barrier from fighter aircraft wings and air defense escorts. It seems that everything was clearly stated.
  • U-58
    U-58 11 May 2020 14: 12 New
    -11
    A submarine with relatively old Mosquito missiles can overwhelm an aircraft carrier, having named 2-3 missiles from a distance of 90-110 km
    1. Avior
      Avior 11 May 2020 14: 25 New
      +8
      Mosquito missiles to the cabin; they probably wind up with blue tape, I don’t see another option smile
    2. Sky strike fighter
      Sky strike fighter 11 May 2020 14: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: U-58
      A submarine with relatively old Mosquito missiles can overwhelm an aircraft carrier, having named 2-3 missiles from a distance of 90-110 km

      Then it’s better to RCC Granite with 949A or RCC Onyx / Onyx-M / Zircon with 949AM, 885M. They have a much faster speed and range, they also write off torpedoes in vain, after hitting which the aircraft carrier can give a roll, which will make it unworkable . It is not necessary to sink an aircraft carrier, it can be disabled.
      1. Cyrus
        Cyrus 11 May 2020 15: 01 New
        -4
        She will not be able to, so she will "drown" after that (if she is allowed so close), and her crew are also people and they have no desire to suffocate in a metal can going to the bottom, which means that from the maximum distance in one gulp, a loner has little chance, conclusion either in a flock with a maximum distance or as part of the KUG with a conscientious volley.
        1. U-58
          U-58 11 May 2020 17: 36 New
          -3
          For Mosquito, as I recall, the maximum distance of 120 km when starting from the surface
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 11 May 2020 22: 18 New
            +4
            No Mosquitoes on submarines, forget it. And if there were, it is still necessary to detect the aircraft carrier group at the maximum possible distance, and this is hardly 120 km, most likely two times less. And the submarine is unlikely to be allowed to reach such a range. And the same trouble for all "Tsirokons" and "Daggers" - this is an excellent weapon of the first strike at an unsuspecting enemy, but in wartime they need to be given target designation, and this will certainly be a problem. And they fly very high, which still allows them to be detected by radars - the rest is a matter of automation.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 12 May 2020 10: 46 New
              -2
              Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
              And the same trouble for all "Tsirokons" and "Daggers" - this is an excellent weapon of the first strike against an unsuspecting enemy,

              So we will be the first to strike, if we only notice the movement in the form of early completion of the repair of several aircraft carriers. There is still a bunch of reconnaissance signs that monitor the combat readiness of the enemy and his preparation for war, and on the basis of which a decision will be made on our preventive strike. So, aircraft carriers that are far from our borders, taking into account the radius of flight of carrier-based aviation, pose practically no serious threat to us, and they will not be regarded as primary goals at all.
        2. Aag
          Aag 13 May 2020 18: 03 New
          0
          "her crew are people too and they have no desire to suffocate in a metal can going to the bottom"
          Well, with this approach, it's better, as they sometimes say here: "Katz offers to surrender?"
          You probably didn’t think before you write this. It’s clear that everyone wants to live. But this is a VO site! There are a lot of ministers, and ministers. You think they
          all fell under the epaulettes for salaries, pensions? I do not exclude the availability of those, of course. But at least they were despised before. The rest, most of them, consciously chose such a profession, fate. Regardless of the type and type of troops .... Sorry , it may have been somewhat pathetic, but try to name at least one position in the Armed Forces, which under certain conditions (due to its direct mission) does not require self-sacrifice. ALL are goals! First of all, priority, priority can change in accordance with the situation and tasks.
      2. codetalker
        codetalker 11 May 2020 15: 32 New
        +2
        Indeed, it would be interesting to see a good analysis of the possibilities of torpedoes in this regard.
      3. Charik
        Charik 12 May 2020 02: 25 New
        +1
        Maxim again in Batons-Onyx with Caliber modernized?
    3. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 15: 31 New
      +2
      Who will let her at such a distance?
      How will she get the TS from this distance?
    4. Serg4545
      Serg4545 11 May 2020 16: 47 New
      +3
      // A submarine with relatively old Mosquito missiles can overwhelm an aircraft carrier by naming 2-3 missiles from a distance of 90-110 km //

      And here I liked this paragraph of the article:
      // For the complete destruction of an aircraft carrier, according to experts, about 20 hits of the Granit anti-ship missile are needed, 6-8 hits for a missile failure, 3-5 hits for a half of an aviation wing, 1 for a failure for several hours hit. //

      What kind of experts !!?! ?? Could such garbage be made up?

      The fact is that in large aircraft carriers after the Second World War, they got hit by missiles only twice.
      And both times the aircraft carriers were on the verge of destruction. A third of the aircraft carrier turned into flaming ruins. Aircraft carriers completely failed.
      And both times the reason was the hit of a tiny "Zuni" rocket (which I can carry without effort on my shoulder). And it doesn't matter that it was a "crossbow". After all, if instead of "Zuni", the Soviet / Russian analogue, released instantly / drying, would have got into the aircraft carrier, the result would be the same!
      Therefore, it is simply ridiculous: only 6-8 hits, such monsters as "Granite", they say will disable the aircraft carrier!
      And 4 "Granita", does not fail !?
      But as I wrote, in reality this can be achieved with a warhead weighing 20 kg. And the "Granit" warhead is 35 times! more. And "Granites" 4 pieces!
      Experts, in a word)
      1. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx 12 May 2020 00: 37 New
        -1
        Therefore, it is simply ridiculous: only 6-8 hits, such monsters as "Granite", they say will disable the aircraft carrier!

        I agree. Even if a pair of Granites flies into an aircraft carrier, it will suffer the fate of the famous German battleship, which, after the attack of old biplanes, stood at the base throughout the war.
        In general, I poorly understand why it is only and only about the complete destruction of the aircraft carrier? It is quite enough to make him not combat ready. And there are many such options.
        The first and the simplest, two holes (and most likely through holes) from being hit by a "granite" missile. The ship rolls and partially loses its course, after which it becomes impossible to use it for its intended purpose.
        The second, more sophisticated. The ship receives a couple of hits in the compartments saturated with electronics and other control systems. As a result, we have the same as in the first embodiment.
        The third from the area is "lucky". The ship receives a couple of hits from granite-class missiles in the compartments where fuel and ammunition are stored. In this case, a sudden skiff will most likely come to the aircraft carrier.

        There are also intermediate options, when the flight deck, at least one of the set of catapults, flight control post, power plant, etc. is rendered unusable.

        I am writing all this solely on the basis of that rare luck, when from a massive volley (at least 50-60 missiles), two of them and namely "granites" hit the aircraft carrier. Their kinetic energy, armor-piercing shell and charge mass allow me to draw just such conclusions.


        For the rest, I agree with the speakers who believe that the onions should be husked gradually. At the same time, there is more than one piece of evidence that our multipurpose nuclear submarines are capable of getting close to a missile or torpedo salvo. Of course, a couple of torpedoes are not "granites", but even in this case, the aircraft carrier is likely to be permanently out of action. Also, in the event of a torpedo attack, it cannot be ruled out that events will develop according to option No. 3.
        And of course, the destruction of an aircraft carrier does not seem to me to be an end in itself. It seems to me more dangerous a massive CD strike, which the Americans can carry out with ease. And aircraft carriers should be feared by those who cannot repel an air raid. Americans, however, know very well that we can arrange another "alley of moments" for them with a much greater effect than in Korea.

        In conclusion, I would like to say that I consider the situation as a person having a clear concept of air defense systems, i.e. weapons that are fighting air raids, and not as a specialist in naval warfare. And therefore, the topic of the fight against aircraft carriers, I am more interested in the aspect of neutralizing their main striking force. I believe that we will be able to quickly concentrate air defense and air defense aviation in the right direction. And the Yankees should understand this, and are unlikely to throw their aircraft into a Russian meat grinder. First, the KR will shoot, after which they will wait for a retaliatory strike from the strategic nuclear forces, which also does not suit them. The last option remains, which they have been doing for the last 40 years - bribing the top of our leadership, inciting ethnic hatred, etc. This is what they do best.
        1. Avior
          Avior 12 May 2020 01: 42 New
          +1
          The ship gives a roll and partially loses its course, after which, its intended use becomes impossible.

          To do this, you need to get into the underwater part, anti-ship missiles do not fly there
          The ship receives a couple of hits in the compartments saturated with electronics and other control systems.

          they are deep in the aircraft carrier, protected by external compartments
          The ship receives a couple of hits from granite-class missiles in the compartments where fuel and ammunition are stored.

          like
          flight deck, at least one of the set of catapults, flight control post, power plant

          not only do RCC get on board, they also need to hit a strictly defined part of the deck, and they have a quick repair system with overlays.
          catapults 4, damage to one will not change anything.
          There is a reserve post
          There are two power plants.
          proceeding from that rare luck, when from a massive salvo (at least 50-60 missiles), two of them and namely "granites" hit the aircraft carrier.

          you are right, rare luck, rare so much that it never happened before.
          even if there is an attempt, then there isn’t a very high probability of being hit by the use of modern electronic warfare; this confirms the entire course of real hostilities.
          there is not a single confirmation of the fact that our multi-purpose nuclear submarines are able to get close to the distance of a missile or torpedo salvo.

          only in peacetime
          a person with a clear concept of air defense systems, i.e. weapons that are fighting air raids, and not as a specialist in naval warfare.

          in modern ships, the main means of protection against anti-ship missiles is not air defense, but electronic warfare and traps.
          I believe that we will be able to quickly concentrate air defense and air defense aviation in the right direction.

          it is doubtful that it would occur to them to strike at Russia with one aircraft carrier.
          Honestly, even the meaning of this is not seen.
          The last option remains, which they have been doing for the last 40 years - bribing the top of our leadership, inciting ethnic hatred, etc. This is what they do best.

