Military Review

Why is everyone fixated on destroying the AUG?

155

As you already understood, we will talk about an urgent and inalienable problem - the detection and destruction of aircraft carrier strike groups of a potential enemy.


For so many decades in a row, these AUGs have inflicted unacceptable losses on us, and we cannot do anything! Neither the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, nor the General Staff, nor the Main Directorate of the General Staff have any plans to destroy them, according to many analysts ...

Well, that was an ironic preface. The main mistakes of analysts are that they speculate with dry performance characteristics of equipment, that they do not understand the tasks facing the AUG. And they all boil down to what our Orekhovo-Zuevo MRK can do against dozens of enemy ships. And in fact, everything turns out beautifully for them. Well, really, it won't do anything. And you can't argue with that. But we analyze in more detail, people do not get tired of analyzing what submarines or surface fleet can do, or aviation... Well, really, for some reason, always separately. I can't wait for an article that our promising tank on the Armata platform is useless before the AUG.

But this is the lyrics. I am not against such articles, but you still need to understand and take into account many nuances in order to judge something. And now I will not speculate with numbers and clever phrases. But I will try to convey several important mistakes of analysts that should be taken into account when writing any article. Well, at least until it will be written concisely, without much deviation towards formulas and statutes.

First mistake. By default, all AUGs are always attacked only from under the water, or only from the sea, or only from the shore. And the valiant AUG accordingly takes all means and forces to repel attacks. Since there are 90+ aircraft on board the aircraft carrier, loaded at the same time with anti-ship missiles, air defense and PLUR. Since all enemy aircraft monitor air and water for thousands of kilometers around the clock and do not care about fuel. Since submarines and escort ships AUG can see tens of thousands of kilometers and accurately find and classify targets. Since the entire personnel of the AUG is able to stay awake for months. And much more.

You must understand that the AUG is, first of all, a strike group that came from afar (tens of thousands of kilometers) in order to complete any task. They did not come just to destroy our submarine or repel the anti-ship missile attack. They came for their intended purpose. They are versatile. Accordingly, their equipment is also universal. Needless to say, the same "Burks" are not air defense systems, but primarily strike platforms? And at least 1-2 destroyers in the order are initially charged for the strike function, that is, with Tomahawks. To hit the shore. More than half of the MK41 cells are occupied only by them, their air defense is minimal, only for self-defense, and even more, all the other AUG ships will cover them, and even more than the aircraft carrier. Because of them, in fact, they came here thousands of kilometers. There may be 1-2 more destroyers in the order, but they are more versatile. But the standard load implies both "Tomahawks", and PLUR, and air defense. No one knows in advance what they will have to face. So all assurances about thousands of air defense missiles on board the AUG are simply meaningless.

Let us analyze the AUG aviation, omit the electronic warfare, AWACS and tankers. Striking force - fighters. Ideal role for air defense. It would be, if it were not for the main striking force against ships. Yes, in fact, apart from this weapons, AUG has no other anti-ship missiles. All "Burks" have long been without anti-ship missiles, "Harpoons" remained only on a few "Ticonderogs", of which there were only a few in all navy and not in every AUG. Well, there are already 8 of them. 8 anti-ship missiles for the entire aircraft carrier group. Therefore, at least half of the aircraft is initially loaded by default anti-ship missiles. They simply have no other weapon against ships. Even on patrol, one of the aircraft will be armed with anti-ship missiles, to the detriment of V-V missiles. I repeat, no one knows what they will face, and the Americans, unlike our authors, understand this.

Second mistake. Any AUG by default controls everything around it for many miles around. By the way, AUG is located on average on an area of ​​100 sq. km. The area to be controlled is tens of thousands of square meters. kilometers. And it's funny to see that one AWACS plane confidently takes control of all this. Somewhere there he is sent to a threatened zone, and he sees everything there for thousands of kilometers around. On an aircraft carrier, as a rule, there are 3 AWACS aircraft, one in the air, one in 45-minute readiness, the third in reserve. And this plane will not be sent anywhere, it is located above the AUG itself. Because there are no threatened directions. By default, all directions are threatened. Somewhere there may be a mistake, somewhere a distraction, somewhere there may be freelance situations. Nobody will send this plane for a long distance. Simply because there will be no one to cover him. In real life, the strike group of aircraft on an aircraft carrier is 30 aircraft. Only 10 can be lifted into the air within an hour, taking into account that another tanker, electronic warfare and AWACS will take off. Then 10 will prepare for departure, and 10 more will be in reserve. Since there will never be 80-90 aircraft on an aircraft carrier. Especially in military operations. 90 is the full composition of the aircraft assigned to it. In fact, there are only 3 squadrons on the ship, reinforced by AWACS, electronic warfare and tankers. The rest are waiting at the airbase in the home port.

We return to the AWACS aircraft, which are sent to patrol hundreds of kilometers from the order. For escort fighters at such a distance, it's easy to fly there, stay there for 10 minutes and return home. If they want to fly home, of course. And we already understand that there are not so many of them at all, and not all of them will be fighters. Half will be in the RCC version. This is the default. Nobody knows what will be in the square where you need to send this AWACS. And no one will send him there. It will be suicide and the loss of aircraft. And even if the threatened directions are determined, part of the forces and means will be engaged in the protection and defense of those directions where there is nothing. Since a mistake is possible, since a military cunning of the enemy is possible, since a real strike from several directions can be possible.

Third mistake. Neglect of real performance characteristics of forces and weapons. Many authors love the analysis based on whose rocket flies farther, whose plane / ship it detects first. I will not go into details and compare which missiles and radars are better. I'll just say one thing. In real life, and even more so in combat, no one ever shoots at the maximum range. Because this is a zero result. Nobody gets anywhere. Or only if the pilot of the aircraft, upon detecting a missile launch at a great distance, puts on the autopilot and goes to the toilet with a cigarette. Then, of course, there is a chance. In short: at the maximum distance you can only hit a stationary target, or one that moves at the same speed roughly in the opposite direction. Since there are certain characteristics for hitting targets, depending on their speed and range, this is due to certain angles of capture of targets for the seeker, as a rule, they do not exceed several degrees, and even at 100 km, any slight deviation of the course will mean a loss of orientation of the missile guidance system ... It will fly, of course, but only to the place where it originally recorded it, and there it will self-destruct, since the target will not be there for a long time. I speak rudely, since I have to do with air defense, but I try to explain in my own words, so that everyone can understand. Yes, there are different guidance systems, different missiles, but the meaning is the same. They do not shoot at the maximum range. Especially in the fighting. So, comrade authors, cut your sturgeons in half at least, I mean the effective range. And that's the questions. But there is already about what is easier: to get into the ship from the plane from 100 km or from the ship to get on the plane at the same distance, and what will happen earlier.

Fourth. Finally, understand that there is no need to compare separately different aspects of the defense of the same AUG. Analytical authors may not know this, but Americans do. They will know that if planes have been spotted somewhere, it means that submarines are already nearby, and surface forces are on the way. And they will not fly stupidly to shoot down an incomprehensible plane hundreds of kilometers away, raising all forces and means there, leaving the warrant without protection. This simply means that they will go on the defensive and will wait for a clarification of the situation and conduct reconnaissance in the air, at sea and under water. Well, I'll point it out right there, since many will say that the Americans have been testing new anti-ship missiles for both air and sea basing a long time ago. Yes, and that's natural. With the air part they already have progress, but so far they are not in service and there is not even a tender for the naval component, approximately by the 30th year it will be, when they test, select a manufacturer, prepare the carriers and start rearmament ... For a decent time, AUG will also critically depend on aviation to the detriment of air defense. We also test "Zircons" and "Daggers". But they are not there? And basically all analysts focus on the fact that the Americans do not have this yet, they seem to have it, and what we seem to already have, but we still have little of this, has not yet been adopted for service. then the tests are still going on. Well, and most importantly, remember: they will not attack the AUG with any one RTO or a single MiG-31k with a Dagger. If necessary, it will be attacked simultaneously from under the water, from the water, from the air, and maybe even from the ground. Since we are peaceful people and it is unlikely that we will just go thousands of kilometers. Thank you all for your attention.
Author:
Photos used:
commons.wikimedia.org
155 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 14 October 2020 10: 05 New
    31
    Zero error: consider that AUG is the most dangerous target in the war between Russia and NATO. They have enough land bases and airfields around our borders.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 14 October 2020 10: 10 New
      +3
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Zero error: consider that the AUG is the most dangerous target in the war

      We can only meet with AUG at the Pacific theater. They will not stick into the rest of the potential theaters on our borders.
      1. dzvero
        dzvero 14 October 2020 10: 16 New
        24
        And also in the north in summer and in the Mediterranean Sea (Tartus-Khmeimim).
        On the subject - one of the few sane articles.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 14 October 2020 10: 27 New
          +3
          Quote: dzvero
          also in the north in summer

          There they will be guaranteed to be destroyed. Everything is shot through. The maximum in the Norwegian Sea area will rise, on the border of the Barents Sea.
          Quote: dzvero
          Mediterranean Sea (Tartus-Khmeimim).

