Military Review

The columnist for the American edition named the 5 main threats to modern aircraft carriers

67

As you know, submarines up to the present time remain the most dangerous and insidious enemy of large surface ships, including aircraft carriers, which are the backbone of the US Navy's combat power. Torpedoes and missiles can sink an aircraft carrier, despite the advanced defense systems against enemy attacks.


The columnist for the American edition of The National Interest, Robert Farley, believes that so far there is no convincing evidence of a real balance of offensive and defensive weapons. But what will happen then when the technologies for building aircraft carrier ships reach a new level? Farley identifies 5 main threats to aircraft carriers.

Submarines and unmanned vehicles


Since World War II, submarines have been the worst threat to aircraft carriers. Every major carrier fleet then suffered losses from submarine operations.



During the Cold War, the US Navy was also very afraid of attacks from Soviet submarines. But the development of anti-submarine warfare means has done its job: now the submarine is experiencing difficulties in finding an aircraft carrier and entering a firing position, and after the strike - with finding a potential escape route.

To some extent, submariners can be considered suicide bombers: after all, after an attack on an aircraft carrier, the boat may not have a chance to leave unnoticed, and then it will be destroyed by the escort forces of the aircraft carrier.

However, Farley believes that the advent of unmanned underwater vehicles can solve most of these problems. First, they can endlessly wait for an aircraft carrier, hiding in the depths of the oceans. Secondly, unmanned aerial vehicles are capable of operating autonomously, there is no need to take care of meeting the needs of the crew. Thirdly, there is no such problem as the survival of the crew: there is no one on the unmanned vehicle, which means that there is no need to sacrifice the lives of sailors.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles


UAVs can also pose a very serious threat to aircraft carriers. They are also capable of attacking aircraft carriers, only from the air. According to Farley, aircraft have been sinking aircraft carriers since the 1940s, so the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for this task is well within the framework of traditional tactics for fighting aircraft carriers. The difference is that manned aircraft can be shot down by modern air defense systems. Cruise missiles face the same problems.

Drones, if properly organized, have the flexibility to bypass air defense systems. As in the case of underwater drones, flying drones do not have crews, so there is no need to worry about the survival of the personnel. UAVs are capable of using a wide variety weapon and at various distances, causing very serious damage to aircraft carriers. There is nothing in the world more dangerous than a robot that has nothing to lose, says Farley.

Hypersonic weapons against aircraft carriers


In recent years, the United States, Russia and China have paid special attention to the development of hypersonic weapons. Hypersonic missiles combine the deadly capabilities of ballistic and cruise missiles. Since the use of ballistic missiles is very often associated with the use of a nuclear warhead, politically, the use of hypersonic weapons may become more desirable.

Hypersonic missiles are also capable of causing significant damage to an aircraft carrier, possibly even more than other types of weapons. And, perhaps, a priori fatal.

Orbital bombardment


Orbital bombardment is another deadly method of dealing with aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers cannot be made invisible like stealth planes or submarines. At the same time, the mobility of an aircraft carrier is its strong point and a significant obstacle to enemy attacks, but not to orbital bombardment systems.

Satellites equipped with deadly weapons can simultaneously identify aircraft carriers and attack them, causing dire damage to aircraft carrier groups. To incapacitate an aircraft carrier or even sink it, one such attack may be enough.

Cyber ​​weapons against aircraft carriers


Finally, we should not forget about this type of modern weaponry as cyber weapons. As you know, modern aircraft carriers have a very complex control system. The aircraft carrier's digital systems and communications are well protected, but they are unlikely to be invulnerable to the enemy. At the same time, there is no doubt that in modern conditions the first thing the enemy will try to do is to disable the aircraft carrier's computer systems.

The consequences of a cyberattack on an aircraft carrier can be very different. For example, an aircraft carrier can simply be made "blind", making it as difficult as possible to move and complete missions. In addition, you can identify the location of the aircraft carrier, after which it turns into an easy target for missiles and submarines. Also, with the help of a cyber attack, it is possible to disable the defense systems of an aircraft carrier, making its weapons useless.

Currently, aircraft carriers remain one of the key military instruments of US geopolitical influence. But sooner or later the time will come when aircraft carriers will no longer be able to remain invulnerable, and the loss of their importance for the Navy will be associated precisely with the development of the latest weapons.
Author:
Photos used:
USS Theodore Roosevelt
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Theodore
    Theodore April 5 2021 16: 53
    +3
    Well, John McCain, was able to disarm his own aircraft carrier! He was clearly for us! bully
    1. Machito
      Machito April 5 2021 17: 06
      -1
      Mines-torpedoes in patrol places of the AUG.
      1. NIKN
        NIKN April 5 2021 17: 45
        +2
        They forgot about the covid, an aircraft carrier without a crew, like the Flying Dutchman. winked
        1. Machito
          Machito April 5 2021 17: 56
          +2
          The skipper is on the clipper. The skipper has ... Covid-19. laughing yes
          1. hydrox
            hydrox April 6 2021 10: 38
            0
            Until now, no one has truthfully told how many Daggers need to be launched in order to guarantee to launch an aircraft carrier to the bottom and, accordingly, what kind of long-range troops need to be equipped for this, maybe, even with an IL-78.
            After all, now none of the AUGs can be found.
            1. Sarboz
              Sarboz April 6 2021 12: 09
              0
              Quote: hydrox
              After all, now none of the AUGs can be found.

