Military Review

Why do they all need aircraft carriers? USA

123
David W. Wise of The National Interest is of the opinion that today, in aggregate, the US Navy is unquestionably the most powerful in the world.



Many people think so.

And one could agree with this without reservations, but just recently we discussed with you information that at present the US Navy is wildly straining to build two attack submarines in a year. In the meantime, he could afford to build 10 boats from just one aircraft carrier and its air wing, and perhaps with a much greater strategic effect.

In addition, unlike most surface ship acquisition programs, attack submarine programs have generally performed well in terms of schedule and budget.

And the main thing: in a situation "if something happens", what will it be easier for us to turn into scrap metal? A huge floating island, even if destroyers and other frigates are in the order with it, guarding and protecting a sea-based airfield, or an island that is half a kilometer below the surface of the sea?

Yes, of course, Aegis, rockets, Volcanoes ... And what about a massive salvo of anti-ship missiles or cruise missiles?


In fact, this is all relative. In 1941 (some 9 days before Pearl Harbor) in the American media there was a number of materials about the battleship "Arizona", extolling its power to the skies.

Why do they all need aircraft carriers? USA

It is clear that until that time no one had sunk battleships from the air. Nevertheless, "Arizona" received 4 bombs during the attack of Japanese aircraft and sank.


And to this day it remains under water as a memorial.


But Billy Mitchell warned ...


In fact, Mitchell sank the captured German battleship Ostfriesland during an air demonstration back in 1921, but the Navy said the test proved nothing. Two observers that day were officials from the Japanese naval department ...

In addition, the designer of the Pearl Harbor attack, Isoroku Yamamoto, was studying at Harvard at the time and no doubt read the reports of the event, which was widely reported in the newspapers.

Well, then, on December 7, what happened happened. And the battleship ceased to be a trump card for all ages and times. But something strange happened: yes, the aircraft carrier replaced the battleship as the main ship of the military fleet, but his reign in this capacity was rather short. The aircraft carrier established her dominance in the Battle of Midway and was the centerpiece of five major naval battles between 1942 and 1944.

However, after the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944, the US Navy reoriented the aircraft carrier into a land-based strike platform. This was understandable, there was a need to recapture the territories captured by Japan, and even in the conditions of the complete inability of the Japanese fleet to oppose at least something in response.

The main naval forces of the Japanese fleet were eliminated, and submarines were never Japan's strong point. Marine aviation was also brought to naught, which is confirmed by the fact that the United States, after the death of the Hornet in 1942, did not lose a single aircraft carrier.


True, this only suggests that after 1945 the United States did not come into conflict with another fleet capable of destroying an aircraft carrier.

But we are more interested in today. And today, as we have said, the US Navy is in the process of designing and acquiring new classes of ships. There is a long debate about the usefulness of these ships, as well as doubts about the advisability of building some new types of aircraft.

It is clear that this primarily concerns the new supercarriers of the Ford class. Not only is the construction of the second and third, as they say in Russia, "shifting to the right", but also the first (built and handed over to the fleet) cannot really function. And the F-35 fighters specially designed for "Fords" also have enough claims.

And it turns out to be a very peculiar situation, unlike the fleets of China and Russia, which today rely on small missile ships in the defense of their coasts, the US fleet is flooded with large, powerful and increasingly vulnerable. This is not to say that this jeopardizes the future of America, but this moment cannot be called positive either.

And therefore more and more people in the United States are asking aloud a question that is very unpleasant for many. And this question is not about whether it makes sense to continue spending huge sums on the construction and maintenance of aircraft carriers, but about whether tomorrow the United States can afford such expensive toys as aircraft carriers.

George W. Bush in 2009 cost $ 6,1 billion.


The most recent US aircraft carrier, Gerald Ford, has spent twice as much.


But these ships require the efforts of 46% of the personnel of the fleet: for maintenance, repair and operation. In money - it is very unpleasant, because (in addition to salaries and other payments) there are also rather large American military pensions that people earn by spending their service on these ships.

And no wonder that more and more often the crosshairs of a terrible weapon with the inscription "budget cuts" are being directed at aircraft carriers.

If, according to American postulates, 11 aircraft carriers is the minimum number necessary to ensure security, then the supporters of aircraft carriers have more and more problems in the "bright tomorrow."

"If our 'small' fleet is so fragile that it cannot afford the loss of one ship due to the budget, how will it survive the inevitable combat losses?" - such a question in the pages of the magazine "Proceedings" asks Commander Philippe E. Pournelle.

The journal "Proceedings" ("Proceedings"), by the way, has been published since 1874 by the US Naval Institute. The Proceedings cover topics related to global security and include articles by military specialists and civilian experts, historical essays, book reviews, full-color photographs and readers' comments. About a third was written by military personnel, a third by retired military personnel, and a third by civilians. That is, this is the very place where the military can complain about problems openly.

There is a reason. More precisely, there is a reason, but no money. That is why, in fact, they canceled the write-off of "Harry Truman" and scraped together the money to recharge the reactors of "Abraham Lincoln". And, if the Truman, which entered service in 1998, can definitely still serve, then the Lincoln, which has been serving since 1989, looks very unoptimistic in terms of combat readiness: what is now, what is in the future.


The case when the ship does not stand up, but it is pushed there. But - in the light of the recent collisions with "Ford" - will have to.

But the austerity advocates go further, and a mothballing program for 4 of the 9 air groups is on the agenda. And then the presence of 11 aircraft carriers just starts to look frivolous. But on the other hand, the initiative of the US Congressional Budget Office to reduce the Navy to eight aircraft carriers looks logical.

Experts in the United States believe that the weakest point of the American Navy is that the Navy spends money not on acquiring new types of weapons, but on maintaining the vital functions of old ones. And if something new is acquired, then scandal after scandal, but often this new does not correspond to either the specifications or the price tags.

The current shipbuilding plan stipulates that the fleet should have 306 ships, while the actual number was reduced to 285. The US Naval Operations Command believes that there is an approximately 30% gap between what the fleet will need to fulfill its shipbuilding plan, and that it is likely to receive in the appropriation process over the next 15-20 years.

The Navy's own procurement chief recently told Congress that given current trends and budget outlooks, the fleet could shrink to 240 ships in the next few decades.

The commitment to aircraft carriers literally wipes out the rest of the Navy while simultaneously hampering its ability to respond to emerging demands and threats.

The best example is Gerald Ford.


With an initial price tag of $ 10,5 billion, its value has grown to $ 14,2 billion and is not going to stop. But even today they say that even if Ford is fully operational, it will not be possible to fill the hole formed in connection with the repairs of other aircraft carriers.

But besides the "Ford" there are two more ships under construction, the total budget for which (together with "Ford") is equal to 43 billion dollars ...

This amount may anger or envy someone (Russian readers, for example), but in the US it is already starting to scare everyone.

But there are also problems with the wings. Estimated costs for F-35Cs, which were supposed to take off from the deck of the Ford, have nearly doubled as performance concerns continue to mount.


But the worst thing is not even that. The saddest thing for the Americans is that in our time, an aircraft carrier has ceased to be an instrument for projecting power onto the region. Any region in which countermeasures are deployed. The age of impunity is passing, because the majority of countries have weapons systems capable of causing critical damage to any large ship. And who does not have their own - you can always buy the same Russian, Indian or Chinese anti-ship missiles.

At one time, the famous Admiral Nelson noted that "a ship is a fool if it is fighting a fort." Controversial (for example, Admiral Ushakov managed to storm the bastions), but we will not find fault.

In the coming new era, the "fort" is a sophisticated complex of detecting and targeting anti-ship missiles over the horizon, which makes surface ships vulnerable and which prevents them from approaching the coastline. That is, they do not give the opportunity to deploy aviation at a sufficiently safe distance. This is exactly what American aircraft carriers have dominated for decades.

Ballistic, cruise, anti-ship missiles (all launched from mobile and well-camouflaged platforms) are becoming a real threat to large ships with an excellent signature.

US Navy Captain Henry J. Hendricks has calculated that China could produce 1227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the price of one US aircraft carrier. How many missiles do you need to fatally hit an aircraft carrier? ..


A massive salvo of such missiles, flying at a speed of 2M to 5M, in sufficient quantities can simply break through the air defense of any order of an aircraft carrier. One missile, of course, will not sink a ship of this size, which has such a margin of survivability.

But who said that there will be one rocket?

And about the distance. The main weapon an aircraft carrier is an aircraft. The range of the current F / A-18E "Super Hornet" is between 390-450 nautical miles. The F-35 strike fighter will have a combat radius of 730 nautical miles. This is without additional outboard tanks, significantly reducing other aircraft capabilities.

The US Department of Defense Intelligence Agency estimates the range of the DF-21D anti-ship missile at 1500-1750 nautical miles, with some suggesting longer range.

Recognizing the fact that these numbers will require the deployment of carrier strike groups far beyond their reach, which immediately casts doubt on the effective use of the aircraft carrier itself and its weapons. Former dean of the Naval War College Robert Rubel remarked:

"Successful defense of an aircraft carrier is of no use if the aircraft carrier cannot in turn successfully attack enemy naval forces."

