Military Review

Russian aircraft carrier off the coast of Africa

268

The main world aggressor keeps at least 10 aircraft-carrying ships in its Navy. And the Pentagon is doing everything to prevent the use of aircraft carriers in combat conditions.


For decades, the Forestalls, Nimitzes and Kitty Hawks have demonstrated the ultimate dimensions and reference performance for ships in their class. An impressive "support group" of supply ships and escorts was formed for each unit. On the decks of aircraft carriers - the most advanced aircraft for solving any problem. At attention - trained crews. But when war happened somewhere, aircraft carriers freeze at the docks of Norfolk and San Diego.

Where "Nimitz" and "Kitty Hawks" were used, their involvement was so limited that at times it looked just ridiculous.

The important thing is not to win but to take part


Seeking out the "importance" of floating airfields in Operation Desert Storm is as absurd as talking about Australia's key contribution to the defeat of fascism. Forgetting to mention the Soviet-German front. The analogy, I think, is clear here.

The air offensive in the winter of 1991 was almost entirely the merit of the US Air Force. Of those who have fulfilled over 80% of sorties. With or without aircraft carriers, this war would have ended with the same result.

Or, in your opinion, much has changed in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, when the aircraft carrier Roosevelt appeared in the sea? He arrived promptly, on the 12th day after the start of the war. We wouldn't have finished without him!

Does anyone doubt that the US airborne units could not cope with the highland defenders of Grenada without the help of the 330-meter AB Independence?

On the results of the military campaign of "Kennedy" and "Independence" to the shores of Lebanon (1984), supporters of the "aircraft carrier fleet”Prefer not to remember at all.

Someone can cite a case when, over the past half century, aircraft carrier groups arrived the fastest in the zone of the outbreak of conflict? And such a surgical intervention would play a decisive role?

You will not find such examples.

Aircraft carrier and deck theme aviation arouses great interest, as if an unthinkable superweapon is being discussed. Without which some opportunities will be missed or an important military event may not take place.

So, the real combat experience of the "probable enemy" Navy shows a completely opposite picture. Those with dozens of aircraft carriers cannot show when they really came in handy.

All of the above examples are “nailing with a microscope”. Aircraft carriers were brought in, because the ships built I had to use it somewhere.

If the Armed Forces of the USSR / Russia had acted in the place of the Americans in these conflicts, they would have achieved similar results on time. Without any floating airfields. Because the experience of the enemy says that they were simply not needed there.

The public and specialists are vying with each other to impose on the Russian Navy the useless weapon... Describing with delight the work of steam catapults and aerofinishers. Only they cannot agree on a combat use in any way. It gets to the point of absurdity: experts, in an attempt to prove the significance of their idea, begin to invent completely naive scenarios.

Sea battle for offshore


"And what should we do then, how to save our money?" - such a question was raised in the article "Several questions to the opponents of aircraft carriers", in which the author A. Timokhin investigated the problem of protecting the Russian economic presence in Africa. And all over it turned out that there was no way to do without aircraft carriers.

Wait! Hundreds of billions of rubles have been invested in the economies of various African countries. At the same time, the allocated funds for the rearmament of the Navy do not allow even thinking about building a ship with a rank higher than a frigate. It doesn't work that way. And here you should not think about aircraft carriers off the beaches of Zanzibar. There are even more substantial threats.

On October 23-24, at the Russia-Africa forum in Sochi, it was announced that $ 20 billion of African countries' debts had been written off.
(news 2019)

Within the framework of the Russia-Africa forum, which is taking place these days in Sochi, Russian companies and a number of countries on the continent signed an agreement on the issuance of loans worth $ XNUMX billion.
(TASS report, October 2019)

The last amount would be enough to modernize five Orlan heavy nuclear cruisers at once. But...

Why “feed this Africa” again?

In a commercial bank, a similar "touching история”Would be the subject of an investigation. Which will reveal the illegal actions of the management of the credit department. The scheme is as simple as day. In collusion with the "borrowers", managers appropriate the funds issued to themselves in the form of "kickbacks." Asocial elements, in whose name the loan is issued, receive an agreed percentage. And the bank, over and over again, has to write off the arisen debt due to the insanity of the "debtors".

At this point, the investigation of foreign economic activity at the Russia-Africa forum should be stopped. All matches are random. Our article is about something else entirely.

We would like to thank Alexander Timokhin for the fascinating combat fantasy with aircraft carriers off the Ivory Coast. But it should be noted that dropping bombs from deck attack aircraft on the heads of innocent Papuans is too cruel. We are totally against it. How do the leaders of Tumba-yumba know where the money is?

Russian aircraft carrier off the coast of Africa
Infographics: RBC

For reference: in 2018, trade with Africa accounted for 2,5% of the total trade turnover. The lion's share, slightly more than a percent, is Egypt, slightly less than a percent - Algeria. Except for Egypt and Algeria, which are major buyers of Russian grain and weapons, all other countries for Russia are close to zero in terms of foreign trade.

It is clear that the problem of protecting "investments" in Africa is entirely far-fetched and has nothing to do with reality. But are other scenarios possible when there is an urgent need for aircraft carriers?

Examples from real conflicts


Cases related to the period of the Second World War are incorrect in modern conditions. Eighty years ago, piston aircraft had negligible speeds and a combat radius.

The raid on Taranto (1940) and bombing strikes on French ships in Casablanca (1942) were carried out from the decks of aircraft carriers, because the Swordfish "whatnot" and the Dontless dive bombers were afraid to fly the extra 100 miles. It was critical for them.


After 45 years, F-111 aircraft, having risen from British bases, in one night covered thousands of kilometers over the Bay of Biscay, along the coasts of France, Spain and Portugal. Then they turned east over Gibraltar, in order to pass at low altitude over the Sahara, to go to the Libyan capital. F-111 bombed and returned back along the same route, showing the real capabilities of combat aviation of the 80s (Operation Eldorado, 1986).

Why did they drive tactical bombers from Great Britain when two aircraft carriers with a full wing were located off the coast of Libya? Trained or wanted to save money? In any case, this indicates that such an operation could have been carried out without the participation of carrier-based aircraft.


Проведение shock operations has long ceased to require the presence of air bases located near the combat zone. In this situation, the main advantage of the aircraft carrier - a mobile airfield, is depreciated. The practicality and effectiveness of weapons come first. Obviously, even the wealthy Yankees, accustomed to violent excesses, have questions about the practicality and efficiency of carrier-based aircraft.

Due to the extremely small number and deplorable technical condition, the experience of deck aviation in other countries can be neglected here. A Thai aircraft carrier with a penthouse for the royal family, or the Syrian campaign "Kuznetsov" disorganized in all respects. From the same series - the ever-troubled French "Charles de Gaulle".

Notable, status "toys" in the role of yachts for the top management of the fleet.
The distance from the base can be key only when providing continuous air cover for ground forces and naval groups. But, as history shows, since the end of World War II, no one else has erected "defensive perimeters" on atolls in the open ocean. And he did not strive to conduct hostilities where there was nothing but heavy impacts of waves on the side of the ship.

The 1982 Falklands conflict remained a unique example. One can describe for a long time the bizarre format of that "modern" war, in which Argentina had only five anti-ship missiles for the entire theater of operations.

We will confine ourselves to the fact that Russia, like most countries of the world, in principle, does not have territorial possessions in the other hemisphere. No contested or undisputed territories. Or other reasons to engage in a fierce battle with the participation of aircraft carrier groups. Against all who encroach on our sacred lands in Somalia and Easter Island.

The essence of economic "interests" somewhere in Africa was outlined a little higher. Another time, suggest using carrier-based aircraft to bombard offshore areas.

Figures and Facts


I have repeatedly had the honor to quote these figures. Achievements of American AUGs in local wars of the second half of the XX - early XXI centuries. So, with your permission:

War in Libya (2011). A narrow "strip" of land along the coast of the warm sea is ideal conditions for carrier-based aircraft. And ... not a single Nimitz came to greet Colonel Gaddafi. On the other hand, the US and NATO aircraft performed 26 thousand sorties, operating from air bases on the Greek islands, from Sicily and from airfields in Central Europe.


The beginning of the war in Afghanistan (2001). A story from the series "The Sixth Fleet off the Coast of Mongolia". But carrier-based aircraft were indeed used over the Afghan mountains and desert.

The duration of sorties from air bases located on the territory of the Persian Gulf countries, as well as from aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea, reached 9-10 hours. The extreme duration was determined not only by the flight time, but by the tactics of using multi-role fighters. Duty couples, to the eyeballs loaded with bombs and weapons, patrolled for hours over the mountains, periodically refueling and attacking targets at requests from the ground.

To fly from aircraft carriers to Afghanistan was no closer than from ground airfields in the UAE. Therefore, under these conditions, carrier-based aircraft could not have any noticeable advantage over ground-based aircraft.

The fighting qualities of aircraft carriers, apparently, turned out to be so valuable and irreplaceable that the Kitty Hawk, located in that area, was transformed from a formidable aircraft carrier into a floating base and a "hotel" for special forces.

The deployment of military aircraft at the Karshi-Khanabad airbase in neighboring Uzbekistan was considered unjustified for various reasons. In Uzbekistan, there were only US Air Force combat support planes and transport and attack helicopters.

About a month later, the Americans recaptured the Kandahar airfield from the Taliban. And the real combat work of the Air Force began.

Yugoslavia (1999). Air strikes on Serbian territory were carried out by American aircraft deployed at air bases in many European countries.


The war in the center of Europe did not require naval airfields. Therefore, it is not surprising that the US aircraft carrier fleet, represented by the only Roosevelt, was in no hurry to enter the combat zone.

The Roosevelt came to have the big and beautiful ship featured on the news. And the admirals were not left without their favorite medals.

Desert Storm (1991). The Gulf War was the largest campaign since 1945. Thousands tanks, half a million soldiers. On the background on such a scale the presence of several additional airfields, even floating ones, could not have a significant effect. Real indicators are less than 1/5 of all combat missions of the coalition.

It is noteworthy that the huge aircraft carrier forces that the United States had (14 AB units) did not even make an attempt to prevent the invasion of Iraqi armies into Kuwait. And they were inactive for the next six months, while Iraq pulled together forces and erected fortifications on the border, preparing for the inevitable war.

Here is the real price for all "fairy tales" about prompt reaction and "projection of force", the favorite arguments of the proponents of floating airfields.

Six of the oldest units were allocated to participate in the operation (including the Midway, built in 1945). Which were placed as far as possible from Kuwait - in the Arabian and even in the Mediterranean seas. Any incident with damage to aircraft carriers could have a big impact in public circles, so they were "floated" away. The coalition command needed beautiful statistics without losses.

Of course, no one entrusted the blinded Hornets with the bombardment of important and protected objects. Command posts of the air defense sectors, a command and control center in Al-Talji, power plants, a nuclear complex in Al-Tuwaita, pumping stations for filling ditches and canals with burning oil. Only Air Force squadrons were involved in such missions, including the use of stealth aircraft.

This is once again about the importance of carrier-based aircraft in that war.

Finally, if the Americans needed to place additional aircraft on the coast, equal in number to the air wings of six AB, then there were all the possibilities for this. Free up space on the airfields by sending back part of the obsolete and incapacitated aircraft of the coalition allies. Which stood without taking an active part in the war.


Multipurpose fighters "Hornet" and bombers A-6 "Intruder"
at the Sheikh Isa airbase in the Persian Gulf (1991)

The situation in the course of the Iraqi war (2003) differed only in a more modest scale of hostilities. Anyone who, for whatever reason, needed to bomb Iraq, Syria or Lebanon, managed to solve this task with the forces of the traditional air force.

Since the middle of the twentieth century, the United States has had a huge number of bases in the oil-producing countries of the Middle East. The army contingent is on duty on the coast, nondescript ships and boats patrol the adjacent bays. What are the carrier groups?

Which aircraft carrier was next to the Stark frigate hit by an Iraqi missile (hot 1988, "tanker war")? Near the frigate were only "old galoshes": the command ship "La Salle" and the destroyer "Kunz". AWACS "Sentry" hung in the air, and fighters from the Saudi airbase did not react, because their own "ally" fired at the Americans.

Just as the Soviet Navy carried out trawling and successfully escorted tankers through the troubled waters of the bay, without any help from first-rank aircraft carriers. In one of the "hottest" regions of the planet!

The battle of the aircraft carrier "Enterprise" with Iranian oil platforms is a clowning and the notorious "hammering nails with a microscope." The admirals are missing the new medals. Operation Praying Mantis (1988).

If the Enterprise was not nearby, the elderly missile cruiser Wainwright and the frigate Roberts would have shot Iranian corvettes just as they did in reality.

We are transported to Lebanon, on the calendar - 1984. Typical news from those places - the explosion of the embassy and the "response" is not known by whom. At that time, the enemy chose the position of the Syrian army in the Bekaa Valley.

The US Navy allocated aircraft carriers Kennedy and Independence, from which a dozen stormtroopers took off. The first and only air raid ended with the loss of two aircraft. Then the farce began. The ancient battleship New Jersey was driven to the shore and the valley was plowed up with 406-mm guns. Apparently, the Americans found it more effective and easier to use such an unusual and forgotten technique.

Invasion of Panama in 1989. There ... the fleet, in general, did not take part. It was a classic airborne operation. The A-7 Corsair deck shooter seen in the sky actually belonged to the forces of the National Guard.

As follows from all the above examples, from the very beginning of the 1980s to the present, there has not been a single case when the participation (or absence) of aircraft carriers in any way affected the course of hostilities.

We have to turn to an earlier era of the 1960s and 1970s. The main argument of all supporters of aircraft carriers is the Vietnam War.

This war happened too long ago


Over half a century ago. Citing Vietnam as an example, experts without the slightest doubt project the experience of that war onto the conflicts of the XNUMXst century. As if they might have something in common.

Nobody noticed that the rules and restrictions that were in force for aviation in that era look different now? The normal takeoff weight of the A-4 Skyhawk, the main attack aircraft of the US Navy, was three times less than that of the modern F-35. Just like the Su-35 is three times heavier than the MiG-21.

Even such a large fighter for its time as the twin-engine Phantom (20 tons) now seems undersized compared to the Raptors and the F-15E.

As in the case of WWII aircraft or the massive debut of jet aircraft in the skies of Korea, all this is a distant past. And if the subsonic Skyhawk piloted by McCain could not stay in the air for more than 3 hours, what does this have to do with modern combat aircraft of 4-5 generations?

The most interesting thing is that under the conditions of Vietnam, aircraft carriers did little to reduce the flight time or the convenience of using aviation. At one glance at the map, it becomes clear that flying from air bases or aircraft carriers to the combat zone was about the same. For obvious reasons, the area of ​​combat maneuvering of aircraft carriers ("Yankee Station") was located in the open sea, hundreds of kilometers from the dangerous coast from which missiles were flying.

If we talk about the most advantageous bases of aviation, then the least distant from the combat zone were considered to be air bases on the territory of South Vietnam. For example, Danang, just a few tens of kilometers from the line of contact with the enemy.


On closer inspection, the Vietnam War appears to be an unexpectedly large and intense conflict. Three times more bombs fell on the territory of a small country than on Germany during the Second World War. And the losses of US aircraft were estimated at 10 thousand units. All this definitely hints that it would be impossible to wage such a war with carrier-based aircraft.


Domestic military experts draw up diagrams, which always indicate the areas of combat maneuvering of US aircraft carriers and do not say anything about the actions of the Air Force. Hence the false impression is created that the AB were the main participants in the war.

What our analysts attach importance to is very different from what the Americans themselves show. The following illustrations show the locations of major air bases and the routes of air tankers. And everything immediately falls into place.


The war was "dragged" by the US Air Force aircraft. Operating from airfields in Thailand (Korat, Green Hill, Chang Mai, Takli - only 28 places). And from air bases in the controlled territory of South Vietnam (the largest and most famous are Danang, Cam Ranh).

On the example of Vietnam, we did not see the main thing. Indispensable qualities of mobile aerodromes, which ensured the actions of aviation in the absence of places for basing on the coast. In fact, there were plenty of air bases in that region.

Of course, flying from the shore is not as beautiful and romantic as soaring over the waves to the deafening whistle of catapults! Well. Welcome to reality.

Epilogue


At the very end of the earth, during the Falklands Conflict, Britain has an ally to talk about. The worst enemy of the Argentine dictator Galtieri, the Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet.

Not wanting the "dispute between the two bald men over the comb" to turn into something serious, the British abandoned the deployment of combat aircraft at Chilean airfields, leaving only reconnaissance aircraft there. At the same time, the Chilean army began a series of provocative maneuvers on the border, drawing on half of the Argentine armed forces. What they could - they helped.

Returning to "securing the economic presence" somewhere in Africa. It never happened that a serious power had a mighty fleet and interests on another continent, but it was not revealed by a number of allies and assistants. Those who were ready to provide access to their airbases, ports, roads and military facilities for the "carrot" or simply out of burning hatred for their neighbors.

Often, they were not even asked, but simply presented with a fact.

An attentive reader may ask a question about the "Eldorado Canyon". The answer is - what kind of scoundrels do you have to be so that your antics scare off even the most loyal associates? Another beating of Libya seemed too much to the Europeans, and they closed their airspace. Everyone except the British. But that was 1986, so US tactical aircraft flew over Europe without any problems.

Allies anytime, anywhere. With the unrestrained growth of the characteristics of jet aircraft. It is for these reasons that the presence of aircraft carriers in local wars began to look so useless. And supporters of the aircraft carrier fleet are now struggling to find an area of ​​application for their "idols", attracting everything here. Local wars, open confrontation with NATO fleets and even nuclear war.

Finally decide! The ship is built for specific tasks. And you, friends, have to invent tasks in order to justify the existence of your favorite aircraft carrier.

Author:
268 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. what's up
    what's up 17 May 2021 15: 12
    -4
    Bullshit! The article does not even match the title!
    1. Hwostatij
      Hwostatij 17 May 2021 15: 55
      +15
      And what is nonsense? In my opinion, everything is quite logical and reasonable. I've noticed a long time ago that ardent supporters of aircraft carriers somehow coherently explain the need to use these vessels for the most part are not able to. It looks like a mixture of fetishism and cargo cult.
      1. NEOZ
        NEOZ 17 May 2021 16: 19
        +8
        Quote: Hwostatij
        It looks like a mixture of fetishism and cargo cult.

        well, so it is necessary to deal with this!
        you need to dig the real tasks of aircraft carriers.
        it cannot be that the United States (Britain, India, China and other owners of non-aviation carriers) is more stupid than Oleg Kaptsov.
        1. Hwostatij
          Hwostatij 17 May 2021 16: 25
          +1
          it cannot be that the United States (Britain, India, China and other owners of non-aviation carriers) is more stupid than Oleg Kaptsov.

          Or maybe they are just, unlike us, sea powers, and not land? Colonies there, sea routes? I say, cargo cult in its purest form.
          1. NEOZ
            NEOZ 17 May 2021 16: 47
            +5
            Quote: Hwostatij
            Or maybe they are just, unlike us, sea powers, and not land?

            and what is the difference between land and sea? can you give examples of a land power other than the Russian Federation?
            Quote: Hwostatij
            I say, cargo cult in its purest form.

            in the comments of the aircraft carriers this is definitely a kargokult, but this does not mean that the avik is not needed!
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 17 May 2021 19: 45
              +1
              Quote: NEOZ
              Quote: Hwostatij
              Quote: NEOZ
              it cannot be that the United States (Britain, India, China and other owners of non-aviation carriers) is more stupid than Oleg Kaptsov
              Or maybe they are just, unlike us, sea powers, and not land?

              and what is the difference between land and sea?

              Only in one thing: a land power has no and / or insufficient navy does not affect the country's security.
              1. Comrade I
                Comrade I 17 May 2021 20: 33
                0
                And what is the difference in the security doctrines of the "sea" and "land" powers?
                1. Shurik70
                  Shurik70 18 May 2021 00: 06
                  +1
                  I agree with the Author.
                  "The fleet influences politics by the very fact of its existence" (c)
                  It is this principle that the United States fulfills. Their carriers are a scarecrow.
                  And we didn’t get rid of them because they are very efficient at pumping money out. After all, the main thing is to master the monstrous budget. What AUG does an excellent job.
              2. Serg65
                Serg65 18 May 2021 12: 28
                +5
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                a land power has no and / or insufficient navy does not affect the country's security.

                Here's a small example ...
                The USSR is seeking from Angola the placement of a PMTO in Luanda + an airfield for basing reconnaissance aircraft. How the PMTO and the airfield can affect the security of the "land power" of the USSR in some Angola? And in the most direct way! Wheat traffic from Argentina and fisheries in the Gulf of Guinea and the southern coast of Chile! Could the USSR control this area with tanks, infantry and artillery?
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 18 May 2021 13: 37
                  0
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Could the USSR control this area with tanks, infantry and artillery?

