Military Review

Sea battle. Aircraft survivability

161
Sea battle. Aircraft survivability


The officer bent over the mortally wounded Nelson, and at that moment a faint moan of “Kiss me” (kiss me) fell from the lips of the dying admiral. Vice Admiral Hardy was surprised and twice kissed Nelson. Historians are still arguing about the significance of this episode; according to one of the versions, the dying Nelson most likely pronounced “Kismet” (providence, rock).

The combat survivability of ships is quite a complex and controversial topic. Sea история full of amazing examples of the imminent death of ships that seemed unsinkable before, and, at the same time, equally incredible cases of salvation in hopeless situations. At first glance, the absence of any clear laws defining the survivability of ships suggests that the outcome of each exit to the sea depends solely on an accidental combination of circumstances.

Icebergs and Bengal Tigers

The unsinkable ship during its first flight ran into an iceberg and turned into a legend. Perhaps this is due to the fact that when the Titanic was launched into the water, they forgot to break the bottle - and, as you know, a ship that did not try wine will definitely want blood.
Sistership "Titanic" - "Olympic" was launched on all the rules: the bottle broke on its board and the liner 25 years honestly worked on the transatlantic lines, receiving the nickname "Old Reliable." 24 on April 1918 of the year “Olympic” spotted the German U-103 submarine and, without thinking, went to ram. The liner with a full displacement of 50 000 tons ripped in half 800-ton Sambarina. Just like an iceberg ...

A completely fierce, paranormal story occurred on November 11, 1942, near the Cocos Islands. A small convoy from the Dutch tanker Ondin and the British minesweeper Bengal was intercepted by two Japanese auxiliary cruisers. The displacement of opponents differed 50 times. Sixteen 140 mm guns and 8 torpedo tubes Hokoku-Maru and Aikoku Maru against the only 76 mm minesweeper guns and one 102 mm tanker 32 ammunition. The speed of the tanker "Ondina" - 12 knots, the front speed of the minesweeper "Bengal" - 15 knots. The speed of the Japanese Raiders - 21 node.

One of the Japanese auxiliary cruisers was destroyed, the second one was damaged, and not a single member of the Bengal team was scratched. The convoy arrived at its destination without delay. Both ships survived the Second World War: the tanker Ondina was decommissioned in 1959, the minesweeper Bengal served until 1960.
No one can blame Japanese sailors for incompetence or cowardice. Such is fate, providence, irresistible rock. By the way, I had a feeling of déjà vu ... Exactly! Brig "Mercury" and two Turkish battleships.

No fate

If the reader has a feeling of hopelessness and doubt in his abilities to change anything, then it is absolutely in vain. The result of each sea battle is a combination of numerous factors and indicators. The invisible hand of providence only determines the order in which the ship’s vulnerabilities and the flight paths of enemy shells are combined (and here the unbroken bottle of champagne and the 13 number are probably crucial ... although it may be all about preparing enemy gunners?). And yet, considering each indicator separately (booking, type of GEM, stability), we conclude that the better the value of each of them, the higher the likelihood that the ship will emerge victorious.

Indeed, despite the enormous influence of chance, there are well-defined rules. For example, if the ship is well-tailored, then it is likely to be reliable and tenacious. There are a whole series of successful designs, for example, destroyers of the Novik type.

Noviki

In 1942, in the Barents Sea, eight-meter waves tore off the smash destroyer Smashing (the destroyers of the 7 project, like their progenitor, the Italian destroyer Maestral, differed in the unimportant hull strength). The destroyers “Kuibyshev” and “Uritsky” (former destroyers of the type “Novik” - “Zabiyaka” and “Captain Kern”) urgently came to the aid of the emergency ship. Despite its solid age, Noviki kept on the wave perfectly and nothing fell off in their 11-point storm.

No less reliable was the Fletcher-type American destroyer hull, assembled from 18 mm steel sheets - kamikaze aircraft often punched through destroyers, but the Fletcher hull, despite the extensive destruction of power set, retained longitudinal strength.
Another great example is the Soviet destroyers of the 56 project. On these ships, over the 30 years of active exploitation, not a single major accident has occurred with human victims - given the realities of our Fatherland, it’s just a phenomenal result.

It has long been known that any weapon - only a pile of metal without trained personnel. The human factor is key in every situation. For example, in the 1944 year, the submarine USS Archer-Fish sank the Shinano, the largest aircraft carrier of the Second World War, with a total displacement of 70 000 tons by four torpedoes. It's only been 17 hours, after he went on his first battle trip! Surprise is caused by the fact that after the torpedo attack, the Shinano retained the course, the damage turned out to be insignificant, but ... after 7 hours, the supercarrier rolled over and sank. Well, what did you want from the crew, who was not familiar with the plan of the interior of a huge ship? The Shinano team was formed two days before going out to sea — the sailors simply did not know how and what compartments needed to be flooded in order to level the list. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the watertight bulkheads were not sealed, because Shinano was unfinished!

The opposite example is the death of the shock aircraft carrier "Yorktown", which lost its combat capability after hitting two torpedoes and a 250 kg bomb. But the aircraft carrier was not going to die - emergency parties extinguished fires, prevented the inflow of seawater and tried to reduce the list. The next day, going in tow, "Yorktown" once again came under attack - it got two torpedoes from a Japanese submarine. The aircraft carrier stayed afloat for another day.
The Yorktown, like the Shinano, killed four torpedoes. What is the difference you ask. Yorktown was 3 times smaller than a Japanese supercarrier!

Of course, the technical condition of the ship is of great importance - there is no doubt that on the ship that went into the sea, which stood for 20 years of conservation or propping up the mooring wall with limited funding, various surprises are possible, such as a sudden flooding of part of the compartments or loss of progress in the middle of the ocean. To send such a ship into battle means to betray the crew (which was once again proved by the unprepared Shinano).

Drowning "Yamato". That's how it was.

There is another specific factor - if the enemy has a deck aviationHe is guaranteed to win any naval battle. The Yamato superlinkor turned into a laughing stock: despite 180 anti-aircraft artillery barrels and a half-meter battleship armor, the fragile and awkward torpedo bombers the Avenger drowned him in 2 hours, along with his entire escort from the cruiser and six destroyers. Killed 3600 Japanese sailors. Losses of Americans amounted to 10 aircraft and 12 pilots.
Sistership "Yamato" - Musashi superlinker was much more successful. he resisted as much as 4 hours and managed to shoot down entire 18 American carrier-based aircraft. The loss of the Japanese this time amounted to 1023 sailor.

Floating airfields

The reader will probably be interested to know how hard it is to sink a modern aircraft carrier. For comparison, we choose the nuclear attack aircraft carrier type "Nimitz". We will not discuss the issues of the likelihood of a breakthrough of air defense and anti-tank defense of an aircraft carrier strike group, due to the absence of any reliable figures and facts on this topic. Therefore, we can immediately imagine that torpedoes and anti-ship missiles were slammed into the side of an aircraft carrier. What will be next?

Of course, the survivability of the aircraft carrier is very high, which is ensured, first of all, the enormous size of the ship. The length of the "Nimitz" - 332 meter, it does not fit in Red Square.
Nimitz is assembled from 161 into a finished section weighing from 100 to 865 tons. The floating aerodrome hull is divided by 7 decks and watertight bulkheads into more than 200 compartments. The flight, hangar and third deck are made of armor steel with thickness 150-200 mm.

There is an erroneous opinion that a floating airfield is an extremely flammable object filled to capacity with aviation kerosene and ammunition. Misconception based on the fact that fuel reserves are considered without taking into account the size of the ship. Indeed, the supply of jet fuel on board is huge - 8500 tons. But ... this is just 8% of the total displacement of the aircraft carrier! For comparison, you can bring data on other types of ships:

1. A large anti-submarine ship, pr. 1134-A ("Kronstadt"). Full displacement - 7500 tons, ship stocks: 1952 tons of fuel oil F-5; 45 tons of diesel fuel DS; 13000 liters of aviation kerosene for a helicopter. The fuel reserve was 27% of the ship’s total displacement.
Perhaps someone will note the difference between kerosene and fuel oil, but the well-known trick with extinguishing a torch in a bucket with heavy oil fractions is not entirely correct. In battle, the cistern is not set on fire with a torch, it is beaten on it with a hot pig with supersonic speed, with all the ensuing consequences.

2. Large anti-submarine ship pr. 1155 ("remove"). Full displacement - 7500 tons, normal kerosene for gas turbines - 1500 tons, i.e. 20% of the ship’s total displacement.

BOD "Admiral Levchenko" pr.NUMX - one of the most beautiful ships in the world

Moreover, on an aircraft carrier, unprecedented measures are being taken to store jet fuel - tanks located on the lower decks are covered with armor and surrounded by hermetic cofferdams (narrow uninhabited compartments) in which an inert gas is pumped. The fuel, as used, is replaced by seawater.

Regarding the amount of ammunition on board the Nimitz type aircraft carrier, many sources call the figure 1954 tons, i.e. less than 2% of the giant ship's displacement - not at all impressive. For security reasons, the ammunition cellars are located below the aircraft carrier's waterline - if there is a danger of an explosion, they can be urgently flooded. Most modern ships are deprived of such an opportunity - the ships of the NATO countries are equipped with Mark-41 UVP, in which the ammunition is above / at the waterline level. On most Russian ships, the situation is similar - most of the armament is generally moved to the upper deck.

Exclusive photo. Cellar ammunition "Nimitz"

The main power plant of the Nimitz type aircraft carrier is layered and housed in four watertight compartments. The nasal compartments of each echelon are set aside for a nuclear steam generating plant, and the stern compartments are for the main turbo gear units. From the bottom, the aircraft carrier is protected by an unsinkable armored deck, and the onboard anti-torpedo protection covers areas of the reactor compartments, ammunition cellars, and aviation fuel stores and reaches the height of the third deck.

Considering all the above, it follows that the guaranteed destruction of an aircraft carrier is possible only in the case of the use of high-power nuclear munitions. That, in turn, is practically unrealistic during local conflicts.

Author:
161 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Diesel
    Diesel 15 September 2012 09: 07
    +21
    It seems to me that the aircraft carrier does not need to be drowned, but simply disarm, that is, damage the flight deck, destroy steam catapults, etc.
    1. Tirpitz
      Tirpitz 15 September 2012 10: 23
      +15
      Totally agree with you. But the main thing is to break through his escort and aircraft. I do not think that this can be easily done.
      1. Bashkaus
        Bashkaus 15 September 2012 10: 40
        +18
        I completely agree, a roll of a couple of degrees negates the possibility of take-off and landing. And on the other hand, again, remember the Titanic and the invincible Wehrmacht army. The article begins with the fact that the survivability of the ship depends on how the chip lies, ends with the chanting of an unsinkable American aircraft carrier ((
        1. speedy
          speedy 16 September 2012 12: 01
          0
          Quote: Bashkaus
          I completely agree, a roll of a couple of degrees negates the possibility of take-off and landing. And on the other hand, again, remember the Titanic and the invincible Wehrmacht army. The article begins with the fact that the survivability of the ship depends on how the chip lies, ends with the chanting of an unsinkable American aircraft carrier ((

          Just prepare yours for the bookmark - justification of the need ...
      2. VAF
        VAF 15 September 2012 12: 09
        +13
        Quote: Tirpitz
        But the main thing is to break through his escort and aviation


        Dear Admiral, as always right! +! drinks

        The aircraft carrier itself is nothing! Therefore, it always "walks" as part of AUG, or even worse AUS !!!

        Therefore, when the Army and Navy were what they were, and not as they are now ....

        The primary tasks were the destruction or incapacitation of escort ships and the clearing of airspace at the launch lines and the construction of battle formations for deploying YES and MPA !!! soldier

        I do not consider the actions of fleet ships, although this is also not entirely correct, because everything was worked out in close cooperation and the use of all forces in a comprehensive way!
        1. EJIEKTPOBO3
          EJIEKTPOBO3 15 September 2012 14: 31
          +1
          Quote: vaf
          The aircraft carrier itself is nothing!

          On what basis are the largest ships in history, capable of hitting an enemy at a distance of 1000 km, fast and well-defended - equal to zero?
          Maybe you are a fan of the Mistral?


          Quote: vaf
          and "walks" always as part of AUG or even worse AUS !!!

          Why walk alone if you can form a squadron of 20 pennants? Each ship in the AUG acquires additional properties and enhances its capabilities. One for all and all for one
          1. VAF
            VAF 15 September 2012 14: 39
            +4
            Quote: EJIEKTPOBO3
            On what basis are the largest ships in history, capable of hitting an enemy at a distance of 1000 km, fast and well-defended - equal to zero?


            Georgy. Dear, is it for you to stick in or for what ????

            Or don't you read anything at all? So why then get stuck ????

            Here we are talking about the fact that an aircraft carrier without a cover is only a target in itself !!!


            Quote: EJIEKTPOBO3
            Maybe you are a fan of the Mistral?


            We thought it over. What did you write? so read something from the early. I probably. the most ardent opponent of these barges on this site!
            And in general, why this replica ????


            Quote: EJIEKTPOBO3
            Why walk alone if you can form a squadron of 20 pennants? Each ship in the AUG acquires additional properties and enhances its capabilities.


