How many aircraft carriers does the US have and how many are actually needed?

118
How many aircraft carriers does the US have and how many are actually needed?

Interesting questions, right? How many aircraft carriers does fleet USA and how many of them are needed in general?

There may be questions in your head about the first part, but everything will be explained, the author has not forgotten how to count. But you see, mathematics, on the one hand, is a very exact science that does not allow liberties, and on the other hand, there is the geometry of Euclidean, and Riemann, and Lobachevsky... Not mathematics, but you get the essence, I hope.



Details where the devils sit. In heaps, at that.

To begin with, it’s worth unscrewing the time line a little back to October last year. When the fire broke out in Gaza and Israel, what did the United States do? Well, yes, they have the same reaction to all irritations. And accordingly, the US Navy did what it does best: dispatched an awe-inspiring amount of sea power to the site of a brewing crisis. Moreover, TWO aircraft carrier strike groups went to the Mediterranean Sea at once. That is, two aircraft carriers with their due retinue of cruisers, destroyers and submarines.


"Gerald Ford" and "Dwight Eisenhower" with retinue in the eastern Mediterranean, November 3, 2023

Many people were wondering why. Obviously, two hundred aircraft and several hundred cruise missiles are not about Palestinian terrorists with small arms. However, this floating circus showed up, burned several tons of dollars in cauldrons and perhaps strengthened the morale of the Israelis.

How could it be otherwise, when such a squadron is near your shores, there are only two options: either inspiration, if they are your own, or universal sadness, if they are strangers. Fortunately for Israel, they were their own.

In general, aircraft carriers have long served as a demonstration of naval power, but in our time everything is changing, and the seemingly familiar methods of warfare are disappearing. history. And in such a difficult time for ships, when so many new adversaries have appeared on the seas, it is worth asking the question: how many aircraft carriers does the US Navy really need?

Let's start counting?


What to count, it is common knowledge that today the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, 10 Nimitz class and 1 Ford class. Right? Right.

Now let's look in detail.

Currently, the aircraft carriers Eisenhower, Ford and Vinson are on assignment:
"Eisenhower" - in the Red Sea;
"Ford" - came from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean Sea;
"Vinson" - in the Philippines.

"Truman" - returned from modernization, gained the ability to operate the F-35C.
"Bush" - undergoing scheduled repairs after presence in the Mediterranean in 2023
The Nimitz is at Naval Station Kitsap in Washington and may be making its final deployment before retiring in 2025.
"John Stennis" - is in the process of overhauling the reactor and replacing fuel.


The Reagan, based in Japan, frequently trains with South Korean and Japanese warships

The Reagan, based in Yokosuka, Japan, returned to port after sailing through the Philippine and South China Seas.


It is the only US aircraft carrier based overseas, operating on shorter but more frequent deployments throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

Roosevelt, Washington and Lincoln are three aircraft carriers undergoing repairs that will last until the end of this year.

Total: in 2024, out of 11 aircraft carriers, three or four will actually be available to respond to crisis situations.

Here everyone understands that although the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, 11 ships will never be able to go to sea at the same time, no matter how difficult the situation is. In most cases, the Navy can deploy three or four aircraft carriers at a time. Sometimes, like December 2022, the stars align and the Navy was able to have five of its eleven aircraft carriers available at the same time.

The usual rule for deploying military units, from aircraft carriers to army combat divisions, is that it takes three to deploy one ship or unit. Of these three, one is deployed, another is preparing to take over, and the third has just come out of deployment. This cycle allows units to prepare for deployment, train personnel and prepare equipment in the first stage, in the second stage the unit operates in the field at a combat readiness level, and then a rest and recovery stage.

For ships it's pretty much the same.


Ford passes the Strait of Gibraltar, January 5, 2024

In emergency situations such as war, this can be adjusted slightly: a unit scheduled to return can remain while its replacement arrives in position, giving commanders twice as many fighters as before.

For example, the Ford was scheduled to return to Norfolk on October 17, 2023, but remained in the Mediterranean until January 1, 2024 due to the war in Gaza. Yes, it is doable, but it not only extends the typical six-month deployment, but automatically entails not only additional wear and tear on equipment, but, more importantly, it weakens the psyche of sailors.

Here you can look at the statistics of various crimes and tragedies among the crews of American aircraft carriers. Not everything is going smoothly there, and the record holder is “George Bush,” where everything happened, from trivial drug trafficking to non-trivial murders.

So, more aircraft carriers?

In general, mathematically, based on the one-third rule, it turns out that yes, the US Navy needs fifteen aircraft carriers!

This is the number of aircraft carriers that will make it possible to have five ships in service at any given time. And there are quite logical arguments for this horror.

The first argument is China. One of America's biggest geopolitical adversaries. China poses a threat in terms of a possible invasion of Taiwan, has and is putting into practice territorial claims in the South China Sea to everyone, and most importantly, threatens US allies, including Japan.

Three aircraft carriers in the Pacific at any given time is the logical minimum response to every Chinese reason. And such squadrons could become a reliable deterrent to China's ambitions. Well, at least in theory.

If Chinese strategists had to deal with three American carrier strike groups coming out to meet an invasion force heading for Taiwan, the situation here would be such that the whole world would jump up and start yelling at the participants.

But such a formation of 300 aircraft and about 1200 cruise missiles in a salvo could enable China to get out of the situation without losing face, as they say. Although, knowing the stubbornness of the Chinese, these guys can easily try to lose face to the enemy. And in the end, all this will really need to be slowed down somehow.

The same applies to any crisis in the South China Sea or involving American allies in various blocs.


USS Kitty Hawk (foreground) and USS Nimitz during joint exercises in the Western Pacific, 2008

The second factor is Europe and the Middle East. NATO (that is, the United States) believes that Russia still poses a serious threat to NATO, especially to small states in the Baltics or Scandinavia. But here I immediately want to screw up everything possible: the opportunity to drive an aircraft carrier with its retinue into the backyard of the Baltic to strengthen the spirit of smaller allies is possible, but an aircraft carrier in the Baltic Sea has never happened, and perhaps the US Navy will not fall to such horror.