And there is nothing to add.

And despite the fact that a massive attack on land-based ballistic missiles is a rather difficult task for the current defense systems of the Navy, given the successful mass missile launches of the United States and Russia in Syria, the situation is potentially even more serious.

Military analyst Robert Haddick:

Even more sinister are the naval strike fighter squadrons, capable of launching dozens of long-range, high-speed anti-ship cruise missiles at levels that threaten to overwhelm the fleet's most advanced defenses.

Or, as an example, China's use of its missile boats. There are about a hundred of them, mostly of the "Hubei" class.


Each carries 8 winged anti-ship missiles with a range of 160 miles. In total - 600-700 missiles, which can be launched simultaneously.

Add rockets from diesel-electric submarines, frigates, destroyers and aircraft ...

And one should not discount Russia, which has always been in the forefront of the missile trade. And thanks to the efforts of Russia, high-precision missile weapons are becoming very common, and an increasing number of countries can buy them.

A worrying sign of things to come is a Russian firm that is reportedly selling a Club-K cruise missile hidden in shipping containers placed on trucks, railroad cars or merchant ships.

The world is changing, and there are more and more means of countering aircraft carriers as the main strike weapon. The range and speed of missiles will increase. Missiles will become more elusive and accurate, and of course they could be nuclear. Radars will see farther and more accurately, significantly reducing the "fog of war". Surface ships, wherever they are, will be increasingly vulnerable.

Supercavitating torpedoes (such as Russia's Shkval) already reach speeds of up to 200 knots and can track ships for over 1000 kilometers. Above the surface, supersonic anti-ship missiles, which are currently moving at 2M, will be replaced by hypersonic missiles, which will move at 5M, and in the future even faster.

The modern aircraft carrier strike group stands at the very top of military history in terms of conventional lethality and sophistication. Unfortunately, in the modern context, it is also very expensive and complex, and therefore it is very easy to disable it at a low cost.

An aircraft carrier requires a complex set of very expensive investments. The total cost of acquiring an aircraft carrier strike group from the aircraft carrier itself, 1-2 cruisers and 2-3 destroyers exceeds $ 25 billion, the aircraft wing is another $ 10 billion, and the annual operating costs are approximately $ 1 billion.


And a cruise missile fired from the launcher of a ship, stealthy and standing much lower in the hierarchical ladder, is worth less than a third of every bomb delivered by a fighter from the deck of an aircraft carrier. But the effect of using this missile can be much more significant than a bomb dropped from a deck-based aircraft.

Nevertheless, the US Navy continues to push the next generation of fighters (F-35C) and the next two Ford-class aircraft carriers through budgetary hardships, despite all the claims that come from different echelons.

We are now not even touching on the concepts of new aircraft carriers armed exclusively with UAVs, because so far there are no such ships or such drones that can replace human-piloted aircraft. In the future, yes, but no more.

According to many naval experts in the United States, yes, the aircraft carriers will remain (at least until the withdrawal of Ford) in the ranks. But the Navy must move away from its carrier-centric concept. Large surface ships are becoming more vulnerable and the navy should not build and operate them if the costs are unacceptable.

The Navy is currently straining to build two attack submarines a year, while it could afford to build 10 with just one aircraft carrier and its air wing, and perhaps with much greater strategic impact.

In addition, unlike most surface ship acquisition programs, attack submarine programs have generally performed well in terms of schedule and budget.


One of the most effective components of an effective submarine procurement program should be a "back to the future" program, which includes very quiet diesel submarines, which are not currently in the US Navy at all. Diesel submarines are very difficult to spot and can be purchased at a rate of three to four for each nuclear submarine.

The United States Navy is unquestionably the most powerful combined in the world today. Unfortunately, repeating this phrase like a prayer is useless. While the entire US fleet dominates in tonnage and sheer firepower, this may not make sense in a specific area with a force to deploy, such as the Pacific Ocean.

Projected advances in radar technology will make it difficult to maintain stealth above and below water. The same will happen with the increase in the range and accuracy of hypersonic weapons.

All this will require a different conceptual approach in the very near (2050-2060) future.

However, one thing is for sure: the aircraft carrier will not be an actual weapon in the second half of the century.
Author:
Articles from this series:
https://topwar.ru/176701-zachem-im-vsem-avianoscy-kitaj.html
123 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. strannik1985
    strannik1985 5 November 2020 06: 41
    11
    China relied on "small missile ships" out of poverty, now they have a shipbuilding program for 6 AB until 2035 and missile EM 052D and 055 in a mass series.
    There is a nuance with the DF-21D, no one has seen the defeat of a target moving in the open sea with this missile.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 5 November 2020 09: 03
      +8
      Quote: strannik1985
      There is a nuance with the DF-21D, no one has seen the defeat of a target moving in the open sea with this missile.

      Quite right. The warhead of a ballistic missile enters the atmosphere like the descent vehicle of a spacecraft, and it is very difficult to control it on descent. And to direct when it moves in a cloud of plasma, which excludes the passage of radio waves, even more so. So a vigorous warhead targeting a city, large and stationary, is one thing, and a relatively compact ship that, from the moment the missile is launched, can move several miles in a direction unknown to the missile. Of course, for a special warhead of sufficient power, this is not a distance, but if a nuclear war has already begun, then no one will hunt single ships and even AUG, because there is no time for that. And if it has not yet begun, then this will be the beginning, and the response will fly not to the place where the rocket was launched, where there is nothing but an empty launcher, but to cities. And the chances of a non-nuclear warhead to get directly into the ship are somehow not very many. Especially if this warhead is made in China.
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 5 November 2020 09: 53
        15
        From the text: “China can produce 1227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the price of one American aircraft carrier. How many such missiles are needed to fatally hit an aircraft carrier? .. " belay Again a worn-out record. It was after the First World War that French experts liked to think so. Something like this: “The cost of a tank is 300 thousand francs, and the cost of a shell that is guaranteed to destroy it is 24 francs. Why should we build tanks? - let's fire more cheap shells! " fellow
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 5 November 2020 17: 28
          +7
          Quote: Proxima
          From the text: “China can produce 1227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the price of one American aircraft carrier. How many such missiles are needed to fatally hit an aircraft carrier? .. " belay Again a worn-out record. It was after the First World War that French experts liked to think so. Something like this: “The cost of a tank is 300 thousand francs, and the cost of a shell that is guaranteed to destroy it is 24 francs. Why should we build tanks? - let's fire more cheap shells! " fellow

          And stones are even cheaper .. let's build stone throwers wassat
          So why does the US need aircraft carriers?
          To dominate the world!
          It is very problematic to do this without AUG.
          The Americans will bring both Ford and F35 to mind. Burke 3 series and Virginia will provide security in the warrant. Expensive - yes, difficult - yes. But who can challenge such an AUG in the ocean? No state is now capable of building something like that. And the PRC still needs 20 years of hard work to produce its own Ford ..
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 5 November 2020 19: 45
            -5
            Quote: Doccor18
            So why does the US need aircraft carriers?
            To dominate the world!

            who will be dominated by aircraft carriers? over Somali pirates? they can no longer dominate the DPRK, nor can they dominate Iran. there is no need to talk about China and Russia ...
            so really why?
            oddly enough, the answer to this question can be found in the transcripts of Vietnam from, oddly enough, the French company. the generals discussed how the United States could help its colonial counterparts in France, who were getting worse and worse. one suggestion was that nuclear weapons could be used, but this idea was quickly abandoned. The reason is that if we bomb everyone there with nuclear weapons, the Senate will immediately ask why we need all this fleet if a couple of bombers with nuclear weapons can solve all the problems and cut the military budget.
            so, nothing personal, just business (drank the budget).
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 5 November 2020 20: 52
              +3
              Quote: SanichSan
              Quote: Doccor18
              So why does the US need aircraft carriers?
              To dominate the world!

              who will be dominated by aircraft carriers? over Somali pirates? they can no longer dominate the DPRK, nor can they dominate Iran. there is no need to talk about China and Russia ...

