Some aspects of the use of aircraft carriers

359
Let me remind you that in my last article, I, among other things, suggested directing the conversation in a constructive direction - comparing the aircraft carrier not with emptiness, but with all sorts of alternative ways of spending money and resources.

This is due to the fact that for a long period of time, AB's supporters have exploited, in my opinion, a not entirely honest approach, posing the question in this way: is it better to have an aircraft carrier or not?



Of course, if you put the question this way, it is better to have than not to have.

But in reality there is a different wording - what is the best way to spend resources?

AB or alternatives?

I personally consider this approach more constructive.

However, from my opponents, I heard only another portion of lies - so we will analyze it.

Is an aircraft carrier capable of replacing a ground airfield?


I quote Timokhin:

But we do not have an airfield in Sudan.
In addition, even if it were, then with the appearance of tasks a little further from Sudan, the airfield could not be take with you.
Why don't you understand this?

The question can be divided into 3 points:

1. An aircraft carrier is an airfield that we can take with us.

2. From a single airfield it will not be possible to reach the enemy "a little further from Sudan."

3. Fixed aerodrome cannot be relocated.

Let's start with the first point.

Consistency of interests


Russia has at least 3 regions in which our interests constant... Not temporary, but permanent. So, the Kuril Islands will be interesting to us not for a week. And not even a month. And for many years and decades. This means that military instruments of influence on the region must also be worn constant nature.

Therefore, when Timokhin formulates the question in this way, I want to clarify - take with me whence? From Sudan?

Will we take Sudan with us too? Or will he stay?

Is our naval base there?

And will we take our joint interests in the form of a naval base and an economic component in Africa, about which Timokhin has written so much, will we also take it with us or will we leave it?

That is, the situation is actually comical - under the advertising slogan is a banal the inability of an aircraft carrier to maintain a permanent presence aviation in the region.

For what reasons may it be necessary to “take” an aircraft carrier? After all, "taking away" is presented by Timokhin as something positive. As an advantage. Is it really so?

The first reason is a conflict of interest, if something breaks out in another region, the aircraft carrier will forced leave the area and sail to where it is more (and this still has to be guessed) is needed.

This reason is of a probabilistic nature, that is, such circumstances may occur, or may "carry" (our Russian, perhaps, sometimes is really lucky).

But the second reason is guaranteed. There is no way to avoid it.

Fact is that AB is combat-ready only 60% of the time of its existence.

AB is an extremely complex engineering structure containing a large amount of equipment that requires high-quality maintenance. Many work cannot be performed by the crew on the high seas, this is also true of any other vessel, but for an aircraft carrier, due to its complexity, this issue is much more acute.

Therefore, the aircraft carrier is guaranteed to go for maintenance, minor, medium and major repairs.

In order to understand what time periods are in question, I will give a few quotes regarding Kuznetsov:

From 2001 to 2004, the year was on a planned average repair.

From 1996 to 1998, it was undergoing renovation, which was greatly delayed due to lack of funding.

The renovation was completed on December 8, 2008, held for seven months.

Well, the cherry on the cake - the current overhaul of the ship is planned to be completed in 2022, and it has been going on since 2017.

I will not be ironic about "hitting the deadline", everyone knows our situation in this industry very well, but to understand the scale - we are talking about 5 years.

Or foreign experience:

In total, work at Charles de Gaulle continued 18 months... According to the press service of the Naval Group, 200 thousand tasks and procedures have been completed during this time (half of them were done by the crew members of the aircraft carrier). It took about 4 million man-hours... On average, more than 2100 people worked on board the ship every day: 1100 sailors, 1000 Naval Group employees and 160 representatives of subcontractors. The aircraft carrier's modernization budget was € 1,3 billion.

Questions arise to the supporters of aircraft carriers: what during this period of time did we receive written guarantees from Japan on the Kuril Islands? American submarines have stopped sailing? Have we lost our interests in Syria?

A ground airfield is constantly present in the region and at the same time costs much less than an aircraft carrier.

An alternative for such a criterion as consistency of presence, there will be 3 aircraft carriers that will be able to provide the necessary rotation in the long term.

Let's check what this means for us in practice, using the example of Syria.

First, there is only 300 flights of fuel at Kuznetsovo.

When our aviation got hot, it flew up to 150 flights a day. The aircraft carrier is, in principle, unable to provide such work (with the exception of American supercarriers).

Secondly, even with a lower intensity, he would still be forced to stop flights to carry out logistic operations - refueling from a tanker, replenishing ASP stocks.

Could information about Kuzi refueling be leaked by our partners to their partners from ISIS?

Could fighters enjoy similar pauses on a weekly basis?

Yes.

But all this is not so important, the third point is much more critical. Thirdly, I will remind you that the operation in Syria has been going on for 3 years already. Its "hot" phase lasted for 5 years.

So let's ask ourselves a question - is AV capable of continuously providing aviation for such a long period of time?

It must be understood that active work is not a hike or patrol, it is a multiple increase in wear and tear. Against this background, it is quite realistic to talk about at least 3 AB rotations in 2 years. 5-6 months of work 2-3 maintenance.

The situation would look like this: we beat and beat, but did not finish off. And they gave 2-3 months of respite.

Could militants adapt to this?

Yes they could. Wait six months, bring in ammunition by pickup trucks at night. To squeeze closer to the positions of the Syrians so that the aircraft cannot use large calibers.
And when the AB floats away - go on the offensive, having the opportunity to concentrate forces with impunity. Just as it was done under Palmyra, when the militants took it for the second time, only this would happen in many places.

As a result, at best for us, it would be marking time. Step forward. And then a forced step back. And it is not a fact that the war would not have been lost in the end.

Fourthly, what would the situation look like if during these 2 years of active operation, against the background of abruptly increasing wear and tear, the aircraft carrier had to be put on longer repairs?

In 2001, repairs began, which lasted 3 years. Now it is undergoing renovation, which at best will last 5 years from the moment it began. How then would the respected AB supporters plan to carry out the presence of our aviation in Syria?

The bottom line is the stories that AB could replace a stationary airfield in Syria - another myth.

Yes, indeed, aircraft carriers (in the plural) can be compared to a ground airfield in terms of consistency only if there are three of them. However, the difference in the cost of 3 aircraft carriers and 1 airfield becomes simply indecent.

Clause 2. It will not be possible to reach the enemy from a single airfield "a little further from Sudan"


And also fleshed out a little:

Yes, any conflict is further than 1000 km from Khmeimim in any direction, and nothing really happens without an aircraft carrier.

Timokhin does not like specifics, what to do.

Even when you ask directly, you still get “a little further”, “any conflict”, etc. That is, again, no specifics, but in this issue, it is the specifics that are important.

Well, to begin with, a cruise missile strike can be carried out by a corvette-class ship.
In other words, even in certain cases there is no need to talk about aviation.

It should be noted that cruise missiles are very disliked by the supporters of aircraft carriers, because they drastically reduce the need for these very aircrafts. Therefore, they see something shameful in the shooting of the CD.

But on the other hand, the Americans do not see anything shameful in this, and when they need to project force, they also use cruise missiles, as was the case in Syria in 2017.


It was not in vain that I asked for specifics, because war is not always something total and for destruction, often it is a limited use of force. The US salvo on Syria was not intended to destroy Syria or win the war. However, this strike at a distance of 7 km from the United States... And Timokhin claims that it will not work beyond 1000.

Secondly, returning to aviation. Tu-160 has a prohibitive radius of about 7000 km plus 5000 distance, which the X-101 flies. That is, the blow can be delivered anywhere in the world. But Timokhin also ignores this.

Tu-22 M3. Probably just so called "long-range bomber". He flew to Syria from the territory of the Russian Federation with 3 tons of load for 2000 km.

Timokhin also dislikes Tu-22 and Tu-160 precisely because they also reduce the need for aircraft carriers. If, for example, we have 1 airfield in the Mediterranean Sea and large planes can land and take off on it, this allows us to perform a number of tasks in the region without an aircraft carrier.


Clause 3. Fixed aerodrome cannot be relocated


Timokhin also wrote a lot of outright lies on the topic of relocating aviation.

How things really are (hereinafter I am citing educational literature):

The effectiveness of the use of aviation in combat conditions largely depends on the maneuverability of aviation units, that is from their adaptability to relocation... It is necessary to organize the relocation in such a way that minimize the time spent on it and thus make the most of the combat capabilities of the unit. To perform the maneuver of the aviation unit at the minimum possible time, the IAS must be in a state of constant readiness for relocation.
The readiness of the IAS for relocation is determined by the adaptability to relocation of technical property, which is ensured by its containment and packaging, as well as the preparedness of the engineering and technical staff (ITS) to carry out the relocation.
In general, the work of the ITS during the relocation of the aviation unit is carried out in three stages:
1) advance preparation - carried out in the course of combat training ...

In other words, effective and modern videoconferencing is impossible without working out all aspects of such an issue as relocation.

The issue was updated a long time ago, they were engaged in it and, as a result, all the necessary procedures were developed.

In order to ensure the continuous combat operation of the aviation unit, it is advisable to redeploy the personnel and technical equipment of the IAS to a new airfield in three echelons (Fig. 2).

And then - according to the list: who to send in the forward team, who and what - in the second echelon. All this has been worked out for a long time, and the only question is training.

Am I fantasizing?

But no ( link).

"Preliminarily, forward groups of engineering and technical personnel and equipment of the engineering and aerodrome service were redeployed to operational airfields by military transport aircraft, intended for servicing and preparing long-range aviation aircraft for repeated flights."

"Long-range aviation crews completed redeployment from airfields of permanent deployment in the Amur, Irkutsk, Saratov, Kaluga, Murmansk regions to operational airfields as part of a surprise check of the combat readiness of the Aerospace Forces",
- said in a statement.

It is also noted that the pilots of the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic missile carriers, Tu-22M3 long-range bombers and Il-78 tanker aircraft have completed long flights and are currently in readiness to perform tasks.

But on this issue Timokhin also has to lie, because if the aviation calmly relocates from an airfield to an airfield, again, the need for a "mobile airfield" is reduced. Moreover, I will note that aviation is relocated much faster than an aircraft carrier.

However, my opponents continue to substitute concepts:

From our local airbase, the guys from TEC went to Syria in July 2015, one group, in August the second, to an already equipped military camp, which they began to collect from containers before their arrival. A month of preparation was required for each team.

We can only wish Alexander not to confuse the planned relocation with the operational one.
With planned events, you can "get together" for 2 months - this event is not urgent in itself.

Let's summarize the interim results.

It turns out that 1 aircraft carrier is not capable of replacing a stationary airfield when it comes to long-term interests. It turns out that aviation is perfectly redeployed. And, of course, it perfectly hits the enemy and at a great distance from the airfield.

As a result - another proof that sometimes in one short sentence Timokhin manages to write so many lies.

But all this was a comparison of AB with a stationary airfield. After all, there were also proposed alternatives, at a cost equivalent to aircraft carriers. In particular, a nuclear submarine built according to a strategic project (will increase the serial production and the efficiency of spending funds both for construction and maintenance), but converted for tactical cruise missiles, as it is done in the United States.

Below is a photograph of how a "cassette" with 7 tomahawks is placed in the launcher of a nuclear submarine, originally intended for launching a ballistic missile.

Some aspects of the use of aircraft carriers

Such a submarine can become the most powerful striking agent on navybecause it can carry 112 calibers. For comparison: the frigate carries up to 32 calibers.

The second alternative was helicopter carriers.

Both of these options were criticized, which, in fact, we will analyze later.

Alternatives to AB. When time is key


First, it is obvious that a ground airfield, in addition to being on duty 24/7 365 days a year, automatically provides the minimum flight time in its region. Therefore, if we are interested in Syria, then we must either:

a) have 3 AB in the fleet;

b) bind them exclusively to this region. Because if we have a combat-ready AB at a specific time, but it is, say, located in the Severodvinsk region, there is no need to talk about any minimum flight time in the Syrian region.

Or ... just one airfield in Syria. At the same time, a catastrophic difference in cost is obvious.

By the way, about the efficiency in the context of real stories - let's remember how the S-400s were delivered to Syria, when the question was about the speed of delivery? How is the MTR rotation carried out?

It is obvious that the aircraft carrier, even if it is in this area not capable of promptly supplying a ground grouping or forming / reinforcing it. So, for example, IL-76 can deliver to the stationary airfield both additional personnel and additional equipment, including heavy ones.

Now for the alternatives.

For the price of one aircraft carrier, you can build a dozen helicopter carriers. Or the same number of submarines with cruise missiles converted from the strategists' project.

On the advantages of such a solution - we get a sufficient number of units of equipment in order to divide them into three directions of interest to us and have admissible rotation everywhere. With 9 helicopter carriers, we really can constantly keep one off the coast of Syria. And only in this case the minimum flight time is guaranteed. Having 9 submarines - the situation is the same, we can keep one permanently in this area.

If we have one AB, we have already analyzed this example above. What is the minimum flight time you can talk about when he is on MOT? On average repair 2 years? Or capital - 5 years? Or even just participating in the SF exercises - he only needs to sail to Syria for a week.

Therefore, I repeat, even the fact of its combat capability at the right time cannot be guaranteed for the cost of one aircraft, let alone the flight time.

Now about the criticism.

Criticism of the PL


This refers to the criticism of the submarine, as a fire weapon on duty in the area, capable of providing the fastest possible strike.

Such a salvo is like a rather large rocket ship, no less than a corvette, and in terms of destructive power it is equivalent to 200 KAB-500 (and sometimes FAB-500) bombs, that is, 100 sorties of one MiG-29K or 2,5 days of combat work 20 MiGs from the deck at a disproportionately lower price, while after the defeat of all these targets, they will be able to continue bombing, the stock of ASP on board the ship will not even be close to being exhausted.

First, Timokhin does not argue that yes, the submarine will easily strike such a blow.

Second, a very popular mistake has been made. It is often done by journalists when they run to calculate the cost of a salvo. Whether we are at war or not, our ships and planes must have both missiles loaded into the mines and запас means of destruction.

Let's take 500 units as an example. If someone thinks this figure is large - by no means, Ukraine at one time transferred about 500 missiles to Russia as payment for gas. As for the United States, according to various estimates, they have from 3 to 5 CR.

Such a number of missiles cannot be released in 1 year, therefore they are released according to the schedule. Let's say 50 pieces per year.

But missiles have an expiration date. After its expiration, the rocket can either be disposed of, or modernized and extended, but this is far from always advisable, because in 10 years new generations of missiles with better performance characteristics come out. And it turns out that every year a certain amount of ammunition is to be destroyed at landfills. Or you can combine business with pleasure - to conduct practical shooting.

It doesn't bother anyone that we have hundreds of air defense installations, and when was the last time we repelled a missile attack? Or an air raid? Doesn't it bother anyone that thousands of missiles were simply destroyed and fired off against combat targets? And here is the use of missiles for real targets.

There is no problem in applying such weapons no. But journalists have a reason to take a calculator and start writing articles with calculations ... it is not clear why.

Another mistake is the substitution of situations. After all, it was about the urgent use of weapons - "guys under fire." The number of 200 - I wrote a rough total stock of missiles for 2 hypothetical submarines, which I was talking about.

Why suddenly the question of the urgent use of weapons turned into full volley?

Something went wrong, and a group of MTR (or a drone), for example, found an enemy in the amount of 300 people, and it is necessary to strike as quickly as possible. How many missiles will she request? Well, two, three, ten. 200 missiles urgently, right now, every minute is important, who should they meet?

To understand what is at stake, below I give a photo of the "caliber" hit in the house.


Another inaccuracy (which is already in the account)?

... that is, 100 sorties of one MiG-29K or 2,5 days of combat operation of 20 MiGs from the deck at a disproportionately lower price.

We are already omitting what the "guys under fire" were doing while Kuzya sailed to them for a week. Obviously, they paused what was happening and waited. We also talked about the issue of price, in the case when it comes to episodic intervention.

However, in Timokhin's understanding, 2,5 days of work is urgent hit. On the third day. In the blue pony world, Kuznetsov launches planes like rockets from a mine every 5 seconds. The submarine will fire 100 missiles in less than 10 minutes. During this time, it is good if Kuznetsov can send 4 planes.

For the remaining equipment, the issues of refueling, equipping the ASP, lifting on lifts, all verification procedures, albeit according to a shortened protocol, will be relevant.

That is, the numbers are generally ridiculous - urgently he can issue an analogue of a salvo of 8 missiles. Wherein losing missiles in range. Here's a super-weapon for 280 billion.8 missiles - this is the level of a corvette worth 25 billion.

Therefore, it is not even worth talking about any even 100 missiles launched urgently in the AB format - he is simply not capable of this.

Aircraft carrier and helicopters


Alexander in his reasoning does not disdain forgeries, distortions of information and even changing his opinion to the opposite. But the topic about helicopters, perhaps, broke all records in terms of visibility and the scale of its 180-degree turn.

The fact is that Alexander is the author Articles about helicopters. In it, he analyzed the issues of the use of helicopters, both in the war at sea and against the coast. I advise everyone to read this article - the material is of high quality. Briefly and thesis ...

Can helicopters aboard URF ships and landing ships available to the Russian Navy take on some of the tasks that are supposed to be accomplished in a comprehensive manner by forces based on full-fledged aircraft carrier ships - both ship planes and helicopters?

Answer: Yes they can. And this is confirmed not only by various theoretical studies and teachings, but also by relatively "fresh" historical combat experience.

And further, in relation to operations against the coast.

Alexander did not skimp on praise:

Evidence that the actions of helicopters in Libya were successful is that after this war, interest in coastal strikes from attack helicopters based on ships increased sharply.

Further, there is a large number of epithets like "extremely effective", "invaluable contribution" and the like.

There was also annoyance in the article:

In comparison with advanced countries, we behave as always: we have good helicopters, we have good missiles, we have experience in using R-60 air-to-air missiles from helicopters, we have experience in including Mi-24 helicopters in the country's air defense system, and even, according to a number of rumors, the only victory of the helicopter over a jet fighter in aerial combat was achieved on the Mi-24. And we cannot connect everything together.

Quite a reasonable annoyance.

We have everything separately. But there is no ready-made "solution" for full-fledged helicopter support of the fleet for the tasks of AWACS, PLO, reconnaissance, support of ground forces by means of helicopters.

That is, the absence of helicopter carriers in our country is simply wildness, because due to the shortage of this link alone, we cannot develop our potential:

1) long-range air defense, which we have in bulk. Moreover, both in the marine version and in the land version;

2) anti-submarine forces;

3) the entire line of Kamov helicopters.

And, it would seem, everything is logical - we need to build. But, when it touched his beloved aviansoci, Timokhin abruptly changes his attitude to the opposite. All the words about "extreme efficiency" and about the fact that "the West is following this path" have been forgotten.

Instead, there is a very feeble attempt to argue at least something. Just to have something written.

What is the point of pouring money into almost the same ships, but without the opportunities that AB give? What is this fetishism?
It's not in vain that I wrote about medical problems, not in vain.

It remains a mystery why Timokhin decided that some abstract "helicopter carrier" is "almost the same ship" as an aircraft carrier?

The cost of the helicopter carrier will be 5 to 30 (!) Times cheaper. Depending on the size and configuration. In detail, it will probably be possible to consider options and costs in a separate article.

I will also briefly write why helicopters were so successful with Western partners and what is their advantage.

Firstly, the helicopters do not need to be aimed at the target, it is enough to bring them into the area and indicate the direction of the front, so that the pilots understand roughly how to build an approach, where it is safe and where it is not. Further, the helicopters are able to independently carry out additional reconnaissance and, if necessary, use weapons.

A pair of KA-52s are armed with 24 missiles capable of hitting heavy armored vehicles, that is, they can destroy 16 tanks or other armored vehicles (taking into account misses to talk about real numbers).

How much further they can crumble with NARs and a cannon, history is silent. In other words, a couple of helicopters are really powerful and extremely effective support.
In a number of situations, the MiG-29 from an aircraft carrier is much more effective. Therefore, both the experience of Western partners and their conclusions are quite logical and explainable.

Moreover, our experience is similar - the turntables proved to be excellent in Syria.


Lies about Vietnam


Do you know what was the response time of the aviation to the request of the ground forces in Vietnam?

5-15 minutes. Because right in the Gulf of Tonkin dangled an aircraft carrier formation at Dixie Station (google), which provided just such a flight time. How could this be done from the ground? In no way, and the Americans did not achieve it. Only from aircraft carriers.

Another portion.

I focus on words. How could this be done from the ground? In no way, and the Americans did not achieve it. Only from aircraft carriers... I think there is no need to explain the meaning of the word "only".

Da Nang was the first US airfield in Vietnam. It is not very interesting, just an ordinary airfield. But he is already a direct refutation of Timokhin's words. But it will be more interesting further.

The fact is that, despite the presence of aircraft carriers, and one ground airfield, although in the world of Timokhin's "blue ponies" this airfield never existed, the Americans there is an urgent need for new airfields... Moreover, "there was an acute need" - this is not my wording, this is a quote from the original source (A second airfield was sorely needed).

Who cares, the full text in the original by link.

Here I will briefly and briefly tell you the essence.

The concept of tactical support airfields was applied, that is, an engineering team erected an airfield from prefabricated panels. It was equipped with carrier-type braking aids. And also jet catapults for short take-off. In the photo below - American soldiers at an airfield that does not exist in the fairy world are preparing a plane for departure.


In the end, what happens - we are told here that there is no alternative, and the United States suddenly, having a lot of ABs, begins to build airfields? Once again, Alexander Timokhin was caught in an outright lie. The main thing is to write this lie confidently and categorically, and readers should swallow it.

Answer to the Ancient


In the comments Timokhin asked to answer the "Ancient's comments":

I’m glad you don’t argue. Now answer the ancient to his comment, please.

I will try to do this, because it is difficult to isolate the meaning from the commentary, but there are a couple of interesting questions. Namely:

But "something" tells me that you are writing another "urya-patriotic noodles" ... since your Tu-22Ms ... will only be able to fly from Engels ... BK.

It is strange for me to explain to a former pilot what refueling is in the air. I will give you one interesting photo.


What is remarkable here is a flight with 4 (!) Refuelings in the air.

According to Timokhin, the United States can play big planes that fly far.
Despite the presence of AB. They can refuel 4 times per car. Can't we do any of this?

But further - more interesting.

Or how ... Will BC be waiting for you in Khmeimim (or somewhere else)?

In the context of this issue, I will quote Timokhin.

Because smart people keep naval groups in the regions of interest in advance... At the first sign of threat.

This was his answer to my question, why he always has AB in the state of BG and always in the right place at the right time. The answer has completely gone into the world of "blue ponies" and is completely divorced from reality. Starting from the fact that there is no comment that Kuzya did not make it to Syria for the "opening of the season". The French did not succeed in anticipating the terrorist attacks, and the time between the order and the start of attacks from their AB was - a week. This is all simply ignored.

According to his logic, smart people are only in the navy. After all, in advance to deploy a whole IBM, in his opinion, you can... Although it takes a week to sail from the Northern Fleet to Syria.

But in exactly the same circumstances, throwing TSA into a transporter and sending them to Syria is impossible in the world of "blue ponies"? Although it is obvious that the transporter will arrive in Syria a week earlier than AB arrives there.

Now, returning to the "commentary" of the Ancient. Yes, I believe that BC have to wait. Because an airfield does not exist by itself, it exists as an element of the airfield network. And the war is preceded by peace time, which must be spent on preparation. And work out various scenarios. By placing equipment not just anyhow, but based on the situation, threats and other factors. We need to plan what we will do if this or that happens tomorrow. From which airfield the bombers will take off. Where the tankers will take off. Where will they meet, etc. This is what the military should do in peacetime.

Moreover, the airfield network should, like a living organism, constantly change, adjusting to the situation, as it happens in Syria: there is a need - more planes have been transferred to Khmeimim. No need - returned back.

I do not see any problem if it is necessary to send 2 IL-76 with add. ASP in Khmeimim. It is much faster and easier than sending an IBM. But to send AUG is not a problem, but to send 2 IL-76 is a problem? This is another strange question from the pilot, that's all.

What is the meaning of his comments? Should we give up refueling and give up on airfield network planning? Naturally, these are rhetorical questions.

US operation in Libya


Another scenario for the use of aircraft carriers was described by Andrey from Chelyabinsk. The article is called
On the oddities in setting tasks for the Russian Navy and a little about aircraft carriers.

Briefly, what is the main logic.

We have an ally. And since this is an ally, then it is logical to assume that we will combine our efforts. Something from him. Something from us. And if this is his territory, and the conflict occurs precisely on it, then it is also logical to assume that what would we didn’t give it, it would be something that would walk on its land, ride on its territory, fly in its airspace, float in its territorial waters, etc. Even if it's a cargo plane with ammunition for his army, he (the plane) will land on his aerodrome. No other way.

Any normal cooperation implies at least the slightest deployment of a contingent on the territory of our ally.

Now let's ask ourselves a question - why did we fight in Syria? It is clear that it was officially said about the war on terrorism on someone else's territory, and not on our own.

But let's imagine. Now the war is over. We didn't have a base. But there were 3 ABs, which took turns striking blows for all 5 years. Assad thanked us. AND...

- Did you want something else?

Therefore, Assad gets a bullet in the eye like a squirrel. And the United States comes there with a peacekeeping mission. Fortunately, they are still there.

And what profit ? We have not established ourselves in the region. We, as was the floating tub, and remained. No strategic profit.

The Americans strategically, just as they entered Germany in 1945, never left. As they entered Japan, they still maintain their base there.

And for us, a base in another state is not a means (an aircraft carrier is only a means).
For us, the base is also goaland means (AB supporters will not understand this point either).

Therefore, when Andrei talks about the operation in Libya, I want to ask a question - ok, we have 3 aircraft carriers. Yes, at least 10. Tell me the reason why we have fight there? The world has changed, and today we are no longer fighting for ideological convictions.
Friendship is friendship, and tobacco is apart.

We run the risk of getting into trouble. So, logically, we should have a chance to get something ... proportionate. Something that will outweigh the problems. Something that will be "worth" it.
The base that was given to us in Syria is what we fought for, it makes 70-100% sense to get involved in this.

But, according to Andrey's logic, our "ally" is not ready to provide us with even a cheap platform for helicopters, and we have to drive AUG - to protect it? Therefore, to summarize - there is no base, there is no point in fighting there (or, at least, most of this meaning is lost).

In other words, if suddenly the Russian Federation considered the preservation of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi to be of paramount importance and essential, then even in this case, it would be clearly premature.
But after the start of "Odyssey Dawn" - it's too late.

Here Andrei continues with all his might, to come up with reasons, why there will be no base. Using the phrase "clearly premature" ...

I can not fail to note the positive aspects, at least there is an understanding that AB is several times inferior to the ground base in terms of the cumulative effect of force projection. And against this background, the only possible reasonable argument is to try to prove or come up with a situation when this base does not exist. This is reasonable and understandable.

It is for this reason that Andrei is trying to come up with ... any scenario when even the slightest presence in advance impossible (with the fact that the base for us is both a means and to waging war in a remote region, we have already figured out). Although, it is obvious that these arguments are simply devoid of any sense. Clearly premature ...

Once again Timokhin's words come to mind. About how in advance whole strike groups are deployed in the desired area. So who, then, is it obvious that it is premature to bring 2 planes in?

Why is it possible to drive 2 strategic bombers to Venezuela "just like that"? A 2 SU-34 to Libya - is it impossible?

Why can we conduct joint military exercises with Egypt, but not with Libya?

It is only clear that this is an absolutely invented pseudo-reason.

Can.

And what's more - necessary.

Doesn't it bother anyone that the United States regularly assembles a hodgepodge in the Mediterranean and organizes exercises together with its allies? On which coherence of interaction is practiced? Shouldn't we do the same with our allies?

I am glad that some attention is paid to such issues “at the top”.


How can we oppose such a strategy?
An effective multipurpose aircraft carrier group (AMG) - of course, if we had it, of course. In this case, with the beginning of an armed rebellion in Benghazi, we could send her to the Libyan shores. As long as the forces of M. Gaddafi remained victorious, she would have been there, but did not interfere in the confrontation. But in the case of the beginning of "Odyssey Dawn", she could give a "mirror" answer.
Are the US and NATO planes successfully "zeroing" the military potential of M. Gaddafi? Well, our carrier-based aircraft could significantly reduce the potential of the Libyan rebels. At the same time, the risks of accidentally getting hit by NATO planes (and they - under our blow) in this case will be minimized.

First, Andrei also loses sight of the level of combat readiness of the only AB. Or they initially mean that we have several ABs. In any case, it is difficult to send the AUG somewhere if the AV is undergoing a five-year repair.

As for military intervention, then again - it is possible to intervene not only with an aircraft carrier, which is safely ignored by Andrey once again. If you open the map of Libya (I have already mentioned this many times), then, as in many African countries, the largest and most developed regions are closer to the coast. For example, one of the last strongholds of Gaddafi's army was the city of Sirte. Below you can see that the largest cities are located exactly on the coast. About half of the total population lives in Tripoli and Benghazi.


And I could start telling how we could would use helicopters there, but respected Timokhin has already done it for me? Just by telling how, in fact, the helicopters were used there by the same coalition?


But, talking about the conflict, Andrei does not notice either helicopters, or NATO ships, or strategic bombers (only a dry mention of them), or 100 Tomahawk missiles fired at the very beginning of the conflict.

Summary


Actually, as always, AB supporters prefer to "modify reality", resort to outright lies (like Timokhin, speaking of Vietnam), ignoring alternatives (when they stop seeing all types of AB, air refueling, long-range aviation, CD, helicopters), frankly unfounded arguments such as "it is premature to deploy troops on the territory of an ally."