          you are a healthy person. smile add another economic, financial, and political war in the form of complete isolation. I think this threat is more realistic than the Russian attack by one aircraft carrier.
          smile
        2. Aag
          Aag 13 May 2020 18: 34 New
          -2
          "First they will shoot the CD, after which they will wait"
          To all those present, don’t you find the title of the article provocative? They have already mentioned here more than once-drowning, and even an attempt to attack the AUG, in fact, this is a declaration of war. Not special at all in this area (a specific confrontation with the AUG, and the Navy likely ). But I can’t imagine a situation where this could happen without full-scale armageddon. Then, as the Supreme Commander used to say, there’s a blow to decision centers, otherwise NO!
          And in supporting the topic: there were suggestions above in the text, to destroy the AUG, use the Strategic Missile Forces. Forget ... For any missile launch that was not agreed on in advance (I’m talking about ground-based strategic nuclear forces, I don’t know about the rest) is the beginning of the war. not to AUGs, their goals above the roof!
          That is why the article (IMHO) from the category: Let's fantasize ?!
  • Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 11 May 2020 14: 38 New
    +5
    located near the caliber rockets

    request wanted to sneak, but ...
  • Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 11 May 2020 15: 05 New
    +3
    And these aircraft carriers were given. In my opinion, war cruisers and destroyers armed with cruise missiles are much more dangerous than the archaism that they guard.
  • Alexander X
    Alexander X 11 May 2020 15: 16 New
    0
    who breaks whom: elephant whale or whale elephant? An article from this series of reasoning. Only a naive Chukchi young man can hope for a nuclear-free war with the United States. And the attempt to sink the American aircraft carrier is the beginning of the war. So why talk about what does not need to be done ... It is necessary to destroy the enemy with the greatest efficiency, that is, nuclear weapons ...
  • dzvero
    dzvero 11 May 2020 15: 17 New
    +4
    "Big ship - big torpedo"
    The author did not mention the US teachings, where DEPL opposed the AUG. The submarine managed to break through the warrant and go at a distance of a torpedo volley. Whether or not the aircraft carrier dies, it’s lucky, but combat capability will undoubtedly lose.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 15: 30 New
      +6
      Do you know how many times this submarine, instead of launching an attack, received a "ping" head-on from the GAS of the American nuclear submarine?
      In these exercises, the Americans practiced tactics against the NPL, there were dozens of attacks, there were only a few successes, even after the Americans revised their tactics of anti-aircraft defense after these exercises.
      1. dzvero
        dzvero 11 May 2020 16: 29 New
        +1
        there were dozens of attacks, few successes

        those. there is a chance, and non-zero, to break through the order. Suicidal, of course, but still there.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 16: 31 New
          +5
          I’ll tell you more, there is a certain chance to land on an aircraft carrier and seize it.
          Also small.
          In the case of the Swedes, it was 1/35 or something
          1. dzvero
            dzvero 11 May 2020 16: 43 New
            +1
            You are, of course, right. But the article is about how you can ditch an aircraft carrier with non-nuclear weapons. The author pointed out the most obvious way. I gave an alternative. The author could also tell about the Millenum challenge - 2002, when Admiral Van Riper once "drowned" half of the blue fleet, including the AUG. Despite their overwhelming superiority. Since then, the Americans have reconsidered their tactics. Yes, I understand that MS-2002 is essentially a KSHU, and the conditions of the game are not quite typical, but the fact itself is indicative.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 17: 05 New
              +4
              The author pointed out his wet dreams, you pointed out absolutely unreliable assessments of the actions of the Swedish submarine against aircraft carriers.
              The Millennium Challenge from the same opera was supposed to be a research exercise with given boundary conditions like "what can the Iranians do WITH OUR STANDARD TACTICS if we, AGAINST OUR OWN RULES, shove an aircraft carrier under their nose?" Etc.
              Van Rieper there began to fantasize and weird, after which he was asked to leave.
              This was not a doctrine in the full sense of the word, it was rather a study of very specific topics.
              Aircraft carriers cannot sink motor boats. Van Rieper is telling a lie.
          2. Charik
            Charik 12 May 2020 02: 31 New
            +1
            Come on, St. Seagal to call, he will quickly manage laughing
        2. Avior
          Avior 11 May 2020 17: 20 New
          +2
          Break DEPL order safeguarding zero chance
          The exercises discussed the actions of diesel-electric submarines from ambushes.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 19: 31 New
            +2
            Also zero. Around the ship group there will be a zone of continuous g / a illumination.
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 11 May 2020 23: 08 New
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Do you know how many times this submarine, instead of launching an attack, received a "ping" head-on from the GAS of the American nuclear submarine?
        but really interesting - but how much ?! smile
        Quote: dzvero
        those. there is a chance, and non-zero, to break through the order. Suicidal, of course, but still there.
        Well, too, the opinion sad
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I’ll tell you more, there is a certain chance to land on an aircraft carrier and seize it.
        for this you so right away - Alexander? But in support of the opinion of your opponent ... Somehow "there was information on the network a long time ago" for example, that the same Gennady Lyachin (the kingdom of heaven and all those who fell on the Kursk !!), a year or a year and a half before the death, managed to stealthily drive an aircraft carrier (surrendered in the Mediterranean)? !!! And keep it "practically at gunpoint" and not be detected ?! ... Apparently it does not always work out, -
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Around the ship group will be continuous g / a light area.
        ?!
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 23: 13 New
          +2
          but really interesting - but how much ?!


          I don’t remember the details, the Swedes had one success for every few dozen failures.

          Somehow "there was information on the network a long time ago", for example, that the same Gennady Lyachin (the kingdom of heaven to him and all those who fell on the "Kursk" !!), a year or a year and a half before his death, managed secretly


          During the war in Yugoslavia. But the boat was discovered more than once.

          Continuous sonar illumination.
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 11 May 2020 23: 29 New
            -2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            During the war in Yugoslavia.
            Yes, I’m talking about this ... and I knew that you would understand it. (+) .. hi
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            But the boat was discovered more than once.
            or not ... well, or quickly lost and could not regain contact with her ... recourse otherwise, they would not have removed a senior lord (from that squadron) from office ?! yes is not it ?! request
            therefore, I can assume that to ensure how you express yourself, -
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Continuous sonar illumination.
            , in practice, to ensure - in fact it is not possible ... what sad ? !!
          2. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 23: 31 New
            0
            Klimov better comment on such things. And the zone of continuous hydroacoustic illumination is somehow too strongly said ..
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 23: 33 New
              +2
              And he commented more than once.
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 14: 20 New
                -2
                So you misinterpret it, the term zone of continuous acoustic illumination is a term that is more than specific, and there is no such thing there, we can assume the radius of such a zone from AOG to 150 km, with round-the-clock use of the CC of the coast, including the BPA. AUG with its own means, the speech about the SAC of destroyers and escort submarines gives a radius of no more than 50 km, while it should be noted that this is a critical border in fact, the range of a torpedo salvo, and they fight for every kilometer to move it, moreover, unsuccessfully .... The range is indicated for oceanic conditions, in conditions of the Baltic for example, the range can easily fall by 2-4 times.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 19: 09 New
                  +2
                  we can assume the radius of such a zone from AUG to 150 km, with round-the-clock use of the CC of the coast, including the BPA.


                  Well, so it is in real life, and sometimes more, up to 200 km

                  AUG with its own means, the speech about the SAC of destroyers and escort submarines gives a radius of not more than 50 km,


                  But this is not so, for example, not taking into account the fact that the combat formation of an order can be very different, as a result, from an aircraft carrier to destroyers tens of km + around Plo groups too. And the fact that their submarines first classify acoustic features and then search for a source, maybe more than 50 km.
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 20: 13 New
                    -1
                    You didn’t take into account that the radius is measured not from the ship’s core, but from the security ships ....
                    In any case, this can and should play on the concept you have voiced. They heard Escort, struck with torpedoes and drowned Burke. All this ultimately will play the overall success of the operation.
                    In general, this is an average case of some good conditions. And so you can hear Elk in 90 km, and in another situation, nose to nose will stupidly collide.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 20: 15 New
                      +2
                      If we work in the logic of defeating the main target immediately, then we must measure from it, or rather, its estimated position in the order.
                      1. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 20: 44 New
                        0
                        We do not have the ability to hit her (main target) with one blow, except in the case of rare luck. You seem to agree with the concept of "cleaning the onion"? Or I misunderstood you. We do not have the right to push MAPLs to break through to the Aircraft Carrier, because this is fraught with a hundred percent loss
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 22: 14 New
                        +2
                        The thread started with a comment

                        a year or a year and a half before the death, was it possible to stealthily drive an aircraft carrier (surrendered in the Mediterranean)? !!! And keep it "practically at gunpoint" and not be detected?


                        as an illustration of the reality of an autonomous strike PLARK on AB.
                        So what I was discussing was precisely the logic of hitting the main target.

                        In terms of the fact that this is impossible.
  • Avior
    Avior 11 May 2020 17: 19 New
    +3
    This story was disassembled in detail, Andrei from Chelyabinsk gave a link to the initial interview of the submarine commander, which was mostly spoken by journalists, and the commander himself said a dozen words.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 15: 28 New
    +4
    The article reminded a joke about a walkie-talkie on a tank.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 11 May 2020 15: 57 New
    +3
    1. The author exaggerates a little. To destroy AVU you need 10-12 RCC Granite. But they are obsolete. But 3M55, having a range of about 600-650 km, is a completely modern anti-ship missile system. It is they who are now ordering for the fleet.
    2. Torpedo weapons are not mentioned at all. But 65-76A runs at 70 knots. And its range allows you to attack from a position outside the effective zone of PLO. And from the stern KU is generally lovely. (For the smart ones: shooting from an angle at a distance will not allow PLO ships to detect PLA so quickly “on the wake.” Starting from the 3rd generation, all boats have a hydraulic firing system, so don't worry about the “sound of a shot” either.) (tested) on AVU the PTZ system, but it seems to have been removed. And to fight against torpedoes 53-65K (guided along the wake) at one time the amas were going to place a combat escort ship in the wake of the AVU. And to a direct question: - What will you do when such a ship is sunk ?, - the American admiral answered without batting an eye: - I will put the next one.
    I think that the Physicist and the Hard Case have every opportunity to upset the American military at the expense of their combat capabilities.
    Somehow, however.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 16: 34 New
      0
      65-76 has been removed from boats for a long time and is absent in the ammunition
    2. Avior
      Avior 11 May 2020 17: 22 New
      -1
      The admiral did not hear about Nixie, his subordinates did not report to him
  • Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 11 May 2020 16: 08 New
    +4
    Blind avik electronic warfare? Even if you put EW right next to him, they will not be blind. Efficiency will be reduced, but not blinded. There is a MW station, good luck! To "blind" you need much more powerful electronic warfare.
    Why do we fall on EW like that? Before Cook, no one knew about them, but here the supposedly destroyer disabled the kW self-defense station. Laughter and more.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 11 May 2020 16: 50 New
    +4
    Jack
    In the shaggy 88th year, the Tu-22M3 pair passed along the entire perimeter of the radio engineering brigade of the air defense forces with the inclusion of electronic warfare equipment. As a result, according to readiness No. 1, by all ranges, they were able to restore only the span in separate areas without the possibility of issuing a command and control center for air defense and IA. Since Pvoshnik believe in the power of electronic warfare ...
    1. Jack O'Neill
      Jack O'Neill 11 May 2020 20: 26 New
      +1
      It only says that there was no noise immunity. But yes, we will provoke it on amers, why not. 88th year, Soviet air defense systems, Amer destroyer 2000+. Well, the same thing after all!
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 11 May 2020 17: 15 New
    +6
    The topic is very interesting!
    I read all the comments, and realized that our "experts", in general, do not know the situation, they are guided by the victorious statements of the leaders of the Defense Ministry and industry, which highlight the PROSPECTS for the development of the RF Armed Forces.
    Well, my own opinion. Since I worked in the past in an organization that specialized in the destruction of AVMs, and some knowledge remained, I report that at present the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are not able to destroy even 1 (one) AUG with conventional weapons. I will not raise all the problems in this matter, I will only say about the most vital one - TSU. Anyone in the subject understands that this issue has not been resolved, unfortunately.
    Well, and so as not to get upset, here's about "real":
    https://vk.com/club189957947?w=wall-189957947_191%2Fall
    https://vk.com/club189957947?w=wall-189957947_195%2Fall
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 20: 46 New
      +2
      No, well, with heavy losses, air reconnaissance will be able to give TsU at least for a while.
      Even now.
      The question is that preparation for such operations is not carried out, and even the existing CC will not work 100%.

