Military Review

Aircraft carriers leave the scene forever

390

If such a text were written, for example, by a Russian expert, it could easily be declared an information war. However, the opinion belongs to the Americans. Precisely in the plural, since not only the author David Wise (very, by the way, a serious analyst), but also a bunch of admirals fleet The United States supports, to one degree or another, that ...


Aircraft carriers are rapidly becoming obsolete and may soon disappear from the scene.

And this opinion, I emphasize, is not only an expert journalist, but also quite acting admirals of the US Navy, who believe that already in the middle and second half of the 21st century, an aircraft carrier will cease to be an actual type of weapon. Both offensive and defensive.

We will talk about what is meant in terms of the two types of aircraft carrier use at the very end, but for now it is worth remembering what path the aircraft carrier has traveled since its inception over the past 100 years.

History


Bill Mitchell.

Aircraft carriers leave the scene forever

Here is the man who actually became the father of the American Marine aviation, and on a global scale, it was a kind of cornerstone laid down in aircraft carriers.

Back in 1921, Mitchell tried to dispel the myth that battleships rule the seas by sinking the captured Ostfriesland. Yes, the maritime authorities took this as a fact that could not serve as evidence.


I do not know if Isoroku Yamamoto, who was studying at Harvard at the time, saw this show, but Yamamoto read the newspapers for sure, and after 20 years he “could repeat”, only on a large scale.


Yes, on November 12, 1940, the events in Taranto showed that the battleship was no longer at the top of the food chain at sea.



And on December 7, 1941, the events at Pearl Harbor confirmed this fact.

The aircraft carrier decisively replaced the battleship as the main ship of the fleet, but this dominance was rather short-lived. Yes, this class of ships dominated the battles where it took part from 1940 to 1945. But towards the end of the war, the United States began to gradually reorient its aircraft carriers towards strikes along the coast. This was caused primarily by the fact that the Japanese fleet had actually ended, but the army had to be driven out of the occupied territories for a long time and stubbornly.

The fact that after the loss of the Hornet in 1942, the US Navy did not lose a single aircraft carrier any more is the best confirmation of this.

However, this is not a confirmation that an aircraft carrier is such an unsinkable and all-killing thing. This suggests that since 1942, no one has made a serious attempt to sink it.

But what is an aircraft carrier today? Specifically in the US Navy?

Finance


Today it is very pompous and very expensive. It is worth remembering about the new supercarriers, the debugging of which is not as good as we would like. It is worth remembering about the F-35, which were created for these aircraft carriers and are also not quite ready to go into battle. But all this economy requires human time and money in very decent amounts. That, in general, strains even some naval ones. Of those who understand where the mackerel was drowned.

Therefore, Wise quite rightly asks the question: do we really need it? Can the United States afford such expensive toys in the future?

George Bush Sr. in 2009 cost the US $ 6,1 billion. The new generation aircraft carrier Gerald Ford gobbled up $ 12 billion.


And yes, planes are about 70% of the cost of each ship.

The 11 aircraft carriers in the US Navy today require about 46% of the fleet's personnel to service. This is, in fact, beyond reason, since the US fleet consists of 300 ships.

In fact, there are not 11 aircraft carriers. Problems with Truman and Lincoln, as well as Ford's failure to normalize, already put the US aircraft carrier fleet in a rather tight framework in terms of funding and timing.

Plus, funding began to decline for many programs. The financial structures of the United States saw a problem in the fact that the Navy is not only inefficiently spending money on the acquisition of new equipment, but also acquiring, to put it mildly, not what it claims. Rumor has it that the difference between the amounts requested by the fleet and the actual allocation may reach 30%.

There is serious talk that if the modern shipbuilding program is developed at the rate of 306 ships, then the real figure is 285. And in Congress they started talking about the fact that the US Navy could painlessly reduce to 240 ships tomorrow.

In this light, aircraft carriers look like a kind of cannibals, devouring their own fleet.

In 2005, work began on the aircraft carrier Ford, with an estimated purchase price of $ 10,5 billion. However, as construction progressed, the cost continued to increase. At first, up to $ 12,8 billion, and closer to the end - up to $ 14,2 billion. And it still continues to grow.

So the plan of the US Navy to spend 43 billion dollars on the purchase of "Ford" and the two subsequent ships after it, alas, may not be fulfilled. One new aircraft carrier in five years - now looks serious only in terms of what it will cost in excess of 43 billion.

Plus, the costs of F-35Cs, which were supposed to make up the wing of the same "Ford", are also increasing, while the problems of the aircraft are not decreasing.


As a result, there was a huge gap in the fleet procurement program between desires and capabilities. Not only did it suddenly become clear that the military budget has a bottom, but they can also knock on it from below.

Supporters of high-precision weapons... Chief of Naval Operations Planning Admiral Jonathan Greenert said about the use of precision weapons: "Instead of many sorties to one target, we are now talking about a single mission."

Grinert would gladly have strangled the aircraft carrier program, but, alas, the ships were laid down before he took office. And today, the aircraft carrier program continues to devour the money that could actually be spent tomorrow on new weapons that could give the United States an advantage on the world stage.

Strategy and tactics


Now it is worth asking one question: what is the point of using an aircraft carrier?


The fact that it is a floating airfield that can be moved with planes and helicopters anywhere and there to solve the tasks of reconnaissance, patrolling, destruction and so on.

How can you counteract an aircraft carrier? Let's forget about battles like the Coral Sea in World War II, when aircraft carriers fought aircraft carriers. This cannot be the case in the modern world, since the rest of the world simply does not have the same number of aircraft carriers that can decide on this.

The best weapon that can, if not destroy such a ship, then seriously complicate its life, is the anti-ship missile. One very meticulous captain from the financial department of the Navy, Henry Hendricks, somehow considered that for the money that went to the construction of the Abraham Lincoln, China could easily release 1 medium-range ballistic missiles of the DF-227D type.

Suppose, given that "Dongfeng" is an MRBM with a nuclear warhead, then one is enough to incinerate any aircraft carrier. From a distance of 1800 km.

And how much could YJ-83 anti-ship missiles, which are non-nuclear, but anti-ship, be produced for the same money? Yes, they would just stand every 300 meters along the entire coast of the PRC.


In principle, there probably is not much difference from which carrier the rocket will fly into the aircraft carrier. Whether it will be an airplane, a missile boat, a coastal launcher, it is important that the cost of a carrier capable of seriously damaging a floating suitcase in money is not comparable to the cost of an aircraft carrier.

Military analyst Robert Haddick believes that the development of weapons from other countries (China was taken as an example) jeopardizes the real safe use of aircraft carriers. The times when the AUG could come to the shore and solve any problems are good only where there will be no proper opposition. However, there are fewer and fewer such places on the political map of the world.

Haddick:

“Even more sinister are the squadrons of strike fighter-bombers, both sea and land-based, capable of launching dozens of long-range, high-speed anti-ship cruise missiles in quantities that threaten to overwhelm the most advanced fleet defenses.”

Not bad. But the PLA Navy also has Project 022 missile boats, each of which carries 8 anti-ship missiles. New boats made using stealth technology. We are not even talking about destroyers, corvettes and frigates.


A certain threat also comes from Russia, which not only produces, but also sells its missiles to everyone (well, almost everyone) who wish, which are very good. The Americans especially did not like the idea of ​​the Kalibra-K / Club-K launchers (export version) hidden in sea containers placed on trucks, railway cars or merchant ships.


Basically, yes, it is a threat. But the threat is ... Retaliation, nothing more. But we must take it into account as well. Aircraft carriers cost so much that to risk getting a missile from the deck of a peaceful container ship ... In general, you cannot risk it, because there are billions of dollars on the map.


In the United States, many naval forces reassure themselves that since 1942, having won the Second World War (okay, forgive me), having won the Cold War, the Navy has not lost a single aircraft carrier.

But let us remember that during the entire indicated period, the American fleet only once seriously encountered a group of Soviet ships. It was during the Yom Kippur War. And the Americans did not get involved, moving to the western Mediterranean.

Of course, this is not about cowardice, but about the received order not to risk expensive ships. Although ... Is there a lot of difference?

Little. At the same time, in 2002, the unprecedented operational-tactical game Millennium Challenge was held at the headquarters of the US Navy, where the fleet conducted an operation, considering an attack on the US fleet from the side of a hypothetical Gulf state - Iraq or Iran.

The leader of the "red" team (the enemy of the United States) used brilliant asymmetric tactics, as a result of which the United States lost 16 ships, including two aircraft carriers. In a very short period of time. In fact, of course, this could hardly have happened, since the Americans were playing for the Reds, who were clearly superior to their hypothetical “colleagues”.

But in reality, the aircraft carrier is becoming more vulnerable every day. And it's not even about China's ability to throw a ballistic missile at the AUG; not only the PRC can afford it. The fact is that there are more and more willing and able people every day.

And don't discount submarines. It's hard to say which is worse. According to former US Chief of Naval Operations Gary Ruffhead, “You can disable a ship faster by punching a hole in the bottom (with a torpedo) than by punching a hole in the top (RCC).


One cannot but agree with the admiral. Moreover, even such seemingly non-leading naval powers as Denmark, Canada and Chile were “conditionally sunk” during joint exercises. And how many times did Soviet submarines break into the orders of formations ...

Of course, the world does not stand still. The range and speed of missiles are increased. Rockets are becoming more elusive and accurate. We don't even talk about nuclear warheads. Whatever one may say, the surface ships will feel less and less secure, despite the Aegis and other protection systems.

Cavitating torpedoes, hypersonic missiles, heavy attack UAVs - all this makes the life of a surface ship ever shorter in the realities of war. And the larger the ship, the more difficult it is for it to survive.

And in order to deliver planes with weapons to the desired point and strike, the aircraft carrier must be accompanied by at least one cruiser and two destroyers with the Aegis system, an attack submarine and other escort ships. The joint crew consists of over 6000 people. And all this in order to be able to operate the aircraft carrier's wing of 90 aircraft and helicopters.

So-so pleasure.

On the one hand, ships, which collectively cost more than $ 30 billion, planes and helicopters, which cost at least $ 10 billion, plus consumables worth a billion.

And a cruise missile launched from a boat costing less than one F-35Cs can do some serious business with all of this. And if a missile salvo ...

With these arguments in mind, the US Navy is seriously discussing the operation of an 11-carrier power structure.

At a recent joint symposium of the military think tanks CSBA and the Center for a New American Security, experts called for the decommissioning of at least two aircraft carrier strike groups and a reduction in funding for the F-35 program.

It is recommended that over the next four to five decades move from large aircraft carriers, launching fifth generation fighters, to supercarriers of the Ford type, using both aircraft and unmanned systems. But in smaller quantities.

Many in the United States are concerned that the country's navy continues to rely on huge strike forces, while the trend around the world to use so-called cloud systems, when precision weapons are deployed on a wide range of non-specialized vessels, up to fishing trawlers, is increasing. This is a perfectly possible scenario.

The growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers presents the United States with a choice of Hobson: accept or expose the fleet to serious casualties and potential escalation.

But there is no escalation (fortunately or unfortunately). The fleet of nuclear attack submarines (not strategic) is planned to be reduced from 54 to 39 by 2030.

Currently, the US Navy is building two attack submarines a year at the cost of great effort, while it could afford to build 10 with just one aircraft carrier and its air wing. Perhaps this would give a greater result in terms of the ability to deter the enemy at distant approaches.

The US Navy is unquestionably the most powerful in the world today. Unfortunately, repeating this phrase like an incantation, hoping for change, is useless. While the entire US Navy seems to dominate on paper in terms of tonnage and in terms of sheer firepower, its actual capabilities may be far from perfect in a particular location.


Naturally, with the growth of technical achievements in different countries of the world, sooner or later it will be necessary to revise all existing doctrines of the use of fleets. By the middle of the century, the picture will become clear, which will require specific changes.

But the American expert Greenert is confident that no matter how the concept of combat changes, in the second half of the century the aircraft carrier will no longer play the role that was previously assigned to it.

Too many real opponents have appeared, albeit not so large in terms of tonnage, but no less effective. Therefore, the American believes, further investments in the construction of strike aircraft carriers and supercarriers may become not only erroneous, but even fatal for the US Navy.

Based on materials: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/us-navy-has-invested-billions-aircraft-carriers-was-it-worth-it-164943.
Author:
390 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 21 July 2020 18: 17 New
    +4
    You see, hypothetically, we have 3 million dollars, but in reality - two prostitutes and a gay ...

    I always remember this anecdote after a story about a sunk aircraft carrier from a missile boat.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 21 July 2020 18: 31 New
      15
      Quote: Grazdanin
      I always remember this anecdote after a story about a sunk aircraft carrier from a missile boat.

      Specifically, these boats are 83.
      That is, there are 664 anti-ship missiles on them. Not one as you are trying to portray.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 21 July 2020 18: 32 New
        -26
        83 gay men and 664 "women with reduced social responsibility" or vice versa? laughing
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 21 July 2020 18: 36 New
          +2
          In order to disable an aircraft carrier, one missile is enough.
          Are there any analogies with a bunch of gays?
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 21 July 2020 18: 38 New
            -21
            It means the opposite laughing 664 gay laughing
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 21 July 2020 18: 41 New
              +1
              Quote: Grazdanin
              It means the opposite laughing 664 gay laughing

              Means "664 gays are not needed, one is enough.
              1. Operator
                Operator 21 July 2020 19: 14 New
                19
                Grazdanin is great at gay laughing
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 21 July 2020 19: 26 New
                  -23
                  I just don't laughing so I ask who is who there laughing Lopatov knows exactly who is gay and how many are needed laughing As it turned out, he needs one laughing
                  Quote: Spade
                  one is enough.
                  1. Shurik70
                    Shurik70 21 July 2020 22: 00 New
                    24
                    Don't care how many gays there are.
                    As long as there are countries that do not have a reliable means of destroying aircraft carriers, there will be aircraft carriers.
                    Americans simply will not use them where there is a non-zero possibility of losing them. That's all.
                    1. Stalllker
                      Stalllker 22 July 2020 03: 26 New
                      +3
                      That's right!
                    2. Narak-zempo
                      Narak-zempo 22 July 2020 08: 20 New
                      -3
                      Quote: Shurik70
                      Americans simply will not use them where there is a non-zero possibility of losing them. That's all.

                      The Americans ALWAYS used aircraft carriers where there was zero risk of losing them.
                      In the Coral Sea.
                      At Midway's.
                      At Santa Cruz.
                      In Leyte Gulf (well, that doesn't count, there are non-aircraft carriers).
                    3. Serg4545
                      Serg4545 22 July 2020 14: 19 New
                      +6
                      Quote: Shurik70
                      Americans simply will not use them where there is a non-zero possibility of losing them. That's all.


                      The question is different. The fact is that in all the conflicts of recent decades, the Americans began hostilities only if they received ground airfields in the conflict area at their disposal. And nothing else. Aircraft carriers were just a supplement to ground strike power. The lion's share of sorties from ground airfields.
                      And the question arises. Are aircraft carriers even needed?
                      In all the conflicts of recent decades, the Americans could do without aircraft carriers. Simply making more intensive use of ground airfields.
                      But on the contrary it does not roll. Without ground bases, the Americans don't start.
                      And why then an aircraft carrier?
              2. militarist63
                militarist63 22 July 2020 01: 41 New
                0
                Aha! One heterosexual ... laughing
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Living7111972
            Living7111972 27 July 2020 11: 54 New
            0
            Sometimes one future senator is enough for this ...
          3. Sckepsis
            Sckepsis 28 July 2020 18: 04 New
            0
            What difference does it make if one is enough if none can reach?
        2. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 21 July 2020 19: 56 New
          +6
          Quote: Grazdanin
          83 gay men and 664 "women with reduced social responsibility" or vice versa?

          To whom what, and naked in the women's bath.
          1. doubovitski
            doubovitski 21 July 2020 21: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: tihonmarine
            Quote: Grazdanin
            83 gay men and 664 "women with reduced social responsibility" or vice versa?

            To whom what, and naked in the women's bath.

            Gay? In the man's he has nothing to do. For, it is deadly ...
      2. mmaxx
        mmaxx 21 July 2020 18: 37 New
        12
        The question is that they will not even go to one aircraft carrier at once. Avik does not walk alone. He has an escort. And the escort will have more missiles. And they will flood all the boats.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 21 July 2020 18: 39 New
          +3
          Yes smile Aviation will detect and sink the bulk, who will break through and destroy escort ships smile
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 21 July 2020 18: 50 New
            +4
            Quote: Grazdanin
            Aviation will detect and sink the bulk

            And what needs to be done for this?
            International agreements to prohibit countering aircraft from an aircraft carrier?
            To make an attack on a carrier-based aircraft a war crime?
          2. mmaxx
            mmaxx 21 July 2020 18: 53 New
            +4
            And I also remember how brave Georgian boats launched an attack on our small squadron during the war on 08.08.08. One RTO was enough to disperse all this charaga.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 22 July 2020 01: 25 New
              0
              Quote: mmaxx
              to our small squadron in the war 08.08.08. One RTO was enough to disperse all this charaga.

              Do you remember this new Sinop well? There is a fascinating story. Which, by the way, shows well what the KChF is worth.
          3. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 24 July 2020 16: 32 New
            0
            Quote: Grazdanin
            Aviation will detect and sink the bulk, who will break through and destroy escort ships

            there is a very weak link in your reasoning - facts. wink
            NATO has repeatedly tested the ability to hit an aircraft carrier with a cruise missile and the ability to protect an aircraft carrier from being hit by a cruise missile.
            the British, playing the role of the Reds (the evil Russians), successfully found the BLU aircraft carrier (US Light Forces) and reported the attack. it is worth noting that each time the attack was carried out from a line-of-sight distance.
            google on the internet or here on VO, find an article yes
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 21 July 2020 18: 40 New
          +2
          Quote: mmaxx
          The question is that they will not even go to one aircraft carrier at once.