              The DPRK has nothing for which one can seriously fight with it. Plus, it has nuclear weapons .. The DPRK has a weak air force and air defense. The United States and its minions, if urgently needed, would roll North Korea. Yes, only there is no urgent need. Moreover, its existence even helps the Democrats to establish missile defense facilities in Japan, and later in Korea, against Russia and China, but under the guise of parrying the threat from the DPRK.
              But they would gladly have driven Iran into the Stone Age, but ... its destruction would have led to major changes in southwestern Asia. Therefore, China and Russia will not allow the defeat of Iran. And fighting all three at the same time is overkill, even for a hegemon.
              If one day China and Russia grow cold towards Iran, the days of the latter will be numbered. And aircraft carriers will not be the last violin in this operation ...
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 5 November 2020 21: 24
                -6
                Quote: Doccor18
                The United States and its minions, if urgently needed, would roll North Korea.

                already tried it 1 time .. with aircraft carriers. nichemagli request
                Quote: Doccor18
                Yes, only there is no urgent need.

                well, how else then? sure! "Now, if they caught up with us, we would show them!" wassat
                and indeed, why do something with the raving ideas of unification of Korea, armed to the teeth by the communists, and even with nuclear weapons. Well, they want their nuclear weapons, and let it be .. okay. nothing will happen to the center of production of the element base in South Korea!
                Quote: Doccor18
                Moreover, its existence even helps the Democrats to establish missile defense facilities in Japan, and later in Korea, against Russia and China, but under the guise of parrying the threat from the DPRK.

                pff .. and so would they not put it? seriously? belay China and Russia are also nuclear powers. there is every reason without the DPRK.
                Quote: Doccor18
                If one day China and Russia grow cold towards Iran, the days of the latter will be numbered. And not the last violin aircraft carriers will be in this operation..

                it would be strange to argue with this. the United States has more military potential than Iran, but aircraft carriers will not be there until the air defense, fleet and missile potential of Iran is destroyed, but when the United States decides to do this, Iran may well already have the same nuclear weapons and as a result of this operation, the United States may lose several of its bases and some allies in the region, yes, and after this conflict it is no longer a fact who will be the first naval power, the United States or China request in such a conflict, it is important not only to defeat the enemy, but also to preserve their military potential so as not to become an outsider after this victory.
            2. pin_code
              pin_code 6 November 2020 07: 52
              0
              Let's say .. you were told ... North Korea is our ally, a blow to them is the answer from us. and what answer did they not say ... your actions at the place of the trump? I think you would have thought the same "oh, I need this North Korea (this is an option, but quite viable). although there are others .. for example, an embargo on the supply of panties to USA.
            3. Vladimir Mashkov
              Vladimir Mashkov 9 November 2020 12: 43
              +2
              The novel in his last articles "makes a discovery", about which I have repeatedly written based on the opinions of many competent experts... Namely: huge expensive aircraft carriers surrounded by AUG are wonderful expeditionary means to create a significant tactical advantage in various regions of the world remote from their coasts in relatively peacetime (small local wars are constantly going on on Earth) and - delicious, huge, relatively easily hitable targets in case of world war. In the first case, there is an unequal confrontation between the strongest world powers (mainly the United States with its "gunboat policy") with some underdeveloped country. In the second - the confrontation of approximately equal rivals with the most powerful means of destruction.

              BUT - an amazing thing - they like Roman, "suck" his articles favorably, and they bombard me with dislikes. What's the matter? Just “we don’t love you”? Or some other reason?
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 9 November 2020 21: 12
                +1
                Quote: Vladimir Mashkov
                BUT - an amazing thing - they like Roman, "suck" his articles favorably, and they bombard me with dislikes. What's the matter? Just “we don’t love you”? Or some other reason?

                do you still care? belay
                look at what the pros and cons are put under the article maybe not so bad wink
                1. Vladimir Mashkov
                  Vladimir Mashkov 9 November 2020 21: 48
                  +1
                  Alexandru, 21.12
                  You do not quite understand me. I calmly treat UNDERORED dislikes from NOT respected (stupid, illiterate, absurd) people and trolls. I calmly relate to the DESIGNED dislikes from RESPECTED people, if I myself am badly, incorrectly, dually formulate the thought.
                  But I absolutely DO NOT UNDERSTAND why sometimes (as in the case of the aforementioned comment about aircraft carriers) they make dislikes! And who is doing this and why.
                  1. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 9 November 2020 21: 56
                    +1
                    Quote: Vladimir Mashkov
                    But I absolutely DO NOT UNDERSTAND why sometimes (as in the case of the aforementioned comment about aircraft carriers) they make dislikes! And who is doing this and why.

                    apparently the theory of the existence of groups of disliked unwanted is not such a fairy tale wink As far as I remember, one such group was closed here. maybe not covered wink
      2. Operator
        Operator 5 November 2020 11: 56
        -13 qualifying.
        It is easy and simple to aim the BB - the on-board radar turns on before entering the atmosphere at an altitude of 130 km, the AUG order is highlighted for a few seconds, it is included in AB, and when using the inertial control system and aerodynamic planes, a descent is made in the atmosphere with an approach time of 30-40 seconds and KVO 100 meters.

        The power of the thermonuclear charge of the BB at the level of 1 MTn allows you to compensate for all misses on the target and the presence of false targets, plus also disable the n-th number of escort ships.

        ABM AUG, please do not worry - each AUG will be hit by two APs according to the first-second scheme, blocking the operation of ship and aircraft radars by a high-altitude explosion of the first AP.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 5 November 2020 20: 13
          +3
          Quote: Operator
          It is easy and simple to aim the BB - the onboard radar turns on before entering the atmosphere at an altitude of 130 km, the AUG order is highlighted for a few seconds

          A good radar should be in order to find and recognize the AUG in a few seconds from 130 km under the conditions of the use of electronic warfare. At the same "Onyx", for example, the radar station is only able to look at 50 km.

          Quote: Operator
          each AUG will be struck by two APs according to the first-second scheme, blocking the operation of naval and aircraft radars by a high-altitude explosion of the first AP.

          Those. The above inputs are not enough, we will also warm up the atmosphere with the high-altitude nuclear warhead, so that the second BB would be really interesting to try to see something there from hundreds of kilometers.
          1. Operator
            Operator 5 November 2020 21: 37
            -5
            What is the connection between the explosion of the first BB outside the atmosphere and the heating of the atmosphere?
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 5 November 2020 22: 44
              +2
              Quote: Operator
              What is the connection between the explosion of the first BB outside the atmosphere and the heating of the atmosphere?

              Well, at least such that ionizing radiation from nuclear explosives tends to spread over fairly significant distances (or how did you plan to blind enemy radars with it?). It also ionizes the atmosphere, pretty much spoiling the "picture" of the second BB's radar (otherwise it would be too easy for it, right?).
              1. Operator
                Operator 6 November 2020 00: 44
                -5
                This is exclusively about EMP

                A high-altitude nuclear explosion for generating EMP is carried out at an altitude of 300 to 400 km (Starfish Prime 1962, power 1,4 Mt). The atmosphere ends at an altitude of 100 km.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 5 November 2020 10: 16
      +4
      Quote: strannik1985
      China relied on "small missile ships" from poverty

      Plus, I somehow hardly believe in the possibility of a coordinated attack of a hundred such ships at once - at least from an organizational point of view.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 5 November 2020 10: 58
        +2
        This is just possible, but in A2 / D2, that is, where the boats can be provided with central control and air defense, aircraft carriers / missile EMs is a step further, into the distant sea zone.
  2. Far B
    Far B 5 November 2020 06: 51
    +8
    Still, I didn't quite understand. In the previous article, a clear (and correct, in my opinion) answer was given why China needs aircraft carriers: for the projection of its own force off the distant shores. Amerikons and even, probably, Europeans need aircraft carriers for this, so what's the point of considering them in separate articles from the series "Why do they need aircraft carriers?" And there is no point, as today's article has shown - it does not consider the question of why America needs aircraft carriers, but it does consider the problems of the Amerovsky fleet. Therefore, it would be much more logical, in my opinion, to consider the moment, what for are such boxes in Brazil and especially Thailand?
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 5 November 2020 08: 44
      -6
      To raise the ChSV. Actually, why did the USSR build the Buran? Whatever, we also know how to shuttle, etc.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 5 November 2020 22: 07
        +3
        Quote: Andrey77
        Actually, why did the USSR build the Buran?
        To service a constellation of attack satellites. After the decision was made to non-militarize space, the program lost its meaning and was curtailed.
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 5 November 2020 09: 06
      -2
      for the projection of your own silushka near the distant shores.

      so the American congressmen began to wonder - are there not many 11 aircraft carrier groups for just a "demonstration." Is the 8th demonstration no longer a demonstration? A 6th or even 4th? Indeed, even during the bombing of Yugoslavia, only 1 AB was involved, and throughout the American-Iraqi wars - 4 (and not simultaneously).
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 5 November 2020 10: 30
        +3
        Quote: Ka-52
        Is the 8th demonstration no longer a demonstration?

