Military Review

Goals and objectives of the Russian Navy: destroy half of the enemy fleet

183

Article Goals and Objectives of the Russian Navy: Strategic Deterrence we considered the only task - to ensure the deployment and protection in the protected "bastions" of strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs). The fulfillment of this task allows at the strategic level to ensure the security of the state from a large-scale war, including the use of nuclear weaponsthreatening the very existence of the Russian state.


At the same time, despite the ability of the strategic nuclear forces (SNF) to provide protection against a full-scale invasion and a massive nuclear strike, there are threats of local conflicts, including with powerful, technologically advanced powers, with strong armed forces, as well as the threat of a limited conflict with the participation of superpowers, which include the United States and, perhaps, China. And the use of nuclear weapons in these conflicts can bring more negative consequences than benefits.

Based on this, the country needs modern and high-tech general-purpose armed forces, one of the most important components of which is the navy.

It is obvious that our country has limited financial, production and technological capabilities. These capabilities are not only significantly inferior to the capabilities of the United States in conjunction with the NATO countries, but also the United States separately, and in some competencies we lag behind other members of the alliance.

As we said in the previous article, this means that we will not be able to achieve victory over the united fleet NATO and even the US Navy, especially when using "symmetrical" weapons and tactics.


The US Navy is superior in combat power to the Naval Forces of all the rest of the world combined

What can we count on?

Fleet and space


First of all, let us voice one important thesis, which, in the author's opinion, will determine the appearance and capabilities of not only the Navy, but also the Air Force and Ground Forces in the medium term:

Reducing the cost of launching a payload (PN) into Earth's orbit, achieved with the help of reusable launch vehicles (LV), as well as progress in microelectronics and competencies obtained in the creation of commercial artificial Earth satellites (AES) intended for the deployment of global satellite Internet communication systems , will allow the leading powers in the next 20 (+/- 10) years to deploy in orbit such a number of military and civilian intelligence, command and communications satellites, which will ensure the observation of the entire surface of the planet in 24/365 mode.

Goals and objectives of the Russian Navy: destroy half of the enemy fleet
As of March 24, 2021, the Starlink global communications system has 1383 satellites, their complexity is comparable to the complexity of radar satellites for Earth sensing

This means that any large targets, such as surface ships or mobile ground missile systems (PGRK), can be tracked by the enemy around the clock and all year round.

Combined with the ability to retarget long-range weapons in flight, large mobile targets will become as vulnerable targets as stationary targets.

At an intermediate stage, when, taking into account the constantly increasing number of reconnaissance satellites, as well as maneuvering platforms such as the X-37 and Dream Chaser Cargo System with the Shooting Star module, capable of quickly changing orbit and carrying a variety of reconnaissance means, a situation of uncertainty will arise when it will be impossible to determine whether a surface ship / naval strike group (KUG) / aircraft carrier strike group (AUG) is detected and tracked or not.

The possibilities of space reconnaissance means and their prospects are considered by the author in articles Find an aircraft carrier: space reconnaissance и Capella Space's All-Seeing Eye: Harbinger of the Satellite Intelligence Revolution.

At the same time, one should not rely on the possibility of destroying reconnaissance satellites - this is an extremely difficult and expensive task, which was discussed in the articles Достучаться до небес и Orbital Cleaners... This task can be solved only with the use of comparable, or even more resources than will be spent on the deployment of reconnaissance satellites. Conventional nuclear weapons are also likely to be ineffective, special neutron charges will be required (a lot of expensive neutron charges), and their use is guaranteed to mean the beginning of a nuclear war.

The capabilities of satellites will complement the so-called "atmospheric satellites" - stratospheric unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which are discussed in the article Find an aircraft carrier: a view from the stratosphere.


Numerous satellites and stratospheric UAVs can completely dispel the "fog of war" over the planet's surface

There is some form of denial - the Americans did not fly to the moon, the Falcon-9 launch vehicle is unprofitable, Starlink does not exist, the Earth is flat, and so on ... However, the author has no doubts about the realism and feasibility of all the above technologies and complexes. Their influence on the format of warfare on land, on water and in the air will be colossal. If SpaseX manages to implement a fully reusable super-heavy rocket Starship in the format in which it is conceived, then the consequences of this are still difficult to imagine.

Ignoring the factor of "all-seeing space" can lead to the fact that in the construction of the armed forces strategic miscalculations will be made, which will make them irreversibly vulnerable and incapable of fighting the enemy.

What conclusion follows from the above?

A critical element of the combat capability of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in general and the Navy in particular is the ability to ensure parity in space with the leading powers in terms of intelligence, command and communication (RUS) assets.

The importance of this task is comparable to the importance of maintaining nuclear parity. So, oddly enough, but the capabilities of the Navy (as well as the Air Force and Ground Force) will be determined by the possibility of creating a reusable launch vehicle with a low cost of launching a launch vehicle into orbit and the possibility of large-scale production of inexpensive reconnaissance, control and communications satellites. And this, in turn, will require the creation of a new reliable and efficient rocket engine (most likely on a methane + oxygen fuel vapor) and industrial production of radiation-resistant electronic components.

The creation of advanced space assets of the RUS will allow the Russian Navy to make the most of the capabilities of long-range missile weapons and, in particular, to promptly destroy about half of the enemy's fleet.

Fleet on the shore


About half of the enemy's fleet is almost always "on the shore". This is due to the operational stress coefficient (KO), which characterizes how much time surface ships and submarines spend on combat duty, and how much in their home bases, performing maintenance / refueling / repair / loading weapons / rest / crew change, etc.

For most fleets of the world, on average, KOH is about 0,5 (50%), that is, half of the ships are located in their basing areas. For many countries, in particular for the Russian fleet, the KOH is much less than 0,5. In wartime or pre-war times, the COP will inevitably be increased, but this will inevitably affect its decrease in the future - equipment and crews will simply be worn out.

When they talk about the possibility of destroying SSBNs standing in the base, they mean precisely the shooting of stationary ships, for which even anti-ship missiles (ASM) are not needed, high-precision cruise missiles (CR) with a much longer range can be used.


The photo taken in 2015 shows how four Project 667BDRM SSBNs are simultaneously in the Gadzhievo base - K-51 Verkhoturye, K-84 Yekaterinburg, K-18 Karelia and K-407 Novomoskovsk, and also one SSBN K-535 "Yuri Dolgoruky" project 955

It is the surface ships and submarines of the enemy stationed at the base that should become target number 1 for the Russian Navy and Air Force.

The best means for striking NK and submarines standing in the base are nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (SSGN) of the promising project 955K, multipurpose nuclear submarines (MCSAPL) of project 855 (M) and strategic bombers Tu-160 (M).

Use of SNF aircraft in the interests of the Navy


The Tu-160 (M) strategic missile-carrying bombers belong to the Russian Air Force, not the Navy, but should be actively used in the interests of the Navy, since their role in nuclear deterrence is minimal, and it is a crime to develop their resources for bombing militants in Syria. Previously, the author considered equipping the Tu-160 (M) with missiles of the "Dagger" complex in the article Hypersonic "Dagger" on the Tu-160. Reality or fiction?. According to information from the TASS agency, obtained from a source in the military-industrial complex, this possibility is also being considered by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation..


Placing missiles of the "Dagger" complex on strategic bombers-missile carriers Tu-160 will create a long-range complex with the highest speed of reaction to threats. With the fastest approach to the target with a cruising speed of 1,5M, the total radius of destruction of the Tu-160M ​​"Dagger" complex will be 3000-3500 km. This mode will provide a minimum response time to a threat and will allow you to act in the interests of the three fleets. The maximum time - from the moment of takeoff (excluding the preparation time of the aircraft for departure) to the moment of hitting the target at a distance of 3000-3500 km - in this mode will be approximately 2-2,5 hours

However, the placement of the "Dagger" on the Tu-160 is not critical, it may be aviation version of the complex "Caliber", and anti-ship missiles based on the KR X-101, and "Zircon". In the context of solving the problem of defeating NK and submarines in the base, the modernization of the Tu-160 (M) for the use of anti-ship missiles is not required at all, they can use the standard X-101 for this, the flight range of which, according to various estimates, varies in the range from 3000 up to 5500 kilometers.

In addition, you should not get hung up on the Tu-160 (M), both Tu-95MSM and PAK-DA can do this. Cargo aircraft equipped with equipment for dropping cruise missiles can be considered as a cheap alternative to specialized strategic missile bombers - this issue was considered in the article The evolution of the nuclear triad: prospects for the development of the aviation component of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation.

In the 08.08.08 war, Georgian boats were sunk by special forces, but, in an amicable way, cruise missiles launched from coastal aircraft of the Navy or Air Force aircraft should have done this without unnecessary risk.

Nevertheless, strategic bombers have one drawback - the enemy can potentially track their take-off from airfields and, having guessed the intentions to withdraw the ships from the base, bring the air defense (air defense) systems to increased combat readiness.

SSGN and SSNS


Despite the strengthening of the anti-submarine capabilities of our adversaries, SSGNs and ISSAPLs have a great chance to reach the missile launch range unnoticed and remain so even after the launch of the CD, provided that there are no enemy KUG or AUG, early warning aircraft (AWACS) nearby.

As we said in the previous article, Project 955K SSGNs, if created, will complicate the enemy's task of tracking SSBNs while they are simultaneously withdrawn from the base due to the similarity of acoustic signatures. But this task is not the main one for them: The main task of the Project 955K SSGN is to deliver massive anti-ship missile attacks on the enemy's AUG and KUG, as well as to deliver KR strikes against targets on enemy territory... The latter include the NKs and submarines standing in the base.


SSBN project 941 "Akula" could be upgraded as carriers of a huge number of cruise missiles on the model of the converted American SSGN "Ohio", turning them into mighty submarine "arsenal ships", but this opportunity was missed

Speaking about such an adversary as the United States, it can be assumed that it is capable of organizing a sufficiently effective anti-submarine defense (ASW) and air defense of its coast and naval bases (naval base) in particular. But, firstly, with the launching range of the missile launcher of the order of 3000 kilometers or more, their carriers can be located far enough, outside the dense PLO. Secondly, launched missile launchers can be performed using low-visibility technology, and the density of their launch will not allow destroying all of them. In addition, missile launchers can be launched along a complex route bypassing air defense zones, for example, using a flight over part of the enemy's territory, attacking his naval base "from the inside". In the case of the use of hypersonic missiles, the enemy may simply not have time to react because of their short flight time.


A hypersonic rocket 3M22 "Zircon" at a speed of 4-8M will cover a distance of 1000 kilometers in 7-14 minutes, while it does not need to search for targets with a seeker (HSS), when firing at the NK and submarines standing at the pier, their coordinates are sufficient

And finally, if such an adversary as the United States is forced to spend huge resources on the defense of its coast, then this can already be considered a bloodless victory - "They do not need the Russian coast, and they do not need the Arctic."

The same task should be met by the creation of the promising universal submarine mentioned in the previous material, the weapons compartment of which should be adapted to accommodate various weapons, including submarine ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Its increased capabilities to overcome anti-submarine lines will allow the enemy to create a threat of a sudden decapitating attack of SLBMs along a flat trajectory, forcing him to strengthen the defense of his lines.


A universal submarine capable of carrying an SLBM will force potential adversaries to pay more attention to their own defense - to the detriment of their offensive capabilities

To increase the effectiveness of the CD strike against NK and submarines in the base, as well as anti-ship missiles against the enemy's KUG and AUG on the high seas, existing and promising long-range weapons must necessarily have the ability to retarget in flight.

For example, if we launch a subsonic cruise missile from a distance of 3000 kilometers at targets detected by reconnaissance satellites, then during the flight, which is about three hours, the NK or submarine can be relocated or put out to sea. In this case, the possibility of retargeting the CD will allow it to retarget to another object, eliminating the senseless loss of expensive ammunition.

Ideally, the RC and anti-ship missiles should be able to transmit not only their coordinates, but also the optical / radar image obtained by the onboard seeker. This will allow them to be used as a disposable reconnaissance UAV-kamikaze, which was previously discussed in the article Find an Aircraft Carrier: Drive Hunt.

The ability to retarget the KR / RCC in flight, and even more so to receive data from their GOS, require the presence of a developed RUS satellite constellation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the article.

conclusions


If by inflicting a massive blow on the NK and submarines of the US Navy, standing in the naval base, we can only "pat" them, then the fleets of other countries, which have a much smaller number of warships, weaker anti-submarine and air defense, the worst KO, can be inflicted such damage from which they can no longer recover.

For example, a blow to the NK and submarines of Turkey, standing in the base, can be inflicted by SSGNs from the Mediterranean Sea and Tu-160 (M) / Tu-95MSM / PAK-DA from the mainland of the Russian Federation. The ships remaining in the Black Sea can be destroyed by tactical coastal aviation. (We do not consider the intervention of the United States and NATO, we believe that the conflict was started by Turkey, and NATO will only provide it with information support).

The situation is the same with Japan. With all the power of their naval forces, they cannot have 100% KOH, and the anti-ship missile raid on the naval base cannot be repelled by any air defense. Consequently, a significant part of their fleet can be destroyed "remotely" without engaging in direct combat.

In the next article, we will consider how and how the Russian Navy can completely or partially destroy the second half of the fleet of potential adversaries.
Author:
Photos used:
bmpd.livejournal.com, forums.airbase.ru, topwar.ru
183 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. KCA
    KCA 30 March 2021 04: 59
    +10
    I don’t understand why the neutron charge suddenly became very expensive? The price of beryllium is about $ 1000 per kg, for such purposes it is not very expensive, lithium is cheaper for conventional TNBPs, but their number is very large, tens of thousands in our country and in the USA
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 30 March 2021 07: 16
      +3
      And in general, a very controversial statement:
      And the use of nuclear weapons in these conflicts can bring more negative consequences than benefits.

      that we will not be able to achieve victory over the combined NATO fleet and even the US fleet, especially with the use of "symmetrical" weapons and tactics.
      This is where naval tactical nuclear weapons can become "asymmetric" weapons.


      large mobile targets will become as vulnerable as stationary targets.
      What about medium-sized objects with the highest mobility?


      in particular, the ability to ensure parity in space with the leading powers in terms of intelligence, command and communications (RUS).
      It is impossible to argue.


      It is the surface ships and submarines of the enemy stationed at the base that should become target number 1 for the Russian Navy and Air Force.
      It has always been an axiom that the much higher KOH of the most likely adversary has been.


      In the context of solving the problem of defeating NK and submarines in the base, the modernization of the Tu-160 (M) for the use of anti-ship missiles is not required at all, they can use the standard X-101 for this
      But what about one and a half airfield for the Tu-160? The enemy will simply remember them without trying to inflict sudden decapitation?


      Its increased ability to overcome anti-submarine lines will create a threat to the enemy of a sudden decapitating attack on SLBMs.
      Increased opportunities are good, but it's bad that they are only in dreams.


      then the fleets of other countries, which have a much smaller number of warships, weaker anti-submarine and air defense, the worst KOH
      Such an article was global, but here bam, "ate a siskin"!
      1. Ryusey
        Ryusey 30 March 2021 13: 49
        +4
        There is a lot of blah blah blah in this article, but the meaning is 0.
        1. vadim dok
          vadim dok 31 March 2021 17: 25
          -3
          Kremlin dreamers!
  2. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 30 March 2021 05: 18
    +2
    I liked the idea of ​​satellites.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 30 March 2021 17: 34
      +5
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      I liked the idea of ​​satellites.
      In vain. The author does not understand that "observing the entire surface of the planet in 24/365 mode" does not mean that the entire earth is being filmed, it means that during the day can shoot anywhere on the ground. Plus, in the circumpolar latitudes, little will be filmed: this requires special satellites with a special launch.
      They say that the Americans have optical satellites in geostationary orbit, but they won't see a tank, for example, but they can do a tank column. These have a chance to spot someone big if they know where to look and there are no clouds (and this place is far from the pole).
      In addition, we will be able to use an alien KON to destroy the enemy's fleet only if we strike first, there is little hope for this.
  3. Runway
    Runway 30 March 2021 05: 53
    +3
    Examples about 08.08.08, Turks and Japs, to put it mildly, far-fetched.
    Crawling into regional conflicts (Black and TO) (if the fools on both sides of the mind do converge) - will be long.
    The active foreplay on 08.08.08 took almost 9 months!
    The war will be led by states, not districts / associations / groups.
  4. GTYCBJYTH2021
    GTYCBJYTH2021 30 March 2021 06: 04
    +3
    God forbid to catch the wolf calf ...
  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 06: 08
    +16
    monitoring the entire surface of the planet 24/365

    Actually, this is where I finished reading the article. Unscientific fiction
    The author would have to study the materiel a little, and figure out what the same Capella Space satellites can do ... What is it, they read that there is a radar, and go ahead, fantasize about the control of the earth ...
    1. Shopping Mall
      30 March 2021 06: 41
      +3
      I can imagine how in 1910 someone would try to tell about tank armada in 30 years - what is there, no chance - unrealistically expensive, break down, fuel needs a breakthrough - you can find many arguments. Here are horses, carts - this must be done, real. And in the 1940s, everything had already become reality.

