Strange guests on the decks of aircraft carriers

54
Strange guests on the decks of aircraft carriers


Two-level secure parking area 25 000 square. m. Lighting, dispensers, compressed air, nitrogen - in the presence of all the necessary infrastructure! 4 vertical hoist lifting capacity 49 tons. There is a sprinkler and foam fire extinguishing system with a developed network of smoke detectors. Reliable security system - two Sea Sparrow anti-aircraft missile systems (eight-charge unit Mk-29, effective firing range - 30 km), two Rolling Airframe Missle anti-aircraft missile systems RIM-116 (21 ready to launch, ZUR, effective firing range - 9 km). Parking can be delivered as soon as possible to any area of ​​the World Ocean. The cost of an elite facility is $ 5 billion.






Something like this can describe the 10 paranormal events of January 2012 of the year. In the Pacific Ocean was the strike aircraft carrier of the US Navy, the flight deck of which was chock filled with cars of various brands.

Are the brave American sailors so lacking in money allowances, that they have to drive custom-made cars from Japan? Or is it some kind of insidious plan to stun and confuse the enemy? Perhaps Hollywood is shooting another Transformers movie?

Alas, everything turned out to be very banal. The USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) multipurpose nuclear carrier was transferred from its main base (San Diego Naval Base, California) to the Puget Sound shipyard (Bremerton, Washington) to undergo its first scheduled repair and core replacement of reactors. The procedure is lengthy, it can take more than a year. With "Reagan" removed all aviation equipment, 2480 air personnel went ashore in San Diego, and the crew of the aircraft carrier (3200 sailors) were forced to proceed with their ship to a new duty station.

Since there will be basically nothing for the sailors to do, the command of the Navy allowed them to take their favorite toys with them (all the more so families of sailors will come to Bremerton after some time). The Pentagon, of course, is rich, but flatly refused to pay third-party firms for driving cars across the country. Indeed, why do we need hundreds of trailers if such a Barge is available. The command of the Navy thought and waved his hand - "Drive!" The sailors laughed with mooring chains to the decks of the ship hundreds of their pickups and sedans. The result was so spectacular that the Pentagon voluntarily granted the press these discrediting honor. fleet, Photo. On the other hand, the command showed concern for the people, finding a quick solution to the domestic problem.

Of course, something similar on the ships of the Russian Navy can not be imagined in principle. Of course, it happened - evacuation of the population, saving artistic values ​​from burning Sevastopol ... but in time of peace to use ships for no purpose - to accommodate the property of personnel in such huge quantities ... It is absolutely impossible. Regime facility, secrecy - relatives and friends are not allowed to go to Severomorsk closer than 30 kilometers, not to mention getting their own car on board. But, in fairness, it should be noted that the Russian military transport aircraft was regularly used to deliver military families to Tajikistan and back (witnessed personally, IL-76 flights from Sheremetyevo Airport, mid-90's). But it is already completely different. story.

Monsters on deck

At the beginning of the 60-ies, the US Navy faced another problem: to ensure the efficient operation of aircraft carriers and carrier-based aviation, a deck-mounted military transport aircraft with a large payload and a spacious cargo hold was required. At that time, C-1 “Trader” aircraft with deck payloads of 3800 kg and seats for nine passengers were used on deck of transport skadrils. “Traders” quickly and reliably delivered urgent cargo and equipment from the shore, provided aircraft carriers with spare parts for aircraft, carried out emergency missions to evacuate the wounded and sick sailors to the shore. But with the advent of heavy aircraft carriers of the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk types, as well as the even larger nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise, with 90 aircraft on board, the capabilities of the Traders were exhausted. Cumbersome and heavy turbojet aircraft engines did not fit into the small C-1 cargo bay as a whole, and had to be disassembled. And the 3800 kg payload seemed unacceptably small for the needs of a huge aircraft carrier.



At that moment, the command of the Navy came up with a fantastic idea of ​​using a heavy four-engined C-130 “Hercules” aircraft as a vehicle. A machine of this type was well known in the fleet - as early as in 1957, two Hercules were tested in the Marine Corps aviation: the possibility of using them as air tankers for KMP aircraft was investigated. Obviously, the tests were successful, because in 1959, the Navy ordered 46 basic aircraft refueling aircraft under the designation KC-130. A fuel tank with a capacity of 13 620 l was placed in the cargo compartment, from which fuel was supplied to two refueling units of the hose-cone system suspended under the wing. The air tanker could simultaneously serve two fighters, the docking took place at speeds up to 570 km / h, this allowed to refuel any type of aircraft used by naval aviation. But this background, this action will be next.