                  контролировать water water area purely land forces? wassat you have thick grass ...
                  but let's take your example, and turn it 180 degrees, "how EXACTLY the LACK of PMTO + airfield in Angola can lead to the destruction of" Moscow \ Peter \ substitute_nuzhnoe "on the territory of the Russian Federation \ USSR?" I wrote above about security, not about power / wealth / influence, etc.
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 19 May 2021 09: 38
                    +2
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    you have thick grass ...

                    recourse Yours is much better ...
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    but let's take your example, and turn it 180 degrees, "how EXACTLY the LACK of PMTO + airfield in Angola can lead to the destruction of" Moscow \ Peter \ substitute_nuzhnoe "on the territory of the Russian Federation \ USSR?"

                    Reverse my example and read carefully, slowly ...
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Wheat traffic from Argentina and fisheries in the Gulf of Guinea and the southern coast of Chile!

                    Food security is just as important as military security! IT IS THE Lack of a PMTO + airfield in Angola that would have led to the arrests and seizures of Soviet dry cargo vessels and fishing trawlers, which in turn would have exacerbated the food problem in the USSR. This problem could have ended with hunger riots and the collapse of the USSR long before Gorbachev!
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 19 May 2021 13: 16
                      0
                      Quote: Serg65
                      Food security is just as important as military security! IT IS THE Lack of a PMTO + airfield in Angola that would have led to the arrests and seizures of Soviet dry cargo vessels and fishing trawlers, which in turn would have exacerbated the food problem in the USSR. This problem could have ended with hunger riots and the collapse of the USSR long before Gorbachev!

                      AH-HA-HA-HA, laughing Do you even understand what you wrote? apparently not, because it reads something like this fool
                      I propose to ensure FOOD SECURITY of the USSR by creating a food base on the other side of the planet

                      as for me it is better to develop a food base on the territory of the state itself, it is both cheaper and safer ...
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 19 May 2021 14: 21
                        +2
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        AH-HA-HA-HA

                        Well, I thought that your grass is where my zaboresty !!!!
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        as for me

                        I suggest you invent a time machine, go back to 1969 and show this "idiot" Brezhnev how to work !!! Better yet, in 1946, kick Stalin, sit in his chair and steer in the right way! good
                2. max702
                  max702 19 May 2021 08: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                  a land power has no and / or insufficient navy does not affect the country's security.

                  Here's a small example ...
                  The USSR is seeking from Angola the placement of a PMTO in Luanda + an airfield for basing reconnaissance aircraft. How the PMTO and the airfield can affect the security of the "land power" of the USSR in some Angola? And in the most direct way! Wheat traffic from Argentina and fisheries in the Gulf of Guinea and the southern coast of Chile! Could the USSR control this area with tanks, infantry and artillery?

                  Was this movement of any kind for the USSR? Now, if you sit down with a calculator and count everything? Maybe the terrible poverty in the RSFSR is just from such projects?
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 19 May 2021 09: 41
                    +1
                    Quote: max702
                    Now, if you sit down with a calculator and count everything?

                    calculator, count ... there you had to live and understand the hard way!
                    Quote: max702
                    Maybe the terrible poverty in the RSFSR is just from such projects?

                    Buy a time machine and replace Brezhnev! laughing I hope you succeed!
                    1. max702
                      max702 19 May 2021 09: 55
                      0
                      Quote: Serg65
                      there you had to live and understand the hard way!

                      I then lived on this and say ..
                      And on the subject of counting, do you have anything to say?
                      1. Serg65
                        Serg65 19 May 2021 10: 06
                        +4
                        Quote: max702
                        I then lived on this and say ..

                        We lived in different countries?
                        Quote: max702
                        And on the subject of counting, do you have anything to say?

                        And what do you want to count? The number of droughts, lands abandoned from agricultural use due to soil erosion, lack of fertilizers ..... what shall we count?
                      2. max702
                        max702 19 May 2021 10: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: Serg65
                        Quote: max702
                        I then lived on this and say ..

                        We lived in different countries?
                        Quote: max702
                        And on the subject of counting, do you have anything to say?

                        And what do you want to count? The number of droughts, lands abandoned from agricultural use due to soil erosion, lack of fertilizers ..... what shall we count?

                        Apparently in different, And all of the above-listed troubles occurred solely by the will of God (especially the lack of fertilizers and soil erosion), or because the resources were invested in it is not known what was not enough for this? Maybe SSV 33 "Ural" for a billion rubles was not really needed, but fertilizers for the same amount would be very useful?
                      3. Serg65
                        Serg65 19 May 2021 10: 59
                        +2
                        Quote: max702
                        did all of the above troubles occur solely by the will of God (especially the lack of fertilizers and soil erosion) or because the resources were invested in it is not known what and for this very thing they were not enough?

                        Or all the same, the century-old experience of land use was lost in the bud? Or maybe the Soviet government disaccustomed people to work on earth? They invested in the virgin soil, the first year they rejoiced, in the second year zero point tenths of the harvest ... did they invest little? All the Soviet people in the spring sorted rotten potatoes in vegetable stores, vegetable stores are to blame, or is the approach to preserving the harvest?
                        Quote: max702
                        Maybe SSV 33 "Ural" for a billion rubles was not really needed, but fertilizers for the same amount would be very useful?

                        "Ural" was just what was needed for the very military security you care about so much! But tens of thousands of obsolete tanks, hundreds of cruisers, destroyers and submarines were hardly needed for the otvetstoyanie storage! Content at the expense of the USSR of the CMEA countries? Maybe it was worth transferring them to self-sufficiency? Factories producing unnecessary products, were they needed? And this is many times more than the Ural billion! Consider it so!
                      4. max702
                        max702 19 May 2021 11: 20
                        +1
                        So you yourself answered the question .. You invested in virgin soil, did not invest in processing and storage because it is VERY expensive, and denyuzhka just in those years went to barbudos and the fleet went to support it and, as it were, it ended, virgin soil remained without fertilizers and elevators .. "Ural", as life has shown, was not really needed like the Navy of that scale, there were also excesses in tanks, like the CMEA and 14 republics, but I repeat, these are all links in the same chain .. The very straws that broke the camel's back.
                      5. Serg65
                        Serg65 19 May 2021 11: 54
                        0
                        Quote: max702
                        So you yourself answered the question

                        No buddy, you yourself invented it here wassat
                        Quote: max702
                        not invested in processing and storage

                        Where did you get it? Elevators all over the country were like mushrooms, another thing is that disorder and slovenliness flourished on them, so this investment cannot be corrected!
                        Quote: max702
                        "Ural", as life has shown, was not really needed like the Navy of that scale

                        laughing When the Ural went into operation, life was already over!
                        Quote: max702
                        The very straws that broke the camel's back.

                        A camel in the place of a talentless shepherd needed an intelligent driver!
                        Quote: max702
                        and 14 republics

                        And what have the republics hindered you with?
                      6. max702
                        max702 19 May 2021 12: 17
                        +1
                        Study the question of virgin lands it will become clearer for elevators and other things, if the driver is worse than a talentless shepherd (and the fleet, barbudos and CMEA confirm this), then what questions? 14 republics drew blood no worse than the ones listed above .. Well, there is the wrong one, and somehow the standard of living in space rushed nowhere to put the car .. Now we will finalize with the remnants of non-brothers and we will heal very well ..
                      7. Serg65
                        Serg65 19 May 2021 14: 17
                        +2
                        Quote: max702
                        Study the question of virgin lands will become clearer by the elevators

                        After 56, the issue with the elevators was resolved and it was not a problem of lack of money!
                        Quote: max702
                        if the driver is worse than a talentless shepherd (and the fleet, barbudos and CMEA confirm this), then what are the questions?

                        what It seems like it was on the contrary, huh?
                        Quote: Serg65
                        A camel in the place of a talentless shepherd needed an intelligent driver!

                        And the questions are just the same for the shepherd!
                        Quote: max702
                        14 republics drew blood just as well as higher

                        Under bloody tsarism, they did not draw blood, but here they suddenly became bloodsuckers ... what interesting, right?
                        Quote: max702
                        Well, there is the wrong one, and somehow the standard of living into space rushed the car to put nowhere

                        Maybe just a competent driver?
                        Quote: max702
                        Now we will finalize the remnants of non-brothers and heal very well ..

                        what Don't you need a compass? New and cheap ...
                        As I understand it, the whole trouble of the country is in the navy and the army? Do you want to get rid of them completely? Well, so as not to interfere with swimming in the rivers of milk!
                      8. max702
                        max702 19 May 2021 17: 41
                        -1
                        Quote: Serg65
                        As I understand it, the whole trouble of the country is in the navy and the army?

                        The whole trouble is ... their decisions of the leadership, CMEA, Barbudos, bratskie peoples are those very decisions .. Gorshkov's fleet from the same opera that he gave to the USSR except for expenses? Nothing! Now we do not have a similar fleet, but for that the country has EVERYTHING! How is that ? There was a fleet and there was nothing, there is no fleet and everything is there? Is there some kind of relationship here? With CMEA, not brothers and others the same picture, there are no wrong ones and others end, and chu .. everything is there in the country and it is getting more and more ..
                        Under bloody tsarism, they did not draw blood, but here they suddenly became bloodsuckers ... what is interesting, right?
                        Under tsarism, there were no cries about great-power Russian chauvinism, and they did not drag out ...
                        About elevators and other infrastructure required for the development of the harvest, you would specify ..
                      9. Serg65
                        Serg65 20 May 2021 07: 14
                        +2
                        Quote: max702
                        Now we do not have a similar fleet, but for that there is EVERYTHING in the country! How is that ?

                        laughing You yourself originally answered ...
                        Quote: max702
                        The trouble is ... their leadership decisions

                        Quote: max702
                        Gorshkov's fleet from the same opera that he gave to the USSR apart from expenses?

                        Gorshkov had no opportunity to influence the development of the fleet! The party said. it is necessary! Gorshkov replied, yes!
                        The surface fleet was minuscule in terms of combat capabilities!
                        Quote: max702
                        What did he give the USSR apart from expenses?

                        Above, I have already given you one of the examples!
                        Quote: max702
                        There was a fleet and there was nothing, there is no fleet and everything is there? Is there some kind of relationship here?

                        No relationship at all! It's the same as ... there were collective farms and there was nothing, there are no collective farms and everything is ... are the collective farms to blame for this?
                        Quote: max702
                        Under tsarism there were no cries of great-power Russian chauvinism

                        Under tsarism, they did not flirt with the outskirts in the hope of gaining the loyalty of the population of these outskirts.
                        Quote: max702
                        from that and did not pull.

                        laughing Those. Do you want to convince me that under Soviet rule people wore shirts made of purely Russian cotton, ate bread made from purely Russian wheat, sweetened their tea with purely Russian sugar and decorated the New Year's table with purely Russian tangerines and a jar of purely Russian sprats ????
            2. nerd.su
              nerd.su 19 May 2021 16: 47
              -1
              Quote: Serg65
              Content at the expense of the USSR of the CMEA countries? Maybe it was worth transferring them to self-sufficiency?

              Well, they were transferred to 91, and what is the result? Czechs, on orders from Washington on a ridiculous charge of grandmother, demands. This is the sad result of the primitive scammer of allies.
              I. By the way, can you prove that the USSR contained CMEA?
            3. Serg65
              Serg65 20 May 2021 08: 29
              +2
              Quote: bot.su
              Well, they were transferred to 91, and what is the result?

              What happened back in 1956!
              Quote: bot.su
              This is the sad result of the primitive scammer allies

              Give me bread, ally! You don’t give bread, not an ally! Interesting, huh?
              Quote: bot.su
              can you prove that the Soviet Union contained CMEA?

              Yes, like two fingers on the asphalt!
              1947 year. The Soviet people are swelling with hunger, and wagons with wheat, corn and potatoes are going in a continuous stream to Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland and Romania.
              1949 year. CMEA is being created. To support the economy of the allied countries, the USSR donates the production of AN-2, Mi-2 free of charge, refuses to produce its own training aircraft and begins to buy them in Czechoslovakia, finances the creation and modernization of shipbuilding in the PRR, GDR, SFRY and begins to order in these countries have courts for the USSR Ministry of Fisheries, the USSR MMF, the USSR Navy, at the same time these organizations send part of their vessels for repairs to these countries + NRB. The USSR finances the construction of the Hungarian Ikarus plant, the Ikarus bus became the main public transport of the USSR. The USSR gives up on the domestic tobacco industry and begins to buy Bulgarian cigarettes. The USSR is building the Druzhba oil pipeline and begins to sell oil products to the CMEA countries at preferential prices, which suddenly allowed Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and Poland to become exporters of oil and oil products on the world market.
              what Does this little bit suit you?
            4. nerd.su
              nerd.su 21 May 2021 00: 59
              -1
              Quote: Serg65
              What happened back in 1956!

              But in 1991 we stupidly dispersed the CMEA, in particular the Czechs were almost literally told - a good deal. So with 56, the parallel is not appropriate.
              Quote: Serg65
              Give me bread, ally! You don’t give bread, not an ally! Interesting, huh?

              Well, why such an ally who will not help in difficult times? In principle, there are no equal unions. From family union to state allies are linked by a system of obligations and interests. And the ally who is more interested in the union gives more. What are the exceptions? Do not confuse only with the vassal-overlord relationship.
              Quote: Serg65
              1947 year. Soviet people are swollen from hunger, and wagons with wheat, corn and potatoes are in a continuous stream in Czechoslovakia

              CMEA has nothing to do with it, it was created, as you write in 1949.

              Quote: Serg65
              1949 year. CMEA is being created. To support the economy of the allied countries, the USSR transfers the production of AN-2, Mi-2,

              This is of course the USSR contained the CMEA production of the AN-2! There would be no direct production in Poland if it were not for the corn plant.

              Quote: Serg65
              abandons the production of its own training aircraft and begins to buy them in the Czech Republic

              That is, after the USSR began to buy training aircraft in the Czech Republic, the production of training aircraft itself stopped? The Internet, of course, he is, any nonsense will endure.

              Quote: Serg65
              The USSR finances the construction of the Hungarian Ikarus plant

              When does it finance? In 1895? What is your evidence?

              Quote: Serg65
              the Ikarus bus became the main public transport in the USSR.

              Maybe in Moscow or Leningrad. In the provinces, it was a curiosity. I used a lot of bus intercity in the last Soviet-early Russian years, I only remember one Ikarus.
              By the way, within the framework of the CMEA, the USSR bought Ikarusov in financial terms as much as it sold its cars to Hungary.
              The story of building and repairing ships is probably a similar story, 180 degrees different from yours.

              Quote: Serg65
              The USSR puts on an end to the domestic tobacco industry and begins to buy Bulgarian cigarettes

              That is probably why, in my timid childhood attempts to start smoking, I carried "Smoke" and "Prima" from my father. Well, he didn't have Bulgarian cigarettes. And the last Soviet tobacco factory in our region was closed in the 2000s by Soviet officials from the CMEA having arrived in a time machine! You opened my eyes to the true picture of the world laughing

              Quote: Serg65
              Does this little bit suit you?

              Let's better with numbers, otherwise you seem to have released biogas into a puddle.
            5. Serg65
              Serg65 21 May 2021 07: 03
              0
              Quote: bot.su
              Let's better with numbers

              laughing will it somehow change your frontal lobe ????
              You have even a stake on your head, you still wake up screaming ... prove that white is black!
              hi Good luck with breaking new gates!
            6. nerd.su
              nerd.su 21 May 2021 09: 15
              -1
              Quote: Serg65
              Good luck with breaking new gates!

              drain is counted.
              It is understandable, with the numbers, the fiction is immediately visible. Yes, and you still need to be able to find them, here really a lot depends on the frontal lobe.
            7. Serg65
              Serg65 21 May 2021 13: 40
              +1
              Quote: bot.su
              It is understandable, with the numbers, the fiction is immediately visible.

              Talk to the wall? ......it's pointless!
              Quote: bot.su
              draining counted

              laughing Childhood, our everything!
  • pin_code
    pin_code 19 May 2021 10: 15
    -1
    poverty was due to the Caucasian, Asian (except Kaz SSR) and the Baltic republics. definitely not from aircraft carriers.
    1. max702
      max702 19 May 2021 10: 37
      -1
      Quote: pin_code
      poverty was due to the Caucasian, Asian (except Kaz SSR) and the Baltic republics. definitely not from aircraft carriers.

      And these are the links of one chain, and 14 republics and insane costs for the fleet so that barbudos and cannibals nishtyaks across the seas to carry oceans while protecting them and fighting for it ..
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 19 May 2021 11: 01
      +2
      Quote: pin_code
      poverty was due to the Caucasian, Asian (except Kaz SSR) and the Baltic republics

      Poverty was due to the lack of intelligence among the workers of the big house on the Old Square !!!
      1. max702
        max702 19 May 2021 11: 31
        -1
        Quote: Serg65
        Quote: pin_code
        poverty was due to the Caucasian, Asian (except Kaz SSR) and the Baltic republics

        Poverty was due to the lack of intelligence among the workers of the big house on the Old Square !!!

        The fact is that she was the rest of the particular, the discussion is about why she was, and precisely the absence the workers of the big house on the Old Square are crazy !!! just the same organized scams with the barbudos fleet, CMEA and others ..
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 19 May 2021 12: 07
        +2
        Quote: max702
        just the same organized scams with the barbudos fleet, CMEA and others ..

        belay Ooooh, are you just another corruption fighter?
        What do you think, Maxim .... an increase in cotton sowing in the Uzbek SSR is a scam?
        Well, or, for example, uncontrolled use of fertilizers, is this the same scam?
        Or, for example, in 1979, the Tula region, collective farms harvest birch branches to feed cattle ... is this a scam?
        And by the way ... sending city workers, office workers and schoolchildren to sponsored collective farms to work on collective farm fields and farms ... is the fleet to blame for this?
      3. max702
        max702 20 July 2021 10: 54
        0
        Sorry that it's late, but all the same .. That's all that you have listed is exactly is the fleet to blame for this? Exactly! The resources went to the fleet, and not to the same development and development of agricultural machinery for harvesting, so schoolchildren, students, workers and soldiers went to the battle with the harvest, right now there is nothing like that, and Russia (without the other 14 brothers) is the largest for the third year in a row exporter of bread in the world..a cotton, fertilizer and other ingenious solutions, what did you name from whom did it come from? From local leadership? Or maybe from the main leadership of the country? These are fundamental mistakes, and a huge nafig unnecessary fleet is another of them .. Strategic mistakes have strategic consequences ..
      4. Serg65
        Serg65 21 July 2021 09: 22
        +1
        Quote: max702
        blame that it's late

        For God's sake!
        Quote: max702
        Resources went to the fleet

        laughing Oh Maxim, Maxim!
        The resources went to help mythical African revolutionaries, mega-supernomines and unnecessary projects, mediocre economic management of the country ... the most commonplace examples ... The Khovrinskaya hospital in Moscow ate millions of Soviet rubles. Nikitin Tower - for the development of the project, the Japanese were paid with scarce foreign currency in the Union. The project cost a lot of money, but was never implemented. Turning Siberian rivers - 20 design and survey and 48 research institutes, 112 union ministries and 32 ministries of union republics worked on the project for 9 years. 50 volumes of text documents and 10 albums of maps and drawings were written!
        Quote: max702
        so schoolchildren, students, workers and soldiers went to the battle with the harvest

        I understand that you are not aware of the Soviet collective farms! Schoolchildren, students, workers and soldiers went to those collective farms, in which of the collective farmers there were only the chairman, party organizer, agran, engineer and a dozen old collective farmers! Most of the villagers, after the decision of the Politburo to issue them passports, rushed to the city and it was not possible to lure them back to the village with some kind of crotchet!
        Quote: max702
        the same development and development of agricultural machinery for harvesting

        There were also developments and agricultural machinery, but there was no one to work with!
        Quote: max702
        Russia (excluding the other 14 brothers) is the world's largest bread exporter for the third consecutive year

        Because the communists are not in power!
        Quote: max702
        huge nafig unnecessary fleet

        what Was he huge ??? 80% of surface ships were still a rarity of the Stalin era!
      5. max702
        max702 23 July 2021 13: 20
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        I understand that you are not aware of the Soviet collective farms!

        Still in the know! The funny throwing of carrots at the soldiers in the cars was pretty much deposited in the memory, and the collective farm was real and ordinary, no fantasies about
        Quote: Serg65
        Schoolchildren, students, workers and soldiers went to those collective farms, in which of the collective farmers there were only the chairman, party organizer, agran, engineer and a dozen old collective farmers!


        Quote: Serg65
        There were also developments and agricultural machinery, but there was no one to work with!

        There may have been developments, but there was no technology ...
        Quote: Serg65
        Because the communists are not in power!

        And I strongly agree with this! good
        Quote: Serg65
        Was he huge ??? 80% of surface ships were still a rarity of the Stalin era!

        Duc everything is so! On pennants, it seems like the US fleet was overtaken, and the costs for old ships are not small ...
        As for resource management, I also agree, terrible non-competence and criminal negligence in EVERYTHING, and all this was a systemic flaw from the very beginning of the construction of the state .. The collapse was natural ..
  • pin_code
    pin_code 19 May 2021 18: 53
    +1
    yeah ... the Russian Federation has no maritime borders ... just like Mongolia.
  • Comrade I
    Comrade I 17 May 2021 17: 57
    0
    That is, now we do not need any sea routes or business partners (not to mention allies, God forgive me)?
    1. max702
      max702 19 May 2021 08: 35
      -2
      Quote: Comrade Y
      That is, now we do not need any sea routes or business partners (not to mention allies, God forgive me)?

