Military Review

Western Observer: The Pentagon is haunted by the idea that a Russian hypersonic missile could destroy an aircraft carrier

142

Putin and Shoigu observe the test launch of the Avangard hypersonic complex



Western military observer John Keller publishes material on the network, which examines the situation with attempts to create a hypersonic weapon... It should be recalled that some time ago in the United States there was a fiasco in the tests of an air-launched hypersonic missile system.

John Keller of the military-themed publication MAE writes that Russia had hypersonic missile systems a few years ago. At the same time, the military observer notes that "in the United States, no efforts were made at all to create hypersonic weapons, and after they appeared in Russia, they are trying to force events."

From the material:

Did the US need hypersonic weapons? It's not that important anymore. The main thing is different. The thought that one Russian hypersonic missile, even without a nuclear warhead, could destroy an aircraft carrier at speeds exceeding Mach 5, was enough to make Washington think, scare Pentagon analysts and the American military themselves. This thought is no longer giving rest to the Pentagon.

As noted, now the United States has 70 different programs at once, in which hypersonic weapons are mentioned in one way or another. They are calculated for the period up to 2024. So far, about 15 billion dollars have been allocated for their implementation. But, as the Western author points out, full-fledged work on hypersonic weapons in the United States began only in 2019-2020, when Russia already had such weapons in service.

Earlier in the Western media it was suggested that Biden announced the introduction of a nationwide emergency in the United States "due to the fact that Putin reminded him of the existence of weapons in Russia, which are not in the United States." Allegedly, the US President considered these words "a direct threat from Moscow."
142 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. nPuBaTuP
    nPuBaTuP April 19 2021 10: 20
    +10
    Biden announced the introduction of a nationwide emergency in the United States

    Cool ah)
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 19 2021 10: 29
      +40
      Poor Biden is all worn out,
      for your mattress people.
      Coca-Cola doesn't pour into your mouth
      the hamburger does not fit into the mouth.
      Suddenly the sinister Putin Vova
      It will bang with hypersound!
      1. avg
        avg April 19 2021 11: 54
        +22
        And Vovan, in response, laughs.
        Fuck when he wants! wink
      2. NIKN
        NIKN April 19 2021 12: 12
        +6
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Coca-Cola doesn't pour into your mouth
        the hamburger does not fit into the mouth.

        haunts the Pentagon
        Chamomile tea, "novopasit", but let them watch our advertising, there is a lot of sedatives advertised.
      3. Russobel
        Russobel April 19 2021 19: 07
        0
        Poor Biden is all worn out,
        for your mattress people.
        Coca-Cola doesn't pour into your mouth
        the hamburger does not fit into the mouth.
        Suddenly the sinister Putin Vova
        It will bang with hypersound!

        Vova it will be cool
        Biden is out of luck!
        1. Vladimir Mashkov
          Vladimir Mashkov April 21 2021 15: 12
          0
          "Western Observer: The thought that a Russian hypersonic missile could destroy an aircraft carrier haunts the Pentagon"

          After all, what is interesting? Even the Americans themselves say and write that one a rocket can destroy any aircraft carrier! But Russian diehard aircraft carrier supporters argue that Can not! lol
    2. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara April 19 2021 10: 40
      +6

      Earlier in the Western media it was suggested that Biden announced the introduction of a nationwide emergency in the United States "due to the fact that Putin reminded him of the existence of weapons in Russia, which are not in the United States." Allegedly, the US President considered these words "a direct threat from Moscow."

      Delirium, which is already beginning to be served under the sauce of truth, is not far from the khibiny
      1. Mitroha
        Mitroha April 19 2021 10: 46
        +6
        The West has its own horror stories, which are skillfully used by the media, which make money on it. Nothing new
      2. Vladimir50
        Vladimir50 April 19 2021 10: 51
        +10
        I don’t believe that Putin spoke with Biden about hypersound.
        There are other people for this.

        Moreover, it makes no sense for Biden to speak, because the old man often flies in the clouds.
    3. frruc
      frruc April 19 2021 11: 06
      +2
      It would be interesting to personally see such a hit and its result. repeat
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan April 19 2021 18: 15
        0
        An aircraft carrier cannot be sunk with one racket. They also have a lot of whistlers.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 19 2021 22: 23
          0
          theoretically it is possible and one, especially if it explodes, say in a hangar or on a strip where a squadron with weapons will be preparing for takeoff ... But in any case, the raid will be massive
    4. max702
      max702 April 19 2021 11: 24
      +5
      By the way, a question to the sect of aircraft carriers, how can WE if we build these troughs (at best in 15-20 years) will we protect them from hypersound? The "partners" do not have the eternal question of detecting and targeting our AUG .. For they control the entire world ocean .. Rraz and drown a couple of three of our AUG ...
      1. nPuBaTuP
        nPuBaTuP April 19 2021 11: 55
        0
        С500 They say it will be sharpened to counteract hypersound ...
      2. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 19 2021 12: 24
        0
        = By the way, a question to the sect of aircraft carriers, how will WE if we build these troughs (at best in 15-20 years) will we protect against their hypersound? =

        And how is the sect of fighters against aircraft carriers going to protect all other ships and ground airfields from hypersound?
        It is precisely the aircraft carrier that is least vulnerable to technologies that "break through" air defense -
        1. he has longer "arms" and there is no need to ALWAYS climb under the ram attack of missiles
        2. Unlike airfields, the aircraft carrier is mobile, you need a control center and much less long-range anti-ship missiles. Not a thing with 1.5 thousand km of range

        At the same time, there is nothing apocalyptic wunderwaffe in gz-missiles, there will be anti-gz missiles. Actually, even now everything should go astray, just worse. 5M from 3+ in SR-71 are not so different.

        = The "partners" do not have the eternal question of detecting and targeting our AUG. For they control the entire world ocean. =

        In reality, that 50 ships, that 300 - is still a drop in the ocean.
        1. Vol4ara
          Vol4ara April 19 2021 14: 54
          +1
          Quote: Alarmist79

          In reality, that 50 ships, that 300 - is still a drop in the ocean.


          What did not prevent, without the use of computers, without satellites and satellite communications, without the presence of any means of reconnaissance and curves and very short radars, to find 1 (one) ship (bismarck) and sink it
          1. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 19 2021 15: 44
            +2
            "What did not stop without the use of computers, without satellites and satellite communications, without the presence of any means of reconnaissance and curves and very short radars"
            1. That is, the fact that "Bismarck" sent three radio messages and one not only tracked, but also decoded, is it "without the presence of any intelligence means"?
            2. Bismarck was generally drowned with artillery, not.
            3. Before the British with superiority on order he drowned, he drowned the Hood.
            4. Tadamm was used against him ... aircraft carriers and aviation. From which he could not fight back and which stopped him. At the same time, his classmates could not catch him.
            Well, these are trifles. The fact is that the complete control of someone over the world's oceans is a myth.
            1. Vol4ara
              Vol4ara April 19 2021 15: 50
              +2
              Quote: Alarmist79
              "What did not stop without the use of computers, without satellites and satellite communications, without the presence of any means of reconnaissance and curves and very short radars"
              1. That is, the fact that "Bismarck" sent three radio messages and one not only tracked, but also decoded, is it "without the presence of any intelligence means"?
              2. Bismarck was generally drowned with artillery, not.
              3. Before the British with superiority on order he drowned, he drowned the Hood.
              4. Tadamm was used against him ... aircraft carriers and aviation. From which he could not fight back and which stopped him. At the same time, his classmates could not catch him.
              Well, these are trifles. The fact is that the complete control of someone over the world's oceans is a myth.

              That is, do you agree that with today's development of Aug technologies this is not a drop in the ocean?
              1. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 19 2021 16: 04
                0
                The development of technology is, 1. for example, directional transmissions via satellite, interference and other electronic warfare to all coasts?
                2. Development of intelligence assets for BOTH sides?
                With the correct formulation of the case, they will suffer with catching for a long time.
        2. max702
          max702 April 19 2021 19: 49
          +2
          Quote: Alarmist79
          And how is the sect of fighters against aircraft carriers going to protect all other ships and ground airfields from hypersound?

          He has longer arms, why would that be? Right now, as you know, it’s less so with an awesome tension of air defense AUG 500 km (if you strongly believe), the same characteristics of Zircons will be more, and that in 20 years (just like we will build it) how much the GPCR will fly will be a big question .. Here is our AUG, in 100 km from it there is a ship of partners in peacetime (they have a lot of them as well as bases all over the world) And what are we going to do? How fast is there GPCR to fly these 100 km? And okay, we sailed to the place of the base, and there, in 200-500 km, the fleet of partners runs and again it is peaceful time, and now look at the globe where our interests can be and how far from this will the partner base or what is their ally? Or do we exclusively use AUG somewhere in the ocean without approaching the shores? We are not walking a horse in a spherical vacuum, but a completely material goal with specific coordinates .. Now about hypersound and land .. Even today this problem is close to a solution because the most powerful radars, missile defense / air defense and aerospace forces are already working in full force in this direction, in the navy such opportunities are not foreseen, there supersonic anti-ship missiles are a nightmare of naval commanders, and even hitting a hypersonic missile on land and at sea will lead to very different results, it will destroy something on land, but at sea it can drown something very important and expensive (as luck would have it) .. To compare "the blackbird and the GCR is the height of competence! How much overload does it have when maneuvering at high speeds and how much GCR does it have? And what about the EPR of these two units? Probably the same."
          You don’t want to understand the capabilities of weapons have changed and what was good yesterday in the current conditions is rapidly outdated and does not correspond to modern realities .. Our apologists for AUG have always stated there is no target designation and difficulty with detection, our enemy has no such problem .. Here you are checkmate, he controls all possible theaters of the DB on the water where we could have our interests, and this is a fact! The sailing fleet was also wow, but the steamers came and the dumbest naval commander realized that they would drown like kittens! Therefore, the ships are like a breakwater (for the money it cost like platinum) sailors trained in naval affairs to use ashore, for cannon fodder because they were not taught infantry .. How did it end, remember? Now are not those romantic times, today they will finish off and they will not let them raise their heads anymore, the mistakes of the past have been taken into account and realized. Do you want this country?
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
            2. max702
              max702 April 20 2021 09: 24
              +1
              We somehow moved away from the topic, the question is not how we are going to heat their AUG, but how we will protect our AUG from their GPCR .. From everything that you have written here, it follows that target designation of the enemy carriers of the AUG is just the same. will not be because they have a long time ago, everything is fine-tuned even at a much early technological level, so I will repeat the question, how will we solve the problem of protecting our AUG? We will drown everything that is within a radius of 500 km at least because it can suddenly fly in oh, how fast .. Note the peacetime agenda! Even a non-threatened period, what can we do to the carrier of the GPCR located 100-500 km away from the AUG? But geography may be closer and closer to science, such a darkness of places where there are interests, but there are no ocean expanses .. Or will it be dishonest right away?
              Now your answer to my question= And what about the RCS of these two units? Probably the same =
              YOU Probably not things can be much worse for the GPCR... Thrush - 10m2.
              Excuse me, but if your whole analytega is of the same kind, then what to talk to you about? As is the case with the latest rocket with dimensions in times less aircraft made according to the latest achievements of EPR more? AS? And nothing that even the ancient Tomahawk had 0,1 m2, but according to the statements of the same Zircon 0.001 m2? How is that 0.001m2 you have more than 10m2 at the Blackbird? Did you really go to school? With overloads, the same story Drozd maneuvers, but there is no GPCR ... What to talk to you about after that? The rest of the nonsense is not even considered hunting all the same level ..
              1. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 20 2021 11: 48
                0
                = From all that you have written here, it just follows that the enemy carriers of the GPCR will not have any problems with targeting, because they have been fine-tuned for a long time, even at a much early technological level, so I will repeat the question of how we will solve the problem of protecting our AUG? =

                Just like them. Suddenly.
                In this case, the alternative is to leave the fleet without normal target designation at all.

                = We will drown everything that is within a radius of 500 km at least because it can suddenly fly in oh, how quickly .. Note the peacetime agenda! Even a non-threatened period, what can we do to the GPCR carrier who is 100-500 km away from the AUG? =

                That is With regard to all other ships and coastal airfields, this situation does not bother you from the word at all? Once again, slowly - the problem exists completely regardless of whether we have AUG.
                At the same time, in the presence of AUG, the problem is solved an order of magnitude better than without. Details will be forthcoming.

                =. Excuse me, but if your whole analytega is of the same kind, then what to talk to you about? How is it that the newest rocket with dimensions several times smaller than the aircraft made according to the latest achievements has a larger EPR? AS? Did you really go to school? =
                Well, you definitely not. 1. EPR depends catastrophically on the form. A plate with a side length of 30 cm, when irradiated perpendicular to itself, beloved, will "glow" at a wavelength of 3 cm, rounded 400 times strongerthan a ball with a radius of the same 30 cm.
                2. A very ancient radio-absorbing coating could already reduce the EPR several times.
                3 M is already a plasma with leakage.