          There we have no chances and no boundaries. This is the internal sea of ​​NATO, the AUG will not enter the Black Sea.
          1. K298rtm
            K298rtm 14 October 2020 12: 07 New
            10
            AUG does not need to go to North Cape. He calmly enters the West Fjord and aviation works through Scandinavia, returning to coastal airfields (in northern Norway, by the way, he personally drove along the road, part of which was a runway).
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 October 2020 13: 44 New
              +5
              Quote: K298rtm
              AUG does not need to go to North Cape. He calmly enters the West Fjord and aviation works through Scandinavia, returning to coastal airfields

              EMNIP, work from the fjords was first tested in the exercises "Ocean Safari-85".
      2. parma
        parma 14 October 2020 10: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Quote: Sancho_SP
        Zero error: consider that the AUG is the most dangerous target in the war

        We can only meet with AUG at the Pacific theater. They will not stick into the rest of the potential theaters on our borders.

        They will stick where they are ordered ... and they will order to stick where they need to and where there is an opportunity ... and the Complex strike (from the sea and from under the water, from the ground and air) will be inflicted not only by the opponents of the AUG, but also its owners ..
        The article is strange, why does the author propose to halve the means of protection in terms of range, but there is no attack? So the greater range of missiles AND radars is always an advantage ... And besides how to shoot down / drown / bomb a carrier, there are other methods of protection .. It is clear that the AUG has its own tasks and means for every taste, it is clear that the resources are not limitless ... but the aircraft carrier and its group allows you to project force (albeit in some proportion) far from their borders ... as an example - the Americans (again an example) have the opportunity (without involving Korea or Japan as a base) for strikes in the Far East (and it does not matter in the Russian Federation, China, North Korea or anyone else), but we have much less such opportunity off the coast of any of America (if at all) and it does not matter how long it is necessary today. the question of covering the landing (as well as its landing) is also more or less closed for the Americans, we do not have ... and if we can still fight off at our borders (we do not consider how and what), then we do not conduct hostilities remotely ...
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 14 October 2020 10: 36 New
          +4
          They will stick where they are ordered ...

          Yeah ... svidomye once drove on an Internet the idea of ​​fitting American aircraft carriers to the Crimean bridge ... he almost died laughing.
          It is clear that AUG can be used only in favorable conditions for it on the ocean expanses of our planet.
          There are few such places near the maritime borders of Russia and it is ridiculous to expect that AUG will be used against Russia near its borders.
          1. parma
            parma 14 October 2020 10: 45 New
            +4
            Quote: The same Lech
            They will stick where they are ordered ...

            Yeah ... svidomye once drove on an Internet the idea of ​​fitting American aircraft carriers to the Crimean bridge ... he almost died laughing.
            It is clear that AUG can be used only in favorable conditions for it on the ocean expanses of our planet.
            There are few such places near the maritime borders of Russia and it is ridiculous to expect that AUG will be used against Russia near its borders.

            You can laugh as much as you want ... but if you have forgotten, you also need to catch the nuclear-powered ships of the Northern Fleet somehow (there are no problems with the Baltic and the Black Sea), and I assume that AUG will also be used for this purpose .. as far as I remember, the main task of TAVRKs and there was at one time the provision of a breakthrough of nuclear submarines to big water ...
            1. Same lech
              Same lech 14 October 2020 10: 50 New
              +5
              It is also necessary to catch the nuclear-powered ships of the northern fleet somehow (there are no problems with the Baltic and the Black Sea), and I assume that AUG will be used for this purpose too ..

              Not serious ... vessels originally intended for operation in warm latitudes you want to use in the North ... they will have big problems with their operation in this case. hi
              1. parma
                parma 14 October 2020 10: 59 New
                +4
                Quote: The same Lech
                It is also necessary to catch the nuclear-powered ships of the northern fleet somehow (there are no problems with the Baltic and the Black Sea), and I assume that AUG will be used for this purpose too ..

                Not serious ... vessels originally intended for operation in warm latitudes you want to use in the North ... they will have big problems with their operation in this case. hi

                Seriously / frivolously not an excuse, I just gave an example (which, by the way, the USSR General Staff also considered and planned means of counteraction) ... besides, after the exchange of nuclear strikes, the world will not evaporate in the blink of an eye, but will only roll back in its development a couple of centuries ago , and in these conditions, such a thing as AUG will be a good help when ground forces (both tanks and aircraft) are destroyed ... In any case, aircraft carriers are only a means, and it is better to have it than not to have it ...
                1. Same lech
                  Same lech 14 October 2020 11: 15 New
                  +4
                  In the Northern latitudes, ice shells are formed on ships ... what kind of AUG are there ... and even more so flights from the deck of an aircraft carrier.
                  1. yehat2
                    yehat2 14 October 2020 12: 22 New
                    +3
                    Americans have special 2 aviks who regularly go to cold waters to learn to act there. Working out the technology of work. In my opinion, there were such exercises a year ago. Now they have already debugged some work in those latitudes, but the problem remains in low efficiency and cost. There was also controversy about the fact that EM catapults in these latitudes, in contrast to steam ones, work worse. So do not think that the ice will continue to hold them back.
                  2. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 14 October 2020 13: 46 New
                    +5
                    Quote: The same LYOKHA
                    In the Northern latitudes, ice shells are formed on ships ... what kind of AUG are there ... and even more so flights from the deck of an aircraft carrier.

                    Something like this:

                    January 21, 1987 Bering Sea. AB "Karl Vinson".
              2. Doctor
                Doctor 14 October 2020 13: 13 New
                +3
                Not serious ... vessels originally intended for operation in warm latitudes you want to use in the North ... they will have big problems with their operation in this case.

                Yes. They counted in due time, I read I do not remember where.
                The efficiency of AB with a catapult in the North is 30-35% of the usual.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 14 October 2020 13: 49 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Arzt
                  Yes. They counted in due time, I read I do not remember where.
                  The efficiency of AB with a catapult in the North is 30-35% of the usual.

                  It seems to me that this was considered for Ustinov and Amelko - to justify the closure of work on catapults in the USSR. But the same "Kuznetsov" according to the project had a catapult on the corner deck.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 14 October 2020 13: 51 New
                    -3
                    It seems to me that this was considered for Ustinov and Amelko - to justify the closure of work on catapults in the USSR. But the same "Kuznetsov" according to the project had a catapult on the corner deck.

                    Yes, it is clear that a catapult is needed. Our AV should not walk in the North, but somewhere not far from Honolulu. laughing
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 14 October 2020 14: 01 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Arzt
                      Yes, it is clear that a catapult is needed. Our AV should not walk in the North, but somewhere near Honolulu

                      Is January in the Bering Sea Honolulu? Something "Karl Vinson" had no problems with airplane lifting.

                      If we throw out the catapult, then we can immediately say goodbye to the AWACS aircraft. And also - with a normal rate of rise of the air group with a full combat (because from a single starting position).
                2. Xscorpion
                  14 October 2020 21: 59 New
                  +5
                  The efficiency of AB depends not only on temperature, but also on the height of the cloudiness, direction and speed of wind, fog and other natural conditions. All the declared characteristics for the reception / release of aircraft are designed for ideal conditions, in real life everything differs several times from standard conditions. under ideal conditions, the release of aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier is theoretically possible with an interval of 3 minutes, then any change in weather conditions increases this interval by at least 2 times, since the released aircraft have to make additional maneuvers after departure. And this is very critical for the formation of an air group, so As long as the last planes of the group take off, the first ones already need to be landed or refueled in the air. Basically, for now, the Americans bypass this by the fact that the first 6 planes in a group of 12 standard take off from the PTB, that is, in fact, with half of the BC. In real combat conditions, the first only 2 aircraft with PTB will take off, for security, then the tanker, and then the rest of the aircraft, which will be refueled k supports in terms of refueling. Otherwise, their combat radius will be reduced by at least half. And their overall combat readiness in terms of BC is all the more doubtful. I am silent about the fact that the aircraft carrier must first fulfill several conditions during the reception / release of aircraft. In particular, initially go against the wind and gain a maximum speed of 30+ knots. If this is not possible, then again the aircraft will be able to take off only with partial ammo / fuel. So the complete calm in the sea is no less critical for the AUG, just like a storm. I will not say that not the entire composition AUG can maintain this speed, and if it can, then not for very long. Accordingly, before the expected takeoff / landing of aircraft on the expected course of the aircraft carrier in accordance with the direction of the wind, escort ships are advanced in advance to ensure its protection in that place. And I also keep quiet about how unnecessary tens of kilometers the entire order is stretched and how this can affect its defense.
                  1. ZEMCH
                    ZEMCH 18 October 2020 18: 27 New
                    +2
                    I completely agree with you, very few people here know how AUG works during takeoff and landing of aircraft. When they talk about the use of AB with a catapult in northern latitudes, I smile. Until the AB has a normally working electromagnetic catapult, takeoff in northern latitudes will be with an incomplete BC and not fully refueled.
                    At the moment, AUG fully threatens only in the Far East and not in winter)))
          2. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 18 October 2020 22: 11 New
            -1
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            Yeah ... svidomye once drove on an Internet the idea of ​​fitting American aircraft carriers to the Crimean bridge ... he almost died laughing.