      List all these wonderful characters, if not difficult .. If you find them, of course ..
      1. Comrade I
        Comrade I 19 May 2021 17: 44
        0
        Maybe that's why they don't exist, haven't you thought about it?
        With any attempt to move in our direction, the United States has the opportunity to click on the nose of most countries. By any means.
  • pin_code
    pin_code 19 May 2021 10: 12
    -2
    compare the land and sea borders of the Russian Federation. so ... for example ...
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 19 May 2021 13: 23
      0
      Quote: pin_code
      compare the land and sea borders of the Russian Federation. so ... for example ...

      Why do you propose to compare only land and sea borders? but let's compare with the underground borders and space borders of the Russian Federation, well, also "for example", otherwise suddenly gnomes with reptilians will attack us, but we have no troops on the border ... laughing
  • Eldorado
    Eldorado 17 May 2021 16: 28
    +4
    The author happily kept silent about the fact that aircraft carriers can safely sink enemy ships that do not have aircraft carriers, guard convoys, support troops where there are no land airfields, provide support and withdrawal of SSBNs at sea, and conduct reconnaissance.
    1. Rage66
      Rage66 17 May 2021 21: 24
      -1
      Quote: El Dorado
      The author happily kept silent about the fact that from aircraft carriers it is possible to safely sink enemy ships that do not have aircraft carriers.

      It will not work calmly. The times are not right. It's one.
      And so that is the missiles, which were not in WWI and WWII. These are two.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 18 May 2021 12: 18
        +1
        And how does this cancel the ability of aircraft carriers to sink ships?
        1. pin_code
          pin_code 19 May 2021 10: 19
          -1
          so my namesake believes that missiles fired from a boat or boat will destroy all enemies, the enemy must bring his avics to the surf line so that missiles can be aimed at the optical sight from the MRK.))
          1. max702
            max702 19 May 2021 11: 32
            -2
            Quote: pin_code
            so my namesake believes that missiles fired from a boat or boat will destroy all enemies, the enemy must bring his avics to the surf line so that missiles can be aimed at the optical sight from the MRK.))

            Is it a telescopic sight over 1000km?
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 19 May 2021 14: 09
              +1
              The goal is what to look for at such a distance?
              1. max702
                max702 19 May 2021 17: 52
                -2
                This is another question, the first was about the range .. 1000 km is it a sight? Not! The question is closed. Yes, and with the discovery that something tells me, too, everything is in order, and if you were not informed, then it does not mean that everything remained as in the 60s ... I remember about the "Caliber" at first they said that we were not able to do this, then 300 km and that's it then half didn’t fly / didn’t hit, after more than 100 pieces a year we won’t do it .. Now there are no questions .. About "Zircon" cartoons were also rushing and there was nothing, right now it has calmed down, so target designation systems will be exactly the same .. From a surprise then will be for your masters .. Yes, and you will have to write new propaganda, because until the very last down the delirium of these will reach ..
                1. pin_code
                  pin_code 19 May 2021 18: 59
                  +1
                  just the same for a distance of 1000 km and need a "telescopic sight", so you need to find the target and aim missiles at it, at least.
  • g1v2
    g1v2 17 May 2021 20: 59
    +4
    The economic power of the 5 Eyes Union (USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) is based on maritime trade and control of sea routes. These are highly import-dependent countries. Their entire economy depends on the flow of goods and raw materials by sea. Therefore, they need to be able to control any trade route. Plus, they need to be able to block a competitor country from entering an important area of ​​the world ocean. For example, in case of war, do not release the PRC into the Pacific Ocean. France has overseas territories that are too weak individually and too expensive to seriously defend on a permanent basis.
    The PRC is preparing for naval battles for the disputed islands and Taiwan. They and the number of Marines are constantly increasing, reducing the land component. India sees China as its enemy and is preparing for battles against it and at sea too. Plus psychology. China has - so India should have. That is, there are specific tasks everywhere. We do not have such a task, but there is a serious shortage of other ships in other positions. The construction of aircraft carriers will squeeze out a huge amount of resources, people and finances, plus a valuable building berth. We can count the slipways of this size on our fingers. In general, Baba Yaga is against! am
  • Per se.
    Per se. 18 May 2021 07: 02
    +3
    Quote: Hwostatij
    I've noticed long ago that ardent supporters of aircraft carriers somehow coherently explain the need to use these vessels for the most part are not able to.
    This is why, an aircraft carrier, first of all, an aircraft carrier, maybe it is necessary to explain why aviation is needed at sea?
    If an aircraft carrier emerged as a class of ships, this is not a fashion or whim, it is a popular type of weapons and methods of warfare. Therefore, all the significant fleets of the world build and have aircraft-carrying ships, without them it is no longer possible to get a full-fledged fleet capable of solving all tasks at sea.
    Voluntary refusal from carrier-based aircraft is either stupidity or sabotage. The Soviet fleet was developing, the concept was.
    Naval battles are not "sports competitions", where comparison is made in roughly equal conditions and according to strict rules. It is clear that the overall potential of the Nimitz is many times greater than the Charles de Gaulle-sized aircraft carrier. However, for the case of the Soviet Navy (and the Russian Federation), no one was going to bring the aircraft carriers to the "lists" "one-on-one". The main strike tool of the Navy was long-range operational anti-ship missiles (anti-ship missiles ON) from ship and aircraft carriers. At the same time, the optimal task of our aircraft carrier was to provide (reconnaissance, air defense) our strike forces.

    In fact, an aircraft carrier in this capacity is a means of obtaining data about the enemy, which can be used for precise target designation to ship missile systems. Moreover, the effectiveness of this, even for a grouping with a single ship of Project 11345, could practically be an order of magnitude (!) Higher than the effectiveness of strike forces (including enemy losses) operating without TAVKR. If our TAVKR began to participate in joint strikes, then its effectiveness "sagged" to 1,1–1,5 (efficiency gain coefficient). There were more than enough missiles in the USSR Navy, but there was a very big problem with the feasibility of the fleet's strike potential.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 19 May 2021 07: 55
      0
      Well, there is no this Soviet fleet, has Russia gotten worse?
      1. max702
        max702 19 May 2021 08: 37
        -1
        Quote: EvilLion
        Well, there is no this Soviet fleet, has Russia gotten worse?

        So we eat up hedgehogs and switched to chicken skins ...
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 19 May 2021 10: 09
        +2
        Quote: EvilLion
        Has Russia gotten worse?
        Listen to you, it's better this way. We are still alive thanks to the Soviet reserve of strength, the backlog from the Soviet Union, including the fleet. Apparently, the abundance of whipping beer and the availability of a foreign car, for some, the main criterion of happiness.
        Oleg Kaptsov and Roman Skomorokhov in many ways create their articles as copyright provocations, for ratings and heated discussions. This can be "understood and forgiven". One can understand and forgive those who want the best, tearfully drinking for the people's penny, the economy of which no one will notice, when the budget is "assimilated" by new regional princelings, and billions flowing over the hill.

        But, it is impossible to understand and forgive those who drown in the network, working out for someone else's lobby, including the geopolitical fool and the pretentious concern for economy. I repeat, the Anglo-Saxons have declared a "vendetta" to our aircraft carrier fleet, and the fleet in general. They have a fad for that, and for good reason. Here they sang songs that the "continental" power does not need a fleet. Like, the USA and England depend on sea trade and transportation, but we, they say, do not. Gentlemen, agents of foreign influence, how should Russia confront those who are so dependent on the sea, give them a wonderful life, allow Russia to be sealed from all sides?

        A strong country a priori must have strong armed forces, in this the army and the navy either exist or they are not, they are either strong or weak. We cannot afford to have a weak fleet, for which "well-wishers", foreign agents, are in fact advocating, if they are not children and blissful from the sofas. We do not need a fleet like the United States does, we need a fleet for Russia, and we need a full-fledged fleet, which will never be such without aircraft-carrying ships. Play with only "pawns", voluntarily giving up heavy pieces on the sea "chessboard", persuade your employers overseas. A favorable wind for all "economists".
  • Serg65
    Serg65 18 May 2021 12: 00
    +6
    Quote: Hwostatij
    I've noticed long ago that ardent supporters of aircraft carriers somehow coherently explain the need to use these vessels for the most part are not able to.

    laughing Have you tried to hear them?
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 19 May 2021 07: 55
      +2
      They were even answered in detail 100500 times.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 18 May 2021 16: 16
    +2
    Let the author tell you how many times they refueled on the way from England to Libya and back, and how many tanker planes were needed for this, taking into account the reserve ones, in case the main ones have any failures. And all the heroism will come to naught at once. In the Anglo - Argentine war mentioned by the author, the departure of one Vulcan bomber from about. St. Helena to the Falklands, provided 10 tankers. Departure ended in nothing - "appreciate the beauty of the game"))) and if England did not have, even such misunderstandings as "Hermes" and "Invisible", and they might not have been, the first was going to be written off, the second sold. Then the islands would have become Malvinas long ago and the flag above them would have been different))) Citizen Kaptsov is a clairvoyant?))) Does he know what problems Russia will have, in a year, in 3 - 5?))) And in 5 years, Russia now the aircraft carrier will not be built.
  • antivirus
    antivirus 17 May 2021 17: 17
    -1
    A story from the series "The Sixth Fleet off the Coast of Mongolia".

    --- "a submarine in the steppes of ukraine" and an AV of 100 VI on the roadstead of Krasnoyarsk
  • codetalker
    codetalker 17 May 2021 20: 03
    0
    Unfortunately, the discussion of the topic of the role, place and necessity of aircraft carriers is at a low level. Some authors demonstrate a good level of technical knowledge, that's all. Somehow there are no even obvious things. That the fleet is a necessary component of global domination (it has always been and remains), that it is very difficult to create such a fleet with the resources of one country, that the role of the fleet (as an instrument of global politics) falls with the development of communications and missile (and other) technologies, etc., etc.
  • max702
    max702 19 May 2021 08: 30
    0
    Quote: eai
    Bullshit! The article does not even match the title!

    Yes Yes Yes...

    Will there be arguments?
  • Mitroha
    Mitroha 17 May 2021 15: 13
    +9
    Another battle between supporters and opponents of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy is declared open.
    We make bets.
    I am for aircraft carriers in principle, but against them if they are built to the detriment of other types of weapons and the country's economy as a whole
    1. Genry
      Genry 17 May 2021 15: 38
      +6
      Quote: Mitroha
      I am for aircraft carriers in principle, but against them if they are built to the detriment of other types of weapons and the country's economy as a whole

      Those. against - after all, there is no extra money.
      1. Mitroha
        Mitroha 17 May 2021 15: 43
        +3
        Quote: Genry

        Those. against - after all, there is no extra money.

        I wrote what I wrote. Don't juggle. There is no extra money, but there are priorities; at this time, aircraft carriers are definitely not in the priority of the military budget. But, perhaps, either the budget will change, or the situation. hi
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 17 May 2021 15: 48
          0
          Quote: Mitroha
          at this time, aircraft carriers are definitely not a priority of the military budget.
          that's good! the coastal-based Strategic Missile Forces submarines are very much needed ... there are almost no minesweepers, it is necessary to update the air defense electronic warfare in general, I hope you have enough mind not to succumb and reasonably develop your army and fleet without unnecessary AB and battleships under the guise of a destroyer
          1. Mitroha
            Mitroha 17 May 2021 16: 04
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Quote: Mitroha
            at this time, aircraft carriers are definitely not a priority of the military budget.
            that's good! the coastal-based Strategic Missile Forces submarines are very much needed ... there are almost no minesweepers, it is necessary to update the air defense electronic warfare in general, I hope you have enough mind not to succumb and reasonably develop your army and fleet without unnecessary AB and battleships under the guise of a destroyer

            Yes, there is a lot of work in general. Therefore, I wrote that now aircraft carriers, I think, are not needed
            1. Ryusey
              Ryusey 17 May 2021 19: 25
              +1
              And then you won't have time.
              1. Mitroha
                Mitroha 17 May 2021 20: 12
                +1
                Because everyone will shoot the ENTIRE stock of nuclear weapons, in all directions. If only because of this
        2. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 17 May 2021 16: 39
          -2
          Quote: Mitroha
          Quote: Genry
          Quote: Mitroha
          I am for aircraft carriers in principle, but against them if they are built to the detriment of other types of weapons and the country's economy as a whole

          Those. against - after all, there is no extra money.
          I wrote what I wrote. Don't juggle.

          For that matter the phrase "aircraft carriers should be at least military-profitable, and better financially profitable" in my opinion, it reflects the thought-image better.
    2. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 17 May 2021 15: 43
      0
      The enmity between blunt-pointed and pointed-tips is an allegorical depiction of any senseless confrontation on an ideological basis. The source of expression is the satirical novel "Gulliver's Travels" by Jonathan Swift. hi
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 17 May 2021 21: 05
        -1
        laughing better not tell
  • Anzhey V.
    Anzhey V. 17 May 2021 15: 13
    +15
    The unexpected return of Oleg Kaptsov

    Thanks for the great article, Oleg!)
  • General failure
    General failure 17 May 2021 15: 21
    +3
    "If you want to ruin the country, give it an aircraft carrier." I just can't think of a military scenario, where without Kuzi (or his heir) there will be no way at all.

    Unless, to conquer Hawaii from mattress makers :). There, without floating airfields - absolutely nothing - the nearest land is too far away.
    1. Santa Fe
      17 May 2021 18: 24
      +8
      If you want to ruin the country, give it an aircraft carrier. "

      This commonplace phrase (originally a cruiser) is outdated 120 years ago.

      When countries did not have more significant items of expenditure, for example, social services and pensions to the population. All 10 Nimitzes - at the cost of one percent of aid to businesses and the US population during the pandemic ($ 4 trillion)
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. General failure
        General failure 17 May 2021 20: 14
        -1
        The rich (USA) have their quirks. And I'm talking about the unfortunate Kuzyu and its usefulness for the fleet of one continental power.
        The fleet is far from being oceanic, for which Kuzya was actually built under the USSR. And the budget of this fleet is by no means trillion.
      3. mark2
        mark2 17 May 2021 22: 46
        +2
        Article of norms. But as an argument, I must also say that there is not a single outlet to the ocean to Russia. All of them, in principle, are easily and reliably blocked. Where can aircraft carriers be deployed? Personally, I don't see any such port, bay, or ocean outlet.
        All 10 Nimitzes cost one percent of aid to businesses and the US population during the pandemic ($ 4 trillion)

        You understand that these 4 trillion. dollars did not reach the business. They were simply shoved into banks and financial institutions, and they were supposed to be distributed. But in fact, they settled for the most part. Well, when Russia will print rubles, and not earn them, and the rest of the world will provide the national debt, then you can spend 1% of 4 trillion.
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 17 May 2021 19: 27
      -3
      If you cannot come up with a script, this is your problem, develop your intellect and imagination.
      1. General failure
        General failure 17 May 2021 20: 22
        +3
        ... Said the character starting the discussion with rudeness.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 17 May 2021 15: 40
    +4
    If you think so, then nuclear weapons are useless - since 1945 they have not been used, sir! Lies to itself, gathering dust ..
    These same 14 ABs will help to project force wherever friendly neighbors of a potential adversary amicably describe diapers before retaliation - if the enemy country has the opportunity to do so. For example, Iran, even if we are not talking about a nuclear conflict, has enough BRs to show its neighbors that it is atata to base American aviation at home. And for one thing, break something else, in between cases, dirty or important (or both).
    However, all this does not mean that we need AB and are important - with the fact that we do not have aggressive claims and the need for the projection of power (regarding the power itself and its capabilities) to remote parts of the world - I agree. However, as a flexible tactical tool in defense at the Pacific Fleet - I think that they have their own niche, for a pair. At the moment, in this direction we have too many rivals and "type of allies" with a much better fleet than ours in this region. And with much better logistics. It is possible that with the best air defense capabilities and a network of airfields-military bases - here you need to pull the beards of experts who categorically agree or disagree with me. One way or another, in this direction, aircraft carriers, in my opinion, would have a niche, while I emphasize that it is probably not a priority.
    1. General failure
      General failure 17 May 2021 15: 55
      0
      For example, Iran, [.......], has enough BRs to show its neighbors that it is atata to base American aviation at home.

      Um, the other side of the coin - Iran will drown the aircraft carrier with the same missiles - this will be a thermonuclear disgrace and loss.
      Against the background of such a fakap, kmk, several dozen missiles on the territory of an ally is quite a reasonable price. Moreover, to pay - to an ally :)
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 17 May 2021 16: 25
        +3
        Will the ally pay in the event of a major war? After all, to be accountable to their voters or subjects in the case of Arab monarchies. There is an example of how Italy slipped out of the WWI "on the wrong side" - anything can happen! And the aircraft carrier, as it was yours, remained - if not, of course :-)
        For too long, the world has been operating with the ideoms of local wars - in the event of a world massacre or a really thick regional conflict, everything will be different, no one knows which beam will give the slack ..
        As for the Iranian missiles, so far they have flown well at stationary targets with known coordinates. How they will behave against AUG is difficult to say.
        1. General failure
          General failure 17 May 2021 16: 37
          +1
          Can you tell me who and when in history planned a "big war"?
          All are planning "with small forces, on foreign territory." The same Hitler planned to calm the USSR "before the cold weather." That's just, it turns out differently.
          And as for Iranian missiles - so far they have flown well at stationary targets with known coordinates.

          Overcoming the American air defense, CHSH. Even five years ago, everyone laughed at how the "unwashed ayatollahs" tested these missiles. If the "world-renowned iksperds" screwed up so badly, then most likely Iranian missiles will arrive better than predicted by the AUG as well.
    2. demiurg
      demiurg 17 May 2021 17: 28
      +2
      After 2010, no more than four aircraft carriers are at sea at a time. The rest are under repair to varying degrees. And quickly collect them in one place this month. During this time, 400 vehicles can be dragged under their own power to the nearest airbase.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 18 May 2021 12: 19
        +2
        Have you tried to check such statements?
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 17 May 2021 15: 43
    +4
    I fully support the well-reasoned article of the respected Oleg Kaptsov
    1. Eldorado
      Eldorado 17 May 2021 16: 18
      +1
      There is practically no reasoning in the article.
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 17 May 2021 16: 32
        +1
        And the one that is, at one time, utterly crushed.
        But, obviously, Kaptsov is not a reader, but a writer ...
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 17 May 2021 19: 31
      -1
      Dennitz Swami completely agrees, it’s a pity that I ended up badly, but I agree).
      1. max702
        max702 19 May 2021 08: 43
        -1
        Quote: Ryusey
        Dennitz Swami completely agrees, it’s a pity that I ended up badly, but I agree).

        He finished badly because the tanks were in Berlin ..
  • Petrik66
    Petrik66 17 May 2021 15: 47
    -2
    Around the international conspiracy of fans of aircraft carrier galoshes. And in the USSR, they are fools, why didn’t they just do that to neutralize them? But it wasn’t necessary, eh, now for the time machine and for Gorshkov this article, they say, is an old dunce, you don’t see what people write !!!!
    1. General failure
      General failure 17 May 2021 16: 09
      +1
      But don't you remember the international situation in which the USSR set about building aircraft carriers? If you forgot, I remind you: Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Nicaragua.
      That is, there were theaters where military force had to be projected, unlike now.
      But neither Stalin nor Khrushchev played in floating airfields.
      1. Petrik66
        Petrik66 18 May 2021 12: 05
        0
        Lord, I forgot about the seriousness and age of the participants in the discussions and did not put a badge - HUMOR. It was a joke comrades !!!!
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 May 2021 12: 37
        +4
        Quote: General Failure
        But don't you remember the international situation in which the USSR set about building aircraft carriers? If you forgot, I remind you: Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Nicaragua.
        That is, there were theaters where military force had to be projected, unlike now.

        The Soviet admirals had a much closer task for AB. They needed to provide fighter cover for naval groups on the northern flank of the "bastion" in the Northern Fleet, and with a reserve flight time less than the time from detecting the enemy to his reaching the anti-ship missile launch line. Without the air force, this task could not be solved in principle: the reserve physically did not have time from the coastal airfields, and in order to keep the forces above the ships sufficient to repel the strike of the AUG air group, there were not enough tankers.
    2. max702
      max702 19 May 2021 08: 47
      0
      Quote: Petrik66
      Around the international conspiracy of fans of aircraft carrier galoshes. And in the USSR, they are fools, why didn’t they just do that to neutralize them? But it wasn’t necessary, eh, now for the time machine and for Gorshkov this article, they say, is an old dunce, you don’t see what people write !!!!