        I think the problem is that 8 AVs cannot constantly demonstrate: you have to go through regular maintenance and all that. Apparently, there is a certain calculation according to which in the presence of 11 ABs (in total) it becomes possible to constantly keep somewhere in the vastness of the World Ocean a sufficient number of them in order to properly symbolize and not overstrain.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 5 November 2020 11: 16
          11
          The calculation is as follows:
          one aircraft carrier on alert at sea,
          the second at the base on the reorganization of the crew, supply and maintenance,
          the third is on preventive maintenance.
          In case of war, the second urgently leaves the base and the formula becomes:
          two at sea, one at the base.
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 5 November 2020 22: 11
        +4
        Quote: Ka-52
        Is the 8th demonstration no longer a demonstration?
        The aircraft carrier has a 33-month service cycle, of which it spends 6 months at sea. If 1 AUG performs constant tasks, then you will need 5-6 ships for it to be at sea, otherwise you will have to build other ships to solve these tasks. For the permanent presence in the ocean of two AUGs, 11-12 aircraft carriers, respectively, are required.
      3. pin_code
        pin_code 6 November 2020 08: 03
        -1
        with 4 aircraft carriers, how many will you have combat readiness right now? and having 11? if you have only 4 pieces (aircraft carrier), they will start spitting on you through their teeth (tsyk), but from 11 and let's say 3-5 of them are ready, you will only get zilch. again, if you do not have nuclear weapons.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 6 November 2020 08: 14
          0
          all that you write and you and all the commentators above is nonsense. There are far more realistic reasons than all of you owls that you pull on the globe laughing The Navy is the admirals. Admirals need a fleet (ships) to justify their career. They are starting to push their purchasing department for additional funding for the shipbuilding program. On the other hand, this is done through its lobby by the military industrial complex represented by all these Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Newport News Shipbuilding, General Dynamics and other concerns. Readiness ... why readiness? In all US wars since the Korean War, more than one AB has not been simultaneously used in the database, not once!
  3. CTABEP
    CTABEP 5 November 2020 08: 35
    +6
    Dollars from an aircraft carrier cannot be converted into submarines. Where to build - will they be 10 pieces a year? To produce reactors? And the passage about diesel-electric submarines is generally beyond the bounds.
  4. Per se.
    Per se. 5 November 2020 08: 49
    +7
    However, one thing is for sure: the aircraft carrier will not be an actual weapon in the second half of the century.
    Can we guarantee that "in the second half of the century" humanity itself will be "relevant"? In general, it would be okay for the Americans to reason about whether they need aircraft carriers, the Chinese, the Italians, everyone who has and builds aircraft-carrying ships ... No, we argue in Russia, where the only poor Kuzya cannot be finished off ... Here, they managed to its time to take away from the Black Sea, and he was not drowned together with PD-50, it would be complete "happiness", without aircraft carriers. "Gorshkov" was ineptly lost, sold to the Indians, initially in addition to the MiG-29 deal. "Varyag" was not needed, the Chinese took it. In fact, the entire aircraft carrier fleet of the USSR was destroyed, to the delight of our partners.

    Let's talk right away, why do we need aviation at all when there are missiles. Then, why do we need missiles at all, if we can detonate nuclear charges right on our territory, there will be thousands of Chernobyls and focus, the end of all living things, while "we, like martyrs, will go to paradise, and they will simply die".

    Finally, why do we need nuclear warheads, if all the treasures of our "elite" are in other people's banks and foreign currency, if in London and Washington, other cities of the West, their real estate, yachts, children, wives, mistresses? Maybe in the name of peace, humanism and tolerance, we will puff our cheeks a little, raise the ratings with some miracle "Poseidon", we will have a budget for one, and we will live together?

    Why do we need an aircraft carrier, no, we do not need a "blacksmith", especially since our Central Bank under the IMF and the Federal Reserve System sits, in fact, right under the law on the Central Bank written to us.

    That is when there will be a clear understanding of the role of the fleet, that the fleet, as border guards, is ahead of others for the interests and safety of Russia. That the fleet, first of all, is needed not so much for waging a global war, but just for its prevention, timely relief of problems, or the deployment of forces in the pre-launch period, whether war is already inevitable.

    The role of the fleet (and aircraft carriers) is much broader than the poor understanding of the "fox" to "grapes" according to Krylov's fable. Then there will be an understanding of why Peter I fought for the outlets to the seas, built a fleet, why the Soviet Union, as a great and strong country, needed a strong fleet.
    First, you need to say goodbye to fools and traitors, get people's power, then the Central Bank will lend to its government, its economy, and money will appear for the fleet (and not only for the fleet).
    1. Proxima
      Proxima 5 November 2020 10: 17
      +6
      Alexander the First reasoned that Russia was a land power and cut the financing of the Navy. He was supposedly offended by the naval officers that they did not help him in the war with Napoleon. As a result, already under Nicholas we got the shameful Crimean War, where the “cut down” fleet was completely impotent. You can't joke with the fleet. Thanks for the comment!good hi
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 5 November 2020 14: 15
      -1
      In short, Sklifosovsky (c) - so why does a Russian woman groaning under the yoke of "Central Bank, fools and traitors" need aircraft carriers?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 5 November 2020 18: 03
        +4
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        In short, Sklifosovsky (c)
        As they say - "You are not interested, do not bother!" (There is an epidemic in the area. General vaccinations. Foot and mouth disease!).
        I will try to "less beeches". Why does Russia need aircraft carriers, and why does it need a fleet, naval aviation? An aircraft carrier is a carrier of carrier-based aircraft, and carrier-based aircraft is a type of weapons. Nobody renounces aviation as a type of weapons, which is evidenced by the construction of aircraft-carrying ships in all significant fleets of the world.

        As for the rest, there is no need to repeat ourselves, our oligarch brothers do not need aircraft carriers, just like the fleet and the army, the sooner they get rid of the great Soviet legacy, the sooner they can surrender to the mercy of their masters in world capitalism. I will not repeat about puffing up my cheeks in ostentatious butting with the West, to raise the internal rating. It was not about these degenerate renegades, but about Russia, so Russia needs a full-fledged fleet, not only "pawns", but also such heavy "figures" as aircraft carriers. For what? In order to solve ALL problems at sea, and not to "measure up" in quantity with the USA or anyone else.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 5 November 2020 20: 57
          -2
          Quote: Per se.
          the sooner they get rid of the great Soviet legacy

          Enough of the legacy, it's funny, by God. You know, these groans "are still working on the Soviet reserve !!!" already even on VO they do not excite the corresponding social group. "Kuzya" is not a great heritage, but just a monument of the era. He has outlived his. A dying ship is sad, but the efforts of resuscitators are ridiculous. This is such a tragicomedy.
          Quote: Per se.
          I will not repeat about cheeks puffing in ostentatious butting with the West, to raise the internal rating. It was not about these degenerate renegades, but about Russia, so Russia needs a full-fledged fleet, not only "pawns", but also such heavy "figures" as aircraft carriers.

          I suppose "heavy figures" are show-off and puffing of cheeks. Once Britain with its two power standard, now the States are imposing a membership fee to the club of the "greats".
          Quote: Per se.
          For what?

          Well?
          Quote: Per se.
          To solve ALL problems at sea

          On which sea?
          Quote: Per se.
          and not "pussies measure" in quantity with the United States

          Dear, the thesis "pussies to measure" is still preserved. We are being drawn into the race, and we, in your opinion, "must give a symmetrical response to newly emerging threats" - the same phallometry, only from the other side. So, at least, officials mumble from the Guarantor to different ranks of talking heads.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 6 November 2020 06: 12
            0
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Enough of the legacy, it's funny, by God
            I'm not laughing. A nuclear and space superpower, not semi-literate tsarist Russia, all in debt from pre-war loans, this is a fact. Until now, we use Soviet military developments, we live on the Soviet margin of safety.

            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            We are being drawn into the race, and we, in your opinion, "must give a symmetrical answer
            This is not mine, but purely your conclusion; we cannot give the United States, together with all NATO and their potential allies, like Japan, any "symmetrical answer" at sea. We even have more frigates or corvettes than they can't build. This is just according to your logic, if you build, then no less, or, and the fleet is not needed. We do not need as much, as the commander of our lone ship once said, to call a whole squadron of NATO ships, - "All the might of the Soviet Union is behind me!" This should be the case when our squadron or fleet will carry out its tasks at sea. I must say right away that the "sea" in my context was the entire world ocean.

            It is a pity that you do not understand or do not want to understand, do not hear. We need a balanced, full-fledged fleet, capable of solving all tasks at sea, and not an invalid misunderstanding in the littoral zone.
            It seems, dear Paragraph Epitafievich, there is no point in further debating, as they say, you are for the "whites", I am for the "reds", each his own.

            I don't know if you are a sailor or a philologist, a former renegade party worker, or anyone else, but thanks for your attention, all the best.
          2. pin_code
            pin_code 6 November 2020 08: 11
            0
            so you tell us what kind of backlog we are working on. here, personally, the USSR pops up in my memory, because RI and the Grand Duchy of Moscow did not have (for example) rocket technologies.
    3. pin_code
      pin_code 6 November 2020 08: 08
      0
      if we say goodbye to fools and traitors, then there will already be the State Bank and the Treasury, as it was before, which is fair
  5. Lavrenty1937
    Lavrenty1937 5 November 2020 08: 53
    +2
    The US Navy, plus its NATO allies, plus their potential allies (rather opponents of China) have more than fifteen AWs against two Chinese and one (possibly) Russian. In such a situation, there can be no talk of a collision of aircraft carriers (AUG) of NATO and their possible allies and the PRC (forces are too unequal) in the open ocean (sea). The Americans will most likely use AB in air-land-sea operations against China and the Russian Federation following the example of Yugoslavia and Iraq. In this case, the PRC and the Russian Federation will use their AB to increase the stability of SSBNs and anti-aircraft groups (nuclear submarines, submarines, NK, aviation). And for these purposes they will need not heavy AV, but medium (40-70 kt) or light 20-40 kt). In other words, as a rule, there will be no direct confrontation between the opposing AVs. Consequently, there will be no naval battles like World War II either.
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 6 November 2020 08: 15
      -1
      70kt is already serious. as an air defense aircraft carrier in any case. and 20-40 oto just laugh. How many sides of the MiG-29K can be placed on something 20kt?
  6. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 5 November 2020 09: 09
    0
    there are also rather big American military pensions

    So why don't they do "please understand"?
  7. Maks1995
    Maks1995 5 November 2020 09: 14
    13
    Bullshit .......
    "Why do they all need aircraft carriers? USA" - in the headline
    and in the text there is almost no word about their specific application, but a lot of water, like all vulnerable and controversial statements.