                = And nothing that even the ancient Tomahawk had 0,1m2,
                and according to the statements of the same Zircon 0.001 m2? =
                By whose statements? Official? No, it’s a notable expert Sivkov sucked out of his finger. To Moreman the remnants of school knowledge for the fifth grade in the school were beaten off with a stool, this is a well-known fact. But you, having dropped out at school, brought this brain juice into the thread.
                In reality, the ancient "Tomahawk" 1. radio-absorbing coating 2. form with no particularly protruding 3. the air intake looks down, you can see the compressor blades only point-blank 4. not at all hypersonic speed.
                At Zircon
                1.there is no cover and cannot be
                2.The ramjet engine, violently glowing, bravely looks straight into the face of the enemy
                3. hypersonic speed with the notorious plasma cloud (formed with 4M), glowing like a Christmas tree and long / large.
                Moreover, the rocket itself is quite large. It’s not like 10, there may be dozens.
                1. max702
                  max702 April 20 2021 12: 25
                  +1
                  Oh, let's get arguments from the finger and it can't be, yeah .. Cartoons, economy f shreds, and all that ...
                  Uh, how does plasma affect EPR? The tamahawk even according to the Soviet tables has 0.1m2 EPR .. Why is there more zircon in similar standard sizes? Well, enough of the owl to pull it hurts, lie if Duc admit it .. EPR KR he has tens of m2 ..
                  Now on the ground airfields, here is the airfield of the strategists in Engels, how is it threatened by the GPCR? Or an airfield near Novosibirsk, and near Krasnoyarsk? We have a huge country, and it was discussed more than once that the idea of ​​bombing the AUG so that they could bomb it with them was discussed more than once .. I repeat on land there is darkness of everything, starting from the early warning missile systems, which have more than once confirmed their effectiveness, there are miserable deck-based AWACS aircraft in the fleet and that's all .. That- then it tells me that the same Avax, like a bull, covers a sheep with an AUG deck boat .. But what am I talking about if you have a 50-year-old airplane with less EPR than the newest CD in your reality, and this is not possible ..
                  And yes, we have a question about how we will protect our AUG away from our native shores? You claim the same as they do! Well .. The United States has 700 bases around the world, dozens of important countries in allies that will provide absolutely any assistance on demand, the fleet is dozens of times superior in pennants to ours .. And you propose to solve the problem of protecting the AUG just like they do? Do we have all of the above in stock? Or will all this appear while we build our AUG? The truth of life is that even if we do something out of stupidity and build all this will be drowned in the easy and parity in this direction cannot be achieved, a symmetrical answer is not possible! We are 146 million of them 1.5 billion ..
                  1. Alarmist79
                    Alarmist79 April 20 2021 15: 29
                    -1
                    = Oh, let's go arguments from the finger =
                    Did Sivkov suck 0,001 m from some other place? You know the details, but you hide it, right?

                    = and it can't be, yeah .. =
                    The physicist and the chemist oppressed you, yes. I see.

                    = Uh, how does plasma affect EPR? =
                    Straight. What happens to a radio wave hitting a conductor?

                    = The tamaghawk even according to the Soviet tables has 0.1m2 EPR .. Why zircon is more =
                    I repeat for non-readers with my eyes.

                    1.there is no cover and cannot be
                    2.The ramjet engine, violently glowing, bravely looks straight into the face of the enemy
                    3.hypersonic speed with the notorious plasma cloud (formed with 4M), glowing like a Christmas tree and

                    = which is in similar sizes? =
                    In the third round. The smooth "carcass" itself glows faintly. If you cover it with RPM, it is even weaker at times. All sorts of holes / edges / compressor blades, etc. sticking out where not needed, light up.

                    = Well, enough of the owl pulling it hurts, you lie if you admit it .. =
                    It hurts here except for you.

                    = Now on the ground airfields, here is the airfield of the strategists in Engels, how is it threatened by the GPCR? =
                    1.GPCR is not, and the SPRSD and Tridents are more than
                    2. He himself, too, does not prevent them from ironing everything almost a couple of thousand kilometers from the coast.

                    = We have a huge country, and it was discussed more than once that the AUG to bomb it with an idea for those who are not far away .. =

                    Who discussed it? Couch strategists show?

                    = I repeat on land the darkness of everything, starting from the early warning missile systems, which have repeatedly confirmed their effectiveness, in the fleet there are miserable deck-based AWACS aircraft and that's all .. =

                    What are you talking about? The early warning system detects the launch of missiles and that's it. They are not able to protect their PKK SN, or ruin the life of the enemy, or prevent the AUG from doing anything.

                    = Something tells me that the same Avaks, like a bull, covers a sheep with a deck boat AUG .. =
                    1. Poor prompts
                    2. What is the use of this thing over the open sea you are fighting against?

                    = And yes, we have a question about how we will protect our AUG away from our native shores? You claim the same as they do! Okay .. The USA has 700 bases around the world, =

                    Are these open ocean bases located?

                    = The truth of life is that even if we do something out of stupidity and build all this, they will drown in the easy and parity in this direction cannot be achieved, =
                    Round four. And with regard to coastal airfields and the rest of the fleet, nothing bothers you at all?

                    = no symmetrical answer possible! We are 146 million of them 1.5 billion .. =

                    One thing is not clear - why are you fighting with virtual aircraft carriers under this slogan? Demand to cut the aircraft and tanks, reduce everything to the police forces and invite Biden Jr. to the kingdom. Then the problem of fighting will disappear from you forever.
                    1. max702
                      max702 April 20 2021 17: 58
                      0
                      Quote: Alarmist79
                      One thing is not clear - why are you fighting with virtual aircraft carriers under this slogan?

                      I understand that the numbers are sometimes difficult to understand because mathematics is an exact science, I explain if you have 10 (ten) times less human resources, then you will allocate these resources 10 times less for different areas of science and technology, that is, we are one, and they are ten .. I hope now it is clear that in order to keep up, we are forced to sacrifice certain areas of science and technology in order to prevent a lag in critical areas, but on the contrary to surpass the enemy in them .. We stupidly do not have enough people to be everywhere at the level .. For this and the most important industries are selected and work there to the fullest .. Therefore, they do not want to spend resources (not very small) on AUG, because they do not see the point ..
                      Zircon also has a big question about plasma, there may be a different situation up to plasma stealth .. As in fact, nobody knows. But I will repeat with EPR in 10m2 delusional delusion that has no basis .. There were just the same problems on the US hypersound tests with their radar, the rocket stupidly disappeared from the radar and, accordingly, the test data was not complete, so this thesis from you is very controversial ..
                      There are no other arguments of the same order, there is no documentary evidence, but only reasoning .. By the way, with Calibers, a similar situation was due to the fact that it was impossible to do, then only 300 km range, for the nonsense about launching from the Caspian Sea, then that they did not fly and did not hit, and how the finale can be made minuscule and there will be no sense .. Now there is absolute silence about the Caliber and there are no complaints, everything has been proved to everyone .. The same will happen with Zircon and hypersound, they will drown which pelvis is significant and shut up ..
                      About 700 bases apparently did not come to you, but everything is just every US Defense facility our AUG will have to take into account like the US allies, so look at the map is there a chance for our AUG to move somewhere on planet Earth and remain unnoticed? The US AUG has a small chance if it does not come close to the zone of our interests, but our AUG does not have such a chance in principle .. This is what you were told.
                      1. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 20 2021 18: 52
                        0
                        = I hope now it is clear that in order to keep up, we are forced to sacrifice certain areas of science and technology in order to avoid lagging in critical areas =

                        Nuclear deterrence and the well-visible progression of a limited nuclear war is not at all serious, yes.

                        =, but on the contrary to surpass the enemy in these .. We stupidly do not have enough people to be everywhere at the level .. Therefore, the most important industries are selected and work there to the fullest .. Therefore, they do not want to spend resources (very small) on AUG and do not want see the point .. =

                        Who are you speaking on behalf of now? A formidable alliance of bloggers and hackers? MO that the aircraft carrier wants something completely.
                        By the way, recall the races on the topic - UDC is evil, only the device is straight to the shore, only hardcore. And also stealth, tomahawks, isolated ammunition, heavy infantry fighting vehicles, then everywhere.

                        = Zircon also has a big question about plasma, there may be a different situation up to plasma stealth. =

                        There is no such question. There is a so-called table. plasma frequency. And right for a near-zircon height of 30 km. This prodigy will go for stealth for a wavelength of under 100 m and more.

                        = But I will repeat with ESR in 10m2 delusional delusion that has no basis. =
                        Those. A rather big carcass in a conductive plasma and with an air intake with the same plasma sticking out on the adversary does not bother you at all?

                        =. On the tests of the US hypersound, there were just the same problems with their radar, the rocket stupidly disappeared from the radars and, accordingly, the test data were not complete =
                        You are not a reader with us, yes. There the plasma was blocking communication. What does stealth have to do with it?

                        = By the way, with Calibers, a similar situation was due to the fact that it was impossible to do, then only 300 km range, =

                        As an eminent expert, you do not know that Caliber, a family of missiles and anti-ship missiles with an export range of 300 km, has little in common with a strategic CD.

                        = About 700 bases apparently did not come to you, but everything is just every object of the US Defense Ministry, our AUG will be forced to take into account =
                        Most of these bases are a booth behind a fence, literally. At the same time, for some reason, I do not even see the booths in the vast territory from Murmansk to the Kuriles.

                        = AUG USA has a small chance if it does not come close to our area of ​​interest =
                        But the fact that? Threateningly defeat her on the internet?
              2. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 20 2021 12: 21
                -1
                = With overloads, the same story Drozd maneuvers, but there is no GPCR ... What to talk to you about after that? The rest of the nonsense even consider not hunting all the same level .. =

                That is, you niasil the simplest text? You were told that

                "What difference does it make if 1. The air defense capabilities still overshadowed the capabilities of the Drozd at times? 2. No one promised you rapid maneuvering at 5-6M. Zircon looks like scrap iron?"
                You haven't learned the "Russian language"?

                Now with regard to the possibilities of dealing with a tracking steeple at 100-500 with and without AB.
                1. To break away from the enemy, having normal reconnaissance means and not having - are two very big differences.
                2. The enemy cannot shoot all the missiles in one salvo and theoretically you have time to minimize the launch. However, if you have only NK in your group
                a) you have ... the same problem
                b) your missiles begin to reach the enemy later than him before you.
                c) you can't start shooting down anti-ship missiles in the most convenient acceleration area, when they still have the maneuverability of the log + in any case, a decent height and wait until they enter the zone of destruction of the air defense missile system.
                Now we send at least a dozen planes spinning next to the enemy.
                That is, we fix the launch instantly, drown and knock it down at close range, and the emphasis makes it possible to strike at the same launchers. Profit.
          2. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 19 2021 22: 37
            -1
            = Now about hypersound and land .. Even today, this problem is close to a solution, because the most powerful radars, missile defense / air defense and aerospace forces are already working in full force in this direction, in the fleet such opportunities are not foreseen, =
            Now a vile reality. Radio horizon on zircon-like whatever is there, that there is 700+ km. It is possible to stick at the airfields at least on the Voronezh, then they will not see the GZ rocket.

            = there supersonic anti-ship missiles a nightmare of naval commanders, =

            Do they sleep peacefully at airfields?

            = yes, and even a hit on land and at sea by a hypersonic missile will lead to very different results, it will destroy something on land, but something very important and expensive can be drowned at sea with one hit (how lucky you are) .. =

            In the non-nuclear equipment of the AB with one missile, to put it mildly, you will not sink, in the nuclear one the airfield and the aircraft carrier will equally end.
            At the same time, the ability to attack an airfield is several times higher. As for 1.range
            2. and, as a consequence, in terms of quantity - if the difference in the range of the KR and ASM is 1/3, then the zone from which it is possible to attack the airfield is geometrically larger by almost an order of magnitude. Even with geographical restrictions, everything is very ugly.
            3 and in terms of "quality".


            = Comparing "the blackbird and the GKR is the height of competence! How much overload does it have when maneuvering at high speeds and how much does the GKR have? =
            What difference does it make if 1. the capabilities of the PVO still overshadowed the capabilities of the Drozd at times? 2. Rough maneuvering at 5-6M anyway, no one promised you. Does zircon look like scrap iron?

            = And what about the RCS of these two units? Probably the same =
            Probably not, things could be much worse with the GPCR. Thrush - 10m2.

            = You do not want to understand the capabilities of weapons have changed and what was good yesterday in the current conditions is rapidly outdated and does not correspond to modern realities .. =

            Unfortunately for you, school physics does not change.

            = Our apologists for the AUG have always stated there is no target designation and difficulty with detection, our opponent has no such problem .. Here is check and checkmate for you, =
            Those. our fleet with target designation will be weaker than without? Uh ... I didn't understand the logic.
            And yes, what are we going to do with ground airfields, for which the problem of control centers is NOT AT ALL?
            If you think that the Americans have a free CO for all oceans, then this is a mystery.