            Exactly, you don’t read anything .... or I'm sorry for the immodest question ... how old are you ???

            In general, for now, MINUS, and then ... let's see what else you ... "navoyayete"! hi
            1. EJIEKTPOBO3
              EJIEKTPOBO3 15 September 2012 18: 39
              -4
              Quote: vaf
              an aircraft carrier without cover represents only a target in itself !!!

              Yeah. And what are the escort destroyers without air cover?

              How do you comment on the fact that anti-ship missiles are practically absent on American cruisers and destroyers?
              Or that there is no better marine air defense system than carrier-based interceptors?
              1. VAF
                VAF 15 September 2012 21: 13
                +2
                Quote: EJIEKTPOBO3
                that there are practically no anti-ship missiles on American cruisers and destroyers?


                Who told you such nonsense, this time!

                So that’s why we are discussing the topic here that with our aviation weapons, which are now in service with the Russian Air Force, it’s easy to climb an aircraft carrier (AUG)!


                Quote: EJIEKTPOBO3
                Or that there is no better marine air defense system than carrier-based interceptors?


                And who proves the opposite?

                Have you ever read anything about what is being said here ????? wassat
                1. EJIEKTPOBO3
                  EJIEKTPOBO3 15 September 2012 21: 42
                  +3
                  Quote: vaf
                  Who told you such nonsense, this time!

                  Where are the anti-ship missiles, for example, on the Arleigh Burke sub-series IIa destroyers?
                  Quote: vaf
                  Have you ever read anything about what is being said here?

                  Yes, your phrase surprised me:
                  Quote: vaf
                  The aircraft carrier itself is nothing! Therefore, it always "walks" as part of AUG, or even worse AUS !!!

                  With what way is this conclusion made? An aircraft carrier can do without an escort, but cruisers and destroyers, left without air cover, quickly go to the bottom in battle.
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 15 September 2012 22: 03
                    +1
                    Quote: EJIEKTPOBO3
                    With what way is this conclusion made?


                    Yes, once upon a time I had to do this ... in "dense"!


                    Quote: EJIEKTPOBO3
                    An aircraft carrier can do without an escort, but cruisers and destroyers, left without air cover, quickly go to the bottom in battle.


                    I consider further conversation on this topic with you pointless and just wasting my time. No offence?! hi drinks
                  2. Tirpitz
                    Tirpitz 16 September 2012 18: 54
                    +1
                    Quote: EJIEKTPOBO3
                    An aircraft carrier can do without an escort


                    Here you are wrong. Without destroyers, it will be sunk by shock apl. There are no powerful hooks on aircraft carriers. A F-18 is poorly suited to combat apl.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      16 September 2012 22: 28
                      +1
                      Quote: Tirpitz
                      There are no powerful hooks on aircraft carriers. And F-18 is poorly suited to combat Apple.

                      There are no powerful hooks on destroyers either
                      But the number of anti-submarine helicopters on board the aircraft carrier exceeds the number of helicopters on escort ships.

                      Prior to the beginning of the 2000-ies, the aircraft carriers specially had a squadron of anti-submarine aircraft S-3 Viking, now they are withdrawn from service due to the absence of any threat from under the water.

                      And the third - the responsibility for the PLO carrier group lies with the aircraft base anti-submarine aircraft P-3 Orion (P-8 Poseidon), which exhibit linear barriers at the heading angles AUG
          2. spender
            spender 15 September 2012 14: 44
            +2
            Quote: EJIEKTPOBO3
            Maybe you are a fan of the Mistral?

            Bugaga, this is generally "beyond reason"! Who, who, and VAFa, can only blame the first time registered, you don't seem to be one of those, so catch from me, earned by you "-" winked
          3. Sleg
            Sleg 16 September 2012 19: 05
            0
            Based on the fact that 1 submarine is enough to drown it, if there is no protection
      3. Kars
        Kars 15 September 2012 12: 12
        +19
        Quote: Tirpitz
        I don’t think it can be done easily.
        1. VAF
          VAF 15 September 2012 12: 35
          +5
          Quote: Kars
          that this can be easily done


          Andrew, welcome, +! But, unfortunately, .. cinema ... only cinema and ... dreams that have nothing to do with the reality of being in the present, and in the future moment !!! crying
          1. Kars
            Kars 15 September 2012 12: 38
            +8
            Quote: vaf
            But unfortunately

            don't upset me.
            it’s already not talking about the fact that I’m just not considering the strike on aircraft carriers with conventional weapons. And even the construction of the Russian Federation’s own aircraft carriers will not work, in terms of anti-aircraft capability.))
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 15 September 2012 12: 49
              +5
              Quote: Kars

              no need to upset me

              Don't be upset kars wink
              Quote: Kars
              it’s not talking about the fact that I’m just not considering the strike on aircraft carriers with conventional weapons

              One nuclear warhead and an aircraft carrier will become history.
              1. VAF
                VAF 15 September 2012 13: 07
                0
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                One nuclear warhead and an aircraft carrier will become history.


                Sanya, I beg you, just don’t ... about ... pasta (SNAO-MYAO). These are the "methods" of uryakalok, and we must "go" the other way !!! soldier
                1. Alexander Romanov
                  Alexander Romanov 15 September 2012 13: 13
                  +2
                  Quote: vaf

                  Sanya, I’m begging you, well, you don’t have to ... about ... pasta (NWF-MNW

                  Sergey, there is simply no other more effective one, but if there is any enlightenment.
                  Quote: vaf
                  These are the "methods" of uryakalok, and we must "go" the other way !!!

                  They should go, but we are moving in the opposite position, today the note is Shell 1 C, they are not satisfied with the MO anymore and will not buy it. The question is asked why they drove him to the parade and talked about his uniqueness to the whole country. Soon we will shoot at nuclear weapons helicopters request
                  1. PLO
                    PLO 15 September 2012 13: 23
                    0
                    Carapace 1 C, does not suit MO more and will not be purchased

                    where does infa come from?
                    1. Alexander Romanov
                      Alexander Romanov 15 September 2012 13: 43
                      +1
                      Quote: olp
                      where does infa come from?

                      Take a look at the day’s review, there’s an article.
                    2. VAF
                      VAF 15 September 2012 13: 47
                      +1
                      Quote: olp
                      where does infa come from?


                      The command of the Ground Forces refused to adopt the Pantsir-S1 anti-aircraft missile-gun complex (ZRPK). Tests of the complex showed that it does not meet the stated requirements. About this "Izvestia" said a source in the high command of the Ground Forces.

                      - Recent military tests at the Ashuluk training ground showed that the technical and combat characteristics of the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system do not meet the requirements of the Ground Forces. Based on this, it was decided not to purchase these complexes, ”he said.

                      Everything did not fit ... continued at Tranzhira, +! drinks

                      ZRPK "Shell-C1" was developed by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau (KBP) on the basis of the Tunguska air defense system. Its task is to cover units from combat in an attack and on a march, to defend strategic targets, to cover the S-300, S-400 long-range anti-aircraft missile systems and, in the long run, S-500. "Shell-C1" can also hit ground targets - infantry and light armored vehicles.

                      The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has previously purchased ten Pantsir-C1 complexes, all of them are now distributed among the aerospace defense teams to cover the S-400 Triumph complexes. The Ministry of Defense plans to purchase about a hundred more Pantsir-S1 air defense missile systems for East Kazakhstan brigades over the next eight years.

                      The issue of deliveries of the “Shell” to the Ground Forces was discussed for several years, comparative tests of these systems and the Tor-M2 air defense systems of the Almaz-Antey air defense concern were carried out. As a representative of the Russian military-industrial complex told Izvestia, all the tests were not very successful for the Shell.

                      “A missile is not capable of hitting maneuverable targets, the complex itself is bulky and not mobile, which is extremely important for motorized rifle units, there are questions about the electronic base,” an officer familiar with the situation told Izvestia. In addition, he noted that in modern warfare, such short-range systems are powerless against combat aircraft that attack without entering the coverage area of ​​air defense systems, and it is much more efficient to use portable anti-aircraft missile systems and small arms against enemy helicopters.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 15 September 2012 14: 02
                        +4
                        Quote: vaf
                        short-range ones are powerless against combat aircraft that attack without entering the coverage area of ​​air defense systems, and it is much more efficient to use portable anti-aircraft missile systems and small arms against enemy helicopters


                        along the way, someone is as well familiar with the situation as I am with submarines. Has anyone already canceled the separation principle?
                        Quote: vaf
                        A missile is not capable of hitting maneuverable targets,

                        If she’s not capable, why haven’t she reported before? Then how did she pass the Gos tests? And what does it mean maneuverable? With what overloads?

                        in general, something is not clean here, there is no attack during the attack. And a hint of purchasing foreign analogues --- I wonder what systems are in mind.
                      2. VAF
                        VAF 15 September 2012 14: 22
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        in general, something is not clean here, there is no attack during the attack. And a hint of purchasing foreign analogues --- I wonder what systems are in mind.


                        Andrei, this is not for me, it's all for the air defense! +! soldier

                        Romanov was asked about the article ... here it is, and then ...... wink
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 15 September 2012 14: 26
                        +2
                        They’ll post it like news sooner or later, but we’ll figure it out. But it’s still not clean. Such good reviews about the Shell, then the reasons clearly pulled over the ears - for example, choosing a chassis, as I recall the shell is a module, but what to put it on the second one.
                      4. PLO
                        PLO 15 September 2012 14: 50
                        +8
                        thanks, Sergey.
                        read the article in the news

                        News.
                        in the light of some of her articles about the army (about the Barrier from Mig-31BM, which you have denied on this site, hereinafter the article about the new medical examination procedure for simulator pilots, which Mokrushin told about the refutation, and some others) I would not trust the article completely, it's worth the wait, maybe something will come out again

                        The shells initially seemed to be intended for the air defense forces and they seem to be poorly supplied there, so if I don’t put him in the air force, I won’t be especially upset, because I sympathize more with Tor-M2U

                        however, in the summer at the air base I read that in the fall firing for Tor-M2U and shell-s1 are planned, and they will determine their future fate in the NE

                        Well, about the fact that the Tor-m2 missile maneuvers with greater overloads than the Shell shell it seems to have been said before
                      5. VAF
                        VAF 15 September 2012 15: 31
                        0
                        Quote: olp
                        thanks, Sergey.


                        Always welcome! + hi drinks
                      6. Ilyukha
                        Ilyukha 15 September 2012 20: 38
                        +2
                        The "Pantsir" is outdated even at the development stage. A huge drawback of ALL our medium and long-range air defense systems is the guidance system based on radar and radio control of the launched missile. The modern high-speed digital electronic warfare system detects the activated air defense missile system in a timely manner, identifies and automatically sets jammers. The pilot must either leave the zone of probable damage or launch a missile at this target. That NATO aces perfectly demonstrated. Did our radar air defense systems in Yugoslavia and Libya shoot down many planes?
                        Modern western air defense systems have a passive detection system using a thermal imager, and the guidance of a rocket is a thermal seeker or by laser beam.
                        All other air defense systems are detected and affected in advance.
                        It will be good if the publicized "Carapace" is no longer produced. This is an air defense illusion.
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 15 September 2012 21: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: Ilyukha
                        The pilot must either leave the zone of probable defeat

                        It’s fair to say that the shells will be shot down by planes, I didn’t even think much - their main obstacles are anti-radioactiv missiles, anti-tank and general-purpose missiles.
                        Quote: Ilyukha
                        .A lot of our radar air defense systems in Yugoslavia and Libya shot airplanes?

                        in Libya, they didn’t shoot at all along the way. For example, the Wasp did not have standard missiles.
                        Quote: Ilyukha
                        Modern Western SAM

                        What are these?
                      8. Ilyukha
                        Ilyukha 15 September 2012 21: 57
                        0
                        Laserfire (England), Bofors RBS-70 (Sweden), Umkhonto (South Africa), ADATS (USA / Canada) "81" (Japan) and several others. All of them are on tracked or wheeled chassis, ie. not portable, with a range of 8-15 km, short, medium range. Guidance of missiles - laser beam or thermal seeker, target detection - thermal imager + TV camera. Radar is included, but sometimes not.
                        And certainly, they don’t put additional guns on such machines, because what for is a shotgun complete with high-precision weapons?
                      9. PLO
                        PLO 15 September 2012 22: 25
                        +2
                        missile guidance - laser beam or thermal seeker, target detection - thermal imager + camera

                        optoelectronic guidance is highly dependent on weather conditions, without SOC radar, the effectiveness of the air defense system is lower than the baseboard, how do you propose to detect targets? to place around the perimeter of fighters with binoculars?

                        And certainly, they don’t put additional guns on such machines, because what for is a shotgun complete with high-precision weapons?

                        cheaper, and against some goals no less effective
                      10. PLO
                        PLO 15 September 2012 22: 19
                        +2
                        The "Pantsir" is outdated even at the development stage. A huge drawback of ALL our medium and long-range air defense systems is the guidance system based on radar and radio control of the launched missile. A modern high-speed digital electronic warfare system and timely detects the included air defense system

                        yeah, so in one fell swoop all our air defense systems were sent to junk, and at the same time most of the western samples

                        based on radar and radio control fired missile

                        Do not tell anyone, but it is the radar and radio control that uses the vast number of air defense systems in the world


                        Modern western air defense systems have a passive detection system using a thermal imager, and the guidance of a rocket is a thermal seeker or by laser beam.

