Foreign press: US Navy aircraft carriers may lose their superiority due to the latest missiles from Russia and China

US aircraft carriers may lose their advantage due to the latest missiles developed by Russia and China. According to Business Insider, the new anti-ship missiles pose a "real threat" to aircraft carriers in the US Navy.

The American edition notes that Russia has developed and is successfully testing the Zircon hypersonic cruise missile, which reached Mach 8 during the tests. China, in turn, tested new long-range anti-ship ballistic missiles that hit a target ship in the South China Sea in the summer of 2020.

According to the author of the publication, new Russian and Chinese missiles may deprive American aircraft carriers of their "guaranteed advantage", and aircraft carriers will cease to play a "key role" in the conflicts in which the United States has been involved since the early 90s.

Tests (missiles - approx) are just the latest evidence that American aircraft carriers, long considered the rulers of the seas, may soon face a real threat to their existence.

- the author writes.

According to the author, missile defense is not capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles due to the speed and ability to change the flight trajectory. At the same time, he admits that all the capabilities of the Russian and Chinese anti-ship missiles are still unknown.

The true capabilities of the new anti-ship weapons of Russia and China are still unknown, but recent tests prove that the US Navy aircraft carriers may soon lose their unconditional dominance.

- summarizes the author.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

Foreign press: US Navy aircraft carriers may lose their superiority due to the latest missiles from Russia and China

Well, if you can write this about China, then such lines about Russia sound a mockery.

[Hunter 2]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Foreign press: US Navy aircraft carriers may lose their superiority due to the latest missiles from Russia and China

Well, if you can write this about China, then such lines about Russia sound a mockery.

And what is the "mockery" then? It is not the number of the ship composition that is being compared, but the new anti-ship missiles. Weapons similar to Zircon - the US simply does not!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Hunter 2

It is not the number of the ship composition that is being compared, but the new anti-ship missiles. Weapons similar to Zircon - the US simply does not!

They do not compare because the level does not allow or the installation of the editor, but we will be a higher level with you, right? And there is no editor above us, so we can compare. And in this case, the mockery, albeit unintentional, is evident.

[Sergey Nikiforov]

And you are sure that we have What, what, but we know how to splurge. Suffice it to recall how in the 60s, at parades in front of the mausoleum, huge containers were transported, with supposedly the newest, unmatched missiles.Then it turned out that the containers were empty

[Machito]

When the Tomahawks launched a missile strike on Syria, the US aircraft carrier was in the Western Mediterranean, away from our frigates in Tartus. So just in case. Which suggests that American admirals are seriously afraid of our calibers. What can we say about Onyx. With the development of missile technology, aircraft carriers are being transformed from a strategic weapon into a means of striking against banana republics. In the event of a global nuclear war, aircraft carriers can strike by planes on our shores, but they have a very high probability of going to feed the fish.

[bayard]

Quote: Bearded

When the Tomahawks launched a missile strike on Syria, the US aircraft carrier was in the Western Mediterranean, away from our frigates in Tartus. So just in case. Which suggests that American admirals are seriously afraid of our Caliber.

They were afraid not of our "Calibers", but of opening the place, time and composition of the salvo, as well as the flight route of the "Tomahawks". And they fired their volleys not from the western part of the Mediterranean, but hiding behind Cyprus.
And most of all they feared our air defense systems, and not a response salvo by themselves. We are not at war with them.

Quote: Bearded

In the event of a global nuclear war, aircraft carriers can strike by planes on our shores, but they have a very high probability of going to feed the fish.

In the event of a global war, their aircraft carriers will stay away from our shores, and strikes will be delivered by CD from submarines, strategic bombers and from the pylons of carrier-based aircraft. But the latter (CD from carrier-based aircraft) in the first phase of the war is extremely unlikely.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

Quote: Bearded

With the development of missile technology, aircraft carriers are being transformed from strategic weapons into a means of striking against banana republics. In the event of a global nuclear war, aircraft carriers can strike by planes on our shores, but they have a very high probability of going to feed the fish.

I totally agree with you! And with the opinion of an American author. I wrote about this myself many times, receiving a bunch of dislikes in response. I wonder how the ardent "aircraft carriers" will react now?

[bayard]

Quote: Sergey Nikiforov

Suffice it to recall how in the 60s, at parades in front of the mausoleum, huge containers were transported, with supposedly the latest missiles that have no analogues.