      Capella Space are inexpensive satellites from a private company - an example of how satellites can be built quickly and cheaply. Starlink satellites are more complicated and more expensive, but a private company has already brought them out almost fifteen hundred. The military will give SpaseX an order - they will also build 1000-2000-5000 Earth sensing satellites. 50 million per piece. - 1000 satellites - 50 billion - quite a hefty sum for the USA.

      The entire planet should be understood as important territories - penguins and the Sahara are not a priority.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 07: 12
        +12
        Quote: AVM
        I can imagine how in 1910 someone would try to tell about tank armada in 30 years - what is there, no chance - unrealistically expensive, break down, fuel needs a breakthrough - you can find many arguments. Here are horses, carts - this must be done, real. And in the 1940s, everything had already become reality.

        Yeah, now. But here's the bad luck - progress does not stand still. Therefore, for example, the I-15 fighter, not the worst machine for its time, began to be developed in 1933, and the first serial one appeared in 1934.The Su-57 began to be created in 2001, and the first serial one crashed in 2019.
        Therefore, if today we want something to appear in 10-20 years, it was necessary to do it yesterday.
        Quote: AVM
        Capella Space are inexpensive satellites from a private company - an example of how satellites can be built quickly and cheaply.

        Only these satellites have nothing to do with the systems of round-the-clock monitoring of the earth's surface. And so the first satellite of the earth was launched back in 1957, only there was no control of the earth's surface, and there is still no
        Quote: AVM
        The entire planet should be understood as important territories - penguins and the Sahara are not a priority.

        And the satellite on your priorities is violet - it flies in orbit, passing over the entire surface of the earth
        1. squid
          squid 30 March 2021 08: 01
          -13%
          And here the "deniers" have come. Now they will tell a fable about how the 50-year-old "legend" mcrc, a group of one satellite with a resolution of one hundred meters, in Old Testament times, could not find an American aircraft carrier. And they will go with the "respected Timokhin" to kneel before the icon of the Holy Aircraft Carrier.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 08: 45
            +18
            Quote: squid
            And here the "deniers" have come.

            Not deniers, but realists
            Quote: squid
            Now they will tell a fable about how the 50-year-old "legend" mcrc, a group of one satellite with a resolution of one hundred meters, in Old Testament times, could not find an American aircraft carrier.

            The legend just could - for example, in the 80s (I don’t remember exactly the year), our TAVKR, which was in the Mediterranean Sea, constantly “entertained” by receiving from the Legend the Central Command to the American and French AVs in Mediterranean and training missilemen in preparing a salvo. They took about twice a day, during the passage of the satellite over the waters of the Mediterranean.
            Alas, the deployment of the Legend in the required quantities did not even pull out the USSR. So, in the event of a war, the USSR Navy could not get a guaranteed control center from the Legend.
            Quote: squid
            And they will go with the "respected Timokhin" to kneel before the icon of the Holy Aircraft Carrier.

            Alas, today, even in the future, the possibility of airspace control and air combat control from satellites is not visible. In the USSR, they understood this perfectly, which is why they created deck-based AWACS aircraft.
            Tell me, what bad did the aircraft carrier do to you? :))) Did you beat off your girl in his youth? What a strange hatred for this class of weapons and people who speak positively about them?
            1. squid
              squid 30 March 2021 09: 23
              -16%
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              realists

              Realists are now in spaceX and such cabelas. And you are stubborn retrograde sectarians.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The legend just could

              The legend was developed fifty years ago. Stop looking at her. The satellite's lifespan is 2 months, and the resolution is hundreds of meters. And it somehow worked. The current spacecraft have on orders best performance. So that you understand what fifty years are - less time has passed from plywood biplanes with piston engines to Lockheed SR-71, as well as from a FAU rocket to a space shuttle.
              Enough already to repeat after Timokhin his far-fetched nonsense.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              capabilities of airspace control and air combat control from satellites

              no one said this. but the detection and target designation of NDT has been seen for more than a dozen years.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The USSR understood this perfectly, which is why they created AWACS deck aircraft.

              what? ... and created a lot of them? laughing

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              What a strange hatred for this class of weapons

              There is no hatred. AB can and should take the role it is supposed to play in the modern world - a means of conducting local conflicts with third world countries. After the main tasks of defending their territory from a potential enemy have been solved. In the war with NATO, it is a floating target. Well, he would drown himself, but the planes could come in handy.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              and people who speak positively about them?

              I do not like liars, amateurs and pompous bubbles. Your timokhin meets all three points. Well, you followed him for some reason.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 09: 57
                +10
                Quote: squid
                Realists are now in spaceX and such cabelas.

                And at the same time, the US Armed Forces do not even dream of a control center from space according to Mitrofanov's model.
                Quote: squid
                The current spacecraft have better characteristics by orders of magnitude.

                The current satellites have only ONE parameter, by which they are inferior to the Legend with a bang. But this ONE parameter is enough not to dream of 24/7 control
                Quote: squid
                Enough already to repeat after Timokhin his far-fetched nonsense.

                Try to remember physics in high school for a start.
                Quote: squid
                no one said this. but the detection and target designation of NDT has been seen for more than a dozen years.

                I don’t even know what to blame you for - a completely unhealthy imagination or a lie.
                Let it be known to you that no one has ever claimed to issue a control center in real time except for the Legend.
                Quote: squid
                what? ... and created a lot of them?

                M-dya, what satellites are we talking about here, if you can't read. It was written
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The USSR understood this perfectly, which is why created carrier-based AWACS aircraft.

                Should I give you a link to the dictionary, so that you understand the difference between "created" and "created"?
                And they were created by 2 - An-71 and Yak-44
                Quote: squid
                AB can and should take its due role in the modern world - a means of conducting local conflicts with third world countries

                Well, those who operate aircraft carriers think a little differently :) And they do not share your fantasies, although there were periods (for example, from the early 80s to the early 2000s) when the AUG, in general, did not have effective means of active confrontation missile threat.
                Quote: squid
                I do not like liars, amateurs and pompous bubbles.

                As far as I understand, in your apartment all the mirrors are broken into small crumbs?
                1. squid
                  squid 30 March 2021 10: 35
                  -11%
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The US Armed Forces do not even dream of a command center from space

                  How do you know this? The United States is likely to be able to detect, and may even get a control center from space even by disguised "poplars", not just by NK. At least our General Staff has long feared this.

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  ONE parameter

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  remember physics

                  If you have an argument - state it, and do not puff up with an important look

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  DC in real time except for the Legend.

                  wassat

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  the difference between "created" and "created"?

                  Yes, I see you not only in arithmetic, but also in Russian you do not know how. and also take up articles)

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  those who operate aircraft carriers think a little differently :)

                  different countries + different geography + different tasks = different opinions
                  for Russia, AV is useless, except for overseas local adventures

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  from the early 80s to the early 2000s, the AUG, in general, did not have effective means of actively countering the missile threat

                  how everything is running ...
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 10: 55
                    +10
                    Quote: squid
                    How do you know this?

                    The USA does not keep such things secret
                    Quote: squid
                    If you have an argument - state it, and do not puff up with an important look

                    Outlined below.
                    Quote: squid
                    Yes, I see you not only in arithmetic, but also in Russian you do not know how. and also take up articles)

                    That is, you could not master the difference between "created" and "created". And why am I not surprised?
                    Quote: squid
                    different countries + different geography + different tasks = different opinions

                    Well, the United States had a "different opinion" that AB could even be successfully used against a very serious adversary - the USSR.
                    1. squid
                      squid 30 March 2021 12: 03
                      -9
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The USA does not keep such things secret

                      facepalm

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      the difference between "created" and "created"

                      in fact, "created" in the narrative about the past tense has two meanings, but okay, for you these are high matters and it does not apply to the topic. The main thing is that over the 20 years of existence of its shitty AV USSR, so no deck drills have created any aircraft.

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The United States had "different opinions" that AB could be successfully used against a very serious adversary - the USSR.

                      First, "against" in a broad context - through deterrence and local conflicts, but not in a global nuclear war after the emergence of ICBMs, here their role would be minimal. And secondly, we are in our place, and the USA in ours)
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 13: 19
                        +8
                        Quote: squid
                        facepalm

                        So yes :) Attempts to give the control center according to satellite reconnaissance data in Yugoslavia, for example, failed a little.
                        Quote: squid
                        actually "created" in the story of the past tense has two meanings

                        ONE value. Which means participation in the creation process, but does not speak about the success of this process (the word "created" speaks about success)
                        Quote: squid
                        The main thing is that over the 20 years of existence of its shitty AV USSR, so no deck drills have created any aircraft.

                        He also did not create an aircraft carrier for their basing. But by the end of the 60s, the naval aviation of the USSR had 50 Ka-25Ts AWACS helicopters and 52 Tu-95RTs AWACS aircraft.
                        Quote: squid
                        but not in a global nuclear war after the appearance of ICBMs, here their role would be minimal

                        I can only repeat that the Americans thought differently. You can study at your leisure the deployment of AUG in case of big badabum
                      2. squid
                        squid 30 March 2021 14: 24
                        -7
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Yes :)

                        There is no such thing. Regardless of what happened 22 years ago in Yugoslavia, US intelligence satellites are declassified at best in 20-30 years, as was the case with the keyhole. And these are just the ones we know about. So the phrase "the United States does not keep such things secret" betrays the "expert" with his head.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        ONE value

                        Oh bl ...
                        1) "The USSR created airplanes" - in the past, the USSR riveted airplanes
                        2) "The USSR created airplanes" - in the past, the USSR created and created airplanes, but never created
                        Can you even count up to two?

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        He also did not create an aircraft carrier for their basing.

                        I have already created a few, only shitty ones, and the price and size are the same as those of the real ones. And with shitty planes. Because, as in all similar "progressive" closed-despotic systems, the leadership is stagnant and a mess. The gray-haired elders and their cynical young "change" do not understand anything other than the undercover struggle, respectively, they cannot rule the country as a whole, and in particulars, such as the strategy for the development of armaments, they slow down.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Americans thought differently

                        The Americans thought differently, in the first place, decades ago. And secondly, being a sea power between two oceans, in terms of the level of technical development, superior in all spheres (not only sea) to any competitors, which did not have any threats on land for its territory - note that this, in your opinion, belongs to the current RF.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 14: 55
                        +3
                        Quote: squid
                        There is no such thing. Regardless of what happened 22 years ago in Yugoslavia, US intelligence satellites are declassified at best in 20-30 years, as was the case with keyhole

                        Hmmm ... Keyhole were classified because they are the FIRST reconnaissance satellites. Subsequently, there were no secrets, even groups of terrorists learned to hide from satellites - they were so "unknown".
                        And they did not declassify Keyhol, they declassified the images taken by these satellites.
                        Quote: squid
                        "The USSR created airplanes" - in the past, the USSR riveted airplanes

                        Sit down, deuce. It is correct to write "the USSR created airplanes" - and this is exactly what will mean "riveted a bunch of airplanes."
                        Quote: squid
                        I have already created several, only shitty ones, and the price and size are the same as in real ones. And with shitty planes.

                        I have no doubt that this is exactly what it seems to you. Usually, in such cases, it is recommended to be baptized with a small cross.
                        Quote: squid
                        The Americans thought differently, firstly, decades ago.

                        And today. It is enough to get acquainted with the plans of their military shipbuilding.
                        Quote: squid
                        And secondly, being a maritime power between two oceans, in terms of the level of technical development, it surpasses any competitors in all spheres (not only maritime)

                        Oh yeah. That is why the US Navy never received any supersonic long-range anti-ship missiles (they managed with miserable alterations of Tomahawks), until the early 2000s, at least they did not have the ability to control low-flying targets (unlike the USSR with its "Tackle"), and an air defense system capable of intercepting a low-flying target was laid out already in the XNUMXst century.
                        You contradict yourself. Either you have satellites of active radar reconnaissance - just check and checkmate to the whole world, then the United States, which did not bother with them, doing with the usual "junctions" and aircraft carrier aircraft AWACS and RTR - a cut above all
                      4. squid
                        squid 30 March 2021 15: 31
                        -6
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Subsequently, there were no more secrets

                        Well, then give the characteristics current US radar reconnaissance satellites. And then what are you all looking for some civilian junk. The fact that the launches of some of them are known, and the orbits are being tracked, does not mean that they have been "scribbled". Just like the whole world knew about Soviet weapons through the same satellites, but everything was paranoid "classified".

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        To write correctly

                        Oh bl ...

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        baptize with a small cross

                        there is essentially nothing to object. clear

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And today,

                        And today, in the event of an aggravation, it would never occur to any of them to drive an aircraft carrier to the shores of China or even the Russian Federation.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        That is why the US Navy

                        They were the first to receive anti-ship missiles, back in the 50s, as well as anti-aircraft missile systems capable of shooting them down. And later - the Aegis system, which showed a fig for Gorshkov's "missile salvos". The list goes on and on .. At sea and in the air, they were 1-2 decades ahead of the USSR.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        USA, which did not bother with them

                        How do you know? There are radar reconnaissance satellites there. And ours remember 10-15 years ago, they reasonably feared that even our PGRK ("Yarsy" and "Topoli", if you do not know) are being tracked. What can we say about NK.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 15: 57
                        +5
                        Quote: squid
                        there is essentially nothing to object. clear

                        Yes, I'm not fooled by cheap pranks :)
                        Quote: squid
                        And today, in the event of an aggravation, it would never occur to any of them to drive an aircraft carrier to the shores of China or even the Russian Federation.

                        In your fantasies - of course.
                        Quote: squid
                        They received anti-ship missiles first, back in the 50s

                        KS-1 - put into service in 1954, although serial production began a year earlier.
                        Quote: squid
                        as well as air defense systems, capable of shooting them down

                        It was
                        Quote: squid
                        And later - the Aegis system, which showed a fig for Gorshkov's "missile salvos".

                        From the rocket salvo of Gorshkov from Aegis, it was only possible to shoot oneself, it is a shame not to know.
                        Quote: squid
                        The list goes on and on ..

                        Better not :)))) two examples out of three - epic fail.
                        Quote: squid
                        How do you know? There are radar reconnaissance satellites there

                        You have not understood anything. There are satellites that can at some point "check" a small space. Only the USSR had satellites that could detect moving targets and issue them with control points.
                      6. bk0010
                        bk0010 30 March 2021 17: 43
                        +2
                        Quote: squid
                        Well, then give the characteristics of the current US radar reconnaissance satellites.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacrosse_(satellite)
                        https://swinopes.livejournal.com/385725.html
                      7. squid
                        squid 30 March 2021 17: 56
                        -3
                        I have seen that.
                        Please note that the first launch was in 1988, the last was in 2005 (16 years ago!). Moreover, not only declassification, but simply confirmation of the existence of these satellites - 2008.
                        Are you sure it is current satellites?
                      8. bk0010
                        bk0010 30 March 2021 18: 04
                        +4
                        Quote: squid
                        Are you sure these are the current satellites?
                        Yes. In 15, the Americans hacked down their program of new radar satellites.
                      9. squid
                        squid 30 March 2021 18: 13
                        -4
                        Yeah. And they swore by my mother)
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_космических_аппаратов_NROL
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Imagery_Architecture
                      10. bk0010
                        bk0010 30 March 2021 18: 15
                        +3
                        Quote: squid
                        Yeah. And they swore by my mother)
                        No, in the same place the loot is divided into programs through the congress, scandalous openly, interested people would track and print, brag or vice versa.
                      11. squid
                        squid 30 March 2021 18: 16
                        -3
                        added links
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_космических_аппаратов_NROL
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Imagery_Architecture
        2. Ryusey
          Ryusey 30 March 2021 16: 18
          0
          Hamster delirium.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 30 March 2021 17: 12
    +8
    Quote: squid
    yes you i see not only in arithmetic, but also in Russian you do not know how. and you also take up articles

    I didn't want to interfere, but your pearls prompted a replica:
    1. For 5 years on the site you have not bothered to write a single "note from our boy" ... But apparently because you have a "full paragraph" with the Russian language! - you just didn't even master the agreement in a simple sentence !!!
    2. It is immediately clear that you are not a writer, but a critic! A sort of newly minted Belinsky ... Because there is nothing else you can do ... just destroy, not create and create, but "nihilate" to the point of stupidity.
    3. Argumentation you have at the level of banter in the alleyway, such as: - "how are you bastard!"; I said - "sha!" , well, etc.
    You can not do it this way. If you want to communicate - read the rules of the site, and more often look in the mirror: for 5 years not to write a single article is a dependency! consumerism! freelogging !!!
    And you also reproach Andrey for writing articles! And he, in my opinion, is one of the well-reasoned authors with a light syllable and clear thought when presenting the material.
    They would study, but take an example. Maybe something worthwhile from you in the end would have turned out.
    And the last:

    PS Padon for interfering with his own quarrel. But you still need to have a conscience! there is nothing to waste on the site for spam !!!
    1. squid
      squid 30 March 2021 18: 11
      -6
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      simple sentence matching

      this is a deliberate distortion, generally accepted on the Internet - "not be able to do something". not a bug, but a feature. if you are not a grumbling pensioner, then I see no reason for indignation. we are not writing a dictation on the exam.