          Почему нет?
          Quote: mmaxx
          And the escort will have more missiles. And they will flood all the boats.

          Well, the boats are also not without cover ... there is aviation, there are other Chinese ships, there are coastal complexes, both anti-ship and air defense ...
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 21 July 2020 18: 50 New
            +4
            The location of the airfields is known. And the location of the aircraft carrier is constantly changing. Satellites are not satellites, it is not so easy to find a connection and monitor it constantly. Yes, and amers have a lot of satellites (more than anyone else) and they are all very good. The Americans have a lot of experience in operations, but what about the Chinese? And the Americans have never acted according to a template.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 21 July 2020 19: 05 New
              +4
              Quote: mmaxx
              Location of airfields is known

              Not a fact.
              The most active road construction is underway in China. And trying to bomb any straight section of the highway is clearly overkill.

              And if it is known, it is much easier to defend the airfield, because it is possible to build an air defense system, to which the ship's one is like to Beijing in reverse.

              Quote: mmaxx
              ... Americans have extensive experience in operations

              ?
              They have no experience, like the Chinese.
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 22 July 2020 01: 48 New
                -1
                Quote: Spade
                because you can build an air defense system, up to which the ship's

                )))
                Build who's stopping you.

                Let me remind you, by the way, that one UVP for 8 cells is almost 3 launchers of S-350 Vityaz. Or 2 launchers S-400. How many of them are there in the division, 8? This is the air defense of modern frigate.

                One. Not the strongest.
            2. bar
              bar 21 July 2020 19: 46 New
              +5
              Americans have extensive experience in operations

              What kind of experience? Just wondering. On the transportation of "some signals" by the AUG?
              1. mmaxx
                mmaxx 22 July 2020 03: 54 New
                0
                Iraq 2 times, at least. Read how everything was done. Yes, the Avics were part of the forces there. But these are real operations
              2. tihonmarine
                tihonmarine 22 July 2020 16: 17 New
                +2
                Quote: bar
                What kind of experience? Just wondering. On the transportation of "some signals" by the AUG?

                They bombed Yugoslavia with impunity. Here is their experience.
                1. bar
                  bar 22 July 2020 16: 29 New
                  +5
                  Are you talking about less than 100 aircraft from aircraft carriers out of more than 1000 participating in that fornication, most of which flew from NATO ground bases throughout Europe? Almost 600 aircraft flew from the Italian Aviano alone. The contribution of aircraft carriers to this great victory for democracy is just a little over zero. If they had not entered the Mediterranean Sea, no one would have noticed.
                  1. tihonmarine
                    tihonmarine 22 July 2020 16: 41 New
                    +1
                    Quote: bar
                    The contribution of aircraft carriers to this great victory for democracy is just a little over zero. If they had not entered the Mediterranean Sea, no one would have noticed.

                    Well, you yourself answered the question about the experience of the US using aircraft carriers after the war. I still remember when Vietnam was bombed with impunity from the Saratoga aircraft carrier. It was 70 miles from the coast, and from there the Phantoms bombed Haiphong.
                    1. bar
                      bar 22 July 2020 16: 50 New
                      +3
                      And I wrote right away that aircraft carriers can only be effective for small countries, whose territory can be flown by naval aviation without refueling, and that do not have coastal defense and air defense systems. Vietnam, with its dimensions of 500 km in its widest part, and 50 km in narrow, is just such a country. But mind you, in spite of all the "Saratogs" striped Vietnamese still blew. These "big and beautiful" ones did not help them. And is it worth it to spend a lot of dough on their maintenance?
                      1. tihonmarine
                        tihonmarine 22 July 2020 17: 20 New
                        +2
                        Quote: bar
                        And is it worth it to spend a lot of dough on their maintenance?

                        I also think so. There is a lot of noise, but the effect is small.
                      2. Living7111972
                        Living7111972 27 July 2020 11: 56 New
                        0
                        Let them contain, we need!
                    2. Looking for
                      Looking for 22 July 2020 18: 01 New
                      -3
                      Do you remember the Kulikovo battle?
                      1. tihonmarine
                        tihonmarine 23 July 2020 09: 04 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Seeker
                        But the Kulikovo battle does not remember

                        Kulikovo Pole remembers only history, and I already transported supplies to Vietnam as a 3rd officer on the ships of the Navy.
            3. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 21 July 2020 20: 09 New
              +5
              Quote: mmaxx
              The Americans have a lot of experience in operations, but what about the Chinese? And the Americans have never acted according to a template.

              There is experience, but not against a serious enemy, also armed with serious weapons, which are much more than those opponents with whom the states had combat clashes. It's time to forget the WWII experience here. Aircraft carriers are still a powerful force at sea, but they are more an indicator of the power of a state than real strength. The time of aircraft carriers is fading into oblivion, just as the era of the sail has gone, and the time of formidable and armored giants, who stand like museums, showing their former greatness. In 50 years, aircraft carriers will disappear from the vastness of the seas and oceans. They will also occupy the museum line at the berths. They will be replaced by another, more advanced and powerful weapon.
              1. mmaxx
                mmaxx 22 July 2020 15: 56 New
                -1
                And no one else has any experience at all. Any number can be compared to zero.
            4. Military77
              Military77 21 July 2020 22: 22 New
              +1
              The AUG order, depending on the task, is spelled out in all Charters; even a satellite measuring carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere can determine the composition and number of surface ships of the order.
              1. mmaxx
                mmaxx 22 July 2020 03: 56 New
                +1
                I remember how in the Far East, during the heyday of the USSR, the AUG passage was slammed. Do you think the weather is always beautiful? Or do the Chinese have satellites hung like on a Christmas tree?
          2. strannik1985
            strannik1985 21 July 2020 19: 04 New
            +6
            Почему нет?

            Depends on the scenario.
            Well, the boats are also not without cover ...

            If "the fleet against the coast", without an exchange of nuclear strikes - of course, will not pull, China is not Argentina, but on the high seas - quite. Let me remind you that China started with boats, and now it is building AB and large missile destroyers at an accelerated pace.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 21 July 2020 19: 09 New
              -8
              Quote: strannik1985
              but on the high seas - quite.

              The Chinese have nothing to do there.
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 21 July 2020 19: 10 New
                10
                The Chinese have nothing to do there.

                If they are building a "high seas fleet" - yes.
                1. Николаев
                  Николаев 21 July 2020 19: 56 New
                  -11
                  They will go there only after they have grabbed the Primorye, the Amur region, the Transbaikalia (and this is still very modest) here they are so happy for the tea house, as if they do not understand that Russia will be the first victim. Economic, military, demographic and, most importantly, the moral superiority of the tea house is obvious.
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 21 July 2020 19: 57 New
                    10
                    They will go there

                    As soon as the Strategic Missile Forces are canceled, they will immediately go good
                    1. Thunderbringer
                      Thunderbringer 21 July 2020 20: 34 New
                      -4
                      So just about. The regime, as the fighters know, almost collapsed.
                      And as soon as it is finally, there will be no Strategic Missile Forces like everything else.
                    2. Николаев
                      Николаев 22 July 2020 03: 59 New
                      -7
                      The Strategic Missile Forces have already been canceled) there is a strategic nuclear forces
                      1. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 22 July 2020 07: 40 New
                        +6
                        Hello, we've arrived. The Strategic Missile Forces is the main component of the strategic nuclear forces.
                      2. Romka47
                        Romka47 22 July 2020 15: 13 New
                        -1
                        Non-brothers do not understand how it is, they are used to neighbors coming and taking them away. They can't convey)
                      3. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 22 July 2020 15: 19 New
                        +3
                        Sleep through the anti-Russian coup in your country, and then wonder - "And what about us?"
                        It is sad.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 22 July 2020 11: 48 New
                +4
                Quote: Nikolaev
                They will go there only after they have seized the Primorye, the Amur Region, the Transbaikalia (and this is still very modest) here they are so happy for the tea house, as if they do not understand that Russia will be the first victim

                Oh yeah ... China, which has one of the lowest population densities in the northern regions in the country, just wants to grab an even more northern territory.
                Why would he need a direct occupation, if the northern barbarians are ready to extract and sell everything they need to China themselves?
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 12: 37 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  China, which has one of the lowest population densities in the northern regions in the country, simply dreams of grabbing an even more northern territory.


                  That's right.
          3. vova1973
            vova1973 25 July 2020 13: 03 New
            0
            The United States controls the sea routes along which the main world trade exchange takes place. Therefore, they have such a large fleet - to drown the fleet of the country that decides to intercept world domination, and for this, aircraft carriers are needed. Nowadays, who controls the sea routes is the very rich and strong. Given that the delivery of goods by sea at cost is the lowest, with the exception of delivery by river. And there are no roads between continents.
            1. onstar9
              onstar9 8 August 2020 06: 34 New
              0
              And what is "control of sea routes"? Is this a type of piracy, or what is it like among the Somalis? Or "passes to the entrance-exit" to issue ships for the passage in these places? What nonsense? On the contrary, only the free passage of all ships allows you to get the most benefit from international trade. And how can you be "rich by controlling the sea routes"? Are the duties being set?
        3. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 21 July 2020 20: 37 New
          +4
          Quote: strannik1985
          China is not what Argentina, but on the high seas - quite.

          The times of the battle of the "open sea" ended at the end of October 1944, with the battle at Cape Enganyo between the American and Japanese fleets. The American victory is indisputable - after October 25, 1944, Japanese aircraft carriers ceased to exist as a serious force. But the circumstances of the last battle of the Japanese aircraft carriers developed in such a way that, having died and lost their ships, the sailors and officers of Admiral Ozawa completed their task. After that, aircraft carriers were used only in local wars. Since then, there have been no battles on the high seas.
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 22 July 2020 07: 42 New
            +2
            Since then, there have been no battles on the high seas.

            There was no World War III, and so they are not. There was no exchange of nuclear weapons strikes either, but the idea of ​​canceling the Strategic Missile Forces is nonsense.
            1. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 24 July 2020 16: 46 New
              0
              Quote: strannik1985
              There was no exchange of nuclear weapons strikes either, but the idea of ​​canceling the Strategic Missile Forces is nonsense.

              you're a little confused.
              The purpose of the Strategic Missile Forces is clear and obvious, but what for to converge on the open sea in a linear battle in an age when there is an opportunity to detect the enemy thousands of kilometers from their shores and there are means to hit the enemy at these distances is absolutely incomprehensible. request
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 24 July 2020 17: 01 New
                0
                you are a little confused

                For example?
                1. Sanichsan
                  Sanichsan 24 July 2020 19: 17 New
                  0
                  Quote: strannik1985
                  For example?

                  re-read. I told you why the collision of fleets on the high seas is not relevant, in contrast to the Strategic Missile Forces. Or do you not understand why the Strategic Missile Forces are relevant?
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 24 July 2020 19: 29 New
                    0
                    re-read.

                    You are confusing me with someone, tk. they didn't write to me about anything like that. PLO exercises in which the submarine knew in advance the area where the order is located?
                  2. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 24 July 2020 20: 17 New
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    You are confusing me with someone, tk.

                    exactly? like no. is it yours?
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Since then, there have been no battles on the high seas.

                    There was no World War III, and so they are not. There was no exchange of nuclear weapons strikes either, but the idea of ​​canceling the Strategic Missile Forces is nonsense.

                    right?
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    PLO exercises in which the submarine knew in advance the area where the order is located?

                    interesting ideas you have about NATO exercises. in order to check the anti-submarine capabilities of the order, do you need to adjust the submarine in advance? you will decide what an AUG is, a difficult goal or a bunch of idiots on boats laughing
                  3. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 25 July 2020 09: 47 New
                    0
                    Right?

                    Exactly laughing
                    interesting ideas about NATO exercises

                    Dear opponent, at those exercises, the submarine did not look for AUG in the open sea, what will you give out the primary control command? Why do you think the USSR created "Success" and "Legend"?
                  4. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 25 July 2020 12: 57 New
                    -1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Dear opponent, during those exercises, the submarine did not look for AUG on the high seas

                    on those specifically about which I wrote, yes. it was a test of the anti-submarine defense of the AUG. disastrous yes but there were also those who were looking for on the high seas. in them, by the way, aircraft carriers did not save the AUG again.
                    at the moment (2020) AUG is practically impossible to hide. request unless from the American president ... remember the time when Trump did not understand where his aircraft carriers were hanging out laughing
                  5. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 25 July 2020 15: 43 New
                    0
                    but there were also those who were looking for on the high seas.

                    For example?
                  6. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 26 July 2020 21: 58 New
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    For example?

                    for example, read here:
                    https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/3430595.html
                  7. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 28 July 2020 14: 04 New
                    0
                    https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/3430595.html

                    In the first case, the AUG found a submarine, in the second, the area where the group was located was known, up to reaching the "pistol" distance.
                    https://u-96.livejournal.com/132971.html
                    And here is how the Soviet submariners assessed the prospects of missile submarines against the AUG.
                  8. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 28 July 2020 18: 11 New
                    0
                    have mercy! you still have 1986? belay
                  9. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 28 July 2020 18: 31 New
                    0
                    Didn't you write about some exercises in which the issuance of the initial CU for AUG was not a problem?
                  10. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 28 July 2020 19: 05 New
                    0
                    first of all, I wrote that there are no problems with the search for AUG in modern conditions. wink and you mean the 1980s ... request
                  11. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 28 July 2020 19: 11 New
                    0
                    Do you want to argue your position?
                  12. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 28 July 2020 19: 21 New
                    0
                    satellite constellations, over-the-horizon radars, AWACS aviation, all this makes it possible to detect individual small vessels several thousand kilometers from the coast.
                    PS
                    As you have already noticed, AUG successfully found even submarines back in the 1970s, now the fleet's capabilities to detect the enemy are incomparably higher. request
                  13. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 29 July 2020 08: 27 New
                    0
                    Those. again we pass from the particular to the general. Examples will be? For example, what satellites of the Russian Federation are intended for monitoring the sea surface?
                  14. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 29 July 2020 15: 50 New
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Examples will be? For example, what satellites of the Russian Federation are intended for monitoring the sea surface?

                    Well, for this, you first need to finish school, then go to a specialized institute, then get a job in the corresponding design bureau and get a high level of access to classified documentation. soldier
                    to schoolchildren on forums such data is not disclosed wink
                    but personally you can not bother with this complex scheme and continue to believe that there is nothing wink
                    read from open sources here:
                    https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2016/03/29/8148851.shtml?updated
  • Octopus
    Octopus 22 July 2020 01: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    there is aviation, there are other Chinese ships, there are coastal complexes, both anti-ship and air defense ...

    And who instructed the fleet to fight the PRC without the participation of the rest of the military? What is this strange manner of discussing the possibility of one formation of ships, albeit extremely strong, against the state as a whole?
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 22 July 2020 03: 59 New
      +3
      Well, the AUG will not fight alone. People are pulling their ears - one avik against 100 boats, not realizing that this is not boxing by the rules
  • evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
    evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru 29 July 2020 18: 46 New
    +1
    What are the boats ,,? Who will take into account the cruising range? They will pull in tow, as the sailors of India did in due time (operation ,, Trident ,,)? So everything happened there practically, near the native shores. And if we talk about the ocean expanses?
    Strange article. For what? Why count the money of American taxpayers? Maybe for some it will be a revelation, but THERE does not measure everything in dollars. They definitely have things more important than the dollar. We can recall, for example, the textbook story of the throwing of American aircraft from the aircraft carrier Midway overboard, for the sake of landing a single “tsesna” with a family that fled Saigon in 1975. And how did the American rescue service for the ejected pilots in Vietnam work?
    ... You find the mil 3010 website and watch a video of HOW they work from an aircraft carrier. Electromagnetic catapults, well-coordinated, meaningful and CALM actions of the deck crew ... ,, Song ,,! And the video of pokatushek ,, Ford ,, (?) On the sea-akiyanu?
    There is no need to say anything at all about the deck F-35. Once again. If you are a decent, honest and adequate person. And if your state (our) cannot (,, doesn’t want ,,, ,, doesn’t know how ,,, ,, didn’t try ,, ...) to have in service and serially produce TWO 5th generation fighters at the same time. And even more so if you don't have UVP aircraft at all.
    Here are the yachts of Russian-speaking oligarchs, good and big. How to remove them from the historical scene? Who would have counted our costs for their maintenance?
    ... US aircraft carriers played an outstanding role in WWII, in the victory over the USSR and the ATS countries during the Cold War. And it is clearly too early for them to leave the historical stage. And, for example, a serious state, PRC, builds aircraft carriers, and does not speculate about when their century will end
  • doubovitski
    doubovitski 21 July 2020 21: 32 New
    +3
    Quote: mmaxx
    The question is that they will not even go to one aircraft carrier at once. Avik does not walk alone. He has an escort. And the escort will have more missiles. And they will flood all the boats.

    With a range of 2500 km, it is difficult to compete. The escort is armed against submarines and surface ships, against aviation. In other words, it is armed with missiles with a radius of 80 ... 400 km. A nuclear-filled caliber does not need high accuracy. His task is not to hit the side, but at a height of a couple of hundred meters. And, of course, the first gift explodes at a much higher altitude, in order to blind and deduce the electronics with an electromagnetic pulse. IJIS to shoot down such a target is very ...... Moreover, this warhead will explode anyway, even if the carrier is damaged. And then it's easier.
    1. mvg
      mvg 22 July 2020 01: 40 New
      +1
      And then it's easier.