    Here's what for 10 disposable submarine suicide bombers instead of one aircraft carrier? And they stand, and the operation is also great, and the application ... I hope that never ... and from time to time they drown themselves. Remember when the last DPL sank?
    Boats - here were articles that did not appear in the Persian Gulf, nor in Asia, nor in the World Cup.
    And here were also articles (and pieces of interviews with senior officers of the Russian Federation) - 1 AUG covers and covers a radius of 1000 km. Put it where it is necessary - and only their submarines will pass, covered, and there will be only their own aviation, and only our own anti-submarine aircraft / helicopters, and the corsair squadrons / convoys, too, will only have our own ...

    And moreover, everyone dreams of them. We, Japan, China, Americans, Indians, etc.
    But! fable fox and grapes ...
  8. Kostya Lavinyukov
    Kostya Lavinyukov 5 November 2020 09: 50
    +8
    With cavitation torpedoes, some kind of unscientific fantasy.
  9. Kalmar
    Kalmar 5 November 2020 10: 18
    +9
    Supercavitating torpedoes (such as Russia's Shkval) already reach speeds of up to 200 knots and can track ships for over 1000 kilometers.

    What? "Shkval" has a launch range of about 13 km, where does 1000 have to do with it? Some kind of addiction.
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 5 November 2020 14: 28
      +2
      There and the rest of the addiction of some kind laughing
  10. Andy
    Andy 5 November 2020 10: 32
    +5
    Supercavitating torpedoes (such as Russia's Shkval) already reach speeds of up to 200 knots and can track ships for over 1000 kilometers.
    ----
    author, please explain
  11. Operator
    Operator 5 November 2020 11: 40
    -6
    "The F-35 strike fighter will have a combat radius of 730 nautical miles" - the combat radius of the deck modification "Penguin" F-35C in stealth mode with ammunition in the weapons compartment is 1140 km, but the dimensions and mass of ammunition should not exceed the corresponding characteristics of the AIM-120 air-to-air missiles.

    The combat radius of the Penguin with the LRASM CR on an external sling in the full radar visibility mode is about 900 km, taking into account the LRASM flight range, the total combat radius of the entire air-missile complex is less than 1800 km, which is significantly less than the combat radius of the MiG-31, Su- 35 and Su-34 with "Dagger" ballistic missiles, "Caliber" missile launchers and "Zircon" missile launchers.

    RTOs are a temporary solution; in the future, the main killers of aircraft carriers will be the air-missile systems of the Russian Aerospace Forces and the promising SSNNs of the Russian Navy with the Zircon GKR on board.

    PS Anti-ship MRBMs with a range of 5500 km - the cherry on top bully
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 5 November 2020 12: 02
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      which is significantly less than the combat radius of the MiG-31, Su-35 and Su-34 with the "Dagger" ballistic missiles, "Caliber" missile launchers and the "Zircon" missile launcher.

      Excuse me, but at what point did the "Caliber" and "Zircon" begin to be launched from the air? And no one has yet attached the "Dagger" to the Su-34 and Su-35 (and is not going to). And the MiG-31 with the "Dagger" is still tied to the airfield (from which it is necessary to count 2000 km) and does not know how to work on moving targets (at least, this is not confirmed by anything).

      Quote: Operator
      PS Anti-ship MRBMs with a range of 5500 km - the cherry on top

      Well, this is if you give the fantasy to roam to the fullest.
      1. Operator
        Operator 5 November 2020 12: 17
        -6
        Smoke "Caliber-A" and the statements of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation about the GKR "Zircon" as a universal surface, underwater and air-based missile. "Dagger" - a temporary solution (moreover, effective - there are more carriers of "Daggers" than enemy aircraft carriers).

        Do you really think that US carrier-based aircraft will bomb the taiga / tundra with bears, and not military and industrial facilities with airfields of the Russian Aerospace Forces? laughing
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 5 November 2020 12: 28
          +5
          Quote: Operator
          Smoke "Caliber-A"

          Why eat it? Does the videoconferencing enter, or does it just exist in theory? Is the application for surface targets being worked out?

          Quote: Operator
          Statements of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation about the GKR "Zircon" as a universal surface, underwater and air-based missile

          There are a lot of high-profile statements about "Zircon", it’s no use, there is still something being tested there. And so, "Onyx", formally, is also universal, but something is not heard about its active use by our VKS.

          Quote: Operator
          there are more Daggers carriers than enemy aircraft carriers

          In general, it is not clear what this comparison is for. Or are you still in the captivity of dreams about rocket sniping: one "Dagger" - one AB?

          Quote: Operator
          Do you really think that US carrier-based aircraft will bomb the taiga / tundra with bears, and not military and industrial facilities with airfields of the Russian Aerospace Forces?

          Do you really think that every industrial facility of the Russian Federation has an airfield with an on-duty regiment of the "persecuted" MiG-31s?
          1. Operator
            Operator 5 November 2020 13: 03
            -7
            One missile ("Dagger", "Caliber", "Zircon") with 1-Mtn warhead - one AB, of course.

            I think that every Russian naval base (and part-time industrial center - Vladivostok, Pertopavlovsk in Kamchatka, Sevastopol, Rostov-on-Don, St. missiles on board will be easy and inexpensive.

            In an extreme case, it is always possible to quickly concentrate at least 40 such aircraft on one naval base - if the African Americans foolishly think of using their entire AB fleet at one of our bases (the flight speed is 20 times higher than the swimming speed).
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 5 November 2020 13: 14
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              One missile ("Dagger", "Caliber", "Zircon") with 1-Mtn warhead - one AB, of course.

              The matter is small: to make such a warhead for the indicated missiles and somehow deliver. To spit and grind, it’s business)) Well, I’m not talking about the fact that this approach requires 100% reliability of the rocket and the launch vehicle. And yes, the nasty enemy can return the Tomahawks with nuclear warheads to the arsenal of their fleet in return, here the evening will cease to be languid at all ...

              Quote: Operator
              I think that every Russian naval base ... to keep in stock a pair of MiG-31, Su-34 or Su-35 with missiles on board will be easy and inexpensive.

              And what will your pair of planes be able to do? Under the USSR, I remember, one AUG 1-2 MRA regiment was relied on, and even then their chances were far from 100%.

              Quote: Operator
              In extreme cases, you can always quickly concentrate at least 40 such aircraft on one naval base.

              There is little to do: understand where to concentrate. The naval base - after all, it stands still and does not go anywhere. But the AUG still needs to track where it is going there; before that, somehow find out that, as already written on VO, an extremely difficult trick (just don't need again the old disc about the mythical GAKs and RTR satellites, which continuously track any ship with an accuracy of a meter).
              1. Operator
                Operator 5 November 2020 13: 20
                -9
                What are you talking about: a 1-megaton three-stage thermonuclear charge weighs no more than 400 kg and has a size of no more than 50 cm, i.e. fully fits into the dimensions of a high-explosive fragmentation warhead of any KR / BR.

                It is one thing to wage a nuclear war in the international waters of the World Ocean, and quite another to strike at the national territory of a nuclear-armed enemy. The answer will have to be on the aggressor's national territory, but does he need it?
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 5 November 2020 13: 29
                  +2
                  Quote: Operator
                  What are you talking about: a 1-megaton three-stage thermonuclear charge weighs from 300 to 400 kg and has a size of 40 to 50 cm, i.e. completely fits into the dimensions of a conventional high-explosive fragmentation warhead

                  For the S-10 rocket (the forerunner of the "Caliber"), the power is indicated at 200 kt - and this is not an anti-ship missile. The much larger Granit has 500. The Iskander / Dagger will probably fit something of a megaton class, but this is not an anti-ship missile either. There is no data at all on the Zircon warhead; I think that it can't be big there (restrictions are imposed by aerodynamics).
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 5 November 2020 13: 37
                    -9
                    BB Mk21 (two-stage nuclear charge W88) - power 0,5 Mtn, weight 360 kg, dimensions 176x55 cm in a conical form factor.

                    In a three-stage design and a cylindrical form factor, the power will be 1 Mtn with a diameter> 50 cm.
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 13: 01
      +3
      "... PS Anti-ship MRBMs with a range of 5500 km ..." there are none. Firstly, 5500 is no longer an MRBM, and secondly, target designation :) Unless an ICBM with a SBS "at the location of the probable location of the AUG" to beat.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 5 November 2020 13: 16
        +5
        Quote: Bersaglieri
        Is that ICBMs with SBS "at the place of probable location of the AUG" to beat.