In the 60s, rockets were not transported to TPK. They just carried rockets. And yes, there were sometimes experimental ones among them, which were not subsequently adopted for service.
But these were just rockets.
But the operation "Carousel" (!) Is YES.
They let the dust in their eyes so that the Americans were already 700 pieces. The B-52 was spanked to maintain "parity".
And at this time ... we were building rockets.

And now, even without taking into account the Zircon, which has not yet been adopted, we are armed with Onyx, which is also a very difficult target for air defense, but at the same time a very effective means against enemy ships.
And the "Dagger" in the anti-ship version is also being brought up and will be very effective.
Now the question is in the carriers of these funds.
MiG-31K are deployed not only in the Stavropol Territory, but also in Kola, Kamchatka and Transbaikalia.
Zircons will be able to be launched from the standard Onyx launchers in the DBK.
And of course ships with UKSK.
There are weapons.
And the carriers will catch up.

[Serg Murchikola]

To be honest, I don't believe that zircon is something glamorous X-51. Such drawings are not good without a layout. In general, the last wunderwafli look like a lie. Here the point is in the fans' inflated expectations - the bad old Granite and Basalt are still not really knocked down, and it seems to me that the zircon is not the same, but the development of the X-31 with new fuel and some cunning combustible body to accelerate the torch, the warhead is close to kinetic ... The most adequate and dangerous here is not zircon, but ...... what an iteration of Onyx, the video shows a fast and suspiciously maneuverable thing

[Mikhail Alexandrov]

And you thought they were taking out combat missiles to parades ???? He served in the Air Defense Forces, and so they took out blanks to parades, and not as military missiles ...

[Ka-52]

and how are the Chinese YJ superior to our X-35 and Onyx? I will not say anything about promising Zircons

[lucul]

Well, if you can write this about China, then such lines about Russia sound a mockery.

Foreign authors simply did not read Timokhin and Klimov)))

[Sidor Amenpodestovich]

Quote: lucul

Foreign authors simply did not read Timokhin and Klimov

And they read them somewhere else, besides VO?
A couple of years ago, Klimov found himself in the BMPD, and the local natives did not welcome him at all, to put it mildly. His articles were grumbling quite convincingly (from my amateur point of view) and point by point.
Since then, I have an ambiguous attitude to his work. On the one hand, it seems that a person understands the topic on which he writes, but on the other, the thought that the depth and value of his reasoning is no more than Damantsev's does not leave.

[venik]

Quote: Sidor Amenpodestovich

Since then, I have an ambiguous attitude to his work. On the one hand, it seems that a person understands the topic on which he writes, but on the other, the thought that the depth and value of his reasoning is no more than Damantsev's does not leave.

========
I also have a somewhat contradictory attitude to his "work": on the one hand, he seems to understand the topic (he seems to be positioning himself as a captain of the 3rd rank in retirement), and on the other, a persistent feeling that he harbors a deep resentment towards the whole world in general and on the country and the navy, in particular (either a military career did not work out, or such a person is "in life") ..... So he is actively "throwing excrement at the fan" .....

[bayard]

Quote: venik

on the one hand, he seems to understand the topic (he seems to be positioning himself as a captain of the 3rd rank, retired), and on the other hand, a persistent feeling that he harbors a deep resentment for the whole world in general and for the country and the navy, in particular (or a military career did not ask, or "in life" such a person).

As far as I know, he served in the Advanced Development Department of the Fleet Headquarters. So he owns the subject and is familiar with people, for the analyst of the prospects for the development of the Fleet, this was his direct specialization.
And there are certainly resentments there, but perhaps not so much of a personal nature, but for a "common cause." As in "White Sun of the Desert" - "It's a shame for the State."
So he fights for the combat capability and development of the Navy, and for common sense.
Some inaccuracies in his publications are of a fragmentary nature, because one cannot be an expert in all areas and types of weapons. More often even in the exact wording. But he then makes broad reviews of the problems and prospects of the Navy, and as a rule narrow specialists oppose him. For example, using the wording "radio horizon for a target at a given height" instead of "visibility of a target at a given height". In fact, both formulations are correct, but from a professional point of view, the second is correct ... while the first expresses the essence of the subject more figuratively.
So look at the root, not the tops.
And his opponents, especially the most splinters, usually play the role of duty bots to "protect the uniform" and withdraw from the main topic ... And as soon as you touch the cleanliness of their uniform in terms of (the main topic of the article), it floats or simply rolls into swearing ... I have met such articles on the forums of his more than once ... And they migrated just from other sites ... vigil.
And Klimov's special attention to torpedo and anti-torpedo weapons is also due to the fact that he began his lieutenant service in the mine and torpedo compartment on a submarine.
Or do you have substantive objections to his publications?
From a professional point of view?