Once again I smile, remembering Timokhin's words about what to place in advance a whole AUG in the desired area is never a problem. It does not even stop the fact that there are many areas of interest, and the aircraft carrier is one, and that one is being repaired. But sending two Su-34s or a transport IL becomes an impossible task.

What to do? This is how the reality of the blue pony world works.
Our news channels

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

359 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    29 2021 June
    Another useless chatter.
    1. +10
      29 2021 June
      Eternal dispute! recourse
      1. -2
        29 2021 June
        I hope the author understands that defending the beggars of Syria is a long journey and with unobvious results?
        1. +8
          29 2021 June
          The system now has no time for aircraft carriers: the Taliban have reached the border with Tajikistan, in 2026 the Turkish channel "Istanbul" will start operating, Ukraine with one foot in NATO.
      2. +5
        29 2021 June
        Yes, you and Timokhin sit down anywhere over a glass of beer, what is there to arrange for Dom2? All have the right to carry nonsense, but not in the same amount? Or is it really an analogue of Dom2, for the commercial attraction of participants?
        1. +4
          29 2021 June
          I understood by the minus, after all Dom2 laughing
    2. +11
      29 2021 June
      What will he do if Timokhin stops writing? Typical parasitism
      1. +6
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Niko
        What will he do if Timokhin stops writing? Typical parasitism

        I completely agree with you, pure parasitism. The resource sparked a colossal controversy on Timokhin's articles and ideas and thus made money on advertising. It looks like the "resource" of Timokhin's ideas will be "squeezed out" to the point of absurdity, or the process has already entered this stage.
        1. +4
          29 2021 June
          Quote: KKND
          Quote: Niko
          What will he do if Timokhin stops writing? Typical parasitism

          I completely agree with you, pure parasitism. The resource sparked a colossal controversy on Timokhin's articles and ideas and thus made money on advertising. It looks like the "resource" of Timokhin's ideas will be "squeezed out" to the point of absurdity, or the process has already entered this stage.

          I once wrote to this author: well, write a good article about aviation, about your favorite 160, etc. we will read it with interest and discuss ... But there are no compromises on the way to fight Timokhin, there is no time for aviation wassat(if Kaptsov had not disappeared somewhere in general, trouble would have been for the author of this article)
        2. +1
          July 1 2021
          laughing you need to enter a maratorium for six months on the topic of aviks
    3. 0
      July 1 2021
      wink moreover, the author accused his opponents of lying, and then he himself began to manipulate facts and lie ..
  2. +14
    29 2021 June
    Some kind of juggling with words and individual facts. Which is completely negated by the fact that ground airfields are the primary target for all enemy weapons, and there are a lot of these means both in number and type. Remembering Vietnam, the Vietnamese attacks on American airfields are modestly "forgotten", which says a lot about the author.
    1. +9
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Some kind of juggling with words and individual facts.
      Aren't the opponents of the author juggling the same thing?
      ground airfields are the primary target for all enemy assets, and there are many of these assets both in number and type.
      First, what kind of enemy are you talking about? About terrorists? Secondly, our bases in Khmeimim and Tartus in Syria still exist intact. An echeloned air defense system has been organized there, which opponents cannot penetrate. Thirdly, attacks on our bases by the United States are a guarantee of a response, i.e. the beginning of the war. Therefore, the United States does not attack Russian bases, and the Russian Federation does not attack American bases. And fourthly: according to your logic, isn't an aircraft carrier the same primary target for opponents as an airfield? The terrorists cannot destroy either the aircraft carrier or the airfield, and other countries (such as the USA, Israel, France, Turkey, Great Britain ...) simply will not do this. Unless, of course, they have a crazy goal to unleash a war with the Russian Federation. In the event of a military aggression on the objects of the Russian Federation, objects of other countries (the same aircraft carriers and bases) will also inevitably suffer. It is naive to believe that the Russian Federation will not be able to answer ...
      1. +5
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Volder
        Aren't the opponents of the author juggling the same thing?

        Supporters of aircraft carriers have a much more logical construction of argumentation, a systemic one can say.

        Quote: Volder
        First, what kind of enemy are you talking about? About terrorists?
        I wrote about a militarily developed enemy with comparable forces and capabilities, at least of the type of Vetnam. Igila is untenable in this regard.

        Quote: Volder
        An echeloned air defense system has been organized there, which opponents cannot penetrate.
        Except for the bankrupt Ishila, no one tried.

        Quote: Volder
        Thirdly, attacks on our bases by the United States are a guarantee of a response, i.e. the beginning of the war. Therefore, the United States does not attack Russian bases, and the Russian Federation does not attack American bases.
        In military affairs, it is not political guarantees that are considered, but military capabilities.

        Quote: Volder
        And fourthly: according to your logic, isn't an aircraft carrier the same primary target for opponents as an airfield?
        Apart from the defensive capabilities of the warrant, the aircraft carrier also has stealth and the ability to withdraw. So, in Vietnam, the airbases of the United States and southerners were attacked by partisans and saboteurs, there were no such incidents with aircraft carriers. And if North Vietnam had OTRK and KR, then they would be launched at airfields with known coordinates. Vietnamese patriots were not afraid to shed American blood. But the coordinates of the aircraft carriers were not and could not be.


        Quote: Volder
        It is naive to believe that the Russian Federation will not be able to answer ...
        An undeniable argument against aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy, similar to that of the author of the article.
        1. -6
          29 2021 June
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          So, in Vietnam, the airbases of the United States and southerners were attacked by partisans and saboteurs, there were no such incidents with aircraft carriers.

          Well, no, well, you are saying something wrong)))
          What are the airfields?
          Timokhin wrote directly
          Do you know what was the response time of the aviation to the request of the ground forces in Vietnam?
          5-15 minutes. Because right in the Gulf of Tonkin dangled an aircraft carrier formation at Dixie Station (google), which provided just such a flight time. How could this be done from the ground? In no way, and the Americans did not achieve it. Only from aircraft carriers.


          Here is your logic.
          You write that I did not write something about these airfields.
          At the same time, AB's supporters, not only did not write, they wrote an outright FALSE that these airfields did not exist at all.
          But you are only focused on what I have NOT written.

          This is your logic, right? aren't you funny yourself?
          Or is this the case when you do something in the eyes ... all the dew of God?

          Now about what I did NOT write.
          So, in Vietnam, the airbases of the United States and southerners were attacked by partisans and saboteurs, there were no such incidents with aircraft carriers

          So what?
          Why is what you write was not an argument for the US command? Are you smart and are they stupid? And having aircraft carriers, for some reason they climbed ashore?
          Apparently so.
          1. +11
            29 2021 June
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            At the same time, AB's supporters, not only did not write, they wrote an outright FALSE that these airfields did not exist at all.

            Don't juggle. In your quote, it is written in black and white that it was impossible to provide a reaction time of 5-15 minutes from ground airfields.
            Do you know what it was like reaction time aviation to request ground troops in Vietnam?
            5 – 15 minutes... Because right in the Gulf of Tonkin dangled an aircraft carrier formation at Dixie Station (google), which provided just such a flight time. How could this be done from the ground? In no way, and the Americans did not achieve it. Only from aircraft carriers.
            1. +6
              29 2021 June
              One trouble, you will not collect, for example, a six in 5 minutes even from an aircraft carrier, since it takes a long time for a group to take off from it. That is, the author gives an example of a common lie. 5-15 Minutes is only for cars hovering over the area.
              1. +6
                29 2021 June
                Quote: EvilLion
                One trouble, you will not collect, for example, a six in 5 minutes even from an aircraft carrier, since it takes a long time for a group to take off from it.

                Well, you know that there was more than one aircraft carrier. And with 3 - 4, you can raise a squadron in a matter of minutes. In addition, when flying out on a call, you can raise fours and enter them into battle one by one. There were relatively few air battles and the Vietnamese did not attack with large forces - they operated mainly from ambushes, often starting directly from the jungle - with a launcher, on rocket boosters. So there was no need to collect armada in the air on an urgent call - launch it in waves.
                Quote: EvilLion
                5-15 Minutes is only for cars hovering over the area.

                And how to organize such loitering from distant ground airfields? When is most of the fuel burned for the flight to the holding area (loitering)? And the aircraft carriers were nearby - took off, and stood in a circle 50 - 100 km from the native deck.
                And about airfields in the jungle - also a necessary measure. Where else should we put downed / damaged cars? And if it was forced for technical reasons? To this day, the Americans, when organizing flights from the deck, always designate an alternate airfield on land. In addition, these were, as a rule, not capital, but temporary operational airfields in the immediate vicinity of the OBD zone.
              2. +3
                30 2021 June
                Quote: EvilLion
                One trouble, you will not collect, for example, a six in 5 minutes even from an aircraft carrier, since it takes a long time for a group to take off from it. That is, the author gives an example of a common lie. 5-15 Minutes is only for cars hovering over the area.

                The pace of replacing the aircraft on the catapult is about one and a half minutes.
                During combat service, a couple is in the air, a couple is waiting
                with crews and two couples are fully prepared for departure and need 5 minutes to take off.

                Accordingly, it won't be long.
                No more than 10 minutes.
            2. -8
              29 2021 June
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              At the same time, AB's supporters, not only did not write, they wrote an outright FALSE that these airfields did not exist at all.

              Don't juggle. In your quote, it is written in black and white that it was impossible to provide a reaction time of 5-15 minutes from ground airfields.
              Do you know what it was like reaction time aviation to request ground troops in Vietnam?
              5 – 15 minutes... Because right in the Gulf of Tonkin dangled an aircraft carrier formation at Dixie Station (google), which provided just such a flight time. How could this be done from the ground? In no way, and the Americans did not achieve it. Only from aircraft carriers.

              Alexey, you are right, this is a terrible mistake on my part.
              I hoped that if I refer to the original source, I will not need to copy and paste everything that is written there and I can only briefly summarize the essence.

              So. It says ... among other things ...

              As the Vietnam ground war increased in intensity, the Marine A-4 squadrons began piling up a high number of mission credits. The targets were only a few minutes' flying time away from their base, hence pilots could fly multiple sorties in a single day. It became routine to reckon sortie totals by the thousands. The continual proximity of enemy troops to US air bases occasionally resulted in A-4s dropping their ordnance almost before the pilots had retracted their wheels.


              Bombed barely taking off.
              1. +3
                29 2021 June
                Alexander, stop this business. The right is not worth fighting with windmills and discussing the qualities of a spherical horse in a vacuum. Aircraft carriers are not being built in Russia.
                But most likely they will be built, because they are included in the plans. Therefore, one should not walk across the "party line" and common sense, multiply informational rubbish and develop frivolous and insufficiently professional polemics.
                Do you want some indirect analytics?
                At the very bottom of the UEC, it reported on what kind of gas turbines they have created and are being developed for the medium term. And what do we see there?
                Among the upcoming marine gas turbines?
                And we see there a gas turbine with a capacity of 35 to 000 l / s. smile
                What do you think, for which watercraft such engines are prepared?
                You do not think that the UEC is simply on its own initiative, at its own expense and on its own initiative, is engaged in such matters?
                So for what, what kind of ships will such a power plant be relevant?
                Heavy duty only!
                Class heavy destroyer, cruiser, aircraft carrier on GT.
                And there can be no other goals here.
                So the ships are still planning to be built.
                Now to the question of aircraft carriers.
                It is important to watch and listen not to those who are going to get contracts and build such ships, because these are just like the pioneers - "Always ready!" And it is necessary to watch and listen to those who develop the strategy and plan the future composition of the Fleet. For specific and clearly defined tasks.
                And these tasks are not at all in the need to "frighten the Papuans", but in protecting the sea borders and the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation in the world ocean. Because our maritime borders are vast and extended, logistics are extremely difficult, and the climate is harsh. These are, first of all, the Northern and Far Eastern directions.
                And AV there needs by no means atomic 100-ton, but quite an average VI. Not drums, but AB Air Defense / PLO. With the usual - gas turbine power plant, because it is simpler, cheaper, safer in operation and is quite sufficient for solving all operational tasks of the Fleet.
                And the price tag for such AVs will be completely different - many times cheaper than atomic ones. Both in procurement and in operation.
                And you need not one, not two, or even three such ABs.
                And at least 6 (six) units in two fleets. Three pieces each, in order to be able to keep one such ABP / PLO at sea on a permanent basis.
                And such an AV will not cost 7-10 billion dollars. (Excuse me, it is more convenient to count in this currency in the future, because the ruble is unstable and devalues), and about 2,5 billion dollars each. This is if AV will have VI 45 - 000 tons of VI, and these are exactly what we need.
                But with a catapult.
                With 24 fighters on board, up to 12 helicopters (mainly PLO) and 2 - 4 AWACS aircraft on each.
                Ask about AWACS aircraft, which do not exist?
                So the aircraft carriers are not.
                And when they begin to build, then you can take on the "All-Seeing Eye". Fortunately, the materials on the Yak-44 in the Yakovlev design bureau remained, and the project can be reanimated. And not only for the Fleet and its air groups, but also for the needs of the Aerospace Forces, because such aircraft are also needed by the Aerospace Forces, especially on a lighter base and capable of being based on any airfields.
                Money?
                Who are so fond of counting the winners of this direction?
                So they are.
                We already have it.
                A tenth (maximum 15%) part of the RF Air Defense Forces is enough to "buy" such a grouping right now lol if it were possible.
                But since this is impossible, our industry will be able to start such a program only in a few years, then it can be financed from current budget revenues.
                Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. The budget of the Russian Federation is literally choked with "extra" money.
                Only they are not and will not be spent on social services, pensions ... and even development will be creaky ... Such is the psychology of power.
                But there is money.
                And the desire to master them is also there.
                And there is a need.
                Here the USC is eager to build ... moreover, atomic ones ... It takes a long time to build atomic ones, it is expensive, and if you are like Nasreddin in the matter of teaching a donkey to human speech, then it is very profitable and irresponsible.
                This is what the masters want.
                But the fact that turbines with a capacity of 35 - 000 l / s are already on the way suggests that the ships needed by the Navy will still be built. In any case, I really want to believe in it.
                Or rather, no one will tell you.
                Where to build?
                Most conveniently in the Crimea (Kerch) and the Far East ("Star" in Bolshoy Kamen).
                It is better not to touch Severodvinsk - it has enough work with the submarine. Another thing is repair, maintenance and basing.
                But you can start such programs only after 4 - 5 years, not earlier. In the meantime, to bring the ship's engine and gear structure to full capacity, to accumulate experience and competence in the construction of large ships and vessels.

                And Timokhin simply, in polemics with you, decided to take an example of the use of such ships in local conflicts - current and recent ones ... Perhaps not very successful, because such tasks for our AV will be in the second and third stages.

                And you are wrong about Vietnam - combat work there, in many respects, was based on carrier-based aviation.
                Specificity of the theater. request
                hi
                1. -4
                  29 2021 June
                  Quote: bayard
                  And you need not one, not two, or even three such ABs.
                  And at least 6 (six) units in two fleets. Three pieces each, in order to be able to keep one such ABP / PLO at sea on a permanent basis.

                  Here I absolutely agree with you.
                  And you are one of the few who give adequate numbers.
                  As part of the required amount.

                  There is essentially one cognitive bias popular with AB proponents.
                  They ignore first the rotation, and then the division of the Russian fleets into 3 pieces.
                  And when we think theoretically, the temptation is great to ignore all this "to build" in theory a ship 6 times more powerful but 1.

                  Since everything happens in their imagination, even 1 ship in their virtual battles is in the right place at the right time and is always ready when needed.

                  And when I ask questions - how are you going to pull out military campaigns like Syria
                  one aircraft carrier? remain unanswered.

                  And we see there a gas turbine with a capacity of 35 to 000 l / s. smile
                  What do you think, for which watercraft such engines are prepared?

                  Here are the parameters of the anti-submarine cruiser-helicopter carrier Moscow

                  Displacement 15.
                  2 * 45 and under 30 knots.
                  So it is difficult to say unequivocally based on this parameter alone.

                  And you are wrong about Vietnam - combat work there, in many respects, was based on carrier-based aviation.
                  Specificity of the theater.

                  I did not at all claim that the ABs did not contribute to this war.
                  1 is a lie of a specific statement.
                  2 - availability of alternatives, including the beginning of the concept of attack helicopters. It happened there.
                  1. +3
                    30 2021 June
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    And when I ask questions - how are you going to pull out military campaigns like Syria
                    one aircraft carrier? remain unanswered.

                    Because no one will ever set such a task. The aircraft carrier can provide cover for the landing operation, cover the troops on the bridgehead from the air until the deployment of a full-fledged air base, walk a little more in combat outposts from the sea, and - home.
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    Displacement 15.
                    2 * 45 and under 30 knots.
                    So it is difficult to say unequivocally based on this parameter alone.

                    There were steam turbines, which were put one by one on the shaft, and they had a fairly wide range of revolutions on the shaft (they could give both minimum speed, cruising / cruising and maximum speed). Gas turbines are usually put on two on one shaft (sometimes more - on cruisers 1164, as many as 4 turbines operate on one shaft, and one of them is steam), when one provides cruising / cruising speed and low speed, and turns on for full speed the second is afterburner.
                    Therefore, if we see in the metal a gas turbine with a capacity of 50 - 000 l / s, then on four such turbines it is possible to build a power plant for AVVI 55 - 000 tons with a maximum speed of up to 45 knots.
                    And if we put one more steam turbine in a pair of each main turbine, powered by steam from the boiler of the exhaust body of the main gas turbine ... then we will be able to get power only for sustainer + steam turbines up to 200 l / s. And when providing flights, turn on the afterburner GT, and steam from the heat exchanger to power the catapults (if they are steam).
                    If the catapults are electromagnetic (and in the USSR such a catapult was created and tested for "Ulyanovsk" - as a backup, if suddenly it did not turn out to be a steam one), then nothing prevents from making an electric transmission on these AVs. For these six turbines (four gas and two steam) will produce up to 300 l / s on their own shafts, and with the conversion loss there will still be at least 000 l / s on the propeller shafts.
                    with such a power plant, these aircraft carriers will also be quite economical in terms of fuel consumption. Unlike the Chinese project 055 and their gas turbine aircraft carriers with electric transmission. For a lot is lost on double conversion.
                    In our case, even with an electric transmission, the conversion losses are compensated by steam turbines operating on the gratuitous heat of the exhaust gases of the cruise turbines.
                    And if we go back to the high-power turbines themselves, then such turbines can only be installed on large ships of the heavy destroyer, cruiser or aircraft carrier class.
                    There is simply nothing more to put such monsters on.

                    And yet, the spent steam of steam turbines can be used to heat the flight deck and the entire ship, because our climate is harsh ... and again free heat will go for heating.
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    2 - availability of alternatives, including the beginning of the concept of attack helicopters. It happened there.

                    There (in Vietnam) a lot of things were born - the war went on for 10 years. And the first "Sparrow" were used there, and the debut of "Phantoms", and napalm, and defoliants ...
                    The use of AB has never excluded the use of stationary aerodromes. On the contrary, as a rule, the command of the air groups tried, whenever possible, to acquire ground alternate airfields. Damaged aircraft were planted on them, those that could not reach their native aircraft carrier, and the use of Air Force aircraft was always cheaper. Another thing is that the conditions of the theater of operations (and Vietnam was a specific theater of operations) did not always allow having a sufficient number of ground airfields in the right place, and the presence of aircraft carrier formations was in this case a lifesaver.

                    But we need AV for completely different purposes. We do not need drums, but specialized AV air defense / PLO. To protect the naval base and the coast on remote lines and cover the "bastions" where our SSBNs are deployed.
                    And also to ensure the combat stability of naval groupings during long voyages and inter-naval transitions. Of course, when it is really necessary.
                    1. 0
                      August 10 2021
                      Quote: bayard
                      But we need AV for completely different purposes. We don't need drums, but specialized ones AV Air Defense \ PLO ... To protect the naval base and the coast on remote lines and cover the "bastions" where our SSBNs are deployed.
                      And also to ensure the combat stability of naval groupings during long voyages and inter-naval transitions.

                      If we argue in this context ("AV Air Defense \ PLO") then he does not need a power plant based on a gas turbine engine at all, diesel engines are enough (simpler, cheaper, more profitable).

                      Moreover, even the "AV" itself is not needed, much more useful would be a "modular self-propelled offshore platform" (MSMP) with the ability to: anchoring on a dead deep-water anchor; the formation of a full-fledged runway for the ULV; connection-disconnection of several MSMF for the convenience of mooring in the port and passage of the straits.
                      1. 0
                        August 10 2021
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        the formation of a full-fledged runway for the ULV; connection-disconnection of several MSMP for the convenience of mooring in the port and passage of the straits.

                        Have fun.
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        he does not need a power plant based on a gas turbine engine at all, diesel engines are enough (simpler, cheaper, more profitable).

                        We do not have such diesel engines. Only Kolomna - diesel locomotives and with a capacity not exceeding 6000 l / s. request
                        Like this .
                        True, for 5 - 10 years they have been promising to sculpt a diesel engine of 10 l / s in the same Kolomna.
                        But the stone flower hasn't come out yet.

                        An aircraft carrier must be FAST!
                        In order to impart an additional impulse to the starting aircraft with its own speed and to extinguish the speed when landing. So our aircraft carrier will have to rush at maximum speed during all flights.
                        This means to have a powerful and, if possible, economical power plant.
                        That is, gas-steam turbopairs.
                        And no composite pontoons will save us - we also have no VTOL aircraft.
                      2. 0
                        August 10 2021
                        Quote: bayard
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        MSME
                        Have fun
                        There is nothing "funny" in this, a very real solution within the context, unless of course you really analyze, and not slide into demagoguery with holivaro-srachiks. And yes, please do not confuse "pontoons" and "MSMP", here is an example of a non-modular SMP: https://russia.undelete.news/uploads/promzn.ru/2018/09/nGhmhD4Fk0fSRVUHbFpwiGzq9jUlDiPVcEFfL3Ly.jpe

                        Quote: bayard
                        Only Kolomna - diesel locomotives and with a capacity not exceeding 6000 l / s
                        Well, I actually meant container and / or diesel internal combustion engines operating within the framework of a scalable transmission with energy buffers, for example, based on an electric transmission. In this context, an internal combustion engine is better than a gas turbine engine due to fewer restrictions on the layout of inlet-outlet ventilation.

                        Quote: bayard
                        An aircraft carrier must be FAST!
                        Is it a fig? You can accelerate with a catapult, extinguish with hooks / reverse / parachutes, the main thing is that the ship is "Panamax", or better "New Panamax" for a longer runway (in this case, the problems and shortcomings of the ship can be solved by changing-improving the catapults and hooks). You can also do the alteration of the ULV in the direction of reducing their maximum-minimum speed, for example, due to additional feathering and engines with UHT (landing scheme by analogy with the Concorde and Tu-144 (that is, with a raised nose)).
                      3. -2
                        August 10 2021
                        Sorry, but you do not understand anything about aircraft carriers. request
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        And yes, please do not confuse "pontoons" and "MSMP", here is an example of a non-modular SMP:

                        smile Yes . Interesting smile ... grandiose Yes , and if you also collect a runway from such modules per kilometer. what Or one and a half ... Yes, so that the articulated modules do not walk on the deck. lol
                        Do not be offended, I wrote that all these stationary platforms (anchored or self-propelled) are suitable only for helicopters and VTOL aircraft - vertical (short) takeoff and vertical landing aircraft. They don't really care about the speed of the ship.
                        But we do not have such.
                        And even if this question was already asked 2 - 3 years ago, then we will be able to see the first flying prototype no earlier than in 10 years. And this is still very optimistic. However, if we take the "Chekmet" glider as a basis, then a prototype may appear by the end of the decade, if they cooperate with the Yakovlev Design Bureau.
                        But I wouldn't count on it.
                        In addition, there remains the question of a carrier-based AWACS aircraft - it cannot do without a catapult and an aerofinisher. A carrier-based aircraft without such an aircraft.
                        So there remains ONLY a classic aircraft carrier - the result of the evolution of the naval thought of the best fleets in the world over the past 100 years.
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Quote: bayard
                        Only Kolomna - diesel locomotives and with a capacity not exceeding 6000 l / s
                        Well, I actually meant container and / or diesel ICEs operating within a scalable transmission with energy buffers, for example, based on an electric transmission.

                        This disappears right away - a herd of diesels, but on an electric transmission, which will gobble up on a double conversion (torque - electric energy - torque) about 30% of the power.
                        And the required power is not the same.
                        Gas-steam turbopairs are another matter. They have the efficiency of converting thermal (!) Energy into electrical energy - up to 40% (36 - 38%), two-fold fuel economy compared to a clean gas turbine of the same capacity. Yes, they are larger and more specific, but not critical for large and very large ships. And with such a power plant, it is possible to implement both an electric transmission (for the convenience of arranging the engine room, saving on long shafts and complex, noisy and dimensional gearboxes), and a direct one - through a gearbox.
                        And the spent steam of steam turbines will go for heating (we have half a year or more cold) and steam catapults (steam will go to them overheated - from the heat exchanger / heat exchanger). All in one solution - that is, a comprehensive solution.
                        And that means it’s correct.

                        If we do have VTOL aircraft, then container ships, tankers and ro-ro ships can act as mobilization carriers ... yes, any ships with an sewn heat-resistant deck and equipment for servicing and refueling. AWACS helicopters are in their company, and now you are ready to mobilize an aircraft carrier for the protection of the water area, or an escort aircraft carrier, if its parameters are suitable for such a task. The latter is hardly useful to us, but the first, including for strengthening the expeditionary forces, is quite.
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        You can accelerate with a catapult, extinguish with hooks / reverse / parachutes,

                        You should be careful with parachutes here, otherwise it is not even an hour, you will catch on during landing on something ... it's scary to imagine.
                        Catapults are already accelerating, but the extra 50-60 km / h will never hurt. Especially if the takeoff is at full load.
                        Aerofinishers are also installed on all classic ABs, BUT you cannot even imagine what kind of overload a pilot experiences at the moment of such a finish. No. Their retina sometimes exfoliates.
                        And in order to reduce this overload as best as possible, AB accelerates to 30 knots - minus 50-60 km / h from the landing speed, this is a lot.
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Attacks of the ship can be solved by changing-improvement of catapults and hooks). You can also do the alteration of the ultralight vehicle in the direction of reducing their maximum-minimum speed.

                        You don't know about that either?
                        All carrier-based aircraft have a significantly larger wing area - precisely for the sake of reducing the landing speed. But this also interferes with their flight characteristics, especially high-speed ones.
                        For the Su-33, the PGO was installed precisely for this - in order to reduce the landing speed and facilitate takeoff.
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        and engines with UHT

                        Here they are not assistants, on takeoff - yes.
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        (landing scheme by analogy with the concord and tu-144 (that is, with a raised nose))

                        On ... an aircraft carrier?
                        He won't see anything. lol
                        Maybe his nose like the Concorde or the Tu-144 can be made lowered?
                        And yes - these aircraft had a VERY high landing speed.
                        You shouldn't reinvent the wheel - the best minds of mankind have already been solving this puzzle (the optimal AB at the moment) for 100 years.
                        hi
                      4. +1
                        August 10 2021
                        Quote: bayard
                        Sorry, but you do not understand anything about aircraft carriers.

                        Thank you neighing heartily laughing as always, the best argument in the dispute "You are all UG, and I am Dartanyan" wassat In your case, "it is possible to install a catapult and an aerofinisher on AV, but it is impossible on MSMF," the religion of the sacred AV apparently does not allow. laughing
                        And by the way: MSMP can be made much longer than AB, thereby increasing the length of the runway and increasing the smoothness of braking of the air arrestor moreover, the length can be increased up to 1000m or more, which allows the use of an ultralight vehicle without any alterations.
                        In general, this clearly shows who "does not understand anything" here and pretends to be Dartanyan.

                        Quote: bayard
                        This disappears right away - a herd of diesels, but on an electric transmission, which will gobble up on a double conversion (torque - electric energy - torque) about 30% of the power.

                        Again the game of dartanyan and arguments in the style of "I look in a book I see a fig", I already wrote above that AV and MSME DO NOT NEED SPEED (when working in the A2AD context)... More on this below.

                        Quote: bayard
                        BUT you can't even imagine what kind of overload the pilot experiences at the moment of such a finish

                        Quote: bayard
                        And in order to reduce this overload as best as possible, AB accelerates to 30 knots - minus 50-60 km / h from the landing speed, this is a lot.

                        Quote: bayard
                        All carrier-based aircraft have a significantly larger wing area - precisely for the sake of reducing the landing speed. But this also interferes with their flight characteristics, especially high-speed ones.
                        For the Su-33, the PGO was installed precisely for this - in order to reduce the landing speed and facilitate takeoff.

                        Quote: bayard
                        He won't see anything.

                        In the scheme I voiced, you didn’t understand the principle of operation, and therefore didn’t understand what for the UHT is needed, there "the nose relative to the runway approach trajectory" has a greater ascent (lifting) angle than that of the classic spacecraft / ALS, this is achieved due to the PGO and changes in the application vector forces (UHT). Landing is carried out using internal and external correctors (for example, based on OLS). Thus, the lifting force is even higher, and therefore the minimum speed is lower.

                        That is, summing up: in this thread of comments, three approaches are voiced
                        1) more expensive ship
                        2) a cheaper ship, but in return, more advanced take-off and landing systems and spacecraft
                        3) cheap MSMP, ultralight vehicles and land-coastal air defense \ missile defense \ PLO \ .... on it
                        I argue that, of these three options, the third option when organizing A2AD will have the lowest production + operating cost.
                      5. -1
                        August 11 2021
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        3) cheap MSMP, ultralight vehicles and land-coastal air defense \ missile defense \ PLO \ .... on it
                        I argue that, of these three options, the third option when organizing A2AD will have the lowest production + operating cost.