        A new word in rocketry is the nuclear MLRS. As target designation, the name of the ocean is enough, in which the target is hiding))
        1. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 13: 18
          +3
          Aha, "fire at the headquarters!" - all 16x8 in a volley :)
      2. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 5 November 2020 20: 17
        -2
        Quote: Bersaglieri
        Is that ICBMs with SBS "at the place of probable location of the AUG" to beat.

        and the GOS is apparently heresy for which they burn in your community? belay by the way, even on export with a range of 50-70 km and 90 (+ -45) horizontal angle.
  12. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 5 November 2020 11: 48
    +3
    Naval aviation was also reduced to nothing, which is confirmed by the fact that the United States, after the death of Hornet in 1942, did not lose a single aircraft carrier.


    AB Princeton. Died 24.10.1944
    1. novel66
      novel66 5 November 2020 12: 47
      +5
      Oh no no no! how sloppy ... lol
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 13: 02
      +2
      And if you still count the escort and the seaplane ...
  13. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 12: 59
    +2
    About "Shkval" - correct the paragraph. What are 1000km? :) Range of "Shkval" - 10 km
    1. the Saint
      the Saint 5 November 2020 18: 41
      +1
      Quote: Bersaglieri
      About "Shkval" - correct the paragraph.

      VA-111 "Shkval" allowed attacking targets at ranges of no more than 8-10 kilometers and was in service for about fifteen years: in the first half of the nineties, the fleet abandoned it.
      Soviet, and then Russian designers did not manage to create a high-speed supercavitating torpedo with any guidance system. Therefore, in the foreseeable future, naval sailors will have to use not too fast, but available torpedoes of the traditional scheme.
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 5 November 2020 20: 21
        -5
        The Shkval modernization is included in the state armaments program for 2018-2025 ...
        1. the Saint
          the Saint 5 November 2020 20: 51
          0
          Quote: SanichSan
          The Shkval modernization is included in the state armaments program for 2018-2025 ...

          This is really necessary and urgent, because the government has worsened the forecast for the decline in the population of the Russian Federation
          According to the Cabinet of Ministers, the population of Russia will decrease by 1,2 million people by 2024, and in the United States over the same period it will grow by at least 10 million.
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 5 November 2020 20: 57
            -1
            Quote: el Santo
            According to the Cabinet of Ministers, the population of Russia will decrease by 1,2 million people by 2024, and in the United States over the same period it will grow by at least 10 million.

            how are you a lot vector laughing I see that you always have a topic to groan good
            1. the Saint
              the Saint 5 November 2020 21: 04
              0
              Quote: SanichSan
              what a lot of vector you are, I see that you always have a theme to groan

              On the contrary, I am happy that my son screwed up in the EU on time, and that my grandchildren together with him are its citizens.
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 5 November 2020 21: 27
                -1
                Quote: el Santo
                On the contrary, I am happy that my son screwed up in the EU on time, and that my grandchildren together with him are its citizens.

                a true patriot of his country! good almost like a lie yes
                1. the Saint
                  the Saint 5 November 2020 21: 42
                  -2
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  patriot

                  for some time now this word has become derogatory for me
                  1. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 5 November 2020 21: 45
                    0
                    Quote: el Santo
                    for some time now this word has become derogatory for me

                    did not even doubt! yes
                    1. the Saint
                      the Saint 5 November 2020 22: 31
                      -1
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      did not even doubt!

                      Everyone knows the author of the wonderful operas A Life for the Tsar (Ivan Susanin) and Ruslan and Lyudmila. It is less known that the author of the melody, which served as the anthem of the Russian Federation for several years, M.I. Glinka did not really like Russia. As his sister recalled, crossing the border, Mikhail Ivanovich got out of the carriage, spat on Russian soil and said: "Whenever I would never see this nasty country again." And so it happened.
                      1. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 5 November 2020 23: 01
                        0
                        and this vyser why? Are you going to level yourself with Glinka? lol Well, he is a famous composer who did not get along with the Russian Empire, but who are you? offended creative intelligentsia? wassat it's funny!
                      2. the Saint
                        the Saint 6 November 2020 10: 22
                        -2
                        I equate myself with ardent patriots (like Sergei Zheleznyak), whose children left to "study" in the West (so that they could return later and benefit the Motherland), and they stayed there forever.
                        That is, I behave like a normal person, only I do not hit the "last refuge of scoundrels", being more honest.
                      3. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 9 November 2020 21: 09
                        -1
                        Quote: el Santo
                        I equate myself with ardent patriots (like Sergei Zheleznyak), whose children left to "study" in the West (so that they could return later and benefit the Motherland), and they stayed there forever.

                        It looks like the plan "patriot" was postponed and the plan "the fish is looking where is deeper, and the man is where better" came into effect. There are a lot of show-offs and, as a result, ordinary citizens "with low social responsibility" request
                        Quote: el Santo
                        That is, I behave like a normal person, only I do not hit the "last refuge of scoundrels", being more honest.

                        and how is this expressed? in the irrepressible need to spit on the country that created you? apparently your character traits played a role in the fact that your children were dumped from you request
                      4. the Saint
                        the Saint 10 November 2020 13: 33
                        -3
                        Piled from Putin and from the trash, not from me wink And even then it is said loudly, because it is 2 hours by car from home to home - some take longer to get to work every day. It seems close, but the quality of life is much better.
                        As the patriotic deputy I. Rodnina rightly noted about other patriots reproaching her with her American daughter and grandchildren, this is envy. winked
                      5. Sanichsan
                        Sanichsan 10 November 2020 14: 25
                        -1
                        Quote: el Santo
                        Piled from Putin and from the trash, not from me

                        it means all the same to spit at home ... the main thing is where the standard of living is higher request
                        but how pretentious it was only two days ago!
                        Quote: el Santo
                        whose children left to "study" in the West (in order to return later and benefit the Motherland), and stayed there forever.

                        and in the end, ordinary traitors to the homeland who are interested in only one question - "where will they give more?" request well, in principle, with a teacher like you, it's not surprising ...
                        Quote: el Santo
                        As the patriotic deputy I. Rodnina rightly noted about other patriots reproaching her with her American daughter and grandchildren, this is envy.

                        they say the same about what is stolen. they say all this is not corruption, but envy yes
                        further communication with you is not interesting and unpleasant for me. not all good to you hi
                      6. the Saint
                        the Saint 10 November 2020 15: 42
                        -3
                        Quote: SanichSan
                        don't care about home ... the main thing is where the standard of living is higher

                        That's right, yes. And the pathos is not mine, but patriot Zheleznyak (Lavrov, Putin ... and the rest in power), because, unlike them, I am not a hypocrite.

                        Former friend (family friends) of Putin, fugitive Orthodox banker and ex-senator Sergei Pugachev: "Putin wanted to leave after 2004. He had some dreams, hopes, he wanted to live in the West."
            2. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 5 November 2020 23: 07
              -3
              I recommend that you read "The Diary of a Collaborator" by Olympiada Polyakova. you will be very instructive wink
  • stalkerwalker
    stalkerwalker 5 November 2020 21: 31
    +1
    Quote: el Santo
    Quote: SanichSan
    The Shkval modernization is included in the state armaments program for 2018-2025 ...

    This is really necessary and urgent, because the government has worsened the forecast for the decline in the population of the Russian Federation
    According to the Cabinet of Ministers, the population of Russia will decrease by 1,2 million people by 2024, and in the United States over the same period it will grow by at least 10 million.

    Quote: el Santo
    On the contrary, I am happy that my son screwed up in the EU on time, and that my grandchildren together with him are his citizens

    It turns out that the word "screwed up" - this is the main and main thing in the essence of your happy European family ...
    When will you screw up - report here. We will be sincerely happy for the newly minted EU citizens without kinship.
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 5 November 2020 21: 47
      +1
      Quote: stalkerwalker
      It turns out that the word "screwed up" is the main and main thing in the essence of your happy European family ...

      it will be very embarrassing if you go to Italy or Spain ... but now in Britain not even so ... wassat
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 5 November 2020 22: 00
        +1
        Quote: SanichSan
        it will be very embarrassing if you go to Italy or Spain ... but now in Britain, not even really

        All "enlightened Europe" is in a pandemic crisis.
        At Christmas, on Christ, the peak of mortality is expected.
        We changed last Saturday. I passed the test and received the answer that there are chances.
        Right now, I'm collecting bags and boxes of groceries, and I'll wave to the village. For another self-isolation ...
        laughing
  • Operator
    Operator 5 November 2020 13: 06
    -9
    Quote: Bersaglieri
    Firstly, 5500 is no longer MRBM, secondly, target designation

    First, you are wrong; secondly, eat 29B6 "Container".
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 13: 23
      +4
      I do not smoke, all the more so, such a zaborist "plan". I see "Shityakovism" in this material, in terms of means of destruction and guidance :)
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 13: 25
      +5
      And as for the ZGRLS (29B6 "Container".), Then it, by virtue of the principles of its work (a physicist cannot be fooled even by the "secret scientific research institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation or DAPRA" :)), gives the accuracy of the form "two fingers to the left of Algol" ... For an early warning system, as a means of warning about a launch, it will roll, for guidance and target designation, in no way. More precisely, just "beat the squares" :)
  • Operator
    Operator 5 November 2020 13: 25
    -4
    Quote: Bersaglieri
    I do not smoke

    And in vain - then they would not have mentioned in vain about 5500 km.