      Gorshkov, with his fleet, brought the country to the handle especially by the fact that the boats were disposable because he did not care about the infrastructure for them because it was not his department .. And tell me what was so useful for the USSR that his surface fleet was doing? Just think carefully whether it was only expenses or at least some kind of income ... To understand, I will hint why it would have to write off tens of billions to all sorts of bandustans in the modern history of the Russian Federation ...
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette 17 May 2021 15: 57
    +2
    It is written a little clumsily in style, but on the whole it is correct. I don't quite recognize Kaptsov. The aircraft carrier theme has exhausted itself.
  • Lair
    Lair 17 May 2021 16: 03
    +1
    A very strange and unsubstantiated article. In almost all major conflicts of the 21st century with the participation of the United States, aircraft carriers were used. During World War II and in the first period of the Korean War, as well as in Vietnam, aircraft carriers played a very important role for the United States (during World War II, aircraft carriers were generally the main means of war at sea for the United States and Japan). Of course, with the development of missile weapons and long-range aviation capabilities, the value of aircraft carriers has been diminished. Nevertheless, as before, aircraft carriers are the most dangerous surface ships in the ocean, as evidenced by their widespread use in almost all US wars in the 21st century.
    1. Santa Fe
      17 May 2021 18: 17
      -1
      You read only the first line and immediately wrote a comment)
      1. Lair
        Lair 17 May 2021 20: 49
        +3
        I read it thoroughly and carefully. The main message of the article is incorrect, as aircraft carriers continue to play an important role in almost all conflicts in the 21st century (with the participation of the United States). Yes, the role of aircraft carriers has decreased somewhat, but not critical. In general, the author needs to answer a simple question: "How can one successfully fight in the ocean (far from coastal bases) without the support of aviation?" I would very much like to hear the answer to this question.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 May 2021 09: 57
          -3
          aircraft carriers continue to play an important role in nearly all conflicts in the 21st century (involving the US)

          False
          How can you successfully fight in the ocean (away from coastal bases) without air support? "

          In a spherical vacuum?
          1. slm976
            slm976 18 May 2021 10: 32
            +3
            In a spherical vacuum?


            The question can be posed differently, how can one fight in a remote theater of operations without aircraft carriers, without having a network of ground bases and airfields around the world like that of the United States?
            You dear Oleg, you are making a rather hackneyed argument that ground-based aviation operates more efficiently than carrier-based aviation, which, in fact, no one has ever disputed, but this postulate is true only when it is possible to use aviation from ground airfields ...
            The United States has the largest army in the world, a huge number of bases and airfields around the world, many vassals ready to provide them with their airfields, but at the same time there are many aircraft carriers (what would that be for?). They can use both land-based and carrier-based aircraft in almost any corner of the world, or combine them at their discretion.

            We do not have a network of military bases, we do not have a vassal military bloc ... and we do not even have aircraft carriers yet, accordingly, there is no way to effectively operate in remote theaters of operations to get this opportunity - aircraft carriers are the cheapest option of all possible, the rest are more expensive - look at the military US budget.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 19 May 2021 07: 57
              0
              Does it never occur to you that the further the theater of operations, the less need to fight there?
              1. slm976
                slm976 19 May 2021 09: 37
                +2
                Does it never occur to you that the further the theater of operations, the less need to fight there?


                What a deep thought!)))
                And it does not occur to you that next - this is a very relative concept?
                Judging by your post, do you have confidence that we will not have to fight at all at a distance from our native airfields greater than the combat radius of front-line aviation?))
                In your opinion, the interests of our country do not go beyond the borders of our state and are you ready to fight only on your territory, with great destruction and casualties?

                But in reality, sometimes, in order to prevent a war already on its territory, one has to fight in a remote theater of operations ...
                We have before our eyes the Syrian theater of operations, it is far from our borders, but this did not save our army from the need to fight there, defending the interests of our state. And if we didn’t manage to get an adequate air base there (Assad’s affairs would have been even worse, large air bases would be captured or rendered unusable), how could we fight there without aircraft carriers?
                No way, from the word at all! We have no bases and airfields nearby, and there are no allies in the region ready to provide us with their airfields and ports. We were lucky that we had Khmeimim at our disposal and we had Tartus, otherwise we would have nowhere to transfer our group and there would be no way to supply it.
                Are you sure that in the future there will be no need to use military force where there are no accessible and protected airfields or there will be no possibility of transferring aviation to them through the territories of neighboring countries?

                And we are talking about only one side of the use of aircraft carriers (since Kaptsov based his article on this topic).
                We are not talking about the fact that, without aircraft carriers, our fleet, in wartime, cannot leave the zone of action of coastal aviation at all, that is, in fact, it loses maneuver, completely surrenders the initiative to the enemy and becomes useless.
                1. Sunstorm
                  Sunstorm 22 May 2021 14: 50
                  -1
                  Quote: slm976
                  Judging by your post, do you have confidence that we will not have to fight at all at a distance from our native airfields greater than the combat radius of front-line aviation?))
                  In your opinion, the interests of our country do not go beyond the borders of our state and are you ready to fight only on your territory, with great destruction and casualties?

                  Strategic aviation? ICBM? Satellite weapons? Do you feel lucky that there were bases? I am sure that if there were no bases, there would be no interference. An interesting point of view, to perceive the General Staff as a fortune-teller ... "We will get into a fight and there will be no luck."
                  1. slm976
                    slm976 24 May 2021 10: 18
                    0
                    Strategic aviation? ICBM? Satellite weapons?


                    Are you serious or kidding?
                    Do you really propose to defend your interests in local conflicts in remote theaters of operations with the help of Strategic Aviation and ICBMs? Is the whole world in dust?)

                    Do you feel lucky that there were bases? I am sure that if there were no bases, there would be no interference. An interesting point of view, to perceive the General Staff as a fortune-teller ... "We will get into a fight and there will be no luck."


                    You don't understand what I was writing about at all !!
                    It was written about that that without a network of military bases, we, without an aircraft carrier fleet, cannot protect our interests in remote theaters of war, from the word at all! And if there was no suitable air base in Syria and our PMTO, we would have to wash up and refuse to interfere and our interests there!
        2. Sunstorm
          Sunstorm 22 May 2021 14: 46
          -1
          Quote: Lair
          In general, the author needs to answer a simple question: "How can one successfully fight in the ocean (far from coastal bases) without aviation support?" I would very much like to hear the answer to this question.

          I can’t hold back. Specify the range of action of modern aviation. Then compare the maintenance costs of the deck and airfield. Enough. Aircraft carriers, like all other types of surface / submarine ships, are a thing of the past. Space is where to own and what to use.
          1. slm976
            slm976 24 May 2021 10: 23
            0
            Maybe you yourself first specify the combat radius of front-line aviation !!! And then figure out on the map where our army and navy will be covered by aviation, and where they are no longer.
            P.S. Just don't look at the data on strategic and long-range aviation, they have their own tasks.
            1. Sunstorm
              Sunstorm 24 May 2021 18: 48
              -1
              Quote: slm976
              Maybe you yourself first specify the combat radius of front-line aviation !!! And then figure out on the map where our army and navy will be covered by aviation, and where they are no longer.
              P.S. Just don't look at the data on strategic and long-range aviation, they have their own tasks.

              Su-34 (product "T-10V", NATO codification: Fullback - "defender") - Russian multifunctional fighter-bomber, also positioned as a front-line bomber. Designed for delivering high-precision missile and bomb strikes. With a normal take-off weight of 39 tons, the flight range reaches 4000 km, and with additional fuel tanks - 7000 km.
              So where our army will not be able to cover the conditional Su 34? From conditional Kaliningrad to London - 1800 km (who will we cover in the Tamanskaya area of ​​London?), Kaliningrad - New York 6.700 (Will we support BLM?) Okay, let's fly from Vladivostok (forgetting about Kamchatka, Sakhalin) 2.300 to Tokyo, 8.900 to Los Angeles ... Su 35 (fighter?) 3500 range.
              P / S. Didn't look at the distant and strategic. Let's also forget about airborne adjustments. Su 57 - 5500 (could not resist looking). Role of short-range aircraft goes to UAVs (Obviously cheap and practical)
              P / S All data from Google.
              1. slm976
                slm976 25 May 2021 08: 52
                0
                Dear, you do not read what your opponents write to you)))).
                I wrote to clarify combat radius, it is he who is the distance at which a combat aircraft can solve the assigned task with an established supply of fuel and return to the airfield.
                So why do you indicate the SU-34's ferry range in your message?)) Will you not have the SU-34 at all to fight and return to the airfield? Flew 4000 km. unarmed and fell on the head of an adversary?)))
                But if we look at the combat radius of the SU-34, we will see that it is equal to 600-1100 km. (SU-35 and SU-57 have even less), but now you can start using Google!)))
                1. Sunstorm
                  Sunstorm 26 May 2021 17: 19
                  -1
                  “Of course, measuring the length of ... arms is an interesting and exciting activity, but this does not determine the capabilities of a tactical bomber. And then, if we are going to compare something, it would be nice to do it correctly. : 1 270 km of combat radius F-15E + 1 200 km of range JASSM-ER = 2 km Combat radius of Su-470 - 34 1 km, flight range of "Gadfly" - 130 km, 285 1 km + 130 km = 285 1 km. "
                  Okay, with a radius, I admit a mistake. But I will refer to the article here lying on the VO "Su 34 against F15 E". 1000 km at least if you look .... Tell me who are you planning to support at such a distance? At least 1000 km? Panzer division? Marines? Is 1000 km of combat radius enough? No, I seriously don’t understand 1000+ km ... you have a small distance to support the troops?
                2. Sunstorm
                  Sunstorm 26 May 2021 17: 30
                  -1
                  Let's go back to the beginning of the discussion. To the point - ground aircraft flies further than deck aircraft. Tell me what is the combat radius of our carrier-based aircraft?
                  1. slm976
                    slm976 27 May 2021 10: 56
                    0
                    Let's go back to the beginning of the discussion. To the point - ground aircraft flies further than deck aircraft. Tell me what is the combat radius of our carrier-based aircraft?


                    So with the fact that aviation from ground airfields has higher characteristics and works more efficiently than deck-based, no one ever argued, it's just Kaptsov for some reason wrote a whole article in support of this argument!)))
                    But the question arises, what to do when military operations must be carried out outside the reach of aviation from our ground airfields or the airfields of our allies?

                    The main advantage of carrier-based aviation is the aircraft carrier itself, that is, a mobile airfield that can be deployed to any area of ​​the world ocean. Aircraft based on an aircraft carrier do not have to have any extra. characteristics, simply because the aircraft carrier itself can be at the right time in the right place, so that carrier-based aircraft from it can operate at a very short distance from the carrier.

                    Tell me who are you planning to support at such a distance? At least 1000 km? Panzer division? Marines? Is 1000 km of combat radius enough? No, I seriously don’t understand 1000+ km ... you have a small distance to support the troops?


                    There will be no 1000+ km there, stop reading Damantsev)), but okay ...
                    As the first and main example, a conditional naval ship group suggests itself.
                    I don’t know about you, but I can easily imagine the actions of our ships at a distance of 1000 km. from the nearest ground airfield.))) It is very difficult to wage a mobile war at sea, constantly being tied to the umbrella of coastal aviation.
                    In addition, even in the reach of aircraft from coastal airfields, carrier-based aircraft from an aircraft carrier will always have an advantage in reaction speed, simply due to the proximity to the theater of operations.
                    Until then, our aviation from coastal airfields will get to the theater of operations, the enemy, from the aircraft carrier, will have time to strike, sink our ships and escape.
                    That is, the presence of an aircraft carrier as part of our naval group makes it resistant to air strikes and allows, in turn, to deliver air strikes against the enemy at a great distance from our ground airfields.

                    As for the support of the ground forces, we will simply return to the example from which our communication began - if it were not for the possibility of transferring front-line aviation to Syria (there would be no living air bases controlled by Assad, or the neighboring states would not have allowed the transfer of our aircraft through their airspace), how could we fight there without carrier-based aircraft from aircraft carriers?
                    In general, the opposition of carrier-based aviation and aviation from ground airfields is sheer nonsense, to which, by the way, Kaptsov devoted an entire article .... This is the same as comparing the right and left hand ... the right one is stronger (for a right-handed person) and works better !! !! But a man without an arm is disabled and has very limited abilities !!
              2. nerd.su
                nerd.su 25 May 2021 11: 00
                0
                Quote: Sunstorm
                P / S All data from Google.

                I give a hint - before looking at the data, look at the terms themselves in Google. For example, how the flight range differs from the combat radius. And then, since you forget from refueling, your planes (and pilots) fly one way. Is it too generous? Is the cover a little expensive?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Sunstorm
                  Sunstorm 26 May 2021 17: 25
                  -1
                  Quote: bot.su
                  Quote: Sunstorm
                  P / S All data from Google.

                  I give a hint - before looking at the data, look at the terms themselves in Google. For example, how the flight range differs from the combat radius. And then, since you forget from refueling, your planes (and pilots) fly one way. Is it too generous? Is the cover a little expensive?

                  I didn’t seem to send them on a sortie) the very situation with the cover flight over a distance of over a thousand km ... is not clear to me. because I can't even dream up a scenario for a similar situation.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Eldorado
    Eldorado 17 May 2021 16: 16
    +7
    "Supporters of aircraft carriers do not even remember about Libya 1984".
    Well yes. Only it was by aircraft from aircraft carriers that the Libyan "pistols at the temple of imperialism" were sunk.
    1. Santa Fe
      17 May 2021 18: 00
      0
      Lebanon, 1984

      You misread the country name
      1. Santa Fe
        17 May 2021 18: 33
        +1
        And the Libyan MRK Ein-Zakit fired missiles at the cruiser Yorktown
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 18 May 2021 12: 21
          +2
          No, this is one of the domestic myths. Intruders worked there
  • Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 17 May 2021 16: 20
    +3
    After reading the article, I somehow remembered:
    1.-Catch up? Nope, while you're on four, one, two, three, four .. The boy is on two: one-two, one-two ..
    2.-Kisa, why do you need money? What will you do with them?
  • Engineer
    Engineer 17 May 2021 16: 31
    +1
    But the US and NATO aviation performed 26 thousand sorties

    I never thought that a comparatively modest operation required such forces.
    Not so long ago, a local admiral assured that one Russian aircraft carrier would be enough to inflict comparable damage to the Libyan opposition and bring the conflict to a draw.
    Dug on de Gaulle's participation in the operation
    Charles de Gaulle, qui a assuré 2.380 catapultages et appontages.
    1. Santa Fe
      17 May 2021 18: 15
      +4
      Less than 10% of departures, without it we would not have coped

      Yankee avics didn't come at all

      Taking into account the whole history with the construction and operation of the only French AB, the cost of 1 dropped bomb turned out to be golden
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 17 May 2021 18: 43
        +6
        Less than half of the total number of French aircraft sorties in that operation - 5600
        But de Gaulle seems to be the very technological limit that we can count on in our realities.
        Worse, it’s impossible to scare anyone with an aircraft carrier these days.
        The media learned about the sending of the third US aircraft carrier to the shores of North Korea

        Sent to DPRK American aircraft carrier sailed in the opposite direction

        Demonstration of strength without the regular use of this force turns into a demonstration of weakness.
        Aircraft carriers really look like white elephants in modern realities.
        1. Santa Fe
          17 May 2021 18: 57
          +4
          Demonstration of strength without the regular use of this force turns into a demonstration of weakness.

          5+
      2. max702
        max702 19 May 2021 08: 52
        -2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Less than 10% of departures, without it we would not have coped

        Yankee avics didn't come at all

        Taking into account the whole history with the construction and operation of the only French AB, the cost of 1 dropped bomb turned out to be golden

        Duc believed that any bomb / rocket from an airplane that took off from Avik costs FROM 7.5 million / USD ...
  • Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 17 May 2021 16: 35
    +5
    Old songs about the main thing performed by Kaptsov.
    ... The Gulf War was the largest campaign since 1945. Thousands of tanks, half a million soldiers. Against the background of such a scale, the presence of several additional airfields, even floating ones, could not have a significant effect. Real indicators are less than 1/5 of all combat missions of the coalition.

    It would be very strange if 20% of the aircraft (and this is exactly the proportion based on aircraft carriers) did half the work.
    1. sleeve
      sleeve 17 May 2021 22: 34
      +1
      So that's the idea. Warriors plan on the basis of their effectiveness. To solve the problem, we confidently relied on the land aviation segment. For which they caught up with so much aviation. If now you try to protest, they say, they have collected as many wings as necessary, there simply aren’t that many, then this is another argument. Even among superavian-carrying powers, the deck ships cannot perform suppression by the might of even the forces of the third echelon states.
      1. Senior seaman
        Senior seaman 17 May 2021 23: 14
        +2
        Quote: sleeve
        To solve the problem, we confidently relied on the land aviation segment. For which they caught up with so much aviation.

        Not this way. It was just that during the "Desert Storm" it was possible to concentrate ground aviation on the theater of operations, and not even at bases, but often at civilian airfields. Don't be their enemy
        Quote: sleeve
        state of the third echelon.

        This venture ended very badly.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 May 2021 06: 09
          0
          and often at civilian airfields.

          Competent and thoughtful decision
          Don't be their enemy
          Quote: sleeve
          state of the third echelon.

          This venture ended very badly

          What would change
          In addition to increasing the scale of the air war
  • bk0010
    bk0010 17 May 2021 16: 44
    +1
    Kaptsov is back, good.
    Those with dozens of aircraft carriers cannot show when they really came in handy.
    And what, someone tried to destroy the US Navy in a naval battle (not terrorist attacks)? Not? Then what are the questions? By the way, maybe they didn't try just because of the presence of aircraft carriers. Vaughn - without a battleship in Lebanon, too, could do. And you try to imagine Jutland without battleships (on one side).
    1. Santa Fe
      17 May 2021 18: 12
      +1
      someone tried to destroy the US Navy in a naval battle (not terrorist attacks)? Not? Then what are the questions?

      US aircraft carriers have no one to wage a sea battle with for 75 years already, due to the lack of an equal or at least comparable surface fleet of opponents

      Absolutely useless for local wars
      And you try to imagine Jutland without battleships (on one side).

      What for. In Jutland, each side used ships that corresponded to their purpose.
    2. sleeve
      sleeve 17 May 2021 22: 27
      0
      Well, here it is, here it is. Aircraft carriers can and should have overwhelming power. They are also an element of it. That is, opening the aircraft carrier segment, it is necessary to immediately collect a massive grouping, capable of operating against several augs. Well this is logical. But for the Russian Federation now it is not practical. One aircraft carrier (or one on TVD) will have episodic and insignificant tasks because it will not be able to become an element of confrontation, well, at least for more than an hour.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 17 May 2021 22: 30
        +2
        Quote: sleeve
        One aircraft carrier (or one on TVD) will have episodic and insignificant tasks because it will not be able to become an element of confrontation, well, at least for more than an hour.
        One aircraft carrier creates hemorrhoids for enemy admirals (what if they include Kuzyu in the KUG (what if they have already repaired it ?!), it is necessary to allocate a detachment of forces to parry! And then these forces will not be enough somewhere else).
        1. sleeve
          sleeve 18 May 2021 04: 25
          0
          Well, I also speak. One will "shit" limitedly and not in the guarded theater of operations, but "somewhere else" where there is not enough strength. So either the ratio of aircraft carriers corresponding to the forces (of course not one to one), or "representative" functions. And again, limited. Any commander will sweat if he is told that an operation (well, something like counter-terrorism in the CAR or work against the rebels somewhere in Venezuela) will be supported by an aircraft carrier with an autonomy of even 120 days, prone to storms and accidents that change the air balance at once. More reliable is "good relations" with the local regime and the airbase. Unless, of course, we are not going to overthrow other people's regimes. Or are we going? Then of course you need an aircraft carrier, you need ...
      2. max702
        max702 19 May 2021 08: 57
        -1
        Quote: sleeve
        Well, here it is, here it is. Aircraft carriers can and should have overwhelming power. They are also an element of it. That is, opening the aircraft carrier segment, it is necessary to immediately collect a massive grouping, capable of operating against several augs. Well this is logical. But for the Russian Federation now it is not practical. One aircraft carrier (or one on TVD) will have episodic and insignificant tasks because it will not be able to become an element of confrontation, well, at least for more than an hour.

        Listen, if you cannot lift a barbell of 200 kg, then you will not approach it, so with AUG we also cannot make an adequate answer in this segment, so it is not worth starting because it is useless, as in the case of a barbell if you take up another sport in order to keep fit, the military will use other forces and means to solve their problems ..
        1. sleeve
          sleeve 19 May 2021 09: 19
          0
          Right. That's all right. "Gaining statehood" through a floating runway is a respected process. That's how great it would be if we had capacities in Bolshoy Kamen (only by 2022) in Severodvinsk (it is necessary to expand so that the nuclear submarine is not interrupted, in general it is better to bump one more slipway). And now, at least two buildings, and not for 500 billion (well, what's the matter? Have you decided to "match" thieving Americans at least in prices?) And not for 10 years. But in 10 years 4 decks (taking into account the completion of the afloat), then we will turn around. And after all, everything is real. In the meantime, you need to make a rational asymmetric club quickly and not expensively. The same 160th times three times more than now and already good. This means that for 10 years, three (THREE!) Boards per year, and not one. You need to nurture your aircraft carrier component in a calm atmosphere behind the shield. So as with hypersound: bam and suddenly had to catch up, and quickly and expensive))
  • demiurg
    demiurg 17 May 2021 17: 24
    +1
    Come on. It's just that aircraft carriers do not have an armor belt and a deck, the thickness of which is measured in decimeters. And there is no main caliber of 16 inches either. Here Kaptsov is furious.