      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      create and build

      I do not see any creative feats in writing texts on this site (and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, on the Internet in general). from whatever side these texts appear - in articles or comments to them. sailors and shipbuilders create.

      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      Argumentation you have at the level of banter in the alley

      at the level of banter on the Internet. and then as the discussion develops and its degree increases.

      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      over 5 years

      the fact that I registered 5 years ago does not mean that I was sitting here all the time, like you

      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      not a single article

      I don't have to write them request

      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      one of the sensibly reasoned authors

      well, I really liked a couple of articles. especially the one where he exposed Timokhin with his "research window". however, after that, for some reason, he continued to call Timokhin "respected".
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 30 March 2021 20: 10
        +4
        Quote: squid
        I don't have to write them

        Thank you, I heard you. hi
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 31 March 2021 15: 27
    +2
    As far as I understand, in your apartment all the mirrors are broken into small crumbs?


    And the head.
    laughing
  • Sarboz
    Sarboz 30 March 2021 11: 02
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And the satellite on your priorities is violet - it flies in orbit, passing over the entire surface of the earth

    If the orbit is not geostationary. And so, they bring out a network of reconnaissance satellites and place it only over the areas of interest.
  • squid
    squid 30 March 2021 08: 18
    -6
    Quote: AVM
    The entire planet should be understood as important territories - penguins and the Sahara are not a priority.


    Penguins still okay, but with sugar you got excited) Orbit after all. But also to the penguins, in polar orbits, with such a scale, you can detach a grouping.
    Otherwise I completely agree. Twenty years ago, our PGRK heard the tremor of the General Staff that the Americans had a group of radar reconnaissance satellites capable of quickly detecting them even under tree crowns and guiding tomahawks. And now civil groups of enthusiasts can do the same for a ridiculous price list.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 30 March 2021 06: 17
    +4
    Hmm, the prospects of the coming war are encouraging. We are sticking Russian flags over London, Istanbul, Washington and .... we will continue to build capitalism, but according to Russian templates. A lot of people will be satisfied, but it will not get better. smile
    1. mark1
      mark1 30 March 2021 07: 04
      +1
      What is there to do? Join NATO with 20 states?

      PS But the article is somehow not very ... - the destruction (all or part) of the enemy fleet in the course of the task, and not the task of destroying the enemy fleet
    2. squid
      squid 30 March 2021 07: 53
      -12%
      And what do you suggest? To start building communism again, so that the mass of the people would perish and become much worse?
  • SVD68
    SVD68 30 March 2021 07: 11
    +6
    A small addition to the article.
    Destroying ships at a base without nuclear weapons is difficult. They will be picked up and repaired. Therefore, a blow to bases must be accompanied by a blow to ship repair and shipbuilding capacities.
    1. Shopping Mall
      30 March 2021 07: 22
      +2
      Quote: SVD68
      A small addition to the article.
      Destroying ships at a base without nuclear weapons is difficult. They will be picked up and repaired. Therefore, a blow to bases must be accompanied by a blow to ship repair and shipbuilding capacities.


      Of course, in terms of infrastructure too.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 30 March 2021 08: 18
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        Of course, in terms of infrastructure too.
        This is already a global nuclear war. Even if the enemy's fleet manages to go out to sea, it will have nowhere to return. The same nuclear aircraft carrier, with a crew of more than 3 thousand people, assumes an unlimited cruising range, but it cannot conduct endless hostilities, this is the consumption of aviation fuel and ammunition. Even without this, the crew needs to be watered and fed, while the autonomy will be expressed in 120 days, plus or minus. Even the destruction of empty naval bases and shipyards, the actual verdict on the remaining fleet of the enemy.

        Therefore, the role of the fleet is very important, but, first of all, as a means of preventing global escalation, timely relief of problems, political pressure, including in local conflicts with third countries. If a big war can no longer be avoided, only the prelaunch component will be important, ensuring the deployment of its attack boats, and the readiness to strike at the enemy's coastal and mainland targets. Epic naval battles "wall to wall", most likely, already from the realm of fantasy. This should be taken into account when forming a balanced and full-fledged fleet, the main task of which is more in preventing a global nuclear war than winning it.
      2. Ryusey
        Ryusey 30 March 2021 16: 22
        -2
        Is it true that we are talking about nuclear war or about a limited conflict?
  • squid
    squid 30 March 2021 07: 40
    -6
    Great article, especially the first part.
    Half of the authors and commentators of naval topics on the topvar are in the "form of negation" - the so-called. the sect of "aircraft carrier witnesses", aggressively denying reality for the sake of promoting beautiful, captivating ships (and if it is not denied, their ABs invariably become a waste of huge money in a collision with a serious enemy).
    At the end, the article sagged somewhat.
    Firstly, if it is necessary to attack the territory of the United States, the strategic nuclear forces come into play, and it is no longer up to the fleet. Secondly, a strike by the Kyrgyz Republic on Turkish ships can be done without carriers at all - there are enough land complexes. Thirdly, and most importantly, the author correctly concludes that it is possible to detect any NKs in 24/365 mode, but then starts speculating about the possibility of sinking only half of the fleet standing at the berth. Why limit yourself if the location of the rest in the sea is known in real time, and missile defense systems with a range of thousands of kilometers are suspended from aircraft with a range of tens of thousands? With the same success, you can destroy 100% of NK.
    The role of long-range land-based missiles / missile systems has not been disclosed, despite the fact that the range has already grown over 5000 km, the airborne missile defense system was canceled, and in recent years, a nuclear missile system with an unlimited range is being developed. It follows from all this that in the near future, carriers will not always be needed.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 30 March 2021 07: 40
    +7
    To be honest, Mitrofanov's articles on the naval topic are already tired.
    Some kind of concentrated pseudo-war nonsense.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 30 March 2021 16: 22
      +4
      It is difficult to disagree with this.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 07: 42
    +13
    I made an effort, read it to the end ... Better not do it :))))))
    It is the surface ships and submarines of the enemy stationed at the base that should become target number 1 for the Russian Navy and Air Force.

    That is, at a time when enemy carrier-based aircraft are attacking our land and sea targets, Virginia Block 5 is working with Tomahawks on our infrastructure, other Virginias, together with ASW aircraft, are looking for and destroying our SSBNs, the main task of the Russian Navy is ... repair, and unable to take part in the conflict?
    Seriously?
    1. Shopping Mall
      30 March 2021 08: 44
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I made an effort, read it to the end ... Better not do it :))))))
      It is the surface ships and submarines of the enemy stationed at the base that should become target number 1 for the Russian Navy and Air Force.

      That is, at a time when enemy carrier-based aircraft are attacking our land and sea targets, Virginia Block 5 is working with Tomahawks on our infrastructure, other Virginias, together with ASW aircraft, are looking for and destroying our SSBNs, the main task of the Russian Navy is ... repair, and unable to take part in the conflict?
      Seriously?


      And do you think the war will last 1 day? A week? Those ships that are at the piers will go tomahawks at us tomorrow. And who said that it is not necessary to fight the operating fleet?

      The point is that SSGNs and aviation can deprive the enemy of the opportunity to introduce new forces into battle, destroying them while they are as vulnerable as possible.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 08: 47
        +5
        Quote: AVM
        And do you think the war will last 1 day? A week?

        On the strength of a month or two, and even then - hardly.
        1. Sarboz
          Sarboz 30 March 2021 11: 19
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: AVM
          And do you think the war will last 1 day? A week?

          On the strength of a month or two, and even then - hardly.

          Are you following the example of the beating of Yugoslavia in 1999?
          After World War II, we no longer saw a real global clash of the world's leading armies. Thank God. Reasoning about lightning-fast exchanges of blows with conventional weapons is nothing more than fantasy. Only the Americans have this practice, and all this practice is based on beating an incomparably weaker enemy with outdated weapons. And this beating drags on for months, years and even decades.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 11: 25
            +5
            Quote: Sarboz
            Are you following the example of the beating of Yugoslavia in 1999?

            This is me following the example of common sense, since today a long war between the Russian Federation and the United States is impossible. It will either stop or spill over into the global nuclear missile - and it will also stop. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that after the exchange of strategic nuclear forces, hostilities will continue, but in this case it is no longer possible to talk about any systemic actions of the Navy.
            1. Sarboz
              Sarboz 30 March 2021 11: 29
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              It will either stop or spill over into the global nuclear missile - and it will also stop.

              This is just a hypothesis. There are other scenarios as well. Practice is the criterion of truth.
              When the Americans began the operation in Afghanistan, common sense said that their operation, unlike the experience of the USSR in the 80s, would be completed at lightning speed. 20 years have passed, and things are still there.
              Hitler also used the latest achievements of military science and technology. And also, relying on common sense, dreamed of a blitzkrieg.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 11: 32
                +2
                Quote: Sarboz
                This is just a hypothesis. There are others.

                for example?
                Quote: Sarboz
                When the Americans began the operation in Afghanistan, common sense said that their operation, unlike the experience of the USSR in the 80s, would be completed at lightning speed.

                I would not call the meaning that was said to be common. Just the opposite. In a guerrilla war, there is only one way to win - to convince the enemy to stop it. Not to force, but to convince
                1. Sarboz
                  Sarboz 30 March 2021 11: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: Sarboz
                  This is just a hypothesis. There are others.
                  for example?

                  I wrote there about Nazi Germany. For them, as well as for you, there was only one realistic scenario. But practice ...
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 12: 55
                    +4
                    Quote: Sarboz
                    I wrote there about Nazi Germany. For them, as well as for you, there was only one realistic scenario. But practice ...

                    What is practice? :)))) Practice has shown that a country can fight even after the defeat of its pre-war army, if it has sufficient human and industrial resources for this.
                    Does such a statistical term - "naive extrapolation" - mean anything to you?
                    You don't have to be seven spans in the forehead to understand that after a full-scale nuclear missile war we will have nothing to fight, and the Americans have their ships being repaired, which were laid up at the beginning of the war, will be destroyed by a nuclear attack on the naval base. In this case, it is absolutely unnecessary to "kill" them in advance with conventional weapons.
                    Armageddon will destroy us as a nation, after that we will only have access to guerrilla warfare, and even that - in an extremely limited version. In this case, US ships are perhaps the last thing to worry about.
                    1. Shopping Mall
                      30 March 2021 14: 32
                      +2
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Quote: Sarboz
                      I wrote there about Nazi Germany. For them, as well as for you, there was only one realistic scenario. But practice ...

                      What is practice? :)))) Practice has shown that a country can fight even after the defeat of its pre-war army, if it has sufficient human and industrial resources for this.
                      Does such a statistical term - "naive extrapolation" - mean anything to you?
                      You don't have to be seven spans in the forehead to understand that after a full-scale nuclear missile war we will have nothing to fight, and the Americans have their ships being repaired, which were laid up at the beginning of the war, will be destroyed by a nuclear attack on the naval base. In this case, it is absolutely unnecessary to "kill" them in advance with conventional weapons.
                      Armageddon will destroy us as a nation, after that we will only have access to guerrilla warfare, and even that - in an extremely limited version. In this case, US ships are perhaps the last thing to worry about.


                      The article says so that in this way we can only "pat" the US Navy, but we can. And this is the only thing that we in fact can do to their fleet now - to destroy ships in the naval base - the likelihood of this will be much higher than in the course of a "sea battle", tracking with weapons or something else.

                      If we are talking about a momentary transition to nuclear weapons, then why talk about the fleet at all? There are a lot of supporters here - "we will definitely zhahn, the whole world is in dust."

                      And again, if we go into the phase of a nuclear conflict, then adding 400-600 CD with nuclear warheads is not bad at all during the threatened period.

                      And returning to conventional wars - do we have only the United States as opponents? The same Japan, Turkey. No, if we immediately say that the United States will immediately intervene, then we again return to the Strategic Missile Forces. But if not (and US intervention is far from guaranteed), then a powerful blow could cut the fleet of Turkey or Japan by half, even without a "sea battle". They will have nothing to build on their success.

                      And this requires only 4-6 SSGNs. Which, by the way, will also be useful as carriers of anti-ship missiles with an external control center, which can be carried out even by satellites, even by AWACS, BPLK, NK or something else.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 14: 58
                        +3
                        Quote: AVM
                        And returning to conventional wars

                        And returning to conventional wars, your inventions about satellites do not make sense at all. Ships under repair can be easily "copied" by any optical reconnaissance satellite
                      2. Shopping Mall
                        30 March 2021 15: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quote: AVM
                        And returning to conventional wars

                        And returning to conventional wars, your inventions about satellites do not make sense at all. Ships under repair can be easily "copied" by any optical reconnaissance satellite


                        And I somewhere denied the opposite?

                        But if there is only one such satellite, and takes a picture 2-3 times a day, then the ships can leave or change their base, so that the CD will fly into the water. Satellite coverage must be tight anyway.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 15: 03
                        +1
                        Quote: AVM
                        But if there is only one such satellite, and takes a picture 2-3 times a day, then the ships can leave or change their base.

                        If they are under repair, they cannot. And if they are able to move, then they will leave their places of basing by the beginning of the conflict.
                      4. Boa kaa
                        Boa kaa 30 March 2021 18: 00
                        +3
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        If they are under repair, they cannot.

                        Andrey, you can't even imagine what powerful camouflage plans the staff draws !!! They also have "re-towing" (changing the parking lot), and the placement of corner reflectors with IR torches on empty piers, and a metal mesh, and foam mountains. Even the "relief" is cranky ... And if you had seen the "swindle" (inflatable models of equipment), you can go crazy ...
                        Therefore, it is not a fact that all category 1 reserve ships will be destroyed in bases and at repair piers ...
                      5. ccsr
                        ccsr 30 March 2021 18: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                        Andrey, you can't even imagine what powerful camouflage plans the staff draws !!!

                        I think that this is a strong exaggeration, which was characteristic of the initial stage of the formation of space reconnaissance assets. Indeed, there was a period when the Americans even created false airfields around our country, and they imitated the operation of the radar station, the movement of aircraft in parking lots, etc. All this was revealed as soon as we had satellites operating in the infrared range and in other ranges, which is why now it makes no sense to pay much attention to camouflaging ships, due to the variety of equipment on reconnaissance satellites.
                        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                        And you should have seen the "swindle" (inflatable mock-ups of equipment), so in general you can go nuts ...

                        This is basically an operational camouflage when the fighting is going on, and intelligence can be misled for a certain period, although this may well be enough for the duration of the operation. By the way, in Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenian troops could suffer much less losses if they used at least a primitive camouflage against drones, but this was not the case either.
                        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                        Therefore, it is not a fact that all category 1 reserve ships will be destroyed in bases and at repair piers ...

                        Here I strongly doubt this. they simply will not be able to go to sea in the event of a sudden nuclear strike, because we are always laying on it.
                      6. Shopping Mall
                        30 March 2021 19: 30
                        -1
                        Quote: BoA KAA
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        If they are under repair, they cannot.

                        Andrey, you can't even imagine what powerful camouflage plans the staff draws !!! They also have "re-towing" (changing the parking lot), and the placement of corner reflectors with IR torches on empty piers, and a metal mesh, and foam mountains. Even the "relief" is cranky ... And if you had seen the "swindle" (inflatable models of equipment), you can go crazy ...
                        Therefore, it is not a fact that all category 1 reserve ships will be destroyed in bases and at repair piers ...


                        This is why a developed satellite constellation is needed.

                        Imagine two options:
                        1. American Navy - how they camouflage destroyers and aircraft carriers against satellites with a resolution of 30 cm.
                        2. Turkey or Japan. What are their capabilities in this area?

                        And here's another important point - the denser the satellite observation, the better all the processes "in dynamics" will be seen.
                      7. Boa kaa
                        Boa kaa 30 March 2021 20: 06
                        +2
                        Quote: AVM
                        This is why a developed satellite constellation is needed.

