Military Review

In Chinese Sohu: While the United States is betting on aircraft carriers, the Russian Aerospace Forces is learning to destroy them

167

The Chinese press comments on the tests that were carried out with the participation of the upgraded Tu-22M3 missile carriers of the Russian Aerospace Forces. Recall that we are talking about the fact that during the tests, the long-range bomber launched X-32 cruise missiles. At the same time, according to the source, the accuracy of the missiles was maximum - "they hit the peg."


On the pages of the military-thematic section of the Chinese resource Sohu it is noted that Russia is developing aviation component of countering aircraft carriers. The author writes that while the United States is betting on its aircraft carriers, the Russian Aerospace Forces are learning to destroy them. It was noted that there is a growing potential for countering American AUG (aircraft carrier strike groups).

From the article:

The range of the X-32 cruise missile is over 1 km. Moreover, its speed can reach Mach 5. This is capable of ensuring the destruction of an aircraft carrier without the missile carrier entering the affected area of ​​its air defense. At the same time, it is extremely difficult for the onboard systems of the ship to detect the missile, because it can drop from an altitude of more than 20 km to 10 meters in a maneuverable dive mode.

The author writes that if the X-32 is used against an aircraft carrier, it is guaranteed to be destroyed. Moreover, the AUG itself "is unlikely to be able to get the Tu-22M3."

In addition, it is noted that Russia has decided to seriously modernize its long-range bombers. The final version of the missile carrier to date is Tu-22M3M. Such an aircraft is also capable of carrying the Kinzhal hypersonic missiles.

Sohu points out that the Russian Aerospace Forces have turned the Tu-22M3 into a truly versatile combat vehicle that can be effectively used against a wide variety of targets, including aircraft carrier strike groups. At the same time, the author writes that in order to counter the Russian missile carrier, the US Navy will have to "rely on increasing the combat capabilities of the F-35 carrier-based fighters."
167 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Gardamir
    Gardamir 7 February 2021 10: 18
    .
    At the same time, the author writes that in order to counter the Russian missile carrier, the US Navy will have to "rely on increasing the combat capabilities of the F-35 carrier-based fighters."
    This means that our Tu-22MZ should be accompanied by an air squadron of interceptors. Is it possible to hammer aircraft carriers with missiles from ground-based installations?
    1. Finches
      Finches 7 February 2021 10: 21
      +25
      The aircraft carrier strike group is already a rather clumsy monstrous machine based on the ideology of the constant expansion of democracy in third world countries, as a relic of the centuries-old colonial policy of the Anglo-Saxons ... the improvement of missile armament is proceeding at a much faster pace and at significantly lower material costs than the development of the military-technical capabilities of the AUG, both in terms of defense and in terms of offensive! The only thing that still remains at a high level is the effect of psychological influence, but again on whom? For countries like Ukraine ... laughing
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 7 February 2021 10: 33
        +12
        Quote: Finches
        much faster and at significantly lower material costs than the development of the technical capabilities of the AUG

        Already during WWII, the use of kamikaze by the Japanese showed how dangerous they are against aircraft carriers.
        Only the incredible industrial power of America during the period when they launched these aircraft carriers in huge quantities made such losses not critical. Anti-ship missiles are much more deadly for aircraft carriers. Especially supersonic and hypersonic.
        1. Lipchanin
          Lipchanin 7 February 2021 10: 41
          .
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          Especially supersonic and hypersonic

          And now there are practically no others
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 7 February 2021 11: 08
            +11
            Quote: Lipchanin
            Quote: Mountain Shooter
            Especially supersonic and hypersonic

            And now there are practically no others

            Why not? There is. And their advantages are in a very long range, plus stealth. And their cost is less than over / hyper. However, the disadvantages are also obvious - long travel time ...
            1. Lipchanin
              Lipchanin 7 February 2021 11: 11
              -7
              Quote: Doccor18
              Is.

              And I didn't say that not at all
              But the stake is already on over and hypersound.
              1. krot
                krot 7 February 2021 12: 37
                +5
                while the United States relies on its aircraft carriers, the Russian Aerospace Forces are learning to destroy them

                The cost of building an average aircraft carrier is $ 5 billion and the cost of maintenance per year is about $ 120 million, despite the fact that every few years, scheduled repairs and modernization are needed, which also reach $ 1-2 billion. And all this "miracle" is fueled by several missiles, with a guarantee of an air defense breakthrough, worth about $ 1 million. Aircraft carrier - "golden coffin" during the war. Or an expensive toy to pacify small and weak states, which is what the United States uses.
                1. Lannan Shi
                  Lannan Shi 7 February 2021 13: 01
                  +7
                  Quote: krot
                  The cost of building a medium aircraft carrier

                  Do you think land airfields are five kopecks per bunch? So, information for. A class runway, in 2016, cost 2.5 rubles. Per square centimeter. And they measure it in tens of thousands. Square meters. Taxiways are cheaper than take-off, but by percentage, not several times. And the airfield does not end with takeoff and taxiing. And the prices are outdated, now they should be 1.5-2 times higher. AND??? Airfield golden coffin, during the war? Don't need to build / maintain them?
                  1. krot
                    krot 7 February 2021 14: 06
                    +7
                    The land airfield is protected by layered air defense, missile defense, electronic warfare systems and all kinds of short-range memory devices .. Plus, being deep in the state, the ability to intercept a missile is much higher than that of an aircraft carrier group! Well, hitting the airfield, it will not drown, and the aircraft carrier will send several thousand, if not tens, of the enemy to the bottom at once! Plus, the difference in servicing a ground aerodrome compared to a floating one per year goes by an order of magnitude, i.e. 10 times less! And the planned repair of the airfield is not needed, as well as keeping afloat!
                    1. Lannan Shi
                      Lannan Shi 7 February 2021 14: 24
                      +7
                      Quote: krot
                      The land airfield is protected by layered air defense systems

                      Well, aircraft carriers, of course, walk in splendid isolation ... That's what is curious. You consider the land-based aerodrome as part of the complex, and for some reason the aircraft carrier is separate from everything else.
                      Quote: krot
                      Plus being deep in the state

                      This is a plus for its defense, but for the action of aircraft stationed on it, it is a minus. It won't reach as far as from an aircraft carrier. It cannot all be reduced to one defensive stability. Otherwise, it is necessary to abandon tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, bombers and attack aircraft, and concentrate exclusively on building pillboxes and bunkers. In principle, it is impossible to overtake them in terms of sustainability per ruble invested. Well, that they are not able to move into the attack ... Well, you are not interested in the fact that the airfield under which Uryupinsk is absolutely useless when influencing which Panama? But the avik is very useful.
                      Quote: krot
                      Plus, the difference in servicing a ground airfield compared to a floating one per year goes by an order of magnitude

                      There is such a bird. It lives on the willow. Naivnyak is called. At this you just do not know how much even a civilian, even a provincial one, with the number of workers in 1.5 crippled, and 1.5 flights per week, eats up the airport. lol
                      1. krot
                        krot 7 February 2021 14: 30
                        -4
                        Quote: Lannan Shi
                        At this you just do not know how much even a civilian, even a provincial one, with the number of workers in 1.5 crippled, and 1.5 flights per week, the airport is eating.

                        Do not verbally talk about it .. Tell me the cost of maintaining an airfield with its number of employees .. I have given the numbers and they are undeniable and recognized! While there are no numbers, your words are just chatter ..
                        Well, aircraft carriers, of course, walk in splendid isolation ... That's what is curious. You consider the land-based aerodrome as part of the complex, and for some reason the aircraft carrier is separate from everything else.

                        You can't read it at all either ..)) I can repeat for the visually impaired: "being in the depths of the state the ability to intercept a missile is much higher than aircraft carrier group!"
                        I have no interest in debating with demagogues, I bowed out for this! hi
                      2. Lannan Shi
                        Lannan Shi 7 February 2021 14: 45
                        +3
                        Quote: krot
                        Tell me the cost of maintaining the aerodrome

                        Well, let's say Pobedilovo (Kirov) only generates losses in the region of $ 2 million, and the content is cumulative ... Multiply by about 6-8. And there are 50-100 times fewer workers there than serving on an aircraft carrier.
                        Quote: krot
                        "being deep in the state, the ability to intercept a missile is much higher than an aircraft carrier group!