    In general, I liked it. I'm waiting for srach.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 17 May 2021 21: 17
      +4
      Quote: demiurg
      It's just that aircraft carriers do not have an armor belt and a deck, the thickness of which is measured in decimeters.
      Take an interest in British aircraft carriers, be surprised.
  • tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 17 May 2021 18: 04
    +2
    I looked through all the comments, but Andrey is not from Chelyabinsk. I like the concept of using US aircraft carriers more. In a day x 8 aircraft carriers leave the bases at sea in waiting areas, two are always under repair. then they appear on our shores and arrange the final pogrom. The aircraft carriers are the second wave.
    1. 547807955
      547807955 17 May 2021 21: 38
      +1
      Here. , in the Yom Kippur War, may justify themselves
    2. 547807955
      547807955 17 May 2021 22: 10
      +2
      Duc, like in the 80s, in the Far East, they swam to, almost to Vladivostok
      1. max702
        max702 19 May 2021 08: 58
        0
        Quote: 547807955
        Duc, like in the 80s, in the Far East, they swam to, almost to Vladivostok

        Not long ago, Eun drove them away from the country with a pissing broom.
  • Constanty
    Constanty 17 May 2021 19: 51
    +3
    The author is at his level, unfortunately sad
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 17 May 2021 20: 10
      -4
      at the level of the drain barrel?
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 17 May 2021 20: 10
    0
    Another would-be expert emerged to swim in the Topvar sea .. I read about "but the blacks were given 5 lards, but they could have given the fleet" and did not read further .. because the level "the author broke through the bottom" is already visible ... and I do not recommend it to others .. ...
  • g1v2
    g1v2 17 May 2021 20: 45
    +1
    Pancake. I completely agree with Kaptsov. What is being done. belay The article correctly states that I am constantly writing to aircraft carriers. For such money, aircraft carriers do not bring anything comparable. Well, you can attach it if you already have it. But you can build such a wunderwaffe only knowing that it is necessary. You need to start with a task that would justify such a huge expense. All articles of fans of aircraft carriers could not substantiate them at least somehow bearable. Everything else is secondary.
    1. Rage66
      Rage66 17 May 2021 21: 48
      +1
      Quote: g1v2
      All articles of fans of aircraft carriers could not substantiate them at least somehow bearable.

      Nah
      They have aircraft carriers, one iron argument.
      This is a projection of force in the world's oceans .. Where is it needed, what is it for ...
      They cannot explain specifically.
    2. max702
      max702 19 May 2021 09: 00
      -2
      The shape is beautiful, the corti is on one side, and the spray is salty ... Romance!
  • 547807955
    547807955 17 May 2021 21: 35
    +2
    Nice, at least for a non-specialist. Well, for me, as not a specialist, the reality is the confirmation - the United States and Israel, start and fight with cruise missiles, launched hundreds of kilometers from the target, and mulberries have become reality, flying androids. Drive the floating city against a serious enemy, um, but how to escape ...
    1. 547807955
      547807955 17 May 2021 21: 36
      +1
      In the commentary, in the first sentence, under not a specialist, I mean myself, not the author.
      1. 547807955
        547807955 17 May 2021 22: 07
        0
        And I'll think again: yes, to fight with the Papuans, perhaps it is possible without them. But they are not the enemies of America, but we, how not to whine here. So they figure out how to use it all the time. You can create a floating catapult, launch 1000 cruise missiles directly from the platform, and some, according to the classics, will lift planes and release them, etc., etc. That which was used 50 years ago, and even then it will come in handy. Hamas would be glad to have a T-34 in the city.
  • Mooh
    Mooh 17 May 2021 22: 01
    +4
    Conducting strike operations has long ceased to require the presence of air bases located near the combat zone.

    For a long time they did not make me laugh on this site. Oleg, write more.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 May 2021 12: 12
      +4
      Quote: MooH
      For a long time they did not make me laugh on this site. Oleg, write more.

      It is especially pleasing that Libya and Operation Eldorado Canyon are cited as an example of the possibility of successful operations by the Air Force alone without aircraft carriers. In which the F-111 strike on Tripoli was provided by aircraft from the air groups of as many as two aircraft carriers, and the carrier aircraft struck the second target.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 18 May 2021 12: 23
        +6
        These guys are as usual.
        Kaptsov on Vietnam ignored the factor of flight time, which was very often critical, ignored the importance of the Navy during the deployment of the Air Force aviation, etc.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 May 2021 21: 37
          0
          It's funny when AB supporters talk about flight time, forgetting to look at the map

          Da Nang is almost on the front line. And closer to Hanoi from the airfields in Northern Thailand
          ignored the importance of the Navy during the deployment of the Air Force aviation, etc.

          Who prevented the Yankees from deploying aviation in Thailand and South Vietnam? Was someone rushing them? Or threatened to destroy the troop transports?

          And here is the AUG. Do not compose what was not
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 19 May 2021 14: 16
            +2
            It's funny when AB supporters talk about flight time, forgetting to look at the map


            Oleg, come to your senses. What is the front line? The Viet Cong operated in South Vietnam, operations on the NAP had to be carried out far south of Da Nang.
            The Americans achieved a response time of 10-15 minutes to a request from the ground.
            How do you get it from Da Nang?
            Don't think of them as idiots, they knew very well what they were doing, and Dixie Station didn't just work out that way.

            Who prevented the Yankees from deploying aviation in Thailand and South Vietnam?


            You are talking about the Persian Gulf, and you are talking about Vietnam. Saddma could well have attacked both transport ships and loading ports at a time when the allies did not yet have significant forces there, if they were not protected.
            But in reality, there was the US Navy.
      2. Santa Fe
        18 May 2021 21: 30
        0
        These are unnecessary details. Fact - tactical aircraft reached targets, flying around the European continent

        F111s could independently provide a strike, the Yankees had electronic warfare aircraft made on the same mod platform. EF-111 Raven

        But then the admirals could be left without medals at all.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 May 2021 11: 50
          +3
          Quote: Santa Fe
          These are unnecessary details. Fact - tactical aircraft reached targets, flying around the European continent

          Suppressing air defense and gaining air supremacy are unnecessary details? Gorgeous ...
          Without these extra details, Eldorado Canyon would have turned into a raid on Schweinfurt or the Heligoland massacre.
          Quote: Santa Fe
          F111s could independently provide a strike, the Yankees had electronic warfare aircraft made on the same mod platform. EF-111 Raven

          Excellent. There is still something to replace a dozen "Corsairs" and "Hornets" with PRR ("Ravens" do not have the ability to carry weapons), a dozen "Corsairs" and "Intruders" working on airfields, and "Tomkats" from the cover group.
          That is, in the absence of AB, a group of tactical aircraft swells at least 2-2,5 times. And how many tankers will be needed for this armada? In real life, the proportion was "1 tanker for 1 drummer / electronic warfare".
          1. Santa Fe
            19 May 2021 15: 58
            -1
            There is still something left to replace a dozen "Corsairs" and "Hornets" with PRR ("Ravens" do not have the ability to carry weapons), a dozen "Corsairs" and "Intruders" working on airfields

            Alexey, you did not understand the idea

            If tactical aviation got it at such a distance (fact), then it could be aircraft of any purpose

            Av took part because admirals could have been left without medals
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 19 May 2021 17: 04
              +1
              Quote: Santa Fe
              If tactical aviation got it at such a distance (fact), then it could be aircraft of any purpose

              I'm afraid you did not understand the idea: at such a distance, the capabilities of tactical and auxiliary aviation were only enough to deliver bombs to the target - along a route already cleared of air defense in the clear sky.
              The tasks of suppressing air defense and gaining air supremacy by tactical aviation at such a range were not solved - and that is why it was necessary to involve carrier aviation.

              Moreover, the capabilities of tactical aviation were enough for only one target. The second target had to be crushed by the decks.
              1. Santa Fe
                19 May 2021 17: 47
                0
                along a route already cleared of air defense in a clear sky.

                Subsonic Corsair A-7 built on the basis of the old Crusader of the 50s. This is not an aircraft that could not be replaced by more advanced technology, in this case, US Air Force aircraft from the mid-80s
                the capabilities of tactical aviation were enough for only one target.

                You are a smart person

                It's not a matter of capability, it's a matter of squadron numbers

                The second goal was generously left to the decks, so that they would have at least some work)))
  • sleeve
    sleeve 17 May 2021 22: 18
    +2
    The meaning of the article is beautifully collected in the last paragraph. Perfectly compiled statistics. It is proposed to draw conclusions that major aircraft carrier powers are dragging serious operations with conventional air forces. The elimination of the Falklands Conflict is not repeated. The suggestion that the aircraft carrier is an asymmetric response to the base system around the world is suicidal.
  • BAI
    BAI 17 May 2021 22: 42
    +1
    Finally decide! The ship is built for specific tasks.

    That’s what I’m tired of repeating. There are no intelligible tasks for the fleet in general (except for underwater strategists) and for aircraft carriers in particular.
    1. max702
      max702 19 May 2021 09: 03
      -1
      Quote: BAI
      Finally decide! The ship is built for specific tasks.

      That’s what I’m tired of repeating. There are no intelligible tasks for the fleet in general (except for underwater strategists) and for aircraft carriers in particular.

      There, and with the strategists, everything is sad, there is an opinion that all our SSBNs are taking aim almost from the moment they leave the base .. So invest the same funds in the Strategic Missile Forces and sleep well ...
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 19 May 2021 14: 18
        +3
        In a missile strike from SSBNs in the Barents, Mediterranean and Bering Seas, the flight time of American SLBMs moving along a flat trajectory is less than the time it takes for a command to pass a retaliatory strike by the Strategic Missile Forces. That way, 50-60 percent.
        1. max702
          max702 19 May 2021 17: 57
          -1
          Prove it with something other than pictures .. The Strategic Missile Forces, especially the silos, will have time to shoot back, but you will never admit this, because your nonsense will immediately collapse ..
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 17 May 2021 22: 58
    +3
    Desert Storm "(1991). The Gulf War was the largest ... Thousands of tanks, half a million soldiers ...
    It is noteworthy that the huge aircraft carrier forces available to the United States (14 AB units) did not even make an attempt to prevent the invasion of the Iraqi armies ... and remained inactive for the next six months ...

    Aircraft carriers are the quintessential, pinnacle of naval technology for SUPERIOR AT SEA. And they completed their direct task 100%, as planned. They provided domination, which made it possible to move these "thousands of tanks / half a million soldiers" to another continent, to provide "work" and supply for this group (after all, the main task of securing fell on sea transportation), and the fleet coped with the tasks, docks / bulk carriers were transported, aircraft carriers ensured total supremacy at sea and in the air (in their area of ​​responsibility).
    The only thing the author is right about is that "an aircraft carrier is not a superweapon."
    1. Santa Fe
      18 May 2021 03: 20
      +2
      They secured the dominance that allowed these "thousands of tanks / half a million soldiers" to be moved to another continent,

      Did someone threaten the staff members or make it difficult to deliver reinforcements to the Persian Gulf zone? Do not make up what was not

      Just like how the USSR moved its military contingents around the world, without any aircraft carriers
      1. ban
        ban 18 May 2021 05: 21
        0
        Yeah, especially to Cuba in '62.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 May 2021 05: 44
          0
          Cuba 62nd - The military fleet could not be used in principle. This is a COVERED transfer of troops, civilian ships and military in civilian clothes

          The naval warships were the last to move when everyone was in place to reinforce the grouping from the sea. By that time, the Yankees had finally received a photo of the missiles, became worried and placed a blockade. But the deed was done. The not very well-off USSR for the first time forced the United States to talk to itself on equal terms

          PS / someone prevented the USSR from delivering military aid and supplying contingents of troops in the Middle East, Africa or Vietnam? without any aircraft carriers
          1. ban
            ban 18 May 2021 09: 17
            +1
            Cuba 62nd - The military fleet could not be used in principle.


            In order not to repeat myself - Timokhin's excellent article on this topic was recently published.

            Another example of Spain in the 30s does not mean anything? History teaches that it teaches nothing.
            I always read your articles with interest, but here ... Bad expressions are asked for.
            In any action, whether on land or at sea, have a couple of squadrons or regiments of fighters at hand - will at least one commander in his right mind refuse?
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 18 May 2021 09: 44
              -1
              Timokhin has already made himself a laughing stock.
            2. Santa Fe
              18 May 2021 09: 52
              +1
              What should the example of Spain teach 85 years ago?

              183 successful flights to Cuba, 50 thousand l / s and 23 thousand tons of military cargo were secretly deployed. Political and military goals achieved

              What do the current experts want to improve and advise there? Better to organize such an operation could only be the sea devil himself

              There is no need to have a couple of squadrons where a floating airfield is required - proven by local wars
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 18 May 2021 12: 26
                0
                Better to organize such an operation could only be the sea devil himself


                Anyone could better organize such an operation.
                https://topwar.ru/182427-karibskij-krizis-1962-go-goda-rabota-nad-oshibkami-uchimsja-primenjat-vmf.html
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 18 May 2021 12: 24
        +2
        Did someone threaten the staff members or make it difficult to deliver reinforcements to the Persian Gulf zone?


        And how to threaten when there is a fleet in the Persian Gulf? No way.
        But if it were not for him, then who knows how it would have ended.
      3. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 19 May 2021 14: 18
        +1
        Did someone threaten the staff members or make it difficult to deliver reinforcements to the Persian Gulf zone?


        If the staff did not have a fleet, why not threaten it? But he was.
  • sleeve
    sleeve 18 May 2021 08: 25
    0
    Today I caught up with the news on Izvestia. It was broadcast by "Vladimir Pospelov, a member of the maritime board under the government of the Russian Federation." They are looking at the "expediency" of including three decks in GPV 24-33. Wow straight!
    1. BAI
      BAI 18 May 2021 08: 29
      +2
      GPV is a declaration about nothing. It is necessary to watch the state defense order. And he is C or CC.
      1. sleeve
        sleeve 18 May 2021 08: 53
        +1
        So that's what we're talking about. Keep the topic out of the spotlight. I really want some money. After all, the first one was valued at half a trillion rubles, and they hinted that it was more expensive.
        1. max702
          max702 19 May 2021 09: 08
          -1
          Quote: sleeve
          So that's what we're talking about. Do not let the topic out of attention. I really want some money. After all, the first one was valued at half a trillion rubles, and they hinted that it was more expensive.

          Duc give money, this is only one sense, and the second and more important for the same Timokhin and Co. is to spend your not great resources on something completely unnecessary and very expensive .. That is, direct work for the enemy!
          1. sleeve
            sleeve 19 May 2021 09: 21
            +1
            Hmm ... Why didn't I see such a "pirouette"? Half a trillion, and even three times, but 10 years for each ... Wow, there will be a "hole" in the defense.
            1. max702
              max702 19 May 2021 17: 59
              0
              And this is the main message of the entire local aircraft carrier lobby .. For them, a scanty change of opinion in the distribution of resources already fully pays for all those pennies that were invested in the emissaries of this opinion ...
  • orcinus
    orcinus 18 May 2021 08: 58
    +1
    Let's put it this way: tasks form a goal. For the supporter, it is to ensure the landing of a strategic assault (hypothetically, of course), with a 90% probability - "somewhere in the Far East" (based on the latest releases of American politicians about the threat countries, where Russia and China are in the top three). And there its author will poke around for a very long time from "hundreds and thousands" of our ground airfields. If we talk about the tasks for our aircraft carriers, then we can recall the film "Midshipmen", where the character of the empress, performed by Gundareva, orders "Berlin on a sword to deliver" - and so, in the case of a "hypothetical conflict", "Berlin" (or rather "Berlin") - for by sea, and how to deliver there and what to cover for "midshipmen", this is the question that must be answered when we talk about the concept of the domestic aircraft carrier fleet. Further: in articles on VO, there is a constant debate about the classic concept of an aircraft carrier (deck, hangar, pilot aircraft, restrictions on the range and the number of devices in 80-100 pieces), but now there is a breakthrough in the technology of unmanned vehicles, both sea and air, that's why you need to think about completely different approaches and concepts. I agree with the author only on one thing - we do not need an aircraft carrier, in fact, it comes from the 70s, which are all the projects that have surfaced recently.
    1. max702
      max702 19 May 2021 09: 12
      -1
      You are very behind in time, now there is no need to send midshipmen anywhere, 30-40 minutes and there is no overseas "Berlin", and in "Berlin" they are well aware of this possibility and there have been no naval battles for 75 years already. amphibious assault forces ala Omaha Beach .. MLRS put an end to such undertakings ..
      1. orcinus
        orcinus 19 May 2021 13: 53
        0
        You know, these jingoistic patriots live in the said world, where you can say: "Eeeeh!" and press the button so that "calibersoniksybulava and balalaikas" will fly into the supporter. And it is naive to expect that, first, it will not fly in response, and, second, that in the capitalist system, in general, someone is ready to press buttons, and not express "concern."
    2. sleeve
      sleeve 19 May 2021 09: 32
      0
      Yars instead of a sword will be okay? Or are we chivalrously exclusively without nuoks? Maybe even with hostility? Although no, the same is not fair with hostility. We will not "pick" as you put it for long. I propose to apply the effectiveness of the actions of ONE main site in Syria to the quantity and quality of the tasks solved. And especially the situation does not differ. Point strikes. Right now it will start for the air defense AUG. Well, enter the appropriate coefficients into the calculations. Of course, this applies to the landing very much. And the landing also concerns the OTR, which do not concern the AUG (I emphasize, we are still honestly, no nuke). And there is also the sea with our nuclear submarines. They will overheat them all! Is it all and oh with impunity? And in general we are especially not interested in the "decks" themselves. More communication to them, and they themselves are "on the march." And of course it is difficult in the combat area. If, again, no nuke. Well, to be honest, it is too jokingly unsubscribed. It is clear that everything is more serious, everything is in digital. Ah ... I forgot. We will have an unkillable Voronezh-DM visor in Yeniseisk in this eastern direction. Or maybe even where foundations are being dug and the "contact radius" will be very different from the combat radius of the AUG air wing.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 May 2021 09: 43
    0
    In the world, no one simply writes off loans, they are written off under some concessions, but in any case, this is not a question for the current management, which is trying to somehow convert bad debts into tangible assets, but for those who, in Soviet times, these I gave debts. But the fact that African countries cannot repay debts also characterizes the value of what they can offer. That is, there is nothing special to defend in any case. The same Venezuela scored 10 EMNIP credits lard, but by the time the riots started there it had already returned 70 percent, most likely, and will return the rest, if it has not already returned, since the riot can be considered suppressed not without our specialists. But in general, defending 1-2 billion with a fleet worth tens of billions is economic nonsense.
    1. max702
      max702 19 May 2021 09: 20
      +1
      I always offer these AUG advocates to maintain their own fire station just in case there is a fire, but they have everything! But no one wants to deal with this garbage on their PERSONAL funds, but at the national expense you are always welcome ..
      rs: In my opinion, all this idiot will continue until some Iran or the same Nn drowns the anti-ship missile system and everyone shuts up a moment .. "Bastions" with "Onyxes" appear at these and all the karachuns are tsereteli ..
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 19 May 2021 14: 20
        +1
        rs: In my opinion, all this idiot will continue until some Iran or the same Eun drowns the RCC Avik and everyone shuts up a moment ..


        Until we are flogged for stupidity according to this scheme - https://topwar.ru/176856-morskaja-vojna-porazhenie-revoljucija-i-smert.html
        1. max702
          max702 19 May 2021 18: 07
          0
          They will not be flogged and you know it .. there will be no wars at sea as there are no more than 75 years of them ..
  • vavilon
    vavilon 18 May 2021 09: 56
    0
    Aircraft carriers, in my opinion, are just an expensive toy of prestige, and can only be used against countries that do not have modern weapons.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 May 2021 09: 57
    0
    I gave Oleg an asterisk.
    1. Santa Fe
      18 May 2021 09: 59
      +2
      Thank you for your feedback hi
  • geniy
    geniy 18 May 2021 10: 35
    -4
    The author does not take into account the possibility of building a huge submarine nuclear aircraft carrier in the dimensions of a Shark / Typhoon. That is, the submarine aircraft carrier does not need escort in the form of surface destroyers and cruisers and supply transports. But he himself can instantly hide from any enemy and at the same time with his aviation it is easy to shoot down anti-submarine aircraft / helicopters. Moreover, Akul-Typhoons with cut off stern parts in which we have as many as 5 nuclear submarines are submarine aircraft carriers. And on each can be placed an air group of about 100 aircraft. But everyone needs to understand that the aircraft must be necessarily folded at the root of the wings and stored with the landing gear retracted. And then such aircraft carriers will be useful even in peacetime. They will calmly sail in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean (in the area of ​​Singapore) and from time to time release a hundred of their aircraft in different directions with a diameter of their patrol zone of 2000-3000 miles. And then all Western countries will immediately understand that in the event of war, one Russian aircraft carrier on the very first day of the war will be able to drown hundreds of foreign civilian ships. And therefore, no transportation of troops from the United States to Europe will be possible at all!
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 18 May 2021 14: 03
      +1
      Quote: geniy
      That is, the submarine aircraft carrier does not need escort in the form of surface destroyers and cruisers and supply transports. But he himself can instantly hide from any enemy and at the same time with his aviation it is easy to shoot down anti-submarine aircraft / helicopters.