                        Andrey, this is indisputable.
                        Quote: AVM
                        The US Navy - How they camouflage destroyers and aircraft carriers against satellites at 30cm resolution.
                        Why should they? they simply: a) shoot down such a satellite (SM-3, SM-6); or b) suppress the sensors of this satellite by directed hard laser (neutron, X-ray or gamma radiation) or burn out the "brains" of this device. (Alabuga)
                        Quote: AVM
                        Turkey or Japan. What are their capabilities in this area?
                        The Turks are worse than Japan. Because their electronic warfare system will be weaker than the Japanese one. But I can't say specifically - I don't know, but I'm not accustomed to lying ...
                        Quote: AVM
                        the denser the satellite observation, the better all dynamic processes will be seen.
                        When any operation is carried out, the issues of camouflage ("Murmansk") and countermeasures are worked out in great detail, including demonstrative actions, suppression of communications, and so on ... (Krasukha-4, Tirada-2S). By the way, Tirada also burns out the brains of the spacecraft!
                        Ours also indulge in Peresvet. bully
                      8. Shopping Mall
                        30 March 2021 21: 35
                        -1
                        Quote: BoA KAA
                        Quote: AVM
                        This is why a developed satellite constellation is needed.

                        Andrey, this is indisputable.
                        Quote: AVM
                        The US Navy - How they camouflage destroyers and aircraft carriers against satellites at 30cm resolution.
                        Why should they? they simply: a) shoot down such a satellite (SM-3, SM-6);


                        In several articles I have considered anti-satellite weapons. The trick is that it is more expensive to shoot down satellites with an anti-satellite missile than to withdraw a pack of new satellites (for example, 60 pieces) with the same Falcon-9. In addition, it is a matter of the time factor - the first strike, who is the first to hit - the satellites were shot down before it issued the target control unit or vice versa. Or, for example, they shot down, and the enemy brought out the reserve ones - while they were discovered, while the carrier of anti-satellite weapons was brought to the intersection trajectory - the "new batch" again issued the control center.

                        Quote: BoA KAA
                        (neutron, X-ray or gamma radiation) sensors of this satellite


                        There is no such thing even in projects, it is very difficult and expensive. If only something terribly secret.

                        Quote: BoA KAA
                        or burn out the "brains" of this apparatus. (Alabuga)


                        EW capabilities are exaggerated. The same Alabuga seems to suppress targets within a radius of 3,5 km. In one of the articles I made a calculation of what the distances between the satellites would be, and why they could not be knocked down with a "bucket of nails". The same applies to "Alabuga" and to nuclear explosions. Not to mention the fact that this is definitely a nuclear war.

                        The volume between orbits 200 and 1000 kilometers is 611 707 979 503,06 km3, between orbits 200 and 40000 kilometers - 75 683 938 710 666,70 km3

                        Those. if we take 1 fragments of relatively large debris, then we get 000 fragment per 000 km1 between orbits 611 and 707,98 kilometers, or 3 fragment per 200 between orbits 1000 and 1 kilometers.

                        But even if we take 150 particles, we get 000 fragment per 000 km1 between orbits 4 and 078,05 kilometers or 3 fragment per 200 km1000 between orbits 1 and 504 kilometers.

                        What is the probability of collision with a satellite with a volume of 10 m3?

                        60 tons of nails, let it be 4x100 mm 10 grams each, this is 6 nails + you need a system for spreading them, otherwise they will fly in a bunch, in total, the output of one super-heavy 000 nails, 000 launches per year (the end of the Russian economy) 6 000 nails per year, and taking into account the unsuccessful launches and the ruin of the economy in 000-10 years, we will get about 60 nails in orbit, i.e. get 000 nail per 000 km2 between orbits 3 and 150 kilometers or 000 nail per 000 km1 between orbits 4 and 078,05 kilometers.

                        What will be the likelihood of satellites colliding with these nails? Will the price of luck be too high?


                        Quote: BoA KAA
                        Quote: AVM
                        Turkey or Japan. What are their capabilities in this area?
                        The Turks are worse than Japan. Because their electronic warfare system will be weaker than the Japanese one. But I can't say specifically - I don't know, but I'm not accustomed to lying ...


                        Their anti-satellite capabilities are still minimal. At least Japan has a chance, Turkey has no chance yet. If we achieve superiority in space (for now, in terms of intelligence, communications and command control), we can hammer Turkey as we want, all their forces can be divided by 10 or 100 - just targets for long-range weapons.

                        Possessing satellite reconnaissance, you can take out not only ships to the naval base, but also aircraft in parking lots (hit exactly at the aircraft, not at the runway), etc. On the one hand, the Armed Forces of Turkey and Japan seem to be powerful, but on the other hand, they are still small and are located on a compact territory. If we create superiority in intelligence - powers of this level are not competitors to us in military affairs.

                        Quote: BoA KAA
                        Quote: AVM
                        the denser the satellite observation, the better all dynamic processes will be seen.
                        When any operation is carried out, the issues of camouflage ("Murmansk") and countermeasures are worked out in great detail, including demonstrative actions, suppression of communications, and so on ... (Krasukha-4, Tirada-2S). By the way, Tirada also burns out the brains of the spacecraft!


                        This does not apply to all those who can pile on us now, at least our fleet.

                        Krasukha-4 only jambs the UAV channels, does not work via satellites. (by the way, high-altitude UAVs can be equipped with a laser communication channel with satellites - after all, they are above the clouds, they cannot be detected or drowned out, such a connection is realized between the new Starlink satellites).

                        The tirade only suppresses satellite communications (on the ground and in the air), it does not harm the satellite itself.

                        Quote: BoA KAA
                        Ours also indulge in Peresvet. bully

                        I wrote about possible technologies used in Peresvet. In the optimistic version, it could be an X-ray laser, but there are practically no chances of this. Most likely this is the ancient as shit of mammoths technology of chemical lasers - extremely limited combat capabilities. I would be sincerely glad to be wrong ...
                2. Shopping Mall
                  30 March 2021 19: 31
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: AVM
                  But if there is only one such satellite, and takes a picture 2-3 times a day, then the ships can leave or change their base.

                  If they are under repair, they cannot. And if they are able to move, then they will leave their places of basing by the beginning of the conflict.


                  It depends on how quickly it (the conflict) will develop.

                  If we consider the fight for the first salvo at the NK in the form of AUG and KUG, then why can't we consider the first strike at the ships in the base?
        2. Sarboz
          Sarboz 30 March 2021 19: 00
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Does such a statistical term - "naive extrapolation" - mean anything to you?

          If I say that I have not heard? All! Is the discussion over? Why are you doing this? There are many statistical methods. The question is what and why to extrapolate. The naive extrapolation method itself is not tricky. What do we want to get as a result of the research?

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You don’t need to be seven inches in the forehead to understand that after a full-scale nuclear missile war we will have nothing to fight

          But no one knows for certain what will happen after a full-scale nuclear one.
          There is a guy from Israel, I call him to myself the Iron, with the nickname Ironic. So I am always touched by his serious reasoning that the warheads available in accordance with the treaty restrictions on the sides will not be enough to "inflict unacceptable damage" on either America, Europe or Russia. In the United States, this hypothesis has been actively promoted since the 90s. A very fashionable idea in our liberal circles. Why is this done? In order to convince the Pentagon financiers of the possibility of winning the global nuclear conflict.
          But we are not financiers. It is important for us to know whether someone will survive or not. But serious scientists do not give any guarantees to this world.
          Therefore, the most important question is what exactly the Americans will do when attacking us and how exactly we will respond. Everything is spelled out in the doctrines in general terms. Specific algorithms are known to a narrow circle of people.
          Therefore, I believe that no amount of extrapolation will help us. Too many unknowns in the function.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 30 March 2021 17: 51
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In a guerrilla war, there is only one way to win - to convince the enemy to stop it. Not to force, but to convince
      But Genghis Khan did not think so, and one "partisan" people (I can't remember the name anymore) simply cut it out. The whole.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 April 1 2021 13: 33
    +3
    Quote: Sarboz
    When the Americans began the operation in Afghanistan, common sense said that their operation, unlike the experience of the USSR in the 80s, would be completed with lightning speed.

    But then they saw poppy fields and since then ..
    Quote: Sarboz
    20 years have passed

    Quote: Sarboz
    Hitler also used the latest achievements of military science and technology. And also, relying on common sense, dreamed of a blitzkrieg.

    Hitler was an adventurer and hoped for help from the Wall Street guys! But it didn't work out ...
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 30 March 2021 16: 25
    -1
    Not a fact, nuclear weapons simply will not be enough to destroy both sides, so to piss off and transfer them to destruction, yes, that's enough for that.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 30 March 2021 12: 02
    -2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    On the strength of a month or two, and even then - hardly.

    I understand that you are a dreamer on military topics, but even a young lieutenant in the Soviet Army did not believe in such nonsense, because he knew that there is a standard according to which a tank regiment must leave its place of permanent deployment in 45 minutes in the summer, otherwise they will end.
    Well, those who were higher in ranks, and understood what the first nuclear strike would be like, did not create illusions, because very few people would have managed to survive after it, if they had not had time to get a dozen kilometers from their places of deployment. So what month or two are you talking about if the ruins of the cities we could not restore in a decade, as well as the Americans.
    I am no longer surprised why people like you and Timokhin are pushing different nonsense to the public, and why they are offended by military professionals laughing at them. Maybe it's time for you to study military science as it should be, and not build castles in the sand, so that at least something clever you can state or analyze.
    1. Daniil Konovalenko
      Daniil Konovalenko 30 March 2021 13: 14
      0
      He served in communications, the command post was underground, they told us that the task of our military unit at the command post, when a nuclear strike is delivered, is to work 45 minutes ... and then, to join another military unit ..
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 30 March 2021 13: 32
        -1
        Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
        when a nuclear strike is delivered, work 45 minutes.

        We had enough diesel fuel for the generator underground for a day, and then all our autonomy was covered with a copper basin until the batteries were discharged to the end.
        And here some clever guys are going to fight for a month or two ...
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 30 March 2021 18: 19
          +1
          Quote: ccsr
          And here some clever guys are going to fight for a month or two ...

          In an atomic war, only submarines can survive, tk. they are difficult to find, difficult to hit, they have an autonomy of 90 days, and if the soldering is pulled, then 120 can be depicted.
          Secondly, there are underground structures with autonomous power supply and not for one week ... So, there are also underground factories, farms (though I have only seen mushroom so far). But with shelters for the people we have ... not like in the states or Belgium and Switzerland. But we have Altai and Baikal ...
          Therefore, let's fight for peace, well, at least in EUROPE ... bully
          Because if it crashes, then it will not seem to anyone ...
          AHA.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 15: 02
      +4
      Quote: ccsr
      I understand that you are a dreamer on military topics, but even a young lieutenant in the Soviet Army did not believe in such nonsense,

      M-dya, spring exacerbation is a terrible thing, I look :)))
      It seems to be written in Russian in white
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      today, a long-term war between the Russian Federation and the United States is impossible. It will either stop or spill over into the global nuclear missile - and it will also stop. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that after the exchange of strategic nuclear forces, hostilities will continue, but in this case it is no longer possible to talk about any systemic actions of the Navy.

      What is your problem this time?
      I'm not even talking about the fact that the nuclear arsenals of the USSR and the United States during the Soviet army, a little so many times exceeded what we have now, and this is really known to any lieutenant.
      Quote: ccsr
      I am no longer surprised why people like you and Timokhin sell different nonsense to the public, and take offense

      But who is offended, then? :)))) The poor in Russia have always been sorry.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 30 March 2021 18: 26
        -3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        today, a long-term war between the Russian Federation and the United States is impossible. It will either stop

        How it can stop if missiles start flying at once, explain to everyone a "specialist" on military issues.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        or it will flow into the global nuclear missile - and it will also stop.

        There is no need to fantasize "theorist", because there will be no "overflow" at all, because the war will happen only as an exchange of nuclear strikes, with each side striving to inflict it suddenly. And after that, everything will stop for both sides, even if someone survives in the armed forces.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What is your problem this time?

        In this case, you have a problem - you like to fantasize, and this is not perceived by sane people.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I'm not even talking about the fact that the nuclear arsenals of the USSR and the United States during the Soviet army, a little so many times exceeded what we have now, and this is really known to any lieutenant.

        The multiple destruction of the enemy was not a matter of great intelligence - a single destruction is enough, but you do not understand even this, as well as the fact that it ruined our country.
        And man-made disasters with modern infrastructure will do much more harm to the population of countries than what happened thirty years ago. And prolonged fires will bring much more damage than radioactive contamination.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The poor in Russia have always been spared.

        But your pity does not cause - only laughter.
    3. Ryusey
      Ryusey 30 March 2021 16: 26
      0
      Well, you don't pull the same for a military pro))
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 30 March 2021 18: 24
        +3
        Quote: Ryusey
        Well, you don't pull the same for a military pro))

        Cyril, don't you know, don't try! Don't hurt the intelligence veteran ... yes
  • Niko
    Niko 30 March 2021 07: 45
    +2
    I also liked Jules Verne as a child.
  • Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 30 March 2021 07: 59
    +4
    It's time, oh time, to open the section on VO, military, science fiction.
  • Niko
    Niko 30 March 2021 08: 05
    0
    And somehow it is already customary that in such articles OUR all-seeing eye functions normally, and the ENEMY will not notice activity of a very specific kind on a pair of airfields with long-range aviation, (Well, what to take from them?) The author missed another one (quite logical based on the article ) opportunity - how can we do without a base on the moon? No way!
    1. squid
      squid 30 March 2021 08: 21
      +1
      The author has missed and drawn a lot of things, but in the main message - the possibility of operational tracking of any large NK from space - he is absolutely right.
      1. Niko
        Niko 30 March 2021 08: 31
        +1
        Quote: squid
        The author has missed and drawn a lot of things, but in the main message - the possibility of operational tracking of any large NK from space - he is absolutely right.

        In the future, yes. Perhaps sooo far. And what will it cost inexpensively - ????? And not in a mythical vacuum but in our Roscosmos ?????? Plus, any technically savvy person knows that the more complex a system is, the harder it is to expect that it will, on the one hand, be able to do EVERYTHING that is expected of it, on the other hand, it will be difficult to be vulnerable to opposition. While this is a utopia.
        1. squid
          squid 30 March 2021 08: 35
          -6
          For "probable partners" this is no longer the past. If civilian enthusiasts create such systems ... For ours, yes, it is still unattainable. But this does not mean that you have to sit back or, moreover, throw money away on something absurdly unnecessary - like aircraft carriers to cover your coast, as some here suggest. Which are also absent and which are also "fantastic" in our position.
          1. Niko
            Niko 30 March 2021 08: 45
            0
            Quote: squid
            For "probable partners" this is no longer the past. If civilian enthusiasts create such systems ... For ours, yes, it is still unattainable. But this does not mean that you have to sit back or, moreover, throw money away on something absurdly unnecessary - like aircraft carriers to cover your coast, as some here suggest. Which are also absent and which are also "fantastic" in our position.

            It is clear that the basis of everything is the economy, or at least the economic potential (+ scientific and technical), but in this respect, in any case, Russia will lag more and more (if some kind of SUDDENCE does not happen) from countries that continue to grow (moreover, rapid) including because of the "brain drain" (and money too, and along with them and the interests of the ruling elite), unfortunately.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 09: 01
              +7
              The question is that the same USA today does not even come close to creating a space system that could give control in the way that Mitrofanov wants. His entire article is based on a deliberately incorrect assessment of the potential of existing satellites, the same Capella Space
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. Shopping Mall
                30 March 2021 15: 00
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The question is that the same USA today does not even come close to creating a space system that could give control in the way that Mitrofanov wants. His entire article is based on a deliberately incorrect assessment of the potential of existing satellites, the same Capella Space


                So they shared their plans. They have a lot of "black programs".

                Even the Capella Space satellite can potentially be used to display the coordinates of stationary objects, and, most likely (with the refinement of the software), be used to issue the control center in the form of an approximate location of a moving target for an anti-ship missile system with additional target searches, such as LRASM.

                But the main thing is not the Capella Space satellites themselves, but the fact that commercial technologies already make it possible to create satellites that are many times cheaper and more efficient than the Legend satellites.

                I will give you one more analogy. In the United States, for a long time, cards with a magnetic stripe have been used, while in the whole other world, cards with a chip have already been used - they are safer and more convenient. The problem is that there were millions of card terminals in the United States, it was extremely unprofitable to change them all.

                The same is with target designation. They now have so many ships, submarines, planes and other things that there is simply no global need for a satellite control center. They and the anti-ship missiles were not particularly worn out before - in fact, there were only Harpoons in the fleet. But as soon as the need arose, and the reason was the PRC fleet, then LRASM and Tomahawk block V appeared.

