How to have no equal

171
How to have no equal

Indeed, it’s like without aircraft carriers in today’s world... In general, the world somehow began to forget, and even in the USA they began to criticize these monsters, burning trucks with money in their insides. But as soon as October 8th struck and Hamas staged an IDF analogue of June 22.06.1941, XNUMX, everything fell into place. And literally a few hours after the attack, Washington pulled out his favorite war club from the cache.

And the US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Gerald Ford set off for the eastern Mediterranean.



In general, may our American readers forgive me (or not forgive me), but the reaction, you know, is similar to the reaction of an amoeba to all irritations. Only the amoeba shrinks into a ball, and the United States sends aircraft carriers somewhere.


Mission to the shores of North Korea

And so the Ford came to the shores of Israel.


And what? And nothing. He came, and that was all for now. On the one hand, everything that is happening makes it clear to the world that the United States has paid attention to the crisis and is preparing to respond. On the other hand, given the cost and vulnerability of the aircraft carrier, naturally, Ford will simply hang out in the Mediterranean Sea and carry out that very “flag display” for which they were so mercilessly criticized naval in all ages and times.

But an aircraft carrier in a modern missile conflict is very expensive. We must understand.

And how it all began ...



HMS Argus, considered to be the world's first aircraft carrier.

The aircraft carrier is a little over a hundred years old. Originally conceived as a reconnaissance assistant for battleships to detect enemy fleets with the help of their aircraft, the aircraft carrier... has evolved somewhat. The Imperial Japanese Navy subverted this concept during World War II by combining multiple aircraft carriers together to create a strike force with a longer range and heavier, and more importantly, more accurate, strike capability than a force of battleships.


The attack on Pearl Harbor, when six aircraft carriers struck the US Pacific Fleet in Hawaii, elevated the aircraft carrier to the pinnacle of naval weapon systems and remained there for a very long time as the most effective strike force at sea.

In general, of course, any weapon sooner or later, but it becomes obsolete. The Macedonian phalanx, the Roman "tortoise", the knight's wedge, frigates, battleships, ironclads and battleships in line formation - they were all once the height of power, but their time is up.

Aircraft carriers, perhaps, lasted longer than many at the pinnacle of power. Almost 80 years, this is a really long time. And so far no weapon has been invented that would replace them at the top. Strategic submarine cruisers are, after all, single-use weapons.

So the deck of an aircraft carrier with the aircraft located on it is a tool that has no equal in modern warfare and diplomacy. Not yet.


American admirals like to emphasize that a Nimitz- or Ford-class aircraft carrier is “4,5 acres of sovereign American territory.” Aircraft carriers are the property of the US government and are effectively American territory - floating islands of American power that can move anywhere in the world's oceans. Moreover, wherever they go, they remain American territory, and their actions are not limited by anyone except the US government and the enemy.

In the case of Israel, which is the most important US ally in the Middle East, this is ... very demonstrative. The US military maintains air bases around the world, but their coverage is very uneven. The closest American air base to Israel is Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, located 300 miles away.

Planes flying from Turkey to Israel will have to fly past Syria, a country with its own air force, which is not only in hostile relations with Turkey, but these relations cannot be called friendly either.

If you fly over Syria, it will require additional time and you can forget about the effect of surprise. In addition, we should not forget that in each specific case Turkey may have its own interests in the region that diverge from the interests of the United States.

So the Gerald Ford can be in international waters off the coast of Israel and come as close as it wants, or rather as security considerations allow, since Hezbollah also has anti-ship missiles in its arsenal. But four squadrons of F/A-18E/F strike fighter-bombers can strike anywhere along the eastern Mediterranean coast.

The US government can provide the Ford's commander with the ability to act as independently as possible, including bringing the carrier into combat without having to coordinate with the government of the "host" country. That is, the commander of an aircraft carrier can, in a particular case, replace the US government, which, frankly speaking, is not known for its speed of response. But, in case of urgent need, such tactics of independent assessment of the situation and response may entail unilateral, but quite effective measures. In theory.

In practice, the ability to quickly rearm aircraft with different weapon configurations provides very important flexibility in the use of aircraft force, since it allows you to attack both militants of various formations, from ISIS and Hezbollah to Hamas, who are unarmed in terms of air defense, as well as completely normal ships with modern air defense.

The question, as you understand, is the final effect.


In general, from ordinary bombs on the heads of militants to high-tech guided missiles. To each, as they say, his own. This has been the case for 20 years, as the end of the Cold War and September 11, 2001, shifted the Pentagon's focus from the major power war for global dominance to the fight against insurgents and terrorists. However, although the concept has changed, the strike capabilities of aircraft carriers remain the same, and aircraft carriers are still capable of fighting a wide range of threats, from ISIS (virtually) to the People's Liberation Army of China (theoretically).

In theory, combat is not the only mission that aircraft carriers can perform. Aircraft carriers can carry out humanitarian aid and disaster relief missions, as the USS Ronald Reagan tried to do on the fly after the 2011 Fukushima earthquake. While Japan and the United States mobilized to rescue survivors and survey damage, Reagan served as a floating helipad for both countries' helicopters in an area where local airports and airfields had been destroyed by earthquakes and tsunamis. Nothing else can function as a mobile, disaster-proof airfield quite like an aircraft carrier.

Of course, the fact that many sailors received a monthly dose of radiation speaks volumes, but nevertheless, the floating airfield at the emergency nuclear power plant functioned quite normally.

Who needs a big club?



Yes, Theodore Roosevelt (who is not an aircraft carrier, but the 26th President of the United States) said a phrase that became a motto: “Speak quietly and carry a big stick.” And since the very beginning of the twentieth century, the US government has adhered to this motto. And what could serve as such a stick better than an aircraft carrier? Well, if only ICBMs, but again we are talking about lethal weapons. But politically, an aircraft carrier is not yet a lethal weapon from the point of view of states.

Therefore, the United States uses aircraft carriers to communicate with both friends and enemies, both as a tool of reassurance and as a tool of intimidation. There's nothing quite like a full-fledged carrier strike group with 44 strike fighters, a cruiser and two destroyers, and a nuclear attack submarine lurking somewhere nearby.

Exactly, a good reason for thought.

Trouble bearers can signal intent like no other weapon system. If a submarine appears off your coast, you probably won't even know it's there. If the crew of the Tu-95 strategic missile carrier is training to strike targets in your country, located several thousand kilometers from the borders, you will not know about it until it completes the task. But if an aircraft carrier appears off your coast, it is impossible not to notice it. This is also a clear sign that you are in the crosshairs of the Washington guys. And, unfortunately, not in a good way.


Let's summarize. From time to time, the usefulness of aircraft carriers has been questioned. As a rule, it usually turns out to be quite reasonable. Indeed, an aircraft carrier is a very serious instrument of pressure, influence, politics, call it what you like, however, whatever you say, it is a very unprofitable thing economically. Moreover, the further the development of anti-ship missiles goes, the more dangerous foreign shores become for aircraft carriers.

These huge ships have their problems, and a lot of them: aircraft carriers are very expensive to buy, expensive to operate and expensive to dispose of after the end of their service life. And the “exhaust” from them is not that big.

It is worth noting that even during the crisis in Israel, the newest aircraft carrier was simply hanging out at a safe distance from the coast. And his planes didn't fly over Gaza very much either. Anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles seem to have not been canceled.

The XNUMXst century has greatly affected aircraft carriers in terms of technological progress. Yes, in the twentieth century, an aircraft carrier and its planes did what they wanted, the only question of their goals was to sell themselves at a higher price. But even the already textbook beating of the Yamato, which became an illustration of the capabilities of aircraft carriers, is gradually disappearing into history.

And in our time, an aircraft carrier is no longer such an unconditional instrument of destruction. It is enough to look at what is happening in Ukraine, and we can conclude that planes are not as comfortable in the air above the front line (and even more so behind it) as, say, 30 years ago. And aircraft carrier aircraft are no exception; they are no different from their land-based counterparts in this regard.

But as an instrument of big politics, the personification of a threat, he is quite suitable for himself. However, the moment when an aircraft carrier will be replaced in this position by something smaller in size but more efficient is a matter of tomorrow.
Our news channels

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

171 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    11 November 2023 04: 27
    In 2017, the United States drove the aircraft carrier Carl Vincent to the shores of North Korea...so what?
    But nothing... it all ended with a big fart.
    I still believe that US aircraft carriers are a very vulnerable target for submarines, sea mines, torpedoes, shore-based cruise missiles, Zircons, various drones, aviation... he has so many enemies.
    The only saving grace is that the local aborigines do not have all this in a complex.
    Hamas, with its infantry weapons, of course has nothing to withstand US aircraft carriers.
    Hezbollah and the Syrians also have weak potential, the Iranians can sink an aircraft carrier in a certain situation... in general, not everything is so simple.
    1. +6
      11 November 2023 11: 54
      Therefore, it is stupid to drive aircraft carriers to the shore of a developed enemy. But their main task is not this at all, but the following:
      1) Curling of the Papuans. Very useful for economic and political dominance
      2) Dominance at sea (even the Soviet fleet could not compete with them outside their native shores, let alone the rest) both in peacetime and in the event of a major war
      3) As a consequence of point 2 - control of world trade and the ability to threaten anyone with a blockade, which is again a huge economic and political advantage
    2. +7
      11 November 2023 14: 25
      To counter the AUG, one simple thing is needed - the presence of nuclear weapons and means of delivering them to intercontinental ranges. And how many countries are there? There are 3 (three) of them - Russia, China, North Korea.
      All other countries, and there are 152 of them, can be considered Papuans and AUG can be effectively used against them.
      Does it make sense to have aircraft carriers in this situation?
      1. +9
        11 November 2023 17: 21
        Quote: sanya_sergant
        . And how many countries are there? There are 3 (three) of them - Russia, China, North Korea.