      By the way, the question is, I'm going to ask everything, but no one had it.
      Does it make sense to arm the IL-38 and Tu-142 anti-ship missiles? Recently, just with one person from the 1 Central Research Institute of the Navy, a dispute arose on this topic, the opinion of people from MA is interesting.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 11 May 2020 20: 50 New
        +1
        "Aviarazvedka" cannot "give control", it can only carry out aerial reconnaissance.
        I didn’t hear that PLA aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles. These are thoughts aloud in the order of delirium, and there is no sense in this.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 20: 55 New
          +2
          Perform reconnaissance, establish the location of the enemy, (even if not the aircraft carrier itself, but external security ships), its course, at least partially the composition of the naval group.
          Is not it so?

          I didn’t hear that PLA aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles.


          In all countries of the world where such aviation exists, it also performs patrol tasks and is sometimes involved in delivering strikes against the NK if it is some kind of defenseless NK, such as a supply transport and without security.
          Even the Hindus on the IL-38SD have RCC.
          The Americans in Orion and Poseidon also have.

          We do not, and it seems like it is considered and not necessary. I’m wondering if it’s for sure.
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 11 May 2020 21: 40 New
            +2
            Perform BP and issue TSU - two huge differences, apparently, the term TsU RCC you do not understand, which means that you do not need it.
            RCC on PLA aircraft? Yes, our PLA will end soon, what kind of RCC ...
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 22: 01 New
              +2
              I really don’t know how in aviation all these things are done, for the NK there are Rocket Shooting Rules, everything is counted from them from the bearing to the target, range, course of the target and its speed.
              Oh well, don’t find fault.

              I was still intrigued by your statement
              At present, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are not able to destroy even 1 (one) AUG with conventional weapons.


              It seems to me that bust. Despite the fact that there are no more MRAs, and that the Air Force pilots often do not have a clue about flights over low-orientation terrain, they cannot search for a surface target, etc.
              One carrier group should be overwhelmed, by all the RF Armed Forces.
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 11 May 2020 22: 14 New
                +2
                If we talk about the aviation component of the strike on the AVM, then we simply do not have the required number of aircraft.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 22: 25 New
                  +3
                  In the Air Force there are 122 Su-34s, somewhere around 70 Su-24Ms together with MA aircraft, in the Omshap 22 Su-30SMs, all except the Su-24Ms carry anti-ship missiles. And the Su-24M carry PRR.

                  This is something that can strike in theory, in practice it is necessary to prepare these forces for such attacks, but at least there are from whom to prepare.

                  Intelligence, that’s where the problem is, as I understood from communication with senior comrades, that war planes won’t give any tasks other than anti-submarine ones, there aren’t any of them, so that they can send them for reconnaissance.
                  Like it or not, I can’t say.
                  But still, with proper combat training of forces, we are far from zero.
                  Especially if you do not immediately break through to the aircraft carrier, which may not even be there in fact, but to destroy the destroyers.
                  1. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 11 May 2020 22: 29 New
                    +2
                    Let's finish this.
                  2. Demagogue
                    Demagogue 12 May 2020 16: 57 New
                    +1
                    To attack an aircraft carrier, you need a multiple advantage in aviation. Up to 10 times. We discussed this - it’s unrealistic to fly far, to fight without fuel at a distance. And at a time only part of our forces takes part in the battle, and the rest fly back and forth. Considering our technical lag on the radar - closer to 500. That is, 400-500 fighters to gain air supremacy are needed. And not with the x-35, but with a caliber or rocket similar in weight to the cc. Attacking is much harder than defending. Fellow Bez 310 speaks the truth.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 12 May 2020 17: 50 New
                      0
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      To attack an aircraft carrier, you need a multiple advantage in aviation. Up to 10 times.

                      Nobody plans to destroy aircraft carriers like that - it's stupid.
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      That is, 400-500 fighters to gain air supremacy are needed.

                      Where will you find them? These are generally some enchanting figures, excluding nuclear carrier carriers.
                      Quote: Demagogue
                      Fellow Bez 310 speaks the truth.

                      He didn’t stand close to the operators, that’s why he has no idea how they plan to destroy it all.
                      1. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 12 May 2020 18: 12 New
                        +1
                        What kind of nuclear weapons carrier aircraft can be used in this situation and with which specific missiles? For general education I'm interested.
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 19: 12 New
                      +2
                      Fellow Bez 310 speaks the truth.


                      Comrade Bez 310 at one time was going to solve this problem with much less forces.
                      Oh well.
                      Dispatchers will not be able to part 500 planes, for example, over the Kola Peninsula.
                      Strongly this is a lot - 500 aircraft.
                2. Demagogue
                  Demagogue 12 May 2020 17: 04 New
                  0
                  Finally, an understanding person appeared on this resource. Do you rate the required number of 600 aircraft?
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 20: 24 New
                    -1
                    80-90 is enough. Guards regiment with anti-ship missiles and missile defense, IAP, AWACS with cover, reconnaissance aircraft and electronic warfare and amplification means
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 12 May 2020 10: 55 New
      0
      Quote: Bez 310
      At present, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are not able to destroy even 1 (one) AUG with conventional weapons.

      And this was not planned in Soviet times either, so you haven’t opened any America for military professionals. Well, those fantasies that some authors write of dubious articles write whether any of the specialists seriously perceive harm. By the way, this is what they wrote in my time:
      NAVAL FORCES
      I. Hurs - Fighting at Sea and Early Warning (47)

      http://www.warstar.info/zarubegnoe_voennoe_obozrenie/zarubegnoe_voennoe_obozrenie87_6.html
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 12 May 2020 12: 28 New
        +1
        Quote: ccsr
        And this was not planned in Soviet times.

        I don’t even know what to say ...
        And why were there 5 (five) MRA divisions in the Soviet Navy?
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 12 May 2020 18: 37 New
          +2
          Quote: Bez 310
          I don’t even know what to say ...
          And why were there 5 (five) MRA divisions in the Soviet Navy?

          In Soviet times, out of our stupidity, there was a doctrine of two wars, and for a war in a non-nuclear version, they created the hell, you know what, and not only in the Navy, but also in the ground forces, creating unthinkable weapons systems, and even in large quantities. I know how this was assessed by real military specialists, but we had a lot of people who wanted to become marshals, generals and admirals, and for the sake of their ambitions they did not take into account the opinion of those who understood the harmfulness of huge military spending on unnecessary weapons and equipment. This is how they pushed "with good intentions" to the collapse of the USSR.
  • rica1952
    rica1952 11 May 2020 17: 18 New
    -1
    Why is it not clear there is no x32 rocket, it is the most promising for solving this problem.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 11 May 2020 17: 25 New
      +2
      There is no such missile in service, and there are only enough "backfires" to fly at parades.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 19: 58 New
      +1
      What is promising? It is on the contrary - unpromising and it is not in service precisely for this reason.
  • Molot1979
    Molot1979 11 May 2020 17: 29 New
    +1
    All this is pure theory. And the criterion of truth is practice. Practice is war. Does anyone want such a practice?
  • magadan72
    magadan72 11 May 2020 17: 34 New
    +1
    To be able to sink an aircraft carrier, preferably the entire AUG, of course, is great ... But at sea during conflicts there are many other, no less important targets. And sinking a nuclear aircraft carrier is somehow not environmentally friendly. We have not entirely new, and not very silent Project 949 submarines with large powerful "granites". It's hard to get to AUG, but super tankers with super container ships are the best! Yes, and a large cruise liner with troops is also necessary ... It is doubtful that "onyx", "zircon" with "caliber!" can drown such a big goal. But the "granite" and with the remnants of fuel can probably drown, and that's not a fact. No matter how it turns out, there are no aircraft carriers, and there is nothing to destroy the enemy's sea trade. Will come to the port of transport of enemies not killed - to which the modern anti-ship missile system is like "pellet to the elephant". It is doubtful that in modern conflicts the AUG will fight the nuclear submarine. Rather, some will blockade, while others will guard, trying to shoot down attacking missiles without full contact (as is now the Israeli and Syrian air defense forces).
    I believe that translating the 949 nuclear submarines to new missiles is meaningless and costly.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 17: 47 New
      -1
      Granites are all old, even though they went through modern and overhaul, but they are out of date. According to the 949 project, there is hope for another 20 years of service, so re-equipment is an urgent need ... And the noise of the Batons is greatly exaggerated by the way. Like today, our very quiet third-generation boat is rumored ....
  • smaug78
    smaug78 11 May 2020 19: 18 New
    +4
    Polonsky is already an expert on the destruction of aircraft carriers. People are growing fast: the day before on tanks, yesterday explored the depths of the psyche of Stalin, today destroy aircraft carriers with a stroke of the pen. Is it tomorrow that William will shake our Shakespeare? laughing
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 12 May 2020 10: 58 New
      +3
      Quote: smaug78
      Is it tomorrow that William will shake our Shakespeare?