But if this happened at all, it would be an interesting spectacle. Indeed, in the case of Taiwan, the great advantage of aircraft carriers is their mobility, that is, the ability to suddenly enter the theater of military operations and disrupt the enemy’s carefully thought-out plans.

I don’t know how this can be arranged in the Baltic conditions; there really isn’t enough imagination. But I would follow this show with great pleasure.

But in general, the US military already has a fair number of air bases in friendly countries in Europe, so the need for aircraft carriers is not so great. More precisely, it is tiny. And the idea of ​​​​driving a floating airfield into the Baltic straits is generally like Eysenck’s mental state test.

But seriously speaking, one aircraft carrier would be more than enough to control the Atlantic, northern seas and Mediterranean. Another one is the Indian Ocean, or rather the Persian Gulf. Pain point of the whole world. And three - please, the Pacific Ocean.


Aircraft carriers Bush and Stennis in the Strait of Hormuz, 2011

Plus, in case of emergency, the fleet could deploy another 2-4 aircraft carriers from those that will be in the third group on vacation.

You can recall an example from the last century. In 1991, the US Navy had 15 aircraft carriers, allowing it to deploy four aircraft carriers for Operation Desert Storm.


Battle force "Zulu", consisting of the aircraft carriers "Midway", "Ranger", "Theodore Roosevelt" and "America"

Agree, this power will impress anyone. But here the question arises: of course, all problems can be solved by having 15 aircraft carriers, 30 cruisers and 45-60 destroyers. Another question: where can I get the missing ones? An aircraft carrier, you know, is not a frigate.

There are two ways. The most obvious is to build more aircraft carriers, increasing the number under construction at any given time from one to two. Shipbuilding firms quietly applaud, financiers loudly go crazy over the budget.

Another option is to keep older ships in service for longer than planned. For example, the same Nimitz, which should be decommissioned in 2025, may remain until 2032. Why not, it’s only about seven years?

But here the understanding arises that the aircraft carrier ship itself is only the surface part of the iceberg. It may be worth 11 billion dollars, but there is much more hidden under the water.

Aviation group - $5 billion.
Cover ships - at least 3 destroyers (2 billion each), a tanker, a supply ship... In general, another 7-8 billion.
Each AUG is also assigned a submarine, which will cost approximately $4 billion.
Ammunition for all ships, submarines and aircraft would cost about another billion.

In general, the creation of a new AUG costs about 30 billion dollars. Four missing AUGs are 120 billion.


And each AUG, don’t forget, is about 7 people who are entitled to salary, compensation, and pensions! The ships will go on pins and needles, and people will all consume money!

And so you really start to think, why not serve the old aircraft carriers a little more?

However, it is not for us to decide, but where they will decide, it all depends on who is appointed as the decider. Today the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, much more than any other country, but what is it, if you add up all the aircraft carriers in the world that are in operational condition, you get the number 10. They will forgive me in Thailand, but their vessel today only causes healthy jokes.

That is, the United States today has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world. And if you add 11 more allied ships to the 5 American ships, then the situation turns out to be completely luxurious. We are still silent here about the condition of the Admiral Kuznetsov, which has been counted, but how much of an aircraft carrier it is is another question.

But in order to tightly and realistically control the whole world, without relying on allies (I wouldn’t, especially the French) in terms of aircraft carriers, here you really need to take matters into your own hands.

There are certainly strong arguments on the other side of the world for building more new ships. Surely there are no less compelling arguments in favor of the fact that there might not have been so many ships. Ultimately, this is all directly related to what kind of result you want to get at the end. How much the US wants to spend and how much it can afford to spend.

The $120 billion question. But with new ships. Or cheaper, but with old ones. Old ships, if they are built with soul, for themselves, they can serve. Are ours serving? But an aircraft carrier is a very complex and delicate mechanism. However, in any case, congressmen and financiers will decide. So it is quite possible that we will still see American ships, which they are already saying goodbye to there.
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +32
    26 January 2024 04: 39
    The author forgot 9 UDCs with the F-35, which can be used as light aircraft carriers. In general, the main message of the article is not very clear. Does the US have few aircraft carriers? They have 20 aircraft-carrying ships (11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers + 9 UDC). Much more if there is only one enemy at sea - China, which so far has only 2 light aircraft carriers without AWACS + 3 UDC with helicopters. And the United States also has Japan, Australia, South Korea and Taiwan among its allies/satellites.
    1. -1
      26 January 2024 04: 57
      We are talking about the rules of deployment, and this is an aircraft carrier + UDC + escort ships and for the amphibious group must also be calculated separately.
      1. +5
        26 January 2024 07: 46
        The ships will go on pins and needles, and people will all consume money!

        ABOUT! I recognize managerial thinking. laughing where people are not people, but consumers of state resources.
        1. +5
          26 January 2024 21: 41
          The author went too overboard with putting the owl on the globe. In fact, out of 11 aircraft carriers, the Americans can always ensure the exit of at least 6 AUGs, and in case of a real threat, 7-8. The same goes for escort ships. And they basically have two crews per ship, unlike, say, us.
    2. -8
      26 January 2024 07: 54
      Is it possible to take out 30 drones on a yacht and drive them into windows, doors and portholes, into elevators? Straight into the tomahawk mines? The “collective Hussites” have FPV drones and operators, and floaters, where should they fly in?
      1. -11
        26 January 2024 10: 37
        )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
      2. +3
        26 January 2024 11: 57
        Is it possible to take out 30 drones on a yacht and drive them into windows, doors and portholes, into elevators? Straight into the tomahawk mines? The “collective Hussites” have FPV drones and operators, and floaters, where should they fly in?

        Can. All that remains is to figure out how the yacht can break through the order. wink
      3. +4
        26 January 2024 21: 59
        Is it possible to take out 30 drones on a yacht and drive them into windows, doors and portholes, into elevators? Straight into the tomahawk mines? The “collective Hussites” have FPV drones and operators, and floaters, where should they fly in?

