Military Review

Will American aircraft carriers be able to survive the war against Russia?

511
Sebastien Roblin, one of the smartest and most balanced people in the States, gave this interesting opinion.


Could America's Aircraft Carriers Survive in a War Against Russia?

Not that he took and amicably buried the aircraft carriers, but he thought about the further fate of the flat-deck ones. And when a person thinks and analyzes, it is a sin not to think with him.

The main question that Roblin posed is: "What will happen to aircraft carriers if they take on more difficult tasks than suppressing third world countries?".


The question is great. And by the fact that the American asks him, and the fact that the American is trying to answer him.

Let's not pay attention to the title, because this is already customary in America - there is one thing in the title, in fact, quite another. Approximately, as we have with the inscriptions on the fences.

Roblin believes that the aircraft carriers in the future will still serve for decades, instilling fear in some countries. And some will not, because today the aircraft carrier has such a feature as vulnerability. And - first of all - through the efforts of Russia and China.

But - in order.

In 2017, the US Navy received the first of four new generation aircraft carriers, the Gerald Ford.


The huge ship carries 60 aircraft, including 24 F-35s and the same number of F / A-18s. Electromagnetic catapults, high-speed elevators for lifting aircraft and supplying ammunition, new systems designed to reduce maintenance costs. However, all the innovations made the ship a little more expensive. A total of $ 13 billion, that is, twice as expensive as any of the predecessors such as "Nimitz".

Yes, American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are power and strength. And this force, as practice shows, can be easily projected to the other end of the world, providing power operations, as it was in the Balkans, Libya, Iraq.

But Roblin rightly asks the question: what if not Iraq or Libya? If not a third world country? What then?

And then everything can happen in a completely different scenario. The achievements of some countries in missile and underwater technology call into question the possibility of the survival of such large and expensive ships when operating at a strike distance from the enemy's coastline.

The distance is determined by the radius of the deck aviation... That is, 700 km. This is the range of F / A-18. The F-35 has more, but here it is worth counting on less. The difference between the range of action of aircraft and coastal anti-ship complexes will be the effective range of an aircraft carrier.

Will American aircraft carriers be able to survive the war against Russia?
Source: smitsmitty.livejournal.com

And here the problems begin. One of them is called DF-21D East Wind.


It is the world's first anti-ship ballistic missile. Flight range - 1800 km. That is, "Dunfeng" can easily intercept an aircraft carrier and blow it to shreds with a conventional, non-nuclear warhead long before the pilots start warming up the engines.

With the accuracy of the DF-21D, complete order, plus the rocket can easily adjust the course in flight. Considering that the Yaogan satellite constellation will help her with this, the aircraft carrier can sleep peacefully. Considering that, according to the calculations of the US Naval Institute, one such missile will be enough for a standard aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type, it will not make sense for American sailors to be nervous at all.

Moreover, the "East Wind" is a highly mobile complex. He does not stand still, he is not hidden in the mine, therefore, it will be very difficult to find and destroy him. Plus excellent flight speed. Until recently, the Americans had nothing at all to oppose to such arms, today, thank God, SM-3 has appeared, not a panacea, but at least hope.

And by the way, don't forget about submarines. Starting with the German U-29, which sank the Courageous, submarines regularly sent representatives of this class of ships to the bottom. And although the aircraft turned out to be the worst enemy of the submarine, and any aircraft carrier possesses a large number of these machines, nevertheless, submarines have become the number one enemy for aircraft carriers.

Especially nuclear submarines, which do not need to go to the surface to "breathe" to charge their batteries and which can easily jump out of the water.


Frame: Russian Ministry of Defense, youtube.com

Of course, aircraft carriers are always accompanied by destroyers and frigates specializing in anti-submarine defense. In addition, long-range naval patrol aircraft and ship-based helicopters help sweep the seas in search of enemy submarines. How scary it is for a nuclear submarine, which is hiding at a depth of about a kilometer and is just waiting for the moment when the order to destroy the enemy will be received is a question.

Russian submarines do not need advertising at all. The Chinese are lagging behind them, but China has already built 15 submarines with a Stirling engine, that is, with an air-independent power plant. This is very serious, so much so that today we can confidently say that the Pacific Ocean is the place where a new round of the world arms race is unfolding.

By the way, with regards to boats with VNEU. Not once or twice, but these boats of the "Gotland" type during the exercises conditionally sunk the aircraft carriers, regardless of the escort orders. Committed.

And if you take, for example, the Russian Oscar-class submarine (our project 949A Antey), then it will not need to surface or remain silent. The range of flight of "Granites", "Onyx" and "Calibers" is sufficient, and they can be launched from under water. Bundles.


A good and solid missile is the main threat to an aircraft carrier. And, despite the fact that it seems to be powerful and terrible, but the coastal complexes will not allow it to come close to the coastline. And submarines at sea will push the boundaries of a reasonable approach even further.

It is clear that this works for countries like China and Russia, which have both submarines and coastal complexes.

And we haven't touched the planes yet. The same Tu-95 is able to shoot 16 Kh-55 missiles, being not only out of sight, but in general from the other side of the world. Fortunately, the range of the X-55 allows you to make such a thing from a distance of one and a half thousand kilometers. And there 400 kg of charms in the warhead of their client will be found, as they say.


The challenge facing aircraft carrier strike groups is complicated precisely by the fact that new anti-ship missiles are becoming faster, longer-range and versatile. That is, it can be deployed from a wide variety of platforms, including long-range patrol aircraft and bombers, small and stealthy speedboats, and even transport containers hidden in the harbor.

The harder it is to locate the carrier, the harder it is to shoot down the missile.

Therefore, the appearance of "Caliber", "Brahmos", "Dunfeng" complicates the life of aircraft carriers more and more. The cost of a missile that can inflict critical damage to an aircraft carrier is not comparable to the cost of the ship it is targeting.

And the new generation of hypersonic missiles, on which they are simply feverishly working in all countries, is not that fear, but this problem requires a response, because sooner or later, hypersonic missiles like the Russian Zircon will become commonplace.

Even more worrisome for the aircraft carrier's air defense is the new generation of hypersonic missile weapons, which exceed the speed of sound five times. On June 3, Russia announced a successful test of the Zircon hypersonic missile at a speed of 4600 miles per hour.

Yes, the tactics of destroying an aircraft carrier primarily requires a high degree of coordination, operational planning and various types of weapons.

The Americans (not only Roblin, but, for example, Rob Farley) seriously believe that neither China nor Russia have the ability, nor the proper experience and infrastructure to accurately track aircraft carrier formations in the same Pacific Ocean.

Perhaps Roblin and Farley are right about something, experience is not enough. But mainly because the American aircraft carriers do not seem to spoil anyone with their raids, in which you can practice tracking them.

But in some ways the Americans are right - the current state of Russia's naval intelligence can only be described as depressing. The number of reconnaissance ships is measured in units, and all of them were inherited as a Soviet legacy. Electronic reconnaissance planes can also be counted on one hand, without particularly straining. One can guess about the state of the Il-20 and Il-22, which is not brilliant in terms of service life.

However, today it is easier to track large ship formations from satellites. And this is also a fact that is difficult to push aside.


It is important to emphasize that no one really knows how effective both offensive and defensive naval technology will prove to be against each other, since fortunately there have been no large-scale naval wars since World War II.

But we proceed from the fact that an aircraft carrier is not at all a defensive weapon. In fact, it is an offensive strike complex capable of projecting its striking force anywhere. An aircraft carrier can also be used as a defensive platform, but definitely not off the coast of China or Russia. There is no one to defend against, more precisely, the Americans have nothing to defend there.

The most interesting thing is that the author of the article, Sebastien Roblin, did not answer the question he posed in the title. But in fact, the answer to the question is as simple as an anchor.

Of course, American aircraft carriers will survive. They will be able to survive in the conflict against Russia, against China, especially if they do not approach the shores of these countries within the range of anti-ship missiles and ballistic missiles indicated above.

It is sad to state this, but an aircraft carrier is really an instrument of war against third world countries that do not have submarines, modern air defense systems, and anti-ship complexes.

A country that possesses the proper tools to combat aircraft carriers will be able to inflict not only damage on any group of ships, but possibly even fatal.

Here it is worth thinking, by the way, how the conflict between Argentina and Great Britain over the Falkland Islands would have developed, if Argentina had plenty of Exocet missiles. Two sunken ships are significant. Despite the fact that there were really few missiles.

There is nothing optimistic about tomorrow for aircraft carriers as tools for power projection. Missiles are getting faster, longer-range and - importantly - cheaper! And how many countries from among those wishing to strengthen their coastal defense in the near future will be able to afford it - it is very difficult to say.

China, India, Russia - everyone is happy to trade in arms. And many countries buy it. And it is quite possible that those countries that today really fear American aircraft carriers as instruments of pressure will tomorrow demonstrate North Korean-style muscles backed by modern missiles.

So this development option is quite possible. And Roblin correctly says that you shouldn't throw all your strength into building supercarriers. It is worth doing this with an eye on the development of weapons capable of neutralizing an aircraft carrier as a strike ship.
Author:
511 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 18 December 2020 04: 09
    0
    I've been saying the same thing for a long time.
    Excellent article.
    The author just stepped on the throat of the dream of avik construction apologists.
    1. jonht
      jonht 18 December 2020 05: 30
      0
      If we remake a nursery rhyme about professions, the ship also needs different ones. Avik is primarily a force projector, visible (visible), and missiles are either in mines or in containers, they are not visible. Yes, and a flying plane is the same visible argument, but if a rocket is watered ... Then this is already a means, and you cannot bring it back.
      We may need aircraft carriers, but definitely not now, now we do not have a clear concept of using the fleet, whether it will be unclear in the near future.
      It is already good news that at least they closed the chichord with corvettes, but the frigates got an engine and began to build them. Still, they decided on what they want from the destroyers and they were laid, but apparently everything is dull there ... hi
      1. bayard
        bayard 18 December 2020 06: 13
        +26
        Quote: jonht
        Avik is primarily a force projector, visible (axial), and missiles are either in mines or in containers, they are not visible.

        An aircraft carrier is also a carrier of anti-submarine aviation, it is naval reconnaissance and a carrier of AWACS aircraft. This is not only a power projector, but also a guarantor of the combat stability of the naval formation. Its reliable air defense on distant approaches is beyond the horizon.
        1. Alexey Sommer
          Alexey Sommer 18 December 2020 07: 56
          -26%
          Quote: bayard
          It is not only a power projector, but also a guarantor of the combat stability of the naval formation

          Is this your opinion, or do you consider this statement to be the ultimate truth? Here explain to me your understanding of the phrase "combat stability" in a modern naval battle between the fleets of, say, Russia and the United States? And it won't !!!!! There will be no such classic sea battle! All the same, our "carcasses" will arrive, for example, and disguise from afar, this "guarantor of the combat stability of the naval formation" as God is a turtle.
          And today naval reconnaissance is provided by UAVs and satellites, as well as by sea surface and underwater unmanned vehicles.
          And all this is an order of magnitude cheaper than the "guarantor of the combat stability of the naval formation"
          1. Temples
            Temples 18 December 2020 08: 17
            +48
            How scary it is for a nuclear submarine that lurks at a depth of about a kilometer

            wassat

            Take more, Roman!
            Do not be greedy.
            Deepen the submarine by 5 km. laughing
            1. Dimon Dimonov_2
              Dimon Dimonov_2 1 January 2021 22: 49
              0
              Along the way, he went over a bit ... Poseidon descends by km ... and certainly not apl ...
          2. bayard
            bayard 18 December 2020 09: 40
            +24
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            Here explain to me your understanding of the phrase "combat stability" in a modern naval battle between the fleets of, say, Russia and the United States?

            Combat stability is ensuring air supremacy in the area of ​​operation of the forces of its fleet, providing air defense of the naval group, repelling attacks by the CD on the distant approaches to the AUG \ KUG, ensuring constant (if possible) radar control by the forces of carrier-based aircraft (or helicopters) AWACS, providing PLO by carrier-based PLO aircraft and PLO helicopters, conducting reconnaissance by carrier-based aircraft on the distant approaches to the AUG and, if possible and having free resources, allocate a squad of carrier-based fighter-bombers to strike at enemy surface forces and coastal targets.
            This is so - impromptu. A more detailed description will require a much larger volume of effusions. But this is in general terms.
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            And today naval reconnaissance is provided by UAVs and satellites, as well as by sea surface and underwater unmanned vehicles.

            So far, these are only dreams and plans, but they will not solve the whole complex of tasks facing the intelligence. Exploration is difficult, expensive and very, very serious.
            On the high seas, only AB has sufficient funds and tools to conduct active exploration. And any drone needs its own base - the place of takeoff, landing and inter-flight service.
            1. Alexey Sommer
              Alexey Sommer 18 December 2020 10: 17
              -35%
              Quote: bayard
              Combat stability is ensuring air superiority in the zone of action of the forces of your fleet

              How will you ensure the combat stability of the AUG when struck by Zirconia or Daggers?
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 18 December 2020 11: 28
                +23
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                How will you ensure the combat stability of the AUG when struck by Zirconia or Daggers?

                Iron ships are hard to damage with TV missiles, you know. If the Chinese showed how their missile hits an aircraft carrier drawn on the ground, then the local did not show this either, only the Zircon's launch and hitting some kind of Dagger bunker.
                1. Alexey Sommer
                  Alexey Sommer 18 December 2020 11: 49
                  -19%
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  that local did not show this either, only the start of the Zircon and hitting some bunker of the Dagger.

                  Everything is clear with your argumnts.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 18 December 2020 17: 14
                    +9
                    Rather with yours smile
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 18: 20
                  -4
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  aircraft carrier painted on the ground

                  so far, at least the missiles are taking off, and your aircraft carrier is so far drawn not even on the ground but your fantasies, it is better that rockets are cheaper and exist not only in the fevered brain of their fans
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 18 December 2020 22: 01
                    +7
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    and your aircraft carrier is so far drawn not even on the ground but your fantasies

                    My? I have no aircraft carrier.
              2. bayard
                bayard 18 December 2020 11: 54
                +8
                Our opponents have no such means.
                Our opponents mainly have subsonic low-altitude, but at the same time inconspicuous targets. It is the fighter aviation forces that are most convenient and reliable to fight against such targets. Under the direction of AWACS aircraft.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 18: 21
                  +2
                  Quote: bayard
                  Under the direction of AWACS aircraft.

                  where did you see?
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 19 December 2020 00: 10
                    +3
                    I only insist on the need for their appearance in the required quantities. For without them, there is nothing to fight against low-altitude CDs.
              3. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 18 December 2020 12: 15
                +27
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                How will you ensure the combat stability of the AUG when struck by Zirconia or Daggers?


                1. The choice of routes for the deployment of the AUG outside the coverage areas of the anti-ship missiles.
                2. Reconnaissance / camouflage, electronic warfare, missile defense / air defense of an aircraft carrier.
                3. Misleading (demonstrative actions), diverting enemy forces to false directions.
                4. Creation of missile defense / air defense maritime boundaries, mobile zones of air defense formation.
                5. Destruction of anti-ship missile carriers in bases, at airfields and at sea, up to the line when they fulfill their tasks.
                6. The active use of submarines, UAVs and other crap on the routes of the KUG, during the flights of the AVUG, etc.
                And most importantly: the use of AMG in the second echelon of the DB, after strikes on bases, airfields, forces at sea, destruction / weakening of the reconnaissance system / control center ... When the threat of damage to the AUG forces will be significantly reduced.
                Will this use of "flat-deck" ones suit you? bully
                1. sharp-lad
                  sharp-lad 18 December 2020 22: 59
                  +3
                  5. Destruction of anti-ship missile carriers in bases, at airfields and at sea, up to the line when they fulfill their tasks.
                  This is a pretext for delivering a nuclear strike by all available means against the aggressor and his allies.
              4. Comrade I
                Comrade I 18 December 2020 13: 10
                +17
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                Quote: bayard
                Combat stability is ensuring air superiority in the zone of action of the forces of your fleet

                How will you ensure the combat stability of the AUG when struck by Zirconia or Daggers?

                How will you provide the control center at the AUG when struck by Zircons or Daggers?
                1. Evil Booth
                  Evil Booth 26 December 2020 15: 30
                  +1
                  of course nothing! bully more precisely, and there is nothing! it's obvious that they can't be! otherwise, it turns out that the United States is the most stupid and worthless army in the world with the largest budget. well, almost like a cop against the Houthis with a KNOWN result.
              5. 72jora72
                72jora72 25 December 2020 07: 19
                0
                How will you ensure the combat stability of the AUG when struck by Zirconia or Daggers?
                Do you think it is very easy to hit a moving aircraft carrier at long distances? And there is no need to talk about satellites, this resource has already been discussed in detail this topic ...
              6. Yuri Shalnov
                Yuri Shalnov 18 February 2021 12: 05
                0
                And with a nuclear warhead!
            2. Proxima
              Proxima 18 December 2020 13: 38
              +2
              From the text: "Russian submarines do not need advertising at all. Chinese are lagging behind them, but China has already built 15 submarines with a Stirling engine, that is, with an air-independent power plant. This is very serious." No, this is not serious, to compare diesel-electric submarines with a nuclear submarine is somehow not entirely correct, even if the first is equipped with a Stirling. You need to understand that the Stirling engine and the like, due to its tiny power, is just VNEU, that is, an auxiliary power unit, but not the main one. Diesel engines with massive accumulator batteries on these submarines have not yet been canceled, with all the consequences ... hi
            3. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 18: 24
              -4
              Quote: bayard
              Combat stability is to ensure dominance

              do not waste words in vain, combat stability is the ability not to drown, not to be hit by a missile by a projectile, ... this is not and is not expected. but about his planes, an attempt to cast a shadow on the wicker and hide the obvious, will sink if so the planes fall into the sea
          3. ancient
            ancient 18 December 2020 12: 00
            +23
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            All the same, our "carcasses" will arrive, for example, and disguise from afar, this "guarantor of the combat stability of the naval formation" as God is a turtle

            Come on, come on .. for more details .. "from this place" wassat
            Quote: Alexey Sommer
            And today naval reconnaissance is provided by UAVs and satellites, as well as by sea surface and underwater unmanned vehicles.

            This is you celebrating drinks so far yesterday's performance by the VKG and all this you wrote ... the "consequences" of this celebration? wink
          4. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 4 March 2021 21: 55
            0
            All the same, our "carcasses" will arrive, for example, and disguise from afar, this "guarantor of the combat stability of the naval formation" as God is a turtle.

            If the adversary decides to launch an aircraft carrier into battle against us, he (the adversary, and not just the aircraft carrier) will first of all "fool" everything that may pose a threat to him (the adversary, not just the aircraft carrier), including the "carcasses." The handicap is always with the one who starts first.
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 09: 53
          0
          Quote: bayard
          the guarantor of the combat stability of the naval formation.

          Russia does not have any naval formation that would need an aircraft carrier and capable of saving the AV, it is inevitable death, there are no carrier-based AWACS aircraft in Russia, and is not foreseen, and the SU link cannot be a guarantor of anything when meeting a strong enemy, as well as a couple of links of American carrier-based aviation in good weather
          1. bayard
            bayard 18 December 2020 12: 08
            +9
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Russia does not have any naval formation that would need an aircraft carrier and capable of saving AV, it is inevitable death

            Well, how is it?
            Here on the Northern Fleet we have the nuclear cruiser "Peter", and the cruiser 1164 "Ustinov", and two newest frigates 22350, and at least two BOD 1155 (one more went into modernization, and another was written off for needles) ...
            Will they not be beaten off?
            Together with the Kuznetsov air group of a dozen Su-33 and 24 MiG-29K \ KUB?
            With two AWACS helicopters (and it should be four).
            And a squadron of carrier-based anti-submarine helicopters?
            With such a "gang" they themselves will offend whoever you want.
            But this is really one.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 16: 56
              0
              Quote: bayard
              Here on the Northern Fleet we have the nuclear-powered cruiser "Peter", and the cruiser 1164 "Ustinov", and two newest frigates 22350, and at least two BOD 1155

              and who will remain to guard Murmansk and Arkhangelsk? at least within a radius of 3000 km? it turns out a couple of ships per port with a radius of 3000 km, not a lot, even with an IPC ... so we can safely subtract frigates and bpk from the armada, the old man Ustinov is not a fact that he has missiles, it's just a very long PLO frigate, it will also come in handy off the coast ... There is only one KR and Kuzya. It is not a fact that 10 SU and 24 MIGs are in nature, and even if everything can take off, then there will be no more than 6-8 aircraft in the air at the same time. ... and who are you going to scare with one cruiser and a flight of aircraft?
              1. Alexy
                Alexy 18 December 2020 17: 28
                +8
                Ships of the far sea and ocean zones are not intended to guard the naval base. For this there is an IPC, MRK, RK, aviation and BRAV.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 17: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexy
                  there is an IPC,

                  where are they? how much? how old? And how will they plow 6000 (3000 km radius) km, especially in a storm?
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 17: 33
                  -2
                  Quote: Alexy
                  Ships of the far sea and ocean zones are not intended to guard the naval base.
                  Well, if they are not intended .... then let the Yankees destroy these cities and bases with missiles from submarines, and we all go somewhere further away? You probably paint the roof only with roof paint, and the walls only with wall paint, never plastered with glue for aerated concrete and do not even know what is PF 115 ... a typical American by thinking
                  1. Alexy
                    Alexy 18 December 2020 18: 11
                    0
                    Yes, imagine I paint walls with wall paint, not floor paint.
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 18: 12
                      -1
                      I will reveal a secret for you ... both are called pf 115, even if the Finnish one, even if you name it, just don't put it in the oven
                      1. Alexy
                        Alexy 18 December 2020 20: 19
                        -2
                        PF-115 for walls, are you out of your mind?
                        Although, plastering the walls with glue is generally a masterpiece)))
              2. bayard
                bayard 19 December 2020 00: 35
                +4
                Quote: vladimir1155
                and who will remain to guard Murmansk and Arkhangelsk? at least within a radius of 3000 km?

                And why so far, as far as I know, the main operational zone of the Northern Fleet is not further than the northern traverse of Norway - he has the task of protecting SSBNs in the bastion and approaches (including distant ones) to the naval base.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                Ustinov the old man is not a fact that he has rockets

                Has and periodically shoots them.
                And these facts are covered by the press.
                He also goes to the Mediterranean Sea, periodically reinforcing the 5th squadron.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                , it's just a very long PLO frigate, we will subtract it too, it will come in handy off the coast.

                Near the coast now more and more "Peter the Great" due to the technical condition. And Ustinov is quite running around after the recent overhaul and modernization.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                On account of 10 SU and 24 MIG it is not a fact that they exist in nature,

                They are, and the number of Su-33s is even slightly higher.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                and even if everyone can take off, then there will be no more than 6-8 aircraft in the air at the same time

                Isn't that enough?
                To provide air defense?
                To repel the raid of the CD or enemy aircraft?
                Yes, relying on the air defense system of the ships of the order?
                Quote: vladimir1155
                .and who are you going to scare

                Everyone who will enter the area of ​​responsibility of our fleet.
                Believe me, not many are capable of fighting in that climatic zone.
                And besides surface ships there are also underwater ships, the same 949 pr. Is capable of scaring anyone, its salvo is thicker than that of "Peter the Great" will be.
        3. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 09: 55
          -9
          Quote: bayard
          power projector

          and what is a "power projector"? do you understand what you are writing about? in my opinion the power projector is a piston in a steam boiler of a vulgar century
          1. bayard
            bayard 18 December 2020 12: 10
            +6
            Actually, this is a repetition of the term used by the commentator above.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 16: 49
              +2
              so something does it mean then? for example, you are projecting force, this should mean that you are stronger, that is, you cannot be drowned, but you can bomb someone there or throw missiles ... so can a lone AB or AB + KR project force? in my opinion it cannot ... but just walking in front of the enemy is no longer a projection of power, but a buffoonery and dangerous, they can drown ... it happens in a pub they get drunk, start to project strength and get a lot in the face and in the teeth .. there are a lot of such stories
              1. bayard
                bayard 19 December 2020 00: 15
                +2
                Quote: vladimir1155
                . so it happens in a pub they get drunk, they begin to project strength and get a lot in the face and in the teeth .. there are many such stories

                That's why I used the above term. yes Because you can project, but they can break the projector.
                On the other hand, in Syria, for example, Russia projects something, and with a very limited outfit of forces, but ... the projector is still intact. request
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 19 December 2020 01: 28
                  +2
                  Quote: bayard
                  the same Syria Russia

                  but kuzya was not useful there .. to put it mildly repeat
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 19 December 2020 01: 57
                    +2
                    He raised it notably, bombed it pretty much (at least the air wing worked more on the coast), drowned two aircraft - combat experience is a serious matter.
                    But he still made an impression on some - the Khalifa Khavtar himself came on board. And after that he began to cleanse Libya from the Muslim brothers ... he almost took Tripoli ... The Turks interfered.
                    1. max702
                      max702 22 December 2020 19: 28
                      +1
                      True, for the price it turned out more than the whole operation from the very beginning taken together .. But it does not matter! It is important that splashes in the face and a dagger on the side, and the fact that the result is zilch is nonsense! Russia is a rich country, and if someone wants to use ships, then it is necessary and necessary tea is not some kind of infantry, but white bone! Sailors! So we will win!
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 23 December 2020 00: 52
                        +2
                        The money apparently was then, and what was the use of an aircraft-carrying ship at the rotting wall? He needs to go on campaigns so that the crew gains experience in combat services. Before being put into repairs for several years, such a trip was especially useful, even without taking into account the participation in the database.
                        In addition, they strove for a spectacular demonstration of the flag for potential and actual allies (Egypt, Syria, Khavtar in Libya) and for greater combat stability of the so-called. 5th squadron.
                        But the faulty boilers smoked mercilessly, and really sunk two aircraft ( request Well, these are our hands-on-deck aviation drivers). I was especially surprised by the case of the fall of the MiG-29K after running out of fuel, while waiting for the replacement of the air arrestor cable ... belay Couldn't they have put him in Khmeimim?
                        Snipers have good training: "To learn how to shoot, you SHOULD SHOOT."
                        And in order to have a combat-ready Fleet, you need to drive its ships to combat services on an ongoing basis, carrier-based aviation - to fly, and the Fleet command gain experience in leading naval formations far from their native shores in different climatic, weather and political conditions.
                      2. max702
                        max702 23 December 2020 23: 41
                        0
                        There is no real sense from him, in principle, but there are very high positions and fat contracts for the repair and maintenance of it, that's the whole point .. Something tells me with these funds it was possible to organize a couple of divisions of the same SU-34 and which would be an order of magnitude better would have worked both in this conflict and in others .. And so it’s a whim so I drank ..
      2. Gregory Charnota
        Gregory Charnota 21 February 2021 09: 50
        0
        drlo invisible? and is not lost by interceptors?
        1. bayard
          bayard 21 February 2021 12: 58
          0
          The AWACS aircraft is all-seeing (it sees and illuminates the air situation for hundreds of miles around it at all altitudes, including extremely low altitudes for connection) and at the same time (!) Is always (!) Reliably covered by its fighters.
    2. Alexey Sommer
      Alexey Sommer 18 December 2020 07: 41
      -9
      Quote: jonht
      Avik is primarily a power projector

      The argument is so-so. Please note that the cost of building such a ship, even in our country, will be at least $ 5 billion in equivalent. And exploitation, too, will cost a penny.
      At the same time, it was said earlier that the ship is very vulnerable to modern weapons of destruction and the whole article is about this, but it does not change your psychology.
      Now, give a specific example, where should our aircraft carrier go now in order to project force?
      1. jonht
        jonht 18 December 2020 09: 08
        +6
        And I didn't write about it now. Specifically, he said, [quote] [We may need aircraft carriers, but definitely not now, now we do not have a clear concept of using the fleet, whether it will be unclear in the near future.quote]
        Therefore, your question is where to drive him now .... Not to me. hi
      2. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 18 December 2020 09: 25
        -17%
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        Now, give a specific example, where should our aircraft carrier go now in order to project force?

        You don't have to go anywhere. We will close the valves on the gas pipelines and Europe will freeze.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 18 December 2020 11: 24
          +13
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          We will close the valves on the gas pipelines and Europe will freeze.

          Really? Do you have a good idea of ​​the extent of Europe's energy reserves?
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 18 December 2020 16: 27
            +9
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Quote: Narak-zempo
            We will close the valves on the gas pipelines and Europe will freeze.

            Really? Do you have a good idea of ​​the extent of Europe's energy reserves?