        Well, to be honest, both France and England have intercontinental-range SLBMs. But they can just be counted together with the United States (plus potentials in one NATO basket).
        The debate about the usefulness of AUGs is old and unpromising - those who have tasks for them based on economic and military potential, multiplied by ambitions, also have aircraft carriers.
        Much has also been written/spoken about the usefulness of such devices for the Russian Federation. If a state needs its own large Merchant Navy, the question of ensuring its safety on all routes naturally arises. Moreover, both from pirates and from the fleets of unfriendly countries. Routine escort and control/duty in strait zones can be entrusted to frigates; they are created for this purpose as a class - for convoy services, ensuring navigation safety, anti-submarine services and flag display (diplomatic missions and moral support for allies by demonstrating presence). But if there is a confrontation with strong maritime powers and a threat from their fleets on sea lanes, it is necessary to organize services in the DM and OZ of already reinforced KUG \ operational squadrons of forward deployment. And their constant presence in remote waters must be covered from the air. And the ship’s air defense systems won’t do all the weather here - their radars won’t look beyond the horizon, and during the WWII of the Kyrgyz Republic and other targets may suddenly appear/show up at a distance of 15-20-30 km. , depending on the flight altitude. And if this is a group/massive raid, it will be extremely difficult to fight back... That is, an aircraft carrier is needed.
        But in our case, the AB is needed not in the “super” class\category, but in a completely “middle” class - VI of the order of 45 - 000 tons. With 50 - 000 fighters on board, four aircraft\helicopters\UAV AWACS and four by helicopters. With a mixed gas-steam power plant and electric transmission. No nuclear power plant!! They will have to be built in a series of at least 20 pieces. - three each to the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet to ensure the constant presence at sea of ​​at least one from each fleet. The cost of purchasing one such aircraft will be about 24 billion dollars. , the entire program with basic infrastructure, an air wing and crew training, as well as a full complement of escort and support ships (6 “large” frigates 2,5M, a tanker, an integrated supply ship, a sea tug) ... All this is according to the program for acquiring an aircraft carrier fleet, will cost the treasury $4 billion. for 22350 - 60 years of construction at two shipyards simultaneously (aircraft carriers). If a State Insurance Company is established to insure maritime transport, the proceeds from it may be quite sufficient to build and maintain a sufficiently powerful aircraft carrier fleet.
        Is it possible to finance the entire program for the construction of such an (aircraft carrier) fleet by withdrawing 50% of the above-plan surplus of income from foreign trade of the Russian Federation... Even in ONE year. If we divide this amount over 17 years of construction, then the domestic economy and finances simply will not notice these expenses.
        Clarification - the cost of this program was calculated without taking into account the corruption component, or with it, but not exceeding the generally accepted 7% share of the total cost in the world.

        I repeat - if the Russian Federation began to build a large Merchant Fleet (and it did), then it will have to build a full-fledged ocean-going Navy one way or another. It’s better this way - timely, thoughtfully, not very expensive and through maritime trade. Than “as always” - do NOTHING and... belay BE SURPRISED at the consequences.
        1. +4
          11 November 2023 21: 09
          The author of the article went into a fabulous parallel reality and completely forgot that even one aircraft carrier has more modern AWACS aircraft than the entire VKS.
          And in order to launch an anti-ship missile, even a Zircon, this same aircraft carrier needs to be detected, and, as the North Military District has shown, without reconnaissance aircraft and space reconnaissance.
          Vice Admiral Kereev, a participant in such a search in 1982, well described how difficult it is to detect a maneuvering AUG, even with modern satellite reconnaissance and a couple of reconnaissance aviation regiments. It would be a good idea for the author and the captivating adherents of the anti-ship missile system to read this to have at least an approximate idea of ​​the capabilities of the AUG and why aircraft carriers are built by the USA, China, India, Russia, England and France have and were built by the USSR.
          1. +1
            11 November 2023 22: 18
            Quote: ramzay21
            even one aircraft carrier has more modern AWACS aircraft than the entire VKS.

            Why would that be? The VKS has 8 A-50Us and about 4-5 more unmodernized A-50s, which apparently have now also undergone modernization. Plus another A-100 in an unclear state of readiness.
            And on one aircraft carrier there are 4 Hokai, with capabilities much lower than those of the A-50U (detection range for large targets is 650 km). But they have a lot of AWACS aircraft, and our plans to build fifty A-100s for the Aerospace Forces failed both due to the fault of the Ulyanovsk ASZ and the fault of Vega, the developer of the A-100 hardware. And of course, the Logistics Service of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, which was responsible for financing this project... They did not like financing - in principle. But they mastered the money. The “missing” 2 million Ratnik kits alone were worth it. They didn’t even want to properly finance the modernization of the A-50 to the A-50U.
            1. Alf
              +3
              11 November 2023 22: 34
              Quote: bayard
              The “missing” 2 million Ratnik kits alone were worth it.

              Don't attribute it! Not 2 million, but “only” one and a half. laughing
              1. +2
                11 November 2023 23: 02
                Quote: Alf
                Don't attribute it! Not 2 million, but “only” one and a half.

                No, well, this changes everything immediately. fellow
                1. Alf
                  +1
                  11 November 2023 23: 04
                  Quote: bayard
                  Quote: Alf
                  Don't attribute it! Not 2 million, but “only” one and a half.

                  No, well, this changes everything immediately. fellow

                  That's it. Say that two million were stolen and you will immediately be charged with discrediting the authorities. And the prosecutor will tell you, “I’m not imprisoned because they said about the theft, but because they exaggerated the amount of the stolen property.” laughing
                  1. +2
                    12 November 2023 12: 59
                    Quote: Alf
                    “I’m not imprisoned for what they said about the theft, but for the fact that they exaggerated the size of the stolen property.”

                    Yes, there is so much “irrevocably mastered” that “Warriors” against this background is like a grain of sand against Everest. The head of the Service itself was quietly removed, then changed again - this time to a National Guard member... Now it seems that supplies have become better, but what was lost cannot be returned. Don’t steal the rear people, by the beginning of the Northern Military District it was possible to modernize the entire fleet of A-50s to A-50U (15 - 20 units) and bring the new A-100s to life and put a dozen into service.
                    It's enough just not to steal.
                    But they even stole uniforms and equipment.
                    1. 0
                      17 November 2023 08: 45
                      “Yes, there is so much “irrevocably mastered” that “Warriors” against this background are like a grain of sand against Everest. The head of the Service itself was quietly removed”...

                      They didn’t remove them, but sent them up for promotion to conduct inspections of who was missing and what was missing and will be lost again. ...
            2. -1
              12 November 2023 06: 28
              Why would that be? The VKS has 8 A-50Us and about 4-5 more unmodernized A-50s, which apparently have now also undergone modernization. Plus another A-100 in an unclear state of readiness.

              VKS has 6 A-50Us using 90s technology and several ancient A-50s with tube equipment. In fact, there is no A-100. And one AUG air wing can have 6-12 E-2D Hokkai aircraft, which are superior to the A-50U in all respects. And the E-2D Hokkai aircraft are not in the plans or mock-ups; they simply exist; their crews are already trained and constantly practice in numerous exercises hitting air, surface and ground targets with various missiles launched from different carriers.

              Everything in the Defense Ministry is constantly being stolen, there are no UAVs, there are no UAV units, there are no modern communications and command and control systems, as well as special modern aircraft like AWACS, RTR, PLO aircraft because the country's leadership allows this to be done and installs ONLY such leaders of the Defense Ministry who are stupid, thieving and unteachable.
              1. +1
                12 November 2023 22: 49
                Quote: ramzay21
                VKS has 6 A-50U

                Lies - there are 8 A-50U in service, and the last 8th returned to service just “the other day”, this is already a radically improved version of the modernization, and it was this machine that made it possible to radically improve the performance of air defense and Fighter Aviation against targets in WWI outside the visibility range of ground forces radars
                Quote: ramzay21
                based on 90s technology

                How do you imagine “90s technology”? Based on the element base of the 90s? The A-50U fully corresponds to the characteristics of the modernized version of AWACS.
                Quote: ramzay21
                and several ancient A-50s with tube equipment.

                A-50 are made on 133 series microcircuits. It was a very good series. For its time. And a very good family of equipment on it.
                Quote: ramzay21
                In fact, there is no A-100.

                The first A-100 was introduced about 10 years ago, but it was designed and assembled on an American component base. What to do - our own production was destroyed long ago. And since our access was immediately closed, we had to completely redo the project. About three years ago, the second Il-76MD-90A was sent to Taganrog for the second A-100. The degree of readiness is unknown.
                But the latest modernized A-50U already contains components of the A-100 equipment.
                Quote: ramzay21
                one AUG air wing can have 6-12 E-2D Hokkai aircraft,

                DON'T. The air wing of one aircraft carrier has 4 (four) E-2Ds. If desired, their number can be increased, but only to the detriment of strike and/or anti-submarine capabilities.
                Quote: ramzay21
                superior in all respects to the A-50U

                What ?? belay Maybe the range of your radar?? With a wavelength of 70 cm? And the corresponding accuracy of a two-coordinate radar? (azimuth-range without altitude) Against the three-coordinate radar A-50U with the ability to radio command guidance missile defense system with AGSN? The Hokai's fighter guidance capabilities are also not very impressive. Precisely because of the accuracy, which is determined by the frequency characteristics of the radar. But this range allows for a relatively good detection range, especially for large targets.
                Quote: ramzay21
                E-2D Hokkai is not in plans or layouts, they just exist

                They didn’t have our 90s, they didn’t cut the latest technology into metal, they didn’t fit into someone else’s market. And they do not have such an amazing Home Front Service as we had under our former permanent chief.
                Quote: ramzay21
                their crews are already trained and constantly practice in numerous exercises the destruction of air, surface and ground targets with various missiles launched from different carriers.