      Contradict yourself. Caliber - NK is 300-500 km. And the combat radius of aviation is 1100-1300 km. Excluding means of destruction.
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 24 July 2020 17: 01 New
        -2
        Quote: mvg
        Contradict yourself. Caliber - NK is 300-500 km.

        are you talking about the Indians? 300 km range of the export version. for indoor use with a radius of more than 1500 km.
        Quote: mvg
        And the combat radius of aviation is 1100-1300 km. Excluding means of destruction.

        are you talking about pigasiks in your fantasies? the combat radius of the F-18A is 700-800 km, the F-35 has even less.
        and what is the probability of target detection within the range of aircraft? 1% or less? laughing
    2. Octopus
      Octopus 22 July 2020 01: 53 New
      +3
      Quote: doubovitski
      With a range of 2500 km, it is difficult to compete.

      )))
      Couch soldiers are very fond of attacking Americans when for some reason the Americans do not know about it.

      Because if the Americans are aware, then it is the AUG that has developed very well the procedures for long-range interception of anti-ship missiles, since Soviet times. Including specialized missiles just for this task.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 21 July 2020 18: 43 New
    0
    If these boats are KNS, as it was in the first version of the 2002 game, they will sink.
  • kjhg
    kjhg 21 July 2020 18: 44 New
    10
    Quote: Grazdanin
    I always remember this anecdote after a story about a sunk aircraft carrier from a missile boat.

    There are many such stories. Some here still believe that the Su-24 with the Khibiny jammed the destroyer's radar. They wanted to spit on the laws of physics. They just believe everything. It's like believing in God.
    Regarding aircraft carriers, it is too early to bury them. With the advent of long-range anti-ship hypersonic missiles, the threat to them will increase. But so far this threat has been largely exaggerated. A method of counteraction will be found for any threat. Alternatively, the carrier formations will be in the rearguard of the KUG, at a considerable distance from the vanguard. But, pilot and unmanned aircraft will remain the main striking force. The role of anti-submarine carrier-based aviation will significantly increase.
    How many times have tanks been buried? But the leading powers are still engaged in their development and production. Aviation was also buried after the appearance of missiles, but, as it turned out, prematurely.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 21 July 2020 18: 47 New
      +7
      Quote: kjhg
      There are many such stories. Some here still believe that the Su-24 with the Khibiny jammed the destroyer's radar. They wanted to spit on the laws of physics. They just believe everything. It's like believing in God.

      Exactly a lot.
      Some believe in the invulnerability of aircraft carriers ...
      1. kjhg
        kjhg 21 July 2020 18: 50 New
        12
        Quote: Spade
        Some believe in the invulnerability of aircraft carriers ...

        I wonder where you found these? I have never met the opinion that aircraft carriers are invulnerable. All adequate people write that aircraft carrier groups are a very difficult target for destruction. Soviet naval strategists withdrew 2 Tu-22M3 regiments to destroy 1 aircraft carrier group.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 21 July 2020 18: 54 New
          +8
          Quote: kjhg
          I wonder where you found these?

          Good question .... We found ourselves.
          1. kjhg
            kjhg 21 July 2020 19: 03 New
            +8
            Quote: Spade
            We found ourselves.

            Many years ago today a late neighbor told:
            “I’m lying on the couch and see how the devil is climbing through the window. I saw how you are now, clearly and clearly. I haven’t had a drink for 3 days. I tell him that you’re climbing out the window, the door is not locked. I got up and threw a stool at him. So he disappeared, along with the glass and the frame. And it's February outside. It's cold. "
            This is how it happens, it turns out request. So that...
        2. 5-9
          5-9 21 July 2020 18: 58 New
          -1
          Before the appearance of pr. 949 ... and what, is that a lot? 2 shelves for AUG? Had a war happened, our admirals would have lit a pood candle, had it happened that the AUG entered the Tu-22M's zone of operation.
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 21 July 2020 19: 03 New
            +7
            So this is for one AUG. Will 3 drive up? Now you can't get enough Tu-22M3 in the required quantity.
            1. 5-9
              5-9 21 July 2020 19: 12 New
              -5
              And they 3 when was the last time in one place drove up to the shore? And this situation is generally a dream ... It's easier to bury them in one place ... but if in one order ...
            2. 26rus
              26rus 21 July 2020 20: 05 New
              +2
              Well, not so long ago Trump urged 2 AUG to North Korea, to mock Kim. Was Kim scared too much?
            3. max702
              max702 23 July 2020 10: 36 New
              0
              Quote: mmaxx
              So this is for one AUG. Will 3 drive up? Now you can't get enough Tu-22M3 in the required quantity.

              If the AUG arrives, it means they ALREADY have no place to return ... They can only come to us with the purpose of surrender ..
          2. Revolver
            Revolver 21 July 2020 19: 23 New
            -3
            Quote: 5-9
            Had a war happened, our admirals would have lit a pood candle, had it happened - an AUG entry into the Tu-22M range
            Then there would be work for proctologists, mending the breaks. laughing
        3. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 19: 50 New
          +5
          2nd regiment is about 40 Tu-22M. 2 missiles under the wing. Total 80 anti-ship missiles. Now the rates have increased.
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 21 July 2020 20: 05 New
            -6
            We have 3 regiments left. Not fundamentally, the US AUG is not a threat to us, like all NATO (of course, except for nuclear weapons.) Our army is more than enough for defense.
            1. aleksejkabanets
              aleksejkabanets 21 July 2020 22: 16 New
              +1
              Quote: Grazdanin
              We have 3 regiments left. Not fundamentally, the US AUG is not a threat to us, like all NATO (of course, except for nuclear weapons.) Our army is more than enough for defense.

              Blessed is he who believes.
          2. mehan
            mehan 21 July 2020 20: 13 New
            +9
            In my regiment, there were 24 - 27 cars at different times. Minus two doubles, minus two electronic warfare, with stations in the compartment. Minus those without a barbell. Without refueling, the radius is so-so.
            Besides. The missile carriers that we landed carried a missile (Kh-55, if sclerosis does not change), in the bomb bay, one.
            Count.
            Besides. Two regiments of shock troops, Kaemov, accompanied, for the masses, one or two regiments of elders, Tu-22. Apart from fighters.
            Then it was justified, that was the tactic.
            Now ..... Such a flock, subsonic, visible from high orbit ...... in the three hours that they will fly, the aug will shoot, drink coffee and go home.
            1. mdsr
              mdsr 21 July 2020 21: 06 New
              +2
              Quote: mehan
              Those missile carriers that we landed carried a missile (Kh-55, if sclerosis does not change), in the bomb bay, one.

              Even in size, the Kh-55 does not fit into the Tu-22M3 bomb bay.
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 23: 29 New
                +2
                X-15, as I recall
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 22 July 2020 11: 55 New
                  0
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  X-15, as I recall

                  The X-15 is our SRAM aeroballistic breakthrough air defense. The TU-22M3 was most likely an X-22.
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 12: 26 New
                    0
                    Wiki is of course not a source laughing, However -
                    Aircraft after the 90th series are equipped with the SURO (missile control system) U-001 with the ability to carry four aeroballistic missiles X-15P on PU-1 under the wing root (SCHK) and six Kh-15P missiles in a drum (MKU-6-1) launcher in the cargo bay. However, these missiles have already been removed from service and work is underway to replace them on the creation of new models. [11]

                    Well, that is, it was ...
            2. ved_med12
              ved_med12 21 July 2020 22: 13 New
              +2
              And when (in what years) were there refueling rods on the TU 22M? is it possible in more detail?
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 22 July 2020 13: 54 New
                -1
                Can.
                On Tu-22m2.
        4. mvg
          mvg 22 July 2020 01: 43 New
          +2
          2 regiments of Tu-22M3 were withdrawn to destroy 1 aircraft carrier group.

          Forgot to say with what chances ... Really "no chance"
        5. Octopus
          Octopus 22 July 2020 02: 12 New
          +3
          Quote: kjhg
          Soviet naval strategists withdrew 2 Tu-22M3 regiments to destroy 1 aircraft carrier group.

          As far as I remember, an MPA division was required. As far as I remember, the task of destroying the AUG was not set before it, only the destruction or incapacitation of the AV itself, one ship.

          As far as I remember, there are now 0 (zero) MRA divisions in the Russian Aerospace Forces.
        6. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 22 July 2020 11: 53 New
          +1
          Quote: kjhg
          Soviet naval strategists withdrew 2 Tu-22M3 regiments to destroy 1 aircraft carrier group.

          Something small. At the Northern Fleet in the 80s, it was believed that for the guaranteed disabling of the AV, a couple of "loaves" and a pair of 670M are needed for these two mrap.
          And this is provided that AB does not hide in the Norwegian fjords, as the same "America", EMNIP, did during Ocean Safari 85.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 12: 27 New
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Something small.


            It's ok if you don't use a horn
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 22 July 2020 13: 57 New
              +1
              No, not normal.
              Three MRA regiments and several submarines - will incapacitate (possibly).
              But now there are not so many planes in the entire aviation of the Russian Federation.
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 14: 08 New
                +1
                Do not exaggerate the capabilities of AUG. This enemy is formidable and strong, but not at all Wunderwaffe.
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 22 July 2020 15: 36 New
                  +1
                  I am a little aware of the possibilities of AUG, you can believe me.
                  Or you may not believe it ... But where did you get the information about
                  the possibilities of AUG?
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 17: 02 New
                    +1
                    Why do I believe. With regards to me, he studied at the KVVMU once, and served. I studied all the materials available to me on USN. According to our air defense systems and anti-ship missiles too ... I can imagine the subject ...
        7. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 24 July 2020 17: 13 New
          -2
          Quote: kjhg
          All adequate people write that aircraft carrier groups are a very difficult target for destruction.

          you have an error. correctly "not adequate". bully
          adequate people are familiar with the results of numerous NATO exercises, as a result of which aircraft carriers were successfully hit as part of a warrant, by surface ships, were struck as part of a warrant by submarines (the Norwegians reported the defeat of an aircraft carrier and surfaced at the very side of the aircraft carrier) and, together with the warrant, were destroyed by ground means (exercises " Millennium Challenge ") request
          so that adequate people understand that it is much easier to hit a cluster of ships than to protect this cluster yes
    2. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 21 July 2020 18: 51 New
      -2
      Quote: kjhg
      The role of anti-submarine carrier-based aviation will significantly increase.

      Also, the role of unmanned ships must be taken into account. It is easier to make a dense PLO with their help. UAVs can hang in the air 24/7.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 19: 48 New
        0
        Quote: Grazdanin
        same role unmanned ships must be considered.


        In my opinion, the solution is not entirely adequate. Both for technical and military-political reasons. The other day the Iranians banged the super-expensive Global HAWK or Triton, I did not understand them honestly, and what, yes, nothing .... I got away with it.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 21 July 2020 19: 53 New
          -1
          Why? A dozen unmanned submarines and / or ships at the required distance from the AUG. Will it not increase the efficiency of ASW detection?
        2. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 21 July 2020 19: 59 New
          -3
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          The other day Iranians banged an ultra-expensive Global HAWK or Triton

          They shot down so they shot down, that's why the UAV can fly where the manned aircraft cannot. I don't mind them.
        3. Octopus
          Octopus 22 July 2020 02: 17 New
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          The other day the Iranians banged the super-expensive Global HAWK or Triton, I did not understand them honestly and what, yes, nothing

          There are different lies. Either they knocked them down, or he turned them on.

          In any case, the Americans clearly did not have the "fas" command. Donnie only tweeted bold.

          But the Jews, yes, the Jews did not chat in vain, as usual.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 09: 54 New
            +1
            Quote: Octopus
            the Jews did not chat in vain, as usual.


            Are you talking about fairy tales about flights over Tehran? So these are fairy tales.
            - If it was about flying over Iran, I believe. Technically maybe not a question. So, given the focal nature of the radar field, and it is not solid there, you can fly there and on Hercules with impunity if you correctly lay the route ...
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 22 July 2020 10: 41 New
              -3
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              Are you talking about fairy tales about flights over Tehran?

              Yes, you do not seem to know.

              Earlier in Iran, there was a series of strange incidents, including a bright flash from an explosion near military facilities in eastern Tehran. According to the official version, on June 26, a technical gas cylinder exploded.
              In addition, a week ago, Iranian nuclear scientists and authorities reported an incident and a fire at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant.


              https://ria.ru/20200710/1574144175.html

              The explosion of the technical gas cylinder looked like this.
              https://life.ru/p/1331287
    3. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 18: 54 New
      +3
      Quote: kjhg
      Alternatively, the carrier formations will be in the rearguard of the KUG, at a considerable distance from the vanguard.

      Good method. Schaub the enemy ate the vanguard and did not even choke?

      Quote: kjhg
      The role of anti-submarine carrier-based aviation will significantly increase.

      What are you speaking about?! She's gone for a long time. The Vikings died out. There are only helicopters left with their minuses

      Quote: kjhg
      Some people here still believe

      And some for some reason believe in the invulnerability of the AUG. Strange huh?
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 21 July 2020 19: 10 New
        10
        Not a single AUG, with at least three exports, will be able to come close to a well-protected coastline, a serious state, to deliver an effective air strike.
        Perhaps there will be an exchange of missile strikes ... but this too, hypothetically !!! Because, as soon as they rock the boat, they will fly "living room" to the metropolis !!! And AUG will simply have nowhere to return.
        What else to consider ??? Again a bandit raid on any banana republic ???
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 21 July 2020 19: 48 New
          +5
          Not necessarily banana. Serbia, Iraq, Libya were not banana republics. But the planes, including those from aircraft carriers, rolled their armies into dust. For such countries, aircraft carriers are kept, and not at all in order to climb on the rampage in Russia or China.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 21 July 2020 19: 54 New
            +4
            The Serbian army (ground forces) remained generally intact ... and in the three-month destruction of bridges from the thermal power station, the merit of aircraft carriers is 10 percent
          2. rocket757
            rocket757 21 July 2020 22: 15 New
            +2
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            Not necessarily banana. Serbia, Iraq, Libya - were not banana republics

            Don't tell my sneakers. The countries that wanted themselves, themselves, in comparison with the Yankees or the combined power of the Geyropa, turned out to be banana republics. The balance in the world at that moment was violated, there was SOMEONE to intercede for the orphan and the GOD!
            Now, too, at the expense of balance, not ah, but at least, there is someone to stick to!
            But the majority of the poor do not get it in any way and never .... all of them themselves, themselves, and nobody, especially, do not want to listen !!! So we write them off as miserable and do not take a steam bath when the orphans can offend, let them make the right choice themselves !!!
        2. Lipchanin
          Lipchanin 21 July 2020 19: 55 New
          -3
          Quote: rocket757
          Not a single AUG, with at least three exports, will be able to come close to a well-protected coastline, a serious state,

          Let us recall the recent campaign of the 2nd AUG to the shores of Korea.
          Eun only shook his finger and all this "sharashkin's office" instantly changed kunrs under a "specious" pretext
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 21 July 2020 22: 19 New
            +1
            Submarines with a desperate / inspired crew are serious! This is no longer to threaten with a finger.
            AUG will definitely be in their reach.
            1. Lipchanin
              Lipchanin 21 July 2020 22: 27 New
              0
              Quote: rocket757
              Submarines with a desperate / inspired crew are serious! This is no longer to threaten with a finger.

              Well, actually, I put it figuratively request
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 21 July 2020 22: 38 New
                0
                Oh, it doesn't matter. AUG sailed away and that's a fact.
        3. mehan
          mehan 21 July 2020 20: 17 New
          +2
          AUGs will come to the shore (a thousand kilometers, not closer) when Ticonderogi and Berks are shot there ......... And there will be no one to answer.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 21 July 2020 22: 21 New
            +3
            Blessed is he who believes sad
        4. Eskobar
          Eskobar 22 July 2020 08: 43 New
          +1
          In the event of a serious turmoil in the old world, the AUG can cover transport convoys with troops from missile, air and submarine attacks. Thus, the United States will be able to build up an army on the continent without loss.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 22 July 2020 09: 21 New
            -1
            During the war, there were export aircraft carriers, which also had to cover everyone and everything.
            The Germans sank the transports and export ships; the Allies sank them. No one did without losses.
            Means of defense and attack are being improved.
            No one has a guaranteed advantage, it all depends on what kind of opponent is opposing you.
            1. max702
              max702 23 July 2020 10: 51 New
              +2
              You also tell him that in those years there were no ICBMs that could destroy both the port of departure and the bases of the fleet .. All the same, the Morephiles brakes trenchant Estonians can not understand the world has changed .. They have all sea battles ship to ship .. Now safe there are no places on the planet, you can't sit out in a bunker, and it doesn't matter what kind of fleet and army you have, and that is why there have been no serious wars on the planet for 75 years, so minor showdowns without much damage to serious players ..
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 23 July 2020 11: 02 New
                +2
                Quote: max702
                There are no safe places on the planet now

                It's right! The fleet can go on a campaign, for a victory ... and there will be nowhere to return!
                This is the reality! It is not the same as in computer shooters ... there are NO restart buttons and cannot be saved.
                1. max702
                  max702 23 July 2020 11: 15 New
                  +1
                  Morephiles are told about this, why is this a wildly expensive solution if it is not really used anywhere .. But there is no spray and a dagger on the side is more important ..
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 23 July 2020 12: 00 New
                    +1
                    Most of the earth's surface, the world's pantry, cannot be ignored! But everything has its time and whenever possible.
                    To whom it is true, even into space, even into the ocean go, but we have enough things on earth, for the long term.
                    1. max702
                      max702 23 July 2020 12: 05 New
                      +1
                      So if you really invest in the same space, then the ships in the sea and the ocean in general will turn into a shooting gallery ... It's just that the WWII concept fleet is a dead-end solution, the potential of which has been exhausted a long time ago, and we are again offered to build sailing ships in the time of battleships ... and there is none ..!
                    2. rocket757
                      rocket757 23 July 2020 12: 14 New
                      0
                      Space affairs, this is for the future.
                      Surface, underwater affairs, this is still a real threat, if you give the initiative to the enemy.
                      An integrated approach, to the best of our abilities, opportunities, of course.
  • bar
    bar 21 July 2020 19: 51 New
    +3
    Regarding aircraft carriers, it is too early to bury them. With the advent of long-range anti-ship hypersonic missiles, the threat to them will increase. But so far this threat has been largely exaggerated. A method of counteraction will be found for any threat. Alternatively, the carrier formations will be in the rearguard of the KUG, at a considerable distance from the vanguard.