            Didn't know that the Valve Cutters sect still existed. And it looks like ... laughing
          2. Local from the Volga
            Local from the Volga 19 December 2020 02: 28
            -3
            and what, expert ?! how long will baumgarten last, balabol ?!
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 19 December 2020 03: 21
              +2
              Quote: Local from the Volga
              and what, expert ?!

              1% capacity utilization (37).
              2. Of these, 22% is gas generation (2019),
              3. Of these, 27% is Russian gas (2020).

              Those. Russian gas is 6% of generation with 200% capacity reservation.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 December 2020 12: 33
          +13
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          You don't have to go anywhere. We will close the valves on the gas pipelines and Europe will freeze.

          The LNG sellers are furiously and furiously applauding your comment. smile
        3. Comrade I
          Comrade I 18 December 2020 13: 12
          +9
          Who will block it? And how long with inventory? This will block our businesses in power?
        4. Avior
          Avior 18 December 2020 17: 17
          +5
          Are you an agent of the State Department? The States are doing just that with all their might. smile
        5. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 22 December 2020 13: 30
          -1
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          We will close the valves on the gas pipelines and Europe will freeze.
          and then with whom and what you will trade ?! What will be the loss of gold and foreign exchange earnings ?! Not sure what is profitable ?!
    3. Doccor18
      Doccor18 18 December 2020 08: 49
      +15
      Quote: jonht
      We may need aircraft carriers, but definitely not now, now we do not have a clear concept of using the fleet, whether it will be unclear in the near future.

      To the point.
      The fleet must be the protection of the economy, and it must be able to support the fleet. Moreover, each of them should not be a burden.
    4. Silhouette
      Silhouette 18 December 2020 14: 48
      +1
      That's right, an aircraft carrier is a projection of strength onto the weak and underdeveloped. in general - show-off. You cannot project strength onto the strong. On whom should we project our power? To Ukraine? To Georgia? Russian aircraft carriers are not needed.
    5. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 57
      -1
      here a million times psiali general's dermantin's flock pier do not detect aug
      1) as part of the complexes of the coastal region, the STAFF has its own helicopter, no matter how old it is with a radar)) also for searching for ships. at a distance much greater than 300 km. sobsvteno in the same way they go for export BGGG
      2) cleanly googled the first thing that came across not a sunflower.
      Monolith-B - coastal reconnaissance complex of air and surface situation






      The complex is intended for over-the-horizon detection of air and surface objects and tracking of detected objects.

      It uses its own active-passive radar, automated reception and processing of data on surface-air conditions. The data is removed from the carriers of the Mineral-ME products, special equipment of the interfaces and from other sources of data acquisition - NP, helicopters and ships. Data is taken on the usual lines of communication. The complex is also used for processing and issuing target information to the missile weapon control systems of coastal missile systems. The complex was created on the chassis MZKT-7930. The main developer is Typhoon OJSC.

      The complex is able to detect up to 50 objects on the horizon at a distance of up to 250 kilometers in passive mode and 450 km in active radar mode. In the passive mode, 10 objects are detected, in the active mode - more than 30 objects. The main target designation recipients are PBRK Bastion and PBKRO Club-M. The complex was presented at the international naval cabin "MVMS-2011", held in St. Petersburg.

      well, the plane itself, going to 700, goes at an altitude of 10, giving out the desired aug, but not the essence, after all, izdis emits and therefore is visible) approximately like f16 sees everything c400 always and everywhere))
  2. bayard
    bayard 18 December 2020 06: 08
    +21
    The author simply analyzed the chances of the American AUG in the war against the enemy coast, armed with powerful and effective long-range anti-ship missiles on different carriers. In this sense, as a strike against the coast (!) Of a strong enemy, aircraft carriers are very vulnerable today.
    But for a war on the high seas, against the fleets of a potential enemy or as a node of the defensive line on the distant approaches to their shores (and bases), aircraft carriers will not only be effective, but practically indispensable for a long time to come.
    Air defense, anti-aircraft defense and long-range reconnaissance for a naval grouping without an aircraft carrier ... utopia.
    Another thing is that for the functions described above, one hundred thousandth nuclear giants are not at all necessary. An aircraft carrier with an average displacement of 40-50 thousand tons, with a pair of fighter squadrons (24 units), a squadron of anti-submarine helicopters and with 2 - 4 aircraft (or helicopters) AWACS will be quite enough.
    And no nuclear power plant, only gas turbines and electromagnetic catapults.
    It is these aircraft carriers of air defense / anti-aircraft defense that are needed for service in the "bastions", to cover the areas of combat deployment of our submarine missile carriers.
    But these are tasks for a slightly different time and a different economy.
    And possibly another leadership of the country.

    Yes, in terms of cost, the Krylovites promised to put such an AB in 1,5-2 billion dollars. (no air group) ... If you build for the amount allocated for the Sakhalin Bridge, then you can build a whole series.
    With an escort.
    And air groups.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 06: 44
      +17
      Quote: bayard
      The author simply analyzed the chances of the American AUG in the war against the enemy coast, armed with powerful and effective long-range anti-ship missiles on different carriers. In this sense, as a strike against the coast (!) Of a strong enemy, aircraft carriers are very vulnerable today.

      I cannot agree. I will say this - if the coastal defense has a large number of aircraft, both fighter and missile-carrying, if there is an effective system of naval reconnaissance and target designation, if the "ground forces" have mobile long-range anti-ship missiles at their disposal, then ... then yes, we can say that the battle with the aircraft carrier will be approximately equal. True, the aircraft carrier will still have the advantage of timing the attack.
      1. bayard
        bayard 18 December 2020 07: 08
        +14
        hi Well, I didn't describe it in such detail, although of course everything is correct. However, this presence (of all means of reconnaissance, target designation and destruction) characterizes a strong enemy.
        In any case, aircraft carriers as a universal means will serve for a long time, but the nature and tactics of their use will change.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 07: 53
          +10
          Quote: bayard
          In any case, aircraft carriers as a universal means will serve for a long time, but the nature and tactics of their use will change.

          This is without any doubt drinks
      2. SVD68
        SVD68 18 December 2020 07: 59
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        True, the aircraft carrier will still have the advantage of timing the attack.

        Aircraft carriers have a longer time to strike than missiles due to the need to wait for a group of aircraft to lift.
        1. Avior
          Avior 18 December 2020 17: 20
          +9
          The aircraft carrier knows where to strike
          The same cannot be said about the opponents of the aircraft carrier
          1. sharp-lad
            sharp-lad 18 December 2020 23: 11
            -1
            As soon as the aircraft carrier rolls off the wall it is "led". And the fact that only the commander of an aircraft carrier knows where to strike does not mean that the enemy does not know where to sink the aircraft carrier with all his retinue!
            1. Avior
              Avior 18 December 2020 23: 35
              +7
              who is leading? combat swimmers, replacing each other on a long journey? smile
              1. sharp-lad
                sharp-lad 19 December 2020 00: 07
                -3
                Well, not a needle in a haystack. I will never believe that the "polymers have been fucked up" enough to lose such a target as an aircraft carrier group! hi
                1. Avior
                  Avior 19 December 2020 00: 16
                  +5
                  the ocean will be bigger than a haystack ...
                  it was always a problem
                  1. sharp-lad
                    sharp-lad 19 December 2020 00: 39
                    -3
                    As long as there were radar satellites in orbit, there were no problems at all. And today I don't know, but I think that there are means of identifying and tracking ship connections of potential "partners". smile
          2. SVD68
            SVD68 19 December 2020 09: 59
            -1
            Quote: Avior
            The aircraft carrier knows where to strike
            The same cannot be said about the opponents of the aircraft carrier

            As soon as they begin to raise the air group, they will find out.
            1. Avior
              Avior 19 December 2020 10: 13
              +2
              When it starts, it will be too late.
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 4 January 2021 00: 41
                -2
                late what?
                you decide whether the AUG is blind and deaf, or is the duty wing dangling above it, or at least the AWACS that fills the location of the AUG in full?
                1. Avior
                  Avior 4 January 2021 00: 59
                  0
                  Aug - flexible means of warfare
                  If necessary,
                  1. Drlo can work in passive mode
                  2 growlers can perform a similar function
                  3 can be supported by a coastal AWACS, with refueling, including
                  4 is able to very quickly take a position to strike
                  1000 kilometers - 20 hours and he is ready to strike from a distance of more than a thousand kilometers from the coast
                  That is, today he strikes, and yesterday he was 2000 km
                  1. Sanichsan
                    Sanichsan 4 January 2021 01: 20
                    -2
                    Quote: Avior
                    1. Drlo can work in passive mode

                    Let's say AUG will shine less, but in itself it will count blindly.
                    Quote: Avior
                    2 growlers can perform a similar function

                    how will the growlers become invisible to the shore? where they take off from and where they land will be known immediately, which means the location of the AUG too.
                    Quote: Avior
                    3 can be supported by a coastal AWACS, with refueling, including

                    maybe, but relatively recently, the Russian contingent in Syria has demonstrated that it can easily detect not only the UAVs of the Ishilov barmaley, but also the American Poseidon, who guided them. so that the ground AWACS will also burn the AUG, and the AWACS itself is not a red cross machine, but one of the primary targets.
                    Quote: Avior
                    4 is able to very quickly take a position to strike
                    1000 kilometers - 20 hours and he is ready to strike from a distance of more than a thousand kilometers from the coast

                    but this is only in dreams wink
                    Quote: Avior
                    That is, today he strikes, and yesterday he was 2000 km

                    You will forgive me, but the same Berk or Ticonderoga will strike at the known stationary targets yesterday from 1500 km. the aircraft carrier is clean ballast.
                    and for unexplored, for example, air defense, he needs to act not from 1000 km, but from 100-200 km so that aviation can carry out reconnaissance of targets and, as a result, be at the full disposal of coastal weapons.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 4 January 2021 01: 44
                      +1
                      1 everyone who is looking for AUG will shine
                      2 growler or deck drlo how will the shore be seen during takeoff? Only if Aug comes close to the shore
                      3 how will he show Aug? The presence of a drlo does not in any way speak of Aug
                      I do not know which case you are writing about, but "no problem" is a strong exaggeration.
                      4 supply of Tomahawks is limited on ships
                      But for sure, coast-based aircraft with refueling will also strike along with the aircraft carrier.
                      Deck aircraft will be able to inflict repeated strikes not only on stationary targets with clearly known coordinates, but also on mobile targets within certain limits - upon detection, aircraft deployed within the airfield can carry out additional reconnaissance simultaneously with the strike and immediately strike a second one after a short period of time and in the future, conduct reconnaissance, patrolling and perform the functions of an operational reserve, which the coastal one cannot.
                      If the enemy is strong
                      If not, then Aug herself will cope - she will strike the first blow and go into patrol mode and maintain air supremacy for the normal operation of strikers, UAVs and helicopters, ensuring the landing
                    2. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 4 January 2021 02: 16
                      -2
                      Quote: Avior
                      1 everyone who is looking for AUG will shine

                      Where? within a radius of 100 km from AUG? further from the AWACS the aircraft carrier is unlikely to be seen in passive, while the AWACS of the aircraft carrier is an excellent, clearly visible target, even in passive mode.
                      Quote: Avior
                      2 growler or deck drlo how will the shore be seen during takeoff? Only if Aug comes close to the shore

                      and he will come there, because otherwise aviation will not be able to work.
                      Quote: Avior
                      3 how will he show Aug? The presence of a drlo does not in any way speak of Aug

                      data transfer.
                      Quote: Avior
                      I do not know which case you are writing about, but "no problem" is a strong exaggeration.

                      this is written by a person who just wrote about the AUG aviation strikes at 1000 km laughing
                      Quote: Avior
                      4 supply of Tomahawks is limited on ships
                      But for sure, coast-based aircraft with refueling will also strike along with the aircraft carrier.

                      and why, besides cutting the American budget, do we need an aircraft carrier if all these tasks can be easily performed by ground aircraft, while being much cheaper and more efficient? request
                      Quote: Avior
                      Deck aircraft will be able to inflict repeated strikes not only on stationary targets with clearly known coordinates, but also on mobile targets within certain limits - upon detection, aircraft deployed within the airfield can carry out additional reconnaissance simultaneously with the strike and immediately strike a second one after a short period of time and in the future, conduct reconnaissance, patrolling and perform the functions of an operational reserve, which the coastal cannot.

                      so what does ground-based aircraft or "coastal" aircraft not do? the aircraft carrier will definitely not be able to inflict a massive airstrike, unlike aviation, on the coast, which has not 1 runway, but hundreds, which allows a large number of aircraft to be lifted, unlike 1 aircraft carrier runway, which is also clogged with planes and maintenance services.
                      Quote: Avior
                      If not, then Aug herself will cope - she will strike the first blow and go into patrol mode and maintain air supremacy for the normal operation of strikers, UAVs and helicopters, ensuring the landing

                      Yeah lol then Eun abandoned the nuclear program, and Guaido became president lol

                      Look when, and under what circumstances, something like that happened. the last time this trick was rolled with Hussein whom his own generals sold and the air defense was knocked out. By the way, where was the aircraft carrier sailing? 500 miles from Iraq? or maybe all the same at 50? wink all these theories did not work with the DPRK request The DPRK does not seem to be among the strongest military powers ...
                    3. Avior
                      Avior 4 January 2021 06: 50
                      0
                      1 about 600 km range in passive mode
                    4. Avior
                      Avior 4 January 2021 07: 02
                      +1
                      2 Aug will come to the shore, but you don't know where and at what time
                      3 data transmission is satellite or through a standard link16 which does not indicate the presence of aug
                      4 I didn’t write about hitting 1000 km without problems, but aug is quite capable of this and even more
                      Refueling is provided there
                      But finding a drone control base is a difficult task.
                      5 coastal aviation will not be able to respond promptly, unlike deck aviation
                      And it requires a lot of resources, since every flight with multiple full refuelings is much longer and more expensive than a deck flight, especially at the second stage, when the aircraft carrier comes closer
                      6 about the DPRK and Venezuela - do you have evidence that the problem was of a military nature, not a political one?
                      7 there were 4 aircraft carriers in Iraq
                      And what about selling by generals, they sell when they see the hopelessness of hostilities
                    5. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 4 January 2021 14: 29
                      -2
                      Quote: Avior
                      2 Aug will come to the shore, but you don't know where and at what time

                      what time is unknown? it will be unknown until AUG is far away. when the AUG comes within range, it will be known exactly where the connection is.
                      Quote: Avior
                      3 data transmission is satellite or through a standard link16 which does not indicate the presence of aug

                      directional signal does not speak? hmmm .. well, it's normal for those who were waiting for AUG in the Azov sea.
                      Quote: Avior
                      4 I didn’t write about hitting 1000 km without problems, but aug is quite capable of this and even more
                      Refueling is provided there

                      Dullitt's raid is not a military operation but a publicity stunt. in the case of a confrontation between the superpowers, this is simply a statement "it's time to destroy us with a nuclear strike." having carried out such a maneuver, what will the AUG achieve? leave the entire wing at sea with zero results? well, great! wassat
                      Quote: Avior
                      But finding a drone control base is a difficult task.

                      for the NKR militia? is the NKR militia your standard army? belay
                      Quote: Avior
                      5 coastal aviation will not be able to respond promptly, unlike deck aviation
                      And it requires a lot of resources, since every flight with multiple full refuelings is much longer and more expensive than a deck flight, especially at the second stage, when the aircraft carrier comes closer

                      you forgive, but this is already gross nonsense. just carrier-based aviation requires a lot of resources due to the fact that it is necessary not only to service the aircraft, but also to drag the runway in the form of an aircraft carrier and a cover in the form of an AUG, which eats ten times more than a network of ground airfields with ground air defense. Add to this the limited characteristics of aviation associated with basing on an aircraft carrier, and everything is completely sad. request
                      Quote: Avior
                      6 about the DPRK and Venezuela - do you have evidence that the problem was of a military nature, not a political one?

                      Doesn't the USA solve political problems by military means? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Serbia, all these were political problems and they were solved by military means as they could. with Venezuela and the DPRK there was a pronounced bummer.
                      Quote: Avior
                      7 there were 4 aircraft carriers in Iraq

                      and how does it change that fact that the AUG can only operate in conditions of suppressed air defense and coastal defense from a distance of about 50 miles from the coast?
                      Quote: Avior
                      And what about selling by generals, they sell when they see the hopelessness of hostilities

                      what you described is called betrayal of the motherland, if you do not know wink and all sorts of scum like Vlasov and other collaborators do this.
                    6. Avior
                      Avior 4 January 2021 14: 40
                      +1
                      1 when it comes, the hostilities begin, it will be late to look
                      2 satellite know where it's headed?
                      Link16 is standard equipment, not unique to an aircraft carrier
                      3 raids on Iraq were also from Europe, the pleasure is not cheap, both in terms of supply and resource
                      4 about the UAV base is a problem for everyone, and if the control of satellites is especially
                      5 does not need common words. do you have proof that the problem in this particular case was with the aircraft carriers?
                      6 about 50 miles is an outright lie
                      Like the suppressed air defense
                    7. Sanichsan
                      Sanichsan 5 January 2021 00: 26
                      -2
                      In principle, I see no point in further discussion. believe and wait for the AUG in the Sea of ​​Azov hi
        2. Navigator Basov
          Navigator Basov 6 January 2021 12: 54
          0
          Quote: Avior
          4 is able to very quickly take a position to strike
          1000 kilometers - 20 hours and he is ready to strike from a distance of more than a thousand kilometers from the coast
          With a 700 km combat radius of aircraft carrier-based aircraft? It's written right in the article.
  • ancient
    ancient 18 December 2020 12: 10
    +9
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    then ... then yes, we can say that the battle with the aircraft carrier will be about equal.

    Andrey, dear! Let me disagree with your opinion wink
    If the "ground men" have all the "arsenal" that you list ... then the AUG (if, of course, it is on the line of the "ground troops" means of destruction) ... then the chances of resisting the "ground men" at the AUG ... exactly .. "-" 0 !!!
    If only before the start of its operation, the enemy (by the forces of the KUG and the nuclear submarine, as well as the SA with the AB) does not strike unexpectedly at targets in the sector of the strike of the AUG, well, and everything "revealed" by the forces of its intelligence. wink
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 15: 44
      +8
      Quote: ancient
      Andrey, dear!

      Good evening, dear Ancient! I am very glad to see you hi
      Quote: ancient
      If the "ground men" have all the "arsenal" that you list ... then the AUG (if, of course, it is on the line of the "ground troops" means of destruction) ... then the chances of resisting the "ground men" at the AUG ... exactly .. "-" 0 !!!

      This is if the location of the AUG has been successfully opened and there are sufficient means to strike at hand. But you know a lot better than me that even in the times of the USSR it was a very difficult task and it did not always work out.
      And of course, you write yourself
      Quote: ancient
      If only before the start of its operation, the enemy (by the forces of the KUG and the nuclear submarine, as well as the SA with the AB) does not strike unexpectedly at targets in the sector of the AUG strike

      And he may well inflict, because the war is not waged by the AUG against the BRAV and the MPA, but by all the armed forces in a complex ... And this blow can be repelled, having caught the enemy on the approaches ... That's exactly what I mean when I say that the war will be on an equal footing :) Maybe we, but maybe us ...
      1. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2020 14: 13
        -2
        ok, now a question. Will Mig31 and 400 Su35 shoot down the entire air wing at once 400 km from the coast? of course not))) current why ?! and then planes with reconnaissance equipment will certainly not detect signals from the aug, this is just as much as the fact that you are a propogandist.
        can you justify for what you should all be smiling in your fantasies about the deep domination of the United States over the Russian Federation?
      2. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 4 January 2021 00: 49
        -2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And he may well inflict, because the war is not waged by the AUG against the BRAV and the MPA, but all the armed forces are integrated ...

        but if so, then the Strategic Missile Forces should also be present in the equation.
        PS
        otherwise I will remind you of the Millennium Challenge exercises. there AUG was rolled out by means available to third world countries.
        when you write that "AUG knows where the targets of the" coast "are and the" coast "does not know where the AUG is (not literally smile ), this is slyness. AUG knows only about stationary objects. send an AUG wing to a stationary object with unsuppressed air defense? IMHO this is the Japanese style of the end of WWII, tobish suicide request
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 January 2021 12: 22
          +2
          Quote: SanichSan
          but if so, then there is also the Strategic Missile Forces in the equation must be present

          If it comes to the Strategic Missile Forces, they will solve their inherent tasks. In general, our Strategic Missile Forces do not know how to chase aircraft carriers
          Quote: SanichSan
          otherwise I will remind you of the Millennium Challenge exercises. there AUG was rolled out by means available to third world countries.

          First, according to the terms of the teachings, the AUG deliberately abandoned its most important advantage - stealth and simply insolently climbed into the Persian Gulf. Secondly, they did it with small forces, insufficient to carry out such an operation - Iran cannot be defeated by AUS alone. Third, Reaper exploited a software glitch. He sent a mass of boats to meet the AUG ships, and they were able to detect American ships, and American ships were not able to detect and destroy these boats, since they could not distinguish them from ordinary peaceful transport ships, which are in bulk in the bay. It was a failure of the teaching software, nothing like that would have happened in life. Further, Reaper ducked a magic wand, thanks to which everything, I repeat, ALL the boats of Iran in one magical moment became rocket. Actually, thanks to this, he won then.
          Quote: SanichSan
          when you write that "AUG knows where the goals of the" coast "and the" coast "does not know where the AUG is (not literally smile), this is slyness.

          This is an objective reality.
          Quote: SanichSan
          AUG knows only about stationary objects. send an AUG wing to a stationary object with unsuppressed air defense?

          Firstly, safely record the positions of the air defense missile system in stationary objects - they do not run back and forth :)))). And the AUG has all the necessary means for reconnaissance, including radio-technical, of course. And yes, air defense is carried out during the attack of the main object, this is the norm of modern combat operations.
          That is, first, satellite reconnaissance, identifying stationary targets that we want to hit, then, the area of ​​their location is very carefully considered in order to identify the composition and positions of the air defense, then - the CD strike on the identified targets, additional reconnaissance immediately before the attack and a separate group of air defense suppression, starting its work when the radars of the OMS SAM are turned on ...
          Of course, all this does not guarantee the absence of losses of carrier-based aircraft, they will suffer losses, but in general, aviation usually wins the confrontation with ground-based air defense components
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 5 January 2021 01: 35
            -2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            First, according to the terms of the teachings, the AUG deliberately abandoned its most important advantage - stealth and simply insolently climbed into the Persian Gulf.

            Let's clarify, the main goal of the exercises was to demonstrate the total superiority of the global command and control system. it is essential to expose your "program crash" fiction wink and yes, the blue team acted head-on. by the way, right now they are preparing for a conflict with Iran and the aircraft carrier is heading straight for the Persian Gulf again. Are the Americans completely fools and not aware of "their advantage - secrecy"? apparently this advantage is known only to VO experts lol
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Secondly, they did it with small forces, insufficient to carry out such an operation - Iran cannot be defeated by AUS alone.
            you insist that the Pentagon is sitting idiots who arrange headquarters exercises with conditions known to be losing for their troops? then why did they arrange the second round in which they were guaranteed to win?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Third, Reaper exploited a software glitch. He sent a mass of boats to meet the AUG ships, and they were able to detect American ships, and American ships were not able to detect and destroy these boats, since they could not distinguish them from ordinary peaceful transport ships, which are in bulk in the bay. It was a failure of the teaching software, nothing like that would have happened in life.
            you are making a mistake, I hope not intentionally, but out of ignorance. the program worked just fine and dumped on the blue command all the information that Reaper had organized for them, and the people failed. a unique case when a DDoS attack dropped not the server, but the user laughing and you are right, in real military operations this was not and is not expected in the near future, because during the exercises the system showed that it was not suitable for use in real hostilities and could not bring it to mind.
            however, let's be honest, Reaper's tactics would have been successful without a global command and control system that flooded the blue command with information. request
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Firstly, safely write down the positions of the air defense system in stationary objects - they do not run back and forth :)))).

            fallback positions, false positions, redeployment? not? did not hear? strain and formulate for what reasons even long-range air defenses are made on the chassis and not stationary, which would be much cheaper. the only stationary one I know is the American mine-based missile defense system, but this is the only case. perhaps you are still wrong again. wink
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And the AUG has all the necessary means for reconnaissance, including radio, of course.
            that is, it glows like a Christmas tree? you decide whether the AUG is secretive and goes to cut down everything that is possible or the AUG uses all means of detection and knows about its approach in 2000 miles?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And yes, air defense is carried out during the attack of the main object, this is the norm of modern combat operations.
            modern ??? Is 1945 modern? now no one in their right mind will send an air defense-protected plane filled with hundreds of millions of eternally green electronics at an object. the object is attacked only when it is safe for the aircraft, that is, the air defense is suppressed or there is an opportunity to attack outside the range of the air defense.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            That is, first, satellite reconnaissance, identifying stationary targets that we want to hit, then, the area of ​​their location is very carefully considered in order to identify the composition and positions of the air defense, then - the CD strike on the identified targets, additional reconnaissance immediately before the attack and a separate group of air defense suppression, starting its work when the radars of the OMS SAM are turned on ...
            Are you about to play the second round of the Millennium Challenge? do you understand that all this can only work if the "shore" command is completely inactive? you then specify in the scenario that the aircraft carrier can secretly approach and destroy targets if all the air defense calculations went to make barbecues instead of being on duty, all the planes were dismantled into precious metals, the GOS was sold to the side, the early warning radar calculations were smoking grass and playing backgammon, in the satellite control center the gangs are all drunk and watch a striptease, the fleet is jamming the awl, and the submariners are stuck with coke according to the American tradition wassat with such a tin, it is possible that something will burn out at AUG. request
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Of course, all this does not guarantee the absence of losses of carrier-based aircraft, they will suffer losses, but in general, aviation usually wins the confrontation with ground-based air defense components

            hmmm ... that is, in your view of the AUG, and especially the aircraft carrier, is this a sacred cow that no one will shoot at? I hope you are not an adherent of Timokhin, a believer that AUG can deftly dodge satellites?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2021 13: 13
              +1
              Quote: SanichSan
              let's clarify, the main goal of the exercises was to demonstrate the total superiority of the global command and control system

              Which somehow has not been proven
              Quote: SanichSan
              by the way, right now they are preparing for a conflict with Iran and the aircraft carrier is heading straight for the Persian Gulf again. Are the Americans completely fools and not aware of "their advantage - secrecy"?

              Do you understand the difference between "force projection" and combat use? If the Americans were seriously going to fight, they would have sent at least 2 AUS there, not an aircraft carrier.
              Quote: SanichSan
              you insist that the Pentagon is sitting idiots who arrange headquarters exercises with conditions known to be losing for their troops?

              I, Alexander, insist that in order to analyze those teachings one should read more or less decent imported sources. And you should understand the difference between "weaker forces" and "knowingly losing position."
              The Americans hoped that they should cope with the existing composition of forces - taking into account the latest command and control system. Not by number, but by skill. And there was a failure + Reaper worked efficiently + he found a magic wand that turns any boat into a missile boat :))))) That's why they replayed - AUG was broken in obviously impossible conditions, which could not have developed in a conflict with Iran.
              But yes, apparently, they played along in the second stage of the AUG.
              Quote: SanichSan
              the program worked just fine and dumped on the blue command all the information that Reaper had organized for them, and the people couldn't do it.

              Considering that the program at the most crucial moment stopped showing Riper's "missile boats" as hostile objects ....
              Quote: SanichSan
              however, let's be honest, Reaper's tactic would be successful

              In the presence of HUNDREDS of missile boats, which for some reason AUG allowed almost within the limit of visual visibility
              Quote: SanichSan
              fallback positions, false positions, relocation? not? did not hear?

              I heard. But what I have NOT heard about is that AT LEAST IN ONE CONFLICT, ground-based air defense would be able to defeat aviation. With any correct application, ground air defense is incapable of resisting correct air attacks.
              One more thing. In the entire history of wars, there was NOT a SINGLE case when ground air defense (including aviation) would repel an attack by a carrier-based one.
              You can continue to talk about why air defense systems need wheels. And yes, spare positions, this is the kind of thing that was used even before our era.
              Quote: SanichSan
              that is, it glows like a Christmas tree?

              Are you out of your mind? For radio reconnaissance, the AUG does not light up, the electronic warfare and AWACS aircraft operate with passive means.
              Quote: SanichSan
              modern ??? Is 1945 modern?

              Watch the work of Israeli aviation in the Arab conflicts, the United States - during the Desert Storm and in Yugoslavia, etc.
              Quote: SanichSan
              now no one in their right mind will send an air defense-protected plane filled with hundreds of millions of eternally green electronics at an object. the object is attacked only when it is safe for the aircraft, that is, the air defense is suppressed or there is an opportunity to attack outside the range of the air defense.