                Our crews have been practicing such strikes with practical launches against real targets in conditions of a high-intensity military conflict for the last 1,5+ years.
                Quote: ramzay21
                Everything in the Ministry of Defense is constantly stolen, there are no UAVs, there are no UAV units

                Everything is already there. Take note - UAVs are being supplied to the troops in fairly large numbers and are being used vigorously.
                Quote: ramzay21
                there is no modern communications and command and control system

                Again, a lie - the troops already have digital secure communications. For better coverage, sometimes there are not enough repeaters, but my friend and his partner assemble such repeaters on site.
                Quote: ramzay21
                and special modern aircraft such as AWACS, RTR, PLO aircraft

                This is true . And this is because of the sloppiness and thefts of past years. If you milk a cow more and feed less, there will definitely be no more milk.
                Quote: ramzay21
                The country's leadership allows this to be done and only appoints such leaders of the Ministry of Defense who are stupid, thieving and unteachable.

                It puts ITS OWN trustees. And until recently, professional and moral and business qualities were not a priority in such appointments. Now something is changing. And it is impossible not to see this.
                1. 0
                  18 November 2023 20: 32
                  And they do not have such an amazing Home Front Service as we had under our former permanent chief.

                  They have their own equally amazing technologies. By cuts. Judging by the figures of their budgets and the actual state of affairs in their defense industry and armies. I think we are far behind them in this component. I hope forever)
        2. 0
          18 November 2023 15: 23
          In fact, an aircraft carrier is a floating airfield for operations far from its shores. Those. it is needed only if the state has an offensive strategy in the vastness of the World Ocean. If only the defense of one’s territory is enough, coastal aviation and coastal missile systems are enough. Calculate the cost of an aircraft carrier with all its accessories, and how many planes and missiles can be built with this money
  2. +8
    11 November 2023 04: 56
    Regarding vulnerability, I agree.
    But the aircraft carrier did not come to fight Hamas, but because... as the author of the article said - for demonstration.
    I came to make it clear to Israel’s old “friends”: Egypt, Syria, Jordan - that they shouldn’t even think about any mission, no matter how worried Queen Rania is about her homeland.
    And the political landscapes in the Middle East may change: for now, until the end of this operation, it is unknown what trajectory our relations with Israel will take (taking into account V.A. Nebenzi’s speeches at the UN).

    If Gaddafi were alive, with his ambitions of pan-Arabism, “J. Ford” would be very useful for the Israeli side.
    And the fighting leaders of countries - the Middle East, the Muslim world are still giving birth: Erdogan is an example.
    Therefore, the Israel-US connection, even the “small” AUG, has someone to strain.

    AAG: in the right place, at the right time. And no more.
    Alexey's comment about Korea is appropriate: the results of the demonstration of the baton are not always brilliant, and we also remember the campaigns of 063 - in the Eastern Mediterranean ((
    1. +10
      11 November 2023 05: 31
      Oh, when Kadafi was alive, what did he do to the aircraft carriers? And I received lyulei from them.
      1. +3
        11 November 2023 13: 38
        When Gaddafi was alive, the AUG only completed part of the work. A significant part was carried out by land aviation, fortunately the Mediterranean Sea is not wide, and there are enough NATO air bases there.
        1. +9
          11 November 2023 14: 37
          Exactly, exactly.
          The planes took off from British bases, flew to Libya, making 3 mid-air refuelings and successfully worked there.
          This came as a surprise to the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. Because they believed that there was no threat to Libya from the air, because there were physically no NATO aircraft nearby capable of carrying out a massive raid
          1. +1
            11 November 2023 20: 57
            Look at the globe... NATO member Italy is nearby. And what side does the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces have in this?
            1. +1
              11 November 2023 21: 54
              So it was, for some reason the pasta makers turned on the rear, I had to fly from England, although this was in 1986.
        2. +3
          11 November 2023 21: 15
          Aircraft carriers also did some of the work in the wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia and many other conflicts.
          The fact that even one aircraft carrier has more modern AWACS aircraft than the Aerospace Forces may not be remembered, but it is well clear why our Aerospace Forces are not able to destroy either the air defense or the Ukrainian Air Force in 2 years and cannot operate over enemy territory.
          1. 0
            18 November 2023 20: 53
            It is well clear why our Aerospace Forces are not able to destroy either the air defense or the Ukrainian Air Force in 2 years and cannot operate over enemy territory

            The point is not a lack of our AWACS aircraft, but an excess of NATO ones. We cannot destroy them, just like their other means of air control. For now, at least.
      2. 0
        18 November 2023 15: 26
        Gaddafi is a bad example. Chinese warriors had much higher military skill than European soldiers, but could do nothing against organized European armies. Likewise, Gaddafi’s single “falcons” were powerless against the American and NATO fleets. I don’t know how he got on with rockets
    2. 0
      11 November 2023 05: 54
      old "friends" of Israel: Egypt, Syria, Jordan

      Turkey? laughing
      1. +3
        11 November 2023 08: 06
        Quote: VicktorVR
        old "friends" of Israel: Egypt, Syria, Jordan

        Turkey? laughing

        Has Türkiye already left NATO? For now they are in the same team.
        1. +5
          11 November 2023 16: 42
          This did not stop them from starting a war with Greece in 1974
    3. -7
      11 November 2023 06: 14
      Quote: Feodor13
      even a “small” AUG has someone to strain.

      You can strain when the other side does not have the appropriate weapons. For example, ground-based anti-ship cruise missiles. If such missiles were available, the commanders of these AUGs would be scratching their heads wink
      1. +11
        11 November 2023 07: 24
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        You can strain when the other side does not have the appropriate weapons.

        Do many states have such weapons?
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        If such missiles were available, the commanders of these AUGs would be scratching their heads

        Wouldn’t the commanders of coastal batteries “scratch their heads”, knowing that at any moment several dozen SLCMs could fly in from the sea?

        To the article: the message is not clear. Aircraft carriers are “bad”, but for now they are “good”...
        But even the textbook beating of the Yamato, which became an illustration of the capabilities of aircraft carriers, is gradually fading into history.

        Yes, they’ll just replace deck-based UAVs with deck-based information security and that’s all...
        1. +8
          11 November 2023 15: 21
          In addition, the aircraft carrier does not come alone - it is accompanied by a “support group”: a cruiser with a bunch of cruise missiles and very good air defense, several guided missile destroyers (Arleigh Burke) also with good air defense and a bunch of different missiles, as well as an underwater missile carrier.
          1. Alf
            +6
            11 November 2023 18: 33
            Quote: vadim dok
            In addition, the aircraft carrier does not come alone - it is accompanied by a “support group”: a cruiser with a bunch of cruise missiles and very good air defense, several guided missile destroyers (Arleigh Burke) also with good air defense and a bunch of different missiles, as well as an underwater missile carrier.

            But for some reason detractors of aircraft carriers always forget about the support group, believing that it wanders around in splendid isolation.
      2. +8
        11 November 2023 09: 35
        For example, ground-based anti-ship cruise missiles.

        There was and is a problem with target designation, over-the-horizon control center, even with satellites, is still a big problem, plus missiles with ARLGSN have poor target selection and resistance to interference.
        1. -1
          18 November 2023 15: 35
          I think, with the current level of technology development, there are no problems with missile guidance: a combined intelligent guidance system - satellite guidance on the route, on approach - a multispectral seeker - optical with target recognition + multispectral multi-mode active-passive radar seeker. The rocket computer solves the problem of guidance using a combination of data from different systems. In difficult interference conditions, it is possible to target the source of interference or change the frequency. Apart from corner reflectors, all interference is quite narrow-band; corner reflectors do not give an infrared signature and do not emit. In short, the problem is solvable. During a massive missile launch, security ships and electronic warfare are first knocked out. The aircraft carrier is left alone. Planes that have taken off will have nowhere to return
  3. ANB
    +8
    11 November 2023 05: 25
    . they remain American territory

    Any warship (even a minesweeper) is the territory of the state to which it belongs. According to maritime law. That is why only an officer can be the commander of a ship.
    1. -1
      11 November 2023 05: 53
      Quote: ANB
      Any warship

      And to hell with this territory...
      Take my word for it, it is not because of any American territory that finds itself in the wrong place (and not even because of any NATO member) that the hegemon will dare to make a radical decision.
      He is comfortable either with someone else’s hands, or against “savages with flint muskets”... And against the fellow - even a sheep himself...
    2. KCA
      +4
      11 November 2023 07: 55
      Not just a ship, any ship flying the American flag is US territory, even an air vessel. A friend of mine was born on an airplane when his mother was flying to America. Upon arrival, the friend immediately received US citizenship, because... born on their territory
      1. +1
        11 November 2023 09: 22
        Sorry, but I don't think it was YOU. Dual citizenship (as shown by the SVO) is a big deal.
    3. Alf
      0
      11 November 2023 18: 37
      Quote: ANB
      Any warship (even a minesweeper) is the territory of the state to which it belongs. According to maritime law. That is why only an officer can be the commander of a ship.

      The first phrase is correct, the second has absolutely nothing to do with the first. If, for some reason, a midshipman or warrant officer becomes the commander of the ship, even temporarily, this ship will still remain extraterritorial.
  4. +8
    11 November 2023 05: 30
    I remember seeing a video a long time ago where huge hunks suddenly started performing all sorts of somersaults and other acrobatic tricks, which I was very surprised by and which I personally would never have dared to do.
    What is this for? Moreover, an aircraft carrier is such a muscleman that can greatly surprise you.
    1. +1
      11 November 2023 06: 15
      I remember seeing a video a long time ago where huge hunks suddenly started performing all sorts of somersaults and other acrobatic tricks, which I was very surprised by and which I personally would never have dared to do.
      What is this for? Moreover, an aircraft carrier is such a muscleman that can greatly surprise you.