            And here is the aircraft carrier "Harry Truman" in the port of Lvov:
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 14 October 2020 10: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: parma
          The article is strange, why does the author propose to halve the means of protection in terms of range, but there is no attack?

          Yes, this is understandable - the speed and dimensions of an aircraft or a rocket are incomparable with their counterparts in ships.
        3. Andrey sh
          Andrey sh 16 October 2020 01: 14 New
          0
          From under the water - they will support, but from the ground and air it is unlikely - because AUG and sent that there is no such thing or not enough ...
      3. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 14 October 2020 10: 37 New
        +2
        If this is an attack on the territory of the Russian Federation, you will have to respond immediately with atomic weapons. And shout that we will do this at every corner.

        Only in this case can provocations be avoided.
      4. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 14 October 2020 12: 43 New
        +2
        In the North, Kamchatka and Mediterranean ...
    2. General failure
      General failure 14 October 2020 10: 20 New
      +1
      They have enough land bases and airfields around our borders.

      And all of them are "nailed in place". Unlike AUG, which moves.
      That is, in the event of hostilities, the AUG creates uncertainty. When and where the enemy can thrust it is unknown.
      Consequently, it is necessary to have the means to quickly suppress the AUG.

      And, preferably, with small forces.
      For example, we hacked to death with them in the Far East. All naval aviation was thrown there. And the aircraft carrier arrives at Murmansk.
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 14 October 2020 10: 39 New
        0
        AUG has only 3 real points of contact with our coast - the Pacific Ocean, the Black Sea, and the approach from Norway. Of course, they can enter the Gulf of Finland, but this is too dangerous and ineffective.
        In the same way, the direction of the World Cup and the north - you can approach there, but first you need to suppress a serious defense potential. Therefore, the only more or less operating point for AUG is the Pacific coast. But here, too, everything is not simple - there are few ports, the coast is not very suitable for landing, and Petropavlovsk and Vladik are heavily fortified. Those. in fact, AUG are applicable only for terrorist attacks in the style of the Germans, who were sent to WWII to shell the coast of England or for a blockade.
        The sad thing is that the naval blockade is absolutely incapable of preventing the Russian Federation.
        1. General failure
          General failure 14 October 2020 10: 57 New
          -3
          gulf of finland they can of course enter

          What for? The combat radius of the air group is more than 1000 km.

          I wanted to point out that the very presence of the enemy's AUG makes it necessary to keep a reserve for its suppression. "Fleet in being", so to speak.

          As for the sea blockade, the Russian Federation is not so dependent on international shipping.
        2. Doctor
          Doctor 14 October 2020 12: 18 New
          0
          Therefore, the only more or less operating point for AUG is the Pacific coast. But here, too, everything is not simple - there are few ports, the coast is not very suitable for landing, and Petropavlovsk and Vladik are heavily fortified.

          And even if they are captured, then what?
          Napoleon hesitated to crawl through the European part to Moscow, and here Siberia, however. laughing
      2. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 14 October 2020 10: 40 New
        +4
        In the event of hostilities exclusively at sea (a very hypothetical situation, but nevertheless), the task of the Russian Navy will be exclusively to inflict maximum damage until the moment the forces run out. For the possibilities are not comparable.

        And any scenario of a big war involves much more permissive tools, after which all participants will have to forget about overseas operations.
      3. Andrey sh
        Andrey sh 16 October 2020 01: 16 New
        +1
        To coastal batteries and ice? do Americans look like idiots?
        1. uralant
          uralant 22 October 2020 11: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey sh
          do Americans look like idiots?

          Yes!
      4. your1970
        your1970 16 October 2020 17: 45 New
        0
        Quote: General Failure
        For example, we hacked to death with them in the Far East. All naval aviation was thrown there. And the aircraft carrier arrives at Murmansk.
        -and? and there, let's say, aviation / air defense ground ruins them with a tanker and DLRO ... And what's next for an aircraft carrier?
    3. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 14 October 2020 10: 23 New
      -1
      Land bases are stationary and can be fired upon by conventional ballistic missiles, from Grad to Satan. But when the whole world is already in dust, the innumerable hordes of the American fleet will still plow the vastness of the world's oceans safe and sound.
      Therefore, the fight against them is a very important task.
      The ship, you first have to find it, but come within the range of a shot, and get.
      And when the coast has already burned in an atomic flame, ships and submarines in the sea can be counted on one hand, and there were no planes at all, then ....?
      1. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 14 October 2020 10: 34 New
        +5
        So what will those groups do without bases, fuel and ammunition? Will they be able to deliver additional attacks on the territory? Pirate?
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 14 October 2020 10: 52 New
          +1
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          So what will those bands do

          Will do whatever they want, who and what will prevent them?
          They will want, they will go to finish off what is left of us (it is not clear why, but they can)
          If they want, they will go to pirate (which is most likely, because the war is a war, but you want to eat)
          If they want, they will go to the southern hemisphere, they will squeeze a piece of sushi more beautiful from the natives, and they will live and live.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 October 2020 13: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          So what will those groups do without bases, fuel and ammunition? Will they be able to deliver additional attacks on the territory?

          There is such a thing - a floating rear. Even if the bases are destroyed, its capabilities will be enough for 3-4 refueling of AV with fuel and ammunition.
          1. Sancho_SP
            Sancho_SP 14 October 2020 15: 55 New
            +4
            Well, well, 3-4 refueling (unless something nuclear arrives at any AUG or floating base), and then? They will not have political tasks to climb to us, to sink them in our remaining ash trees and missile boats. Just from the chtoli principle?

            Compared to the arrival of half of the Russian or American warheads, even 9 American fleets will not do anything significant. Everything has already burned out.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 October 2020 19: 20 New
              +1
              Quote: Sancho_SP
              Well, well, 3-4 refueling (unless something nuclear arrives at any AUG or floating base), and then?

              And then the "living" goals will run out. Do not forget the initial condition - an exchange of nuclear strikes has already taken place.
              Quote: Jacket in stock
              Land bases are stationary and can be fired upon by conventional ballistic missiles, from Grad to Satan. But when the whole world is already in dust, the innumerable hordes of the American fleet will still plow the vastness of the world's oceans safe and sound.

              Quote: Sancho_SP
              Compared to the arrival of half of the Russian or American warheads, even 9 American fleets will not do anything significant. Everything has already burned out.

              So they just check that everything burned out. Along the way, finishing off the surviving targets - so that later it suddenly turned out that in some bay "Akademik Kovalev" was dreaming about with a load on board. smile
              1. Sancho_SP
                Sancho_SP 14 October 2020 19: 56 New
                0
                This is a small problem amid some loss of population, cities and industry)
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 16 October 2020 14: 54 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Sancho_SP
                  This is a small problem amid some loss of population, cities and industry)

                  The enemy's presence of one more BC for SSBNs is just not a small problem. smile
              2. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 16 October 2020 16: 13 New
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                So they just check that everything burned out

                as? they also burned down? where will they control that? in hell? they won't be there wink
        3. andrew42
          andrew42 16 October 2020 11: 39 New
          +3
          They will paddle with oars, as in the "Water World" with K. Costner :) And they will lift into the air a funny freak on a bicycle drive, in a flight helmet and miner's goggles.
      2. Egor53
        Egor53 14 October 2020 10: 51 New
        -9
        "But when the whole world is already in dust, the myriad hordes of the American fleet will still surf the oceans safe and sound."

        Constantine, you are not taking into account the American mentality. In the event of the start of a more or less serious war, even without the use of nuclear weapons, more than half of American soldiers defect within a week. There will simply be no teams left on their aircraft carriers.
        Americans are cowardly, and they fight exclusively for money. Remember how after our electronic warfare attack on the destroyer Donald Cook about 30 sailors fled from this ship in the very first port into which this Cook entered. But then not a single shot was fired at Cook.
        1. Avior
          Avior 14 October 2020 11: 30 New
          15
          ... Remember how after our electronic warfare attack on the destroyer Donald Cook about 30 sailors fled from this ship in the very first port into which this Cook entered. But then not a single shot was fired at Cook.