October 8 1963, one of the KS-130 tankers, was transferred to the Marine Test Center at the Patuxent River Air Base. Sailors seriously planned to put a clumsy monster on the deck of the ship.

Landing simulations were carried out on the outline of an aircraft carrier drawn on the ground. During the preparatory flight tests, it was suddenly found out that the landing characteristics of the Hercules were in some respects superior to those of conventional deck aircraft. Moreover, the Hercules did not need to be equipped with a landing hook (a hook at the back of the fuselage, standard for all deck vehicles) - it was enough to turn on the reverse of the screws to stop the heavy aircraft at the edge of the steel strip. But there were some difficulties - the pilots of deck aircraft never piloted a heavy four-engined plane, it took them some time to gain confidence at the helm of the "Hercules".



On a windy October day, the KC-130 headed for the open sea, where, for 400 miles from Boston, it was expected by the aircraft carrier Forrestal. From the flight deck removed all the aircraft. The ship turned against the wind, and the "Hercules" began to decline. Immediately after touching the deck with the wheels of the main landing gear, the pilots gassed and went into the second round. For a few days, they made 29 such touches. Finally, 22 of October 1963 of the year, the pilots immediately before touching the deck with wheels turned on the reverse of the screws - and the first real landing on the deck took place!

Senseless experiments ended in a week. KC-130 made 21 landing on the ship and as many successful take-offs from its deck without the help of any springboards, catapults or launch powder accelerators (which is not surprising - the Hercules had excellent piloting qualities and high thrust-weight ratio). Gradually, the flight weight of the aircraft was brought to 54,4 tons.

For comparison: one of the heaviest deck-based aircraft - the F-14 two-seater Tomcat interceptor had a take-off weight of 33 tons. About the same weighed deck bomber A-3 "Skywatch" (31 ton), the legendary "Vigilant" had an even lower take-off weight - 28 tons. The take-off weight of the modern Super Hornet deck fighter-bomber F / A-18 usually does not exceed 22 tons (according to calculations, it can reach 30).


Lokheed C-130 Hercules


Grumman C-2 Greyhound


As sane experts predicted, regular operation of such a bulky plane from the deck of the ship was impossible. The Hercules had few chances to take to the air in windless weather, and preparations for receiving the C-130 on deck limited the aircraft carrier’s combat capability — it was necessary to remove all the aircraft’s equipment in the hangar, and the landed transportist blocked the approach to the catapults and prevented the landing operations.

As a result, the US Navy command accepted a compromise option - to deliver bulky cargo from onshore bases and integrated supply ships to an aircraft carrier rational use of a helicopter - unlike the “Hercules”, heavy SH-3 “Sea King” or CH-53 “Sea Steelen” placed in the underdeck hangar and can carry any non-standard and bulky cargo on the external sling. For fast delivery of urgent cargo to the aircraft carrier, a new C-2 “Greyhound” vehicle was created - a modification of the E-2 “Hokai” radar detection aircraft, with the equipment removed and the radar antenna. Greyhound's payload is 4,5 tons of cargo or 28 passengers. Flight range - 2400 kilometers. When parked, the wing planes turn back and fold along the fuselage, making the Greyhound a very compact deck-mounted aircraft.

Operation Sandy

The Pacific theater of military operations has shown that the main striking power of the US armed forces is the navy. Sailors were proud of their greatness until the New Sun flashed over Hiroshima. Nuclear weapon The prestige of the US Navy has been shaken - the shells of 406-mm guns of battleships and hundreds of deck torpedo bombers were as weak as worms in front of the power of Strategic Aviation. None of the deck aircraft in the 40-ies could not be compared with the land-based B-29 Super Strength bomber, moreover, none of the deck aircraft of the US Navy could even lift a nuclear bomb! What a disgrace…



In an effort to somehow improve the situation, the American admirals decided to equip aircraft carriers with completely inadequate weapons - the V-2 ballistic missiles captured in the Third Reich. And it was a serious trump card: in the 40 of the US Navy had a complete monopoly in the oceans - the carrier group would not have been difficult to break through to the coast of any state (according to statistics, 90% of the world's population live no more than 500 km from the coastline of seas and oceans ), where the V-2 will be launched from the deck of the aircraft carrier, which cannot be intercepted at all. Serious combat system. Of course, in practice, a lot of problems appeared: the sea motion complicated the refueling of the rocket with fuel, there were great difficulties with the stabilization of the V-2 on the launch pad.