              You are more than completely wrong. It is the planes, precisely for 100500 greens, that they tear the ground air defense like a hot water bottle.
              SAM is a very, very useful thing in war, but it is not self-sufficient. And we do not have sufficient air defense aviation.
              Quote: SanichSan
              Are you about to play the second round of the Millennium Challenge? you understand that all this can only work if the "shore" command is completely inactive

              As I said, you have absolutely no idea about the tactics of modern aviation.
              ground-based air defense has a lot of problems. It also needs to observe radio silence modes, but this does not help against infra and optical reconnaissance, + it cannot be located too far from the covered objects, etc. However ... I seem to be wasting my time explaining the well-known basics of air operations.
              Quote: SanichSan
              hmmm ... that is, in your view of the AUG, and especially the aircraft carrier, is this a sacred cow that no one will shoot at?

              In order to shoot him, he must be found.
              Quote: SanichSan
              I hope you are not an adherent of Timokhin, a believer that AUG can deftly dodge satellites?

              Both Timokhin and I do not believe. We KNOW that this is possible and can give many examples of how it happened.
              You BELIEVE here without even having a rudimentary knowledge of the strategy and tactics of air operations
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 7 January 2021 19: 12
                -2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I heard. But what I have NOT heard about is that AT LEAST IN ONE CONFLICT the ground air defense would be able to defeat the aviation.

                true? hmm ... maybe they didn't want to hear about it? more recently, 4 shells (export Syrian, that is, with cropped characteristics) against Turkish drones. the score is 14-0 in favor of the shells.
                1984 "The Syrians launched a series of retaliatory strikes against the US naval group. They began to act against carrier-based aircraft. In six days, the missilemen shot down nine American aircraft, including five A-6, three F-14, one F-4, in addition , four Israeli and two French carrier-based “Super-fmb.” In aerial combat on the MiG-23MLD, the Syrians shot down four Israeli aircraft (three F-15 and one F-4), without losing a single one of their own.
                Before the blockade, the Americans used the Firebie reconnaissance planes massively over Syrian troops in Lebanon, as well as over Soviet air defense systems in Syria. The direct-protection divisions - “Wasp” shot down: 202 zrp - five unmanned aircraft, and the 231 regiment - six. 202 SPR launching one missile shot down an Hokai early warning aircraft at a range of 190 km.
                And the flights of the United States and Israel stopped."
                admit to yourself that you are simply ignoring the facts so that your idyll does not collapse wink
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Watch the work of Israeli aviation in the Arab conflicts, the United States - during the Desert Storm and in Yugoslavia, etc.

                I already wrote to you about it. Let me remind you - only with suppressed air defense or outside the air defense coverage area. this is clearly seen in the actions of Israel attacking from the territory of neighboring states and from outside the borders of the Syrian air defenses and in the actions of the United States in Iraq. why do you persistently ignore it? request
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                ground-based air defense has a lot of problems. It also needs to observe radio silence modes, but this does not help against infrared and optical reconnaissance, + it cannot be located too far from the covered objects, and so on and so forth. However...

                at the same time, it has more powerful detection systems, since it is not limited by flight characteristics, a wide range of camouflage means of which aviation is deprived and much longer-range means of destruction due to the fact that, again, they do not have such severe restrictions on the size and mass of ammunition as in an aircraft, especially a deck ...
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It seems like I’m wasting my time explaining the familiar basics of air operations.

                you know, I have the same thought. you are persistently pouring from empty to empty, ignoring the obvious advantages of coastal defense and inventing advantages for the AUG. Of course, you have not yet reached the heights of our Ukrainian expert, who said that the use of AUG is cheaper than coastal defense, but this is not much easier. all this is very reminiscent of the second round of the "Millennium Challenge" when Reaper was forbidden to shoot down the tiltrotor ...
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In order to shoot him, he must be found.

                that is, it is difficult to find the ocean AUG, which had practically no possibilities for camouflage, but is it easy to find the location of an air defense battalion that has a number of prepared positions, camouflage means and has mobility? hmmm ... ah! read! laughing you explained everything in the last paragraph!
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Both Timokhin and I do not believe. We KNOW that this is possible and can give many examples of how it happened.

                you know this on the basis of the diagram ripped off by Timokhin from the American article under which it is directly written that this is a schematic image? your knowledge of this year Timokhin comes up with what is supposedly a coverage area and depicts how he will go around them dexterously on an aircraft carrier?
                Yes. you are right - these are not beliefs, these are fantasies wassat
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You BELIEVE here without even having a rudimentary knowledge of the strategy and tactics of air operations

                Oh yeah! I managed to make sure of this! AUG sees everything and destroys everything due to the fact that AUG and no one sees them and cannot shoot at them and KR for 1000 KM will not hit anyone because the letter C in the abbreviation of the GOS turned out to be for beauty bully
                the only thing we have to regret is that the Pentagon is not such experts in "tactics and strategy of air operations" as you. this would greatly simplify the tasks of the Russian coastal defense, air defense and aerospace forces. but alas. sorry request
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 January 2021 22: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  true? hmm ... maybe they didn't want to hear about it?

                  No question, let's look at your examples.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  more recently, 4 shells (export Syrian, that is, with cropped characteristics) against Turkish drones. the score is 14-0 in favor of the shells.

                  I will not even ask what kind of murzilka this data was taken from. I'll just say that:
                  1) The "armor against bayraktar" situation is a PRINCIPLY WRONG use of air power.
                  2) Even in this case, the Pantsiri in particular and the air defense of Syria as a whole did not solve the problem of covering their ground forces from air strikes.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  1984 "The Syrians launched a series of retaliatory strikes against the US naval group. They began to act against carrier-based aircraft. In six days, the missilemen shot down nine American aircraft, including five A-6, three F-14, one F-4, in addition , four Israeli and two French carrier-based “Super-fmb.” In aerial combat on the MiG-23MLD, the Syrians shot down four Israeli aircraft (three F-15 and one F-4), without losing a single one of their own.

                  laughing
                  And now - back to boring reality. In 1983-1984 Syrians and their allies shot down 5 aircraft: 2 Lebanese Hunter F.Mk.70s (September 17) and Buldon SRS-126 (September 19), the Israeli Kfir S.2 (November 20) and 2 American A-6E and A -7E (December 4). At least 3 aircraft were seriously damaged - the Lebanese Hunter F.Mk.70s (September 17), the French Crusaders (September 19) and the American A-7E (December 4). Data found in many publications (Yashkin G.P. Colonel-General "We fought in Syria there were not only advisers there" Journal "Vestnik PVO" No. 4 1988; Pochtarev A. "Keif sykhkha, khabir Nikolay?" star "29.06.2000/3/23 p6 .;" MiG-14 in Lebanon "about the downed nine American aircraft - five A-4, three F-XNUMX, one F-XNUMX, four Israeli and two French carrier-based" Super Etandar "are unreliable and overpriced.
                  And how did the American decks manage to lose 2 planes?
                  “December 4, 1983 was a bad day for the United States. Eight of its fighters were killed and 8 wounded in shelling their positions at Beirut Airport. The Americans also carried out a retaliatory raid on Syrian air defense positions, which in the past few days attacked an American reconnaissance aircraft patrolling At dawn, sixteen A-2E Intruder attack aircraft and twelve A-6E Corsars took off from the aircraft carriers John F. Kennedy and Independence. AWACS E-7C Hawkeye for observation from loitering zones and detection of Syrian batteries of air defense systems.Somewhat aside, providing combat patrols, they were accompanied by several F-2 Tomcat fighters. Last but not least were, of course, the EA-14B Prowler, which took off to jam enemy radars.The task of suppressing the Syrian air defense batteries was divided between the A-6E Corsar and A-7E Intruder aircraft: the first were to attack the P LS SAM and behind Shrike missiles, and the latter - to destroy the PU SAM. However, the flight of such a large group of aircraft did not escape the attention of the Soviet cruiser and reconnaissance ship, which, as usual, shadowed the formation of the 6th US Fleet. Perhaps fearing another setback, in which the weapons supplied to the Syrians could be destroyed and the lives of Soviet military advisers in the zone could be endangered, the Russians immediately informed Damascus by radio that a large group of US aircraft was leaving. So the Syrians got the necessary time to prepare for the appropriate reception of the pilots of the 6th US Fleet. The surprise factor was lost, US aircraft collided with approximately seventy Syrian SAM batteries and countless ZA batteries waiting for them on full alert. "
                  And what happened when the Soviet ships were not around?
                  "At noon, Thursday, November 17, 1983, eight Super Etendards took off from the Clemenceau aircraft carrier, cruising about 160 km off the coast of Lebanon. The aircraft headed inland to Baalbek to strike at the old Lebanese barracks of Sheikh Abdullah, in which Islamic volunteers were quartered, suspected of having organized a bloody attack on the French paratroopers' barracks.The order to complete the mission was given from Paris, but the choice of the day of departure was left to Rear Admiral Klotz, who was aboard the Clemenceau, depending on weather conditions and other factors. Each of the eight Super Etendards carried one 400-kilogram and three 250-kilogram bombs. Air cover was provided by two French F-8E Crusader fighters flying above the Super Etendard, guarding them and being ready to intervene when However, the French did not have electronic warfare aircraft and the French turned to the Americans. The Americans provided the French with EA-6B Prowler aircraft for the delay in jamming their loitering zones, which during the entire Super Etendard flight interfered with the enemy's surveillance and firing radars, being outside the zone of their defeat. With the help of their INS, the French pilots accurately hit the target and made a surprise attack. Each group of aircraft made one approach, first two, then four and two more aircraft. The first six dropped their bombs as planned, but the last two stopped the attack due to heavy air defense fire from the ground. After completing the task, the commander of the French air regiment reasonably decided that since the huge Syrian air defense system was already on alert, it would be unwise to send an Etendard IVP photo reconnaissance officer to confirm the results of the raid. Nevertheless, the task was completed technically 100% successfully. "
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 January 2021 22: 06
                  0
                  Further. List the fantasy losses mentioned in "We fought in Syria there were not only advisers" you listed. But you preferred not to notice the statement of other facts from the same source
                  It must be admitted that the Israelis managed to capture and maintain superiority in the air and over the battlefield. Many factors contributed to this, but I will name just a few ...
                  ... The complex and massive use of electronic warfare systems, missiles and guided bombs with optoelectronic and radar homing heads was a decisive condition for Israel's success in suppressing the Syrian air defense grouping in Lebanon and gaining air supremacy in the air.
                3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 January 2021 22: 11
                  0
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  admit to yourself that you are simply ignoring the facts so that your idyll does not collapse

                  Alas, you are not citing facts, but fakes. The rest - later
                4. Sanichsan
                  Sanichsan 8 January 2021 02: 09
                  -1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Further. List the fantasy losses mentioned in "We fought in Syria there were not only advisers" you listed. But you preferred not to notice the statement of other facts from the same source

                  ha ha ha wassat "vivsevrete" is an excellent argument worthy of an expert in the tactics of using aviation! good
                  as I see, on a specific fact, when in 6 days the Soviet air defenses landed Israel, France and the United States, you have nothing to say and all that you can is to continuously drive down to failure Syrians in Lebanon happened to events that I gave as an example.
                  mind you, I am not claiming that we defeated everyone there, I am giving a concrete example of the fact that the Soviet air defense solved the problem of closing the sky in Syria, including from the AUG air wing. and what can you answer? that Israel defeated the Syrian air defense system in Lebanon? How does this relate to the opposition of the AUG to the Russian (then Soviet) ground-based air defense?
                5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 January 2021 11: 50
                  -1
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  and ha ha ha wassat "vivsevrete" is an excellent argument worthy of an expert on the tactics of using aviation!

                  And what to do if you are doing just that?
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  as I see, on a specific fact, when in 6 days the Soviet air defenses landed Israel, France and the United States, you have nothing to say

                  M-dya ... But for those who do not know how to read, he singled it out with fat. Try again.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  However, the flight of such a large group of aircraft did not escape the attention of the Soviet cruiser and reconnaissance ship, which, as usual, shadowed the formation of the 6th US Fleet. Perhaps fearing another setback, in which the weapons supplied to the Syrians could be destroyed and the lives of Soviet military advisers in the zone could be endangered, the Russians immediately informed Damascus by radio that a large group of US aircraft was leaving.

                  In other words, the Americans managed to inflict some damage due to the fact that the ships of the USSR Navy were close to the AUG and controlled its actions, warning the ground troops.
                  In the same case, when the Soviet ships did not control the situation, the French struck a blow with much smaller forces and the Syrian air defense could not prevent this.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  With the help of their INS, the French pilots accurately hit the target and made a surprise attack. Each group of aircraft made one approach, first two, then four and two more aircraft. The first six dropped their bombs as planned, but the last two stopped the attack due to heavy air defense fire from the ground. After completing the task, the commander of the French air regiment reasonably decided that since the huge Syrian air defense system was already on alert, it would be unwise to send an Etendard IVP photo reconnaissance officer to confirm the results of the raid. However, the task was completed technically 100% successfully.

                  Returning to our dispute - yes, if you manage to attach your own cruiser to the AUG of the Americans, which will inform the groundmen about all the actions of the AUG, then yes, the ground air defense, of course, can do something wassat
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  I give a concrete example of the fact that the Soviet air defense solved the problem of closing the sky in Syria, including from the AUG air wing. and what can you answer?

                  How it "closed" - I already wrote. And about "including from AUG" - the Americans were NOT going to wage a massive air war. The December 4 raid was the only one, and it was undertaken as a punishment for the fact that the Syrian air defense system previously fired at US reconnaissance aircraft. The Americans themselves believed that they had achieved the objectives of the operation.
                  In general, it was very cool to "close the sky" from those who were not going to fight seriously.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  and all that you can is to continuously go down on the failure of the Syrians in Lebanon that happened before the events that I gave as an example.

                  To begin with, the multinational air raids in your example went with varying success. When the Syrians fired rockets at the French plane, Clemanso's aviation struck, and hit successfully. When an artillery shell knocked down Kfir, the Israelis hit the positions of the air defense missile system, again, quite successfully. Already a day before the events described by you! :))))
                  The bottom line. As an example, you cited the events of 1983-84 in Lebanon, which, of course, did not have its own air defense. Syria had its own interest there, but the problem is that it itself did not fight directly, but supported "its own" in Lebanon, respectively, neither Israel nor the MNF waged a full-scale war against Syria. So what kind of "confrontation between the AUG and Syria" are we talking about?
            2. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 7 January 2021 22: 37
              -2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I will not even ask what kind of murzilka this data was taken from. I'll just say that:
              1) The "armor against bayraktar" situation is a PRINCIPLY WRONG use of air power.
              2) Even in this case, the Pantsiri in particular and the air defense of Syria as a whole did not solve the problem of covering their ground forces from air strikes.

              1) how wrong? everything as you like. aviation is trying to suppress air defense. really bad request you yourself wrote that it should be so.
              2) they provided cover for their troops from Turkish UAV raids. solved the problems of the ground operation? of course not. these are not air defense missions. I will also remind you that Turkish aviation did not appear there at all. I wonder why it is? probably didn't want to just wassat
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And now - back to boring reality.

              Yeah. really...
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              1983-1984 the Syrians and their allies shot down 5 planes ...
              and blah blah blah ... otherwise I can't describe it. request
              you could not read what I wrote or understand? I will repeat and highlight the essential if so difficult ...
              Quote: SanichSan
              1984 year "The Syrians launched a series of retaliatory strikes against the US naval group. They began to act against carrier-based aircraft. In six days missilemen shot down nine American aircraft, incl. five A-6, three F-14, one F-4, in addition, four Israeli and two French deck "Super-fmb"... In air battles on the MiG-23MLD, the Syrians shot down four Israeli aircraft (three F-15s and one F-4) without losing a single one of their own.
              Before the blockade, the Americans used the Firebie reconnaissance planes massively over Syrian troops in Lebanon, as well as over Soviet air defense systems in Syria. The direct-protection divisions - “Wasp” shot down: 202 zrp - five unmanned aircraft, and the 231 regiment - six. 202 SPR launching one missile shot down an Hokai early warning aircraft at a range of 190 km.
              And the flights of the United States and Israel stopped."

              tell me, do you think it's normal, "I see here, I don't see here"? Soviet air defense with Soviet crews arrived in Syria in 1984, when things were completely seams, and successfully solved the assigned tasks by landing on the ground both Israel and France with the United States, on aircraft carriers. not from 1983 to 1984, and in 1984... You seem to be able to make history? what nonsense is that? request what does the screwing up of serials from 1983 to 1984 have to do with the fact that the Syrian skies were closed to Israel, France and the United States in 1984 by Soviet air defenses?
              you wanted an example of how air defense outperforms aviation? here's a good example. you claimed that the AUG will suppress any air defense? here is an example of what it is not.
              by the way, also pay attention to this:
              Quote: SanichSan
              202 air defense missile launchers shot down the Hokai early warning aircraft at a distance of 190 km.
              this is to fantasies about how the AUG will see everything with the help of AWACS.
            3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 January 2021 12: 09
              -1
              Quote: SanichSan
              ) how wrong? everything as you like. aviation is trying to suppress air defense.

              For those who cannot read, I repeat. After all, even the order described
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              That is, first, satellite reconnaissance, identifying stationary targets that we want to hit, then, the area of ​​their location is very carefully considered in order to identify the composition and positions of the air defense, then - the CD strike on the identified targets, additional reconnaissance immediately before the attack and a separate group of air defense suppression, starting its work when the radars of the OMS SAM are turned on ...

              What's the use of Bayraktar versus Pantsir?
              Quote: SanichSan
              they provided cover for their troops from Turkish UAV raids

              NOT provided.
              Quote: SanichSan
              1984 "The Syrians launched a series of retaliatory strikes against the US naval group. They began to act against carrier-based aircraft. In six days, the missilemen shot down nine American aircraft, including five A-6, three F-14, one F-4, in addition , four Israeli and two French carrier-based “Super-fmb.” In aerial combat on the MiG-23MLD, the Syrians shot down four Israeli aircraft (three F-15 and one F-4), without losing a single one of their own.

              Lies from the first to the last word. The ONLY strike by US carrier-based aircraft was dealt on December 4, 1983, and I described its consequences - 2 downed aircraft, and the Americans believed that the strike's goals had been achieved. You confused the years - all the events you describe took place in 1983. For example, out of the 3 F-15s you mentioned, two were allegedly shot down in an air battle on October 4, 1983, when the Syrian MiG-23ML received from the USSR first entered the battle, shooting down from two Israeli F-15As. In fact, there is no confirmation of this battle. The Israelis, by the way, are also not aware
              Quote: SanichSan
              Soviet air defense with Soviet crews arrived in Syria in 1984, when things were completely seams

              Sit down, deuce. The first Soviet transport with our troops arrived in January 1983.
              Quote: SanichSan
              202 air defense missile launchers shot down the Hokai early warning aircraft at a distance of 190 km.

              What are you talking about?:)))))
              Quote: SanichSan
              this is to fantasies about how the AUG will see everything with the help of AWACS.

              The problem is that the allegedly shot down "Hawkeye" was not American, but Israeli :))))) And it was not shot down :)))) The legend that in the winter of 1983 the S-200 complex with Soviet military personnel was shot down Israeli E-2C, which made a patrol flight at a distance of 190 km from the starting position of the "two hundred", has no confirmation. Most likely, the E-2C Hawkeye disappeared from the screens of the Syrian radars after the Israeli plane quickly descended, recording with the help of its equipment the characteristic radiation of the target illumination radar of the C-200VE complex.
              The Israelis at that time had EMNIP 4 Hokai, and all of them are relatively easy to trace. They did not shoot down.
              In 1984, none of this happened - here your wild imagination has tried. But there were raids by Israeli aviation in 1984. For example, January 3 and 4, 1984. Israeli planes attacked targets in Lebanon. The first of these raids on the Islamic Volunteer Training Camp at Baalbek involved twelve aircraft; and only four of them (Israeli-made Kfir attack aircraft) performed the strike, while the remaining eight provided air cover and escort REP (jamming enemy radar and dropping anti-radar and infrared traps). Sixteen Israeli aircraft took part in the second raid, but this time only two of them struck, and the remaining fourteen were used for long-range escort and provide the attackers with a protective barrier from anti-aircraft missiles, hot air cylinders and infrared traps.
              The Syrian air defense failed to prevent these raids
            4. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 9 January 2021 16: 14
              -2
              yes, you are really impenetrable! laughing
              it's a pity you don't work for the Pentagon. it would seriously make it easier for our military. yes
            5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 January 2021 17: 05
              0
              Quote: SanichSan
              yes, you are really impenetrable!

              Yes, not me :))) And the objective reality.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 18 December 2020 12: 40
    +11
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    the aircraft carrier will still have the advantage of timing the attack

    Andrew, hi
    And not only this. The main thing, in my opinion, is that an aircraft carrier can simply "dissolve" in the vast expanses of the sea. And it is not a fact that in modern conditions (with powerful electronic warfare and means of destruction of coastal radars and stationary "objects") it will be able to be found in time. And he is able to jump from the "waiting" (maneuvering) area in 12 hours 30 knots to the air lift range and again go to sea for a couple of hours ... until the aviation begins to return to it.
    AMG has a lot of tricks. We know some of them, we can guess about some of them, but the "cunning Yankees" probably have something in their store ... Question: are we ready to adequately respond to them, not the way the enemy programmed it !? After all, there is a circle of AI and almost identical algorithms of actions when typing "standard" (typical) sources ...
    IMHO.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 17: 55
      -8
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      can simply "dissolve" in the endless sea

      And this is Andrei, who was covered with articles sweat, the ease of capturing the nuclear submarine in the "Endless Sea Spaces" .... but of course AV is not an APL and will safely hide? tongue aha
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 22: 54
        +2
        Quote: vladimir1155
        but of course AV is not apl and will safely hide? tongue yeah

        Yeah, Vadim. This is exactly what it is. However, I don't expect you to understand this simple fact.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 17: 52
    -8
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    the aircraft carrier will still have the advantage of timing the attack

    into a new argument from the joker? And what is this advantage and why did ground means lose it, who forbade them to choose the time of the attack themselves?
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 20 December 2020 11: 33
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    RCC - then ... then yes, we can say that the battle with the aircraft carrier will be about equal. True, the aircraft carrier will still have the advantage of timing the attack.

    He will never be on an equal footing - the capabilities of an aircraft carrier are much weaker than the capabilities of the entire airfield network - he wrote a little about this in the topic https://topwar.ru/177845-kak-rabotaet-voennaja-aviacija.html


    True, the aircraft carrier will still have the advantage of timing the attack.

    Who told you that?
    Covert access to the line of attack is not something that is guaranteed by the very fact of the presence of an aircraft carrier. The process is multifactorial. It may or may not work.
  • Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 26 December 2020 15: 34
    -2
    again 25 .. how many times is it written there? Chinese anti-ship missiles hit 2-3 times farther than the ultimate attack from the deck)) so, in fact, aircraft also fly further from the shore. and even about the horror of refueling then again * 2 range. the noise of the aug is heard in the sea like the roar of an elephant in a china shop. the work of aug radars is visible even half the world) without any wisdom.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 December 2020 18: 42
      +4
      Quote: Evil Booth
      again 25 .. how many times is it written?

      Lot. But you do not read, and therefore you are talking frank delirium about range.
      1. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 26 December 2020 19: 48
        -2
        700 to 1800 like 2,5 and so the Chinas wrote and have more than once for 2000+ so what do you have with shoulder straps? like myself
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 December 2020 00: 47
          +2
          Quote: Evil Booth
          700 to 1800 like 2,5 and so the Chinese wrote and have more than once for 2000+

          There is. However, these missiles have no opportunity to hit an aircraft carrier at sea. Surprise:)))
          The second surprise is that the range of action in such a battle is of little importance. From the word "in general". The USSR had colossal problems with ensuring target designation of missiles at 550 km, and China today has not grown to the level of the USSR and is close even according to the SMRTs.
          Third surprise. Sometimes you have to think with your head. Because if you don't think with your head, it turns out that the B-52 will easily overwhelm the Su-35. After all, the B-52 has a longer range :))))
          Quote: Evil Booth
          So what about your shoulder straps? like myself

          Agas :))) And 300+ publications also plagiarized :))))
          1. Evil Booth
            Evil Booth 27 December 2020 08: 46
            -4
            Malades is so smart and never saw that 1800 is more than 700 at 2,5 times I wrote in 2-3 and it made you so jarred ... but why? lol
            but everything is simple) corny drown for Avik on your autark as a billion other ukrosibirians online like zmagars)
            of course the PCR can not hit the avik! NO!
            to shoot down f18 by forces of a moment31 NO !!
            to write about masks on the website of the Ministry of Health and not an anonymous Israeli doctor NO !!!

            your mustache not only peeled off but fell into your boots bully furiously me rrl = olite saying that he will freak out and get banned .. for the sake of ChSV right? shcha google opa in the usa every 6th is quite a rogue of patients for 150-250 thousand per day of death over 1% all 2-3 because hospitals are not rubber, maybe more. So, justify why in China all patients in a year are 2 times less, even 4 times less than in the United States per day, and why a Chinese PCR or, say, p500 can NOT get into an avik? current straight in detail. otherwise your emotions will end with the transit of Taiwan to China. repeat
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 December 2020 10: 27
              +3
              In your stream of consciousness (extremely vague, I must say), there is only one noteworthy question
              Quote: Evil Booth
              why the Chinese pkr or say p500 can NOT get into the avik?

              Because avik must first be found :))) And China today simply does not have search tools that allow detecting AUG at a more or less decent distance from the coast.
              1. Evil Booth
                Evil Booth 27 December 2020 14: 05
                -3
                of course of course. but such a nuance. to fly 700 km f18 must go at an altitude of more than 10 km at such a speed in a straight line. the range of ground-based radars is much more than 700 km in meters at an altitude for a long time. for such purposes. does anyone besides you lack the intelligence of knowledge of fantasies to understand where at the same time aug, for example, according to her signals from her radars ... about the noise that yells at all quiet as the sun at its zenith. After all, the US nuclear submarine is seen on a million squares and the aug does not make noise, sir. are you okay with thinking? so how will the plane indicate the takeoff location?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 December 2020 16: 27
                  +1
                  Quote: Evil Booth
                  of course of course. but such a nuance. to fly 700 km f18 must go at an altitude of more than 10 km at such a speed in a straight line. the range of ground-based radars is much more than 700 km in meters at an altitude for a long time. for such purposes. does anyone besides you lack the intelligence of knowledge of fantasies to understand where the aug is, for example, by her signals from her radars ...

                  Maybe already stop carrying enchanting nonsense, and still read how it was in reality? Well, for example, the materials of Rear Admiral Vladimir Karev Anisovich, about the "Soviet Pearl Harbor 1982". One paragraph for you to seed
                  It was a shock. The radio finding results showed that the newly formed carrier-assault strike compound (Enterprise and Midway), consisting of more than 30 ships, maneuvers 300 miles southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and conducts flights of deck aircraft at a distance of 150 km from our coast.

                  Here's the rear admiral and tell about the noise of the AUG and other nonsense that you are carrying here.
                  During the exercises, quite often there were situations when the American AUG left under our supervision. This was when we had the Legend, the Tu-95RTs AWACS aircraft, the mass of naval reconnaissance aircraft like the Su-24M, dozens of submarines for each fleet, and so on and so forth.
                  Now...
                2. Evil Booth
                  Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 10
                  -2
                  the plane going to the target can pass 700 km from the avik only at an altitude of 10+ km at such a quiet speed, otherwise it will fall into the water. will see his surveillance radars at meter frequencies 800 km away from themselves))) so sorry aug over there))) equally CCA and Idzhis radiation will detect the RB with full accuracy. and so on and they can't go anywhere for a whole year.
                3. Evil Booth
                  Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 14
                  -1
                  my friend, your roof is dripping. How can a conclusion be drawn from the fact of detection of aug that aug was not detected? went out of control for probably a week? or until the next search ?? or if you know a nuance, you write that you found as soon as you started looking, but at the same time you expect to assure that you could not find it)) the ship cannot sail faster than the reconnaissance aircraft) moreover, in the SSR near each aug, the boat always fished inseparably and k141 one by one hung stably at the temple. and you tell me about some kind of something that is the case. Let me remind you that the Air Force can knock all these f18 like seeds. sosbvteno why not? and let it float))
                4. Evil Booth
                  Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 21
                  -1
                  Firstly, with the frigate "Stark", which was hit in 1987 by mistake by two anti-ship missiles from an Iraqi fighter. We will add here also a recent incident during the exercises, when the BQM-74 subsonic training target hit the board of the Aegis cruiser here 650 km for some reason http://mtdata.ru/u3/photoC3B0/20293764042-0/huge.jpeg
                  and at something more in detail chtoli how does Idzhis see everything and nobody sees its radiation? for example from RTR aircraft.
                5. Sanichsan
                  Sanichsan 4 January 2021 00: 54
                  -2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Well, for example, the materials of Rear Admiral Vladimir Anisovich Karev, about the "Soviet Pearl Harbor 1982".

                  now it's like 2020, isn't it? you have not 1982 until now?
                6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 January 2021 12: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  now it's like 2020, isn't it? you have not 1982 until now?