                        Extremely controversial. The concentration of air defense, per protected unit, is just the same higher for the AUG. Plus the ability to maneuver. To create an overwhelming preponderance of forces, it is much easier against an object firmly tied to the ground than against AUG, which may well have time to migrate to the other hemisphere while you are pulling forces against it. And to cut you where you bare the defense. yes
                        Plus one more thing. To concentrate 1000 aircraft at one point, the Americans just need to pull up all their avics there. It is difficult of course, but feasible. But we, in order to confront them at this point, on equal terms, will have to organize the construction of the century, and ask the Americans to wait, 5-10 years, when we build enough airfields to receive 1000 aircraft. So-so defensive concept, by the way. And to contain, in each region, to which aircraft carriers can reach, a four-fivefold supply of airfields ... Ches the word. AUG heels will be cheaper.
                        Aircraft carriers are just mobile airfields. But they allow you to create an advantage where it is needed, and when it is needed. Explain the role of superiority, albeit local?
                      3. Mountain shooter
                        Mountain shooter 7 February 2021 16: 21
                        +3
                        Quote: Lannan Shi
                        Plus one more thing. To concentrate 1000 aircraft at one point, the Americans just need to pull up all their avics there. Difficult, of course, but feasible. But to us, to confront them at this point, on equal terms,

                        It's a dream !!! All US avics in one area. And one warhead ... Drowning is unlikely to succeed, but the electronics will definitely be covered. For only hours, this whole armada will be deaf-blind-mute ...
                      4. Lannan Shi
                        Lannan Shi 7 February 2021 17: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Mountain Shooter
                        All US avics in one area. And one warhead.

                        Strange how that ... Aviki is an easy and vulnerable target. One cannot cope with them without unleashing a nuclear war. And what is typical, exactly the same people who tell how Aviks almost drown from spitting, are proposing to destroy AUS by eliminating humanity. And at the same time, for some reason, men like to poke at the address of female logic.
                      5. Mountain shooter
                        Mountain shooter 7 February 2021 17: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Lannan Shi

                        Strange how that ... Aviki is an easy and vulnerable target. Then, without unleashing a nuclear war, they cannot be dealt with

                        Who's there about logic? The detonation of a nuclear weapon over the area of ​​concentration of the AUG - with the result of their immobilization - is not an answer to the CONCENTRATION OF THEM for what? Have you decided to play tag?
                      6. Lannan Shi
                        Lannan Shi 7 February 2021 17: 42
                        +4
                        Quote: Mountain Shooter
                        Detonation of a nuclear weapon

                        The detonation of a nuclear weapon = recognition of the inability to cope with the threat by other means. After this, the arguments about how easily and naturally AUG and AUS will spread and that the aviks are almost drowning from a shot from the PM .... They look extremely funny.
                        That's all. For any technique dies from the explosion of nuclear warheads. And then radars are useless, and aviation, and much more. In short, 2/3 of the weapons and support equipment must be scrapped urgently, and there is no point in discussing them. And the only topics worthy of discussion are trident vs yars, and what is more useful in the post-apocalyptic world, Kalashnikov or bow. yes
                      7. bk0010
                        bk0010 7 February 2021 19: 39
                        +4
                        Quote: Lannan Shi
                        The detonation of a nuclear weapon = recognition of the inability to cope with the threat by other means.
                        So what? The result is worth the warhead.
                2. Vladimir Mashkov
                  Vladimir Mashkov 8 February 2021 22: 01
                  +2
                  It is remarkable that there are more and more opportunities to defeat American supercarriers, and the safety of carrier aircraft is increasing.
                  I have repeatedly written about the affection of American AUG by modern means, but for some reason I was overwhelmed with minuses.
              2. akarfoxhound
                akarfoxhound 8 February 2021 00: 29
                0
                Our regional airport (state budgetary regional institution) spends about 40 million rubles on maintenance, i.e. salaries for 140 employees (state wages with all the resulting minimum wages), a communal apartment, fuel for special vehicles, 20 thousand passengers per year, a third of this amount is subsidized from the regional budget (survival rate to zero to bring it closer). But this is without purchases to replace the aging service auto-iron (special vehicles), without repairing runways and taxiways, expenses for transport / aviation security hardware, and so on. 3-5 flights per week (average annual) in a small air cabin SRJ-200. This content with a smooth "dying" from obsolescence.
                And you have straight in Kirov not expenses, but a waste! Although, if it is normal to contain, then it probably comes out.
              3. Xnumx vis
                Xnumx vis 8 February 2021 08: 38
                -2
                Quote: Lannan Shi
                Aircraft carriers are just mobile airfields. But they allow you to create an advantage where it is needed, and when it is needed. Explain the role of superiority, albeit local?

                Movable. superbly armed, protected (a group of escort ships) plus a couple of nuclear submarines under this AUG is hiding !! All the time in motion, maneuvering, a whole range of attack and defense ... Plus missiles of escort ships! And let's not forget about atomic strategists crawling under the belly of an aircraft carrier!
              4. Kart
                Kart 9 February 2021 10: 00
                -3
                How atomic strategists crawling under his belly will help him dodge missiles flying over water is absolutely incomprehensible.
              5. Xnumx vis
                Xnumx vis 9 February 2021 12: 21
                -1
                Quote: Carte
                How atomic strategists crawling under his belly will help him dodge missiles flying over water is absolutely incomprehensible.

