Military Review

"Develop the idea of ​​the usefulness of aircraft carriers": the United States assessed the course of disinformation campaigns against Russia and China

75

The conviction of Russia and China that the Pentagon has achieved a technological breakthrough in the creation of new weapons systems can be a valuable strategic tool. Even if it takes several years to achieve success or American developers are stumped.


Lie without blushing


This opinion was expressed by Christian Brose of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (CSBA):

Selective disclosure successes will cause our competitors to make mistakes, including in financing their own work.


According to him, this method has long been used by the Russians, who previously released data on the deployment of missiles on the border with NATO, or when Moscow notified the world about the development of the concept of using tactical nuclear weapons.

According to Brose, trying to deceive the enemy, it is advisable to talk about systems that are impossible to "feel". First of all, this applies to cybernetic and artificial intelligence in military products. In his words, it is necessary to speak loudly about breakthroughs in the field of software, since opponents will not be able to verify whether these statements correspond to reality - unlike, for example, the North Korean ICBMs, which recently appeared at the military parade.



The main thing is to lure funds


However, Brose objected to Jacqueline Schneider, a security expert at the Stanford Institute. According to her, claims of achievements in the field of cyberspace and software are not perceived by the enemy as gaining an advantage by a competitor that can significantly affect the outcome of the conflict. Another thing is to force the enemy to invest in expensive large platforms.

Give China the idea of ​​these aircraft carriers ... Develop it. They are very useful, but [which Beijing ignored] is also vulnerable
- Schneider assessed the course of the disinformation campaigns conducted by the United States.

In her opinion, the main goal in their implementation is to make the enemy ineffectively spend as much money as possible. However, in this matter, one cannot overdo it, since the enemy, having overestimated the level of threat, may resort to the use of force.

For our part, we note that a number of experts have repeatedly voiced doubts regarding some of the latest products of the American defense industry. In particular, attention was drawn to the fact that the Pentagon's statements about the high combat potential of the F-35 fighter were actually not supported by anything. In the United States, they constantly talk about a "revolutionary" information system for pilot support, capable of independently assessing the whole picture of the battle and giving a layout according to the relevance of targets. However, according to experts, there is no demonstration of this creation in real work. It is possible that the F-35 is just not a product of the military-industrial complex, but of subversive services.
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Victor_B
    Victor_B 2 December 2020 05: 05
    +1
    Building and maintaining AV is VERY expensive ...
    One of the greats said - if you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser.
    AUG are necessary for kuroshchenie all African and South American black ... well, in general, unloved countries.
    He "projected" such a force, almost a hundred combat aircraft and a hundred or two KRs on warrant ships, and there are also "mistrals" with a couple of regiments of sea crooks with equipment, and many governments are beginning to beg pardon.
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 2 December 2020 05: 13
      0
      But AUG against AUG in the clear sea-okiyane ...
      Most likely, both will safely go to feed the fish ...
      Well, or "whoever got up first - that and sneakers", that is, shot first. Without warning...
      1. Stas157
        Stas157 2 December 2020 06: 13
        +8
        ... "Develop the idea of ​​the usefulness of aircraft carriers": the United States assessed the course of disinformation campaigns against Russia and China

        American evaluators missed twice. China's powerful economy will never become poorer from aircraft carriers. And Russia will not build them all the same, because there is nothing.

        This story looks more like misinformation. By merging such information, the Americans persuade China and Russia not to build aircraft carriers and not encroach on the symbol of American military power.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 06: 41
          +7
          Quote: Stas157
          This story looks more like misinformation.

          She is. Whatever the Americans say, you should look at what they are doing.
          1. Aerodrome
            Aerodrome 2 December 2020 07: 57
            +1
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            She is. Whatever the Americans say, you should look at what they are doing

            Hello fellow countryman, from Ekat, Chelyabinsk rules! soldier
            (there are not enough laces from the reinforcement, and so are the norms) Good day Andrey! fellow
            1. Aerodrome
              Aerodrome 2 December 2020 09: 32
              +7
              Quote: Aerodrome
              Hello fellow countryman

              wow, how many cons! but I'm just in a good mood, 5ku waved off on skis, a wonderful day, -18, sun, adrenaline splashing, tea with currant jam, ... "sofa" ... to work in the "second", what else do you need to be happy? then minus the pot-bellied "fighters"! laughing
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 09: 43
              +4
              Quote: Aerodrome
              good day Andrey!

              "Be healthy, boyar. And your woman!" (from) drinks
              1. Aerodrome
                Aerodrome 2 December 2020 10: 05
                +4
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Quote: Aerodrome
                good day Andrey!

                "Be healthy, boyar. And your woman!" (from) drinks

                what the hell "boyar" .. from the "factory" we pour cast iron shoes, for you, for the Chelyabinsk. laughing
          2. Xnumx vis
            Xnumx vis 2 December 2020 08: 50
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: Stas157
            This story looks more like misinformation.

            She is. Whatever the Americans say, you should look at what they are doing.