                        Expensive, difficult, metal-intensive, non-universal.
                        Metals have risen in price in a few months by 2-2,5 times.
                        But you can dream.
          2. +2
            29 2021 June
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            What are the airfields?
            Timokhin wrote directly
            And I am not analyzing Timokhin's words, which by the way you did not understand.
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            At the same time, AB's supporters, not only did not write, they wrote an outright FALSE that these airfields did not exist at all.
            Your nonsense has already been sorted out!
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Don't juggle. In your quote, it is written in black and white that it was impossible to provide a reaction time of 5-15 minutes from ground airfields.


            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            So what?
            Why is what you write was not an argument for the US command? Are you smart and are they stupid? And having aircraft carriers, for some reason they climbed ashore?
            Yes, the Americans were clearly no more stupid than you, and AB did not withdraw from the shores of Vietnam throughout the war, for some reason.
            1. -6
              29 2021 June
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Yes, then the Americans were obviously not more stupid, and AB did not withdraw from the shores of Vietnam throughout the war, for some reason.

              You answer the question why they built ground airfields in the presence of AB.

              And about Timokhin's words there is no need to disassemble anything.
              There is a LIE. Straight. For anyone who can read English.

              If you cannot, or do not want, it is your right to stay in the world of blue ponies in which these airfields did not exist.
              1. +4
                29 2021 June
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                You answer the question why they built ground airfields in the presence of AB.
                Yes, at least in order to use the aircraft of the Air Force and MP in the protracted war.

                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                And about Timokhin's words there is no need to disassemble anything.
                There is a LIE. Straight. For anyone who can read English.
                Yes Yes.


                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                Don't juggle. In your quote, it is written in black and white that it was impossible to provide a reaction time of 5-15 minutes from ground airfields.
                Do you know what was the response time of the aviation to the request of the ground forces in Vietnam?
                5-15 minutes. Because right in the Gulf of Tonkin dangled an aircraft carrier formation at Dixie Station (google), which provided just such a flight time. How could this be done from the ground? In no way, and the Americans did not achieve it. Only from aircraft carriers.

                Alexey, you are right, this is a terrible mistake on my part.
                How about this, a lie or is it your very emotional misjudgment?

                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                If you cannot, or do not want, it is your right to stay in the world of blue ponies in which these airfields did not exist.
                As a girl, do not behave, do not attribute your thoughts to others. So that's where my denial of the use of airfields in Vietnam, maybe here ?:
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                According to American official data, only the US armed forces (excluding the armed forces of South Vietnam) from 1962 to 1973 lost on the ground in Vietnam only from mortar, artillery and rocket attacks (excluding sabotage) 393 aircraft and helicopters, and another 1185 were damaged ...

                It’s strange to imagine that the AB supporters are the principal opponents of ground airfields, what kind of magic country should you live in?
                1. -6
                  29 2021 June
                  How about this, a lie or is it your very emotional misjudgment?

                  A combination of 2 factors.
                  1) Yes outright lie
                  2) A person's unwillingness to familiarize themselves with the primary source to which I briefly referred.

                  This source clearly states ...
                  The Marine landings coincided with a need for a new air base on the coast in order to reduce flight time to targets in Quang Tin province and adjacent districts.

                  ... reduce flight time ...

                  As the Vietnam ground war increased in intensity, the Marine A-4 squadrons began piling up a high number of mission credits. The targets were only a few minutes' flying time away from their base, hence pilots could fly multiple sorties in a single day. It became routine to reckon sortie totals by the thousands. The continual proximity of enemy troops to US air bases occasionally resulted in A-4s dropping their ordnance almost before the pilots had retracted their wheels.

                  ". to reduce the flight time ...". "... reset of the AAS before the landing gear was removed ..."
                  And then read for yourself if you really undertake to comment.

                  Yes, at least in order to use the aircraft of the Air Force and MP in the protracted war.

                  Well, then formulate, to what conclusion should this lead us when the AB supporters undertake to project the power of the airplane onto the war in Syria?
                  I will ask directly - could one AV drag Syria?

                  I came to the same conclusion, if AB's supporters say that the presence of aviation in Syria was carried out only by AB, it must be clearly said that we are talking about 3 aircraft carriers in our fleet, which will change each other.

                  It’s strange to imagine that the AB supporters are the principal opponents of ground airfields, what kind of magic country should you live in?

                  No, it's just that some things don't correspond to reality.
                  Somehow, it was impossible to ensure the minimum flight time from the ground, and this was not done.
                  I gave the link - WAS done. It could be.
                  What upsets you here or what do you disagree with?
                  1. +3
                    29 2021 June
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    "
                    The Marine landings coincided with a need for a new air base on the coast in order to reduce flight time to targets in Quang Tin province and adjacent districts ....
                    The continual proximity of enemy troops to US air bases occasionally resulted in A-4s dropping their ordnance almost before the pilots had retracted their wheels.

                    . to reduce the flight time ... "." ... reset of the AAS before the landing gear is removed ... "
                    And then read for yourself if you really undertake to comment.
                    Dear author, this is some kind of Spanish shame!
                    Not only did you not indicate that the A-4 flew not from the aircraft carrier to the airfield, but from another airfield, moreover, not a word was said that the Chu-Lai base was coastal, not only were the A-4s not naval but marines, so also you and immediately missed the next paragraph:
                    ... retracted their wheels.

                    North Vietnamese forces made numerous attempts to destroy or damage US aircraft at their bases. Chu Lai was attacked on several occasions. During Operation Starlite in August 1965, the Skyhawks successfully flew to protect both their own ground troops and their base.
                    Thus turning the cause into an effect! The enemy himself approached the airfield! Therefore, the marines from the "wheels" bombed, and they would be happy to act with the AV, because 15-20 km from the coast in that situation dramatically increased security, only who would give them.

                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    I will ask directly - could one AV drag Syria?
                    One and "Kuzya" are not present, as by the way they have not dragged in until now from the airfields. Now tell me why the Americans did not withdraw AB until the end of Vietnam?

                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    I came to the same conclusion, if AB's supporters say that the presence of aviation in Syria was carried out only by AB, it must be clearly said that we are talking about 3 aircraft carriers in our fleet, which will change each other.
                    Yeah, well, poke your finger in someone who says that one AB is enough? Personally, I don’t.
                    1. -4
                      29 2021 June
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      Dear author, this is some kind of Spanish shame!
                      Not only did you not specify

                      I agree.
                      To be so incapable of independent study of information in the modern world is simply a shame.

                      What words are causing you difficulties? From this?
                      Who cares, the full text in the original at the link.

                      What haven't I provided?)

                      If you are NOT interested. Or the other person is NOT interested. It is your right. But this is your area of ​​responsibility, not mine.
                      Or what do you think ...
                      You are not interested, but I have to tell you something, right?
                      Is it a little more adequate?

                      Now about the rest.
                      And what is incomprehensible in these words?
                      The Marine landings coincided with a need for a new air base on the coast in order to reduce flight time to targets in Quang Tin province and adjacent districts.

                      Translate.
                      1. +3
                        29 2021 June
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        The Marine landings coincided with a need for a new air base on the coast in order to reduce flight time to targets in Quang Tin province and adjacent districts.

                        Translate.


                        What for? You ignored this:

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        North Vietnamese forces made numerous attempts to destroy or damage US aircraft at their bases. Chu Lai was attacked on several occasions. During Operation Starlite in August 1965, the Skyhawks successfully flew to protect both their own ground troops and their base.


                        and here it is:
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        One and "Kuzya" are not present, as by the way they have not dragged in until now from the airfields. Now tell me why the Americans did not withdraw AB until the end of Vietnam?
                  2. +3
                    30 2021 June
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    How about this, a lie or is it your very emotional misjudgment?

                    A combination of 2 factors.
                    1) Yes outright lie
                    2) A person's unwillingness to familiarize themselves with the primary source to which I briefly referred.

                    This source clearly states ...
                    The Marine landings coincided with a need for a new air base on the coast in order to reduce flight time to targets in Quang Tin province and adjacent districts.

                    ... reduce flight time ...

                    As the Vietnam ground war increased in intensity, the Marine A-4 squadrons began piling up a high number of mission credits. The targets were only a few minutes' flying time away from their base, hence pilots could fly multiple sorties in a single day. It became routine to reckon sortie totals by the thousands. The continual proximity of enemy troops to US air bases occasionally resulted in A-4s dropping their ordnance almost before the pilots had retracted their wheels.

                    ". to reduce the flight time ...". "... reset of the AAS before the landing gear was removed ..."
                    And then read for yourself if you really undertake to comment.

                    Yes, at least in order to use the aircraft of the Air Force and MP in the protracted war.

                    Well, then formulate, to what conclusion should this lead us when the AB supporters undertake to project the power of the airplane onto the war in Syria?
                    I will ask directly - could one AV drag Syria?

                    I came to the same conclusion, if AB's supporters say that the presence of aviation in Syria was carried out only by AB, it must be clearly said that we are talking about 3 aircraft carriers in our fleet, which will change each other.

                    It’s strange to imagine that the AB supporters are the principal opponents of ground airfields, what kind of magic country should you live in?

                    No, it's just that some things don't correspond to reality.
                    Somehow, it was impossible to ensure the minimum flight time from the ground, and this was not done.
                    I gave the link - WAS done. It could be.
                    What upsets you here or what do you disagree with?


                    Do you understand exactly the meaning and difference between the words Marine and Navy?
                    1. +3
                      30 2021 June
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      Do you understand exactly the meaning and difference between the words Marine and Navy?

                      Possibly ignored.
        2. -5
          29 2021 June
          much more logical construction of argumentation


          According to their logic, there can be no Khmeinim. So much the worse for logic, or for Khmeinim?
          1. +8
            29 2021 June
            Quote: EvilLion
            According to their logic, there can be no Khmeinim. So much the worse for logic, or for Khmeinim?

            Are you trying to convince that the AB principle is against ground airfields? But.
            1. +6
              29 2021 June
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Are you trying to convince that the AB principle is against ground airfields? But.

              Soon it will probably be argued that the AB supporters are generally against all other branches of the armed forces.
              1. -3
                29 2021 June
                This is exactly how they do it, no one else can solve the problems invented by them, although in reality they do it, and without troughs.
                1. +2
                  30 2021 June
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  This is exactly how they do it, no one else can solve the problems invented by them, although in reality they do it, and without troughs.

                  How the Khmeimim conveyor will work if Iran and Iraq and Turkey refuse to fly over their territory ...
                  Tell us all ...
            2. -4
              29 2021 June
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Quote: EvilLion
              According to their logic, there can be no Khmeinim. So much the worse for logic, or for Khmeinim?

              Are you trying to convince that the AB principle is against ground airfields? But.

              How it works - in a previous article I wrote that all types of weapons compete with each other for funding. And you need to compare not just AB or emptiness ... but AB and alternatives.

              This is what happens in the real world - we have limited resources and we are trying to allocate them.

              And when AB begins to compare with other solutions, the advocates of AB try to discredit these other solutions.

              Big planes are bad.
              Long-range CRs are bad.
              Helicopters are bad. Even if he himself wrote an article about how good it is)
              Refueling is bad.

              That is what it is about.
              1. +2
                29 2021 June
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov

                Big planes are bad.
                Long-range CRs are bad.
                Helicopters are bad. Even if he himself wrote an article about how good it is)
                Refueling is bad.

                Alexander, your rhetoric already resembles the behavior of an unbridled network troll ...
                You can not do it this way .
                At least for an author who makes a claim for some kind of analytics.
                Apparently you are a fairly young person and do not have sufficient life and work experience.
                The question of the need for aircraft carriers for the Navy has a long history. And the question of aircraft carriers was NEVER raised to the detriment of other types of weapons and combat arms.
                Aircraft carriers are a tool for solving certain operational and sometimes strategic tasks. But ALWAYS their use was considered in close cooperation with other branches of the armed forces.
                And your arguments ... it's just some kind of kindergarten.
                In the same Syrian campaign, the moment of the deployment of the base in Khmeimim resembled (and actually was) the seizure of a bridgehead in the coastal zone. And it was associated with great risk, because the enemy forces were already in a few tens of kilometers. And it was during that period (deployment) that the presence of an aircraft carrier (the same "Kuznetsov") in the theater of operations was extremely desirable - for air cover for the deployment of the base by carrier-based aviation.
                But after the final deployment, organization of defense, logistics, after the aircraft of the airbase arrived and started work, the aircraft carrier could get ready for the return journey - the job was done.
                The same is true with the hypothetical intervention of Russia in the Libyan conflict - he ensured the combat deployment of the contingent and the ground airbase, twisted abeam, covering from the sea, waited until the airbase was operational, and - home.
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                we have limited resources and we are trying to allocate them.

                Well, these resources are allocated not by you, and not by me. And those who distribute, by definition, have more information about their capabilities and needs. And if UEC receives orders for the development of a line of gas turbines with a capacity of 35 - 000 or more hp, then someone set this task and paid for it. So they (power plants on such gas turbines) are needed for the construction of future ships.
                What do you think?
                For such gas turbines will definitely not be put on civilian ships.
                And yet, did you attentively listen to the speech of the head of state when two UDCs were laid in Kerch last year?
                What did he say about future construction plans at this facility?
                He said carefully. "Let's see how things go with this order," and if everything goes well, ships of "another class" will be ordered, which is too early to talk about.
                And if the Navy and the Country did not need aircraft-carrying ships, the Kuznetsov would have been cut into scrap long ago.
                Another thing is that there is not much sense from one such ship, because it makes sense to have a full-fledged grouping - 3 AB each in a theater of operations. And we have two such theaters.
                1. -4
                  29 2021 June
                  Thanks for the reasonable comment.

                  was highly desirable - for air cover for the deployment of the base by carrier-based aircraft.

                  In your opinion, in points from 0 to 10, how effective would deck-based aircraft and KA-52 helicopters be for these tasks?

                  In my opinion, helicopters would be more effective in destroying dispersed enemy forces trying to attack.
                  Let's say 8 points. While the effectiveness of the deck ships in the "attack" in fact is ball 4, and it is also necessary to direct them.


                  line of gas turbines with a capacity of 35 - 000 and more hp, it means that someone set and paid for this task. So they (power plants on such gas turbines) are needed for the construction of future ships.
                  What do you think?

                  Already answered these questions

                  Helicopter carrier Moscow 15 tons of full displacement.
                  Therefore, it is difficult to answer unequivocally about this parameter alone.
                  1. +4
                    30 2021 June
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    In your opinion, in points from 0 to 10, how effective would deck-based aircraft and KA-52 helicopters be for these tasks?

                    I believe that in this case, in no case should the question be put exactly like that - "either - or". Both of these components are important for such operations, and each of them is more useful and effective in each specific case.
                    If, say, there is an urgent call to support a ground grouping or a reconnaissance group is squeezed by the enemy and the road is every minute ... and this is located hundreds of kilometers from the AV \ airbase, then assault and bomber aviation is certainly of great value. The aircraft will cover this distance in 15 - 20 minutes and provide fire support. And if reconnaissance can also highlight targets, then destroy the advancing enemy. But helicopters for such a range will take an hour and a half, and can fly when you only have to take revenge for the guys.
                    It's another matter if an AV arrives at a theater of operations, the deck of which is additionally loaded with attack helicopters. Which immediately fly to the platform on the bridgehead and begin work from it. And the aircraft from the deck.
                    If there is one more minus in the use of helicopters ... it is the height of their flight to the target. It is insufficient to be safe from MANPADS and other ground-based weapons. Therefore, they cannot be sent over long distances deep into the territory controlled by the enemy.
                    And aviation is possible. This has been proven in Syria.
                    Each of these instruments of war has its own goals and objectives. Somewhere they intersect, somewhere they complement each other. They are equally valuable to the belligerent Army, and the absence or shortage of one of them leads to unjustified losses, irrational use of available funds, or may even cost victory / success.
                    And of course
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    helicopters would be more effective in destroying dispersed enemy forces attempting to attack.

                    , but this is true only with the direct support of the troops.
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    Helicopter carrier Moscow 15 tons of full displacement.

                    Actually, "Moscow" and "Leningrad" were anti-submarine aircraft-carrying cruisers (helicopter-carrying cruisers), because they had anti-ship missiles.
                    And similar turbines can be used for the power plant of gas turbine heavy destroyers (cruisers) "Leader" VI in 12 - 000 tons.
                    But only if their capacity is about 35 l / s. And even then it is justified if the electric propulsion is carried out ... with a hefty loss of power in the transmission.
                    With conventional gearboxes, four M-90FR / FRU would be sufficient for such ships. Moreover, the torque of identical turbines is much easier to add on one gearbox than dissimilar ones.
                    And these ships are no longer built on two turbines.
                    So only aircraft carriers remain.
                    And God forbid that the concept of six moderate gas turbine ABs was chosen, and not 2-3 atomic monsters that will devour the budget, drag out the deadlines and will not solve the problems.
                    1. -2
                      30 2021 June
                      I believe that in this case, in no case should the question be put exactly like that - "either - or". Both of these components are important for such operations, and each of them is more useful and effective in each specific case.
                      If, say, an urgent call to support a ground grouping or a reconnaissance group is squeezed by the enemy and the road is every minute ... and this is located hundreds of kilometers from the AV \ airbase, then assault and bomber aviation is certainly of great value.

                      What are the centurion kilometers from the base?
                      If you decide to discuss the topic I have a proposal - let's step by step and not skip?

                      You wrote. I answered you. Let's continue to move in the logic of this direction.

                      Syria. The landing of our troops.
                      As you described it.
                      seizing a beachhead in the coastal zone


                      A certain ship approached Syria from the deck of which both planes and helicopters can take off.
                      Write down the effectiveness of both in this particular task.
                      1. +1
                        30 2021 June
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        A certain ship approached Syria from the deck of which both planes and helicopters can take off.
                        Write down the effectiveness of both in this particular task.

                        Okay, let's take a look at capturing and developing a bridgehead offensive in Syria.
                        Attack helicopters additionally deployed on AB fly over to the bridgehead and organize combat work to support the troops and destroy the advancing enemy. At the same time, carrier-based aviation begins to smash the rear, communications, infrastructure and the accumulation of enemy personnel and equipment - in the rear (where helicopters cannot be allowed, they have enough work on the contact line). Aviation acts on target designation from reconnaissance UAVs, satellite constellation and our reconnaissance groups. And it is aviation that can quickly respond and destroy targets identified by reconnaissance, and if the target is lost (missed), dispersed, or there are obstacles to its destruction, then aircraft that have already taken off can either return to the AV \ base, or stand in a circle in standby mode, while the target will not appear again, or when the target can be worked on.
                        Which of the tools is most important at this stage?
                        Both.
                        One provides direct support to the troops above the contact line, the other smashes the rear, headquarters, destroys infrastructure, disrupts supplies, i.e. is engaged in the isolation of the combat area.
                        The bridgehead is expanding, the troops are marching forward in pursuit of the enemy, work begins on the preparation of a ground airfield for receiving ground attack aircraft and military transport aircraft.
                        Attack aircraft arrive and take on both support for the advancing troops along with combat helicopters, and work on the rear for a radius of about 300 km.
                        AV departs from the coast and cruises along the coast carries out air defense and cover from sea directions.
                        The operation continues, the airbase on the coast is developing, fighters (MF, of course) arrive, air defense systems for air defense and SD, the logistics of supplying the group with sea and air transport have been established.
                        Our AV goes home with a sense of accomplishment.

                        This could have been the case for Syria if the barmaley had advanced further and kept the last runway under fire.
                        So it could be in Libya ...
                        But in our particular case, we do not need shock weapons, but specialized air defense / anti-aircraft defense aircraft, to cover precisely our sea lines.
                        And in such expeditions, they can participate optionally, for a special need.

                        For what other operations can AB be used in DM and OZ?
                        Let's imagine that the United States is deploying MRBM and CD in Europe, and near our ter. waters organized combat duty of enemy ships with CD on board.
                        A decision was made to create a mirror threat by deploying our MRBM and CD in Cuba (and / or Venezuela). How to organize the delivery and deployment of these forces at a remote theater of operations and organize the combat stability of the Fleet forces providing and covering them?
                        A group of attack ships and ships of cover from AB, a missile cruiser is being formed (we will assume that Kuznetsov and Nakhimov have already returned to service, two frigates 22350, one BOD 1155 (if it is possible to attract an already modernized one - very good), two submarines ("Ash" and Shchuka-B "), a pair of large landing ships with the marines, a complex supply ship, a tanker, a sea tug and, in fact, transports.
                        Deck aviation provides a zone of access denial throughout the passage, conducts reconnaissance, accelerates combat and patrol aircraft of foreign countries, and provides PLO with PLO helicopter forces.
                        After arriving at the site, the ships provide combat cover and air defense in the area of ​​combat deployment. And the fact of the presence on board of a large number of CDs for various purposes creates a threat to the mainland of the unfriendly United States. The entire period of the deployment of our bases in Cuba. With air defense systems, airfield / airfields for fighter, strike and special aviation, coastal missile systems "Bal" and "Bastion", ground covering forces.
                        When these forces and assets are deployed, the main forces of the cover ship detachment can return home.
                        The role of AB in this operation cannot be overestimated, because during the transition and during the deployment period, all air defense in the far zone and cover from the attacks of the CD will be entirely on the fighters of the AB air group.
                        After Cuba once again becomes "Unsinkable aircraft carrier" under the belly of the United States, our AV goes home with a sense of accomplishment.
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        What are the centurion kilometers from the base?

                        In Syria, our intelligence worked deep behind enemy lines and directed air strikes at targets, the distance sometimes was 200 or even 300 km. from Khmeimim.
                        And if the attack aircraft overcomes 200 km in 15 minutes, then the helicopter with a combat load will fly for an HOUR. At the risk of being shot down on the route.
                        Combat helicopters are still a tool of the battlefield and immediate support.
                        hi
                2. 0
                  August 10 2021
                  Quote: bayard
                  In the same Syrian campaign, the moment of the deployment of the base in Khmeimim resembled (and actually was) the seizure of a bridgehead in the coastal zone. And it was associated with great risk, because the enemy forces were already in a few tens of kilometers. And it was during that period (deployment) that the presence of an aircraft carrier (the same "Kuznetsov") in the theater of operations was extremely desirable - for air cover for the deployment of the base by carrier-based aviation.
                  But after the final deployment, organization of defense, logistics, after the aircraft of the airbase arrived and started work, the aircraft carrier could get ready for the return journey - the job was done.

                  In this context, AV is not particularly needed, much more useful than UDC / DVKD with LA-VVPZ. Moreover, it is not necessary to have large ships, you can also have small / medium-sized ones like the Singaporean DVD Endurance.

                  Moreover, even ships are not required, for example, I personally am a supporter: "multifunctional aircraft-like (in terms of speed and fuel consumption per unit distance) transport aircraft with VTOL (VTOL) capable of transporting / loading / unloading by a non-stop method one copy of GBT, first of all" DShL project 02800 "," BA Tiger "," construction equipment " . And also: various complexes based on such an aircraft. " I call this aircraft "SMAK" for short. In fact, in the presence of such an aircraft, it becomes possible to form a separate type of troops "landing troops" as a hybrid of the Airborne Forces (RF), DShB and KMP (USA), with all their advantages but without their disadvantages.
                  1. 0
                    August 10 2021
                    You described an operation against a weak enemy, without your own air force and air defense. And there are fewer and fewer such countries. Second, the efficiency of jet-based carrier-based aviation is incomparably higher for strikes when capturing and holding a bridgehead. Attack helicopters are here to help.
                    UDC, BDU are mandatory in such an operation, but AV covers them, supports them with air strikes and provides air defense.
                    Without such cover, no landing operation can count on success if the enemy has at least some kind of air defense and air force.
                    1. 0
                      August 11 2021
                      Quote: bayard
                      UDC, BDU are mandatory in such an operation, but AV covers them, supports them with air strikes and provides air defense.
                      Without such cover, no landing operation can count on success if the enemy has at least some kind of air defense and air force.

                      You, apparently, inattentively read my post, I quote "And also: various complexes based on such an aircraft." that is, including (as part of an attack on the shore):
                      .) AWACS \ RTR \ EW with KAZ (RVV-MD)
                      .) carriers of anti-radar drones (RVV-SD \ BD)
                      .) analogs of Lockheed AC-130 Specter
                      .) carriers of assault / strike / front-line / reconnaissance and strike air drones with operators for their synchronous control.

                      Quote: bayard
                      Second, the efficiency of jet-based carrier-based aviation is incomparably higher.

                      Even if you forget about the SMAK, and take into account only and only helicopters, it is still not a fact. Because the same helicopters can organize temporary field basing points outside the LDP but within the theater of operations where the control center from the DRG / MTR operates. In the case of stationary objects, you can use a rocket / missile UO based on submarines / ships. It is also possible to use the UO based in the UVP (on water / shore / land), delivered by helicopters and launched by a remote command.
                      1. 0
                        August 11 2021
                        This is again a punitive operation, not a military one.
                        And for the most part, what you are writing about is simply not there. And this is largely not for our tasks.
                        For a successful amphibious operation far from their own bases, a sufficient number of landing ships and military transports (UDC, BDK, etc.), fire support and escort ships, and an aircraft carrier ship - AB or an airfield in the theater of operations - are needed.
                        If there is an airfield, then the absence of AB is not critical.
                        If there is no airfield, and the enemy has at least some kind of aviation and air defense, then with a great degree of probability the operation will end in failure.

                        All fantasies about new weapons systems that have no analogues are just fantasies.
        3. -4
          29 2021 June
          You contradict yourself. First write:
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          I wrote about a militarily developed enemy with comparable forces and capabilities, at least of the type of Vetnam.
          And then:
          And if North Vietnam had OTRK and KR, then they would be launched at airfields with known coordinates.
          How, then, did the Vietnamese differ in military capabilities from the "bankrupt" terrorists of the Ishil? Isis at least has drones ...
          So, in Vietnam, the airbases of the United States and southerners were attacked by partisans and saboteurs
          What is it that prevents the ISIS members from doing in relation to Tartus and Khmeimim? You do not distinguish between the peculiarities of organizing the bases of the United States and the Russian Federation in foreign countries. An example of Vietnam: the United States illegally invaded a foreign country and began to fight against the official authorities, against the country's army. Russia does not build illegal bases, settling on the territory purely by agreements with the official authorities.
          Vietnamese patriots were not afraid to shed American blood.
          Unlike the United States, Russia does not build its bases abroad to revel in democracy and topple regimes. The Americans need aircraft carriers for attack, Russia - for defense. But you can also defend yourself from the shore.
          1. +6
            29 2021 June
            Quote: Volder
            You contradict yourself. First write:
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            I wrote about a militarily developed enemy with comparable forces and capabilities, at least of the type of Vetnam.
            And then:
            And if North Vietnam had OTRK and KR, then they would be launched at airfields with known coordinates.
            How, then, did the Vietnamese differ in military capabilities from the "bankrupt" terrorists of the Ishil? Isis at least has drones ..
            Almost all samples of export weapons manufactured in the USSR, OTRK up to 73g, were officially supplied to North Vietnam. was not supplied to anyone, CDs were not produced at all, now name the suppliers of fighters, air defense systems and Igile tanks. And the characteristics of the UAV igil.

            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            According to American official data, only the US armed forces (excluding the armed forces of South Vietnam) from 1962 to 1973 lost on the ground in Vietnam only from mortar, artillery and rocket attacks (excluding sabotage) 393 aircraft and helicopters, and another 1185 were damaged ...


            Quote: Volder
            What is it that prevents the ISIS members from doing in relation to Tartus and Khmeimim?
            Their military failure and ever weaker motivation. What works against rather crooked Arabs does not work against a fully fledged, motivated and equipped army.


            Quote: Volder
            An example of Vietnam: the United States illegally invaded a foreign country and began to fight against the official authorities, against the country's army.
            Hand face! It's so shameful not to know military history ...

            Quote: Volder
            The Americans need aircraft carriers for attack, Russia - for defense. But you can also defend yourself from the shore.
            The farther out the lines of defense are, the better for defense, but you continue to believe in beauty.
            1. 0
              30 2021 June
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              What works against rather crooked Arabs does not work against a fully fledged, motivated and equipped army.
              I bring to your attention that Russia's foreign policy does not imply military interventions in foreign countries, the imposition of democracy, the overthrow of regimes and other destructive actions against the official government and its army. The Americans need aircraft carriers for this very purpose.
              1. 0
                30 2021 June
                Quote: Volder
                I bring to your attention that Russia's foreign policy does not imply military interventions in foreign countries, the imposition of democracy, the overthrow of regimes and other destructive actions against the official government and its army. The Americans need aircraft carriers for this very purpose.

                Totally agree with you. Moreover, this is not so much determined at the level of politicians, but at the level of the mentality of our people, who do not need foreign territories, to equip their own ...
                Naturally, the Americans are simply antagonists to us in this regard, and some of our clever people, telling tales about the need for aircraft carriers, will never understand that any war is unnatural for us, except for the one that concerns the defense of our Fatherland.
          2. +3
            30 2021 June
            Quote: Volder
            You contradict yourself. First write:
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            I wrote about a militarily developed enemy with comparable forces and capabilities, at least of the type of Vetnam.
            And then:
            And if North Vietnam had OTRK and KR, then they would be launched at airfields with known coordinates.
            How, then, did the Vietnamese differ in military capabilities from the "bankrupt" terrorists of the Ishil? Isis at least has drones ...
            So, in Vietnam, the airbases of the United States and southerners were attacked by partisans and saboteurs
            What is it that prevents the ISIS members from doing in relation to Tartus and Khmeimim? You do not distinguish between the peculiarities of organizing the bases of the United States and the Russian Federation in foreign countries. An example of Vietnam: the United States illegally invaded a foreign country and began to fight against the official authorities, against the country's army. Russia does not build illegal bases, settling on the territory purely by agreements with the official authorities.
            Vietnamese patriots were not afraid to shed American blood.
            Unlike the United States, Russia does not build its bases abroad to revel in democracy and topple regimes. The Americans need aircraft carriers for attack, Russia - for defense. But you can also defend yourself from the shore.