And as a rule, his opponents are actively throwing extremes at the fan, because they have intelligible and reasoned arguments ... not .
Proven by the experience of communication and correspondence with such.

[Paranoid50]

Quote: lucul

Timokhin and Klimov have not read

They have enough of their own.

[Machito]

Klimov and Timokhin correctly write about the problem of targeting for our anti-ship missiles. But a foreign author writes that US aircraft carriers are striving for our anti-ship missiles. Whether or not we can hit the aircraft carriers with the Onyx, our sworn friends are already full of fears.

[venik]

"...Russian and Chinese missiles could deprive American aircraft carriers of their "guaranteed advantage", and aircraft carriers will no longer play a "key role" in conflicts in which the United States has been involved since the early 90s of the last century.... "
====
Well, here the author has somewhat "thickened the colors" ..... But ".... a "real threat" to US Navy aircraft carriers ...." - present, it is a fact! And what threats! Especially when you consider that an aircraft carrier does not need much: one hit on the flight deck, or an unrecoverable roll or trim immediately turns it into a useless floating warehouse of expensive aircraft, which you also have to guard ...

[askort154]

venik .....Especially when you consider that an aircraft carrier does not need a lot: one hit on the flight deck, .....

There is experience! In 1967 in the Gulf of Tonkin, McCain with only one A-4 missile destroyed the aircraft carrier Forrestal.

[venik]

Quote: askort154

There is experience! 1967 in the Gulf of Tonkin, McCain with only one rocket
A-4, destroyed the aircraft carrier Forrestal. good

========
Yes, a great commotion arose then!

The losses were enormous. More than 130 people died, and approx. 160 wounded. 21 planes - bye-bye .... The damage was almost a billion dollars (at current prices.) .... And all because of one small rocket.....
Then one of the American admirals, in their hearts, called the aircraft carriers "the clearest manifestation of strategic stupidity and marine folly"!!!

[jovanni]

Yes. I should have given him a posthumous medal.

Quote: askort154

venik .....Especially when you consider that an aircraft carrier does not need a lot: one hit on the flight deck, .....

There is experience! In 1967 in the Gulf of Tonkin, McCain with only one A-4 missile destroyed the aircraft carrier Forrestal.

Well, there is "For Military Merit", for example ...

[Doccor18]

.. it can be noted that our foreign colleagues did not let our activities out of sight.
However, this interest in them had one specific focus. Foreign publications of those years, dealing with the development of aircraft carriers, "almost simultaneously" accompanied our studies, as if pushing us away from the general course that they themselves followed. So, with the advent of VTOL aircraft in our country, the naval and aviation magazines of the West almost immediately "choked with enthusiasm" over the exciting prospects for the development of this direction, which almost all military aviation should supposedly follow. We began to increase the displacement of aircraft carrier ships - they immediately have publications and the inexpediency of the development of such supergiants as Nimitz, and that it is preferable to build aircraft carriers "smaller", and besides, not with nuclear, but with conventional energy.
We took up the catapult - they began to praise the springboards. Often, information flashed about the termination of their construction of aircraft carriers. And we must admit that these actions were not always unsuccessful. They generated certain fluctuations in the upper echelons of the leadership.

Although, as we see now, the Americans themselves did nothing of the kind.

You can't say better Kuzin and Nikolsky ... And that was 50-40-30 years ago. And it all continues now ...

[Avior]

How did they do
Although the Sea Control Ship (SCS) and the control cruiser were not implemented in their pure form, they turned into UDC Tarava and Wasp, and now into UDC America. Another thing is that they did not have a supersonic fighter in their arsenal, so the concept changed, they developed these projects quite seriously.
But it cannot be said that all this was misinformation. Ships of this type in the form of udk or light aircraft carriers, and sometimes, like the British, not very light, are made or made in many countries, and now they are just booming with the advent of the F-35v.