            To have aircraft carriers, you must have Naval bases in all oceans and seas. Which is what the Americans have. We will have to drag for the aircraft carrier group - tankers, supply vessels, weapons ships, floating. workshops, hospital ships, reconnaissance, tugboats, etc., etc. Well, we do not have overseas naval bases. Tartus and that's it. And various rumors about Sudan. This is not enough .
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 09: 44
              +2
              Quote: 30 vis
              To have aircraft carriers, you must have Naval bases in all oceans

              Do not.
              1. Aerodrome
                Aerodrome 2 December 2020 10: 08
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Quote: 30 vis
                To have aircraft carriers, you must have Naval bases in all oceans

                Do not.

                comrade, thinks that fuel oil needs to be refueled, as in the Kuza. fellow
                1. Xnumx vis
                  Xnumx vis 2 December 2020 10: 48
                  +2
                  Quote: Aerodrome
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: 30 vis
                  To have aircraft carriers, you must have Naval bases in all oceans

                  Do not.

                  comrade, thinks that fuel oil needs to be refueled, as in the Kuza. fellow

                  Comrade, he thinks that the much-praised vessel does not go alone. There is a battle order. In which there are warships consuming fuel oil. And also aircraft without nuclear engines. In addition, sailors must eat, drink water, wash, and receive medical treatment. On ships, mechanisms, weapons and other tricky equipment have the ability to fail. This is so, only the visible tip of an aircraft carrier iceberg! hi
                  1. Aerodrome
                    Aerodrome 2 December 2020 11: 05
                    +2
                    Quote: 30 vis
                    This is so, only the visible tip of an aircraft carrier iceberg!

                    just take an interest in the "autonomous" system of the "weakest" aircraft carrier, and now tell me: do they need "bases"? there is not like a "six" ..... food is delivered for days. wagons.
                  2. Aerodrome
                    Aerodrome 2 December 2020 11: 23
                    0
                    Quote: 30 vis
                    Quote: Aerodrome
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Quote: 30 vis
                    To have aircraft carriers, you must have Naval bases in all oceans

                    Do not.

                    comrade, thinks that fuel oil needs to be refueled, as in the Kuza. fellow

                    Comrade, he thinks that the much-praised vessel does not go alone. There is a battle order. In which there are warships consuming fuel oil. And also aircraft without nuclear engines. In addition, sailors must eat, drink water, wash, and receive medical treatment. On ships, mechanisms, weapons and other tricky equipment have the ability to fail. This is so, only the visible tip of an aircraft carrier iceberg! hi

                    well, of course, the comrade is not aware that the units from the order can be easily replaced, because there are as many as 70 of them, and if some captain is tired of escorting a formidable Russian group of warships at a certain point of dampness, then he can easily give his post to a colleague .. . the same "bjork". no ?
                    1. Xnumx vis
                      Xnumx vis 2 December 2020 11: 37
                      +1
                      Quote: Aerodrome
                      well, of course, the comrade is not aware that the units from the order can be easily replaced, because there are as many as 70 of them, and if some captain is tired of escorting a formidable Russian group of warships at a certain point of dampness, then he can easily give his post to a colleague .. . the same "bjork". no ?

                      To a fan of the American navy laughing ! Comrade is talking about the Russian fleet! This time. During the Soviet era, ours went to military service in the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea
                      , Pacific Ocean . And there were naval bases there. Base in Cuba, Angola (Atlantic), Vietnam-Kamran (Indian Ocean!), Tartus Mediterranean Sea. plus the North Sea GRD and Poland.
                      hi PS Do not know the topic, do not bother to argue.
                      1. Aerodrome
                        Aerodrome 3 December 2020 02: 54
                        0
                        Quote: 30 vis
                        plus North Sea GRD

                        oh ... I'm not poking around ... you seem to be in the subject. GRD-hello!
                      2. Xnumx vis
                        Xnumx vis 3 December 2020 09: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Aerodrome
                        GRD-hello!

                        laughing And there is a hole in the old woman!
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 12: 33
                  +2
                  Quote: 30 vis
                  Comrade, he thinks that the much-praised vessel does not go alone.

                  Does not go. But the main possible combat missions of our TAVKR (or AV, if you like) will nevertheless be solved in the seas adjacent to our border in the north and the Far East. And for long trips, a bunch of bases around the world are not needed.
                  I also want to recall the actions of the British fleet grouping near the Falklands. They completely dispensed with the base.
                  1. A1845
                    A1845 2 December 2020 13: 54
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                    I also want to recall the actions of the British fleet grouping near the Falklands. They completely dispensed with the base.