        To begin with, it would be nice to discover this AUG. This airfield constantly moves at a speed of 60 km per hour.
        Then you need to realize that there are also destroyers in the AUG and they are not at all in the same condition as our RKR Moscow, which controls the air, surface and underwater space at a completely different level. Only one destroyer, USS Carney, repelled an attack of 4 missiles and 33 drones. And in the AUG there will be 6-9 such destroyers.
        In addition, an aircraft carrier is an airfield on which essentially two mixed air regiments of our standard are based and reinforced by 8 AWACS aircraft (we have about that many for the whole country) and a squadron of electronic warfare aircraft (which we do not have at all) and they will not play football on the deck. AWACS aircraft will detect everything that flies or floats in their direction and control their destruction either by air defense systems of destroyers or missiles from aircraft, and electronic warfare systems of electronic warfare aircraft and destroyers will do everything to make the drones fall into the sea and they will succeed.
        And these same AWACS planes will detect the source of radiation and the planes will launch anti-radar missiles that will destroy all sources of radiation.
        You read about the “successes” of the Iraqi army in the battle with US aircraft carriers, then write this nonsense.
        1. -4
          26 January 2024 22: 06
          Act 135: generals are still writing nonsense in their doctorates and disposing of budgets.

          Or have you already prepared for the post-terrorist era? A new combined arms army with an infantry division and a tank battalion and 3 UAV divisions.
          83 my classmate responded to the question and indignation: how will you pass exams with such knowledge? - Allah is great, He will help.
          So the “Houthis” will master a new type of naval battle. You are not
          1. +4
            27 January 2024 00: 06
            Act 135: generals are still writing nonsense in their doctorates and disposing of budgets.

            Or have you already prepared for the post-terrorist era? A new combined arms army with an infantry division and a tank battalion and 3 UAV divisions.
            83 my classmate responded to the question and indignation: how will you pass exams with such knowledge? - Allah is great, He will help.
            So the “Houthis” will master a new type of naval battle. You are not

            Did you understand what you wrote? If you understand, please translate
        2. 0
          27 January 2024 00: 49
          If you think that an aircraft carrier is always at full speed, then I have to disappoint you. In this situation, all eleven will stand at the wall for fun, awaiting repairs (and also recharging the reactor).
          1. +1
            27 January 2024 20: 42
            If you think that an aircraft carrier is always at full speed, then I have to disappoint you. In this situation, all eleven will stand at the wall for fun, awaiting repairs (and also recharging the reactor).

            Where did you read such nonsense? I just have to laugh...
        3. +6
          27 January 2024 15: 54
          Quote: ramzay21
          To begin with, it would be nice to discover this AUG. This airfield constantly moves at a speed of 60 km per hour.


          And behind it comes a tanker at the same speed, which refuels the destroyers of the order, right? And destroyers apparently refuel at the same speed. Have you forgotten that in the entire order only three ships have nuclear power systems. The aircraft carrier itself, the cruiser Ticonderoga, and the nuclear submarine. All others require refueling.

          Quote: ramzay21
          Only one destroyer, USS Carney, repelled an attack of 4 missiles and 33 drones.

          What missiles and what drones?

          Quote: ramzay21
          In addition, an aircraft carrier is an airfield on which essentially two mixed air regiments of our standard are based and reinforced by 8 AWACS aircraft


          Firstly, there is a fundamental difference between “based” and “used” in the case of an aircraft carrier. Because it can push many aircraft into its holds, but only 27 aircraft placed on top can fight from its deck. The rest are operational and not very reserve.
          Secondly in mixed In our air regiments we may have aircraft that, when landing on the deck of a US aircraft carrier, will repeat the famous scene from the film “Banzai!” The equivalent of our fighter-bomber formations is based on an aircraft carrier.
          Third. EMNIP in the information security regiments has 3 squadrons of 12-16 aircraft. Total from 36 to 48 cars.
          That is, 36 aircraft can take off from an aircraft carrier to meet 48-34 aircraft, for example, a Su-27.

          Fourthly, not 8, but four Hawkeye-type AWACS aircraft are based on a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Of these, only ONE is based on the upper deck. TWO can be lifted into the air at the same time. Not 8.

          In short, stop scaring the audience with apocalyptic ideas. Yes, an aircraft carrier with an AUG is a serious force. But naval horror stories on this topic are already bogged down.
          1. +6
            27 January 2024 21: 22
            And behind it comes a tanker at the same speed, which refuels the destroyers of the order, right?

            You have confused destroyers with MRKs, but destroyers have decent autonomy and do not need refueling every day. AUGs being on the BS do not fly to another ocean, but MANEUVER in a given area, and in order to get fuel the destroyer only needs to communicate the meeting point with the tanker through closed channels and they refuel not as a whole crowd, but separately and at different points.
            Have you forgotten that in the entire order only three ships have nuclear power systems. The aircraft carrier itself, the cruiser Ticonderoga, and the nuclear submarine.

            Teconderoga class cruisers do not have a nuclear installation, learn the materiel. This is actually a very basic level of knowledge.
            Firstly, there is a fundamental difference between “based” and “used” in the case of an aircraft carrier. Because it can push many aircraft into its holds, but only 27 aircraft placed on top can fight from its deck. The rest are operational and not very reserve.

            After Teconderoga with the nuclear installation, your confusion in your head is quite understandable. Just read how long it takes for any of their aircraft carriers to lift their ENTIRE air wing into the sky so as not to carry nonsense. There you will also find out that the Nimets aircraft carriers have four elevators and how long it takes these elevators to lift the planes onto the deck and after what time they take off with full tanks and full ammunition.
            Fourthly, not 8, but four Hawkeye-type AWACS aircraft are based on a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Of these, only ONE is based on the upper deck. TWO can be lifted into the air at the same time. Not 8.