6 September 1947 of the “Bermuda Triangle” from the board of the midway carrier in full swing “Midway” launched the V-2. The rocket took off at an acute angle to the horizon, nearly demolished the superstructure, flew 9 kilometers and safely fell apart into three parts, which, tumbling, fell into the sea.



The idea of ​​turning aircraft carriers into "heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers" (the reader probably understood the hint) was pursued by the US Navy before the start of the 60-s. 10 modernized aircraft carriers of the Essex type (of the Oriskani type) were seriously armed with Regulus 1 cruise missiles with special combat units. For launch, steam catapults were used - the rocket was placed on a three-wheeled cart, accelerated as an ordinary plane and ... whistled tossed from the deck towards the enemy. The military was particularly pleased by the fact that the rocket could receive accurate target designation from the DRLO aircraft of the deck wing on the entire flight trajectory. But, with the advent of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, all these perversions have come to nothing - for the last 50 years, the Americans have denied the presence of nuclear weapons on the decks of their aircraft carriers, and aircraft carriers themselves are regularly used in local wars and to control maritime communications. In the long absence of the Third World War, aircraft carriers proved to be an exceptionally effective means in numerous Cold War conflicts: unlike underwater strategic missile carriers, the results of their work are intended for those living now and not for a handful of three-legged mutants who survived a global nuclear war.


Soviet sailors also know how to joke! The flight deck of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Minsk" during the Admiral's Hour. Mediterranean, 1985 year
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    21 August 2012 09: 25
    It's cool, of course, with a deck full of cars. But an aircraft carrier without carrier-based aircraft and escort ships is simply defenseless. It could have been "accidentally" sunk during a "commercial" transition.
    1. bye
      bye
      +9
      21 August 2012 09: 50
      Quote: Rashid
      But an aircraft carrier without carrier-based aircraft and escort ships is simply defenseless. It could have been "accidentally" sunk during a "commercial" transition.

      This is tantamount to declaring war, and the U.S. aircraft carrier is not the only one; security of the transition was probably ensured winked
      In general, Sani Romanoff's business was "burned", now he is "butting" with the tax authorities laughing
      1. Vito
        +5
        21 August 2012 10: 00
        while ... Great "OBZHORA" drinks
        Well, against our tax, even an Aircraft Carrier is powerless!
        1. bye
          bye
          +3
          21 August 2012 10: 02
          Quote: Vito
          Well, against our tax, even an Aircraft Carrier is powerless!

          Hello, friend! You noticed it for sure laughing , but in general a funny article with interesting photos hi
    2. Tirpitz
      +2
      21 August 2012 09: 52
      He most likely came with an escort, and besides, now not one country in the world will dare to sink the US aircraft carrier without delivering a preemptive nuclear strike before this, but this is not realistic now.
    3. +2
      21 August 2012 10: 19
      Quote: Rashid
      It could have been "accidentally" sunk while making a "commercial" transition.

      The transition took place along the ZPS (US west coast). Who can drown him there?
      1. Protey
        +6
        21 August 2012 13: 56
        Col.,
        Somali pirates! laughing
    4. +6
      21 August 2012 11: 10
      Even in war, this carcass is not easy to sink. To incapacitate, as a combat unit of the fleet - this is not yet to sink to the bottom! But to sink 97 tons of Reagan with 000 thousand characters fighting for survivability .... this is not two fingers to you on the asphalt - the navel will untie. Even the Japanese Shinano perished for many hours and would not perish if his team had been thrown into the sandbank.
      1. +1
        21 August 2012 19: 42
        Dmitrich, Sinano died in 7 hours. Not so much. Especially when compared with Lex and Yorktown, which were smaller.
        1. +1
          22 August 2012 03: 05
          and Marat lay to the bottom, but he was lifted ... and for another 2,5 years he forced the Fritz to bite the ground without leaving the wall.
        2. Sergl
          +1
          22 August 2012 10: 14
          Quote: Delta
          Shinano died in 7 hours. Not so much.