              Yeah. Indeed, just a needle in a haystack. Even in the 1970s, our orbital group of US-A, which is rather primitive by today's standards, confidently detected large groups of enemy ships. Even then, satellites not only detected the location of the AUG, but also transmitted this information to the coastal command post of the Navy and directly to the carriers of the anti-ship missile system for target designation. The modern ICRC "Liana" is only slightly superior in capabilities to the former satellite constellation.
              1. Vladimir Mashkov
                Vladimir Mashkov April 6 2021 14: 55
                +1
                Currently, aircraft carriers remain one of the key military instruments of US geopolitical influence. But sooner or later the time will come when aircraft carriers will no longer be able to remain invulnerable, and the loss of their importance for the Navy will be associated precisely with the development of the latest weapons.

                It has already arrived! An excellent means of establishing aggressive American policy anywhere in the world in peacetime, in wartime, giant aircraft carriers turn into just giant collective coffins !!!
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa April 8 2021 21: 14
                  0
                  Yeah, but all the RF Armed Forces are not enough to drown such a coffin without nuclear weapons.
                  Yes, and nuclear is not a fact that it will work out.
                  1. Vladimir Mashkov
                    Vladimir Mashkov April 9 2021 08: 00
                    0
                    God forbid that our dispute confirms the correctness of one of us experience!
              2. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 8 2021 21: 01
                0
                The modern ICRC "Liana" is only slightly superior in capabilities to the former satellite constellation.


                You came to us from some fairytale forest, right?
                Do you know how many radar reconnaissance satellites are now in Liana?
    2. antivirus
      antivirus April 5 2021 19: 38
      -2
      the gopher is to blame for everything ..................... and herons ... Av is yesterday.
      rodent launch and cable cover
    3. halpat
      halpat April 6 2021 06: 29
      +3
      Aircraft carriers will turn into unnecessary and expensive troughs even during our lifetime.
      I think so.
    4. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 8 2021 21: 15
      0
      Well, maybe he wasn't, but then for a while he became laughing
  2. Flooding
    Flooding April 5 2021 17: 03
    +8
    The Suez Canal administration is offended.
    They did not even remember about her.
    And I think that in the top 10 it is deserved.
  3. SaLaR
    SaLaR April 5 2021 17: 17
    -1
    Egyptian pilot ...... drinks
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 April 5 2021 18: 40
    +2
    The American military-industrial complex will continue to rivet aircraft carriers no matter what. The military-industrial complex is in control there. And so it’s a large target it can be seen from space. Hypersonic missiles will reach the aircraft carrier.
    1. ironic
      ironic April 5 2021 18: 44
      -6
      Quote: Alexander 3
      ... the missiles will reach the aircraft carrier.


      So I will get it, so I will get it ... and the evil Aviks will run around the sea. Yapatstal. lol
    2. Niko
      Niko April 5 2021 18: 51
      +2
      Quote: Alexander 3
      The American military-industrial complex will continue to rivet aircraft carriers no matter what. The military-industrial complex is in control there. And so it’s a large target it can be seen from space. Hypersonic missiles will reach the aircraft carrier.

      At the moment, the answer is unequivocal: NO. In the future, it is possible if the technical problems inherent in "hypersonic" weapons can be solved. We already have (and for quite a long time) super-high-speed torpedoes (practically useless), the problem is similar - the impossibility of control (guidance)
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal April 6 2021 04: 52
      -1
      It is a myth. Here on VO there was an article with examples of how much it is necessary to saturate even a small section of the water area with satellites in order to monitor it more or less 24/7. (Guess who is the # 1 and # 2 in the world in terms of the number of orbital constellations?)
      And all the same, loopholes appear, knowing exactly the time of changing the watch of satellites, which are not balloons, fly with a period of about 1,5-3 hours. In addition, their viewing angle turns out to be quite narrow, they need to know exactly where to look.
      Geostationary ones are located too far away to monitor small objects.
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 April 6 2021 10: 00
        0
        Quote: 3danimal
        It is a myth. Here on VO there was an article with examples of how much it is necessary to saturate even a small section of the water area with satellites in order to monitor it more or less 24/7.

        You don't have to monitor 24/7 to drown. It is enough to know exactly before striking. Let's say pl with Zircon on duty at the exit from the same Suez Canal can do even without Liana, having an agent on the shore. IMHO naturally
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal April 6 2021 11: 27
          -1
          This is possible only with a surprise attack, when there is no fighting yet.
          The AUG always has 1-2 MAPLs. A person on the shore will not be able to issue target designation (by mobile phone).
          All these notions are from lack of strength.
          We need at least some AB and carrier-based AWACS aircraft for reconnaissance (in the ocean)
          Or a land-based AWACS fleet for operations near the coast.
          Realizing at the same time that we objectively cannot surpass the number of complex marine equipment of one class.
          1. Winnie76
            Winnie76 April 6 2021 11: 39
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            This is possible only with a surprise attack, when there is no fighting yet.

            Those. according to you, in wartime, aircraft carriers do not pass through straits and narrows, do not stand in the roadstead, do not load with fuel, drown all fishermen in sight
            Quote: 3danimal
            The AUG always has 1-2 MAPLs.

            What does it change if the Zircon range is 500-1000 km (who knows for sure)
            Quote: 3danimal
            A person on the shore will not be able to issue target designation (by mobile phone).