      And I remember how many videos I saw where musclemen snatched middleweight boxers from cabbage soup.
      So there are a lot of different videos.
      But to sink this reinforced concrete box with everything that is inside and outside it just once would be very epic and painful for the hegemon with feet of clay.
      1. +2
        11 November 2023 06: 34
        Quote: Sergey_Bely
        But to sink this reinforced concrete box with everything that is inside and outside it once would be very epic

        Unfortunately, there is nothing to drown it with. That’s why they stand so freely near the coast, as if on a sea picnic
      2. +2
        11 November 2023 07: 04
        Quote: Sergey_Bely
        And I remember how many videos I saw where musclemen snatched middleweight boxers from cabbage soup.

        And the boxers are from the wrestlers, but the wrestlers with acrobatics are all right...
        1. +3
          11 November 2023 13: 25
          I remember Cassius Clay fought against a karateka: he danced his dance, and the karateka spent the entire fight crawling on his back and kicking his legs. Although his acrobatics were all right, it was a poor spectacle.
          1. +1
            11 November 2023 18: 37
            Quote: Stanislav_Shishkin
            I remember Cassius Clay fought against a karateka: he danced his dance, and the karateka spent the entire fight crawling on his back and kicking his legs. Although his acrobatics were all right, it was a poor spectacle.

            Well, yes, it’s pathetic, I’m just afraid that if karateka was allowed to hit at full strength, then Mohamed would end up very quickly. But the spectacle would have been bright but short.
            However, having seen Antonio’s training sessions, in which he threw and kicked sparring partners, members of Ali’s team, shortly before the fight, hastened to introduce restrictions into the rules of the fight. Namely, Inoki was prohibited from grabbing, throwing, clinching, hitting with knees and head.
  5. -16
    11 November 2023 05: 47
    Indeed, an aircraft carrier is a very serious instrument of pressure, influence, politics
    in conditions of an undeclared war, but in reality - he won’t even have time to get within those same few hundred kilometers...
    Stop singing ossana to aircraft carriers, whose fate can be decided by one Zircon with a special warhead.
    With the advent of hypersonic weapons, the future of the AUG is a foregone conclusion - a HUGE TARGET that is difficult to miss.
    1. +11
      11 November 2023 05: 55
      From the beginning, you need to find out where exactly this very target is located, and then somehow establish target designation for this very target, and the target itself bites painfully and with it there are a whole bunch of smaller targets and they also don’t pick their noses, but if you send special warhead against an aircraft carrier, you are dooming millions of people around the world to death, including, first and foremost, your fellow citizens.
      1. -14
        11 November 2023 07: 57
        Quote: Cartalon
        From the beginning, you need to find out where exactly this very target is located, and then somehow establish target designation for this very target

        First you need to determine the bases where these troughs are stored. Next, conduct satellite reconnaissance without reference to the Rogozins and Borisovs. With the help of the Aerospace Forces and the Navy, ensure strikes against targets...
        Actually that's all...By what means are such blows delivered - to Shoigu... Yes
        1. +23
          11 November 2023 08: 22
          Oh, this wonderful world in which everything is easy and simple, and the enemy is a wooden block. Where we easily sink aircraft carriers right in Norfolk
          1. -11
            11 November 2023 11: 54
            Quote: Cartalon
            Where we easily sink aircraft carriers right in Norfolk

            You have some kind of painful reaction to aircraft carriers... You take the composition of the AUG and clarify (at least for yourself) its capabilities. Or do you assume that the presence of aircraft carriers in Russia will change the situation? How do you imagine this? Three (11) US aircraft carriers against one TAVKR?
            If necessary, you can unload it together with Norfolk...
            Or you can do it while going for “goodies”...
            But you apparently have your own option: hang a white flag in the Kremlin?
            * * *
            It's amazing how we happened to be born in a northern banana republic...
            1. +12
              11 November 2023 12: 21
              But you happened to be born into a novel about a hit-and-run guy, where you can easily gouge Norfolk and you won’t get anything for it.
              And where did I write that Russia needs aircraft carriers right now? Especially if you remember that we are not able to build a Destroyer.
              And sometimes it’s useful to break through a wall, maybe you’ll understand that there’s no button to kill everyone.
              1. -2
                11 November 2023 20: 40
                Quote: Cartalon
                And you just happened to be born in a novel about a hit-and-run guy,


                First, you will learn Russian in the infinitive part, and then you will write me notations...
                It was such geniuses who drove the army into the ass at one time...
                1. +3
                  11 November 2023 21: 18
                  Yes, sometimes I write illiterately, fortunately, mostly on the go, without offering to start a nuclear war.
                  But the army was brought down, most likely by people like you, who, instead of studying real combat experience, shouted hurray and the whole world went to pieces.
                  As a result, every war begins the same way, we have no communications, no intelligence, the generals are oaks, the enemy for some reason does not run in panic, and so on down the list.
      2. -6
        11 November 2023 13: 57
        Quote: Cartalon
        yes, if you send a special warhead against an aircraft carrier, you doom millions of people around the world to death
        And if an aircraft carrier is hit not by a special warhead, but by a regular warhead, does something change? If necessary, aircraft carriers will also be destroyed.
        1. +4
          11 November 2023 16: 04
          It is changing, the percentage of suicides in the world is not high enough, and if you were shot somewhere with a simple missile, then you can hush up the matter, but if nuclear mushrooms grow, no one will talk anymore because there is no time.
          1. -1
            11 November 2023 20: 53
            Do you have experience? Do you really believe that there are fearless cretins in the Pentagon?
            Will you please answer then, why did two AUGs of American origin suddenly turn away from the DPRK? Kim Jong-un just showed them how American aircraft carriers would burn...
            Yes, because the American strategists crap themselves up to their armpits and realized that if they begin to respond to Eun Xiao, then a similar gift will come to them, and only God knows where it will fall and where they will be at that time...
            Bury together with your bratty commander. Even in the USSR, it was clear that if the Americans planned something, it would only be on the condition that not even one small bomb would fly to them...
            * * *
            I said it and I will repeat it for you again. If tomorrow morning all that remains of GB are melted islands (one blow from Sarmat), not a single scum will dare even think of standing up for “NOTHING”...
            As for your minuses...I don’t care about them and your empty opinion.
        2. 0
          11 November 2023 18: 14
          Quote: Stanislav_Shishkin
          is anything changing?

          Quote: Cartalon
          Is changing

          You can recall the incident at the Ocean-77 exercise. ...either it was hushed up, or there was nothing... ...who can say...
    2. +4
      11 November 2023 10: 21
      Presumption of aircraft carrier action against the shore. What if the task is completely different? For example, a naval blockade. One AUG can control half of any ocean - protect its own shipping and impede the enemy's, being very far from the coast.
      1. -10
        11 November 2023 11: 59
        Quote: Alexander Kochurkov
        One AUG can control half of any ocean - protect its own shipping and impede the enemy's, being very far from the coast.

        Even during the times of the USSR, there were methods of combating AUG, one of which was strategic nuclear forces.
        The available strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation allow us to destroy any AUG anywhere...
        And there is no need to wring your hands, because:
        Quote: Alexander Kochurkov
        AUG can control half of any ocean...

        ...or rest at the bottom.
        https://ria.ru/20200523/1571739194.html
        1. +11
          11 November 2023 16: 15
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Even during the Soviet era, there were methods to combat AUG

          Wrong. ONLY during the times of the USSR there were methods of combating AUG. "Legend" in space, dozens of reconnaissance aircraft for fleets, air divisions of naval missile-carrying aviation, divisions of missile nuclear submarines, and - masses of BMZ ships, all these minesweepers and small missiles capable of ensuring the deployment of fleet forces.
          Now, alas, none of this remains, and we, in general, have nothing with which to fight the AUG.
          Quote: ROSS 42
          The available strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation allow us to destroy any AUG anywhere

          In the fantasies of people far from the navy - no doubt
          1. +5
            11 November 2023 17: 46
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            during the USSR there were methods of combating AUG

            I think it would be useful to recall that the general attack scenario provided, first of all, for the launch of eight X-22s with nuclear warheads in the area where the AUG was located at that moment, with the goal of disabling most of the AUG radars with an EM pulse. It was believed that after this the interference situation would make it possible to single out individual ships and deliver an accurate strike. Moreover, as SSI wrote at one time (he is from the MRA), losses during the sinking of the AUG were estimated at two or three aircraft regiments.
          2. -4
            11 November 2023 20: 58
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In the fantasies of people far from the navy - no doubt

            In the fantasies of people far from the Strategic Missile Forces, even an explosion of 750 kT will be considered a firecracker exploding...
            1. +2
              12 November 2023 01: 05
              Quote: ROSS 42
              In the fantasies of people far from the Strategic Missile Forces, even an explosion of 750 kT

              It is a heartbreaking sight, destroying fffs within a radius of tens of kilometers
        2. Alf
          +1
          11 November 2023 18: 43
          Quote: ROSS 42
          The available strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation allow us to destroy any AUG anywhere...

          Fucking Yars? And who will give the CU? The AUG doesn’t seem to stand still.
          To waste a caliber? What is its range? And how to direct? Now “oceanographic vessels” do not follow the AUG.
        3. +2
          11 November 2023 21: 16
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Even during the times of the USSR, there were methods of combating AUG, one of which was strategic nuclear forces.