[Doccor18]

You're right, but .. sly Americans

When Elmo Zumwalt became Chief of Naval Operations in 1970, he seized on the idea of ​​small helicopter carriers as part of his High-Low plan, in which a large number of cheaper, smaller-capacity ships would be built in addition to the existing high-yielding high-cost ships. ... Proposed Marine Control Ship - https://ru.qaz.wiki/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship

In addition to heavy strike aircraft carriers, not instead ...

[Avior]

Yes, but it was about a strong reduction in the number of strike aircraft carriers and their gradual replacement with KVM. And it took a lot of money for these projects. And the idea was quite sensible, aircraft carriers became very expensive, and most of the strike tasks were solved by the KVM. After all, the USSR also went to the strike aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, along the same path as the Chinese now, by a gradual transition to catapults, and to the UDC of the Tarava type - project 11780, "Ivan Tarava" :)
That is, in fact, the concept of the fleet was close to the real American one. Another thing is that limited opportunities and internal intrigues intervened.
But in general, the direction was the same as that of the Chinese now, for example, and in general, similar to real Americans. zigzags, really :)

[Lord of the Sith]

US Navy aircraft carriers may lose their superiority due to the latest Russian missiles

Lost for a long time))

[tralflot1832]

Why are the eyes big from fear? We, neither the Chinese, have yet to shoot at a moving target at maximum range!

[Cananecat]

What speed should the target have in order to miss it with a homing missile on the target?

[tralflot1832]

Who will give target designation to the Zircon on an aircraft carrier, which is 1000 km away from it, there is no way. to hit without target indication.

[Avior]

Pershing fired at stationary targets, he had a seeker to improve accuracy. And slowed down greatly on approach

[taiga2018]

The United States lost its main superiority - the right to teach the rest of the world after the brutal suppression of the Washington Maidan ... And aircraft carriers, missiles and other hardware are just an addition ...

[Old26]

Quote: Hunter 2

Weapons similar to Zircon - the US simply does not!

We don't have it yet either. And the similarity ... They already experienced similarity 10-12 years ago (X-43A, X-51A). The work was stopped due to the fact that they are doing more "miniature" than their X-51 missile. We should not expect that the Americans will give us a head start in years or decades. 1-2 years maximum. Moreover, the AGM-181 they are developing can be launched even from fighter-bombers, and not just from ships, like ours. In addition, the number of potential carriers of hypersonic weapons they have is an order of magnitude greater than the number of ours. So you shouldn't engage in hats and think that Weapons like Zircon - the USA simply Doesn't have... Not for January 2021, may be in June 2021 ...

Quote: Sergey Nikiforov

And you are sure that we have What, what, but we know how to splurge. Suffice it to recall how in the 60s, at parades in front of the mausoleum, huge containers were transported, with supposedly the newest, unmatched missiles.Then it turned out that the containers were empty

Not quite so, Sergei. At the parade, containers with A-350Zh anti-missile missiles, which actually existed then, were busy, but some SLBMs, and especially the so-called. "global rockets" were fiction. Layouts.

Quote: Bearded

Which suggests that American admirals are seriously afraid of our Caliber.

This does not mean anything. The range of our anti-ship "Calibers" is about 400 km, the speed is subsonic. And after that, hope that someone will be afraid of them in the presence of such a warrant as the AUG? Well, you need to have a huge conceit in order to hope for this. And Onyx. Yes Yes. Frigates, even being off the western coast of Cyprus, can barely reach Crete, which is closer to the eastern part of the SPM, and even reach the Western Mediterranean ... this is generally enchanting ...

[Voltsky]

AUG is armed with nuclear weapons, therefore it can potentially inflict a nuclear strike ... Therefore, it will be approached based on this information, and it will be attacked with nuclear weapons.
because it is necessary to destroy not only the surface group, but also the iron sausage under water, and all this must be done very quickly and preferably at one go ...

[czes]

About nothing - propaganda. Unfortunately, I must admit that topwar is turning into a propaganda dump.

[Adimius38]

these missiles must still hit the target, you know what a 400-1000 km firing is. without navigation systems and the issuance of precise coordinates, these missiles are simply beautiful fireworks. Therefore, I really hope that everything is fine with the system of the aviation maritime radar target designation system.