                    In fairness, I must say that they were lucky in many ways, but in general they acted risky, the states do not like to take risks - therefore, they have a large fleet of bases and tanker aircraft so that basic aviation can get everywhere
                    What is your opinion?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 18: 56
                      +1
                      Quote: A1845
                      in fairness, I must say that they were lucky in many ways

                      How can I say? Admiral Woodward did the absolutely right thing - he placed his would-be aircraft carriers at such a distance from the islands, where the Argentine ground aircraft could hardly find or attack them. More precisely, it could, but there were so many stars that had to converge, how many do not usually converge in a war. But the British deck ships still reached the Falklends. As a result, the Argentines worked mainly on the destroyers and frigates of the KVMF, sticking closer to the islands - VTOL aircraft could not provide their air defense.
                      Be that as it may, the British flew intensively (albeit useless for the most part) and their ships demonstrated the ability to fight far from their home shores and bases for quite a long time
                    2. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 3 December 2020 11: 36
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      How can I say? Admiral Woodward did the absolutely right thing - he placed his would-be aircraft carriers at such a distance from the islands, where the Argentine ground aircraft could hardly find or attack them. More precisely, it could, but there were so many stars that had to converge, how many do not usually converge in a war. But the British deck ships still reached the Falklends.

                      that is, the fact that all the transports with the landing party got hit by bombs even before they reached the Falklands, but these bombs did not explode, is this not luck? What good would this aircraft carrier be if the entire landing force was at the bottom?
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Be that as it may, the British flew intensively (albeit useless for the most part) and their ships demonstrated the ability to fight far from their home shores and bases for quite a long time

                      do not exaggerate. within its autonomy.
                    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2020 12: 51
                      +1
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      that is, the fact that all the transports with the landing party got hit by bombs even before they reached the Falklands, but these bombs did not explode, is this not luck?

                      No, these are the rampant fantasies of a person not familiar with the Falklands Conflict from the word "in general." Let it be known to you that neither during the movement to the Falklands (evening of May 20), nor on the first night of disembarkation (from May 20 to May 21), not a single transport, landing ship, or any other KVMF ship received any damage. The next day, May 21, the Argentines revived, so that the British lost the frigate Ardent, and the Entrim and Argonot were badly damaged, 2 more frigates were slightly scratched. But on that day, not a single transport vessel was damaged.
                      And only on May 24, on the 4th day of the landing, the Argentines switched to attacking transports. As a result, 3 vehicles were damaged. On May 25, the Argentines sink the Atlantic conveyor, finally, on June 8, they managed to sink one transport ship and damage another.
                      I remind you that in total the British amphibious group had two large landing dock ships, six specially built transport and landing ships and thirteen requisitioned transport ships (including the Atlantic Conveyor).
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      do not exaggerate. within its autonomy.

                      Where did you manage to discern an exaggeration? The British AB fought fairly intense hostilities from about May 1 to June 13. Yes, within the limits of their autonomy, which allowed relatively small AVs to carry out their tasks for more than a month in isolation from the bases.
                    4. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 4 December 2020 01: 30
                      -1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      No, these are the rampant fantasies of a person not familiar with the Falklands Conflict from the word "in general."

                      you are self-critical good laughing
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Let it be known to you that neither during the movement to the Falklands (evening of May 20), nor on the first night of disembarkation (from May 20 to May 21), not a single transport, landing ship, or any other KVMF ship received any damage. The next day, May 21, the Argentines revived, so that the British lost the frigate Ardent, and the Entrim and Argonot were badly damaged, 2 more frigates were slightly scratched. But on that day, not a single transport vessel was damaged.

                      you are sure? and if so:
                      "The landing ship "Sir Lancelot" - on the approach to the Falkland Islands received a direct hit 1000-fnl. air bomb Fortunately for the British, detonation did not happen - otherwise, the ship, loaded to the brim with marines and equipment, would have turned into a hellish brazier.

                      The landing ship, “Sir Galahed”, could also die on the way - in the open ocean “Sir Galahed” received a terrible blow by 1000-fnl. a bomb that, once again, spared the British

                      However, the ship could not get away from fate: the Argentine Air Force ground attack aircraft burned the "Sir Galahed" on boarding the Bluff Cove. By that time, most of the marines had landed, however, 40 people had burned down with the ship.

                      The third landing ship, "Sir Tristram" during the landing of marines in Bluff Cove, was subjected to violent attacks of Argentine aviation, as a result of its deck stuck 500-fnl. bomb. The British sailors and marines in horror rushed into the icy water - away from the dangerous "attraction." The "humane" bomb, having waited for the ship to leave the last sailor, was immediately activated. “Sir Tristram” burned for several hours - it’s scary to imagine if hundreds of marines were on board at that moment.
                      "
                      the British were saved only by the fact that 80% of Argentinean ammunition did not work properly yes
                    5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2020 07: 10
                      +2
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      you are self-critical

                      Very funny. Not enough for you.
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      you are sure?

                      I'm sure.
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      and if so:

                      That is, even after I chewed up the information and put it in your mouth, you are still unable to assimilate it.
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      The landing ship "Sir Lancelot" - on the approach to the Falkland Islands received a direct hit 1000-fnl. air bomb Fortunately for the British, detonation did not happen - otherwise, the ship, loaded to the brim with marines and equipment, would have turned into a hellish brazier.