          This is with a team that has no practical experience in the struggle for survivability.
      2. +1
        21 August 2012 20: 33
        The Titanic was also considered unsinkable.
        And the struggle for the survivability of the ship is a relative thing in the west (the English "Ark Royal").
        1. +1
          22 August 2012 03: 09
          Have you seen a cow in the Tu22m3 bomb bay? That's it! If you want to live, you won’t get so excited! (with).
      3. 0
        23 August 2012 00: 12
        Quote: dmitreach

        Offline
        dmitreach RU Yesterday, 11: 10 ↑
        - 5 +
        Even in war, this carcass is not easy to sink. To incapacitate, as a combat unit of the fleet - this is not yet to sink to the bottom! But sink the 97 000 ton Reagan with 3 thousand characters fighting for survivability ....


        Well, they will be drowned by tactical nuclear weapons, so this carcass can easily be turned over to the top with a belly. Easy target for a strategist like TU-160. And for a volley of Klab or Yakhont too.
    5. 0
      21 August 2012 12: 22
      Quote: Rashid
      But an aircraft carrier without carrier-based aircraft and escort ships is simply defenseless. It could have been "accidentally" sunk during a "commercial" transition.


      Well, how else. The ship went for repairs, do you think our submarines are returning armed to Severomorsk from Zvezdochka?
      And what is the point of such a drowning, if the United States has 11 pieces. Plus they walked in their cords along the West Coast of the USA
      1. +2
        21 August 2012 13: 34
        SWEET_SIXTEEN, welcome!
        you can accidentally sink ... if Cap - "Scottina" and the lighthouse right on the course.
  2. Vito
    +2
    21 August 2012 09: 26
    Well, thank God, but I already thought that the Americans appeared with machine-planes with vertical take-off!
    In general, convenient transportation!
    1. +6
      21 August 2012 12: 19
      All that is missing is the landing of the Hercules on the Hercules, the aircraft carrier on the aircraft carrier and the vertical launch of the aircraft carrier smile
  3. Friend
    +3
    21 August 2012 09: 41
    Around some hucksters ... another thing if it would be trophies))
  4. 8 company
    +10
    21 August 2012 09: 44
    fiction! I would never have believed that the Hercules could land and take off from an aircraft carrier.
    1. Vito
      +1
      21 August 2012 09: 56
      8 mouth (2)Good morning to you. fellow
      Quote: Company 8
      that Hercules could land and take off from an aircraft carrier.

      We must try to put it on our TU-160 in an experiment!
      1. +4
        21 August 2012 10: 42
        Quote: Vito
        We must try to put it on our TU-160 in an experiment!

        Already tried. No kidding! True, not the Tu-160, but the Tu-95rts - our famous strategic aircraft for reconnaissance and target designation of naval aviation. Of course, the crew was not really going to board the deck, but they simulated a landing approach, even released the chassis, passed over the deck ... Some Americans are said to have jumped from the deck into the water in horror. So our jokes are also able.
        1. Vito
          +3
          21 August 2012 10: 47
          Quote: Colonel
          So our jokes are also able.

          I know!
          THIS AND STRONG!
          1. +2
            21 August 2012 11: 26
            Vito,

            how else could you joke?
    2. +2
      21 August 2012 14: 24
      I, too, amazed. Although the years of operation of aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft .... are bearing fruit.
  5. Gazprom
    -1
    21 August 2012 10: 16
    not, well, heroin was transported by our military sides, but so, stuff the aircraft carrier ....
  6. 0
    21 August 2012 10: 29
    About Hercules ... I thought that landing an airbus in a movie was fantastic ... but no ... probably it would still sit down ... and drew attention to the fact that the absence of nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers was declared .... this means using special weapons against them ammunition is also impossible ... minus the article ... I’ll explain ... after reading the feeling that we lost here remains ... and who is pleased ...
    1. 0
      21 August 2012 11: 05
      Quote: ward
      drew attention to the fact that the absence of nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers is declared ....

      That's exactly what is DECLARED. In fact, up to the end of the 80s, each Avma (Avm) had 28 tactical nuclear warheads.
    2. 0
      21 August 2012 12: 03
      Quote: ward
      this means that it is also impossible to use special ammunition against them ...

      How is it?
      1. +1
        21 August 2012 12: 14
        Quote: El13
        How is it?

        Do you want to die in the Nuclear War over some Saddam Hussein?