          That's why they didn't throw Cook with their hats.
          If the caps were added, all 300 would have fled ashore without waiting for a port call.
          Write urgently to the Secretary of Defense on how to disperse the entire American fleet ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 14 October 2020 13: 51 New
            +5
            Quote: Avior
            That's why they didn't throw Cook with their hats.

            What if they threw the footcloths on Cook? smile
            1. Avior
              Avior 14 October 2020 14: 29 New
              +4
              this thing will be cooler than a beginner!
              Chemical weapons, however!
              smile
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 October 2020 13: 54 New
          +8
          Quote: Egor53
          Constantine, you are not taking into account the American mentality. In the event of the start of a more or less serious war, even without the use of nuclear weapons, more than half of American soldiers defect within a week. There will simply be no teams left on their aircraft carriers.
          Americans are cowardly, and they fight exclusively for money.

          Hmmm ... it was already somewhere. Oh yes - the cowardly and pampered Yankees will scatter, frightened by the power and fighting spirit of the sons of Yamato. The war will not last more than six months - the Yankees will surrender.
      3. Andrey sh
        Andrey sh 16 October 2020 01: 26 New
        -1
        And not for..sya? You need to EXACTLY hit and be sure that you have damaged it. What will the explosion do if there is a launcher at a depth of one kilometer? The exit will fill up and that's it ... And who knows what is there under the base, how many exits and launching shafts and where are they exactly? There will be an expensive base, but one or two will be enough for the whole country ...
    4. Mitroha
      Mitroha 14 October 2020 10: 56 New
      10
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Zero error: consider that AUG is the most dangerous target in the war between Russia and NATO. They have enough land bases and airfields around our borders.

      This is not a mistake, since the author speaks specifically of AUG, as a particular. And with land targets it is easier because they are stationary and have long been recorded in the memory of strike weapons.

      On the subject: many thanks to the author, one of the few reasonable articles.
      1. Mitroha
        Mitroha 14 October 2020 20: 09 New
        +2
        I will answer myself, since I cannot add a comment. It was not for nothing that I noted the reasonableness of the article, for VO, unfortunately, begins to sin, to put it mildly, with "complacency" in relation to the content of the material. I cannot say more negatively simply because I respect this resource and read it with pleasure. KMC should, taking into account the demand for the resource, take the content of the material more seriously. thanks
    5. Xscorpion
      14 October 2020 21: 37 New
      +2
      If we take into account the combat radius of their aviation, then they can hardly reach even our border areas overcrowded with air defense from their airfields. no matter how skeptical I am about the exaltation of the AUG, the threat from the sea component is more obvious, since they still have a chance to approach from those sides where everything is not so beautiful with air defense
      1. novel66
        novel66 15 October 2020 13: 31 New
        0
        along the Northern Sea Route?
  2. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 14 October 2020 10: 16 New
    -4
    "Who are you talking to now?"
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 14 October 2020 10: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      Who are you talking to now? "

      With doctors in white coats.
  3. g1v2
    g1v2 14 October 2020 10: 17 New
    +8
    There is one more thing. No one will attack the Aug if she does not attack our terrorists or coastal facilities. And there the aerospace forces and coastal troops will be involved and much more, moreover, in the area of ​​operation of our radar and air defense systems. Otherwise, AUG is the elusive Joe from the anecdote, which is elusive because no one needs it. request Why ruin your forces by attacking her? What will it give? In a major war, our Navy will attack primarily convoys, trade routes and coastal facilities. Well, when you meet - the patrol force, if it is easier to destroy them than to avoid a fight. Plus, provide all-round support to the ground forces. Well, aug in the open ocean is easier to avoid.
    1. Avior
      Avior 14 October 2020 10: 32 New
      0
      And if, for example, the Aug will provide a coastal blockade outside the range of coastal fighter aircraft? Then what to do?
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 14 October 2020 10: 39 New
        +6
        For instance? Where is it on the map? What can she block with us in this way? Second - well, let him block at such a distance. In fact, this will mean that the Aug is idle. Third, a bunch of 2038x corvettes and mrk are capable of inflicting damage to such a blocking enemy from their terror forces. Want to attack them? We'll have to enter the zone of our ground air defense and coastal troops.
        1. Avior
          Avior 14 October 2020 11: 03 New
          -2
          Block all shipping to shore
          And for this aug does not need to approach the area of ​​action of coastal fighters
          As for the bundles, bundles of corvettes with frigates can only see the enemy for 40-50 kilometers. The aircraft carrier will not be there for sure
        2. Scorp 1981
          Scorp 1981 19 October 2020 15: 42 New
          0
          there are adequate! well! and then you read sickeningly! aug ttuzems scare dill disperse
      2. Pashhenko Nikolay
        Pashhenko Nikolay 14 October 2020 12: 57 New
        +2
        To be honest, I can't even imagine who and where will sail in such an alleged war.
  4. Bez 310
    Bez 310 14 October 2020 10: 24 New
    +6
    Cheerful author.
    And boldly cuts the truth-uterus: "AUG ... will be attacked
    simultaneously from under water, from water, from the air ... ".
    I can not help but ask - and what's new, what the author
    wanted to open our eyes? But so lively ...
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 14 October 2020 10: 28 New
      -1
      Quote: Bez 310
      And boldly cuts the truth-uterus: "AUG ... will be attacked
      simultaneously from under water, from water, from the air ... ".

      And we will also throw off a vigorous loaf on the caliber, so that the adversary does not seem a little.
    2. Tiksi-3
      Tiksi-3 14 October 2020 10: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Bez 310
      I can not help but ask - and what's new, what the author
      wanted to open our eyes?

      The author forgot about the attack from space !! .... it's kind of new) ....
    3. Dart2027
      Dart2027 14 October 2020 10: 45 New
      +5
      Quote: Bez 310
      I can not help but ask - and what's new, what the author
      wanted to open our eyes?

      You just come across reviews in which one RTO is set against the entire AUG.
      1. Avior
        Avior 14 October 2020 11: 09 New
        -3
        The auto review is even cooler
        The Americans, in his opinion, will withdraw 2 destroyers with Tomahawks and two for air defense to the war with Russia to capture the Russian coast, well, and one aircraft carrier, auxiliary, in his opinion, the main ones are two destroyers with Tomahawks.
        What the remaining seven dozen American destroyers and a dozen aircraft carriers will do at this time, not counting dozens of nuclear submarines, is a mystery even for the author, he has no explanations on this matter
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 14 October 2020 11: 41 New
          +3
          Quote: Avior
          The Americans, in his opinion, will withdraw 2 destroyers with Tomahawks and two for air defense to the war with Russia to capture the Russian coast.

          It seems that this is the standard composition of the AUG.
          1. Avior
            Avior 14 October 2020 11: 59 New
            -1
            The standard composition does not mean that only this and not otherwise. And no one assigns this standard composition the task of capturing Russia with 5 ships
            Aug is very versatile in a very high degree
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 14 October 2020 12: 03 New
              +3
              Quote: Avior
              And no one assigns this standard composition the task of capturing Russia with 5 ships

              Well, the author is not talking about the capture of Russia, but is considering the option of a fight with a specific AUG.
              (Another thing is that if it comes to this, it will be nuclear weapons)
              1. Avior
                Avior 14 October 2020 12: 07 New
                0
                Why not, if he plans to strike on the Russian coast with the forces of one Aug and 4 destroyers
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 14 October 2020 16: 05 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  regards variant of a fight with a specific AUG

                  It is clear that in the case of a global batch, nuclear weapons will decide everything, but in theory you can analyze different options.
          2. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 15 October 2020 13: 11 New
            +2
            There is no "standard" composition. There is a typical peacetime outfit.
            But this does not mean that such will be in a real war.

            I once trolled the public with an article about the war with Japan, where the realistic composition of the strike forces of the US Navy was spelled out.

            https://topwar.ru/154128-den-z-vojna-k-kotoroj-my-ne-gotovimsja.html

            18.00 Moscow time.

            AUG "Stennis" connected with the AUS "Vinson", "Roosevelt" and "Reagan". The new AUS has four aircraft carriers, three cruisers, thirty destroyers, two frigates, five landing ships, an unknown number of submarines, including the Tomahawk carrier boat of the Kyrgyz Republic. The number of cruise missiles is approximately 1050, fighter aircraft and attack aircraft - from 250, the number of AWACS aircraft - 16 units. The compound is located in 500 km south of the Aleutian Islands.