    Yes, yes, yes: especially "two fingers to the left of Algol" when working on air targets laughing
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 5 November 2020 13: 32
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      Yes, yes, yes: especially "two fingers to the left of Algol" when working on air targets

      It only tracks air targets, but does not give out a target control for them (because it is two-coordinate). That is, conventionally, its task is to signal that something suspicious is flying in the indicated area, and then let the more eyed ones arrive and sort it out.
      1. Operator
        Operator 5 November 2020 13: 41
        -7
        So, the ZGRLS still gives two coordinates of such a point target as an air one, and not "two fingers to the left of Algol"?

        What about the third coordinate of the surface target? bully
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 5 November 2020 13: 43
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          So, the ZGRLS still gives two coordinates of such a point target as an air one and not "two fingers to the left of Algol"?

          The accuracy of these coordinates is another story.

          Quote: Operator
          What about the third coordinate of the surface target?

          And it does not track surface targets at all: the low speed of objects, as a result, it is difficult to distinguish them against the background of the underlying surface. Plus, there are not enough coordinates for the control center: speed and course are also needed.
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 16: 38
      +2
      Andrey, you "did not know and forgot" physics? How does the ZGRLS work at least imagine and in what wavelength range? And on what basis? There is no court for comments. PS The second coming of Shityakov, or what? 15 years after "Airbase" with fairy tales about "Stealth-Mi-24RVPM" and other "fantarts"? :)
      1. Operator
        Operator 5 November 2020 17: 48
        -4
        No need to poke - this is not your Airbase.

        In what wavelength range and how does the ZGRLS work - Google to help.
  • Operator
    Operator 5 November 2020 13: 47
    -8
    Quote: Kalmar
    she [ZGRLS] does not track surface targets at all


    Only foreign agent Timokhin bit you laughing
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 5 November 2020 14: 07
      +4
      Quote: Operator
      Only foreign agent Timokhin bit you

      Not otherwise, how do you still confuse surface wave radar with spatial radar. Your picture is about superficial; such radars can track NK, but at ranges up to 300-400 km (even in the picture it can be seen). An example is the Sunflower radar. But "Container" is a completely different story.
      1. Operator
        Operator 5 November 2020 14: 14
        -4
        Type RLSPV can detect only surface targets, and ZGRLS - only air? laughing
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 5 November 2020 14: 21
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          Type RLSPV can detect only surface targets, and ZGRLS - only air?

          Like, I can't even imagine how you got this conclusion from what I wrote.

          NK can be monitored by both, only the sky-wave radar (like "Container") - with an error of "plus or minus tram stop", which is not suitable for classification and control center. Surface wave radars can already provide a decent control center, but at relatively short ranges (up to 400 km).
      2. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 16: 47
        +1
        That's right, yes. "One-hop" ZGLS can potentially provide rough target designation and bring the anti-ship missile system into the zone where the anti-ship missile launch vehicle will capture the target. Just - 300-40 kilometers, no further (below the calculation for "Andrey-fantasta" resulted, for different distances)
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 16: 43
      +3
      Tracks, but with very low accuracy, the tropospheric and ionospheric refractions, which provide the over-the-horizon "look" - are very variable things. They give an error in determining the coordinates of the current ones on the first reflection, about 0.5-1% of the range (this is up to 300-400 km, i.e. +/- 4 km), on the second-third, 3-5% of the range and more. Those. at 2000 km (3 refractions) - +/- 60 ... 100 km. What is the target designation then? :). Therefore, the niche of such devices is the Missile Attack Warning System. Everything.
      1. Operator
        Operator 5 November 2020 18: 19
        -9
        Refraction is the Podsolnukh radar missile launcher, and the Container radar missile launcher, obviously.

        Teach materiel:
        - the probe beam of the OGRLS "Container" when operating at a distance of 1000 to 3000 km has one reflection from the ionosphere (one "jump");
        - accordingly, when working at a distance of 3000 to 6000 km, there are two such "jumps".

        After warming up the ionosphere, at a distance of 1000 to 3000 km, the ZGRLS operates in the range with a wavelength of ~ 10 meters, at a range of 3000 to 6000 km ~ 100 meters. ZGRLS distinguishes targets with linear dimensions in half a wave - respectively 5 meters (cruise missile / boat) and 50 meters (bomber / corvette).

        In the first case, the accuracy of determining the range to the target is about 1 km, in the second case, about 10 km. The same applies to the determination of the azimuth - in the linear measurement the same 1 km and 10 km. In any case, the external target designation of the ZGRLS should be supplemented by the operation of the missile seeker at the terminal flight segment.

        ZGRLS also determines the speed of the target (by the Doppler change in the frequency of the radar radiation) and the altitude of the target (with an accuracy of 1 and 10 km, respectively).

        In addition to the number of "jumps", the resolution of the ZGRLS also depends on the power of the computing device processing the reflected signal, therefore, the so-called ZGRLS are included in the composition of the ZGRLS. supercomputers with a real-time 3D image building program.
        1. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 6 November 2020 12: 08
          +1
          "Distinguishes" does not mean "gives an exact location". Don't confuse sensitivity and accuracy :)
        2. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 6 November 2020 12: 11
          +1
          And the passage about data processing reminds me (this is already by the nature of work) of some "stubborn" bioinformatics and data scientists who are sincerely sure that "digital" is primary, and the quality of input "material" data is not important, which is stupidity ... And why? And from ignorance of mathematics and physics :)
          1. Bersaglieri
            Bersaglieri 7 November 2020 01: 24
            +2
            Shityakov went to minus :) Exactly - he :)
        3. Bersaglieri
          Bersaglieri 6 November 2020 12: 12
          +1
          "And the ionosphere of" innovators-patrio-fantasists "is such an" ideal mirror "" :)
    3. Fizik M
      Fizik M 8 November 2020 01: 47
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      bit

      lol
      Dyusha, you Can you imagine the difference between ZGRLS and surface wave radar? Or do you habitually "pull cards from your sleeve"?
      Surface targets (including small-sized and low-speed ones) see radar stations on a surface wave very well (within their detection zone), at one time the "fish mafia" in Kamchatka opposed the construction of the "Sunflower" in Kamchatka for this very reason.
      But with ZGRLS there are problems with ...
  • Lex_is
    Lex_is 5 November 2020 14: 27
    +6
    Why do they all need aircraft carriers?
    It's simple, they live in reality, and not in the world of the author's delusional fantasies.

    Unlike the fleets of China and Russia, which today rely on small missile ships to defend their coasts, the US fleet is flooded with large, powerful and increasingly vulnerable. This is not to say that this jeopardizes the future of America, but this moment cannot be called positive either.

    Firstly, China does not rely on RTOs in the defense of the coast, they have 30 destroyers, 54 frigates and 56 corvettes, which provide 80 missile boats with combat stability.
    Second, the naval doctrines of China, Russia and the United States are very different. The US Navy is not intended to defend its coastline, but to project force into any region of the world.

    In the coming new era, the "fort" is a sophisticated complex of detecting and targeting anti-ship missiles over the horizon, which makes surface ships vulnerable and which prevents them from approaching the coastline. That is, they do not give the opportunity to deploy aviation at a sufficiently safe distance.


    The fleet performs tasks far from only off the coast of the enemy, and far from only with the help of the AUG. There are also such types of actions as struggle on communications, blockade, etc. The blow to communications and disruption to supplies for China is far worse than hitting the coast with tomahawks.

    One of the most effective components of an effective submarine procurement program should be a "back to the future" program, which includes very quiet diesel submarines, which are not currently in the US Navy at all.


    And the author did not think, why are they not there at all?
    And they are not there because the US Navy is not intended to protect its coast, but to project force into any region of the world, and driving DPLs across the ocean is the height of genius.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 15: 04
      -1
      The United States is planning non-nuclear submarines, although they will be unmanned and battery-powered.
      1. Lex_is
        Lex_is 5 November 2020 15: 24
        +2
        They are planning, but this is not an analogue of the DPL, these are drones, with all their advantages and disadvantages.
      2. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 17: 51
        +2
        Unmanned, short-range. And they will be controlled from quite traditional, low-noise SSNS (new contours, with full electric motion, side impellers, etc.). For there is nothing better than an AEU for an ocean theater. "Physics, bastard - what are you doing, huh?" :)
    2. Firelake
      Firelake 5 November 2020 15: 14
      +2
      The first half of the article is still quite normal, but the second is just some kind of fierce delirium.
  • Operator
    Operator 5 November 2020 15: 38
    -7
    Quote: Kalmar
    "plus or minus tram stop", which is not suitable for classification and control center

    Where did you get it - in the deception of the foreign agent Timokhin?
  • Charik
    Charik 5 November 2020 15: 51
    0
    Supercavitating torpedoes (such as the Russian Shkval) already reach speeds of up to 200 knots and can track ships for over 1000 kilometers - WHAT?
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 5 November 2020 17: 53
      0
      This is Shityakov :)
  • 9 Shaft
    9 Shaft 5 November 2020 16: 48
    0
    The second half of the century simply will not be)))))
  • the Saint
    the Saint 5 November 2020 21: 52
    0
    Quote: stalkerwalker

    It turns out that the word "screwed up" is the main and main thing in the essence of your happy European family ...
    When will you screw up - report here. We will be sincerely happy for the newly minted EU citizens without kinship.