            = Now are not those romantic times, today they will finish off and they won't let them raise their heads anymore, mistakes of the past have been taken into account and realized. Do you want this country? =
            Do not mirror.
          3. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 20 2021 12: 26
            -1
            I repeat, because they removed it, but there seems to be no crime.
            = less with awesome air defense voltage =
            What does the air defense have to do with it, if the opponent's AV sinks earlier?

            = AUG 500 km (if you strongly believe) =
            Do not believe, they lie. Old Hawkeye sees the fighter near the ground at 407 km. That is, the range is limited by the radio horizon, and not by the capabilities of the radar. This is a radar station since 1988, by the way.
            + patrol range up to 320 km (with 2-3 hours of flight).
            "Advanced Hawkeye" with a modern radar sees farther and flies longer, because it can refuel.

            = the same characteristics of more Zircons will be =
            They do not fly by the water. The radio horizon for "Zircon" is about 1000 km. Even if now there is not enough (how violently the C is glowing, it is not known), the AWACS will be more powerful.
            They will be detected almost immediately after the start.
            But, as I said above, the "arrow" is very likely to sink earlier.

            =, and what in 20 years (just like we will build) how long the air traffic control system will fly will be a big question .. =
            LRASM is already 900 plus the Superhornet range (726). And in 20 years Vorogov will have their own GPCR + the ability to deliver them by air. And personally, only the GPKR.

            = Here is our AUG, 100 km away from it there is a ship of partners in peacetime (they have a lot of them, like bases all over the world) And what are we going to do? How fast is there GPCR to fly these 100 km? =

            Nothing special. If they shoot at a low-altitude trajectory, this is no longer a GZUR or "she drowned" - for the air resistance will be monstrous. If it is high-altitude, then the GPCR will inevitably have a large dead zone, plus they need time to accelerate, etc.

            = and now take a look at the globe where our interests can be and how far from this will be the base of partners or what is their ally? =

            Expeditionary tasks are even the third thing, and the 4th is the 5th. The first two ensure a retaliatory strike in which case (do not allow their SSBNs to sink) and the detection / weakening of the disarming one. Then the defense of their coast in subthreshold (limited nuclear / conventional war), then the "Falkland" scenarios. Then African affairs.
        3. lopvlad
          lopvlad April 20 2021 18: 42
          +1
          Quote: Alarmist79
          unlike airfields, the aircraft carrier is mobile


          thank you made fun.
          1. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 21 2021 15: 31
            0
            Well, I do not mean "Kuzyu". He was originally ... weird.
        4. nemez
          nemez April 21 2021 04: 56
          0
          What are the long arms ?! The bastion and the ball have a range greater than the radius of the aircraft.
          1. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 21 2021 10: 55
            0
            Good joke. Ball / Bastion 260 and 650, Superhornet - 1095 with a combat load on two Harpoons and PTB - 1095 km + 280 km rocket. This is without refueling and a new LRASM, there is up to + 930, the only question is target designation.
      3. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 19 2021 22: 27
        -1
        laughing we answer to the sect "we have all the bastards." 1) The Liana network is already being deployed, and in 15 years it will be fully operational, not to mention dozens of different "weather" and other satellites that also survey the surface. 2) Protection against hypersound will be created in the same way as at one time SAM was taught to shoot down supersonic missiles. 3) The best defense is offense. Therefore, it is more optimal to develop long-range heavy hypersonic missiles. and 4) aircraft carriers are seen as a means of resolving political issues in terms of a war with a proxy, and not with the United States, because no one is going to measure aircraft carriers ... hi The salary is finished.
        1. Alarmist79
          Alarmist79 April 19 2021 23: 02
          -2
          = Liana's network is already being deployed, and in 15 years it will be fully operational, =
          1. Now in orbit there are 5 satellites of which one and a half are radar. Prospect - 7. At the same time, the sense from them in terms of target designation (which lasts a few minutes per hour and a half) is several times less than from AWACS in the right place and at the right time. Plus, they also provide air defense. As an addition it is quite, but as a normal target designation system at all.
          2. Already now the Americans are active about the militarization of outer space.
          Eternal memory to Liana. You can forget about satellite targeting systems in wartime.

          = not to mention dozens of different "weather" and other satellites that also survey the surface. =

          About meteorological satellites especially delivered. They are either 1. geostationary - a modest 37 thousand km above the earth 2. or in low polar orbits, the same area is observed in a matter of minutes ... in 12 hours. At the same time, they are not intended for detailed shooting from the word at all.

          . = 3) The best defense is offense. Therefore, it is more optimal to develop long-range heavy hypersonic missiles.

          Which will miserably lose the competition to aviation missiles in terms of total range. And with an even greater bang - missiles designed to fire at stationary targets.
          You have no control center. The end.
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 19 2021 23: 16
            -1
            laughing 1. And Shoigu is aware that Liana is useless? Especially touches about "AWACS in the right place and at the right time" .. Yeah, it remains to sacrifice the AWACS aircraft for the theoretical possibility that he will have time to detect the aircraft carrier .. Or determine the coordinates using a satellite and send a homing a gift .. 2) About "active" .. what a horror .. Ours are also active .. But still the probability that a reconnaissance satellite or meteorological satellite will transmit data on an aircraft carrier is higher than dropping a very expensive aircraft into the ocean with a theoretical understanding that the aircraft carrier is nearby .... About "they will lose in total" .. Um ... and who flies 3 km from us? From "aviation hypersonic missiles" ..? You do not have a control center .. because you are an AWACS aircraft with a range of 000 km send "search" for an aircraft carrier ....
            1. Alarmist79
              Alarmist79 April 19 2021 23: 54
              -1
              =. And Shoigu is aware that Liana is useless? =
              Regarding the limited capabilities of satellite reconnaissance, everyone has long been aware of it. Well, except for fighters with aircraft carriers.
              Are you suggesting Shoigu leave the fleet even without dull target designation for another 20 years, before the construction of AB?


              = Especially touches about "AWACS in the right place and at the right time" .. Yeah, it remains to sacrifice the AWACS aircraft for the theoretical possibility that it will have time to detect the aircraft carrier .. =

              Hmm. About carrier-based AWACS aircraft covered by fighters, you obviously do not know. A good store of knowledge to promote the uselessness of aircraft carriers. Just right.

              = Or determine the coordinates using a satellite and send a homing gift .. =

              1. You, for a start, define them before they are drowned. Once again, the satellite sees the target for several minutes on a 1,5 hour orbit. Airborne AWACS have no such problems.
              2. You won't get AV with a homing gift from the shore, even in theory, until the AUG digs up everything on the shore with cruise missiles that it doesn't like.

              = About "being active" .. what a horror .. Ours are also active. =
              That is, the superiority in aircraft carriers is horror / trash / deflot, and the inevitable superiority of the States in strike satellites / anti-space systems is nothing?
              And this despite the fact that the satellite can't be hidden and it lives up to the first rocket?

              = But still the probability that a reconnaissance satellite or a meteorological satellite will transmit data on an aircraft carrier is higher, =
              Once again, the weather satellite is technically unable to transmit any intelligence data to you.
              Reconnaissance satellites do not work well and they will quickly drop to you, see above.

              = About "they will lose in total" .. Um ... and who flies 3 km? From "aviation hypersonic missiles" ..? =
              What for? Already the decks themselves fly a little less than the range of the Zircon. This is without PTB and other refueling. Now add the missile range and end to the kitten.


              = You don't have a control center .. because you send an AWACS aircraft with a range of 400 km to "look for" an aircraft carrier .... =
              And he himself is looking for an adversary? Upper flair? He is looking for the same AWACS under the cover of fighters.
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 April 20 2021 00: 11
                -1
                laughing 1) nothing prohibits the deployment of a sufficient number of satellites for continuous coverage .. 2) "for a few minutes" .. And how much is needed? The task is to detect and issue a point and a vector for launching missiles. After confirmation, the aircraft carrier will not have time to leave in any case far to get out of the missile seeker detection zone ... 3) About the "cover of the AWACS aircraft" .. Seriously? This is one of the most tasty targets, which will also glow for hundreds of kilometers, and even if it manages to detect the planes before the missiles are launched, then turns out to be under attack .. About "the decks themselves fly" ... Well, yes .. but what's the point of aug if it is 3 km from the coast? to build a complex scheme for refueling aircraft? .. "the same AWACS .. Well, if they are very stupid .. yes ... And I would send a UAV with RER complexes, then I would shoot your AWACS with long-range missiles and calmly unwind your AUG .. Moreover, "satellites drop" is beautiful, provided that you drop them first, and then you will withdraw your AUG from the coast ... in reality, this is at leaststupid decision ... But you can sacredly believe that AWACS aircraft are the best and invincible solution)
                1. Alarmist79
                  Alarmist79 April 20 2021 01: 29
                  0
                  = Nothing prohibits deploying enough satellites for solid coverage .. =
                  This is a joke? In order to close one lane (even if it is 2000 km wide) on a permanent basis, you need about 25 satellites. American "Lacrosses" cost more than 1/6 of the serial "Nimitz"
                  That is, it will cost you only to designate a target as a decent aircraft carrier fleet.

                  = And how much is needed? The task is to detect and issue a point and a vector for launching missiles. After confirmation, the aircraft carrier in any case will not have time to go far to get out of the missile's GOS detection zone ... =
                  1. While you were waiting for the satellite, you were most likely seen and killed.
                  2.a) The rocket does not shine a radar for tens of kilometers in all directions... The capture area is a relatively narrow "triangle". b) At the same time, electronic warfare systems, hung on a couple of hundred thousand tons of AUG. will suit your wunderwaffle ad and even Israel. Even if they are not taken away, the capture zone will be drastically reduced c) AB moves quickly and in any direction. The area where he may even be at 25 knots (for example, serious excitement), even with a 15 minute launch / approach time - 20+ km. d) if the missile sees the target with a delay, it will not have time to turn.

                  = 3) About "covering the AWACS aircraft" .. Seriously? This is one of the most tasty targets, which will also glow for hundreds of kilometers, and even if it manages to detect the aircraft before the missiles are launched, it will be under attack .. =
                  1. It turns out that AWACS is useless. But the peasants did not know. Or do you think that they work on land in a fundamentally different way than on the sea?
                  By the way, keep in mind that anti-drift missiles have a hell of a range of 370 km or more when launched. from a great height
                  2. Even if they get shot down, then what? There are four of them in the standard air group of a large AV. And if, when trying to shoot down Hawkeye, a lot of enemy fighters welled up, then this is good.

                  = .Well, yes .. but will it be useful if it is 3 km from the coast? =
                  Why is she there? The range of even the sea "Zircon" is promised to be 1000 km.

                  = And I would send a UAV with RER complexes, =
                  1. Where did you send it to?
                  2. AUG fighters for what?
                  3. In this case, the trifle will not reach the AUG.

                  = then =
                  Then a significant part of your aviation has already been knocked out when striking airfields.

                  = would shoot your AWACS with long-range missiles =
                  Why? Coast fighters at their range, overloaded with fuel and half a ton of missiles? Forced to attack at high altitude? Yes forward. Send a few, they will be truncated before the AWACS are knocked down, send a lot - after. Excellent too.

                  = and calmly unwind your AUG. =
                  1.Do you have what? You "gave" me a bunch of fighters for some AWACS. Having lost a fair amount even before that at the airfields.
                  2. AUG that has lost half of the AWACS will simply move away from the coast and wait for new ones. Then he will repeat the circus with horses.

                  =. Moreover, "satellites will drop" it is beautiful, provided that you drop them first, and then you will take your AUG from the shore .. in reality, this is at least a stupid decision ... =

                  I'll drop them at the beginning of the conflict, that's all.

                  = But you can truly believe =
                  With faith - this is for you.
                  1. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 April 20 2021 09: 52
                    0
                    so many words and not about anything .. especially touches about "well, they will shoot down the AWACS, so what?" .. you already decide .. and then he is indestructible because of the cover, and then already "we have 4 of them" .. .And yes, about "but the rocket may not see, but the electronic warfare" .. THIS is not even a serious conversation .. with such a conversation, go propagandize the bombing of aircraft carriers with the help of FABs ... in general there are no facts, only "but this the same super-duper AWACS "... They are used in the form of no alternative ... By the way ... about the performance characteristics of satellites is very interesting ... then Shoigu said that 10 satellites of 2 types will be enough for the full functioning of XNUMX satellites ... and then it turns out that they need at least fifty ... laughing
                    1. Alarmist79
                      Alarmist79 April 20 2021 12: 43
                      0
                      = so many words and not about anything. =
                      That is, there is nothing to answer.

                      =. especially touches about "well, they will shoot down the AWACS, so what?" .. you already decide .. and then he is indestructible because of the cover, and then already "we have 4 of them." =

                      What does not suit you in the scheme - you get bored of knocking down and there are still 4 of them? At the same time, 4 is a minimum, they are planning in connection with an exacerbation, etc. add the fifth, or more.