                      Quote: SanichSan
                      The landing ship, “Sir Galahed”, could also die on the way - in the open ocean “Sir Galahed” received a terrible blow by 1000-fnl. a bomb that, once again, spared the British

                      You have just quoted Oleg Kaptsov, the author of VO, who, unfortunately, is known for his inattention to certain details. I am writing from the words of D. Tatarkov "Conflict in the South Atlantic: The Falklands War of 1982" and ... in fact, the commander of the British fleet, Woodworth S., who later wrote his memoirs "The Falklands War" and a lot of other sources.
                      I dare to note that my eight-article cycle, published on VO https://topwar.ru/96709-harriery-v-boyu-folklendskiy-konflikt-1982-g-chast-8.html (I give the last article, it contains links to all previous) is a little more complete and detailed than the work of Kaptsov.
                      Closing the topic. We go to the most accessible Maritime collection "Ships of the Falklands War" (for example, on the site "Wunderwaffe", read
                      Sir Bedivere (L-3004) - 24 May received a glancing blow from an unexploded bomb dropped by the Skyhawk attack aircraft from the 4th fighter-bomber group.
                      Sir Galahad (L-3005) - 24 May was hit by an unexploded bomb dropped by the Skyhawk attack aircraft from the 4th Fighter-Bomber Group. Part of the team was evacuated, the bomb was defused. Received minor injuries.
                      8 June during the landing at Bluff Cove, it was attacked by Skyhawk aircraft from the 5th Fighter-Bomber Group. As a result of hitting two or three bombs, a violent fire broke out. The ship killed 5 crew members, 32 Welsh Guardsmen and 11 soldiers from other units. In addition, 11 more crew members and 46 ground forces were injured and severely burned. The burnt-out hull was towed to sea and on June 25 the submarine "Opukh" was sunk.
                      Sir Tristram (L-3505) - 8 June in Bluff Cove was attacked by Skyhawk aircraft from the 5th Fighter and Bomber Group. Fire from onboard weapons killed two sailors. Fortunately, the detonator did not immediately detonate on the 1000-lb bomb that pierced the deck, which made it possible to evacuate the crew. After the explosion of the bomb, a strong fire broke out, the ship sank in shallow water. After the end of hostilities, he was lifted and towed to Port Stanley. Later it was towed to England, renovated and modernized. Returned to service in 1985.
                      Well, the fact that the landing of British troops began on the night of May 21 even wikipedia knows.
                      So yes, I'm sure laughing
                    6. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 4 December 2020 14: 26
                      0
                      # facespalm
                      if you suddenly forgot what we are arguing about, let me remind you - the British won thanks to great luck, which consisted in the fact that 80% of Argentine ammunition did not work properly, but even so they suffered serious losses.
                      how is this confirmed? what I quoted and what you personally wrote wink
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Sir Bedivere (L-3004) - received a glancing blow on May 24 unexploded bomb

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Sir Galahad (L-3005) - hit on May 24 unexploded a bomb dropped by a Skyhawk attack aircraft

                      but what happens when luck doesn't quite work?
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Sir Tristram (L-3505) - On June 8, at Bluff Cove, attacked by Skyhawk aircraft from the 5th Fighter and Bomber Group. Fire from onboard weapons killed two sailors. Fortunately, the detonator did not immediately detonate on the 1000-lb bomb that pierced the deck, which made it possible to evacuate the crew. After the explosion of the bomb, a strong fire broke out, the ship sank in shallow water. After the end of hostilities, he was lifted and towed to Port Stanley. Later it was towed to England, renovated and modernized. Returned to service in 1985.

                      and when it doesn't work at all?
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      On June 8, during the landing at Bluff Cove, it was attacked by Skyhawk aircraft from the 5th Fighter-Bomber Group. As a result of hitting two or three bombs, a violent fire broke out. The ship killed 5 crew members, 32 Welsh Guardsmen and 11 soldiers from other units. In addition, 11 more crew members and 46 ground forces were injured and severely burned. The burnt-out hull was towed out to sea and on June 25 the submarine "Opukh" was sunk.

                      something like this.. request
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Well, even Wikipedia knows that the landing of British troops began on the night of May 21.

                      um .. did you decide to show off your strategic genius and declare that the loss of supply ships is not critical for an amphibious operation conducted on the other side of the world? belay
                      I'll ask again, are you sure?
                    7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2020 15: 03
                      +1
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      if you suddenly forgot what we are arguing about, let me remind you

                      Give it a try.
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      the British won thanks to great luck, which was that 80% of Argentine ammunition did not work properly, but even so they suffered serious losses.

                      It didn't work out for you. I recommend reading your own remarks, which I undertook to dispute
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      that is, the fact that all the transports with the landing party got hit by bombs even before they reached the Falklands, but these bombs did not explode, is this not luck?

                      и
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      do not exaggerate. within its autonomy.

                      As you can see, even the figure 80% is not contained in these statements. Maybe it's time for you to think about medications that improve memory? Or at least read your own comments so that you don't forget where the discussion started.
                      Okay, on the previous questions you obviously have nothing to argue. Accordingly, we found out that NOT ONE landing ship of the British was not damaged either before disembarkation, or on the day of disembarkation, or within 3 days from the beginning of the disembarkation. And we also found out that the British aircraft carriers worked intensively in combat conditions for more than a month without returning to their bases.
                      I hope you won't argue? Now back to your
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      the British won thanks to great luck, which was that 80% of Argentine ammunition did not work properly, but even so they suffered serious losses.