            That is, you do not know the news with the bombardment of planes with mines in the parking lot in Khmeimin?
            Have you seen a photo of the damaged aircraft?
            1. 0
              30 2021 June
              Quote: SovAr238A
              That is, you do not know the news with the bombardment of planes with mines in the parking lot in Khmeimin?
              This was a mortar attack from the ground, not from the air. not enough attention was paid to the depth of protection of the territory around the base. But after the incident, the error was corrected and since then the aircraft have not been damaged.
        4. -1
          August 10 2021
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Quote: Volder
          And fourthly: according to your logic, isn't an aircraft carrier the same primary target for opponents as an airfield?
          Apart from the defensive capabilities of the warrant, the aircraft carrier also has stealth and the ability to withdraw. So, in Vietnam, the airbases of the United States and southerners were attacked by partisans and saboteurs, there were no such incidents with aircraft carriers. And if North Vietnam had OTRK and KR, then they would be launched at airfields with known coordinates. Vietnamese patriots were not afraid to shed American blood. But the coordinates of the aircraft carriers were not and could not be.

          No need to juggle and no need to breed demagoguery, if Vietnam at that time had modern anti-ship missiles, then the USSR / China would issue a control center for these ships (the fact of such a transfer is easy enough to hide).
          1. -1
            August 12 2021
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            No need to juggle and no need to breed demagoguery, if Vietnam at that time had modern anti-ship missiles, then the USSR / China would issue a control center for these ships (the fact of such a transfer is easy enough to hide).

            Hello, non-demagogue, okay, you imagine that the capabilities of the Soviet Navy in 1968-72, but to write about the Chinese fleet is sheer stupidity.
            1. -1
              August 12 2021
              You, as "proof" (in quotes) that "AV is better than a land airfield because it is protected from CD", give an example of the war of the past, when and where there were no modern anti-ship missiles. What is this if not demagoguery?
              1. -1
                August 12 2021
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                when and where there were no modern anti-ship missiles. What is this if not demagoguery?

                Yeah, you were poked into nonsense about "target designation", you sang about "modern anti-ship missiles", but what's the point of them if there is NO target designation? And the anti-ship missiles, so that you know they were, "Sopka" and "Redut" or give you "Yakhonty" for the 60-70s? So this is demagoguery in its purest form.
                1. -1
                  August 12 2021
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  when and where it was not modern anti-ship missiles... What is this if not demagoguery?

                  Yeah, you were poked into nonsense about "target designation", and you sang about "modern anti-ship missiles"And what's the point of them if there is NO target designation? And the anti-ship missiles, so you know it completely," Sopka "and" Redut "or give you Yakhonty in the 60-70s? So this is pure demagoguery.

                  Where is the "KS-1 Kometa" and "P-35 (P-6)" is this "modern anti-ship missiles"? there is no CASPD (" wolf pack "mode) or working off of low relief (flight altitude ~ 5-20m).
                  1. -1
                    August 13 2021
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Where are the "KS-1 Kometa" and "P-35 (P-6)" these "modern anti-ship missiles"? there is no CASPD ("wolf pack" mode) nor working out of low relief (flight altitude ~ 5-20m).

                    And you still "incriminate" me in demagoguery! Hey, in the 70th year these were quite modern coastal complexes, there were no newer ones.
              2. -1
                August 12 2021
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                You, as "proof" (in quotes) that "AV is better than a land airfield because it is protected from CD", give an example of the war of the past, when and where there were no modern anti-ship missiles. What is this if not demagoguery?
                Oh yes, I don’t need to attribute the nonsense about "AV is better than the airfield", there are different airfields, as well as opponents, as well as tasks.
      2. Alf
        +2
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Volder
        our bases in Khmeimim and Tartus in Syria still exist intact. An echeloned air defense system has been organized there, which opponents cannot penetrate.

        And who struck at Khmeimim last year? Aliens? And where was at that moment
        an echeloned air defense system that opponents cannot penetrate.
        ?
        1. 0
          30 2021 June
          Quote: Alf
          And who struck at Khmeimim last year? Aliens? And where was at that moment
          an echeloned air defense system that opponents cannot penetrate?
          Enlighten, what kind of blow are you talking about and what was the damage? I only remember about mortar shelling from the ground, not from the air. It was about 3 years ago, several aircraft were damaged. The reason is trivial: not enough attention was paid to the depth of protection of the territory around the base. But after the incident, the mistake was corrected and since then the base has been well defended.
      3. -1
        July 1 2021
        winked um ... well, as if at one time they had already dismantled these dances with tambourines - the aircraft carrier cannot replace the ground airfield, BUT let's take Syria the same ... what if ours started the operation, let's say a month later and the militants by this time, say, having learned about our plans We would have to carry out an amphibious operation, deploy ersatz airfields in a clean desert ... the aircraft carrier can be adjusted where necessary to the coast and deliver the first strikes to ensure the deployment of the main landing troops and the success of the operation ..
    2. -5
      29 2021 June
      Apparently, an aircraft carrier igniting from one missile or bomb is not a target. What the author says is that the Timokhins have no problems with the aircraft carrier, and sending a couple of planes, or firing missiles, is daunting.
      1. +14
        29 2021 June
        Quote: EvilLion
        Apparently, an aircraft carrier igniting from one missile or bomb is not a target.

        Even bombs? What year are you writing about BC? And again and many times before, in order to get an aircraft carrier, you just need to confidently find it first. The overwhelming majority of countries in the world do not have such an opportunity.
        1. -10
          29 2021 June
          If your airplane trough is not found, it means that it is trying to scare you with airplanes some 1000 km away, it is obvious that the destruction of an air wing, which at such distances will be ineffective, will also zero the trough.

          As for the year, any aircraft carrier has thousands of tons of aviation fuel and work is underway to prepare for aircraft departures, that is, ammunition is lying, fuel lines are laid, and all this is in overcrowded conditions, which is why Enerpriz only needed one Zuni-type racket. that the ship had gone for a long repair.

          The same burned cruiser "Belknap" managed to break through a container with aviation fuel when it collided with a trough, which is why it actually became burned, that is, any rocket to the same point would give a hole, fuel spill and a fire.
          1. +8
            29 2021 June
            Quote: EvilLion
            If your airplane trough is not found, it means that it is trying to scare you with airplanes somewhere 1000 km away,

            The level of your knowledge is clear, it is poor. Already for 500 km the AWACS aircraft will not be able to detect AB, only the AWACS aircraft will not be allowed on these 500 km.

            Quote: EvilLion
            that is why Enerprize only needed one racket of the Zuni type
            Firstly, 127 mm is not a racket, secondly it was not enough, just as several tons of bombs and missiles were not enough, in the third, the repair took a month and a half, after which the AV continued its service. And in the fourth, besides this episode, is there anything to remember? And I have:

            According to American official data, only the US armed forces (excluding the armed forces of South Vietnam) from 1962 to 1973 lost on the ground in Vietnam only from mortar, artillery and rocket attacks (excluding sabotage) 393 aircraft and helicopters, and another 1185 were damaged ...



            Quote: EvilLion
            The same burned cruiser "Belknap" managed to break through a container with aviation fuel when it collided with a trough, which is why it actually became burned, that is, any rocket to the same point would give a hole, fuel spill and a fire.
            No comment about any missile and cruiser of several thousand tons of wee.
            1. -5
              29 2021 June
              Of course, I apologize, but if your trough is engulfed in flames, 100+ people have died and the trough is being repaired for months, then, most likely, it can already be considered destroyed, since the war will end before the end of the repair. 127 mm is not even an anti-ship missile weighing a couple of tons.

              Already for 500 km the AWACS aircraft will not be able to detect AB, only the AWACS aircraft will not be allowed on these 500 km.


              Do you know the joke about the elusive Joe? Here is your trough at such a distance - this is the same fucking useless Joe, so that your Joe is good, he must somehow inflict damage, that is, send an air group that will fly to the air defense itself. If the air group is not released, then the air defense has won, and the trough is useless. Moreover, most likely, the air group will have to attack head-on, since from 500 km to fly - this will have a remainder of 60-70 percent, refueling is unrealistic, since any tanker at a distance of 300-400 km will easily discovered, and finding some more convenient routes, as the Israeli terrorists did when they attacked an Iranian nuclear reactor from an unexpected direction, most likely will not work, which means that all sorts of Su-35 and S-400 are already happily rubbing their wings in anticipation of how they will have marks for knocked down "hornets" to draw. The size of one air group is 2 squadrons, 24 combat aircraft are unlikely to scare any serious air defense.
              1. +3
                29 2021 June
                Quote: EvilLion
                Moreover, most likely, the air group will have to attack head-on, since from 500 km to fly
                500 km is the range of the AWACS aircraft, which many countries do not have at all. In real life, 150-200 km is the maximum radar detection from some mountain.

                Quote: EvilLion
                refueling is unrealistic, since any tanker is 300-400 km away
                One more confirmation of your level, for a refueling tanker, even directly above AB, it is enough to fill tanks with combat aircraft, which would significantly increase the flight range.

                Quote: EvilLion
                find some more convenient routes,
                Hosspady, and the fact that the tanker is a few hundred kilometers away aside maybe hard to imagine?
                1. 0
                  29 2021 June
                  Hosspaddy, and the fact that the tanker is a few hundred kilometers away


                  Maybe we will fly hundreds of kilometers towards the tanker, then hundreds back, or along the triangle. Is the tanker itself needed only in this case?

                  for a refueling tanker, even directly above AB, it is enough to fill tanks with combat aircraft


                  Well, that is, the trough cannot come closer than 400 km, because the tanker must be held above it, and it will be visible. Gorgeous logic, run away from the enemy and wait for him to get scared. Even within the framework of this logic, submarines with missiles are much more efficient and cheaper.

                  And you don't know, but radio waves propagate in different ways, there are over-the-horizon radars.
              2. +3
                29 2021 June
                Quote: EvilLion
                Of course, I apologize, but if your trough is engulfed in flames, 100+ people have died and the trough is being repaired for months, then, most likely, it can already be considered destroyed, since the war will end before the end of the repair. 127 mm is not even an anti-ship missile weighing a couple of tons.
                How long does the operation in Syria take? How long did the Vietnam War go on? And again, how many aircraft were lost on the decks of American AB, can you remind me? The fire on "E" was caused by a safety violation. In order to deliver the anti-ship missile, it is necessary to reconnoiter the position of the AB, break the anti-ship missiles through the order and get into, this can be done by a few countries.
                1. -2
                  29 2021 June
                  And what, at ground airfields does not close the electric slopes? But, apparently, there all the emergency launches of the ASP occur somewhere in the milk, and not in the line of planes nearby, due to lack of space.

                  Not only everyone can break through to the same Khmeinim, too few people can do it. And the breakthrough of individual ASPs, even large ones, should at least hit the planes in the parking lots, otherwise it will not have any effect on the operation of the base, only the saleswomen in local stores will be sent to shelters.
                  1. +2
                    29 2021 June
                    Quote: EvilLion
                    And what, at ground airfields does not close the electric slopes? But, apparently, there all the emergency launches of the ASP occur somewhere in the milk, and not in the line of planes nearby, due to lack of space.
                    I will not accuse you of ignorance, I myself considered McCain to be the culprit for the celebration, but "Zuni" heated up and overheated the exhaust of the tow tractor engine.

                    Quote: EvilLion
                    Not only everyone can break through to the same Khmeinim, too few people can do it.
                    Who and with what forces broke through and, by the way, once or twice broke through the air defense of Khmeimim? And what is very important, from what distance? Poor home-made UAVs from a couple of dozen CMs, moreover, according to the coordinates of the JPS, if memory does not change, and if massively, stellar and cassette BPs with air defense suppression?

                    Quote: EvilLion
                    And the breakthrough of individual ASPs, even large ones, should, at least, directly into the planes in the parking lots.
                    Do you know about cluster munitions?
                    1. -2
                      29 2021 June
                      Just a small-caliber mortar mine can slip through air defense, since it is not visible. But the results were also insignificant.

                      but "Zuni" warmed up and overheated the exhaust of the tow tractor engine.


                      At other aerodromes, there is no tugboat, or is there just such garbage there, since the planes are at least a little spaced apart?
              3. +1
                30 2021 June
                Quote: EvilLion
                Of course, I apologize, but if your trough is engulfed in flames, 100+ people have died and the trough is being repaired for months, then, most likely, it can already be considered destroyed, since the war will end before the end of the repair. 127 mm is not even an anti-ship missile weighing a couple of tons.

                Already for 500 km the AWACS aircraft will not be able to detect AB, only the AWACS aircraft will not be allowed on these 500 km.


                Do you know the joke about the elusive Joe? Here is your trough at such a distance - this is the same fucking useless Joe, so that your Joe is good, he must somehow inflict damage, that is, send an air group that will fly to the air defense itself. If the air group is not released, then the air defense has won, and the trough is useless. Moreover, most likely, the air group will have to attack head-on, since from 500 km to fly - this will have a remainder of 60-70 percent, refueling is unrealistic, since any tanker at a distance of 300-400 km will easily discovered, and finding some more convenient routes, as the Israeli terrorists did when they attacked an Iranian nuclear reactor from an unexpected direction, most likely will not work, which means that all sorts of Su-35 and S-400 are already happily rubbing their wings in anticipation of how they will have marks for knocked down "hornets" to draw. The size of one air group is 2 squadrons, 24 combat aircraft are unlikely to scare any serious air defense.

                Midway raid near Kamchatka?
                Do you remember or remind yourself?
                And why did you take the combat wing of one aircraft carrier and cut it in half?
                1. -2
                  30 2021 June
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  Midway raid near Kamchatka?
                  Do you remember or remind yourself?

                  And what did we lose then, or what did we gain besides the naval disgrace?
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  And why did you take the combat wing of one aircraft carrier and cut it in half?

                  What could this aircraft carrier do against our country if you refer to Karev's texts? Just more specifically about the damage that we could have received from an aircraft carrier, whose planes did not take off and all radio emission was turned off?
                  1. +1
                    30 2021 June
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    Midway raid near Kamchatka?
                    Do you remember or remind yourself?

                    And what did we lose then, or what did we gain besides the naval disgrace?
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    And why did you take the combat wing of one aircraft carrier and cut it in half?

                    What could this aircraft carrier do against our country if you refer to Karev's texts? Just more specifically about the damage that we could have received from an aircraft carrier, whose planes did not take off and all radio emission was turned off?


                    those. Do you still think that aircraft carriers are not capable of operating in radio silence mode?
                    those. Do you still think that the sudden appearance of 4 dozen enemy attack aircraft and IB would have passed without a trace?

                    Why do you think that the planes did not take off if the Tu-16Rs that flew constantly met in the air with deck Midway Phantoms ???

                    And what kind of Karev?
                    I read Aviation Lieutenant Colonel Mikhailov.
                    It clearly describes that for 2 days, September 12 and 13, all the forces thrown into the search for the two aircraft carriers did not find anything.

                    And only on the 14th, when the weather improved, when the aircraft carriers stopped hiding and went demonstratively along the Kuril ridge south to Japan, only then they were discovered near Paramushir.
                    Have you looked at the map?
                    Where is Paramushir located?
                    There to Vilyuchinsk, Elizovo - 200 kilometers ...
                    1. -2
                      30 2021 June
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      those. Do you still think that aircraft carriers are not capable of operating in radio silence mode?

                      And if we find it and send our missile-armed bomber - how will it detect its approach, and how will it counteract the launched missiles if it is "blind"?
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      those. Do you still think that the sudden appearance of 4 dozen enemy attack aircraft and IB would have passed without a trace?

                      Of course not - their air defense forces of the country would be discovered by the district's reconnaissance for 400-500 km from the border.
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      Why do you think that the planes did not take off if the Tu-16Rs that flew constantly met in the air with deck Midway Phantoms ???

                      I don’t know at all who took off there and who was conducting reconnaissance, but in fact the navies were screwed up in full, and this does not paint them.
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      And what kind of Karev?
                      I read Aviation Lieutenant Colonel Mikhailov.

                      Karev's article is on VO about this incident - if you meant his memoirs.
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      It clearly describes that for 2 days, September 12 and 13, all the forces thrown into the search for the two aircraft carriers did not find anything.

                      I do not know how a side-looking radar can not detect such a colossus as an aircraft carrier, if the Il-20M plane even a convoy of armored vehicles was able to detect hundreds of kilometers at any time of the day:
                      The reconnaissance aircraft, created on the basis of the Il-18D, received the designation Il-20 or "product 20". The main means of reconnaissance on this aircraft was the side-looking radar "Igla", for this reason the aircraft was often referred to simply as the Il-18D "Igla". The incoherent side-looking radar "Igla-1" was created at SKB-1 of the Leningrad Research Institute-131, which was soon transformed into the All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Radioelectronic Systems, which later became part of NPO Leninets. V.M. Glushkov became the chief designer of the radar. In addition to the radar station itself, the complex of Igla-20 radar equipment on board the Il-1 aircraft included radio and photographic reconnaissance means, which were coupled with the navigation equipment of the aircraft. This complex made it possible to obtain a detailed radar image at the output, which was close in quality to aerial photography, but in any meteorological conditions, and, among other things, to conduct aerial photography and electronic reconnaissance.
                  2. 0
                    July 3 2021
                    The aircraft began practicing "mirror" strikes on Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky before the carrier formation was discovered.
                    1. 0
                      July 3 2021
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      The aircraft began practicing "mirror" strikes on Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky before the carrier formation was discovered.

                      Lies, because the air defense and reconnaissance systems of the Far East Military District would have revealed their approach 200-500 km before our border at least, and fighter aircraft would have been lifted into the air, and they would have done it without any forces of the fleet.
            2. -5
              29 2021 June
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Already for 500 km the AWACS aircraft will not be able to detect AB, only the AWACS aircraft will not be allowed on these 500 km.

              Well, do not fantasize if you do not know what the situation is with aerial reconnaissance in radio-technical air defense brigades and osnaz, because you just ran into an AWACS plane and think that other types of reconnaissance do not exist.
              Even in Soviet times, the range of these brigades reached up to 1,5 km in the near zone and up to 4 km in the far zone for air targets. Moreover, they not only carried out radio interception of the pilots' communications, but also the direction finding of aircraft using a network of ground direction finding centers.
              Moreover, if you are not in the subject, then you do not need to mention 500 km at all, because any aircraft taking off from an aircraft carrier itself falls into the irradiation zone of the radars of their own ship group or civil radars of other states. And these reflected signals are also intercepted and identified by our radio engineering units, so your statements about 500 km are simply stupid. I don’t know all the capabilities of our AWACS aircraft, but I don’t think that they still haven’t learned to intercept the reflected signals not from their own radar, but from the AUG radar - let the local pilots tell you who was really engaged in electronic intelligence in the Air Force, and where there were also radio technical brigades in CA. So before you teach EvilLion, figure out the intelligence capabilities of other structures of the Ministry of Defense yourself.
              1. +5
                29 2021 June
                Quote: ccsr
                Well, do not fantasize if you do not know what the situation is with aerial reconnaissance in radio-technical air defense brigades and osnaz, because you just ran into an AWACS plane and think that other types of reconnaissance do not exist.

                You rested on what you yourself mastered. The rest was simply not read.
                "Flitex-82" (September 1982), AUS as part of the aircraft carriers "Enterprise" and "Midway" are secretly flying 300 miles southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (150 km from our coast), in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Despite the MKRTs "Legend", a powerful reconnaissance aircraft and fleet of the USSR. Negotiations on VHF inside the squadron were detected on September 12 (RTR), the exact place was only on September 14 (air defense-shniki detected aircraft flights).

                Quote: ccsr
                And these reflected signals are also intercepted and identified by our radio engineering units, so your statements about 500 km are simply stupid
                Your stupidity with a tendency to teach has long been known. because it was not about Russia but about countries
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                500 km is the range of the AWACS aircraft, which many countries do not have at all. In real life, 150-200 km is the maximum radar detection from some mountain.
                What Russia can do, very many cannot.
                1. -4
                  29 2021 June
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  ... Despite the MKRTs "Legend", a powerful reconnaissance aircraft and fleet of the USSR. Negotiations on VHF inside the squadron were detected on September 12 (RTR), the exact place was only on September 14 (air defense-shniki detected aircraft flights).

                  Who claims they were not interested? This Karev claims, who bashfully decided to cover up his ass with such nonsense, and in all seriousness to convince everyone that because of this, the third world war almost began. And if you at least understood this story in a different light, then you would know that instead of personally (or at least sending a deputy) to come to Khabarovsk to the head of intelligence and the head of the district's air defense with a request to provide urgent assistance, he decided that easier to hide your oversight and let things go by themselves. In general, there is no heroism there, but there is the usual naval snobbery for boots, that's for this he was then punished by his own bosses.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Your stupidity with a tendency to teach has long been known. because it was not about Russia but about countries

                  You suffer from this even more, only from your teachings you also reek of illiteracy. By the way, we also supplied Kolchuga to other countries, and the Ukrainians in this generally distinguished themselves and sold it to the USA:
                  In 2013, Kolchuga complexes were sold to Vietnam and Azerbaijan.
          2. +9
            29 2021 June
            Quote: EvilLion
            If your airplane trough is not found, it means that it is trying to scare you with airplanes somewhere 1000 km away

            Now "America" ​​was offended. Twice I sat literally "around the corner", worked as an onboard air group - and ours could not find it. smile
          3. +2
            29 2021 June
            If your aircraft trough cannot be found, then it is somewhere over 1000 km.

            "Flitex-82" (September 1982), AUS as part of the aircraft carriers "Enterprise" and "Midway" are secretly flying 300 miles southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (150 km from our coast), in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Despite the MKRTs "Legend", a powerful reconnaissance aircraft and fleet of the USSR. Negotiations on VHF inside the squadron were detected on September 12 (RTR), the exact place was only on September 14 (air defense-shniki detected aircraft flights).
        2. -1
          29 2021 June
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          to get an aircraft carrier, you just need to confidently find it. The overwhelming majority of countries in the world do not have such an opportunity.

          Not acceptable. The conversation is only about Russia, and not about most countries in the world that do not have the ability to detect aircraft carriers.
          1. +3
            29 2021 June
            Quote: Silhouette
            Not acceptable. The conversation is only about Russia, and not about most countries in the world that do not have the ability to detect aircraft carriers.
            ??? England does not, apart from the United States, Japan does not, apart from the United States, there are many who do not have, who are not friends of Russia. What are you talking about?
    3. 0
      29 2021 June
      Some kind of juggling with words and individual facts. Which is completely negated by the fact that ground airfields are the primary target for all enemy weapons, and there are a lot of these means both in number and type. Remembering Vietnam, the Vietnamese attacks on American airfields are modestly "forgotten", which says a lot about the author.

      There is only one small clarification when underfoot solid ground the airfield cannot drown. drinks
      1. +2
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Alex2048
        But there is only one small clarification when underfoot solid ground the airfield cannot drown

        Yes, yes, but attack aircraft will not bring them to foreign shores either.
        1. 0
          30 2021 June
          Yes, yes, but attack aircraft will not bring them to foreign shores either.

          Where do we want to bring it now, or at least in the foreseeable future?
          Where, in the absence of a desire for expansion, the Russian Federation might want to project its power? You can, of course, use AUG to disrupt someone else's operation somewhere on the other side of the earth, but what will the economic justification for such actions look like?
      2. +3
        30 2021 June
        Quote: Alex2048
        Some kind of juggling with words and individual facts. Which is completely negated by the fact that ground airfields are the primary target for all enemy weapons, and there are a lot of these means both in number and type. Remembering Vietnam, the Vietnamese attacks on American airfields are modestly "forgotten", which says a lot about the author.

        There is only one small clarification when underfoot solid ground the airfield cannot drown. drinks


        But 30 hits of tactical CDs are enough for him, so that the military airfield would completely cease to exist.
        Like Shayrat.
        Yes Yes.
        Shayrat, since the attack, no longer exists
        Empty for so many years.
        Abandoned.
        The entire infrastructure was destroyed.
        The fact that the strip can be "closed up" does not mean anything ...
        1. -1
          30 2021 June
          30 hits of tactical CDs are enough for him, so that the military airfield would completely cease to exist.

          If the aircraft carrier grabs that much, it will most likely burn out and collapse before it sinks. hi
    4. +1
      30 2021 June
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Some kind of juggling with words and individual facts. Which is completely negated by the fact that ground airfields are the primary target for all enemy weapons, and there are a lot of these means both in number and type. Remembering Vietnam, the Vietnamese attacks on American airfields are modestly "forgotten", which says a lot about the author.

      I agree with you for once ...
      Respect.

      Moreover, the author does not even know that the Forrestals have a supply of 1.5 million gallons of aviation fuel.
      And 1800 tons of bomb load.
      And he believes that it is wasted in a couple of days of intense work ...
      And the military service lasted up to 9-11 months, with the same Ranger ...
      Well, and a lot more stupid.

      Clung to Syria like a tick.
      Take away the word Syria, and put Angola or Bangladesh in its place, and its entire logical (supposedly) chain falls out to zero ...
      1. 0
        30 2021 June
        Take away the word Syria, and put Angola or Bangladesh in its place, and its entire logical (supposedly) chain falls out to zero ...

        The only problem is that it is possible to remove the word Syria, but another problem can be inserted and it is not connected with the absence of an aircraft carrier ... I think the next 50 years, otherwise all 100 Russia will objectively not have economic needs in the colonies, and in the absence of the latter there is no point in building military bases far away from their borders; there is no economic point in projecting power far from their borders. And everything that does not make a profit will pull a loss. hi
  3. +2
    29 2021 June
    The foreign press indicates that in the event of a threat to American interests in any region of the world, the first question that arises in the White House is: "Where is our nearest aircraft carrier located ?!" As "airfields in neutral waters," the aircraft carriers, according to the Navy specialists, must provide 100-200 sorties per day during the first five to ten days of an armed regional conflict until the air force arrives in the combat area. Since in the conduct of local wars, the United States assigns the main role to "normal", basic aviation (Air Force). So it was in Grenada, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq. Currently, the United States has a developed network of its bases around the world from which it can reach any country. If necessary, the United States quickly finds opportunities to open new military bases. This was done in Uzbekistan and the countries of Eastern Europe. In addition, carrier-based aviation has a number of disadvantages - the weight of carrier-based aircraft is limited by the capabilities of the catapult - 43 tons, the dimensions - by the capabilities of the aircraft carrier's lifts and hangars. .For example, the capabilities of the AWACS aircraft and control of the E-3 "Sentry" (AWACS) are significantly higher than those of a similar carrier-based E-2C "Hawkeye".
    https://disk.yandex.ru/i/GAv0eCNx-JUMZQ
    1. 0
      29 2021 June
      It is strange that you did not notice a contradiction in the above text:
      Quote: riwas
      Aircraft carriers, according to the Navy specialists, should provide 100-200 sorties per day during the first five to ten days of an armed regional conflict, until the Air Force aircraft arrives in the combat area.
      Firstly, to drive an aircraft carrier to one point or another in the world, it takes at least a week, or even more. Secondly, why should the Air Force aviation stay in the combat area if it is ALREADY there?
      Currently, the United States has a developed network of its bases around the world, from which it can reach any country.
      1. sen
        +4
        29 2021 June
        Read carefully "Where is our nearest aircraft carrier located ?!" aircraft carriers are positioned closer to possible conflicts.
        There is no contradiction. The presence of a base does not imply the availability of the necessary aviation at this base and it takes time to bring them up and logistics.
        1. +2
          29 2021 June
          Quote: sen
          Read carefully "Where is our nearest aircraft carrier located ?!" aircraft carriers are positioned closer to possible conflicts.
          There is no contradiction. The presence of a base does not imply the availability of the necessary aviation at this base and it takes time to bring them up and logistics.
          Please note: a country that has practically unlimited opportunities, FIRSTLY uses aircraft carriers ... ah Yes, probably Because they are not smart
          1. -1
            29 2021 June
            "Pay attention: a country that has practically unlimited opportunities, FIRSTLY uses aircraft carriers .... ah Yes, probably Because they are not smart" Oh-oh-oh!
            But the statistics of the use of carrier-based aircraft in a really large operation, "Desert Storm" is called. So: combat missions of the coalition air force - more than 54000 (not counting the B-52, a huge number of reconnaissance missions, to suppress radar and communications, tankers and transport aircraft, KMP - about 9600 (80% ground based, someone with " Taraw "flew), and now, finally, the aviation of the Navy - 29700 sorties (we can safely subtract from this number of almost 1700 sorties of PLO aircraft, the Iraqi SSBNs were looking very diligently). This is from 6 AB in total. Twice as many sorties were carried out than with the AB, while the Air Force used up to 90% of guided weapons and half of the missile defense system.Ah, yes - the naval Tomkats shot down as much as ONE MI-8 (I wonder if the crew on the Botrue Abshussbalku snapped or was ashamed of it?)! is simple: without the participation of the Air Force, all 6 AB in a month and a half would not have done anything for the successful actions of the ground forces.
            1. 0
              29 2021 June
              Once again ... ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD that consider it necessary to project force at any distance from their borders consider the AIRLINER the most suitable means for this (if without fiction), naturally none of these countries are as smart as we have in whose head does not fit that this does not mean that you need to abandon other types of weapons (aviation for example). And do not forget about what the respected author of this "article" constantly forgets: Russia is a country whose nuclear forces are based on the submarine fleet (or at least high hopes are pinned on it), and in the modern world without cover (and aircraft carrier in the first place) they just suicide bombers who are not even able to leave the bases, and no country has such problems
              1. -1
                29 2021 June
                You are strongly confusing it with the USA. The basis of Russia's nuclear forces is the Strategic Missile Forces. It is for reasons MUCH higher operational readiness and combat stability, in comparison with the PKK SN.
                1. 0
                  29 2021 June
                  Aircraft carriers have a dozen countries (AT DISCOUNT), you can see everything, like me, they are confused with the USA
                  1. -2
                    29 2021 June
                    Read carefully! I answered you about the BASIS OF NUCLEAR FORCES! Or is clicking on the minus with or without reason for you the main argument?
                    1. 0
                      29 2021 June
                      Aviation is the leader in the number of warheads if I am not mistaken
                      1. 0
                        30 2021 June
                        Do you mean simultaneously raised in a mass departure or including in warehouse storage? Tactical or Strategic? Aviation is a flexible, but most vulnerable instrument of strategic nuclear forces. So they came to: since the tactical nuclear weapons were taken away from the US Navy's carrier-based aviation, the AV has moved into the category of a belt for the naughty.
              2. -5
                29 2021 June
                Quote: Niko
                Once again ... ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD that consider

                It's funny. They wrote to you an argument, you could not find what to answer and decided to merge the topic, hiding behind some noun of the opinion of "ALL COUNTRIES".

                and in the modern world without cover (and aircraft carrier in the first place)

                The aircraft carrier will have to protect our strategic submarines from whom?
                How do you envision a threat to them?