                      = .. And yes, about "but the rocket may not see, but the electronic warfare" .. THIS is not even a serious conversation .. =
                      And in your wonderful reality, does electronic warfare only exist in Russia? He has existed for 80 years with the adversaries and will not go anywhere from your wishes.

                      = They are used in the form of no alternative ... =
                      What is the lack of an alternative? The States have a horde of satellites, including the same radar Lacrosses

                      = By the way .. about the performance characteristics of satellites is very interesting .. here Shoigu said that 10 satellites of 2 types are enough for the full functioning of them .. and then it turns out that they need at least fifty ... laughing =

                      He also said a lot about Syria. Full functioning is an extremely flexible concept.
                      Will 5 LEO radar satellites be enough for permanent monitoring of anything? School textbook on arithmetic to help.
                      1. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 20 2021 13: 38
                        -1
                        yeah..azh 10 pieces .. in general, an aircraft carrier we have an indestructible thing .. and why have airfields on the ground, where it is much easier and cheaper to deploy a much more powerful infrastructure, let's build aircraft carriers to combat aircraft carriers .. But in reality everything is simpler. .AUG can move covertly until they use AWACS planes and their radars, after which they are found .. And then submarines and planes are guided and the group is destroyed, and without any exotic "send your AUG" .. Without tales about "you are on half-ruined airfields. collect a hundred planes ".. the conversation is over
                      2. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 20 2021 14: 34
                        0
                        = and why have airfields on the ground =
                        To interact with your aircraft carriers is understandable.

                        = where it is much easier and cheaper to deploy a much more powerful infrastructure, =

                        Powerful compared to what? Multiple AUG for offensive and defensive capabilities? And then bury the entire coast with such "cheap airfields?"
                        One more time, slowly. The USSR began to build aircraft carriers not for raiding the racists of South Africa. It’s because the ideas you preach turned out to be extremely costly and at the same time very ineffective.

                        = .AUG can move covertly until they use AWACS aircraft and their radars, =
                        AWACS and aviation just allow not to use ship radars unnecessarily.

                        = after which they are discovered. =
                        AWACS are detected, if by radio intelligence - then with an accuracy of plus or minus bast shoes. AUG is not detected.
                        However, they usually were 300+ km from AUG, and with refueling ...

                        = And then submarines and planes are guided =
                        On AWACS? Will they use torpedoes?

                        = ..And then submarines and planes are guided and the group is destroyed =,
                        You haven't even found her yet.

                        = ".. Without tales about" you collect a hundred planes on half-broken airfields ".. =
                        And in your mriyahs they don't shoot at the airfield? And everyone, including the same hypersound, and the first? And only you bravely overpower the AUG from them? "And then for sho" is indestructible, yes.

                        = conversation ended =
                        The drain is counted.
            2. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 20 2021 00: 13
              -1
              By the way, the same Americans calculated that in the event of a war, their AWACS planes in Europe will end within 2 weeks of hostilities ... And this is provided that they have at least several dozen of them there ... but 4 on board an aircraft carrier with the worst performance characteristics will probably be able to solve the problem ..
              1. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 20 2021 01: 36
                -1
                = By the way, the same Americans calculated that in the event of a war, their AWACS planes in Europe would end within 2 weeks of hostilities. =
                And how many Soviet fighters are in much better conditions than the coastal ones, while hoping to shoot down, were not reported on patriotic sites?

                = And this is provided that they have at least several dozen of them there .. =
                Against all Soviet aviation in Europe.

                = but 4 on board the aircraft carrier with the worst performance characteristics will apparently be able to solve the problem .. =
                Have you already driven several hundred aircraft to several half-caked airfields, from which you can get the AUG that fire at them? Very good, I would say just fine. Because you will begin to lose in masses already on the ground.
                1. white260
                  white260 April 20 2021 05: 39
                  +2
                  Forgive me, but your statements for an ordinary person are a lot incomprehensible. From which side do aircraft carrier groups safely approach Russia? There was a mass launch of tomogavks in Syria. Something I do not remember that they razed to the ground even that modest amount of aviation or the airfields themselves. Is our air defense system represented in Russia more than in Syria? What other than subsonic "axes" can hit? What else is super expensive that will end quickly? And not the fact that it will fly to the coast. Our zero-point missile can drop the NATO satellite constellation. And the Dagger moment 31 quickly enough delivers to the launch point. Faster than any planes will fly from aircraft carriers ..
                  1. Alarmist79
                    Alarmist79 April 20 2021 10: 30
                    0
                    = From which side do aircraft carrier groups safely approach Russia? =
                    Carefully circle 1850 km around the border (the range of the latest version of the Tomahawk). Everything that falls into the sea is yours.

                    = There was a mass launch of tomogavks in Syria. =

                    60 Tomahawks is not a massive strike. This pair of destroyers fired back.

                    = Something I do not remember that they razed even that modest amount of aviation or the airfields themselves. =

                    You just limited yourself to Konashenkov, but in vain.
                    1. The Americans, in fact, warned about the blow. That is, everything that flew managed to fly away.
                    2. There are satellite images of the base, there are more than enough hits.
                    https://www.vesty.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4946758,00.html
                    "According to an analysis of satellite imagery by the Israeli company ImageSat International, 44 targets (including 13 double high-security shelters for aircraft, 10 ammunition depots, seven fuel tanks) were hit by missiles, some of them, possibly twice."
                    That is, the GDP has been preserved there, everything else has not.
                    Even shooting the base after the impact somehow does not give reason for optimism.
                    https://rusnext.ru/news/1491594541

                    = Is our air defense system represented in Russia more than in Syria? =
                    AUG does not interfere with piling on a specific target (they are mobile and can concentrate, don’t you forget?) And they will be supported by strategic aviation. Overloading the air defense of a specific air base is not a problem.
                    Anyway, you start to build air defense around each airfield, capable of repelling hundreds of three CDs. Which itself will be the cost of an aircraft carrier - cheap solutions like Pantsiri do not work not because of the crooked Arabs, but because missiles without homing, in principle, do not shoot down low-altitude targets badly ..

                    = What other than subsonic "axes" can they use to strike? =
                    Hypersonic MRBMs, which are percussion sawing for submarines and not only, for example.
                    The Axes themselves are being produced more to support the industry - they are going to be replaced with a new inconspicuous CD.

                    = Something else super expensive that will end quickly? =
                    Aircraft and airfield infrastructure are even more expensive and will end much faster.

                    = Our zero-point missile can drop a NATO satellite constellation. =
                    1. And how will this especially damage the AUG?
                    2.Where to drop? 1850 km from the coast? Oh well.

                    = A Dagger moment 31 quickly enough delivers to the launch point. Faster than any planes will fly from aircraft carriers .. =

                    1. And on what basis did you generally conclude that the "Dagger" is capable of hitting moving targets? These are the conjectures of the "experts" based on the "cartoon", where he amazes motionless goals. At the same time, in 2018, it was precisely what they joyfully reported that the Iskander was striking "stationary sea targets." Does a rocket suddenly have new capabilities when suspended on a MiG-31? Which, in principle, is not the ground version?
                    Worse, they cannot be - this is an ordinary BR with maneuverability slightly better than a blank, slightly
                    she can compensate for the mistake, but that's all.
                    2. Problems with target designation have gone somewhere?
                    3. No mega-devices capable of "looking through plasma" are seen on the Dagger. This means that it attacks the target at a high supersonic one without glimpses of sophisticated maneuvering at the same time. More than confusing.
                    1. white260
                      white260 April 21 2021 11: 41
                      0
                      New Tomahawks? How many are there? The old ones were + - 6000 in general. And they can not be started all at once .. with the development of new missiles at amers of complexity, to put it mildly. And most importantly, with real production and delivery to the troops? Shooting at the limit of range is doubtful. I can't figure out how the carrier groups go through the ice and who will let them go there. Subs, yes, but they don't have that many tomohawks. And nothing prevents us from piling on the AUG to everyone that can shoot. Up to tactical nuclear weapons. Which we have of all kinds is incomparably more than that of Nata. They only have free-fall bombs, which will not reach because planes will not. To our Restricted Areas. All Western military forces are completely dependent on gps satellites. If you press properly on this point of their Gee, they will get an unforgettable experience .. we have rockets and satellites capable of shooting down their satellite network. Probably, there is no need to shoot down everything at once, the key ones are enough. How will the Americans shoot down our missiles? Old harpoons? See you who get through the exercises every other time? Patriots and Taads? These systems do not provide enough coverage even from primitive Arab and simple Korean missiles .. Your main guess is that we have some kind of weapon, but it cannot get anywhere? This is the area of ​​your faith. Our hypersound. The whole point of it is in the most accurate disappearance and indestructibility. Do you really think that the scientists who made such a breakthrough did not think about target designation? It’s strange.
                    2. Alarmist79
                      Alarmist79 April 21 2021 14: 16
                      0
                      = New tomohawks? How many are there? The old ones were + - 6000 in general. =
                      They have just begun to enter the navy. Well, they don't plan to attack tomorrow. But you can circle 1650 km, there is almost no difference.

                      = And you can't start them all at once .. =
                      Technically, the fleet can launch about 2,5 thousand one-time, if you put 30 thousand on destroyers / cruisers, for example, is it not enough for you?

                      = with the development of new missiles, amers have difficulty, to put it mildly. =
                      Seriously? When did it start? Not in patriotic blazers and not at Ria "FAN" and Zapolskis, I mean.

                      = Shooting at the limit of range is doubtful. =
                      Launches about once every 20 seconds, full shooting 10 minutes. If strict simultaneity is achieved, 150 km will be lost.
                      At the same time, the radius of coastal aviation and its missiles is still more fun.

                      = I can't figure out how aircraft carrier groups go through the ice =

                      It October last year.

                      = and who will let them there. =
                      How will you prevent them?

                      = And nothing prevents us from piling on the AUG for everyone that can shoot. =
                      "Everyone" is what? Scraps of coastal aviation?

                      = Up to tactical nuclear weapons. =
                      The USSR also had it, and there was something with a hat-tack on it, an order of magnitude worse than it is now.
                      Probably because it had to be delivered and it will fly in both directions. Knocking out your airfields, etc.

                      = Which we have of all kinds is incomparably more than that of Nata. They only have free-fall bombs, =

                      Ask what the "return potential" is.


                      = All Western military forces are completely dependent on gps satellites. =
                      On the "Tomahawks" orientation on the relief map was as it was.

                      = If you press properly on this point of Ji, they will get an unforgettable experience. we have rockets and satellites capable of shooting down their satellite network. =

                      The orbit of the jeep is 20 thousand meters.

                      = How will the Americans shoot down our missiles? Old harpoons? =
                      A harpoon is generally an anti-ship missile.

                      = See those who get to the exercises every other time? =
                      Is all this bravo dug out of the failure of the attempt to shoot down the Mosquito / Coyote simulator of the SM-3, which was not intended for this at all?

                      = Patriots and Taads? These systems provide insufficient coverage even against primitive Arab and simple Korean missiles .. =
                      1. These are not marine systems at all. 2 Thaad has a minimum interception altitude of 40-50 km, which anti-ship missiles? 3. Patriot, like any air defense system with missiles without homing (with the exception of anti-ballistic interceptors), poorly intercepts low-flying targets over land, because of the relief.
                      On the sea of ​​relief ... nat. At the same time, the new naval SM-6 also has an ARGSN in addition, which allows it to hit targets under the radio horizon.

                      4. Antiballistic failures of the "classic" Patriot, apart from the glitch in 1991, are exactly the same as for any missile that hits the target with shrapnel / shrapnel. It can destroy the missile and knock it off course, but the warhead, which is often capable, and the debris continue to fly plus or minus into that steppe. And they can get into something.
                      As a result, a special kinetic interceptor had to be screwed on, which the Saudis purchased only after a close acquaintance with the Houthi BRs.

                      The S-300 has the same innate glitches, the S-400 has homing, but no kinetic interception. Promise for the S-500

                      = Your main guess is that we have some kind of weapon, but it cannot get anywhere? This is the area of ​​your faith. =
                      1. The fact that the "Dagger" can generally hit moving targets is just a matter of your faith. 2. As for Zircon -
                      point your finger at adequate target designation for the declared 1000 km. To start.

                      = Our hypersound. The whole point of it is in the most accurate disappearance and indestructibility. =
                      The first is strictly a matter of faith, but where does the fundamental insolation come from? And even right now and not after a certain amount of time?

                      = Do you really think that those who made such a breakthrough =
                      The dagger aka bolting the ground BR onto the plane is a breakthrough at the 50s level approximately. Zircon is not really known. But according to the characteristics, there is nothing supernaturally breakthrough there.