                        the optoelectronic detection system on all air defense systems has an auxiliary function, the main system is still radar
                        by the way on the shell she is

                        By the way, there is also a budget mode of the Shell only with an optoelectronic sighting system

                        and the guidance of the rocket is a thermal seeker or by a laser beam

                        IR ghs are usually placed on a short-range zur, because it is faster in conditions of possible interference and more reliable

                        arlgsn for a long-range zour,

                        on large zur capable of intercepting ballistic missiles can combine both gos

                        All other air defense systems are detected and affected in advance.

                        short-range air defense missiles can themselves destroy the missiles with which you were going to destroy it, and long-range air defense missiles can also be the carrier itself, and taking into account the fact that, according to the rules of military science, they are used together to create layered air defense, it’s not easy to penetrate such a defense
                      11. Ilyukha
                        Ilyukha 15 September 2012 23: 33
                        0
                        The anti-radar missile has a mass of 150-250 kg (modern western ones used to be heavier)), a length of 3-4 meters, a range of about 50 km and a speed of 2M. Destroying such a small and fast target, albeit not maneuvering, is a difficult task for any air defense system.
                        Therefore, it is recommended to turn off the radar (and immediately, by de-energizing) when such a thing is detected. Due to its size, it is detected several seconds before it is hit. The calculation knows this, so it can do sabotage altogether so as not to include a radar station. This was often noted among Arabs in the Middle East, and Yugoslav anti-aircraft gunners also wanted to live.
                        By the way, today's most advanced long-range (130 km) Aster air defense system (European Union) has a thermal seeker on missiles. Search for targets from the ground radar, here I agree, at these ranges no thermal imager will not detect the target.
                      12. Kars
                        Kars 15 September 2012 23: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Ilyukha
                        turn off the radar (and immediately, by de-energizing) when such a thing is detected

                        Quote: Ilyukha
                        and it is detected a few seconds before it hits


                        and "it’s not too late to drink Borjomi" is not to mention that she will keep the course anyway.
                        Quote: Ilyukha
                        .Because of the size and it is detected a few seconds before it hits

                        why? for 1-1.5 km (a couple of seconds at 2M)
                        Quote: Ilyukha
                        This was often noted among Arabs in the Middle East, and Yugoslav anti-aircraft gunners also wanted to live

                        for starters, they had C-75 C-125
                      13. PLO
                        PLO 15 September 2012 23: 58
                        +2
                        The anti-radar missile has a mass of 150-250 kg (modern western ones used to be heavier)), a length of 3-4 meters, a range of about 50 km and a speed of 2M. Destroy such a small and fast target - albeit not maneuvering - a difficult task for any air defense system

                        Not easy, but not impossible
                        the rocket does not maneuver, flies directly to the air defense system, i.e. the course parameter is 0, it’s not flying low, the main thing is to find out in time,
                        in addition to 50 km of his adversary should get other air defense


                        Therefore, it is recommended to turn off the radar (and immediately, by de-energizing) when such a thing is detected

                        it won’t help, pr danny learned to remember the location of the signal, although it seems like there are special counteraction systems prr like Gazetchik, but I haven’t read about their effectiveness anywhere


                        By the way, today's most advanced long-range (130 km) Aster air defense system (European Union) has a thermal seeker on missiles. Search for targets from the ground radar, here I agree, at these ranges no thermal imager will not detect the target.

                        Well, about the most modern, I would be careful, what is interesting 9M96M worse?
                        and his range is higher, 135km in the export mode 9M96E2

                        thermal seeker

                        on the contrary, ARLGSN, on the march uses an ANN with the possibility of radio command correction
                      14. Ilyukha
                        Ilyukha 16 September 2012 00: 14
                        +1
                        Quote: olp
                        on the contrary, ARLGSN, on the march uses an ANN with the possibility of radio command correction

                        Checked now. Aster uses either GOS, either thermal, or ARLGSN, ANN + radio correction, which are interchangeable in the situation. Also thoughtful, you can change it depending on the situation, which our analogue is deprived of, unfortunately.
                      15. PLO
                        PLO 16 September 2012 00: 21
                        +1
                        interchangeable in the situation of the GOS

                        do not quite understand

                        if you want to say that both the GOS and ARLGSN are installed on it at the same time, then this is not so, because only ARLGSN

                        if you want to say that it can be installed on it during the assembly of the IR GOS, then there is no question of any operational replacement and there is nothing special to regret
                      16. Hammer
                        Hammer 17 September 2012 02: 27
                        0
                        And there were a lot of modern complexes in Libya and Yugoslavia ?!
                        What to compare the incomparable ?! In Libya and Yugoslavia there was a crumbling of the 50s and 60s of the development, and they fought against them with modern weapons. And it’s even on this junk they managed to bring down their planes. In any case, in Yugoslavia. The loss in the war was caused not by the weakness of their air forces and air defense in particular, but by the slackness of their leadership - Kadafi and Milosevic. In any case, Yugoslavia had every chance to leave that company, if not already winners, then not exactly won.
                        So there’s no need to interfere with everything.
                      17. Inzhengr
                        Inzhengr 17 September 2012 12: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Hammer
                        the syklyavost of their leadership - Kadafi and Milosevic

                        You do not chase the men in vain, they held weapons to the last in their hands, despite the fact that everyone around had betrayed. Do you know many of the country's leaders capable of this?
                      18. PSih2097
                        PSih2097 16 September 2012 00: 30
                        +1
                        “A missile is not capable of hitting maneuverable targets, the complex itself is bulky and not mobile, which is extremely important for motorized rifle units, there are questions about the electronic base,” an officer familiar with the situation told Izvestia.

                        Those. "Tunguska" satisfies, but not the shell? Put the patient on a goose and that's it - the replacement "Tunguska" is provided (though it will be a little expensive, but still ...), the problem is different, the shell was originally created for the "large" air defense, but for the air defense Tunguska, And it is not correct to compare Thor and Shell - these are different complexes, the first air defense system, the second ZRAK.
                      19. patsantre
                        patsantre 16 September 2012 15: 08
                        0
                        Quote: PSih2097
                        And it is not correct to compare Thor and the Shell - these are different complexes, the first air defense systems, the second air defense systems.

                        So their tasks are the same.
                  2. VAF
                    VAF 15 September 2012 13: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexander Romanov
                    , today note Carapace 1 C, the MO is not satisfied with it anymore and will not be purchased.


                    I read this article yesterday! you know and was not surprised. from six months ago there was a meeting on the adoption of the Shell, and there were a lot of questions about the discrepancy of its (Shell) TTZ at that time, but as always ... forward and straight forward, and there .. we'll see!

                    So ...... everything is as always ... hurry, and then ... rake.!

                    will be brought to mind. of course ... but it’s better to discuss with the air defense, their bread! +! soldier
                2. spender
                  spender 15 September 2012 13: 16
                  +1
                  Quote: vaf
                  Well, just do not ... about ... pasta

                  Seryoga, did you remember the movie "Take care of women"? laughing
                  Or do you have something of your own with pasta?
                  1. Alexander Romanov
                    Alexander Romanov 15 September 2012 13: 25
                    +3
                    Quote: spender

                    Seryoga, did you remember the movie "Take care of women"?

                    Oh, count the minus to you, someone put it, you see someone does not like women, but crazy about "real" muzhchin laughing
                    1. spender
                      spender 15 September 2012 13: 28
                      +1
                      Quote: Alexander Romanov
                      someone put you a minus, to see someone does not like women

                      I have one "fan" from Germany laughing By the way, he hates women to the point of shivering, but somehow "got drunk" and to one right on the site "wedges" wassat but was sent on .. and in ... laughing
                      1. Alexander Romanov
                        Alexander Romanov 15 September 2012 13: 31
                        +1
                        Quote: spender
                        I have one "fan" from Germany

                        I heard that you have a fan in Norway, but about a fellow from Germany wassat I hear in the first laughing
                    2. VAF
                      VAF 15 September 2012 13: 55
                      -1
                      Quote: Alexander Romanov
                      someone put you minus


                      fluff .. "works" because of the .... corner !!! +! bully

                      I'm sorry, but Pooh in the photo ... was not request

                  2. VAF
                    VAF 15 September 2012 13: 52
                    +3
                    Quote: spender
                    Seryoga, did you remember the movie "Take care of women"? laughing
                    Or do you have something of your own with pasta?


                    Lesha and the first and second, +! bully Once on .. "survival" they drowned all food, except condensed milk, while crossing a mountain river, and ate it for a whole week! When we returned to the base, I cooked a whole bucket of pasta, threw 10 cans of stew and crumpled it into one snout .... without a smoke break!

                    as I recall .... most scared wassat

                    Well, you have a continuation of the article about problems with the Shell, Olp asked, everything did not fit right away, and the first part from Romanov!


                    In turn, the Deputy General Director of the Tula Design Bureau, Yuri Savenkov, told Izvestia that, according to the main technical and combat characteristics of the complex, the Ground Forces command has no serious issues.

                    “The main complaint of the Ground Forces Commander-in-Chief to the complex is that it is done on a wheeled platform, and the ground investigators want to air defense on a caterpillar track,” he emphasized.

                    According to the head of the Center for Military Forecasting, Colonel Anatoly Tsygank, despite the failure of the "Shell", the Ministry of Defense will still have to equip the ground units with missile-cannon air defense systems.

                    - Six years ago, a concept was adopted according to which the air defense units of the Ground Forces should be equipped with both anti-aircraft missile systems and cannon. Nobody has canceled this concept yet. Therefore, the Ministry of Defense will either have to finish the “Shell-C1”, or look for foreign counterparts that aren’t available right now, ”explained Tsyganok.

                    At the same time, Alexander Khramchikhin, head of the analytical department of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, explained to Izvestia that the inability of the Carapace to shoot down maneuvering targets makes it a useless weapon.

                    - If the complex cannot bring down the maneuvering target, then it will not be able to hit the guided munition. And this means that the unit that covers such a complex will be vulnerable to enemy MLRS fire. Until this problem is resolved, “Shell” for land units is pointless to buy, said Khramchikhin.

                    The Pantsir-C1 complex is equipped with 12 9M335 anti-aircraft guided missiles. Launch range - 12 km, the height of the targets hit - 8 km. The complex can direct up to three missiles simultaneously. Artillery weapons - two 30mm 2A72 automatic guns. Single-barrel guns. The combat module is installed on the roof of the combat vehicle body. In addition to armaments, it includes radar target detection and a target tracking station and missiles. There is also an optical channel fire control system. Guidance operators and a commander are placed in the back of a combat vehicle.
                    1. mark021105
                      mark021105 15 September 2012 17: 46
                      0
                      Quote: vaf
                      “The main complaint of the Ground Forces Commander-in-Chief to the complex is that it is done on a wheeled platform, and the ground investigators want to air defense on a caterpillar track,” he emphasized.


                      And why then do these figures wheeled tanks want ???
                      1. VAF
                        VAF 15 September 2012 21: 16
                        -1
                        Quote: mark021105
                        And why then do these figures wheeled tanks want ???


                        Wrong address, dear, wrong address! request
                    2. PLO
                      PLO 15 September 2012 23: 40
                      0
                      “The main complaint of the Ground Forces Commander-in-Chief to the complex is that it is done on a wheeled platform, and the ground investigators want to air defense on a caterpillar track,” he emphasized.

                      either Izvestia or MO

                      shell-s1 is also on the crawler chassis MZKT

                      but the MO said a loud "FI" they say it's too expensive

                      By the way, Tor-m2u is also installed on the MZKT chassis, but in this case it does not bother them, and they want to put Buk-M3 on it in the future for unification

                3. Rockets
                  Rockets 16 September 2012 10: 05
                  0
                  VAF
                  That's just also not necessary about not the vulnerability of aircraft carriers. That's when it will be tested IN PRACTICE, then wake up and say, for now all your statements are not about anything!
                  And in a war, as in a war, destroyers cannot really stand up for themselves, (EXAMPLES NEEDED?) And we still have to look at the anti-ship missile system and the AUG ....
              2. evgen762
                evgen762 16 September 2012 01: 05
                +1
                Read about nuclear weapons testing at Bikini Atoll. Saratoga surface explosion withstood.
            2. VAF
              VAF 15 September 2012 12: 52
              0
              Quote: Kars
              don't upset me.
              it’s not talking about the fact that I’m just not considering the strike on aircraft carriers with conventional weapons


              Andrei, everything here is not so sad as you think +!

              And there are, but theoretical (due to the lack of the required force and means at the moment, but only!) The possibility of destroying or incapacitating both the aircraft carrier and escort ships even with the use of the OSB!

              Well, if with the attraction of the forces of the Navy, then ....... "the tale becomes a reality"!

              But, neither at this command and ..... you yourself understand further !!!! soldier
              1. Kars
                Kars 15 September 2012 13: 01
                +1
                Quote: vaf
                or incapacitating both an aircraft carrier and escort ships even with the use of OSB!