            As far as I know, target designation by a mobile phone was used in full in Ukraine. Well, besides, you can splurge on more advanced devices.
            Quote: 3danimal
            All these notions are from lack of strength.

            Who argues. They print, we earn
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal April 6 2021 13: 01
              0
              They print, we earn

              They receive an income of about $ 40-50 billion from printing. US exports - 2 trillion, hydrocarbons account for only 10%.
              The export cannot be printed. Example: you have an Intel or AMD processor in your PC, Windows OS. The phone has a Qualcomm or Apple processor, Android (Google) or IOS OS. This is a lot of money.
              Those. according to you, in wartime, aircraft carriers do not pass through straits and narrows, do not stand in the roadstead

              They pass, but this is being prepared and controlled - by an escort (including MAPL), aviation.
              drown all fishermen in sight

              They will not let anyone within the shot range. Especially knowing about the threats from camouflaged ships.
              As far as I know, target designation by a mobile phone was used in full in Ukraine. Well, besides, you can splurge on more advanced devices.

              It doesn't work that way at sea, AB is always on the move. The coast will be controlled.
              There are several fleets, narrow passages for AUG can be avoided.
              What does it change if the Zircon range is 500-1000 km (who knows for sure)

              MAPLs will move into a threatening direction, with a high probability they will find the submarine and attack. And they will very quickly receive aviation support.
          2. Sarboz
            Sarboz April 6 2021 12: 26
            0
            Quote: 3danimal
            The AUG always has 1-2 MAPLs.

            And as part of our Navy, there is apparently no submarine with hydroacoustics. Indeed, in fact, our modern low-noise submarines are able to overcome PLO AUG, find an aircraft carrier without extraneous target designation and guaranteed to destroy it.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal April 6 2021 13: 09
              0
              And as part of our Navy, there is apparently no submarine with hydroacoustics.

              The modern ones are many times less.
              our modern low-noise submarines are able to overcome PLO AUG, find an aircraft carrier without extraneous target designation

              Will they travel around the World Ocean in search of it ?? smile
              Overcome the PLO .. Let me remind you that the escort includes several EVs with a very good GAS (including towed), 2 LAMPS helicopters on each, and, what is important, 1-2 modern submarines (at least 2 in the threatening period). The likelihood of being discovered by someone from the escort is very high.
              And, most importantly, who actually tried to overcome PLO AUG?
              In the current state of the Navy, it is a dangerous (for our Navy) gamble to "butt" with an enemy that is many times superior in strength.
              1. Sarboz
                Sarboz April 6 2021 14: 05
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                Will they travel around the World Ocean in search of it ??

                Why travel? The route of each AUG is constantly monitored by satellite means.

                Quote: 3danimal
                Overcome PLO .. Let me remind you that the escort includes several ...

                Several of this, several of this. Well, what radius is actually covered by these PLO units? Helicopters will close the borders a hundred kilometers away. But two helicopters do not cover the entire area of ​​the circle at the same time. Well, plus destroyers, well, MAPL. And our submarines will hear noisy surface targets from 240 kilometers. You can sift a circle with an area of ​​180 thousand square meters with a solid sieve. km and guaranteed to find a low-noise needle in this haystack?

                Quote: 3danimal
                And, most importantly, who actually tried to overcome PLO AUG?

                And what have our submariners been doing from time immemorial? Grazing American aircraft carriers and not just at a distance. Sometimes inside the AUG they surfaced to the periscope depth.
                And how our submarines were looking for this year in the Mediterranean Sea, have you forgotten?
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal April 6 2021 16: 50
                  0
                  Grazing American aircraft carriers and not just at a distance.

                  And they often grazed them themselves.
                  All this was in PEACEFUL time, when detection did not mean that you would be drowned.
                  But two helicopters do not cover the entire area of ​​the circle at the same time. Well, plus destroyers, well, MAPL.

                  2 helicopters on each destroyer, plus a couple dozen on AB. In a threatening environment, carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft can be returned.
                  What is all this for:
                  on TV, of course, they will continue to say how easily all this can be defeated with small forces. But people have such a job, to speak. Reality is always harsher.
                  And do not underestimate the enemy: for example, they have been practicing intercepting low-flying supersonic targets for a long time.
                  And we do not even use the analogs of the small-sized Harpoon (which is more noticeable than the LRASM) for exercises. (And rightly so: it is more difficult to successfully "pass" the exercises, but prizes and "stripes" are needed). They take targets that are more noticeable and fly higher ..
                  Here at VO these problems were raised more than once.
                  The situation is also sad with submarine torpedoes.
                  Hence the conclusion that the reasonable maximum of the current fleet is the protection of its water area.
                  The route of each AUG is constantly monitored by satellite means.

                  Exactly, and in real time No.
                  There aren't enough satellites.
                  1. Sarboz
                    Sarboz April 7 2021 00: 12
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    2 helicopters on each destroyer, plus a couple dozen on AB.

                    Search area of ​​at least 180000 square kilometers! And in fact there is much more. After all, if you let the submarine at the distance of target detection by hydroacoustics, an anti-ship missile salvo will follow. And pray that your vaunted Aegis will handle this armada. But there can also be several attacking submarines. Therefore, you really need to look for submarines at a great distance, and then the search area increases in a quadratic relationship. No guys, catching a modern submarine is much more difficult than visiting the AUG. But if target designation is received from the satellite, the salvo can be fired from even earlier lines. In addition, unmanned underwater vehicles can interfere with both anti-aircraft defense and air defense systems and can be a false target.