            The bad thing is not that you are talking nonsense, but that you are talking this nonsense while believing in it. Damn, at least read about the fact that the AUG on the BS constantly has at least two or three Hokkai in the air 24/7.
            And in general, you read about the conditional “defeat” carried out by two American AUGs on our Pacific Fleet in 1982 and about the complete powerlessness of the then Pacific Fleet described by Rear Admiral Kerev, a participant in those events. And then two of their AUGs, which quietly approached the base of our SSBNs at 200 km, carried out an attack on our SSBN base. And that base was covered by the S-300 and MiG-31, and the AUGs were looking for TWO reconnaissance air regiments on the Tu-16R plus two submarine brigades plus a dozen TFR plus the Legend space system, and the MRA division flew out for conditional destruction on the Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M3.
            Now we don’t have a single long-range reconnaissance regiment in the whole country and not even a single MRA regiment, but you’ve gathered together using fantastic means known only to you to find AUGs and damn them to drown them. The same nonsense was uttered by people like you in 1905, and it all ended with Port Arthur and Tsushima.
        4. 0
          April 16 2024 23: 28
          Is it impossible to detect AUG from satellites?
          1. 0
            April 17 2024 07: 57
            Is it impossible to detect AUG from satellites?

            If you have at least three thousand optical reconnaissance satellites in orbit capable of seeing at night and through clouds, then yes it is possible! But even the United States does not have this, although they already have satellites capable of seeing at night and through clouds.
            Their AUGs easily bypass everything else, which they well demonstrated in 1982 Pacific Fleet in the Pacific Ocean and later Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea, although at that time we even had active RER satellites with a nuclear reactor on board as part of the Legend! And then we had, as they would now say, loaves that had no analogues in the world, carriers of Granit anti-ship missiles with a range of 700 km, the salvo of which was then impossible to repel. Only without detecting the target and issuing control commands to them, they turned out to be useless, and we had nothing to detect their AUG even with those means.
            To be fair, in the Northern Fleet our aviation still discovered their AUG and our MRA practiced an anti-ship missile attack against it, but in a real war their AUG would have managed to destroy our bases
    3. +5
      26 January 2024 09: 11
      Quote: Belisarius
      Does the US have few aircraft carriers?

      It depends on what tasks?
      If it is only for showdowns with the PRC Navy (in a vacuum), then it is quite enough, but if for playing the role of a “world gendarme”, a permanent/global presence in all strategic points of the world’s oceans is no longer enough. Even in the case of the Taiwan crisis alone: ​​the US Navy will have to have an overwhelming advantage at sea over the Chinese Navy and Air Force, mandatory deployment of forces in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and the North Atlantic (for it is unknown how Russia will be involved in the conflict). There will be inevitable losses that need to be mitigated. And we come to the conclusion that the IUD can’t handle all this. Allies? Yes, they are available in commercial quantities, but quantity is not an indicator of quality. Are there many countries in the world capable of equipping a serious AUG/KUG to help? In fact, there are only three such states: R. Korea (but its forces will be constrained as much as possible by the DPRK Armed Forces, the Chinese will take care of this...), Great Britain (but then the Atlantic will be “naked”), Japan is the only strong ally at sea (but with condition of neutral Russia, and if not, then their Navy will have enough work to stop the threat from the Pacific Fleet). France/Italy/Germany are unlikely to be able to seriously change the balance of power.

      Quote: Belisarius
      They have 20 aircraft-carrying ships (11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers + 9 UDC).

      There are 20 aircraft carriers, but it is unlikely that UDCs will be used as pure light aircraft carriers, because then they will lose their meaning as UDCs, and the ILC without them will look pale. But a hypothetical conflict with China will imply the mandatory blocking/destruction of numerous garrisons of bulk islands in the South China Sea, where the main driving force will be the ILC.
      The most interesting thing is, what meaning did the author put into writing the article? The fact that having 11 aircraft carriers is again/again not enough? Apparently this is true. But why do we need US problems? Let them decide for themselves...
      1. +3
        26 January 2024 10: 06
        The most interesting thing is, what meaning did the author put into writing the article?
        Purely economic, personal. As in most others.
        1. +1
          26 January 2024 19: 58
          Quote: Aviator_
          The most interesting thing is, what meaning did the author put into writing the article?
          Purely economic, personal. As in most others.

          good lol
      2. +1
        26 January 2024 10: 29
        Quote: Doccor18
        There are 20 aircraft carriers, but it is unlikely that UDCs will be used as pure light aircraft carriers, because then they will lose their meaning as UDCs, and the ILC without them will look pale. But a hypothetical conflict with China will imply the mandatory blocking/destruction of numerous garrisons of bulk islands in the South China Sea, where the main driving force will be the ILC.

        I can already see this epic picture:
        Admirals: "Thank you for ordering ships capable of carrying the F-35 - we will use them to carry out naval missions."
        KMP: ".... Damn, it seems we overdid it with improving the UDC. We should have limited ourselves to helicopter carriers."
        smile
        1. +1
          26 January 2024 10: 52
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Damn, it seems we went overboard with improving the UDC. We should have limited ourselves to helicopter carriers."

          Well, there’s no need to exaggerate so much, but it’s unlikely that we’ll see two dozen 35s on most UDCs, but to support advanced company/battalion groups, 6-8 vehicles each is quite...
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Admirals: "Thank you for ordering ships capable of carrying the F-35 - we...
          KMP: ".... Damn...

          It is possible that this is exactly the case. Gryznya there has a long tradition.
          hi
          1. +2
            26 January 2024 16: 02
            Quote: Doccor18
            Well, there’s no need to exaggerate so much, but it’s unlikely that we’ll see two dozen 35s on most UDCs, but to support advanced company/battalion groups, 6-8 vehicles each is quite...