                There will be a need - satellites will be developed in a year, they will be tested in a year. And then every 2-3 months 60 satellites into orbit. In 5 years, 1200-1800 satellites for reconnaissance and target designation without much straining for the budget.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 16: 00
                  +1
                  Quote: AVM
                  But the main thing is not the Capella Space satellites themselves, but the fact that commercial technologies already make it possible to create satellites that are many times cheaper and more efficient than the Legend satellites.

                  Well, where are they? :))))
                  Quote: AVM
                  I will give you another analogy

                  No false analogies, please. I am just bringing to your attention that the Discovery-2 program, which could give controllers for stationary targets within an hour (and not a day and a half, as at the end of the last century) was curtailed for economic reasons
                  1. Shopping Mall
                    30 March 2021 19: 39
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Quote: AVM
                    But the main thing is not the Capella Space satellites themselves, but the fact that commercial technologies already make it possible to create satellites that are many times cheaper and more efficient than the Legend satellites.

                    Well, where are they? :))))


                    You only have two states - the USA doesn't have this / the USA has it? The fact that something may be in the process of development falls out of the picture of the world?

                    Can you imagine the consequences of ignoring the possibility of creating advanced intelligence systems and what will it lead to?

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Quote: AVM
                    I will give you another analogy

                    No false analogies, please. I am just bringing to your attention that the Discovery-2 program, which could give controllers for stationary targets within an hour (and not a day and a half, as at the end of the last century) was curtailed for economic reasons


                    Can you reset the link to the program?
            2. squid
              squid 30 March 2021 09: 08
              -4
              You will laugh, but the Russian Federation is still one of the leading space powers. Even without looking at Rogozin. And even more so, Roskosmos, with its multi-billion dollar budget, has incomparably greater opportunities than the same Kabela space. And he is quite capable of creating such a grouping (in cooperation with the military) - there would be correct goal-setting. There is nothing fantastic in this, these are technologies of today, quite accessible even for Russia.
              It is somehow strange that when it comes to the complexity and cost of the "Great Fleet" (tm), the local sectarians begin to flare their nostrils "and how will we defend the Motherland?! 11". Like if you like it or not, take it out and put it. And when it comes to a quite trivial, by today's standards, against the background of a starlink, a group of several dozen light satellites - the howl begins "oh well, how is it expensive and difficult, we never did, we can not." Instead, we need to build AB, which, therefore, are cheap and simple, and we could always have them, yeah. Ugh...
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 09: 12
                +3
                Quote: squid
                And he is quite capable of creating such a grouping (in cooperation with the military) - there would be correct goal-setting

                Can. Only here the capabilities of the Capella practically do not exceed the capabilities of ordinary spy satellites, i.e. the system is unsuitable for issuing control instructions
                Quote: squid
                And when it comes to a quite trivial, by today's standards, against the backdrop of a Starlink, a group of several dozen light satellites - the howl begins "oh well, what is it expensive and difficult, we never did, we can not"

                It is not difficult and not too expensive. Only here it is impossible to get a control center from such a network :))) Well, it is not intended for this and it cannot do it :)))
                1. squid
                  squid 30 March 2021 09: 28
                  -1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                  the Capella's capabilities practically do not exceed the capabilities of ordinary spy satellites, i.e. the system is unsuitable for issuing control commands
                  It is not difficult and not too expensive. Only here it is impossible to get a control center from such a network :))) Well, it is not intended for this and it cannot do it :)))


                  Another retelling of Timokha's delirium.
                  And what prevents you from getting a control center by investing not three kopecks, but three rubles in a similar system (i.e., withdrawing not 36, but let's say 200 light satellites)? Although the declared maximum hourly interval for tsu is suitable.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 09: 47
                    +7
                    Quote: squid
                    Another retelling of Timokha's delirium.

                    Alas, all this has long been known regardless of Timokhin :)
                    Quote: squid
                    And what prevents you from getting a control center by investing not three kopecks, but three rubles in a similar system (i.e., withdrawing not 36, but let's say 200 light satellites)?

                    The only thing is that neither 36 nor 360 satellites will provide control of the region and will not issue a control center. Such is the problem.
                    I can only repeat: you, my rude friend, figure out how satellites like the Capella-space work.
                    1. squid
                      squid 30 March 2021 09: 58
                      -2
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      will not give out the control center. Such is the problem.
                      Understand how satellites like the Capella Space work.


                      What a mystery) I figured it out, I don't see any problems.
                      Well, finally tell us what is wrong with you. Specifically - for anti-ship missiles with ARGSN on NK with a target acquisition range, say, 100 km.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 10: 03
                        +2
                        Quote: squid
                        What a mystery) I figured it out, I don't see any problems.

                        So, you haven’t figured it out, don’t lie. They didn't even start to figure it out.
                        So I am asking you one simple question. Describe, at least in the most general terms, the operation of the Capella satellites.
                      2. squid
                        squid 30 March 2021 10: 08
                        -5
                        I'm not going to solve your riddles. State your argument in normal form, or admit defeat in the discussion)
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 10: 44
                        +8
                        Quote: squid
                        I'm not going to solve your riddles.

                        Clear. That is, you have not AT ALL tried to analyze the operation of the Capella satellites.
                        Okay, good.
                        First you need to understand that the power of the radar station installed on the satellite and capable of monitoring the earth's surface in some acceptable space is VERY GREAT. A simple example - the radar "Irbis" from the Su-35 in the sector 10 by 10 degrees can detect targets with an RCS of 3 square meters at a distance of 350 km (on the official website of the Sukhoi such data). But at the same time, its average power is 5 kW, and the peak power is 20 kW.
                        That is, if you pull a radar into space in terms of power and capabilities comparable to the Irbis, then from a distance of 350 km it will give a picture 120 km wide on the passage, and even with detailing of only 3 squares or so. But at the same time, such a radar for ONE DAY with an average power of 5 kW of operation will require batteries with a capacity of about 12 ampere-hours. Taking into account the fact that new lithium-ion batteries have a capacity of at least 000, well, even 20 ampere-hours per kilogram, it turns out that batteries weighing 40 kg are needed to work during the day.
                        How much is the mass of TOTAL satellite in Capella's space? laughing
                        And here we have a radar that sees up to centimeter resolutions at a distance of 500 km. How?
                        Very simple. Firstly, the sector of the Capella beam is very, very small, which, in fact, is clearly visible from the images that are transmitted from it. With its help, you can highlight some very small area, and nothing more. That is, if someone tells the satellite exactly where the enemy aircraft carrier is located, and not once there, but at the time of the satellite's flight over the aircraft carrier, then yes, she will be able to highlight it. But even this is only in theory, since it is not a fact that it is possible to control a satellite in real time.
                        At the same time, the Capella is obviously not able to constantly shine with its radar. It is enough for a short impulse, a little work, after which the energy on the satellite runs out, and it begins to restore it through solar panels.
                        In its present form, the satellite is suitable for filming a stationary object. But it is completely unsuitable for finding a moving target over a large area and issuing a control center as this very target is found
                        Why did Legend work? Because
                        Firstly, it had an energy source in the form of a nuclear reactor
                        Secondly, it flew in low orbits. with which the consumption of this very energy is not so great
                      4. squid
                        squid 30 March 2021 11: 52
                        -9
                        Timokhintsy laid out their trump card)
                        The electric power of the RTG satellite from your "unique" Legend, as far as I remember, is 3 kW. This is for everything - electronics (ancient tube), communications, emitters, orientation, etc. A similar power in orbit will now be provided by a solar battery about 3x3m in size and weighing a dozen or two kilograms. But, judging by the real-life radar satellites (even heavy ones), such power is not needed.
                        Comparison of radar fighter and spacecraft - this is your know-how) Do you want, in your expert grandeur, to read about a synthetic aperture? And where does this permission come from. And also how the EPR differs from the resolution, and what is needed for one and the other. And also - about the effect of the size of the antenna on the sensitivity of the receiver. As far as I know, the power of the received reflected signal at a great distance is approximately proportional to the area of ​​the antenna web. For a fighter this is a circle about a meter in diameter, for a spacecraft it can be a light folding antenna with a diameter of tens of meters (although in practice this is not required).
                        Nobody says that the same chapel gets its 0.5-0.25m with a wide beam. But about the variable viewing sector (with a decrease in resolution) in the article it is directly indicated. If the legend could detect NK at a resolution of hundreds of meters, then the chapel ... Found a target, focused, transmitted the image. For NK - more than enough.
                        In general, a comparison of the radar of a fighter and a spacecraft, and even in terms of EPR and resolution, is something with something))
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 12: 50
                        +5
                        Quote: squid
                        A similar power in orbit will now be provided by a solar battery about 3x3m in size and weighing a dozen or two kilograms.

                        I sympathize with your illiteracy, but the trouble is that the solar battery gives at most 130 watts per square meter. To gain 5 kW, you need a little 40 squares of solar panels (in reality - much more). And - on the sunny side, of course, but in order to ensure the operation of the radar permanently, at least 80 squares will be needed (in fact, much more, since losses are not taken into account anywhere except the efficiency of the solar battery)
                        Quote: squid
                        But, judging by the real-life radar satellites (even heavy ones), such power is not needed.

                        Of course, not needed - because they do not work constantly on radiation
                        Quote: squid
                        Comparison of radar fighter and spacecraft - this is your know-how) Do you want, in your expert grandeur, to read about a synthetic aperture? And where does this permission come from. And also how the EPR differs from the resolution, and what is needed for one and the other. And also - about the effect of the size of the antenna on the sensitivity of the receiver. As far as I know, the power of the received reflected signal at a great distance is approximately proportional to the area of ​​the antenna web.

                        And you could also figure out that the Su-35 radar was taken simply as a simplified example.
                        But if you want to watch exactly space radars - no question. For example, SIR-C / X-SAR has as many as 3 synthetic aperture radars, while their radiation power per pulse is 4,3; 2,25 and 3,3 kW, respectively. The swath width is 15–90 km (SIR-C) and 15–40 km (X-SAR). The azimuth resolution is 30 m, the range is 13 or 26 m (two options). In telescopic mode, a resolution of 8–10 m can be obtained.

                        But, for example, the Japanese spacecraft for the exploration of natural resources JERS-1 was a radar system with a synthetic aperture of the antenna (the actual dimensions of the antenna array, for a second, not some miserable 8 square meters, but almost thirty - 11,9x2,5, 1,3 m). But its pulse power is 18 kW, the resolution is 75 m, and the viewing width is only 1340 km, while there is no evidence that this satellite can work constantly. However, its mass is 27,2 kg, and it has a solar panel of XNUMX sq. m.

                        Few?

                        The ALOS (Advanced Land Observing Satellite) spacecraft, which is an improved JERS-1 and which was launched in 2006, is equipped with a radar with
                        synthetic aperture PALSAR. So, in order to give a more or less acceptable "capture" with a resolution of 7 meters of resolution for a 20 km coverage strip or a resolution of 100 m for a 350 km coverage strip, an antenna of 8,9 by 3,2 m was needed, with a power of 7 kW!
                        Oh, yes, I completely forgot - it weighs 4 tons :))))))

                        Come on, tell me tales about 40 kg satellites to control the earth's surface 24/7 laughing
                      6. squid
                        squid 30 March 2021 14: 03
                        -3
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        from the power of 130 watts per square meter

                        as far as I know, the power of solar radiation in space is 1366W / m25. the efficiency of the current generation of solar cells is about 45% (in promising samples - up to 1). those. 341.5kvm battery will give 3073W or 9W for XNUMXkvm. However, in the days of those old satellites that you brought, the efficiency was clearly lower.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        they do not work constantly on radiation

                        these are your speculations

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The Su-35 radar was taken simply as a simplified example.

                        no, it was an example of the extreme superficiality of your arguments and your understanding of the subject. and this is with the pretentious puffing of the cheeks laughing
                        but it’s already good that, with my suggestion, they googled and read Wikipedia - I hope you will not be disgraced anymore. nevertheless, a discussion with me involuntarily ennobles you.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        SIR-C / X-SAR

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        JERS-1

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        ALOS

                        The spacecraft, which you have looted to justify in a hurry, are scientific ERS satellites, before which the task of obtaining a wide swath of view is not worth the word "absolutely". Accordingly, the scanning angles of the beam are probably quite different. Moreover, they work in several bands (with their own emitter in each), and some also carry several research instruments, in addition to the radar. No record resolution is required either. But the signal power is quite possibly increased - in order to look "under the surface" of something. Well, 2 out of 3 are about 30 years old. Not 50, of course, like the "legend", but also quite solid.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        40 kg ground control satellites 24/7

                        as you have been told many times, the chapel weighs more than a hundred kg. what is "24/7 control", which someone mentioned and you thoughtlessly (again) repeat - it is not very clear to me. for satellite reconnaissance, there is a refresh rate for a given surface point. apparently, it means that the exposure time is longer than that, which gives a continuous image in real time. but this is not at all necessary for reconnaissance or for the Central Command in the case of anti-ship missiles.
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 14: 34
                        +3
                        Quote: squid
                        as far as I know, the power of solar radiation in space is 1366W / m25. the efficiency of the current generation of solar cells is about 45% (in promising samples - up to XNUMX)

                        You confused space solar panels and home solar panels a little. For example, we have solar panels capable of collecting 350 watts per square, but they will collect so much at a temperature of 25 degrees.

                        Quote: squid
                        The spacecraft, which you have looted to justify in a hurry, are scientific ERS satellites, before which the task of obtaining a wide swath of view is not worth the word "absolutely".

                        But their performance characteristics are in the open press and perfectly illustrate the futility of your attempts to blurt out the fact that antennas with an area of ​​tens of squares and kilowatt powers are needed to obtain an acceptable resolution even on a relatively narrow coverage band. Which have nowhere to come from on satellites weighing 40-150 kg.
                        You see, physics never gets old. As you yourself have kindly mentioned, there is a relationship between the size of the antenna, its capabilities in terms of resolution and the power of the outgoing signal.
                        Quote: squid
                        Well, 2 out of 3 are about 30 years old.

                        Uh-huh. ALOS was launched into space in January 2006. I never thought that from 2006 to 2021 it was already 30 years.
                        Quote: squid
                        as you have been told many times, the chapel weighs more than a hundred kg.

                        Yes, even 300 is still obviously not enough
                        Quote: squid
                        what is "24/7 control", which someone mentioned and you thoughtlessly (again) repeat - it is not very clear to me.

                        "Do not go into yourself the mechanic, there you will be found in no time" (c)
                        In the article, it is already highlighted in fat
                        Reducing the cost of launching the payload (PN) into the Earth's orbit, achieved with the help of reusable launch vehicles (LV), as well as progress in microelectronics and competencies obtained in the creation of commercial artificial earth satellites (AES) intended for the deployment of global satellite Internet communication systems , will allow the leading powers in the next 20 (+/- 10) years to deploy in orbit such a number of military and civilian intelligence, command and communications satellites, which will ensure the observation of the entire surface of the planet 24/365.

                        Okay, will there be any objections on the merits?
                      8. squid
                        squid 30 March 2021 14: 45
                        -2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        space solar panels and home

                        of course, spacecraft can cost up to 100 times more. ultra high tech.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But their performance characteristics are in the open press.

                        but they have nothing to do with radar reconnaissance satellites

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        there is a relationship between the size of the antenna, its capabilities in terms of resolution and the power of the outgoing signal.

                        Well, at least you know that now. day has not been spent in vain)
                        I hope we will no longer hear from you attempts to mentally throw an aircraft radar into space in order to receive satellite permission from there fool

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        ALOS has been launched

                        alos, as you might guess - the remaining 1 of 3

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        at least 300 - all the same obviously not enough

                        the mass of the Starlink satellite is only a little more than 200kg. and the speed of tens of gigabits for thousands of subscribers. with all the same physics. who could have imagined 30 years ago.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In the article, it is already highlighted in fat

                        in the article, an illiterate (in this context) expression is already highlighted in bold, which you thoughtlessly repeat

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        substantive objections will be

                        I understand that you are preparing to merge. well, bon voyage good
            3. Ryusey
              Ryusey 30 March 2021 16: 29
              0
              Balabol)))
  • Shopping Mall
    30 March 2021 19: 27
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: squid
    And he is quite capable of creating such a grouping (in cooperation with the military) - there would be correct goal-setting

    Can. Only here the capabilities of the Capella practically do not exceed the capabilities of ordinary spy satellites, i.e. the system is unsuitable for issuing control instructions
    Quote: squid
    And when it comes to a quite trivial, by today's standards, against the backdrop of a Starlink, a group of several dozen light satellites - the howl begins "oh well, what is it expensive and difficult, we never did, we can not"

    It is not difficult and not too expensive. Only here it is impossible to get a control center from such a network :))) Well, it is not intended for this and it cannot do it :)))


    Capella satellites are 10-100 times cheaper than reconnaissance satellites.