            Presumably, almost all serviceable and combat-ready warships of the US Navy are at sea.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 15 October 2020 16: 38 New
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              But this does not mean that such will be in a real war.

              By itself. But then other means will be used.
        2. Xscorpion
          14 October 2020 22: 10 New
          +1
          Well, firstly they do not have 70 destroyers. Secondly, in the AUG, at best, there will be 4. Yes, they can send several AUG to one point, but this will not happen. Since at least 3-4 AUG will guard the territory of the United States from the sea, at least 1- 2 will keep an eye on China / North Korea, since no one knows how they will behave. They will not remove the group from the Indian Ocean either. And in fact, there remains 1 AUG each for the North, the Mediterranean and our Pacific coast.
          1. Avior
            Avior 14 October 2020 22: 16 New
            +1
            4 Aug is not 4 destroyers like yours. only they have 67 destroyers.
            They deployed 4 aircraft carriers against Iraq, where they played the role of a reserve and operational reinforcement in the first place.
            There will be no less against Russia, and they will not be scattered.
            not to mention that they will not fight alone
            1. Xscorpion
              14 October 2020 22: 38 New
              0
              1 AUG is 4 destroyers. You compare Iraq with the only outlet to the sea and Russia, where you need to operate at least 4 seas. If they collect 4 in one place, they will lose on the other three. I’m silent about the fact that in this case our submarines will shoot unhindered along at least one coastline. It is just vital for them to spray themselves against a country like Russia, and even more so not to forget about reserves and self-defense. Unlike our couch analysts, American generals understand this perfectly well. And they will not go for it. -bank, this is not a harmless Iraq, but a nuclear power
              1. Avior
                Avior 14 October 2020 22: 48 New
                +1
                Russia, where you need to operate at least on 4 seas

                why? did you decide that?
                If they collect 4 in one place, they will lose on the other three.

                why do you think so? may not act there at all
                And they can operate without aircraft carriers - from the territory of the allies or from the UDC
                I’m already silent about the fact that in this case, our submarines will freely shoot at least along one coast.

                Aircraft carriers are not needed to combat submarines. Are you generally talking about a global nuclear conflict or fighting aug?
                It is just vital that they will have to scatter themselves against such a country as Russia, and even more so not to forget about reserves and self-defense.

                it has long been accepted by them that the best way of defense is attack.
                And most importantly, where did you get the idea that they would go to the coast of Russia in general?
              2. Runway
                Runway 15 October 2020 14: 52 New
                0
                An air steamer and Co. are not needed against KTOF. How many air steamers and other gunboats are there in the rotten lgbt NATO with the Yankees? And the submarines? Including flop?
                And why do we ignore the term ADR? The beauty of the aircraft is that even gathered in a heap outside the affected area from the coast and the air, they solve the problem - the enemy must have proportionate SIS to repel a possible attack.
                1. Andrey sh
                  Andrey sh 16 October 2020 10: 48 New
                  +1
                  OUTSIDE the affected area - this is also outside the action of most of the AUG ...
                  1. Runway
                    Runway 16 October 2020 11: 27 New
                    0
                    Undoubtedly. But the presence of a group of air steamers with the ability to wave 1000 km per day requires the concentration of commensurate forces from the coast.
                    An example is not entirely correct: the Kwantung Army and the Red Army grouping in the Far East and Transbaikalia in 41-45.
    4. Xscorpion
      14 October 2020 22: 05 New
      +1
      I say in essence, how it will be, and not like the majority, that the AUG is attacked only by ships or only by aircraft, and everyone else will go to sleep.
  5. Sergst
    Sergst 14 October 2020 10: 35 New
    +4
    Thank you for the article! I would like more of these, otherwise the listing of names and performance characteristics is already tired.
  6. Avior
    Avior 14 October 2020 10: 39 New
    +2
    The author believes that the submarine, NK and aviation can easily get to the place of attack at the same time.
    And, most surprisingly, he seems to write that the Aug will be sent from afar, but then ignores that it is not known where and when.
    The enemy, like a stupid zusul, smile he will not be engaged in intelligence, for which he has all the possibilities, but everything will be known to his own to the smallest details.
    1. Xscorpion
      14 October 2020 22: 14 New
      +2
      I’m not saying that we’ll easily get to them. I didn’t say who piles on whom and who will find it easy. I just turned to analysts to take into account all the nuances, and not measure who the missiles fly next. they are not fools and will not do certain things, but will act in accordance with their charters and elementary common sense.
      1. Avior
        Avior 14 October 2020 22: 49 New
        0
        sure. and no landing and close to the land of Russia will not land because of the absurdity of the undertaking.
  7. yehat2
    yehat2 14 October 2020 10: 46 New
    +2
    Quote: g1v2
    Why ruin your strength by attacking her

    the presence of the AUG in tactical reach from the coast poses a serious threat.
    To repulse her blow is hard enough, and you need to defend a large territory and a bunch of objects.
    In addition, the mere presence of AUG seriously constrains activity in the region.
    Therefore, it is much easier to destroy the AUG itself than to wait for something.
    North Korea may ignore the presence of AUG because
    1. propaganda and ideology. They are really ready to sacrifice some of the people for their own purposes.
    2. Mountainous terrain, where it is much easier to hide
    3. For many years they were engaged in fortification on a national scale and prepared for attacks.
    4. They have a rather closed economy, built on self-sufficiency, and in the rear there is a friendly China, a neutral Russian Federation.
    But we cannot do that.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 15 October 2020 13: 14 New
      0
      Quote: yehat2
      North Korea may ignore the presence of AUG because

      I parry point by point:
      1. It is during an attack by an external enemy that propaganda and ideology begin to work in Russia and the patriotic spirit of the population really rises. There are a lot of examples - all major aggression against Russia.
      2. Dear you have seen a map of Russia ??? Russia does not even need to fight the occupier - you can just retreat !!! Even now in the 21st century it is very difficult - it is almost impossible to just drive from Kursk to Chukotka !!! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO JUST COME AND NOT TO Fight !!!
      3. Engaging in fortification on 1 / 6th part of it means simply ruining the country's economy !!! Until 1941, they were already engaged in fortification of the Western direction - can I tell you about the boilers (Kiev, Vyazma, Uman and others) of the UR ???
      4. Sorry, but what is the RF missing? In Russia, there is one military-industrial complex such as the 5 economies of North Korea !!! Is it really difficult to build a self-sustaining economy with 150 million population and 1/6 of the land mass ??? And what resources do you need then ??? Maybe it's all in the crooked power and not in resources ???
      In general, all your arguments are simply taken from the ceiling ...
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 15 October 2020 14: 24 New
        0
        Where did you read my paragraph on the total fortification of the Russian Federation?
        and you still have the audacity to talk about arguments from the ceiling.
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 16 October 2020 12: 47 New
          0
          Quote: yehat2
          de you read my paragraph on the total fortification of the Russian Federation?
          and you still have the audacity to talk about arguments from the ceiling.

          You write an absolute heresy comparing the huge RF with a scanty IC and say something else that the IC can do something that the RF cannot afford !!! Complete nonsense - generally not really confirmed by anything - this is what you have taken from the ceiling !!!
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 16 October 2020 14: 16 New
            0
            you have arguments other than the word nonsense?
            the example of Korea is taken from the recent incident, it is real.
            google Trump's statements and carrier trajectories for a description of those events.
            Further, we also had an incident during a NATO naval exercise north of Norway and also recently.
            Can you compare these two events instead of typing the word delirium?
            Or your parents haven't taught you how to get down from the pot yet?
            1. Selevc
              Selevc 19 October 2020 11: 41 New
              -1
              google Trump's statements and aircraft carrier trajectories,
              The trajectories of aircraft carriers and Trump's statements have shown the whole world that the United States cannot do anything even with a blockade country like the DPRK that has an atomic bomb !!!
              Quote: yehat2
              Further, we also had an incident during a NATO naval exercise north of Norway and also recently.
              What incident did you have during the exercise with NATO ??? NATO declared war on you ??? Maybe NATO has declared war on you personally - but NATO is an organization that has not shown itself in anything except the introduction of troops into Yugoslavia and Afghanistan !!! All the rest is speculation !!!
              Or your parents haven't taught you how to get down from the pot yet?
              I understand that you are broadcasting to me from the pot ??? Such a stupid pearl about comparing the Russian Federation and the DPRK !!! I've read different things here, but such stupidity is a rarity for VO !!!
      2. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 19 October 2020 11: 30 New
        0
        Quote: Selevc
        1/6 of sushi


        1/6 was in the USSR, in Russia 1/7. And in most of this territory there is almost no population.
  8. Konstantin Shevchenko
    Konstantin Shevchenko 14 October 2020 10: 49 New
    -2
    Question to the author. What will happen to AUG? If you do not suffer with the "Armata" against the AUG, but launch one ICBM or SLBM with a MIRV.
    1. Avior
      Avior 14 October 2020 11: 11 New
      +2
      Ibr and BMP do not know how to shoot at aircraft carriers, even with multiple units, at least not with multiple units
      Their lot is stationary targets
      1. K298rtm
        K298rtm 14 October 2020 12: 15 New
        +1
        This option was worked out in the late 70s. The main thing is to get the CO. Now it looks like the PRC is doing this.
        1. Avior
          Avior 14 October 2020 14: 56 New
          0
          Studied and abandoned due to practical impracticability.
          The Chinese seem to have a similar conclusion
          1. Andrey sh
            Andrey sh 16 October 2020 10: 56 New
            0
            Far from a fact.
  9. Operator
    Operator 14 October 2020 11: 16 New
    -1
    The correct idea is expressed in the article - not a single American commander of the AUG, being of sound mind, will direct his carrier-based AWACS aircraft "Hawkeye" outside the AUG order, otherwise in the opposite direction in the air defense zone of the compound a hole will be formed with a depth in the distance the "Hawkeye" deviates from the center orders.