            Yes, it is clear that when working in the interests of the ILC, a mixed wing of strikers and transport workers will sit on the UDC.
            The problem of the ILC is that the ability to operate from the decks of the F-35 UDC makes these ships attractive for large fleet - "let's forget about the landing and put an attack or anti-submarine wing on the deck". smile
          2. -6
            26 January 2024 19: 07
            How much can 6 - 8 "penguins" lift? How can they help the MP Expeditionary Battalion? If only a landing without enemy resistance.
            1. +3
              26 January 2024 22: 51
              He will help in any way he can. Don’t you really think that the Navy will leave its expeditionary/landing forces to the will of fate if the enemy on the coast is not yet finished!?
              It’s just that the ILC “penguins” will act in the interests of the ILC, that’s all, and the Navy MA will support and ensure the actions of the ILC aviation.
              PS, in principle, it is not excluded that there will be no resistance from the enemy (although this is unlikely).
              1. -2
                27 January 2024 10: 17
                The AUG will have its own tasks, perhaps completely different ones. And the issues of fire support for the landing will fall on the UDC air group and it simply may not have enough firepower, primarily due to the fact that the “penguin” in vertical takeoff and landing mode consumes a lot of fuel, and the combat load is minimal. Not to mention the fact that there has always been a certain antagonism between the Navy and the MP. And the navy will not pull chestnuts out of the fire for the Marines.
                1. 0
                  27 January 2024 11: 43
                  The ILC is the fleet. There are no contradictions here. Here the army and the navy are at odds, and sometimes the USAF is screwed over. BUT, the issue here is mainly financial. I have not seen any reports of one branch of American troops abandoning another during a war.
                  1. -1
                    27 January 2024 11: 51
                    These are two different, although related structures. ILC - reports directly to the President, he can use the ILC without the permission of Congress. Therefore, the Congress always keeps the MP “in black body”. They get everything last.
                    And the fleet can only be used with the permission of Congress. Although, strikes against Yemen, without congressional approval, create an interesting and dangerous precedent.
                  2. +1
                    29 January 2024 11: 23
                    Quote: puteovii
                    I have not seen any reports of one branch of American troops abandoning another during a war.

                    The 1st Marine Division on Guadalcanal grins bitterly. First, Fletcher abandoned the Marines, taking away the aircraft carriers. And Turner left behind him, taking with him part of the unlanded marines, 60% of the ammunition and two-thirds of food and other supplies.
                    And the division was left on the shore alone, incomplete, with ammunition for four days of fighting and food (including trophies) for seventeen days.
                    Actually, the bitter experience of interaction between the Marine Corps and the “big fleet”, expressed in the fact that the fleet fulfills its tasks and can leave at any moment to complete them, led the Marines to the conclusion that salvation of drowning - the work of the drowning. After that, AVEs with their own ILC squadrons appeared as part of DESO, designed to support the landing force in the period from landing to the capture of coastal airfields. After the war, AVE was gradually written off - but a residue remained. And the Marine Corps began ordering ships with the ability to provide air support for landings.
                    The current UDCs are precisely the heirs of these AVEs: there is no hope for the fleet, support for the ILC is the concern of the ILC and only.
                2. +1
                  28 January 2024 13: 59
                  The AUG will have its own tasks, perhaps completely different ones.
                  They (the Navy and the Marine Corps) will have the tasks assigned to them by the high command, and they will carry them out, so you cannot say that the Marine Corps will be left completely without naval support and the support of the AUG. Moreover, operating with such a thesis
                  Not to mention the fact that there has always been a certain antagonism between the Navy and the MP. And the navy will not pull chestnuts out of the fire for the Marines.
                  . Forgive me, this seems like complete nonsense to me.
                  And as for the questions “the minimum combat load may or may not be enough,” these are conventions that we cannot verify. Yes, and it all depends on the effectiveness of the strikes. Take our Su-34/30SM, in the Northern Military District, they are not limited by anything in terms of combat load and naturally we can say with all confidence that they take more than the F-35V, BUT what is the effectiveness of these strikes that they inflict with those UMPC against the enemy? Does this make our troops feel better, are we breaking through the defenses? Are we causing damage to their logistics facilities, interrupting their supply? You can even hang the entire plane with ASP, but that won’t make it any better.
                  1. -1
                    28 January 2024 15: 08
                    Let me explain popularly. The Marine Corps is operationally subordinate to the Navy. Administratively and command - they are led by the President of the United States. Hence the problem
                    The Marines want a lot of landing ships, but the Navy doesn’t need them for nothing. On board the UDC there are marines, including MP aviation, just passengers. Because the ship and crew are subordinate to the Navy. This is not the USSR (Russia), where the MP brigade is subordinate to the fleet commander. If you haven’t paid attention, in the mattress Navy it is clearly stated in the names of the squadrons that these are MP squadrons.
                    1. 0
                      28 January 2024 17: 35
                      And I don't see any problems in this. You are now simply fixated on how this is supposedly happening at the moment. But now the United States is not at war with anyone globally. And during the war, firstly, only such a hierarchy as you describe will cease to be valid, since the US people are not fools, and will act as the situation dictates and as they plan their operations. And secondly, it will be necessary to carry out reforms to reassign the ILC.
                      And according to your logic (roughly speaking), the Marine Corps will say that the prizedent told us to disembark there, to which the Navy will answer them... and for us, as far as the lantern is concerned, we are sailing there. So what happens!?
                      Yes, I described it a little crookedly, but I think you understand me. It seems to me that you present the upcoming actions and interactions of the US Navy and Marine Corps, and indeed the entire US Armed Forces, too clumsily.
                      1. -1
                        28 January 2024 18: 05
                        Who declares war? War is authorized to begin by Congress, at the request of the President. After war is declared, everything comes under the control of the military, including the ships of the Armed Forces. But this is after the declaration of war. And now, the United States is not officially at war with anyone, so the peacetime scheme is in effect. I repeat, Congress really does not like the MP because of its direct subordination to the Prez.
                        Therefore, until 2016, the MP had M1A1 tanks in service, while the SV had long since switched to M1A2 tanks. The MP retained the Harriers when the Air Force had already switched to the Penguins. And so it is in everything.
                      2. 0
                        28 January 2024 18: 51
                        Well, listen, I still think it’s worth considering the supposed participation of the United States in a major military conflict. Why consider a period of peace for this country? Naturally, in peacetime there will be no global changes)
                      3. +1
                        29 January 2024 16: 47
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Therefore, until 2016, the MP had M1A1 tanks in service, while the SV had long since switched to M1A2 tanks.