          During the Soviet era, until June 22, 1941, there was a conviction that we would fight with little blood on foreign soil.
      2. +1
        11 November 2023 21: 56
        One AUG can control 400 - 500 miles around itself. Half the ocean is a little more)))
        1. -2
          11 November 2023 22: 14
          The combat radius of the F-18 is 750 km + the flight range of the cruise missile is 1000 km, resulting in a diameter of 3500 km.
          1. Alf
            0
            11 November 2023 22: 24
            Quote: Alexander Kochurkov
            The combat radius of the F-18 is 750 km + the flight range of the cruise missile is 1000 km, resulting in a diameter of 3500 km.

            Where did 3500 come from? The Hornet can only carry the AGM-84H SLAM-ER, and its range is 270 km.
            1. -2
              11 November 2023 22: 32
              V-Z guided missiles AGM-65, AGM-88, AGM-84, AGM-154, AGM-158, KEPD-350 of various modifications.
              1. Alf
                0
                11 November 2023 22: 36
                Quote: Alexander Kochurkov
                V-Z guided missiles AGM-65, AGM-88, AGM-84, AGM-154, AGM-158, KEPD-350 of various modifications.

                1. 0
                  11 November 2023 22: 48
                  should we take AGM 158 out of the equation?
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Alf
                    0
                    11 November 2023 22: 51
                    Quote: Alexander Kochurkov
                    should we take AGM 158 out of the equation?

                    Which ER? Yes, I missed it, I apologize.
  6. +8
    11 November 2023 05: 57
    "Aircraft carriers are the property of the US government and are in fact American territory - floating islands of American power that can move anywhere in the world's oceans. Moreover, no matter where they go, they remain American territory."
    Very pretentious... Only this applies to any ship of any state.
    1. -4
      11 November 2023 08: 04
      Quote: Alexander Kochurkov
      Very pretentious... Only this applies to any ship of any state.

      This is exactly what I meant when I asked why the hell the Russian investigators of the explosions at the SP last summer didn’t take advantage of this under the protection of the ships of the Baltic Fleet... They were probably preparing for the parade... The fleet is intended to amuse the Tsar, and not to prove that he has no equal in the world's oceans...
      1. Alf
        0
        11 November 2023 18: 49
        Quote: ROSS 42
        and not to prove that he has no equal in the world's oceans...

        To prove this, you first need to have an ocean fleet.

        Not much...
  7. -14
    11 November 2023 06: 19
    And by the way, an aircraft carrier is a reinforced concrete structure driven by small propellers. So, if the propellers are disabled, the aircraft carrier will smoke on the sidelines.
    As for how to damage the screws, you need to think about it depending on the circumstances.
    Alternatively, along the way, a net is placed in the water and several wooden barrels are attached to it. Inside the barrels are "thermite explosives with a magnetic detonator." The net is wound around the screw, the detonator is magnetized and the mixture cuts the metal of the screws.
    You can use buried drones made of polymer materials.
    1. +7
      11 November 2023 09: 04
      The ship is made entirely of steel and alloys. There was once an idea to build an aircraft carrier from reinforced concrete, but somehow it was quickly abandoned.
    2. Alf
      +1
      11 November 2023 18: 50
      Quote: Sergey_Bely
      And by the way, an aircraft carrier is a reinforced concrete structure driven by small propellers. So, if the propellers are disabled, the aircraft carrier will smoke on the sidelines.
      As for how to damage the screws, you need to think about it depending on the circumstances.
      Alternatively, along the way, a net is placed in the water and several wooden barrels are attached to it. Inside the barrels are "thermite explosives with a magnetic detonator." The net is wound around the screw, the detonator is magnetized and the mixture cuts the metal of the screws.
      You can use buried drones made of polymer materials.

      Eh, you're so excited... recourse request No, of course, I understand - it’s Saturday evening, but you don’t allow overdoses.
      Will the escort calmly watch such acts? Or are you planning to block off the entire ocean with nets? That’s what the fishermen will say “thank you” to you...
    3. +1
      18 November 2023 15: 48
      Sergei_Bely
      I propose a cooler idea laughing
      Any screw will break if there is a “crowbar” in the plane of its rotation.
      A torpedo is being made with a very large range of action and a thick and durable hull... There are many such torpedoes. At first they move on the surface - such a torpedo is extremely difficult to notice. Well, you can do it underwater, but with the satellite dish extended. From the satellite we bring the torpedo almost to the AUG. The torpedo's computer memory contains the signature of the aircraft carrier's propellers. Then the torpedo is submerged and guided by a hydroacoustic signal exactly at the propeller, which, when hit by a torpedo, grunts! - and breaks. A swarm of such torpedoes turns the AUG into a cluster of helpless pieces of metal dangling on the waves. There is no trick against scrap! And what remains will be sold by local looters for scrap metal
      1. +1
        18 November 2023 15: 55
        Quote: futurohunter
        There are many such torpedoes. At first they move on the surface - such a torpedo is extremely difficult to notice

        I imagined: a lot of torpedoes heading towards surface position... formation, probably... I'm already ready request laughing
  8. +3
    11 November 2023 06: 28
    ...what is happening makes it clear to the world that the United States has paid attention to the crisis and is preparing to respond.
    This means that the weak and faint-hearted should immediately give up, while others should think about it. But this almost always worked effectively before, but today the situation is completely different. A good example of this is, as mentioned above, the US AUG off the coast of the DPRK. I chatted and was forced to go home.
  9. +5
    11 November 2023 07: 00
    Good morning to all commentators!

    The author turned out to be a neutral, in the sense of emotions, article. But sometimes you need these.
    The good thing about an aircraft carrier is that it is an additional indicator of the country’s economy and the opinion of the government of that country.
  10. -1
    11 November 2023 07: 54
    Pre-Cold War aircraft carriers are not the same as modern ones. Initially, aircraft carriers were truly warships that provided combat operations on the islands and islets of the vast Pacific Ocean. In fact, these were floating islands for aviation, capable of darting from island to island. With the beginning of the Cold War and the development of guided missiles, aircraft carriers became a means of intimidating and suppressing US missile-less opponents. Now this is truly a gangster's club against ordinary people.
  11. -4
    11 November 2023 08: 32
    Quote: Sergey_Bely
    But to sink this reinforced concrete box with everything that is inside and outside it just once would be very epic and painful for the hegemon with feet of clay.

    As soon as one such box is sunk to the bottom, all the others will face the fate of battleships. The rest of the boxes won't go anywhere else
    1. +5
      11 November 2023 11: 17
      Yeah, yeah, it’s just a strange thing, when the US Navy lost two of its Yorktowns and one Lexington during WWII, and also lost escort aircraft in the battle with the Yaps, no one even thought that the aircraft carriers would face the same fate as battleships, strange isn’t it? Maybe because the presence of aviation at sea “here and now” is very important, even now at the present time? lol
      1. -1
        12 November 2023 12: 36
        “Maybe because the presence of aviation at sea “here and now” is very important, even now at the present time?”
        This is until “here and now” several thousand Yankees (or other bearers of democracy) were simultaneously sent to the bottom along with all the junk on board. Immediately all the “shows of force” will end and all these banduras in the ports will be out of harm’s way. The Yankees are used to impunity, but this is before the first serious slap in the face
    2. +6
      11 November 2023 11: 57
      Oh, how simple it is... Why didn’t the USSR do this? I would have won the HB immediately. The cowardly amers would have put their tail between their legs and crawled back to their continent, NATO had collapsed, the American fleet had dissolved itself.
      1. Alf
        0
        11 November 2023 18: 58
        Quote: Kmon
        Why didn't the USSR do this?

        Kuznetsov was in training, Gorshkov was there, Varyag was under construction, Ulyanovsk was under construction.
        1. -1
          11 November 2023 19: 34
          But what about missiles, planes and submarines? Do you really want to say that an AB cannot be drowned without its own AB? Even if you try really hard? After all, it’s enough to sink one and we’d immediately win the Cold War...
          1. Alf
            +2
            11 November 2023 19: 37
            Quote: Kmon
            After all, it’s enough to sink one and we’d immediately win the Cold War...

            And you would get a hot one...Or are you not aware that an attack on a warship is practically a declaration of war?
            1. 0
              11 November 2023 20: 00
              Well, then you agree that bambr731 wrote nonsense above (and the post to which you responded was precisely a response to his post)
              1. Alf
                -2
                11 November 2023 20: 03
                Quote: Kmon
                Well, then you agree that bambr731 wrote nonsense above (and the post to which you responded was precisely a response to his post)

                In fact, do you have anything to say or are you going to continue to create a verbal...fog?
        2. 0
          11 November 2023 21: 59
          Gorshkov had verticals, Varyag was built, but for Ulyanovsk they only cut metal. Even with the capabilities of the USSR, Ulyanovsk would have been built in 3.5 - 4 years. So, Kuzya was quite combat-ready, for his tasks, of course.
          1. Alf
            0
            11 November 2023 22: 14
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Gorshkov had verticals

            Right. But the Yak-41 in its performance characteristics was very close to normal aircraft.
            Quote: TermNachTER
            Ulyanovsk would have been built in 3.5 - 4 years.

            They planned for 1996, i.e. 9 years. But they built it.
            Kuzya in aviation weapons is more of a training person. Or an escort, but Ulyanovsk would be a classic drummer, after all, 70 sides.
            1. 0
              12 November 2023 00: 17
              The Yak-141 was not bad among vertical aircraft, but it is better not to compare it with normal aircraft. They didn’t build the Ulyanovsk, they just started cutting metal, they didn’t even assemble a single section, because the Varyag was on the slipway.
              1. Alf
                0
                12 November 2023 19: 28
                Quote: TermNachTER
                They didn’t build the Ulyanovsk, they just started cutting metal, they didn’t even assemble a single section, because the Varyag was on the slipway.