      Well, first of all), if he can hide, then only the "Papuans" who stupidly have no PLO, and it is easier to defend against such opponents, and not to hide
      and secondly)any aircraft carrier any base needs supply transports
      and thirdly) such an aircraft carrier is possible, but meaningless, the point is not even in manned AWACS based on submarines, but in the fact that its functions as an aircraft carrier can and will be performed by the supply transports themselves.
      1. geniy
        geniy 18 May 2021 15: 27
        0
        Well, firstly) if he can hide, then only the "Papuans" who stupidly have no PLO,

        You imagine a Submarine Aircraft Carrier as a submarine of an existing design. And I have a completely new architecture - first of all, with a wide deck superstructure - a flight deck based on the design of the destroyer Drzewiecki. That is, a solid hull under water, and a light superstructure above water. And buoyancy is provided only by a PC that is invulnerable to missiles. Secondly, the sturdy hulls are covered with a special substance that itself tightens possible holes. Thirdly, this aircraft carrier has a great immersion depth: about 2 kilometers, and you should know that all NATO torpedoes have a stroke depth of no more than 914 m.And, of course, the most important thing is that it has a hull covered with a thick crust of matter with a density like water, therefore not detected by sonars. And even if it is detected, while an enemy torpedo or depth charge submerges to a depth of 1 km, it will take about 1 minute - and during this time it will go 300 m. In addition, the propellers of this aircraft carrier in long soundproofed tunnels are water jet propulsion devices.
        any aircraft carrier any base needs supply transports

        Secondly, if you remember, the Typhoon nuclear submarine was called "Water carriers" - that is, they carried tens of thousands of tons of water. So instead of water, I propose to carry tens of thousands of tons of aviation kerosene for aircraft. And all other cargoes weigh gv hundreds of times less.
        supply transports themselves can and will function as an aircraft carrier.

        How do you imagine Russian supply transports in a BIG war between Russia and all NATO countries at the same time?
        But the submarine aircraft carrier can defeat any detachment of enemy ships.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 18 May 2021 16: 45
          0
          Quote: geniy
          You imagine a Submarine Aircraft Carrier as a submarine of an existing design. And I am a completely new architecture

          Personally, I am a supporter of the following rules (sorting in descending order of priority):
          1) minimization of expenditures on the military sphere in order to maximize expenditures on the qualitative and / or quantitative development of the military-civilian sphere.
          2) obtaining a full-fledged Navy, up to the "global war" with operations ala "landing in Normandy" where hundreds and thousands of ships were used
          Because of this peculiar point of view, I have from time to time presented and present different options, including even more insane than yours.

          And therefore I can say for sure that all your arguments above about depth and speed can be safely thrown into the trash, because if you can create such a submarine-AV using new technologies, then you can also create a torpedo based on these technologies, and this torpedo will have the best performance characteristics, but even if your PL-AV will have the same depth, speed and maneuverability as a torpedo, then such a PL-AV will still not escape from N-pieces of torpedoes operating simultaneously from different sides.
          1. geniy
            geniy 18 May 2021 18: 04
            0
            If you can create such a submarine-AV due to new technologies, then you can also create a torpedo based on these technologies, and this torpedo will have the best performance characteristics, but even if your submarine-AV will have the same depth, speed and maneuverability as a torpedo, then such a PL-AV will still not escape from N-pieces of torpedoes operating simultaneously from different sides.

            Yes, you're right - in principle, you can create a much deeper torpedo. But the fact is that when attacking a submarine, a homing torpedo moves in a spiral - trying to find its victim with hydroacoustics. But if the depth of the nuclear submarine is 2 km, then the range of the torpedo's sonar may not be enough - because the maximum range is 1 km. And in addition, the torpedo may not have enough energy reserves - it will simply lag behind. Truth and torpedoes can be created unique and thrown in dozens or even hundreds. But as I said earlier - and due to the great depth of immersion, the plating of a solid hull will be quite thick and you cannot pierce it with an ordinary explosion. Only cumulative. But the cumulative hole has a very small diameter - about the size of a penny, and it is very easy to plug it - especially the self-tightening skin on the outside. And besides this, the PL-AV has two hulls (in fact, it is a catamaran) and each hull has 15 compartments, that is, a total of 30 compartments. And this means about 6 cut-off unsinkability, while the battleships had 3-cut off unsinkability. That is, it is quite possible to count on avoiding hundreds of torpedoes, a small part of which will still hit its side. BUT she can stay afloat.
            And the most important thing is that a submarine-aircraft carrier is needed not only for combat battles, but also in order to attack enemy squadrons - imperceptibly approaching them, for example, a hundred miles and lifting all the aircraft into the air immediately submerge for an hour or two - so that not get hit back. And then surface again and receive the returned downed planes.
            1. Avior
              Avior 18 May 2021 19: 01
              0
              and due to the large immersion depth, the plating of a solid hull will be quite thick and you cannot pierce it with an ordinary explosion. Only cumulative.

              thick skin will be due to water pressure at depth.
              By itself, this will not increase its durability against the action of an underwater explosion.
              1. geniy
                geniy 18 May 2021 20: 49
                0
                thick skin will be due to water pressure at depth.
                By itself, this will not increase its durability against the action of an underwater explosion.

                You do not take into account that the hit of an enemy torpedo or depth charge does not necessarily happen at maximum depth. It can happen at half depth and at periscope depth and even on the surface. So, most of the German submarines were sunk when they were either on the surface or just beginning to submerge. But at great depths, it was almost impossible to get into them.
                So the thickness of the plating of a submarine aircraft carrier with a diameter of strong hulls with a diameter of 20 m plating is about 100 mm made of the highest strength steel in terms of strength similar to armor. or other high strength material.
                And in contrast to this, I carefully study the cases of the death of submarines - for example, Malyutka with a skin of a PC of 18 mm, and a skin of a light hull of only 3 mm. So - in the lining of the aircraft, the size of holes from German mines is about 2-3 m, and in the skin of the strong hull of the Little Boys, the size of the hole was very small.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 18 May 2021 21: 07
                  -1
                  nevertheless they had enough
                  very small buoyancy
            2. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 18 May 2021 23: 37
              0
              1) torpedoes do not always move in a spiral, and even when they move only at the beginning, there are only a few turns to determine the direction to the target.
              2) with a centripetal attack, the fuel supply will be enough in any case
              3) "the strength of the armor in the atmosphere" is not equal to the "strength of the armor under water" the second will be less,
              4) the range of the SAC is proportional to its dimensions, and they are not a problem to change, the more this should be done not so much on the torpedo as on the SAC of the helicopter
              5) any problems with the GOS torpedoes are solved by telecontrol, and it is already tens of kilometers
              1. geniy
                geniy 19 May 2021 06: 31
                0
                any problems with the seeker of torpedoes are solved by telecontrol, and it is already tens of kilometers
                Well, what are you actually trying to prove? That a submarine aircraft carrier can be sunk? Yes, you can - there are no unsinkable ships. Especially in unfortunate circumstances. As you know, the unfortunate torpedo boat once sank a dreadnought. And a few linen Swordfish sank almost the entire Italian battleship fleet. And one unfortunate U-9 submarine sank three armored cruisers at once. Sometimes the unfortunate light tanks T-70 were knocked out by German Tigers. BUT most often there are typical situations - who is stronger wins. Moreover, not only sinking, but even detecting an underwater aircraft carrier will not be easy at all - because it will be covered with a thick skin made of a material close in density to water and therefore absorbing ultrasonic waves from sonars and radars. And therefore, there is a high probability that homing torpedoes simply will not aim at him.
                And if you are considering the situation that an enemy helicopter hovers over a submarine aircraft carrier and drops a homing torpedo on it, or an PLO destroyer also throws atomic depth charges at the submarine aircraft carrier, then it must be borne in mind that the submarine aircraft carrier will periodically surface and release its aircraft - fighters of the MiG-29 type , which, a thousand miles away, will find this ASW destroyer and sink it and shoot the anti-submarine aircraft, and destroy the AWACS and ASW aircraft hundreds of miles away. And therefore, having lost the means of anti-submarine defense, the American naval strike group, led by a surface aircraft carrier, simply will not know from what angle the submarine aircraft carrier is being selected under the water. And then he suddenly pops up and releases all his planes into the sky at low level flight. And in a surprise attack, they will sink both the American aircraft carrier and all the ships of its convoy.
                And in this way, either surfacing, or plunging to great depths, the submarine aircraft carrier can periodically release all of its aircraft - sometimes one by one in different directions - and then with the maximum flight range of the MiG-29 about 1000 miles in one direction and another of the same fighter - bomber 1000 miles the other way, then all 100 aircraft will be able to cover a circle with a diameter of about 2000 miles - that is, two-thirds of the width of the ATLANTIC OCEAN! And in this area, they will be able to destroy hundreds of unarmed transport ships in one day - thousands of times more efficiently than dozens of German submarines did. And then the battle for the Atlantic in 1941 will seem like child's play to the Americans and the British.
                And most importantly, we all perfectly understand that there simply cannot be a big war.
                BUT, on the other hand, one or two Russian submarine aircraft carriers, walking peacefully under water in the Atlantic Ocean, will only slightly show their teeth - they will release all one hundred of their aircraft in different directions, and these Migas will completely peacefully descend over all merchant ships in the Atlantic Ocean and show them their stars on the wings. And also the Russian Migas will rise to the height of the echelon of 10 kilometers and quite peacefully accompany many passenger airliners - including the planes of foreign presidents - for example, the President of America. And then the whole world will immediately become clear who is the master of the Atlantic Ocean. And so it is in the Indian Ocean in the Strait of Malacca.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 19 May 2021 13: 07
                  0
                  Quote: geniy
                  any problems with the seeker of torpedoes are solved by telecontrol, and it is already tens of kilometers
                  Well, what are you actually trying to prove? That a submarine aircraft carrier can be sunk? Yes, you can - there are no unsinkable ships. Especially in unfortunate circumstances.

                  Well, you are here describing "the impossibility of sinking the PL-AV", but I described that this is not so, but I prove the simple idea that "the PL-AV you are describing from the military-profitable and military-economic and military-financial points of view or will degenerate into something that will not be cheaper than AUG \ KUG and / or more ineffective than AUG \ KUG and therefore such a PL-AV will become meaningless because it will not allow you to abandon the AUG \ KUG. VVPZ (VTOL) on it.
        2. Avior
          Avior 18 May 2021 19: 48
          0
          If you remember, the Typhoon nuclear submarine was called "Water carriers" - that is, they carried tens of thousands of tons of water. So instead of water, I propose to carry tens of thousands of tons of aviation kerosene for aircraft.

          only when trying to rise to the surface will this kerosene have to be drained into the water, otherwise it will not float.
          for the underwater displacement is 48000 tons, and the surface displacement is 23200 tons.
          By the way, you will also have to pour kerosene underwater - it won't work above the water, it will drown.
          hi
          1. geniy
            geniy 18 May 2021 21: 03
            0
            only when trying to rise to the surface will this kerosene have to be drained into the water, otherwise it will not float.

            You probably don't know the principles of submarine architecture. The fact is that each submarine has both a deck superstructure and main ballast tanks. So - the volume of the deck superstructure is very large, but it is not at all included in the calculation of the volume of the submarine's hull even on the surface - because water is freely poured in and out of the superstructure.
            But the volume of the main ballast tanks is included in the underwater displacement. And if you knew, then during the war the Germans figured out to increase the cruising range to pour diesel fuel not only into the fuel tank, but also into the main ballast tanks. True, at the same time, the submarine was deprived of the ability to surface to the surface position - but could float on the surface of the water in the so-called positional position. But contrary to your assumption, the Germans did not have to pour out the diesel fuel when they surfaced.
            1. Avior
              Avior 18 May 2021 21: 15
              -1
              the volume of the deck superstructure is very large

              the volume of the superstructure?
              surface / underwater displacement
              941 "Shark" 23 / 200
              Ohio 16 / 746
              "Vanguard" 15 130/15 900
              "Triumfan" 12 640/14 335
              hi
              1. geniy
                geniy 18 May 2021 22: 06
                0
                About Hosspodi - well, what else do you want? [Quote] Avior (Sergey) Today, 21:15 [/ quote
                You were apparently delighted that I did not answer you about the death of the Babies - it's just that I'm just too lazy to answer! Well, you do not know the principles of submarine design, so do not meddle!
                For all the nuclear submarines you listed, the difference between the underwater and surface displacement is the volume of the main ballast tanks! And the volume of the deck superstructure is not included in this figure at all! The volume of the superstructure and + the permeable volume of the bow and stern is called the ATTACHED MASSES of WATER.
                And Akula has a fundamentally different architecture. It has two Large Sturdy Hulls and vertical missile silos between them. And now all this huge volume can be drained, and if you wish, you can fill it with kerosene and not drain it. And the volume of the Akula's deck superstructure is additionally added to this And even with a volume of 25 cubic meters between the hulls completely filled with kerosene, the Akula superstructure (in the form of an underwater aircraft carrier) with an additional volume of about 000 cubic meters will still rise above the water by about 10 meters from the waterline in position.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 18 May 2021 23: 48
                  -1
                  I know how pr941 works

                  Are you going to fill the leaky volumes with kerosene? so it will flow out.
                  And if you are going to seal them, then you have nothing to subtract from the displacement in the surface position.
                  Do you understand this?
                  Fantasize further, I will not interfere ...
                  hi
                  1. geniy
                    geniy 19 May 2021 06: 45
                    0
                    Are you going to fill the leaky volumes with kerosene? so it will flow out.

                    Let it be known to you that all the holes in the main ballast tanks of submarines are of two types: kingstones and scuppers.
                    Kingstons have hydraulically operated covers. Therefore, each tank of the main ballast with closed kingstones turns into absolutely sealed, and it is easy to store kerosene in it.
                    But also scupper tanks! Because their principle is such that open holes - scuppers are located only in the lower part. And as you know, any substance that is lighter than water is always collected at the top of such tanks. That is, when the submarine floats to the surface, then pressurized air is allowed into the tank and it squeezes the water out of the tank down through these scuppers. But in the same way, kerosene, which is lighter than water, can be put into this tank under pressure, and it will collect in the upper part of the volume of the tank and will not flow out through the scuppers. It is only necessary for the officers not to forget that air under pressure must not be allowed into the tanks filled with kerosene.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 19 May 2021 08: 08
                      -1
                      No need to talk too much
                      You thought of filling the space between the strong and light body when you wrote about the water carrier.
                      That is, the weight of the proposed fuel, according to your proposal, will be included in the surface displacement.
                      And the weight of the superstructure and water during the transition to the surface position occupies a small part of the total weight of the boat, which can be clearly seen in the examples given to you.
                      If you do not understand this, then what can I say, sort it out
                      I will not interfere
                      hi
                      1. geniy
                        geniy 19 May 2021 10: 00
                        0
                        You thought of filling the space between the strong and light body when you wrote about the water carrier.
                        So it goes without saying! Virtually all of the space between the strong and lightweight hull (minus a very small fraction of permeable parts - completely scanty that you can forget about) is actually the main ballast tanks - or, if desired, fuel tanks.
                        That is, the weight of the proposed fuel, according to your proposal, will be included in the surface displacement.

                        Well, yes, of course. What's incomprehensible here? When receiving tens of thousands of tons of aviation kerosene, the surface displacement will greatly increase (almost double), and the draft will also greatly increase, and the nuclear submarine will actually be in a positional position.
                        And the weight of the superstructure and water during the transition to the surface position takes up a small part of the total weight of the boat
                        So it goes without saying.
                        True, when taking aviation kerosene in huge quantities, there is one piquant moment, but I will not tell you about it.
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 19 May 2021 10: 17
                        -1
                        Read again about underwater and surface displacement and comparison with other boats
                      3. geniy
                        geniy 19 May 2021 10: 25
                        0
                        Read again
                        I can also advise you a lot of things to read, starting with the Bible. And stop talking in riddles.
                        If you hint that American submarines have negligible difference between surface and submarine displacement - which means that they have an extremely small buoyancy margin - only about 10%, because they are single-hull, while almost all Russian submarines are double-hull and have a buoyancy margin of about thirty%. BUT Typhoon-type nuclear submarines are generally unique vessels in this respect - they have probably more than 30% buoyancy !!!
                        So why are you giving me an example of American submarines? After all, I immediately said that the Russian "Shark" was chosen as a model of architecture for the submarine aircraft carrier.
                      4. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 19 May 2021 13: 56
                        0
                        here you find fault with this displacement, chew
                        1) they were called "water carriers" because they had TOO LARGE DRAFT that did not allow entering ports, to solve this problem, the dimensions of the submarine were increased. thereby reducing the draft in the surface mode, for this, the width was increased by lowering the center of mass.

                        2) It is possible to fill in kerosene, but this will have to be done in the roadstead and / or at sea. which, in principle, is solvable in itself.
                      5. geniy
                        geniy 19 May 2021 16: 03
                        -1
                        chewing
                        1) they were called "water carriers" because they had TOO LARGE DRAFT

                        Of course, they have a large sediment with water, but this is not why they were called water carriers. But because, for example, American submarines carry about 10% of the water, all Russian submarines carry about 30%, and the Sharks carry about 55% of the water of their submerged displacement.
                        2) It is possible to fill in kerosene, but it will have to be done in the roadstead and / or at sea.

                        It is precisely that kerosene can be poured on the roadstead or even in the open sea from a tanker, and there is no problem with that.
                      6. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 19 May 2021 18: 38
                        0
                        1) you didn't read my post carefully,
                        2) you are confusing cause and effect,
                        Initially, there was a reason: "the large mass of the submarine and the shallow depths of the forvays, due to which the submarine would not be able to enter the ports," its consequence was the desire to reduce the draft in the surface mode, which resulted in excess volumes for scaling the "displacement AIR" (and not ballast about which you say). At the same time, the problem of an overestimated center of mass appeared, which resulted in the distribution of compartments not upwards, but in breadth and, as a final version, the use of a transverse two-body scheme.
                        As for the percentage of transported water from conventional nuclear submarines in the United States and the USSR / Russia, it is not a matter of "backwardness" but that we have more of it due to work in areas with difficult ice conditions where there is often a case of damage to the skin and / or lack of buoyancy to break the ice cap.
                      7. geniy
                        geniy 19 May 2021 19: 54
                        0
                        You are ProkletyiPirat (Sergey) Today, 18:38
                        Stop writing that you are chewing something for me there. I immediately see that you do not have a basic shipbuilding education. The fact is that, contrary to the opinion of millions of amateurs, ships do not need great stability at all, but quite the opposite - the stability of single-hull ships should be moderate. This is due to the fact that at high stability, all vessels experience a sharp pitching. But on the other hand, in case of combat damage, stability is needed as much as possible. However, the Typhoon boat is not a single-hull vessel - but actually a catamaran - they have two durable displacement hulls. And catamarans have an order of magnitude stability - that is, about TEN TIMES MORE than that of monohull ships. So stop telling dilettantes like you about stability. Therefore, the catamaran architecture was forced to use the fact that it was necessary to reduce the draft on shallow waterways as much as possible - and this requires corny pumping out as much water as possible. Moreover, two hulls instead of one also greatly reduce the draft.
                        As for the percentage of transported water from conventional nuclear submarines from the United States and from the USSR / RF
                        It is immediately obvious that you do not understand anything at all! The fact is that all American and foreign submarines in general are SINGLE HULL (if you understand what this word means). And all Russian submarines are DOUBLE-HULL - but not in the form of a catamaran, they have one strong hull surrounded by a light outer hull. This is precisely because the outer hull of Russian boats has a large volume - because of this, they have a large buoyancy reserve of 30% compared to foreign ones.
                        BUT it is your deepest delusion that this is the quality of Russian submarines because of the work in the ice. Because the Russian Varshavyanka on the Black Sea is also double-hulled. And the boats that the Soviet Union sold to China, Vietnam, India, Egypt are also double-hulled, although these countries do not have any ice. But in fact, the reason for the large buoyancy of the Russians is that the buoyancy margin of foreign boats does not provide combat survivability at all - because 10% of the salary is even less than the volume of the largest compartment. And on Russian boats, the outer hull separates the epicenter of the explosion of a torpedo, missile or mine from the sheathing of a solid hull. Whereas the holes in a light body can be very large - but in reality these holes do not do any harm - because all the same, the entire space between the PC and the LC is filled with water. So - the distance between the light and strong hull in large boats reaches 6 meters - and this is the thickness of the anti-torpedo protection of huge battleships. And amateurs do not know that removing the epicenter of the explosion reduces the destructive pressure of its shock wave IN THE THIRD DEGREE! I was too lazy to give you a complete list of Soviet submarines that withstood the explosions of German mines during the Second World War and were able to return to base. So - not at all because of the ice, but because the light hull removes the epicenter of the explosion of mines and torpedoes from the solid hull and creates good anti-mine protection and at the same time creates a THREE TIMES LARGE BUFFY! And the American admirals are just FOOLS! Their nuclear submarines were apparently not fired with torpedoes and mines!
                      8. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 19 May 2021 21: 04
                        0
                        Quote: geniy
                        ...