                      = scientists have not thought about target designation? =
                      And where is it?
                    3. white260
                      white260 April 21 2021 15: 45
                      0
                      Why, since we were in Syria, have quite a bit of AUG stopped entering the eastern Mediterranean? Why in the Crimea in 14 year NATO ships turned back when they saw that our Ball and Bastion were watching them affectionately, but with a slight sadness? And in general, no one sees their stealth?)
                    4. Alarmist79
                      Alarmist79 April 21 2021 19: 49
                      0
                      = Why, since we were in Syria, have quite a bit of AUG stopped entering the eastern Mediterranean? =

                      They both swam through it and Suez. At the same time, it is pointless to adjust the AUG to Syria at close range. The vicinity of Damascus can even bomb the Superhornets from about Crete.

                      = Why in Crimea in 14 year NATO ships turned back =
                      But in fact they planned the Crimean War 2.0 with one destroyer. arrange?
                    5. white260
                      white260 April 22 2021 13: 32
                      0
                      You are so this topic .. like aircraft carriers from amers like hot cakes from the stocks .. and they are generally how much it costs to be repaired? And is becoming obsolete. Iron is like old grass - withers. And this cannot be stopped. They cut their old ships and submarines. New construction programs have failed. Because exorbitant prices for everything. There is already zero shortage in the printing press. And inquire about their new Geralds Fords and Zamwalts .. this is selective and unique .. and are they worth? And what can they do? They will fix it here, file it up ... And do not forget that they need aircraft carriers especially against China and they really need rackets there. So halve and quadruple your tomoghawks. And we have enough for China nuclear deterrence, and so far we are not in a conflict. And the Americans have a plug in every barrel. They no longer have enough gags. By the way, how about 13 !? Assad must leave. !! Aircraft carriers with warrants off the coast of Syria. I really thought they'd give it up, take it down. We had nothing then compared to today. And then across Iran. Well, we are next. And where is it? I ask HDE?!? He who is strong comes and does. And then the fingers are all in fans, howling to the whole planet? And the bench press themselves .. and quietly in your suetz .. for now. While yours. Let's see where our Calibers M and Zircons will be able to look in the future. And in general, I do not believe you. And I believe in my president. He said Assad would rule under my careful watch and did. Contrary to everyone and everything. Even the USSR could not do that, with minimal means the maximum effect. And the losses in comparison with the achievement are small.
                    6. Alarmist79
                      Alarmist79 April 23 2021 09: 36
                      0
                      = You like this topic .. like amers' aircraft carriers like hotcakes from the stocks .. and how much does it cost to repair them? =
                      Uh ... ALL ships / planes are being repaired. Our SUDDENLY too. At the same time, our level of combat readiness has been lower all our lives, up to the brilliant absence of at least one strategic submarine at sea.

                      = And is outdated. =
                      We would have them obsolete. We have not a single "first-rank" ship since the times of the USSR, in principle, there is no 5th generation aviation. De facto, the gap is growing.

                      = They cut their old ships and submarines. New construction programs have failed. Because exorbitant prices for everything. There is already zero shortage in the printing press. =
                      That is, you were not informed that the plans to adjust the size of the fleet are connected with the plans for the development of the "ghost fleet" of marine drones?

                      = And inquire about their new Geralds Fords and Zamwaltas .. it's selective and unique .. =

                      With Zamvolt, they have a gag with artillery, which will not prevent him from sending any waterfowl opponent to the bottom.
                      As for "childhood diseases", especially for innovative ships, they are the norm. The difference is that by the time they get their "news" out, we will just begin to deal with such problems - or we will slide down to the level of the Papuans. What is the pace of the domestic "stealth" sawing?

                      = And what can they do? They will fix it here, file it ... =
                      How do you imagine the size of the American fleet? There are as many as three zamwolts for about 90 large US ships.

                      = And do not forget that they need aircraft carriers especially against China and they really need rackets there. =
                      AND? Is the fleet nailed to one enemy? Or did someone guarantee you that China will participate in the war on our side?

                      = So half =
                      Already, although this is overkill. 1000 "optimistic" "Tomahawks" are not enough for you?

                      = and quadruple the number of your tomoghawks. =

                      He is not an expert in matters of faith and desire.

                      = And we have enough for China nuclear deterrence =
                      The Americans are missing something. Greasy mriyas about the nuclear deterrence of nuclear countries, which may be in "what for us?" they are, yes.

                      =, and we are not in conflict yet. =
                      Well, just now. And this is while the current political leadership is in power.

                      = By the way, how about 13 !? Assad must leave. !! Aircraft carriers with warrants off the coast of Syria. I really thought they'd give it up, take it down. We had nothing then compared to today. And then across Iran. Well, we are next. And where is it? I ask HDE?!? =
                      That is, the increase in the number of crises causes an acute sense of security in you? Before the same First World War, were there not enough of them? Wars from different Gavril Principles begin when one of the parties is ready for them. What the Americans are doing.

                      = And in general I don't believe you. And I believe my president. =
                      And where did he tell you that the threat does not exist?
                    7. white260
                      white260 April 23 2021 12: 04
                      0
                      I will repeat it again and again. Deeds, not words. The strong does. Here at amers mriya so mriya .. this huge military machine can not overnight everything to rebuild and re-equip. They did not see rivals, they mentally wrote us off and prepared for wars with the Papuans, who were always frightened by ships, first with cannons and then with planes .. it does not work against us. Their shipbuilding, aircraft construction and other space and cyber programs are designed for unrealistic timeframes and impossible money. They already have neither the one nor the other .. America's time is inexorably running out. The situation with hypersound is the clearest example. They did it in their prime, spent an incredible amount of money, intellect and ... they closed the programs, the money was cut. Right now, they rushed to catch up. These are years and decades before the real delivery to the troops ... the shameful mosquito fleet, which again does not exist yet. Discontinued F 35, no real new anti-ship and other missiles, no normal air defense. Abrams and leopards who are dressed in Syria .. what are these 90 ships if they do not have their own air defense? Pcr? Targets? We return parity de facto and very quickly. That is why we dictate the rules in Syria, Venezuela. We train Turkey (I'm still waiting for when we will disassemble it and return normal Greece to its legal territories). We are reaching serious agreements with China, which on the real economy 1 .. no one talks to the weak. They are eaten! And we eat carefully ourselves .. and in portions! Gradually and without haste we descend from the mountain as in that joke. Look at the reports of the amerskoy commission on Syria. How many times is our aviation more efficient than theirs. This is a small force, on the old Su 24, 25 .. then they added Su-34, 35. They drove the whole army through real combat! With real results. Syria is ours. And the Americans are fleeing Afghanistan from Iraq, losing positions on all fronts .. When could the Union put its government in Venezuela? Our military factories are working without a break, new ones are being built. Soon Su 57 will go to the troops. Dozens. He really is and better than the Western invisible .. you unfortunately live in the past. When America was hoo! And even then, they did not dare to realize their plans for atomic bombing .. They are traders, not warriors. And their main trade is in crises and bloodshed. And you also write that it seems - Katz offers to surrender?) Do you want to negotiate with a cannibal who only needs to eat you? Look in history, Russia does not start wars, but ends them. Compulsion to the world. Sometimes it hurts a lot for beginners. Now, today, Russia has the highest military capabilities and they are constantly growing! Because of this, there are so many shameful squeals and accusations in the West. And about the words of the Sovereign .. I hope that you will not argue that after 20 years at the helm of the empire he knows and has more than you do?)) ... "The organizers of any provocations against Russia will regret it as they have not regretted anything for a long time! " 21.04.2021/XNUMX/XNUMX Moscow. Vladimir Putin.
            3. white260
              white260 April 21 2021 16: 39
              0
              And in general the key. The West cannot suffer serious losses. Korea and Vietnam. Even Afghanistan and Iraq from which they are trying to get away. Compared to us, they could not bomb this Stone Age .. into the Stone Age!) Or something else .. here we gave the Syrians very little s-300. And they are warriors .. in general, serious specialists. But still, our Israeli falcons now walk by, do not go to visit .. yes, shoot from behind the mountains of Anti-Lebanon, they will burn something blown up. But in the sky of Syria, neither. And they are, no joke, one of the most pros in the sky. Apparently they know something ... I trust them in this regard. By the way, they often use the most invisible one. And they themselves admit that ours, through their own and Syrian radars, have already gained invaluable experience of American invisibility. So I think that when one after another amerskie "phantoms" with AUG ... rush to meet with God .. that's tada and we'll see!
            4. Alarmist79
              Alarmist79 April 21 2021 20: 04
              0
              = And generally the key. The West cannot suffer serious losses. =
              Blessed is he who believes.


              = Even Afghanistan and Iraq from which they are trying to escape. =
              Counter-partisanship is a practically insoluble problem without harsh repression. WHILE it is considered politically incorrect ... at least with regard to the Arabs and their own hands. Do you really think that they will stand on ceremony with us? How well you think of Americans.

              = Or something else .. so we gave the Syrians very little s-300. And they are warriors .. in general, serious specialists. But still, our Israeli falcons are now walking by, do not go to visit =
              Last year.
              "According to the command of the Syrian Arab Army, the SAA command center in the city of Sabura, Hama province, as well as an army post in Salamiyah were attacked. In addition, Israeli Air Force planes raided military targets in Deir al-Zor province near the border with Iraq."

              = And they themselves admit that ours, through their own and Syrian radars, have already gained invaluable experience of American invisibility. =
              Where is it recognized?

              = So I think that when one after the other amers' "phantoms" =
              Which have not been exploited since 1992 ...
            5. white260
              white260 April 22 2021 12: 53
              0
              About "phantoms" this is from the song ... They have already fallen .. Americans already know "my phantom is like a killed beast, on the ground lies broken ... I no longer fly on it!" And this is at a time of all-powerful American technological superiority. Even then, they had aircraft carriers - shmavian carriers, etc. etc. and we have only stubborn half-naked Vietnamese and three of our advisers. And what is the result? Vietnam did not become amer, and the amers have losses, syndromes and shame forever! Israel attacks from adjacent territories - Lebanon, Iraq, and other barren deserts. They do not fly into Syria. Further more. Some flocks of birds damaged Adir 1 or 2 .. Israel in their right they need a great Israel from can and to can .. will do. But that's a completely different story. About the fact that ours received a unique experience in F35, I recently heard from an expert Yakov Kedmi. He knows better. And it is logical to assume that since our radars are installed, they will scan everything, everything that moves there ..
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 20 2021 09: 56
    0
    Lol ... These are not my words, but the words of American generals, and not "from the times of the USSR" but two years ago it was said ... so by the way ... And yes ... What kind of game is to use aircraft carriers against aircraft carriers? with the help of the same missile weapons, they will do a similar task ... and yes ... even "hundreds" of aircraft with anti-ship missiles will fly out with a known area of ​​the AUG location, this is the signing of a sentence to an aircraft carrier ...
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 20 2021 13: 24
      0
      = Lol ... These are not my words, but the words of American generals, and not "from the times of the USSR" but two years ago it was said .. so by .. =
      Truth? Or maybe there will be a link? And then Google shows links to "Military Watch", from the "National Interest" in genesis and orientation is not particularly different.

      = And yes ... What kind of game is to use aircraft carriers against aircraft carriers? When the same submarines, using the same missile weapons, will do the same task .. =

      Already grease flowed over the monitor. 1. Where will they get target designation from? Same satellites, yeah. 2. How much will they have time to get and shoot at periscope depth with anti-submarine aircraft frolicking overhead?
      The air environment for them is a dark forest, where they float, they essentially do not see. They have nothing to fight back.

      = and yes .. even "hundreds" of aircraft with anti-ship missiles at the known location of the AUG is the signing of the sentence to the aircraft carrier ... =
      Truth? And let me just as unfounded assert that all our air forces will not sink a single boat. How can you prove it? Not? That's it. At the same time, there are plenty of arguments against that you were not worthy to refute.
      By the way, what will happen to your airfield when hundreds of fighters from a pair of aircraft carriers attack? An equally inevitable end, or is it something else, do you understand?
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 20 2021 13: 42
        -1
        laughing And you are from Ukraine? Well, don't eat bacon at the computer and you won't get dirty .. And yes .. what kind of game about "periscope depth? When will there be a launch from a distance of a couple of hundred kilometers, and yes, you will be able to shove a lot of anti-submarine warriors onto an aircraft carrier?" you have there, taking into account "it is possible and more than 6 AWACS aircraft", there will not be enough space for fighters .. I already understood that you are very fond of aircraft carriers, not even thinking that they will be destroyed not by aircraft carriers, but by missiles from aircraft, with coastal complexes, from ships and submarines ... CU will be provided ... And the AWACS aircraft is just an AWACS aircraft, which is visible from afar and is destroyed in the same way ... So I wrote everything ... you can continue to write your nonsense about "unsinkable aircraft carriers "
      2. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 20 2021 14: 56
        -1
        = And yes .. what kind of game about "periscope depth?"
        This game is taught in the sixth grade. Water conducts radio waves poorly, surprise.