                      First, this issue has nothing to do with the autonomy of aircraft carriers at all. It has nothing to do with the quality of the aircraft carriers in the Falklands. For the simple reason that just the British aircraft carriers in the Falklands worked perfectly. So, for example, the British AB made more sorties in the first three days of the battle on the "bomb alley" than the Argentines in all five. The British Air Force provided 2 to 3 sorties per aircraft per day.
                      But who worked on the "3 minus" - so this VTOL Sea Harrier. In connection with the poor performance characteristics, they simply could not cover the sky, could not ensure air supremacy, could not detect and intercept Argentine aircraft in time.
                      That is, the reason why the Argentine aircraft generally flew the British ships is not in the plane of the performance characteristics and the capabilities of aircraft carriers, but in the wretchedness of the VTOL concept.
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      how is this confirmed? what I quoted and what you personally wrote

                      Have you ever read what I wrote? I gave you, in Russian and white, the entire list of successes of Argentine aviation.
                      None of the two large amphibious dock ships was damaged.
                      Of the six specially built transport and landing ships, 4 were damaged, 2 subsequently sank. But both of these ships received decisive damage on June 8, participating in an auxiliary operation.
                      Of the thirteen requisitioned transport ships, one was lost - the Atlantic conveyor.
                      That is, in reality, out of 21 ships and vessels, the Argentines were able to destroy 3, if "all the bombs exploded" - they would destroy 5 in the worst case for the British, but - I really don't know how to write you so that you understand - THREE DAYS AFTER START OF LANDING !!
                      That is, even if everything had been torn apart regularly with fatal consequences, this could no longer significantly affect the situation.
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      um .. did you decide to show off your strategic genius and declare that the loss of supply ships is not critical for an amphibious operation conducted on the other side of the world?

                      And let’s first learn how to distinguish a specialized transport and landing ship from a supply vessel, and then you’ll try to joke about it. My dear man, you do not know the basics, but you are bringing me something about a "strategic genius".
                      Near the Falklands, so you know, the British have deployed two dozen tankers and 6 supply vessels. Of these, only one tanker hit was hit by one unexploded bomb.
                      Quote: SanichSan
                      I'll ask again, are you sure?

                      I'm sure - in this case, the word "sure" is spelled with ONE "n".
                      And I'm not that sure. I just know this stuff. You are not.
      2. Xnumx vis
        Xnumx vis 2 December 2020 16: 56
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Does not go. But the main possible combat missions of our TAVKR (or AV, if you like) will nevertheless be solved in the seas adjacent to our border in the north and the Far East. And for long trips, a bunch of bases around the world are not needed.

        Not needed yet. Everything flows, everything changes .
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 18: 57
          +3
          Quote: 30 vis
          Everything flows, everything changes .

          By itself. I am not at all against our bases abroad, and very much even for them. It's just that for the construction of AB they are not so critical that they are critically needed, you can do without
  • Alex777
    Alex777 2 December 2020 09: 25
    0
    The conviction of Russia and China that the Pentagon has achieved a technological breakthrough in the creation of new weapons systems can be a valuable strategic tool. Even if it takes several years to achieve success or American developers are stumped.

    Does the States have problems with hypersound? wink
    In her opinion, the main goal in their implementation is to make the enemy ineffectively spend as much money as possible. However, in this matter, one cannot overdo it, since the enemy, having overestimated the level of threat, may resort to the use of force.

    Do they understand what they can get and are afraid? bully
  • Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 2 December 2020 06: 43
    +2
    off topic, but, I like the "ballet" on the deck of an aircraft carrier, well, it's just beautiful, it is clear that each service confirms its readiness, but it looks cool damn it. in the service, when the plane was taxiing and I happened to be around, I always "got into frustration" saluting the pilots, and it was nice when they saluted in response. and I was a private, and the colonels also flew. a trifle of army life, but warmth.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 2 December 2020 05: 08
    0
    Nothing new under the moon! "Desu" under the guise of a technological and technical advantage of the United States has long been trying to slip, it is enough to recall the notorious "Star Wars" in the United States during the Reigonomics, or as it was correctly called the SDI program - the Strategic Defense Initiative!
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B 2 December 2020 05: 18
      +3
      Quote: Thrifty
      Suffice it to recall the notorious "Star Wars" at the time of Reigonomics in the USA

      But unlike ... the Americans, however, eleven AUG units were built and actually contain.
      And the oceans ply them constantly.
      1. K-612-O
        K-612-O 2 December 2020 06: 04
        -1
        No one has seen only effective use since the days of Vietnam, other examples are liquid support, which could not be compared with the operation of ground airfields.
        1. Victor_B
          Victor_B 2 December 2020 06: 09
          +2
          Quote: K-612-O
          No one has seen only effective use since the days of Vietnam, other examples are liquid support, which could not be compared with the operation of ground airfields.