                        Exhale, breathe, drink a sedative and throw less arrows on the topic of amateurishness, otherwise you present yourself as a complete amateur, especially when you attribute to me something that I did not write (this is about "stability") and even more so about the "catamaran nature of project 941" (that generally "facepalm") ,. And there is no need to rewrite what I have written, but in other words, and even more so to present it as proof of my amateurism.
  • max702
    max702 19 May 2021 10: 05
    -1
    Here is a cutaway photo of the nuclear submarine ..
    1. geniy
      geniy 19 May 2021 10: 11
      0
      What are you
      max702 (Maxim) Today, 10:05
      do you want to say and prove with this photo?
      Maybe you want to say that you do not understand the design of submarines and therefore do not see where the main ballast tanks are located, which, if desired, can be filled with kerosene?
      1. max702
        max702 19 May 2021 11: 38
        -1
        Have you already been asked where will you get him when you have to swim in? Will you pour it into the sea? Well, what then will you refuel the planes? Or if you fly into the aircraft tanks, it will help the nuclear submarine to surface?
        1. geniy
          geniy 19 May 2021 15: 20
          0
          Have you already been asked where will you get him when you have to swim in? Will you pour it into the sea?

          This phrase completely characterizes you, together with Avior and probably a thousand other members of the VO, that you don’t understand the principles of submarine navigation. The fact is that this dispute of ours with you about the main ballast tanks has nothing to do with submerged submarine navigation at all. The essence of the problem is that, unlike surface ships, their weight and volume are regulated absolutely automatically - for example, an additional cargo is received from a surface ship, then its draft immediately increases and at the same time the submerged volume increases. Then the submarines have the opposite - the cargo can be accepted or vice versa - torpedoes are fired and the submarine is slightly lightened. That is, the weight has changed, but the volume remains the same. So - adjusting the volume is very difficult (God, do I really have to explain to ignoramuses why this is so?). And therefore on all submarines in the Submerged position, weight is adjusted. For this, there is a so-called SURFACE tank. It is very small in volume - about 1-2% of the displacement, but it is this cistern that has the most important role in scuba diving. But in contrast to this - the so-called main ballast tanks do not play any role at all in the Submerged position - because they are absolutely completely filled with water or fuel. Although their volume is very large 10% - 30% of the displacement.
          Moreover, even the volume of the equalizing tank is pleasant with a large margin, because a rather small difference between the weight of the submarine and its volumetric displacement of only 0,1% in + -, as the boat immediately begins to slowly rise or sink. But adjusting the buoyancy of a boat with an equalizing tank is long and dreary. And to change the depth, HORIZONTAL RUDDERS are actually used - which create either lift or negative. And only mainly due to the action of the lifting force of the horizontal rudders, each submarine changes its depth - from 0 meters to, for example, 600 m. That is, the TANKS OF THE MAIN BALLAST, contrary to the opinion of the profane, do not at all participate in the submersion or ascent of all submarines. As the simpletons think - as if for the ascent it would be necessary to pump out kerosene from the Central City Hospital.
          But the truth is that with increasing depth, the water pressure changes very much - and the hull of the submarine is compressed between the frames and this slightly decreases its volume. And to restore balance during immersion, some water is pumped out of the surge tank. I will repeat once again for stupid people - all submarines surface and sink only due to the action of horizontal rudders, but in no case due to pumping out water or fuel from the Central City Hospital.
          Even I'm tired - too long post for teaching illiterates.
          1. geniy
            geniy 19 May 2021 15: 42
            0
            But probably it is still necessary to educate the readers - why then are huge tanks of the main ballast needed - if they do not play any role at all for submarine navigation in a submerged position? Whereas the most important surge tank only 1-2% ?.
            And the bottom line is that in emergency situations, if one of the middle compartments is flooded with a volume of, for example, 20%, then high-pressure air is squeezed out of the Central City Hospital and an additional buoyancy of 30% is obtained, which sometimes allows the boat to escape.
            So - all non-professionals mistakenly think - as if the submarine fills the tanks of the Central City Hospital in order to submerge. In fact, not a single submarine will submerge from this. because all submarines are trimmed (that is, their weight is equalized with the volumetric displacement) so that they remain on the water surface in the POSITIONAL POSITION. True, here the picture of my explanation is complicated by the fact that there is also a fast diving tank which is filled with water and in fact the boat will quickly sink. But the rapid immersion tank was invented only in the Second World War, and before that they were submerged without it. And only the acceptance of water into the equalizing tank or the rapid immersion tank will force the submarine to submerge under water. And this means that the main ballast tanks do not play any role for submerged boats and for surfacing - it is not at all necessary to pump out water or kerosene from them.
            Well, okay - why am I here suffering, to eliminate your illiteracy, anyway, no one appreciates my good deed. And I still haven't told you the most important thing!
  • max702
    max702 19 May 2021 09: 21
    -1
    Quote: geniy
    How do you imagine Russian supply transports in a BIG war between Russia and all NATO countries at the same time?

    No way ... Nuclear ash around the world is what will happen in this scenario ..
    1. geniy
      geniy 19 May 2021 10: 05
      0
      No way ... Nuclear ash around the world is what will happen in this scenario ..

      No way! We agreed on condition that a major war can be non-nuclear, but only with conventional weapons. And this is what the opponent will do with his supply transports turned into aircraft carriers when some American frigate or destroyer points at them with just one cannon.
      1. max702
        max702 19 May 2021 10: 09
        -1
        Quote: geniy
        We agreed on condition that a major war can be non-nuclear, but only with conventional weapons.

        Why's that? Where is it agreed then? Or do you think that if we start to successfully bend the foe by the usual means, he will say - "Yes, everything was fair!" and for a vigorous loaf will not climb? Well, well .. Then why should we reflect?
        1. geniy
          geniy 19 May 2021 10: 54
          +1
          Well, if you haven't read Andrey's article from Chelyabinsk
          https://topwar.ru/182849-o-roli-vmf-rf-v-preduprezhdenii-jadernoj-vojny.html
          then I will quote it to you:
          1) general nuclear;
          2) general common;
          3) nuclear in the theater of war;
          4) usual in the theater of war;
          5) local.
          Thus, the Americans assumed that an armed clash with the USSR (in the past) and the Russian Federation in the present and in the future could occur with conventional weapons. They also do not rule out a limited nuclear war. I must say that in this I fully agree with them.

          And I, in turn, agree on this point both with the Americans and with Andrey from Chelyabinsk.
          And I will remind you that before the start of World War II, most people were very afraid that a future war would happen with the use of poisonous gases, but all the rulers were afraid of this and there was no massive use of OV.
          By the way, when ours had already approached Berlin and the death of their country was obvious, they still did not dare to use poisonous gases, although they had a lot of them. So a future war may well be non-nuclear.
          1. max702
            max702 19 May 2021 11: 27
            -1
            Comparing OV and nuclear weapons is as if beyond the bounds, because it is not comparable, the scale is not at all the same ... There was no sense in using OV, well, they will harm the troops of the advancing enemy a bit and that's all, but nuclear weapons will nullify the results of any war, and in the centers of acceptance solutions, so there is a sense to use, why attack you if you understand that you will be killed, you are guaranteed to be dragged into the grave of the attacker? Nuclear weapons allow this easily, there is no military weapon .. Only a minor conflict like Syria can be non-nuclear, and even then up to a certain escalation measure ..
            As usual, Andrei distorts, passing fantasies as reality, then what the Americans assumed were their problems. Life proved that all plans were up to the first DB ..
        2. geniy
          geniy 19 May 2021 11: 45
          0
          Or do you think that if we start to successfully bend the foe by the usual means, he will say - "Yes, everything was fair!" and for a vigorous loaf will not climb?

          You do not take into account that the degree of "bending" can be different - and in some variants of the war, BELLING can be very small. Well, for example, nuclear weapons are not used at all, which means that all cities like the USA and Russia will remain practically intact, because all these bombers will be easily shot down by missiles. Well, let's say: Russia will have submarine aircraft carriers and they will sink thousands of transport ships and almost the entire American combat fleet - no matter what? And in the first world war they drowned thousands and in the second - no one died from this, not a single country.
          And Russia will certainly not be able to land a millionth landing and seize the entire territory of the United States. So do not exaggerate the degree of bending. And it means that it is quite possible that a future war will be non-nuclear or very limited nuclear. And ships and ships will walk the seas and oceans during this war.
          1. max702
            max702 19 May 2021 12: 13
            0
            Everything is simple here, if Russia fails to bend over, then the "Holy Valinor" project will give an oak tree, and with it everything else, it is for this reason that the rates are constantly growing for them to retreat not somewhere to eat at the expense of the corpse of Russia and either die themselves, all this is calculated even for the planning stage of the database. Why should they come to us if the results are not achieved? What about us? We have put forward our ships and say that just touch the glass, the United States understands it there and does not touch it, and not because they cannot sink the ships, but because they are afraid of glazing ..
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 19 May 2021 14: 22
      +1
      Is there enough ammunition for this?
      1. max702
        max702 19 May 2021 18: 08
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Is there enough ammunition for this?

        Enough, a dozen destroyed nuclear power plants and no one lives in the United States ..
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 18 May 2021 11: 54
    +4
    Why did they drive tactical bombers from Great Britain when two aircraft carriers with a full wing were located off the coast of Libya? Trained or wanted to save money? In any case, this indicates that such an operation could have been carried out without the participation of carrier-based aircraft.

    Without the participation of carrier-based aircraft, the F-111 would lay down on the approaches.
    For the operation "Eldorado" was mixed - the Air Force and the Navy. The navy was suppressing the air defense of Libya, fighter cover for the F-111 and strikes on Target # 2 - Benghazi. Moreover, there were more naval aircraft, even excluding cover fighters, than the Air Force. And the fleet had fewer vehicles that did not fulfill the combat mission.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 18 May 2021 13: 27
    0
    I see only one real useful / necessary application for AB.
    Aviation prikrytiya rozvertivaniya SSGN. You need a new type of medium AV with a reserve for the transition of aviation acrylic to drones.
    But there should be bit 3 of them, 1 each for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet and 1 in stock / under repair.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 18 May 2021 14: 13
    +7
    The author distorts, as usual.

    1) An aircraft carrier is needed so that with the help of its carrier-based aircraft
    send to the bottom any enemy squadron that comes
    to help your forces.
    The aircraft carrier provides dominance in the open ocean.

    2) Or is needed to support the landing force, where they do not reach
    their air force.
  • Avior
    Avior 18 May 2021 19: 39
    +3
    The author of the US condition - the presence of bases around the world - tries to automatically apply to Russia. What is wrong.
    Why do we need an aircraft-carrying ship - not only an aircraft carrier - if we consider the scope of its application in detail.
    1. For operations at sea outside the radius of coastal aviation. Provides a fundamental advantage in reconnaissance, strike and air defense functions. There is simply nothing to replace. The capabilities of the fleet, with its presence, are growing fundamentally and many times over. Including the creation of a naval blockade and unblocking. It seems that someone wrote that Russia has no direct outlet to the ocean? Good conditions for the blockade ....
    2. Near its coast - expands the real area of ​​operation of its own coastal aviation by creating an operational reserve, direct patrols by carrier-based aircraft, reconnaissance, etc.
    Deck aircraft are capable of quickly creating an operational group of aircraft in support of their own air and naval forces during enemy attacks. Land-based - only at a relatively short distance from the coast.
    3. Near a foreign shore - with a sufficiently large distance from their own bases - two options
    3a. Whenever possible, make extensive use of its own land aviation - to create an operational reserve in the theater of operations, patrolling and prompt response to various circumstances. Ground aviation cannot react as quickly, in such cases it is used to strike at previously reliably reconnoitered targets, as a rule stationary, mobile ones can leave the strike area. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the physical fatigue of the pilot when flying over long distances with refueling - it is one thing to strike at a deliberately specified target, the other is to search or conduct an air battle.
    For example, reconnaissance discovered the movement of missile launchers or armored columns of the enemy - at a land base, planes and tankers will have to be raised and flying for a long time - a deck in a theater of operations is able to quickly respond to sudden information. Another example is patrolling with minimal reaction time to information. Fighting landing of ground aviation in the theater of operations is also one of the functions of carrier-based aviation. For example, the deck was used in Iraq. To believe that significance is directly related to the number of sorties is fundamentally wrong. All have their own functions, which only partially overlap.
    3b. There is no own land aviation or there is very limited availability. Everything is clear here - the carrier provides aviation with its own forces within the limits of its capabilities, taking into account the capabilities of the enemy.
    In this case, it is not necessary to have an overwhelming advantage over the enemy in aviation, or generally an advantage. The aircraft carrier has much greater possibilities in the choice of location, mobile movement, time and surprise of the strike. The British in the Falklands are an example of this - significantly inferior in aviation capabilities to the Argentines, they have achieved success.
    In general, do you need an aircraft carrier or an aircraft carrier?
    The answer is simple - if you have a fleet, in principle, capable of operating outside the limits of its own land aviation from its own shore, then an aircraft carrier is not a fetish, it is a natural way to fundamentally strengthen its capabilities relatively inexpensively. Actually, therefore, now many who have a fleet are actively acquiring aircraft carriers or aircraft carriers of various types, if they are allowed by financial and technical capabilities, this is a global trend.
    1. Glad
      Glad 22 May 2021 13: 42
      0
      The British in the Falklands are an example of this - significantly inferior in aviation capabilities to the Argentines, they have achieved success.

      Hmm ... Not a very good example ... The situation was very specific there. It is not always possible to count on the fact that enemy aircraft will operate at the limit of the range and will not have a sufficient number of modern means of destruction ... At least, it is rash to count on this.
      1. Avior
        Avior 22 May 2021 14: 39
        0
        More than successful
        In a couple of years, the British would not have any aircraft carriers, they could forget about the Falklands
        And so, they compensated for the weakness of aviation by the correct location of the fleet in general and aircraft carriers in particular
        And the Argentines, formally superior in aviation, could do nothing.
        And what about modern weapons, if you are talking about anti-ship missiles, they did not become some kind of wunderwaffe of that war, against a combat-ready warship, their effectiveness turned out to be zero.
        1. Glad
          Glad 23 May 2021 00: 56
          0
          And so, they compensated for the weakness of aviation by the correct location of the fleet in general and aircraft carriers in particular
          And the Argentines, formally superior in aviation, could do nothing.
          And what about modern weapons, if you are talking about anti-ship missiles, they did not become some kind of wunderwaffe of that war, against a combat-ready warship, their effectiveness turned out to be zero.

          Let me disagree with you. With the correct positioning of the fleet and with the enthusiasm that sounded about carrier aviation, the British squadron should not have suffered such heavy losses. Moreover, the Argentine pilots had practically no guided munitions. They had to act in the same way as the pilots did during the Second World War. And this despite the fact that up to 80% of Argentine bombs hitting British ships simply did not explode. Even so, the British lost 6 ships. Is this a success? It may very well be. Only the British have nothing to do with him. For the air defense the British squadron has earned a solid "bad". For such "success" just right to give up on trial.
          As for the anti-ship missiles, one can hardly call their effectiveness zero. The Argentines had 6 (Six!) Aviation "Exocets". Of these, 3 (Three) hit targets and sank two ships out of six (six, damn it!) Lost by the British. Plus a ship-based anti-ship missile, which was launched from the coast and "pinched" Her Majesty's destroyer Glamorgan. At the same time, "Glamorgan" was on alert and activated electronic warfare (according to various sources, one or three missiles were taken away by interference). The British failed to shoot down a single anti-ship missile! Two ships were sunk and one damaged by eight (according to other sources, ten) missiles. And you call this "zero efficiency"? A very bold statement, in my opinion.
          1. Avior
            Avior 23 May 2021 04: 26
            0
            The attack on Shefield was in a state of complete non-readiness of the ship, on Glamorgan - sudden, the British did not know that the Argentines had a coastal launcher.
            Atlantic conveyor is not a battle ship.
            Thus, the Exocets were unable to sink a single combat-ready warship. So so wunderwaffe.
            The hit to Sheffield was a pure accident and the result of the negligence of its commander. By the way, Sheffield, strictly speaking, did not drown as a result of the hit; it sank many days later while being towed to the place of repair.
            As for the British air defense, the Harriers were not generally air defense aircraft, they were subsonic attack aircraft, the British aircraft carriers, in principle, were not ready for air defense due to the absence of at least AWACS helicopters, but nevertheless they fettered and paralyzed the actions of the Argentine supersonic aviation so much that the actions their aviation became ineffective, and also provided strikes against troops and runways on the islands. Actually, if the British had AWACS helicopters, the effectiveness of Argentine aviation would be generally zero, regardless of whether they had anti-ship missiles. By the way, the fact that the bombs of the Argentines did not explode is also a consequence of the fact that the Argentines were forced to operate at extremely low altitudes, and the bombs did not have time to release the fuse. If they had acted above, they would have encountered the approach of the British Harriers. For the same reason, they had problems with range - at low altitudes, fuel consumption is much higher.
            The war in the Falklands is a clear example of how the presence of at least some kind of carrier-based aircraft, minimal and with extremely limited capabilities, can paralyze the actions of coastal aircraft, which are much superior and make them ineffective.
            1. Glad
              Glad 23 May 2021 20: 31
              0
              The attack on Shefield was in a state of complete non-readiness of the ship ... on Glamorgan - sudden, the British did not know that the Argentines had a coastal launcher ... Atlantic conveyor - not a battle ship ... The Exocets could not drown a single combat-ready warship ... the British, in principle, were not ready for air defense

              You will forgive me generously, but don't you think that the British should demand from the Argentines an apology for the fact that they did not fight in the way that is convenient for the British? A skyscraper in a war zone is a war crime.
              Harriers ... fettered and paralyzed the actions of the supersonic aviation of the Argentines so much that the actions of their aviation became ineffective.

              I love Britain too. But my view of the situation does not allow me to admit that the actions of the Argentine aviation were ineffective. Quite the opposite. This is evidenced not only by the number of British ships sunk, but also by the total number of hits achieved by the Argentine pilots. This is inconsistent with the thesis that the Harriers have fettered and paralyzed Argentine aviation.
              Harriers weren't actually air defense aircraft, they were subsonic attack aircraft.

              And again I will allow myself to disagree with you. The Harriers were equipped with systems that allowed them to use air-to-air missiles and their pilots were trained in air combat.

              And yet ... You know ... The Argentines did not complain about the fact that they have to work at the limit of the radius of action and other inconveniences associated with the conduct of hostilities. They just did their job in the conditions that they had.
              1. Avior
                Avior 23 May 2021 21: 51
                -1
                But don't you think that the British should demand from the Argentines an apology for the fact that they did not fight in the way that is convenient for the British? A skyscraper in a war zone is a war crime.

                I did not write anything like that. Yes, the commander of Sheffield showed criminal negligence, as I have already written about.
                The hit to Sheffield is pure coincidence and the result of the negligence of its commander

                It is about the real effectiveness of the RCC. In reality, it is very low against a warship as a result of the war.
                the actions of the Argentine aviation were ineffective. Quite the opposite.

                would be effective - the islands would remain Argentina, since it had an overwhelming advantage in aviation.
                The Harriers were equipped with systems that allowed them to use air-to-air missiles and their pilots were trained in air combat.

                Many attack aircraft are equipped with such missiles for self-defense, they do not do this with air defense aircraft.
                The Argentines did not complain about the fact that they had to work at the limit of the range and other inconveniences associated with the conduct of hostilities. They just did their job in the conditions that they had.

                Their conditions are an overwhelming advantage in aviation over the British. But they lost
                1. Glad
                  Glad 23 May 2021 23: 29
                  0
                  It is about the real effectiveness of the RCC. In reality, it is very low against a warship as a result of the war.

                  You are too strict about the effectiveness of the use of anti-ship missiles in the discussed conflict. Everything is relative. Low or zero can be called the effectiveness of the use of anti-ship missiles P-15 during the Arab-Israeli wars. Except for the first episode - the sinking of Eilat. And the effectiveness of the use of anti-ship missiles by the Argentines can be called, if not excellent, then certainly good.
                  Many attack aircraft are equipped with such missiles for self-defense, they do not do this with air defense aircraft.

                  The British naval version of the Harrier was not a pure attack aircraft. This is a multipurpose aircraft designed to ensure the combat stability of the KUG. The air defense of the compound is included in this task. And I will repeat once again - the pilots of the "Harriers" were taught to conduct aerial combat. Not a defensive air battle within the framework of self-defense, but an air battle within the framework of ensuring the combat stability of the IBM.
                  Their conditions are an overwhelming advantage in aviation over the British.