        = and yes, can you put a lot of anti-submarine men on an aircraft carrier? =
        There is such a thing, the base aircraft of an ASW is called. "Poseidon", combat radius 3700. You want to shoot it down, but you cannot. Although you have already suggested torpedoes, yes.
        Before the present goodness, they had 8 Vikings on aircraft carriers, combat radius 1500+
        Helicopters are still abundant.
        There will be drones, airborne and surface-based.

        = CU will provide ... =
        But you don't know what.

        = A AWACS aircraft is just an AWACS aircraft, which is visible from afar and is destroyed in the same way ... =
        Start filling the Ministry of Defense with lying pickets. There, maliciously, they are not aware of your revelations and are sawing the budget for the A-100.
      3. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 20 2021 15: 09
        0
        laughing and now the drum roll .. the link where I wrote about torpedoes ... I will not remember yet about how at NATO exercises periodically they found our submarines under my nose ... I want to see my comment, where I wrote about torpedoes. ..
      4. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 20 2021 15: 45
        -1
        = and now the drum roll .. the link where I wrote about torpedoes. =
        Well, you offered to attack the discovered Hokai submarines. RCC will definitely not come out. Remains torpedoes. Probably in a jump.

        = I will not remember yet about how, during NATO exercises, our submarines were periodically found under their noses .. =
        And the Chinese too. True, for some reason in 9 cases out of 10 around the "Kittyhawk" intended for cancellation and in 10 out of 10 in peacetime.

        = I want to see my comment where I wrote about torpedoes .. =
        Easily.
        "AUG can move covertly until they use AWACS planes and their radars, after which they are found .. And then submarines are guided."
      5. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 20 2021 17: 03
        0
        laughing oh, and the navy knows that “anti-ship missiles will not work?” I repeat, AUG can hide, for this a radio silence mode is introduced and almost no radar stations are used, let alone AWACS planes, but as soon as they use them, their positions become known. Further, there is a search using technical means of ground, sea, air and space reconnaissance, followed by a combined missile attack .. "and where in my phrase did you see the word torpedoes" ???? In general, Zhenya ... study the question ... otherwise you attribute torpedo attacks to me, and confuse the aircraft's combat radius with the patrol zone ... I'll reveal a terrible secret - the patrol zone is several times smaller than br .. So dosvidos hi
      6. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 20 2021 17: 31
        0
        = oh, and the navy knows that "anti-ship missiles won't come out"? =
        Are you going to shoot down the AWACS personnel? And why am I not surprised?

        , = But as soon as they use them, their positions become known. =
        With pinpoint accuracy up to 320 km. May be.

        = Next, there is a search using technical means of ground, sea, air and space reconnaissance =

        And in the meantime they tear off the legs and wings of the scouts, drown whoever they want and shoot all the tomahawks at your airfields.

        = followed by a combined missile attack. =
        As soon as you clean up the debris at the airfields, so immediately, yes.
        At the same time, if there are prospects for raking, the AUG, which has done its dirty deeds, will travel more than 1000 km in any direction in a day and disappear into a big muddy Nothing.

        = In general, Zhenya ... study the question ... otherwise you attribute torpedo attacks to me, =
        RCC is different, yes.

        = and you confuse the combat radius of the aircraft with the patrol zone ... I'll reveal a terrible secret - the patrol zone is several times smaller than br .. =

        The secret is really terrible, among those who graduated from the 5th grade, only a few are generally known. Those. radius 3700, ferry range 4600. But beyond 1850 km (3700/2) Poseidon cannot patrol?
        Poor school arithmetic, hmm.
  • The black
    The black April 19 2021 10: 21
    +8
    Well, that's nice. The United States understands only power. It came to the holy fools, finally, that they were not shown cartoons.
  • WHAT IS
    WHAT IS April 19 2021 10: 23
    +17
    The Pentagon is satisfied with the concern.
    1. skif8013
      skif8013 April 19 2021 10: 31
      +8
      Quote: WHAT IS
      The Pentagon is satisfied with the concern.

      I will be satisfied when a stake in the USA will cost 50 kopecks)
      1. nikon7717
        nikon7717 April 19 2021 20: 06
        +2
        When they recognize kvass and fruit drink as the best drink. And we will eat our healthy natural food grown in our country, and not this chemosis that is being pushed to us in stores today.
  • V1er
    V1er April 19 2021 10: 24
    +8
    They only understand the language of power.
  • Pereira
    Pereira April 19 2021 10: 28
    +7
    Do they have emergency situations now forever? Under this case, you can disarm the white population.
    1. Mitroha
      Mitroha April 19 2021 10: 48
      +4
      Quote: Pereira
      Do they have emergency situations now forever? Under this case, you can disarm the white population.

      Or interrupt the black, depending on the course of the game laughing
      1. Pereira
        Pereira April 19 2021 10: 51
        +4
        For now, the course of the party is to crush the whites and finally put the blacks on their necks.
        Just do not ask me why and what is the deep meaning in this?
        I have a lot of versions, only the most plausible is the machinations of the reptilians.
        1. Mitroha
          Mitroha April 19 2021 10: 55
          +3
          "I'm not a racist, I just don't like black people" © laughing
        2. lucul
          lucul April 19 2021 11: 52
          +1
          For now, the course of the party is to crush the whites and finally put the blacks on their necks.
          Just do not ask me why and what is the deep meaning in this?

          The situation is similar to the USSR, then, too, the Russians were belittled to please other peoples (the notorious struggle against Great Russian chauvinism).
          Manipulation techniques have not changed for thousands of years. And the Zionists succeeded well in them.
          1. Pereira
            Pereira April 19 2021 12: 07
            +3
            Then there was a struggle against Great Russian chauvinism, now a struggle against the white race. The scale is growing. A billion under the knife.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. andrew42
          andrew42 April 19 2021 19: 18
          0
          The Americans themselves have predicted this more than once. - Rifle raids (seizure), Andrew McDonald "Turner's Diary" (banned in the Russian Federation).
  • rocket757
    rocket757 April 19 2021 10: 30
    +5
    Western Observer: The Pentagon is haunted by the idea that a Russian hypersonic missile could destroy an aircraft carrier
    ... The military might think ... politicians just want to.
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid April 19 2021 11: 18
      +1
      hi that's interesting, it says -----
      .... Biden announced ..... supposedly counted ....
      when was it? After showing himself on the plane? After forgetting about your presidency? How confused among your relatives?
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 April 19 2021 11: 22
        +2
        Hi soldier
        So it doesn't matter who and how they think ... the main thing is that it is voiced and taken into action.
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid April 19 2021 11: 26
          +3
          .....no difference....
          what the speech is about, Victor! Insanity grows stronger. fool Theater of the absurd in development. Delusional ideas are taken into action. More and more often, no evidence is given, but only cliches
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 April 19 2021 11: 29
            +2
            What difference does it make that we do not believe ... it does not bother them and they will not prove anything!
            They act ...
            1. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid April 19 2021 11: 37
              +3
              Recently, Russian responses have become more decisive and the rhetoric is changing ...... I have ---- the weekend is over, my working day. Until the evening.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 April 19 2021 11: 44
                +1
                So let's see what happened next.
                Happily soldier
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 April 19 2021 10: 32
    0
    Another would be our MO "cartoon" would have shown when hitting the target of "Zircon". What kind of hysteria would start in "free democracy"! I look forward to this moment.
  • Roman070280
    Roman070280 April 19 2021 10: 45
    +3
    one Russian hypersonic missile, even without a nuclear warhead, can destroy an aircraft carrier
    Could it be ??
    A few months ago there were good articles on how and with what you can destroy an aircraft carrier .. And by all accounts, one missile, to put it mildly, is not enough .. Whether it is hypersonic or not, it makes little difference ..
    1. Mitroha
      Mitroha April 19 2021 10: 56
      +2
      So this thought does not give rest to the Pentagon, but they do not read VO
      1. Roman070280
        Roman070280 April 19 2021 11: 06
        -3
        The idea that this idea haunts the Pentagon belongs to some "Western observer" ..
      2. NDR-791
        NDR-791 April 19 2021 11: 09
        +2
        Quote: Mitroha
        So this thought does not give rest to the Pentagon, but they do not read VO

        This omission on our part must be corrected. Let them read and know that their numerous troops, together with the fleet and aviation, have long been counted, the calculation of forces and means for destruction has been made. Also on the forum, critical points for getting into Yellowstone have long been calculated. Numerous reserves and mineral resources are scheduled for withdrawal ... And only Putin does not allow members of the forum to press the "start" button. wassat
    2. Yuri V.A
      Yuri V.A April 19 2021 10: 57
      -2
      Away with doubts, do not break the holiday for the man in the street.
    3. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky April 19 2021 18: 23
      +2
      Quote: Roman070280
      Whether it is hypersonic or not, it makes little difference ..

      Come on! As I understand it, if a 30-gram rifle bullet hits a 100-kilogram bear at a speed of 150 meters per second, then he will receive a blow to the body of 4500 kg, i.e. 45 kg per kilogram of weight, which gives him any chance to kick a hunter in the ears and dump, die or recover, and if this bullet arrives at a speed of 300 meters per second, then this is already 9000 kg. those. 90 kg per kilo of weight, which makes a showdown with a hunter as unlikely as survival. What can we say about hypersound? He will not even have time to understand that he has already died.
      1. Roman070280
        Roman070280 April 20 2021 11: 40
        +2
        if this bullet arrives at a speed of 300 meters per second, then this is already 9000 kg. those. 90 kg per kilo of weight


        Tell me .. a needle will pierce you through your hand at a speed of 150m / s and at a speed of 300m / s .. Will it make a big difference ??
        And if a needle hits you at a speed of 30000m / s .. will it tear you apart for kilometers or something ??)
        It's the same with an aircraft carrier ..

        As I say, the article was good and detailed with all these estimates ..
        1. Nyrobsky
          Nyrobsky April 20 2021 12: 30
          0
          Quote: Roman070280
          Tell me .. a needle will pierce you through your hand at a speed of 150m / s and at a speed of 300m / s .. Will it make a big difference ??
          And if a needle hits you at a speed of 30000m / s .. will it tear you apart for kilometers or something ??)
          It's the same with an aircraft carrier ..

          Physics cannot be trampled on. The needle at a speed of 150 m / s will most likely get stuck in the muscle to the middle, at a speed of 300 m / s it will get stuck almost at the exit, at a speed of 30000 m / s it will sew through, but this is not the point. The point is in the pain threshold and in tissue damage with their subsequent necrosis around the left wound channel, if in the first and second cases it will be done with green stuff without dying off, or with minimal dying off of damaged tissues, then in the third case, despite the thickness of the needle, the tissue dying off will be comparable to the way the arm was pierced with a crowbar. If you look at the gunshot wound, you can even visually see that the muscle tissue along the surface of the wound canal is something like a small bloody mince like jam.
          So with an aircraft carrier, a rocket at a low speed will pierce the skin and locally damage one of the compartments, and a rocket that has flown in at a speed of several strides will destroy most of the partitions and compartments, since their debris will themselves have a destructive effect, + the main force of the b / h explosion will be achieved not at the entrance, but much further inside the case. If this "hello" falls on the power plant or any ammunition cellar (torpedo, aviation, mine, etc.), then the crew will probably be sour. It is understood something like this.
          As for the article, I also read it, but it does not say that the aircraft carrier is "Kashchei the Immortal", but that this target is much more difficult to defeat than many people here think.
          1. Roman070280
            Roman070280 April 20 2021 13: 58
            +2
            The needle at a speed of 150 m / s will most likely get stuck in the muscle to the middle, at a speed of 300 m / s it will get stuck almost at the exit, at a speed of 30000 m / s it will sew through, but this is not the point.

            That's right, that's not the point ..