          Well, liquid, not liquid, and a hundred (almost LA) were not superfluous anywhere and never.
          By the way, the operational capacity of the Khmeimim base is not much higher than the number of aircraft of the American aircraft carrier.
          Only now, neither we nor they can afford to arrange a get-together.
          For - nuclear weapons!
          But Iran and other Iraqi with Venezuela against the Americans only wave their fists.
          1. K-612-O
            K-612-O 2 December 2020 06: 18
            -1
            Only Khimki, with a three times smaller wing, provides the same intensity of sorties, and the maximum can accommodate 2 regiments. An aircraft carrier can simultaneously lift only 50-60 aircraft into the air, at the maximum, plus you need to keep a tanker in the air or hang up a PTB.
            1. Victor_B
              Victor_B 2 December 2020 06: 26
              +1
              Quote: K-612-O
              Only Khimki, with a three times smaller wing, provides the same intensity of sorties.
              This is the advantage of AB against AUG.
              Quote: K-612-O
              An aircraft carrier can simultaneously lift only 50-60 aircraft into the air, at the maximum, plus you need to keep a tanker in the air or hang up a PTB.
              So air refueling has long been a routine operation.
              F-18 does not fly without PTB at all. Never!
              1. K-612-O
                K-612-O 2 December 2020 06: 29
                -1
                Well, one wonders why sacrifice the combat radius and payload, with, again, additional costs for tankers and constant replenishment of fuel and bc at sea, which is logistically more difficult and longer than on land.
                1. Victor_B
                  Victor_B 2 December 2020 06: 33
                  +2
                  Quote: K-612-O
                  Well, one wonders why sacrifice combat radius and payload

                  Well, here is either a cross or panties! The choice.
                  Argentine pilots flew to bomb the British with TWO refuelings.
                  If they also had bombs with missiles exploded ... At least sometimes, but then, basically, all were sunk unexploded.
                2. pin_code
                  pin_code 2 December 2020 08: 56
                  +1
                  do you have an air base, say in Africa? no ... so it would be more logical to send an aircraft carrier, or the base SUDDENLY disappeared, but a club is needed ...
              2. Aerodrome
                Aerodrome 2 December 2020 09: 39
                +2
                Quote: Victor_B
                Quote: K-612-O
                Only Khimki, with a three times smaller wing, provides the same intensity of sorties.
                This is the advantage of AB against AUG.
                Quote: K-612-O
                An aircraft carrier can simultaneously lift only 50-60 aircraft into the air, at the maximum, plus you need to keep a tanker in the air or hang up a PTB.
                So air refueling has long been a routine operation.
                F-18 does not fly without PTB at all. Never!

                for them, takeoff-landing-routine has long been, but for ours it is an event. "thread" and then, the elite.
        2. Victor_B
          Victor_B 2 December 2020 06: 30
          +1
          Quote: K-612-O
          No one has seen only effective use since Vietnam

          By the way, let's remember the Royal Navi operation in Folkland.
          Without their "non-Avian carriers" the British would have suffered a crushing defeat.
          Perhaps nuclear weapons would then be used against Argentina. So what?
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 06: 43
          +5
          Quote: K-612-O
          other examples are liquid support

          Wow - "liquid". You should at least have studied Storm in a glass carefully, or something.
          Quote: K-612-O
          which could not be compared with the work of ground airfields.

          The aircraft carriers do not have and never had the task of replacing ground aviation. The task of aircraft carriers is to operate in areas where it is impossible to use or concentrate sufficient ground-based aviation forces.
          1. Victor_B
            Victor_B 2 December 2020 06: 51
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The task of aircraft carriers is to operate in areas where it is impossible to use or concentrate sufficient ground-based aviation forces.
            You are speaking the truth!
            But if you put AB 10 km from the AB, even a hefty one - everything is one, support for the pants.
            And if two?
          2. K-612-O
            K-612-O 2 December 2020 07: 13
            0
            Here in the Bure, the main contribution to delivering strikes fell on ground aircraft, cruisers and destroyers. And the US has no problems with the second.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 07: 24
              +4
              Quote: K-612-O
              Here in the Tempest is just the main contribution to striking

              I asked - carefully :))))
              The Americans threw 985 land-based aircraft and 303 carrier-based aircraft into battle, that is, 1288 combat aircraft, and the share of carrier-based aircraft is a very noticeable 23,5%. Could the Americans have ensured the basing of the aforementioned 303 aircraft carrier aircraft + a bunch of E-2C Hawkeyes and other deck ships on land? The big question is that they have jammed not only the military, but also ordinary civilian airfields with their Air Force.
              US carrier-based aircraft, which had only about a quarter of the total number of American tactical aviation, provided 41,3% of all sorties of heavy fighters and 30,9% of all sorties of attack aircraft.
              US strategic bombers usually covered carrier-based aircraft fighters - they preferred to reach the Iraqi borders across the sea, which is to a certain extent justified by the location of the airfields on which the "super-fortresses" were based. According to some reports, 20 B-52s operated from the Spanish Moron base, eight from the English Fayford airfield and 20 from the Diego Garcia Atoll, that is, it was the carrier-based aircraft that provided the work of the strategists who dumped at least 30% of the total mass on Saddam. of ammunition consumed by coalition aircraft.
              In general, the number of sorties per one carrier-based aircraft was not inferior to that of the ground forces. On average, one Air Force aircraft made 47,9 sorties during this war, while a carrier-based aircraft made 46,3
              1. K-612-O
                K-612-O 2 December 2020 07: 38
                -1
                Tell me what kind of heavy fighters they were so briskly taking off from aircraft carriers. Despite the fact that there has already been a massive write-off of tomkets? 15s are not carrier based. And the effectiveness of the hornet with PTB is very doubtful, I am silent about Intruders, their effectiveness is even lower. 78 aircraft in the wing, of which only 37 are attacking, dubious combat power, well, let in 91 there were 20 more tomkats, which did not even have particularly shot down aircraft.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 08: 09
                  +6
                  Quote: K-612-O
                  Tell me what kind of heavy fighters they were so briskly taking off from aircraft carriers.