    Those. the whole raison d'être of this expensive armada is to ensure its own safety? Then maybe it is more reliable and cheaper not to leave the database at all?
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 21 July 2020 22: 23 New
      0
      No, no, taxpayers need to show inspirational pictures and tell different stories! And the same, even there they will start asking different, unpleasant questions!
  • Svarog
    Svarog 21 July 2020 19: 53 New
    +2
    Quote: kjhg
    How many times have tanks been buried? But the leading powers are still engaged in their development and production. Aviation was also buried after the appearance of missiles, but, as it turned out, prematurely.

    In the conditions of a protracted confrontation ... let's say a major world war without the use of nuclear weapons is simply very expensive ... While the cowboys have a monopoly on the dollar and have to fight against the Papuans, aircraft carriers are normal ... but in the event of a war against a serious enemy, and even a protracted one, aircraft carriers will lose a lot, both in efficiency and in cost .. My opinion has always been that in modern conditions the stake should be placed on submarines plus coastal defense .. of course, if the strategy is defensive .. And in an offensive strategy it will be more effective and cheaper work off with cruise missiles ..
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 21 July 2020 22: 28 New
      +1
      It WILL NOT work to attack only with cruise missiles. This is only an additional tool for the destruction of infrastructure, enemy defenses, and then very limited. As soon as the enemy switches to combat mode, or even to active defense, to shoot from a distance, a significant effect is not achieved if the defender stubbornly resists.
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 21 July 2020 22: 42 New
        +1
        As soon as the enemy switches to combat mode, or even to active defense, to shoot from a distance, a significant effect is not achieved if the defender stubbornly resists.

        I mean, submarines .. they have the ability to approach the target close enough to strike .. and if the missile is nuclear-loaded, the effect will not be long in coming hi
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 21 July 2020 22: 54 New
          +1
          Strong arguments, God forbid this anymore !!!
          And close to the coast, you can hardly get anywhere safely! As soon as the boat goes out to shallow, explored depths, it is a PURPOSE for anti-submarine weapons. Those. they still need to be protected.
          Even a not very strong enemy, on their shores, will try to neutralize all threats, and in this he has advantages.
          1. Svarog
            Svarog 21 July 2020 22: 59 New
            0
            Quote: rocket757
            And close to the coast, you can hardly get anywhere safely! As soon as the boat goes out to shallow, explored depths, it is a PURPOSE for anti-submarine weapons. Those. they still need to be protected.

            In this case, we will be interested exclusively in naval military bases and fuel bases .. we mean the enemy of the United States, and it is not a problem for a submarine to approach the coast at 1000-2000 km .. Destroying the ports of the United States will be enough to eliminate the possibility of an attack or development of the attack .. of course with a sufficient number of submarines ..
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 21 July 2020 23: 08 New
              +3
              With different countries, different plans, tactical plans are provided!
              With striped, everything is very difficult. They, like us, have a "long arm" with very serious arguments, the possibilities of which neither we, nor anyone else CAN DO! Therefore, all plans are built as extreme, only in response to their impact. Schaub there they did not chat to the public, this is not the real plans that their military has. With them, just like with us, only for an end case.
              At least for now, and in the foreseeable future, it will not be otherwise.
        2. Eskobar
          Eskobar 22 July 2020 08: 45 New
          +2
          Will a submarine strike many strikes without aircraft cover?
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 22 July 2020 09: 42 New
            0
            The ocean is great ... the trump card, the submarine defense, is stealth. Approaching the coastline of the "enemy" at a strike distance, the risk of being detected increases a lot!
            The game of cat and mouse .... the more serious the state in all respects, the denser, more effective, FURTHER it protects the nearby water area.
            Therefore, they increase the effective range of attack by means of attack on submarines, so that they do not go into a trap, which may be a zone of several hundred miles of the "enemy's" coastal zone.
  • doubovitski
    doubovitski 21 July 2020 21: 44 New
    0
    Quote: kjhg
    Quote: Grazdanin
    I always remember this anecdote after a story about a sunk aircraft carrier from a missile boat.

    There are many such stories. Some here still believe that the Su-24 with the Khibiny jammed the destroyer's radar. They wanted to spit on the laws of physics. They just believe everything. It's like believing in God.
    Regarding aircraft carriers, it is too early to bury them. With the advent of long-range anti-ship hypersonic missiles, the threat to them will increase. But so far this threat has been largely exaggerated. A method of counteraction will be found for any threat. Alternatively, the carrier formations will be in the rearguard of the KUG, at a considerable distance from the vanguard. But, pilot and unmanned aircraft will remain the main striking force. The role of anti-submarine carrier-based aviation will significantly increase.
    How many times have tanks been buried? But the leading powers are still engaged in their development and production. Aviation was also buried after the appearance of missiles, but, as it turned out, prematurely.

    Compare God's Gift with scrambled eggs. Massive use of tanks, when their destruction is a matter of many weeks due to their deployment on a wide front and separation, and the destruction of a highly concentrated grouping, when everything is needed only two or three good tactical nuclear beaters. Didn't they understand simple arithmetic - the concentration of 30 billionth iron and 5-6 thousandth military contingent in the name of ensuring the departure of 90 fighters? With a combat radius of 500 km? Something I have not heard of American kamikazes flying on a mission one way, dropping the landing gear to provide at least a little relief for the airplane.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 22 July 2020 02: 30 New
      -1
      Quote: doubovitski
      With a combat radius of 500 km?

      2000+
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM
      1. 5-9
        5-9 22 July 2020 10: 14 New
        +1
        Yep, according to the optimal flight profile, i.e. with access to a high altitude, without a reserve of fuel for "suddenly what happens" and with 2 missiles of a million each ... There is only sense from aviation if each plane throws 6 bonbs of 500 kg each ... And single millionth rockets can be launched and with submarines and with NK.
        Actually, when expensive missiles become weapons of aircraft, and the question arises, why AB? If rockets can be placed anywhere
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 22 July 2020 10: 45 New
          -1
          Quote: 5-9
          Yep, according to the optimal flight profile, i.e. with access to a high altitude, without a reserve of fuel for "suddenly what happens" and with 2 missiles, a million each ...

          You will not please.
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 22 July 2020 11: 11 New
    0
    Quote: kjhg
    Regarding aircraft carriers, it is too early to bury them. With the advent of long-range anti-ship hypersonic missiles, the threat to them will increase. But so far this threat has been largely exaggerated.

    There is only one question here. And whoever wants or can attack the United States and its valiant fleet. They are already on the aircraft carrier, on the right one ocean, on the left the second, on top the third. And everything is visible for thousands of miles. Sit quietly, live well, and think about the American dream. Well, why do they need this huge aircraft carrier fleet?
    1. max702
      max702 23 July 2020 10: 55 New
      0
      They do not want (and cannot) live exclusively on their own for this and the AUG, but the time of this tool has passed.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 23 July 2020 12: 28 New
        +1
        Quote: max702
        but the time of this tool has passed ..

        Precisely, the mammoths of the times of the last WWII.
  • max702
    max702 23 July 2020 10: 32 New
    0
    Especially the United States is producing tanks .. The rest, with the exception of us and China, are produced practically for the purpose of selling them ..
  • businessv
    businessv 21 July 2020 20: 19 New
    +2
    Quote: Grazdanin
    I always remember this anecdote after a story about a sunk aircraft carrier from a missile boat.

    Well, everyone has their own associations related to the aircraft carrier ... For some reason, I am reminded of Isoroku Yamamoto, who could have objected specifically to you. smile
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 22 July 2020 08: 06 New
    0
    And if there are 10 boats, plus a couple of dozen aircraft and launching 50-100 anti-ship missiles at the same time? Doesn't it sound like a joke? And if the missiles are hypersonic?
  • antivirus
    antivirus 22 July 2020 10: 32 New
    0
    Supporters of precision weapons are especially fiercely opposed to the aircraft carrier program today.
    not clowns "opponents of aircraft carriers" - A Strategic Missile Forces AGAINST AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ... academic mathematicians from space against the Moreman.
    we are a land power
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 23 July 2020 12: 36 New
      0
      This is because the General Staff should consider the anti-aircraft operation in the North and Far East as an operation of the Russian armed forces, not the fleet. That is, according to AUG, you must beat all CCS of the armed forces.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 23 July 2020 14: 28 New
        0
        and don't forget about the restless Asian underbelly
  • Serpet
    Serpet 21 July 2020 18: 17 New
    10
    with the growth of technical advances in different countries of the world, sooner or later, it will be necessary to revise all existing doctrines of the use of fleets. By the middle of the century, the picture will become clear that will require specific changes

    I think many people understand this.
    This is one of the reasons why our military leadership is in no hurry with the aircraft carrier program.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 21 July 2020 18: 24 New
      -1
      The need for an aircraft carrier is in great doubt for us, especially since we never had aircraft carriers. smile
      1. Serpet
        Serpet 21 July 2020 18: 32 New
        +7
        Here I am about it. For us, in the near future, the submarine and anti-submarine fleet is more relevant.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 22 July 2020 12: 48 New
          0
          Quote: Serpet
          Here I am about it. For us, in the near future, the submarine and anti-submarine fleet is more relevant.

          Without AB, the anti-submarine fleet will not go further than 300-400 km from the nearest airfield. On a larger radius, the coastal reserve simply will not have time to come to the aid of the duty forces in time.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 23 July 2020 11: 10 New
            0
            That's enough for now ...
      2. mmaxx
        mmaxx 21 July 2020 18: 40 New
        +4
        Here you need to understand that there is little use from one aircraft carrier. He needs to be repaired. The same Americans out of 15 collected when they needed 4-5 maximum.
        And we cannot afford the normal number of aircraft carrier formations.
      3. Revolver
        Revolver 21 July 2020 18: 57 New
        -1
        Quote: Grazdanin
        We never had aircraft carriers

        And who then is "Kuznetsov"? Don't tell me that the presence of attack missile weapons on board makes an aircraft carrier a non-aircraft carrier.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 21 July 2020 19: 00 New
          -2
          The question is not for me. To the Ministry of Defense.
          https://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/navy/weapons/[email protected]
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 21 July 2020 19: 29 New
            +5
            Call it "Granite" or whatever it carries "disposable shock UAV", and it will become a clean aircraft carrier. And so this is all verbal balancing act. The ship can either launch and receive planes, or it cannot.
        2. mdsr
          mdsr 21 July 2020 21: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: Nagan
          Don't tell me that the presence of attack missile weapons on board makes an aircraft carrier a non-aircraft carrier.

          So he hasn't been carrying Granita for lunch for a hundred years. request Therefore, he is a clean aircraft carrier.
        3. doubovitski
          doubovitski 21 July 2020 21: 51 New
          -2
          Quote: Nagan
          Quote: Grazdanin
          We never had aircraft carriers

          And who then is "Kuznetsov"? Don't tell me that the presence of attack missile weapons on board makes an aircraft carrier a non-aircraft carrier.

          Tactical tasks. It would have been enough with our presence in Syria. In the absence of the enemy's aviation and a strong anti-ship missile system. Russia has no interests overseas. There are interests in the Eurasian continent. The only thing is Cuba, and possibly Venezuela. But the military use of these territories is not worth the task.
          1. max702
            max702 23 July 2020 11: 01 New
            +1
            Kuznetsov drank the dough for Moremans and industrialists, this unit does not carry any military value and it was Syria that clearly proved it .. It is much easier and faster to recapture the airfield to provide its air defense and start work with it than to drag the AUG somewhere with the same goals. For a long time already, everyone agreed. AUG is only needed to cover the SSBN deployment area for the rest of the AUG (here) is nonsense ..
      4. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 21 July 2020 21: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: Grazdanin
        The need for an aircraft carrier is in great doubt for us, especially since we never had aircraft carriers.

        I see how you are not deservedly minus. I will say a few words in your defense. It's just that many do not understand what a warship with all its systems for ensuring its operational capacity and weapons is. With even more or less armament, but now ships and ships begin, not even with the hull and weapons, but with a simple rigging bracket, bollard, and other "practical things, switches, switches, electric motors, and all this is of marine performance, as well as all kinds of mechanisms, and of course the main and auxiliary power plants.In Soviet times, all this was produced at their factories, but after the collapse, some of the factories went to the newly formed states, and many went just for metal. For the construction of large ships, factories of components are needed, while there is no such thing, it is out of the question to think about the construction of aircraft carriers. There is enough capacity only for submarines, frigates and small fleet under construction now.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 21 July 2020 21: 22 New
          +6
          Quote: tihonmarine
          I see how you are not deservedly minus. I will say a few words in your defense.

          Thanks but I do not need smile I am very toxic to "uryakalok", it will amuse me. It is especially fun to watch the ratios + 20 / -20 or + 15 / -15 (when I write the right things, with an assessment that is close to objective, not pleasant for uryakalok) There are adequate people with whom I happily communicate normally.

          Quote: tihonmarine
          It's just that many do not understand what a warship with all its systems for ensuring its operational capacity and weapons is.


          Quote: tihonmarine
          There is enough capacity only for submarines, frigates and small fleets under construction now.

          Quite right. The main thing is not to chase destroyers, American giganticism. We have their own tasks, they have their own. We have a defensive land army, they have a colonial expeditionary. But this does not make their weapons and army worse than ours, or vice versa. We cannot capture them, and they us. You need to soberly assess your capabilities and the capabilities of the enemy. We need to develop our economy, keep the troops in a parity state.
          1. Nehist
            Nehist 22 July 2020 02: 05 New
            +1
            Respected!!! Not a single war has been won by one defense !!! So for the land, defensive army, it's you! Moreover, our sea border exceeds the land border. Further, you would first remember why a fleet is needed in general and why Russia was striving to have access to the seas.
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 23 July 2020 11: 07 New
          0
          Quote: tihonmarine
          There is enough capacity only for submarines, frigates and small fleets under construction now.


          It's so obvious what's missing. See the construction time of the NK from the MRK to the frigate ..
  • Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 21 July 2020 18: 22 New
    -4
    In the future, the aircraft carrier's wing will consist mainly of UAVs. This will greatly reduce the cost of the ship, new ones are already going beyond reason. The F35 is ideal as the center of a UAV swarm.
    MQ-25 is on its way.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 21 July 2020 19: 00 New
      +5
      You have some kind of fetish ... A normal UAV from the F-35 does not differ much in price or size ...
    2. rocket757
      rocket757 21 July 2020 19: 13 New
      +2
      What difference does it make to a victim of an attack what to drown? Aircraft carrier or UAV ???
      Both the boulevard will run EQUALLY.
      1. Lipchanin
        Lipchanin 21 July 2020 19: 59 New
        -1
        Quote: rocket757
        What difference does it make to a victim of an attack what to drown? Aircraft carrier or UAV ???

        For a hypersonic high-precision with YaBG, there is certainly no difference
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 22 July 2020 02: 33 New
          -1
          Quote: Lipchanin
          For a hypersonic high-precision with YaBG, there is certainly no difference

          )))
          Imaginary hypersonic high-precision with YaBG.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 22 July 2020 10: 15 New
            -2
            An imaginary dagger? Or not hyper? Or not accurate? Or not nuclear?
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 22 July 2020 10: 46 New
              -2
              Quote: 5-9
              An imaginary dagger? Or not hyper? Or not accurate? Or not nuclear?

              )))
              Imaginary. Therefore, hyper, and whatever you want. And so this is the Iskander air launch.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 21 July 2020 18: 22 New
    +8
    Aircraft carriers will remain for as long as aviation is the basis of a military operation.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 21 July 2020 19: 14 New
      -3
      Military operation, bandit attack, etc. wars are not won that way.
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan 21 July 2020 20: 03 New
        +5
        If the enemy is well armed, he is declared an economic war and stifled with sanctions.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 21 July 2020 21: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: Bashkirkhan
      Aircraft carriers will remain for as long as aviation is the basis of a military operation.

      We must remember the old Japanese submarine aircraft carriers. Very interesting projects of the end of WWII. The first such submarine aircraft carrier, I-400, entered the Imperial Navy on December 30, 1944, the second I-401 was on January 8, 1945. The third I-402 was returned to the dock and began to be converted into an underwater tanker. The 1st division also included the smaller aircraft-carrying submarines I-13 and I-14, launched in December 1944 and March 1945. The division's first task was to strike with bacteriological weapons on the US West Coast and the Pacific Islands. It was supposed to dump containers with rats and insects infected with bubonic plague microbes in densely populated areas. But this idea was abandoned and it was decided that the boats had to pass the Indian Ocean, round Africa and strike at the locks from the Atlantic. The pilots went through intense training. In the mountains, models of locks were erected on which combat missions were practiced. While on a combat mission on August 15, 1945, the aircraft-carrying submarines I-400 and I-401 received news of the surrender of Japan. With the end of hostilities, the submarines were transferred to Pearl Harbor. The USSR demanded to provide access to submarines for its specialists. Not wanting to share the secret with a potential enemy, the Americans took the submarines out to sea and sank them.

      The I-400 series aircraft carrier submarines remained the largest submarines in the world until the mid-1960s, and in terms of autonomy and cruising range, they are still comparable to modern shipbuilding models.
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 21 July 2020 21: 36 New
        +5
        Quote: tihonmarine
        We must remember the old Japanese submarine aircraft carriers.