                From this, in my opinion, our acquaintance began.
                I didn’t understand then how much Tu-22M3 (pieces) is needed to destroy an AUG with ideal missiles (that is, corresponding to open TTX) and real - I remember you didn’t speak too well of the x-22.

                and is there any accidental photo of their educational application, I’m specifically interested in this phrase from the wiki
                For the Kh-22N, a lightweight warhead with a high explosive-cumulative charge, which burns out a hole with an area of ​​630 m² and a depth of 22 m in the side of the ship, was also used.

                1. VAF
                  VAF 15 September 2012 13: 27
                  +4
                  Quote: Kars
                  From this, in my opinion, our acquaintance began.


                  It was such a thing drinks

                  Quote: Kars
                  I didn’t understand then how much Tu-22M3 (pieces) is needed to destroy an AUG with ideal missiles (that is, corresponding to open TTX) and real - I remember you didn’t speak too well of the x-22.


                  I repeat in the regiments (in one regiment we take the calculation of 20 aircraft with 2 X-22N (ON) missiles.

                  About 2-3 regiments of a minimum on a Tu-22M3 directly for hitting an aircraft carrier (provided it is selected in the warrant directly as the main target, highlighting it among false targets, detuning from counteraction of the REZ and REP means).

                  1-2 regiments on Tu-22K with the same missiles for the destruction of guarding and cover ships.

                  1-2 regiments on the Su-27 and Mig-31-to counter air defense fighters

                  1-2 regiment on the Tu-22P and Tu-16P aircraft to perform electronic warfare tasks.

                  1 squad of Tu-95RC (Tu-142MR)

                  1 squadron of Tu-142MK and MO

                  1 squadron of IL-38.

                  Not flattering about the X-22-? it's not that ... word !!! negative Admins will cut !!!

                  There are no photos of their use, in "practice" they were used only with "ballast", because. after hitting the target, an orange cloud hangs for a few more minutes and you can see a funnel.
                  On H-1200 meters, a cut-off, immediately the wing at 65gr and after the afterburners, you accelerate to 970-1000 km / h and .. "saw" to the target, and D launch 120 km.

                  The rocket jumps out from under the nose at launch in a maximum of 500-600 meters and rises upwards for 12,5 km, and you ..... fly forward.

                  In good weather, all stages of the flight trajectory are very clearly visible and when you’re from a 20-25 km target, the rocket goes down to a dive ...... so when you approach the target you can see everything!

                  you turn slightly to the right and lie down on the left side with a roll of 70-85 grams, because. on the "knife" of Tu-22M3 .. you can't hold and look.

                  the navigator usually ... acts because he doesn’t see a damn thing, he’d look in OPB, but if it comes off, then in the operator’s window the same picture can be seen in oil.

                  But from a great height you will not see such a picture, because. firstly high, and secondly, the launch range of 320-340 km!

                  About the data on the "hole" is correct ... it was measured after the fact, when working at 700 (a marine range in the Caspian Sea, near Fort Shevchenko) .....

                  Then ... everything was .... and aviation and training grounds and pilots and training! crying
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 15 September 2012 13: 35
                    +2
                    Quote: vaf
                    About 2-3 regiments at least on Tu-22M3

                    Thanks for the detailed answer. \
                    Quote: vaf
                    when working at 700 (marine range in the Caspian Sea, near Fort Shevchenko) .....

                    and what was used as a target?
                    1. VAF
                      VAF 15 September 2012 13: 59
                      +2
                      Quote: Kars
                      and what was used as a target?


                      At the landfill, ordinary corner reflectors, only large, and not as 105 targets.

                      well, on the sea ..... real old ships of various tonnage established in combat order AUG warrants.

                      There everyone at one time worked with the Kyrgyz Republic and the RCC and with any SD! +! soldier
              2. Armata
                Armata 15 September 2012 13: 23
                +2
                Quote: vaf
                Well, if with the attraction of the forces of the Navy, then ....... "the tale becomes a reality"!
                Sergey specify with what? No more words. How will we break through the guard of the AUG?
                1. spender
                  spender 15 September 2012 13: 24
                  +2
                  Quote: Steam Train
                  How will we break through the guard of the AUG?

                  Rooks and Mistrals crying
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 15 September 2012 14: 03
                    +2
                    Quote: spender
                    Rooks and Mistrals


                    Tough ... but very CORRECT! +soldier
                2. gor
                  gor 15 September 2012 14: 31
                  -6
                  okay, and if there will be a few dispersed aircraft carriers. which fleet needs to be buried and how many tu-22 need to be lost to sink several aircraft carriers? I think the country will remain completely defenseless after such an attack. And the aircraft carriers 10 for now and plus the security ships. so how much the fleet should be attacking a few aug? you need to operate with realities. in theory, everything is easy to implement
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 15 September 2012 14: 43
                    +2
                    Quote: gor
                    it is necessary to operate with realities. in theory, everything is easily carried out


                    One more ..... expert damn it !!! Read it. Tame it from the very beginning, and then climb with your ... statements!

                    write everywhere. that it’s unrealistic now, that not AUG but AUS will be applied, but he is on those ... drew himself!

                    Minus! fool
                    1. gor
                      gor 15 September 2012 19: 59
                      -3
                      I see that you are a serious expert. To bury your entire fleet just for the destruction of several aircraft carriers. Isn’t this a pure victory of the enemy in this case? )))))))))))))))))
                      1. VAF
                        VAF 15 September 2012 21: 21
                        +2
                        Quote: gor
                        I see you are a serious expert. bury your entire fleet


                        Hey you ... undereducated! Do you at least read something or in your head alone .. sawdust?

                        In each comment I write that you can’t do this and even nothing, and what are you talking about ?????

                        That's where you come from, and ????? fool am
                      2. Armata
                        Armata 16 September 2012 20: 51
                        +1
                        Quote: vaf
                        Hey you ... undereducated! Do you at least read something or in your head alone .. sawdust?

                        In each comment I write that you can’t do this and even nothing, and what are you talking about ?????

                        That's where you come from, and ?????
                        Sergey is a provocateur. Do not be mad. No need to waste your nerves on idiots.
                    2. Evil Tatar
                      Evil Tatar 15 September 2012 20: 38
                      +1
                      Quote: vaf

                      One more ..... expert damn it !!! Read it. Tame it from the very beginning, and then climb with your ... statements!
                      write everywhere. that it’s unrealistic now, that not AUG but AUS will be applied, but he is on those ... drew himself!
                      Minus!

                      Another expert is you and another gor appeared?

                      Well, let it be!

                      Why are you so ugly and rude?
                      1. VAF
                        VAF 15 September 2012 21: 19
                        +2
                        Quote: Angry Tatar
                        Why are you so ugly and rude?


                        Yes, because he is dumb and ... even dumber! Sorry for being rude, but these experts have already gotten shitty !!!!

                        In each comment I write that THIS IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE and NOTHING, but they again ... why is there something I want?

                        Or children ... or .... stupid, how else?
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 15 September 2012 21: 36
                        +6
                        Quote: vaf
                        Yes, because he's dumb and ... dumber

                        This is a long-known disaster discovery.
                        Until now, he believes that Abrams does not break through the RPG-7, because the bald type said so for the discovery
                      3. VAF
                        VAF 15 September 2012 22: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        This is a long-known disaster discovery.


                        Not Andrew, well, honestly ...... fool and you won’t pass by when such a thing is being poured into you ... one does not read that we are talking for Forrestal, the second does not see anything at all, the third has disarmed the entire Amerov fleet and deprived them of air defense means ..... well, maybe the kids were welcome?

                        So, in principle, let them be. only let them ask questions or are interested, and not ... climb with their .... fabrications.

                        By the way, Andrei’s question ... I read here just recently the statement of one of our regiment or brigade commanders, now you’ll understand what the hell .. well, he’s delighted with the new modernized T-72 tanks and says that they are not inferior to the T-90- ???????

                        There will be a topic about tanks. So will I fling your frets? chew and .. widen your horizons? drinks
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 15 September 2012 22: 15
                        +2
                        Quote: vaf
                        from the new modernized T-72 tanks and says that they are not inferior to the T-90 at all - ???????


                        Well, what should they concede? The main thing is not to confuse the T-90A and T-90MS.
                        Linear T-90A does not shine anything special (for which I will receive it for a moment)
                      5. PLO
                        PLO 15 September 2012 22: 38
                        +2
                        no, well, I would say at least the T-90, but why touch the T-90A?
                      6. Ilyukha
                        Ilyukha 15 September 2012 23: 47
                        0
                        Judging by the face of this bald type, he knows how to catch these grenades on the fly with his teeth))
                      7. PLO
                        PLO 16 September 2012 00: 13
                        0
                        here by the way the pictures of the case of abrms and t-72b from the blog of troupe
                      8. gor
                        gor 16 September 2012 15: 52
                        -2
                        I answer the educated oligophrenic! Didn’t you some time ago drowned the Aug with the Tu-22 regiment? Now your opinion has fundamentally changed to the opposite. But you believe in a fairy tale if you could also connect the fleet. I just forgot to say that to attack the Aug having aviation support approximately equal to the wing wing, Aug will have to lay out about three times as many ships as the composition of the warrant. and even under such conditions no one guarantees guaranteed success.
                        As I understand it, you are not the victim of discovery. But you don’t have your own stable opinion. Well, you’re smart you earn your epaulets by diligently waving your tongue)))))))))))))
                      9. Kars
                        Kars 16 September 2012 17: 52
                        0
                        Quote: gor
                        educated

                        Quote: gor
                        stoked aug regiment tu-22?

                        even koment and not to me. but aug (or rather an aircraft carrier) I drowned the regiment Tu-22M3
                        Quote: gor
                        you have no opinion

                        you know a sign that a person can absorb information and training is just a change in his opinion.
                        Quote: gor
                        you earn your epaulettes

                        Well, someone also earns their own skulls))))

                        And as for the Tu-22M3 regiment, I still think that he will be able to drown an aircraft carrier - but I don’t even consider that someone will return from it. I’m easier to fly.
                      10. gor
                        gor 16 September 2012 23: 41
                        -5
                        Yes, I don’t care which of you drowned an aircraft carrier. All of you Ury patriots on one face. By the way to a non-pilot. Do not forget that the aircraft carrier will have the support of air defense orders. And this is like acting on the territory of the enemy without the support of air defense. Well, count me now how much equipment need one aircraft carrier? By the way, torpedoes are also intercepted and launching a torpedo is a guaranteed detection of a submarine, and submarines are very vulnerable to surface ships. Pl has only one trump card. It's stealth.
                        and I don’t earn skulls. They push me like you. Inadequate. Since when you have nothing to object to, you minus the back. What can I say to you if the merits and honor are zero. You understand and there’s no offense for the minuses. Your minuses confirmation of my innocence. just to the point of idiocy
                      11. Kars
                        Kars 16 September 2012 23: 53
                        +1
                        Quote: gor
                        your cons are confirmation of my innocence.

                        Really? Cool complacency. That you are right, I will prominently wait) I will make you pleased.
                        Quote: gor
                        Well, count me now how many equipment is needed for one aircraft carrier

                        What difference does it make?
                        Quote: gor
                        By the way, torpedoes are also intercepted

                        and who does it in the AUG order?
                        Quote: gor
                        boats, and submarines are very vulnerable to surface ships. pl has one trump card only. it's stealth

                        If she went to the distance of a torpedo salvo, then she had definitely reached the launch station of the anti-ship missile launcher. And there it’s already like a lie down card.
                        Quote: gor
                        what can you talk about if the dignity and honor is zero

                        Does the victim of the discovery have it? Do you like telling me how bald he was talking about Abrash? Do you have the honor of recognizing that you are wrong?
                      12. gor
                        gor 17 September 2012 10: 49
                        -3
                        I talked about the frontal armor of Abrams. it bore you then ...... on the bumps with sides. as they say you see what you want to see. by the way, the T-72 also breaks into the side from RPG-7. and Abrams proved its superiority in fights. and the fact that you are spraying saliva here has absolutely no value.
                        by the way for urya patripotsov. so that your life doesn’t seem like honey. there is a video on YouTube when a raptor with a distance of 250 meters is separated from the runway. there is a video where they compare the maneuverability of the su-30, su-35 and the maneuverability raptor. the raptor wins. and there It’s not shown in virtual reality, but since the planes actually do it. and you don’t have such a plane and will not be soon
                      13. Kars
                        Kars 17 September 2012 11: 24
                        0
                        Quote: gor
                        I talked about the frontal armor of Abrams

                        We talked about Discovery, and you claimed that they only speak the holy truth.
                        So your statements about your conscience and so on remained statements.
                      14. gor
                        gor 18 September 2012 08: 47
                        0
                        and from the discoverers they say more truth. here I remember the phrase from the program military secret. there was an envious report about exoskeletons. and the climax. after 5 years, our scientists will develop an exoskeleton that exceeds these developments in terms of performance.
                        here I agree. after 5 years they can and will be better than what they are now developing in the USA, BUT A different question arises, WHAT WILL BE DEVELOPED IN THE USA BY THIS TIME IF THERE IS ALREADY TODAY DEVELOPED IN RUSSIA AFTER FIVE YEARS? AND ONE CASE TO SAY THE OTHER TO DO, SHORT FORKS ON WATER, BUT THERE YOU GO ON THIS ,,,,, U ABOUT NO ANALOGUES, SO I SO CORRECTLY PERCEPT YOU ,,,,,,, HI
                      15. Kars
                        Kars 18 September 2012 13: 29
                        0
                        how do I see my conscience is not biting?
                        miserable attempts to turn around begin, although there are no more screams - it cannot be, the discovery is not like that, it is waiting for the tram. who said that)))))))

                        but about strike power and military secrets in my comments are not mentioned.