        Aircraft carriers have been rambling for 70 years, and the entire Soviet counteraction system has been useless - it’s impossible to shoot a nuclear warhead in a local war
        1. 0
          21 August 2012 17: 44
          You wrote nonsense ... If there is an attack on an aircraft carrier from our side, then nobody will be interested in what they pulled into it ... the answer will not depend on it.
          1. 0
            21 August 2012 18: 40
            Quote: El13
            If there is an attack on the aircraft carrier from our side

            Attacking an aircraft carrier by conventional means is useless from a technical point of view (RCC is like a shot for an elephant, and it’s almost impossible to get into it) and can lead to great international complications.
            The attack of the BNC aircraft carrier is a declaration of a world nuclear war, only a madman thrown into the trash will give such an order (of course, sensible people will prevent this, no one will die due to the next Hussein)

            As a result: effective counteraction to aircraft carriers in local conditions does not exist.
            1. Nikopol
              0
              22 August 2012 17: 36
              Every action has a counteraction ...
              You say so, as if the aircraft carrier’s hull is made of armored steel - everything can be sunk; in a local war — by a sabotage group (well trained), and in a conventional war — by a couple of cruise missiles or torpedoes.
              And your words [and it’s almost impossible to get there] "What are the reasons? I don’t understand.
              1. 0
                23 August 2012 09: 19
                Quote: Nikopol
                and in a conventional war, a couple of cruise missiles or torpedoes

                Do not tell a hedgehog naked w ...! For the sinking of an aircraft carrier, a direct hit of at least 11 (eleven!) KR with a conventional warhead is required. Any naval officer will tell you this. To ensure such a number of hits, an outfit of forces is required in the mrad (missile division, 60-70 aircraft, 120-210 KR)) plus at least 40-60 aircraft of the support groups. With us in the Federation Council (or Pacific Fleet), so much could be scraped only during the Soviet era.
                1. Tiger
                  0
                  28 August 2012 23: 07
                  And how much is needed to suppress? so that I could not perform combat missions?
                  1. 0
                    29 August 2012 09: 45
                    Quote: Tiger
                    And how much is needed to suppress?

                    The term "suppression" is used in relation to any type of defense or support, for example, air defense, communications, etc. In the case of ships, groupings of ships (AMG, KUG, etc.), the degrees of defeat are applicable: "defeat" (destruction), "defeat" (incapacitation). One missile may be enough to disable an aircraft carrier, it all depends on where it hits. And the recovery time for BG will be different in this case: from several minutes and more.
                    1. Tiger
                      0
                      29 August 2012 20: 36
                      Got it) Thanks for the answers!
                      1. 0
                        30 August 2012 09: 11
                        Quote: Tiger
                        Got it) Thanks for the answers!