      Take it higher - to Napoleon.
  • Imperial Technocrat
    Imperial Technocrat 11 May 2020 19: 26 New
    -5
    Targeting from a satellite, AWACS or ship, then a volley of X-32 or Daggers from> 1 thousand km, and the carrier group is destroyed
    1. Avior
      Avior 11 May 2020 19: 51 New
      +3
      With your lips and honey to drink.
      Already with target designation there will be huge problems.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 19: 59 New
      +1
      It’s not even wet dreams, but I don’t know what.
      1. LeonidL
        LeonidL 11 May 2020 21: 55 New
        -5
        Dry dreams of Mr. Admiral-amateur Timokhin are set forth in his fundamental works on naval construction, naval navigation, rocket science, torpedo landing ... down to the wet Vietnamese jungle and internal combustion engines!
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 22: 05 New
          +2
          The dog can’t run past in any way, it’s necessary to bark, the reflex is driven hard, yes laughing
          Pavlov would be pleased.
          Does your doctor know what you are doing here, and LeonidL?
          1. LeonidL
            LeonidL 11 May 2020 23: 31 New
            -3
            Wait for an admiral-amateur-Jewish scholar and other things ...
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 11 May 2020 23: 35 New
              +2
              So how much can you wait? You have been exposing me for more than a year, you promise, you just haven’t written to Sportloto (although who knows you) ...

              When will the "Yo" be dotted?
              laughing
    3. Editor
      Editor 11 May 2020 21: 51 New
      +1
      from which satellite? from Legendovsky?
      1. Imperial Technocrat
        Imperial Technocrat 12 May 2020 20: 58 New
        -1
        ________ From Liana. Either from AWACS, or from a submarine, or from a ship
        1. Editor
          Editor 6 July 2020 18: 00 New
          0
          and who will allow the AWACS or the ship to sail to the aircraft carrier group ???
  • Uncle Izya
    Uncle Izya 11 May 2020 20: 51 New
    -1
    Source: tests of a new hypersonic missile passed from the board of Tu-22M3
    11.05.2020/22/3 Leave a comment on Source: tests of a new hypersonic missile passed from the Tu-XNUMXMXNUMX
    Tests of a new hypersonic aircraft missile were recently conducted in Russia from the Tu-22M3 bomber-missile carrier. The missile is being created for a modified version of the Tu-22M3M aircraft, a source in the military-industrial complex told TASS.

    “Recently a new hypersonic product was tested on the Tu-22M3. The missile will be part of the armament range of the upgraded Tu-22M3M along with a number of other latest aviation weapons, ”the TASS interlocutor said.

    The source noted that work on the new ammunition began several years ago, missile tests should be completed along with work on the modernized Tu-22M3M bomber.

    He clarified that this product does not belong to the X-32 missile line, noting that it is "completely different." The interlocutor did not name the characteristics of the new rocket.

    TASS does not have official confirmation of the information provided by the source. The press service of PJSC Tupolev declined to comment.

    Earlier, the Russian defense industry developed two types of aircraft hypersonic missiles. One of the missiles was called the “Dagger” and is used on the MiG-31K fighter, it is capable of accelerating to 10 sound speeds and was created on the basis of the Iksander ground-based missile system. Another hypersonic air show is created for the fifth-generation fighter Su-57 and should be placed inside its fuselage. Missile name and characteristics are unknown.

    A prototype of the upgraded Tu-22M3M bomber-rocket carrier made its first flight on December 28, 2018. According to PJSC Tupolev, the missile carrier has an expanded combat potential. Former Commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces Viktor Bondarev, head of the Defense and Security Council Committee, previously reported that the Tu-22M3M will be able to carry, in addition to cruise missiles X-32, hypersonic missiles.

    https://tass.ru
    1. Editor
      Editor 11 May 2020 21: 53 New
      +1
      In these interesting news (not invented), everything is correctly written, but it is not indicated that all this was used for marine moving targets .... sad
  • cniza
    cniza 11 May 2020 21: 01 New
    +4
    What non-nuclear weapons of the Russian Navy can strike US carriers:


    I ask myself a question, why? , if only hypothetically, again one theory ...
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 11 May 2020 21: 52 New
      -1
      And VO has generally turned into a competition venue for amateur admirals to the applause of amateur readers. That's what over-attraction with computer games brings to!
  • ser56
    ser56 11 May 2020 21: 49 New
    -1
    the author knows how our submarine broke the bottom of the American AB ... request
    granite bch 750 kg - for an hour will disable? bully
  • LeonidL
    LeonidL 11 May 2020 21: 50 New
    -1
    "We are talking about the actual battle between two aircraft carriers, where the advantage will be with the warship that has more advanced aircraft wing, detection equipment, combat support, air defense systems."- Are you serious or are you joking like that? What kind of" naval battles "are they? Nowadays they choose someone who is deliberately weak, who does not have the weapon of retaliation. Well, who will trample on a country that can turn its own to ashes? Aircraft carriers today are military tools. political pressure on third world countries, and that is not all. And in a fleeting (God forbid) world war, they are nothing more than floating targets and their combat value is zero.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 12 May 2020 12: 46 New
      +2
      Quote: LeonidL
      Are you serious or are you joking? What are such "sea battles" in general?

      I am also amazed at the opinions of local "analysts" who do not even conceptually understand how a military conflict will occur between us and the United States (China), what decisions will be made during the preparation period, and how long the exchange of strikes will last. This is where the whimsy comes from that aircraft carrier formations are almost the main danger for us. Although it is clear that there will be no naval battles, and most AUGs, even with operational nuclear weapons on board, do not pose any serious danger to us until they come closer than 500-1000 miles to our shores.
      1. LeonidL
        LeonidL 12 May 2020 22: 02 New
        0
        I agree with you. Moreover, a "big" war with strong states is very unlikely from the standpoint of unacceptable potential damage. Here it is increasingly reminiscent of a boxing "war of views" ... In the case of the PRC, a limited war (not nuclear) is possible in the event of a complete collapse of the internal political situation in the country as the last chance for the CCP to retain power. But the likelihood of this is obviously low. And the first "victims" will most likely be the weaker countries - Central Asia, Taiwan, conflicts with India, Vietnam, etc., possibly around the Asia-Pacific islands of discord. Regarding the "younger" but the loudest barking and grunting NATO members, I think their aggressiveness is inversely proportional to the barking - and the barking dog does not bite.
  • Shadow041
    Shadow041 11 May 2020 23: 10 New
    +1
    The article forgot about the Onix-M supersonic anti-ship missiles with a range of 800 km, in addition, a number of Soviet missiles, such as Basalt anti-ship missiles (about 700 km range), Vulkan anti-ship missiles (about 1000 km range), Moskit anti-ship missiles (up to 240 km range) still relevant. And if you consider that the US carriers barely died from an accidental explosion on board the 127 mm ZURI NURS, then the Uran-M anti-ship missile (range up to 260 km) could be ruined by the US aircraft carrier, and with one successful hit.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 11 May 2020 23: 45 New
    -1
    Speaking of Dagger, look carefully ...




    I do not comment ....
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 08: 17 New
      -1
      And anyone who was not lazy and adequate in the internet was quite able to find out what else was officially developed for Iskander ARGSN - radar active GOS 9B918 - developed and produced by NPP "Radar MMS" as of 2009. Conclusions themselves, only nonsense about the fact that the aircraft carrier drove off 10 meters and the missile missed. Don't carry it, okay?
  • abvgdeika
    abvgdeika 12 May 2020 00: 52 New
    -2
    Russia can quietly stand in a corner and cry crying
    1. abvgdeika
      abvgdeika 12 May 2020 00: 53 New
      -1
      Who wants to argue soldier So win !!!!!!
  • Charik
    Charik 12 May 2020 01: 56 New
    -1
    So, the nuclear submarine "Omsk" is capable of taking on board up to 24 such missiles, and what about the rest. All boats 949 (949A) of the project have 24 Granit-12 anti-ship missiles on each side - "Smolensk", "Voronezh", "Omsk" and "Tver".
    1. abvgdeika
      abvgdeika 12 May 2020 02: 18 New
      -2
      Say what I wanted ??????
      1. Charik
        Charik 12 May 2020 02: 43 New
        -1
        cover the Rygotin and that's it
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Connor MacLeod
    Connor MacLeod 12 May 2020 04: 04 New
    -1
    Recently there was information about the new Onyx with a flight range of 800 km. Most likely it was possible to reduce weight due to the installation of a new lighter electronics, and the released weight and volumes were used to increase the fuel supply. It would be better if they didn’t increase the range, but put an active jamming station on the rocket so that all the missiles from the destroyers released from the destroyers go into milk. Perfect option.
  • Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 12 May 2020 05: 41 New
    -1
    Quote: Avior
    they are deep in the aircraft carrier, protected by external compartments

    The "granite" has such a penetrating ability that it simply pierces through the destroyer, without having time to explode. Tekindarogu may not be sewn through and through, but with great opportunity it will also break the spine. At the expense of the aircraft carrier, I believe that there will be an explosion right in the middle of the hull. Breaking, of course, will not break, but it will bite hard. I was not just talking about "granites", because in terms of kinetic energy and charge power, they are really the most powerful of all existing ones. With onyx and other mosquitoes, which are clearly smaller, this will not work.
    The fact is that modern ships have virtually no reservation, since most of the weight of the structure is consumed by copper, which is tens of kilometers in the wires. The carrier only has a strong deck. His sides are weak. I suspect that there and what thread the long-barreled gun, from 35 to 57mm, will sew without straining. This is not a battleship of the Second World War, which must be hollowed and hollowed.
  • Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 12 May 2020 05: 50 New
    -1
    Quote: Avior
    they are deep in the aircraft carrier, protected by external compartments

    The "granite" has such a penetrating ability that it simply pierces through the destroyer, without having time to explode. Tekindarogu may not be sewn through and through, but with great opportunity it will also break the spine. At the expense of the aircraft carrier, I believe that there will be an explosion right in the middle of the hull. Breaking, of course, will not break, but it will bite hard. I was not just talking about "granites", because in terms of kinetic energy and charge power, they are really the most powerful of all existing ones. With onyx and other mosquitoes, which are clearly smaller, this will not work.
    The fact is that modern ships have virtually no reservation, since most of the weight of the structure is consumed by copper, which is tens of kilometers in the wires. The carrier only has a strong deck. His sides are weak. I suspect that there and what thread the long-barreled gun, from 35 to 57mm, will sew without straining. This is not a battleship of the Second World War, which must be hollowed and hollowed.