  12. +1
    11 November 2023 09: 02
    Actually, above the commander of the aircraft carrier is the commander of the AUG, a rear admiral. He receives commands from Washington and relays them to ship commanders.
  13. -4
    11 November 2023 09: 13
    The SVO showed that equals fight differently against equals. The massive attack on Israel showed that it is possible to break through the dome. Aircraft carriers from the Second World War did not attack; imitation of an attack does little to help. They are used against the ZULUS (sorry for the comparison). A specific strike on the naval gang has not yet been used, perhaps we need to provide assistance.
    1. +5
      11 November 2023 10: 03
      “The aircraft carriers did not attack from WWII” - and the Falklands War???
      1. +2
        11 November 2023 14: 33
        Is this when missiles pierced a ship without exploding?
  14. +10
    11 November 2023 09: 23
    Any discussion about the usefulness of aircraft carriers can be taken into a more constructive direction by changing the wording of the question to “are air bases with an air wing useful?”
    Here it immediately becomes obvious and clear that despite the fact that it is now more difficult for aviation to gain air supremacy due to developed air defense systems, the presence of air support and control is still critically important and necessary in war. And especially in the ocean, where you do not have the opportunity to install stationary air defense/missile defense units. Therefore, aircraft carriers are useful not as large ships, but as air bases for their aircraft.
    So the air group of aircraft carriers is still engaged in providing air defense/missile defense connections, since aircraft, when illuminated by AWACS aircraft, can intercept winged and anti-ship missiles when they are still over the horizon. Thereby saving the supply of air defense missiles installed on escort ships. The air group is also engaged in combing the water area around the AUG for many tens of kilometers in search of enemy submarines and are potentially capable of detecting and destroying it even before it comes within range of its salvo with torpedoes or missiles.
    So when discussing the benefits of aircraft carriers, you need to talk about the benefits of the aircraft carrier’s air wing, and not the carrier itself.
    And the air wing of any American aircraft carrier is a serious multifunctional force capable of providing cover for itself or its allies. So, conduct your own strike operations relying on your reconnaissance, your support and your small amphibious landing group.
  15. 0
    11 November 2023 10: 21
    Once again, the Americans chose their enemy by rank, this is now Hamas.
    1. -2
      11 November 2023 13: 42
      Well, about other opponents, such as Vietnam or the North. Korea, aircraft carriers somehow didn’t show themselves very well, so only against Hamas or Grenada)))
      1. +5
        11 November 2023 16: 40
        Aircraft carriers largely ensured the US victory in the Cold War by controlling world trade and third world countries. The USSR could not stop them from dominating the sea. But they are useless, yeah) And the Yankees are still building them because they are stupid.
        1. 0
          13 November 2023 14: 03
          Quote: Kmon
          Aircraft carriers largely ensured the US victory in the Cold War by controlling world trade and third world countries.

          Do you live in some other universe?
          Victory in the Cold War was ensured by the betrayal of Gorbachev and the shady Yeltsin! No aircraft carriers would have done anything under the USSR. My father went to Cuba with these missiles
    2. +1
      11 November 2023 15: 35
      No! This is just a reminder to Iran, Hezbollah, etc.!
  16. +4
    11 November 2023 11: 58
    It would be stupid to drive aircraft carriers to the shore of a developed enemy; they are too vulnerable there. But their main task is not this at all, but the following:
    1) Curling of the Papuans. Very useful for economic and political dominance
    2) Dominance at sea (even the Soviet fleet could not compete with them outside their native shores, let alone the rest) both in peacetime and in the event of a major war. Those who like to shout “yes, these rusty troughs will immediately sink with daggers” are not aware that there is such a problem as target designation
    3) As a consequence of point 2 - control of world trade and the ability to threaten anyone with a blockade, which is again a huge economic and political advantage
  17. +4
    11 November 2023 12: 08
    It is worth noting that even during the crisis in Israel, the newest aircraft carrier was simply hanging out at a safe distance from the coast. And his planes didn’t fly very much over Gaza either.

    So he was not sent there for the Papuans from Gaza, but to cool the violent heads of nearby Muslim countries that are thinking of participating in the conflict.
  18. +11
    11 November 2023 12: 19
    This post is posted for members of the sect “Witnesses of the destruction of US aircraft carriers” in the Mediterranean Sea.
    Hezbollah can threaten the United States as much as it wants and make beautiful videos.
    But in reality, their cruise missiles are harmless to US aircraft carriers.
    Firstly, carrier strike groups have a deeply echeloned defense, exceeding 600 km.
    Secondly, the aircraft carrier simply will not enter the range of their coastal missile systems.
    That is, an aircraft carrier can be damaged (destroyed) only due to the confluence of a number of factors.
    Let's say it will pass through a canal or strait (narrowness in naval terms), or will stand in the port of one of the foreign naval bases, waiting for suicide bombers on a boat (the story of the destroyer Cole).
    And even if he enters the range of Hezbollah’s cruise missiles, the Arabs will have to fire hundreds of missiles at the same time, since only a small part will possibly reach the target (see post group strike (volley).
    In general, all Hezbollah's threats are nothing more than PR.
    1. -5
      11 November 2023 12: 39
      Quote: Boniface
      Secondly, the aircraft carrier simply will not enter the range of their coastal missile systems.
      Then the combat radius of his aircraft will be greatly reduced, to the point of being unacceptable.
      1. +5
        11 November 2023 16: 16
        Quote: bk0010
        Then the combat radius of his aircraft will be greatly reduced, to the point of being unacceptable.

        Hezbollah will not find an AB 100 km from the coastline. So everything will be fine with the radius
        1. -2
          11 November 2023 17: 08
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Hezbollah will not find an AB 100 km from the coastline.
          Well, that means we need help. Moreover, this does not require Liana or Tu-95RTs, just a few retrofitted trawlers and yachts are enough.
          1. +2
            12 November 2023 01: 06
            Quote: bk0010
            A few retrofitted trawlers and yachts are enough.

            :))) Why, binoculars are enough :))))
            1. -1
              12 November 2023 01: 34
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              ))) Why, binoculars are enough :))))
              Humor... I understand... The reconnaissance officer must be in the radio horizon for the AUG radio equipment. How do you detect radar radiation with binoculars? And note, they do not need to chase the AUG, like Soviet hydrographic vessels. It is sufficiently located on the borders of the anti-ship missile range. Detects, further reconnaissance and issues control center.
              1. +2
                12 November 2023 10: 46
                Quote: bk0010
                It is sufficiently located on the borders of the anti-ship missile range. Detects, further reconnaissance and issues control center.

                Yes, of course :))) Did the escort ships go to the bar at that time for Budweiser, or what? :)))
                When switching to combat mode, not a single ship within visual visibility will approach the AB - it will simply not be allowed to do so. They will order you to change course, and if you don’t comply, they will destroy you. Firing missiles on such a “guide” is completely useless
                1. -1
                  12 November 2023 17: 03
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  When switching to combat mode, not a single ship within visual visibility will approach the AB - it will simply not be allowed to do so.
                  And it is not necessary. The main thing is to issue the control center.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Firing missiles on such a “guide” is completely useless
                  The anti-ship missile system has a detection zone of about 5 degrees, so it might work out fine. And if it’s not enough, they’ll pick up the drone and have a look. But the main thing is that the AUG is rummaging around the shore, and not on the shore of the White Sea, but on the Mediterranean. There are a ton of different ships there, and it’s impossible to sink them without declaring war.
                  1. +1
                    12 November 2023 17: 58
                    Quote: bk0010
                    And it is not necessary. The main thing is to issue the control center.

                    Under the described conditions this is impossible. You have discovered a US ship, say a destroyer. And what? Where is AB? Behind him? To the side of him? Or is it even a radar patrol, and the AB is a hundred kilometers away? AB course? Speed?
                    Quote: bk0010
                    The anti-ship missile system has a detection zone of about 5 degrees, so it might work out fine.

                    Just the opposite. With such premises nothing can happen. How many times has it happened to us - an AB is discovered, THEN a regiment of missile carriers is alerted, it goes into the area... But it’s not there. So this is a regiment, with its own radars, supersonic, by the way, and you suggest looking for subsonic anti-ship missiles...
                    Quote: bk0010
                    There are a lot of different ships there

                    And everyone gets a signal - change course. And they change, there are no crazy people.
                    1. 0
                      12 November 2023 21: 27
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You have discovered a US ship, say a destroyer.
                      Okay, Burke's not bad either.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And what? Where is AB? Behind him? To the side of him?
                      DER tools will give a clear answer to this question. No, you can, of course, as during the Falklands War, land aircraft, turn off the radars and, maintaining radio silence, stomp somewhere, but you cannot carry out a combat mission in such conditions. Yes, and it is dangerous: the Atlantic is much larger than the Mediterranean Sea, the chance of meeting the enemy there is much lower.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      and you suggest looking for subsonic anti-ship missiles...
                      Why subsonic? Onyx. Anything less is a waste of missiles; they can only hit by accident.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And everyone gets a signal - change course. And they change, there are no crazy people.
                      Yes. And they tell someone: because of the evil Arlie Burke at such and such coordinates, they had to change course.
                      1. +1
                        12 November 2023 22: 45
                        Quote: bk0010
                        DER tools will give a clear answer to this question.

                        It seems so to you, but alas, they won’t give it to you.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        No, you can, of course, as during the Falklands War, land aircraft, turn off the radars and, maintaining radio silence, stomp somewhere, but you cannot carry out a combat mission in such conditions.

                        Can. Taking off and landing and servicing aircraft do not require any crazy level of radar and on-air activity.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Why subsonic? Onyx.

                        I won't ask where Hamas got the Onyxes.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Yes. And they tell someone: because of the evil Arlie Burke at such and such coordinates, they had to change course.