                    Quote: 3danimal
                    In a threatening environment, carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft can be returned.

                    Super. What to return then, fifty rotten at the Lockheed S-3 Viking parking lot, built in the 70s of the last century? For more than a decade they have been rusting for conservation. Or maybe the British HS801 Nimrod of the same years of production? All their MAPLs will be dispersed at once in one form. They were probably removed from service for a reason. And the resource is exhausted and morally obsolete.

                    Quote: 3danimal
                    What is all this for:
                    on TV, of course, they will continue to say how easily all this can be defeated with small forces.

                    And what about TV, then really what?
                    In fact, in the Soviet Union, the defense doctrine was developed very intelligently. Therefore, they did not chase America in the construction of aircraft carriers. Economically and strategically, it turned out to be much more efficient to build an armada of assassins of aircraft carriers. Since those distant times, the technology for detecting submarines has not fundamentally changed. Therefore, aircraft carriers will be destroyed by our submarines, and these are not slides, this is reality.

                    Quote: 3danimal
                    Reality is always harsher.
                    And do not underestimate the enemy: for example, they have been practicing intercepting low-flying supersonic targets for a long time.

                    The reality of hostilities is always tougher than the exercises and performance characteristics of super-weapons, painted in advertising brochures.
                    Aegis will surely cope with a massive attack of supersonic anti-ship missiles (I'm not talking about hypersonic yet)?
                    Will it cope with the attack of maneuvering anti-ship missiles, in conditions of jamming, false targets?
                    Where does such confidence come from, is there an experience of real combat use in countering an enemy ship group of equal strength? Fuck two.
                    In reality, your Aegis is able to cope with simple subsonic targets with a consumption of three anti-aircraft missiles against one outdated anti-ship missile. This, yes, is confirmed by combat use in the fight against the formidable Yemeni rebels. But that Aegis will cope with a volley from our submarine, this grandmother said for two.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal April 7 2021 01: 13
                      0
                      After all, if you let the submarine at the distance of target detection by hydroacoustics, an anti-ship missile salvo will follow. And pray that your vaunted Aegis will handle this armada.

                      Even in the worst case scenario, the boat is destroyed. I'm not talking about the fact that they can also be "grazed" at the exit from the bases and destroyed in advance.
                      Who will win in the speed of production of new NK and nuclear submarines? (In such a hypothetical clash exclusively by naval forces)
                      Economically and strategically, it turned out to be much more efficient to build an armada of assassins of aircraft carriers.

                      That is, it was not possible to build several AVs - the technologies were not worked out and there was not enough money.
                      In theory, SSGNs were supposed to cope, but the main hope was - on "tracking with weapons." When the PL would stick to the AUG and follow it.
                      And not on the fact that even a few submarines will find a small AUG in a huge water area.
                      In other cases, the SSGN was supposed to direct the Tu-95RTs fleet.
                      the technology for detecting submarines has not changed dramatically.

                      New tools have appeared:

                      https://www.aex.ru/m/news/2021/1/19/222088/

                      There are also unmanned autonomous NK-hunters, in a high degree of readiness

                      Aegis will surely cope with a massive attack of supersonic anti-ship missiles (I'm not talking about hypersonic yet)?

                      It is known that supersonic targets are intercepted during exercises.
                      And the Indians successfully intercepted Brahmos using Barak-8.
                      Which is a little harder than
                      simple subsonic targets
                      .
                      1. Sarboz
                        Sarboz April 7 2021 11: 25
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Who will win in the speed of production of new NK and nuclear submarines? (In such a hypothetical clash exclusively by naval forces)

                        Having lost their head, they don't cry for their hair. American leaders came to their senses late. Slept Putin. Just as Khodorkovsky and Gusinsky thought that the door to the Kremlin office would be kicked open like under Yeltsin. They could not calculate that a person who was faithful to the oath once given would come to power. Yes, everything will be fine with us. And in the field of defense technologies for 20 years such a maneuver has been made that the Americans now cannot understand where what came from. There is no "exclusively naval" clash between superpowers. Therefore, the Americans will have to put up with our new defense doctrine and modern weapons based on new physical principles. Therefore, the chorus of defeatists in VO will intensify their lamentations about the lousy defense industry and the undeniable advantages of the American Armed Forces and industry. But the train left, now it's not the 90s.

                        Quote: 3danimal
                        It is known that supersonic targets are intercepted during exercises.
                        And the Indians successfully intercepted Brahmos using Barak-8.
                        Which is a little harder than
                        simple subsonic targets

                        Full of you with the Israeli Barak to rush. If Aegis did not show in any way his vaunted effectiveness in combat conditions. Brahmos, Yakhont are just castrated export options. There are no breakthrough technologies there. On your teachings that the valiant Israelis, that the invincible Yankees are working on single targets. But what will these systems show in a situation when a real formation of Russian ships will sink ships included in the AUG order, working with all types of modern weapons from all sides in conditions of radio-electronic suppression? All the nervousness of the American establishment is caused by the need to finally enter the ring with an opponent of their own weight category, and not with a beardless thin young men whom they are used to beating in batches for the amusement of NATO partners.
                      2. 3danimal
                        3danimal April 7 2021 13: 54
                        0
                        And in the field of defense technology for 20 years, such a maneuver has been made by

                        Have you learned how to build ships of URO rank 1 in 4 years from laying to transfer to the fleet?
                        Have you built 700+ 5th generation aircraft?
                        The so-called breakouts - there is only an exit to a more or less normal level.
                        But on TV, of course, it will be presented differently.
                        They could not calculate that a person who was faithful to the oath once given would come to power. Yes, everything will be fine with us.