                  In fact of the matter. Then we had a fairly effective system of naval reconnaissance and target designation. Today...
                7. Sanichsan
                  Sanichsan 5 January 2021 00: 35
                  -2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Then we had a fairly effective system of naval reconnaissance and target designation.

                  in which place? was there an effective satellite constellation? no. were radars equivalent to modern ones? no. how much better it is than what is being done in Russia now everyone has clearly seen the example of the Soviet Os and C300 in the NKR.
                  because everything was good under the USSR, especially in 1982, when the army had already rotted from the inside, maybe you don't need to hang up noodles? if you have forgotten, let me remind you about Martin Rust and 1987. and you are trying to pass off this trash heap and chaos as a standard and convince those around that it was better then than now ??? belay now I'm in shock!
                8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2021 12: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  in which place? was there an effective satellite constellation? no.

                  Yes.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  were radars equivalent to modern ones? no.

                  Yes. There were dozens of Tu-95RTs AWACS aircraft and there were reconnaissance aviation regiments. Surprise.
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  because everything was good under the USSR, especially in 1982, when the army had already rotted from the inside, maybe you don't need to hang up noodles?

                  Nobody rotted there. There were problems, of course, but ...
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  if you have forgotten, let me remind you about Martin Rust and 1987. and you are trying to pass off this trash heap and chaos as a standard

                  And why did Rust not please you? Are you not aware that our air defense was leading him from region to region, but never received the order to shoot down?
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  now I'm in shock!

                  But not me. I got used to the fact that people studied their history from newspapers of the "speed-info" level
  • Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 27 December 2020 08: 55
    -3
    tongue how did the navies of japan and the us find each other in 43? without satellites and radar and pl without anything at all! they had to poke around for several years without meetings ahahahahaha fellow
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 December 2020 10: 51
      +2
      Quote: Evil Booth
      how did the navies of japan and the us find each other in 43?

      Have you tried to study history? :)
      Technically, in 1943, the war at sea revolved around the capture of the islands. The Americans attacked, the Japanese defended. At the same time, the hostilities took place according to a very dull scenario - American aircraft carriers with surprise attacks carried the Japanese ground aircraft forward with their feet, after which the deck ships and large ships destroyed everything that the Japanese had seaworthy.
      And there was also the battle of the Mariana Islands :))))) This is when the Japanese assumed an attack on these islands, concentrated powerful ground forces in anticipation of the US Navy, and the range of the Japanese carrier-based aircraft turned out to be greater, since they could refuel in Guam :)) )) That just made it possible to strike without being subjected to a response :)))
      Remind the result? :)))
      The Americans approached and simply cut out the ground aircraft, they could not even find the ships of the Spruence, let alone counteract them. Then Ozawa came - despite the fact that his fleet fell under the American submarines, and Spruence knew that he was facing a battle, later the Japanese aircraft carriers left contact, and Spruance did not know where they were, his Japanese aircraft could not find. The Japanese attacked on June 19 in four waves, and at the same time for MORE DAYS the Japanese aircraft carriers remained unknown where, although Spruence already outnumbered the Japanese in aviation - he found Ozawa only in the afternoon of June 20
      That's how we fought
      1. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2020 14: 00
        -3
        and now the islands began to float?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 December 2020 16: 27
          0
          Listen, can you read at all?
        2. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 08
          -1
          well go and read the range of export zircon)
  • Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 27 December 2020 09: 03
    -3
    do you think if you made a dagger for 2000 km + range of tu22 then from the detection means absolutely nothing? mm yes you are a genius and everyone in the army is worthy of you. wassat
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 December 2020 10: 52
      +2
      Quote: Evil Booth
      do you think if you made a dagger for 2000 km + range of tu22 then from the detection means absolutely nothing?

      Right. It's just that, unlike you, I know the composition of the naval aviation, and the Navy too, not to mention the fact that the Dagger is not an anti-ship missile system, and it is not on the Tu-22M3 either. Although they promised to deliver
      1. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2020 14: 02
        -2
        refer to wikipedia there is a dagger 600 km, but the president for some reason called 1500-2000 and three daggers for tu22, that's why he asked you ayay. but you are proud of the botolike rating. and my own complete ignorance. m3 or m4? he is and you are a liar. ah, you are afraid, but you didn’t forget to throw a complaint to the modernist? in 20 years, you might have noticed that it was not you, but I was leaking your accounts)
      2. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2020 14: 17
        -2
        Carrier (launcher):
        MiG-31K - 1 missile,
        Tu-22M3M - up to 4 missiles [20],
        in the future Su-57 [21]
        Rocket: 9-C-7760 - aeroballistic [22]
        Maximum range of damage to the complex:
        MiG-31K - 2000 km by press conference of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. [23] For MiG-31K [24] [25] (without carrier's combat radius).
        Tu-22M3 - more than 3000 km [26]
        what kind of proofs? suddenly Putin. Do you understand, you accused the commander-in-chief of lying, but the fact that he did not run to you did not tell you how much and where they put this, of course, a flaw in the Kremlin or all the same orderlies. your rating is too tight for you? about the same as China's GDP huh?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 December 2020 16: 29
          +2
          The dagger is a converted Iskander, he does not know how to hit moving targets.
          Quote: Evil Booth
          suddenly Putin. do you understand accused the commander in chief of lying

          Quite right. And repeatedly. You may faint in terror
          1. Evil Booth
            Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 08
            -2
            I say the usual troll for salary. By the way, who is our agent trump or biden there? both went to Moscow.
            1. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 4 January 2021 00: 59
              -2
              Quote: Evil Booth
              I say the usual troll for salary. By the way, who is our agent trump or biden there?

              no, not a troll. it's just that he's 1982.
              By the way, he knows history well wink
  • SVD68
    SVD68 18 December 2020 07: 54
    +4
    Quote: bayard
    It is these aircraft carriers of air defense / anti-aircraft defense that are needed for service in the "bastions", to cover the areas of combat deployment of our submarine missile carriers.

    Again the coastal defense fleet. Instead of stripped-down coast guard battleships, only stripped-down air defense / anti-aircraft defense aircraft carriers.
    Air defense aircraft carriers cannot cover the areas of SSBN deployment, tk. precisely at the time when it is necessary to cover, they themselves will become the object of attack. Air defense aircraft carriers must provide cover for attack ships attacking the enemy fleet.
    1. bayard
      bayard 18 December 2020 09: 01
      +12
      Quote: SVD68
      Again the coastal defense fleet.

      Any, the most powerful fleet is built from the coast:
      - corvettes for protection and PLO of the near zone,
      - frigates for the distant sea and reinforcements of the near zones,
      And only after solving these problems, you can start building the "open sea fleet" or "ocean fleet":
      - destroyers
      - cruisers
      - aircraft carriers
      - UDC-helicopter carriers, etc.

      And when the time comes for the construction of aircraft carriers and their escorts, when they appear in the ranks, the command of the fleets will decide where to serve them - in bastions, on distant approaches to defend bases and the coast, in the far sea or ocean zone.
      Air defense / PLO aircraft carriers will benefit everywhere, ensuring the stability of the fleet, and the budget will cost several times cheaper than multi-purpose nuclear monsters.
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 19 December 2020 10: 18
        0
        Quote: bayard
        Any, the most powerful fleet is built from the coast:

        No. Any mighty fleet is built to dominate the sea. Let local, but domination. We must immediately build a fleet capable of defeating the enemy. Let it only be on our shores so far, but still defeat. Therefore, the forces should be complex and, first of all, shock forces. Without such a goal, it's better without a fleet at all.

        Quote: bayard
        And when the time comes to build aircraft carriers and their escorts

        An air defense / PLO aircraft carrier is an escort ship. He does not need an escort, he needs the main forces - strike ships.
        1. bayard
          bayard 20 December 2020 00: 48
          0
          Quote: SVD68
          No. Any mighty fleet is built to dominate the sea.

          Right off the battleships?
          Or is the security of your own shore first ensured?
          Quote: SVD68
          We must immediately build a fleet capable of defeating the enemy.

          It would be nice, of course, only right away ... maybe then aviation is better?
          Marine?
          Which we practically do not have?
          Quote: SVD68
          Therefore, the forces should be complex and, first of all, shock forces.

          But about the complex and, first of all, drums ... after all, they seem to be building like that. request Slowly, with failures and missed deadlines, but these are the ships that are being built.
          Corvette 20380 and 20385 are the most armed corvettes in their weight class.
          Frigates 22350 - for their 5300 tons, VI is very toothy, and also in its category - the most dangerous.
          Upgraded nuclear cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" 1144 Ave. - will also be the most powerful surface ship on the planet.
          The cruisers of the project 1164 are also shock ones, and are also terrible with their missiles.
          But cruisers cannot defend the near sea zone. This requires corvettes with anti-submarine sharpening. And so on. 20385 - the very thing, just wait for more powerful engines for them, the promised Kolomna diesel engines of 10 l / s. And immediately the speed will be 000 knots.
          And how many frigates 22350 etc. have already been laid ... maybe a couple more of the same will be laid.
          And then 22350M are practically destroyers.
          And now, for the stable operation of these ships, an air cover in the far zone will be needed. Those same aircraft carriers.
          But not atomic monsters at all, because ideally we need 6 such ships. - three for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet. So on atomic monsters the country will definitely be ripped apart. But gas turbine medium VI - those samyn AV PVO \ PLO in 40 - 000 tons. Our country, the economy, industry and finance, is quite on the shoulder. In terms of money, it will cost 50 - 000 billion dollars. for 40 - 45 years. Six AB with air groups and escort ships, as well as basic infrastructure.
          It will be 2,5-3 billion dollars each. in year .
          Agree, this is quite feasible spending on gaining sea power.
          But our industry will be able to start such construction only in 4 - 5 years. In these 4 - 5 years, it will become clear whether we will build a "mighty fleet to conquer supremacy at sea", or limit ourselves to a moderate one to cover our own shores.
          1. SVD68
            SVD68 22 December 2020 08: 33
            0
            Quote: bayard
            Right off the battleships?

            Yes, just like that from battleships. Of course, the battleships need destroyers with minesweepers. But without battleships, destroyers with minesweepers are useless (battleships, of course, in the sense of the main striking force of the fleet).

            Quote: bayard
            Or is the security of your own shore first ensured?

            The real security of one's own coast is ensured only by domination of the sea at this coast.

            Quote: bayard
            It would be nice, of course, only right away ... maybe then aviation is better?

            Yes, under current conditions, naval aviation is of paramount importance to us. But you can't do with aviation alone.

            Quote: bayard
            Agree, this is quite feasible spending on gaining sea power.

            I cannot calculate here. But you need to clearly understand that air defense / anti-aircraft defense aircraft carriers are escorts for the main warships, and not vice versa.
            1. bayard
              bayard 22 December 2020 10: 11
              +1
              Quote: SVD68
              But you need to clearly understand that air defense / anti-aircraft defense aircraft carriers are escorts for the main warships, and not vice versa.

              Of course, AV Air Defense / PLO, by definition, is an escort aircraft carrier at the KUG. And the attack ships are just being built - the same series 22350. To date, 8 such hulls have already been laid (two are already in service), two more hulls are to be laid next year (the contract has already been signed), while only the first 4 frigates will have 16 cruise missiles on board, all subsequent ones - 24 each. This will be a fairly serious force, given the quality of our anti-ship missiles.
              In addition, the planned modernization of the BOD of pr. 1155 has begun (the Shaposhnikov is to return to service one of these days), so that 4 - 6 of these ships, after being upgraded, will acquire shock properties plus their outstanding anti-submarine capabilities.
              Corvettes are being built for BMZ, the laying of RTOs and the modernization of existing RTOs under the Uranium missile launcher continue.
              But the fleet will gain more or less combat stability only in 5 years, when the pledged series of frigates 22350 will be completed, the Admiral Nakhimov and Admiral Kuznetsov will come out of the modernization, and possibly the Peter the Great will also be capitalized.
              It is more difficult with aviation - naval aviation is only trying to revive by repairing Tu-22M3 and Su-30 fighters (of which there are very few so far). The deployment of five new regiments on reinforced Su-34s would help resolve this issue.
  • Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 18 December 2020 08: 08
    -18%
    Quote: bayard
    Air defense, anti-aircraft defense and long-range reconnaissance for a naval grouping without an aircraft carrier ... utopia.

    All this today is being solved by satellites, UAVs and unmanned marine vehicles.
    Quote: bayard
    But for a war on the high seas

    This concept is no longer relevant. Today, the sea is all the way through with missiles. The last open sea battle in modern human history took place in WWI, the Battle of Jutland. And it won't happen again.
    In addition, a massive launch of anti-ship missiles will not be able to repel more than one naval unit. And even one missile that has broken through to the aircraft carrier will make a hole in its deck of sufficient size so that the atomic giant, who a minute ago personified the pride and power of the nation, would turn into not just a useless trough, but a terrible burden for the entire squadron.
    1. bayard
      bayard 18 December 2020 09: 21
      +17
      Quote: Alexey Sommer
      All this is being solved today by satellites, UAVs and marine uninhabited vehicles.

      belay Do you really think so?
      Will they provide both air defense and AWACS?
      And the identified targets will hit?
      And where will they take off from?
      From the shore?
      And fly far away?
      And if the communication channels are jammed or the satellites are knocked down?
      All this pilotage wealth is good to use in conjunction with traditional ASW aircraft, combat and reconnaissance aircraft of the fleet, and detachments of forces of the surface (and submarine) fleet. It is just an additional tool of war at sea, convenient but not universal.
      Quote: Alexey Sommer
      The last open sea battle in modern human history took place in WWI, the Battle of Jutland.

      lol How.
      But what about the war in the Pacific in WWII?
      With the Japanese navy?
      And what about the confrontation between the fleets of the USSR and NATO?
      The war was cold, but it took no less manpower and resources. And then they also did not play with spillikins.
      Quote: Alexey Sommer
      In addition, a massive launch of anti-ship missiles will not be able to repel more than one naval unit.

      Well, it depends on what kind of connection, what kind of air defense they have and how many missiles (and which ones) will be involved in this "massive salvo". Remind me how many regiments of naval missile carriers were dispatched to one AUG? And it's not a fact that everything would have gone smoothly, because the Hokai and the F-14 knew their business, and the military outpost of the AV had good air defense systems.
      Not to mention today.
      How many missiles and what should be in a salvo, if the AUG includes 4 - 5 Burkov and Tikanderog? Taking into account the counteraction by aviation AB?
      What fleet are you considering a war with?
      And how are you going to fight?
      We do not have enough missiles for their ships today.
      Even if they don't really fight back.
      Statistics is the queen of sciences.
      And the quantity matters.
      1. Alexey Sommer
        Alexey Sommer 18 December 2020 10: 06
        -13%
        Fu mastered.
        Quote: bayard
        Will they provide both air defense and AWACS?
        And the identified targets will hit?
        And where will they take off from?
        From the shore?
        And fly far away?
        And if the communication channels are jammed or the satellites are knocked down?

        Well, let's say Tu 142 flies 5 km radius.
        Tu 22m3 will fly 2 km plus the Dagger in it for about 400 more.
        MiG 31 K at 700 km plus Dagger at 2 approximately.
        And if the communication channels are blocked, then nothing will be reported to the manned aircraft.
        And an anti-submarine helicopter can take off even from the Frigate, not to mention drones.
        Quote: bayard
        But what about the war in the Pacific in WWII?
        With the Japanese navy?
        And what about the confrontation between the fleets of the USSR and NATO?

        On the Pacific Ocean, it can be and can be called WWII something similar.
        But tactics have changed dramatically since then.
        The confrontation between the fleets of the USSR and NATO is the principle of a cowboy duel.
        Everyone has their hand on the trigger. And whoever presses the first will remain alive.
        The restored Nakhimov, for example, will let the Zircons in if something happens, and then it doesn't matter what happens to him. Because the planes that attacked him will have nowhere to return.
        And for example, one single frigate of Project 22350 can fire 16 zircons in one salvo, and 24 zircons from the fifth hull.
        How many ships can an AUG 1 frigate disable?
        And the unfortunate Karakurt, according to external target designation, no longer remember 8 or 4, but that's also enough.
        Quote: bayard
        Well, it depends on what connection, what kind of air defense they have and how many missiles

        No connection today is physically capable of repelling a blow with Zircons or Daggers!
        1. bayard
          bayard 18 December 2020 10: 37
          +13
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          No connection today is physically capable of repelling a blow with Zircons or Daggers!

          The "Dagger" so far has no anti-ship capabilities, they seem to have done the GOS, tests are underway, but it is armed only with a conventional aeroballistic missile capable of hitting only stationary targets with predetermined coordinates.
          Hope this is just for now.
          But so far - just like that.
          "Zircon" is still continuing tests and how successful they are in terms of hitting moving sea targets is unknown. So far, only coastal and ground targets have been defeated. This is a difficult task - to ensure the reliable operation of the seeker at such speeds, to detect, identify and hit a moving sea target ... Let's hope for the best, but so far this is only a project and experimental, imperfect samples.
          Quote: Alexey Sommer

          Well, let's say Tu 142 flies 5 km radius.
          Tu 22m3 will fly 2 km plus the Dagger in it for about 400 more.

          Well, at first they wrote that "only drones", and as an example, give yourself quite a number of aircraft of naval and strike aircraft. request
          I then asked you whether drones, far from the coast, when flying over non-orientated terrain, are capable of performing the entire range of tasks for radar, radio and television broadcasting, optical reconnaissance and search for enemy submarines?
          If you cut off the connection to such drones, at best, they will automatically return to base in automatic mode ... if they are not disoriented by false signals from the GP. In the worst case, they will simply be lost.
          A PLO aircraft can independently search for enemy submarines in radio silence, and, having detected and identified, destroy them with torpedoes and depth charges on board.
          The AWACS aircraft usually flies only with a group of cover fighters, which it controls - it gives target designation, guides it to the target, and provides navigational support.
          The reconnaissance aircraft, having lost contact with the coast (it usually flies exclusively in radio silence mode), returning to the base will transmit all the information obtained without losing its quality.
          The aircraft is much more reliable and versatile, but drones have their own advantage, so their joint use will provide synergy and increase the quality of the work performed.
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          The restored Nakhimov, for example, will let the Zircons in if something happens, and then it doesn't matter what happens to him. Because the planes that attacked him will have nowhere to return.

          These aircraft may not return from the attack in full order - the modernized "Orlan" has very, VERY good air defense and is quite capable of fighting against aviation.
          1. Alexey Sommer
            Alexey Sommer 18 December 2020 10: 45
            -12%
            Quote: bayard
            The "Dagger" so far has no anti-ship capabilities, they seem to have done the GOS, tests are underway, but it is armed only with a conventional aeroballistic missile capable of hitting only stationary targets with predetermined coordinates.
            Hope this is just for now.

            In particular, the US military drew attention to the fact that "the existing air defense systems of the US Army and Navy are not capable of withstanding weapons that develop speeds of more than Mach 3, while new Russian systems can fly at speeds from Mach 10 to 20." They also said that "thanks to the Dagger, Russia can strike against Europe, against all ships in the Atlantic and Pacific."

            As you can see, the Pentagon does not share your pessimism, moreover, since 2018.
            Well, I'll add.
            Guidance: INS with the ability to adjust from the GLONASS system, AWACS, optical seeker

            KVO 1 meter.
            The rest is too lazy to comment on.
            hi
            1. bayard
              bayard 18 December 2020 11: 33
              +9
              Quote: Alexey Sommer

              As you can see, the Pentagon does not share your pessimism, moreover, since 2018.
              Well, I'll add.

              Then it was only a statement. And acceptance into trial operation. But without demonstration and CONFIRMATION of the defeat of a mobile sea target. If the result has already been achieved, it will be just great. If not yet, it's still not bad - a replacement for the MRBM has appeared.
              But I am not so young anymore to take my word for it in such delicate matters. Technically, this is quite possible, but I have no data that this is a fact.
              1. Alexey Sommer
                Alexey Sommer 18 December 2020 11: 54
                -13%
                Quote: bayard
                Then it was only a statement. And acceptance into trial operation

                Everything is clear.
                You will have complete data in 20 years at best.
                And whoever has above.
              2. Tektor
                Tektor 18 December 2020 12: 15
                -6
                Confirmation was received during exercises near Arkhangelk recently, a month ago, it seems. They checked the possibility of disrupting the amphibious landing with the help of Iskander. It turned out that the standard Iskander is capable of hitting a naval mobile target. Well, it is known that the Dagger is an airborne Iskander.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 18 December 2020 12: 57
                  +6
                  Already something, but this is still not a confirmation of the capabilities of the "Dagger", his speed and distance are different. I heard that they are training in the Caspian Sea, practicing the tactics of application, but there was no news about real launches and hits.
                  But I think it's just a matter of time.
            2. ancient
              ancient 18 December 2020 12: 30
              +9
              Quote: Alexey Sommer
              As you can see, the Pentagon does not share your pessimism, moreover, since 2018.
              Well, I'll add.

              So you first try to reach a given launch line .. your own ..... "10 to 20 Machs" " wassat
              Quote: Alexey Sommer
              KVO 1 meter.
              The rest is too lazy to comment on.

              laughing laughing laughing ... you should write fairy tales ... "at night" lol
        2. ancient
          ancient 18 December 2020 12: 26
          +11
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          Tu 22m3 will fly 2 km plus the Dagger in it for another 400 approximately

          Already wrote above - .. "tie" celebrate wassat
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          And for example, one single frigate of Project 22350 can fire 16 zircons in one salvo, and 24 zircons from the fifth hull.

          And from what range will the launch be carried out, who will carry out the control command and by what means, and how many such frigates do you already have ... "with a fifth hull" and ... well, etc.? wassat
          Quote: Alexey Sommer
          No connection today is physically capable of repelling a blow with Zircons or Daggers!

          And why beat back .. "Zircon" .. it is quite capable .. ANY today's connection to turn your media ... into .. "dust" wassat
          1. Local from the Volga
            Local from the Volga 19 December 2020 02: 33
            -4
            what are you talking about ?!
            1. Evil Booth
              Evil Booth 27 December 2020 14: 10
              -3
              infallible belief in stealth aug is more stealth than f117! although IMHO banal shiz.
      2. Eroma
        Eroma 18 December 2020 17: 02
        -3
        You can sing the praises of aircraft carriers as much as you like! laughing earlier, the aircraft carrier was almost an absolute weapon at sea, since it was not vulnerable to any ship that did not have aircraft, because the range of aviation was greater than the capabilities of other weapons tongue now the situation has changed, the missiles have surpassed the range of aviation and the aircraft carrier has become vulnerable, like any other ship, only it is as a target at the very top lol the strike potential of aircraft carriers has not gone anywhere angry , but the question arose about the protection of aircraft carriers and the tactics of their use, and then about the expediency, since such a colossus must be protected, if it is used with caution, then it will not be as effective as it was before, or it is necessary to allocate too powerful an escort, exposing some direction or inflating the fleet, which may not be affordable. In battles, sooner or later, the aircraft carrier will still be discovered, the Russian Ministry of Defense regularly reported on the deployment of American destroyers to attack Syria in the Mediterranean Sea, which means that they see these ships and no one has canceled the accident! As soon as the aircraft carrier is seen, it will have big problems, so they think the military is capable of solving these problems, or should the fleet be redrawn?
      3. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 18 December 2020 21: 28
        -2
        Quote: bayard
        Statistics is the queen of sciences.

        There are lies, blatant lies and statistics.
        I don't like her.
        I had to give the teacher $ 100 for the five.
        1. bayard
          bayard 19 December 2020 00: 48
          +4
          They called statistics the queen of sciences even in the Russian Empire. Any analysis is possible only on the basis of solid and reliable statistical data.
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          I had to give the teacher $ 100 for the five.

          How sad it is for young people to live today ...
          How bleak spending for deception ...
        2. Alexander Grizodub
          Alexander Grizodub 21 December 2020 14: 55
          0
          How much did the whole diploma cost? In the 90s in Moscow in the underpass it was cheaper to take.
          1. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 21 December 2020 15: 08
            0
            Yes, it seems like they didn’t put a credit for some garbage, like psychology, but there’s a penny, something like $ 10. I handed over the rest myself.
      4. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2020 08: 59
        -3
        but for sure! to destroy a few c400 is a straight sneeze, but Aegis is not nizya! nizyayayaya (I switch to ultrasound) to shoot down as many as 50 auga planes nizyayaya walls tremble) !!! to shoot down 2-3 hundreds of planes gathered in a fist to strike at aug easily! it is impossible to detect and destroy thousands of military objects easily. By the way, what is the resistance of Aegis to interference? probably complete and c300 finally blind .... and so on. but a situation arises when, instead of arguments, blind faith. but the same Irna took and bombed the US base.
    2. Silhouette
      Silhouette 18 December 2020 14: 54
      -5
      Russia was, is and will be a continental power. And the continental country does not need aircraft carriers. One follows from the other. Moreover, Russia is a self-sufficient continental power, which does not need overseas colonies either. This means that Russian aircraft carriers are not needed twice (or squared).
      1. Eroma
        Eroma 18 December 2020 17: 09
        +3
        We are part of the global market! In which you need to be able to defend your interests, unfortunately, you often have to defend with weapons. Therefore, all types of weapons should be at hand for greater efficiency. An aircraft carrier is able to bring aviation to where it is needed, and aviation is a key military force today! soldier
        1. Silhouette
          Silhouette 19 December 2020 15: 18
          -1
          Please give an example - where do we need to bring the aircraft on the ship. Just do not cite Syria as an example, where "Kuznetsov" has shown its complete inefficiency.
          1. Eroma
            Eroma 19 December 2020 15: 46
            0
            As for the effectiveness of "Kuznetsov", I'm not an expert repeat he was not needed there, but for the experience his campaign was important!
            But American aircraft carriers terrify the entire planet and they work very effectively, drumming countries into the Middle Ages! wassat
            Where can aircraft carriers come in handy? We seem to have some interests in Africa, there is complete order with conflicts and it is quite possible that we would intervene for our own benefit, only there is nothing to interfere with at such a distance. And in other parts of the world, where, for example, Russian citizens are handed over to the United States in spite of Moscow's indignation, and why is that?
            If there is a tool, then they will figure out how to use it, and if it is not there, then what to do with it is also a muddy idea
      2. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 18 December 2020 23: 29
        +1
        This means that Russia does not need aircraft carriers
        “I don’t need grapes, it’s green and not tasty,” said the fox in the famous fable of Krylov when she could not get these grapes.
  • Simargl
    Simargl 18 December 2020 09: 25
    +4
    Quote: bayard
    only gas turbines and electromagnetic catapults
    Problem: EMC eats so much that a uranium boiler is needed.
    1. bayard
      bayard 18 December 2020 10: 45
      +5
      A generator on a gas turbine will solve the issue of powering the turbine. It's just that there are 40 - 000 tons in VI, it is not rational to install a nuclear power plant. Neither economically (very much) nor in terms of operational complexity.
      And the gas turbine takes up little space, the power gives out a lot ... you can generally design AB on electromotion and transfer part of the power from the turbine unit to charging the catapults, connecting additional turbines if necessary. The Chinese did this on their 055 Ave. for the sake of powering a combat laser in the future.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 18 December 2020 10: 53
        +2
        Quote: bayard
        And the gas turbine takes up little space, the power gives out great
        Have you seen the turbine alive? I can just touch it with my hands on the NK-16 base. And that's just 0,1 times the power of the aircraft carrier's catapult. And there is also a generator. And / or generator and storage units, since with a sharp load on the gas turbine, a surge will occur and it will turn off.
        And you also need power to move the aircraft carrier itself ...
        1. bayard
          bayard 18 December 2020 11: 43
          +3
          Quote: Simargl
          And this is only 0,1 of the power of the aircraft carrier's catapult. And there's also a generator.

          yes
          Quote: Simargl
          And / or generator and storage units, since with a sharp load on the gas turbine, a surge will occur and it will turn off.