    Another thing is that with a staffing number of "Hokayev" of four units, the AUG commander can lift two AWACS aircraft into the air, one of which can patrol away from the order in the direction of the greatest probability of an enemy attack using air assets - for example, in the direction of the enemy's coastline with the expansion of the air defense zone in this direction.

    In this connection, the reconstruction of the MPA is an unproductive idea, the purely situational task of the aircraft destruction of the enemy's AUG will be fully handled by the Russian Aerospace Forces equipped with the Su-35 with the Zircon GKR and the MiG-31 with the Kinzhal BRMD.

    The main means of destroying the AUG should be low-tonnage SSNNs with a nuclear power plant from the NPA Poseidon, armed with the GKR Zircon. The external target designation of the ISSAPL will be provided by the low-orbit RTR satellites (detecting the radiation of the aircraft carrier's airborne radio equipment at a distance of 2000 km), the own target designation of the ISSAPL is a towed cable antenna GAS (detecting and classifying the low-frequency noise of the aircraft carrier's propeller group at a distance of 1000 km with an accuracy of determining the coordinates).

    When approaching the design point, the GKR "Zircon" will turn on the on-board electromagnetic plasma stabilizer in order to form a radio-transparent window for the operation of the RGSN with a range of 100 km, specify the coordinates of the aircraft carrier as part of the AUG order, dive onto it with an anti-aircraft maneuver, detonate a special warhead with a capacity of 1 Mtn and evaporate the surface of the aircraft carrier's hull.

    PS The trick is that a clash in the sea / ocean will rightfully be considered a local nuclear conflict without its automatic spread to the national territory of the Russian Federation bully
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 14 October 2020 11: 47 New
      -1
      Quote: Operator
      with a purely situational task of aircraft destruction of enemy AUGs, the Russian Aerospace Forces equipped with Su-35s with the Zircon GKR will be able to cope

      And what are these planned?
      Quote: Operator
      MiG-31 with "Dagger" BRMD.

      And how many of them do we have? Ten?
      Quote: Operator
      The main means of destroying the AUG should be low-tonnage SSNNs with a nuclear power plant from the NPA Poseidon,

      Are these also planned?
      Quote: Operator
      The external target designation of the SSNS will be provided by the low-orbit satellites RTR

      Do they exist?
      Quote: Operator
      When approaching the design point, the GKR "Zircon" will turn on the on-board electromagnetic plasma stabilizer in order to form a radio-transparent window for the operation of the RGSN with a range of 100 km, specify the coordinates of the aircraft carrier as part of the AUG order, dive onto it with an anti-aircraft maneuver, and detonate a special warhead with a capacity of 1 Mtn

      Did you invent it yourself or do you know something about Zircon that no one else knows?
      Quote: Operator
      that a clash in the sea / ocean waters will rightfully be considered a local nuclear conflict without its automatic spread to the national territory of the Russian Federation

      By what right?
      Who should be considered?
      1. Operator
        Operator 14 October 2020 11: 52 New
        0
        "For what purpose are you interested?" (FROM)

        Regarding the locality of the maritime nuclear conflict, the water area outside the 12-mile zone is considered international waters (see the Convention on the Law of the Sea).
        1. Avior
          Avior 14 October 2020 12: 03 New
          +2
          And what, from this, it follows that there you can shoot as much as you want with nuclear charges, but the enemy cannot do it in response?
          1. Operator
            Operator 14 October 2020 12: 34 New
            -3
            Yes, for God's sake, as much as you like - but within the framework of the localization of the nuclear conflict by international waters.

            Otherwise, the United States will be written off (simultaneously with the launch of the Zircons against sea targets, the Strategic Missile Forces will be put on record).
            1. Avior
              Avior 14 October 2020 22: 17 New
              +2
              or the Americans will be the first to strike a disarming blow - who knows?
              1. Operator
                Operator 14 October 2020 22: 41 New
                -3
                It was a question of a local nuclear war at sea - what could the Americans do there with a disarming blow, if we have the bulk of nuclear warheads deployed on land as part of the Strategic Missile Forces?
                1. Avior
                  Avior 14 October 2020 22: 52 New
                  +2
                  it was you talking about it.
                  only it is not clear, where did you get the idea that the Americans will act strictly according to your convictions?
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 14 October 2020 22: 59 New
                    -2
                    Got it - this is called an escalation from a local to a global nuclear conflict. In the event of an escalation, a disarming strike is impossible, since all types of weapons are in the highest degree of readiness in response to a local conflict - one minute.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 14 October 2020 23: 14 New
                      +1
                      Americans are not going to fight with tactical nuclear weapons. They have very little of it, they cut it down long ago.
                      Their view does not envisage limited nuclear war at sea.
                      They deliberately reduced and practically eliminated high-precision nuclear non-strategic weapons so as not to reduce the level of use of nuclear charges, and to such a level that they hardly received a limited number of non-strategic SLBM charges by converting them from strategic ones. But they are also poorly suited for war at sea.
                      Therefore, the likelihood of receiving a full-fledged strategic nuclear strike at the start of nuclear tactical charges is very high.
                      not from the first charge, of course, but very quickly.
                      And about hitting an aircraft carrier with a nuclear charge, everything is far from simple.
                      The power of the charge will not help if the charge itself does not fall into the aircraft carrier, and the probability of this is not higher than with a conventional rocket, that is, it is relatively low. But a massive salvo from nuclear charges will not work, so the probability of hitting is even lower than when hit by conventional charges.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 14 October 2020 23: 55 New
                        -2
                        If a local nuclear conflict begins, the entire strategy of the Americans to deliver a preemptive nuclear strike on the land territory of Russia will collapse, since one minute after the takeoff of American ICBMs, Russian ICBMs will rise into the air and there will be no pre-emption. Therefore, there is a direct benefit for us to be the first to start a local nuclear conflict at sea (naturally, in response to an attack on us with the use of conventional weapons).

                        The radius of destruction of a 1-Mtn charge of such a target as an aircraft carrier with its incapacitation can be estimated at no less than 5 km. Therefore, it will be very difficult to miss.
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 15 October 2020 00: 10 New
                        0
                        if the aircraft carrier is not hit, then no rocket will explode, fly away into the distance, to another target. And first you need to find and identify the aircraft carrier, and this is not an easy task
                        5 km - where did you get it? 1 megaton - what kind of ammunition are you going to shoot?
                        Therefore, there is a direct benefit for us to be the first to start a local nuclear conflict at sea.

                        benefit in the risk of getting the first nuclear strike in return? or a retaliatory strike against some Russian port? how did you determine that the Americans will play by your rules?
                        about a minute, by the way, where did you get it? they will only check for a minute.
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 15 October 2020 01: 07 New
                        -2
                        1-Mtn special warhead "Zircon" in a three-stage version weighs in the range from 320 to 400 kg.

                        What are you talking about - I was talking about our (not theirs) first nuclear strike in the war at sea. After that, no first US strike on the land territory of the Russian Federation will become impossible by definition - a minute after the launch of American ICBMs, Russian ICBMs will take off into the air, i.e. global strikes will occur almost simultaneously. Which directly contradicts the US military doctrine.
                      4. Avior
                        Avior 15 October 2020 07: 51 New
                        0
                        Clear. No one has such information about Zircon, you do.
                        About one minute from the same source?
                        I will not interfere with sharing top secret information.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 14 October 2020 12: 02 New
    +1
    AUG is like a horror story, only against a weak opponent.
    All available funds should be used against a serious adversary and they have a lot to choose from. However, the means of counteraction are no less complex ..... but still, against a NUCLEAR state it is not safe, or rather, extremely dangerous, except that it is certainly for everyone!
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 14 October 2020 12: 03 New
    +2
    For once, a normal article, thoughtful. And not a set of stamps, in the style: "Chief, truncated is gone." There are controversial points, but in general - everything is "according to the mind." Respect and respect to the author
  • yehat2
    yehat2 14 October 2020 12: 25 New
    +3
    Quote: Arzt
    And even if they are captured, then what?