                        What is important, a person is very loyal to his friends and family, who completely "turned out" to be super talented businessmen. Well, yes, "a little" nepotism is not forbidden here ...
                        He is also true to his word while he was president in 00s - he did not raise the retirement age. Until another GDP came in 2012 request
                        If you look at the history of the former republics, then our option is quite typical - a personalist regime. And dozens of talking heads will tell you why it's best for everyone. When the persona changes, these same heads will start to say differently ..
                        There is no "exclusively naval" clash between superpowers.

                        And when did Russia become a superpower?
                        The USSR had a share of 15% (but less than the USA) in world GDP, but now?
                        Is the share of the sale of hydrocarbons to the budget too large and small?
                        For example, China's defense budget is equal to ours.
                        and modern types of weapons based on new physical principles

                        Death star, blasters? smile
                        finally enter the ring with an opponent of your weight category

                        Is it like Povetkin versus Joshua? request
                        But seriously, when after WW2 the Russian Federation or even the USSR entered the ring against “young men” like Iraq, one of the strongest players in the region?
                        A lot of ideology, let's better talk about technique and tactics.
                        Full of you with the Israeli Barak to rush.

                        Once again, study the teaching material. Aegis steadily intercepts Coyotes, Barak - Brahmos, whose characteristics (EPR, speed) are similar to those of the P-800.
                        Are our NKs capable of intercepting supersonic NLCs?
                        I have already mentioned the widespread eyewash in exercises.
                      3. Sarboz
                        Sarboz April 7 2021 14: 26
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        What is important, a person is very loyal to his friends and family, who completely "turned out" to be super talented businessmen. Well, yes, "a little" nepotism is not forbidden here ...

                        Whining about the Lake, about the untold riches of Putin himself for 20 years is somehow fed up. No one can confirm anything with facts, only the chorus is groaning louder and louder. By the way, just for reference: I don't need to agitate for Soviet power. I'm not a fan of Putin. Communists are closer to me in spirit. And the pension reform is Putin's main mistake, an unforgivable mistake. Someday the names of wise counselors will be known.
                      4. 3danimal
                        3danimal April 7 2021 15: 51
                        0
                        Nobody can confirm anything with facts.

                        Well why: it is well known how the elder Rothenberg became a millionaire. When you are a friend of the president, you are given a multimillion-dollar loan (like any other smile ) and sell the daughter of Gazprom for a pittance, which is immediately bombarded with billions of dollars in contracts. You have to be able to make money, it's not for nothing that they (officials and functionaries) say that the people got bad ... No.
                      5. Sarboz
                        Sarboz April 7 2021 15: 55
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        Well why: it is well known how the elder Rothenberg became a millionaire.

                        I'm already tired of reading this nonsense. Kompromat.ru and Navalny's FBK will help you.
                  2. Sarboz
                    Sarboz April 7 2021 15: 09
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    The so-called breakouts - there is only an exit to a more or less normal level.

                    I do not argue. But the main merit of Putin (despite the fact that he is not a fan of his economic program) I consider that he was able to restore the sovereignty of the state, to stop the destruction of the army, the military-industrial complex, science under America's nose, under vigilant control, despite active opposition. generally. In fact, it was a covert maneuver.

                    Quote: 3danimal
                    And when did Russia become a superpower?
                    The USSR had a share of 15% (but less than the USA) in world GDP, but now?
                    Is the share of the sale of hydrocarbons to the budget too large and small?

                    Since then, when she began to pursue an independent policy and began to click on the nose of American sixes: South Ossetia, Crimea, Syria.
                    The USSR had a share of 15%. I agree. Only from Russia they chopped off half of the population of the Union, a huge part of the resource and production base in the same national republics, they shamelessly robbed and strangled them for more than 10 years. And the world economy has been growing all this time, new players in Asia and South America have grown. Therefore, the share of Russia has logically decreased. America is another matter. Quite another matter. Let's say China has already outstripped it in this indicator. Recently and a little. But is it possible to compare the GDP of the United States and China. You can't. For many reasons. Because the US GDP is a huge bubble. I don't even want to go into details and enter into discussions on this topic. All this is well known - a huge share of services, financial market, double counting, etc.
                    In our country, the share of the sale of hydrocarbons is decreasing, other items are growing, including the export of arms. Our defense budget is an order of magnitude lower than the US budget, but it is used much more efficiently. With this money, the American Armed Forces could only buy diapers, as well as carry out free operations for all their transgender people.
                  3. 3danimal
                    3danimal April 7 2021 15: 55
                    0
                    Our defense budget is an order of magnitude lower than the American budget, but it is used much more efficiently.