                Let's say the enemy will destroy them. How will he do it?
                1. +3
                  29 2021 June
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                  Quote: Niko
                  Once again ... ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD that consider

                  It's funny. They wrote to you an argument, you could not find what to answer and decided to merge the topic, hiding behind some noun of the opinion of "ALL COUNTRIES".

                  and in the modern world without cover (and aircraft carrier in the first place)

                  The aircraft carrier will have to protect our strategic submarines from whom?
                  How do you envision a threat to them?

                  Let's say the enemy will destroy them. How will he do it?

                  Don't you read at all? Even Timokhina? I am in shock. And this "spisilist" writes about global issues .... I will not deal with an educational program about threats to submarines. there are excellent articles here on VO. Read, read, read.
                2. +3
                  30 2021 June
                  Quote: Alexander Vorontsov

                  The aircraft carrier will have to protect our strategic submarines from whom?
                  How do you envision a threat to them?

                  Let's say the enemy will destroy them. How will he do it?

                  Have you ever talked about Chi Ali about PLO planes?
                  Orions and Poseidons?
                  Read it.
                  Look at the stock of torpedoes and missiles.

                  From such aircraft, the chances of salvation for SSBNs are at least less than the error.
                  And only carrier-based fighter aircraft is able to close the sky from such aircraft.
                  Well, or keep SSBNs at the bases.
                  Or conduct combat duty no further than 300 miles from their airfields.
                  That completely discredits the very idea of ​​naval strategic nuclear forces.
                  1. -3
                    30 2021 June
                    Have you ever talked about Chi Ali about PLO planes?
                    Orions and Poseidons?
                    Read it.
                    Look at the stock of torpedoes and missiles.

                    Wonderful.

                    Describe how the submarine will be destroyed.
                    Straight point by point. How many planes will fly from.

                    What interests me most is the time between the start of the search operation and the actual destruction of the last nuclear-powered ship.


                    Air defense of ships does not pose any threat, right?
                    And the helicopter carrier?
                    V-V rockets from a helicopter, about which Timokhin wrote so diligently ... for religious reasons, they cannot hit an anti-submarine aircraft?
                    He's probably stealth))

                    And how much do you need AB to close 2 regions patrolling strategists?

              3. -1
                30 2021 June
                Quote: Niko
                ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD that consider it necessary to project power at any distance from their borders consider the AIRCRAFT PLANER the most suitable means for this.
                They need aircraft carriers to carry out military interventions - to plant their democracy and overthrow their regimes. Russia does not act on such a model, therefore, Russia’s AV is only needed for defense, but it can also be defended from the coast.
                1. 0
                  30 2021 June
                  Quote: Volder
                  Quote: Niko
                  ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD that consider it necessary to project power at any distance from their borders consider the AIRCRAFT PLANER the most suitable means for this.
                  They need aircraft carriers to carry out military interventions - to plant their democracy and overthrow their regimes. Russia does not act on such a model, therefore, Russia’s AV is only needed for defense, but it can also be defended from the coast.

                  Google the list of countries with aircraft carriers at least ... then write these anti-American stamps
                  1. 0
                    30 2021 June
                    And how does this "possession" help these countries? In the tail of the States, France and Britain decided to "project force", sent their imperfections in how many years after launching? In a highly combat state? With powerful air wings? China is still there and India, yes! What to do with these huge "pieces", they themselves still do not know. But there are "pieces"! I wish I could project it onto someone else ...
                    1. 0
                      30 2021 June
                      Quote: SkyScream
                      And how does this "possession" help these countries? In the tail of the States, France and Britain decided to "project force", sent their imperfections in how many years after launching? In a highly combat state? With powerful air wings? China is still there and India, yes! What to do with these huge "pieces", they themselves still do not know. But there are "pieces"! I wish I could project it onto someone else ...

                      Yes, it is clear, ALL are stupid ... you alone are smarter than the whole world. By the way: there is a wide range of tasks that these and many other countries that you have not mentioned with the help of their fleets solve, have solved and will solve, and the availability of suitable ships (including aircraft carriers) helps to solve these problems
                      1. -1
                        July 1 2021
                        Examples in the studio! How, where and when did the AVs of England, France and "many other countries" not mentioned by me (which countries, by the way?) "Helped to solve" their navies' tasks at sea? Except for the notorious "power projection". The grubby Falklands, please do not cite as an example. I will make a reservation: I am deliberately not talking about the United States, they have a lot of Uvian carriers, the infrastructure is developed, there are no problems with the escort. Do you understand what I'm driving at? All countries with 1-2-3 AB use them as prestigious (and expensive) toys. Petka from 10thB has a slingshot, and I want it too!
        2. +3
          30 2021 June
          Quote: sen
          Read carefully "Where is our nearest aircraft carrier located ?!" aircraft carriers are positioned closer to possible conflicts.
          There is no contradiction. The presence of a base does not imply the availability of the necessary aviation at this base and it takes time to bring them up and logistics.

          So.
          Why, when problems began in Lebanon and Jordan, American citizens were taken out on a pair of aircraft carriers that arrived in the area on time.
          Arrived on time.
          Maybe because intelligence works?
          What zones around the world are patrolling?
          30 knots non-stop for a week, must do according to the TK, in order to urgently pass from any point of the ocean in the USA in the case of a power supply, or vice versa from the USA to Diego Garcia.
          And the citizens were taken out calmly, because they made it clear that the two aircraft carriers would roll out both Lebanon and Jordan, and the whole of Hezbollah and Hamas, if something happened to American citizens.
          Let the author think about this situation ...
          For 7 thousand kilometers from their shores. How will Russian citizens be rescued?
          Will he be able to repeat the experience without an aircraft carrier?
          1. 0
            30 2021 June
            Quote: SovAr238A
            For 7 thousand kilometers from their shores. How will Russian citizens be rescued?
            For 7 thousand km from Russia there are not so many Russian citizens, in troubled countries there are very few of them. To quickly take out the Russians, there will be enough planes (civil, transport).
            1. 0
              August 11 2021
              For this task, the aircraft will not be enough.
              At a minimum, we need "VTA + aircraft with VVPZ", for example, the Il-76 + universal helicopters in its cargo compartment, which after landing will begin to work pointwise.
              Ideally, we need "deck-based aircraft-like VTA with VVPZ capable of transporting LBBT"
          2. 0
            30 2021 June
            The most typical task for an aircraft carrier, costing 10 lards of greenery, is a lifeboat! Other vessels would not be able to cope with this task, no?
          3. 0
            30 2021 June
            And why did Russian citizens find themselves over 7000 km at all? Tourists? Well, nefig to pull them out, but in general An-22 somehow actually took out 700 people at once.
        3. 0
          30 2021 June
          Quote: sen
          aircraft carriers are positioned closer to possible conflicts.
          Oh really? Remind you how many days aircraft carriers were dragged to North Korea under Trump? The basing of the main part of the aircraft carriers is the coast of America.
    2. +1
      29 2021 June
      Yeah, like in Yugoslavia when the aircraft carrier arrived on the 12th day of the operation
      1. sen
        +7
        29 2021 June
        Yugoslavia is a separate story, as it was located in the center of Europe, surrounded on all sides by NATO bases. And usually, where tensions arise, the US first of all rushes the aircraft carrier. It is convenient and cheaper than flying aircraft.
        1. -2
          29 2021 June
          Here, you have everything - a "separate" song! Iraq was not surrounded by any bases, and the air force was overtaken, mom - do not cry! Where, when carrier-based aviation seriously acted in isolation from the Air Force? The only case is the Falklands. Due to the remoteness of the theater from Britain.
          1. +2
            30 2021 June
            Quote: SkyScream
            Here, you have everything - a "separate" song! Iraq was not surrounded by any bases, and the air force was overtaken, mom - do not cry! Where, when carrier-based aviation seriously acted in isolation from the Air Force? The only case is the Falklands. Due to the remoteness of the theater from Britain.


            And it worked!
            It worked so that we won.
            And without carrier-based aircraft, the Brits could not do anything.
            Even with such a miserable one as their Harriers, they were able to put in place, albeit unpretentious, but at that moment much stronger in that theater of operations, the Argentines.
            1. 0
              30 2021 June
              As I say, this is an exceptional case. And then everything hung by a thread. If the Argentines had a little more RCC ... at least a dozen, it is not known how this stupid war would have ended. Although here, the aircraft carrier could not provide normal air defense! And, by the way, there were some ground jumping lanes.
              1. +2
                30 2021 June
                Quote: SkyScream
                As I say, this is an exceptional case. And then everything hung by a thread. If the Argentines had a little more RCC ... at least a dozen, it is not known how this stupid war would have ended. Although here, the aircraft carrier could not provide normal air defense! And, by the way, there were some ground jumping lanes.

                What kind of jump are you talking about, excuse me, nonsense?
                About Ascension Island?
                Which was 6300 kilometers from the Falklands?
                12500 kilometers of flight.
                When the Volcanoes flew alone.
                For one flight of the Vulcan had to be provided by 7 (seven !!!!) refuelers Victor ...
                Only once did a pair of Volcanoes fly to bombardment.
                11 tankers provided them.
                12500 km of one aircraft should be provided by seven tankers.
                And to refuel themselves from themselves and give to the bomber.
                And even when using 7 tankers, these same tankers were hanging by a thread.
                They had absolutely no fuel reserve.
                They had no chance of a second run.
                They completely devastated themselves.
                And a quarter of the sorties of the bombers were terminated ahead of schedule due to malfunctions on the tankers.
                A malfunction in one tanker led to the loss of 3-4 strategic vehicles.
                Jump airfield, in your opinion?
                Well, do not try to stretch where there is no elastic ...

                This I am writing about the complexity of aviation operations when working at an excessive distance from their own bases.
                the author of the article is babbling something about the raids from Leukenheath to Tripoli, but there are always on board, no further than 150 miles, there were always reserve airfields ...

                And here is the reality.
                No reserves.

                And only a full-fledged aircraft carrier is capable of operating in such conditions.
                1. 0
                  30 2021 June
                  There was a jump, even on this resource it is written about this, please look.
                  1. +2
                    July 1 2021
                    Quote: SkyScream
                    There was a jump, even on this resource it is written about this, please look.

                    Please see the map ...
                    Apart from Ascension Island, there was nothing.
                    Or do you consider the container ship "Atlantic Conveyor" as a jump airfield?
                    1. 0
                      July 1 2021
                      Well, why do you write me down as stupid people? "Atlantic Conveyor" peacefully rusts at the bottom, and the strip remains as it was)
                      Look again! Besides about. Ascensions and Volcanoes have something else in the world of facts. Success!
        2. 0
          30 2021 June
          And the fact that Russia is a continental state is like this: "You don't understand! It's different!"
    3. 0
      29 2021 June
      The foreign press indicates that in the event of a threat to American interests in any region of the world, the first question that arises in the White House is: "Where is our nearest aircraft carrier located ?!" As "airfields in neutral waters," the aircraft carriers, according to the Navy specialists, must provide 100-200 sorties per day during the first five to ten days of an armed regional conflict until the air force arrives in the combat area.

      And it really works when the state has 10 AUG. And when the economy cannot in fact feed even one group?
  4. +8
    29 2021 June
    The author wants to explain to the Ancient One about Tu22m flights with refueling? laughing God forbid the Ancient One sees this
    1. +7
      29 2021 June
      And I'm really looking forward to a comment from the Ancient. He, unlike the author, is a real specialist, not an "analyst".

      And Vorontsov again for his own. Attempts to prove that he understands something about the question. Perhaps first of all to myself laughing
  5. +6
    29 2021 June
    There was no desire even to read this incompetent nonsense. Opponents of AB, in my opinion, are either stupid as a traffic jam, or ordinary provocateurs deliberately harming the country
    1. -3
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Ryusey
      There was no desire even to read this incompetent nonsense.
      What makes you think that the author is incompetent if you haven't read his arguments to the end? Try writing rebuttals if you think you're more competent.
      1. +5
        29 2021 June
        Yes, there is so much written on this topic, you will be tortured to read. And Vorontsov, like that Vaska, listens, yes there is.
        1. +3
          29 2021 June
          Quote: Artyom Karagodin
          Yes, there is so much written on this topic, you will be tortured to read. And Vorontsov, like that Vaska, listens, yes there is.

          It seems to me Timokhin strongly "excites" him ... and I'm afraid to suggest in what sense ...
      2. +3
        30 2021 June
        Quote: Volder
        Quote: Ryusey
        There was no desire even to read this incompetent nonsense.
        What makes you think that the author is incompetent if you haven't read his arguments to the end? Try writing rebuttals if you think you're more competent.


        Just one word to change, and all Vorontsov's nonsense will become visible to everyone.
        Change Syria, to Angola, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Chile ....
        1. 0
          30 2021 June
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Just one word to change, and all Vorontsov's nonsense will become visible to everyone.
          Change Syria, to Angola, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Chile ....
          And what is there, without an aircraft carrier? Why would Russia bomb these countries ?? We are not going to overthrow regimes and impose democracy by military intervention. The Americans need aircraft carriers for this very purpose.
        2. -1
          30 2021 June
          And what, these countries are badly needed by Russia in order to build AV to conquer them?
          1. +1
            30 2021 June
            Quote: SkyScream
            And what, these countries are badly needed by Russia in order to build AV to conquer them?

            What did you know about Syria before 2012?
            1. -1
              30 2021 June
              Duc, do we somehow manage without AB? Or are you saying that Kuzi's cheap popular participation was decisive?
  6. 0
    29 2021 June
    "Therefore, when Andrei talks about the operation in Libya, I want to ask a question - ok, we have 3 aircraft carriers. Yes, at least 10. Tell me the reason why we should fight there? The world has changed, and today we are no longer fighting according to ideological beliefs.
    Friendship is friendship, and tobacco apart. "

    There are no brains, consider a cripple, although the author of this scribble can work out grants.
    1. 0
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Ryusey
      The world has changed, and today we are no longer fighting for ideological convictions.

      And who told you that in Syria we are fighting for ideological reasons?
    2. 0
      29 2021 June
      There are no brains, consider a cripple, although the author of this scribble can work out grants.

      And now the same thing, but with the facts, it is really possible to say about your comments
      There was no desire even to read this incompetent nonsense.

      Or
      either stupid as a traffic jam, or ordinary provocateurs deliberately harming the country

      Here to choose hi .
      1. 0
        29 2021 June
        Sure sure! Began a favorite - a hunt for witches and finding out the level of intelligence. Constructively!
  7. +5
    29 2021 June
    "It is strange for me to explain to a former pilot what refueling is in the air. I will give you one interesting photo." - And I find it strange, Mr. "specialist" Vorontsov, that you do not know what happened to the Tu 22m3, according to one of the contracts, the air refueling systems were removed, although maybe they have already been returned?
    1. +3
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Ryusey
      Tu 22m3, according to one of the contracts, the air refueling systems were removed, although maybe they have already been returned?
      Back in 2019, they began to install.
      1. +1
        29 2021 June
        Quote: lwxx
        Quote: Ryusey
        Tu 22m3, according to one of the contracts, the air refueling systems were removed, although maybe they have already been returned?
        Back in 2019, they began to install.

        Yawning: "How are you doing?"
        1. -5
          29 2021 June
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Yawning: "How are you doing?"

          Rust is like a horse. Here is the exact figure for you and will be voiced. The chatterbox is a godsend for the spien.
          1. 0
            July 3 2021
            Let me voice it - no way. Will such an answer go?
        2. -1
          29 2021 June
          That is, you don't need to bet? It's easier to set up aircraft carriers;)
    2. +3
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Ryusey
      with Tu 22m3, according to one of the contracts, air refueling systems were removed, although maybe they have already been returned?
      It was decided to return the refueling system to some of the Tu-22, and at the moment such work is being carried out.
    3. -1
      29 2021 June
      According to one of the contracts, the air refueling systems were removed, although they may have already been returned?

      And what is more expensive to return to the construction of even one aircraft carrier?
  8. +7
    29 2021 June
    There are plenty of questions for this article.
    For example, helicopter carriers, which supposedly can be bought for a dozen of an aircraft carrier. The author does not know how much they paid for specific Mistrals?
    The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle was worth 3,3 billion, Mistral billion. That's the ratio.
    There is a third option, which the author omitted, but which is now a global trend - UDC or light aircraft carrier with VTOL aircraft.
    The price of such a ship is about 1,5 billion, which is half the cost of an aircraft carrier and slightly more than the cost of a helicopter carrier.
    From the technical point of view, the UDC is much simpler than a catapult aircraft carrier, the level of its readiness will be much higher - it does not need to spend much time in repairs, its maintenance is much cheaper than an ejection aircraft carrier.
    Another thing is that there is no VTOL aircraft, although the decision was made, it suggested itself as a result of the creation of the Su-57, a ready-made engine and avionics for the VTOL aircraft being created. And there is no need to reinvent the wheel in the presence of a pronounced global trend.
    1. +3
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Avior
      For example, helicopter carriers, which supposedly can be bought for a dozen of an aircraft carrier. The author does not know how much they paid for specific Mistrals?

      UDC is not needed. We need clean helicopter carriers.

      Quote: Avior
      There is a third option, which the author omitted, but which is now a global trend - UDC or light aircraft carrier with VTOL aircraft.

      And this is generally the worst option for burying money.
    2. +1
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Avior
      For example, helicopter carriers, which supposedly can be bought for a dozen of an aircraft carrier. The author does not know how much they paid for specific Mistrals?
      The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle was worth 3,3 billion, Mistral billion. That's the ratio.

      The contract for Charles was signed in 1986, 3.3 billion dollars. The contract for two Mistrals in 2011 is 1.2 billion euros, i.e. 600 million apiece. The dollar in 1986 and 2011 are two big differences. So a dozen UDCs for one aircraft carrier is quite realistic.
      [
      Quote: Avior
      Another thing is that there is no VTOL aircraft, although the decision was made, it suggested itself as a result of the creation of the Su-57, a ready-made engine and avionics for the VTOL aircraft being created. And there is no need to reinvent the wheel in the presence of a pronounced global trend.

      And what about VTOL aircraft now in trend? Are you talking about the F-35 B? Which England is trying to give up in favor of the F-35C And who else takes them besides Italy, which has nowhere to go and the ILC?
      1. +4
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Winnie76
        And what about VTOL aircraft now in trend? Are you talking about the F-35 B? Which England is trying to give up in favor of the F-35C And who else takes them besides Italy, which has nowhere to go and the ILC?

        England, too, has nowhere to go - after the Limes have saved on the catapults of their ABs, there is no other option for the RN, except for the F-35B.
        1. 0
          29 2021 June
          England did something stupid with its throwing between a catapult and a light aircraft carrier
          As a result, I received a lightweight catapult
      2. 0
        29 2021 June
        See the number of countries building udk under svp
      3. 0
        29 2021 June
        The price of 3,3 billion is the price of Charles at the time of the completion of construction
        Admitted to the Navy in 2000. Mistral price of 1 billion at about the same time
      4. +2
        30 2021 June
        Quote: Winnie76
        Quote: Avior
        For example, helicopter carriers, which supposedly can be bought for a dozen of an aircraft carrier. The author does not know how much they paid for specific Mistrals?
        The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle was worth 3,3 billion, Mistral billion. That's the ratio.

        The contract for Charles was signed in 1986, 3.3 billion dollars. The contract for two Mistrals in 2011 is 1.2 billion euros, i.e. 600 million apiece. The dollar in 1986 and 2011 are two big differences. So a dozen UDCs for one aircraft carrier is quite realistic.
        [
        Quote: Avior
        Another thing is that there is no VTOL aircraft, although the decision was made, it suggested itself as a result of the creation of the Su-57, a ready-made engine and avionics for the VTOL aircraft being created. And there is no need to reinvent the wheel in the presence of a pronounced global trend.

        And what about VTOL aircraft now in trend? Are you talking about the F-35 B? Which England is trying to give up in favor of the F-35C And who else takes them besides Italy, which has nowhere to go and the ILC?

        Sudden revelations ...
        Not otherwise, "the wrong honey is carried by the wrong bees" ...
        Question 1
        How can version C work on Lisa's grandmother?
        Share your revelation?

        Farther
        They are already being taken by England, Italy and Japan.
        Next in line: Korea, Spain, Australia.
        And Turkey. When they agree with the States and return to the program.
        It is in the version of V.
        For their supposedly helicopter carriers have very illustrative jumps on the deck, just along the elevation angle that painfully resemble grandmother Lisa ...
        1. 0
          July 1 2021
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Not otherwise, "the wrong honey is carried by the wrong bees" ...
          Question 1
          How can version C work on Lisa's grandmother?
          Share your revelation?

          The question is not for me. To the British.
          Quote: SovAr238A
          They are already being taken by England, Italy and Japan.
          Next in line: Korea, Spain, Australia.

          Actually, they all have nowhere to go. There is no money for a normal aircraft carrier, but hunting for flying
    3. -2
      29 2021 June
      When they will be banned here for the propaganda of VTOL aircraft ...
      1. +5
        29 2021 June
        Quote: EvilLion
        When they will be banned here for the propaganda of VTOL aircraft ...

        And for inconspicuous, unaffected and omnipotent ekranoplanes. smile
        1. -1
          29 2021 June
          And for them too. And even faster.
        2. -2
          29 2021 June
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And for inconspicuous, unaffected and omnipotent ekranoplanes.

          And what do you know about them besides Kaptsov's nonsense?
          1. +2
            30 2021 June
            The fact that Kaptsov wrote about them is obvious, because of which ekranoplanes, as a class of vehicles in the world, are not being built by anyone. But for some reason you do not have enough sense to ask the question that if the screens are so covered, then why no one builds them. Well, Kaptsov described why.
            1. -2
              July 1 2021
              Quote: EvilLion
              The fact that Kaptsov wrote about them is obvious.

              Kaptsov is someone like you, only an author, not a commentator. No mastery of the material, distortion and suppression of inconvenient facts, plus ideological troubles.
              1. +1
                July 1 2021
                You have just poked your nose into the fact that absolutely no one in the world builds ekranoplanes, although the technologies of this decade, and in the USSR even built large samples, that is, neither theory nor practice confirms at least any usefulness of ekranoplanes, but you stubbornly ignore this fact. If you can answer this question, then you will run into Kaptsov.
                1. -1
                  July 1 2021
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  You have just been poked into the fact that absolutely no one in the world builds ekranoplanes
                  Your incompetence is already clear, and is only confirmed by the mantras "all over the world":
                  According to the Xinhua news agency, flight tests of a new Chinese 12-seat ekranoplan CYG-11 have begun in the South China Sea. The ekranoplan can carry up to 12 people or 1200 kg of cargo at a speed of up to 210 km / h, while it is claimed that fuel consumption per 100 km is only 28 liters. The flight altitude of the ekranoplan is 1-4 m above sea level.


                  Quote: EvilLion
                  in the USSR even large samples were built, that is, neither theory nor practice confirms at least any usefulness of ekranoplanes, but you stubbornly ignore this fact.
                  What nonsense it is to imagine that the creation of "large samples" confirms the uselessness of the subject. In Russia, after the death of the USSR, a lot of things have ceased to be produced and tested, from household appliances to heavy launch vehicles, reusable space systems and orbital stations, is all this also "theoretically and practically" useless?
                  1. 0
                    August 11 2021
                    So what's the problem, if you are so advocating for ekranoplanes, and you think that your opponents are wrong, then describe the main negatives of ekranoplanes and how to solve them / compensation, at least: the problem of seaworthiness and the lack of transition from water to the screen. Ideally, you can generally download an article or TXT and give a link with anchors to specific points.
                    1. 0
                      August 12 2021
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      Ideally, you can generally download an article or TXT and give a link with anchors to specific points.

                      In the plans.
                      1. 0
                        August 12 2021
                        even so, well, try to briefly and summarize first, the solutions for these negatives:
                        1) the problem of seaworthiness
                        2) lack of transition from water to screen
                        3) the problem of maneuverability
                        4) the problem of energy-voraciousness in the "control of the N-th territory"
                        I spent several years studying, searching and / or working out solutions to these negatives, and IN ALL calculations I ALWAYS came to the conclusion that the ekranoplan was losing. As a result, I came to a concept based on
                        multifunctional aircraft-like (in terms of speed and fuel consumption per unit distance) transport aircraft with VTOL (VTOL) capable of transporting / loading / unloading by a non-stop method one copy of the GBT, primarily "DShL project 02800", "BA Tiger", "construction equipment". And also: various complexes based on such an aircraft.
                        For example, such an aircraft based on tiltroplanes with a main rotor (for clarity, an increased spray for the transportation of LBBTs).
                        But you declare that the ekranoplanes have a solution, and I, a blind fool, could not find it or invent it, but I hardly believe it.
                      2. -1
                        August 12 2021
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        1) the problem of seaworthiness

                        Lun had a take-off limit of 5 points, a landing of 6, a limit of at least 9 points (storm), for a 400-ton boat very good performance, not counting the fact that Lun could easily get away from bad weather. No problem.

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        2) lack of transition from water to screen
                        What is the disadvantage? Specifically, Lun used 8 engines to enter the screen for about two minutes, but after leaving he switched to 4, and with incomplete power. Ironically, surface ships have an inverse relationship - high speed requires a lot of power and often the connection of additional engines. The disadvantage is minimal.


                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        3) the problem of maneuverability
                        And at what speed and for what purpose? Or will you require a 400-ton ship at a speed of 240-270 knots of MRK maneuverability? And at 40 knots at Lun and the maneuverability is comparable, most likely. An absolutely contrived problem.

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        4) the problem of energy-voraciousness in the "control of the N-th territory"
                        Like any ship, the Lun-type EP, even in its original form, could calmly sway on the wave (drift), within the seaworthiness, at any point of the sea, for at least 5 days. Now ask the same question about any aircraft, even a strike aircraft or an anti-submarine aircraft.


                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        I spent several years studying, searching and / or working out solutions to these negatives, and IN ALL calculations I ALWAYS came to the conclusion that the ekranoplan was losing.
                        You don’t know the simplest things about combat EPs, so let’s disbelieve about "a few years".

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        For example, such an aircraft based on tiltroplanes with a main rotor (for clarity, an increased spray for the transportation of LBBTs).
                        It's very funny how the transport is still so-and-so, but as a strike, anti-submarine or patrol one, it's just about nothing, because:

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        1) the problem of seaworthiness

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        4) the problem of energy-voraciousness in the "control of the N-th territory"

                        And from myself: insignificant intelligence capabilities, in comparison with the Moon, and negligible defensive capabilities, due to insignificant power supply, in comparison with the Moon.
                      3. 0
                        August 12 2021
                        So where is the information about resolving negatives? you just copy-paste the information from Wikipedia and deny the existence of negatives, or simply did not carry out TSIS. Well, here are your words "Like any ship, the Lun type EP, even in its original form, could calmly sway on the wave (drift), within the seaworthiness" sorry, but "sail in conditions" and "perform a combat mission in conditions" are two different things , Due to their design, EPs have a reduced stability that does not allow the normal use of radar and cruise missiles, and your "seaworthiness from Wikipedia" refers to theoretical overkill, and not combat work.

                        Yes, to hell with her, with this combat work, a banal situation in bad weather: you sat down on the water, a gust of wind and a wave turned you around, how will you level up? Suppose you put a water propulsion unit, keel and rudder on the ES and will align them, but this still will not solve the problem of different load vectors on the hull at the fuselage and wings, and on a "happy day" their connection will fall apart.

                        And the main thing is not even this, but the fact that it is inappropriate to "talk about a spherical horse in a vacuum in the universe of pink ponies." We live in the real world and in the real world the first thing you need is "strategic-tactical-feasibility study", that is, the headquarters and its ordering department put the question in the first place "what for us with an EDS if it does not allow us to abandon another technique, and since this other technique is guaranteed to be, then it is easier for us to solve problems through it, and not EDS".
                      4. -1
                        August 13 2021
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Well, where is the information about solving negatives

                        "Negatives" are sucked out of the finger.

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Well, here are your words "Like any ship, the Lun type EP, even in its original form, could calmly sway on the wave (drift), within the seaworthiness" sorry, but "sail in conditions" and "perform a combat mission in conditions" are two different things , Due to their design, EPs have reduced stability, which does not allow the normal use of radar and KR
                        EP type "Lun" in displacement mode, this is an outrigger trimaran, if you know what I mean, and for its displacement it is extremely stable on water. So a 400 ton conventional missile boat compared to the EP is just a blade against oak in terms of stability. It is simply amazing that to present something, point-blank without understanding what it is about.