            The point is the pain threshold and tissue damage with their subsequent necrosis around the left wound channel,

            I wrote about that - it doesn't matter at what speed the needle / bullet went through you .. Your damage will remain approximately the same, and even the iron has no pain threshold at all ..

            the main force of the explosion b / h will be achieved not at the entrance, but much further inside the case
            Initially, this option is assumed .. For it makes no sense at all to break in just along the casing ..
            Well, since we are considering an explosion inside the enclosure, it is no longer so critical where this explosion will occur .. Besides, the explosion itself is "hypersonic"

            it says not that the aircraft carrier is "Kashchei the Immortal", but that this target is much more difficult to defeat than many people here think
            That's right .. I didn't write about immortality either ..
            And only drew attention to the absurdity of the phrase "haunted .. can destroy an aircraft carrier"
            You can destroy everything, essno ..))


            a missile entering at a speed of several strides will destroy most of the partitions and compartments
            During trials, ships are trying to flood, shelling them for hours / days .. because the rocket will demolish twice as many partitions, the flooding time will not decrease by orders of magnitude ..
            Yes, the speed is higher .. but this is not a wunderwaff ..
            Well, first of all, speed is needed there to break through the missile defense system, and by no means for destruction.
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 19 2021 10: 50
    +2
    This thought is no longer giving rest to the Pentagon.
    Perfectly. When thoughts appear in my head, they make this head work and often in the right direction. Think for yourself, decide for yourself to have or not to have ... Or maybe the best option is not to touch Russia and then you will sleep more peacefully.
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid April 19 2021 11: 11
      +2
      hi how their head works ---- have been observed more than once. Again about the increase in expenses. Russia is always wassat lol fear
  • Alexander X
    Alexander X April 19 2021 10: 53
    +4
    Well, if they decide to shoot at an aircraft carrier, it’s stupid not to use a nuclear warhead, just to be sure. .. For at least the candy charge the vanguard, but after the attack on the amersky avik there will be a war ... And everyone understands that this will already be a nuclear war ...
  • Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo April 19 2021 11: 05
    -3
    Well, finally they recognized it ...
    otherwise I'm already tired of writing here:
    about the radio horizon at 40 km, control center in 8 seconds, the Berkov channel at 3 cm-2 cm-6,
    a dead zone of 5 km and a Zircon anti-ship missile speed of 3,7 km / s
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 19 2021 11: 23
      0
      = about a radio horizon of 40 km, =
      And "Zircon" flies at 100 m, and there
      "speed of anti-ship missiles Zircon 3,7 km / s" = 13 thousand km / h? Good fantasy, but no.
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo April 19 2021 11: 27
        -4
        Burke's radio horizon is even smaller, no more than 30 km. Aegis does not have an angle of minus 400 degrees like the S-4
        hardware processing for issuing the control center is 8 seconds, they do not even have time to use missiles
        even if you put the destroyer of the radio patrol at 100 km from the AUG, the same garbage will be
        1. Alarmist79
          Alarmist79 April 19 2021 11: 35
          -2
          = Burke's radio horizon is even smaller, no more than 30 km. =
          At 30 km, sorry, you can see something at an altitude 60 m from a height of ZERO meters.

          = Aegis does not have an angle of minus 400 degrees like the S-4 =
          Probably because the relief was not delivered to the ocean.

          = hardware processing for issuing control center is 8 sec., =
          Adding machine?
        2. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik April 19 2021 11: 37
          +3
          Do you even understand the term radio horizon? This is where the radio wave meets the surface. Zircon flies at altitude 30-40 kilometers... What does the radio horizon and Zircon have to do with it?
          Aegis will have direct radio visibility of Zircon 741 km, he is guaranteed to see the missile at range 300-400 kmhow much time it will take to intercept yourself. This is without AWACS.


          Picture for explanation: dotted line - radio horizon, 2 dashed wavy lines - direct radio visibility.
          1. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo April 19 2021 11: 42
            -1
            here it is again. express your example more specifically (!)
            The anti-ship missile system will be used along a low-altitude trajectory with a range of at least 200 km,
            if there is a radio patrol destroyer, then along it from at least 200 km
            example: it's like comparing the same tanks without a fire map (!)
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik April 19 2021 12: 00
              -1
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              low-altitude trajectory


              Impossible. Supersonic and hypersonic missiles cannot fly like that physically. Only along the high-altitude path.
              from a distance of at least 200 km,

              Much more than 200 km, how you will conduct the control center - the mystery of the hole.
              1. Romario_Argo
                Romario_Argo April 19 2021 12: 07
                -3
                To conduct

                MKRTs Liana
                on VO there was already an article for those who are not in the subject (minus) from March 10, 2021
                [media = https: //topwar.ru/180699-mkrc-liana-v-processe-razvertyvanija.html]
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik April 19 2021 12: 16
                  -1
                  Quote: Romario_Argo
                  MKRTs Liana

                  The only problem is that these are reconnaissance satellites, not target designation. 5 CU satellites cannot physically issue.

                  How easy it is to shrink without understanding the physical principles of these systems. Just by reading the first paragraph of Wikipedia.
                  1. Romario_Argo
                    Romario_Argo April 19 2021 12: 17
                    -2
                    5 CU satellites cannot physically issue.

                    and I have other information - what exactly is issued by the control center
                    in a couple of months I'll poke my nose, ok ?!
                    however, as usual, everything is on VO
                    1. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik April 19 2021 12: 25
                      +2
                      Yes, no problem, only all these shrieks without understanding the elementary physical basis end in one, another failure.
                    2. Alarmist79
                      Alarmist79 April 19 2021 13: 35
                      +1
                      = and I have other information =
                      Hm ... has the Earth's diameter or gravitational constant changed?
                      The orbital period of the satellite at 900 km is approximately 1,5 + hours. Even if the range of the radar on the device is miraculously 1000 km, then he sees the target within this strip ... 4+ minutes.
                      That's all "target designation" by single satellites.
              2. Romario_Argo
                Romario_Argo April 19 2021 12: 09
                -3
                Impossible. Supersonic and hypersonic missiles cannot fly like that physically

                this is your personal opinion and has nothing to do with reality
                1. Fan-fan
                  Fan-fan April 19 2021 18: 24
                  -3
                  Does your pseudoscientific rubbish really have any connection with reality?
            3. Alarmist79
              Alarmist79 April 19 2021 12: 06
              +3
              = RCC will be applied on a low-altitude trajectory =
              The head of the General Staff Gerasimov called the height 28 km.
              Even moderately supersonic flight at low altitude 1. is prohibitively energy-intensive - aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of the speed 2. It leads to overheating by a swift jack. CP-71 on 3+ swings in the area of ​​\ u470b \ uXNUMXbthe physiognomy heats up to XNUMX+ degrees in the stratosphere.
              1. Romario_Argo
                Romario_Argo April 19 2021 12: 08
                -1
                warmed the nose up to 470+

                beryllium alloys 800 degrees
                tantalum is even higher - about 3000 degrees
                1. Alarmist79
                  Alarmist79 April 19 2021 12: 49
                  +1
                  = beryllium alloys 800 degrees =
                  1.the air density is higher every 6
                  2 Have you forgotten about the square of speed? At least 6+ max is FOUR TIMES.
                  So much for low-altitude flights.

                  = tantalum is even higher - about 3000 degrees =
                  1. This ... is not enough. 2. These are not alloys, but ceramics, and at the same time they are specific.
                  "They are extremely hard, brittle, refractory ceramic materials with metallic electrical conductivity."
                  In this case, with the heating of the entire rocket, what will you do?
  • Minotavrik
    Minotavrik April 19 2021 11: 18
    +2
    Quote: Roman070280
    one Russian hypersonic missile, even without a nuclear warhead, can destroy an aircraft carrier
    Could it be ??
    A few months ago there were good articles on how and with what you can destroy an aircraft carrier .. And by all accounts, one missile, to put it mildly, is not enough .. Whether it is hypersonic or not, it makes little difference ..

    There is also a sea of ​​target designation ... to get there, you need to teach the rocket where it is aiming. And here it is not so simple.
  • gridasov
    gridasov April 19 2021 11: 20
    +1
    It's funny to see how people react to certain terms without understanding the essence of the process. After all, the same hypersonic speed when the rocket is moving can create an effect far from the effect that is expected. At the same time, it is worthwhile to understand at what conditions it is possible to destroy such an object as an aircraft carrier. d
  • Alex Nevs
    Alex Nevs April 19 2021 11: 24
    +1
    15 lard is not enough, very little. It should be a hundred or a thousand times more. To drive the printing press into colossal expenses.
  • mikola
    mikola April 19 2021 11: 41
    -5
    HYPER POSEIDON SOUND ROCKETS AND DAGGER, ALREADY STAND IN COMBAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!! RUSSIAN DUTY FROM JANUARY 2020 !!!!!!!!!! THEIR SPEED UP TO 28MAH !!!!!!! = ABLE TO FLY TO N DOSIA IN 25 MINUTES !!! = THE US IN THIS KIND OF WEAPON LAGGES FROM RUSSIA BY 10 YEARS !!!
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan April 19 2021 18: 29
      0
      Mykola, don't joke like that, because foreign citizens also read here. What will they think of us? It's a shame!
  • faterdom
    faterdom April 19 2021 14: 29
    0
    Here's to whom you need to address: "Please treat with understanding."
  • Old26
    Old26 April 19 2021 15: 15
    +5
    Quote: Roman070280
    one Russian hypersonic missile, even without a nuclear warhead, can destroy an aircraft carrier
    Could it be ??
    A few months ago there were good articles on how and with what you can destroy an aircraft carrier .. And by all accounts, one missile, to put it mildly, is not enough .. Whether it is hypersonic or not, it makes little difference ..

    Of course not, Roman! But for "calmness" and "controllability of people", a statement of this kind is the very thing.
    In the 70s - 80s we had such an admiral - Captain. He had a job. EMNIP was called "War at Sea" (although I could be wrong). There he considered the issues of the destruction of ships with anti-ship weapons. At least aircraft X-22s were considered as considered. From sea - EMNIP "Granite"
    Further, the situation of striking the AUG with missiles with a conventional warhead was considered. The final estimates were something like this. To defeat an aircraft carrier (the aircraft carrier cannot perform its tasks), it is necessary to hit 10 X-22 missiles by EMNIP (the performance characteristics of the warheads can be viewed on the net). For drowning - 12 such CDs. For a cruiser of the "Ticonderoga" type, it was enough to hit 6-9 missiles, respectively. So one hypersonic missile is unlikely to even disable an aircraft carrier. Damage can. But to disable or sink is unlikely

    Quote: Romario_Argo
    Well, finally they recognized it ...
    otherwise I'm already tired of writing here:
    about the radio horizon at 40 km, control center in 8 seconds, the Berkov channel at 3 cm-2 cm-6,
    a dead zone of 5 km and a Zircon anti-ship missile speed of 3,7 km / s

    Radio horizon (?) for "Zircon" flying at an altitude of 28 km 40 km ?? Oh well

    Quote: Romario_Argo
    The anti-ship missile system will be used along a low-altitude trajectory with a range of at least 200 km,

    Novel. At an altitude of several hundred meters, the surface temperature of the rocket will be over 6 thousand degrees. Are you sure that the rocket will not burn out in the first seconds of the flight?
    Is the combat radius of aviation of the same AUG really less than 200 km? And the "order" is probably for show ...

    Quote: Romario_Argo
    MKRTs Liana

    Liana in full force is not yet operational. There is no "Peony" and it is not known when it will be launched

    Quote: mikola
    HYPER POSEIDON SOUND ROCKETS AND DAGGER, ALREADY STAND IN COMBAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!! RUSSIAN DUTY FROM JANUARY 2020 !!!!!!!!!! THEIR SPEED UP TO 28MAH !!!!!!! = ABLE TO FLY TO N DOSIA IN 25 MINUTES !!! = THE US IN THIS KIND OF WEAPON LAGGES FROM RUSSIA BY 10 YEARS !!!

    mikola !!!!! Teach the materiel before you write that nonsense that YOU write Probably for the "weight" of your information, without knowing the materiel, you write Caps Lock on purpose ?????
    "Poseidon's hypersonic missiles are enchanting and masterpiece. I haven't laughed like that for a long time!"
    You have a TORPEDA already in water, which has a density of HZ how many times higher than that of the atmosphere is already moving in water at a hypersonic speed ???? Yes, how much do you need to smoke or drink to write this about "Poseidon", which has not even passed the test. And it turns out that it has been in service since January 2020
    And the speed of the "Dagger" in which the engine runs for about 75-80 seconds and accelerates it, taking into account the start from the MIG-31 to about 9M, there are already 28 Machs ????? And a rocket with a flight range of 1300-1500 km is already reaching the United States. MASTER. Write more mikola !!!! Burn on
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan April 19 2021 18: 32
      -2
      Yes, Mykola probably thumped well, and then decided to teach the people here.
    2. Aleksandr97
      Aleksandr97 April 20 2021 10: 36
      0
      For the purpose, the aircraft carrier 10-12 anti-ship missiles is 6300 - 7569 BB type TGAG
      For the purpose of the cruiser type "Ticonderoga" 6-9 anti-ship missiles is 3780 - 5670 VV type TGAG
      Maybe, of course, theoretical calculations are justified, but the contrast with the consequences of real hostilities in the Falklands conflict, for example.
      Frigate "Argonaut" - heavy damage from two unexploded bombs... The ship has lost its combat capability.
      The Exocet punctured the side of the Sheffield, flew through the galley and collapsed in the engine room. The warhead of the Argentine rocket, as expected, did not explode, but the torch from the rocket engine was enough for the destroyer - the aluminum structures of the hull flared up, the synthetic decoration of the premises flared up into an intolerable heat, the sheaths of the cables crackled. The tragicomedy ended sadly: "Sheffield" completely burned down and a week later sank while being towed. 20 people from the crew of his team were killed.
      https://topwar.ru/25339-gibel-korabley-epizody-folklendskoy-voyny.html
  • Serg4545
    Serg4545 April 19 2021 18: 16
    +4
    Quote: Roman070280
    , how and what can destroy an aircraft carrier .. And according to all estimates, one missile, to put it mildly, is not enough .. Whether it is hypersonic or not, it does not change much ..