                    This is a myth spread with varying degrees of success. So that the difference in budgets is not so striking, but this is only for "domestic consumption".
                    Inquire about waste cases.
                    Why did Indians drop out of the FGFA program? (Which immediately reduced plans for the procurement of the Su-57 Aerospace Forces)
                    What about the analogue UH-60 (Ka-60)?
                    Why do we have several types of MBT, 2 attack helicopters, a variety of ATGMs, for example?
                    This is NOT about efficiency. But about bread and caviar for the management of the design bureau and factories.
                    And there was also a very effective minister Serdyukov with a friend. Who suffered a heavy punishment - moved to the management of Rostec smile
                  4. Sarboz
                    Sarboz April 7 2021 15: 57
                    0
                    Quote: 3danimal
                    And there was also a very effective minister Serdyukov with a friend.

                    Every family has its black sheep. Let's continue about Shoigu.
                  5. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa April 8 2021 21: 10
                    +1
                    Let's continue about Shoigu.


                    An incompetent PR specialist, concerned only with self-promotion, in which the aircrafts are slowly turning into amusing shelves. The fleet has already turned, aviation is next, and it will reach the ground forces there, later.
                2. Sarboz
                  Sarboz April 7 2021 16: 07
                  0
                  Quote: 3danimal
                  This is a myth spread with varying degrees of success. What is not so striking is the difference, but this is only for "domestic consumption".
                  Inquire about waste cases.

                  All these questions have been discussed up and down for a couple of decades. Let's wrap up. Not interested.
              2. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 8 2021 21: 12
                0
                I don't even want to go into details and enter into discussions on this topic. All this is well known - a huge share of services, financial market, double counting, etc.


                And you go into details.
                A lot of interesting things await you there
            2. Sarboz
              Sarboz April 7 2021 15: 52
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              Once again, study the teaching material. Aegis intercepts Coyotes, Arak intercepts Brahmos, whose characteristics (EPR, speed) are similar to those of the P-800.

              We do not have the opportunity to study the characteristics of interest to me. All available performance characteristics of the complexes are of an estimate nature. After all, no one tried to test the effectiveness of the system in repelling a massive salvo of anti-ship missiles, even subsonic ones. And with supersonic, all tests were carried out only with targets imitating our anti-ship missiles. Coyote is designed around our legacy targets. Who has proven that performance is similar to our modern rockets? All tests of both Aegis and Barak were naturally single targets. Who will be substituted when working on a group of goals? What consumption of antimissiles will turn out, will they have time to intercept at least a part?
            3. 3danimal
              3danimal April 7 2021 16: 18
              0
              Coyote is designed from our legacy targets

              At the base of the Mosquito.
              After all, no one tried to test the effectiveness of the system in repelling a massive salvo of anti-ship missiles, even subsonic ones.

              Including us. But there was the tragedy of the MRK Monsoon, when the target destroyed almost all the TF leadership at once. After that, these targets began to be launched only on a parallel course and at a high altitude (50-100m). At the same time, it is easier to “hand over” the exercises.
              All tests of both Aegis and Barak were naturally single targets.

              On the contrary, no one tested their missiles to break through air defense.
              It can be argued with high probability that there are capabilities to intercept supersonic anti-ship missiles and, what is important, the crews regularly train to do this.
              And this is more difficult than working on the slow, noticeable and flying high enough targets we use.
            4. Sarboz
              Sarboz April 8 2021 12: 19
              0
              After all, as usual, you start a conversation about an American aircraft carrier, and NATO lawyers still take you to Rothenberg. Why do you like his surname so much? wassat
              Objectively, no one claims that the Russian Navy, castrated in the 90s and so far slowly recovering, will win an unconditional victory in an unequal duel in the middle of the world ocean with its entire composition with the US Navy. True, such scenarios are being considered in the next ward №6. But we are quite capable of destroying individual AUGs. Our modern submarine fleet, in particular, was created for these purposes. Our submarines have all the means necessary for this.

              Quote: 3danimal
              Coyote is designed from our legacy targets

              At the base of the Mosquito.

              An important clarification, not based on the Mosquito, but in accordance with some of its characteristics. The US Navy did not have a sample of our rocket in stock. The speed, flight altitude, RCS of the target correspond to the declared performance characteristics of the Mosquito. In October 2014, the Americans shot down this target of theirs with an SM-6 anti-missile missile. How did they do it? The rocket, using external target designation and an active radar seeker, intercepted the target even beyond the radio horizon. Oh well. Only Coyote didn't maneuver. And even an old Mosquito approaches the target, actively maneuvering with a snake at large angles and with good G-forces. Therefore, knocking down the analogue and knocking down the original are two big differences, as they say in Odessa. Besides, Mosquitoes are nasty creatures, they don't come one by one. In one volley within 15 seconds, four gnats will leave and each will follow its own trajectory. How many missiles will Aegis need? For sleek performance characteristics, at least 4-5 anti-missiles for each supersonic target. 20 pieces for each of our salvo. And what will the SM-6 say when it is forced to intercept the Caliber, which is faster than the Mosquito? What will be tormented in the minds of Aegis, when already real modern anti-ship missiles line up in front and begin to aim, exchanging information with each other, hiding behind jamming stations, etc.?
            5. 3danimal
              3danimal April 8 2021 13: 02
              0
              For sleek performance characteristics, at least 4-5 anti-missiles for each supersonic target.

              Where does this data come from?
              What will be in the minds of Aegis

              It will work normally: launch missiles, use 1 MW of electronic warfare and countermeasures. He does not know how to be afraid, which is convenient.
              when already real modern anti-ship missiles line up with a front and begin to aim, exchanging information with each other

              As far as I know, such a function has not been confirmed in tests.
              The mosquito approaches the target, actively maneuvering the snake at large angles and with good G-forces

              Antimissile maneuverability is always greater.
              And then there is the ESSM, with a shorter range, but OVT and Max with an overload of 60g, exactly three times more anti-ship missiles.
              The rocket, using external target designation and an active radar seeker, intercepted the target even beyond the radio horizon. Oh well.