                        And it won't help anything at all.
                  2. +1
                    12 November 2023 19: 24
                    Quote: bk0010
                    5 degrees detection zone, it might work fine

                    Quote: bk0010
                    There are a lot of different ships there

                    Will the anti-ship missile system be able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from a container ship, for example? Or a destroyer from a fishing trawler? Alas, no, she doesn’t care. So:
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    With such prerequisites nothing can happen
    2. +1
      11 November 2023 13: 44
      And what aircraft on the AB deck has a range of more than 600 km?))) "Hornet" - hung with PTB and fssyoyo)))
      1. +3
        11 November 2023 15: 46
        The Hornet has a radius of about 720 km and it does not need to get closer to the target of attack, at least 100 - 120 km. By the way, no one has canceled refueling in the air.
        1. -2
          11 November 2023 17: 11
          Quote: vadim dok
          By the way, no one has canceled in-flight refueling.
          Refueling will sharply reduce the number of Hornets in the mission, and will not significantly increase the range (refueling Hornets also need to fly to the refueling point and return, and their engines are supersonic and power-hungry).
        2. +1
          11 November 2023 22: 04
          And who will refuel it? theoretically, another Hornet can do this. But, firstly, the number of combat aircraft is decreasing, and secondly, it can simply convey “tears”. Regarding the radius, 720 km. - this is when there is a minimum of weapons and a maximum of kerosene and the flight is carried out along an ideal flight profile. If the TSA load is almost maximum, the flight is performed at extremely low speeds + combat maneuvering + afterburner. The range decreases sharply. "Hornet" is not much of a "Tomcat" for you)))
      2. +2
        12 November 2023 16: 30
        Quote: TermNachTER
        And what aircraft on deck AB has a range of more than 600 km?)))

        I would like to bring to your attention that in the event that the direction of a possible attack is known, the Americans will deploy two air patrols - one at the standard 300 km, the second at 600 km. And yet, yes, the patrol, in addition to the IA, includes an AWACS aircraft and an electronic warfare aircraft
  19. -5
    11 November 2023 13: 03
    But if an aircraft carrier appears off your coast, it is impossible not to notice it. This is also a clear sign that you are in the crosshairs of the Washington guys.
    If you notice an aircraft carrier, then it is in your sights. No expense will be spared for such a ambitious goal.
  20. +1
    11 November 2023 13: 17
    aircraft carriers are good for covering submarines, a submarine cannot be detected from the shore, you need to either fly over the water with special equipment, or sail on or under the water, and this is where the aircraft carrier shows its main qualities as a controller of air and water space, under its cover a submarine can come as close to the shore as possible and fire a salvo of cruise missiles, the Ohio modified one has 154 of them, and then calmly go to reload without the risk of being overtaken and sunk.....
    1. 0
      11 November 2023 17: 57
      Quote: Max1984
      aircraft carriers are good for covering submarines

      The AUG, as a rule, includes one or two submarines. Not SSBNs, of course.
    2. Alf
      0
      11 November 2023 19: 07
      Quote: Max1984
      aircraft carriers are good for covering submarines,

      Can’t a destroyer or guided missile cruiser do this?
      1. 0
        11 November 2023 22: 06
        The best hunter for SSNs is another SSN))) URO cruisers and destroyers have other tasks.
        1. Alf
          0
          11 November 2023 22: 16
          Quote: TermNachTER
          The best hunter for SSNs is another SSN))) URO cruisers and destroyers have other tasks.

          The same is true, but it’s still better for an EM or a cruiser to take a submarine out to sea. It's too hard to drive an aircraft carrier.
          1. +1
            12 November 2023 00: 19
            The "tik" and "bjork" have the task of providing air defense and missile defense for the AUG if the aviation for some reason cannot cope.
  21. +13
    11 November 2023 13: 58
    It's simple. Countries that can build aircraft carriers. (China, India, UK, France, etc.) are worth them.
    And those who do not have such an opportunity conduct empty talk about how they (aircraft carriers) are outdated. request
    1. Alf
      +3
      11 November 2023 19: 09
      Quote: Senior Sailor
      It's simple. Countries that can build aircraft carriers. (China, India, UK, France, etc.) are worth them.
      And those who do not have such an opportunity conduct empty talk about how they (aircraft carriers) are outdated. request

      The Soviet Union also claimed that “aircraft carriers are weapons of aggression,” but it introduced Kuznetsov and Varyag into the fleet, built Ulyanovsk... Because it could.
  22. +8
    11 November 2023 13: 59
    You can at least throw hats at the Amers, this will not drown the Aviks and they are an effective tool for projecting American policy.
  23. +4
    11 November 2023 14: 25
    To rule planet Earth you need to have the largest navy. This was invented a long time ago - a couple of thousand years ago. Let's not look that far and won't even talk about the embarrassment of the Spanish Great Armada. At the beginning of the 20th century, England had a huge fleet - more than 40 battleships along with 200 other ships. They themselves were forced to start a new arms race, destroying hundreds of old ships and building in a short time 20 new super-battleships and hundreds of other ships. As a result, having won World War I, Great Britain became overwhelmed and asked its friends to calm down their ardor by introducing restrictions on fleets. For 20 years the Britons blithely rested on their laurels until they learned that the allies had betrayed them in the most vile way - the French struck by creating a battleship with unprecedented 4 gun turrets. It was necessary to respond with something, but it turned out that the engineers had forgotten how to make guns, and production fell into decline. In a hurry, by the beginning of the 40s, they managed to build a series of 5 ships of the King George class with 14-inch guns, quite controversial with numerous errors, but still there was not enough strength and Great Britain, even without a war, became only the third. The Americans came forward with 405 mm calibers and the Japanese, whose calibers were classified, but as it turned out, the cross-eyed ones created 460 mm guns. I won’t repeat myself about aircraft carriers. After the war, the United States came out on top with ships of fabulous power, and the number of aircraft carriers exceeded 100. Planet Earth has become the possession of North Americans, but everything has its expiration date. The British also wanted to rule for hundreds of years.
    1. +2
      11 November 2023 16: 20
      about the embarrassment of the Spanish Great Armada" - a few years later the British were embarrassed off the coast of Spain in exactly the same way.
      “they themselves were forced to start a new arms race” - i.e. Does Germany's construction of its fleet have anything to do with it?
      “by creating a battleship with unprecedented 4 gun turrets” - what’s unprecedented? The French planned to install similar towers on their battleships back in WWI. Secondly, the British also installed four-gun turrets on their battleships at the same time.
      “even without the war I became only the third” - how is that??? Who's first and second?
      “The Americans came out with 405 mm calibers” - what caliber did the Nelsons have? And second - not 405 but 406 mm.
      1. +1
        11 November 2023 16: 43
        The first and second fleets are Japanese (at the beginning of the war, then vice versa) and Americans, obviously. Confirmed by Force Z and the wretchedness of the British aircraft carriers.
        1. 0
          11 November 2023 19: 10
          As for the Americans, the question is really complicated, but the Japanese... Just look at the reference books for that period. With carrier-based aircraft, yes, the British had serious problems, but their aircraft carriers were excellent and there were many of them, they were simply put into operation by the end of the war out of necessity. And the economy is much more powerful than the Japanese one. For comparison, in terms of economic development, Japan was approximately equal to Italy, with all that it implies. The Japanese were able to hold out for so long in WWII only because the allies agreed on priorities - first to finish off the Germans, and Japan, like an annoying fly, was left for later.
          1. -3
            11 November 2023 19: 27
            Their aircraft carriers have only armor. The air group is small, the planes are terrible. There is no chance against trained Japanese pilots in superior numbers (because the Japanese have larger air groups) with Zeros and Long Lances. And therefore they had nothing to catch at sea; they would have drowned them from the air.

            The British economy is stronger than the Japanese one, but not so much as to crush quality with numbers (and partly quality too), as the Americans did - it’s not the same level. In addition, the Japanese spent as much as 50% of their budget on the fleet, which is a much higher percentage than their opponents, so comparing formal GDP is not entirely correct.
            1. 0
              11 November 2023 21: 28
              “not so much as to overwhelm quality with numbers” - they could quite easily overwhelm themselves with both quality and number. As for the numbers, there is quite enough production capacity. Look at the statistics on aircraft production during WWII. As for quality, even more so, English technology was superior to Japanese in almost all respects. The lag in carrier-based aircraft was caused not by the capabilities of the British, but by incorrect policies in the development of naval aviation.
              The quality of training of the British pilots was excellent, but unlike the Japanese, the British were able to organize the training of the required number of personnel. As for excellent Japanese aircraft, the Zero had one fatal and huge drawback - the lack of protected tanks, which by the beginning of WWII was an anachronism and led to large losses. The superiority of the British over the Japanese in radar and anti-aircraft defense systems was overwhelming.
        2. Alf
          0
          11 November 2023 19: 12
          Quote: Kmon
          the wretchedness of British aircraft carriers.

          But Compound K performed its work in the Mediterranean “excellently”; just remember Taranto and the Mediterranean Trio. But there the theater of operations was limited to Gibraltar and Malta.
          1. 0
            11 November 2023 19: 27
            Well, anyone can cope with the Italians...
            1. Alf
              -1
              11 November 2023 19: 30
              Quote: Kmon
              Well, anyone can cope with the Italians...

              50x50..Remember how the British convoys suffered from the Four Cats. Although, regarding the ships, I agree.
          2. 0
            11 November 2023 20: 21
            They had no equal in Europe. The “old lady” battleship Worspite made the latest Italian battleships, but whether the British could, purely hypothetically, crush Japan or America is a question.
            1. Alf
              +1
              11 November 2023 20: 25
              Quote: geologist
              But whether the British could, purely hypothetically, crush Japan or America is a question.