        Now for the United States, the idea of ​​arsenals planes and flying UAVs is more interesting.
        An arsenal aircraft converted from a civilian cargo plane, stuffed with missiles and UAVs, can "dump" a huge amount of weapons in a unit of time. Relatively cheap and fast delivery methods. There was an article here, the United States ordered a study on this topic.
        The UAV carrier, in theory, can become a new means of power projection. A swarm of future XQ 58 counterparts could replace the current manned strike fighters.
    3. doubovitski
      doubovitski 21 July 2020 21: 56 New
      -6
      Quote: Bashkirkhan
      Aircraft carriers will remain for as long as aviation is the basis of a military operation.

      .... in conflicts with unarmed Indians. The French immediately removed their aircraft carrier from the shores of Syria as soon as Russia brought its ships there.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 21 July 2020 18: 23 New
    +3
    Roman, the aircraft carrier will not go anywhere, since there is no replacement for it! The aircraft carrier has removed battleships from the world's fleet, I agree, but name a ship, or a type of weapon that will quickly and effectively sink an aircraft carrier with a guarantee! There are a lot of weapons, but so far there has not been a case for any country in the world to strike a blow at an aircraft carrier and severely damage it. First of all, the warrant, escort ships, the AWACS early warning system, satellites from orbit, these are only part of the factors that control a huge part of the air and sea space around the aircraft carrier. This is his field of life - break this field, and then you can sing to the ship and the crew of the waste. But, the only threat to aircraft carriers today is only maneuvering hypersonic missiles, and their US carriers will quickly take full control, because their fleet is not equal to ours in terms of the number of pennants. So, for more than one decade the aircraft carrier will be the strongest among equals, and it is too early to bury it.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 18: 48 New
      +6
      or the kind of weapon that will sink an aircraft carrier quickly and efficiently!


      The aircraft carrier did not sink the battleship quickly and with a guarantee in 1945. To defeat the Yamato task force, massive air strikes were inflicted by 58 task forces from the decks of 11 aircraft carriers.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 22 July 2020 02: 37 New
        +1
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        The aircraft carrier did not sink the battleship quickly and with a guarantee in 1945.

        )))
        It is paradoxical, but naval aviation, which in the 40s really sank the LK with a guarantee, is Japanese. Moreover, it was she who never drowned in the LK sea. Two Englishmen were killed by coastal aviation.

        And yes, for the formation of an alpha-strike capable of drowning the LK with a guarantee, it took 2 AB, and not one.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 09: 49 New
          +1
          The capabilities of Japanese deck pilots against battleships at sea have not been tested in reality. The speech in the article was that the aircraft carrier would kill the battleship quickly and without problems. This is not true.
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 22 July 2020 10: 48 New
            -2
            Quote: Cyril G ...
            The speech in the article was that the aircraft carrier would kill the battleship quickly and without problems.

            The aircraft carriers did kill both Yamato quickly and without issue. Another thing is that there was more than one AB, but these are the Americans, they have many aircraft carriers, so what should they do now?
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 10: 50 New
              +1
              Once again - it was about the fact that the aircraft carrier will kill the battleship, and not the aircraft carriers will kill the battleship. And what about Musashi, you obviously got excited ... Considering how many planes were involved in the attack on the Kurita compound.
    2. Gust
      Gust 21 July 2020 19: 03 New
      11
      Aircraft carriers do not need to be drowned; it is enough to disable the flight support facilities of the air group. The countries of the world vary, and Burkina Faso's attempts will be very different from those of Iran, for example. But of those who can, have not yet tried.
      AUG in defense is similar to an air defense defensive area, and the attackers will have the advantage. A massive salvo of conventional missile launchers in a difficult jamming environment, 2-3 submarines in ambush on possible directions of the AUG approach - this is not a complete list of possible options.
      The AUG themselves will be taken under tight control during the threatened period, and they will not get anything off the coast of the Russian Federation or China. The main purpose is the suppression of sea communications and, in general, domination in the world's oceans far from the armies of developed countries.
    3. bar
      bar 21 July 2020 19: 59 New
      0
      The aircraft carrier has removed battleships from the world's fleet, I agree, but name a ship, or a type of weapon that will quickly and effectively sink an aircraft carrier with a guarantee!

      And who really needs to heat them? Due to the lack of a fleet on the ball that can somehow compete with the striped ones, the aircraft carriers simply have no opponents. Therefore, they are simply useless at sea. They are also useless in conquering dominance on land, if you do not take into account small countries without normal coastal defense and with territory that can really be covered by naval aviation. So let those elusive Joe symbols of power float
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 21 July 2020 20: 44 New
        +2
        You know, the F-18 from an aircraft carrier, and other aircraft can spoil the blood VERY robustly, and even let it go to any city located less than 500 km from the seashore.
        1. bar
          bar 22 July 2020 09: 17 New
          +1
          I wrote that they can only inflict harm on a small enemy with territory that they can fly around without refueling. And if this enemy has no coastal defense and air defense at all. I hope this applies to our country, and this does not apply to China either. Then why keep these "big and beautiful"?
          1. pin_code
            pin_code 22 July 2020 14: 36 New
            0
            they can block the coast of a potential enemy without engaging in hostilities.
            1. bar
              bar 22 July 2020 15: 50 New
              0
              What is it like? Without a single shot, will they stupidly block everything with aircraft carriers? Well, yes, they are big and can block a lot, especially if they are flooded on forvays. But to completely block ... recourse
              1. pin_code
                pin_code 23 July 2020 12: 50 New
                +1
                look at things more realistically ... in order to drown an aircraft carrier with an escort, you need to have a lot of things that, for example, OUR Navy lost or was simply taken away from it (for example, there is no MPA now, and the pilots of the Aerospace Forces are not trained to work over the sea by ships.) and it turns out really only the Chinese can drown, and that's not a fact.
                1. bar
                  bar 23 July 2020 13: 40 New
                  -2
                  look at things more real ...

                  I'm trying to really imagine how this will happen:
                  they can block the coast of a potential enemy without engaging in hostilities.

                  Describe a more realistic scenario for this action, if mine did not suit.
          2. mmaxx
            mmaxx 22 July 2020 16: 15 New
            0
            Well, look at our Far East. It does not even come to mind how to defend him from several AUG. So we will not have Vladivostok, Nakhodka and Petropavlovsk and everything else that remains there. And then what is in the depths. How to defend all this now is not clear. The situation at the modern level is reminiscent of the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War. That is why Putin says that we do not care: in any case - a retaliatory nuclear strike.
    4. Lipchanin
      Lipchanin 21 July 2020 20: 03 New
      -12
      Quote: Thrifty
      There are a lot of guns, but so far there has not been a case for any country in the world to strike a blow at an aircraft carrier and severely damage it.

      Remind the use of AUG against a serious country
      And I will cite how they cowardly TWO AUG from the coast of Korea flew away when Eun only shook his finger
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 22 July 2020 02: 40 New
        0
        Quote: Lipchanin
        TWO AUG flew away from the coast of Korea

        And what are the goals and objectives of the US Navy in relation to the DPRK?

        Let's say Kim's regime collapses tomorrow. What's next?
        1. bar
          bar 22 July 2020 09: 19 New
          0
          Let's say Kim's regime collapses tomorrow. What's next?

          Then everything, all aircraft carriers will have to be written off. There will be no one else to scare them laughing
    5. doubovitski
      doubovitski 21 July 2020 22: 02 New
      -2
      Quote: Thrifty
      Roman, the aircraft carrier will not go anywhere, since there is no replacement for it! The aircraft carrier has removed battleships from the world's fleet, I agree, but name a ship, or a type of weapon that will quickly and effectively sink an aircraft carrier with a guarantee! There are a lot of weapons, but so far there has not been a case for any country in the world to strike a blow at an aircraft carrier and severely damage it. First of all, the warrant, escort ships, the AWACS early warning system, satellites from orbit, these are only part of the factors that control a huge part of the air and sea space around the aircraft carrier. This is his field of life - break this field, and then you can sing to the ship and the crew of the waste. But, the only threat to aircraft carriers today is only maneuvering hypersonic missiles, and their US carriers will quickly take full control, because their fleet is not equal to ours in terms of the number of pennants. So, for more than one decade the aircraft carrier will be the strongest among equals, and it is too early to bury it.

      It's too early to bury for the only reason - the United States has no enemies. They will not dare to say something serious against Russia, because we will destroy them over the head of these AUGs. We do not need to touch them, it is enough to have a couple of hundred Sarmatians. And the result will be like in one science fiction film, but there is no war - there the virus destroyed America, and the ship was dangling in the ocean, it had no where to land. China will have what we have, and then the Americans will fight the European rebels with their AUG.
    6. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 21 July 2020 22: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: Thrifty
      There are a lot of weapons, but so far there has not been a case for any country in the world to strike at an aircraft carrier

      The question is the answer. After 1945, no one drowned or tried to sink aircraft carriers. Small wars, weak countries. Aircraft carriers are used only for wars of conquest and the punishment of the disobedient. This is the US concept. It is not suitable for Russia. Aircraft carriers of France and Britain are larger for the big power effect. But even for the states, with their Fed and printing press, aircraft carriers are becoming an overwhelming burden.
  • fn34440
    fn34440 21 July 2020 18: 32 New
    0
    I remembered: "Yesterday, in the Bermuda Triangle, disappeared
    American aircraft carrier Dwight Eisenhower with ships
    accompaniment. There are no losses on our side. "
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • 5-9
    5-9 21 July 2020 18: 36 New
    -1
    AB is a means of dominating ocean communications ... and not bombing the Papuans, it is an accompanying option.
    destroying him with his comrades was not a problem, and in the 80s there was ... but how to find AUG in the vastness of even the North Atlantic so that loaves of up to 600 km can be brought to it?
    Well, satellites and anti-ship missiles are developing, hypersound appears, and the Aegis supersonic with at least some reassuring probability can only be removed today by SM-6 and then with timely detection of AWACS ... And the P-700 is 40 years old ...
    The share of controlled weapons is growing ... And why hang them on airplanes that are installed on AB, and not immediately place them on NK or submarines?
    Many questions...
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 18: 40 New
    +7
    The fact that after the loss of the Hornet in 1942, the US Navy did not lose a single aircraft carrier any more is the best confirmation of this.


    Mr. Skomorokhov forgot about the aircraft carrier sunk by a single bomber Princeton in October 1944. About 6 sunk escort aircraft carriers: in 1943 - Liskom hit (PL), in 1944 - Block Island (PL), Gambier Bay (by the artillery of Japanese cruisers), Saint Lo (Kamikaze); in 1945 - Bismarck See (Kamikaze), Ommani Bay(Kamikaze).

    Before the heap, you can recall the aircraft carriers Bunker Hill and Franklin, which, after being disabled by Kamikaze strikes, were no longer put into operation and, having spent 15-20 years in reserve, were decommissioned.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 22 July 2020 02: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      sunk by a single bomber aircraft carrier Princeton in October 1944

      )))
      It was sunk by Renault KRL torpedoes.

      And this bomber ... It was not a little solitary.
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      6 sunk escort aircraft carriers

      Converted from tankers.
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      Bunker Hill and Franklin ... were no longer commissioned

      And who might need them in peacetime?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 22 July 2020 11: 33 New
        0
        Quote: Octopus
        And who might need them in peacetime?

        Well, the rest of the Essex found where to attach. They even modernized them - and made it to the 70s. smile
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 22 July 2020 11: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Well, the rest of the "Essexes" found where to attach

          The rest of the Essexes were put on conservation and returned to the 50s. Why and what for - a long and difficult conversation.
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 13: 02 New
        0
        Quote: Octopus
        It was sunk by Renault KRL torpedoes.


        Oh how! They just decided so, but let's sink ?! Or there was something to be done with the merry-flaming skeleton. Then the Ibrits lie that they sank the Bismarck. The Germans say that they flooded it themselves. Is that so? This is your logic!
  • Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 21 July 2020 18: 45 New
    -1
    The Americans especially did not like the idea of ​​the Kalibra-K / Club-K launchers (export version) hidden in sea containers placed on trucks, railway cars or merchant ships.


    Well, in general, this is not such a fig setup for tankers. They (tankers) will simply be consumed due to the fact that they are tankers (containers).
    Those. in any incomprehensible situation - drown the tanker.
    Of course, no one wants to stage the genocide of ships with containers, but if something happens, the carriers of Caliber-K will simply be genocide.


    Well, purely on the topic, then the next end of aircraft carriers. There has never been such an article, and here it is again.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 21 July 2020 19: 04 New
      0
      Hmmmm ... You just can't imagine that you can sink a container ship or an ocean-sized tanker simply by stuffing it with aerial bombs .... And as a timber carrier ... This is not a destroyer, a third of which is explosives ..
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 21 July 2020 20: 35 New
        0
        Hmmmm ... You just can't imagine that you can sink a container ship or an ocean-sized tanker simply by stuffing it with aerial bombs .... And as a timber carrier ... This is not a destroyer, a third of which is explosives ..

        It will be necessary - they will throw bombs like Yamato.
        Hellfire is enough for a truck.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 21 July 2020 20: 40 New
          +1
          So there are torpedoes, a couple is enough. And it will take a really long time to bomb.
          1. Jack O'Neill
            Jack O'Neill 21 July 2020 20: 41 New
            0
            Or torpedoes.
        2. 5-9
          5-9 22 July 2020 10: 20 New
          -1
          Once again .... To drown a container ship or tanker in 100+ thousand tons, you really need to stuff it with bombs like Yamato. Or torpedoes are needed. Huge size and no explosives on board.
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 22 July 2020 16: 18 New
            0
            There was a photo somewhere. Container ship with displaced cargo. Lies on its side and does not drown. Containers do not give.
    2. mehan
      mehan 21 July 2020 20: 22 New
      0
      Are there lonely tankers / bulk carriers in the water area of ​​the war zone? Not convoys?
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 21 July 2020 20: 44 New
        0
        It's easy in the Persian Gulf. And it is not necessary to stagger in a combat zone. What if such a tanker headed for a densely populated city and fired at it?
        What if a truck with a container from some wilderness fires?
        1. mehan
          mehan 21 July 2020 20: 47 New
          +1
          Once again, during the fighting? Read - wars?
          Imagine - during the Storm in the Glass, an unidentified tanker goes towards Washington ...
          1. Jack O'Neill
            Jack O'Neill 21 July 2020 20: 53 New
            0
            Once again, during the fighting? Read - wars?

            Does this surprise you? The tanker can be used for supply, and use a civilian tanker.

            Imagine - during the Storm in the Glass, an unidentified tanker goes towards Washington ...

            Why "unidentified"? In the port of any state, such containers may well be delivered, along with the goods (sugar, for example), which the tanker must deliver.
    3. Octopus
      Octopus 22 July 2020 02: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      Of course, no one wants to stage the genocide of ships with containers, but if something happens, the carriers of Caliber-K will simply be genocide.

      )))
      Club-K is just trolling, in the usual style of the current Russian authorities.

      Under the current law of the sea, any armed ship flying a trade flag is considered a pirate and can and should be attacked by the forces of any country. And if your container ships fly a military flag, then it is completely incomprehensible what you benefit from such a trick.
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 22 July 2020 03: 50 New
        +1
        And if your container ships fly a military flag, then it is completely incomprehensible what you benefit from such a trick.

        Who will use the tanker with the "Caliber-K" under the military flag? Then its meaning is lost, specifically the option with a commercial container.


        )))
        Club-K is just trolling, in the usual style of the current Russian authorities.

        Hopefully, as my friend works on a Korean tanker. I would not want something to fly to him because of trolling.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 22 July 2020 10: 50 New
          0
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          Then its meaning is lost, specifically the option with a commercial container.

          There was no point in there initially.
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          Hopefully, as my friend works on a Korean tanker.

          This thing will not get on the Korean tanker, except in the Russian port - sea containers, you see, must go through customs. And the issue of sea traffic from Russia will be resolved long before anything starts flying.
          1. Jack O'Neill
            Jack O'Neill 22 July 2020 11: 47 New
            0
            This thing will not get on the Korean tanker, except in the Russian port - sea containers, you see, must go through customs. And the issue of sea traffic from Russia will be resolved long before anything starts flying.

            So Russia does not have to be a party to the conflict, and for a wad of money you can push through anything at customs.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 22 July 2020 12: 01 New
              0
              You don't quite understand how the question is being asked. To expose some Chinese container ship to the American attack with such a thing is a very, very expensive trick. It will be extremely difficult to drag this to someone else's ship via stealth.

              And yes, if you don't understand. Caliber-K does not threaten AUG at all, but global container transport. That is, you will not believe China.

              I tell you. This is trolling, not a weapon.
              1. Jack O'Neill
                Jack O'Neill 22 July 2020 13: 09 New
                0
                The container ship could be Liberian.
                If we are talking about one or two containers, then not a threat. Although the anti-ship missile system can shoot, but here the very fact is already important, so as not to ignore it.

                And yes, if you don't understand. Caliber-K does not threaten AUG at all, but global container transport. That is, you will not believe China.

                Not only China!
                I originally wrote this, in my very first comment.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 22 July 2020 13: 20 New
                  0
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  I originally wrote this, in my very first comment.

                  What is it?
                  Quote: Jack O'Neill
                  What if such a tanker headed for a densely populated city and fired at it?
                  What if a truck with a container from some wilderness fires?


                  This is a completely meaningless idea. With the same success, you can simply fill the container with explosives and deliver it to the port that you do not like for some reason.

                  In the case of the use of a container PRK, the object of sabotage is not the one at whom this thing tries to shoot - let it try, without the BIUS it is still useless. The object of sabotage is the actual container ship, on which this thing will cause fire. The main container line in the world is China - EU.
                  1. Jack O'Neill
                    Jack O'Neill 22 July 2020 17: 32 New
                    0
                    What is it?

                    That this is a setup of container transports.

                    This is a completely meaningless idea. With the same success, you can simply fill the container with explosives and deliver it to the port that you do not like for some reason.

                    Could be so. But there is Caliber-K.

                    In the case of the use of a container PRK, the object of sabotage is not the one at whom this thing tries to shoot - let it try, without the BIUS it is still useless. The object of sabotage is the actual container ship, on which this thing will cause fire. The main container line in the world is China - EU.