                        And you forgot something about what I mentioned about "drifting", but here's what:
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        the problem of energy-voracity in the "control of the N-th territory"
                        what, "gluttony" has already ceased to be a problem? It didn’t stop with airplanes and it didn’t stop with your tiltrotor.

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Let's say you put a water propulsion device, keel and rudder on the EP and you will align them
                        Once again, the "Lun" type EP on the water is a trimaran and it has THREE keels automatically available, you do not see the simplest things that are visible and understandable in any picture / photo.


                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        But this still will not solve the problem of different load vectors on the body of the fuselage and wings, and on a "happy day" their connection will fall apart.
                        Well, you wrote nonsense about several years of studying the topic, just complete, otherwise you would know that the thickness of the EP Lun's skin is from 4 to 12 mm, this is several times more powerful than the skin of the Be-12 and thicker than at the root of the wing of the An-124 , these are ship thicknesses. And this is not remembering the super-thick profile of the ultra-short wing, more like a pontoon. You don't know a damn thing about big EPs.

                        Moreover, you know little about tiltrotors, otherwise you would not have written this nonsense
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        multifunctional aircraft-like (in terms of speed and fuel consumption per unit distance) transport aircraft with VTOL (VTOL)
                        A tiltrotor cannot be similar in fuel efficiency to an aircraft (under equal load), if only because of the rotary propellers, engines or wings. And this is not recalling the inter-engine transmission for power transmission in the event of a failure of one of the engines, without which KVPlan is a natural coffin.

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        And the main thing is not even this, but the fact that it is inappropriate to "talk about a spherical horse in a vacuum in the universe of pink ponies"
                        It is you who remember ponies, clearly understanding them better than EP and HF plans. If only because they piled up one more blatant nonsense:
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        that is, the headquarters and its ordering department in the first place put the question "what for us with the electronic code if it does not allow us to abandon another technique, and since this other technique is guaranteed to be, then it is easier for us to solve problems through it, and not the electronic code".
                        We replace the EP with a tiltrotor and we see that neither helicopters nor aircraft in the US army and navy have gone anywhere, but Osprey is quite capable of flying. The Americans are lucky that their headquarters and the orders department with him (ahaha, that's the hilarity, the orders department at the headquarters)) turned out to be from the "world of pink ponies" and did not get shit out of stupidity and horror "that no one in the world builds tiltroplanes" and took and accepted advanced armament, in its niche, the car.
        3. 0
          August 11 2021
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: EvilLion
          When they will be banned here for the propaganda of VTOL aircraft ...

          And for inconspicuous, unaffected and omnipotent ekranoplanes. smile
          And also for "not_having_analogues_in_world" in the same piggy bank. And the point is not even that they are referring to it, but that when they refer, they do not understand "what, how, where, why, etc."
      2. 0
        29 2021 June
        As soon as the results of the Falklands War are rewritten
        1. -1
          29 2021 June
          Where the VTOL aircraft did not go to any target before the launch of the ASP.
          1. +6
            29 2021 June
            However, all strategic and tactical tasks were solved with their help, moreover, in confrontation with the basic aviation and "on the other side of the world." wassat
            1. 0
              30 2021 June
              If we consider that the British sailors fired at planes with rifles, then it would be much easier to solve the problems by developing and implementing normal air defense systems, and not those that are buggy in battle, and then stupid airplanes, because normal "phantoms" there was no possibility, they are trying to intercept someone against the background of a British ship burning from an AAS hit.
        2. -1
          30 2021 June
          The US got out of Vietnam, as you know, having an INCOMPLETE superiority in EVERYTHING! Will we rewrite the results on this basis?
      3. +4
        29 2021 June
        You start your website and ban whoever you want there
        If, of course, he will be interesting to someone
    4. -4
      29 2021 June
      And what will happen to fly with the UDC and the non-aircraft carrier? undersized VTOL aircraft? Here Nico is going to AUGami to cover the deployment of the PKK CH, and you - UDC!
      1. 0
        29 2021 June
        For senka, the hat should be
  9. ban
    +3
    29 2021 June
    an aircraft carrier, even if located in this area, is not capable of promptly supplying a ground group


    The article is full of ignorance, but this is a super pearl, you simply cannot pass by !!!
    Article - golimy zakazuha, worked out for 1 self-made afftor
    1. 0
      29 2021 June
      Quote: ban
      Article - golimy zakazuha, worked out for 1 self-made afftor

      Who is the customer? Probably the Anglo-Saxons. They are afraid of competitors. Maybe the State Department?
      1. -4
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Winnie76
        Quote: ban
        Article - golimy zakazuha, worked out for 1 self-made afftor

        Who is the customer? Probably the Anglo-Saxons. They are afraid of competitors. Maybe the State Department?

        I like something else.

        FACT - The general orientation of TIMOKHIN's opinion regarding the Tu-160 is similar to what the United States actually paid for (so that this plane would cease to exist).


        The United States tried to remove the refueling bar from the Tu-22M. Why the hell does it bother them if, according to the intellectual Ilita VO (Timokhin and Co), refueling in the air is all unnecessary garbage.

        Who ordered what from whom.
        1. +3
          29 2021 June
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          according to the intellectual Ilita VO (Timokhin and Co), refueling in the air is all unnecessary garbage.

          And after that, you accuse Timokhin of deliberate lies? Isn't it funny yourself?
    2. +1
      29 2021 June
      That is, you can put the IL-76 on an aircraft carrier? Here they sit on Khmeinim.
      1. +2
        30 2021 June
        Quote: EvilLion
        That is, you can put the IL-76 on an aircraft carrier? Here they sit on Khmeinim.


        The Hercules test cycle at Forrestal was 21 landings and, accordingly, 21 takeoffs.
        The maximum cargo weight when taking off from the Forrestal deck is more than 11 tons.
        1. 0
          July 1 2021
          And Dolittle bombed Tokyo. Iii?
  10. +7
    29 2021 June
    Is an aircraft carrier capable of replacing a ground airfield?
    Maybe, but is a ground airfield capable of replacing an aircraft carrier, that is, carrier-based aircraft at sea?
    Alternatives to AB. When time is key
    The alternative here is not AB, no need to dissemble, but they are looking for an alternative to aviation at sea. There is no decent and reasonable alternative to aviation yet, especially when time is a key factor.
    You wonder how people got stuck, whether Russia will have aircraft-carrying ships. Straight, - you Erema, I am Thomas, you give me the floor, I am those two ... Classics.
    But the instructor is the dock guy
    Business, try to cut!
    And again the trouble began
    About the insidious abroad ...
  11. +6
    29 2021 June
    1. The author discovered the concept of the life cycle of an aircraft carrier, already good. EMNIP for the Americans, the operational period of an aircraft carrier with a non-nuclear power plant is 18 months, followed by repair at the wall, after the third period, reconstruction (1 year), after 30 years of service, a comprehensive reconstruction is underway (2,5 years), after which the CV serves for another 15 years ... Of these 18 months, 6 aircraft carriers are deployed (i.e., they are in the area of ​​responsibility).
    1. -2
      29 2021 June
      Now let Timokhin and Co. discover this cycle. That ships, it turns out, spend 2/3 of their life in repair and maintenance. And building 1 aircraft-carrying trough is simply pointless, you need at least 3 to have at least 1, and then if nothing unplanned happens.
      1. +5
        29 2021 June
        And build 1

        You accuse your opponent of not accepting arguments, and you yourself do the same. This cycle allows you to keep an aircraft carrier at sea for six months out of 21 months, if there is no need (possibility) to keep the AUG constantly (for example, in the Mediterranean Sea), then there can be one AB, it can just go out to sea immediately / in a month or two or three .. .from the required date.
        1. -3
          29 2021 June
          And nafig such an aircraft carrier is needed if a third of the time is at war, and when he left, the mice dance.
          1. +3
            29 2021 June
            No is fighting, a third of the time it is deployed so that it could serve 30 or more years, so that there are no "sudden" emergencies of delay in breaking the air arrestor cable, etc.
      2. -2
        29 2021 June
        At least three for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet. Otherwise, the meaning is zero! Yes, and shoot a little higher, because geography cannot be fooled!
      3. +1
        30 2021 June
        Quote: EvilLion
        Now let Timokhin and Co. discover this cycle. That ships, it turns out, spend 2/3 of their life in repair and maintenance. And building 1 aircraft-carrying trough is simply pointless, you need at least 3 to have at least 1, and then if nothing unplanned happens.

        How many military aircraft are in the air and how many on the ground?
        How many hours does it take to prepare for the departure of a modern aircraft?
        What about tanks?
        Tanks are in general a disaster.
        For months, bastards in parks stand ...
        Machine guns and machine guns are generally a terrible waste.
        2 times a year they pop up for 30 seconds and again in a rack.
        This is where the true waste is ...
        And they wash it off - every day.
        If all the costs for lubricating millions of barrels per year are counted, then probably there will be enough for a nuclear aircraft carrier? What do you think?

        Are we going to count the same about the Strategic Missile Forces?

        Sarcasm...
        1. 0
          30 2021 June
          Don't you really understand what is the point? Okay, I'll repeat. To have at least 1 permanently ready aircraft carrier, you need to build at least 3 of them. And in the North. Quiet. fleets, for at least 1 piece per fleet, you need 6 troughs. Because if a ship is available only a third of the time, then the enemy will fight exactly when the ship is under repair, which means that the very idea of ​​having such a ship loses its meaning. Although Timokhin and K. argue that one can get by. Sorry, but in this case, a vivid example of a situation when it is necessary either to do it to the end and completely, or not to do it at all, that is, either we build at least 3 troughs per fleet, or we do not build at all, since already at 2 troughs we are easily caught in their temporary non-readiness.

          Our planes operate in org. structures no less than a squadron, usually of 12 cars, and at a fighter airbase, a duty link is always deployed. At the same time, for an aircraft, in any case, it is much faster to fill it with fuel, hang bombs, even call the pilot from vacation, than to release a ship that is in maintenance at the base into the sea.

          And so the land army and the air force also have a reserve. And no one will raise a whole regiment of fighters in peacetime at once, except for absolutely epic exercises. They rolled out a link and they carry out scheduled flights on it, while the link is still in the caponiers, and the duty pilots are in the waiting room, the rest of the cars can somehow be serviced, if necessary.
    2. -1
      29 2021 June
      Quote: strannik1985
      the Americans have the operational period of the aircraft carrier

      What makes you think that we and the Americans have the same goals in this world, and to which we should strive? It never occurred to you that they are building aircraft carriers to realize global domination in the world, but why do we need this? Or, again, it is impatient for someone to leave the country without trousers with the help of expensive weapons?
      Enough, calm down, because we even have a different mentality, and we do not need to impose American stereotypes of behavior - we are original even without them. There is the Strategic Missile Forces, we have something to destroy America, which means we need to think about how best to spend the military budget so that the people do not have to tighten their belts again. It is necessary to think about this, and not to engage in manilovism.
      1. +2
        29 2021 June
        Where did you get that from us and the Americans

        Same (force projection), just different scales. The decision on the permanent presence in SZM was made back in March 2013.
        1. -1
          29 2021 June
          Quote: strannik1985
          Same (force projection), just different scales.

          I don’t think, even in the case of Syria, because we hung a yoke for ourselves, while others pump their oil.
          Quote: strannik1985
          The decision on the permanent presence in SZM was made back in March 2013.

          Yes, I don't give a damn about these decisions, you can refuse them if you feel like it, or they will seriously calculate everything. The task of disrupting the construction of the Qatari gas pipeline has been completed, it is time to separate losses from profits, and think more about the growth of our economy, and not about our ambitions in the Mediterranean. it will be more useful ...
          1. 0
            30 2021 June
            I do not think

            It doesn't matter how you or I feel, the task has been set.
            Don't give a damn about these decisions

            You adjust reality to fit your judgments, in fact, the need to project power may be needed at any time, now because of the destruction of militants in Syria, in 2011 because of the beating of our ambassador in Qatar, for the shot down Su, etc., etc. .P. AB provides better stability to the ship connection than any other means.
            1. 0
              30 2021 June
              Quote: strannik1985
              You fit reality to fit your judgment

              Yes, the reality of the flight of the Soviet Army from Europe in the nineties taught me well to evaluate it, and not to create illusions about the great wisdom of our politicians and their plans. So my judgments are only derivatives of my experience, and he, believe me, is not so small, even without taking into account the age.
              Quote: strannik1985
              AB provides better stability to the ship connection than any other means.

              It will not add anything, and if it is in the immediate vicinity of hostilities, for example, in Syria, then it is possible that the aircraft carrier may overtake the fate of our downed Il-20M, when it is mistakenly or deliberately disabled for a long time.
          2. -1
            August 11 2021
            Quote: ccsr
            The task of disrupting the construction of the Qatari gas pipeline is completed

            Well, this is already nonsense, We in Syria fought not because of other people's pipelines, but because of "preventing the emergence of a theocratic state near the Russian Federation" since such a state with a high degree of probability will directly and / or indirectly be used to harm the Russian Federation through our population believing in the same religion.
  12. +3
    29 2021 June
    As you read the author as he wrote about long-range bombers with cruise missiles to any part of the world, they may not be forced to fly and bomb it to me, it becomes clear to me that the author is a complete amateur. I understand it is easy to write and describe the action of aviation in hostilities, but as a person far from aviation, even I understand that to translate into reality what is written by the author is a difficult task with an unknown result.
    1. -4
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Shiden
      As you read the author, how he wrote about long-range bombers with cruise missiles anywhere in the world may not be forced to fly and bomb ...
      Are you hinting that strategic aviation can be shot down in the air? Well, after all, an aircraft carrier can be sunk at sea. Moreover, it will be easier to find and sink the aircraft carrier. One submarine is enough for this ...
      1. +8
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Volder
        Moreover, it will be easier to find and sink the aircraft carrier. One submarine is enough for this ...

        It is not clear only why in the USSR dozens of them were built for these purposes. We would have built one - and dealt with all the ABs with it. smile
        1. -2
          29 2021 June
          Quote: Ivanchester
          It is not clear only why in the USSR dozens of them were built for these purposes.
          They took an example from the USA. In addition, submarines are of different types, with different tasks. And then, it is foolish to rely on a single weapon. For reliability, it must be duplicated.
          We would have built one - and dealt with it with all AB
          One submarine per aircraft carrier. This is without taking into account the fact that our submarines are being hunted by other submarines. Therefore, it is better to have 1 submarines per aircraft carrier.
          1. +2
            29 2021 June
            In fact, I just wanted to lead you to the idea that one submarine is not enough.
            And for them, as well as for other long-range anti-ship missile launchers, for which the author so fervently prays, the problem of target designation is very urgent.
            Because our "Antei" (about which you, apparently, are talking) are unable either to independently find aircraft carriers in the ocean (unless by chance), or to accompany them so as not to give themselves away with a high level of noise.
            That is, our attack submarines are just one of the elements of a complex system created in the USSR (mostly, alas, degraded), the task of which was to destroy the AB. By themselves, they are not able to solve it.
      2. +6
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Volder
        Are you hinting that strategic aviation can be shot down in the air? Well, after all, an aircraft carrier can be sunk at sea. Moreover, it will be easier to find and sink the aircraft carrier. One submarine is enough for this ...

        Don't you think it's easier to shoot down a plane than to sink a large ship? Moreover, the strategists are without cover, and AB does not go alone.
        1. -3
          29 2021 June
          The fact is that it is really easier to shoot down a plane, but it is also easy to disable any ship. At the same time, it is not a fact that he will be able to reach the nearest shipyard on his own and for this he will not need to plan another operation.
          1. 0
            29 2021 June
            That is why the armed forces must develop harmoniously, not to the detriment of, but complementing each other. And, if necessary, use strategists, infantry, and navy, and local "partisans" too))))
        2. 0
          30 2021 June
          Quote: Trapper7
          Don't you think it's easier to shoot down a plane than to sink a large ship?
          No, it’s not easier. An airplane can only be shot down by an airplane, taking into account the flight altitude of the strategists. But an aircraft carrier can be sunk by planes, surface ships, and submarines - that is, there are more ways of destruction.
          Moreover, the strategists without cover
          They can be covered by tactical aviation at a distance of up to 1000 km from the coast of the Russian Federation or from our air base abroad. In addition, the enemy's tactical aviation may not reach and catch up with our supersonic strategist, for the strategist will clearly not fly where enemy aircraft will be waiting for him.
      3. +2
        30 2021 June
        Quote: Volder
        Moreover, it will be easier to find and sink the aircraft carrier. One submarine is enough for this ...


        Destroy a target in the Diego Garcia area with strategic aviation?
        Then calculate the cost of providing such an operation.
        The aircraft carrier will not be more expensive.
        If you know how to count correctly ...


        And yes, in order for one submarine to be able to destroy an aircraft carrier, you need:
        1. Build 50-60 ultra-modern submarines that could control the world's oceans ... Well, the bases for them, crews, officers there, daughters in kindergartens and wives in flower stalls with all the social network ...
        2. Build a huge satellite constellation of reconnaissance satellites 20-30 times, quantitatively than the unforgettable Legends and Lianas.
        3. Build a huge satellite constellation of communications satellites for guaranteed signal transmission.
        4. To update the communication system with submarines in a submerged position in the world's oceans.
        5. Provide fighter cover from hundreds of enemy PLO aircraft flying in all PL-dangerous directions of the world's oceans. Which will also require the construction of bases around the world, not counting a few hundred fighters.
        6. Convince the American admirals to stop using the AUG and prevent the movement of aircraft carriers from being surrounded by 2 nuclear submarines, 4 destroyers, prohibit flights to control the water area by PLO, RTR, AWACS ...
        7. Make a change in the design of aircraft carriers, remove radar and air defense equipment. Remove the internal booking of all important components and assemblies. And cut out the anti-torpedo reserve from the hull of the aircraft carrier, which ensures the execution of the BZ when hit by up to 2 torpedoes. And survivability, when hit by up to 12 torpedoes.
        And only after all this, such a boat will have a chance to sink an aircraft carrier ...

        But seriously.
        In order to destroy a target worth $ 10 billion in direct confrontation, the attacker must spend no less on training!

        When there are plans to destroy the AUG by the forces of two Tu-22 regiments, this is only because all the planes and all the missiles need to be built, pilots raised, trained, and maybe later, with a massive missile salvo, one and the nuclear mushroom will slip through ... ...
        It seems to be one missile and one aircraft carrier.
        But when you calculate our costs, they will be no less than the value of the target.

        Words about an asymmetric answer, this is complete bullshit ...
    2. -4
      29 2021 June
      Yes, yes, it is difficult to fly a bomber over thousands of kilometers, but driving a trough over the same thousands of kilometers is easy. Typical logic of the fans of the plane drowner, which the author quite correctly ridicules.
      1. +4
        29 2021 June
        Quote: EvilLion
        it is difficult to fly a bomber for thousands of kilometers

        especially through the territory of "friendly" Turkey ... Or Iran ... Or China ...
        1. 0
          29 2021 June
          Find out now whose Gibpaltar, for example. But it was through the territory of Iran that missiles were launched, interests coincided, and Iran let missiles and planes pass, delighting aviation fans with beautiful photos of our bombers with Iranian F-14s.
      2. +2
        29 2021 June
        Quote: EvilLion
        Yes, yes, it is difficult to fly a bomber over thousands of kilometers, but driving a trough over the same thousands of kilometers is easy.

        What about fighters, information security, attack aircraft, front-line bombers? Helicopters?
        1. 0
          29 2021 June
          Then one trough will not help you, you need to look for an airfield. On which they will then sit down, including the Il-76.
          1. +2
            30 2021 June
            Falklands, no?
          2. +1
            July 3 2021
            Why won't the trough help? It helps everyone, but won't it help us?
            1. 0
              July 3 2021
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Why won't the trough help? It helps everyone, but won't it help us?

              1. Mainly because 1 aircraft carrier does not guarantee the fact of combat readiness at the right time.
              2. Next comes another question - if he is ready for the X-hour, how long should he swim to the scene.
              3. Further more - if it is combat-ready, in what state is it? Maybe he has 20% of the resource left on some key systems before repair?
              4. And if we take conflicts like Syria - in terms of time, even being ideally prepared for the beginning, he simply will not stand it in time.
              5. When we confront the United States on some serious issue, it will not be difficult for them to understand the service periods of the AV to guess the activation time of the necessary events so that this aircraft carrier would be incapable of combat.
      3. +3
        30 2021 June
        Quote: EvilLion
        Yes, yes, it is difficult to fly a bomber over thousands of kilometers, but driving a trough over the same thousands of kilometers is easy. Typical logic of the fans of the plane drowner, which the author quite correctly ridicules.

        Fly with a single bomber to New Zealand for example.
        In the current situation.
        Don't make it.
        Fact
        1. 0
          30 2021 June
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Fly with a single bomber to New Zealand for example.
          In the current situation.
          Don't make it.
          Fact

          What was New Zealand dragged to - does it also interfere with your life? But in any case, only some frostbitten "expert" can think of driving our aircraft carrier there.
          1. +2
            30 2021 June
            Quote: ccsr
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Fly with a single bomber to New Zealand for example.
            In the current situation.
            Don't make it.
            Fact

            What was New Zealand dragged to - does it also interfere with your life? But in any case, only some frostbitten "expert" can think of driving our aircraft carrier there.


            There are any situations.
            In Soviet times, many of my relatives worked in Libya and Iraq.
            Soviet workers could be up to 200 thousand at that time working on foreign projects.

            yes even, for example, the situation.
            Absolutely real.
            For example, the protection of Russian citizens in a tourist country in which power was seized by radicals and who took Russian citizens hostage.
            In the same Thailand, up to 80 thousand Russian citizens are present at the same time during the tourist season.
            80 thousand people.
            the population of the big city.

            when in Jordan and Lebanon in the 70s they began to take the Americans hostage - why did two aircraft carriers immediately come there?
            Are they frostbitten connoisseurs?
            Or is it you - a militant dunno?
            1. -1
              30 2021 June
              Quote: SovAr238A
              In Soviet times, many of my relatives worked in Libya and Iraq.
              Soviet workers could be up to 200 thousand at that time working on foreign projects.

              And what, you again want to help them at our expense? How did our aid help these states - do not tell us, by chance?

              Quote: SovAr238A
              For example, the protection of Russian citizens in a tourist country in which power was seized by radicals and who took Russian citizens hostage.

              The Foreign Ministry warns about such countries. Why should we pay from the budget the nonsense of some citizens who do not care about the Foreign Ministry's warnings? I don't care about their fate either - let them sort out the problems themselves at their own expense.

              Quote: SovAr238A
              In the same Thailand, up to 80 thousand Russian citizens are present at the same time during the tourist season.
              80 thousand people.
              the population of the big city.

              The government of the country did not send them there, so let them take care of their own security without our armed forces, since it is so dangerous there.
              Quote: SovAr238A
              when in Jordan and Lebanon in the 70s they began to take the Americans hostage - why did two aircraft carriers immediately come there?

              When we have a budget like America, then we'll talk about this situation.
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Or is it you - a militant dunno?

              You are just a narcissistic layman trying to teach professionals. As for me, several of my colleagues have died or died in Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Cuba. And the state did not send aircraft carriers anywhere to save them. Where did you get such a belligerent itch - maybe they fought in Afghanistan, tell us in more detail ...
              1. +1
                30 2021 June
                Quote: ccsr
                Quote: SovAr238A
                In Soviet times, many of my relatives worked in Libya and Iraq.
                Soviet workers could be up to 200 thousand at that time working on foreign projects.

                And what, you again want to help them at our expense? How did our aid help these states - do not tell us, by chance?

                Quote: SovAr238A
                For example, the protection of Russian citizens in a tourist country in which power was seized by radicals and who took Russian citizens hostage.

                The Foreign Ministry warns about such countries. Why should we pay from the budget the nonsense of some citizens who do not care about the Foreign Ministry's warnings? I don't care about their fate either - let them sort out the problems themselves at their own expense.

                Quote: SovAr238A
                In the same Thailand, up to 80 thousand Russian citizens are present at the same time during the tourist season.
                80 thousand people.
                the population of the big city.

                The government of the country did not send them there, so let them take care of their own security without our armed forces, since it is so dangerous there.
                Quote: SovAr238A
                when in Jordan and Lebanon in the 70s they began to take the Americans hostage - why did two aircraft carriers immediately come there?

                When we have a budget like America, then we'll talk about this situation.
                Quote: SovAr238A
                Or is it you - a militant dunno?

                You are just a narcissistic layman trying to teach professionals. As for me, several of my colleagues have died or died in Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Cuba. And the state did not send aircraft carriers anywhere to save them. Where did you get such a belligerent itch - maybe they fought in Afghanistan, tell us in more detail ...


                That is, do you think that the USSR should not have protected its citizens whom it sent to other countries? Even if they are taken hostage?
                Do you know how Soviet builders were taken out of Mosul during the Iran-Iraq war?
                I can write whole memoirs, my uncle and you were there at that moment.
                Half of the 11 construction trust that operated around the world was from Kuibyshev.
                Ten thousand people, however.
                That is, Russia should not defend its citizens?
                Your words border on anti-constitutional activities.
                Stop, because you will dial for a real time.
                Protecting its citizens is the responsibility of the state, not as in your logic: the ability to buy their lives. Or selling their lives if there is no money.

                I'm 50, I've seen a lot of those who left and did not return.
                there were more than 10 of them ... Only from 5-6 neighborhoods on Bezymyanka.

                I saw even more in Sumgait and Sukhum. But a little later
                But it's hardly worth it for you.
                You yourself did not see anything ..
                1. -1
                  July 1 2021
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  I'm 50, I've seen a lot of those who left and did not return.

                  You were not yet in the world when I was already firing an AK-47 at the firing range, so you are still a kid for me.
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  You yourself did not see anything ..

                  The question is not even how much I saw, but from what height. And here you are clearly no good for me, because my level will never be available to you.

                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  Stop, because you will dial for a real time.

                  What a cheap farce - keep burning in the same spirit ...
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  That is, do you think that the USSR should not have protected its citizens whom it sent to other countries? Even if they are taken hostage?

                  I knew people who remained in the embassy in a single person when the civil war was going on around - and these were officers who knew perfectly well that they could die and they would not be rescued, as it was in Africa or Asia. But they continued to work, and somehow they were not offended by the USSR.
                  1. 0
                    July 3 2021
                    We did not have a submachine gun with the name "AK-47" in our arsenal. You pierced again. As before with the alleged purchase of a gun in Germany on a Soviet hunting license. As before, with ignorance of the meaning of the abbreviation "VUS"

                    You are burning. Your "height" is dispensary registration. And this is clearer and clearer every day.
                    1. 0
                      July 3 2021
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      We did not have a submachine gun called "AK-47" in our arsenal. You pierced again.

                      It was you who got it, smart guy, because I had an AK-47 for five years, and I still remember its number by heart.
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      As before with the alleged purchase of a gun in Germany on a Soviet hunting license.

                      You're lying verbiage - I wrote "in Wünsdorf", and you don't even know that the group's headquarters was there and there were military stores, including a hunting store. There, under the order, and Sauer could be bought, but it was expensive, that's why I bought Mossberg, due to the fact that in the Soviet Union it was a great rarity. You can ask any employee in the group, and they will confirm that I am telling the truth, and you are brazenly lying, as with the same "insiders".
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      As before, with ignorance of the meaning of the abbreviation "VUS"

                      You don’t have it at all, so don’t worry about mine, I explained to you for an amateur that he was changing with me. And why do you need it - your lies and without presenting it is obvious to me.
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      You are burning. Your "height" is dispensary registration. And this is clearer and clearer every day.

                      And you turned out to be a coward - you never answered the question why you never comment on the situation in Ukraine and everything connected with it. I know why you are so afraid to answer my question, conspiratorial Svidomo.
            2. 0
              July 3 2021
              Quote: SovAr238A
              yes even, for example, the situation.
              Absolutely real.
              For example, the protection of Russian citizens in a tourist country,

              1) You are somewhat idealizing the possibilities for salvation.
              "Attacks on US diplomatic missions (2012)"
              Where were the American AVs when they made Lula kebab from the American ambassador to Libya?


              2) A similar formulation of the question is initially focused on people who have emotions ahead of their intellect.
              Defense issues should not be related to emotions.
              Russians are everywhere. And we cannot protect everyone.
              The issue of their safety requires an integrated approach and nothing else.
              Theoretically, AB can somehow help, although it's hard for me to imagine its real application. But this is not a reason to consider the issue of the safety of citizens as the primary reason for the construction of the AB.


              3) How will AB help if we are talking about so many people?
              If they are simply inside the conflict, i.e. 2 political forces are killing each other, and the tourists are simply uninvolved extras, this is one moment. You just need to organize the evacuation with a large number of aircraft and as quickly as possible.

              What comes to mind is to quickly use the first days of the conflict, when it will be possible to organize flights of large planes like Ruslan, just load people there and take them out. Book charters, etc.