                        Heh heh heh... and they do it like that every time. "The bestial grin of American imperialism“managed to start transferring to Abrams, EMNIP, together with Egypt - when American fuel oil had long since switched to M1 not only in Europe, but also in the Metropolis, and M60 went to NG.
                        And if you remember the story of how the KMP, instead of buying new infantry fighting vehicles, simply renamed floating armored personnel carriers from the Vietnam era into “assault vehicles”... laughing
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        The MP retained the Harriers when the Air Force had already switched to the Penguins.

                        I’ll tell you more - in order to maintain the combat readiness of its AV-8s, the KMP wanted to buy decommissioned Harriers from Britain for disassembly for spare parts.

                        In general, poor housing in all its glory. And I’m not even talking about “Cobras” and “Twin Hueys”... and about the failure of an attempt to buy deck-based Apaches - too expensive.
                  2. +1
                    29 January 2024 11: 30
                    Quote: Sanguinius
                    They (the Navy and the Marine Corps) will have the tasks assigned to them by the high command, and they will carry them out, so you cannot say that the Marine Corps will be left completely without naval support and the support of the AUG.

                    The problem is that the tasks of the fleet and infantry are different. The fleet ensures global supremacy at sea and in the air in the area - and for this it is more advantageous for it to meet the enemy at distant approaches. At the same time leaving the coast without air support. And in general, for the fleet the priority is naval tasks, and not picking at fortifications on the shore. The Marines have their own aviation - so let them do that.
                    And it turns out that the AUG was whistled behind the decoy group, the DESO fire support group cut down with some incoming formation - and the Marines were left alone against Yamato and Co.. smile
      3. 0
        26 January 2024 14: 49
        It depends on what tasks?
        If it is only for showdowns with the PRC Navy (in a vacuum), then it is quite enough, but if for playing the role of a “world gendarme”, a permanent/global presence in all strategic points of the world’s oceans is no longer enough.

        The global task of the ocean fleet is one - control of maritime transport. Or, more precisely, preventing a blockade of one’s own shores and a blockade of the enemy’s shores.
        What we tried to do in the Black Sea, what the Houthis are trying to do, what the Germans tried to do with Great Britain in the Second World War, what they tried to do everything and always during the time of the sailing fleet.

        Naval battles between fleets are a derivative of this main goal.
        This is how Americans think. In accordance with the Machem Doctrine.

        For us, with our, in principle, small volume of necessary sea transportation and sufficient internal resources, it is advisable to take care of a large fleet of small MAPL hunters. 60 pieces.
        This will dramatically increase the headaches in Washington. And it's real.
        1. 0
          26 January 2024 16: 32
          Quote: Arzt
          The global task of the ocean fleet is one - control of maritime transport.

          And how to do this without being present in all strategic points of the world's oceans?

          Quote: Arzt
          Or, more precisely, preventing a blockade of one’s own shores and a blockade of the enemy’s shores.

          What is the fastest way to do this? Apparently, destroy the enemy battle fleet... Yes

          Quote: Arzt
          In accordance with the Machem Doctrine.

          A decisive battle, the destruction of the enemy combat component - this is the main message of Mahan’s strategy. Blocking, combating trade, cruising war are only auxiliary measures, but not the basis. And whoever starts to confuse loses, the Germans in WWII will not let you lie.

          Quote: Arzt
          It would be advisable for us to take care of a large fleet of small MAPL hunters. 60 pieces.

          Nuclear submarines alone cannot ensure dominance even in the few “bastions” we need. The fleet is a complex structure. Without the surface component, without naval aviation, ultimately everything will end in tears...

          Quote: Arzt
          This will dramatically increase headaches in Washington

          If only so, but it is not able to bring a comprehensive victory at sea...
          1. +4
            26 January 2024 18: 59

            Quote: Arzt
            The global task of the ocean fleet is one - control of maritime transport.

            And how to do this without being present in all strategic points of the world's oceans?


            But there is no need for all of them. We need the right ones.
            The Germans in 1942 do not need Madagascar, they are blockading England.
            In 1942 we do not need the Vladik - Okhotsk route; we need to provide wiring for the PQ-17.
            It is enough for the Houthis to hold the Red Sea area.

            Concentration and projection of force.
          2. +1
            26 January 2024 19: 05
            Nuclear submarines alone cannot ensure dominance even in the few “bastions” we need. The fleet is a complex structure. Without the surface component, without naval aviation, ultimately everything will end in tears...

            In the long term - yes. And now there’s no time for fat. But it is quite possible even now to pin down a significant part of their navy with submarines.
      4. +2
        26 January 2024 16: 46
        Hmm, do you seriously think that the entire Japanese fleet will be occupied by the Pacific Fleet? Yes, even a third is enough for him. And even a quarter of the American fleet is enough for the Russian fleet. So, if anything happens, almost everything will be concentrated against China without any problems.

        1. -1
          26 January 2024 17: 06
          Quote: Kmon
          Do you think that the entire Japanese fleet will be occupied by the Pacific Fleet? Yes, even a third is enough for him

          It depends on how the Pacific Fleet operates... There’s no point in underestimating its capabilities.

          Quote: Kmon
          So, if anything happens, almost everything will be concentrated against China without any problems.