    The Starlink satellites, of course, are not capable of issuing a control center, although they are capable of being critical elements of the satellite system, allowing to issue a control center - they have a minimum data transfer delay, which is critical from the point of view of issuing a control center.

    And you are aware that the radiation of third-party satellites can be used for radar sensing of the surface - such projects are being developed, there is a theoretical basis. Those. Starlink satellites will simply do their job - distribute the Internet, and their radiation will be received by satellites that have only passive receivers (in any case, it is reflected from the surface).
  • Niko
    Niko 30 March 2021 09: 29
    +7
    Quote: squid
    You will laugh, but the Russian Federation is still one of the leading space powers. Even without looking at Rogozin. And even more so, Roskosmos, with its multi-billion dollar budget, has incomparably greater opportunities than the same Kabela space. And he is quite capable of creating such a grouping (in cooperation with the military) - there would be correct goal-setting. There is nothing fantastic in this, these are technologies of today, quite accessible even for Russia.
    It is somehow strange that when it comes to the complexity and cost of the "Great Fleet" (tm), the local sectarians begin to flare their nostrils "and how will we defend the Motherland?! 11". Like if you like it or not, take it out and put it. And when it comes to a quite trivial, by today's standards, against the background of a starlink, a group of several dozen light satellites - the howl begins "oh well, how is it expensive and difficult, we never did, we can not." Instead, we need to build AB, which, therefore, are cheap and simple, and we could always have them, yeah. Ugh...

    You forget one more detail: the fleet about which they write on the VO (the dream fleet in any design) whether it has aircraft carriers or not is not so important, in itself is a tool capable of certain actions in various versions. The system of satellites you are talking about, given the real impossibility of creating and the high cost comparable to the costs of the entire fleet taken together, will remain ONLY a targeting system, i.e. without the Navy, Aviation, etc. useless.
    1. squid
      squid 30 March 2021 09: 52
      -6
      Who told you that it is expensive? The Capellan satellites described in the article weigh 100 kg, are created by a small company, and for a grouping of 36 pieces, the data acquisition interval is stated to be 1 hour. For comparison, Musk uses his own money to create (among other things) a constellation of 42000 satellites twice as large.
      Even with all the peculiarities of our state, it is by no means necessary to take off the last pants to create even a 10 times larger group. If not now then in the near future.

      Quote: Niko
      without the Navy, Aviation, etc. useless

      It is believed that on the contrary, "the fleet, aviation, etc." will not be completely useless, but seriously limited without creating such a - very inexpensive - system. And it will come in handy not only over the sea - such a system will soon become an ubiquitous necessity for all types of aircraft.
      1. Niko
        Niko 30 March 2021 10: 09
        +6
        Quote: squid
        Who told you that it is expensive? The Capellan satellites described in the article weigh 100 kg, are created by a small company, and for a grouping of 36 pieces, the data acquisition interval is stated to be 1 hour. For comparison, Musk uses his own money to create (among other things) a constellation of 42000 satellites twice as large.
        Even with all the peculiarities of our state, it is by no means necessary to take off the last pants to create even a 10 times larger group. If not now then in the near future.

        Quote: Niko
        without the Navy, Aviation, etc. useless

        It is believed that on the contrary, "the fleet, aviation, etc." will not be completely useless, but seriously limited without creating such a - very inexpensive - system. And it will come in handy not only over the sea - such a system will soon become an ubiquitous necessity for all types of aircraft.

        Exactly !!!! Just now I remembered! I watched the DOCUMENTARY FILM on this topic: STAR WARS.
        1. squid
          squid 30 March 2021 10: 11
          -3
          Then the current reality of spacex should be something like a space anime for you)
  • yehat2
    yehat2 30 March 2021 09: 46
    +7
    Quote: squid
    And he is quite capable of creating such a group (in cooperation with the military)

    you are just talking nonsense.
    our satellite survivability is now 2-3 times lower than that of the United States.
    and to create such a grouping, we will need to spend 2-3 times more funds.
    In addition, given the production capacity, it is likely that the RF will never be able to complete such a system. While some satellites are being taken out, others will be out of order.
    1. squid
      squid 30 March 2021 10: 15
      -3
      We have a lot of things worse and more expensive than in the United States. And something is not at all. But this is not a reason to fold the legs. This means that it is necessary to invest in the production of satellites, element base. Finally, to engage in industrial espionage in the direction of spacex.
      Companions of the "legend" generally lived for 2 months, nevertheless, it justified itself.
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 30 March 2021 10: 23
        +1
        Quote: squid
        This means that it is necessary to invest in the production of satellites, element base.

        it's useless. All large-scale investments are stolen by at least 75%.
        until a social structure is built that effectively brings investments to a result, we will not pull large-scale changes.
        The Crimean Bridge, with all its advertising, is a rather modest structure.
        But its cost is prohibitive, with this money it was possible to build ALL the necessary bridges along the Transsib. The same with Sochi - the real produced value turned out to be less than 20% of the investment.
        Let's take a closer example - the Angstrem processor plant near Moscow.
        The project, which is being implemented in China in half a year, could not be launched in 9 years.
        As a result, the effect of huge investments is simply zero.
        Compare this with the famous palace near Gelendzhik. There, comparable investments were mastered in a year.
        As for the satellite system, you just need to take on what is within your power, and not by ambition.
        1. Sarboz
          Sarboz 30 March 2021 12: 07
          0
          Quote: yehat2
          The Crimean Bridge, with all its advertising, is a rather modest structure.
          But its cost is prohibitive, with this money it was possible to build ALL the necessary bridges along the Transsib.

          It is interesting to see your calculations, feasibility study. I’ll see that we have all broad-based specialists in construction, armaments, and space. Once you understand, prove it with numbers.
          A modest structure? During the construction of the bridge, Ukrainians argued that such a structure could not be erected at all.
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 30 March 2021 13: 02
            +1
            I am a builder according to one of the formations
            technology does not stand still - look at how and how much China, Norway, France, Germany are building
          2. Sarboz
            Sarboz 30 March 2021 16: 17
            0
            Quote: yehat2
            I am a builder according to one of the formations

            Eeeee ... What have stopped.
            Since there is a building education, it means that they must understand that without comparing estimates, such statements do not make sense:
            Quote: yehat2
            But its cost is prohibitive, with this money it was possible to build ALL the necessary bridges along the Transsib.

            They are building a lot and actively in the world, this is true. But the Crimean Bridge, even against the background of Chinese creations, does not look like a midget. And in terms of technological solutions, it is truly unique.
          3. yehat2
            yehat2 30 March 2021 16: 27
            +1
            there is nothing unique about it, except for its location.
            For comparison, not far from Turkey in the strait there is a bridge - you can compare.
          4. Sarboz
            Sarboz 30 March 2021 19: 44
            0
            Quote: yehat2
            For comparison, not far from Turkey in the strait there is a bridge - you can compare.

            So which bridge to compare? One of the Bosphorus or through the Dardanelles? All the lengths are not comparable to ours. And how to compare, we actually have two bridges.
            Dardanelles, of course, is handsome in its constructiveness. But it seems not completed yet?
          5. yehat2
            yehat2 31 March 2021 09: 44
            0
            Quote: Sarboz
            So which bridge to compare

            the Crimean bridge consists of several parts. Not trivial only one - the arch for the passage of ships and its support. Here it is worth comparing. The rest is so common, regardless of size, that I don’t even want to describe it. Therefore, a reference to a bridge in Istanbul is appropriate.
            And here is the link to the Swedish bridge.
            https://i11.fotocdn.net/s104/adbabc92e20695b4/public_pin_l/2238762379.jpg
            which literally coincides with what was done in Kerch.
            or take the WHSD bridge in St. Petersburg
            https://cdn.fishki.net/upload/post/2019/11/19/3145422/tn/0304b3d5aa4a9c8e2c5e20f3c5f96741.jpg
            as you can see, the bridge in Crimea is a completely prosaic thing from the point of view of practice, even in our country, not to mention the world. He is outstanding only in terms of politics, PR and budget.
            Yes, it should have been built a long time ago and what has been done is excellent.
            But it is not necessary to inflate an elephant from a fly ... and steal so much.
          6. Sarboz
            Sarboz 31 March 2021 11: 05
            +1
            Let's get into the jungle, moving away from our initial questions. Let's get back to the main thing. And let's not compare sweet with cold.
            Quote: yehat2
            The Crimean Bridge, with all its advertising, is a rather modest structure.
            But its cost is prohibitive, with this money it was possible to build ALL the necessary bridges along the Transsib.

            Quote: Sarboz
            It is interesting to see your calculations, feasibility study.


            Quote: yehat2
            The rest is so common, regardless of size, that I don't even want to describe it. Therefore, a reference to a bridge in Istanbul is appropriate.

            Still, it is more correct to compare Istanbul bridges with bridges across our rivers.
            Quote: yehat2
            And here is the link to the Swedish bridge.
            https://i11.fotocdn.net/s104/adbabc92e20695b4/public_pin_l/2238762379.jpg
            which literally coincides with what was done in Kerch.

            Yes, in general the tasks are similar. Let's just look at the length right away so that we can compare the cost of construction and the timing.
            The bridge, 7,8 km long, took 5 years to build and cost 3,6 billion greens.
            Our 19 km long bridge was built in 3,5 years (the automobile bridge was completed in 2 years) and cost 3,8 billion dollars, which have already depreciated somewhat in the 20 years that have passed since the completion of the construction of the Eresun bridge.
            Well, what is the EXTRAORDINARY value of our bridge? The cost of erecting each kilometer of the Eresun bridge is 2,3 times more than the Crimean one. How much do Scandinavian builders steal? This is without taking into account dollar inflation. And he lost 20 times in 1,5 years.
            Quote: yehat2
            But it is not necessary to inflate an elephant from a fly ... and steal so much.


            Quote: yehat2
            as you can see, the bridge in Crimea is a completely prosaic thing from the point of view of practice, even in our country, not to mention the world.

            What do we do before designing something and starting construction? That's right, ordering geology. In general, it is known that in the area of ​​the construction of the Crimean bridge, complex soils, muddy bottom, the bridge is able to withstand 9-point earthquakes and serious ice loads. We do not have more specific information. Therefore, I consider the discussion about the uniqueness of technologies to be hopeless until we have the results of surveys and design documentation for the two bridges being compared.
          7. yehat2
            yehat2 31 March 2021 14: 19
            0
            Quote: Sarboz
            Our 19 km long bridge took 3,5 years to build

            no need to powder your brains
            the bridge itself and the access roads are not quite correct to fold.
            these are completely different in complexity and cost of work.
            Dozens of kilometers of flyovers have been built around St. Petersburg, hundreds around the MSC and do not buzz that
            this is a huge breakthrough.
            The bridge itself is much shorter.
            In addition, it itself consists of segments similar to overpasses and actually 2 bridges.
            For comparison, in Krasnoyarsk alone, a 12 km bridge with 2 passages over the water was built three times, and I do not know which one one more bridge. And if we discard what generally refers to roads and not bridges, there are no longer such pretentious figures.
            This building is NORMAL. Yes, not without complications, but by today's standards, common. There are already dozens of such or similar bridges around the world. Moreover, even the Germans managed to build a wooden bridge there during the war.
            And I want to repeat once again for those in the tank - no need to build the devil knows what from the bridge.
            Built - cool. But such structures need to be built in dozens every year for the same money, and not 1 bridge per decade, which was apparently poured from platinum.
          8. Sarboz
            Sarboz 31 March 2021 15: 01
            0
            Quote: yehat2
            the bridge itself and the access roads are not quite correct to fold.
            And if we discard what generally refers to roads and not bridges, there are no longer such pretentious figures.

            Well, it is clear in general that you are still the builder. SNiP, SP or GOST in the hands when was the last time they held, any? I really want everything in the world to match your logic. But the world works the way it works, not the way you want it. And the length of bridges in the world is measured everywhere according to the same method from the place where the bridge meets the approaches.
            Quote: yehat2
            But such structures need to be built in dozens every year for the same money, and not 1 bridge per decade, which was apparently poured from platinum.

            It is easier to deal with idle talk than it is to take and count. I calculated the cost of a kilometer of similar structures for the Crimean Bridge and the Eresun Bridge that you proposed. Taking into account inflation, the Scandinavians build almost 3,5 times more expensive than we do.
            Further pouring from empty to empty is meaningless.
          9. yehat2
            yehat2 31 March 2021 15: 51
            0
            Quote: Sarboz
            SNiP, SP or GOST in their hands when was the last time they held, any?

            YOU ARE EXACTLY a demagogue. SNiP and GOST remained in 85
            for such a specific construction, no one actually updated any standards for many years.
            You would also refer to the norms of the Egyptian pyramid builders.
            Also, google, if not lazy, about the corruption scandals around the bridge.
          10. Sarboz
            Sarboz 31 March 2021 15: 56
            0
            Quote: yehat2
            YOU ARE EXACTLY a demagogue. SNiP and GOST remained in 85

            Well, now it is clear that construction education has passed by somewhere.
            Powder the brains of the Gref Sber-class scholars further.
          11. yehat2
            yehat2 31 March 2021 16: 01
            0
            yes you are a genius, you understand everything from a couple of words.
            but for me 6 years in the construction academy was enough for only a small part.
            I wonder if you made at least one estimate? I've done and coordinated. and looked into building codes and worked for many years in a construction holding and therefore a huge amount of skepticism.
          12. Sarboz
            Sarboz 31 March 2021 16: 09
            0
            Quote: yehat2
            I wonder if you made at least one estimate?

            Why only estimates? AR, KR ...
            And you can be seen in the holding company only to finance and had to do with it.
          13. yehat2
            yehat2 31 March 2021 16: 23
            0
            I worked as a molder in a plant for the production of reinforced concrete slabs, as a mechanic, laid asphalt on roads, as an assistant for installers, as a estimator in the planning department, as a safety engineer, created accounting automation at construction enterprises.
            I know a lot about bridges because our company won a tender for the manufacture of metal structures for the construction of a bridge and a lot of information related to the construction floated past me.
        2. Sarboz
          Sarboz 31 March 2021 16: 18
          0
          Quote: yehat2
          and looked into building codes and worked for many years in a construction holding and therefore a huge amount of skepticism.

          Something carried me somewhere. It is not appropriate to go into personal discussions. Of course, I don't know your qualifications.
          And I myself have been in construction for more than one year.
  • Niko
    Niko 30 March 2021 12: 10
    0
    Quote: yehat2
    Quote: squid
    And he is quite capable of creating such a group (in cooperation with the military)

    you are just talking nonsense.
    our satellite survivability is now 2-3 times lower than that of the United States.
    and to create such a grouping, we will need to spend 2-3 times more funds.
    In addition, given the production capacity, it is likely that the RF will never be able to complete such a system. While some satellites are being taken out, others will be out of order.

    This is still a little ooo ... Yesterday they threw me minuses (and how many) for a modest attempt to explain to fans of the North Sea. The ways that oil from the Middle East to Europe is closer to be transported through the Suez Canal
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 30 March 2021 13: 05
      0
      what does my post have to do with these disadvantages of yours?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 08: 50
    +1
    Quote: squid
    For "probable partners" this is no longer the past. If civil enthusiasts create such systems ...

    Only in your fantasies. Well, also - the fantasies of Mitrofanov.
    1. squid
      squid 30 March 2021 09: 08
      -8
      Blunt sectarian denial
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 09: 10
        +3
        Quote: squid
        Blunt sectarian denial

        What do you say? :)))))) Have you tried to study the declared possibilities of the Capella space? Including the head + the basics of physics? :)))
        However, judging by the lexicon, you have nothing to include
        1. squid
          squid 30 March 2021 09: 41
          -6
          And what are the laws of physics interfering with your head?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 09: 48
            +5
            Quote: squid
            And what are the laws of physics interfering with your head?

            Nothing bothers my head - I figured it out. Yours, judging by the text, nothing can interfere in principle, for the reason indicated above
            1. squid
              squid 30 March 2021 10: 08
              -5
              Kindergarten
            2. Sanguinius
              Sanguinius 30 March 2021 10: 47
              +1
              Dear Andrey, welcome! hi
              The question is off-topic ... do you by any chance know at what sea waves the takeoff and landing of AWACS E-2C Hawkeye aircraft from a Nimitz-type aircraft carrier is permissible?
              Maybe there is some literature on this? I would be very grateful for a meaningful answer! wink
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 10: 52
                +2
                Quote: Sanguinius
                The question is off-topic ... do you by any chance know at what sea waves the takeoff and landing of AWACS E-2C Hawkeye aircraft from a Nimitz-type aircraft carrier is permissible?