              Note that no one else conducted such exercises. Serious level.
              And the SM-6 is already in service in large quantities.
            6. Sarboz
              Sarboz April 8 2021 13: 27
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              For sleek performance characteristics, at least 4-5 anti-missiles for each supersonic target.

              Where does this data come from?

              I already mentioned that in 2016, off the coast of Yemen, an American destroyer with the help of the Aegis complex effectively dealt with three old subsonic anti-ship missiles of local Houthi rebels. For each missile launched, three anti-missile missiles were spent, which corresponds to the data announced in the Western press. Note that this is not a salvo attack, but three single launches made on different days.
        2. Sarboz
          Sarboz April 8 2021 12: 35
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          But there was the tragedy of MRK Monsoon, when the target at once destroyed almost the entire leadership of the TF.

          You must have confused one serious tragedy with another. The command of the Pacific Fleet was almost completely killed in a plane crash in 1981. And in 1987 on board the Monsoon from the command, only the first deputy commander of the formation, Captain 1st Rank Temirkhanov, died.
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal April 8 2021 13: 19
          0
          All true.
          commander of the ship 3rd-rank captain Viktor Rekish, first deputy commander of the formation, 1st-rank captain Rinat Timirkhanov, ship division commander 2nd-rank captain Nikolai Kimasov and a number of other officers, warrant officers, foremen and sailors

          Most of the officers on the ship ..
  • Andobor
    Andobor April 5 2021 18: 46
    -1
    The wind in the Sinai desert is the main threat to aircraft carriers.
  • t-12
    t-12 April 5 2021 19: 22
    +3
    In recent years, the United States, Russia and China have paid special attention to the development of hypersonic weapons
    Is there at least one hypersonic missile in the world? To fly at the height of a cruise missile, but at a speed of at least Mach 5?

    Because, for example, the "Vanguard" is a conventional ballistic missile, renamed "hypersonic".
    1. kapitan92
      kapitan92 April 5 2021 19: 29
      +3
      Quote: t-12
      Because, for example, the "Vanguard" is a conventional ballistic missile, renamed "hypersonic".

      "Avangard" is a missile warhead (hypersonic warhead), mounted on the intercontinental UR-100N.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 5 2021 19: 40
    0
    here it is an objective opinion about the vulnerability and obsolescence of large surface ships
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 8 2021 21: 04
      0
      So what have we got with the orbital bombardment?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 22: 25
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        So what have we got with the orbital bombardment?

        as a professional psychologist, I see that you Dear Alexander have finally begun to understand that aircraft carriers are useless and nervous, accept this truth, come out of the vicious circle of the pagan sect of aircraft carrier witnesses and join adequate and professional specialists ... "The Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth - knowledge and understanding "(Proverbs 2,6)" Come to me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest; take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls; for my yoke is good, and my burden is light "Gospel of Matthew
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 8 2021 23: 19
          0
          I want to discuss with you orbital strikes against aircraft carriers.
          You wrote a comment in which you supported the article, and it contained this.

          Let's discuss this.
          What do we have with orbital strikes against aircraft carriers, Vladimir?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 23: 35
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            What do we have with orbital strikes against aircraft carriers, Vladimir?

            after the advent of scientific and technological revolution, at the beginning of the 20th century, many areas of technology began to develop, satellite weapons are still underdeveloped, but work on it is being actively carried out (the star wars of the late Reagan), but at least now satellites can easily identify such a clumsy slow-moving and vulnerable target As an aircraft carrier.Thus, there is target designation for an aircraft carrier, and I, as a professional programmer in the past, as a professional sailor in the past, as a professional influential political journalist in the past, can unequivocally declare that the aircraft carrier will inevitably and certainly be sunk by missiles from submarines and YES aircraft. all his planes will fly upside down, and the entire crew will die in one minute to the aces, he will quickly and tragically sink to the bottom like the Titanic and Babylon (Washington) ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mARBlQn0pPU ... ...... After this I saw another Angel coming down from heaven and having great power; the earth was lit up with his glory.
            2 And he cried out with a loud voice, saying, Babylon, the great harlot, has fallen, has fallen, has become a dwelling place for demons and a haven for every unclean spirit, a haven for every unclean and disgusting bird. For she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication,
            3 And the kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth became rich from her great luxury.
            4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Depart from her, my people, so that you do not share in her sins and do not undergo her plagues;
            5 For her sins have reached heaven, and God remembered her iniquities.
            6 Repay to her as she also repaid you, and repay her twice according to her works; in the bowl in which she prepared the wine for you, prepare it twice.
            7 As much as she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, so much give her torment and sorrow. For she says in her heart: "I am sitting as a queen, I am not a widow and I will not see sorrow!"
            8 For this one day executions, death, and weeping, and hunger will come on her, and she will be burnt up with fire, because the Lord God is powerful, who judges her.
            9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and luxuriously with her, will mourn and mourn for her, when they see the smoke of her fire.
            10 Standing afar off for fear of her torment and saying, Woe, woe to you, the great city of Babylon, the mighty city! for in one hour your judgment has come.
            11 And the merchants of the earth will mourn and mourn for her, because no one buys their goods any more,
            12 goods of gold and silver, and precious stones and pearls, and fine linen and porphyry, and silk and purple, and all scent wood, and all kinds of products of ivory, and all kinds of precious woods, of copper and iron and marble,
            13 cinnamon and incense, and peace and incense, and wine and oil, and flour and wheat, and cattle and sheep, and horses and chariots, and the bodies and souls of men.
            14 And the fruit that is pleasing to your soul is no longer with you, and all that is fat and splendid has departed from you - you will no longer find it.
            15 Those who traded all the sims, enriched by her, will stand far from the fear of her torment, crying and sobbing
            16 And saying: Woe, woe to you, the great city, dressed in fine linen and purple and purple, adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls,
            17 For in one hour such wealth perished! And all the helmsmen, and all the sailing ships, and all the shipbuilders, and all the merchants on the sea were far away
            18 And seeing the smoke of her fire, they cried out, saying: What a city is like a great city!
            19 And they sprinkled ashes on their heads, and cried, weeping and weeping: Woe, woe to you, the great city, whose jewels were enriched by all that had ships on the sea, for it was desolate in one hour!
            20 Rejoice about this, heaven and holy Apostles and prophets; for God has done your judgment on him.
            21 And one strong angel took a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying: With such an urge Babylon, the great city, will be overthrown, and she will no longer be.
            22 And the voices of those playing the harp, and singing, and playing the pipes, and those who trumpet trumpets will no longer be heard in you; there will no longer be any artist in you, no art, and the noise from the millstones will no longer be heard in you;
            23 and the light of the lamp will no longer appear in you; and the voice of the bridegroom and bride will no longer be heard in you: for your merchants were the nobles of the land, and all nations were led astray by your magic.
            24 And in him was found the blood of the prophets and saints and all those who were slain on the earth.