                        Tiger, I got it a little confused in the answer, I'm correcting it: the term "suppression" is also applicable to groupings of forces (troops), including ship groupings. The gradation of the degree of influence by groupings looks like this: "defeat" - the destruction of more than 75% of the composition of the forces, "suppression" - 50%, "weakening" - at least 25% of the composition of the group. With regard to single ships: "destruction", "withdrawal from the side", "damage".
                      2. Tiger
                        0
                        1 September 2012 17: 04
                        thank you!
  7. not good
    +2
    21 August 2012 12: 52
    During the time of B. Yeltsin, when the ships were withdrawn from the non-Soviet Baltic, Albatross came to Kronstat with machines bolted wherever possible. The truth was that the ship was partially unarmed because distilled from a shipyard, but 5 cars on the deck of the IPC is cooler than on an aircraft carrier Yes
  8. AvtoVAZ
    +4
    21 August 2012 13: 17
    We must pay tribute to the American command - they take care of their troops, we should learn from them.
    1. +1
      21 August 2012 14: 15
      What does concern have to do with it - ordinary American progmatism. it is not profitable to pay them for the transport of personal belongings of military personnel to a new duty station by civilian firms - that’s agreed.
  9. iwanniegrozny
    +2
    21 August 2012 13: 21
    Interestingly, and the crew of Hercules for landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier received the title of Heroes of the North American United States?
    1. +1
      21 August 2012 14: 24
      Yes, James Flatley and Lieutenant William Stovall received Air Cross
      1. iwanniegrozny
        +2
        21 August 2012 15: 20
        There was also a flight engineer and a factory test pilot "Lockheed" on board, only 4 people
        http://www.scaaonline.com/content/rear-admiral-james-h-flatley-iii-ret
  10. TY-TY
    +2
    21 August 2012 14: 19
    photo with cars is just super :)
  11. SIT
    +4
    21 August 2012 14: 44
    You can’t show these pictures in Vladik !! The local brother, who lives in a Japanese used auto industry, will drink for a week with envy, and then they will throw themselves off on tickets and send brothers from the former fleet to hijack where the thread is the same aircraft carrier and pack it in full Toyota and Nissan in Yokohama. And they’ll steal it. The state marines will then not come out of the guards and they will see Russian everywhere.
  12. +2
    21 August 2012 15: 20
    And how many barbecues can you put on such a "clearing"! Here's a picnic would come out smile
  13. +4
    21 August 2012 15: 34
    It’s like we amers wouldn’t like to respect them; not all of them are worth it, but those who build and design these engines have not yet worked out their engineering idea, it’s a pity we only have one floating, but considering how many planes there are on Kuznetsovo (still I don’t understand why at least for ten years it is impossible to equip a ship with a full staff of planes, at least two a year .... and the irony is that on our Kuznetsov it’s just possible to drive cars because of a bunch of free space. ...
    1. Tirpitz
      +1
      21 August 2012 16: 35
      Everything to the point +.
  14. ICT
    +4
    21 August 2012 16: 09
    sometimes there are such monsters appear ...
    1. +1
      21 August 2012 23: 12
      An interesting little beast ... Still from the film ... how is it there ... "Stealth" seems ... reminds ...
  15. +4
    21 August 2012 16: 47
    Quote: SIT
    The local brother, who lives in a Japanese used auto industry, will drink for a week with envy, and then they will throw themselves off on tickets and send brothers from the former fleet to hijack where the thread is the same aircraft carrier and pack it in full Toyota and Nissan in Yokohama.


    It’s not long to wait. as soon as two will arrive smile
  16. +1
    21 August 2012 17: 01
    Amers would have long had to take their minds, use aircraft carriers (and not only) for their intended purpose: transport commercial cargo, irrigate fields, put out fires, save people, etc. Then you look, maybe you began to respect the world. And so .. sooner or later they will come .. end. hi
  17. Warik
    +2
    21 August 2012 19: 31
    If their economic affairs go in the same direction, it will not be surprising to see their `` moonlighting '' carriers. laughing
  18. +2
    21 August 2012 23: 08
    Cars are cool. It's awesome with "Hercules" ... But I'll add a picture on my own. Shop of course. Explicit shop. But it's still pretty unusual ...
  19. mitya
    +1
    22 August 2012 06: 38
    Well, and that in the last photo, then yes, we also sunbathed during the admiral’s hour, and in principle, according to the ship’s charter, it’s allowed and this is not a joke,
    1. +2
      22 August 2012 14: 01
      for the Mediterranean, in general, the standard version
      just like willow volleyball play flying
    2. Tiger
      0
      28 August 2012 23: 10
      What is the admiral's hour? enlighten, plz)
      1. +1
        29 August 2012 09: 49
        Quote: Tiger
        What is the admiral's hour?

        Roughly speaking, this is a naval "quiet hour".
  20. Voin sveta82
    -1
    22 August 2012 12: 57
    All these aircraft carriers are made ... only to intimidate ... more poorly developed countries ...)))) only the Americans do not understand and will never be able to understand why they are dying ... soldiers tricked by technology from the old weapons of the partisans of the east and from their immense desire to destroy the invaders of their territory)))
    1. Nikopol
      +2
      22 August 2012 17: 45
      The Second World War, for your information, proved the opposite - an aircraft carrier with an air group is the most powerful weapon (we do not take into account nuclear weapons). And in the past 20 years, America has repeatedly proved and shown the advantages of having aircraft carriers.
  21. +1
    22 August 2012 14: 27
    “Of course, something like this cannot be imagined in principle on the ships of the Russian Navy. It happened, of course, the evacuation of the population, the salvation of art treasures from the burning Sevastopol ... but in order to use the ships in peacetime for inappropriate purposes - to accommodate personnel property in such huge quantities ... This is absolutely impossible. Security facility, secrecy ... "
    You yourself believe that they wrote ... From Germany, they drove dozens to Kaliningrad on warships ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"