    For me, it is more than doubtful that against Russia, it generally makes sense for the Americans to use an aircraft carrier. In the western direction there are enough airfields. But in the east, and essentially nothing to do. Only three or four relatively large cities, and then endless Siberia. But our bases, it’s just more convenient for us to defend our air defense forces than to try to destroy a floating airfield. However, all possible measures may well be taken. And it was in this context that I mentioned any air defense in a previous post.
    In general, it is certainly great, to speak in the format of the last resort. But then it is not clear. where did you get the idea that someone is interested in reading your monologues. You simply wrote everywhere in a nutshell that this could not be, because this could not be, leaving the opponent the obligation to prove that "he is not a camel." :)
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 12 May 2020 08: 22 New
    +1
    1 An aircraft carrier is a total of 24 superhornet combat aircraft, maybe more, but the maximum strike wing will be doubled to the detriment of something else. After knocking it out, the aircraft carrier itself is helpless.
  • Clueless
    Clueless 12 May 2020 17: 00 New
    0
    Was this a post or an article? :))
  • Demagogue
    Demagogue 12 May 2020 19: 21 New
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Fellow Bez 310 speaks the truth.


    Comrade Bez 310 at one time was going to solve this problem with much less forces.
    Oh well.
    Dispatchers will not be able to part 500 planes, for example, over the Kola Peninsula.
    Strongly this is a lot - 500 aircraft.


    Not my numbers. Western. It takes complex modeling to figure out exactly what I can’t do. I assume that we will lose in the management and information field, the absence of an external target designation system. We have a problem with air launchers. At the moment, at least. So there is only a crowd.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 20: 18 New
      +1
      Here, in the comments above, Cyril Guk, he had a blow to the ACG was in the course work, or in the diploma, I do not remember exactly - ask.
      1. Demagogue
        Demagogue 12 May 2020 21: 40 New
        +1
        He told me that 80 aircraft would be enough. let's next, this one broke)) it’s clear that we don’t have stealth and the Americans will be the first to spot our planes. They will raise the first squadron, which can throw up to 120 Amraams for a meeting, for acquaintance. The destroyers at this point have already made volleys of dozens of anti-aircraft missiles ... in general, to overload the capabilities of augs in defense, you need much more.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 21: 58 New
          -1
          The destroyers at this point have already made volleys of dozens of anti-aircraft missiles ...


          Where is it interesting?

          They will raise the first squadron, which can throw up to 120 Amraams for a meeting, for acquaintance.


          Towards to fly no less.

          Americans will be the first to spot our planes.


          Is it because they are Americans?
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 21: 59 New
        -1
        That was as of 1994.
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 12 May 2020 20: 03 New
    0
    The GRC at one time developed the R-27K to deal with aircraft carriers, but there were problems with the submarine. It is necessary to make such a modification on the basis of the R-29RMU and there will be no need for submarines or surface ships. 10 warheads are guaranteed to send it to the bottom. No cover destroyers will help. And it will be possible to launch it from land .... laughing tongue wassat
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 20: 17 New
      +1
      There the rocket was stillborn first of all
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 12 May 2020 20: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    Speaking of Dagger, look carefully ...




    I do not comment ....


    So it’s written everywhere that the Dagger was made on the basis of a rocket of the Iskander complex. What is the question then?
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 20: 16 New
      +1
      The heads are different, on the dagger there is a radio-transparent fairing.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 20: 27 New
      0
      Look at the head of the Dagger carefully. 70 to 30 that it is ARGSN.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 22: 18 New
        +1
        100%, but the question is what she can do. RLGSN does not necessarily mean suitability for guidance on a surface target.
        At the same Pershing-2 was RLGSN
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 22: 26 New
          0
          Alexander will not be tested yet, but there will be no specifics, and this must be done in any case. The dagger should not be seen as a panacea, this is far from the case, but as an element of the anti-aircraft operation. Here, of course, on the one hand, target designation is extremely important, on the other hand, one must understand that the shortest flight time of 2000 km is 10 minutes. The figures are of course divinatory ..

          By the way, Kansk is planning to rearm on the MiG-31K - https://iz.ru/986304/roman-kretcul-bogdan-stepovoi/kinzhalnaia-vataga-v-sibiri-poiavitsia-polk-s-giperzvukovymi-raketami
          The place was chosen not in vain.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 23: 25 New
            +1
            I would look at this missile as a means of much more interesting operations than aircraft carriers, but oh well. In any case, until the strike on the sea target is shown, I will, in my opinion, that Putin confuses the tracks so as not to stir the partners ahead of time.
            1. Liam
              Liam 12 May 2020 23: 28 New
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              , I will be in my opinion that Putin confuses the tracks, so as not to stir the partners ahead of time.

              Another HPP?) ... You're an adult
            2. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 23: 33 New
              -1
              Of course, but this does not exclude the possibility of using it according to AUG
  • Demagogue
    Demagogue 12 May 2020 20: 36 New
    0
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    80-90 is enough. Guards regiment with anti-ship missiles and missile defense, IAP, AWACS with cover, reconnaissance aircraft and electronic warfare and amplification means


    Is this one wave or do you expect that 20-25 aircraft of 3 waves will be enough? Against several squadrons of decks who can’t fly 500+ km from the airfield. So how does aug take it right away? A regiment of drummers how many PCRs will take away at a time? And which ones? Many questions.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 21: 42 New
      -1
      One wave. The regiment of drummers Su-34 is really 120 TSA type X-31, X-35. Perhaps more.
      How do you find that Aegis knocked down 4 exercises at the same time? Tell me, okay?
      Even if the main goal survives, the combat effectiveness will be largely lost.
      This is only the aviation part, above I wrote the required outfit of forces.
      1. Demagogue
        Demagogue 12 May 2020 21: 59 New
        +1
        And where does Aegis have to do with it? Your 80+ planes are not stealth. They will be spotted ahead of time. One squadron from an aircraft carrier will treat them with 120 amraams to a meeting. They will not even see 20 amraams from the on-duty couple. The radars are there with afar, the course of the missile cc is adjusted. Do not score by interference. The detection range of the destroyer with the su-34 at a low altitude breakthrough of 50 km. Avax will draw your drying even against the background of water ahead of time. They will be hit from destroyers by the external command center for the radio horizon. From your regiment the horns and legs will remain. And the Americans have not even warmed up yet. 120 PCRs from the Su-34 regiment cannot be. 36 aircraft of 2 x-31 missiles. 70 pcs Doesn’t carry more than two, emnip, but it doesn’t matter.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 22: 18 New
          -1
          Hard case.
          Aegis despite the fact that this is their main means of defense
          In order to detect planes, it is necessary to use AWACS in advance, which will undoubtedly facilitate the solution of the problem.

          One squadron from an aircraft carrier will treat them with 120 amraams to a meeting. They will not even see 20 amraams from the on-duty couple.

          According to them, a couple of hundred RVV will fly back, and also with radio correction. The distraction group, the Airspace Clearing Group, did not hear .............. So what?

          Do not score by interference.


          Yeah, of course ...

          The detection range of the destroyer with the su-34 at a low altitude breakthrough of 50 km.


          up to 300 km, you come up with some absurdities for Russians then heroically overcome with a waving mattress ... Nobody will do that. The operation pattern will be completely different

          They will be hit from destroyers by the external command center for the radio horizon.


          Not an external control unit, but a radio correction from the F-35C is needed, if that.

          From your regiment the horns and legs will remain.


          yourself not funny? Everything is much more complicated.

          Doesn’t carry more than two, emnip, but it doesn’t matter.


          Bgggg !!!!
          1. Demagogue
            Demagogue 12 May 2020 22: 51 New
            +1
            Hard case.
            Aegis despite the fact that this is their main means of defense


            Is Bius now an air defense weapon?
            Who told you that rockets will shoot down? They will simply be rejected by interference. They will shoot at the carriers. The huge radio-contrast targets that the su-34s are. Absolutely pointless plane. Your photo is wonderful, but I don’t see the third x-31 rocket there.
            In addition, x31 is, to put it mildly, not serious. No wonder the Indians sawed Bramos as the main aviation PCR. Even if you put Ford without a crew and planes, your group will shoot him for a week x31, and you won’t drown.

            The distraction group, the Airspace Clearing Group, did not hear .............. So what?


            RVV adjustment will go from conventional radars, those in the long-distance combat, our planes are the losers. Afar in action. The actual position of enemy aircraft will be different.

            Not an external control unit, but a radio correction from the F-35C is needed, if that.


            I'm glad you remembered the f-35. With him, we have no chance at all. I did not mercifully mention him. As well as the fact that the Americans can easily put two aircraft carriers against us plus a couple of udk from 30 f35v. And more. How many will find it necessary. Your group of 80 planes won't even sell a Japanese Aug with two Izumo class. What are the Americans.

            And the idea of ​​a high-altitude breakthrough to Aug you made my day. For 300 km you can pinpoint anything. You need a su-34 fly up and capture the target. With a low altitude breakthrough of 50 km. If you propose to break through at altitude, then make my day)))
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 23: 07 New
              0
              AEGIS - This is primarily a combat system that includes, in addition to everything else, and a missile launcher.

              and not drown after all.

              X-31 and should not be drowned by AVMA, but a few hits may well disable it.
              They will simply be rejected by interference.

              Have you tried to think? Some may deviate, the rest will go to the ships. The fact that serious noise immunity algorithms are sewn in the ARGSN RCC shows another shock for you.
              Your photo is wonderful, but I don’t see the third x-31 rocket there.

              There are 6 of them hanging. Try rubbing your eyes.
              Who told you that rockets will shoot down?

              I know it.
              And the idea of ​​a high-altitude breakthrough to Aug you made my day.

              He invented himself, laughed himself? Good for you!
              RVV adjustment will go from conventional radars, those in the long-distance combat, our planes are the losers.