                        Well, since it’s no good conscience to tell the public and to yourself that discovery (as well as the Shock Force) is an element of propaganda?
          2. Alexander Romanov
            Alexander Romanov 15 September 2012 12: 40
            +4
            Quote: vaf
            But, unfortunately, .. cinema ... only cinema and ... dreams that have nothing to do with the reality of being in the present, and in the future moment !!!

            Sergey, in the present, yes, but in the future, I wish Iran success in this matter, what the hell is not joking, maybe it will come out of them.
            1. VAF
              VAF 15 September 2012 12: 57
              +3
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              but in the future, I wish Iran success in this matter, what the hell is not joking, maybe it’s what they’re wearing.


              Sanya, well, this is too close the future, I meant so in 50 years, with our "reforming" and the pace of construction !!! +! recourse

              And the Iranians, if they are left alone and with ... what is now .... very ... "it will not be enough"!

              But what, good luck to them, is unique! +! drinks

              1. Alexander Romanov
                Alexander Romanov 15 September 2012 13: 28
                +2
                Quote: vaf

                And the Iranians, if they are left alone and with ... what is now .... very ... "it will not be enough"!

                It is clear that it’s small, but it happens to the old woman ........... negative I wish to sink 2, and preferably 3.
                1. VAF
                  VAF 15 September 2012 14: 04
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexander Romanov
                  I wish to sink 2, and preferably 3.


                  Well, it's you ... bent !!! +! wassat
                  1. Alexander Romanov
                    Alexander Romanov 15 September 2012 14: 29
                    +2
                    Quote: vaf
                    3 is better.

                    Quote: vaf
                    Well, it's you ... bent !!! +!

                    Sergey, God loves the trinity, not quite out of place, but amers really are out of place in the world. hi
                    1. gor
                      gor 15 September 2012 14: 40
                      -3
                      Adolf Hitler once said that Russians are out of place in the world at all. How is your worldview different from the Fuhrer’s worldview? To find fault and envy someone who is stronger than you.
          3. Kars
            Kars 10 October 2012 01: 39
            +1
            ..cinema ... only cinema and ... dreams
        2. in reserve
          in reserve 15 September 2012 13: 10
          0
          And what kind of movie?
        3. Santa Fe
          15 September 2012 14: 03
          +1
          Andrei, why is the film not showing an episode of Tu-22M air combat with combat patrols?
          1. Kars
            Kars 15 September 2012 14: 07
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Tu-22M with combat patrols?

            Well, this is for American directors.

            And so there the main pump before the flight ---- Moscow burns forward.
        4. zadorin1974
          zadorin1974 15 September 2012 18: 13
          -1
          cool movie - but too far-fetched - in principle, two long-range aviation regiments will probably be able to break through the AUG air defense but the losses will be corresponding
        5. rumpeljschtizhen
          rumpeljschtizhen 15 September 2012 18: 36
          0
          Cinema and the Americans. Funny
        6. - = 999 = -
          - = 999 = - 15 September 2012 19: 38
          0
          FROM WHERE FRAMES?
    2. Krilion
      Krilion 15 September 2012 11: 25
      +1
      roll on one side will be enough ...
      1. VAF
        VAF 15 September 2012 12: 27
        0
        Quote: Krilion
        roll on one side will be enough ...


        Only now we need to achieve more ... what would .. do this ..... roll (or trimmer?) wink
      2. EJIEKTPOBO3
        EJIEKTPOBO3 15 September 2012 14: 20
        +2
        Quote: Krilion
        roll on one side will be enough ...

        The roll is straightened by flooding the compartments of the opposite side
    3. Fox
      Fox 15 September 2012 11: 31
      0
      remember how the Yankees lost an aircraft carrier during the Vietnam war! ...
      1. VAF
        VAF 15 September 2012 12: 26
        +2
        Quote: Fox
        remember how the Yankees lost an aircraft carrier during the Vietnam war! ...


        What did you mean???? request
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 15 September 2012 12: 28
          +4
          Quote: vaf
          What did you mean????

          Hi Sergey, this is about the aircraft carrier that McKein burned wassat
          1. VAF
            VAF 15 September 2012 12: 44
            +5
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            it's about the aircraft carrier that McKein burned


            Hello, Sanya, +! Yes McCain, it’s not in business there, only if as a "fried" slightly pilot! wassat

            But in the end, Forrestal is alive and well! Yes, it was put out of action for a long time and the planes were lost not measured, but ... this is not the merit of the Vietnamese ???



            1. EJIEKTPOBO3
              EJIEKTPOBO3 15 September 2012 14: 28
              +1
              Quote: vaf
              Yes, it was disabled for a long time and the planes were lost not measured

              27 in the first case and 15 in the second. With the size of the air group of 70 cars.
              6 hours after the fires, Enterprise was able to take planes.
              1. VAF
                VAF 15 September 2012 14: 47
                +4
                Quote: EJIEKTPOBO3
                6 hours after the fires, Enterprise was able to take planes.


                we only discussed the case on Forrestal!

                Losses amounted to 29 completely destroyed, 30 with severe damage, of which 18 did not subsequently be repaired ... that's me, just in case!
              2. Good Ukraine
                Good Ukraine 15 September 2012 15: 23
                +4
                Forrestal gives the answer, because of what the aircraft carrier can be disabled or destroyed. In this case, the aircraft carrier almost died just because of an air-to-air missile hit.
                How this happened is another question, but the result of the destruction is obvious.
                That is: a rocket, when hit in an airplane that is in the sky, cannot always destroy such a combat unit (aircraft), inflicts practically the same damage to a completely different class to a combat unit (aircraft carrier).
                And what will happen, if it is, a specially designed missile (anti-ship) for this purpose.
                To incapacitate a ship, it is enough to damage the deck, superstructure. Well, if you disrupt the GEM from the foundation, then it will forever remain in the sea as a monument.
                Who can do it? - Ask our submariners. They will tell you how they "rubbed" the deckhouses against the bottoms of aircraft carriers.
                1. VAF
                  VAF 15 September 2012 15: 49
                  +2
                  Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
                  Forrestal gives the answer, because of what the aircraft carrier can be disabled


                  Only incapacitated. But not destroyed! To destroy it, you first need to go out, come up. Fly up to the launch line, which, in principle, we are talking about here!

                  Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
                  In this case, the aircraft carrier almost died just because of an air-to-air missile hit.


                  Well, if your AGM-12 Bullpup missile belongs to the class of air-to-air missiles, then hi

                  and the reason, by the way, has not yet been established - whether it is a rocket or a fuel spill with subsequent ignition.

                  By the way, Enterprise, after 6 hours it was already in operation .... just in case, about to destroy!


                  Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
                  To incapacitate a ship, it is enough to damage the deck, superstructure.


                  Quite, that's just something so far no one has succeeded, except for the period of the PSB and the war in the Pacific Ocean ????

                  Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
                  Who can do it? - Ask our submariners. They will tell you how they "rubbed" the deckhouses against the bottoms of aircraft carriers.


                  I don’t need to ask about this. if you carefully read what I have written, then I just put the submarine fleet in priority on the destruction of aircraft carriers and security ships directly!

                  and why go far? remember Kursk and how much P. Veliky was looking for it. although the coordinates were known, and the depth was only 100 meters !!!!
                  1. Nubia2
                    Nubia2 15 September 2012 20: 57
                    +1
                    Quote: vaf
                    Well, if your AGM-12 Bullpup missile belongs to the class of air-to-air missiles, then

                    and where does Bullpup if the cause of the incident was MK 32 Zuni? (which, incidentally, did not break.
                    1. VAF
                      VAF 15 September 2012 21: 30
                      -2
                      Quote: Nubia2
                      and where does Bullpup if the cause of the incident was MK 32 Zuni


                      I read the reports "theirs", there, as one of the versions, the involuntary descent of the AGM-12 rocket from the A-4 pylon and its hitting a nearby aircraft is considered! soldier

                      And in general, are you aware that we speak for Forrestal, and not for Enterprise ??? Here on it yes, specifically NURS on the Phantom wink

                      so ... call me but negative
                      1. Nubia2
                        Nubia2 15 September 2012 22: 29
                        0
                        Quote: vaf
                        I read the reports "theirs",

                        share the link.
                        I read them the same.
                        And in both cases Zuni appears.
                        The difference is that on Forrestal the missile left the airplane pylon (incidentally, it hit the plane of the future Senator McCain), on Enterprise, the Zuni missiles were on the conveyor. Otherwise, the cases are very similar.
                        so this is you call.
                        ...
                        minus your sleep did not deprive)))
                2. Evil Tatar
                  Evil Tatar 15 September 2012 20: 51
                  0
                  Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
                  Who can do it? - Ask our submariners. They will tell you how they "rubbed" the deckhouses against the bottoms of aircraft carriers.

                  Submariners from the site squeezed out by aviators ...))))))))))))
                  We are waiting for the replenishment of states after the reform of the site ...
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 15 September 2012 21: 34
                    0
                    Quote: Angry Tatar
                    Submariners from the site squeezed aviators


                    Well, why are you like this? By the way, in one of the first comments, I wrote that the only real force, and then and even more now, is only the UNDERWATER fleet, and then it is capable of opposing the AUG and the boundary of combat deployment, and especially at the transitions to these areas, when the order goes in the stowed position! soldier

                    But someone from the TOP ... apparently did not like it, but maybe they don’t like submariners ??? wink So they are very ... wrong !!!! angry
                    1. Evil Tatar
                      Evil Tatar 15 September 2012 22: 33
                      +8
                      Quote: vaf
                      Well, why are you like that?

                      I noticed that the higher the rank, the more resentment - constructive, humor, sarcasm disappears and soon they will not remain ...
                      Almost in their way - resentment, accusations of rudeness (by them imaginary), but to cheat on the crowd themselves - everything is nishtyak, it will channel ...
                      It is especially unpleasant when newcomers are rotten for criticism or arguing with "seasoned" ...

                      But the mass of the "seasoned" "rose to service" here only encouraging each other, moreover, mainly in the most "valuable" comments, for example:

                      Hello Esther!
                      Esther will cover the stern ...
                      Sanya, Peter, Vasya - to the point!
                      Have a drink?
                      I'm going for a beer ...
                      Russia has two friends ... - by the way, the most fashionable comment ...
                      Amerikosy (imp.) Villains!
                      Audi - (bad car)
                      With the Chinese you have to keep an eye out ...
                      Ahhhh, these villains are Armenians, and so on ...
                      What a handsome man! (about photos of airplanes, ships, tanks, etc.)
                      More to such! (about the same)
                      Okay, not enough ...
                      Everything was lost - the army was destroyed, oil was sold, and so on ...
                      Putin - (the most offensive word) and other epithets ...
                      Minister - (offensive word for furniture manufacturers)
                      These urya patriots ...
                      Esaul in the oven!
                      I won’t even comment + (why wrote then?)
                      And so forth, and so forth, and so forth crap ...

                      To you vaf, this is my comment practically does not apply, but it slips for you too ...
                      I noticed a long time ago that the "old-timers" began to cuddle up to each other, so that the new, literate and evil would not eat ... Yes, and clean up the non-aligned "old-timers" with a crowd ...
                      This is probably right, because otherwise there is nothing to say ...
                      Neither stand up for strangers, do not support them ...

                      But a year ago there was no such mess ...
                      Where did you come from and why, usurpers of the forum?
                      1. Rockets
                        Rockets 16 September 2012 14: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: Angry Tatar
                        I noticed that the higher the rank, the more resentment

                        Oh yes, and the main argument is the authority of stars and show-offs are cheap. Although sometimes they are nonsense and nonsense, exhaustion from the finger or from the yellow press. And after all, nothing can be opposed to them, they have a brawl
                      2. Inzhengr
                        Inzhengr 17 September 2012 16: 49
                        0
                        Eugene, the question on the problem you mentioned has been raised more than once, but the rhythm of life here is set by local moderators. In a "personal" conversation, they seem to be normal men, but on the site, ...
    4. VAF
      VAF 15 September 2012 12: 04
      +4
      Quote: Diesel
      but simply disarm i.e. damage the flight deck, destroy steam catapults, etc.


      There is a much simpler and more reliable option - to destroy or damage the "island" and ... the aircraft carrier turns into an ordinary maritime airplane parking ... no more! wassat

      But this is a specific answer to your koment, no more!
      1. Armata
        Armata 15 September 2012 13: 26
        +4
        Even if the KR reaches the AUG. That will only blow. And with a destroyed cabin, it can function because all systems on the lower decks.
        1. VAF
          VAF 15 September 2012 14: 11
          +4
          Quote: Steam Train
          Even if the KR reaches AUG


          Zhenya, well, it depends on which type of CR (type warhead) +!