    I, in fact, was born, I live all my life and am going to die in Leningrad (in the small homeland of my fellow countryman VVP), because it is too late for me and there is no need to change the usual way of a well-to-do life.
    And the parental instinct is one of the basic instincts of living creatures that ensure the survival and development of offspring in the best (possible) conditions for this.
  • ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 5 November 2020 22: 32
    +1
    Initially, aircraft carriers were created to counter aircraft carriers, but at the end of WWII, after gaining air superiority, tactics changed. AB began to be used for coastal targets and in the form of support for the landing and ground forces.
    Projecting its power, the United States has used it in this way throughout the 20th century. The creation of "no access" zones and the development of coastal missile systems neutralize this possibility. On VO there are many articles and comments about the power of the AUG, but everyone forgets that the planes taking off from AB are limited in the choice of BZ (it is impossible to hang weapons on the plane for all cases, we will fix the fuel supply with the help of refuelers, but they are vulnerable in themselves) Hokai, starting to work, glows like a New Year's garland, thereby unmasking the AUG, then a matter of technology and tactics of its use.
    Consider a "spherical horse in a vacuum", i.e. the possibility of issuing a control center and adjusting the flight of the DF-21D. wink We do not know this, but we will believe the Chinese media. AUG will not approach the coast for the possibility of using aircraft, but it will expose itself to a huge risk of losing AB. Then again, the matter of tactics of using weapons and equipment (ships and China's own AUG). The use of nuclear weapons with the ability to receive a response is unacceptable.
    Against Russia, the use of AUG from the South, Baltic or North is pointless, it is cheaper to use land airfields. There remains only the Pacific Ocean direction. You cannot imperceptibly enter the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and from the Japanese Sea the same way. Remains Kamchatka. But the meaning ?! The landing force cannot be landed, the losses are huge, the BRAVs are mobile, the targets are shot, and any attack is fraught with the use of nuclear weapons.
    As correctly written in the article, the content of the AUG is mega-cost, even for the projection of force laughing
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 5 November 2020 23: 17
      +2
      Quote: ZEMCH
      Initially, aircraft carriers were created to counter aircraft carriers

      And why were aircraft carriers created, to counter which aircraft carriers were created?

      Quote: ZEMCH
      The creation of "no access" zones and the development of coastal missile systems neutralize this possibility

      Coastal complexes still cannot move along the coastline as freely as ships. Plus, they don't work on their own: they need a control center, which is not so easy to get. In recent articles, examples were given of how American aircraft carrier formations managed to go unnoticed for a long time at the very border of Soviet territorial waters.

      Quote: ZEMCH
      then the planes taking off from AB are limited in the choice of BZ (it is impossible to hang weapons on the plane for all cases,

      With any aviation so. The composition of weapons is planned for a specific operation.

      Quote: ZEMCH
      Hokai, starting to work, glows like a New Year's garland, thereby unmasking the AUG

      He disguises himself. And then - yes, it's a matter of technology: not to betray the position of AB with maneuvers, or even to "lead" the enemy in the opposite direction (the Americans quite successfully practiced such tricks).

      Quote: ZEMCH
      AUG to the coast for the possibility of using aircraft will not be suitable

      Well, there are different opinions. Again, recently there was an article just about this: how to imperceptibly adjust the AUG to the Chinese coast)

      Quote: ZEMCH
      Against Russia, the use of AUG from the South, Baltic or North is meaningless

      I agree about the south and the Baltic. With the North, there are options: after all, the most combat-ready of the Russian fleets is working there, so reinforcement from the air will be useful. Basic aviation, on the other hand, cannot always provide adequate support for ships operating far from the coast.
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 5 November 2020 23: 42
        0
        Quote: Kalmar
        And why were aircraft carriers created, to counter which aircraft carriers were created?

        To counter the surface fleet, the main striking force is torpedo bombers and cover fighters.
        Quote: Kalmar
        Coastal complexes still cannot move along the coastline as freely as ships. Plus, they don't work on their own: they need a control center, which is not so easy to get. In recent articles, examples were given of how American aircraft carrier formations managed to go unnoticed for a long time at the very border of Soviet territorial waters.

        BRAV moves faster than ships, planes are faster, but concealment and decoys are just as effective. The control center for the missile range is up and running.
        About the unnoticed AUG in the 80s, I agree, but now RTR funds are still better)))
        Quote: Kalmar
        Well, there are different opinions. Again, recently there was an article just about this: how to imperceptibly adjust the AUG to the Chinese coast)

        We played a lot in the headquarters on this matter, the probability of the use of weapons by the Americans has always been reduced to zero, assistance to Taiwan will be provided morally, by the presence of AUG, plus the supply of weapons, but no more! China is not a third world country now, losses for the United States will be unacceptable in the event of participation in the conflict, with any participants against China, any number of AUG!
        There is no trace of the fifth column capable of breaking up from the inside, and the Americans will not die for someone!
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 6 November 2020 09: 51
          +2
          Quote: ZEMCH
          Just BRAV moves faster than ships

          If there is a good road along the coast, perhaps. And then the ships can be in motion around the clock (unlike BRAV). Outside the road network BRAV will definitely not be able to compete in speed.

          Quote: ZEMCH
          The control center for the missile range is up and running.

          This issue was considered. Brief conclusion: everything is sad. At 300-400 km, central control units can issue ZGRLS of the "Sunflower" type (just how many of them are there and where?), Then there is nothing special. Well, the "Sunflowers" will have all the same problems with mobility as the BRAV: if there is a road - good, no - sadness.

          Quote: ZEMCH
          About the unnoticed AUG in the 80s, I agree, but now RTR funds are still better)))

          Alas. In the 80s, there was an MPA with reconnaissance aircraft in its composition, there was a satellite reconnaissance system, there was a large fleet that constantly patrolled areas of the world's oceans of interest to us. Now the fleet has greatly shrunk quantitatively and qualitatively, the satellite complex has shrunk to 4 spacecraft, the MRA has de facto ceased to exist (in any case, its reconnaissance component). And yes, the Americans have not yet lost their skills in radio silence, so even the most modern RTR tools (of which we have few) are not a panacea.
  • iskanderzp
    iskanderzp 5 November 2020 23: 02
    +2
    "...AND cruise missilefired from the launcher of a ship that is inconspicuous and much lower in the hierarchical ladder, worth less than a third of each bombdelivered by a fighter from the deck of an aircraft carrier ... "Um ... Roman, as I understand it, in this case you sum up the cost of the bomb itself, the aircraft and, apparently, to the heap, the entire AUG?)))
  • pin_code
    pin_code 6 November 2020 07: 37
    +1
    Americans are not stupid enough to build 10 extra boats to replace an aircraft carrier. the boat is not visible. and the AUG can be observed almost in real time (possibly). which is scarier? I think AUG looks MUCH scarier than 10 boats that are not visible. which can save volumes of barks. with one kind of your AUG you can demoralize the enemy (but not everyone)
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 6 November 2020 16: 12
    -1
    I fully support the respected Roman Skomorokhov, Av is a weapon of aggression only against weak countries, but Russia does not need them.
  • Stas1973
    Stas1973 6 November 2020 18: 28
    0
    Reminds the situation of the 30s of the last century. One side.
    On the other hand, only a balanced fleet can be worth something. And the detection / defeat range is still determined by the radio horizon of the ship's mast, and the accuracy of the defeat, except for the possibility of the first strike, before the detonation of ammunition from the SBS with EMP, again is the direct firing distance of the ship's guns and the capabilities of their rangefinders.
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 9 November 2020 18: 45
      0
      Quote: Stas1973
      ... And the detection / defeat range is still determined by the radio horizon of the ship's mast,


      For a long time already not so.
      Starlink - completely changed the system ...
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 9 November 2020 18: 44
    0
    Roman, but you are posting nonsense ... Again, a comparison of one spherical horse in a vacuum. against the entire fleet ...
    One aircraft carrier against the entire fleet?
    You yourself are not dumb to write such things. that clearly show your level of brain development?
    Stupidly 1st grade ...
    Not higher.
    The above is already teaching the simplest analytics ...

    If the US fleet attacks China, then the attack detachment will have 2 Ohio SSGNs, about 40 submarines of 3 types, about 35 destroyers, 10 cruisers and 7 aircraft carriers ...
    3 dozen high-class VNEU PL,
    Apart from dozens of RTR, AWACS, PLO aircraft, refuellers ...
    Thousands of fighter-bomber aircraft ... (yes, this number will definitely include the planes of the South Caucasus and Japan)
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 14 November 2020 03: 38
    0
    This article is complete nonsense.