          Already closer.
          What about a catapult without a drive?
          And with a storage device and 0,1 of the required power, it will be a lot, because in 10 seconds it will provide power for a one-second discharge. So it is possible to lower the power by another 10 times, all the same there is enough time for charging with the head - the catapult does not shoot tea every minute, the plane still needs to be put on it.
          The Chinese have installed a gas turbine power plant on their new flat-deck aircraft carrier. yes And they expect that it will be enough.
          No nuclear boiler. bully
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 10: 06
    -2
    Quote: bayard
    the Krylovites promised to put such an AB in 1,5-2 billion dollars. (without air group).

    promised? believe them more .... but what is an empty barge without planes and why is it so feel free to count $ 20 billion

    about the idea of ​​coastal defense aircraft carriers, the same nonsense, it was my personal idea expressed 10 years ago in order to at least somehow use the unnecessary Kuzyu while the dock was there, now there is no NK grouping in any fleet that could be supported by the AV that could ensure its safety, so there is no point in building a new AB. Submarines are very secretive and can destroy the American AB even off the coast of the United States, so the AB should not leave the port in the event of a major war. The second question is what mythical attack should AB protect the ocean coast from? That is, Russia will bring its fleet to the US coast? or will the Chinese do it? What for? when there is an opportunity to grind the enemy with ICBMs ... And the Americans will not be stupid to drive their fleet except for submarines to our shores, they have missiles in Europe and can even give a lift, especially since the Russian Federation on the ocean shores is generally deserted. Only for an attack on China can the Americans need a fleet. and it is easier to use the Japanese islands for aggression.
    1. bayard
      bayard 18 December 2020 11: 13
      +4
      Quote: vladimir1155
      promised? believe them more .... but what is an empty barge without planes and why is it so feel free to count $ 20 billion

      These statements are already two or three years old, from my generosity and from distrust of the designers, I assume the cost of such an AB in the region of 2,5 billion dollars. Of course, without the air group. For a gas turbine ship of such a VI, this is a completely reasonable and realistic cost. For comparison, compare with the cost of UDC and extrapolate with a plus the cost of aerofinishers, an additional (second) lift, a more advanced radar and other attributes, I assure you that the limit is 2,5 billion dollars. You will do quite well. We're talking about a ship VI 40 - 000 tons.
      Quote: vladimir1155
      The second question is what mythical attack should AB protect the ocean coast from? That is, Russia will bring its fleet to the US coast? or will the Chinese do it? What for?

      Its own. To defend our coast, and not the American one - on the distant approaches. In the area of ​​the corner on the Northern Fleet and in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk (in the bastion) at the Pacific Fleet.
      Today Russia is not capable of building AV. Neither technically nor financially. This opportunity will appear in a few years (4 - 5), and even then in terms of competencies and shipbuilding capabilities. If there is a will, a request from the Navy and finance, why not?
      but this is a political question.
      Russia does not need large nuclear power plants - it simply will not pull them, because they will have to build a series, or not build at all.
      For both fleets, 2 - 3 units (one at sea, one at the base, one under repair). If you choose the concept of aircraft carriers air defense / anti-aircraft defense of medium VI, then Russia is quite capable of building a series - the entire series at the cost of only one bridge to Sakhalin.
      With air groups.
      And with escort ships.
      The only question is the awareness of the need and goal-setting of the state. If everything is rolled downhill, as it is now, it is better not even to start. If the state will of the Great State appears, and everything will quickly get better with the economy, and with the rearmament of the Army and Navy, everything will be fine.
      But if you build AB, then only such. This is both in terms of money and technically we can do it.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 11: 17
        -2
        "Do not enter into disputes and debates because if a dominant has developed, it cannot be overcome by words and convictions, it will only feed on and reinforce it. This is because the dominant is always self-justifying, and logic is its servant," wrote A. A. Ukhtomsky.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 18 December 2020 11: 19
    +6
    Quote: bayard
    An aircraft carrier with an average displacement of 40-50 thousand tons, with a pair of fighter squadrons (24 units), a squadron of anti-submarine helicopters, and 2-4 AWACS aircraft (or helicopters) will be quite enough.

    Cost / Efficiency Ratio ... An aircraft carrier is a very complex system, an expensive system. If the country and the Navy really need this, then what is the point of "castrating" it initially?
    Do you agree that 24 fighter-interceptors, 24 fighter-bomber, 6-8 anti-submarine aircraft and 4 AWACS aircraft with 80 thousand tons look much more effective?
    And the cost will differ slightly, by a maximum of 25%.
    1. bayard
      bayard 18 December 2020 14: 04
      +6
      Quote: Doccor18
      Cost / efficiency ratio.

      That's it - cost and efficiency. A large heavy AV VI of 80 - 000 tons can be built only with nuclear power plants, and this is very expensive, difficult, and not only in construction, but also in operation. Such AB in our case will cost about 90 billion dollars.
      No air group.
      And the operation of such an AV, even without the cost of the coastal infrastructure (very expensive and difficult), will cost an order of magnitude (8-10 times) more than the operation of AVVI in 40-000 tons with gas turbines.
      And estimate how much it will wind up over the entire period of operation.
      But such an aircraft carrier is needed more than one.
      And not even two.
      In order for this to have at least some sense and sense, there must be at least 3 of them (one at sea, one in the base after the hike, one under repair).
      In one of the fleets.
      And we have two such fleets - the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet.
      And they are very geographically separated.
      So it turns out that ideally we need six such ships.
      With damage to combat services - 4.
      At a minimum and only for one fleet - 3.
      And air groups to them.
      And the coastal infrastructure in full, otherwise it will turn out like with the Soviet aircraft carrier, the resource of which was killed in the roadstead due to the inability to be based normally.
      And everyone needs an escort.
      At least four frigates / destroyers / cruisers.
      And also on a tanker, supply ship, sea tug ...

      And now imagine how much this pleasure will cost - finance, resources, labor, time, personnel ...

      And after all that has been done, estimate how many times more expensive it will cost to build heavy nuclear aircraft carriers.
      This burden will simply crush us.
      No.
      In addition, there is such a thing as a construction cycle. We will build a heavy submarine with nuclear power plants for at least 10 years (at best), put it into operation for another 2 - 3 years before it becomes operational ... We will receive a full-fledged ship in 15 years from the start of construction.
      And we will be able to build an average AB in 7 years.
      And in a couple of years, put it into full operation.
      And we will be able to build such ships at the same time at two shipyards - in the Kerch "Zaliv" and in Bolshoy Kamen. And build a series of 6 pieces (3 on each) in 15 - 16 years. It will cost us (2 - 2,5 billion dollars per piece) in 12 - 15 billion dollars.
      For 15 - 16 years.
      On average, $ 1 billion. in year .
      An escort and an air group will cost about the same amount or a little more.
      Plus onshore / basic infrastructure.
      About the same (how much a series of 6 AV medium VIs, with an air group, escort ships and coastal infrastructure) will cost a bridge to Sakhalin with all the supply lines ... but this money (on the bridge) will be spent much faster.

      ... If you wish, calculate the cost of a series of nuclear aircraft carriers yourself - how many times it will cost more.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 18 December 2020 14: 33
        +2
        Much as you wrote ...
        With some I agree, with others - no.
        Okay, in order:
        A large heavy AV VI of 80 - 000 tons can only be built with a nuclear power plant, which is very expensive and difficult ..

        Of course, only nuclear power plants. It has a number of undeniable advantages.
        Without bases around the world, you will have to "drag" a huge (and even slow) supertanker ...
        That it is difficult. Difficult. But this does not stop anyone in building icebreakers for the NSR.
        Price? Yes, it's expensive, but $ 7 billion for the head - perhaps the next in the series will be significantly cheaper.

        That there should be 6 of them (3 each for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet) - I absolutely agree with this.

        We will build a heavy AB with a nuclear power plant for at least 10 years (at best), put it into operation for another 2 - 3 years before gaining operational readiness ... We will receive a full-fledged ship in 15 years from the start of construction.

        Exactly. 12-15 years and will be released. Since there are no competencies. Subsequent ones will be built faster.
        And we will be able to build an average AB in 7 years.
        And in a couple of years, put it into full operation.

        And here you are an incorrigible optimist ... Why is it 4-5 years faster? I am sure that there will be almost no difference in time.
        It will cost us (2 - 2,5 billion dollars per piece) in 12 - 15 billion dollars.

        And here I would like details. Really like..!
        What $ 5bn. from each we will save ???
        7 and even 2,5 billion is a cosmic difference!
        The nuclear power plant does not cost that much, even if it is made entirely of gold.
        Once I figured out the difference 5 years ago. 20, maximum 25% difference is obtained (this is for the ship). The air group is another matter, I did not consider it.
        Plus onshore / basic infrastructure

        Yes, there have always been problems with this, and in the USSR. But a decent pier is needed for 3 50 kt., That for 3 80 kt. ships ...
        1. bayard
          bayard 18 December 2020 21: 44
          +2
          Quote: Doccor18

          Of course, only nuclear power plants. It has a number of undeniable advantages.

          The fact of the matter is that no. Already the first experience of operating surface ships with nuclear power plants in the fleet showed that they are not only much more expensive to purchase, but also 8-10 times more expensive and more difficult to operate. Such was the American experience in building nuclear cruisers, and such was the experience with the construction of the Soviet "Orans". No wonder, not having time to get the second cruiser, the USSR categorically limited the series to 4 cruisers for completing 4 AUGs with the Ulyanovsk type AV at the head (before they planned a series of 10 - 12 pieces), and urgently ordered the development of a CONVENTIONAL missile cruiser which became pr. 1164 ... And it turned out to be 10 times cheaper not only in procurement, but also in operation and life cycle cost.
          There is a whole complex of reasons for this, but they are, proven in practice by the three fleets of the world (the French too).
          Now about:
          Quote: Doccor18
          Without bases around the world, you will have to "drag" a huge (and even slow) supertanker ...

          smile Are you going to drive your atomic AB around the "world without bases" alone?
          Or with an escort?
          Are the escort ships also nuclear powered?
          And the carrier-based aircraft? Does she fly? Kerosene burns ...
          Therefore, for / with any AUG with the most atomic AB at the head, there are always one or two tankers, for refueling escort ships and replenishing tanks with aviation fuel on a nuclear aircraft carrier (several thousand tons.
          And if the tankers have to drag along, then maybe they will be able to refuel the AV itself?
          Of course they can. yes
          This will not affect the mobility and autonomy of the AUG.
          These same Americans, until the middle of the Vietnam War, did not even want to think (!) About nuclear reactors on their aircraft carriers!
          We fought back with our hands and feet !!!
          Do you know what convinced them?
          The fact that only AB with a nuclear power plant was able to ensure the operation of steam catapults to achieve a rate of 200 launches per day.
          A conventional AB could provide 80 -100, and very rarely up to 120 flights per day - there was not enough power and productivity of steam boilers, because AB had to keep a speed of about 30 knots.
          And only the ability of the Enterprise to produce 200 catapult launches per day convinced the American admirals ... But the cost of operation immediately increased by an order of magnitude.
          This is the price of a steam catapult running smoothly.
          But.
          At that time, gas turbines and EM catapults were not yet in use at all. The EM catapult is MUCH more compact than the steam catapult and does not require STEAM from the boiler for its operation, which takes up a lot of space. According to all calculations, the operation of ships with nuclear power plants costs 8 - 10 times more expensive than a ship of a similar VI, but with a conventional power plant. request
          And the American admirals remember what the high performance of steam catapults cost them. and from time to time they raise the question that it would be good to finally abandon the construction of nuclear AB in favor of gas turbine medium VI. And it is precisely to use them as AV air defense / PLO, leaving the shock functions to the escort ships and individual KUGs, because the main strike weapon of the fleet today is the CD in the UVP.
          But ... the military-industrial complex lobby (orders!) And the complexes of the planet's chief gendarme (easier - antlers with all the greatest) do not yet allow the opinion of real experts to triumph.
          We are in gigantomania. not worth playing.
          Our AV should be able to launch AWACS aircraft (which means - a catapult), to provide air defense and anti-aircraft missiles of the fleet in places of combat deployment. For this, the above-mentioned air group of 24 fighters, 12 PLO helicopters and 2 - 4 AWACS aircraft + 2 search and rescue helicopters is quite enough.
          And we just economically, financially and technologically will not be able to play "the greatest."
          And having chosen the path of reasonable sufficiency, we will be able to play on equal terms with stronger players.
          Without leaving a reasonable budget.
          As I have already estimated above, the program for the construction of an aircraft carrier fleet from 6 AV medium VIs, with escort ships and air groups, as well as with basic infrastructure, will cost about $ 40 billion. yes
          Total .
          For about 16 - 17 years.
          This is less than $ 2,5 billion. in year . smile
          If you approach the matter correctly, the budget will not even notice it.
          But decent money will be poured into the domestic industry and economy, new jobs and new opportunities at sea will be created, and Russia will be given a lot of preferences in geopolitics and geoeconomics.
          Only 2,5 billion dollars. (I apologize for not in rubles, but the domestic currency is so unstable that I get lost in calculations) a year ... this is several times less than the wishes of our oligarchs ... holidays for the whole "baptized" (and not baptized world) and projects with pipelines to nowhere.
          ... This is the price of power at sea.
          No, this is far from the entire shipbuilding program. This is the cost of acquiring an aircraft carrier component by the Navy. But in its entirety - with an escort, an air group, basing.

          And in order to compare with atomic ambitions, simply multiply this amount three times, and increase the implementation time by two times ... And these will be completely different numbers and terms.
          ... And your "25%" ... is a mistake ... a delusion that can be overcome by calculation and practice.
          hi
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 19 December 2020 09: 27
            0
            .. ordered the development of a CONVENTIONAL missile cruiser, which became pr. 1164 ..

            Is there a discussion about cruisers ..?
            An aircraft carrier and a cruiser with a nuclear power plant are completely different things ...
            Are you going to drive your atomic AB around the "world without bases" alone?
            Or with an escort?
            Are the escort ships also nuclear powered?
            And the carrier-based aircraft? She flies ...

            The difference in fuel consumption is 80 kt. aircraft carrier and 10 kt. a multiple destroyer ... Of course, the AUG should have a complex supply ship, the volume of which should be enough for 1 refueling of 4 destroyers, supplies of provisions and aviation kerosene for fighters. By the way, the nuclear aircraft carrier itself carries a considerable supply of fuels and lubricants for the air group, which a ship with a KTU / GTU is not able to do.
            If it is necessary to refuel the aircraft carrier, it will be necessary to include one more tanker in the AUG. Two "barges" in the order are already too much ... But there are no overseas bases ...
            ..American admirals ... and from time to time raise the question of ... abandoning the construction of atomic AB in favor of gas turbine medium VI. And it is precisely to use them as AV air defense \ PLO ..

            And ... they are building a 110.000-ton atomic Ford with EMC ... lol
            If you approach the matter correctly, the budget will not even notice it.
            But in the domestic industry ...

            Here I absolutely agree!

            The British made their "Queens" non-nuclear, but our GTUs were always not the strongest side, but the experience in the construction and maintenance of nuclear reactors is simply colossal. Perhaps, in modern conditions, the creation of a cheaper and more compact ship reactor in operation.
            And your "25%" ... that's a mistake ...

            20-25% difference between 50 and 80 kt. ships, plus another, maximum, 25% of nuclear power, as well as + 19-23% for annual maintenance, + an increase in 40LA "your air group" to 70LA "my air group" = and that is about $ 6 billion difference (including 50 years of operation) .. ...

            It was nice to discuss hi
            1. bayard
              bayard 19 December 2020 19: 38
              +1
              Quote: Doccor18
              If it is necessary to refuel the aircraft carrier, it will be necessary to include one more tanker in the AUG. Two "barges" in the order are already too much ... But there are no overseas bases ...

              So if you have to carry one tanker in the order, it will link the mobility of the AUG in the same way as two such tankers. You will always have to refuel the ships of the order and the aircraft carrier (with kerosene for the air group). So what's the payoff?
              Saving the weight and volume of the nuclear power plant due to the uselessness of transporting fuel for the power plant turned out in practice ... a mistake. A nuclear power plant weighs much more than a gas turbine unit, requires reliable structural and radiation protection, and this is weight. And volume.
              Moreover, the cost of the power plant itself is an order of magnitude / orders of magnitude higher than that of a compact and convenient gas turbine unit. Operation of a nuclear power plant requires a very highly specialized crew qualification, complex and expensive coastal infrastructure. In addition, not every state will allow a ship with nuclear power plants to enter its port. They won't let me in.
              And we have "no bases".
              That is, out of the blue, we come up with another problem - the inability to enter the ports of even friendly states.
              The life cycle of such a ship will be 6 to 10 times (expanding the plug) more expensive than the life cycle of the same ship, but with a conventional power plant.
              Quote: Doccor18
              however, our GTUs were always not the strongest side,

              If we are talking about the Soviet Union, then just the opposite - we, as it were, not before everyone else switched to GTU, and our GTUs were very good. For example, look at Project 1155 - the workhorses of the fleet are still in service and begin their modernization - because they are good. Look at the power plant of the cruiser 1164 pr. - this is generally a masterpiece and the height of engineering ... in achieving maximum fuel efficiency in cruising (economic) modes of travel.
              And all these ships are still on the move.
              We lost the Nikolaev "Zorya-Mashproekt" due to indecision and erroneous decisions in 2014, and now we have to acquire these competencies almost from scratch ... but the main problem is not in the turbines - they already exist and are quite good, the main the problem is in the REDUCERS. And this is a whole scientific school ...
              But Russia has no other way out, today the development and launch of the first GTUs as part of the power plant for frigates is underway, a whole line of similar power plants for other ships is next in line.
              And if we take electric movement as a basis, then the need for travel gearboxes will disappear even more so - put a package of gas turbines with generators in the engine room and supply electric motors on shafts / steering columns, general ship systems, electromagnetic catapults from them.
              What is good about the Kalashnikov assault rifle?
              Its reliability, ease of use and low cost.
              This is what a weapon should be - everything that can be made simpler, cheaper, more accessible to learn should be done and accepted, because people serve in the army and the navy. And these are no longer graduates of the Soviet school, but victims of the Unified State Exam and the Bologna system.
              And again about the money.
              Your proposed "Leader" or "Lomantine" will cost at least $ 7 billion. Without an air group and coastal infrastructure, which will also pull a lot. Plus the preparation and training of the crew (also not cheap).
              And also an escort. Your AV will need it more serious, as in "my" case: 3 - 4 frigates, or 2 frigates + 2 corvettes (in the near zone) - behind the eyes, will not work. Your less than 4 ships of the destroyer / cruiser class cannot be + 2 - 3 more frigates.
              Of course, you can calculate all this ... but I think it's not worth it, and it is clear that we cannot afford such a luxury. And not for our industry swing.
        2. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 27 December 2020 09: 02
          -4
          corny a tanker still needs fuel and 20 more to supply the strike air group if it is destroyed with 1 salvo of one c300
          1. bayard
            bayard 27 December 2020 12: 29
            +3
            The aircraft carrier has a capacity of several thousand tons of tanks for aviation fuel. But supply tankers carry several types of fuel and consumable fluids at once.
            1. Evil Booth
              Evil Booth 27 December 2020 14: 09
              -4
              and now tell me why there are caravans on the Syrian express ... maybe once a month is enough, right? and then Avik himself can drive to the USA for a batch of these tons)))
              1. bayard
                bayard 27 December 2020 15: 01
                +3
                An interspecific group is working in Syria, which must be supplied to everyone - ammunition, fuel, equipment, spare parts, food, uniforms, various equipment (including medical). And Russia and its Black Sea Fleet have no specialized military transports. Therefore, they drove the BDK first, then bought several old Turkish steamers. They are being driven.
                About aircraft carriers and their AUG.
                To provide the AUG, there are specialized integrated supply ships, which, as a rule, go as part of an order, replenishing supplies on ships on a cruise. From time to time they are replaced by ships of the same type with a fresh set of everything they need. They have equipment for transferring cargo at sea.
                In the same way as the KKS, the AUG includes a tanker, in the tanks of which all types of fuel and consumable fluids for AV and AUG ships. They also work on a rotational basis. If the group is large, there may be two tankers.
                And one more note, when calculating the cost of the life cycle of a non-nuclear AB, the Americans took into account its supply in cruises from such ships. That is, the cost of operating all the necessary support ships. And the cost of the life cycle still turned out to be an order of magnitude cheaper than that of the atomic one.
                Exactly the same calculation, confirmed by many years of practice, at one time determined the cost of operating nuclear cruisers in the US Navy. And it also turned out to be much more expensive than usual.
                This is the prose of life.
                And in our fleet it was the same - after gaining experience in building the first "Eagles" and experience in operating them, they grabbed our heads. And they immediately redrawn the plans for their construction, leaving only 4 units in the order (for the AUG of 4 future aircraft carriers of the Ulyanovsk type), and instead of the remaining 6 units ordered 10 pr. 1164. These (1164) cruisers turned out to be an order of magnitude cheaper and 10 times cheaper to operate.
                So it's not a camilfo to step on the old rake. Even the mighty USSR, which never skimped on defense, could not afford this.

                And new tankers and integrated supply ships for the fleet are already under construction.

                And just for information - the minus is not from me.
                hi
                1. Evil Booth
                  Evil Booth 27 December 2020 15: 03
                  -4
                  for some reason, it is believed that destroying the supply caravans of the Augs as well as refuellers is as easy as shelling pears. especially in terms of the option when kyaty bambit, well, there is taiwan or japan ... and the United States is like dragging all the power of all augs where the mobm in total is not enough for one division. kk no way 10 bayonets in the trenches.
                  Well, it’s absolutely inflow that these caravans need the caravan own autonomy of aug yourself remember? 2 weeks? and the number of sorties and weapons for a regiment of tanks may be enough ... over there in Yugoslavia they blew up 700 or 500 cardboard ones and there were still 2000 non-cardboard ones left. and then while they will fly their 3 km for 700 hours, throw a plab that another hour will fly .. Armenian atnki will reach halfway to Baku)))
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 27 December 2020 15: 28
                    +2
                    Armenian tanks will not reach anywhere - there are too few of them left. As well as too little funds from possible opponents of the United States at sea, to hunt for its caravans. The Yankees have too much experience in wars at sea to expose their ships and supply vessels to the attacks of "crazy raiders".
                    How are you going to hunt their caravans in the North Atlantic and Central Pacific? Neither Russia nor (so far) China has the strength or the means to do this.
                    Russia has too few MAPLs, and those that do have will be used to cover SSBNs in the bastions. Diesel-electric submarines are not suitable for this and will guard bases and strait zones.
                    Aviation?
                    The MRA has not yet been revived in Russia, and this is not done with a snap of the fingers. And missile carriers will not be able to operate at such a distance. Yes, and their target will be primarily enemy warships.
                    In China, things are even more dismal (so far) - they have only a few MAPLs, they are noisy and are not suitable for such tasks.
                    ... They have no long-range aviation at all. Their copies of the Tu-16 for such purposes and at such distances are not suitable for this.
                    I will simply keep silent about surface ships - there is simply no chance of that.
                    In addition, supply convoys will be escorted by escort ships.
                    To date, the United States has ordered the first batch of new frigates, and within the framework of NATO, all ships of its allies will be engaged in escorting and providing air defense / anti-aircraft defense of such convoys.
                    And their AUG will replenish their stocks at a fairly safe distance from the enemy's coast.
                    And yet - any attempts to organize a submarine war will be thwarted by a huge number of high-class ASW aircraft from the United States, NATO and Japan.
                    We must look at things soberly and honestly, and learn military affairs in a real way.
                    As the great Lenin bequeathed. wink bully
                    hi
                    PS. And it is necessary to build the Armed Forces for war (!), And not for parades.
                  2. Evil Booth
                    Evil Booth 27 December 2020 15: 41
                    -2
                    In other words, the Chinese pkr will drown aug 1800 km from the coast. and the dagger will come out from the coast for all 5000. as varinat s300 Venezuelan will drown the entire air group for 300 km of the border))) request and why does the USA drain augs))) and in order to increase the national debt to 300% of GDP and then to 900))) so that with caravans, the chapm will specifically protect them? and well, for example, from starting the club from the side of a small container yacht. probably will allocate several augs to guard the caravan)) each!
                  3. bayard
                    bayard 27 December 2020 16: 54
                    +2
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    In other words, the Chinese pkr will drown aug 1800 km from the coast. and the dagger for all 5000 from the coast

                    "The dagger is not more than 2000 km. From the coast ... when he learns.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    c300 Venezuelans will drown the entire air group for 300 km of the border)

                    smile Very optimistic. Those. will they go to the target all together at high / medium altitude, in order to substitute together?
                    Or, from a distance of 500 - 700 kilometers to the target, will they launch their own missile launchers at the air defense missile systems and other radar stations, previously carefully reconnoitered?
                    Subtle.
                    Low-altitude.
                    And even if the air defense systems are beaten off with the help of the "Shells" or "Thors" guarding them, the stand-alone radars will not.
                    The radar field will be disrupted and other missile launchers will go into the gaps ... And so on until the air defense is completely suppressed.
                    So it was in Yugoslavia, Iraq ... so it will be in another conflict against an enemy with a strong air defense. And no aviation before (suppressing air defense) will stick there.
                    This is what happens in war.
                    But you can also counteract this.
                    And it is quite effective. yes

                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    and why the USA drain Augov)

                    They decided so and we live with it.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    to increase the national debt to 300%

                    This debt is internal, external, only $ 3 - 5 tril. This is not much - it can be forgiven (creditors), you can pay off by transferring the external debt into internal debt (the Fed will help), you can simply grow further request , a matter of taste .
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    and, for example, from launching a club from the side of a small container yacht.

                    Will you chase convoys on this yacht?
                    And who will give the target designation?
                    And this yacht will live exactly until the first launch.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    probably will allocate several augs to guard the caravan)) each!

                    No - a couple of frigates and an PLO aircraft.
                    Or two planes.
                    A real war is much more complicated and interesting.
                    And there are many surprises in it.
                    Sometimes very unexpected.
                  4. Evil Booth
                    Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 07
                    -3
                    and so you stubbornly accuses Putin of lying) and he is so sure that at 3000 km + the range of the carrier. we bet that of the two of you you are a liar?
                    about nothing to detect it is simply funny. the yacht will not live until the first launch, you never know it will blow off) but the launch will be)) and who will find it? than? probably a binocular from a tanker.
                    further classic nonsense aka air defense aug will destroy everything guaranteed, but complex air defense will be suppressed necessarily and invariably completely. and not the point that 79 planes of the United States and others fell in Iraq and other Iraqi mustache 139)) 79 recognized losses))) of which 10tok were recognized as combat ones. out of 25 s125, using 1000 aircraft, NATO bombed Yugoslavia for 3 months, destroying 2 complexes and losing 2 aircraft))) the shells officially shot down more than half a thousand of all sorts of drone and cr and others. and what can a volcano or others? yes nothing at pkr speed and height outside their performance characteristics.
                  5. bayard
                    bayard 27 December 2020 20: 57
                    0
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    and so you stubbornly accuses Putin of lying

                    belay
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    and he is so sure that at 3000 km + the range of the carrier. from

                    Do not attribute such confidence to him, this is the stupidity of illiterate journalists and no less "literate" VO commentators.
                    3000 km. this is the maximum flight range of the MiG-31 at the CRUISING (most economical) speed. The combat radius of the MiG-31 is 1100 km. and then when the afterburner is turned on for a few minutes (long-range interception option) - the plane still needs to return to base, this is not a one-time missile. But for the flight profile for the launch of the "Dagger", with acceleration up to 2500 km / h and ascent to an altitude of 17 - 18 km. , its radius will be about 600 km. + range of the "Dagger" - 1500 - 2000 km. Acceleration should be carried out over areas that are safe for the carrier - that is, not far from the native shore. A home airfield is usually 500 kilometers from the coastline, so that a sudden salvo from the American nuclear submarine "Tomahawks" does not blow up the home airfield and the aircraft on it.
                    Then we take a calculator and count.
                    And at the same time, we mean that no one will let the anti-ship missiles reach the range limit, a certain margin is always taken, by 20 or even 30 percent.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    we bet that of the two of you you are a liar?

                    Young man, of course you have a very evil booth, but you are talking with an officer of the air defense combat directorate (in the past). What I am writing to you is my profession and specialization.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    about nothing to detect it is simply funny.

                    Laughter for no reason ...
                    So how are you going to find an unremarkable convoy in the depths of the ocean?
                    Do you have scout planes that are allowed to fly there during wartime?
                    Do you have a sufficient and reliable satellite constellation (let's say it will be in time, but the satellites will be destroyed in the very first hours / days of the war)?
                    And why should such valuable anti-ship missiles in wartime, which were disguised on some seiner / container ship, have to be spent on non-combat ships?
                    Believe me, in a real situation they will have higher priority goals.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    and who will find it?