                They will retaliate with a thermonuclear strike against the country that fired these missiles. And this is the main task of AUG!
    2. Korax71
      Korax71 7 February 2021 14: 59
      +5
      the airfield has one significant minus - it is stationary, with previously known coordinates, while the aircraft carrier can move at a speed of up to 30 knots, but first, in order to direct your aircraft to it, it must be detected.
    3. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 9 February 2021 09: 43
      0
      Well, tell me about finding airfields "in the depths" and echeloned - I give you a simple example. Kola Peninsula. Two Key Airfields - Olenegorsk and Monchegorsk. 150-200 km to the border.
  2. akropin
    akropin 8 February 2021 11: 28
    0
    The first thing that came to mind was that it was theoretically possible for civilian use.
  • Sevastiec
    Sevastiec 8 February 2021 04: 12
    0
    It looks like the series of articles "Naval War for Beginners", few people have read here.
  • hydrox
    hydrox 7 February 2021 11: 49
    +3
    Another disadvantage: too long travel time means extra chances of detection both by over-the-horizon radars (these monsters can be seen already at a distance of 8 thousand km (Yakhroma), and maybe after mastering, and further, which often happens), and by airplanes. scouts and patrol ships.
    That is why patrol cruisers with AFAR-radars for 2-3 thousand km with a hundred or two UAVs of various types, capable of operating in a network based on a deck control helicopter, docked with a communication channel with the AFAR cruiser, would be in great demand now. Give a couple of frigates on patrol and American AUGs become just sweet targets ... yes
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 7 February 2021 14: 37
      +6
      Quote: hydrox
      the chances of detection as over-the-horizon radars (these monsters see already at a distance of 8 thousand km (Yakhroma),
      Colleague, AVU is not an ICBM !!! Therefore, one should not confuse ZGRLS PV with the radar of the PRN system, which look up at 4000 km ... yes
      Quote: hydrox
      Now patrol cruisers with AFAR-radars for 2-3 thousand km with a hundred or two UAVs of various types, capable of operating in a network based on a deck-based control helicopter, docked with a communication channel with the AFAR cruiser, would be in great demand.
      Colleague! Yes, you are a storehouse of ideas !!! (albeit utopian ...)
      1. What kind of new type of steam-emergence have you invented? belay
      Now there is a steady trend in military steamAvshod building - universal (corvettes, frigates ...), and you are straight "patrol cruiser" (with a red armband on the false trumpet! lol ) decided to pile!
      2. With all due respect to radars with AFAR, they will not be worthy of 2-3 thousand km ... Well, if only from space, and even then it is unlikely ... the frequency is not suitable for the atmosphere ... Therefore, we will limit ourselves km 600, maximum, and then on the EC.
      3. And what size will your two hundred UAVs be? With pigeons or heron size?
      Then, the second question: what range (based on the power of the board) will they have? Really like the Global Hook (?), Which weighs under 7 tons and has a wingspan of 35 m!
      4. About communication systems and VZOI "units of the Navy" with aircraft. Here, too, you've seriously pushed science sideways! The radio and radar channels are very close, but unfortunately parallel! AFAR will not be able to receive information from Link-16 ... even from the Yankees !!! although both systems are broadband ...
      Well, and so, very much even nothing! With a twinkle, zaboristo, promising!
      AHA. laughing
      1. hydrox
        hydrox 7 February 2021 16: 38
        +1
        Well, let's take turns.
        The command of the Navy slept for so long that it still cannot wake up, just as it cannot assess the strength and capabilities of the opposing armies, at the same time they are confused and cannot understand what is required from the fleets (and what is required by the fleets!) For a worthy confrontation - the Cold War weaned thinking, the fleets were sold on pins and needles, and they cannot offer anything capable of modernization, except for completely idiotic and short-lived (if anything) helicopter carriers - while none of the admirals will ever be able to prove why they are needed and how much it will cost in construction and content, and most importantly - they will not be able to cite a single link and not a single paragraph of analytics, suitable as a basis for construction.
        The most important thing here is the fact that NONE of the navies knows either the theory or the practice of using UAVs in naval conditions - there are no publications, no conversations among shipbuilders, no announcements and discussions of the naval specialization of UAVs among machine builders.
        All together "bullet" with Daggers, Zircons and other horrors, it is known from where they were drawn, but everyone amicably bypasses the issues of target designation, delivery to the launch line, while not even imagining either the possibilities, or the power of supplies, or their behavior in electronic warfare and electronic warfare conditions, nor the results of their application. No, it is somehow disgusting to discuss what is not in nature - the concept of the use of fleets in modern conditions and even the issues of losses remain outside the scope of discussion.
        By the way, according to AFAR, we are not talking about the resolution in centimeters, but about the aperture control.
        Thank you for attention.
        1. Kazarinovsergen
          Kazarinovsergen 7 February 2021 21: 47
          0
          Criticizing the Main Command of the Navy, you might think that you are at least from the Intergalactic Council
          1. Igor Aviator
            Igor Aviator 8 February 2021 00: 11
            -2
            Quote: Kazarinovsergen
            Criticizing the Main Command of the Navy, you might think that you are at least from the Intergalactic Council

            That is not! Yong is the Yew MOSKH! wassat
    2. ironic
      ironic 7 February 2021 16: 04
      +1
      Over-the-horizon radars are early warning stations. They can detect a ship on the water, but they do not give target designation. Where have you seen such an AFAR? I want that too. And hundreds of UAVs flying on the seas by the oceans? And you didn’t accidentally confuse your cell phone with the radar? ... I'm ashamed to ask about sweets ... is it not tractorophilia?
  • Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 7 February 2021 13: 07
    -1
    What are you ... There is. At the moment, they are the main weapons.
  • Klingon
    Klingon 7 February 2021 13: 58
    0
    why is it not? Low-flying and subsonic calibers, the striped tokamaks are also subsonic
  • Kazarinovsergen
    Kazarinovsergen 7 February 2021 21: 43
    0
    You are wrong, there are also subsonic ones (from among the new ones), for example, Caliber, X-50, X-101, X-35 (-35U)
  • mr.ZinGer
    mr.ZinGer 7 February 2021 11: 29
    -5
    And how many aircraft carriers were destroyed by the Japanese with the help of kamikaze, 4 escorts. The Americans recovered quickly and created an effective warning and defense system. They are not fools, but American technical and scientific potential, alas, is much more powerful than ours and China's.
    You should not be led on cheap deframs.
    1. Sergey Averchenkov
      Sergey Averchenkov 7 February 2021 13: 12
      -4
      Than yours? You understand, when you write this ... be prepared for opposition (even if you are right), not everyone will like the fact that we are worse than the Americans ... I didn't like it either.
      1. mr.ZinGer
        mr.ZinGer 7 February 2021 15: 23
        +2
        Alas, I would love to write the opposite, but such is the reality.
        Remember what they didn’t promise us, what prospects for the growth of prosperity were not drawn, now they are quietly silent about this, I think the same thing in other areas.
        1. Igor Aviator
          Igor Aviator 8 February 2021 00: 31
          -2
          Quote: mr.ZinGer
          What they didn’t promise us, what prospects for the growth of prosperity were not drawn, now they are quietly silent about this, I think the same thing in other areas.

          Well, so what did you want, when even the Congress hires are working in the Duma, and when disclosed, for some reason they successfully hide in Ukraine, and even with his wife. Well, the sentence was carried out there ... And a whole kublo gathered such saboteurs, under the shadow of a LADY, Well, VVP dispersed them to ... It's a little late - out, the President's orders have not been fulfilled so far ... Here is the answer to your question about Prospects for Wealth Growth. Ordinary, primitive sabotage.
    2. Simargl
      Simargl 7 February 2021 13: 26
      +4
      Quote: mr.ZinGer
      And how many aircraft carriers were destroyed by the Japanese with the help of kamikaze
      As a result of the actions of the kamikaze in the Battle of the Philippines, the Americans lost 2 aircraft carriers, 6 destroyers and 11 transports, 22 aircraft carriers were damaged, 5 battleships, 10 cruisers and 23 destroyers.
      By the end of the Battle of Okinawa, the American fleet had lost 26 ships, 225 were damaged, of which 27 aircraft carriers.
      According to Japanese statements, 81 ships were sunk and 195 were damaged as a result of kamikaze attacks. According to American data, the losses amounted to 34 sunk and 288 damaged ships. In addition, the psychological effect on the American sailors was also important.
      They drowned at least two, damaged 49. Not counting the "little things". And this despite the fact that constructively even the aircraft shells were not strong.
      1. mr.ZinGer
        mr.ZinGer 7 February 2021 15: 10
        +2
        Destroyed 4 escort aircraft carriers - "Saint-Lo", "Ommani Bay", "Sangamon" and "Bismarck Sea", the rest are destroyers and transports.
        The Americans managed to create a powerful air defense network, 90% of the kamikaze were destroyed in the air.
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 7 February 2021 18: 37
          0
          Quote: mr.ZinGer
          The Americans managed to create a powerful air defense network, 90% of the kamikaze were destroyed in the air.
          And what?! The simplest calculation is 2000-90% = 200 broke through. More precisely 81 + 195 = 276 minimum.
          This despite the fact that they were, in fact, the first and did not know the nuances.
          1. mr.ZinGer
            mr.ZinGer 7 February 2021 19: 47
            0
            Yes, no, fell on his shoulder.
            The Americans have found effective countermeasures.
            And not some of the technical innovations of the Japanese, they could not even increase the number of losses from the American side. American aircraft carriers were sailing off the coast of the metropolis, and the Japanese could not do anything from land airfields.
            1. Simargl
              Simargl 8 February 2021 01: 58
              0
              Quote: mr.ZinGer
              The Americans have found effective countermeasures.
              An efficient method - super-fast ship building? Somewhere I heard about "fill up with corpses"
              1. mr.ZinGer
                mr.ZinGer 8 February 2021 07: 11
                +1
                Do not distort about filling up with corpses, the loss of Americans during the war is an order of magnitude lower than the Japanese. And effective methods are radar patrols of destroyers at a distance of 80-100 miles, massed duty interceptor air groups, night fighters with radars, shells with radio fuses.
                1. Simargl
                  Simargl 8 February 2021 19: 39
                  0
                  Quote: mr.ZinGer
                  Do not distort about filling up with corpses
                  I don't twist.
                  The United States managed to arrange the rotation of the fleet in such a way that the number of ships was constantly growing, while for the Japanese it was falling.
                  The quality of modernization did not keep up with the Japanese for the gloomy American genius.
                  But having come up with a guided projectile, the Japanese did not bring the design to at least some kind of condition.
                2. mr.ZinGer
                  mr.ZinGer 8 February 2021 20: 27
                  0
                  You yourself explained everything, with technical superiority, all problems are easier to solve.
                3. Simargl
                  Simargl 9 February 2021 04: 34
                  0
                  Quote: mr.ZinGer
                  You yourself explained everything, with technical superiority, all problems are easier to solve.
                  The first phrase is not about technical superiority, but about resources and production.
                  Yamato went to heat how much? 80 ++ ships? More than 30 of them are aircraft carriers?
  • ironic
    ironic 7 February 2021 16: 09
    -1
    Now supplement this information with the following - how many ships were destroyed by kamikaze after the start of the use of radio explosives on anti-aircraft shells?
  • ironic
    ironic 7 February 2021 16: 08
    -1
    They were dangerous until they began to equip anti-aircraft shells with radio fuses. And the most deadly missiles are those that could not be detected even among such, and the faster the missile is, the less likely it will go unnoticed.
  • Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 7 February 2021 10: 40
    +10
    Quote: Finches
    this is the effect of psychological influence,