                  Do you judge by the quantity? In vain. The concept of "overwhelming advantage" includes not only quantitative indicators, but also the ability to realize the potential that lies in technology. The Argentines did not have such an opportunity, regardless of the presence or absence of aircraft carrier aircraft from the British.
                  would be effective - the islands would remain Argentina, since it had an overwhelming advantage in aviation. But they lost

                  We will not grimace - this is a fact. The Argentine leadership has made more blunders than the British. Alas, in war, the gross mistakes of some are compensated by the exploits of others. Let it sound pretentious, but the Argentine pilots honestly did their duty. Yes, their country lost, but not because there is something wrong with the pilots.
                  The British command also mowed down be-here. But the feats of the British sailors and pilots were enough to achieve victory. As for the Argentines ... The situation can be characterized by a slightly corrected line from the song: "It's not their fault, so the card is laid down ..."
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 23 May 2021 23: 50
                    -1
                    And the effectiveness of the use of anti-ship missiles by the Argentines

                    against a combat-ready warship turned out to be zero
                    It is strange to consider this a good result.
                    And I will repeat once again - the pilots of the "Harriers" were taught to conduct aerial combat.

                    and so what? it is not clear what you are persistently arguing about.
                    supersonic aircraft were against them. Sea Harrier is a subsonic and non-specialized aircraft, inferior to them in all respects.
                    there were 28 of them in total.
                    Argentina had 10 times more planes.
                    Nevertheless, the effectiveness of Sea Harrier is beyond doubt.
                    1. Glad
                      Glad 24 May 2021 23: 38
                      0
                      against a combat-ready warship turned out to be zero

                      Hmm ... And what do you understand as a "combat-ready ship"?
                      it is not clear what you argue about

                      I bet? Oh my God! It's just that I'm timidly trying to convey one, in my opinion, an obvious idea. Namely, it is easy to be a winner when the British are fighting an air battle, but the Argentines are not.
                      Sea Harrier is a subsonic and non-specialized aircraft, inferior to them in all respects.

                      You see, what a thing ... Victory in aerial combat is due not only to superiority in speed. There are also a number of parameters that affect the outcome of air combat. And not all of these parameters are due to the technical parameters of the aircraft.
                      I'll try to give some analogy ... Suppose we have two planes. One is subsonic and the other is supersonic. The subsonic one is filled to capacity, and the supersonic one is with empty tanks. Which of them will win in aerial combat?
                      It is this state of affairs in the skies over the Falklands that explains the fact that the inferior Harriers in everything turned out to be an effective means of air defense.
                      And another nuance. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a certain contradiction in your statements. Your "Harrier" is some kind of Schrödinger's cat. This cat was both alive and dead at the same time. You have a "Harrier" at the same time good and bad.
                      Perhaps such a dualism is possible in quantum mechanics, but in real life it does not work that way.
                      The question arises - how does a bad "Harrier" become good? Note, I do not argue with the fact that "Harrier" has shown its effectiveness. I wonder why he showed it? From the information that I have gathered from open sources, I conclude that the effectiveness of the "Harrier" is due to the parameters of the situation in which it was used. This situation is unique. Its repetition is almost impossible. If we omit all the intermediate descriptions, then the bottom line will be the reason that I have already mentioned a little above - the “Harriers” fought against the Argentines, and the Argentines against the “Harriers” - no. In my opinion, this state of affairs does not give me any reason to personally consider the pilots of "Harriers" magicians who contrived to turn a bad plane into a good and effective one, just as it does not give anyone the right to call Argentine pilots complete inept who lost, having obviously the best technique.
                      Simply put, the result, which is known to be "on the face", was not due to the technical parameters of the aircraft of the opposing sides.
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 24 May 2021 23: 58
                        -1
                        And what do you understand as a "combat-ready ship"?

                        ready for battle.
                        the British are engaged in aerial combat, but the Argentines are not.

                        they were not given the opportunity.
                        Your "Harrier" is some kind of Schrödinger's cat. This cat was both alive and dead at the same time. You have a "Harrier" at the same time good and bad.

                        Harrier is a good stormtrooper within his capabilities and traits.
                        But not a fighter, and he was far from the Argentine fighters.
                        Another thing is that the British, taking advantage of the advantages of basing on aircraft carriers, managed to equalize the advantage of the Argentines in aviation, tying them up and limiting their use.
                        From the information that I have gathered from open sources, I conclude that the effectiveness of the "Harrier" is due to the parameters of the situation in which it was used.

                        in which the British put the Argentines on the choice of positions for aircraft carriers, forcing the Argentines to act at the limit of their capabilities.
                        does not give me any reason to personally consider the pilots of "Harriers" magicians who contrived to turn a bad plane into a good and efficient one, just as it does not give anyone the right to call Argentine pilots complete inept who lost, having obviously the best technology.

                        no, of course, moreover, the high level of Argentine pilots is beyond doubt.
                        The fact that they lost does not speak of their ineptitude, and not of the super-talent of the British pilots, although they were also of a high level, but that the British, using even the limited capabilities of their aircraft carriers, were able to provide the worst conditions for the use of aviation for the Argentines, leveling the advantage Argentina in aviation.
                        That is, even aircraft carriers with limited capabilities can provide an advantage if used correctly. Although, in general, there were enough jambs on both sides.
                        "Harrier" has shown its effectiveness. I wonder why he showed it?

                        because the British were able to apply it correctly.
                        You can often read the opinion that if you build an aircraft carrier, it is strictly like that of the Americans, big and expensive, and nothing else. The British in the Falklands have shown that even small aircraft carriers with very limited capabilities can be effective if used correctly.
                      2. Glad
                        Glad 29 May 2021 00: 32
                        0
                        ready to fight

                        Clear. And too general. Therefore, it allows arbitrary interpretation of the concept.
                        Well, that's not the point. The bottom line is that a fight is always the interaction of at least two participants in the process, so to speak. From which it follows that you can be ready for a fight and lose it.
                        Even if one of the parties won the battle, then it is not guaranteed from losses and combat damage.
                        they were not given the opportunity ... the British, using even the limited capabilities of their aircraft carriers, were able to provide the worst conditions for the use of aviation for the Argentines, leveling Argentina's advantage in aviation.

                        I would not be so categorical in assessing the ability of the British to give something or not to Argentine aviation in terms of combat capabilities. A much larger role in what happened was played by Argentine planning for an operation to seize the islands. Rather, mistakes in this planning.
                        Harrier is a good stormtrooper within his capabilities and traits.
                        But not a fighter ... because the British were able to use it correctly.

                        You see, what a thing ... In order to apply something correctly, it is necessary that the person who uses it had the skills to work with this "something". That is why I drew your attention to the fact that British pilots were learning to conduct air battles, and their aircraft had the appropriate equipment and weapons for this.
                        If the British did not have the skills of conducting air combat and working out the air defense mission of the KUG, then, I assure you, they could not have done anything to repel the attacks of the Argentine aviation.
                        As for the Harrier ... the attack aircraft is as mediocre as the fighter.
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 18 May 2021 21: 07
    +1
    Russian aircraft carriers off the coast of Africa - yes, it's ridiculous. But the author does not yet mention the lack of free access to the ocean, convenient locations for aircraft carriers, and the fact that the Russian and American navies have different tasks, of course implying real public interest and not some "decrees" or whims.
    1. max702
      max702 19 May 2021 09: 26
      0
      Quote: Falcon5555
      Russian aircraft carriers off the coast of Africa - yes, it's ridiculous. But the author does not yet mention the lack of free access to the ocean, convenient locations for aircraft carriers, and the fact that the Russian and American navies have different tasks, of course implying real public interest and not some "decrees" or whims.

      And these modest questions of AUG supporters are not interested in principle! You still ask them a question, but how can our AUG resist constant real-time observation from the enemy, because that has all the resources for this! There is nothing to say about the supply. If that war is going on about which the AUGers are broadcasting, then our AUG will not sail anywhere because it will be destroyed even before it arrives at the place of the DB, there are no imbeciles at the headquarters of the enemy ..
  • kamakama
    kamakama 19 May 2021 10: 35
    +1
    Please list the allies of Russia who are ready to receive the aircraft of the Aerospace Forces (and the consequences of such a decision!) South of the equator in Africa and South America. It's even indecent to mention Australia and Indonesia
    Yes, of course, the supply issues of both the AUG and the ground forces are colossal. When the sky and the sea are closed, in either case, the full participation of the forces will be difficult, if possible at all. Do not underestimate aircraft carriers. But overestimating is also harmful
    1. max702
      max702 19 May 2021 12: 38
      -1
      And what should we do there at the risk of multibillion-dollar weapons? What is the real exhaust from this? The author considered this question, and you? Therefore, if we live on 1/7 of the land on which EVERYTHING is, first of all, we must master and develop our own, and only then look somewhere there, or again, like in the USSR with bare jo..y must give the land to the peasants of Grenada? You will say later it will be too late! So if we can’t do anything next to us, what good is it to us from distant shores? Not there, not here, there will be no sense!
      1. Victor Leningradets
        Victor Leningradets 19 May 2021 13: 02
        +1
        We live on 3,33% of the world's territory, of which less than half are inhabited. If we give the oceans to the United States, then they and their allies will control 93% of the territory of the globe - quite enough to organize our insemination.
        1. max702
          max702 19 May 2021 13: 21
          -1
          We gave the oceans a long time ago, and it won't be possible to take them back by standard methods, well, not how! We are 146 million of them 1.5 billion .. In addition, now the most important task of causing irreparable military damage to the enemy can be solved differently, unlike the times of a hundred years ago .. Now you do not need to sail to the enemy's capital and equate it with the cannons of naval guns (and AUG aircraft are the same cannons only in profile) or landing troops, now both aviation and missiles will perfectly convey the point of view to anyone, that is, you can control the ocean, but this does not guarantee YOUR safety, that is, you are forced to solve the control problem in some other way, and not stupidly placing the ships in the right places .. From this it follows that to control this space the fleet is not enough because it does not guarantee it .. Conclusion from this the United States and its comrades do not control the oceans as well as anyone else if they rely on the fleet. Therefore, having relied on aviation, space, rocketry, we are completely solving the problem of controlling the oceans and other things, we simply do not need a fleet of a similar scale, which is what we are talking about.the author of the article ..
          1. Victor Leningradets
            Victor Leningradets 19 May 2021 13: 56
            0
            It would be reasonable, but everything in space is no longer yours. It is impossible to control and manage the space squadron from the ground, and there is no secrecy from the word at all.
            The ocean is what connects the continents, a solid open road, and the fleet walks along it. Well, support from the air and reconnaissance from space - has not been canceled.
            As long as your soldiers do not trample the territory, do not drive the inhabitants, do not seize resources and infrastructure, this is not a war, but an exchange of injections.
            What will you do if crowds of barmaley, prepared in advance for plundering the territory and genocide of the local population, are landed on the coast with an overwhelming superiority in means of attack and support? Is it stupid to fight off one, second or fifth blow? By surrendering the ocean, we give the initiative to the enemy, and he decides for himself when, where and with what forces he will crush us.
            1. max702
              max702 19 May 2021 17: 31
              0
              Come on? Norfolk San Diego and Guam glow in the dark, and from where the crowds of barmaley land on Chukotka .. A very real scenario .. In space, everything is controlled from the ground, it is strange that this is news for you ... our nuclear submarines are easy to track, and you are raving about invisible fleets ..
            2. Glad
              Glad 22 May 2021 14: 05
              0
              What will you do if crowds of barmaley, prepared in advance for plundering the territory and genocide of the local population, are planted on the coast with an overwhelming superiority in means of attack and support?

              Hmm ... Maybe I don't understand what ... I'm looking at the globe ... In my opinion, it is possible to organize what you are talking about (and that, with great reservations) only from the side of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk or the Bering Sea.
              In order for the barmaley to engage in the genocide of the local population in those parts, it is first necessary to bring this population there somehow ... Another scenario is more probable - the local population (present) saves the unfortunate barmaley from starvation and escorts them to the Magadan province (fortunately, to go far not necessary) for identifying and distributing elephants.
          2. kamakama
            kamakama 19 May 2021 14: 22
            0
            The great military theorist Clausewitz wrote that "war is the art of concentrating one's forces where the enemy does not wait. It is impossible to be strong everywhere." Actually, nothing has changed since then - if the enemy manages to create his concentration of forces in such a way that it will exceed yours at a specific point, he will take it. And planes, missiles, soldiers, ships are the tools for creating this concentration
        2. Glad
          Glad 22 May 2021 13: 53
          0
          If we give the oceans to the United States, then they and their allies will control 93% of the territory of the globe - quite enough to organize our insemination.

          "There is always a catch" (C). I would not be in a hurry with our insect. Controlling a large territory and, accordingly, long land borders, in addition to disadvantages, have their own advantages. For example, the ability to organize logistics chains with minimal use of distant water areas.
      2. kamakama
        kamakama 19 May 2021 14: 17
        0
        It's funny, but the United States has economic interests abroad, China has. Why can't we have it? well, for example, we had several contracts with Libya, where are they now? There were several oil contracts with Iraq - they rumbled. Chemistry something with Venezuela, however, it is not yet clear how.
        The Russian market is a priori tight, you need to think globally. Who would have known Nokia tires (and would they be at all ?!) outside Finland, if they did not dare to expand abroad
        What missiles are going to physically defend, for example, the SP2 pipe? A fishing scow arrives, drops a few boxes, broads - a lot of dough is buried at the bottom of the sea. Accident:))))
        1. max702
          max702 19 May 2021 18: 15
          0
          Quote: kamakama
          Chemistry something with Venezuela, however, it is not yet clear how.

          You look at the numbers of US purchases of Russian oil, where do you think it comes from? Yes, and in Iraq, Lukoil feels quite well .. In sp-2, the Poles tried to shit "by accident", but unexpectedly German fishermen appeared, this was enough, but as for the broads on the pipe, this game can be played together, for example, our B \ According to rumors, the oil pipeline in the United States was at gunpoint .. So the protection of such projects is going on differently, even a single Baltic Fleet ship is not observed in the construction area and it seems to me not because of the absence of these in this region ...
  • Victor Leningradets
    Victor Leningradets 19 May 2021 12: 07
    0
    Many thanks for the sober analysis of the real application of carrier-based aircraft in the limited conflicts of our time.
    But what does this prove?
    The uselessness of aircraft carriers in operations where even without them an overwhelming superiority over the enemy is ensured - yes. But the need for aircraft carriers in the event of a global Pacific conflict, which looms with increasing probability, was irrefutably proven, both in 1941-1945 and during the Korean War.
    It is important to understand that it will not work to sit on the sidelines or betray in time in this war. So we will have to side with strong, while giving us the right to exist China. China's goal is to create a Pacific "Zone of Prosperity" (the Samurai plan is the opposite). Our bonus is the northern part, including the territory of Alaska for mastering the Bering Strait and the polar coast of Canada for dominating the region.
    This task cannot be solved by some naval forces (it is difficult to call them a fleet), sharpened for shooting at bandit sheds and for finally solving the problem of overpopulation of the planet.
    As the experience of the theater war shows, maritime logistics and dominance in the skies over the ocean are the basis of victory. Hence the conclusion - we need a huge number of transport and landing ships, supported by light and escort aircraft carriers. Anti-submarine defense, due to the impossibility of saturating the enemy's Navy with a huge number of modern submarines, is secondary, and convoy aircraft carriers solve it much more efficiently than others.
    I have already written about the need to revise the structure of a modern naval aircraft carrier - it should be a floating airfield intended solely to provide takeoff and landing of unmanned aerial vehicles, their maintenance and refueling. No record move, protection and "formidable appearance" is required from him in the coming war. Nor is it the flagship of the connection. So all the dreams of "Shinano-in-Russian" have nothing to do with the requirements of combat effectiveness.
    The fact that all Kirovs and Kuznetsovs are floating museums, like their most modern American visa-a-visas.
  • Glad
    Glad 22 May 2021 13: 30
    0
    Finally decide! The ship is built for specific tasks. And you, friends, have to invent tasks in order to justify the existence of your favorite aircraft carrier.

    I do not classify myself as supporters or opponents of aircraft carriers. But if there are missions that aircraft carriers can handle better than other combatants, then why not build an aircraft carrier? For example, isn't giving the combat stability of the KUG a similar task for an aircraft carrier? Or am I wrong?
  • IgorZ
    IgorZ 23 May 2021 03: 28
    +1
    The problem of the Russian aircraft carrier is not that it is not very useful in practical terms, the problem of the Russian aircraft carrier is that it is not useful at all, and even in such, frankly, not the most vital conflict, like the conflict in Syria! Even the aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk would not replace Khmeinim for us. The question is, to what extent would the aircraft carrier's resources be sufficient for adequate operation in Syria if the Turks closed the straits and cut off our communications, and Iran closed the airspace? And how would we establish communication from Murmansk and St. Petersburg to Syria. That is, just in the case when there is nowhere without an aircraft carrier, and he alone is able to solve the problem, he is not able to solve the problem, being at a considerable distance from the bases. The trip to Syria showed that we do not have aircraft carrier competencies, and for good reason, only the United States has them. To acquire them costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time, and for what, for the war in Syria, where the United States and I fought against a common enemy. Now, if the aircraft carrier would be useful, in a big war, a war for the existence of Russia, even if it is small, then it would still be possible to think about investing. You know that the United States is no longer an ally to us, but an enemy, its allies are NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada and a bunch of other countries whose military forces are not integrated with the United States, but they have bases there. Where our aircraft carrier will sail, past all these airbases, and who are you going to attack from it. And there will still be submarines under him, for the most part enemy. And surface ships, including aircraft carriers. Meanwhile, most of the NATO countries, Japan and South Korea, are in the range of our fighters, up to Spain and Portugal, with refueling, and the rest, with a maximum of outboard tanks. Where we ship the aircraft carrier, to Australia, Canada or directly to the USA. Put our aircraft carrier in the place of the American one, and imagine that it is fighting in Iraq not together with aircraft from American bases, but against them. Moreover, it is categorically contraindicated for an aircraft carrier to stand in a war with a serious adversary, its main advantage is that it is a mobile target, it is dangerous for it to stand even at its base, remember the fate of the Bismarck and Marat. Russian aircraft carrier, this is the planned Tsushima.
  • serg v zapase
    serg v zapase 23 May 2021 14: 57
    0
    The author nobly kept silent about the enchanting fit of the Russian aircraft carrier to the shores of Syria. Well, how is it there without him, they won't cope, let's get a couple of medals for our wide ...
  • Antokha
    Antokha 25 May 2021 14: 47
    0
    Disputes are solely around the effectiveness of combat use, but another aspect of the construction of an aircraft carrier is never considered. These are technologies. A large and complex project, precisely because of its size, complexity and novelty, makes it necessary to come up with and master a colossal amount of new technologies. And the technologies, as well as the production tied to them, are PASSINGLY developing. This means that in order to move to the next step, one must stand on the previous one. Sometimes you can jump over a step by titanic efforts, sometimes even two steps. Sometimes, when changing the technological structure, you can save money. But this is because the enemy did not destroy you until you DEVELOPED while he was inventing and practicing new technologies.
    The aircraft carrier fleet is huge in size, the pinnacle of surface shipbuilding. It pulls the whole shipbuilding, shipyards, cranes, floating docks, assembly of the ship in sections, automatic welding with seam control, design, and probably a million more.
    "We don't need him." Do you need technology? Or are you planning to come up with them, as our and Soviet officials came up with a scale from scratch? Will not work. We need progressive development.
    It is in the submarine fleet, and the result is good.
    In electronics, it was not, we lagged behind, and so far we can not catch up. There is no lithograph of its own. And some Koreans are already doing 2nm process technology.
    They did not develop in the domestic automotive industry, and they were catching up for 20+ years. We caught up, but here no one interferes with us.
    And here is space. Why is it needed? This is more expensive than aircraft carriers. Can you intelligibly explain why he is? There are still no weapons there, and the tasks of tracking and sensing arose GRADUALLY, as you realized what you had in your hands. We were catching up with Buran, because they relaxed. Now we catch up with the Mask with its returning steps. It's not about the economy. It's about technology. Ultimately, technology is also the prestige of the state. Therefore, it was America that attracted, only she. The culmination of technology. And now this is largely true.
    So, an aircraft carrier should be built at least in order to reach the level of CONFIDENTIAL possession of the best shipbuilding technologies in the world today, with the subsequent reaching a new level.
    But when we become trendsetters in shipbuilding and shipbuilding, then we can talk about what to build next, because the world will simply copy us if it can. Now the United States is in this position.
  • Tech-Priest
    Tech-Priest 17 June 2021 21: 15
    0
    Hmm ... in general, this topic and those close to it are rather complicated in order to draw unambiguous conclusions based on the information presented in the article.

    The capabilities of an aircraft carrier as such are not limited to "strikes on the shore", support for ground forces and "bomb attacks on ships." The aircraft carrier is reconnaissance and target designation, so necessary for rocket ships, is Defense ship formation, much more operational than the "umbrella of base aviation", after all, this is PLO in the presence of deck anti-submarine vehicles. And now light aircraft carriers, capable of providing at least the last three above-mentioned points, would just come in handy for Russia in hypothetical wars of the future. However, if over the next ten to fifteen years nothing changes for the better in the “internal politics” of our state, it will most likely be too late for us to think about the fleet as such (it does not matter, with or without aircraft carrying ships).