          That’s the point, if Russia remains 100% neutral (which is hard to believe), then it will be extremely difficult for China.
        2. -4
          26 January 2024 19: 09
          And how many special warheads need to be “put” on Japanese nuclear power plants for Japan to turn into an uninhabited island?))) here you don’t even need the Pacific Fleet, the Strategic Missile Forces are enough.
          1. 0
            26 January 2024 19: 16
            And then American special warheads will fly in response.
            1. -1
              27 January 2024 21: 33
              Why the fright? Do you think the United States will agree to mutual destruction because of Japan? For her, samurai are just as expendable as Bandera’s men. Nothing personal - just business.
              1. -1
                30 January 2024 15: 23
                By this logic, the USSR could easily win the Cold War by simply launching nuclear strikes on Germany, Belgium, Japan and others (and Russia on Poland, Germany and others). The cowardly Americans will not want to die and will dry themselves off, the no less cowardly Gay Europeans will surrender, NATO will fall apart.
                1. 0
                  30 January 2024 22: 53
                  What kind of blow are you talking about? Should I hit back or hit first? If the strike is retaliatory, then Russia is in its right. Regarding the Cold War, the West was no less afraid than we were. Because the territories of the USSR are huge and it is not guaranteed to destroy everything. But certain regions of Europe and the USA are very compact and it is quite possible to ensure 100% defeat.
        3. 0
          27 January 2024 16: 02
          Quote: Kmon
          Hmm, do you seriously think that the entire Japanese fleet will be occupied by the Pacific Fleet? Yes, even a third is enough for him. And even a quarter of the American fleet is enough for the Russian fleet. So, if anything happens, almost everything will be concentrated against China without any problems.



          ??? Provided that the bases are also destroyed? Or did you decide that if the Japanese got stuck in our Pacific Fleet in Russia, they would make the decision “I’m being honest!” Fleet to fleet. Let me remind you, just in case, that the flight range of modern air-launched missiles is such that a Tu-95, for launch at any point in Japan, can simply circle over the airfield, shoot back and land right away. Why do you reduce Russia’s participation specifically to the actions of the Pacific Fleet?
          1. -1
            30 January 2024 15: 24
            The entire history of strategic bombings up to and including the Northern Military District shows that it is very difficult to destroy infrastructure to an irreparable state. In our case, it is generally unrealistic, because there is no analogue to the thousands of bombers that leveled everything in WWII.
    4. +2
      26 January 2024 13: 06
      UDC is very much not an aircraft carrier, for many reasons. What has been said here several times.
    5. 0
      8 February 2024 20: 59
      Agree. The article is clearly incomplete in meaning and essence.
  2. 0
    26 January 2024 05: 44
    And Swedish
    And the reaper
    And on the pipe the player
    (Folk wisdom)
  3. +6
    26 January 2024 07: 25
    Stop being jealous! An excellent economy, once the right decisions were made, a successful fleet concept, this is the formula for success and dominance. Why bother?
    1. +3
      26 January 2024 09: 10
      That’s right - it’s not good to envy.)) Well, what can you do if you yourself have little more than nothing to do in this regard - just procrastinate.
    2. -7
      26 January 2024 19: 11
      As for the excellent economy and the right concept, I would not rush to conclusions. The Matsoland fleet is losing in competition with the Chinese in the medium term. Therefore, the problem of Taiwan (China) needs to be solved in the foreseeable future, then it will be too late.
      1. +1
        27 January 2024 19: 44
        Quote: TermNachTER
        The Matsoland fleet is losing in competition with the Chinese in the medium term

        What is this???
        1. -1
          27 January 2024 21: 35
          About how many ships the USA has and how many China has. And the growth rate. And the mattress fleet is spread all over the globe, and the Chinese fleet is all over its shores. And further, the situation for mattress covers will only get worse.
  4. +3
    26 January 2024 08: 23
    [/quote]mathematics, on the one hand, is a very exact science that does not allow liberties, and on the other hand, there is the geometry of Euclidean, and Riemann, and Lobachevsky... Not mathematics, but you get the gist, I hope.
    - and we were taught at school and at college that geometry is a branch of mathematics, like arithmetic, trigonometry, etc.
    To deploy one ship or unit you need three. Of these three, one is deployed, another is preparing to take his place, and the third has just come out of deployment[quote]
    - for ships yes, for military units and units no. The author confuses the concepts of “equipment” and “military unit”. The equipment really needs repairs; it needs a period of mastering its hp. etc. But the military unit does not need repairs; after its formation, it is ready for combat, and if it is not defeated or critically damaged, then it can easily maintain its combat capability for a very long time, making do with marching reinforcements prepared in the rear.
  5. +7
    26 January 2024 08: 47
    Total: in 2024, out of 11 aircraft carriers, three or four will actually be available to respond to crisis situations.

    Let's try to count
    Currently, the aircraft carriers Eisenhower, Ford and Vinson are on assignment

    Three
    "Truman" - returned from modernization, gained the ability to operate the F-35C.

    Four
    The Nimitz is at Naval Station Kitsap in Washington and may be making its final deployment before retiring in 2025.

    Five
    The Reagan, based in Yokosuka, Japan, returned to port after sailing through the Philippine and South China Seas.

    Six.
    In general, mathematically, based on sending one third, it turns out that yes, the US Navy needs fifteen aircraft carriers

    That's right, the US Navy thinks so too.
    but an aircraft carrier in the Baltic Sea - this has never happened, and perhaps the US Navy will not fall to such horror.

    Certainly. They will never send AB to the Baltic
    You can recall an example from the last century. In 1991, the US Navy had 15 aircraft carriers, allowing it to deploy four aircraft carriers for Operation Desert Storm.

    Six. "America", "Saratoga", "John F. Kennedy", "Theodore Roosevelt", "Ranger" and "Midway".
    1. +3
      26 January 2024 08: 54
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      "America", "Saratoga", "John F. Kennedy", "Theodore Roosevelt", "Ranger" and "Midway".

      There I remember one of the ships was detained in service due to such a thing. For several months the US had 16 AB.
      1. +1
        26 January 2024 09: 27
        Quote: Negro
        For several months the US had 16 AB.

        I don’t remember, honestly, I think it was 15, but I won’t let my head be cut off
      2. +2
        26 January 2024 10: 38
        There I remember one of the ships was detained in service due to such a thing.