    Eun was not impressed by this "effect" laughing
    1. Finches
      Finches 7 February 2021 10: 45
      +5
      So North Korea, not Ukraine, is a technically quite developed country and, most importantly, an independent and independent state! laughing
      1. Lipchanin
        Lipchanin 7 February 2021 10: 50
        +2
        Quote: Finches
        and, most importantly, an independent and independent state!

        Having an atomic weapon
        1. Finches
          Finches 7 February 2021 10: 51
          +15
          First of all, having a sense of their own national dignity!
          1. Lipchanin
            Lipchanin 7 February 2021 10: 53
            -1
            Quote: Finches
            Primarily having a sense of their own national dignity

            And that too
            1. mr.ZinGer
              mr.ZinGer 7 February 2021 12: 49
              +2
              And what does it consist of self-esteem, in Eun's ambitions.
              Compare GDP of North and South Korea 116 and 16,
              per capita income of $ 1600 and $ 43000.
    2. Boris55
      Boris55 7 February 2021 10: 59
      -5
      Quote: Lipchanin
      Eun was not impressed by this "effect"

      But in the USA - yes. As soon as Eun launched the diesel submarines and all their aircraft carriers were blown away by the wind, they were already near Indonesia. laughing
      1. Lipchanin
        Lipchanin 7 February 2021 11: 05
        -4
        Quote: Boris55
        were already near Indonesia.

        One kind of left urgently for repairs laughing
    3. ironic
      ironic 7 February 2021 16: 11
      +1
      Because Trump, in fact, was not going to start hostilities.
  • askort154
    askort154 7 February 2021 12: 37
    -1
    Zyablitsov ...The only thing that remains at a high level is the effect of psychological influence, but again on whom? For countries such as Ukraine ...

    Speak the truth! And here on the VO website, supporters and opponents of the use of AVG in the 21st century have been breaking spears for ten years. You have dotted all the I's in just a few words. Bravo, Eugene! hi
  • Simargl
    Simargl 7 February 2021 12: 44
    +1
    Quote: Finches
    again to whom? For countries like Ukraine ...
    Well, give her an aircraft carrier! Let them paint first.
    1. Igor Aviator
      Igor Aviator 8 February 2021 00: 36
      -2
      Quote: Simargl
      Well, give her an aircraft carrier! Let them paint first.

      You can't! First, the money for painting sp .. eat, then the "gift" itself will be resold ten times, and then - accused of "zrada" who gave it!
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 8 February 2021 01: 56
        -1
        Quote: Igor Aviator
        then the "gift" itself will be resold ten times, and then - accused of "zrada" who gave it!
        Good. Rent ... or lease ...
  • Rock616
    Rock616 7 February 2021 19: 00
    +4
    Belarusians are still very much afraid of the light elven augs, since the days of the little psaki, which frightened the collective farm teran, with the 6th fleet off the coast of the potato sea. wassat laughing
  • Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 7 February 2021 10: 38
    -3
    Quote: Gardamir
    This means that our Tu-22MZ should be accompanied by an air squadron of interceptors.

    What for?
    This is capable of ensuring the destruction of an aircraft carrier without the missile carrier entering the affected area of ​​its air defense.

    At the same time, the AUG itself "is unlikely to be able to get the Tu-22M3."
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 7 February 2021 11: 25
      +1
      What for?
      Just thinking out loud, protection from the F-35. And then what does it mean to get it is unlikely to be able to. It is necessary to write exactly whether or not. If not, then all amerskie AUGs are just targets. If it can, then we also need to be able to hide from them.
      1. dauria
        dauria 7 February 2021 12: 18
        +4
        It is necessary to write for sure or not.


        The air defense line was moved from 800 to 1200 km. This is real if you use some of the aircraft as refuellers. The group still has AWACS. In any case, while AUG is an extra trump card. A frail, vulnerable compared to the usual, but still an airfield. Relocatable. Even just on the defensive.
        1. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx 7 February 2021 12: 26
          -2
          Some kind of epidemic! Straight to the forehead with a rolling pin!
          The range of the X-32 cruise missile is over 1 km. Moreover, its speed can reach Mach 5. This is capable of ensuring the destruction of an aircraft carrier without the missile carrier entering the affected area of ​​its air defense. At the same time, it is extremely difficult for the onboard systems of the ship to detect the missile, because it can drop from an altitude of more than 20 km to 10 meters in a maneuverable dive mode.
          The author writes that if the X-32 is used against an aircraft carrier, it is guaranteed to be destroyed. Moreover, the AUG itself "is unlikely to be able to get the Tu-22M3."

          No further, as yesterday I tried-fought-ran into a minus:


          I didn't understand if this was such a tactic or I just didn't notice how the Chinese ripped up my posts? belay
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 7 February 2021 15: 10
            +6
            Quote: ROSS 42
            I didn't understand if this was such a tactic or I just didn't notice how the Chinese ripped up my posts?

            Yuri Vasilievich, calm down!
            Everything is vulgarly simple: there is a sect of "fans of the 7th day AVU", there is a sect of "opponents of AVU-pelvis" and very few who know something real on this issue, except for leaflets in the media ...
            Secondly, the approaches to the problem of "ADR: what is it and how to deal with it" differ. The first (conditionally) group believes that this is such a large ship, clumsy and clumsy with weak weapons, etc. Therefore, our (Chinese) anti-ship missiles will make it once or twice!
            The second group believes that this is an impenetrable sphere, the impermeability of which is provided by a swarm of carrier-based aircraft and ships of the order, including submarines ... Therefore, "two on the side - yours are not!"
            And both of these groups consider the DB as a duel "on his own" (as the Poles say), not taking into account that the destruction of the AUS is a FLEET operation (!) And all the resources of the Northern Fleet (Pacific Fleet) will be involved here, up to the use of SBP. ..with a complex of supporting actions (strikes on the PB, on the RLD ships, orders, disabling communication and control systems, spacecraft, RTR, etc.).
            Well, and most importantly. The destruction of the AVU can only be carried out when conducting full-scale DB against the USA and NATO ... And here there will be no time for sentimentality: all means will be used, including the Strategic Missile Forces, the PKK SN and DA. Because the Yankees will not forgive anyone, not even the British, not to mention us and the whales, for the "sinking of AVU".
            And therefore, speculations about AVU (what is it for, what to do with it and how to sink it) should be viewed only through the prism of the GREAT WAR with our beloved "partners" (so that Yellowstone cleaned them up as soon as possible! am )
            IMHO.
            1. ironic
              ironic 7 February 2021 15: 54
              0
              Which in this form most likely will never be. As we are unlikely to see the super-eruption of Yellowstone in our lifetime.
        2. hydrox
          hydrox 7 February 2021 12: 34
          0
          Reasonable, but also hemorrhoids: their line of defense is our line of attack, while this will not particularly disturb the cruiser as a carrier of a swarm of drones, always ready to deal with AUG aviation.
          Refueling at the sight of drones is almost a guarantee of being shot down, while a cruiser with drones practically does not risk anything
  • venik
    venik 7 February 2021 12: 39
    0
    Quote: Gardamir
    This means that our Tu-22MZ should be accompanied by an air squadron of interceptors.