              Japan definitely isn't. We need a powerful shipbuilding industry, not occupied with problems, we need modern ships, not model 1918, we need modern carrier-based aircraft, and not Spit and Hurriki, somehow adapted for the deck. And that's just what's on top.
              1. 0
                11 November 2023 21: 42
                “we need modern ships, not model 1918” - but what kind did the Japanese have??? As for the shipbuilding industry, the English one was much more powerful than the Japanese one. Even when fighting Germany, the British built more ships than the Japanese in WWII. What if they weren’t distracted by the Germans? The British Air Force was disproportionately larger and better than the Japanese, but now imagine what would have happened if the British had redirected their production and scientific resources in the aviation field to the development of carrier-based aviation.
                “not busy with problems” - this is an interesting situation, the British are busy with trials (I assume so with the war with Germany), I’m the Japanese without any problems. Maybe we should still consider equal conditions?
                1. Alf
                  +1
                  11 November 2023 21: 56
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  Even when fighting Germany, the British built more ships than the Japanese in WWII.

                  How many aircraft carriers did Britain build during WW2?
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  what kind did the Japanese have???

                  As if built closer to the 40s.
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  what would happen if the British redirected their production and scientific resources in the field of aviation to the development of carrier-based aviation.

                  They redirected. We got Fulmer, Firefly, Barracuda, Catafighter and Hurricane... It didn’t work out seriously.
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  Maybe we should still consider equal conditions?

                  And to make it work?
                  Let's chat, it's nice to meet a worthy opponent.
                  1. 0
                    12 November 2023 13: 36
                    “Let's chat” - what's the point? Moreover, you deny obvious things - “How many aircraft carriers did Britain build during WW2” - look at the tonnage, and as for aircraft carriers specifically, look at the number under construction at the beginning of 1945, they simply built first what was most needed .
                    “Like they were built closer to the 40s.” - How many did the British have in construction in 1939? I'll stop there. I'm not interested in chatter for the sake of chatter.
                    1. Alf
                      0
                      12 November 2023 19: 32
                      Quote: Sergey Valov
                      I'll stop there. I'm not interested in chatter for the sake of chatter.

                      For God's sake, there is nothing to object to....
            2. 0
              11 November 2023 21: 29
              They wouldn’t be able to, because Japan would easily sink their surface fleet due to air supremacy, and their shipyards wouldn’t be able to quickly make up for the losses; they are very far from the United States. Well, it’s even ridiculous to compare with the shipbuilding industry and US fleets.
          3. 0
            11 November 2023 22: 10
            Force K consisted of two cruisers and two destroyers, and operated from and mainly around Malta. "Battle for the Mediterranean. View of the winners." What you're talking about is the "Mediterranean trio" - "Ark Royal", "Sheffield" and "Renaun". They operated in the western part, from Gibraltar, but did not participate in the attack on Taranto.
            1. Alf
              0
              11 November 2023 22: 28
              Quote: TermNachTER
              What you're talking about is the "Mediterranean Trio" - "Ark Royal", "Sheffield" and "Renaun"

              Where is Rinaun from? Linder was third there.
              Speaking about Taranto, I meant Illustrious.
              1. 0
                12 November 2023 00: 21
                So I say that the “Mediterranean trio” did not participate in the raid on Taranto. "Illustries" came from Alexandria.
      2. 0
        11 November 2023 19: 58
        I just wanted to convey the idea, somewhat chaotically, that dominance at sea, as on land, is a temporary phenomenon. Today it is America, and tomorrow it will be someone else, say China, God forbid, of course. England at one time created the Dreadnought on its own behalf, which provoked and led the arms race. The Germans were surprised, how could this be possible? It is enough to build 10-15 prodigies and you will join the elite club. America created a super weapon - the atomic bomb and also provoked the creation of a new society of untouchables. In essence, a large fleet, aircraft carriers, as a means of domination throughout the world, is an outdated dogma of the old admirals. Space, nuclear bombs, killer robots in the sky and at sea - this is not a very pleasant future.
    2. 0
      16 November 2023 16: 44
      The British also wanted to rule for hundreds of years.

      This is how they have already ruled for a couple of hundred years. The naval policy of the first half of the XNUMXth century only set itself the task of maintaining dominance (since nothing new really existed for conquest)
  24. +1
    11 November 2023 19: 31
    By the way, let me remind you that the USSR also tried to build aircraft carriers (even if it called them TAKRs for ideological reasons; an aircraft carrier is an instrument of capitalism), so they can be considered useless for only one reason - “Green grapes!”
    1. 0
      11 November 2023 19: 59
      And China is building right now.
    2. Alf
      0
      11 November 2023 22: 32
      Quote: Kmon
      (even though he called them TAKRs for ideological reasons;

      Before speaking, we need to understand the topic. The USSR named its first aircraft carrier TAKR for one simple reason - Kuznetsov was on the Black Sea, and the passage through the Dardanelles for an aircraft carrier was prohibited by the Montreux Convention of 1936.
      1. 0
        11 November 2023 23: 36
        And that too. But also for ideological reasons.
  25. -1
    11 November 2023 22: 57
    The sinking of one of these embodiments of US power would symbolize the decline of US hegemony. I wish we could use something dual-medium, like a diving cruise missile. So that at the border of the ship's air defense it dives and goes under water. Or vice versa - she swam to a minimum distance and launched from under the water at a speed that was an order of magnitude greater. But this still needs to be developed.
    1. +2
      11 November 2023 22: 59
      "...Sometimes, looking from the porch at the yard and the pond, he talked about
      how nice it would be if suddenly there was an underground passage from the house
      or build a stone bridge across the pond, on which there would be
      on both sides of the shop, and for merchants to sit in them and sell
      various small goods needed by peasants.
      At the same time, his eyes became extremely sweet
      and the face took on the most satisfied expression, however,
      “all these projects ended with just words.”
      1. 0
        12 November 2023 12: 28
        I wrote it straight out - it still needs to be developed. Any development begins with understanding the problem and sketching out ideas. Why are you minus? If you were once slapped on the head or hands, this is not a reason to attack others.
    2. Alf
      +1
      11 November 2023 23: 40
      Quote from cpls22
      The sinking of one of these embodiments of US power would symbolize the decline of US hegemony. I wish we could use something dual-medium, like a diving cruise missile. So that at the border of the ship's air defense it dives and goes under water. Or vice versa - she swam to a minimum distance and launched from under the water at a speed that was an order of magnitude greater. But this still needs to be developed.

      ASROC no? There, however, you need to add a couple more zeros to the range, but this is such a small thing...
      1. 0
        12 November 2023 12: 23
        The idea is similar, but ASROC hits the water from the air, because the submarine doesn’t have much ability to control the air. But for a surface ship with powerful air defense, a different pill is needed - slow sneaking under water and a quick air strike at a short distance. Such a pill will not catch up with an AUG on a march, but in the area of ​​a “flag demonstration,” which can be calculated in advance, it can reach the patient. The slower the approach, the further away it may be, and the more difficult it is to detect. And if such a missile on an underwater platform is able to “freeze” under water when an AUG approaches, then its chances of success increase.
        1. +1
          12 November 2023 14: 40
          Quote from cpls22
          need another pill

          "Waterfall"? But he is against submarines...
          1. 0
            12 November 2023 15: 15
            Dives beautifully. I wonder why? Spy on the target? For AUG, another tablet is needed, covering the main distance under water.
            1. +1
              12 November 2023 19: 42
              Quote from cpls22
              Dives beautifully. I wonder why?

              Versatility. It is also used from standard submarine torpedo tubes.
              Quote from cpls22
              For AUG another tablet is needed

              There is no such pill yet. The AUG controls the space around itself with a diameter of several hundred kilometers in radius, including air and underwater. Destroying or disabling an AUG is an extremely difficult task.
        2. Alf
          -1
          12 November 2023 19: 38
          You're quickly changing your shoes.
          So that at the border of the ship's air defense it dives and goes under water.

          Your words. And right there.
          Quote from cpls22
          But for a surface ship with powerful air defense, you need a different pill - slow sneaking under water and a quick air strike

          They forgot themselves.

          Quote from cpls22
          The slower the approach, the further away it may be, and the more difficult it is to detect.

          Come on ???
          Quote from cpls22
          And if such a missile on an underwater platform is able to “freeze” under water,

          Captor?
  26. 0
    13 November 2023 08: 11
    For the most part, I agree with the Author.

    The issue of using a certain type of weapon is from the area of ​​risk management.

    Sending your only cruiser in a theater of war into the enemy anti-ship missile coverage area and losing it does not at all mean that cruisers are useless as a class.

    In the end, if you have some kind of weapon, then you choose whether to use it or not, and when you don’t have a weapon, then you have no choice :)

    Another question is, if you don’t have such an expensive tool and you don’t know how to use it, then maybe you should spend the money on something more familiar.
  27. 0
    18 November 2023 15: 13
    Just as aviation (and aircraft carriers) did away with battleships in their time, modern weapons can do away with aircraft carriers and even AUGs. Even a not very economically developed country can easily afford long-range anti-ship missiles. Even a group like Hezbollah can afford them. No less an enemy of aircraft carriers are submarines with cruise missiles. They won't surprise anyone either. Even the powerful air defense of the AUG will not be able to repel a massive missile attack. The same story will happen as with the battleship Yamato, which was sunk by massive air raids. Only instead of planes with bombs there will be missiles. I think it was for this reason that the USSR once preferred an underwater armada instead of an aircraft carrier one. I think that the aircraft carrier armada, advanced several years ago to the shores of the DPRK, was powerless in the face of their missile arsenal. Nowadays, “aircraft carrier diplomacy” will only work against very weak countries, such as the notorious Gaza
    1. 0
      18 November 2023 15: 15
      By the way, remember how much damage only 4 Argentine missiles caused to the British aircraft carrier fleet? What will happen if dozens of these missiles fly?

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"