                  "Tomcat" F-14. In general, it will be significantly heavier than the F-15 "Needle".
                  Quote: K-612-O
                  Despite the fact that there has already been a massive write-off of tomkets?

                  Nevertheless, 99 of these machines were on AB in a desert storm. Needles, by the way, participated 120
                  Quote: K-612-O
                  And the effectiveness of the Hornet with PTB is very doubtful, I am silent about Intruders, their effectiveness is even lower.

                  I will not even ask where you got this from. And where does the PTB.
                  Quote: K-612-O
                  78 aircraft in the wing, of which only 37 are attackers, dubious combat power

                  Are you already joking with the poor Jew? The standard air wing had 24 Tomkats and 24 Intruders, that is, TWO aviation regiments. Not every airbase can handle this (they are usually designed for one regiment).
                  Quote: K-612-O
                  which did not even have particularly shot down planes.

                  The E-3 Sentry also did not have a single shot down. Are they useless?
                  The F-15s worked to gain air supremacy, their task was to destroy everything Iraqi that took off. Hence the victories. And the F-14 was placed in direct cover of strike groups (including stratobombers). Both tasks are important, the fact that the Iraqi Air Force did not attack does not indicate the inferiority of the F-14
          3. pin_code
            pin_code 2 December 2020 08: 58
            +1
            tried to say something like that .. but you did better.
        4. Aerodrome
          Aerodrome 2 December 2020 06: 46
          -3
          Quote: K-612-O
          No one has seen only effective use since the days of Vietnam, other examples are liquid support, which could not be compared with the operation of ground airfields.

          it is possible that a "relic of the past", an echo of the Great Patriotic War, in the maritime theater of operations, yes, there is no price for an aircraft carrier, today it is doubtful, except that "banana" bomb.
    2. Eugene-Eugene
      2 December 2020 05: 31
      +7
      It was the USA who boasted that they managed to gut the USSR financially with the help of SDI disinformation. But in reality, everything is not so sweet. The largest investments (within the framework of "great construction projects") in response to SDI went to the creation of the Krona radio-optical complex, the Okno optoelectronic complex and the Contact aviation missile complex. In the United States, it was constantly said that this money was wasted. However, what we have in reality: the further development of "Krona" and "Windows" went on even in the 90s and continued afterwards. This, as it were, speaks of their usefulness. And the program "Contact" eventually resulted in the "Dagger" project, which is quite indicative.
      1. Aerodrome
        Aerodrome 2 December 2020 06: 48
        +1
        Quote: Eugene-Eugene
        It was the USA who boasted that they managed to gut the USSR financially with the help of SDI disinformation.

        printing press, and not giving a damn about the national debt, unties his hands.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 4 December 2020 12: 35
        0
        "gut financially the USSR" ///
        ----
        They did not gut the USSR financially, but much stronger - they liquidated it,
        as a state structure.
        Not only with the help of misinformation about SDI. A sharp increase in the number
        Soviet warships,
        construction of aircraft carriers (planted the USSR with drawings
        with the help of pseudo-traitor spies).
        Plus the Afghan war and a sharp drop in oil prices
        ("Friendship" has ceased to bring currency) ...
    3. sidoroff
      sidoroff 2 December 2020 10: 49
      +1
      throwing misinformation about the "technological and technical advantage" of Russian science and military technology does not hesitate
      to deal with the President of the Russian Federation himself. when is there the next appeal to the people? what a gift will be - hypersound up to 100 M,
      a laser that burns the sun or a time machine to fix the jambs in the past?
  • Alexey from Perm
    Alexey from Perm 2 December 2020 05: 12
    +3
    Yes, but here it is important to weed out the husks from the real state of affairs, otherwise you can fly like plywood over Paris
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 2 December 2020 05: 57
    +2
    As an option ... It is clear that forcing the enemy to spend huge sums of money in preparation for war, on useless weapons, is extremely useful (sorry for the tautology) ... US aircraft carriers "trampled" Japan in WWII, however, "kamikaze" them decently "pinched" , in the battle for Okinawa, for example. It seems to me that the new and newest anti-ship missiles are these modern kamikazes, without a shadow of a doubt attacking such a tasty target in a flock wassat
    1. K-612-O
      K-612-O 2 December 2020 06: 08
      -2
      So since that time, AUG has shown nothing worthwhile. We do not take into account the Falkland Islands, there Harriers took off from dry cargo ships, in the complete absence of a sane air defense.
      1. Avior
        Avior 2 December 2020 06: 40
        +2
        Dry cargo ships were used as transports; sorties were from aircraft carriers.
        Did the submarines from the Second World War show much? Fingers count the cases of use ...
        Aircraft carriers were just actively used - by those who have them, of course
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 06: 45
        +5
        Quote: K-612-O
        So since that time, AUG has shown nothing worthwhile.