    ========
    WHAT FOR? If he (Tu-22MZ) can blast from a distance that exceeds the range of carrier-based fighters and at the same time also go "supersonic" ... request
  • Rostislav Prokopenko
    Rostislav Prokopenko 7 February 2021 14: 17
    0
    Is the combat radius of the f-35S or B exactly greater than the range of the tested missile? Accompanying is certainly necessary, but not so great.
    1. ironic
      ironic 7 February 2021 15: 39
      0
      They do not have to fly up to the very point of launching the rocket. In addition, they have a drone refueling.
  • Igor Aviator
    Igor Aviator 8 February 2021 00: 06
    -1
    Quote: Gardamir
    and our Tu-22MZ should be accompanied by an air squadron of interceptors

    Why "squadrons"? The launch range to the target significantly exceeds the combat range of the F-35. The escort and cover team is enough, as usual. Air defense AUG is not planned to break through.
  • Sevastiec
    Sevastiec 8 February 2021 04: 10
    0
    This means that our Tu-22MZ should be accompanied by an air squadron of interceptors.


    Is it there, this squadron? Is their range comparable to that of a long-range bomber?
  • prior
    prior 7 February 2021 10: 25
    +14
    Destroying an aircraft carrier and its supporting structure is much cheaper than building and maintaining.
    To break is not to build. The main thing is to have a tool for destruction and destruction.
    1. Lipchanin
      Lipchanin 7 February 2021 10: 43
      0
      Quote: prior
      The main thing is to have a tool for destruction and destruction.

      We try ...
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 7 February 2021 15: 22
      +3
      Quote: prior
      Destroy an aircraft carrier and the structure serving much cheaper than building and maintaining.

      This is a very sensible idea! and that's why:
      The most difficult situation is observed in the field of shipbuilding. The construction of warships is a very time-consuming process that requires colossal costs and efforts from industry, far exceeding the costs of producing other weapons systems and military equipment.

      The replacement time for even one ship is so long (3–8 years) that, in fact, any US Navy ship that is lost during hostilities is unlikely to be replaced until the conflict is over. The longer the large-scale military confrontation of the major world powers continues, the smaller the fleet will be.

      So in 2019, the United States had only one shipyard where nuclear-powered aircraft carriers could be built and repaired. This is a shipyard in Newport, Virginia. There are three slipways here. Two slipways are usually occupied by aircraft carriers undergoing medium or major overhaul, and one is used to build new ships. In peacetime, this is not critical but in a full-scale war it can become a big problem. Since the failure of any of the aircraft carriers or the shipyard itself will be a huge blow to the combat capabilities of the American fleet.
      I think our General Staff will take care of the shipyard in Newport first! bully
  • Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 7 February 2021 10: 27
    -6
    The plane is quite old, what will it replace in the future? How many non-brothers have cut them.
    1. grandfather_Kostya
      grandfather_Kostya 7 February 2021 11: 18
      0
      Bombers fly for a long time, just don't be lazy to change motors and, sometimes, avionics.
      1. Runoway
        Runoway 7 February 2021 12: 53
        0
        In the case of the TU-22m3, the problem with the "fatigue" of the airframe, and in particular the sweep change node, is patching up everything that is left, but there is not much left, in fact they squeeze the maximum out of what is (restoration of rarities). Before the release of the new carrier PAKDA, and even more so the production of the required amount for a very long time, you need to change over to something
  • alex aircraft
    alex aircraft 7 February 2021 10: 28
    +4
    Only 22 aircraft are going to bring Tu 3m3 to the level of m30m. This is very little to combat the aug, and there are other goals. I don’t understand what prevents the removal of that 22m3 from storage or is it no longer realistic?
    1. Volder
      Volder 7 February 2021 10: 34
      +1
      Quote: Alex aircraft
      Only 22 aircraft are going to bring Tu 3m3 to the level of m30. this is extremely small to combat aug
      This is more than enough to combat AUG.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 7 February 2021 10: 41
        -2
        Quote: Volder
        This is more than enough to combat AUG.

        No, 30 Tu-22m3m is okay with AUG
        they will, only they can scare.
        Besides, I'm not very sure what we will have
        30 Tu-22m3m. Well, very ...
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 7 February 2021 12: 50
          -1
          And why risk long-range missiles, driving them out under attack from aircraft carrier fighters?
          It is much easier to launch the Tu-95 with a pair of weak X-102 (after clearing the sky with a cruising patrol group with drones that removed all the Orions), then launch this pair of X-102 from the AUG defense line (the maximum distance of carrier-based aircraft) - and the Tu can return to base, and the drones at this time will be busy launching jamming, being not far from the aircraft carrier and blocking the launch of onboard AWACS (if they are still alive by that time).
          1. Piramidon
            Piramidon 7 February 2021 13: 18
            -1
            Quote: hydrox
            And why risk long-range missiles, driving them out under attack from aircraft carrier fighters?
            Much easier to release Tu-95

            So your Tu-95 is a consumable and you can risk it?
            1. ironic
              ironic 7 February 2021 15: 38
              -2
              So they can also launch their missiles from outside the danger zone.
              1. Piramidon
                Piramidon 7 February 2021 22: 45
                0
                Quote: ironic
                So they can also launch their missiles from outside the danger zone.

                Tu-22M3 can do the same.
                1. ironic
                  ironic 8 February 2021 15: 44
                  0
                  Can and aircraft carrier aircraft can also shoot at attack missiles. It takes a lot of launches to break through the defense of the order.
            2. hydrox
              hydrox 7 February 2021 16: 50
              -1
              You?
              Yes, you can do anything!
              Those who are literate do not do this, because they know that the Tu-95 is a STRATEG, and not a long-distance man!
              Take choleretic at night - and your complexion will improve and your relatives will recognize you without binoculars!
              1. Piramidon
                Piramidon 7 February 2021 22: 49
                0
                Quote: hydrox
                You?
                Yes, you can do anything!
                Those who are literate do not do this, because they know that the Tu-95 is a STRATEG, and not a long-distance man!
                Take choleretic at night - and your complexion will improve and your relatives will recognize you without binoculars!

                This is what you wrote about and to whom? All my service took place on the Tu-95, and I probably know better than you what class they belong to.
          2. ironic
            ironic 7 February 2021 15: 37
            -2
            The Kh-102 is never weak and it is more difficult to detect them than the Kh-32.
            1. hydrox
              hydrox 7 February 2021 16: 52
              0
              Weak - this means that this product can be equipped for both 10 kTn and 200 kTn.
              1. ironic
                ironic 7 February 2021 16: 58
                -4
                Well, it doesn't matter 20 or 200 any more. The overall result will be the same if you get directly into the ship. The only difference will be in the size and number of debris.
                1. hydrox
                  hydrox 7 February 2021 17: 33
                  +1
                  These products are not plastic toys: when they are used, no one is going to aim at the ship: the product is blown up in the air to affect all components of the order.
                  1. ironic
                    ironic 7 February 2021 17: 34
                    -5
                    To do this, you need to undermine it above the middle of the order, and this is not much different from hitting the ship.
        2. Volder
          Volder 8 February 2021 13: 29
          -1
          Quote: Bez 310
          No, 30 Tu-22m3m won't do anything wrong with AUG
          Of course they will if they are accompanied by tactical fighters. By the way, an aircraft carrier can be disabled in other ways, i.e. not only the X-32. When US carrier-based aircraft cannot take off from a banked aircraft carrier, it will not be difficult to "click" its escort ships.
      2. Runoway
        Runoway 7 February 2021 12: 57
        +1
        The capabilities of the Armed Forces (Armed Forces) of the Russian Federation to suppress AUG are increasing in their coastal areas due to long-range missile carriers based on the coast. Tu-22M3 aircraft are a powerful means of destruction of aircraft carriers, of which there are more than 70 units in modern Russian Armed Forces. The aircraft are capable of striking at a distance of up to 2000 kilometers, depending on the load, altitude and flight speed. The standard combat load for them is 2 X-22 or X-32 missiles.
        Modern tactics of combating AUG are considering only one main method, which is to defeat an aircraft carrier, which will lead to a disruption in the performance of its tasks. To disable the AUG, at least 40 missiles must be fired. Thus, for a successful attack on the AUG, you need at least a Tu-22M3 regiment of 20 vehicles with 2 missiles each, plus electronic warfare aircraft and several reconnaissance aircraft.
        1. ironic
          ironic 7 February 2021 17: 03
          -2
          In 2018, the first modernized Tu-22M3M bomber took off in Kazan, it is expected that in the coming years 30 Tu-22M3 aircraft will be upgraded in this version. In total, the Russian Aerospace Forces today have more than 60 Tu-22M3s, and technically all of them can be upgraded.