                As far as I remember the relevant discussions (including the remarks of American deck pilots), you can take off even up to 6-7 points, but landing above EMNIP 4 will already be extremely risky. But this is not accurate, it is necessary to look
              2. Sanguinius
                Sanguinius 30 March 2021 10: 54
                +1
                That is, with a sea state of 4 points reinforced concrete, it can land on the deck?
              3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 11: 05
                +2
                Seems Yes. At 4 points, the Su-33s landed accurately, I'll try to find the risks, nevertheless, they start from 5 points ...
              4. Sanguinius
                Sanguinius 30 March 2021 11: 30
                +1
                I would be very grateful if you could share the material you found! repeat
                And then you watch the video and it is not clear at what excitement of the sea they can take off, they constantly practice takeoffs and landings in almost ideal weather! And their true limits are not known.
  • Niko
    Niko 30 March 2021 09: 38
    +3
    Quote: squid
    Blunt sectarian denial

    By the way about the real capabilities of strategic aviation, the author does not simply give the time required to PREPARE the departure of a serious air force in the article. Preparing such a strike requires so much equipment, time and "body movements" that the enemy will not need satellites - he will have time to receive intelligence data, process them and come up with countermeasures fellow
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 30 March 2021 12: 19
      -1
      Quote: Niko
      By the way, about the real capabilities of strategic aviation, the author does not simply in the article do not give the time required for PREPARATION of the departure of a serious aviation formation.

      In such cases, when something serious is brewing, all strategic planes of the compound are released on combat patrols at once, but only a couple or a little more so that they are within the missile launch area. But they fly around the clock, changing each other on different routes. Thus, we do not increase the tension, but indicate to the Americans that they will be guaranteed a nuclear strike from the air component of our strategic nuclear forces, albeit not the most powerful one.
      Quote: Niko
      To prepare such a strike requires so much technique, time and "body movements" that the enemy will not need satellites, he will have time to receive intelligence data, process them and come up with retaliatory measures

      As for the intelligence data, you blundered, to put it mildly, but their technical reconnaissance means will definitely track the flight of such aircraft from the moment of launch - these are the primary reconnaissance objects for our enemy, and we cannot hide it.
      1. Niko
        Niko 30 March 2021 13: 01
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        Quote: Niko
        By the way, about the real capabilities of strategic aviation, the author does not simply in the article do not give the time required for PREPARATION of the departure of a serious aviation formation.

        In such cases, when something serious is brewing, all strategic planes of the compound are released on combat patrols at once, but only a couple or a little more so that they are within the missile launch area. But they fly around the clock, changing each other on different routes. Thus, we do not increase the tension, but indicate to the Americans that they will be guaranteed a nuclear strike from the air component of our strategic nuclear forces, albeit not the most powerful one.
        Quote: Niko
        To prepare such a strike requires so much technique, time and "body movements" that the enemy will not need satellites, he will have time to receive intelligence data, process them and come up with retaliatory measures

        As for the intelligence data, you blundered, to put it mildly, but their technical reconnaissance means will definitely track the flight of such aircraft from the moment of launch - these are the primary reconnaissance objects for our enemy, and we cannot hide it.

        Of course, I was joking about the "undercover data", but it really takes a lot of time to prepare a full-fledged combat mission. The patrolling scheme in the "threatening period" is also understandable, but with this scheme there will be nothing to lift from the airfields in case of need, all available forces will be spent on patrolling (the number of the 160 is not a secret for anyone) and the very nature of the "patrol" rather guarantees a confident interception by the enemy
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 30 March 2021 13: 26
          -1
          Quote: Niko
          The patrolling scheme in the "threatening period" is also understandable, with one, but with this scheme there will be nothing to lift from the airfields in case of need,

          As far as I remember, in Soviet times it was believed that one month would be enough for this, and during this time either the war would begin or everything would be ruled out through diplomatic means. I don’t think that anything has changed in this scenario now.
          Quote: Niko
          and the very nature of the "patrol" rather guarantees a confident interception by the enemy

          They will be tortured to direct their fighters with refueling to the pole - for them it also goes sideways, especially since we will keep their flights under control.
  • Niko
    Niko 30 March 2021 08: 07
    -1
    Rogozin is already counting the dough
  • yehat2
    yehat2 30 March 2021 09: 39
    -1
    Americans did not fly to the moon ... the earth is flat

    author, I don't like demagogues
    Americans of course flew to the moon. But only robots, possibly with corpses on board.
    the problem is that few people believe that living Americans have ever returned from the moon, or even had a chance to do so. They would have died elementary due to a number of reasons.
    this is the first aspect of the question.
    the second aspect of the question - not a single fact has survived that the Saturn rocket with the declared characteristics sufficient for lunar missions existed.
    According to the pros, the rocket had much more modest performance, which did not give any chance to carry out the stated mission.
    And the last indicator is the level of reliability of the technology of that time. Mathematicians believed that the likelihood that all lunar missions completed successfully is practically zero.
    All 3 main claims agree on one thing - there are at least 3 independent global reasons why the American mission of disembarking a person and his return was impossible.
    For comparison, the USSR, which invested much more than the United States in space technology, had a chance at that time of about 15% for a successful single mission. And in the series, I would have guaranteed at least 1 disaster.
    1. squid
      squid 30 March 2021 10: 18
      -1
      What an extravaganza)) Well, I see. And after that I "carry nonsense"))
  • xorek
    xorek 30 March 2021 10: 33
    -2
    A difficult task, but quite doable! And how all this will happen, then I think there are a lot of surprises for our scientists of the military-industrial complex in the stash hi I don't want it to come to this, but ...
  • Ramadan
    Ramadan 30 March 2021 10: 43
    0
    I was surprised by the number of parking spaces right at the base itself.
  • svoit
    svoit 30 March 2021 10: 47
    0
    And yet it is not very clear what is the point of hitting non-ready means that cannot even go to sea, and if they are still combat-ready, then most likely they are well protected and are in the rocks.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 March 2021 11: 27
      +1
      Quote: svoit
      And yet it is not very clear what is the point of hitting on non-readily available means that cannot even go to sea

      The author is confident that the war will last for years, and over the years these ships will be able to be put into operation. wassat
      1. Shopping Mall
        30 March 2021 19: 45
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: svoit
        And yet it is not very clear what is the point of hitting on non-readily available means that cannot even go to sea

        The author is confident that the war will last for years, and over the years these ships will be able to be put into operation. wassat


        There is no need to ascribe to me what I did not write.

        Although, now no one knows how long it can last. And in what format. There are too many unknown factors. And the experience of full-scale wars has been forgotten, fortunately.

        And it was not about non-ready ships, although about them too, but about those that are on the change of crew, loading ammunition, refueling, etc.

        Surprisingly, we are fighting for the first salvo in order to be the first to strike at the combat-ready AUG / KUG, otherwise we must leave half of the enemy's fleet alone? Those. we heroically reflect the enemy's blow, lose most of the ships (given their numerical superiority, which we cannot overcome), but at the same time deprive the enemy of the opportunity to build on success Do you think it is wrong?
  • Basarev
    Basarev 30 March 2021 11: 41
    -1
    Small omission: thanks to the flocks of companions, the enemy will also be able to see us. This means that a sudden blow will not work. And all the beautiful constructions crumble to dust. First you need to ensure that your forces are completely invisible from satellites.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 30 March 2021 12: 58
    -3
    Author:
    Andrey Mitrofanov
    At the same time, despite the ability of the Strategic Nuclear Forces (SNF) to provide protection against a full-scale invasion and a massive nuclear strike, there are threats of local conflicts, including with powerful, technologically advanced powers, with strong armed forces, as well as the threat of a limited conflict with the participation of superpowers, which include the United States and, perhaps, China.

    There is no such threat, if only because the leadership of these countries is well aware that such a conflict will instantly turn into a nuclear war. So it's time to get down to earth and not wishful thinking.
    will allow the leading powers in the next 20 (+/- 10) years to deploy in orbit such a number of military and civilian intelligence, command and communications satellites, which will provide observation of the entire surface of the planet in 24/365 mode.

    Well, they will deploy, and what will this allow them to open the combat signal to our missile armies, which are passing through wired communication channels? After that, there will be a massive launch of missiles from the mines in a few minutes, from which the United States, China or another country in the world will die.
    At the same time, one should not rely on the possibility of destroying reconnaissance satellites - this is an extremely difficult and expensive task,

    This task is solved at the expense of ground-based and air-based electronic warfare systems, the whole question is at what point it is necessary to begin to press down their control system so as not to provoke a war from scratch.
    This means that the question is not in the protection of satellites, but in the assessment of the REAL preparation of the enemy to strike at our country. And this is no longer only the satellite reconnaissance system can determine.

    The best means for striking NK and submarines standing in the base are nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (SSGN) of the promising project 955K, multipurpose nuclear submarines (MCSAPL) of project 855 (M) and strategic bombers Tu-160 (M).

    This is not a fact at all, because the blow should be struck only at places of large concentration of the US population, industry and command centers, and not at some military base in Iceland or Greenland. We need to destroy the country, not some enemy warships in bases, except for those on alert with nuclear missiles.
    A critical element of the combat effectiveness of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in general and the Navy in particular is the ability to ensure parity in space with the leading powers in terms of intelligence, command and communications (RUS).

    Firstly, it is unrealistic, if only because we cannot afford it economically, and secondly, we don’t need so much.
    Moreover, we have traditionally developed a command and control system through wired communication channels, which is duplicated by other communication systems, which in general provides us with complete secrecy and security in a critical situation.
    The author apparently does not suspect that the larger the enemy's satellite grouping, the easier it is for us to reveal the information that passes through the satellite communication lines, which we have been doing for fifty years. Why not give the enemy the opportunity to do the same with our companions - the author hardly thought about it. So his crush on the parity of satellites is somewhat enchanting.
    In the 08.08.08 war, Georgian boats were sunk by special forces, but, in an amicable way, cruise missiles launched from coastal aircraft of the Navy or Air Force aircraft should have done this without unnecessary risk.

    Why this example is in the article, the author hardly knows himself.
    Speaking about such an adversary as the United States, it can be assumed that it is capable of organizing a sufficiently effective anti-submarine defense (ASW) and air defense of its coast and naval bases (naval base) in particular.

    Defend against our latest maneuvering warhead ballistic missiles? Who told you that we are simply obliged to use cruise missiles against the US coast, and not hypersonic ones, against which the Americans still do not have a normal missile defense system. I think your thesis in this case is not correct.
    The ability to retarget the KR / RCC in flight, and even more so to receive data from their GOS, require the presence of a developed RUS satellite constellation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the article.

    This is generally a secondary issue after the exchange of nuclear strikes - why should we bother with this, it might be better to improve new systems of strategic nuclear forces and equip the armed forces with them.
    For example, a blow to the NK and submarines of Turkey, standing in the base, can be inflicted by SSGNs from the Mediterranean Sea and Tu-160 (M) / Tu-95MSM / PAK-DA from the mainland of the Russian Federation. The ships remaining in the Black Sea can be destroyed by tactical coastal aviation. (We do not consider the intervention of the United States and NATO, we believe that the conflict was started by Turkey, and NATO will only provide it with information support).
    The situation is the same with Japan. With all the power of their naval forces, they cannot have 100% KOH, and the anti-ship missile raid on the naval base cannot be repelled by any air defense. Consequently, a significant part of their fleet can be destroyed "remotely" without engaging in direct combat.

    If you seriously believe in the war with Turkey and Japan, then I just feel sorry for you - you will never seem to understand that these "puppet characters" are not players for us, and we only need to think about two opponents - the United States and China.
    1. Shopping Mall
      31 March 2021 00: 11
      0
      Quote: ccsr
      Author:
      There is no such threat, if only because the leadership of these countries is well aware that such a conflict will instantly turn into a nuclear war. So it's time to get down to earth and not wishful thinking.


      I see here the leadership of the United States and NATO reports to many about their plans. What systems are they going to deploy, what plans are they making ...

      Is it okay that all their developments are just aimed at organizing a sudden disarming strike?

      Quote: ccsr
      will allow the leading powers in the next 20 (+/- 10) years to deploy in orbit such a number of military and civilian intelligence, command and communications satellites, which will provide observation of the entire surface of the planet in 24/365 mode.

      Well, they will deploy, and what will this allow them to open the combat signal to our missile armies, which are passing through wired communication channels? After that, there will be a massive launch of missiles from the mines in a few minutes, from which the United States, China or another country in the world will die.


      Will not die, but will suffer (for now) damage unacceptable to them. But if 90% of the strategic nuclear forces are disabled by the first strike, and the rest are weakened by the missile defense, then a dozen warheads will fall on them, and dust will remain from us.

      And not in a few minutes. Are you even real? Who gives the launch command? How fast will all teams go through? Try to jump out of bed at 3 am and make a decision about the end of the world. Is this a real attack or a bug?

      Quote: ccsr
      At the same time, one should not rely on the possibility of destroying reconnaissance satellites - this is an extremely difficult and expensive task,

      This task is solved at the expense of ground-based and air-based electronic warfare systems, the whole question is at what point it is necessary to begin to press down their control system so as not to provoke a war from scratch.


      No, it does not dare.

      Quote: ccsr
      Moreover, we have traditionally developed a command and control system through wired communication channels, which is duplicated by other communication systems, which in general provides us with complete secrecy and security in a critical situation.


      And flag ships are best controlled - as if no electronic warfare will help. The fact that wired communication channels can be interrupted by high-precision ammunition or saboteurs, you do not assume? Or are they going through the center of the Earth?

      Quote: ccsr
      The author apparently does not suspect that the larger the enemy's satellite grouping, the easier it is for us to reveal the information that passes through the satellite communication lines, which we have been doing for fifty years. Why not give the enemy the opportunity to do the same with our companions - the author hardly thought about it. So his crush on the parity of satellites is somewhat enchanting.


      Do you really think that we are intercepting encrypted digital data channels? Blessed is he who believes.

      Quote: ccsr
      In the 08.08.08 war, Georgian boats were sunk by special forces, but, in an amicable way, cruise missiles launched from coastal aircraft of the Navy or Air Force aircraft should have done this without unnecessary risk.

      Why this example is in the article, the author hardly knows himself.

      In order not to endanger the people who risked their lives during the destruction of 3,5 pelvis during this operation.

      Quote: ccsr
      Speaking about such an adversary as the United States, it can be assumed that it is capable of organizing a sufficiently effective anti-submarine defense (ASW) and air defense of its coast and naval bases (naval base) in particular.

      Defend against our latest maneuvering warhead ballistic missiles? Who told you that we are simply obliged to use cruise missiles against the US coast, and not hypersonic ones, against which the Americans still do not have a normal missile defense system. I think your thesis in this case is not correct.


      Are we again just talking about nuclear war at once?

      Quote: ccsr
      If you seriously believe in the war with Turkey and Japan, then I just feel sorry for you - you will never seem to understand that these "puppet characters" are not players for us, and we only need to think about two opponents - the United States and China.


      Tell the pilot of the Su-24 shot down in Syria about this. The lower we go in technological and military terms, the more will be willing to "pinch" us.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 31 March 2021 11: 34
        0
        Quote: AVM
        I see here the leadership of the United States and NATO reports to many about their plans. What systems are they going to deploy, what plans are they making ...

        Is it okay that all their developments are just aimed at organizing a sudden disarming strike?

        Your second sentence makes your first sentence stupid - it is enough to analyze their developments and it becomes clear how they will act. But you seem to be unable to bind it.
        Quote: AVM
        But if 90% of the strategic nuclear forces are disabled by the first strike,

        How are you going to do this? Are you out of your mind at all, or are you still sure that no one is monitoring the situation? Your "if" proves once again that you are simply speculating on this topic for no reason.
        Quote: AVM
        Try to jump out of bed at 3 am and decide on the end of the world.

        The duty shift at 3 am does not sleep and monitors the situation with our potential enemy - you simply do not know how this happens. And the three main persons in the state will even get drunk at 3 o'clock in the morning, if they are woken up and told that we will be finished in thirty minutes, I assure you they will be able to give the command to start, and go down to the protected room with their loved ones. This time will be quite enough for the overwhelming number of our missiles from mines and from aboard the nuclear submarine to go in the right direction. We were practicing this fifty years ago, even creating protected tanks for transporting members of the Politburo, in case of subsequent evacuation from destroyed Moscow, or before the start of such a strike.

        Quote: AVM
        Do you really think that we are intercepting encrypted digital data channels? Blessed is he who believes.

        In fact, we intercept a lot, and even decrypt, it is not for nothing that Kaspersky has become one of the world's best cybersecurity specialists. Take an interest in his biography and where he served - maybe your eyes will open. Well, don't forget about hackers - they probably exist in our country, despite the Western slander about the GRU officers.
        Quote: AVM
        In order not to endanger the people who risked their lives during the destruction of 3,5 pelvis during this operation.