          Systems yes, but Antenna systems ???? Guidance, Target Designation (issuing and receiving from satellites .nu, etc.)? Not to mention aviation systems!

          By the way, (Zhenya. But this is not for you, you understand! good ) here is an illustrative and actual example of using 4 catapults at once for taking off fighters ..... I don't remember who argued with me until I was hoarse and threw myself with poop that amers did not have this (well, there were always enough "specialists" -keyers ... and enough)! recourse

          1. Santa Fe
            15 September 2012 19: 11
            -1
            Quote: vaf
            But antenna systems ???? Guidance, Target Designation (issuing and receiving from satellites .nu, etc.)? Not to mention aviation systems!

            Surely everything is dispersed and duplicated. Amers have 70 years of experience building and using aircraft carriers
            1. VAF
              VAF 15 September 2012 21: 50
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Surely everything is dispersed and duplicated.


              I will disappoint you, NO! In the sense of dubbing, there is, but it is in the same place on the "island" and on the additional "mast" superstructure!
              Everything ... nothing else from the antenna systems (with the exception of underwater) is nowhere to be found! soldier



              By the way, ours on Indus, exactly the same .... "cooked up" that would look like amerovsky lol

              Here it is not yet, it is still ... OUR




              but SHE is already there ..... it is already INDUS ....

          2. Armata
            Armata 16 September 2012 20: 53
            +1
            Quote: vaf
            here is a clear and actual example of using 4 catapults for take-off right away
            Strong. But that's just the Yankees. Therefore, I do not want to shout ur
    5. Gad
      Gad 15 September 2012 19: 59
      +4
      Quote: Diesel
      It seems to me that the aircraft carrier does not need to be drowned, but simply disarm, that is, damage the flight deck, destroy steam catapults, etc.
      And there are such examples in history. In the north sea, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau landed on the aircraft carrier Glories, the third salvo damaged the take-off deck and the battle was virtually over. In the battle near the island of Samar, only the indecision of the Japanese saved a squadron of escort aircraft carriers from defeat. And the death of the Yamato, I would still blame the weakness of the air defense, not in the number of barrels FOR strength, but in the quality of ammunition, control and guidance, which was shown by American battleships, for example, the South Dakota.
      1. Santa Fe
        15 September 2012 21: 53
        -2
        Quote: GaD
        Scharnhorst and Gneisenau embarked on the aircraft carrier Glories in the north sea

        Glories' wing was incapable of combat - in that operation, the aircraft carrier was used as a barge to evacuate aircraft from Norway. During the battle, not a single torpedo bomber was able to rise from the deck of Glories, crammed with land Hurricanes
        Quote: GaD
        In the battle of the island of Samar, only the indecision of the Japanese

        Japanese squadron of 4's battleships and 7 cruisers attacked 6 escort US Navy aircraft carriers - as a result of 1, a light aircraft carrier sank, and the Japanese lost two heavy cruisers, the rest of the Japanese ships were seriously damaged.
        Quote: GaD
        and as ammunition, control and guidance, which was shown by American battleships, for example, the South Dakota.

        In the battle of Santa Cruz, the South Dakota allegedly shot down 26 of 52 Japanese aircraft.
        But, firstly, except for "South Dakota", all AUG ships fired at the planes, and the result was recorded only for the battleship.
        Secondly, the destruction of only 12 torpedo bombers is more or less reliably confirmed
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 September 2012 21: 58
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Glories’s air wing was not operational

          Why is this? The torpedo bombers did not have enough time, but they were prepared.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          6 US Navy escort carriers

          Bad shells of the Japanese fleet, if capital aircraft carriers would be destroyed there for the Yankees.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          In the battle of Santa Cruz, "South Dakota" allegedly shot down 26 of 52 Japanese aircraft

          By the way, he also received bombs in the GK tower, which did no damage.
          1. Santa Fe
            16 September 2012 14: 07
            -1
            Quote: Kars
            The torpedo bombers did not have enough time, but they were prepared.

            when the German shells began to tear inside Glories and the situation became very bad, the Britons decided to push the Hurricanes into the water and try to raise the 5 Swordfish.
            Here is such a preparation
            Quote: Kars
            Bad shells of the Japanese fleet

            Poor precision of shells, poor visibility ... battleships they are such battleships
            Quote: Kars
            if capital aircraft carriers would destroy them for the Yankees

            Heavy aircraft carriers could organize air patrols and destroy the entire squadron of Yaps at distant lines.
            1. Kars
              Kars 16 September 2012 18: 24
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              water and try to raise 5 Swordfish.
              Here is such a preparation

              But this is their problem? Didn’t it? They could not throw off, but send fighters into battle, well, just like that.
              The surviving sailors and pilots Glories subsequently claimed that the last order of the commander of the ship was an order to still try to launch five torpedo bombers on the Germans. But the planes died in a red-smoked fire - even before the technicians managed to hang torpedoes under their skinny fuselages
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Poor projectile accuracy, poor visibility ...

              This time, all the same, bad high-explosive shells. The eskortniki got enough hits, only the shells passed to take off.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Heavy aircraft carriers could organize air patrols and destroy the entire squadron of yap at distant lines

              but that escortmen and ground workers of just 500 aircraft could not do this in principle))))))?
              1. Santa Fe
                19 September 2012 00: 05
                0
                Quote: Kars
                But vet is their problem? Didn’t they?

                Quote: Kars
                o planes died in a red-smoked fire - even before the technicians managed to hang torpedoes under their skinny fuselages

                Airplanes need to be prepared not when shells burst around, but several hours before the enemy’s approach. Glories was incapacitated, but fortunulo battleships only once.
                Quote: Kars
                This time, all the same, bad high-explosive shells. Eskortniki got enough hits

                True, what fire was constantly transferred from ship to ship?
                Quote: Kars
                and that escortmen and ground workers of all 500 aircraft could not do this in principle

                500 - taking into account the planes that came to the rescue from another sector, the EMNIP ground aviation was not there
                escort soldiers are not able to constantly keep planes in the air due to the small small reserves of fuel ...
                1. Kars
                  Kars 19 September 2012 01: 13
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Airplanes need to be prepared not when shells burst around, but several hours before the enemy’s approach. Glories was unfit

                  A strange conclusion: WHY is he unfit for combat? It is clearly visible that the planes were preparing to take off, if he weren’t fighting, then no one would be preparing anything. So sorry here is the bad wind direction and the commander’s carelessness. Reset the extra fighters a minute.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  True, why the fire was constantly transferred from ship to ship

                  And what not?
                  WESTERN GROUP OF ESCORT AIRCRAFT (OG 32.7)
                  Rear Admiral Ralph E. Ofsti
                  Gambir Bay

                  Ommany Bay

                  Kadashen Bay

                  Petrof bay

                  Kasaan Bay

                  Sagino Bay

                  Kalinin Bay

                  Kitken Bay

                  Savo Island

                  White plains

                  Marcus Island

                  13 destroyers

                  4 Escort Destroyer
                  In 6.58, one of the aircraft carriers of the central group - Tuffy-2 - raised 10 aircraft for reconnaissance
                  The most severe injuries were Kalinin Bay and Gambir Bay. The first one got hit by 356-mm or even 406-mm shell and 13 hits by 203-mm shells
                  Flagship Admiral Spraygyu received 4 hit 203-mm shells
                  HEAVY DAMAGED


                  USA


                  Kalinin Bay

                  Kinken Bay


                  White plains




                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  500 - taking into account the planes that came to the rescue from another sector, the EMNIP ground aviation was not there

                  Really? We are already discussing this many times? And anyway 500))))))
        2. Gad
          Gad 15 September 2012 22: 34
          +1
          No matter how many Dakota shot down, I did not specifically focus on the number of aircraft shot down, the point is that the American battleships were able to create a powerful air defense barrier for their aircraft carriers, although it did not always help. We have already discussed the Battle of Samar Island. And in the case of the "Glories" the British showed negligence, because the aircraft carrier had a regular air group, but there was no air patrol, and the "Suordfish" were armed with depth charges to repel submarine attacks. And who is the doctor to them, that they placed the land aircraft in the bow of the flight deck, blocking the catapults of the regular air group.
          1. Santa Fe
            17 September 2012 12: 24
            0
            Quote: GaD
            the bottom line is that the American battleships were able to create a powerful air defense shield their aircraft carriers

            Nothing of the kind. South Dakota - a rare set of circumstances
            In the list of sunken corals of the U.S. Navy - 783 positions, at least 50% losses from aircraft aviation
            + a significant number of ships were severely damaged
            1. Gad
              Gad 17 September 2012 19: 46
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Nothing of the kind. South Dakota - a rare coincidence In the list of sunken corals of the U.S. Navy - 783 positions, at least 50% of losses from aircraft yap
              As far as I remember, with the advent of new battleships of the Dakota and Iowa types, the Americans always put them in front of aircraft carriers, since they combined powerful air defense and a stable platform to damage, because one bomb or torpedo cannot sink a modern battleship. And what about the large losses from Japanese aviation, it is not surprising, because in the first period of the war, Japanese aircraft carriers walked scythe through the forces of the allies. But everything changed after Midway, where the elite of Japanese carrier-based aviation died. That was shown by further battles, and even the largest battle of aircraft carriers in the Philippine Sea on June 19-20, 1944, where the Japanese aviation did not achieve anything and was almost completely destroyed.
              In general, it is very nice to discuss with a competent interlocutor wink
    6. datur
      datur 15 September 2012 20: 12
      0
      Diesel, COMPLETELY AGREE! but for example, if a hit creates a roll of this device by 10-15 degrees, then what will his planes be able to take off or what ?? belay wink
    7. harrymur
      harrymur 16 September 2012 22: 06
      0
      an aircraft carrier is primarily a ship, and the main goal of any strike on a ship is to immobilize it, damaging the rotorcraft group of the main ship’s order, you turn the whole aug into a target where target designation will be the main one, and further shooting,
      although it’s entirely possible that the escort team might just leave, so that it wouldn’t be substituted,
      it’s not necessary to hit aboard, or along the deck, the main thing is to damage the movers, remember the hunt for Bismarck-stopped and pecked
      http://video.yandex.ru/users/svetka-lozhkina/view/79/#hq
      1. not good
        not good 16 September 2012 23: 01
        0
        A small snag, a torpedo, and especially an anti-ship missile, is usually aimed at the mathematical middle of the target and can get into the throttle group purely by accident (even when a torpedo is guided along the wake), and, as far as I remember, 8 Granites were required from tactical studies of killing an aircraft carrier one aircraft carrier mug. Yes, and the forces of one missile carrier did not plan to do this. Together with YES it was planned to use both missile ships and submarines, including anti-ship missiles on board. When lighting, target designation, RB and other forces of an entire aviation regiment. Plus the use of fighters and refuellers with them. You can count on your fingers it will turn out to ... a lot.
    8. sergeant
      sergeant 16 September 2012 22: 07
      0
      Quote: Diesel
      It seems to me that the aircraft carrier does not need to be drowned, but simply disarm, that is, damage the flight deck, destroy steam catapults, etc.

      When a possible confrontation between the United States and Iran in the Persian Gulf was discussed here, I wrote then that under those conditions, Iranian small-size submarines are a formidable weapon against an aircraft carrier.
      The Americans themselves admit that they do not guarantee their detection ... that is, if a couple of small submarines go from the stern (which is even simpler) and fire 3-4 torpedoes along the propeller-driven group, this could completely deprive the aircraft carrier of the move ...
      And in the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf and the complexity of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, this can lead to unpredictable consequences!
  2. itr
    itr 15 September 2012 09: 35
    -2
    Probably just need someone to try, just simply attack the aircraft carrier
    and I think that it will go like a pretty little to the bottom. So then no one has canceled nuclear weapons
  3. itr
    itr 15 September 2012 09: 51
    +3
    Here I have another idea: why not destroy the ship from the inside, so to speak, sabotage
    1. PLO
      PLO 15 September 2012 12: 13
      +8
      great idea!!
      and send you good
      1. VAF
        VAF 15 September 2012 13: 29
        +1
        Quote: olp
        great idea!!
        and send you


        Oleg, + !!!! laughing
        1. Armata
          Armata 15 September 2012 13: 55
          +4
          Quote: olp
          great idea!!
          and send you
          Oleg +. More saboteurs are good and necessary. good
          1. not good
            not good 16 September 2012 22: 39
            0
            Moscow Region does not consider the possibility of purchasing SMPLs due to the lack of appropriate tasks. No saboteurs are planned. what
    2. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 15 September 2012 16: 05
      +4
      And you need to go on an air mattress, with a rotor as a weapon - then certainly no one will guess about your plans ...
      1. VAF
        VAF 15 September 2012 16: 21
        +3
        Quote: Brother Sarich
        And you need to go on an air mattress, with a rotor as a weapon