          The fact that all 60 of them will be ready for it by the time the modernization is on stream is extremely doubtful.
          1. Runoway
            Runoway 7 February 2021 23: 02
            -2
            This confrontation is extremely doubtful in general, with such a battle, the exchange of nuclear warheads will go
            But you have to be ready for everything, so there is an antidote for aircraft carriers.
            1. ironic
              ironic 8 February 2021 15: 42
              0
              Yes, if you meet them at distant approaches, and this requires external bases, and there are only two of them - Hameimim, and to some extent the airfields of Kaliningrad can be considered an external base.
              1. Runoway
                Runoway 8 February 2021 23: 19
                0
                Stupidity, the radius of action of the AUG 800 km, against the 2000 km TU-22m3, not taking into account the submarine
                1. ironic
                  ironic 9 February 2021 13: 50
                  0
                  Well, yes, just stupidity or illiteracy. The AUG also includes submarines, of which the opponents have 2.5 times more, and the new generation has 10 times more. The range of the F-35C is 670 nautical miles. This is without the conformal tanks that it will soon have and without the unmanned refuellers that have already appeared.
      3. grandfather_Kostya
        grandfather_Kostya 7 February 2021 13: 11
        0
        This is more than enough to combat AUG.

        In the presence of refueling in the air, and we have critically few tankers!
      4. ironic
        ironic 7 February 2021 15: 36
        -3
        For the fight, yes, for the decontamination of 5-6 AUGs that are always at sea, of course not. Moreover, the stake is on a high-speed long-range missile, which will be spotted in the first seconds after the launch.
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 7 February 2021 16: 55
          0
          Not enough to spot, you still need to have a means to destroy the danger, but this is not so easy and not everyone succeeds. laughing
          1. ironic
            ironic 8 February 2021 16: 03
            0
            For the destruction of high-speed facilities, systems were not developed yesterday. If today there are anti-missile missiles operating on ballistic missiles, then for supersonic missiles this is certainly not news. Here either overload the air defense of the order or slip through unnoticed. With the second, the supersonic missile has a problem.
    2. Sergey Averchenkov
      Sergey Averchenkov 7 February 2021 13: 17
      0
      Why exactly 30? Where does this information come from?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Runway
    Runway 7 February 2021 10: 31
    +4
    However, the yellow ones are not cunning in a childish way - they sing praises, and the aircraft carriers themselves are spanking. And in this "ode" the yellow ones did not squeak about their BRs with which they would send the air ships to the bottom.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 7 February 2021 17: 08
      +1
      And in this "ode" the yellow ones did not squeak about their BRs with which they would send air steamers to the bottom.


      they are ashamed to see this crap repeat. We are not alone in stupid propaganda, the Chinese can too.
  • newcomer
    newcomer 7 February 2021 10: 32
    +6
    Strange, didn't we know how to destroy aircraft carriers? It would be more correct not "Russia is studying", but Russia is honing the skills of destroying the ACG.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 7 February 2021 10: 43
      -6
      Quote: newbie
      didn't we know how to destroy aircraft carriers?

      They knew how, but forgot how it is done,
      Yes, we don't have any planes, so that at least
      destroy one aircraft carrier.
      1. newcomer
        newcomer 7 February 2021 10: 46
        -2
        What do you mean "no planes"?
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 7 February 2021 10: 47
          -4
          Quote: newbie
          What do you mean "no planes"?

          In the literal sense.
          We do not have the required number of aircraft
          to disable one aircraft carrier.
          1. Lipchanin
            Lipchanin 7 February 2021 10: 51
            -3
            Quote: Bez 310
            We do not have the required number of aircraft
            to disable one aircraft carrier.

            How much do you need? 100, 200, 1000?
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 7 February 2021 10: 58
              -2
              Quote: Lipchanin
              How much do you need?

              When we knew how to destroy aircraft carriers,
              we trained to fly 50 planes
              to strike, but without interaction with the division
              PL, it wasn't enough.
              And now we and 30 flying Tu-22m3 can
              can not found...
              1. Lipchanin
                Lipchanin 7 February 2021 11: 07
                +1
                Quote: Bez 310
                we trained to fly 50 planes

                So then rockets did not fly 1000 km
                And their speed was subsonic
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 7 February 2021 11: 12
                  -2
                  Quote: Lipchanin
                  So then rockets did not fly 1000 km

                  RCC and now do not fly 1000 km.
                  Fundamental improvements in the "blow to the AUG"
                  until it happened, things only got worse.
                  If there are any improvements, then they are on
                  stage of testing, and the troops did not enter.
                  Don't say anything about the Kh-32 missile ...
                  1. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 7 February 2021 13: 50
                    +2
                    ... Don't say anything about the Kh-32 missile ...

                    Hello, Michael.

                    Could you please explain your attitude to the X-32?
                    Your lack of "enthusiasm" is:
                    1.Security mode,
                    2. There are more questions on it than answers,
                    3. Your option (for example, "why are you all stuck"))).

                    I will try to make my own, purely land, assumption:
                    1. The PNA radar, which is changed to the VN-45 radar, is seen on ... Yes, I don't even know how much, but obviously not for 1000 km.
                    1. Can the radar seeker missile capture a target at a distance of 200 to 300 km? Or is it the wild fantasies of the Internet?

                    For a greater distance, external target designation is required. And it was like a headache, so it has not gone anywhere - a one-way ticket as before.
                    This is normal)).
                    .........
                    I would like to hear something from YOU - MRA navigator with 26 calendars, and not fresh-invented speculations of "specialists".
                    .....
                    ps You can just write "I'm too lazy".
                    I understand, I'm already retired myself ...
                    laughing

                    Alex.
                    hi
                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 7 February 2021 14: 08
                      +4
                      Quote: Aleks tv
                      I'm already retired myself.

                      I'm surprised, so I'll try to answer.
                      1. Yes, even the new radar will not see the target at a distance of more than 450 km.
                      2. It is possible that the radar seeker can see the target for 250-300 km, but for this the radar of the aircraft must show the radar of the seeker the target.
                      3. What is now known about the X-32 from the media suggests that
                      the missile can be launched from the maximum range not
                      on the goal, but "in the direction of the goal", and there, how it goes.
                      4. The issue with the external control center has not yet been resolved, in any case,
                      there were no enthusiastic reports in the media about this.

                      I have 30 calendars, for other questions you can
                      ask here:
                      https://t.me/moraviaciya
                      1. Aleks tv
                        Aleks tv 7 February 2021 14: 25
                        +2
                        ... The issue with the external control center has not yet been resolved, in any case,
                        there were no enthusiastic reports in the media about this.