                    Because a tanker with a container will already be perceived differently. Therefore, it is a setup.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 July 2020 12: 57 New
      0
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      Well, in general, this is not such a fig setup for tankers. They (tankers) will simply be consumed due to the fact that they are tankers (containers).
      Those. in any incomprehensible situation - drown the tanker.

      As the experience of the "tanker war" has shown, sinking a tanker is an extremely difficult task. For this, special thanks should be paid to the "greens" - it is their ever-increasing requirements for safety and protection against oil spills that have led to the fact that the constructive protection of the tanker is little by little equal to the battleships of the last war. smile At VIF2-NE, Pomnitsa, in the early 2000s, it was proposed to make the ideal warship of the future in the tanker's hull.
      However, in the last war, tankers were also sunk for a long time. And the converted AVE tankers were considered the most tenacious in their class.
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill 22 July 2020 13: 13 New
        0
        Depending on the complexity and funds will be. Damage from one Mk-48 will be such that flooding is only a matter of time.
      2. mmaxx
        mmaxx 22 July 2020 16: 21 New
        0
        Something somewhere flashed like pirates blew something up at the side of the tanker. So the crew did not even notice. The hole was in the bow, and the crew was in the stern. Then they found it and were surprised.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 22 July 2020 16: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: mmaxx
          Something somewhere flashed like pirates blew something up at the side of the tanker. So the crew did not even notice. The hole was in the bow, and the crew was in the stern. Then they found it and were surprised.

          Well, at the tanker, to get to the tanks, you need to try very hard.
  • NF68
    NF68 21 July 2020 18: 46 New
    +5
    As it is not very noticeable that the AV are leaving. The fleet also cannot do without air support, and here AV is irreplaceable. Especially if the fleet is far from its land based air force bases. So not everything was lost for AB.
  • tovarider
    tovarider 21 July 2020 18: 49 New
    0
    Whatever one may say, but still the carrier-based aircraft of any aircraft carrier at the moment is a good means of oversaturation of the enemy's air defense, regardless of whether on land within the coastline or the air defense of naval strike groups, or the destruction of coastal complexes.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 21 July 2020 19: 25 New
      +3
      Quote: tovarider
      this is a good tool for oversaturation of enemy air defenses

      The carrier-based aircraft will not pull this.

      Even in the war with not the strongest Iraq, normal aviation from normal airfields was engaged in this.
    2. 5-9
      5-9 22 July 2020 10: 25 New
      -1
      A total of 48 fighters ... AB should hang out at least 500 km from the coast, for coastal anti-ship missiles or boats ... Or even a diesel engine. Strike group of aircraft 12 ... of which half are tankers and / or cover ... action at the limit of the radius (argov ask what it was like)
      In a spherical vacuum AUG and Khimki with their 25 aircraft and air defense will not cope, even with Tomahawks EM and PLA.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 22 July 2020 16: 22 New
        0
        Even a dozen planes at the same time is a serious force. And if you also thin out the air defense "Tomahawks"?
  • codetalker
    codetalker 21 July 2020 18: 51 New
    +3
    The article definitely deserves attention. But, it seems to me, the author did not catch one subtle, but very important point. Everyone to whom he refers first of all asks: "Do the US need aircraft carriers?", And not: "Do the world need aircraft carriers?"
    The fact is that in the United States there is a serious discussion and struggle about what place in the world their state should take. A dominant superpower, or one of the most significant, but ordinary Western states (well, like France, for example)? For the second option, 11 aircraft carriers are wildly redundant.
    But this situation should not be transferred to the whole world and to us. Aircraft carriers will have to be built. Of course, not that many.
  • Revolver
    Revolver 21 July 2020 18: 54 New
    -1
    If, God forbid, a big war begins between the major nuclear powers, it will not be decided in naval battles, and will end before the AUG approaches the enemy's coast within the range of aircraft. And in order to nightmare all sorts of conventional Iraqi and other snotty boys who think of themselves, AUG is the very thing. Well, if, by an unspoken agreement, the fight between the big uncles will be non-nuclear, the AUG will rule the seas as of old.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 21 July 2020 19: 08 New
      -1
      Approaching the shore during a nuclear war to be drowned? It is not for nothing that the United States removed nuclear weapons from them.
      Iraq and the AV had a 10-15% nightmare that they were that there were no hordes of F-16 and F-15, it didn't matter.
      You share a nuclear war with MRNU on the territory of the main countries and a nuclear war like throwing TNW at Poland or some AUG ... It doesn't matter to everyone, they sunk 48 AUG with conventional Granites or 4 nuclear and 20 conventional ones ..
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 21 July 2020 19: 12 New
        -1
        Edren loaf is either used in full, or not at all. A girl cannot be a little pregnant. bully
        1. 5-9
          5-9 21 July 2020 19: 15 New
          0
          Just NO!
          War scenarios both in the ATS and in NATO assumed tens and even thousands of nuclear strikes ... On Germany, Poland, Denmark, Czechoslovakia ... But even France and Britain are not very ... And as for the USA and the USSR it is generally an extreme case, because the Apocalypse and no one needs it ..
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 20: 25 New
          0
          Edren loaf is either used in full, or not at all. A girl cannot be a little pregnant. bully


          Everything is exactly the opposite.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 21 July 2020 18: 57 New
    +1
    The author writes - But let us remember that during the entire indicated period, the American fleet only once seriously encountered a group of Soviet ships. It was during the Yom Kippur War. And the Americans did not get involved, moving to the western Mediterranean.

    Incorrect interpretation - they did not contact because of fear of being drawn into a global conflict and not because of the loss of an aircraft carrier.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 22 July 2020 02: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Pavel57
      only once seriously collided with a grouping of Soviet ships. It was during the Yom Kippur War

      Well, the author lives in a world where the USSR and the USA participated in the Yom Kippur War.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 21 July 2020 19: 07 New
    -4
    Here human, who actually became the father of American naval aviation, and on a global scale it was a kind of Foundation stone, embedded in aircraft carriers.
    Delight is good, but a little more adequacy.
    Did you lay the cornerstone in the aircraft carrier, confuse it with the hut? repeat
    This man-stone was not called Peter? repeat
  • bar
    bar 21 July 2020 19: 14 New
    -3
    And today, the aircraft carrier program continues to devour the money that could actually be spent tomorrow on new weapons that could give the United States an advantage on the world stage.

    And this is the great benefit of aircraft carriers for our country. laughing
    Thank you, Roman. Excellent article, for a long time there were none.
  • Operator
    Operator 21 July 2020 19: 17 New
    -9
    And as, I remember, local fans of aircraft carriers went into hysterics at the VO at the mere mention of the stupidity of this class of floating craft bully
    1. mehan
      mehan 21 July 2020 20: 24 New
      -2
      Don't scare Kuzi fans away.
    2. Octopus
      Octopus 22 July 2020 02: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      local fans of aircraft carriers at the mere mention of the stupidity of this class of floating craft

      Local AB fans wrote that without AB it is impossible to ensure the stability of the marine component of the Russian nuclear triad, at least in the North.

      Now fans have moved to a more realistic position that the naval component is useless, so that AB is not needed, just as SSBNs are not needed. It is true, but whether to be happy or not - God knows.
  • Last centurion
    Last centurion 21 July 2020 19: 26 New
    0
    "sink an aircraft carrier". it is drawn to heat it - you just need to damage its runway. after which it becomes a barge loaded with aircraft
  • bar
    bar 21 July 2020 19: 28 New
    -1
    But towards the end of the war, the United States began to gradually reorient its aircraft carriers towards strikes along the coast. This was primarily due to the fact that the Japanese fleet actually ended

    Exactly. And since then, no other fleets that could be real opponents of the American aircraft carriers have not appeared. So now this whole armada of AUG is suitable only for "sending signals" to all sorts of objectionable regimes from small North Korea to Iran and greater China. Well, for one thing, it pumps out a fair share of the striped military budget for this, which cannot but rejoice.
  • Kolka Semenov
    Kolka Semenov 21 July 2020 19: 31 New
    -5
    And against this background, there will certainly be some Timokhin who will insist on the need for aircraft carriers. Otherwise, then the American GZUR will not have a worthy goal, how can that be ?! ...
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 19: 57 New
      +2
      Quote: Semenov Kolka
      imokhin, who will insist on the need for aircraft carriers. Otherwise, then the American GZUR will not have a worthy goal, how can that be ?! ...


      Something like that. We have the right to know the aircraft carrier not earlier than the moment when the rest of the arms of the fleet (Well, there coastal aviation, mine-sweeping forces, anti-submarine ships of the OVR, etc.) will be all eeee well, even cool. And what is going on with us? !!
      1. Kolka Semenov
        Kolka Semenov 21 July 2020 19: 59 New
        +1
        IMHO, we will not have a normal fleet and most likely never again - there is too much of a known substance in the heads of admirals, too depraved trades and a big problem in the concept. And against the background of the total superiority of the United States and NATO at sea, trying to invest in this business is a waste of money.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 21 July 2020 20: 13 New
          -1
          We can and should have a normal fleet. There is no need to chase the gigantism of the United States. They have their own tasks, we have our own. It makes no sense for us to build warships with a displacement of more than 6 ~ 7000 tons. FREMM-class frigates (of course, our counterparts) of various modifications are the maximum that is needed.
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 22 July 2020 03: 06 New
            +2
            Quote: Grazdanin
            FREMM-class frigates (of course, our counterparts) of various modifications are the maximum that is needed.

            And then it suddenly turns out that there is nothing in Russia for the construction of a FREMM-class frigate - no engines, no weapons, no electronics.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 22 July 2020 10: 50 New
              -1
              Quote: Octopus
              no engines, no weapons, no electronics.


              Let's have a weapon. Electronics and motors sadness. With the current economy and politics in the country, they will not appear. But there is still enough. True, the exchange for people will be 1 to 5. But nothing, "new ones will be born", according to our leadership.
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 22 July 2020 11: 03 New
                -1
                Quote: Grazdanin
                Let's have a weapon.

                Really?
                Compose this
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formidable-class_frigate
                From Russian systems. Keep in mind that the bourgeoisie have the option to swap harpoons for NSM / JSM 1: 1.
            2. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 12: 47 New
              0
              You are weary of heresy. I'm not a fan of what's going on now, but you need to have at least a drop of objectivity in your reasoning.
              Fremm came out worse armed than project 22350. And Gorshkov at the Kolomenskaya power plant completely made a round-the-world trip, as I recall ...
              Of course, there are enough problems with frigates of project 22350, but nevertheless they are already a reality. Already two ships ...
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 22 July 2020 13: 36 New
                +1
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                Fremm came out worse armed than project 22350

                This is in the world where 9M96E2-1 exists and flies 150 km. And so there the air defense of the middle-close zone and a lot of not the newest strike missiles, the same with the French (32 caliber / onyx versus 16 SCALP and 16 harpoons)
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                Can I find out the source of your sacred knowledge that there is no GOS?

                The usual troll throw. Prove absence anything is impossible. But to prove the presence - perhaps by shooting at a moving target, but no one has done this and is not going to.
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                Oh how! They just decided so, but let's sink ?! Or there was something to be done with the merry-flaming skeleton.

                Yes, the Independence-class light ABs, the size of a current destroyer, not to say a frigate, had problems with survivability.

                And what is your problem? Are you trying to prove that AB can drown?
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 13: 59 New
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  And what is your problem?


                  Your problems don't matter to me.

                  Quote: Octopus
                  Yes, the Independence-class light ABs, the size of a current destroyer, not to say a frigate, had problems with survivability.


                  This is how you put it gracefully, a troll sketch on your part. The point is that the author of this opus forgot or did not know that after 1942, USN lost another 7 aircraft carriers in the fighting. And since the author did not specify their types, it is clear what I think about the author.

                  This is in the world where 9M96E2-1 exists and flies 150 km.

                  Not now. Tomorrow, yes. By the way, does it make sense to have a 150 kilometer rocket? Why have a missile defense system for 120 km is quite understandable .... To have a missile defense system for 250-300 km is also understandable.
                  There is no fundamental difference. Yes, by the way, I don't remember Aster flying 150 km.

                  onyx against 16 SCALP and 16 harpoons)

                  Is Onyx the same as Harpoon?
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 22 July 2020 15: 23 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Is Onyx the same as Harpoon?

                    Of course not. Onyx is a brainless piece of iron from the 70s, in addition, it is thoroughly known to a potential enemy from joint exercises with India. The harpoon is an up-to-date rocket, which is constantly being modernized in terms of electronics.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Not now. Tomorrow, yes.

                    Come tomorrow.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    By the way, does it make sense to have a 150 kilometer rocket?

                    None, if there is no connection with AWACS. The Russian fleet has not even begun to solve the problem of network centricity, and it is unlikely to ever start.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Yes, by the way, I don't remember Aster flying 150 km.

                    At 120.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    after 1942, USN lost 7 more aircraft carriers in combat

                    The Yankees in WWII were losing AB? This is an incredible discovery.
                    1. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 17: 16 New
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Onyx is a brainless piece of iron from the 70s, in addition, it is thoroughly known to a potential enemy from joint exercises with India.

                      If you please bear nonsense. Firstly, you do not know the subject, it is already clear. Secondly, export Onyx and ours are not very much the same.
                      By the way, your gasp on the topic of Spear looks silly.

                      Quote: Octopus
                      None, if there is no connection with AWACS.

                      If there is a connection, then all the same, no more in real life, only the F-35 can give commands for radio correction on the SAM in terms of the SM-6 SAM.

                      Quote: Octopus
                      At 120.

                      Why then your muddy outpourings about the fact that the 9M96 rocket does not fly 150 km?

                      Quote: Octopus
                      The Yankees in WWII were losing AB? This is an incredible discovery.

                      So I educate you together with the author in the elementary. Or are you the author? Only a conspirator?
                    2. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 17: 35 New
                      0
                      Okay, on this minor note, it's worth ending our conversation completely ..
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 21 July 2020 19: 53 New
    +1
    A novel, informative, but not new ... Thank you for your efforts!
    Therefore, the American believes, further investments in the construction of strike aircraft carriers and supercarriers may become not only erroneous, but even fatal for the US Navy.

    An unexpected sinking of an aircraft carrier taking part in some kind of conflict will be fatal ...
  • Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 21 July 2020 19: 54 New
    +2
    Nobody, except aviation, will be able to cover one friend from another bloodlessly. A squadron of fighters will better cover their own than an air defense division, directing the left to all actions of a competitor and physically breaking off approaches to strike. If you want friendship, learn to cover your friends.
  • chenia
    chenia 21 July 2020 19: 56 New
    -2
    Aircraft carrier in regional conflicts. a very necessary thing. Russia would not hurt to have three pieces .. The question is different ---we will not stand for the price?

    In a global conflict, this is too much a desirable target to take risks. They will definitely have a vigorous loaf on it.
    Detect?
    Yes, during the threatened period, even a fishing schooner can follow the AUG (a joke of course), and unambiguously reveal the location. And the exit areas are easy to determine in advance, the range of their aviation is limited. This coastal defense aviation can go far into the waters, in the future (if necessary) land at another coastal airfield.

    And they won't save the aircraft carrier. a fool of 100 kilos will arrive first. will scatter and blind the order. And then the finishing game.

    Somehow like this.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 21 July 2020 20: 02 New
    0
    And on VO there were articles that even our Kuznetsov would block thousands of kilometers from submarines and all logistic trifles ... and provide access to the ocean for our submarines and other ships ...

    And yet there is nothing to compare its power with. You can only lick your lips like a fox on grapes ...
  • Courier
    Courier 21 July 2020 20: 11 New
    +6
    There is a discussion in the USA, this is normal. If you remember, there is no American weapon that the Americans themselves would not want to get rid of.

    They don't like big ships, and very small ones, they don't like the strategic nuclear submarines "Ohio" and Tomahawks, they don't like the B-2, Bradley and Osprey tiltrotors.

    Americans generally don't like their weapons. That is why they have the best. Americans do not pray for their rifles and tanks, their missiles and nuclear weapons. And this helps them develop new things and lead the entire weapon Evolution of the planet.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 21 July 2020 20: 18 New
      +3
      Quote: Courier
      There is a discussion in the USA, this is normal.

      That's it! Criticism and discussion are needed, you cannot find fault with someone else's and praise your own in a patriotic frenzy. Moreover, almost all the information is open, every F35 error is known. We learn about the problems of our weapons from foreign media.
      And what kind of aircraft carrier to build is a very controversial issue.
    2. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 21 July 2020 20: 24 New
      +2
      Strange.
      If they never like it. Why are they adopting it? ... recourse
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 22 July 2020 03: 08 New
        0
        Quote: Benzorez
        Why are they adopting it?

        Then they didn't like the previous one even more.
        1. Petrol cutter
          Petrol cutter 22 July 2020 21: 11 New
          0
          This is a kind of vicious circle. Which leads nowhere ...
  • businessv
    businessv 21 July 2020 20: 15 New
    -1
    Therefore, the American believes, further investments in the construction of strike aircraft carriers and supercarriers may become not only erroneous, but even fatal for the US Navy.
    Roman, thank you very much for the interesting article that reveals the overseas opinion! Everything is absolutely logical and correct. hi
  • dr.Dreama
    dr.Dreama 21 July 2020 20: 18 New
    0
    For an aircraft carrier, there is no enemy worse than a welder.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 21 July 2020 20: 21 New
    -2
    To be honest, I never understood the need for aircraft carriers for the Russian Federation. All the more so with the development of weapons.
    This is, in short. Although, of course, I am not a naval commander and I can easily understand nothing about the matter.
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 21 July 2020 20: 38 New
    +7
    A Few Notes: Aircraft Carriers DO NOT GO ALONE. A flock of cruisers, frigates and submarines are running around them. AUG is called, the author MUST know about it. The author talks about the anti-ship missile, forgetting that NOT ONE anti-ship missile hit the ship in which the electronic warfare means were cut in. None. Neither the Exocettes, nor the Harpoons, nor the emnip were hit either, although I'm not sure if the OTTOMAT was used in combat. I'm not even talking about the fact that the anti-ship missiles can be knocked down corny. Fortunately, both the aircraft carrier and the escort ships have: SAM, and FOR. How many missiles does it take to disable an aircraft carrier? Depends on which missiles and where they hit. An exocet that flew into the side of an aircraft carrier is like buckshot to an elephant. Even if such an exoset or harpoon swoops down on the deck and makes a hole, it will be restored in a couple of hours. This is exactly what the emergency teams are trained to do - fighting fires and restoring the flight deck. And it's not a fact that your anti-ship missile or even 30 anti-ship missiles will break through the barrier of escort ships that have both electronic warfare and air defense systems.