        Elderberry in the garden ... Just tell me that when considering how to destroy half of the US fleet, this example is laughable.
        Quote: AVM
        Are we again just talking about nuclear war at once?

        We won't have another, that's why we need to leave any whim about conventional weapons, and go down to earth.
        Quote: AVM
        Tell the pilot of the Su-24 shot down in Syria about this.

        Every year, dozens of pilots die in our exercises and training sessions, so don't smear your snot, I'm not one of those who will cry from this example. This is a tragedy, but a military man prepares his entire service for this, my colleagues died in Afghanistan, died in Cuba and even in Ethiopia.
        Quote: AVM
        The lower we go down technologically and militarily,

        Who told you that we were going down? On the contrary, I see that more and more new systems are coming into service and this makes me happy. What you see as the problem is not entirely clear, especially since some of your statements are generally on the verge of reasonable.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 30 March 2021 13: 35
    0
    The article is interesting ... from all that has been sounded, trucks with launchers for X-101 missiles and their anti-ship missiles versions are interesting, and a larger number of submarines are equipped with long-range cruise missiles ... And here I would suggest recalling the export Cupids:


    Which, even in 1 tons, have 065 missiles ready for launch and something tells me that the hypothetical Amur-10 will be able to carry 2000-10 missiles in the TLU and 14 more for launching through the TA, and if they finish the VNEU, then get in 6-10 years, about a dozen diesel-electric submarines, which can fire a salvo of 12 missiles at least at the AUG, at least along the enemy coast, and for much less money than the same nuclear submarines ... a very good idea
  • Glagol1
    Glagol1 30 March 2021 13: 56
    -1
    08.08.08 - point of no return for Georgia on a tip from their American friends. Lost 20% of the territory, incl. Abkhazia, a break with Russia, and what in return? Nothing. The EU and NATO will not accept it, the standard of living is low, there are no prospects ... Other examples of cannon fodder are Moldova and Ukraine with exactly the same consequences.
  • iouris
    iouris 30 March 2021 14: 54
    +1
    This is an unrealistic task. To destroy half of the United States and half of Europe is yes (if nuclear weapons are still in service with the strategic nuclear forces).
  • Rlptrt
    Rlptrt 30 March 2021 15: 40
    -1
    1. Ensuring not a spherical "parity" in space, but the necessary satellite constellation is the most important task. But this will in no way help our remnants of the fleet to destroy the amount of the American fleet that is unacceptable for them. Yes, the most important task for the weapons that we still have is to obtain target designation and conduct reconnaissance and identification, which will be entrusted to a developed satellite constellation together with suborbital vehicles. But the total satellite control, which the United States will soon establish from space, will make it impossible to use any weapons. No ship, no submarine, no missile, no plane. Therefore, the second most important task is to create an anti-satellite constellation. Which in advance neutralizes American reconnaissance satellites. From blocking their work by means of electronic warfare to their physical destruction.
    2. Destroy the floor of the American fleet at the pier - these are your wet dreams. First of all, because for this we need to unleash a full-scale war! And then because there is nothing to destroy. No fleet, no aviation. It is, of course, good to launch the CD 3000 km away from the target. But it was necessary to have something to start up with, so that it could physically come up to 3000 km to their base, and so that they could be allowed 3000 km to their base. All this is not expected with total satellite reconnaissance. And, most importantly, they will unleash the war. They will drive out into the sea everything that can get off the pier. And all this will just destroy the remnants of our fleet in the bases. Since there are no warning systems, reconnaissance systems, target designation systems and weapons of destruction. Liana's single companions, in spite of advertising, will not give anything. Have you ever wondered why the Americans are launching not five, but dozens and hundreds of satellites together with many low-flying devices, and the general who has not served us promises to solve everything with several satellites?

    So we do not have to compete with the United States, but think about creating a fleet capable of inflicting damage on its borders that is unacceptable to them. Cheap and massive multipurpose boats with VNEU or nuclear. Attack ships are not very large, but they carry a lot of anti-aircraft, anti-submarine, anti-ship, anti-missile, anti-torpedo and powerful radar and GAS systems. Strike, reconnaissance, AWACS naval aviation, support aviation. Electronic warfare systems, drones in different environments, lighting systems, reconnaissance and strike satellites. That is, to create a fleet that can really protect us from the sea, and not dream of destroying at least the Japanese fleet or cartoon wunderwalks that take away money and money.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 30 March 2021 23: 52
      0
      It is easier and cheaper to create a hypersonic seaplane with a hypersonic missile weapon on board a high speed long range a combined power plant of a rocket air air for self-defense the ability to carry depth charges and torpedoes for anti-submarine functions - within 20 billion apiece will come out, but this device will be much more effective than a destroyer and several times cheaper in cost and content. All large ships in the current realities of war are 100% dead, and their further greater stuffed with anti-aircraft missile defense systems, anti-aircraft warfare, electronic warfare, and so on - will only increase their maintenance cost and complicate repairs - one hit by a modern anti-ship missile system and this ultra-modern stuffed vessel and its crew cover. There is no point in building now something bigger than a frigate for Russia, since it is a waste of money.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 30 March 2021 16: 14
    -3
    Quote: squid
    Realists are now in spaceX and such cabelas. And you are stubborn retrograde sectarians
    and who are you dreamer hamster?
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 30 March 2021 22: 07
    -1
    Regarding the terrible photo, where there are four SSBNs in the base at once. Due to the design features of Russian technology, these boats can launch their own BC directly from the berth, unless the SLBMs are unloaded. And they are unloaded once a year, for prophylaxis. "Ohio" unloads its ammunition immediately upon arrival at the base. So, if we count by the buildings, then all of us are in the ranks, even in the base. But mattress, only those in the sea.
    1. Shopping Mall
      30 March 2021 23: 57
      0
      Quote: TermNachTER
      Regarding the terrible photo, where there are four SSBNs in the base at once. Due to the design features of Russian technology, these boats can launch their own BC directly from the berth, unless the SLBMs are unloaded. And they are unloaded once a year, for prophylaxis. "Ohio" unloads its ammunition immediately upon arrival at the base. So, if we count by the buildings, then all of us are in the ranks, even in the base. But mattress, only those in the sea.


      And what's the use? These are just targets with coordinates known to the enemy. Very comfortable. 40 cruise missiles with conventional warheads or two with nuclear warheads and no more than half of the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces. This is what 5 SSBNs in a naval base mean.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 31 March 2021 12: 04
        0
        While the missiles will fly, he will shoot his entire ammunition))) and America will no longer care where they fired from from the base or from another place)))
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 30 March 2021 22: 59
    0
    In the articles of the author, situations are considered without taking into account the human factor. I simply cannot imagine a situation in which the RF Armed Forces will deliver a preemptive strike against such an adversary as Turkey. I am generally silent about the United States. There is not enough will and determination to do this, and there is not enough strength. The economy immediately goes into a tailspin from any rustle. In general, I hope the forces of our strategic nuclear forces, the will and wisdom of the top will be enough to prevent war.
    1. Shopping Mall
      30 March 2021 23: 55
      -2
      Quote: silver_roman
      In the articles of the author, situations are considered without taking into account the human factor. I simply cannot imagine a situation in which the RF Armed Forces will deliver a preemptive strike against such an adversary as Turkey. I am generally silent about the United States. There is not enough will and determination to do this, and there is not enough strength. The economy immediately goes into a tailspin from any rustle. In general, I hope the forces of our strategic nuclear forces, the will and wisdom of the top will be enough to prevent war.


      Then it's time to move on to discussing surrender ...
    2. GEOID
      GEOID April 3 2021 19: 37
      +2
      Quote: silver_roman
      The Russian Federation will deliver a preemptive strike against such an adversary as Turkey. I am generally silent about the United States.

      It was under Andropov.
      It was called "Process-84".
      I took part in the part concerning.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman April 3 2021 23: 45
        0
        The USSR is a completely different story. Perhaps this was due to the unblocking of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits?
        In our time, Russia is much weaker than the USSR, and Turkey is much stronger than what it was in 84
        1. GEOID
          GEOID April 4 2021 00: 16
          0
          Bringing the BG to the highest degree by the administrative order.
          Essentially a disguise for the first strike.
          Here, in the form of a funny story.
          War in the process of "Process" and a smart navigator
          https://valcat-8.livejournal.com/7958.html
  • Fisherman
    Fisherman 30 March 2021 23: 36
    -1
    The most effective against satellites are ... clouds, and we have them!
    The naval base is washed away by Poseidon (not by God), and where the water area does not allow a super torpedo to enter, there - a pair of container ships with Club-K will almost point-blank destroy the entire infrastructure in minutes of missile flight from containers. But in order to more often wander past the US naval base, you need to develop your merchant fleet, then the reaction speed will increase.
    And all of the above by the author and a bit from me - well in the complex. It takes a very long time to prepare a serious war with such a large man as we are, we are now scientists in 1941 and a strange mobilization, annulment of vacations at Yankee bases, fuss with equipment - long before the start of a real collision, it will allow us to withdraw all our strike forces to positions and, even, put industry on a war footing. It took almost six months to prepare for the attack on Iraq ... so everything will be known in advance.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 30 March 2021 23: 41
    -1
    In the next article, we will consider how and how the Russian Navy can completely or partially destroy the second half of the fleet of potential adversaries.
    The donkey is not a bird
    He's not good at flying,
    However, it is not the first time for him to brag,
    Moo
    And the kind of animals to assure everyone
    What a fine fellow and he is flying,
  • chakryzhnik
    chakryzhnik April 1 2021 16: 01
    +1
    Too many "may be" and "if"
    As someone Stanislavsky used to say in his time: "- I do not believe!"
    1. Usher
      Usher April 5 2021 21: 41
      -1
      Quote: chakryzhnik
      Too many "may be" and "if"
      As someone Stanislavsky used to say in his time: "- I do not believe!"

      Exactly.
  • GEOID
    GEOID April 3 2021 04: 20
    0
    Well done.
    Keep it up!!!
    1. Shopping Mall
      April 4 2021 12: 01
      0
      Quote: GEOID
      Well done.
      Keep it up!!!


      Oh, and here is Nav from the Military Parity pulled up. Another reincarnation after the ban? Or just his hyperactive fan?



      He's SemVal.



      What is the size of the gallbladder needed to squeeze so much of it out of yourself?







      This is just a small part of the poison ...

      Since the Kiev liberoids are so bombing, then probably everything is written correctly ...
      1. GEOID
        GEOID April 4 2021 21: 30
        +1
        Sarcasm.
        You'd better prepare yourself.
        Find a consultant to proofread. Not me )))
        Klimov reads at Timokhin's. There are no obvious nonsense.
        Stars like Andrey from Chelyabinsk ... have a hard case.
        Well, sometimes it's impossible to read. Terms, turns, names ...
        It is immediately obvious that the ignoramus writes. I don’t write about artillery, dentistry ...
        Internet and other people's posts will not replace experience ...
        And about reincarnation. Boring. I already have where to turn around.
        https://valcat-8.livejournal.com/
        http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/
        http://forum.militaryparitet.com/viewtopic.php?id=28585
        http://forum.militaryparitet.com/viewtopic.php?id=27761
        https://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=2247
        https://proza.ru/avtor/valentin16
        We have just finished the simulators Be-12 and Il-38 ...
        The problem is to remember and find, besides me, the flying navigator of the Be-12 and Il-38 ...
        I would also stick a program on "Window", "Echo", "Anomalies" ....
        And you about liberoids ... Liberty freedom. Is it bad for you?
        Is it more convenient to be a slave? Use words wisely.
        Kalamburchiks ...
        "A friendly kick-podzhopnik is sometimes more useful than oil"
        Educate yourself and won't laugh)))
        Misha Bezlyudov wrote to you
        - Honestly, Mitrofanov's articles on the naval topic are already tired.
        Some kind of concentrated pseudo-war nonsense.

        And he is a very delicate person.

  • Kazarinovsergen
    Kazarinovsergen April 5 2021 21: 40
    0
    Dear author, in your article from the very beginning you proclaimed "we considered the only task - to ensure the deployment and protection of strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs) in protected" bastions ". However, having turned your article into a "vinaigrette", you managed not to say a word about one of the most important tasks of the Navy - the deployment of SSBNs in protected areas of combat mission. Many judgments are controversial and far from reality, especially those mentioned in the conclusions. Many expressions look depressing, for example: "star raid of anti-ship missiles on the naval base" (just fantastic).
    1. GEOID
      GEOID April 5 2021 22: 01
      0
      From the very beginning, the author confused the concept of "Bastion", which was never used in the USSR Navy.
      And the concept of ZRBD.
      And this is completely different. Absolutely.
      ZRBD maximum 200 per 100-150 km. Bastion, for example, almost the entire water area of ​​the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
      As our PLB department planned it in the 80s.
      If it has changed, then for the worse. No forces.
      And the author ... read and read. Otherwise, they will soon be pelted with tomatoes.
    2. Shopping Mall
      April 6 2021 07: 44
      0
      Quote: Kazarinovsergen
      Dear author, from the very beginning you declared in your article "we considered the only task - to ensure the deployment and protection of strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs) in protected" bastions ". However, having turned your article into a "vinaigrette", you managed not to say a word about one of the most important tasks of the Navy - the deployment of SSBNs in protected areas of combat destination.


      So about this in the previous article: The goals and objectives of the Russian Navy: strategic deterrence https://topwar.ru/181222-celi-i-zadachi-rossijskogo-vmf-strategicheskoe-sderzhivanie.html

      Quote: Kazarinovsergen
      Many judgments are controversial and far from reality, especially those mentioned in the conclusions. Many expressions look depressing, for example: "star raid of anti-ship missiles on the naval base" (just fantastic).


      Justify? In your opinion, is it more difficult to shoot KR and anti-ship missile ships stationary in the naval base than attacking a KUG / AUG in the open sea? Why, then, are we talking about the vulnerability of domestic undeployed SSBNs?
  • Usher
    Usher April 5 2021 21: 41
    -1
    If SpaseX manages to implement a fully reusable super-heavy rocket Starship in the format in which it is conceived, then the consequences of this are still difficult to imagine.
    mdaaaa, after that I stopped reading. Here the main word is "If".
  • Orca
    Orca April 10 2021 11: 02
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And they were created by 2 - An-71 and Yak-44

    Small clarification. According to the data of the joint international intelligence, two or both An71 (the 1st and 3rd, the 2nd was immediately a "extra") are no longer flyers, and are at the "potential enemy" (although what the hell is he an enemy?! .. . only can, that for themselves shit), while still in the form of museum exhibits. By the way, further than 350 km, they did not see nichrome, so these half-blind "Indians" were not at all what the customer had expected. Well, the Yak-44 (apparently referring to the Yak-44E) was generally created in a single copy, and even then as a layout.
  • VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK April 17 2021 16: 48
    -2
    Solid golimatya! The first thing that will be destroyed is the satellites! And Russia with these quickly to cope with who does not know! What a normal air defense, missile defense of the United States can we talk about! Do not make me laugh ! They have some kind of similarity from Canada! This is to cover the ulr from the North Pole! Gave the USA a complete mess! Why is the United States now introducing new sanctions against Russia and expelling our diplomats! Yes, because they realized that in military terms, they are no longer a superpower! And talking from a position of strength with Russia is already useless! We have a different tactics and strategy that leveles into the US defense system! This is for those who still do not understand! Vaughn Kaptsov says that Russia will not be able to resist the Kuril Islands in the event of the invasion of Japan and the United States! Will they jump out of the ground? Who will let them come up! Even starting a nuclear war, the United States will be wiped off the face of the earth! And Russia will just have a certain level of damage! The Americans have nothing to shoot down our missiles with! Well, a couple of three and that's it! What a superpower the United States is if Russia sells first-stage engines to missiles! In order for the American fleet to do something, it must first leave the bases! I'm not talking about ballistic missiles! Will Russia allow him to do this? Of course not ! You can leave the whole fleet for a week at sea of ​​their own bases! So the Americans can only unleash a bunch of regional conflicts against Russia! Send diplomats, impose sanctions! For more they can no longer! USA barks, and the caravan moves on! I paraphrased it!
  • Tambov-there is god
    Tambov-there is god April 27 2021 16: 56
    0
    I don't know about everything else, but you can be sure that the pins were not on the moon.
  • Art. Sailor Martynov
    Art. Sailor Martynov April 28 2021 00: 49
    0
    There are not many options ... In my opinion, anything that goes beyond the creation of strategic submarine launchers is a bad "game" ....
    Destroying "half of the enemy's fleet" in the current situation is our "wet" dream ....

    The still existing possibility of destroying the State of a potential enemy seems to be real.

    That is why the war has not yet begun!