                        Clear. Thank.
                        I have 30 calendars, for other questions you can
                        ask here:
                        https://t.me/moraviaciya

                        Yeah, 30 is a little more than 26 ...))
                        Heh.
                        Already read your block. Almost without stopping.
                        wink
                        I got HUGE pleasure.
                        good
                        Thank you.
                  2. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 7 February 2021 16: 00
                    +1
                    Quote: Bez 310
                    Don't say anything about the Kh-32 missile ...

                    So the article is about her, heartfelt "! How can you not say something?
                    The author writes that
                    if the X-32 is used against an aircraft carrier, it is guaranteed to be destroyed.
                    About how!



                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 7 February 2021 16: 34
                      +1
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      About how!

                      How glad I am for that author ...
                      1. Boa kaa
                        Boa kaa 7 February 2021 17: 04
                        +2
                        Quote: Bez 310
                        How glad I am for that author ...

                        Well, at least something you can still be happy about!
                2. Nemchinov Vl
                  Nemchinov Vl 8 February 2021 01: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: Lipchanin
                  So then rockets did not fly 1000 km
                  when the rockets flew another 500 km (!), the main problem was accuracy of control center !!!... This problem than solved for missiles in 1000 km ?!... New (or more) A-50 ? !!, TU 95 RC ? !!.
                  Quote: Lipchanin
                  And their speed was subsonic
                  "Basalt / Granite / Volcano" ?! Excellent (long-range and supersonic), but .... the problem is control center ?!
              2. Sergey Averchenkov
                Sergey Averchenkov 7 February 2021 13: 20
                0
                50? Let me not believe - even the USSR would not have pulled it.
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 7 February 2021 13: 51
                  +3
                  Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
                  50? Let me disbelieve

                  Do not believe it.
                  And I have repeatedly participated in divisional
                  sorties for a tactical strike against AUG, in which
                  even more than 50 aircraft were involved.
                  But they didn't write about it in the newspapers, and they didn't shout on TV,
                  so you cannot believe it.
                  DAU - divisional aviation exercises were conducted
                  every two years, between them were performed the LTU regiment.
                  And the regiments were not castrated, but more than 30 aircraft.
                  And now I will surprise you even more.
                  Such air divisions, to strike at the AUG,
                  at the Pacific Fleet there were 2 (two). And both flew to
                  full force.
              3. Piramidon
                Piramidon 7 February 2021 13: 23
                +3
                Quote: Bez 310
                we trained to fly 50 planes
                to hit

                Since then, the means of destruction have changed a lot.
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 7 February 2021 13: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: Piramidon
                  Since then, the means of destruction have changed a lot.

                  Well yes...
                  X-22 have changed?
                  1. Piramidon
                    Piramidon 7 February 2021 14: 41
                    +2
                    Quote: Bez 310
                    X-22 have changed?

                    And besides that, nothing else was entered into service?
                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 7 February 2021 14: 43
                      -1
                      Quote: Piramidon
                      And besides that, nothing else was entered into service?

                      I dont know...
                      And you?
                2. Nemchinov Vl
                  Nemchinov Vl 8 February 2021 01: 29
                  0
                  Quote: Piramidon
                  Since then, the means of destruction have changed a lot.
                  but the means of issuing CU have decreased !!... recourse
                  "Ivan Tsarevich shot an arrow .... yes, he hit a toad ... !!" .... request repeat
          2. newcomer
            newcomer 7 February 2021 10: 53
            0
            Where did our fourteen (plus / minus) TU22M3 go?
      2. Lipchanin
        Lipchanin 7 February 2021 10: 54
        -6
        Quote: Bez 310
        Yes, we don't have any planes, so that at least
        destroy one aircraft carrier.

        And the TU-160 is no longer an airplane?
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 7 February 2021 11: 02
          +1
          Quote: Lipchanin
          And the TU-160 is no longer an airplane?

          "Yes, his grenades are of the wrong system."
          1. Lipchanin
            Lipchanin 7 February 2021 11: 09
            -7
            Quote: Bez 310
            "Yes, his grenades are of the wrong system."

            It will be necessary, adapted to the one that is necessary
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 7 February 2021 11: 14
              +1
              Quote: Lipchanin
              It will be necessary, adapted to the one that is necessary

              It took a long time ...
            2. hydrox
              hydrox 7 February 2021 12: 56
              0
              And what's wrong with "one hundred and two X"? laughing
      3. bar
        bar 7 February 2021 11: 02
        0
        Quote: Bez 310
        we don't even have planes so that at least
        destroy one aircraft carrier.

        And how many aircraft are needed to destroy one aircraft carrier?
        I thought out of thought that they were being destroyed with missiles, but it looks like ...
        Tu-22 as a kamikaze is hard wassat
    2. Lipchanin
      Lipchanin 7 February 2021 10: 48
      -4
      Quote: newbie
      and Russia is honing its AKG destruction skills.

      Well, yes, it will be more accurate
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 7 February 2021 10: 32
    0
    and this is not the only way for Russia to deal with aircraft carrier formations (AUG), but one of the possible options for a comprehensive answer ... including hypersound from ships and submarines ... and of course coastal defense (well, if they really came very close)))
  • RealPilot
    RealPilot 7 February 2021 10: 42
    +4
    While the United States is betting on aircraft carriers, the Russian Aerospace Forces are learning to destroy them

    An asymmetric answer is the right approach. Each of the participants in the war has its own method of warfare, which has developed historically.

    You can, for example, recall the geopolitical terms "sea civilization" and "land civilization". We will have a war on the mainland, plus an intercontinental nuclear component will be added. After all, NATO was advancing precisely to our land borders.

    If we built aircraft carriers of comparable displacement and deployed them, say, in the Baltic Sea, how long would they last? Not for long, unfortunately. And you can get your partners with the long hand of Yars, then whack with a Mace for loyalty.

    That is, the task of Russia in a conventional war is to keep American ships at an ineffective distance, and in case of approach, to sink them. Well, the logistics component in the form of sea transports is also vulnerable to our anti-ship missiles.

    Each side has its own vulnerabilities. You need to know them and be able to implement this knowledge.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 7 February 2021 16: 23
      +2
      Quote: RealPilot
      Russia's task in conventional war - keep American ships at an ineffective distance, and in the event of an approach drown.

      Are you serious, or do you have such a strong sense of humor !?
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 7 February 2021 16: 38
        +1
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Are you serious, or do you have such a strong sense of humor !?

        Do not be surprised at anything.
        The second wave of specialists just went
        deep profile, the most trained.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 7 February 2021 10: 45
    -5
    What the Chinese wrote is not worth a damn! Mitrofanov and Timokhin have chewed everything up for a long time. At the moment, Russia does not have the strength to strike the AUG!
    How many living 22m3 are there now? How many trained crews are there?
    1. Dmitry Makarov
      Dmitry Makarov 7 February 2021 11: 43
      +1
      How many aircraft carriers are currently in service in the United States? What percentage of US carrier-based aircraft is still alive?
      - offhand, in the ranks of three, maximum 4 aircraft carriers, the rest are faulty and require repair.
      - for carrier-based aircraft for a short time - 70% are not subject to operation due to the exhausted resource.
  • lxenbv
    lxenbv 7 February 2021 10: 47
    -1
    China would have been better off taking care of their aircraft carriers before the United States began training on them. yes
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2021 10: 49
    +4
    On the pages of the military-thematic section of the Chinese resource Sohu, it is noted that Russia is developing the aviation component of countering aircraft carriers

    Yeah. By destroying naval missile aircraft. Oh well.
    1. Redsun
      Redsun 7 February 2021 12: 45
      -5
      Naval missile aviation was essentially destroyed long ago. However, I do not really understand what prevents, if necessary, from using aircraft from the Aerospace Forces. If there is an airplane, then there will be an application for it. Now we need to bomb land, they will bomb it, and tomorrow it will work on naval targets. Moreover, the number of cars has not been decreasing recently, but quite the opposite. The existing equipment is being modernized. Rockets began to fly faster and further. The organization of interaction between the fleet and aviation during exercises can be worked out. Is a separate Soviet-style MRA really needed now?
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 7 February 2021 16: 33
        0
        Quote: redsun
        which prevents, if necessary, the use of aircraft from the Aerospace Forces.