              If the Russians are involved as hostages, then this is completely different.
              They will simply roll out the requirements and conditions - 1 killed 10 Russians.
              And what will AB do?
  13. +3
    29 2021 June
    Therefore, when Andrei talks about the operation in Libya

    "Colonel" was not an ally of the Russian Federation, he even started playing debts, although he had the opportunity to pay, and the need to acquire new weapons. The nuance is that Libya is one of the key points of the so-called.Arab SpringIf we could not stop the occupation of Iraq, then we could flex our muscles in Libya. Now there would be no conflict in Syria at all, or the scale was completely different.
    1. 0
      29 2021 June
      Therefore, they did not save him.
      1. +3
        29 2021 June
        We acted so stupidly, for the sake of momentary interests (friendship with the West) lost in strategy, now we are loosening it.
        For example, at the Qatar airport, the Russian ambassador was beaten for refusing to provide diplomatic mail for inspection (2011), a common provocation, the consequences of erroneous decisions at the dawn of the "Arab Spring".
        1. -1
          29 2021 June
          And I am not discussing whether it is stupid or not stupid, the main thing is that Mukhomor himself showed us regularly to the point. But he was friends with Europe.
  14. +7
    29 2021 June
    The author is right that we do not need strike aircraft carriers. Ships, submarines and, first of all, ground-based aircraft are capable of not only replacing, but also surpassing carrier aircraft.
    But the article (as well as other articles on the topic of aircraft carriers for our fleet) misses one point. It is a struggle for air supremacy over the sea. The gain in such a fight is the gain for the first salvo due to the ability to conduct aerial reconnaissance and the impossibility for the enemy. Winning in PLO combat due to the possibility of using PLO aircraft and the impossibility for the enemy. This is also a gain in the safety of the landing.
    We need an aircraft carrier to fight for air supremacy over the sea (at least sit down and write an article :().
    1. PPD
      0
      29 2021 June
      Each of the authors pulls the blanket over himself.
      But there are times when it's hard without an aircraft carrier.
      You can think of many examples.
      But, a nuance.
      How long will it take when at least 3 pieces appear. And remembering our TAVKR-and all 5, perhaps.
      And what will be based on them?
      I don't even mention DLRO planes.
      Here is the author advocates for helicopter carriers. Nicely painted how the spacecraft knocks down tanks in batches.
      It can be seen that the enemy does not have air defense. Well, it happens - a sea of ​​tanks, AK and a banana laughing
      And if from somewhere a pair of fighters materializes? And the air defense will be?
      And there is no ground base, what then? And where is this magical place - where can all this come in handy?
      And what are the functions of an amphibious helicopter carrier, a descendant of the anti-ship missiles of Moscow ???
      Timokhin Von believes that the UDC is very necessary and can be useful in the Kuriles. There were no more thoughts.
      And really, if not even destroyers are being built, where to use it?
      Again to pull the owl on the globe convincing-well, they are very necessary. Very - and why - now we'll come up with ...
      That is, not the situation, the technique is needed, but on the contrary the logic, let's pile the technique and figure out how to use it.
      In the naval skirmish in 888-ground aircraft, something was not noticeable. And if Mirage met with the paratroopers not the Bokhrovsky pelvis, but actually 5 missile boats? Or who would give a URO destroyer to the Georgians? Carrier-based aviation is here and now. And the land-flew by-and the clear sea around-the wreckage .. at best.
  15. +13
    29 2021 June
    Again...
    Here you are about AVM, and about refueling Tu-22m3, and about KR, and much more about what, and about everything it is senseless and illiterate. But the article has been written and published, so now we will discuss this "hodgepodge".
    Personally, I do not see a subject for discussion - we do not have AVM, and never will, Tu-22m3 exist in ridiculous quantities, and will soon die off by themselves, and we have nothing to do in Libya.
  16. +6
    29 2021 June
    It was poorly read after the first questions. And then take an airfield from Sudan? Timokhin never said that. He was just thinking how to get the aircraft THERE. And then somewhere else. For mobility is the dignity of aircraft carriers
    1. -1
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Andshhuk
      For mobility is the dignity of aircraft carriers

      This is yes. One military campaign in 25 years. I would say archimability. Cho is there. Kuzya is a weapon of the future.
      1. +3
        29 2021 June
        Dear, do not interfere with the general with the particulars. It's about the concept itself, and about the construction of new aircraft carriers and new projects. And about Kuzi, he was the firstborn, and even then, for a long time abandoned to the mercy.
        1. -3
          29 2021 June
          Quote: Andshhuk
          And about Kuzi, he was the firstborn, and even then, for a long time left to the mercy.

          Come on. Project 1143.5. The number five, as it were, hints at the number of predecessors.
          Quote: Andshhuk
          It's about the concept itself, and about the construction of new aircraft carriers and new projects

          So what is the meaning of the "new concept"? That even three aircraft carriers cannot replace a full-fledged airfield? Your concept is worth $ 11 billion for a new bare trough. Gerald Ford if anything. For this money, you can buy 100-200 Su-57 and re-equip half of the domestic videoconferencing
          1. +4
            29 2021 June
            Quote: Winnie76
            Come on. Project 1143.5. The number five, as it were, hints at the number of predecessors.

            1143.1-4 and 1143.5 are like Tu-22 and Tu-22M. On paper - the difference is in one symbol, in hardware - fundamentally different machines.
            1143.5 - the first and only aircraft-carrying ship of the USSR, whose aircraft weapons were of combat value. And 1143.1-1143.4 are missile cruisers with "mast defense aircraft".
          2. +3
            29 2021 June
            About 1143.5 has already been answered and to the very point. I really hope that you know the "nuances" of the history of the Tu-22 and Tu-22m. But about hundreds of su-57s. Firstly, we can saturate our airspace with fighters and air defense systems as much as we want, but if we are talking about interests outside the continent, then land aircraft must somehow be relocated, planted somewhere, somehow supplied, etc. How much will you transport by transport aircraft?
            Secondly. More primitively, the Su-57 is also not a panacea and not a wunderwaffe. And the aircraft carrier is not a panacea. It is a tool. For specific tasks. Like a screwdriver or screwdriver.
            And if our state has nevertheless grown to think about its interests on other continents, then we need to think about the tools that will help the objects of our interest to make the right decision in our favor)
  17. +9
    29 2021 June
    The author has written a lot, but not convincingly. No one disputes that a stationary, unpaved airfield is better than an aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier cannot replace a full-fledged unpaved airfield. This is clear to everyone. Why are you opposing one to the other? An aircraft carrier replaces a stationary airfield where it does not exist. And there are a lot of such places. The author quite seriously asserts that a land airfield with all the infrastructure is faster to relocate to another airfield than an aircraft carrier will fit there. Only there is no other airfield there. Where would you like to relocate? Nobody built it there for you. And then, a stationary airfield is a stationary object that can be disabled. And an aircraft carrier is a naval mobile object that you can't take with every missile. Today he is here, and tomorrow he is no longer here. The fleet really needs its own cover aviation. The fleet cannot exist without it. The aircraft carrier is needed.
    1. +2
      29 2021 June
      Do we need AB as such in principle? Of course, we need more than one .. it's better to have at least 3 pieces, as the author said .. and he doesn't even argue with that .. that is, is it good for us to have AV-DA definitely! 3 pieces at least .. Will they be in the foreseeable future - NO! so all this controversy is from the series:
      -If I had a tangerine, I would definitely share with you
      -Yes, it's a pity you don't have a tangerine ...
    2. +3
      29 2021 June
      And at the same time, he diligently bypasses the fact that, despite the presence of a huge number of ground airfields, the United States is diligently investing in the creation of aircraft carriers and is not going to stop there. Why's that?
      1. -5
        29 2021 June
        And they (the aircraft carriers) help them (the Americans) a lot in the fighting? Or is it just "force being projected" onto impressionable microstate formations?
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. +9
    29 2021 June
    These articles should be renamed the "Blind-Deaf Conversations" series.

    If you want to completely ruin the Russian Navy, give them an aircraft carrier. One cannot argue with this, and there has already been quite a lot of discussion about the fact that before cutting AB it is necessary to solve a large number of other pressing problems. For example, to deal with the armament of submarines, engines of frigates and corvettes, to establish interaction between aviation and the fleet, to debug production and repair processes, etc. etc. by the list. Still, of course, the change of power would not interfere, because this is clearly not able to launch stable economic growth, without which there will be no tanks or ships.

    In fact, the article - the author takes the statements of his opponent and puts them in his own virtual context where he wins a "brilliant" victory. No one disputes that having Khmeimim in Syria provides much more operational capabilities and is much cheaper than AB. However, further on, the whole argumentation is based on comparing the situation in the eastern Mediterranean, completely losing sight of the fact that AB is primarily needed for solving other problems, including in other geography, which can differ sharply in its conditions. As already mentioned, primarily to give combat stability to the forces of the Russian Navy itself.

    Well, some pearls, like direct support of the troops with the help of cruise missiles, must be sent to the annals of the ridiculous panorama.
    1. -5
      29 2021 June
      Sorry, but no need to lie, the main complaint about Timonik & Co.'s "arguments" is that, according to their logic, no Khmeinim would have been possible without an aircraft carrier, but the reality is that there is Khmeinim, and even heavy transport workers fly there. They will not sit down in any way, but the trough, having floated to the area, was poorly done, having drowned 2 aircraft, and now it is undergoing endless repairs.
      1. +2
        29 2021 June
        So it is a trough, but we are talking about an aircraft carrier
      2. -1
        August 12 2021
        Quote: EvilLion
        Sorry, but no need to lie, the main complaint about Timonik & Co.'s "arguments" is that, according to their logic, no Khmeinim would be possible without an aircraft carrier, but the reality is that there is Khmeinim

        No need to lie main complaint and to flotophiles and flotophobes not in "need / unnecessary AB", but in "what is needed" and "what is needed", these questions either do not work out at all, or they work at the level of "copy-paste like they have", or they are utter nonsense. And they cover all this with polemics, demagoguery, holivaro-srachiks.
    2. -5
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Andy J.
      Well, some pearls, like direct support of the troops with the help of cruise missiles, must be sent to the annals of the ridiculous panorama.


      Well, look, there is an American atomic boat-tent armed with Tamaghawks
      instead of ballistic missiles and 2 mini-submarines for landing clown seals.

      Downstairs, the clowns are landing.


      And there is an air blast Tamaghawk.
      https://imgur.com/gallery/NYJxkck
      You can also read about the benefits.
      The question arises - can American clowns count on support from these missiles, if necessary?

      Or do you want to add 1 more item to the list of what the United States can and shouldn't?
      What did we have there? Large planes, air refueling, KR firing ...
      1. +2
        29 2021 June
        Tomahawks are used against stationary targets and aviation for operational use, and even more so air defense cannot be replaced
        1. -5
          29 2021 June
          Quote: Avior
          Tomahawks are used against stationary targets and aviation for operational use, and even more so air defense cannot be replaced

          Well, yes.
          In the absence of exact coordinates of the target (when firing at moving targets), the rocket is guided by approximate ones and in a given sector of the airspace switches to flight in target search mode, at this time the seeker scans the terrain observed in the front hemisphere for the presence of targets, identifying them by overall characteristics (length, width, height, shape) from the set of parameters embedded in the software

          To the list that we cannot write down - we must use outdated weapons.
          And the enemy in the building is, of course, a moving target.
          1. +4
            29 2021 June
            This is if there is a specific goal
            And if a convoy of trucks, then you can't use Tamaghawk for this, unlike aviation
            If this column is also in this square
            Not to mention the fact that first you need to do reconnaissance
            And aviation is able to do everything at the same time.
            1. 0
              August 12 2021
              tamoghawk, yes, you will not use it, but "guided weapons" (UO) can be used, for example, nothing prevents the UO-tamoghawk from being converted into an UO-drone, which at the final stage will control the DRG / SSO fighters.
              1. 0
                August 12 2021
                In this case, it is necessary
                1. Send a group to the rear of the enemy. That this is not a joke - transport, fighter cover and so on. The risk of group discovery and death is also an important factor.
                2 send aerial reconnaissance - to clarify if there is a target in this square and which one. The DRG cannot control the whole square. At the same time, find out the availability of air defense systems.
                3 launch the Tomahawk - sometimes from the ship, then from the plane.
                4. Conduct reconnaissance with an assessment of the results - air or other with the risk of detection.

                All the same can be done by one plane, maximum steam. To fly out, find a target, attack it and evaluate the results - and all this is much faster and easier.
                In addition, if necessary, detect and divert or suppress air defense, if it is limited, and, if necessary, fight off enemy aircraft on duty, if they are in these places.
                In some tasks, in general, you can do with something else, but they cannot fully replace aviation and at the moment they can not.
                hi
                1. 0
                  August 12 2021
                  if you wrote complete nonsense, if you could not correctly formulate your thought what
                  Here is the chronology
                  1) landing of a SSO with a nuclear submarine
                  2) penetration of the MTR deep into the territory
                  3) detection of an enemy GBT convoy
                  4) call the RC to the target region
                  5) synchronization of the KR with a portable control panel
                  6) synchronous control of the CD with guidance on the BBT column
                  where, like what for in this scheme, is used airborne reconnaissance and ground reconnaissance?

                  Quote: Avior
                  In addition, if necessary, detect and divert or suppress air defense

                  again not a problem,
                  1) landing of a SSO with a nuclear submarine
                  2) penetration of the MTR deep into the territory
                  3) launching an anti-radar KR (patrolling drone) in a given region
                  4) radar detection
                  5) synchronization of the KR with a portable control panel
                  6) synchronous control of the CD with guidance on the radar and confirmation of the need for destruction
                  where, like what for in this scheme, is used airborne reconnaissance and ground reconnaissance?

                  psAbove described is far from the limit of perfection of tools. For example, in FF SLBMs, you can make a KR-drone with VTOL (VTOL) at the final stage, and use it during the assault.
                  pps The above is far from the limit of forces and means. For example, you can convert SSBNs into an MPN by replacing sections with SLBMs with sections with a large internal volume, and place reusable UAVs and large special equipment for SSO there.
                  1. -1
                    August 12 2021
                    DRG will be able to control not a square, but only a certain section of one road. This means that several groups are needed, which must get there with the risk of detection and destruction, moreover, for a long time.
                    Further. The tomahawk flies at its range for two hours, the time for preparing the launch is also needed to enter the coordinates of the target.
                    A column with a speed of 60 km per hour during this time will be 120-150 km.
                    And by the time the Tomahawk arrives, the convoy may well be out of sight of the group, and even out of radio visibility.
                    and all the same, additional aerial reconnaissance will be needed. And to assess the results of the strike, air reconnaissance will also be needed.
                    And for what? If one plane can do it all?
                    1. 0
                      August 12 2021
                      Quote: Avior
                      DRG will be able to control not a square, but only a certain section of one road.

                      Are you sure about that? ... Are you sure? ... and if you remember about infantry-portable UAVs and radars? profit. hi

                      Quote: Avior
                      The tomahawk flies at its range for two hours ...
                      And by the time the Tomahawk arrives, the convoy may well be out of sight of the group, and even out of radio visibility.

                      So I have previously refuted this thesis, and several times, but you "look at the book, I see a fig", once again, I repeat, do not get hung up on tomohawks, the key element is "Guided Weapons" (UO), it can:
                      firstly) it can be controlled both asynchronously and synchronously, including at the intermediate and final stages through the infantry-portable console at the SSO \ DRG \ ...
                      secondly) it can be portable, transportable, containerized, fast-delivered
                      third) it can be reusable and / or multi-stage (according to the application process).
                      For example, UO in the form of air drones with VVPZ delivered to the theater / TBD through the KR in the FF SLBM or in the FF cargo compartment of the VTA.

                      Quote: Avior
                      And for what? If one plane can do it all?

                      Then the plane is not always applicable, and if it is, it is not always effective from a military-profitable point of view.
                      And the conversation is not about aviation in general and / or in particular, but about the erroneousness of your opinion in the context of your thesis "tamahawk cannot be used for this."
      2. +2
        29 2021 June
        Yes, seals, elephants and clowns from a submarine will not be supported by Tomahawks. This is a surefire way to kill them, especially with cluster ammunition. During operations of direct support of the infantry, the score can go by meters, and target designation can change within a minute. Even Block V Tomahawks do not provide such accuracy.
        1. +2
          29 2021 June
          With all the development of tomahawk control systems, it is still very far to conduct reconnaissance on the ground and independently select targets for the tomahawk.
          This is not to mention the air defense problem.
          Whatever the helicopter carrier, the presence of an adversary, even a small number of aircraft, will create big problems for the use of helicopters, if they are not covered by their own aircraft. This applies to both Plo helicopters and others.
    3. -4
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Andy J.
      However, further on, the whole argumentation is based on comparing the situation in the eastern Mediterranean, completely losing sight of the fact that AB is primarily needed for solving other problems, including in other geography.

      And you bring "another geography" where we can easily solve problems with our aircraft carrier in the year 2030, and why can't we do it without our AUG?
      There are a lot of speculators here, but how exactly do you ask to name at least ONE strategically important region for us, everyone starts to blow bubbles, and at best they will bring Kaliningrad and the Kuril Islands. I hope you don't need a lot of intelligence to understand why we supported Syria - believe me, not for the nice words about the Syrians' love for Russia, but for more pragmatic reasons.
      So what is our practical benefit from the creation of aircraft carriers by us?
      Quote: Andy J.
      ... As already mentioned, primarily to give combat stability to the forces of the Russian Navy itself.

      In fact, our country is given stability by our Strategic Missile Forces and SSBNs, not aircraft carriers, at least understand this to begin with, and then your mind will be enlightened, the chakras will open, and you yourself will guess what kind of nonsense Timokhin and his go-company are carrying here when discussing the future of our fleet and the construction of aircraft carriers.
      1. +1
        30 2021 June
        Quote: ccsr
        Quote: Andy J.
        However, further on, the whole argumentation is based on comparing the situation in the eastern Mediterranean, completely losing sight of the fact that AB is primarily needed for solving other problems, including in other geography.

        And you bring "another geography" where we can easily solve problems with our aircraft carrier in the year 2030, and why can't we do it without our AUG?
        There are a lot of speculators here, but how exactly do you ask to name at least ONE strategically important region for us, everyone starts to blow bubbles, and at best they will bring Kaliningrad and the Kuril Islands. I hope you don't need a lot of intelligence to understand why we supported Syria - believe me, not for the nice words about the Syrians' love for Russia, but for more pragmatic reasons.
        So what is our practical benefit from the creation of aircraft carriers by us?
        Quote: Andy J.
        ... As already mentioned, primarily to give combat stability to the forces of the Russian Navy itself.

        In fact, our country is given stability by our Strategic Missile Forces and SSBNs, not aircraft carriers, at least understand this to begin with, and then your mind will be enlightened, the chakras will open, and you yourself will guess what kind of nonsense Timokhin and his go-company are carrying here when discussing the future of our fleet and the construction of aircraft carriers.

        They wrote about "other geography" more than once. In the Far East and the Northern Fleet, our submarine missile carriers (without air support, ((and enough has been written about the difficulties of this without aircraft carriers)) have less chances than German disposable submariners of 1944. for the INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT of the fleet?
        1. -1
          30 2021 June
          Quote: Niko
          In the Far East and the Northern Fleet, our missile submarines (without air support, ((and enough has been written about the difficulties of this without aircraft carriers)) have less chances than German disposable submariners of 1944

          And now what is the bayonet to the ground? And the fact that for the destruction of our SSBNs the enemy will spend a lot of manpower and resources, and thus is forced to reduce the impact on our territory, you do not take into account?
          Why are you not considering the option when a preventive launch from our SSBNs will be carried out even before the launch of American ballistic missiles, and we will carry out this launch in our rocket ships, synchronously with the Strategic Missile Forces? Isn't that why new nuclear submarines are being built now? Or do you think that we will substitute ourselves for the slaughter, having such a nuclear potential - it would be a great naivety of those who think so.
          1. 0
            30 2021 June
            Quote: ccsr
            Quote: Niko
            In the Far East and the Northern Fleet, our missile submarines (without air support, ((and enough has been written about the difficulties of this without aircraft carriers)) have less chances than German disposable submariners of 1944

            And now what is the bayonet to the ground? And the fact that for the destruction of our SSBNs the enemy will spend a lot of manpower and resources, and thus is forced to reduce the impact on our territory, you do not take into account?
            Why are you not considering the option when a preventive launch from our SSBNs will be carried out even before the launch of American ballistic missiles, and we will carry out this launch in our rocket ships, synchronously with the Strategic Missile Forces? Isn't that why new nuclear submarines are being built now? Or do you think that we will substitute ourselves for the slaughter, having such a nuclear potential - it would be a great naivety of those who think so.

            It seems to you that you have given arguments in favor of the fact that you do not need to build a balanced fleet? The fact that the force of impact will decrease is How? Do you think b52 will work according to ours? Or ballistic missiles? You also write: "this is nonsense that we will lose millions of people, THEY will spend energy and resources on it"
            1. 0
              30 2021 June
              Quote: Niko
              It seems to you that you have given arguments in favor of the fact that you do not need to build a balanced fleet?

              "Balanced fleet" - you first decide what role it has in a future war, and do not get fooled by the tales of Timokhin and his gop-company as it should be based on their fantasies.
              Quote: Niko
              The fact that the force of impact will decrease is How?

              This means that they will have to use nuclear warheads against the destruction of our SSBNs, and from long distances, i.e. using ballistic missiles. Based on the limitation under the START Treaty, this will just reduce the number of remaining charges for our territory.
              Quote: Niko
              Or ballistic missiles?

              They will just be destroyed, because it will be important for them to put an end to our SSBNs as quickly as possible, until they release their ammunition load.
              Quote: Niko
              You also write: "this is nonsense that we will lose millions of people, THEY will spend energy and resources on it"

              Naturally, we will lose tens of millions of people, but some of the people will be saved, due to the fact that they will not fall on charges in the first tens of minutes of the war, because the Americans will use some of them against our SSBNs. But never mind, more Americans will die due to their concentration on the East Coast. So in the Stone Age, we will drive them in any situation.
              1. 0
                30 2021 June
                The meaning of aircraft carrier cover in the north and quiet is just that IM will have to use more forces and with an uncertain result. Now most of the work will be done by Their anti-submarine aircraft. And additional forces (ballistic missiles, axes or strategic aircraft) will be required much less. if a significant part of our submarines will be not at the berths but at sea, having neutralized anti-submarine aircraft, how do you imagine the use of all of what you write about them? Nuclear bombs across the squares?
                1. 0
                  30 2021 June
                  Quote: Niko
                  The meaning of the aircraft carrier cover in the north and quiet is just reduced to the fact that they will have to use more forces and with an indefinite result.

                  No aircraft carrier cover is required for our fleet - these are Timokhin's tales, they are used to buy people with little knowledge.
                  Quote: Niko
                  Now most of the work will be done by Their anti-submarine aviation.

                  And how is it going to fly to our Arctic waters and provide constant round-the-clock patrols there to destroy several of our nuclear submarines?
                  Quote: Niko
                  .And additional forces (ballistic missiles, axes or strategic aviation) will be required much less.

                  These fantasies do not correspond to common sense - since they divert their nuclear weapons, then less will fall on our territory.
                  Quote: Niko
                  Nuclear bombs across the squares?

                  But otherwise they will not succeed - here the main factor is the time factor.
                  1. 0
                    30 2021 June
                    Sorry, but you are sinking to delirium. Our "Arctic waters" are still under supervision (if you do not believe the stories that now we will only swim under the ice (where does the idea come from? there is no chance.) About throwing bombs into the ocean, look at the results of atomic tests (both American and ours) to destroy a submarine ..... without target designation .... they do not live so much .. about "how they will fly" - check the location bases, and technical characteristics of anti-submarine aviation.
                2. -1
                  July 1 2021
                  "And if a significant part of our submarines is not at berths but at sea, having neutralized anti-submarine aircraft" New in military affairs! Bravo! A bold approach - using submarines to neutralize anti-submarine aircraft! I directly see how "Varshavyanka" is chasing the unfortunate, defenseless "Poseidon"!)))
                  1. 0
                    July 1 2021
                    Quote: SkyScream
                    "And if a significant part of our submarines is not at berths but at sea, having neutralized anti-submarine aircraft" New in military affairs! Bravo! A bold approach - using submarines to neutralize anti-submarine aircraft! I directly see how "Varshavyanka" is chasing the unfortunate, defenseless "Poseidon"!)))

                    Learn to read before you write.
                    1. -1
                      July 8 2021
                      Not! First, learn to write with a clear message!
  20. +4
    29 2021 June
    Article ignorance and fierce delirium.
    Both Timokhin and Kolobov more than clearly and reasonably outlined all the advantages of the presence of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy. Moreover, both for the purpose of protecting the country's interests in "hot spots" and for covering up the actions of our strategic submarines and disrupting the actions of the enemy submarines.
    1. +3
      29 2021 June
      I absolutely agree, Dmitry. But our AV dissidents will still desperately try to hype on the topic, hoping that part of the audience will eat their "creativity". "And what, they took Buzova to the Moscow Art Theater? Why are we worse?"
    2. -1
      29 2021 June
      So write, there is nothing to object to the case, it remains only to freak out.
      1. +5
        29 2021 June
        Quote: EvilLion
        So write, there is nothing to object to the case, it remains only to freak out.

        Writing on the case is not a comment, but a whole article that will simply repeat 90% of the previously voiced arguments of the aforementioned Kolobov and Timokhin.
        The author emphasizes that the ground airfield is cheaper and more reliable, and the aircraft based on them are more effective in their combat use + "our missiles".
        But the problem is:
        1. While this very ground airfield is deployed, the troops will be without air cover
        2. Time. The arrival of an aircraft carrier at a hot spot is in any way faster than the arrival of ground aircraft
        3. AB can protect the ships of the fleet anywhere in the world ocean, a ground airfield is practically incapable of this.
        4. AB can block the actions of enemy aircraft and complicate the actions of submarines both in the area of ​​approach to our bases and in the area of ​​patrolling of enemy submarines, which will complicate the "first and sudden strike"
        5. For the guidance of missiles, reliable sources of target designation are needed. Even if AWACS aircraft from an aircraft carrier are less effective for this, they are still more effective than nothing at all.
        The 4th point is the main one for me personally.
        And I'm not freaking out. If the author of the article wrote nonsense - that's what I say. Not a single reasonable argument for AB's "unnecessary" is given, although the title was promising.
        1. -3
          29 2021 June
          The submarine with missiles will come no slower than the aircraft carrier. And in any case, the trough will not come until after a week, so if you do not have a base, then the trough will not help you either. There will be no one to save. An aircraft carrier is not an emergency aid - it is an option for additional. amplification that makes no sense without a ground presence.

          As for AWACS and intelligence in general, you are now blowing such bubbles that I quietly go nuts. Are you in general aware that both A-50/100 monsters and a huge number of reconnaissance drones are perfectly deployed at a normal airfield, which on an aircraft carrier is not a fact that they can accelerate / land, and simply compete with all other aviation for the runway?

          We don't need protection of the fleet anywhere in the oceans, because our fleet has nothing to do there. They are fighting not for the ocean, but for the land. As for the fight against submarines, the IL-38 is definitely not a carrier-based aircraft.

          In general, you have the same nonsense as Timokhin. We must, for some unknown reason, cover our squadrons in the Indian Ocean, apparently, Fr. Chatham capture, or Madagascar, but at the same time we cannot place an airfield with an Il-38 in the area that is important to us, which will drive submarines.

          The first and sudden blow is hampered not by troughs, but by hundreds of Topol units throughout the country, which will simply burn any helluva lot of suddenness. Believe me, the command will be given, and the overwhelming majority of launchers will survive the "first and sudden" strike.
  21. -4
    29 2021 June
    You see, the author, your problem is not that your opponents disagree with you, but that they simply do not understand the things that are extremely obvious to any normal person about which you write.

    My experience of communicating with lovers of "colored ponies", after these ponies have slipped into delirium and non-canon, shows exactly the same picture, people do not even understand what they are talking about.
    1. +1
      29 2021 June
      Quote: EvilLion
      My experience of communicating with lovers of "colored ponies", after these ponies have slipped into delirium and non-canon, shows exactly the same picture, people do not even understand what they are talking about.

      It is you who write in the comments of fantasy to reason sensibly and logically, alas, you cannot. I will give an example in the 80s of the Pacific Fleet and intelligence profiled the AUG's approach to Kamchatka, the Politburo learned from the report of the general of the border troops that Phantoms were frolicking over the heads of the border guards on the Commanders. And at that time, the USSR was armed with advanced technology. But in your comments everything is easy, submarines will find an aircraft carrier a hundred miles away and catch up at full steam and the enemy will admire the sea breeze with aviation the same. your arguments boil down to only one vigorous loaf and you can not argue on this because the chief said so much, he said a lot of things, but the results seem to be not visible.
      1. -1
        29 2021 June
        And in real combat, what would become of these "phantoms"? I am generally not interested in finding the trough itself, they will give it a torpedo, well, they won't, well, a knocked-out air wing devalues ​​the aircraft carrier.

        There is another problem that fans of Japanese landings on the Kuril Islands do not understand. There is a war, and there is a provocation. The fact that the British trough sailed to the Crimea is nothing more than a provocation, because it cannot inflict any defeat on our forces there, in the same way the Japanese company Kurillakh will not do anything to the garrison there, and a single "phantom" to our squadron. This is all showing the middle finger, but no more. A real war will require some kind of use of very large forces, that is, a "group target" from a squadron of "phantoms" that appears on the radars will be attacked with a high probability even without warning. This is without taking into account the departure from ports of entire squadrons of ships and other large movements, which in themselves cannot be hidden, and which can by themselves provoke a response. Well, come, say, to the Kurils, and destroying the air defense, to capture them with an AUG assault force, for example, will be able to. But then what? With Vladivostok, such a number will no longer work, there the air defense is definitely stronger than 2-3 air groups from troughs. And the war has already begun. That is, having said A, we must say B, - to drag the air force itself.
        1. +1
          29 2021 June
          And in real hostilities, the border guards would not even have time to convey a message, and in Kamchatka, half of the nuclear-powered ships were at the bottom. And this I proceed from the experience of PERL-HARBOR when the Americans conducted the exercises and the experience of the raid on Taranto was before my eyes, but the conclusions were never made.
          1. -1
            29 2021 June
            That is, the Yankees kill the police station, start a war, and think about what to do next. Sounds like a claim to win. About half of the nuclear-powered ships at the bottom is a little ridiculous, because they just have air defense.
      2. 0
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Shiden
        I will give an example in the 80s of the Pacific Fleet and intelligence profiled the AUG's approach to Kamchatka, the Politburo learned from the report of the general of the border troops that Phantoms were frolicking over the heads of the border guards on the Commanders.