        As my friend Tranzhira Buga-ha-ha says! ++++++++++++ !!!!!!! good laughing drinks
        1. itr
          itr 16 September 2012 14: 38
          +1
          In vain you laugh the Russian fleet is already tested on their ships
          I think it would not be bad if the aircraft carrier exploded right in the port or at the exit. Think gentlemen gentlemen. Guerrilla warfare am
          1. Armata
            Armata 16 September 2012 20: 57
            +1
            Quote: itr
            I think it would not be bad if the aircraft carrier exploded right in the port or at the exit
            Dear to destroy go damage the ship in the port in wartime how many barriers have to go? and how much closer will the ship or boat need to get enough air for the saboteurs?
            1. itr
              itr 17 September 2012 06: 26
              0
              Well, why the landing!
              A man went to serve on a ship in peacetime steadily and courageously served on it. But the time has come and the ship to the bottom. Maybe something like when loading spare parts, fuel or ammunition, it is preferable to set a mine. It’s as old as the world, but it acts. Minimum costs and the exhaust is simply colossal. And can the crew poison the whole ship with diarrhea laughing
  4. zennon
    zennon 15 September 2012 09: 55
    +2
    It is not necessary to use nuclear ammunition of high power. A warhead of 0,1 kilotons of TNT is a cylinder of 170X300 mm. And weighs about 30 kg. These are 2 wagons of explosives! This galosh will smash into smithereens!
    1. itr
      itr 15 September 2012 10: 00
      +2
      Well, a large nuclear power charge, I think it doesn’t need to directly hit the ship, which greatly facilitates the task
      1. fern
        fern 15 September 2012 11: 46
        +3
        Well, this is unlikely to be dealt with at an early stage of the conflict. And the risk is big the first to use tactical nuclear weapons
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 15 September 2012 16: 07
          +4
          If the task arises to sink the aircraft carriers, it is better to hammer at once Washington, so as not to waste time ...
  5. Redpartyzan
    Redpartyzan 15 September 2012 09: 57
    0
    Hmm, an interesting opinion. But there are no unsinkable ships — proved by history. We draw the logical method of analogy, apply it to an aircraft carrier and get ... I think there is a way. The USSR created the type of aircraft carrier killer boats and they were not going to drown them, but granites and squalls.
    1. VAF
      VAF 15 September 2012 12: 29
      +2
      Quote: Redpartyzan
      I think there is a way.


      Only theoretically! In the USSR, there was such an opportunity, we have NO and in the near foreseeable future ... will not!

      unless the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons wassat
  6. Orik
    Orik 15 September 2012 09: 58
    +7
    God helps those battalions that shoot better.
  7. killganoff
    killganoff 15 September 2012 10: 53
    +9
    The fact of the matter is that for a guaranteed withdrawal (not sinking) of an AVMA of the "Nimitz" type with a certain number and type of escort ships, a group of ships armed with "Granite" is needed, and not one combat unit. All options have been calculated long ago.
    But unfortunately, apart from Granites, we have no missiles suitable for these purposes, our newest anti-ship missiles have a short arm, too short.
    1. vanya
      vanya 15 September 2012 11: 30
      0
      Yes, you need to create drones to illuminate the target.
    2. VAF
      VAF 15 September 2012 12: 32
      +2
      Quote: killganoff
      All options have long been calculated.
      But unfortunately, apart from Granites, we have no missiles suitable for these purposes, our newest anti-ship missiles have a short arm, too short.


      Competently, +! I’ll just add about the hand, not so much short (long hands are also available), but the fact that their MINOR amount is ... is a fact! soldier
      1. mark021105
        mark021105 15 September 2012 17: 55
        0
        Do you think ekranoplanes are able to withstand AUG? I understand, of course, that they are now forgotten, so to speak ... Well, and if you revive and adopt ... (dreams, however ...)
        1. Santa Fe
          15 September 2012 19: 14
          +3
          Quote: mark021105
          Do you think ekranoplanes are able to withstand AUG?

          Of course not. Lun has a range of less than 1000 km range. And he is completely defenseless against aircraft attacks.

          It’s easier to use the Tu-22M - the aircraft has at least supersonic speed and a long range
          1. VAF
            VAF 15 September 2012 21: 56
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Easier to use Tu-22M


            What is easier?


            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            the plane has at least supersonic speed


            Well? Here it’s the opposite, minus because approaching the target is too fast and if you launch at supersonic speed, then 1000% you’ll enter the affected area of ​​the air defense systems of the war ships, and even more so when turning!

            And you won’t run away from the rocket !!!! And this provided that our escort fighters dispersed all AUG air defense and ensured unhindered and problem-free access to the launch line!


            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            long range


            And this is what ????
  8. Per se.
    Per se. 15 September 2012 11: 52
    +3
    If you expand Orik’s comment (God helps those battalions that shoot better.), We get that the chances of victory are always higher for those armed with more advanced weapons, better trained and have talented commanders. This is essentially an axiom. I’d like to say about the sinking of an atomic aircraft carrier, we need to build aircraft carriers at our place, but we try on how Molotov cocktails against tanks try out hopelessness, without our own.
    1. VAF
      VAF 15 September 2012 12: 32
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      This is, in essence, an axiom. I’d like to say about the sinking of an atomic aircraft carrier, we need to build our own aircraft carriers, but we’ll try on incendiary bottles against tanks from despair, without our own.


      Short and capacious, +! drinks
    2. Orik
      Orik 15 September 2012 12: 44
      +3
      + moral component - fighting spirit!
      1. VAF
        VAF 15 September 2012 13: 31
        +2
        Quote: Orik
        + moral component - fighting spirit!


        The same is said normally, +! That's just .... one fighting spirit ... you won’t get much, unfortunately .... recourse
  9. kotdavin4i
    kotdavin4i 15 September 2012 12: 29
    +4
    Quote: vanya
    But unfortunately, apart from "Granites" we have no missiles suitable for these purposes,

    It’s a pity, but our friends with slanted eyes - that is, the Chinese have developed and are building anti-ship ballistic missiles (DF-21D).
  10. maksuta
    maksuta 15 September 2012 13: 13
    +2
    It can simply give lards of dolars to the commanders of guard ships and they themselves will sink this nimitz. Oh how.
  11. andrei332809
    andrei332809 15 September 2012 13: 23
    -3
    You know, the main protection of an aircraft carrier is escort. The security zone is 300 kilometers or miles (I don’t remember, but the difference is huge), and the main task is to overcome the security. As for granites, yachts and other products, even one yacht is enough to withdraw a floating airfield. It depends on what kind of task the PCR faces - to make a hole below the waterline or to plow the takeoff. and granite in the amount of one piece can break this airdrome in half, again what is the task of the product. Kuznetsov can fight simultaneously with 36 targets, surface, air and coastal
    1. Santa Fe
      15 September 2012 14: 11
      +2
      Quote: andrei332809
      you know, the main protection of an aircraft carrier is escort.

      No, we don’t know this

      The basis of the defense of the entire AUG is combat air patrols (AWACS aircraft + a pair of cover Hornets). Usually they barrage at a distance of 100-200 miles from the AUG, in the event of an increase in threat, combat air patrols are echeloned - the advanced one is advanced even further, the second group covers the near line. The rest of the aircraft are waiting on the deck.

      Aircraft AWACS sees surface targets at a distance of 400 kilometers, air - to 600. Those. ACG can detect a threat 1000 km from the warrant and launch an attack many hours earlier than the enemy approaches the salvo range.
      All other systems - Aegis, Standards, Phalanxes, etc. - are only auxiliary means.
    2. not good
      not good 16 September 2012 23: 14
      0
      It will remain this lone rocket to persuade to plow the take-off deck, and not to crash on board.
  12. Vlad bbc
    Vlad bbc 15 September 2012 13: 56
    0
    Levchenko is being repaired at the docks. A friend is a conscript, they were put on him and they stood in the dock, painted, cleaned and washed him. And then they were transferred to another anti-submarine project 1155. I do not remember the name.
  13. montemor
    montemor 15 September 2012 17: 59
    +1
    I like the Chinese approach more. a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, if the shock wave does not collapse, the usual one will turn both an aircraft carrier and an escort. Asymmetric answer, so to speak.
    1. Gym teacher
      Gym teacher 15 September 2012 19: 00
      +3
      Quote: montemor
      I like the Chinese approach more. a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, if the shock wave does not collapse, the usual one will turn both an aircraft carrier and an escort. Asymmetric answer, so to speak.

      While you are dreaming of nuclear ballistic missiles and Granites, aircraft carriers have been shaking the whole world for 70 years.
      The entire Soviet system of counteraction to the AUG turned out to be insufficiently flexible and useless in local wars
      1. REPA1963
        REPA1963 15 September 2012 23: 13
        +3
        First sober comment! All the arguments were in case of global conflict, so to speak on a loan day, but in the case of local conflicts you can’t use nuclear weapons and AUG becomes a significant force, at least the world practice to this day confirms this, is it not true gentlemen?
  14. gregor6549
    gregor6549 15 September 2012 19: 20
    +3
    The survivability of aircraft carriers, in principle, is decent, but it all depends on how and how to beat them. It has already been said above that the Chinese (and maybe not only the Chinese) are developing specials. ballistic missile to combat targets such as an aircraft carrier. The highlight of such a rocket is that it works in several stages. At the first stage, it is thrown into the area of ​​the likely location of the AUG. In the upper part of the missile’s flight path, its multisensory system for detecting surface targets, determining their coordinates, recognition and classification begins to work. After that, the homing of the head of the rocket or several warheads to the chosen targets or to one common target (usually the tastiest one) begins. The homing problem is solved quite simply because the reflecting surface of the aircraft carrier in the radar and optical ranges from above is the largest, the wake is not sickly and even the configuration of the aircraft carrier on top for pattern recognition equipment is what the doctor ordered. Those. getting into an aircraft carrier and even in its most vulnerable places from above from above is much easier than anti-ship missiles and the warhead will still be more impressive for the BR than for anti-ship missiles.
    The anti-ship missile, of course, can also make a "jump" and "look around", but it will have much less time and height to "look around" than the BR, the "field of view" is narrower and it is much easier to shoot it down on the jump than without it,
    Of course, both the BR and the RCC can, in principle, be shot down by naval missile defense systems, but when the BR is equipped with a warhead with individual warheads as well as false heads, it is very difficult to deal with them. They do not just fly to the ship, but also maneuver, scum.
    PS I had somewhere a link to an article (in English) where these tricks were described in detail, but somewhere it was stocked.
    1. Ilyukha
      Ilyukha 15 September 2012 20: 22
      +7
      And in the early 70's, we tried ballistic anti-ship missiles based on R-27 missiles for nuclear submarines. The idea was without a doubt rocket-rockets practically from space, at a distance of over 1000 km they hit an ordinary US warhead squadron.
      Yes, nothing happened, and the Chinese will not work.
      A ballistic missile decreases into the atmosphere at a tremendous speed, heating of the warhead reaches several thousand degrees (albeit for a short time), radio waves do not pass through the plasma on the nose of the rocket, and optics even less work, so precise aiming for direct hit is impossible.
      Perhaps this is a militaristic PR either of the Yankees, or of the Chinese)).
      Physics does not allow such an idea to be realized.
      So float and float another "100 tons of democracy"
      1. VAF
        VAF 15 September 2012 21: 59
        -1
        Quote: Ilyukha
        And in the early 70's, we tried ballistic anti-ship missiles based on R-27 missiles for nuclear submarines. The idea was without a doubt rocket-rockets practically from space, at a distance of over 1000 km they hit an ordinary US warhead squadron.