        Quote: redsun
        Now we need to bomb land, they will bomb it, and tomorrow it will work on naval targets.

        Quote: redsun
        The organization of interaction between the fleet and aviation during exercises can be worked out. Is a separate Soviet-style MRA really needed now?

        At one time, the classic said about the Decembrists: - "They are terribly far from the people ..."
        You are terribly far from the fleet, especially from naval aviation and even further from flight psychology ...
        (excerpts from your post are the clearest confirmation of this).
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2021 18: 15
        +4
        Quote: redsun
        However, I do not really understand what prevents, if necessary, the use of aircraft from the Aerospace Forces.

        It is not a sin not to understand something. There are many things I don't understand either.
        The bottom line is that naval warfare is an extremely specific matter and requires targeted combat training. If it is not there ... In general, this is about the same as demanding successful heart operations from a therapist.
        This is confirmed by the entire history of military conflicts - in almost all cases when the Air Force took up a naval war, there was no sense from them.
        1. Redsun
          Redsun 7 February 2021 18: 25
          0
          And what are the specific requirements for MPA? Is it necessary for the pilot to have special skills in order to reach the missile launch line and launch the pilot if there is a control center? If everything rests on interaction, then the problem is still solvable. In general, thanks for the response. As a layman, I would love to read an article by your authorship on this topic.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 08: 58
            +1
            Quote: redsun
            And what are the specific requirements for MPA? Is it necessary for the pilot to have special skills in order to reach the missile launch line and launch the pilot if there is a control center?

            Everything there is much ... or rather, not even so. MUCH harder.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 09: 24
            +1
            Quote: redsun
            As a layman, I would love to read an article by your authorship on this topic.

            It is unlikely that I would risk it :)))) To write a sane article on this topic, you need to know the specifics of MPA better than I do.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 7 February 2021 10: 55
    +3
    Flatter is so flatter, and we can also destroy the nests where they nest and hatch! That's how we should flatter. hi
  • Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 7 February 2021 11: 03
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    On the pages of the military-thematic section of the Chinese resource Sohu, it is noted that Russia is developing the aviation component of countering aircraft carriers

    Yeah. By destroying naval missile aircraft. Oh well.

    And where will their undestroyed pilgrims return. if x uterus rests on the bottom or physically cannot take them on board ?! Correctly they will be buried either in sea water or in mother earth. YES, you still need to dodge enemy air defense and aviation. soldier
  • Dmitry Makarov
    Dmitry Makarov 7 February 2021 11: 38
    +3
    The F-14 carrier-based interceptor could fight the Tu-22 on distant approaches, but the Americans relaxed and left only systems for the destruction of the Papuans in service. Even the vaunted F-35 is a pitiful subsonic attack aircraft with some stealth elements - the global error cost America hegemony.
  • alex aircraft
    alex aircraft 7 February 2021 11: 38
    +1
    There are only TWO regiments left on that 22m3 !! at best, 60 machines. Well, but probably everyone knows about the Putin-Serdyukov destruction of mrap. And they were cut not only by dill. What is, for example, the destruction of 444 TBAP in Vozdvizhenka !! and then Shoigu says there is not enough air force in the Far East ... that's it ...
  • Kazbek5000
    Kazbek5000 7 February 2021 11: 47
    +1
    The main thing in the use of the Kh-32 is the short response time of the enemy's missile defense system after launch from the TU-22M3M, i.e. time of approach to the AUG from the moment of launch, all the rest are derivatives of this value. Including several options for flight trajectories. The future belongs to air-to-surface weapons, which have minimal flight times.
  • Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 7 February 2021 12: 03
    +3
    I really like the Tu-22 concept. But the moment will inevitably roll when it will need to be replaced. Even if not a fundamentally new aircraft, but once again modernized. I mean that the glider's resource is not infinite, and I did not come across information that new twenty-second ones are being built.
    On account of the fact that the new missiles are a serious stick against the AUG, this is certainly good. But it seems to me that AUG is not our main headache. At least everywhere, except for the Pacific Fleet. In the north, they will not be able to work for technical reasons. And the waters of the Black and Baltic Seas are like a sack of hungry and angry rats for them. Yes, and in the Mediterranean, you will not really develop, in which we have Khmeimim, where the runway was recently modernized.
    Our main problem is in our bureaucratic offices and fragile young passionary minds. What kind of "missiles" to fight against them, in the absence of a coherent national ideology and its adequate propaganda from an early age?
  • voronkin
    voronkin 7 February 2021 12: 38
    -4
    Well, it was no coincidence that Biden began to sign peace treaties on limiting weapons with Moscow! They sensed that there was a smell of fried, and they had serious problems inside the country .. Their AUGs are no longer afraid of anyone, which is very pleasing .. Remember how the United States doesn’t like something immediately pulling its armada to the shores of rebellious countries .. Now they don’t even stutter about it ..Sanctions are threatened, although they are no longer so scary to the countries of the world.
  • 123456789
    123456789 7 February 2021 14: 11
    +2
    Quote: Simargl
    Quote: Finches
    again to whom? For countries like Ukraine ...
    Well, give her an aircraft carrier! Let them paint first.

    A brigade of Jews won a tender to paint a steamer.

    They come to the Odessa Shipping Company, sign a contract, they are paid an advance and they leave. They come to show their work in a week. Well, everything seems to be done as it should - the steamer is all white, beautiful, in general, as good as new ... They signed the Certificate of Completion, paid them the remaining amount, after which the Jews left safely. After some time, the steamer departs, turns on its other side, and there - the whole side is rusty, black and without a single white spot.

    The customer was shocked, the technical supervision was in a panic, they found the Jewish foreman, brought him to the ship and told him:

    - So, what are you doing, why half of the work is not done ?!

    - What are you talking about? Everything is under the contract!

    - Began to read the contract!

    - Well, here it is written: "The Brigade of Jews", on the one hand, and the Odessa Shipping Company, on the other hand, agreed to paint the ship ...
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 7 February 2021 16: 43
      +1
      Quote: 123456789
      the steamer departs, turns on its other side, and there the whole side is rusty, black and without a single white spot.

      If someone thinks that this is an anecdote, then it is not!
      https://legal-alien.ru/almanakh/akuly-iz-stali/glava-ii/23-sto-devyanosto-megavatt
  • Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 7 February 2021 14: 26
    0
    In Chinese Sohu: While the United States is betting on aircraft carriers, the Russian Aerospace Forces is learning to destroy them


    This is to the point. Sohu is sometimes bullshit, but at this point they are right.
    After all, how much anger and hatred in the Yankees caused the very fact of Russia's possession of hypersonic weapons laughing
  • Peter Shmakov
    Peter Shmakov 7 February 2021 16: 22
    +1
    How long can you write this nonsense about the destruction of aircraft carriers, what kind of militaristic masturbation is this ?! It doesn't matter if you can destroy this damn aircraft carrier or not, the main thing is where it will lead!
    And it will lead to a nuclear war and everyone will give a shit about these aircraft carriers and about everything!
  • Old26
    Old26 8 February 2021 00: 57
    +5
    Quote: hydrox
    Another disadvantage: too long travel time is extra chances of detection as over-the-horizon radars (these monsters can be seen already at a distance of 8 thousand km (Yakhroma),

    Well, in 1 "Yakhroma" is not yet, and when it will appear is unknown. Besides, she SUPERHORIZONTAL Radar in the early warning system, and not Over the horizon... Therefore, she will not see any aircraft carriers

    Quote: hydrox
    These products are not plastic toys: when they are used, no one is going to aim at the ship: the product is blown up in the air to affect all components of the order.

    And stupid Americans will let the subsonic X-102 to their order ??? Well, well, write more, the main thing is not to forget about the cruiser with several hundred UAVs, for which the manned fighters of the aircraft carrier are seeds ... It seems to be not April 1, but jokes ...