                    All vessels in the DB zone will be inspected and detected by reconnaissance, patrol and anti-submarine aircraft.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    aka air defense aug will destroy everything guaranteed, but complex air defense will be suppressed necessarily and universally

                    I have described to you HOW the enemy will act.
                    You don't need to know the algorithm of our counteraction, but they exist and are very effective.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    and not the point that 79 planes of the United States and others fell in Iraq and 139 Iraqi mustache)) 79 recognized losses))) of which 10 are recognized as combat ones.

                    Young man, when these events took place, I served near (on the border with Iran) with those places and I remember everything very well. And I watched this from a professional point of view.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    and what can a volcano or others?

                    Volcano-Falans is not a bad melee system, but it is the last hope. But they have a lot of very good missiles. And they also have a lot of ships with such missiles.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    at pkr speed and height outside their performance characteristics.

                    How ?!
                    What is the height of your rockets?
                    If it is large and they are flying, this is a very easy target, even if the speed is supersonic.
                    But if this rocket goes to your ship, then it will enter the target above the very crests of the waves - it needs to board.
                    There are attack algorithms in a steep dive, but then the rocket will go at a decent height, detect it ahead of time and shoot it down with a high degree of probability.
                    It is not worth talking about "hypersound" yet - it is not.
                    "Dagger" does not know how to ship yet.
                    "Zircon" has not yet finished factory tests, and for a couple of years it will not be in service for sure.
                    Kh-32 - so far only the layout is known, which was taken to the demonstrations, there are no reports of actual launches yet. It is not in service - for sure.
                    And what we have - "Volcanoes" and "Granites", are good, but not so irresistible.
                    Onyx is good, but also vulnerable to air defense. In the high-altitude sector - from missiles and aviation, at low altitudes - from fighter aviation under the control of an AWACS aircraft. If it breaks through at low altitude, the Volcano will not stop it.
                  6. Evil Booth
                    Evil Booth 27 December 2020 21: 34
                    -3
                    did not even begin to read you are just a liar and Putin is not. so 3000 is with tu22 but you darted for a moment31 do you know how much? salary piecework zat komenty))) you were given a plate with a runoff from such a carrier and you changed them. uuu klyatimaskali they threw them in your pants? well, come on, go run and complain to the moderator)) how did you call Putin a liar. I read here half an hour ago it has already become a criminal offense)))
                    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5383655 18 ИЮЛ 2018, 16:14Обновлено 18 июл 2018, 17:01
                    Source: the range of the "Dagger" will increase by 1000 km with the Tu-22M3 bomber
                    Thus, the missile will be able to hit targets at a distance of more than 3000 km.

                    firstly in the Ministry of Defense they know what and where to direct the second you are a liar and there is no uptin, but you have already spoken to the freedom of the crime. Google the article yourself? fortunately, wikipedia sees a dagger for 3000+ km. But you have a salary for Avik and you have to work to sweep the courtyards in prisons, even in your native USA.
                    the dagger has a seeker))) what horror !! https: //zvezdaweekly.ru/news/20185211547-L3aOs.html I wonder if a560 or su34 can see an avik from 500 km? he can drive for 200 from himself)) f18 no.
                  7. bayard
                    bayard 28 December 2020 06: 45
                    +1
                    If you are so fighting for "Putin's honor", why did you spank his surname with a small letter? wink
                    Insulting the President?

                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    didn't even bother to read

                    Why are you poking the keyboard if you are too lazy to read?
                    Are we engaged in a drunken flood?
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    so 3000 is with tu22 but you darted for a moment31

                    There is no "Dagger" on the Tu-22M3.
                    Well, they don't stand on these planes. fool
                    Such plans were announced, but so far even the Kh-32 has not been launched. And it was not accepted for service. I hope so far.
                    And why exactly 3000 km? smile
                    After all, the combat radius of the Tu-22 is 2000 - 2500 km.
                    + flight range of the aeroballistic "Dagger" ...
                    So how much is it?
                    If the radius is taken for 2000 km. ?
                    2000 + 1500 \ 2000 =?
                    But such a complex (Tu-22M3 + "Dagger") does not exist in nature. Perhaps not yet, but not today.
                    And the "Dagger" has not yet flown on sea mobile. request
                    But work is underway and will probably fly soon. yes

                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    Did they throw them in your pants?

                    Baby, come to us in Donbass - in Donetsk.
                    At least for an excursion. smile
                    Then we'll see who the "Muscovites" will put in their pants ...
                    After all, you will say that we are you. lol
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    firstly in the Ministry of Defense they know what and where to direct them secondly you are a liar and uptin is not

                    Masterwork! fellow bully
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    but you have already blabbed the crime free. Google the article yourself?

                    Guy , lol so you stuck your hooks on your article. wink laughing
                    How did you call the president of a great nuclear power there?
                    Khan to you "Booth".
                    It's because she's evil. laughing
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    but you have a salary for avika

                    Eh-eh! If the salary ... bully And so - everything is free smile , everything for the soul.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    have to work revenge courtyards in prisons

                    By "jail" ... revenge ... It's unlikely. Just health will not allow. laughing But for you - young and daring, such feats are quite up to the mark.
                    Mark cleaner.
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    then in the native United States.

                    They are not relatives to me, "Booth", not relatives. laughing
                    The enemy during the Cold War was. yes
                    Enemy today - they called themselves. soldier
                    Here you are - "Booth", you break a mountain ram out of yourself (this beast has very beautiful horns), chutzpah, with passion ... But ... you burn yourself.
                    You are burning, "Booth". bully
                    And this is because anger is sin. lol
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    the dagger has a seeker))) what a horror !!

                    There is, and not one. yes
                    ... But ... request why is the "Bad Boy" in horror?
                    That this hybrid of a dog house and a human face is so scary? smile
                    Or is it already evil green devils, so they injure the fragile psyche of a "polyglot" with broken fingers? what
                    Don't be afraid, booth, don't panic.
                    The orderlies will be here soon. bully
                  8. Evil Booth
                    Evil Booth 28 December 2020 09: 57
                    -2
                    laughing how funny you are for a moment, too, no dagger! there is at 31k))) that 31 wears as many as 22 daggers if you are against it and give it to your doctor, the mister they say has an obsessive know-it-all state in the stage of mistrust of the gossmi and the commander-in-chief of the current trolls with a low salary, this is a working state. you lied that he flies on 4 although Putin did slap that 600 and 2 thousand. Who are you sure that they believe you and not Putin? and write off the eot on me)) and there are so many sludges ... just for salary or is it a cuckoo with a clock? not that interesting ... but still
                  9. bayard
                    bayard 28 December 2020 10: 31
                    +1
                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    although Putin did slip that

                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    not Putin

                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    writing off eot

                    Quote: Evil Booth
                    a lot of mud.

                    laughing good bully

                    The patient is already hung over.
                  10. Evil Booth
                    Evil Booth 28 December 2020 10: 34
                    -2
                    The air defense officer has already taken care of everything about the dagger or has you already bought a new training manual (sent it)? Are you a daughter or a granddaughter of an officer then? how is it ready to answer on charges of lying to the commander-in-chief? Officer .. go talk to the moderator, I'll follow you up and I'll pump it in))) I'll sit and talk to the convicts about sea reconnaissance))
                  11. Evil Booth
                    Evil Booth 28 December 2020 10: 40
                    -1
                    https://rg.ru/2020/02/11/strategicheskie-tu-160-osnastiat-raketami-kinzhal.html
                    the officer who accuses the commander-in-chief of lying is already ready to say that he knows better that there is no dagger on that 160 and there will be no dagger that there is no dagger finally, he knows ... you are a crazy troll on the salary, but if they need to tell you and you rush to the moderator to ban me and I I'll roll up a prison for slander, while you are an officer through the military prosecutor's office?
                  12. bayard
                    bayard 28 December 2020 13: 03
                    +1
                    It is incurable. fool
                  13. Evil Booth
                    Evil Booth 28 December 2020 13: 06
                    -2
                    ash oak is incurable, because you have a complex of hatred and stupidity and pay you for stones) so there f35 flies 1100 km and the bomb plans 170 and that 22 flies 600 and daggers another 600 or maybe like in official gossmi 3000 (well, like) + 3000 (exactly right). and again 40 pieces and after 12 hours the second aug immediately for 40 pieces)) Aegis Nitsche will not match the Patriot)))
  • Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 30
    -3
    to show you in idos from YouTube koi again failed to remove the skok f165 and bla and f15 were shot down in Yemen by the current forces of a couple of c75? they are true in f15 or hit-and-miss or large debris with traces of explosions and other things, but not the plane itself. but on f16 so that half an aircraft but they are many))) different. I remember for 1 battle an arrow shot down 2 NATO planes in Iraq. bli such many times won the Israeli current entered the raidus and vse..toka half fell in Israel. and so s300v4 is also able to atk, but just a little further. Sobyusvteno everything that flies into the anti-aircraft missile system does not fly, and everything that flies higher falls for 250-350 km from the launcher. or if a patriot doesn’t shoot down an airplane with a passport 160 for 100 from him? ayy well vytak!
  • bayard
    bayard 27 December 2020 21: 18
    0
    Are you celebrating already?
    You shouldn't write all this rubbish to an air defense officer.
    Even in the past.
  • Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 27 December 2020 21: 32
    -2
    what have you got to do with it? you never know the Israelis have never bombed the Arab troops, and those on the contrary dscha. eot you do not have cartoons or kmoents I can finally admiral ich ё7 ichё? and I also have blue walls, it finally reaches your faith in aug to zero divides like this fellow you just do something to say something hotedi finally finally! your anti-ship missile system f18 is nonsense. even a moment of 31 p500 knocks down to put it mildly with difficulty. often does not knock down the first or even the second hit in the palna. but how? no time ... no radar for that. or does he see supersonic sound against the background of water? here in NTO there will be a holiday)) there will be no. you are a layman. let's reference how there f18 sees against the background of water)) they do not see against the background of the earth.
  • bayard
    bayard 27 December 2020 21: 53
    0
    Quote: Evil Booth
    no time ... no radar for that. or does he see supersonic sound against the background of water? here in NTO there will be a holiday)) there will be no. you are a layman. let's reference how there f18 sees against the background of water)) they do not see against the background of the earth.

    laughing It’s ridiculous.
    Citizen Admiral, go to bed.
  • Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 28 December 2020 09: 51
    -2
    your blind faith is ridiculous and looks stupid to me. and so 79 planes were left in the usa for all reasons and Iraq 139)) the Iraqi army of the ussr army ... from the air defense there was like a regiment of current less))
  • Drugov
    Drugov 2 January 2021 13: 37
    0
    You are very reasoned in the discussion about the costs of building an aircraft carrier group, but there is still no answer to the most important question!
    "What are you going to hunt for their caravans in the North Atlantic and Central Pacific?"
    Why do we hunt their caravans ????
  • bayard
    bayard 2 January 2021 14: 40
    +1
    We have nothing to hunt for their caravans, and if earlier - under the Union, one could hope for MAPLs, of which we had just a lot, then today (as well as under the Union) the main stake is on the destruction of the port infrastructure of the Atlantic coast of Europe and fast the defeat of their armies with swift tank strikes (earlier) or nuclear strikes against their military and industrial, as well as energy infrastructure. So that there is nowhere to drive the convoys. And after solving these issues and having mastered the European airfields, our aviation will engage in methodical work to clean up the ocean surface and its depths from enemy ships and submarines.
    But this is in the possible future, when the MPA is restored, the aircraft of the ASW of the naval reconnaissance will be re-equipped and developed.
    And, of course, the defeat of airborne ICBMs and the Kyrgyz Republic of the enemy's port and basic infrastructure on the American continent.
    Quote: Drugov
    Why do we hunt their caravans ????

    so I say - nothing, and not worth it.
  • Drugov
    Drugov 2 January 2021 14: 56
    0
    Well, he can still think and calculate the possibility of building up or, in some cases, completely restoring other means of countermeasures in the complex: restore the grouping of multifunctional satellites, restore and qualitatively improve ASW aviation, improve and expand the infrastructure of coastal airfields, create echeloned air defense in the places of the most probable strike and continue to adjust ships of the near and middle sea zone and nuclear submarines of different types. To build up a grouping of aircraft carriers, mooring walls, support bases, an escort, a ship group, AWACS that never existed, etc. hardly advisable, especially since, as already said, there is no why, no money, and no one, and no where. Well, taking into account the development of technology, it seems that such ships will simply become obsolete by the time they are born.
  • bayard
    bayard 2 January 2021 16: 43
    0
    To build a Fleet, you need to BUILD it.

    "To learn how to shoot - you need to shoot" - from the instruction to a novice sniper.
    If the already adopted programs and plans are carried out, there will be the Fleet, and the MRA, and anti-aircraft missile defense, air defense, patrol, deck, military transport, unmanned aircraft. And the bases will be what you need, and the logistics, and the training base ...
    If they want to build, they will.
    So far, they don't know what they want at all.
  • Drugov
    Drugov 2 January 2021 16: 45
    0
    I completely agree with a vague understanding of the future.
  • PSih2097
    PSih2097 18 December 2020 18: 31
    +1
    Quote: bayard
    And no nuclear power plant, only gas turbines and electromagnetic catapults.

    And do you propose to supply EMK as from a gas turbine?
    1. bayard
      bayard 18 December 2020 21: 56
      +1
      This is exactly how, and possibly the entire AV, to transfer to electric motion (electric transmission), installing a battery of gas turbine generators in the engine room.
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 19 December 2020 10: 15
        0
        on the same Ford, there are four generators for each EMC because of the strong peak loads on the general network.
        according to your concept, it will be difficult to create an AV of 50 tons (000 tons is just right - to remake project 70) with 000 EMTs due to the large number of gas generators ...
        1. bayard
          bayard 20 December 2020 00: 08
          +1
          Quote: PSih2097
          with 3 EMT will be difficult due to the large number of gas generators ...

          Well, that's what kind of gas turbine to choose, on such a lump (aircraft carrier) it is possible to look after a turbine on the basis of an industrial power plant, because if you pay attention to the M-90FR, then you will have to install up to a dozen of them.
          To ensure the economy of cruising and greater fuel efficiency, it is possible to attach a steam turbine with a gas turbine - as on the cruiser 1164, etc. or in modern power plants. Internal volumes of AB allow it.
          And we developed an EM catapult even during the Soviet Union, and everything seemed to work out fine - in parallel with the steam catapult, it was developed as a backup option. It turned out both that and that, but they did not have time to put either one.
    2. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 28 December 2020 11: 41
      -1
      here above this low-budget trolley on a salary tells the pier f35 flies from Avik 1100 km then drops a palliation bomb and all the cotton wool plans to surrender the bomb on the passport 110/1900 km. on pre-concreted c300. and right there, they say, tu22, along with its range, will throw a dagger of 40 pieces for 1 aug not for passport 3000 + carrier but simply for 1500 but by. and then the c300 does not knock anything down and the ijis knocks everything down. and so 20 times. tongue How do you think he is diagnosed? I just think that he will sit down because he will continue to directly accuse some commander-in-chief of lies. although of course success is visible! society does not condemn him! Dale's plan strong)
  • Aag
    Aag 19 December 2020 16: 37
    0
    "... And no nuclear power plant, only gas turbines and electromagnetic catapults ..."
    If it does not make it difficult, please argue for a layman.
    1. bayard
      bayard 20 December 2020 01: 21
      +2
      I have already described this in the comments above. In short, the nuclear power plant is justified only on the ships of VI 80 - 000 tons - economically and operational difficulties. Taken together, the operation of a ship with a nuclear power plant costs 100-000 times more than a similar ship with a conventional power plant.
      The inefficiency of the nuclear power plant at AB "Charlie de Gaulle" is an example of this.
      If we compare the cost of the life cycle of AB with a nuclear power plant and the same AB on gas turbines, the difference will be 8-10 times.
      The American admirals have calculated this long ago, but without nuclear power plants they cannot power steam catapults with a capacity of at least 200 sorties per day.
      And put up with astronomical expenses.
      But at the same time, they dream of getting AV medium VI on gas turbines and EM catapults.
      The cost of AVVI 40 - 000 tons will be about 50 - 000 billion dollars. for us . At the same time, AB with nuclear power plant VI 2 tons will cost us at least 2,5 billion dollars. At the same time, it will require a much more expensive infrastructure, a more qualified crew ... but I have already written about the life cycle cost.
      Based on the fact that we need 6 AB - three each for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet, atomic monsters are contraindicated for us in principle.
      1. Aag
        Aag 20 December 2020 15: 32
        +1
        Quote: bayard
        I have already described this in the comments above. In short, the nuclear power plant is justified only on the ships of VI 80 - 000 tons - economically and operational difficulties. Taken together, the operation of a ship with a nuclear power plant costs 100-000 times more than a similar ship with a conventional power plant.
        The inefficiency of the nuclear power plant at AB "Charlie de Gaulle" is an example of this.
        If we compare the cost of the life cycle of AB with a nuclear power plant and the same AB on gas turbines, the difference will be 8-10 times.
        The American admirals have calculated this long ago, but without nuclear power plants they cannot power steam catapults with a capacity of at least 200 sorties per day.
        And put up with astronomical expenses.
        But at the same time, they dream of getting AV medium VI on gas turbines and EM catapults.
        The cost of AVVI 40 - 000 tons will be about 50 - 000 billion dollars. for us . At the same time, AB with nuclear power plant VI 2 tons will cost us at least 2,5 billion dollars. At the same time, it will require a much more expensive infrastructure, a more qualified crew ... but I have already written about the life cycle cost.
        Based on the fact that we need 6 AB - three each for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet, atomic monsters are contraindicated for us in principle.

        Thanks for the deleted time. hi
      2. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 32
        -3
        both regiments of the Serbian army used 1000 planes and the number of sorties per day is sick, that is, all 10 augs at once and there can be no runoff ... but there was no point in 5 tanks for 750 shots at them.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 18 December 2020 08: 45
    +11
    Quote: Alexey Sommer

    Excellent article.

    Sogdasen. You just need to put this phrase in quotes.
    An aircraft carrier can also be used as a defensive platform, but definitely not off the coast of China or Russia.

    Direct new maritime law ...

    To crush Yugoslavia or Iraq, the American coalition concentrated thousands of aviation groups ... But China-Russia will be "smashed" exclusively by the AUG ... No.
    An aircraft carrier and co is an analogue of a baseball bat. It brings the recalcitrant to life, gives an advantage in a fight, in a war, delivers tangible pinpoint strikes where they are not expected ... Superweapons do not win a war, complexes consisting of smart heads and modern weapons win in war ...
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 18 December 2020 11: 32
    +16
    There are more mistakes in the article than common thoughts - everyone just won't fit into the comments.
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette 18 December 2020 15: 02
      0
      Poorly split into several?
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 18 December 2020 21: 38
        +4
        What for? Whoever needs it will figure it out for themselves, who does not need it, who does not need it, who needs it, but they do not want to figure it out, they are hopeless in any case.
        1. Silhouette
          Silhouette 19 December 2020 15: 19
          0
          And you, my friend, are a demagogue, however.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 19 December 2020 15: 22
            0
            No, I just have 24 hours a day, I just can't go through so much crap, but if you scroll through the comments, then people have already written a lot to the author without me.
    2. Local from the Volga
      Local from the Volga 19 December 2020 02: 34
      -1
      that's a rarity, but I totally agree!
  • iouris
    iouris 18 December 2020 22: 57
    0
    Quote: Alexey Sommer
    The author just stepped on the throat of a dream

    This author is a sadist.
    Forget all about the sinking of American aircraft carriers. The war has been going on for a long time. Lost half of the country, athletes are performing under the white flag. How many aircraft carriers were sunk?
  • Left shot
    Left shot 19 December 2020 04: 11
    -1
    You kick the feelings of believers))) It's like with the feelings of believing Jews from Israel in UAVs (they have already rejected their mediocre battleships Merkava, now they believe in UAVs, but only against Arabs) The same garbage with believers in amerskie anti-Zulu erodromes.
  • ROSS_51
    ROSS_51 19 December 2020 20: 22
    0
    Yes, this is nonsense, not an article ..
    Quote: Alexey Sommer
    "What will happen to aircraft carriers if they take on more difficult tasks than suppressing third world countries?"

    The American asks a question that no sane military man would ask himself. It is not aircraft carriers that will fight with Russia and China, it is not their simple task. Americans are not stupid.

    But with the help of AUG, Americans are present in any other part of the world and dictate their own rules.
  • zenion
    zenion 26 December 2020 17: 44
    0
    They do not even know that American aircraft carriers have a secret device on how to protect an aircraft carrier and, at the same time, aircraft. There is a lever that you need to pull towards yourself and the aircraft carrier smoothly sits on the bottom. There are some points that seem dull, but they will fix them. They have not yet figured out how to lift it from the bottom back to the surface for further use. It's just a childhood disease of aircraft carriers. Another couple of trillion dollars and possibly a nuclear explosion under an aircraft carrier, it will be possible to raise it to the surface.
  • ares1988
    ares1988 18 December 2020 05: 15
    +8
    Yes, the Kh-55 is, of course, an excellent anti-ship missile)
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 18 December 2020 06: 21
      -5
      And the X-555 is excellent against AUG. Only now I don’t know if these special ammunition remained or were they lost under some contract?
    2. bayard
      bayard 18 December 2020 07: 12
      +13
      Quote: ares1988
      Yes, the Kh-55 is, of course, an excellent anti-ship missile)

      yes Good humor . drinks
      With a nuclear warhead, but on ships ... except in the base. bully
    3. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 18 December 2020 11: 32
      +10
      It's useless, they don't understand. A rocket? Rocket! What else do you need?
      1. Lex_is
        Lex_is 18 December 2020 12: 02
        +6
        What else do you need?


        As usual, just a little:
        create media in sufficient quantity
        ensure the deployment of these media
        bring these carriers to the launch distance
        provide target designation
        hit the target
        successfully realize the advantage gained by the defeat of the target in this area

        Such little things.
        The main thing has been done, there are missiles (in the plans and on tests).
  • Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 18 December 2020 05: 21
    +11
    It remains for fans of the almighty Zircons and other Dunfen to explain why, with absolute guidance accuracy, spend money on naval aviation, coastal complexes, a dwarf fleet and even multipurpose nuclear submarines, if one ICBM worth $ 100 million is guaranteed to destroy the AUG for $ 30 billion?
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 18 December 2020 05: 33
      +7
      Quote: Yuri V.A
      why, with absolute guidance accuracy, spend money on naval aviation, coastal complexes, a dwarf fleet and even multipurpose nuclear submarines
      To deliver weapons to the launch line, for example.
    2. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 18 December 2020 05: 48
      +2
      Because they can be used in another area for various purposes. War is not a duel between a tank and a UAV or an aircraft carrier and a missile. This confrontation on vast territories with all the forces and means to achieve certain results. Each screw can turn the outcomes dramatically when used correctly.
      1. Yuri V.A
        Yuri V.A 18 December 2020 06: 33
        +2
        It's not about the role of a screw in another section of a huge territory, but just about the struggle between good and evil, that is, a missile and an aircraft carrier.
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 18 December 2020 07: 46
          +1
          These are concepts for people who simply do not understand military science. Everything always complements the other. The combination of forces and means only gives the result and how you use them. Comparisons between aircraft carrier and rocket are negligible. From the series that the tank or ATGM will win.
          1. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 18 December 2020 10: 46
            +1
            Since childhood, I respect people who understand military science. Only, everything cannot complement the other, otherwise it is not everything. The use of forces and means separately will also give a result, their combination is a special case. Nobody compares a missile with an aircraft carrier, they compare missiles against an aircraft carrier.
            1. carstorm 11
              carstorm 11 18 December 2020 10: 50
              +2
              And this is the mistake. It is impossible to compare the weapon and the target in isolation from the detection of guidance and support tracking. Intelligence of various types and agent work.
              1. Yuri V.A
                Yuri V.A 18 December 2020 11: 22
                +2
                We start from the beginning. The question is - with the same initial data (that is, identical detection, tracking, guidance and support), why do we need a variety of weapons, if there is one guaranteed?
                1. carstorm 11
                  carstorm 11 18 December 2020 11: 31
                  +6
                  The AUG will stand and wait until an ICBM reaches them, whose CEP, shall we say, not for pinpoint strikes?) The targets of ICBMs are static - cities and bases. ) tactical ammunition is another matter. And in the Union, having all the means of delivery at sea, they still built a large number of naval aviation for a reason. Think about it. And now you are reasoning on the basis of the fact that the AUG has no connection, stands still and stupidly waits for it to be destroyed) the launch of an ICBM is detected instantly and during the time it is flying it can go in any direction.
                  1. Yuri V.A
                    Yuri V.A 18 December 2020 11: 51
                    -7
                    An ICBM flight will take no more than 30 minutes, during which time the AUG will shift from the known coordinates by no more than 30 km, which will not save the group from ten multiple 1 Mt warheads, which will obviously be more effective than tactical ammunition and cheaper, taking into account the carriers.
                    1. Boa kaa
                      Boa kaa 18 December 2020 13: 34
                      +9
                      Quote: Yuri V.A
                      30 km, which will not save the group from ten multiple 1 Mt warheads, which will certainly be more effective than tactical ammunition and cheaper, taking into account the carriers.

                      Yuri, judging by your reasoning, you are never a military man. Moreover, they did not deal with the fleet, or with its weapons, not to mention YABE, as aptly revealed by a colleague apro (Oleg Frolov) (down the branch).
                      Therefore, a couple of remarks.
                      1. SBP of megaton class - these are for areal objects (cities, communication centers, industrial zones, etc.) At sea, TNW of a discharge from units to hundreds of kilotons are used. The radius of destruction of such beaters is up to 10 km (for light targets), and 3-5 km. Therefore, 30 km is serious ...
                      2. 10 split BBs ... Well, if only some kind of "strategist" thread wassat ) will send a mine-based ICBM in the sea for a swim ... I hope we don't have such. And the goals for such beaters have all been "tabulated" long ago, not from the word "taboo", but from the word TABLE ... There are no bugs-cockroaches, such as NK (even class ABM!) In these "tables".
                      So, you need to fantasize "close to the text" of the Fundamentals.
                      AHA.
                      1. Yuri V.A
                        Yuri V.A 18 December 2020 14: 58
                        -4
                        I don't know your multiplicity, let you be three times a military man, but once you wedged yourself into this dive, explain why you need tactical ammunition for a heap of carriers with a vague probability of completing a combat mission, instead of one ICBM, especially since some Norfolk is probably included in the same TABLE ?
                      2. Boa kaa
                        Boa kaa 18 December 2020 15: 26
                        +7
                        Quote: Yuri V.A
                        why do we need tactical ammunition for a heap of carriers with a vague probability of completing a combat mission, instead of one ICBM,

                        Not all "carriers" carry tactical SBPs, but only those that are prepared for that - constructively, technically and organizationally. Even in our nurse with SLBMs, we carried only 2 items in the first compartment of the tactical class. And it was necessary to break through the PLC system, hit the BC at the water's edge, or something else like that. In this case, the cap could regulate the power of the product. 3 positions, extreme 10 kilos (in tons).
                        Quote: Yuri V.A
                        Norfolk is probably included in the same TABLE

                        Norfolk - in the first lines of problems! After all, this is a GVMB with avics, arsenals and a system of repairs, supplies, etc.
                        Means of destruction are assigned to this stationary target. Moreover, it is a priority.
                        AHA.
                      3. Yuri V.A
                        Yuri V.A 18 December 2020 16: 11
                        -4
                        The conversation is not about the intended purpose of the tactical SBP as such, especially on a specific carrier, but about the hypothetical neutralization of the AUG. If the location of the group is precisely known, a dozen megaton-class warheads with a spread of ten to twenty kilometers are preferable to any other option. It's just that in reality this "if" will almost never happen, in the near future, at least, and therefore the sinister Dunfeng are destined to be bored on the shore.
                      4. Boa kaa
                        Boa kaa 18 December 2020 16: 35
                        +3
                        Quote: Yuri V.A
                        If the location of the group is precisely known, a dozen megaton-class warheads with a spread of ten to twenty kilometers are preferable to any other option.

                        Yuri, the mistake of the place of the AUG includes: an error in the place of the scout, an error in the course, the speed of the AVU, plus the time for passing the control center, making a decision, bringing it to strength, the time of the complex readiness, prelaunch preparation, the flight time of the anti-ship missile system - and all this multiplied by target speed ... So one can only dream of a "precisely known target location". These errors are compensated by the choice of the firing method, the weapon control system and the GOS product. If ICBMs have planning BBs with a homing system, then they will be BKRs, such as R-27K. And it is possible (justified) to boil the sea of ​​a megaton class BB only when the coordinates of the launch of the 1st Trident are detected. In order to prevent further launch of SLBMs on our territory.
                      5. Yuri V.A
                        Yuri V.A 19 December 2020 01: 45
                        0
                        Consider a simpler, in terms of stealth, surface target, the target designation problem for which A. Timokhin revealed in detail with your even more detailed comments. So, accept the bright dream of the exact coordinates of the target, without detailing their receipt, as the initial data. In this context, ICBMs are preferred over any other means. But, since this is a dream (as well as for other zircons, daggers and dunfenev), the aircraft carrier, given its own capabilities, remains an extremely tenacious creature.
                      6. Boa kaa
                        Boa kaa 19 December 2020 01: 51
                        +1
                        Quote: Yuri V.A
                        the aircraft carrier, given its own capabilities, remains an extremely tenacious creation.