              Once again, conventional radars do not perform radio correction.
              Your group of 80 planes won't even sell a Japanese Aug with two Izumo class.

              Thank you again made my day. here is already enchantingly simple!

              Just in case, I explain, from the maximum distances of the RVV SD for the last 50 years no one has used. Real launch distances from the experience of the last 30 years in the area 0.3-0.4 x Release RVV SD max. at real launch distances of the AiM-120 and R-77, opponents will already see a friend of the radar station. And the ARGSN RVV to interfere and evade is much easier than the ship to leave the RCC.
              1. Demagogue
                Demagogue 12 May 2020 23: 38 New
                0
                A lot of words and again nothing.
                If our BB missiles do not receive corrections, then they will be even more rejected by interference. They have low power radar. I wrote to the Aam that the Amraam receive constant adjustment from fighter radar. Further, your IAP will not be able to attend the battlefield for a long time. They have barely enough fuel. When they shoot rockets all the time and fly away so that the Amraams do not shoot them down, who will cover the su-34? It would be obvious that IAP is not even enough to push the destroyers of the outer perimeter. But you don’t have one on the aircraft carrier. And he is somewhere further in the hundreds of kilometers. And there are several enemy squadrons that will not allow to turn around. And you haven’t shot down the first squadron yet. Against f35, there are no tricks at all. Grind your planes, including drills quickly and naturally. How many rockets the su-34 drags no difference. These are all irrelevant trifles. You don’t want to see the big picture.
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 23: 56 New
                  -1
                  Many words are not essentially yours.
                  If our BB missiles do not receive corrections, then they will be even more rejected by interference. They have low power radar.

                  Once again in warehouses - the correct term is radio correction. And it is not identical with adjustment. Low-power ARGSN on both the AiM-120 and R-77 if that.
                  When they shoot rockets all the time and fly away so that the Amraams do not shoot them down, who will cover the su-34?

                  Of course, they will shoot their RVV by targets, and then how lucky. RVV SD get in real conditions 1 of 3-4. I'm talking about the AIM-120, Higby to help you.
                  They have barely enough fuel.

                  A wretched argument. Enough.
                  It would be obvious that IAP is not even enough to push the destroyers of the outer perimeter.

                  In your dreams, in reality, everything will be wrong.
                  Against f35, there are no tricks at all.

                  It’s funny. Once again, at real battle distances, Irbis will see the F-35
                  How many rockets the su-34 drags no difference. These are all irrelevant trifles.

                  Someone would doubt that, after such a vivid expression of ignorance.
                  You don’t want to see the big picture.

                  And here I want to do not want, I just see her, but you are not, besides you are confused in the elementary.
                  And he is somewhere further in the hundreds of kilometers.

                  Read something on the topic, but honestly I'm tired of spending your educational program on you.
                  If there are questions, then more specifically, we’ll finish here, I opened the curtain slightly for you, and as you understand it, the question is different, I won’t argue with you, you don’t know what it’s about, I already spent 45 minutes on you today - prohibitively much.
                  1. Demagogue
                    Demagogue 13 May 2020 07: 45 New
                    +1
                    You again threw a lot of words and again ignored all the essential facts or distorted them by virtue of ignorance. And I am silent about the favorite trick of the local bots and actors of the comedy genre. The last time, so be it, in order now I’m chewing:

                    1) in order to attack at least destroyers of the outer perimeter of the aug, they must be detected. Here you have, comrade optimist, and the problems begin. According to American doctrine, all means of detecting the enemy must be destroyed ahead of time. That is, whether reconnaissance aircraft or drills will be immediately attacked. And before the discovery of the destroyers. At the border of the outer perimeter, e-2s flies with a radar, which can detect targets up to 650 km. The battle with the Americans will begin here, and not on your terms.
                    2) rather, it will start earlier, your few numerical airfields ahead of time will be sprinkled with cr. No one will calmly prepare for a blow. Plus aug forces can include and will include several aircraft carriers, if necessary.
                    3) in an air battle, we immediately have a problem. So be it, the third time I will try to convey to you its essence. When fighting at a distance, the readings of our conventional radars will initially be distorted by interference, the American ones are not, or minimally, there are afar. That is, our missiles will fly with a deviation from the targets, and the American for sure. American missiles will be adjusted in flight from fighter jets, but ours will not. In general, to consider what percentage of our missiles will fall pointless. On the passenger liner and everyone can get. On fighter units. According to f35 no one, small EPR makes interference much more effective. In order to defeat American aviation, you need to get closer, causing heavy losses and impose close combat. Where the snow leopard will really see, but where it will be very difficult anyway, because the missile force of the missiles is weaker than the snow leopard and it is difficult for them to cling to the stealth. There are chances with only the r-73, and the Americans are really afraid of it, but today there are effective optical jamming stations blinding with a laser beam and missiles. Here we need a huge number of fighters.
                    And the number of pistons on the su-34 has nothing to do with the matter.
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 13 May 2020 09: 04 New
                      0
                      You again threw a lot of words and again ignored all the essential facts or distorted them by virtue of ignorance. And I am silent about the favorite trick of the local bots and actors of the comedy genre. The last time, so be it, in order now I’m chewing:

                      It’s not worth it; you are talking nonsense that has nothing to do with reality. You definitely didn’t finish the academies ...
                      And the number of pistons on the su-34 has nothing to do with the matter.

                      The direct is the level of your illiteracy. I remind you that the Su-34 carries two anti-ship missiles, there are 6 of them. Other things in the same vein.
                      American missiles will be adjusted in flight from fighter jets, but ours will not. AT

                      Again!!! Hard case, express yourself technically competently. It's about the radio correction of the RVV. The RVV radio correction in our Su-27 and MiG-29 was introduced on R-27R / ER missiles. And naturally, there is a place to be on the Su-35 and Su-27SM3 and Su-34. On SM3, the stable range of the radio correction channel is more than 40 km
                      in general, to consider what percentage of our missiles will fall pointless.

                      Yeah. You just wanted to say rockets, I suppose.
                      By f35 no one

                      Your worship of the Penguin is hilarious.
                      2) rather, it will start earlier, your few numerical airfields ahead of time will be sprinkled with cr. No one will calmly prepare for a blow. Plus aug forces can include and will include several aircraft carriers, if necessary.

                      You sat down in a puddle again. When you realized that you went somewhere or other ... Now we are not talking about that at all. If there are several aircraft carriers, then the scenario will be completely different.
                      1. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 13 May 2020 09: 18 New
                        -1
                        More about AFAR.
                        The APG-79 shows a slight increase in performance compared to the APG-73. The results of practical tests did not reveal any noticeable advantages of F / A-18E / F fighter jets, equipped with AFAR radars, before vehicles with conventional radar radars.
                        From Director of Test & Evaluation (DOT & E), 2013.


                        One must understand the AFAR stage of evolution of the development of RES, and not at all a revolution in the creation of a radar. Yes, a little better. Physics is not deceived in the end.
                      2. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 13 May 2020 10: 26 New
                        0
                        In this area I am an amateur, and I have never hidden it. In my specialty, I do not sit on the forums, I do not need this. I have work, people learn from my textbooks. I have nothing to do on the forums. And here with the same amateurs I can fuck in my free time. You can immediately see a very poor understanding of the physics involved in the process of radar location, and with logic it is difficult.
                        Again, point by point, they are the same:
                        1) how are you going to get tsu to attack aug (albeit with one av)? How do you want 36 fighters to break through 12-24 or more American fighters with e-2s support and air defense destroyers?
                        2) how do you want to pass the oncoming volley up to 120-240 aim-120 in order to get closer to the enemy aircraft? Plus air defense missiles. In physics of processes, I will explain once again: radar from afar is not a detection range, it is a quality of detection. It is as if a one-eyed man is fighting with a person with full vision against a conventional radar. You can see far with one eye, but the enemy will hit you from the dead zone. The signal from the usual radar of our fighters will be distorted by interference. Over a long distance, the actual position of enemy aircraft will differ significantly from the actual parameters. Correction of a missile in flight is nonsense if the radar data used for it is inaccurate. The rocket will fly away. It’s enough to miss the stealth just a bit and the target will no longer capture the missile. Stealth at a long distance you simply will not see. Fly towards the aim-120 fan hoping to catch an imposing penguin? How many cars will have to lose? The answer is all. Penguin will not miss you. Or you have to dodge and leave, or ahead with huge losses. On our missiles with rlgsn ... The fact that you proposed to use the rvv immediately shows limited awareness. Hindus abandoned its use entirely because of the extremely low reliability and effectiveness. And they really need a long arm against aim-120 packs. They took a long-range version of the r-73. We have a serious technology gap.
                      3. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 13 May 2020 11: 07 New
                        -1
                        Do not let up? Not only do you not know anything on the topic?
                        you immediately see a very weak understanding of the physics involved in the process of radar, and with logic it’s hard.

                        You simply don’t know it, don’t understand, don’t want to understand it and you don’t have logic. From a word in general

                        according to my textbooks, people are studying.

                        This is not a textbook on aviation and navy tactics.

                        radar with afar is not a detection range, this is the quality of detection.


                        Clearly, it didn’t reach again. It happens.

                        The signal from the usual radar of our fighters will be distorted by interference. Over a long distance, the actual position of enemy aircraft will differ significantly from the actual parameters.


                        It is clear that the radar noise immunity is empty for you.

                        Correction of a missile in flight is nonsense if the radar data used for it is inaccurate.


                        Do American Missiles always fly right on target? Then for the second time Higby. battle out of sight to help you try to master, maybe
                        How do you want to pass the oncoming volley up to 120-240 AIM-120 in order to get closer to the enemy planes?

                        I'll tell you when you tell how the Americans plan to survive with the oncoming volley.
                        The answer is all. Penguin will not miss you.

                        For starters, you would bother to find out that not a single squadron has been deployed on decks today. Only on trial operation 28 cars
                        On our missiles with rlgsn ... The fact that you proposed to use the rvv immediately shows limited awareness. Hindus abandoned its use entirely because of the extremely low reliability and effectiveness.