            Revelation John chapter 18 - Bible: https://bible.by/syn/66/18/#2

          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 23: 56
            0
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwam7DmWw7E вот вам доказательство что авианосец бесполезен против серьёзного противника
          3. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 9 2021 00: 01
            0
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwam7DmWw7E вот вам объективная инфа про ваши уязвимые и ненужные авианесущие лоханки
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart April 5 2021 20: 27
    0
    I do not believe in a serious threat to an aircraft carrier from cyber means - unless it will be some kind of tab in the electronic brains in the editor. But the complexity itself is outrageous, and other systems on modern warships are either redundant with the possibility of manual regulation, including, or are not critical enough. If we are talking about the substitution of GPS signals, then these tricks are relatively useful, since it is not known how long the magicians will live in the event of the start of major hostilities with their powerful emitters.
    In the implementation of orbs. I can hardly believe the bombing, too, since such a weapon will experience extremely destructive effects on a short trajectory to the target, you will still need means of adjustment and some kind of detectors - all this will work in very unenviable conditions. Finally, if we are interested in a rather dangerous kinetic object, it must weigh decently and at the same time it must be very decently overclocked. In such conditions, there will be extremely high friction, etc. And the satellite itself and the overclocking systems for such gizmos will be a very voluminous palette.
  • GEOID
    GEOID April 5 2021 21: 09
    0
    What Ilya Polonsky listed is not in the arsenal of the Russian fleet.
    And there’s nothing to talk about.
    When the moment comes .... but rather it will come at the Chinese Navy.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 8 2021 21: 02
      +1
      It won't come. Another hundred years.
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 6 2021 00: 34
    +1
    Unmanned underwater vehicles are the right idea. This is exactly what we need to strive for - so that such a device would be capable of firing standard torpedoes and missiles, like an ordinary submarine. Not this nuclear horror. That is, such an apparatus should be a weapon of the battlefield, not retaliation.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal April 6 2021 04: 56
      0
      Ideas about the weapon of retaliation are always from weakness and disbelief in oneself.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 8 2021 21: 02
        +1
        More from stupidity.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 April 7 2021 08: 27
    0
    We need anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 1000 km.
    There are none yet ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 8 2021 21: 03
      0
      PKR Vulcan.
      1000 km range, multispectral seeker with very serious brains ...

      Confused only from her ...
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal April 8 2021 22: 39
        0
        The volcano can only be used by 3 cruisers of project 1164.
        Subsonic Caliber with 400 kg warhead is optimal. One rocket for many carriers: NK, submarine, aviation (in this version it will be easier).
        But the problem of target designation remains.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa April 8 2021 23: 18
          0
          Caliber is not optimal.

          The problem remains, and not only for the Caliber, for the 1000-km rocket it is even more acute.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal April 8 2021 23: 30
            0
            Caliber is not optimal.

            Why is that?
            Near the coast of the Central Control Center, an AWACS aircraft can issue, it can be somehow guarded.
            A small number of uber missiles are preferable to a set of unified anti-ship missiles of the same type.
            Don't go into the ocean at all request
            for a 1000 km rocket it is even sharper

            I agree.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal April 9 2021 00: 01
        0
        About multispectrality .. loudly said. This is not even close to the level of LRASM and everything was limited to testing. (As I understand it, there were two options: either the radar seeker, or the laser one.)
        Then the USSR collapsed.
        By a decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR in October 1987, it was ordered to carry out work to improve the accuracy of the Vulcan missiles with the development of a high-precision laser guidance channel and the creation of the Vulcan LK missile.