    And then a piece from Chita to Vladik actually remains without industry and population, between Chita and the Urals, too, the economy is so-so, and communication is 2 branches of a piece of iron and indistinct highways. Therefore, with the seizure of the coast, effective control over a vast territory, about half of the country, falls off from the Russian Federation.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 14 October 2020 14: 19 New
    +2
    On an aircraft carrier, as a rule, there are 3 AWACS aircraft, one in the air, one in 45-minute readiness, the third in reserve. And this plane will not be sent anywhere, it is located above the AUG itself. Because there are no threatened directions.

    Hmm ... actually, there are 4 AWACS planes on the aircraft carrier. This is considered the minimum amount to be guaranteed 24/7/365 alert.
    And not a single suicide will hang the AWACS aircraft over the AUG itself. With the same success, you can hang a radio beacon over the AUG - "we are here". A single AWACS is on duty somewhere within a radius of 50 miles from the AUG, in the most threatened direction.
    1. Operator
      Operator 14 October 2020 14: 38 New
      -1
      50 miles is quite enough for the Zircon's radar self-aiming at an aircraft carrier in the terminal phase of the flight.

      The megaton warhead is driving.
    2. Xscorpion
      14 October 2020 22: 18 New
      +2
      The fourth AWACS aircraft, as well as the entire squadron are always at the airfield at the home base. Standard configuration of the 3rd squadron. Theoretically, yes, you can of course stick the fourth, but there is no room for it, for the normal operation of the aircraft carrier. That is, you have to remove something from the beginning from there.
      1. Avior
        Avior 14 October 2020 22: 56 New
        +1
        but there is no room for it, for the normal operation of the aircraft carrier. That is, you will have to remove something from there in the beginning

        and what is "normal performance"?
        if the service life of a part of deck aircraft is somewhat reduced due to their temporary storage on deck, is this normal or not?
      2. Avior
        Avior 14 October 2020 23: 51 New
        -1
        yes, by the way, in the modern version of the E-2D there are 5 on board, and not 4, as in the E2C version.
        The E-2D will play a larger role than that of the E-2C, with five E-2Ds aboard each carrier instead of the current four C-models, requiring the acquisition of 75 total E-2Ds.

        The newest version of E2D has been used since 2015, 88 units were produced.
  • KOLORADO73
    KOLORADO73 14 October 2020 14: 33 New
    -2
    The author forgot to tell about the stealthy anti-ship missiles LRASM! A link of superhornets with such anti-ship missiles is capable of destroying the entire Baltic Fleet of the Russian Federation and smashing it around Kaliningrad properly! Super Hornet King of the Sea Air!
    1. Charik
      Charik 15 October 2020 05: 49 New
      0
      And about high-speed Granites and Volcanoes-which are also armored-blowing dead bees from the deck and that's it
  • KOLORADO73
    KOLORADO73 14 October 2020 14: 39 New
    0
    Remember the Apollo 11 astronauts landing after their flight to the moon! The carrier strike group was pulling them out of the ocean!
    Even the junior US partners in NATO have aircraft carriers: one "Charles de Gaulle" of the French is worth a lot!
    1. Motorist
      Motorist 14 October 2020 23: 44 New
      0
      Quote: KOLORADO73
      Remember the Apollo 11 astronauts landing after the flight to the moon!

      Do you remember the flight of Apollo 11? And exactly - flight? Precisely - to the moon? And why did the AUG graze in one place with theoretically two possible landing sites? Well, there are many more questions, but this is enough for you to start.
      1. Liam
        Liam 14 October 2020 23: 51 New
        0
        Quote: Motorist
        Do you remember the flight of Apollo 11? And exactly - flight? Precisely - to the moon?

        And what was it in your opinion?
        1. Motorist
          Motorist 14 October 2020 23: 56 New
          +1
          Quote: Liam
          And what was it in your opinion?

          In short - imitation and agreement. For more details, visit free-inform.narod.ru if you are really interested.
          1. Liam
            Liam 15 October 2020 00: 03 New
            0
            Well why. It is better to find out from a knowledgeable person here. You will tell in general terms about this worldwide conspiracy
            1. Motorist
              Motorist 15 October 2020 00: 09 New
              0
              Quote: Liam
              It is better to find out from a knowledgeable person here.

              Your sarcasm is understandable. I have to print for a long time, but Velurov has already written everything; there will be time - I advise you to read. There is also a forum if you want to discuss. hi
              1. Liam
                Liam 15 October 2020 00: 23 New
                0
                Quote: Motorist
                and Velurov has already written everything;

                And who is Velurov? Professor, academician, cosmonaut, physicist, rocket scientist? What regalia does he have, what education, what did he graduate from. Where can you find his biography?
                1. Motorist
                  Motorist 15 October 2020 00: 33 New
                  0
                  Quote: Liam
                  And who is Velurov?

                  A pseudonym, I have no idea about his regalia. It looks like a missile officer (former?) From the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau. Yes, you go, read; if you don't like it - come on, business! I myself not so long ago and did not doubt that everything so and it was; accidentally came across "Pepelatsov" and became the so-called. "skeptic".
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 15 October 2020 00: 42 New
                    0
                    )))

                    This figure?
                    What is known

                    No reliable information about the person. The possible name is "real" Arkady Veluurov, but perhaps it is a pseudonym. Perhaps he lives in Kiev or in Chisinau.

                    Velurov as the denier of Apollo

                    First appeared on the site [1] with the article "Ashes fly to the moon" in 2004, signing as "Passer-by". [2] The article talked about the unreliability of American space technology, listed accidents mixed with what the author himself considered an accident. Then on the same site, one after another, he posted several more articles under the same title, thus creating a small cycle. The articles refuted the Saturn-5 rocket, the Skylab orbital station, the Apollo program in general and in detail. Later, as the articles were discussed on the site's forum, I regularly corrected my articles, trying to eliminate errors. The site [1] gradually gave more and more failures (as of 2009, only small fragments of the original articles remained there), so soon Passer-by created his own site [3], where he placed again edited copies of the articles, signing this time as “Arkady Veliurov ". Then he brought the number of articles in the cycle to ten on his website. The last article was written in 2005 or 2006, since then no new articles have appeared
                    .

                    Veliurov's first articles abounded in calculations based on numbers from various sources. With the help of these calculations (mostly elementary ones, based on the Tsiolkovsky formula) Velurov tried to prove that the numbers in the Nazov data do not converge. However, Velurov regularly litters his articles with more complex formulas - differential equations, integrals, etc., rewritten for the most part from some textbook. [5] Even uses numerical simulations (with an absurd result due to improper oversimplification). [6] The abundance of formulas, calculations and numbers looked solid in the eyes of the supporters of the theory of the "lunar conspiracy", not versed in such calculations and in the technical details of the Apollo program. The author in their eyes appears to be a specialist, although he is not a specialist in any way and does not understand the subject (see below)

                    Passageology "

                    At the forum of the Airbase dedicated to the "lunar conspiracy" [11] since 2005 there is an extensive topic (99 pages) dedicated to Veliurov (Passer-by) called "Passageology". [9] Veliurov himself took part in it immediately after the opening, first under the nickname "Passer-by" (from the 1st page), then "Passed through" (from the 27th), then "p314159" (from the 29th), then " 40-7 "(from 73rd), then again" p314159 "(from 75th), then" 7-62 "(from 79th), then" Yuri Andropov "(from 97th). Velurov was also mentioned in other topics of this forum.

                    The manner of his argumentation was no different from that described above. For example, in the initial "refutation" of the American orbital station "Skylab" [6] Velurov simply did not know that the fairing was removed along with the station (at the start, it served as a support for the astronomical block of the ATM station
                    ).

                    Funny

                    The idea of ​​refutation of American space technology so fascinated Veliurov (especially the idea of ​​replacing hydrogen stages with kerosene ones) that he even "exposed" even the modern, regularly flying American Delta-4 rocket. [12] Reasoning about the color of the torch (which in the purely hydrogen Delta-4 is colored due to the ablative coating of the nozzle and therefore differs from the more or less transparent torches of hydrogen engines with regenerative cooling of the nozzle) and using erroneous data, Velurov "proves" that the rocket engine runs on kerosene, not hydrogen. So, according to Veliurov, even today fake missiles are regularly flying in the United States.