        Desert storm
        1. Sergey985
          Sergey985 2 December 2020 07: 18
          -2
          If you look at the percentage of sorties from an aircraft carrier, then nothing was shown. The aviation from the land airfields did all the work. It's cheaper and more efficient this way.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 07: 26
            +2
            Quote: Sergey985
            If you look at the percentage of sorties from an aircraft carrier, then nothing was shown.

            Above, I already gave a comment in numbers
        2. K-612-O
          K-612-O 2 December 2020 07: 25
          -4
          The picture on TV and the actual statistics are very different.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 07: 27
            +3
            Quote: K-612-O
            The picture on TV and real statistics are very different.

            Above are the numbers
            1. K-612-O
              K-612-O 2 December 2020 07: 49
              -1
              This is all fine, but the combat load of the deck (hornet, intruder) is not next to the load of the falcon or the needle. So for tons of ammunition, the score will be far from in favor of the wing, in 37 strike aircraft.
              1. Avior
                Avior 2 December 2020 08: 01
                +2
                Do you think they are being loaded to capacity?
                The actual load is determined by the task at hand.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2020 08: 28
                +3
                Quote: K-612-O
                This is all great, but the combat load of the deck (hornet, intruder) is not close to the load of the falcon or the needle.

                But the statistics of your calculations for some reason do not confirm.
                In total, 88,5 thousand tons of bombs were dumped on the Iraqis. Let's say the coalition planes dropped 5 tons (in reality - higher). Total for the share of American - 000 thousand. 83,5% - stratobombers (actually - higher). Remains 30 58 tons, of which
                10 tons of approximately 000 carrier-based aircraft dropped (F-204, Intruders, Corsairs)
                Accordingly, the remaining aircraft are:
                48 tons were dropped by 450 Air Force tactical aircraft (all except the F-609S Iglov - everything was there, including the F-15) and 111 KMP aircraft based at land airfields.
                Accordingly, about 49 tons for a carrier-based aircraft and 60 for a land one. If we count by departures, it turns out that a land-based aircraft on average carried 1,22 tons of ammunition, a deck-based one - 1 ton.And this is taking into account the fact that the Air Force had heavier than the F-18 or Intruders F-15E and F -111
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 2 December 2020 06: 08
    0
    Well, everything, we are waiting soon for the announcement of the pentogon about the deployment of the death star on the reverse side of Jupiter.
  • Sergei 777
    Sergei 777 2 December 2020 06: 14
    +3
    So Russia does not build AUG. We save everything. The Pentagon might not have bothered.
    1. K-612-O
      K-612-O 2 December 2020 06: 21
      -2
      So they are waiting, they can’t wait when we start. How many Soyuz has thrown into its non-aircraft carriers, besides with non-attack aircraft Yak-38, and the results are 0
      1. Aerodrome
        Aerodrome 2 December 2020 06: 50
        +1
        Quote: K-612-O
        and 0 results

        it is being repaired now ... the result is that.
        1. K-612-O
          K-612-O 2 December 2020 07: 28
          -2
          This is a completely different ship and concept, where are his brothers and Ulyanovsk? And the basis was Kiev, with flying coffins. With the 141st and 29th, something worthwhile could have happened, but with the obligatory preservation of all foreign naval bases
          1. pin_code
            pin_code 2 December 2020 09: 14
            +1
            I do not agree that the Kievs were the basis, they were the first, then they came to Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk. And if they built 141, then the alignment would be different for the ships. but it is as it is. and WOULD NOT.
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 2 December 2020 06: 19
    +2
    a number of experts have repeatedly voiced doubts about some of the latest products of the American defense industry
    And these doubts are not unfounded. Therefore, experts give advice - lie more and more often it may push a potential adversary to throw money down the drain. At the same time, they themselves spent a huge amount of budget funds on projects that they could not implement. By the way, in the 80s, Reagan did such a trick with the USSR by announcing the creation of the SDI ("Star Wars") project. Our experts warned that this was a bluff, but the Central Committee of the CPSU decided to play it safe, as a result of which the country suffered significant losses.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 2 December 2020 07: 20
    +1
    To dissolve the enemy, the competitor on the grandmother, Schaub to weaken him economically ... this is normal, STANDARD !!! till the end of time!
  • Roman070280
    Roman070280 2 December 2020 08: 59
    +1
    According to Brose, trying to deceive the enemy, it is desirable talk about systems that are impossible to "touch"... First of all, this applies to cybernetic and artificial intelligence in military products. In his words, you need talk loudly about breakthroughs in the field of software, as opponents will not be able to verify if these statements are true - in contrast to, for example, the North Korean ICBMs that recently appeared at the military parade.


    Well, in fact, everyone, when they read the news about some Zircon or Peresvet, understands all this perfectly ..
    1. Eugene-Eugene
      2 December 2020 10: 55
      +1
      Zircon and Peresvet just in the iron were shown, like the DPRK ICBMs.