    Why bother with calculations that most likely have nothing to do with reality?
    Estimates must be dealt with if there is no access to the real state of affairs. For example, if there is no data on the real resistance of aircraft carriers to combat damage.
    And there is such data. There were two cases of missiles hitting large modern (at that time) aircraft carriers. Forrestal and Enterprise. These cases are remarkable in that these ships are as close as possible to modern American aircraft carriers. At least no major improvements affecting the increase in resistance to combat damage have been introduced since then.
    And what do the facts say? Each aircraft carrier was hit / exploded by one identical Zuni missile (a small, lightweight racket that I can carry on my shoulder!).
    As a result, both aircraft carriers were seriously damaged and completely out of order for several months. Most of the aviation was lost, many people died.
    And if there was only one such case, then it would be possible to consider the option of the coincidence of several random negative factors (well, supposedly, it was just unlucky). Or vice versa, there would be five such cases. And in two of them there were serious consequences, and in three cases only the paint on the deck was scratched. Then there would be room for debate about how resistant the aircraft carrier is to combat damage.
    But the reality is this:
    Two large, very similar aircraft carriers take damage from exactly the same (and very small) missile. As a result, both aircraft carriers received very similar (and very severe) damage.
    It turns out that this is the REAL resistance of large aircraft carriers to combat damage. And this resistance is very, very small.
    Therefore, crowds of heavy anti-ship missiles are not needed to destroy / disable an aircraft carrier. A hit of 2-3 light or 1-2 medium (like Caliber) anti-ship missiles is almost guaranteed to destroy / disable a heavy aircraft carrier.
    REAL FACTS speak about it.
    And if you are engaged in estimates, then of course you can come to any conclusions. Similar processes are also called: fortune telling on coffee grounds and hitting the sky with a finger.
    Oh yes! If someone wants to argue with me about this, then let us give real facts as an argument. Not like that: I don’t like your facts, so you’re wrong.
    Thank you in advance!
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 20 2021 19: 23
      -1
      = At least no major improvements affecting the increase in resistance to combat damage have been introduced since then. =
      Seriously? These improvements even go around Kuznetsov's deck. And the catastrophic fires on aircraft carriers ended downwards.

      = And what do the facts say? Each aircraft carrier was hit / exploded by one identical Zuni missile (a small, lightweight racket that I can carry on my shoulder!). =
      The "little racket" was caught in a crowd of fueled and equipped planes, which tried to push overboard by the crew


      = REAL FACTS speak about it =
      Real facts say that you, as a real, seasoned expert, did not even open Wikipedia.
  • Old26
    Old26 April 19 2021 18: 44
    +1
    Quote: Serg4545
    Why bother with calculations that most likely have nothing to do with reality?
    Estimates must be dealt with if there is no access to the real state of affairs. For example, if there is no data on the real resistance of aircraft carriers to combat damage.
    And there is such data. There were two cases of missiles hitting large modern (at that time) aircraft carriers. Forrestal and Enterprise. These cases are remarkable in that these ships are as close as possible to modern American aircraft carriers. At least no major improvements affecting the increase in resistance to combat damage have been introduced since then.
    And what do the facts say? Each aircraft carrier was hit / exploded by one identical Zuni missile (a small, lightweight racket that I can carry on my shoulder!).

    It is not necessary to draw conclusions about resistance to combat damage on the basis of two cases that became possible as a result of a complete mess.
    Based on this, any disaster in the fleet can be made an example of the fact that ships are not operational. For example, an inert warhead of a target missile drowned the MRK. And an accidental fire in the ZUR ammunition cellar led to the burnout of the BOD and its flooding. But you can't conclude that these ships are not stable either.
    1. Serg4545
      Serg4545 April 20 2021 04: 51
      0
      Quote: Old26
      It is not necessary to draw conclusions about resistance to combat damage on the basis of two cases that became possible as a result of a complete mess.
      Based on this, any disaster in the fleet can be made an example of the fact that ships are not operational. For example, an inert warhead of a target missile drowned the MRK. And an accidental fire in the ZUR ammunition cellar led to the burnout of the BOD and its flooding. But you can't conclude that these ships are not stable either.

      Sorry, but what difference does it make to the ship as a result of being hit by military weapons?
      Yes, Forrestal and the Enterprise were hit by their own combat missiles (possibly due to the crew's handshake). This cannot in any way affect the assessment of the resistance of aircraft carriers to combat damage. After all, if aircraft carriers in exactly the same situation received hits from similar enemy missiles, then the consequences would be EXACTLY THE SAME.
      And naturally, those incidents with our ships that you mentioned can and should be! use to assess resistance to combat damage.
      Indeed, for this assessment it is absolutely not important what led to combat damage. Only the CONSEQUENCES are important.
  • Bare
    Bare April 19 2021 19: 28
    -1
    It is necessary to hold demonstration performances with the sinking of an aircraft carrier.
  • Old26
    Old26 April 19 2021 21: 14
    +1
    Quote: Bere
    It is necessary to hold demonstration performances with the sinking of an aircraft carrier.

    "Kuznetsov" is not a pity?
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 19 2021 22: 02
    -1
    an aircraft carrier can be destroyed even with a subsonic missile, and the Vanguard will sink it once or twice
  • Old26
    Old26 April 20 2021 00: 35
    +2
    Quote: vladimir1155
    an aircraft carrier can be destroyed even with a subsonic missile, and the Vanguard will sink it once or twice

    Your "Vanguard" has already become an anti-ship weapon ??? Bravo. Are Shoigu and Putin aware that Avangard is capable of sinking an aircraft carrier once or twice?
    In fact, experts have always counted. that in order to sink an aircraft carrier, it is necessary to hit it with a dozen anti-ship missiles from a BG of 500-600 kg. Supersonic, by the way. How in this case you are going to destroy the aircraft carrier with a SUBSONIC missile, in which the BG is 2-3 times less than that of the supersonic is not clear. As well as how the subsonic missile breaks through the warrant ...
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 April 20 2021 14: 37
    +1
    Very stupid, but quite possible. However ... For a normal, adequate, universally recognized American, the presence of weapons that the enemy does not have is in itself a reason to use them right and left. If the United States had hypersonic missiles and if we did not have them, we would have been bombed with might and main.
    As a child, I read about "nuclear hysteria" in the US and Europe, and somehow I did not believe it. Somehow, all this seemed somehow impossible - the very presence of nuclear weapons in the USSR served to destroy the psyche of entire generations, neuroses, psychosis, mass suicides. Well, I knew very well that the United States and Europe have nuclear weapons, and they are aimed at us. Right at me. And what is it? Were we being prepared for a possible war? Yes, they did. Did I imagine that war is dirt, blood, fear and pain? Yes, I did. I saw in the movies and listened to veterans. From the stands, they spoke smoothly (who agreed to speak from the stands), but in the courtyard it was not too much. Was I afraid? Well, what else)
    On this occasion, we did not smell at all of neuroses and psychosis. But the Americans and European people freaked out at the melt of the trunk. And why? Because they themselves - they did not understand and do not understand how it is - to have an advanced weapon and not to use it immediately. Be able to, and not kill. Do not rape, do not burn, do not torture a defeated enemy, do not gut his women, do not beat children with their heads on a corner ... This is beyond the understanding of any American or European. Give them half a chance and they will instantly rush to do it all. They won't even rob.
    So out of fear, this trash is capable of anything. Absolutely everything.
  • Viktoo Kharitonov
    Viktoo Kharitonov April 20 2021 15: 14
    -1
    It feels like Russia is haunted by a super-hyper sonic rocket.
  • Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev April 20 2021 15: 46
    0
    I remember here a few years ago some deranged woman asked in America - "Is it true that Russia can destroy us?" )))))))))))))))))))
    So Biden was not surprised either)))
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 April 21 2021 09: 37
      +1
      He would never believe an answer. To be able to destroy America and not do it is simply unrealistic for them. The Americans know that America must be destroyed. So it cannot be that "these Russians" have such an opportunity. If they had, they would have burned everything and everyone. Such are the people, these Americans. He is not a "lame" and he is not alone. They are all like that.
  • Old26
    Old26 April 20 2021 16: 21
    +3
    Quote: Aleksandr97
    For the purpose, the aircraft carrier 10-12 anti-ship missiles is 6300 - 7569 BB type TGAG
    For the purpose of the cruiser type "Ticonderoga" 6-9 anti-ship missiles is 3780 - 5670 VV type TGAG
    Maybe, of course, theoretical calculations are justified, but the contrast with the consequences of real hostilities in the Falklands conflict, for example.
    Frigate "Argonaut" - heavy damage from two unexploded bombs... The ship has lost its combat capability.
    The Exocet punctured the side of the Sheffield, flew through the galley and collapsed in the engine room. The warhead of the Argentine rocket, as expected, did not explode, but the torch from the rocket engine was enough for the destroyer - the aluminum structures of the hull flared up, the synthetic decoration of the premises flared up into an intolerable heat, the sheaths of the cables crackled. The tragicomedy ended sadly: "Sheffield" completely burned down and a week later sank while being towed. 20 people from the crew of his team were killed.
    https://topwar.ru/25339-gibel-korabley-epizody-folklendskoy-voyny.html

    Dear Alexander!!! I will not argue. You can also give examples from the events of the Vietnam War. Then the spontaneous or accidental launch of the NURS "Zuni" led to disastrous consequences. But you must agree that at the same time it is impossible to say that it is possible to disable an aircraft carrier with an unguided missile with a warhead weighing 21-26 kg.
    There are a lot of such facts. For example, when our RTO was destroyed by a CD target with an inert warhead. But nevertheless, the calculations of many specialists (both sailors and pilots) said that destruction would require exactly a certain number of cruise missiles that hit the ships and with a certain TNT equivalent ...
    You must admit that it is hardly worth counting on a detachment of forces to defeat the same aircraft carrier, cruiser or destroyer on the assumption that the ship can be hit by "two unexploded bombs" or "one 127-mm NURS". The pilots always talked about (and taught the cadets) that in order to defeat the AUG, it would be necessary to fly almost a division of bombers from the CD plus additional forces (reconnaissance, electronic warfare, etc.)

    Quote: Serg4545
    Sorry, but what difference does it make to the ship as a result of being hit by military weapons?
    Yes, Forrestal and the Enterprise were hit by their own combat missiles (possibly due to the crew's handshake). This cannot in any way affect the assessment of the resistance of aircraft carriers to combat damage. After all, if aircraft carriers in exactly the same situation received hits from similar enemy missiles, then the consequences would be EXACTLY THE SAME.
    And naturally, those incidents with our ships that you mentioned can and should be! use to assess resistance to combat damage.
    Indeed, for this assessment it is absolutely not important what led to combat damage. Only the CONSEQUENCES are important.

    The difference, dear Sergey, is very big. An accident that led to catastrophic consequences and a real outfit of forces necessary to defeat a particular target ...
    Take examples from various conflicts. Vaughn Aleksandr97 gave an example of the sinking of a frigate by two unexploded bombs. And at the same time, there is an example when the Exocet missiles launched from an Iraqi plane hit the same frigate "Stark" and the frigate returned to service after repair.
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 April 21 2021 09: 40
      0
      The arguments are somehow strange. The bombs didn't go off. The rocket too. On the basis of what in general here to draw conclusions? Some nonsense.
  • Gennady M
    Gennady M April 21 2021 02: 17
    0
    And who knows, I missed something, but do we have a hypersound with a nuclear filling or not? I will clarify: exactly which can work on aircraft carriers
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • white260
    white260 April 21 2021 15: 33
    0
    Show me a hypersonic missile already in service. In the West? No? And when? Doesn't even the prototype fly yet? And all the tests .. zilch? Maybe all the same, these "technologies of the 50s" ... Maybe not all? And you can seriously shoot down Hypersound with hypersound. It is clear that with digitalization and network-centric wars, target designation will give to the common center everything that we have under, on the water, in the air and in space. By the way, they do not have analogues of Iskander, who is modest in your opinion, either .. and here he flew over 650 km during the exercises, although officially 500. The data for all our missiles is underestimated. And by the way, since we are in Syria and we have nothing at all, the formidable AUG for some reason stopped entering the eastern Mediterranean .. by accident. They don't see them, do they? Our stealth? Or in '14 in the Crimea, our Ball and Bastions kindly took aim at the NATO ships and the ships quickly changed their minds for some reason .. a mystery!
  • Gregory Charnota
    Gregory Charnota April 22 2021 14: 53
    0
    the revelations of the blessed Bidon are no easier for his flock.
    there robberies and other troubles, and the central democratic person in happy ignorance carries any blizzard. And the flock is shitty from a bad life.
  • Graduate student
    Graduate student April 23 2021 16: 02
    +3
    now the United States has 70 different programs at once, in which hypersonic weapons are mentioned in one way or another

    A good scheme for cleaning and cutting finance yes
  • uralant
    uralant April 25 2021 05: 27
    0
    This is so that life does not seem like honey. That the aircraft carrier, the decision-making center on the Capitol Hill, trembled!