        Well, where did you get the idea that if the Pacific Fleet's reconnaissance with an aircraft carrier had failed, then all other types of reconnaissance of the Armed Forces did not monitor the situation with the state of the American armed forces, and their nuclear triad?
        By this example, Timokhin and his gop-company loving to speculate, although anyone who is in the subject knows perfectly well that the country's air defense radio engineering brigades are taking enemy aircraft already 1500 km from our borders, and if the planes conduct radio exchange in the HF range, then on much larger distances.
        What the hell are border guards and their fictitious general, if the country's air defense led all their planes when approaching our borders?
        Believe less in any nonsense that people far from military affairs deliberately spread, they are paid for it.
        1. +1
          29 2021 June
          Yes, it means that this was not the case, and the memories of the former admirals of the USSR and the participants in those events are outright lies. About air defense, this is not new here, one comrade also wrote that from the Kola Peninsula, already on takeoff from the English airbase, the laws of physics were taken for escort not under the patriotic impulse. So you have a radio horizon and radio silence from a conventional enemy on the other hand, because they are stupid as Zadornov put it. And another question is why, then, the interceptors did not rise from Elizarov to meet the intruder if they were spotted 1500 km away or from Anadyr.
          1. -2
            29 2021 June
            Quote: Shiden
            Yes, it means that this was not the case, and the memories of the former admirals of the USSR and the participants in those events are outright lies.

            It was, but those leaders elevated their blunders to the rank of heroism, and various Timokhin continue to speculate on this.
            Quote: Shiden
            So you have a radio horizon and radio silence from a conditional enemy on the other hand, because they are stupid as Zadornov put it.

            Do you even know how the propagation of waves in HF, VHF and microwave ranges differs? Even if you observe radio silence, at an altitude of 10 km, many civil airfield radars will irradiate you throughout the entire flight, and these signals are received and processed by our radio engineering units long before they fly to our borders. So the Americans are not stupid, but you are simply not in the subject, so you are talking nonsense, referring to Zadornov.
            Quote: Shiden
            And another question is why, then, the interceptors did not rise from Elizarov to meet the intruder if they were spotted 1500 km away or from Anadyr.

            And for every sneeze, no one will raise planes - first they monitor and assess the situation, and only then decide on the adoption of adequate measures.
            1. 0
              29 2021 June
              Well, that patriotic impulse appeared. With radio silence, the RTR means will not show you anything, since there is no signal source to cover this time, the second is why the characteristics of air defense systems in range and detection altitude differ, but at an altitude of 10 km I do not argue, but at super low altitudes I am not sure that the radar will capture the target at a distance of 1500 km.
              1. -1
                29 2021 June
                Quote: Shiden
                With radio silence, the RTR means will not show you anything, since there is no signal source to peel it once,

                You really do not understand this issue, since you still do not know about the hundreds of thousands of radars that operate at different airports, ships, air defense of different countries, etc.
                They are the sources of the signal, which is reflected from the flying object in different directions. This reflected signal is intercepted by our radio engineering units, even if the plane is flying in complete radio silence, because they know the exact data of all radars and their modes of operation.
                Quote: Shiden
                but at super low altitudes I'm not sure that the radar will lock the target at a distance of 1500 km.

                How will they themselves fly at super low altitudes without radar and without the operation of radio frequency altimeters? The operation of these devices has long been recorded by reconnaissance satellites - naturally when it is needed. Well, if everything is serious, then the Il-20M was able to detect even low-flying aircraft, of course not 1500 km, but at least 500 km.
                1. 0
                  29 2021 June
                  To get started, read how the Argentine pilots acted against the British fleet in the Falklen War, how the Shellfid and Conway were sunk.
                  1. +1
                    30 2021 June
                    Quote: Shiden
                    To get started, read how the Argentine pilots acted against the British fleet in the Falklen War, how the Shellfid and Conway were sunk.

                    This Argentina was given to you, as if a similar war awaits us. But this is not the point, but the fact that we knew more about the actions of the British in this conflict than the Argentine intelligence, and from here draw conclusions.
  22. The comment was deleted.
    1. -3
      29 2021 June
      No, just reading the ravings of Timokhin and To a reasonable person is unbearable.
      1. +2
        29 2021 June
        Quote: EvilLion
        No, just reading the ravings of Timokhin and To a reasonable person is unbearable.

        Maybe sometimes Timokhin and Co. write nonsense, no one is sinless, but the question is, what is happening in the head of a person, far from being a teenager, who has put an avatar from a famous cartoon on the "lower Internet" on a resource for adults?
        1. +1
          29 2021 June
          In this case, you can obviously easily name the character's name on the avatar.
          And who is watching which films and cartoons, this, excuse me, is a personal matter for everyone. If for you cartoons ended at the age of 13, and you don’t know a damn about them, consider yourself an adult for this reason, then you are no better than Timokhin and Co.
          1. +1
            29 2021 June
            Quote: EvilLion
            In this case, you can obviously easily name the character's name on the avatar.

            I have not watched this cartoon, but this is not a case of a character from the famous animated series My Little Pony on the Internet? I looked, the drawing does not look like it means I was mistaken, usually only the most beaten off put avs from My Little Pony. Sorry.
            It doesn't look like The Last Unicorn either, I'm at a loss for what a cartoon is, can you tell me?
            Quote: EvilLion
            And who is watching what films and cartoons, this, excuse me, is a personal matter for everyone.

            I completely agree. I myself like to see drawn animation, especially the old one.
            Quote: EvilLion
            ... If for you cartoons ended at the age of 13, and you don’t understand a damn about them, consider yourself an adult for this reason, then you are no better than Timokhin and Co.

            Yes, I do not consider myself some sort of adult. Yes, I was wrong about Ava. But that was not my thought. And I often read your messages.
            Timokhin and Co were often mistaken, like me, but you are not at all sinless IMHO. A person can be wrong about one thing, be right about another. Each specific semantic message needs to be analyzed separately. Only not in the case of a meeting with a swindler interested in deception, of course.
            1. +2
              29 2021 June
              No, this is a character from MLP fanfiction, and MLP characters are often drawn in more complex styles, up to close to realism. I don’t know what the “lower internet” is, but I have reason to believe that I am quite familiar with the phenomenon when initially children's cartoons became popular among the adult audience, especially since our Russian "Smeshariki" and some Soviet cartoons belong to those.

              Timokhin has already been pointed out several times that he ignores countless ways to solve real problems, but he continues to invent delusional scenarios, such as super-operative defense of bases in Sudan, or repelling a Turkish attack on Khmeinim with a week-long march of a plane dump from the northern seas into the Mediterranean.
  23. +4
    29 2021 June
    > It is obvious that an aircraft carrier, even if it is in this area, is not capable of promptly supplying a ground grouping or forming / reinforcing it. So, for example, IL-76 can be delivered to a stationary airfield as additional personnel and additional equipment, including heavy.

    It seems that this is exactly the same overland thinking and the denial of independence to the fleet.
    1. -2
      29 2021 June
      No, it's just that the IL-76 flies faster than the ship floats. The sailors will now say what exactly floats, well, so it is the trough.
      1. +1
        29 2021 June
        I will add that under certain conditions the IL-76 can be networked on the ground (there are certain requirements for the ground and the length of the strip).
        Further, in a few days, a field airfield is deployed by the forces of an engineering battalion. A full-fledged database is created in a month. And this is all from scratch. (by the way, the last teachings on this matter were a year ago).
        I really did not find the exact timeframe, but if we focus on the United States, then the construction of a field airfield for the C-130 with the arrangement of the runway will take 3 days. I don’t think we have it longer.

        For those who begin to say that it needs to be protected, then first you need to read the requirements for field aerodromes. And there the safety requirements are clearly indicated, i.e. an airfield will not be built in an unsafe place.
        And if the place is not safe, then this is our clear attack. And here the question arises who are we going to attack?
        1. 0
          August 12 2021
          Quote: alstr
          I really did not find the exact timeframe, but if we focus on the United States, then the construction of a field airfield for the C-130 with the arrangement of the runway will take 3 days. I don’t think we have it longer.

          In fact, the time is much less (if there is already a more or less flat area), you need to understand that the "airfield" and the "runway" are different things, the runway for reagents can be built in a few hours, for this you just need to expand the special coating (as on photo below but with the function of connecting to each other and / or with the function of fastening to the ground)

          another thing is that so far "such a fast runway construction" is not used because it is not required.
      2. +1
        29 2021 June
        Quote: EvilLion
        No, it's just that the IL-76 flies faster than the ship floats. The sailors will now say what exactly floats, well, so it is the trough.

        Aha, and takes more
  24. +1
    29 2021 June
    Which is completely negated by the fact that ground airfields are the primary target for all enemy weapons, and there are a lot of these means both in number and type.

    And what will be the target of the aircraft carrier for all enemy weapons? Moreover, the target is even more vulnerable than the ground aerodrome.
  25. -1
    29 2021 June
    But the problem is:
    1. While this very ground airfield is deployed, the troops will be without air cover

    It is always easier and quicker to deploy a ground aerodrome or a platform for VTOL aircraft and helicopters than to find a working aircraft carrier and send it where necessary.
    2. Time. The arrival of an aircraft carrier at a hot spot is in any way faster than the arrival of ground aircraft

    For example Kuznetsov is ahead of the Su-34 or Tu-22M?
    3. AB can protect the ships of the fleet anywhere in the world ocean, a ground airfield is practically incapable of this.

    But to defend the ground forces far from the coast, AB is practically incapable. And the land-based aerodrome will protect the fleet off the coast better than AB.
    4. AB can block the actions of enemy aircraft and complicate the actions of submarines both in the area of ​​approach to our bases and in the area of ​​patrolling of enemy submarines, which will complicate the "first and sudden strike"

    Anything that can block AB can be even better blocked by aircraft from the shore.
    5. For the guidance of missiles, reliable sources of target designation are needed. Even if AWACS aircraft from an aircraft carrier are less effective for this, they are still more effective than nothing at all.
    The 4th point is the main one for me personally.

    AWACS aircraft are not capable of operating from a ground aerodrome?
    1. +1
      29 2021 June
      1 deploying an airfield is not just a platform to find from which an airplane can take off
      Stocks of material reserves, personnel, workshops for maintenance, the possibility of delivering a large amount of cargo - this is all the ship decides easily. But to the land - there are many questions.
      2. And what will the Tu-22m do there if it is necessary to neutralize separate mobile groups there? Helicopters with mobile workshops and personnel, as well as stocks of material resources from the bomb bay will be thrown out? Or will it hover in the air, waiting for the enemy to gather in a large crowd in a clearly visible open place and identify himself?
      3. And if the fleet off the coast is trying to break through the enemy blockade? What then? And if the airfield is located away from the place where you need to fight?
      4. The aircraft carrier can do this outside the effective action of coastal aviation. Coastal aviation's effective range is not yours.
      5. Capable. If there is no enemy opposition or it is possible to cover them with your aircraft. Therefore, they will not fly far from their airfield.
      All these arguments were discussed a hundred times down to the smallest detail.

      hi
      1. -3
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Avior
        1 deploying an airfield is not just a platform to find from which an airplane can take off
        Stocks of material reserves, personnel, workshops for maintenance, the possibility of delivering a large amount of cargo - this is all the ship decides easily. But to the land - there are many questions.

        There are a lot of options.

        Ideally, this is an ADVANCED placement of a limited contingent, with technical support. (but we have already realized that in the world of blue ponies they think in advance only in the navy).
        What is remarkable ... the amount of these funds is ADEQUATEN to the extent of our interests.

        Let me give you a simple example. You command a group of troops in an African country and black guys with Kalash on pickup trucks ride not far from your camp.
        300 people.
        Do you think you will be assigned an aircraft carrier to counter this threat?
        And starting from how many people on pickup trucks will you give the aircraft carrier "to drive"?


        2. And what will the Tu-22m do there if it is necessary to neutralize separate mobile groups there?

        Same as aircraft with AB.
        Or do you think that they will find their own goals, right? Dive attack them, huh?

        And why is the use of a helicopter carrier not satisfied?
        Or the occasional use of CD from ships against ground targets?
        1. +2
          29 2021 June
          1 also does not get even from the Americans, although they have an airfield for the difference incomparably larger
          2. It is much easier for them to patrol than tu22m
          And react faster
          Confused by the reconnaissance of the mobile group, if that arrives in 12 hours
          Best case scenario
          3 by the fact that even the minimal presence of enemy aircraft will allow you to paralyze your helicopter carrier
          1. -2
            29 2021 June
            1 also does not get even from the Americans, although they have an airfield for the difference incomparably larger

            How is it not possible? And you do not think that they have a lot of airfields just because they are very successful.
            By the way, did you see an aircraft carrier in Syria from the US side?
            And when the Wagnerites were shot in Syria by the Apaches, did they fly from an aircraft carrier?


            3 by the fact that even the minimal presence of enemy aircraft will allow you to paralyze your helicopter carrier

            I may be ironic a lot, but the paradox of the situation is that Timokhin's article about helicopters is really good.
            For this, read it, it is well written there why not everything is so rosy for planes versus helicopters.

            As for the aviation itself, it is a mistake to believe that aviation will need to be destroyed in air battles.
            Enemy aircraft are attacked in parking lots with cruise missiles.
            And if you develop history in such a way that the enemy has a truly full-fledged air defense system, then this is no longer a small-town conflict, but a serious military operation.

            2. It's much easier for them to patrol

            It's even easier to patrol ... UAVs.
            Orion or Altair.
            1. +2
              29 2021 June
              ... How is it not possible?

              Otherwise, they would not have held
              why not everything is so rosy for aircraft versus helicopter

              only by chance coincidence, unless
              it's even easier to patrol ... UAVs.

              Only they have nowhere to take off and sits down too
              And so far, UAVs do not provide the entire spectrum of aviation applications.
              For example, air defense
      2. 0
        29 2021 June
        Does the word Tartus mean anything?
  26. 0
    29 2021 June
    Will we be allowed everywhere to create ground airfields before a military operation? And how to compare the capabilities when the Su-35 meets at a distance of 1000 km from Kamchatka or the Kuriles with the F-35 at a distance of 300 km from the aircraft carrier?
    1. +3
      29 2021 June
      And if we are not allowed there, then maybe we don't need to go there? The war is not just being waged, but for some purpose, there are some allies who, in these conditions, believe that it is more profitable to give us a base than not to give us. And the abstract landing in the Philippines and everything against us is not what we should be thinking about when building the military.
    2. -1
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Frank
      And how to compare the capabilities when the Su-35 meets at a distance of 1000 km from Kamchatka or the Kuriles with the F-35 at a distance of 300 km from the aircraft carrier?

      And why should they meet there if the F-35 cannot reach our borders, because it will be shot down by our air defenses in a combat situation at a distance of 200 km from the border. In peacetime, such flights do not pose a threat, so there is no need to create illusions about such situations.
      1. -1
        29 2021 June
        Do you give a 100% guarantee that our air defense is capable of detecting the F-35 at a distance of 200 km? For the last 40 years, aviation has been winning against air defense by a large score.
        1. 0
          29 2021 June
          Quote: Frank
          Do you give a 100% guarantee that our air defense is capable of detecting the F-35 at a distance of 200 km?

          And do not go to the grandmother - they will find him earlier, because he will have to give an answer to the request "friend or foe". Naturally, if he does not fly at an altitude of 200 meters.
          Quote: Frank
          For the last 40 years, aviation has been winning against air defense by a large score.

          And they benefit from illiterate specialists from developing countries, but as they tried to bomb the Donbass, Ukraine lost almost all of its aviation.
    3. +2
      29 2021 June
      And which country in which part of the world are you going to occupy?
  27. +5
    29 2021 June
    The author read several articles by Andrey from Ch. And Alexander Timokhin, but did not understand the issue deeply. And as a result, hearing the ringing, but not knowing where he is, he tries to argue according to the principle "he is about warm, and he is about soft."

    Let's start with why you need an aircraft carrier. Alexander Timokhin in his article "Coastal Defense Aircraft Carrier" wrote to the Russians in white that we need an aircraft carrier first of all to fight the enemy's aircraft and fleet on the high seas, or in the waters, near the coast of which we either have no airfields at all, or there are few of them and they are vulnerable. And the use of aircraft carriers in overseas operations is justified when they are possible (i.e., there are no higher priority tasks) and justified (it is more convenient to attack an aircraft carrier than by other means)
    What does the author write about the war at sea? Nothing but running in circles around the Tu-160. Like, you can drown anything with them. That is so, if the enemies do not resist. And if they do? How will the "carcasses" be protected from the oncoming attack of fighters? The author does not write about this.
    Do we have many airfields in the Kuril region? On the islands themselves there are some runways, only they, by a strange coincidence, are easily fired at by rockets from how many thousands of meters there. And how to fight if the enemy crawls closer to the islands and attacks? How to keep the enemy from getting too close at all? In peacetime, of course, you can somehow make do with surrogates, hoping that the enemy will not go on the rampage. But how long can you go on a surrogate defense? Sooner or later, someone will taste it.
    This means that you need to have an aircraft carrier in the North and in the Far East.
    Well, yes, aircraft carriers require repair and maintenance. Exactly the same as submarines, and any other large ships and aircraft. The author somehow keeps quiet about the interflight maintenance of "carcasses".
    Yes, ships need to be put for scheduled repairs, which means they need to be duplicated. This means that it is desirable to have 2 aircraft carriers to the North and Far East.
    But, on the other hand, the author writes as if aircraft carriers (and, apparently, any other ships) should be glued to the water area that they protect. Regardless of whether the conditional Kurils are threatened by conditional Americans and japas or not. And intelligence, apparently, will play the fool.
    The author describes the tactics of using the fleet against the coast in general cool - like, we are sailing somewhere, anchoring and bombing for 5 years ... With such tactics, of course, it is better not to do anything at all. But it doesn't work that way. In particular, the missiles for which the author is campaigning are not only expensive, but they can also be targeted only if the coordinates of the target are known in advance. And if not? And if not, then no, and this already puts an end to the use of missiles instead of aircraft. These are different types of weapons with different tasks, in some ways missiles can replace aviation, but in others they cannot. No matter where you run them from. If it was only a question of firing a rocket at a cheaper price, then neither the military fleet nor aviation would be needed - some dry cargo ship and container installations would be enough.
    About the relocation of the airfield, the author confuses "warm and soft" in literally two lines ... First, he writes "The AERODROME cannot be relocated", and then objects that it is possible to relocate the AVIATION.
    Well, kamon, relocation of aviation, probably, even third-graders in cartoons have seen. The question is where exactly to relocate? For example, "carcasses" need a concrete airfield. Do we have a concrete airfield in any hole? If not, then you will have to build-complete. Even if there is, it must be protected, as it were. Would it be a shame to lose the expensive Tu-160 from a self-made plastic suicide drone? Do we have airfields on the high seas? And if you need to fight at sea? That's what we're talking about.
    And by the way, Timokhin writes about the relocation of AVIATION (and not airfields) in great detail, in articles about naval missile-carrying aviation and the non-aerodrome dispersal of aircraft. But the author, apparently, did not read these articles.
    Regarding the helicopter carriers. Again, the author compares warm and soft. The author first asserts that “The cost of a helicopter carrier will be 5 to 30 (!) Times cheaper.”, But instead of substantiating this thesis ... He starts comparing airplanes and helicopters. Not aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers, but aviation and helicopters, as if the ships from which they take off are pure convention.
    So that's it. The helicopter, of course, can take off from any pelvis. And if there is a need for only helicopters to work only along the coast, then again you can take some civilian vessel with minimal alterations - and Timokhin writes about this as well. But there will be few helicopters on it and they will work with restrictions.
    And in order for helicopters to fly well, you need a large enough ship that is stable to roll, with all the appropriate facilities from navigation systems to lifts. And where is it all 5 times cheaper? And Alexander Timokhin asks the right question: why is it impossible to add more finishers to this economy (and a springboard, but it is inexpensive) and get a much more versatile light aircraft carrier? Why build a deliberately limited ship?
    It makes sense to make a specialized combat helicopter carrier in two cases. 1) is simply a UDC that carries only helicopters. 2) is a kind of simplified small ship for work in the Mediterranean Sea, where there is little excitement. This reincarnation of the cruiser "Kiev" will be cheaper than a normal aircraft carrier (but not 5 times, no), but only on condition that Turkey gives guarantees of its passage through the straits. Otherwise, it will have to be dragged from the North itself, which will completely eat up the benefits from saving on size.
    And there is no point in comparing helicopters and airplanes at all, they have different fields of application.
    About Vietnam, the author again heard the ringing, but did not understand where he was. The point was not that there were no airfields in South Vietnam. It was about the fact that North Vietnam is a country stretched along the sea, and in many cases it is simply a long time to fly from a ground airfield. And in the sea there really are no land-based airfields, because this is, um, the sea.
    Refueling is generally cool. No one denies that it is technically possible. But the author would have better calculated the cost of fuel, the wear of aircraft engines and tankers, and would answer the question, what combat missions justify such expenses - to fly across half the globe with refueling? It is one thing if it is a strategic nuclear bombardment, and another thing is the support of the local infantry in the assault on a village with militants. Chasing strategists to every shed - you will go broke.
    Well, stuff like that. In general, I wish the author a deeper understanding of the topic and generate fewer stupid jokes about ponies.
    1. 0
      29 2021 June
      Yes, ponies, as you know, are not blue, but pink. Here the author is wrong.
    2. +2
      29 2021 June
      Or maybe start with the formation of a coherent and understandable military-political doctrine and dance from it in the construction of the armed forces? The fleet, in particular. Otherwise, we will build unnecessary uselessness at the docks again.
      1. +1
        29 2021 June
        Let's first define that without reindustrialization our state has no sense at all. And the people too.
      2. +1
        July 1 2021
        feel described at one time: the construction of corvettes / frigates / diesel / nuclear powered ships, and anti-submarine ships, then helicopter carriers and aircraft carriers as the pinnacle of shipbuilding ... and this is all when creating infrastructure ..
  28. +4
    29 2021 June
    If anyone is interested, here is a brief description of the role of the US Navy at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan - a country more than 600 km from the sea and even further from the air force ground bases.
    https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/us-navy-operation-enduring-freedom-2001-2002.html

    Some interesting facts:
    - Aircraft from aircraft carriers inflicted more than 70% of all strikes in the first three months of the war.
    - One of the AB without an air group was used as a forward base of the MTR that carried out raids into Afghanistan
    - The Marines, with the support of aviation, landed from ships at an abandoned airfield in southern Afghanistan (600 km from the coast) and made a forward base there, from where the offensive went to the north.

    In all fairness, the set pace of operations would have been impossible without land-based "large" tankers, but those had a fairly large range to fly from remote bases in the Gulf and provide an air group of aircraft carriers with fuel near Afgan. Nevertheless, it was still much closer to fly from the Gulf of Oman than from the UAE and Bahrain.
    1. -2
      29 2021 June
      Quote: Andy J.

      Some interesting facts:

      Answer one question - how did it all end? Well, bolder, in light of the current flight, the heaps of killed Americans and the huge funds spent on an empty adventure. Why should we step on their rake?
      1. -1
        July 1 2021
        laughing ah ah ah ... manipulating again?)
  29. 0
    29 2021 June
    What to do?

    Wait for the media to leak at least some points of the new weapons program until 2034 in the section of the Navy, which Putin has just announced. If the idea is raised there to allocate funds for researching the prospects for creating a new aircraft carrier, then this means that the idiot will continue and no aircraft carriers will be built. If the deadlines for research and development are more rigidly set and a specific project is required at the exit, then it is possible that something will be built by the end of the armament program, perhaps not 100%, but close to it. It is simply unrealistic to build something before 2030, judging by the fact that helicopter carriers have been building for the second year already, and God forbid, they will finish it in 2027.
    1. 0
      29 2021 June
      I think there will be no specific program for their construction until 2034. There are too many problems to be solved, both technical and organizational. Moreover, such a program is too large and inconvenient even to try to saw and divide something there. There are much easier and safer ways.
      In addition, any timeframes will shift to the right due to the complexity and high degree of risk of such projects, and no one will give out initially pedestrian-realistic terms. This is already a risk of losing a warm place.
      1. -1
        29 2021 June
        Quote: Andy J.
        There are too many problems to be solved, both technical and organizational.

        It's not about them, but how to justify the operational use of our aircraft carriers in a future war. Because hardly anyone sane would think that we need them to protect our economic interests in Africa or Latin America.
        Quote: Andy J.
        I think there will be no specific program for their construction until 2034.

        I think so too, but so far no one knows what is included in the armaments program announced by Putin, and therefore we can only guess.
      2. 0
        July 1 2021
        the main problem is that there is nowhere to build aviki .. we need a new shipyard of the required size and specialists. No matter how they made fun of Varan, the idea of ​​modular ships is interesting, especially in terms of what you can start with helicopter-carrying cruisers PLO, and then move on to aircraft carriers ...
  30. 0
    29 2021 June
    In general, Timokhin, as a patriot, naively hoped that with his propaganda of a real strengthening of the combat capability of Russia, promoting his ideas to the masses, it would work out, would cover people with these ideas, and according to Marx, this idea would begin to be embodied in reality, led to the fact that various crooks decided to start parasitizing on his discussions, and cause a controversy for the sake of increasing the popularity of this resource (VO). His articles and feedback are simply used by unscrupulous businessmen, releasing more and more delusional, funny articles for the sake of "hype" and comments, views, advertising and related money. It remains to wish Timokhin patience and wisdom.
    Russia is no longer the USSR of the 30s or 50s and 60s. This is a society of exhausted people who can promote any ideas, they will not build any aircraft carriers at gunpoint.
    1. -1
      July 1 2021
      laughing so freedom of speech - I want and write, I do not want and do not write ..
  31. -1
    29 2021 June
    deploying an airfield is not just a platform to find from which an airplane can take off
    Stocks of material reserves, personnel, workshops for maintenance, the possibility of delivering a large amount of cargo - this is all the ship decides easily. But to the land - there are many questions.

    All that is needed to maintain a ground-based aerodrome is also needed for an aerodrome ship to an even greater extent. It is necessary, in addition to aircraft and the ship itself, to build, maintain, supply far from the base. Everything is easily solved at the ground-based aerodrome, and there are many questions to the ship. Including the question of the use of an aircraft carrier at 5 or more points of excitement. Land aerodromes are easily fortified and there are always hundreds of them, and several aircraft carriers are beaten in the largest fleets themselves.
    2. And what will the Tu-22m do there if it is necessary to neutralize separate mobile groups there? Helicopters with mobile workshops and personnel, as well as stocks of material resources from the bomb bay will be thrown out? Or will it hover in the air, waiting for the enemy to gather in a large crowd in a clearly visible open place and identify himself?

    If only individual mobile groups need to be neutralized, it is not necessary to drive the aircraft carrier across the oceans and seas, but it is necessary to organize field sites for helicopters, light aircraft and / or drones on the spot. Tu-22M can be used only where an aircraft carrier is needed.
    3. And if the fleet off the coast is trying to break through the enemy blockade? What then? And if the airfield is located away from the place where you need to fight?

    If the fleet is far out in the ocean and feeds, it dominates there better than the aircraft carrier, submarines and long-range bombers with missiles.
    And if the land army is far from the coast, then it is outside or on the border of the effective radius of deck aircraft. And this is a more typical case for Russia.
    4. The aircraft carrier can do this outside the effective action of coastal aviation. Coastal aviation's effective range is not yours.

    Coastal long-range aviation with missiles has a global radius. There is nothing on earth outside of it.
    5. Capable. If there is no enemy opposition or it is possible to cover them with your aircraft. Therefore, they will not fly far from their airfield.
    All these arguments were discussed a hundred times down to the smallest detail.

    AWACS will fly off from their aerodrome under the cover of aviation from the coast at a greater distance than the same aircraft from the aircraft carrier.
    1. +3
      30 2021 June
      ... what is needed for the maintenance of a land-based aerodrome is needed for an aerodrome ship to an even greater extent

      Shipping by sea is elementary. Part will be on the aircraft carrier itself, the other part will be delivered by supply ships.
      What can not be said about a land airfield, to which communications are not laid in advance.
      there is no need to drive an aircraft carrier across the oceans and seas, but it is necessary to organize on-site field sites for helicopters, light aircraft and / or drones.

      Which are difficult to organize just because of the enemy
      If the fleet is far out in the ocean and feeds, it dominates there better than the aircraft carrier, submarines and long-range bombers with missiles.

      In the conditions of the dominance of the enemy's air defense and plots, submarines and bombers will become targets
      coastal long-range aviation with missiles with a global radius.

      Just not in the zone of action of aircraft from an enemy aircraft carrier - for her they are targets
      AWACS will fly off from their aerodrome under the cover of aviation from the coast at a greater distance than the same aircraft from the aircraft carrier.

      The drlo plane can be seen very far away, so there must be its own cover aircraft nearby, otherwise it will be quickly shot down
      An aircraft carrier can provide this on the open sea at any distance, coastal aviation - only in a narrow coastal zone.
      1. 0
        July 2 2021
        Quote: Avior
        The drlo plane can be seen very far away, therefore

        and the aircraft carrier is even farther visible and more vulnerable, it will not run away from missiles
  32. The comment was deleted.
  33. +1
    29 2021 June
    Everything looks about the same as in 1904. Sailors, we would like ships, but more modern. The layman - why, you can handle it, and it's a little expensive.
  34. 0
    29 2021 June
    Niko (Nikolajs), is it you minus my every comment?) What stuck you so? Nothing to do on vacation?)