    Yes, with the money spent on an aircraft carrier, you can stick to the entire coast of the anti-ship missile system. The problem is once - the aircraft carrier is mobile - if you want to cover your coast with it, if you want - bring freedom, democracy and gay rights to any country, the aircraft carrier is projects the power of your country, this is an ACTIVE component of the fleet, and you will not take the anti-ship missile launcher far, that is, passive ... You will not drive the anti-ship missile launcher to an enemy country that is 5000 km away from you and do not present an ultimatum to it. Besides, the aircraft carrier is MOBILE and it is more difficult to cover it, it is ALWAYS on the move. And again, the means of electronic warfare against your anti-ship missiles has not been canceled. Once again, how many anti-ship missiles hit the target if the target included electronic warfare means? ZERO. In general, sometimes it seems to me that due to the development of electronic warfare means, the world will return to artillery ships - they do not work on a blunt blank with explosives.

    The author correctly says that the Navy orders one at price A, and gets another at price B, but this is not caused by the problems of the aircraft carrier as a weapon, but caused by the problems of the military-industrial complex, which has a huge number of lobbyists. In the 90s, a small scam was revealed that the US Air Force paid $ 30 for a screw. They are of the "stress-resistant" type, but stress-resistant, only screws with the same performance characteristics can be purchased from Ace Hardware for 80 cents. All this can be completed by running into the military-industrial complex, but no one will do this, since almost everyone is tied to the military-industrial complex (the great Hayk spoke about the inadmissibility of which)

    Please note that in the USA, all EXPERTS write articles FOR CASH. And it is important not only WHO wrote the article, but, at the same time, who ORDERED it. While studying at the university, I took a course in biology, and we had to write a report on the greenhouse effect, the teacher did not care for or against, it was important HOW you wrote, and give at least 6 links to authoritative articles. Wrote, debriefing. Professor Cummings and says "They wrote everything well, everyone has excellent links, but you did not notice one small fact - no professor will work for free, and no professor wants to lose his job. And if Professor Exxon Oil ordered a work that says that the greenhouse there is no effect, then he will look for EXACTLY what Exxon Oil wants, the professor wants to be invited to write something again and DOES NOT want Exxon Oil to "unobtrusively" ask the university to dismiss him by donating a little money to the university. It is important not only WHO wrote the article, but WHO PASSED the article.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 21 July 2020 21: 01 New
      0
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      A Few Notes: Aircraft Carriers DO NOT GO ALONE. A flock of cruisers, frigates and submarines are running around them.

      And even destroyers. There is still the question of an escort for an aircraft carrier or an aircraft carrier for a strike group. The fact that the AUG needs to be considered as a combat unit, and not its constituent parts, is absolutely true.
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      In general, sometimes it seems to me that due to the development of electronic warfare means, the world will return to artillery ships

      The importance of electronic warfare is exaggerated. Works against weak and outdated systems. To overcome the electronic warfare in the AUG there is an EA-18 "Growler", Aegis destroyers, specialized missiles, etc. We cannot consider them separately. In battle, they use a combination of means.
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      the teacher did not care for or against, it was important HOW you wrote, and bring at least 6 links to authoritative articles.

      There are tasks when on one topic you need to write 2 reports proving opposite opinions, with links, explanations. It is practiced by the humanities.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 12: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Grazdanin
        The importance of electronic warfare is exaggerated. Works against weak and outdated systems.


        Right. In the fleet, during the headquarters calculations, the EW co-ordinate was accepted. Coefficient of reducing the probability of hitting anti-ship missiles (And other means of destruction) when the enemy is conducting electronic warfare. Coefficient changes from 0.1 to 0.9 as I recall
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 22 July 2020 13: 01 New
          +1
          As a radio engineer by education, I am directly annoyed by fairy tales about "electronic warfare", from technical and organizational means and measures of struggle, it has turned into a magic wand from everything. Electronic warfare only reduce or increase the chances of defeat or detection, no more. Works mainly against old, well-known remedies. The physics of work is known to everyone.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 13: 05 New
            0
            Quote: Grazdanin
            Electronic warfare only reduces or increases the chances of being hit or detected, nothing more. Works mainly against old, well-known remedies. The physics of work is known to everyone.


            Everything is correct. In general and in general it is ... Although there are some incomprehensible cases. But that is. We may not know everything.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 22 July 2020 13: 14 New
              -1
              Sometimes the most difficult and incomprehensible cases are explained by human laziness and stupidity.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 21: 16 New
      +1
      Once again, how many anti-ship missiles hit the target if the target included electronic warfare means?


      Tell me to begin with, how many massive anti-ship missiles salvos were at the ships? Commercials from 4 anti-ship missiles or more?
    3. Octopus
      Octopus 22 July 2020 03: 17 New
      0
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      The inadmissibility of which the great Hayk said

      )))
      Great Hayk.

      Korea showed what he turned the American army into with these ideas at the post of NGSH. Then, after 8 years of his presidency, Vietnam.

      Yes, the American military-industrial complex loves money a little more than its country. But that was before Ike, during Ike and after Ike, it is difficult to advise something. Perhaps hiring more competent and honest people at the Pentagon, but this option, of course, was not suitable for Ike, and for other presidents, too, with rare exceptions.

      Quote: Baron Pardus
      no professor will work for free, and no professor wants to lose his job

      )))
      Interesting logic. Especially when you consider that 95% of the works just confirm the greenhouse effect, and, in some cases, with a fair amount of inflection.

      Surprisingly, university leftists sometimes tell the truth))))
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 10: 00 New
        0
        Quote: Octopus
        that 95% of works just confirm the greenhouse effect, and, in some cases, with a fair amount of inflection.


        If you are given a grant to confirm the effect, you will undoubtedly confirm it with quite scientific calculations ...
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 22 July 2020 10: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          If you have been given a grant to confirm the effect

          Yes. That is, professor uv. Grazdanin is a cheap prostitute.

          It's sad, but true, alas.
  • mehan
    mehan 21 July 2020 20: 42 New
    +2
    Rumors about the death of aircraft carriers are slightly exaggerated.
    There were battleships, there were rhombus and five-turret tanks.
    They are not in their previous form, but.
    There are unmanned boats (in the future with AI, and with weapons - already), there are small robotic wedges. The crowd of hefty winged monsters is replaced by a flock of small, arrogant, plastic mosquitoes. With that ... sting.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 21 July 2020 23: 25 New
      0
      The debate about aircraft carriers in America began when it was noticed that China
      develops an MRBM project for hunting aircraft carriers.
      BR, as you know, cannot be aimed at a moving target. But the Chinese
      suggest, such as a "volley in a fan" along the proposed route of the aircraft carrier,
      followed by satellites. The satellites give an adjustment, and, although,
      an aircraft carrier at 30 nodes makes maneuvers, then you can manage to hit a missile with a nuclear warhead,
      firing multiple rockets in a row.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 23: 57 New
        -1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        BR, as you know, cannot be aimed at a moving target.


        As known. Can.

        P-27K
        The original CM decree of April 24, 1962 on the creation of the D-5 complex also provided for the creation of a missile with a homing warhead capable of hitting moving ships. The anti-ship version of the missile was designated R-27K (index GRAU 4K18). In the west, the missile received the SS-NX-13 index. The rocket was equipped with a second stage with a liquid propellant rocket engine developed by KB-2 (chief designer A.M. Isaev). To maintain the dimensions of the rocket, the dimensions of the first stage were reduced, which ultimately led to a decrease in the maximum firing range to 900 km. The warhead is monoblock, nuclear, with a capacity of 0,65 Mt. Guidance in the passive section was carried out using a passive radar seeker, with signal processing by an onboard digital computer system. The initial data for firing were issued by the Legenda satellite system or the Success-U aviation system. Data processing on the Kasatka ship reconnaissance equipment made it possible to determine the coordinates of a group of ships with an accuracy of up to 25 km. This data is constantly becoming outdated - during the prelaunch preparation, the target's location can change up to 150 km. Therefore, for the second stage, control was provided by means of double switching on of the propulsion system of the second stage in the extra-atmospheric flight segment.
        Tests of the missile system began in December 1970.
        The cycle of ground tests at the Kapustin Yar test site included 20 launches (of which 16 were recognized as successful). The submarine - "K-605" of project 102, with 629 missile silos on board, was converted into a missile carrier under Project 4. The first launch from a submarine was carried out in December 1972. And in November 1973, the tests ended with a two-missile salvo. A total of 11 launches were performed, of which 10 were recognized as successful. During the last launch, the target ship was hit by a direct hit from the target unit.

        The dagger by the way ARGSN has.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 22 July 2020 03: 30 New
          +1
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          During the last launch, the target ship was hit by a direct hit from the target unit.

          )))
          Which is strange to say the least, considering the customer's requirements for this system.

          The wiki lists a book as a source of information that is not available in electronic form.
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          The dagger by the way ARGSN has.

          All the more you know nothing about this.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 09: 38 New
            +2
            Quote: Octopus
            All the more you know nothing about this.


            So in short, my statement is based on two postulates, let's say
            - the appearance of the Dagger, with a different color of the tip of the head part. ARGSN is shorter there.
            But this is not at all the main thing, in 2008-9 the media wrote about Iskander's ARGSN indicating the marking. So check and checkmate.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 22 July 2020 10: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              was written in the media about Iskander's ARGSN indicating the marking. So check and checkmate.

              )))
              Well, if it was written in the media, then yes, of course. The media will not lie.
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 12: 57 New
                0
                Can I find out the source of your sacred knowledge that there is no GOS?
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 22 July 2020 10: 26 New
            +1
            "))
            Which is strange to say the least, "////
            ----
            What's so strange? The target ship was stationary.
            One missile out of several - hit.
            All these tests of the 70s are complete bullshit.
            The developers fooled the "party and government" for
            great Lenin prizes.
            On a stationary ground target, they miss 200 m,
            and here on the moving one - a direct hit. laughing
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 22 July 2020 10: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              What's so strange?

              This missile carried nuclear warheads, since it was considered impossible to provide a direct hit. So it's hard to believe, even in an accident.

              By the way, Liana, for whom this wealth was made, did not really work.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 22 July 2020 11: 30 New
                +1
                In those years, no telemetry could be installed on rockets.
                For example, a Soviet lunar rocket exploded four times,
                and still do not know why - not a single launch. There was no fitback
                from the rocket, from the engines.
                There weren't really any satellite constellations.
                Therefore, all these projects stalled until the last two decades.
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 12: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  In those years, no telemetry could be installed on rockets. For example, a Soviet lunar rocket exploded four times,
                  and still do not know why - not a single launch. There was no fitback
                  from the rocket, from the engines.
                  There weren't really any satellite constellations.
                  Therefore, all these projects stalled until the last two decades.


                  You lied as usual, you have such a tradition. It is not clear only due to illiteracy or something personal ...

                  In reality, of course, everything was different. The history of telemetry in rocket technology dates back to the study of the German V-2 ballistic missile, parts of which first fell into the hands of Soviet engineers in 1944. An operational analysis of what he saw immediately made it clear that the German rocketry went noticeably ahead in comparison with the domestic one. Everything that caught my eye was of great interest, including the organization of the control system, the propulsion system, the fuel components used, as well as the telemetry system - "Messina". Due to the fact that there was no equipment on board Soviet missiles that performed such functions, it was decided to thoroughly study the principle of its operation, the incoming nodes, as well as equipment for receiving and processing the captured information on Earth. To perform the above tasks, research groups began to be sent to the territory of the former enemy, one of whose members were our future chief designers - S. AP Korolev, B. Е. Chertok, N. A. Pilyugin [1]. The information received became fundamental for the formation of a new direction of systems accompanying the development and support of missile launches. The further development of rocketry when dividing the product into separate units and assemblies became impossible without the installation of telemetry equipment on board. Thus, the analysis of the German V-2 missile of the telemetry system (TS) "Messina" (1944) should be taken as a starting point in the formation of domestic telemetry. This system had the following parameters: - included four measuring channels; - had frequency division of channels; - had a sampling frequency of one channel - 2 kHz; - was recorded by ground-based equipment on a photographic tape. Of course, after mastering a foreign vehicle, they immediately began to create a domestic one. The first system was named "Brasilionite", the main developer of which was G. AND. Degtyarenko. The new TS was similar to the one studied, but instead of four, it had eight measuring channels. Naturally, such a small number of channels was sorely lacking to ensure the flight of the rocket with measurements, in connection with which, along the way, the development of new vehicles was carried out. At this time, switches were not yet used, realizing the functions of connecting several parameters (sensors) to one channel, which we quickly came to realize, because there is no need to measure “slow” parameters (temperature, pressure) with such a frequency. The developed switches made it possible to implement a cyclic connection of up to 20 parameters per one measuring channel. Hence, the second stage in the development of domestic telemetry was the creation of the first TS "Brasilionit" - 1947. The year 1949 was remembered for the appearance of the Don-1 TS, the chief designer of which was E. Ya Boguslavsky [1]. The first ballistic missile produced in the USSR appeared and was named "R-1". This rocket, like the first domestic vehicle, was a semblance of a German analogue studied earlier. The development of new rocket technology proceeded rapidly, and the repetition of German technology was no longer necessary. The parameters of the created TS "Don-1" far exceeded the previous systems: - information content - 1000 measurements / s; - 16 measuring channels; - time division of channels; - the presence of an electronic switch; - channel sampling frequency - from 62,5 Hz. In addition, channel calibration has appeared - the maximum and minimum of the measuring scale. The vehicle was powered by a battery with a voltage of 27 V; the battery was also responsible for powering the sensors, but with a voltage level of 6 V. The receiving station was equipped with a screen, where 16 measuring channels were displayed in the form of diagram elements varying in amplitude), changing in level. Time passed, new missiles were developed, the requirements for telemetry increased, the volume of measurements increased, the onboard and ground means were improved. Gradually, they switched from 16 channels to 32 channels, the calibration was not carried out in the scale of each measuring channel: two independent channels were assigned for it, the power supply of the vehicle became autonomous. Due to the fact that the Don-1 TS did not have the ability to measure vibrations due to the low frequency of channel polling, the solution to this issue remained open. To solve the problem, the "MARS" system was created - an autonomous magnetic recording system that recorded vibrations on a magnetic tape right on board. The channel sampling frequency was 2 kHz, there were only six channels, which turned out to be extremely small. It was replaced by the Sprut registration system, which already had eight channels with a sampling rate of up to 16 kHz.

                  Please do not forget to correctly quote:
                  Polenov, D. Yu. Evolution of telemetry in rocket technology / D. Yu. Polenov. - Text: direct // Young scientist. - 2014. - No. 6 (65). - S. 216-218. - URL: https://moluch.ru/archive/65/10588/ (date of access: 22.07.2020).

                  For example, a Soviet lunar rocket exploded four times,
                  and still do not know why - not a single launch.


                  Of course they knew about the reasons for the failures of all launches. Are you tired of lying?
  • Taoist
    Taoist 21 July 2020 20: 54 New
    0
    The development of unmanned technologies in general will quite obviously change the face of attack aircraft carriers. Relatively speaking, any ship can be recorded in aircraft carriers. Well, the classic AUG will certainly be a thing of the past. Just as LOCs left, they simply won't have worthy targets and the cost of his potential loss will override the possible damage that he can inflict.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 21 July 2020 21: 08 New
      0
      UDC type America is an ideal carrier of unmanned ships and UAVs. These UDCs do not even need to be modernized especially.
      1. arkadiyssk
        arkadiyssk 21 July 2020 22: 40 New
        0
        America will not be able to carry unmanned ships - it and the LHA-7 do not have a dock camera. The area is given over to the F-35 repair zones, so that the Marines can service their sides without having to carry units to a nearby aircraft carrier.
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 21 July 2020 22: 42 New
          0
          Thanks for the info, didn't think about it.
          1. arkadiyssk
            arkadiyssk 21 July 2020 22: 46 New
            +1
            But the subsequent ships of the America series, starting with LHA-8, will be just for your ideas - they will be with docks.
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 21 July 2020 22: 54 New
              0
              Yeah, I forgot that the current America is without a dock. I think they will gradually build specialized UDCs for unmanned vehicles. It's a very good idea, to reduce human losses to zero, to reduce the cost of equipment. Considering the number of unmanned programs in the United States and in the world. The ILC, according to the adopted strategy, will abandon heavy equipment, shifting its priority to guided and unmanned weapons.
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 23: 59 New
                0
                Quote: Grazdanin
                The ILC, according to the adopted strategy, will abandon heavy equipment, shifting its priority to guided and unmanned weapons.