        Just great! +! Fair good The second topic and everything in the topic ..... great, +! drinks
      2. REPA1963
        REPA1963 15 September 2012 23: 15
        0
        106 000 tons. And to know the source? Interesting all the same, because I have not yet met such information. I will be grateful ....
      3. gregor6549
        gregor6549 16 September 2012 06: 25
        0
        Maybe yes, maybe no. Firstly, the level of technology now and then is "slightly" different, further on the upper section of the trajectory the rocket slows down and if you make some effort it can even hang for a while long enough to see what you want. And then, instead of hovering and subsequent free fall, you can turn on the warhead boosters and achieve an optimal combination of their speed and maneuverability to defeat the "multi-ton" aircraft. Moreover, at the final stage of the warhead's flight, it is possible to achieve such a speed that the warhead will penetrate the aircraft carrier through and through or to the desired deck. If you recall, in the 70s there were no bombs capable of piercing multi-meter rocks. And now they are. Moreover, the technology for their manufacture is the most primitive. Take a cannon barrel. stuff it with explosives, put in simple electronics and the "bonba" is ready. And one more example: the Martian "Curiosity" If, with its landing on Mars, they managed to do incredible tricks like the "sky crane" which is simply impossible to test on Earth in full, then on the sinful Earth such tricks are done and worked out much easier. Therefore, phrases like " this cannot be because it can never be "must be used with the greatest care, but it is better not to use at all. You can do everything if there are people with brains, time and money. Well, and the desire to do it
        1. Ilyukha
          Ilyukha 16 September 2012 17: 41
          0
          Quote: gregor6549
          further on the upper part of the trajectory the rocket slows down and if you apply some effort it may even freeze for some time enough to

          How does a dive, after an extra-atmospheric acceleration (speed of at least 2 km / s) "hover" in a vacuum (or a similar upper layer of the atmosphere?) To aim at the target?
          Well, you have found some way, I don’t know this. You have done it. During the descent in dense layers, no GOS is working (temperature and physics) and the aircraft carrier leaves the aiming point at a speed of 60 km / h. Will it fall?
          Physics textbook for grades 8-9 to help you)))
  15. RBXize
    RBXize 16 September 2012 05: 02
    +1
    To the big ship - a big torpedo)))
  16. gregor6549
    gregor6549 16 September 2012 10: 03
    +2
    As N. Gogol would say, "A rare torpedo will fly to the middle of an aircraft carrier" That's what the aircraft carrier's anti-torpedo protection is rather sickly. Moreover, in order to fire a torpedo at him, you need to come closer to the aircraft carrier, and this is not so easy to do with its guards from the AUG. You can, of course, shoot from afar, but the further you shoot, the more chances you have of detecting it, and hence of destruction or evasion. Yes, and the traps of simulators of targets for the withdrawal of torpedoes to the side are already apparently invisible. Those. Everything as usual. "There is no reception against scrap, if there is no other ..." and further in the text. And there are enough other crowbars.
  17. Alexxeg73
    Alexxeg73 16 September 2012 11: 24
    -1
    150-200mm upper deck ?? Something is hard to believe. If you take a length of 300m, a width of 20m (at least) and a thickness of 0,15m, then the weight of the deck is 7600 tons! Is it really true?
  18. gregor6549
    gregor6549 16 September 2012 12: 41
    0
    The thickness of the flight deck of a modern aircraft carrier is about 1 3/4 "or about 25 mm (if I converted inches to mm correctly). Http://www.ussjfkri.org/USS_JFK_ship.htm

    The strength of the deck is ensured not so much by the thickness of the metal sheet with which the deck is covered, but by the below-deck supporting structures (longitudinal and transverse beams)
  19. gregor6549
    gregor6549 16 September 2012 13: 01
    0
    Sorry, not 25 mm, but 40 mm, but I don’t see much difference. Here 150 or 200 mm is a completely different compote. request
  20. gregor6549
    gregor6549 16 September 2012 13: 06
    0
    Sorry, not 25 mm, but about 45 mm, but 45mm and 200 mm are two big differences ,,,, and maybe one, but not less smile
    1. Santa Fe
      16 September 2012 13: 59
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      The thickness of the flight deck of a modern aircraft carrier is about 1 3/4 "or about 25 mm (if I converted inches to mm correctly). Http://www.ussjfkri.org/USS_JFK_ship.htm

      John F. Kennedy was the last non-nuclear aircraft carrier of the Kitty Hawk series.
      Quote: gregor6549
      these are two big differences

      Nimitz and Kennedy - still!

      Reservations on American aircraft carriers periodically increased and then decreased. The first heavy aircraft carriers (Lexington and Saratoga) were rebuilt heavy cruisers, inheriting a 53 mm thick armored flight deck.
      Aircraft carriers of the "Essex" type of military construction had weak protection (flight -37 mm, hangar-64 mm)
      Aircraft carriers "Midway": amers revised their ideas and strengthened their armor: flight deck - 87 mm, special conditions for storing aviation fuel
      Aircraft carriers Kitty Hawk and Enterprise - due to the high cost of ships, reservations have been reduced again.
      Modern "Nimitz" again returned to the idea of ​​"Midway" - a powerful flight deck (150 mm), cofferdams filled with inert gas, etc.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 16 September 2012 16: 14
        0
        Now the trend has gone in the opposite direction, i.e. towards the use of relatively thin composite armor with differentiation of its thickness on different parts of the deck. In general, data on reservations of current and future aircraft carriers of the United States and Great Britain are classified. Also, there was no and there was no consensus on booking this class of ships in different countries and at different times. Now the emphasis is not on booking, but on systems that ensure destruction of weapons before they reach the deck, as well as on systems for assessing the level of damage, their localization and eliminating the consequences of these damage (for example, fires, inflow of overboard water, etc.) if it still flies and knocks. It’s hard to say how effective these measures will be. not one of the modern aircraft carriers was in any serious trouble.
        1. Ilyukha
          Ilyukha 16 September 2012 17: 55
          0
          And yet, colleague, I hope that you rejected the idea of ​​hitting a ship with a ballistic missile in the ocean at a speed of 60 km / h. Thank you in advance))
          1. not good
            not good 16 September 2012 23: 29
            0
            I do not want to disappoint, but the guys with SSBNs do not think so, they can say.
          2. gregor6549
            gregor6549 17 September 2012 07: 16
            +1
            In no case a colleague. With modern technology, providing guidance / homing even to a high-speed target is not such a big problem, and even to such a slow and weakly maneuverable aircraft carrier is not a problem at all, especially considering the guidance angle under consideration and the rather solid distance from which the guidance process begins. A solid distance is a solid time which the GOS will have for all calculations related to the detection and tracking of the target.
            At the end of 90x, the same Boeing developed quite good algorithms for tracking numerous high-speed and maneuvering targets, such as ballistic missile warheads detected with video sensors. But the aircraft carrier is still easier to detect and accompany than the warheads of ICBMs and much more. Yes, and 2012 year outside the window i.e. 20 years have passed since then, and how far the same Boeing has come for 20 years is hard to say.
  21. SuperVodka777
    SuperVodka777 16 September 2012 15: 04
    -1
    Aircraft carrier is an effective tool against underdeveloped countries. In the event of a conflict with countries such as Russia, it will not bring the expected results, most likely it will simply be destroyed by a salvo of cruise missiles.
  22. MI-AS-72
    MI-AS-72 16 September 2012 20: 41
    0
    The aircraft carrier has a weak point, the flight deck, which even in "peaceful" life has a limited resource for takeoffs and landings, after which the aircraft carrier goes to the dock and there it is completely changed, this is an expensive and time-consuming event. In wartime, damage to the reliable flight deck turns the aircraft carrier into a barge for the transportation of aviation technical property. So this is what is needed to destroy an aircraft carrier in any war to prevent its aircraft from taking off, and this will be considered a successfully completed combat mission to neutralize the AUS. Yes, the thickness of the flight deck is at least 25 cm.
    1. Alexxeg73
      Alexxeg73 16 September 2012 22: 36
      0
      So is it 25 cm or mm? Because even if the armor is 15 cm thick, then take the "Nimitz": 300m length 70m width - roughly 24700 tons! Yes it will roll over! It's just that I myself am a shipbuilder, I took part in the design of ships, so I think ... If this is the thickness taking into account the under-deck set, then it is understandable.
  23. Forward
    Forward 16 September 2012 22: 47
    0
    There is one way out. Do we have a supersonic anti-ship lionfish? To teach her to do when approaching a maneuver in the form of a kind of parabola and to flush the Amerian aircraft carrier vertically from above, breaking through several decks and exploding in its womb. request
  24. MI-AS-72
    MI-AS-72 16 September 2012 22: 52
    0
    You estimate the load on the runway of an aircraft carrier, take-off mass of the aircraft, separation and landing speeds, landing mass and vertical speed of landing, it is a bit more sensitive than on land aircraft, so you will understand that the runway of an aircraft carrier should be much stronger than on land for these types of aircraft and more expensive.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 17 September 2012 12: 01
      0
      This very strength is ensured primarily not by the thickness of the metal sheet of the deck but by the structural elements on which this sheet is laid. Games with reserving aircraft carrier decks have been inertia since the time when they tried to protect aircraft carriers and other large ships from air bombs with the thickness of this sheet. Now, with the penetrating capabilities of modern weapons (tandem warheads, cumulative charges, depleted uranium cores, etc.), no acceptable armor thickness will save. I specifically emphasize acceptable unnecessarily, the thickness of the flight deck for each type of aircraft carrier can only be increased to a certain value, and then other problems begin (such as ensuring the required seaworthiness, stability, many other things that distinguish a ship of this class from an ax.
  25. nightingale
    nightingale 17 September 2012 00: 14
    0
    destroy aircraft carrier Mig31BM after modernization, 9 tons combat load, hang a couple of yachts (3 tons each), speed 3 fly, not every air defense can shoot down at that speed. Do you want to carry out a mass raid only for how many are needed? What losses will be?
  26. dsf43edhg
    dsf43edhg 17 September 2012 00: 52
    -2
    Have you heard the news? A personal information search site has appeared. Now everything became known, all the information about every resident of Ukraine, Russia and other CIS countries xurl. es / poisck-sng (copy link without space)
    This site appeared recently - but it has already made a lot of noise, since there is a lot of personal information about each of us, I even found my own nude photos, not to mention even addresses, phone numbers, etc. It's good that the "hide from everyone" button is still working - I advise everyone to do it and quickly
  27. Vitmir
    Vitmir 17 September 2012 17: 48
    0
    The most realistic option :) slaughtering a sperm whale aircraft from the series "The World" is ready for battle: by analogy with atomic missile submarines-strategists, 4 manned spacecraft of the BOS type (combat orbital station) are launched into orbit, the flight is either constantly on them, or thrown during the "threatened period", with the help of the most perfect and no analogues in the world (tm) optoelectronic equipment, the AUG is escorted and upon receipt of the command - aiming ahead and dropping from orbit monolithic heavy-duty blanks of 10-20 in a streamlined heat-resistant case, which breaks 50 m above the target. The stream of "pellets" accelerated to high speeds from near space covers the sedentary center AUG. Interception and defense are impossible (except for a preventive strike on biofeedback systems), the goalkeeper smokes sadly at the bar, the target is hit, the goal is scored :)
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 17 September 2012 18: 02
      +1
      One of the tasks of the prematurely deceased Buran was just hunting for floating airfields. And Buran. unlike the Shuttle, he could do everything from take-off to landing in automatic mode. And not only hunt for someone, but also fight off hunters for him. Well, who needed such a headache over the hill. And they chose a radical method of treatment for headaches: the guillotine, but not for their heads but for Buran.
      If my words to someone seem like bullshit, let them find in Moscow those who worked in the company Lozino Lozinsky. They will confirm if still alive
      1. Vitmir
        Vitmir 18 September 2012 10: 52
        0
        Note, in my version there is not a word about automatic mode, "diving" and Lozino's company, even no weather disasters are mentioned :), so I didn't seem to burn anyone :).
        1. gregor6549
          gregor6549 18 September 2012 10: 56
          +1
          Everything that can be burned was burned during the time of Gorbachev Yeltsin. Everyone told, showed and gave a try. And much has been sold in bulk or retail.
          1. Vitmir
            Vitmir 18 September 2012 14: 47
            0
            Just plus you :(
  28. Vitmir
    Vitmir 18 September 2012 15: 22
    0
    To the topic: In such an extremely difficult situation for the Soviet Union, the country's leadership set the task for the leading design bureaus to create a missile carrier capable of hitting enemy carrier groups without entering the US air defense zone ...
    http://vpk-news.ru/articles/9255
  29. Vitmir
    Vitmir 18 September 2012 15: 40
    0
    And the last one: Studies were conducted both to determine the required RCC outfits for delivering an effective strike against one American aircraft carrier multi-purpose group (AMG), and to determine the comparative costs of various development options for the USSR Navy. It turned out that to destroy one AMG with its rich air defense during conventional military operations without the use of nuclear weapons, 100 to 150 operational missiles (OH) in a salvo with a firing range of about 500 kilometers and a warhead with a capacity of 500-750 kilograms of TNT were needed (TNT). However, in the mid-80s, up to 12 aircraft carrier groups supported the US Navy in combat readiness, for the attack of which required a large number of carriers of anti-ship missile systems. Only if the USSR started a nuclear war first (as an aggressor) from a position in military service, then the number of anti-ship missiles in a salvo was reduced by two - two and a half times. However, the intention of the political leadership of the Soviet Union of that time to go on to act as an aggressor and initiator of a nuclear war can be attributed to the realm of fantasy.
    A comparison of the costs of building ships in the USSR and the USA showed that Moscow spent more on the development of the Navy than the Americans allocated for the needs of the Navy. A direct comparison of the appropriations of the two states, even if they are reduced to single monetary units, does not explain much. After all, the structure of the cost of a warship in the United States was significantly different from the similar structure in the Soviet Union and the pricing in the USA and the USSR was different. Therefore, a valuation method was used, which was based on a virtual “settlement ship”. Through the number of such virtual units, the costs of countries to create real warships were determined: their cost was given relative to the “calculated” one, taken as the equivalent of comparison. With this approach, the ratio of the cost of ships of various classes is not only stable enough for a long period of time, but almost the same for the USSR and the USA. The ship of the class PLAT was adopted as the "settlement ship", since these nuclear submarines were built continuously for the largest period both in the Soviet Union and in the United States.
    As a result, it turned out that the USSR Navy could not solve the threat of American aircraft carriers with the old concept of fleet development, and the Soviet Union spent one and a half times more money than the United States on its Navy to build its naval structure and infrastructure. Unlike aviation, submarines were once again unable to win the war, this time in the cold.
  30. saruman
    saruman 24 September 2012 17: 38
    0
    The argument is about nothing. There were no unsinkable ships, and never will be. Unsinkable and invulnerable ship is a fiction, a dream. The history of the fleet - it clearly shows. The once omnipotent, all-devastating and unsinkable ship is often at the bottom! The same fate befell any aircraft carrier in a serious war!