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

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."

Comments

[Gardamir]

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?

[Finches]

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 ...

[Mountain shooter]

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.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

Especially supersonic and hypersonic

And now there are practically no others

[Doccor18]

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 ...

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Doccor18

Is.

And I didn't say that not at all
But the stake is already on over and hypersound.

[krot]

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.

[Lannan Shi]

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?

[krot]

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!

[Lannan Shi]

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.

[krot]

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!

[Lannan Shi]

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.
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?

[Mountain shooter]

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 ...

[Lannan Shi]

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.

[Mountain shooter]

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?

[Lannan Shi]

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.

[bk0010]

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.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

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.

[akarfoxhound]

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.

[Xnumx vis]

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!

[Kart]

How atomic strategists crawling under his belly will help him dodge missiles flying over water is absolutely incomprehensible.

[Xnumx vis]

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!

[Korax71]

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.

[arkadiyssk]

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.

[akropin]

The first thing that came to mind was that it was theoretically possible for civilian use.

[Sevastiec]

It looks like the series of articles "Naval War for Beginners", few people have read here.

[hydrox]

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 ...

[Boa kaa]

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 ...

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?
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! ) 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.

[hydrox]

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.

[Kazarinovsergen]

Criticizing the Main Command of the Navy, you might think that you are at least from the Intergalactic Council

[Igor Aviator]

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!

[ironic]

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]

What are you ... There is. At the moment, they are the main weapons.

[Klingon]

why is it not? Low-flying and subsonic calibers, the striped tokamaks are also subsonic

[Kazarinovsergen]

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]

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.

[Sergey Averchenkov]

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.

[mr.ZinGer]

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.

[Igor Aviator]

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.

[Simargl]

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.

[mr.ZinGer]

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.

[Simargl]

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.

[mr.ZinGer]

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.

[Simargl]

Quote: mr.ZinGer

The Americans have found effective countermeasures.

An efficient method - super-fast ship building? Somewhere I heard about "fill up with corpses"

[mr.ZinGer]

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.

[Simargl]

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.

[mr.ZinGer]

You yourself explained everything, with technical superiority, all problems are easier to solve.

[Simargl]

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]

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]

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]

Quote: Finches

this is the effect of psychological influence,

Eun was not impressed by this "effect"

[Finches]

So North Korea, not Ukraine, is a technically quite developed country and, most importantly, an independent and independent state!

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Finches

and, most importantly, an independent and independent state!

Having an atomic weapon

[Finches]

First of all, having a sense of their own national dignity!

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Finches

Primarily having a sense of their own national dignity

And that too

[mr.ZinGer]

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.

[Boris55]

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.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Boris55

were already near Indonesia.

One kind of left urgently for repairs

[ironic]

Because Trump, in fact, was not going to start hostilities.

[askort154]

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!

[Simargl]

Quote: Finches

again to whom? For countries like Ukraine ...

Well, give her an aircraft carrier! Let them paint first.

[Igor Aviator]

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!

[Simargl]

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]

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.

[Lipchanin]

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."

[Gardamir]

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.

[dauria]

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.

[Ross xnumx]

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?

[Boa kaa]

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! )
IMHO.

[ironic]

Which in this form most likely will never be. As we are unlikely to see the super-eruption of Yellowstone in our lifetime.

[hydrox]

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]

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" ...

[Rostislav Prokopenko]

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.

[ironic]

They do not have to fly up to the very point of launching the rocket. In addition, they have a drone refueling.

[Igor Aviator]

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]

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]

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.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: prior

The main thing is to have a tool for destruction and destruction.

We try ...

[Boa kaa]

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!

[Pessimist22]

The plane is quite old, what will it replace in the future? How many non-brothers have cut them.

[grandfather_Kostya]

Bombers fly for a long time, just don't be lazy to change motors and, sometimes, avionics.

[Runoway]

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]

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?

[Volder]

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.

[Bez 310]

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 ...

[hydrox]

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).

[Piramidon]

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?