                        Storyteller. Firstly, they did not refuse. Secondly, we have R-77-1 and not RVV-AE, which is not its analogue at all. Someone threw you up again. Take the trouble to find out all the circumstances and why the screeching began and how they end as a rule. I explain to you personally for the third time, of course it won't help you, but what if, we don't know all the circumstances about that fight. And in order to at least open your mouth to the topic - you need to see a map of the situation before your eyes. With the moments of detection, description of maneuvers, launches, etc. None of this is even close. But screams from militant amateurs who knew FSE rained down from everywhere. By the way, the Indians continued to order "worthless!" Viper.
                        Anyway, in order to describe the combat model with the participation of AUG, this is a minimum of 40-45 sheets of A4 format, font 12, + a graphical application. That's all.
                      4. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 13 May 2020 15: 04 New
                        +1
                        You are very emotional, unprofessional. But I'm used to this on this resource.
                        It is clear that the radar noise immunity is empty for you.


                        Why, then, I'm just trying to explain to you that the noise immunity of radars from afar is an order of magnitude higher than that of a conventional one. Does not exceed.

                        Do American Missiles always fly right on target?


                        Not at all. At a great distance from amraam, dodging is easy enough. BUT you want to attack 36 aircraft. What does it mean?
                        1) You will have to push IAP at a height. From bottom to top, you cannot launch missiles over a long distance. And the Americans will ride the heights and will calmly make long-distance launches from there. But that's not the point. At altitude, you are substituted under air defense missiles. That is, go down - you are mowed down from above by fighters. Up - they are also air defense. High ground. That is, the losses you will have are Mama Do not Cry Anyway.
                        2) Since you are attacking, you need to go forward to meet the enemy volleys. And the enemy can give a volley, and after a while turn around and retreat. It’s also possible to leave a pair of f35 missiles aimed (if you think that the Americans will go to war with the Maser rush and leave the best weapons at home, then you are naive). If you fly to meet aim120 with the stubbornness of kamikaze, then even if half of the missiles fall, then IAP is a cover. Your rockets will not stupidly catch up with the Americans. I hope you understand the difference in shooting on the counter and catch-up?

                        That is, you lose and without taking into account any stealth and afar.

                        It is not by chance that I wrote to you about the number of waves that are planned to be launched. Just do not get on the forehead, only at the cost of heavy losses. You can exhaust the enemy with a variety of approaches, constantly disturbing, but he, too, will not sit idly by. For this aircraft for a long time is not enough.

                        This is all right away. There are many nuances.

                        On missiles: the Americans in our aviation have always been afraid of only the r-73 + helmet mount. All. If you don’t understand why, then there’s nothing to be done.
                      5. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 13 May 2020 15: 16 New
                        -1
                        You are not tired of carrying nonsense "professional"? I no longer comment on your delusions. You are unable to understand the elementary. I gave examples more than once, but you are not appeased.
                        You lagged behind in your judgments for about 30 years.
                        The first class will surely save you

                        Why, then, I'm just trying to explain to you that the noise immunity of radars from afar is an order of magnitude higher than that of a conventional one.

                        And this is an example of your next ravings, go on to learn materiel, tired ....
                        On this fs
                      6. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 13 May 2020 16: 42 New
                        +1
                        Why, then, I'm just trying to explain to you that the noise immunity of radars from afar is an order of magnitude higher than that of a conventional one.

                        And this is an example of your next ravings


                        If you don’t understand that a Pfar operating at the same frequency is clogged in an elementary way, unlike Afar, where there are many frequencies that are arbitrarily selected, then how can I argue. The whole world is fools and will correct Afar, and you are certainly a guru. Where to everyone and you.

                        Talking is no longer worth it. You are an uninteresting interlocutor. I am a person without complexes and am always happy to talk with someone I’m talking to, who understands some area better. Let’s say by pleasure that I communicate with Klimov and admit my mistakes after the argument. But this is not the case with you.
                      7. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 14 May 2020 10: 50 New
                        -1
                        Talking is no longer worth it.

                        I already repent that I spent time, you are not trained ...

                        that Pfar operating on a single frequency, clogs elementary, unlike afar, where there are many frequencies,

                        No need to demonstrate so zealously that once again you have not completely figured out this issue.
                        Radar with PFAR changes the frequency from pulse to pulse within the range ....
                        The operation of the radar at interchangeable fixed frequencies is approximately the 60s, 70s. So the Osa-M complex had 2 everyday frequencies, 8 wartime "letter" frequencies. So that was a very long time ago.
                        Radar with AFAR, theoretically, the impulse from each APM can have its own frequency, in practice, everything is not so simple.
                        I’m not writing for you, you still won’t understand. But also welcome to personal ignore.
                      8. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 14 May 2020 17: 26 New
                        +1
                        I’ll leave information for those who are not in the tank: even our best radar, Irbis-e, does not have lpi capabilities. That is, her work is easy to detect and it is suppressed by modern hindrances. Not to mention the fact that it is inferior to Western afar in scanning time and a number of other parameters. According to the detection capabilities of stealth aircraft from the best afar, it differs for the worse seriously. A radar with afar costs from $ 5 million per unit, but it is not by chance that they are in demand. Only Europeans delay their installation on Eurofighter, but this is because we have no afar and no leverage to convince the leadership to fork out.
                      9. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 14 May 2020 17: 44 New
                        -1
                        The demagogy is continuous.
                        Not shorter for you. I am writing for sane people so that they do not believe in nonsense. Suddenly, someone really wants to figure it out.
                        What does LPI have to do with what I explained to you for a long time and tediously is not clear. Have you managed the working frequencies sorry for my French, showing complete ignorance of the issue and decided to continue verbiage? LPI does not provide the necessary detection range from the word in general, because it is primarily a mode of operation at reduced power. Old STRs of the 80s could be fooled in this way. Pastel L-150 after 12 years is impossible.

                        it is muffled by modern hindrances.


                        Once again, the interference immunity of the Irbis radar is the best possible, and if it is worse than that of AN APG-81, for example, but the difference is not very large.

                        about the ability to detect stealth aircraft from the best afar is seriously different for the worse.


                        Afar you have a fetish campaign like this? With Stealth, the main parameter in their search is the radar power. We look at the radar equation and do not say nonsense.
                      10. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 14 May 2020 18: 20 New
                        -1
                        Irbis radar interference immunity is the best possible

                        Of course, for the PAR family with a passive grill .... The difference there is not an order of magnitude of course, these are already unbridled fantasies
                      11. Demagogue
                        Demagogue 14 May 2020 19: 13 New
                        +1
                        You write nonsense. And your vocabulary of the infantry officer, of course ... But I endure, experience. Changing frequencies to Pfar gives nothing. At the same time it works at ONE frequency. The bandwidth of the Irbis antenna can not allow lpi, well, the processor is not enough for this, but this is secondary. AFAR at the same time emits waves at different frequencies and in different directions. VFAR is predictable, one frequency and one direction, while VFAR is not. Well, that's not your radar. Maybe you know the charter of the guard service by heart?
            2. ccsr
              ccsr 13 May 2020 19: 33 New
              +1
              Quote: Demagogue
              This is all right away.

              I’ll answer you straight away - all that you have described is outdated notions of what a war might have been if we and the Americans decided to fight each other without using nuclear weapons. And since such a situation is even hypothetically impossible, all discussions about how the air groups will clash in the sky and who will have advantages will be meaningless if only because there will be no such military operations at all.
            3. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 13 May 2020 20: 54 New
              0
              And since such a situation is even hypothetically impossible, all discussions about how the air groups will clash in the sky and who will have advantages will be meaningless if only because there will be no such military operations at all.


              And why such a question as the MOMENT of the beginning of the use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons (they do not coincide) remained outside the scope of your consciousness? And how to achieve the SUDDEN APPLICATION of at least strategic nuclear weapons in the course of an ongoing conflict?
              After all, the goal of the war is not suicide, but victory, and if you just stupidly take and bang, then there will be no winners. Yes, and only the United States will survive, we will die completely.

              What to do with this?
            4. ccsr
              ccsr 13 May 2020 21: 21 New
              +1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              And why such a question as the MOMENT of the beginning of the use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons (they do not coincide) remained outside the scope of your consciousness?

              Your fantasies do not correspond to what they knew even during the USSR about the upcoming scenario of a war with the USA.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              And how to achieve the SUDDEN APPLICATION of at least strategic nuclear weapons in the course of an ongoing conflict?

              The war will begin with the Americans with the use of strategic nuclear weapons in their entire assortment. So the start of the war will itself be sudden, if we or they manage to hide it.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              After all, the goal of the war is not suicide, but victory, and if you just stupidly take and bang, then there will be no winners.

              This has always stopped the United States since the seventies, and even during the collapse of the nineties.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Yes, and only the United States will survive, we will die completely.

              And the United States will die completely - their technological disasters will destroy those who will not be destroyed during the exchange of nuclear strikes.
              This is reality - maybe enough of their childhood fantasies to pass off as evidence-based forecasts?
            5. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 13 May 2020 21: 37 New
              +2
              Your fantasies


              You have no moral right to use such a speech revolution. After all your pearls

              The war will begin with the Americans with the use of strategic nuclear weapons in their entire assortment.


              Yes? But Hillary Clinton was insanely planning to introduce a no-fly zone over Syria for us after winning the election. Interesting discrepancy with reality from your words, yes?
              The reality is that you wrote this one of the options when one of the parties preplans an unlimited scale war in order to completely destroy the enemy.
              But this is not the only option, it is just one of the options.

              This has always stopped the United States since the seventies, and even during the collapse of the nineties.


              There were many that stopped them, but they never abandoned the idea that perhaps a nuclear war would have to be fought and really prepared for it.

              And the United States will die completely - their technological disasters will destroy those who will not be destroyed during the exchange of nuclear strikes.


              The most recent estimates of our current potential indicate 60 million deaths at the time of the impact and a hundred over the next year. And then on the condition that we deliver a sudden counter-value strike with all our forces, except for the strategic nuclear forces.

              This is reality - maybe enough of their childhood fantasies to pass off as evidence-based forecasts?


              Other people do not believe your voices in my head, I have already pointed this out to you.
            6. ccsr
              ccsr 14 May 2020 10: 10 New
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Yes? But Hillary Clinton was insanely planning to introduce a no-fly zone over Syria for us after winning the election.

              Well, what was going to spit - because of this, the third world would not start, as well as because of Serbia.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The reality is that you wrote this one of the options when one of the parties preplans an unlimited scale war in order to completely destroy the enemy.

              There are no other options at all - but you simply can’t understand this, apparently due to the lack of military knowledge.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              but they never abandoned the idea that perhaps a nuclear war would have to be fought and were really preparing for it.