                    Are you seriously suggesting wasting your time on this nonsense? There are such "deniers" on this site and a wagon and a small cart
                    1. Motorist
                      Motorist 15 October 2020 00: 58 New
                      0
                      I also read this review - very subjective. There are a couple of paragraphs (who is the author?), And there are 14 chapters. I have never met such deniers at VO. I, for example, have not read (almost) "alternative" historians, but I do not condemn, and do not call nonsense. Do not want to waste time - do not waste, I just advised.
                    2. Igor Semenov
                      Igor Semenov 15 October 2020 20: 48 New
                      0
                      Paranoid ideas are always characterized by believability, careful elaboration and internal logic. Arguing with their speakers is useless
    2. Charik
      Charik 15 October 2020 05: 51 New
      -1
      they got out of the Hollywood pavilion. two weeks of resistance and kissing the feet of the invaders
  • KOLORADO73
    KOLORADO73 14 October 2020 14: 41 New
    -2
    During the Cold War, the United States had 15 aircraft carrier groups! THAT was the power!
    The Soviet Navy was all sad about this!
    1. Charik
      Charik 15 October 2020 05: 54 New
      +2
      The Navy had enough missiles for these 15 Augs
  • yehat2
    yehat2 14 October 2020 16: 28 New
    +3
    Quote: Alexey RA
    But the same "Kuznetsov" according to the project had a catapult on the corner deck.

    Kuznetsov had so many things according to different versions of the project that it might seem that it was designed by madmen.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 14 October 2020 16: 30 New
    +5
    Quote: KOLORADO73
    During the Cold War, the United States had 15 aircraft carrier groups!

    of which a maximum of 7 could be combat-ready at the same time.
    even fewer could be dispatched directly against the USSR.
    In reality, the USSR usually dealt with 2-3 AUG, and these were already quite real goals.
    The threat from strategic missile submarines was much more serious.
    1. Avior
      Avior 14 October 2020 23: 37 New
      +1
      could be ready for more.
      but there was no war, so there was no need to raise combat readiness to the peak ...
  • nnz226
    nnz226 14 October 2020 16: 50 New
    0
    In general, Russia is geographically entering the world ocean in such a way that it is difficult to use AUG against it! AUG simply will not enter the Baltic and the Black Sea. The East is covered by the Kuriles, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky-53 and so the "hornet's nest", where it is better not to meddle. It is possible to approach Vladivostok from the south, but it is fraught, coastal aviation is always more powerful than the wing in AUG. The north remains, but the Federation Council of the Russian Federation is the most powerful of the fleets ... So there is no particular reason for the AUG to move to our shores: those available for strike (if they can approach them) are not the most populated, but they can snap. And if our aircraft carrier can be drowned, the merino will begin to massively abandon raids to our shores, or even surrender. I do not consider the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict ...
  • Alex1949
    Alex1949 14 October 2020 18: 56 New
    +2
    A lot of words, but the article is completely stupid.
  • DeFalco
    DeFalco 14 October 2020 20: 45 New
    +2
    All Burks have long been without anti-ship missiles.
    LRASM. Ship version.
    1. Xscorpion
      14 October 2020 22: 23 New
      +3
      I specifically indicated this at the end of the article. How many Burks with LRASM are in the ranks of the Americans? And in what year is it even expected to be adopted by the surface component of the US Navy?
      1. DeFalco
        DeFalco 2 November 2020 22: 18 New
        0
        How many Burks are in service with LRASM missiles is unknown. They carried out test launches of missiles from the Mk 41 UVP and successfully. As for adoption, there is no data available.
    2. Avior
      Avior 14 October 2020 23: 16 New
      +1
      The Americans use anti-aircraft missiles as anti-ship missiles in order to reduce the combat effectiveness of large enemy ships.
  • Gust
    Gust 14 October 2020 22: 06 New
    +1
    The article is just sensible, usually it all boils down to the duel AUG-Peter the Great with different variations. It makes sense to break off sea communications, if any. Most of our turnover is onshore. So the AUG can only threaten our KUG, for example, while protecting the allies. No one will approach the shores of the Russian Federation closer than 2000 km - in a non-nuclear conflict, this is also suicide, and there are no idiots there. If necessary, a hypothetical attack will be as follows (provided that no one has nuclear weapons):
    1) A massive attack of stationary targets (air defense in the first place) with tomahawks and shock UAVs, in several waves until the air defense of the aerospace forces is completely suppressed;
    2) Bombing by stealth fighters and bombers. Here it is already optional and AUG will be involved.
    1. Avior
      Avior 14 October 2020 23: 20 New
      +3
      Most of our turnover is onshore. So the AUG can only threaten our KUG, for example, while protecting the allies.

      you are right that the Augs will not go close to the Russian coast - they do not need it. This is a contrived unrealistic scenario.
      They will provide a blockade at a sufficient distance.
      and not only Russian shipments at sea, but also shipments of Russia's allies at sea, which will disrupt Russian trade on land.
      Not to mention the fact that a significant part of it goes through the US allies.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 15 October 2020 12: 46 New
        +1
        Why is everyone fixated on destroying the AUG?
        Another kaptsovshchina ??? You can pour a lot of water on this question ... But there are facts of real naval battles of recent decades. Based only on the experience of the war at sea of ​​the last era, one can say for sure only one thing - there are facts of defeat and sinking of surface warships by the 1st (ONE) enemy missile !!! Moreover, there are facts of destruction or disabling of the vessel even by unexploded missiles !!!

        And there is absolutely no fact about the effective counteraction of the AUG to a missile attack !!! There is not a single intelligible fact of the counteraction of the ship's air defense to the strike of a group of missiles !!! Therefore, you can write on these topics endlessly - but these will always be unfounded statements divorced from reality in one way or another !!!
        One more thing can be said unequivocally - missile armament, including of course, anti-ship missiles are being improved and developed much faster than ship air defense !!! Therefore, in the coming decades, missiles will become faster, more accurate, smarter, more powerful and more invisible .... And the air defense ??? It is far from a fact that it will change dramatically - and especially in the navy ...

        ps I'm sure that all generations of anti-ship missiles have been tested to penetrate the hull of old battleships - and if they hit the thick armor of battleships, they will somehow cope with the aircraft carrier !!!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 15 October 2020 15: 22 New
    0
    My simple IMHO is that the topic with AUG is completely closed with the adoption of the Dagger. There is no more such a topic.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 15 October 2020 17: 12 New
      0
      By the way, the thought came up that the Mi-8 could handle a mighty bomb with a direct hit at cruising speed and electronic warfare Lever-AV with any surface ship, and in unmanned mode. You can also introduce a defense complex based on the electronic warfare Rtut-BM.
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 16 October 2020 13: 02 New
        +3
        People who write about some imaginary AUG and fear as necessary by the Russian Federation cannot understand the elementary fact: AUG is a traditional branch of the armed forces that has historically developed from the powers of the sea !!! This is the path that they have been passing for tens of years !!! And Russia has never in its history been a power of the sea - although it is washed by many seas and 2 oceans !!! Therefore, Russia has a powerful land army, which it also received as a result of the country's historical development !!!

        Therefore, Russia at sea will never be on a par with the powers of the sea such as England, let alone the United States. And on this basis, the entire doctrine of the Russian Navy is built. Russia can never defeat the United States at sea and the United States cannot defeat Russia on land - this is a stalemate in any major conflict !!! Therefore, the Russian Navy and Air Force do not have the task of completely destroying all the enemy's AUG - they initially have the task of inflicting heavy damage on the enemy and nothing more!

        p / s / Means some unlikely scenario of non-nuclear or limited nuclear conflict. Why unlikely, though? After all, World War II passed without the use of chemical weapons ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 18 October 2020 23: 28 New
    0
    objective article proving the vulnerability of aug
  • Scorp 1981
    Scorp 1981 19 October 2020 15: 38 New
    0
    God, what are you talking about stupidity and horror !!!!!!!!!
  • uralant
    uralant 22 October 2020 11: 23 New
    0
    Quote: Avior
    Chemical weapons, however!

    But they didn't know about it yet! Military secrets shouldn't be revealed!
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 27 October 2020 17: 19 New
    +1
    A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for combating AUG is a real-time ocean observation system, which Russia does not have. Without this, everything else is contemptuous reasoning, far from reality.
  • vadivm59
    vadivm59 18 November 2020 19: 50 New
    0
    I read the memoirs of a pilot who served on the TU-22 in Soviet times. So, he writes that during the exercises to destroy the AUG, the entire regiment of 3 squadrons took off. 2 drums, one electronic warfare.