[ironic]

So they can also launch their missiles from outside the danger zone.

[Piramidon]

Quote: ironic

So they can also launch their missiles from outside the danger zone.

Tu-22M3 can do the same.

[ironic]

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.

[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!

[Piramidon]

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.

[ironic]

The Kh-102 is never weak and it is more difficult to detect them than the Kh-32.

[hydrox]

Weak - this means that this product can be equipped for both 10 kTn and 200 kTn.

[ironic]

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.

[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.

[ironic]

To do this, you need to undermine it above the middle of the order, and this is not much different from hitting the ship.

[Volder]

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.

[Runoway]

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.

[ironic]

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.

[Runoway]

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.

[ironic]

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.

[Runoway]

Stupidity, the radius of action of the AUG 800 km, against the 2000 km TU-22m3, not taking into account the submarine

[ironic]

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.

[grandfather_Kostya]

This is more than enough to combat AUG.

In the presence of refueling in the air, and we have critically few tankers!

[ironic]

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.

[hydrox]

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.

[ironic]

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.

[Sergey Averchenkov]

Why exactly 30? Where does this information come from?

[Runway]

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.

[timokhin-aa]

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]

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.

[Bez 310]

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.

[newcomer]

What do you mean "no planes"?

[Bez 310]

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.

[Lipchanin]

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?

[Bez 310]

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...

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Bez 310

we trained to fly 50 planes

So then rockets did not fly 1000 km
And their speed was subsonic

[Bez 310]

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 ...

[Aleks tv]

... 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 ...


Alex.

[Bez 310]

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

[Aleks tv]

... 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.

I got HUGE pleasure.

Thank you.

[Boa kaa]

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!

[Bez 310]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

About how!

How glad I am for that author ...

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Bez 310

How glad I am for that author ...

Well, at least something you can still be happy about!

[Nemchinov Vl]

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 ?!

[Sergey Averchenkov]

50? Let me not believe - even the USSR would not have pulled it.

[Bez 310]

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.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Bez 310

we trained to fly 50 planes
to hit

Since then, the means of destruction have changed a lot.

[Bez 310]

Quote: Piramidon

Since then, the means of destruction have changed a lot.

Well yes...
X-22 have changed?

[Piramidon]

Quote: Bez 310

X-22 have changed?

And besides that, nothing else was entered into service?

[Bez 310]

Quote: Piramidon

And besides that, nothing else was entered into service?

I dont know...
And you?

[Nemchinov Vl]

Quote: Piramidon

Since then, the means of destruction have changed a lot.

but the means of issuing CU have decreased !!...
"Ivan Tsarevich shot an arrow .... yes, he hit a toad ... !!" ....

[newcomer]

Where did our fourteen (plus / minus) TU22M3 go?

[Lipchanin]

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?

[Bez 310]

Quote: Lipchanin

And the TU-160 is no longer an airplane?

"Yes, his grenades are of the wrong system."

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Bez 310

"Yes, his grenades are of the wrong system."

It will be necessary, adapted to the one that is necessary

[Bez 310]

Quote: Lipchanin

It will be necessary, adapted to the one that is necessary

It took a long time ...

[hydrox]

And what's wrong with "one hundred and two X"?

[bar]

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

[Lipchanin]

Quote: newbie

and Russia is honing its AKG destruction skills.

Well, yes, it will be more accurate

[silverwolf88]

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)))

[Real Pilot]

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.

[Boa kaa]

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 !?

[Bez 310]

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.

[dgonni]

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?

[Dmitry Makarov]

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]

China would have been better off taking care of their aircraft carriers before the United States began training on them.

[Andrei 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.

[Redsun]

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?

[Boa kaa]

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).

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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.

[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? 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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

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]

Flatter is so flatter, and we can also destroy the nests where they nest and hatch! That's how we should flatter.

[Vlad5307]

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.

[Dmitry Makarov]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ...

[Bez 310]

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]

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

[Peter Shmakov]

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]

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 ...