                        Yuri, I agree with that. At one time I wrote about this on the site. K1r (retired) K. Sivkov also wrote in detail about the survivability of aircraft carriers with calculations of probabilities for different classes of anti-ship missiles. And they are impressive! If you wish, you can familiarize yourself with these materials yourself.
                      7. Yuri V.A
                        Yuri V.A 19 December 2020 01: 59
                        -1
                        Recently, Kapraz Sivkov, along with common sense, has been giving out such gems that you begin to doubt their objectivity.
              2. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 20 December 2020 11: 53
                0
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                Means of destruction are assigned to this stationary target. Moreover, it is a priority.
                AHA.

                Uh-huh. I very often read arguments of aircraft carrier fans about this content.
                - airfields and targets on the ground are carried out by the first strike of missiles with an inertial guidance system, but the aircraft carrier is floating in the sea.

                However, they forget that ships do not always float. And if the enemy is hatching plans for an insidious surprise strike, then it is much easier to arrange Pearl Harbor today.
                And 2 submarines, the devil knows how many ships, including aircraft carriers, can chop up with the same stupid missiles with ISN.
                For example, a French aircraft carrier in the dock was under repair for 1,5 years. In dry dock ... not even at the pier.
              3. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 20 December 2020 13: 14
                0
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                I often read arguments from aircraft carrier fans

                So what does not suit you in my post?
                Or what do you disagree with in principle?
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                And 2 submarines, the devil knows how many ships, including aircraft carriers, can chop up with the same stupid missiles with ISN.

                Anything can be ... But just explain to me why the Ames have arranged a 200-mile zone of anti-aircraft defense / air defense of their continent? That's not counting the 1000 mile long distance!
                Have you heard about the PLO system of bases and basing points? And then there is a mobile PLO ...
                In short, it's very difficult off the Yankee coast. But quietly put the MZM-A at the exit from the PB or at the communication center - for the sake of God! And be quiet and look for a pike in the sea!
                AHA.
              4. Alexander Vorontsov
                Alexander Vorontsov 20 December 2020 13: 27
                0
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                So what does not suit you in my post?
                Or what do you disagree with in principle?

                You do not understand, I agree on the contrary.

                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                Anything can be ... But just explain to me why the Ames have arranged a 200-mile zone of anti-aircraft defense / air defense of their continent? That's not counting the 1000 mile long distance!
                Have you heard about the PLO system of bases and basing points? And then there is a mobile PLO ...

                It was about the fact that the fans of aircraft carriers (some) are projecting this situation on us, in particular on the conflict with Japan. They say the Japanese can destroy stationary objects at a time.

                And it was not about how strong the coastal air defense was, it was about the fact that in the event of a sudden strike, a good half of the fleet, if not 2/3, would turn out to be the same stationary targets.
              5. Evil Booth
                Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 37
                -2
                Well, in Japan, the air defense is stupid, and the patriots can almost be neglected as they did 25 kr per ksa, going straight through the patriots to the goal. so let the myapons drown the Pacific Fleet, and then what? and Japan will sink)) at the same hour.
          2. Evil Booth
            Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 36
            -3
            All the same, an ICBM from a poplar for 1000 km will fly for about 10 minutes, not for 1)) tembolee trajectory .. it is straight. but aug at the utmost speed that they will mono vyderazhtt for several hours on a contract no more while killing cars and fuel on non-nuclear and by the way the resource and nuclear fuel also flies away yes)) they will float away in 10 minutes on niskoka. 6 km at a speed of 60 km / h. fireball more) EMP is not so weak.
  • Yngvar
    Yngvar 18 December 2020 06: 11
    +2
    How is that? Both defense and attack are complex things, hence the separation of defense means must be present! There are strategic tasks, there are tactical ones, and there are local ones ... The economy of war has not been canceled, firing a cannon at sparrows is not the best way out!
  • apro
    apro 18 December 2020 05: 29
    +3
    And I'm interested in the situation in which it is necessary to sink an aircraft carrier ... without using yaba.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 06: 39
      +11
      You will struggle to drown it with YABCh
      1. apro
        apro 18 December 2020 06: 43
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You will struggle to drown it with YABCh

        Apply yaba to the places of basing and control so that there is nowhere to return.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 06: 46
          +11
          Quote: apro
          Apply yaba to the places of basing and control so that there is nowhere to return.

          He will always have somewhere to return, he will be able to base himself on European ports.
          1. apro
            apro 18 December 2020 06: 48
            -5
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            He will always have somewhere to return, he will be able to base himself on European ports.

            After a global strike ???
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 08: 02
              +11
              Quote: apro
              After a global strike ???

              Our "global strike" is not really enough even for the United States. We have, if anything, about 1500 strategic nuclear warheads. Only. This is not the USSR with its, I'm afraid to lie, either 49 thousand or 64 thousand warheads. So we will probably destroy about half of the United States with all its main cities and ports, the rest will partly perish without infrastructure, partly will roll back into the Middle Ages. But that's all. And this is on condition that not one nuclear submarine will fly to Europe
              1. apro
                apro 18 December 2020 08: 13
                -4
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Our "global strike" is not really enough even for the United States.

                How can you ... that you underestimate the Russian Federation. It is much more developed and more powerful than the totalitarian USSR.
                And if this is so, then there is nothing to fight against the aug of meaning.
                1. Escobar
                  Escobar 18 December 2020 09: 11
                  +1
                  https://topwar.ru/177721-jadernaja-illjuzija-zasteklit-protivnika-ne-poluchitsja.html это вам для понимания того, что ядренабомбы далеко не все решают
                  1. apro
                    apro 18 December 2020 09: 12
                    0
                    Quote: Eskobar
                    Nuclear bombs do not solve everything

                    But they may well cause unacceptable losses.
                    1. Escobar
                      Escobar 18 December 2020 09: 27
                      +2
                      It is immediately evident that the link was not opened, the article was not read, in the case of the United States they cannot, with their number of population
                      1. apro
                        apro 18 December 2020 09: 42
                        -2
                        Quote: Eskobar
                        It is immediately evident that the link was not opened, the article was not read, in the case of the United States they cannot, with their number of population

                        Killing the population is one thing. But critically damaging the infrastructure. Completely. Then everything will collapse by itself.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 09: 19
                  +9
                  Quote: apro
                  How can you ... that you underestimate the Russian Federation. It is much more developed and more powerful than the totalitarian USSR.

                  laughing fool
                  Don't talk nonsense, it hurts. And start your acquaintance with reality by studying START-3
                  1. apro
                    apro 18 December 2020 09: 21
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    reality start with START-3

                    And also from the numerical strength of the USSR Armed Forces ...
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 09: 22
                      +6
                      Quote: apro
                      And also from the numerical strength of the USSR Armed Forces ...

                      It would be nice too. A number of interesting revelations are guaranteed to you
                      1. apro
                        apro 18 December 2020 09: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quote: apro
                        And also from the numerical strength of the USSR Armed Forces ...

                        It would be nice too. A number of interesting revelations are guaranteed to you

                        And thanks for that.
            2. Senior seaman
              Senior seaman 18 December 2020 13: 23
              +5
              Quote: apro
              After a global strike ???

              We have only 1600 warheads and the world is so big ...
        2. Aag
          Aag 19 December 2020 17: 12
          0
          Quote: apro
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You will struggle to drown it with YABCh

          Apply yaba to the places of basing and control so that there is nowhere to return.

          First of all, destruction is subject to that which can "shoot" a strategic nuclear warhead (ICBM) that can give an order to launch, make a decision to use strategic nuclear forces.
          Considering the approximate parity in nuclear warheads and their carriers of the Russian Federation and the United States, the Strategic Missile Forces will not have time for the AUG ...
      2. bayard
        bayard 18 December 2020 07: 19
        +13
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You will struggle to drown it with YABCh

        In the past, this issue was approached thoroughly.
        First, a nuclear high-altitude explosion (in 400 - 500 Kt.) EMP demolishes all aviation, AWACS and avionics of enemy ships ... and only then ... a leisurely and thorough feast begins.
        In any case, the Pacific Fleet intended to do this exclusively. bully

        Otherwise, the aviation will not be enough for them.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 08: 30
          +6
          Quote: bayard
          First, a nuclear high-altitude explosion (in 400 - 500 Kt.) EMP demolishes all aviation, AWACS and avionics of enemy ships ... and only then ... a leisurely and thorough feast begins.

          Agas. Or, as an option, 8 cruise Kh-22PSIs with special warheads in the AUS area - also, solely for the purpose of EMP suppression, then - a missile carrier strike
          1. bayard
            bayard 18 December 2020 11: 18
            +6
            It is possible and so, if you do not mind missiles with nuclear warheads (then there was enough), you can trample the "Path" like that.
        2. Bez 310
          Bez 310 18 December 2020 08: 54
          +4
          Quote: bayard
          In any case, the Pacific Fleet intended to do this exclusively

          Nea ...
          1. bayard
            bayard 18 December 2020 11: 20
            +4
            The senior navigator of the Pacific Fleet MRA spoke to my friend about such intentions. And my friend then took part in the military council of the Pacific Fleet (not a member - on combat interaction). So this is from live communication.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 18 December 2020 11: 34
              +7
              Bez 310 is also an MPA navigator, among other things.
              1. bayard
                bayard 18 December 2020 23: 32
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Bez 310 is also an MRA navigator, among other things

                I know we talked.
            2. Bez 310
              Bez 310 18 December 2020 12: 37
              +4
              Quote: bayard
              senior navigator MRA Pacific Fleet

              There are no such positions, and there were none, right -
              Chief Navigator of the Pacific Fleet MA, Senior Navigator
              divisions (MRA).
              At the Military Councils "combat interaction"
              is not practiced, this gathering is politatavism.
              If you use SBS, then we are not talking about the destruction
              AVM (AUG), but about the destruction of the world.
              1. bayard
                bayard 18 December 2020 23: 51
                +2
                I am writing from memory, I did not specifically specify. Combat interaction envisaged the coordination of plans and actions during exercises, the combat output of the fleet and its provision with air defense forces and means. My comrade and his chief of staff were regularly invited to the council ... they practiced combat interaction. Then the exercises under this name were held - in 2008, if memory serves. At that time he was still leading the ROC on an initiative basis - they assembled several sets of the combat control system for interspecific interaction ... under the patronage of the district commander ... It seems to be alive as a reserve now ...
                Quote: Bez 310
                If you use SBS, then we are not talking about the destruction
                AVM (AUG), but about the destruction of the world.

                In Soviet times, they did not think in other categories, the parity of fear is a tonic and sobering thing at the same time. But by the way - the usual working moments.
        3. Escobar
          Escobar 18 December 2020 09: 05
          0
          And then sit in the bunker, wait until the radiation level drops to an acceptable level
          1. bayard
            bayard 18 December 2020 11: 21
            +4
            He quickly falls, after a few days you can go out.
            But - be careful.
            1. Escobar
              Escobar 18 December 2020 12: 40
              +2
              Yeah, we have enough canned food for 100 years ahead, we won't die of hunger
              1. Aag
                Aag 19 December 2020 17: 42
                0
                Quote: Eskobar
                Yeah, we have enough canned food for 100 years ahead, we won't die of hunger

                And from the cold?
                Yes, and got excited about conservation ...
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 18 December 2020 12: 43
              +4
              Quote: bayard
              He quickly falls, after a few days you can go out.
              But - be careful.

              Yeah. And then you go out - and there ...
              smile
              1. bayard
                bayard 18 December 2020 23: 55
                +1
                Exactly . good
                And before you look around the corner ... throw a grenade to be sure. bully
        4. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 22 December 2020 22: 56
          0
          Quote: bayard
          In the past, this issue was approached thoroughly.
          First, a nuclear high-altitude explosion (400 - 500 Kt.) EMP demolishes all aviation, AWACS and avionics of enemy ships


          The Union couldn't be so stupid.
          1. bayard
            bayard 23 December 2020 01: 05
            +1
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            The Union couldn't be so stupid.

            Right .
            He was RATIONAL.
            There is a problem - there is a solution.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 23 December 2020 01: 29
              0
              "EMP is demolishing all aviation, AWACS and avionics of enemy ships" is not a rational statement.
              1. bayard
                bayard 23 December 2020 05: 31
                +1
                The leadership of the MRA of the Navy of the Soviet Union does not agree with you.
                It was the "Path" program - a sequential detonation at the height of several nuclear warheads on the CD, which paved the way for the main anti-ship missile system, clearing the sky from fighter aircraft, AWACS aircraft and suppressing / blinding the radars and avionics of enemy ships.
                After that, the enemy ships became just targets.
                There were no muslin young ladies in the leadership and General Staff of the USSR, and the war was perceived as a WAR, and not a game of spillikins. Nobody was going to miss the first blow and give the enemy the initiative. Everyone remembered the experience of the missed strike and the lost start of the Second World War.
                YABCHs even had SAMs, in each medium and long-range battalion.
                Haven't you heard anything about this?
                There were also air-to-air missiles with nuclear warheads.
                And there were also extra-high power bottom land mines. But this is in case we missed the strike and are losing the war.
                And it was rational.
                For they did not look at the enemy through rose-colored glasses, but realizing who we were dealing with.
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 23 December 2020 12: 07
                  0
                  The Pathway program could exist, of course. But there is a difference between "paving the way" (ie using nuclear weapons as electronic warfare) and "EMP is demolishing all aircraft, AWACS and avionics of enemy ships" (this is fantastic).

                  Quote: bayard
                  YABCHs even had SAMs, in each medium and long-range battalion.
                  Haven't you heard anything about this?
                  There were also air-to-air missiles with nuclear warheads.


                  Of course. But not to defeat EMP.

                  PS As for the RATIONALITY of a nuclear war, you said it well.
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 23 December 2020 12: 33
                    +1
                    Quote: Eye of the Crying
                    But there is a difference between "paving the way" (ie using nuclear weapons as electronic warfare) and "EMP is demolishing all aircraft, AWACS and avionics of enemy ships" (this is fantastic).

                    The last of the "Trail" nuclear submarines was supposed to be blown up on approach to enemy ships, and the EMP was to shut down all the ship's electronics, or at least temporarily disable it, making it possible for the CR of the basic outfit to calmly and methodically hit enemy ships.
                    And this is not a fantasy, then the war with the USA and NATO was considered only (!) As nuclear.
                    Right away.
                    Without swinging and curtsy, as the Americans dreamed.
                    And even more so in a war at sea, where the enemy had a clear advantage in terms of pennants in terms of surface forces.
                    Quote: Eye of the Crying
                    Quote: bayard
                    YABCHs even had SAMs, in each medium and long-range battalion.
                    Haven't you heard anything about this?
                    There were also air-to-air missiles with nuclear warheads.


                    Of course. But not to defeat EMP.

                    No, those nuclear warheads had a capacity of about 5 Kt and were intended to directly engage enemy group targets in a massive raid.
                    But the EMP effect was also present in this case.
                    Quote: Eye of the Crying
                    PS As for the RATIONALITY of a nuclear war, you said it well.

                    There is nothing more rational in a war with a nuclear superpower and its allies than a preemptive or retaliatory-counter massive, all-destructive nuclear strike.
                    And this intention is very rationally communicated to the enemy ahead of time, so that he does not harbor illusions about the possibility of a "limited nuclear war in Europe", or about the "nuclear-free first stage of the war."
                    The first step towards Gorbachev's surrender was the Soviet Union's commitment not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. But this decision was made from the awareness of its strength and ability to destroy the enemy in a retaliatory strike, because all the means of the early warning system had already been deployed.
                    1. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 23 December 2020 12: 50
                      0
                      Quote: bayard
                      The last of the "Trail" nuclear submarines was supposed to be blown up on approach to enemy ships, and the EMP was to shut down all ship electronics, or at least temporarily disable it


                      I say - specific electronic warfare. How well it would have worked - HZ (remember the words of Bez310 above). But "EMP is demolishing all aircraft, AWACS and avionics of enemy ships" - this is fantasy (or even fantasy).

                      Quote: bayard
                      There is nothing more rational in a war with a nuclear superpower and its allies than a preemptive or retaliatory-counter massive, all-destructive nuclear strike.


                      There is nothing rational about a war with a nuclear superpower. And the leadership of the USSR understood this well (as did the leadership of the States).
  • Runway
    Runway 18 December 2020 05: 30
    +1
    The topic of Taiwan, South Korea and the Japanese archipelago has not been disclosed.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 18 December 2020 05: 31
    +9
    )))
    Sebastien Roblin, one of the smartest and most balanced people in the States, gave this interesting opinion.

    Ironically, the author, perhaps taught by bitter experience, no longer mentions The National Interest. It is clear that not a single self-respecting person will publish in this garbage. As for Mr. Roblin,
    Sébastien Roblin holds a Master's Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring.

    An ordinary talker.

    Actually, the discussed article confirms this. It doesn't say anything at all. 6 screens for spreading porridge on a plate.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 18 December 2020 11: 35
      +8
      6 screens for spreading porridge on a plate.


      And they were not too lazy to count! laughing
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy 18 December 2020 05: 35
    +7
    Therefore, the appearance of "Caliber", "Brahmos", "Dunfeng"


    They all need target designation. You can shoot at least 10000 km but to no avail.

    But mainly because the American aircraft carriers do not seem to spoil anyone with their raids, in which you can practice tracking them.


    So do not pamper that at least 1 is always at sea in a military campaign.

    Excellent analytics, as always about nothing.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2020 06: 32
    +11
    It is sad to state it, but an aircraft carrier is really an instrument of war against third world countries that do not have submarines, modern air defense systems, anti-ship complexes, submarines.
    A country that possesses the proper tools to combat aircraft carriers will be able to inflict not only damage on any group of ships, but possibly even fatal.

    Alas, the conclusion does not follow from the text of the article.
    The difference between the range of aircraft and coastal anti-ship systems will be the effective range of the aircraft carrier.

    Baby talk:))))
    Here it is worth considering, by the way, how the conflict between Argentina and Great Britain over the Falkland Islands would have developed, if Argentina had plenty of Exocet missiles.

    It doesn't matter for the British if the Argentines could realize their Exocets before their AWACS planes finally collapsed. And - Argentine attack aircraft with exosets would become easy prey for the British if the latter had full-fledged aircraft carriers with AWACS and normal fighters.
    In fact, everything is as usual. In fact, the Americans are adopting a construction program in which seven new aircraft carriers are planned to be commissioned within 30 years (two of which have already been funded). On the Internet and so on. Media - talk about what an outdated and useless weapon it is laughing
    1. krops777
      krops777 18 December 2020 07: 18
      0
      In fact, the Americans are adopting a construction program in which seven new aircraft carriers are planned to be commissioned within 30 years (two of which have already been funded). On the Internet and so on. Media - talk about what an obsolete and useless weapon it is laughing


      It has the right to life, but still, in the context of projecting power onto non-nuclear oil-bearing countries, it is customary for them to sit out of a puddle and bend over submissive ones, and as regards Russia and China, bend AUGami and sit behind a puddle will not work.
    2. bayard
      bayard 18 December 2020 07: 25
      +8
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In fact, everything is as usual. In fact, the Americans are adopting a construction program in which seven new aircraft carriers are planned to be commissioned within 30 years (two of which have already been funded). On the Internet and so on. Media - talk about what an outdated and useless weapon it is

      They are trying for the Chinese - to change their minds.
      And a little for us - so that they don't even think.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 18 December 2020 11: 37
        +10
        And this has been the case since Soviet times. Only before there was a different topic - large aircraft carriers are outdated, but small ones with verticals are just that. And each time it was connected with our movements in the aircraft carrier direction.
        An old topic really.
        1. Lex_is
          Lex_is 18 December 2020 11: 54
          +3
          Approximately from there, the stories about what fear they are caused by hypersonic anti-ship missiles with a ballistic trajectory, while they themselves stubbornly do not want to make such missiles and do not even try, spending huge money on the development of completely different hypersonic anti-ship missiles with a low-altitude trajectory and acceleration at the terminal plot.
  • Revolver
    Revolver 18 December 2020 06: 56
    +8
    I will not talk about cruise missiles, but ballistic missiles with a non-nuclear warhead can hit an aircraft carrier with about the same probability that a macaque, planted at a computer, will write a novel. At the entrance to the atmosphere, the warhead is blind and deaf, so all that it has is target designation at the time of launch. The satellite that gave the target designation will go beyond the horizon during the preparation of the launch and the rocket flight, and the next one will fly over this area in a few hours. And during the flight of the rocket, the ship will have time to leave in an unknown direction for a couple of miles. Even when the speed decreases and the cloud of shielding plasma dissipates, the warhead's own means of detecting will hardly be able to notice anything during its fall along the ballistic curve, and in order to correct this curve, you need to know where. So all that the warhead will do is a big splash. And in general, for the Chinese to solve a problem that neither the Russians, nor the Americans, nor the Europeans, nor the Japanese, nor the Jews have been able to solve until now - this has not happened before, and is unlikely to be at least during the lifetime of the living generations. And the task of hitting a freely moving target with a ballistic missile is oh, how non-trivial.
    1. bayard
      bayard 18 December 2020 07: 33
      +7
      Aiming correction is carried out in the transatmospheric area, before entering dense layers. A ship, and especially an aircraft carrier, is a rather inertial carcass, so a correctly calculated lead gives a fairly high quality of hits.
      In the USSR, they worked on this topic from the 60s and all the 70s. But the topic was then closed. The Chinese remembered / learned about it, lured away specialists and implemented it using modern technologies.
      Russia has heavy anti-ship missiles, SSGNs, and the remnants of MRA ... The Chinese did not have any of this, but they had MRBMs ... so they used them to implement the old Soviet reserve.
      And well done.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 18 December 2020 11: 39
        +9
        No, your opponent is right. There is another problem there - a ballistic warhead, which simply falls from above without maneuvering, even the SM-6 is easily lost.

        In addition, it is necessary that the BB at the top of the trajectory is where it is needed, which is very difficult.

        Our R-27K failed by the way, and was not accepted into service.
        1. bayard
          bayard 19 December 2020 00: 02
          +2
          You can act differently - blow up the first BB with SBCH at a height, knocking out all the electronics, and then finish a just cause. But this is if you fight as an adult.
          A kind of analogue of the Soviet "Path".
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 18 December 2020 14: 35
        +11
        Quote: bayard
        The ship, and especially the aircraft carrier - the carcass is quite inertial,

        It's a pretty nimble car! Don't believe me?

        Atlantic Ocean (June 14, 2011). Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower makes a turn during sea trials. Photo by US Navy First Class Mass Communications Specialist Christopher Stolz.
        And this is AVMA J. Ford "drifting" ...
        The main thing is that during such "evolutions" the equipment on the flight deck should be loosened ... And in the hangar too!
        AHA.
        1. bayard
          bayard 19 December 2020 00: 04
          +1
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          It's a pretty nimble car! Don't believe me?

          This is if he knows that they are flying to him.
          And that they fly to him.
          However, this is already the concern of the Chinese. bully
        2. SVD68
          SVD68 19 December 2020 09: 31
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          It's a pretty nimble car! Don't believe me?

          Why are there no planes and helicopters on the deck?
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 December 2020 12: 22
            0
            Quote: SVD68
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            It's a pretty nimble car! Don't believe me?

            Why are there no planes and helicopters on the deck?

            These are sea trials, either after repair (1), or upon delivery (2) of the ship. The element is called checking the maneuverability of the ship when shifting the rudder from one side to another. Ours almost wrote out the GXNUMX. In this case, the ship broadcast announced: Check the maneuverability of the ship! - Be careful, the ship turns to the right, and then: - the ship turns to the left.
            The planes were all in the hangar, under the flight deck. And as for the Ams - I don't know.
        3. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 27 December 2020 21: 38
          -2
          vobschetot while you are here rubbing on the Chinese there is a GOS bggyg ... and on other PCR too Suddenly !!!
  • puteovii
    puteovii 18 December 2020 07: 22
    -2
    "What will happen to aircraft carriers if they take on more difficult tasks than suppressing third world countries?"
    And Russia is not like a third world country. With a permanent leader for more than 20 years and villages without roads, alkalization and water supply. Oh yes, rockets and bombs are really Soviet. North Koreans also rivet like that.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 18 December 2020 14: 43
      -3
      Quote: puteovii
      And Russia is not like a third world country.

      Begone, wicked trolina!
  • Graz
    Graz 18 December 2020 07: 36
    -8
    no doubt, aircraft carriers in their current form in the future are not viable in the confrontation with an equal or even not very inferior side, all interested parties will look for a new format of such ships, possibly filled with drones, and smaller, simpler and cheaper
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 18 December 2020 21: 41
      +3
      Well this is just for you without a doubt.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 18 December 2020 08: 17
    +5
    "And we haven't touched the planes yet. The same Tu-95 is able to shoot 16 Kh-55 missiles ..."
    And it was not necessary to "touch" the Tu-95, which does not know how to work on ships.
    No, in principle, it can work if the aircraft carrier is stationary,
    and its coordinates will be known in advance. By the way, the Tu-160 shouldn't be touched either.
    1. Sanguinius
      Sanguinius 18 December 2020 17: 53
      +2
      Greetings! Is it possible to be interested in ... why the Tu-95 and Tu-160 are not able to work on surface targets?
      PS The question was asked in order to eliminate illiteracy, so to speak!)
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 18 December 2020 18: 51
        +4
        Quote: Sanguinius
        in order to eliminate illiteracy

        The missiles carried by these aircraft are intended for use against strategically important stationary ground targets with known coordinates in advance.
        1. Sanguinius
          Sanguinius 18 December 2020 18: 57
          0
          Thanks for the answer)
          But let's say KR X-32, unable to solve this problem? It seems like if you are guided by open data, it can do it, the only question is in the media!
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 18 December 2020 19: 22
            +6
            Quote: Sanguinius
            KR X-32

            I am well acquainted with its predecessor, KR X-22,
            but I know about the X-32 only from the Internet, and the declared
            the launch range raises questions about the control center.
            Well, there is no carrier for it yet ...
  • Jünger
    Jünger 18 December 2020 08: 20
    +6
    Rockets, rockets ... It is clear that if a rocket hits, then anyone will get sick. But right there, there seemed to be a good article that the trick was not in missiles, but in target designation. Finding the goal is the task and the problem, and not that someone can launch granites in packs from under the water.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 December 2020 08: 29
    +9
    anti-ship ballistic missile.


    For more than 100 years, anti-ship ballistic missiles have been used, they are good for everyone, but they rarely hit the target.
    1. Ivanchester
      Ivanchester 18 December 2020 12: 12
      +1
      And before that, for several centuries, anti-ship kinetic nuclei were used, which showed themselves well in a number of battles. lol
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 December 2020 12: 17
        +2
        One thing is bad, you have to come close.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 18 December 2020 08: 51
    +1
    Strategy for a long life of aviks - lock the countries most important to you within their borders and the whole world is yours,
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 18 December 2020 08: 59
    +12
    So it was written here earlier, with analysis and evidence.
    Aug greatly complicates the operation of alien submarines within a radius of 1000 km. And he helps his own.

    I have met 2 times excerpts from interviews of our high-ranking officers of the Navy, that in 1000 km AUG sees all missile launches.

    And the earlier article - that it is easy to get on AUG - is a lie. Difficult to target.

    So the story is about a fox and grapes. Everyone needs a floating Airfield + Warehouse + Radar + Military aviation right at sea
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 December 2020 12: 24
      +1
      The radio horizon from a height of 10 km will be 400 kilometers. This is the maximum detection radius of any systems that AUG has. That is, it is possible that the AWACS aircraft will detect something at such a distance. But I would like to remind you that the areas of circles with a radius of 1000 km and 400 km differ by a factor of 6.25. So your 1000 km radius requires absolutely horse resources for at least minimal coverage.
      1. Maks1995
        Maks1995 18 December 2020 13: 54
        0
        Not special What I met, what I read here, I remembered.