              And I did not deny it - we were preparing for it too.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The most recent estimates of our current potential indicate 60 million deaths at the time of the impact.

              Whose grades are these, tell us about the source. And what's the difference when a person dies after such a blow - right away, or in a week. After the atomic bombings in Japan, people died even years after leukemia.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              And then on the condition that we deliver a sudden counter-value strike with all our forces, except for the strategic nuclear forces.

              Lies - American analysts admit that even a hundred nuclear charges on their territory will lead to unacceptable US losses, i.e. a country may cease to exist as a single state.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Other people do not believe your voices in my head, I have already pointed this out to you.

              Uneducated people almost rarely believe in specialists, which is why unexpected and unpleasant events happen for them. A typical example is that in the USSR people wanted to live under capitalism, and when they got it, they howled and constantly whine that their oligarchs are robbing. Although this was originally known to any literate person who has studied historical materialism.
      2. Demagogue
        Demagogue 13 May 2020 20: 55 New
        +1
        I asked you a question about your remarks on nuclear weapons, but you apparently forgot to answer.
      3. ccsr
        ccsr 13 May 2020 21: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: Demagogue
        but you apparently forgot to answer.

        Apparently did not keep track. What is their essence?
      4. Demagogue
        Demagogue 13 May 2020 21: 45 New
        0
        What kind of aircraft and with which missiles with warheads can we threaten aug?
      5. ccsr
        ccsr 14 May 2020 10: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: Demagogue
        What kind of aircraft and with which missiles with warheads can we threaten aug?

        I do not think that the AUG is the primary goals for our long-range aircraft with nuclear weapons in the Kyrgyz Republic, because they have a different task. And in general, all the fuss around the AUG and there is no eaten egg - they will not come close to our shores anyway, because their main purpose is to use ship aviation against non-nuclear countries, over which the United States has multiple superiority in armaments. Even North Korea was not afraid of the campaign of the US naval group during the Trump threats - here's an assessment of the real danger.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 23: 21 New
    -1

    Here you can even calculate the RCC and estimate that in this particular case the combat load is unlikely to exceed half the full combat load, and you can grab another three tons of PTB, and a couple of RVV R-77
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 12 May 2020 23: 26 New
    +1
    Bgggg !!!!


    But this is not an option, by the way, amers MA-31 for many years was the main supersonic missile target, they perfectly know how to shoot at it.
    We helped them in this big in due time.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 23: 32 New
      0
      Everything is relative. Full compliance, of course, is not. Hang alone X-31 will not be for sure. There will be a combination. I just gave an example of a Su-34 with 6 anti-ship missiles.
      Well, of course it was a crime, one of so many.
  • zwlad
    zwlad 12 May 2020 22: 52 New
    0
    In my opinion, it is better than strategic aviation with the corresponding missiles with AUG, only the joint use of these same strategists with submarines can cope.
    No aircraft carriers will fight one on one.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 12 May 2020 23: 08 New
      0
      You're right. But this was said from the very beginning, and approximate options for the dressing of forces by me and Timokhin are given.
  • Angry
    Angry 13 May 2020 09: 03 New
    +2
    Oh lads! Stop burying aircraft carriers! They will always be like funeral tanks! Back in 1930, the well-known Admiral Yamamoto said: "A fleet without wings is a relic of the past!" As long as a person is flying, there will be aircraft carriers. Air defense systems alone cannot cover the fleet. It is clear that the goals and objectives will change, and AB will change, this is evolution. And we will soon build our own, the time will come. Without air defense / PLO / AWACS aviation, the fleet is a drowned man.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 13 May 2020 09: 30 New
      0
      Nobody buries them at all. But he will also be modified ..
      Just an aircraft carrier and not nearly a fabulous prodigy. It is more than real to fight with him.
      I personally believe that sooner or later Kuznetsov will be replaced by a division of aircraft carriers, at least 3 ships, preferably two divisions. By division into the ocean fleet. But at the moment, our fleet has no less serious problems that need to be addressed
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 13 May 2020 19: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        I personally believe that sooner or later Kuznetsov will be replaced by a division of aircraft carriers, at least 3 ships, preferably two divisions. By division into the ocean fleet.

        I am sure that you are mistaken - most likely we will completely abandon aircraft carriers, if only because we will not pull it economically. Militarily, this is too convenient a target for defeating the enemy, which is why, as rocket technology develops, we will generally abandon this class of ships, as was the case with battleships. Our future is the nuclear submarine fleet, and this will be the main direction of the development of our Navy.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 14 May 2020 10: 01 New
          0
          We will see. In the current situation, of course, carrier mriies are both ruinous and simply dangerous.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 13 May 2020 09: 23 New
    0
    The author simply listed 3 rockets.
    None of them were tested on aircraft carriers. The data on 20 missiles per aircraft carrier - a purely theoretical calculation .....- years ago.

    And why everyone was so excited.
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 13 May 2020 17: 46 New
    +1
    Quote: Demagogue
    Why, then, I'm just trying to explain to you that the noise immunity of radars from afar is an order of magnitude higher than that of a conventional one.

    And this is an example of your next ravings


    If you don’t understand that a Pfar operating at the same frequency is clogged in an elementary way, unlike Afar, where there are many frequencies that are arbitrarily selected, then how can I argue. The whole world is fools and will correct Afar, and you are certainly a guru. Where to everyone and you.

    Talking is no longer worth it. You are an uninteresting interlocutor. I am a person without complexes and am always happy to talk with someone I’m talking to, who understands some area better. Let’s say by pleasure that I communicate with Klimov and admit my mistakes after the argument. But this is not the case with you.



    Penguin EPR = 0,3-0,4 sq. m. Nothing outstanding, like the Kyrgyz Republic. No one will simply fly to AUG. First they will explode either a BB with EMP or a nuclear warhead, but after that they will fly. And what kind of AWACS, Penguins and all their electronics will be on ships there after that is a big question.
  • Aag
    Aag 13 May 2020 18: 49 New
    +1
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    You are sorry, of course, but I didn’t start working on this sphere of vacuum, they asked me - the outfit of forces I absolutely honestly indicated which in my opinion is needed, then a number of citizens who did not know the issue began to pour from empty to empty, but the Americans are invincible, but they see everything, all the missiles they defeat also have a similar nonsense, that is, they began to engage in real scholasticism. In order to answer your question, the General Staff writes hundreds of folders for each scenario with an analysis of the situation, action plans in a particular case, projected losses, etc. In this case, the discussion of this scenario is something very limited in space and time. For example, the USN forces decided to squeeze the New Earth from our example. Why ask? I do not know. I wanted a pancake. And when the citizens did not like the results, they began to come up with the idea that the aircraft carriers were not 1, but 3, and even five. Do not think shorter. As a result, in any other scenario, the situation quickly unfolds before the global thermonuclear war. And that is why the Russian Federation and the United States are limited to accepting warlike poses and are limited to verbiage. And I hit each other through the gasket.

    Thank you for your reply, the time taken. In this case, I am satisfied with your answer. hi Your previous comments are very controversial. IMHO. I didn’t put the minuses, because they threw it to you ... Even sometimes it leveled with pluses, purely for defending your opinion.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 14 May 2020 00: 11 New
    +1
    I can’t understand from what directions the AUG threatens us.
    That's where and how they can scoundrels come fiercely and with impunity?!.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 14 May 2020 10: 24 New
      +1
      Quote: Benzorez
      I can’t understand from what directions the AUG threatens us.

      Some local "theorists" suggest that they will definitely be deployed in the Baltic or Black Seas.
      Quote: Benzorez
      That's where and how they can scoundrels come fiercely and with impunity?!.

      Even if they arrive at our northern maritime borders, they will still be of little use, because in the general balance of nuclear forces they make up too little.
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 15 May 2020 07: 25 New
    -1
    The aircraft carrier must be sunk before it is empty. The threat is precisely in its equipment.
    1. agond
      agond 15 May 2020 15: 48 New
      -1
      An ideal means against aircraft carriers can be long-range ballistic missiles with large energies with high flight paths, and the principle of application is that the missile is launched from the mainland at a distance of about 5000 km into the supposed "at random" location of the AUG (that is, in a rectangle accessible for destruction by the kinetic method) 1500 km long and 500 km wide. The warhead (s) during its ascent to the top point (altitude 2000-3000 km) must (s) detect the AUG itself, lock the target and begin to continuously adjust its descent trajectory for a meeting with the aircraft carrier, adjustment is possible until the warhead enters dense layers of the atmosphere, the last 20 seconds of descent, it flies without control, during this time the aircraft carrier will not be able to avoid a direct hit of uranium scrap (s) weighing about 100 kg at the first space speed. Perhaps it is better to reduce the weight of the crowbars to 20 kg, but to increase their number, then no Aegis will be enough to intercept them.
  • Dmitry Leontiev
    Dmitry Leontiev 15 May 2020 23: 25 New
    +3
    But why in general such a stupid statement of the question: must I hit with non-nuclear ammunition? Is this such a sport, chtoli? Perhaps it’s still necessary to introduce discipline - to hit an aircraft carrier with small arms?
    It is logical to assume that in a real war, given the enormous military significance of such a target as an aircraft carrier, the most reliable means of defeating it - that is, nuclear charges - will be chosen. Nobody will play the spools at their own expense, depriving themselves of the benefits of a sudden crushing blow, giving the goal the opportunity to remain unscathed: if a strike is already made on the aircraft carrier, then everything is serious. If you beat - it means in full force; - otherwise it’s some kind of stupid thing, a game of giveaways.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 16 May 2020 11: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: Dmitry Leontiev
      But why in general such a stupid statement of the question: must I hit with non-nuclear ammunition? Is this such a sport, chtoli?

      The author decided to drive the clever, deciding that this would raise his rating on VO. In fact, this is complete nonsense - so we will not fight, and the use of only the Navy forces for these purposes in a transient war is a big question.
  • Kamaz
    Kamaz 16 May 2020 07: 23 New
    -1
    Damage to the runway leads to complete non-combat capability of an aircraft carrier, so why drown it?
  • Phoenix
    Phoenix 18 May 2020 01: 06 New
    0
    "tends to zero" - Gotland class indignant! Outrageous!
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 18 May 2020 16: 46 New
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    There the rocket was stillborn first of all


    In what sense ? Everything flew, with target designation there were problems with the boat ..