                And in fact, the ILC is transformed into a distant semblance of BRAV, with among other things similar tasks ...
                1. Grazdanin
                  Grazdanin 22 July 2020 00: 06 New
                  0
                  Nuu remotely yes. They still remain expeditionary forces, our defensive forces.
                  Returning to the roots, the task of the Marine Corps is to capture and defend the coastal zone. Abrams is definitely superfluous for this.
                  1. Cyril G ...
                    Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 00: 07 New
                    0
                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    Abrams is definitely superfluous for this.


                    questionable conclusion ...
                    1. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 22 July 2020 00: 10 New
                      0
                      If the coast is 500-1000 km inland, then it is needed, if Ostrava is in the South China Sea, then it is not smile
                    2. Grazdanin
                      Grazdanin 22 July 2020 00: 19 New
                      +1
                      The US has taken China seriously. He became dangerous. On the contrary, Russia is becoming less dangerous every year. Our doctrine is purely defensive. The main opponents in the Middle East have been destroyed, Iran is not interesting, Africa, South America are nothing. China is gaining military power, for them they are the only real threat, as well as for us. Therefore, they are reformatting their troops for the Chinese theater of operations. In mainland China, it is not possible to wage war, on the sea and islands more than.
                      1. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 00: 23 New
                        0
                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        On the contrary, Russia is becoming less dangerous every year.


                        You are not right. We had the peak of the collapse of the army in 2000-20007 .. There was a complete OUT. Then and now, in principle, cannot be compared ...
                      2. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 22 July 2020 00: 31 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        In our country, the peak of the collapse of the army fell on 2000-20007.

                        I don’t argue with that. Now at least something is being done. But we have a defensive doctrine (on paper and in practice), no offensive means appear. And the backlog of the USSR is coming to an end.
                      3. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 00: 38 New
                        0
                        What's the problem? We are gradually drawing out defense issues. For example YARS last year there were more than 150 launchers (mobile and mine). The problems above the roof are understandable, there are obviously ridiculous solutions. But all the same, in the end, this is an increase in real combat capabilities ...
                      4. Grazdanin
                        Grazdanin 22 July 2020 00: 42 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Cyril G ...

                        What's the problem?

                        So I say that there are no problems for the United States. They are not us, we are not them. Here is the China problem. It is clear that now their military-industrial complex level is at the Soviet level at the time of the collapse, but the main thing is there is a trend.
                      5. Cyril G ...
                        Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 10: 03 New
                        0
                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        Here is the China problem.

                        What is his problem? All the efforts of the Chinese go to the fleet is quite obvious ..... Do you have doubts on whom to take bets?
  • andrew42
    andrew42 21 July 2020 20: 58 New
    +1
    The presence of a discussion in American minds about the advisability of such a number of AUG is a serious bell. The probable aggressor begins to sober up, and begins to better count even the "endlessly printed" bucks. Not very pleasant news, and very unpleasant for our local home-grown "aircraft carrier sect". Now it will be more difficult to hack to death that a "full-fledged Russian aircraft carrier" is needed yesterday - in advance of multipurpose boats, frigates, "leaders", and UDC .. I believe that Aviks will still retain their niche in the coming decades, but more in terms of modernization for UAVs as the main weapons, with a severe limitation of quantity in the classic wing. The aircraft carrier's specialization will be narrowed.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 21 July 2020 21: 26 New
    0
    Quote: Nikolaev
    that Russia will be the first victim.


    And that is why the Chinese-style high seas fleet is rapidly swelling, and the ground forces continue to shrink, all for the invasion of Siberia and the Far East. No other way. Moreover, no one even bothers to see how it is with the Chinese with the resettlement of the population. Not well, but cho! What for. After all, we were told on TV that tomorrow the invasion of the Chinese ...
  • Prisoner
    Prisoner 21 July 2020 21: 29 New
    +1
    That's why in recent years they tried to spin us on the construction of aircraft carriers. winked
  • Avior
    Avior 21 July 2020 21: 53 New
    +1
    There is a Chinese flag on VO, so the article will be read.
    We are waiting for the reaction - will they, after this article by Roman, cut their aircraft carrier program on needles, or will they continue to build further, as if nothing had happened?
  • Private SA
    Private SA 21 July 2020 22: 00 New
    0
    FOR TS: isn't the Princeton Bay sunk by Leite an aircraft carrier? Yes, not shock, light.
    But he drowned in 1944 after the Hornet.
  • Private SA
    Private SA 21 July 2020 22: 19 New
    +1
    I apologize, I repeated after Cyril.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 21 July 2020 22: 21 New
    +1
    Yes, it is quite possible that one day aircraft carriers will leave the scene ...
    Here we are "ahead of the rest of the world", caught modern
    trends, and we destroy our aircraft carrier in repair.
  • Pandiurin
    Pandiurin 21 July 2020 22: 25 New
    +2
    The USA was the number one economy with transcontinental logistics. Aircraft carriers and many bases were needed to dominate all sea routes. It was justified and there were opportunities.
    Now it’s beyond our means. China will still build parity in terms of Aug with the states.
    The US is starting to scratch its head and develop concepts to counter its beloved concept.
    This is facilitated by the general technical development contributing to the easier detection of aug.

    In short, China and the United States will have comparable aug, but in no case as a super wunderwaffe, but as a means for certain narrow tasks.
    Unless, of course, the economy will allow it.
  • arkadiyssk
    arkadiyssk 21 July 2020 22: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: 5-9
    And they 3 when was the last time in one place drove up to the shore? And this situation is generally a dream ... It's easier to bury them in one place ... but if in one order ...

    About two years ago, when Trump threatened the DPRK by persuading it to negotiate, in 2 months they deployed 7 out of 11 AUGs, of which on Tikhiy - 4. Yes, during the tension in Iran, they had three AUGs and 2 airborne Expeditionary Groups with Harrieers.
    The Americans are training to patrol the Atlantic near our borders in the same way at 2 AUG. Here's what - and they cannot be denied in practicing combat use.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 22 July 2020 13: 29 New
      +1
      You are a little mistaken, there were five at the same time. And the composition of the groups was "castrated" by two destroyers per aircraft carrier.
  • Pamir
    Pamir 21 July 2020 22: 37 New
    +2
    We do not take into account the vigorous ballistic batons, and ICBMs, this is the very best, hypothetically we will assume that the sides work in a vigorous version. The pessimistic future of aircraft carriers is seen by US admirals precisely because of the ever-increasing characteristics of Russian anti-ship missiles, the speed increases to hypersound, flight range up to 1000 km. No other anti-ship missiles in the world, for amers, do not have such a threat as Russian missiles. Take the same simply modernized from the X22, the X32 missile, the speed is 5max, the range is 900 km, the cruising altitude is 40 km, the Yankovsky Standard6 does not have enough time the reaction and guidance of IJIS is sorely lacking. Our problem is that there are few TU22M3 and TU95 bombers. The Tu22M3 takes on board 3 X32 with a slight overload, 2 with an underload. The Avaxes will detect the takeoff of the bombers, but the flight range of carrier-based fighters for interception by fuel is insufficient, bombers are capable of firing missiles into the non-zone of operation of the deck air defense. It was not for nothing that the USSR had the most powerful MRA, it was a very fast brass knuckles, capable of knocking out like at least 4-5 AUG, of course with possible losses of aircraft. Moreover, so that the AUG aviation could operate on our territory, it had to be driven no further than 500 km from the coast. At the same time, it was assumed that the MPA regiment with the geography of our country should be relocated It was possible to move from one fleet to another in 10-12 hours. You can't maneuver ships like that. It's not for nothing that the Navy had about 900 bombers TU16, TU22, TU95 in the MPA. Now the next in line is Zircon-9makhov for 500 km, Dagger-10makhov for 3000 km, they are for work on AUG. Onyx does not have enough range to work on AUG, most likely the Onyx carrier will be destroyed, AUG is too tough for him, for all others please. Will be suitable for AUG and Caliber-Club, but the salvo should be massed in 50 or more missiles. here with torpedoes we have not very good yet, Fizik2-speed, knots: 50, range, km: 50, depth up to 500m, we will not accept it for service, but it would be needed for boats, everything else on torpedoes is the day before yesterday. So work there is something, we need platform ships, aircraft, and of course for target designation A50-A100 and space reconnaissance and target designation, the position of the AUG must always be kept under target designation. Somehow, this is probably not an axiom, just an opinion.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 21 July 2020 22: 51 New
      +2
      How will all the missiles you listed receive target designations?
      Who will detect surface targets?
      Or do you think that anti-ship missiles will be released "in the target area", and
      will they find the goal there?
      Tu-16 and Tu-22m2 (3) themselves detected the target, and issued the Central Control Administration of the Kyrgyz Republic.
      Tu-22m3m Kh-32 missile with a range of 900 km can only be fired
      "into the white light", the aircraft's radar will not see the target from such a range.
      You are an optimist, my friend ...
      1. Pamir
        Pamir 21 July 2020 23: 55 New
        +2
        The means of the long-range control center are enough, even if the aircraft or the homing system do not have enough of it, the X32's GSN sees far enough away. And to shoot her off the attack, and if she is not alone, then her grandmother said it in two. So for her the control center may be questionable, the correct aiming of the aircraft may be more necessary. And yet, it is difficult to hide the AUG, the fonit is far enough. Even in the times of the USSR, the AUG were in the field of view, the same Legend. Now the ISRTS Liana. The same Caliber works for much smaller but distant targets, and hits, The X32 is probably not worse. Why then such ranges, if everything is all the same in the white light? AUG is not an unattainable target for anti-ship missiles. The Yankees would not have worried in vain, the wrong people. Another issue is the provision of airfield infrastructure and the number.
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 22 July 2020 07: 51 New
          0
          Judging by the set of words, you own the question of the Central Administration of the Kyrgyz Republic on small-sized mobile targets within the limits of "Google". It is clear, there are no more questions.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 22 July 2020 13: 26 New
        +2
        Take care of the beads.

        Better post a link as AB from you dumped in Tsugaru. Let the people honor, otherwise some will die in ignorance.
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 22 July 2020 13: 52 New
          -1
          Yes, this array of stories is closed, and I am too lazy to draw up separately.
    2. Octopus
      Octopus 22 July 2020 03: 43 New
      +2
      Quote: Pamir
      Take the same simply modernized from the X22, the X32 missile

      )))
      The X32 missile exists primarily in the imagination of Mr. K.V. Sivkov, academician of artillery sciences.
      Quote: Pamir
      cruising altitude 40 km, Yankovsky Standard6 lacks

      The idea of ​​hiding from missiles at a height is not a working one, the Americans checked it out in their time.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 21 July 2020 22: 38 New
    +2
    which could actually be spent tomorrow on new weapons capable of giving the United States an advantage on the world stage.

    The US Navy has long outweighed everything and everyone. no one comes close to them in the composition and strength of the fleet.
    The truth is, there is no real open battle for the US Navy today. and the fact that they continue to rivet 5 dozen of APLs, the second dozen of Augs speaks not of a threat to the state, but of a powerful lobby. and it is unlikely that this lobby will simply allow abandoning the current strategy. If the invented threat from the Russian Federation is not enough, then the fiction about the Chinese threat is on the way. in general scope for imagination.
    the current center of capitalism (like capitalism itself) cannot exist in harmony with the world. he needs an enemy so that there is always a reason and incentive to break someone, to fight with someone, to defeat someone ... in general, a dead-end branch of development, which, as everyday life shows, is coming to an end.
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 22 July 2020 00: 24 New
      0
      Quote: silver_roman
      The US Navy has long outweighed everything and everyone.

      The US Navy now has one of the main tasks of missile defense, to prevent the slightest probability of a nuclear strike on its territory from countries such as the DPRK, Iran, etc.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 22 July 2020 19: 24 New
        0
        on the continental US, neither Iran nor the DPRK will finish shooting. there are no such missiles. It's time to drive the poplar for export, with the coordinates already laid. I pressed the button on and the rocket flew to New York)
  • Vadmir
    Vadmir 21 July 2020 22: 41 New
    0
    For a big war, an aircraft carrier is not needed, this is true, but as long as there is a sufficient number of nuclear weapons - the probability of a big war is negligible - everyone wants to live.
    An aircraft carrier is a tool for waging local wars and power projection. These tasks are not becoming less urgent, rather the opposite. So that the aircraft carriers for a long time to surf the seas and oceans.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 22 July 2020 22: 07 New
      0
      Quote: Vadmir
      An aircraft carrier is a tool for waging local wars and power projection. These tasks are not becoming less urgent, rather the opposite. So that the aircraft carriers for a long time to surf the seas and oceans.


      Questionable decision. Maybe it's still easier to buy / squeeze out an air base near the problem area?
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 21 July 2020 22: 58 New
    +1
    Amers have fallovers in the face of China and Russia. And if the former are already realizing the uselessness of aircraft carriers, the latter are very active in their construction. And Russia is still in dreams and dreams: displacement, power plant, aviation group.
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 21 July 2020 23: 10 New
    +2
    Ha. Aircraft carriers. An eternal example of the fable of the fox and the grapes.
    He who can build builds. Who can not, he makes a sour face.

    The situation was exactly the same with the Helicopter carriers. "we need, we need - ugh, we don't need it, we already have ogogo paratroopers. - let's talk about a nuclear cruiser, nuclear aircraft carriers, high-speed helicopters ... oh! money was given - we need, we need, we need ..."
  • Klingon
    Klingon 22 July 2020 00: 09 New
    0
    What about the Caliber-Club K, have they already been sold to someone or is it still just a concept? the idea is good :) who knows?
    1. Grazdanin
      Grazdanin 22 July 2020 00: 21 New
      +1
      Who will buy them? No one wants a Preemptive Strike from the United States.
      1. Klingon
        Klingon 22 July 2020 00: 25 New
        0
        that is, you want to say that if India buys them, for example, then the striped ones will strike a preemptive strike on India? that I strongly doubt it. The brahmans also have a vigorous club ... the question was not really about this at all, but are they, these complexes in the gland
        1. Grazdanin
          Grazdanin 22 July 2020 00: 35 New
          0
          Why go with trump cards at once? Still, I meant simpler countries, self-respecting countries will not buy such trash as Club-K for civil courts.
          1. Klingon
            Klingon 22 July 2020 00: 54 New
            0
            Why should India buy them, I just gave an example. The Indians have their BRAMOS, which is essentially the same RCC as Onyx. and was developed jointly. And that no one has struck a preemptive blow on them yet, and they began to develop BRAMOS back in the days of Clinton wassat
            1. Grazdanin
              Grazdanin 22 July 2020 00: 59 New
              -1
              In short, it's time to sleep.
              Here is an interesting article about a slave UAV, we are waiting tomorrow or the day after tomorrow here on VO.
              https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34982/highly-modified-air-launched-loyal-wingman-drone-tested-with-air-force-f-15-eagle
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 22 July 2020 00: 30 New
    0
    The United States will need aircraft carriers for a long time. By their mere presence and appearance in the area, it is convenient to cool everyone's hot heads. As in BB2, they are especially useful in the Pacific Ocean. You can't impress anyone with a destroyer. RCC or KR (winged r.) May not get anywhere. Although for landmass, destroyer CDs are a new underrated tool. Let's hope in our lifetime we will not have to learn its effectiveness the hard way.
  • T-44
    T-44 22 July 2020 01: 59 New
    +1
    The US Jewish Navy is pumping loot.
  • Lara Croft
    Lara Croft 22 July 2020 03: 10 New
    0
    What replacement for an aircraft carrier on the high seas, the author did not specify ...
    In the "tanker war" the Americans lost the Stark missile frigate from the Exocet anti-ship missile launched from the Iranian Mirage, in the "war at the end of the world" the British lost the latest frigates from the same anti-ship missile ...
    What now to give up the escort forces of the Navy?
    In addition, the author "forgot" to write that if the US Navy had 11 aircraft carriers (at the peak of HV there were 15 of them), only 1/3 of them are constantly at sea (the rest are in the naval base, including the planned current and overhaul and modernization), 3-4 AUG for the entire world ocean is not so much .... for the Anglo-Saxons, the concept of such at least 1/3 of warships and submarines should be constantly at sea, tk. in the naval base / PB they are most vulnerable to enemy attacks ...

    Recently, on the "ship-laying day" in Kerch, the GDP said that at the moment there are 60 combat and auxiliary ships and ships of the Russian Navy at sea, apparently this is also 1 // 3 (1/4) of the ship's composition ...
    The author casts doubt on the need for the presence of aircraft carriers, thus he casts doubt on the need for both UDC, DKVD ...

    The Russian Federation thinks it is necessary to have light anti-submarine aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers for the withdrawal (meeting) of nuclear submarines / SSGNs / SSBNs from the bases of the KSF / KTOF for combat duty and actions in the PLO against the nuclear submarines / SSGN / SSBN "empiricalists" in the North Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean ... ...
  • SVD68
    SVD68 22 July 2020 05: 55 New
    +1
    What are the undoubted advantages of aircraft carriers?
    1. Can use long-range reconnaissance aircraft.
    2. Can use air defense aircraft of the ship's formation.
    3. Can use planes and helicopters in significant quantities.

    And what is the dubious advantage of an aircraft carrier? Using planes to attack.
    What is the doubt here? Serious targets or targets under serious cover cannot be attacked with a bomb or ATGM. You need a rocket here. And the question arises - why do we need an intermediary in the form of an airplane between the ship and the rocket? And the price of this intermediary is growing on a cosmic scale. And the price of the ship from which this intermediary can be used is also cosmic. So the thought arises, maybe abandon such an expensive scheme?
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 22 July 2020 15: 31 New
      +2
      And the question arises - why do we need an intermediary in the form of an airplane between the ship and the rocket?
      The rocket is a fool, and the plane is good. smile
      So the thought arises, maybe abandon such an expensive scheme?
      The one who pays is the one who dances the girl. Americans have their own advantages and their own problems. They have two oceans left and right, harbors out of reach of opponents and interests around the world. Russia does not have at the same time safe, non-freezing, with a digestible climate, with industry and with free access to the oceans of the harbors, but it also has no overseas interests. And little money. My (sofa) opinion: give Russian sailors the right to have their own airfields and their own full-fledged land aviation (coastal, base, sea - no matter what you call it) - and they will forget about aircraft carriers.