        * Just yesterday or the day before yesterday, an article was somewhere nearby that our under-radars can even see stealths, not like launching missiles, across all of Europe ...
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 18 December 2020 17: 41
        +3
        Quote: EvilLion
        This is the limiting detection radius of any systems that AUG has

        The AUG is not in itself, it uses data from satellites, base AWACS aircraft (Sentry), base patrol and anti-submarine aircraft and UAVs (Orions, Neptunes, etc.), other ships, etc. So the range of the deck Hockey players has nothing to do with it, it's their own eyes and ears. In addition, the four Hokkaev, loitering at a distance from the AUG (the distance from the aircraft carrier plus the range of the onboard equipment), will completely block 1000
      3. Escobar
        Escobar 19 December 2020 21: 47
        +1
        And if to these 400 km we add the distance at which the drlo plane separates from the aircraft carrier?
      4. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 41
        -1
        but the plane flying at a distance of 700 are forced to fly at an altitude of 10 and they will be seen there for all 800 from .. so to speak above the deck))
  • Escobar
    Escobar 18 December 2020 08: 59
    +5
    The author is typical, as Timokhin said, "pink pony" broadcasts about some satellites from which we will see all aircraft carriers and throw missiles. Here is an article for you about target designation problems https://topwar.ru/176421-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-problema-celeukazanija.html
    And about the vulnerability of aircraft carriers https://yandex.ru/turbo/topwar.ru/s/161611-skolko-nado-raket-i-torped-chtob-potopit-avianosec-.html
    And of course, about submarines with kilometer depths delivered
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 27 December 2020 18: 42
      -1
      tongue So Aegis irradiates and sees everything, and it is always possible to detect it by the radiation of the LOW, but the positions of the Russian air defense forces are always known in advance and there is no air force. it's as obvious as everything and everyone
      1. Escobar
        Escobar 27 December 2020 20: 07
        +2
        Our naval aviation is in a depressing state
        1. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 27 December 2020 21: 36
          -3
          uvas yes)) we have a tu22 and a dagger for 3000 km. and even about the horror in coastal defense complexes there are helicopters to search for ships half a thousand kilometers from the coast) and a bunch of other things that you have, like air defense and tanks and bomber aviation, are stupid and not convincing.
          1. Escobar
            Escobar 28 December 2020 07: 50
            +2
            Yeah, so about the guidance problems, you haven't read the article. That the aircraft carrier should stand still while the rocket is flying at it, and for its detection we use IL-20 turboprop. Which are categorically contraindicated in meetings with enemy air defenses. And what kind of helicopters as part of coastal missile systems to detect an enemy with a range of half a thousand km? If we do not produce drlo helicopters for our fleet? And some kind of "bunch of other things" that we all zakoshmarit?
            1. Evil Booth
              Evil Booth 28 December 2020 10: 03
              -2
              classic agenre, I don’t know, it means THIS is not true in THIS is the truth ... so I don’t know if you have 4 legs, but it means you have 5 arms. so normal or here you do not like your logic?
              The composition of the "Bastion-P" complex
              File: Application of the BRK "Bastion" in the exercise of the Northern Fleet forces in the Arctic.webm
              Firing cruise missiles "Onyx" from the BRK "Bastion" on the island. Boiler house on September 25, 2018.
              RCC K-310 "Yakhont" in the transport and launch container
              Self-propelled launchers (SPU K340P) on the MZKT-7930 chassis (crew of 3 people) [4]
              The combat control vehicle (MBU K380P) on the KamAZ-43101 chassis (crew of 4 people) or MZKT-65273 (crew of 4 people)
              Equipment for information and technical interfacing of PBRK combat assets with the head command post
              Automated combat control system (ASBU) PBRK
              Maintenance complex (KSTO)
              Transport and loading machines (TZM K342P)
              Military alert vehicles (MOBD)
              Training complex (UTK)
              Helicopter target designation complex (VCC) with a range of 300. Who said that the helicopter sees closer and flies exactly above the ground? searches for x detection means a huge number of vabshcheto)) similarly to T90 since 88, it is still impenetrable for the abrmas projectile in fact and not miiliards of messages that this is not so I do not change the performance characteristics))
  • Arnaut
    Arnaut 18 December 2020 09: 18
    +9
    "How scary it is for a nuclear submarine, which lurked at a depth of about a kilometer and are just waiting for the moment when the order to destroy the enemy is received is a question."
    How many nuclear submarines does Russia have that spent a long time during exercises at a depth of "about a kilometer"?
    How many nuclear submarines do you need to wait for an aircraft carrier?
    How many regular anti-submarine weapons are there in the AUG?

    Answering these questions, you can do about the rest of the "facts and arguments" of the author of the article.

    And yes. Recently there was a series of articles that revealed the problems of finding the AUG in the ocean and the problems of target designation and guidance of "unparalleled" missiles at the AUG. And no less sensible series of articles on the capabilities of air defense and missile defense AUG.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 10: 15
      -5
      Quote: Arnaut
      How many nuclear submarines do you need to wait for an aircraft carrier?

      the fewer aircraft carriers Russia will have, the more nuclear submarines will become, the law of conservation of matter and energy.
      1. Korax71
        Korax71 18 December 2020 17: 10
        +4
        The more nuclear submarines the RF has, the more powerful the NK grouping should be. Apl in one person never fight. The same law of conservation of energy.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 17: 13
          -3
          Quote: Korax71
          apl in one person never fight

          a false statement is made! Where have you seen the submarines going in a squadron on a combat mission?
          1. Korax71
            Korax71 18 December 2020 17: 40
            +4
            Ensuring the exit of nuclear submarines from the naval base to the operational space, ensuring combat stability, protection from ASW aircraft. All your nuclear submarines are reset to zero at one moment if the enemy mines the route of exiting the naval base. To the deployment area. Discussion of such a plan: "and we will make more submarines, they are invisible and they are secretive" - ​​there is a discussion of the spheroconin in a vacuum. Submarines have not yet learned how to deal with anti-submarine aircraft, while the latter have learned to open quite well their location.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 17: 58
              0
              Quote: Korax71
              Ensuring the exit of the nuclear submarine from the naval base into the operational space,

              This is precisely the opportunity that is necessary, but it is not AB that implements it, but coastal means of minesweepers, (you wrote about mines here) corvettes and frigates, BODs, coastal planes, plo helicopters, that's what is extremely necessary
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 17: 20
          -1
          Quote: Korax71
          the same law of conservation of energy.

          well, I understand that there is a certain budget, how do you have a family budget at home, I want to buy myself a gaz13 seagull (I really want a childhood dream), it is clear that then I have to sell all my Volga gas 21 and still not enough, so I don’t gas13, but there is only gas21 ... why did you decide that after spending $ 20 billion on AB, the budget of the Russian Federation will suddenly have funds for 20 urgently needed nuclear submarines? will they fall from the sky or what? money that grows on trees like bananas? then to africa show me the money tree
          1. Korax71
            Korax71 18 December 2020 17: 44
            +2
            It's not about aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and NK. The point is that everything should develop proportionally, if you have a large fleet of nuclear submarines, then an appropriate NK grouping is needed for their full service. Just ask what kind of forces and means are needed to withdraw the nuclear submarine into deployment area.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 18: 03
              -1
              Quote: Korax71
              to withdraw the nuclear submarine to the deployment area.

              not true, not withdrawal to the deployment area (which is physically unfeasible), but exit from the basing area, which is simply necessary and the Russian Federation does not have enough funds for this now, so it is this task that needs to be solved, coastal planes are flat and shock, minesweepers, corvettes, frigates and bpk. while they are not there, you don't even need to think about AB, stupid
              1. Lex_is
                Lex_is 18 December 2020 20: 05
                0
                and so it is precisely this task that needs to be solved, coastal planes and attack planes, minesweepers, corvettes, frigates and bpk. while they are not there, you don't even need to think about AB, stupid


                Vod completely agree with this.
                This is what is needed in the first place and was needed the day before yesterday.
      2. Arnaut
        Arnaut 18 December 2020 22: 00
        +2
        I wrote about something completely different.
        In order for the AUG to destroy the nuclear submarine "hidden" at the depth, there are many hundreds of such boats.

        And about the aircraft carriers of Russia ... If Russia wants to be an Empire and "have the right to have" it needs aircraft carriers. And not one or two or three. And it is possible and necessary to shake the oligarchs and tighten the belts of ordinary people.
        And if Russia wants to become a new Sweden, a happy country for happy people, but without ambition, then aircraft carriers are not needed.
        You just need to choose a path and follow it straight.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 20 December 2020 17: 31
          0
          Quote: Arnaut
          If Russia wants to be an Empire and it needs the "right to have"

          not empty show-offs, but nuclear submarines and ICBMs. are needed and a defenseless barge with planes will not surprise anyone, and no one will see it from the shore, after all
          1. Arnaut
            Arnaut 20 December 2020 20: 24
            +2
            Nuclear submarines and ICBMs are the last argument.
            The last grenade, when the choice is either captured or not boring to die.
            This is not a weapon for combat.
            Moreover, no one really knows (and should not know) how many rockets can actually be launched in ideal conditions. And not ideal. After all, they will not hit when Russia is at its peak. They will strike like in 1941. When they dug up all the airfields, when the rearmament was in full swing with new, but still raw and undeveloped weapons, when the army was on the move and not deployed. And most importantly, when special operations created indecision at all levels of headquarters. Don't provoke.
            So it may be now. When there will be a lot of nuclear submarines under repair, when there will be maintenance of the mines, when will it turn out that most of the nuclear submarines will be fixed and targeted by the hunters, when the management will be confident that everything will be resolved peacefully.
            Then they will hit.

            And AUG is always in sight (in a good way). This is a real universal force that can be applied anywhere in the world, in any situation. And of course there should be more than one, not two or three.

            Otherwise ... excuse me ... Upper Volta with missiles. Which the Washington regional committee may allow to build the SP-2, or may not. And the main thing in this choice is not the reaction or interests of Russia, but what is more to please the African Americans of Brooklyn or the redneck farmers from Alabama.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 00: 42
              0
              Quote: Arnaut
              When all the airfields were dug up

              a rather strange statement, and an unreasonable doubt in the mental health of Colonel General V.N. Bondarev respected by all adequate people. and General of the Army Shoigu S.K, as a person who does not know the rank (pug), tries to bark at respected people, become at least a major general first, so that you insult respected people and senior military commanders
              1. Arnaut
                Arnaut 21 December 2020 22: 24
                +1
                Airfields were dug up in 1941 by no less respected people: Stalin, Beria, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, etc.
                And they did not command the firemen.
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 00: 45
              0
              Quote: Arnaut
              And AUG is always in sight (in a good way)

              a complete doubt about a well-known and important tactical technique, a young man is called "camouflage", now this is the most important example, even we have many mobile devices, and this is the main drawback of your beloved AB .. where did the tactics go? you deuce
      3. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 20 December 2020 13: 39
        0
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Quote: Arnaut
        How many nuclear submarines do you need to wait for an aircraft carrier?

        the fewer aircraft carriers Russia will have, the more nuclear submarines will become, the law of conservation of matter and energy.

        there is no direct relationship. We may not have one or the other. Well, no matter how you should level the aircraft carrier and the nuclear submarine (and which one?), These are two completely different types of weapons, which you cannot do without. One solves one problem, the second - another, and both of them are important. You, as a stupid one, compare what to take in the raid, whether a rifle, or a food ration, or a walkie-talkie. Everything is important, everything is needed
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 20 December 2020 17: 37
          -1
          Quote: Gregory_45
          One solves one problem, the second - another

          you twist "like a stupid", you have no logic, why did you decide that we cannot do without AV, the task of the submarine is to strike retaliation against the aggressor, wherever he is and whoever he is, but what is the task of AV in your opinion ?, that is the question, it simply doesn’t have AB for Russia. that's why you wrap up phrases like that, dump the necessary nuclear submarines into a heap and distort the unnecessary ones, .. if you do not voice the AB tasks to everyone, then you are ... a person with empty words
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 20 December 2020 19: 29
            0
            Quote: vladimir1155
            if you do not announce the tasks of AB to everyone, then you ...

            babbling baby nursery group))
            Quote: vladimir1155
            What is your AV problem?

            ensuring the combat stability of its own fleet. Unless, of course, the fleet does not intend to guard the coastal cliffs, but intends to act as the fleet of a naval power. Ensuring combat stability is the solution of air defense, anti-aircraft defense and strike functions. What happens when the enemy has air supremacy, we have observed many times, with different countries as the "main characters". Only a full down can not understand the importance of air support. And at sea, except from an aircraft carrier, there is nowhere to take planes. Coastal airfields are too far away, and the flight time from them is long. Aviation may not arrive at all, or it may arrive when it is no longer needed.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 00: 01
              -1
              very unreliable cover a little breeze and the planes do not take off, And AB has no anti-submarine weapons, the corvette and the frigate have them. and at AB only the PLO helicopter is the same as that of the corvette. AB is not reassigned for ASW, it is a strike weapon against weak coastal states that are not capable of destroying the AB itself, which is defenseless against mines and submarines of the enemy. It would seem that AB can be used against the enemy's NK, but they are not very afraid of the SU in good weather, they have air defenses, their aircraft are thicker than Kuzi's, coastal strike and front and long-range aviation, tactical submarines are effective against the enemy's NK. and the su link is too weak. will not overcome the enemy's echeloned air defense, unless of course it is not the Papuans who attack the Russian Federation
              Quote: Gregory_45
              Ensuring combat stability is the solution of air defense, anti-aircraft defense and strike functions
              AB does not have them, except for Granite missiles (in an unknown state) like a frigate armed with Calibers and a SU link taking off in good weather, you landlords do not understand what a beaufort scale is, understand even with nims you can not always take off ... about the fleet of a naval power empty slogans, Russia has not been a sea power for a long time, it has never even been a sea power, because it has no colonies, it does not critically depend on sea trade. all the main industrial centers and the overwhelming concentration of the population inside the mainland
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 21 December 2020 08: 49
                0
                Quote: vladimir1155
                very unreliable cover a little breeze and planes do not take off,

                Nonsense. We teach materiel.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                And AB has no anti-submarine weapons, the corvette and the frigate have them. and at AB only the PLO helicopter is the same as that of the corvette

                what are you saying))
                First, AB has a GAK
                Secondly, it has SEVERAL helicopters, which is a priori more efficient than one. Do you know why helicopter carriers of the "Moscow" ("Condors") type were built, although, in theory, any BOD of the USSR could carry a deck helicopter? Vladimir, do you really know all this?
                Quote: vladimir1155
                coastal strike and front-line and long-range aviation are effective against enemy NK

                but where to get it in the ocean, and even at the right time, can you tell me?
                Quote: vladimir1155
                Ensuring combat stability is the solution of air defense, anti-aircraft defense and strike functions
                AB does not have them, except for Granit missiles

                again about Kuznetsov)) Vladimir, they talk to you about aircraft carriers as a whole, but you keep rolling down to Kuznetsov. Do you not know how to read, or do you perceive the meaning of what is written badly?
                Quote: vladimir1155
                there are empty slogans about the navy of a sea power, Russia has not been a sea power for a long time

                and you advocate to leave "as is"?
                Quote: vladimir1155
                never even was a sea power, for it has no colonies

                The USSR was. Although he had no colonies. It has nothing to do with it.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 09: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  First, AB has a GAK

                  have you seen it, turned it on? she works? how old is she? I can imagine how AB, like a frigate, is chasing a submarine ...
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 21 December 2020 10: 24
                    0
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    I can imagine how AB, like a frigate, chases the submarine

                    he doesn't need that, not because of his status. GAK are AB's own ears. To combat submarines, he has specialized helicopters (earlier there were specialized aircraft on the American AB), which have a larger radius and weapons
                  2. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 21 December 2020 10: 24
                    0
                    In order not to beat around the bush for a long time, I will pose the only question: are you an opponent of the aircraft cover of ships?
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 20: 29
                      0
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      enemy of the aircraft cover of ships?

                      I consider the most important air cover for surface ships ... only reliable all-weather and massive, that is, coast-based aircraft. I consider the use of carrier-based aircraft unreliable, costly and suboptimal and too risky, I think that the surface ships of the Russian Federation, due to their small number and the specifics of the tasks of the Russian Navy, should not move beyond 3000 km from their coast, taking into account the need for their support by coastal aviation and coastal means, radar, missiles, underwater tracking systems, etc.
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 December 2020 20: 42
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        I consider the most important air cover for surface ships

                        however, he is an ardent opponent of aircraft carriers. Is logic dead long ago? There are no airfields in the sea, there are two alternatives - either not to have aircraft, or to have an aircraft carrier. So far, nothing else (such as a portal for teleporting aircraft) has not been invented.

                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        only reliable all-weather and massed, that is, shore-based aircraft

                        the fact of the matter is that coast-based aviation,
                        1.Not all weather. There are restrictions on takeoff and landing of aircraft depending on the weather (no one will fly into a hurricane).
                        2. Too far, it may not have enough range, or it will arrive too late. they did not come up with such an airplane so that it hung over ships for days.
                        It is necessary to know the history of wars and learn from it. Heard of "Connection Z"? So, the newest battleship and still quite capable battle cruiser were sunk in the open ocean (!), Not constrained either by maneuver or speed, in a matter of minutes by Japanese aviation. British fighters arrived from the coastal airfield. But even then, when the Japanese trail was gone, and only the survivors were floundering in the water.

                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        I consider the use of carrier-based aircraft unreliable, costly and suboptimal and too risky

                        Americans, British and French with Japanese, and also Indians and Chinese do not agree with you. Don't you think there are too many "who are wrong"?

                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        I believe that, due to their small number and the specifics of the tasks of the Russian Navy, the surface ships of the Russian Federation should not move beyond 3000 km from their coast, taking into account the need for their support by coastal aviation and coastal facilities, radar stations, missiles, underwater tracking systems, etc.

                        yeah, all the same, the rocks are going to be protected, right? And if the war, and we have no fleet? Will we remember 1941, again with our pants down?
                      2. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 20: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Americans, British and French with Japanese, and also Indians and Chinese do not agree with you. Don't you think there are too many "who are wrong"?

                        all of the above have powerful economies and enough escort ships for their ABs, in addition, they all have interests far from their shores, Russia has neither one nor the other, I do not cancel the very idea of ​​AB, although I consider it ineffective, but I think what specifically for the Russian Federation specifically during the first half of the 21st century, AB is not needed.
                      3. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 December 2020 21: 01
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        they have interests far from their shores, Russia has neither one nor the other

                        Read the naval doctrine of the Russian Federation. It is freely available.
                        Yeah, and MTO points in Tartus and Sudan. Write to Putin that you shouldn't have started this in vain, there is no need for Russian ships to go far from the coast. Otherwise, one goes to the Mediterranean, the other to the Red ...
                      4. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 21: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Otherwise, one goes to the Mediterranean, the other to the Red ...

                        these items are for peacetime only
                      5. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 December 2020 21: 06
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        these items are for peacetime only

                        true?)))
                        And read the doctrine. You will discover many new things.
  • Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 20 December 2020 13: 42
    0
    Vladimir, did you serve in the navy? Then why such silly statements? I’m all over land, fuel oil, but I also understand that the fleet should not be lopsided, but balanced, and without air support - nowhere. For example, I would not want the enemy to go into battle with the enemy's aviation dominating in the sky. And you, apparently, can easily go to die in iron boxes in the ocean, and even drag the ripples behind you ??
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 December 2020 17: 58
      0
      dear Gregory, you land people do not understand everything, this is natural. On land, the weather generally changes, you do not even notice it, Not that at sea that seems like a breeze to you, then at sea there is a storm by points, your trees sway and at sea the ship walks so that, out of habit, you cannot eat for a week, food is all it will come out back and even an empty stomach turns inside out .. Planes fly to you, you don't know where, but there are many of them and with full combat load, and in any weather. The plane does not arrive at sea at all, it doesn’t take off a little roll, all the vaunted AB gives out the SU link no more with an incomplete load and only near itself. this link will not create any dominance in the air.
      Quote: Gregory_45
      easily go to die in iron boxes in the ocean, and even drag them along behind you ??
      just exactly my enemies (hurray the patriots in impotent rage minus me because I have no other arguments), and they are going to go in iron boxes to no one knows where and no one knows why, taking with them 5000 children, mostly young. The combat stability of AB is not at all, it can blow up on a mine, it can get a torpedo, it has air defense for combat stability at the level of a corvette, and aviation is not all-weather, if there is a wind (and the sea is rarely calm) and all its aviation and helicopters are flat, the enemy only wait for the right weather and drown him whatever he wants, especially since the entire navy can only allocate one cruiser to accompany him into the ocean ... My concept just coincides with yours, the exit of surface ships no more than 3000 km from the base with the aim of flat coastal zone to protect coastal aviation. Next go only nuclear submarines, which are very secretive and extremely difficult to find in the ocean. In my concept, only one ship does not fit into the navy, this is Kuzya. expensive, heavy, bulky and unrepairable
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 20 December 2020 19: 37
        0
        Quote: vladimir1155
        The plane at sea does not arrive at all, almost pitching does not take off

        aircraft carriers are capable of providing aviation operations within the same limits as a land airfield. But if there is a hurricane at sea, the enemy will not be able to conduct hostilities. There are also "weather restrictions" on missile launch.

        Quote: vladimir1155
        the link of the SU is no more with a partial load and only near itself. this link will not create any dominance in the air

        but what has Kuznetsov to do with (as I understand, you are talking about him?), if we are talking about aircraft carriers in general? Does American Nimitz know which wing has it?
        And a squadron of dryers is better than nothing anyway

        Quote: vladimir1155
        The combat stability of AB has no

        this is just your purely personal and incorrect opinion

        Quote: vladimir1155
        can blow up on a mine, can get a torpedo

        imagine this can happen to any ship. your reasoning resembles childish babble - a tank can be disparaged by an ATGM, let's not build tanks. And an infantryman can be killed with a bullet, let's give up the army? You yourself do not understand that you are writing nonsense?

        Quote: vladimir1155
        My concept is just the same as yours

        does not match at all. My opinion is that you shouldn't go anywhere without aviation. Ship at sea - any ship without air support, even if you put 100500 air defense systems on it, is doomed. They will score. Has history taught you anything, or you just don't know it?

        Quote: vladimir1155
        Only nuclear submarines go further

        and the nuclear submarine to provide support for the surface fleet and aviation is not necessary? Are they superweapons, stealthy and invulnerable? Are they walking along the bottom of the Mariana Trench?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 00: 19
          0
          Quote: Gregory_45
          aircraft carriers are capable of providing aviation operations within the same limits as a land airfield.

          obviously you are not a pilot ... but what are aerodrome tables, what is the length of the airfield, the runway of the airfield, why are radio beacons, dispatchers on it, why are its coordinates all entered into the memory of aircraft, what is the difference between a long one and a meek one, what is a prohibition of landing in the weather and a spare aerodrome? and you say that the moving and swinging super short and narrow AB deck on the open sea is the same? truly kindergarten nursery group
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 21 December 2020 08: 40
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Are you saying that the moving and swinging super short and narrow AB deck on the open sea is the same?

            It's not good, Vladimir, to distort the words of your interlocutor. Immediately betrays the greatest mind of our time))
            On business. Yes, an aircraft carrier of normal displacement is capable of ensuring the operation of aviation in practically the same weather conditions as a land airfield. AB of the Nimitz type can receive and release aircraft with waves of up to 7 points. As for the wind, AB can turn against it, in contrast to the runway of a land aerodrome, which is stationary by definition. Side wind at the land airfield - that's it, the flights are over.
            You will be surprised, but the enemy cannot do anything in such weather. Many RCCs also have a 6-7 score limit. Everyone, everyone is resting and enjoying the storm)

            Quote: vladimir1155
            clearly you are not a pilot

            Well, even more so, and not a sailor - don't go to a fortune-teller here. Continue further?
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 09: 15
              0
              Quote: Gregory_45
              sailor

              what is the wind in the sea and how unstable it is in directions I know ... unlike you, who naively thinks that a ship is better for landing than a concrete strip because of the absence of a crosswind, the ship is prowling in this crush, and the plane will not be well at exactly 7 points ...
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 21 December 2020 10: 05
                +1
                Quote: vladimir1155
                thinking naively that a ship is better for landing than a concrete strip

                Where was it said that AB is better for landing? In order not to be branded as a hollow, quote.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 20: 21
                  0
                  "aircraft carriers are capable of providing aviation work within the same limits as a land airfield." Gregory is your words, see above
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 21 December 2020 20: 30
                    +1
                    I remember my words. And there was no phrase that AB is better. Where did you find it? You were asked to quote in Russian. Are you or a gibberish? Or are you making up for the interlocutor?
                  2. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 20: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    hollow, is it?

                    excuse me, Grigory, it doesn't matter to me what it looks like, you wrote that since there is a crosswind at a concrete airfield, the ship is better, "As for the wind, AB can turn against it, unlike the runway of a land airfield, which is stationary by definition. land airfield - that's it, the flights are over "the meaning of your phrase, which is better than a concrete runway? or another meaning ?. and in this phrase "aircraft carriers are capable of ensuring the operation of aviation within the same limits as a land airfield." .... that the ship and the concrete strip are the same .... you are also wrong, this is not your truth, so short and narrow jumping runway and even without lights .... where have you seen? but to find fault with words, and quoting you, it's like a little.
                  3. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 21 December 2020 20: 54
                    +1
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    then the ship is better

                    but you invented it yourself. That's why I asked for a quote. For how you managed to understand or not understand my words is not my problem, but yours. I write in black in Russian, and what my opponent has in his head, I cannot answer for that.

                    If you asked where it is more difficult to take off, and where to land, you would get a definite answer - of course, for an aircraft carrier. And the "take-off" is small, and the approach glide path is steeper (the plane almost falls on the deck), and it is problematic to go to the go-around. And if the finisher breaks, you will at least have to swim. If the plane does not press down.

                    And I wrote that AB are quite capable of acting in bad weather. life on them does not freeze "with a light breeze", as you write. capable of acting up to the point where the enemy is no longer capable of launching missiles. So there is parity - in a wild storm, no one will harm anyone (except for the elements). The missiles are in the launcher, the planes are moored in the hangar.

                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    and quoting you, it's like a shallow

                    this is your confirmation of your words. Would bring a quote - and would be on a horse. But you cannot, because they invented and attributed it to me. You have to answer for the words, right? At least that's the way it is in decent society, and that's what men do.
                  4. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 20: 58
                    0
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    the unequivocal answer is, of course, to an aircraft carrier. And the "take-off" is small, and the approach glide path is steeper (the plane almost falls on the deck), and it is problematic to go to the go-around. And if the finisher breaks, you will at least have to swim. If the plane does not press down.

                    that's nice, finally, then you can not argue further, I'm not a bore
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 09: 21
        0
        Quote: Gregory_45
        everyone is resting and enjoying the storm)

        especially submarines that took advantage of the noise of the sea and freely approached AB almost at periscope depth ...
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 00: 20
    -1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    Yes, and a squadron of dryers

    where did you see her on AB?
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 December 2020 08: 41
      0
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Quote: Gregory_45
      Yes, and a squadron of dryers

      where did you see her on AB?

      If you are again for Kuznetsov, he is capable of taking on board up to 20-26 fighters. I hope you know how many planes are in the squadron, but no - google for help.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 21 December 2020 09: 10
        +1
        Quote: Gregory_45
        take on board up to 20-26 fighters

        not quite take on board ... but rather place it in a hangar ... take on deck or release from the deck no more than 6-8 at a time, the rest is a reserve to replace those that may be lost ... but over the past 20 years no more than 4 of them were seen in the air, the state of the rest is unknown and doubtful, especially since a lot was actually lost in plane crashes, and no information was received about their replacement to compensate for losses
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 21 December 2020 10: 19
          0
          Quote: vladimir1155
          Quote: Gregory_45
          take on board up to 20-26 fighters

          not quite take on board.

          you also have a problem with terminology? This means ensuring the operation of such a number of aircraft, including their regular placement, maintenance and combat support.
  • Firelake
    Firelake 21 December 2020 14: 29
    +1
    Vov up to 43 years old showed that without air support, you can only make a breakthrough to the next world.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 18 December 2020 09: 47
    -6
    I fully support the esteemed Roman Skomorokhov, and I see that in America objectively thinking specialists state an obvious fact. Aircraft carrier weapon of aggression against third world countries
  • BAI
    BAI 18 December 2020 09: 49
    +3
    It is the world's first anti-ship ballistic missile. Flight range - 1800 km. That is, "Dunfeng"

    Is it the first one? Is China ahead of the USSR (RF) and the USA?
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 18 December 2020 15: 58
      +3
      The first was the R-27K over 40 years ago. Experienced, thought, and decided not to accept it (anti-ship missiles like "Basalt" and "Granit" were enough)
      http://makeyev.ru/activities/missile-systems/2/RaketaR27K/

  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 18 December 2020 10: 15 <