        Midway was built during World War II, laid down in 1943, commissioned in 1945. Decommissioned in 1992.
  6. +8
    26 January 2024 10: 24
    The second factor is Europe and the Middle East. NATO (that is, the United States) believes that Russia still poses a serious threat to NATO, especially to small states in the Baltics or Scandinavia. But here I immediately want to screw up everything possible: the opportunity to drive an aircraft carrier with its retinue into the backyard of the Baltic to strengthen the spirit of smaller allies is possible, but an aircraft carrier in the Baltic Sea has never happened, and perhaps the US Navy will not fall to such horror.

    But besides the Baltic, there are no other seas in Europe that Russia has access to? wink
    I’ll give you a hint - just to the north there are a couple of seas, for which two fleets are responsible - the Sixth and the Second. In which US ABs graze regularly. And in those parts there is enough space for AB, and shelters just in case for the whole AUG.
    But seriously speaking, one aircraft carrier would be more than enough to control the Atlantic, northern seas and Mediterranean.

    Yeah, one aircraft carrier spread out from the Barents Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. Which simultaneously projects power both on Hamasobolla in the Mediterranean and on the empire of red bears in the North. smile
  7. +6
    26 January 2024 10: 34
    But you see, mathematics, on the one hand, is a very exact science that does not allow liberties

    Exact science is arithmetic, not mathematics.
    Many people were wondering why. Obviously, two hundred aircraft and several hundred cruise missiles are not about Palestinian terrorists with small arms.

    Then, so that there are no people willing to intervene in what is happening in the Gaza Strip. And it wasn’t found, which is typical.
    1. -4
      26 January 2024 19: 13
      Those who were going - Hezbollah - intervened and two AUGs somehow did not interfere with them)))
  8. -3
    26 January 2024 12: 03
    As for me, our option is UDC with vertical take-off aircraft. Firstly, it’s real, secondly it’s cheap, and thirdly it’s enough. hi
    1. +2
      26 January 2024 16: 37
      Quote: Arzt
      thirdly it is enough.

      It depends on what...

      Quote: Arzt
      UDC with vertical take-off aircraft. Firstly it’s real, secondly it’s cheap

      Realistically, but regarding “cheap”, not everything is so clear...
      1. 0
        27 January 2024 09: 37
        Realistically, but regarding “cheap”, not everything is so clear...

        If you are talking about fuel, then in the Russian Federation it is like dirt. The plane itself is, yes, more expensive. But the UDC + air group combination is cheaper. And most importantly, we will have them in 2027. All we need is a plane.
        And AB is fantastic. wink
        1. +1
          27 January 2024 10: 36
          Quote: Arzt
          If you are talking about fuel

          No, I'm not talking about fuel. I'm just talking about VTOL aircraft. As long as it is created and perfected, it will be possible to safely build a classic aircraft carrier...
          Quote: Arzt
          But the UDC + air group combination is cheaper.

          Of course, three times, but also five times weaker...
          Quote: Arzt
          And most importantly, we will have them in 2027. All we need is a plane.

          This is the crux of the problem.
          Quote: Arzt
          AB this is fantastic

          Yes, I wouldn't say "fantastic". Complex, expensive, but not at all fantastic. We could handle ships of this scale, we know how to build nuclear reactors, the deck can be capitalized, we just don’t have AWACS and electronic warfare aircraft.
        2. 0
          29 January 2024 16: 53
          Quote: Arzt
          But the UDC + air group combination is cheaper.

          And more useless. Because without AWACS, all this splendor will be just a mass-dimensional mockup of an aircraft carrier. And so many AWACS helicopters, with their speeds and flight time, will be required to ensure standard duty “24/7, 100 miles from order” that they will halve the air group.
          Quote: Arzt
          And most importantly, we will have them in 2027. All we need is a plane.

          Half the battle is done - the bride agrees. All that remains is to persuade Rockefeller. © laughing
      2. +1
        27 January 2024 09: 39
        It depends on what...

        For the defense of the coast and important areas. For individual operations anywhere in the ocean without butting heads with the Americans, too.
        For a war with them at sea - of course not. But there are already other arrangements...
        1. +3
          27 January 2024 11: 00
          Quote: Arzt
          For coastal defense

          Suitable for coastal defense are: coastal anti-ship missiles and air defense systems, MA, MPK and MAPL/NAPL regiments.
          A low-speed UDC with a couple of dozen VTOL aircraft itself needs to be protected, thoroughly protected, and if a classic AUG is deployed against it, then its chances of survival are rapidly approaching zero. Of course, he will not “butt heads” with any Americans in distant corners. The maximum is to reach the shores of Syria/Kuril Islands. But its combat value will always be limited. This combat unit is good for only one task - the maximum reinforcement of the Marine battalion/regiment upon landing. Maybe as a means of strengthening classic aircraft carrier forces, but nothing more...
          I fully understand your concern, UDCs with VTOL aircraft in the near future look much more realistic than nuclear-powered Ulyanovsk, but... for me, it’s better to use these funds: 1. for the construction of a ship engine plant in order to triple the production of frigates, 2. for overhaul of Kuznetsov and modernization of carrier-based fighters, incl. with a version of the electronic warfare aircraft, 3. in the future (after graduation from the Northern Military District) to begin the design and construction of a classic aircraft carrier of moderate displacement with a nuclear power plant.
          hi
          1. -2
            27 January 2024 13: 57
            Suitable for coastal defense are: coastal anti-ship missiles and air defense systems, MA, MPK and MAPL/NAPL regiments.

            Open the map and figure it out. One such ship, with aircraft with a combat radius of 800 km, will completely control the Barents, Kara, Okhotsk, and Bering Seas. Being pushed 500 miles from Avacha Bay is guaranteed to ensure a hidden exit for our nuclear submarines.
            Coastal is the last frontier.

            A low-speed UDC with a couple of dozen VTOL aircraft itself needs to be protected, thoroughly protected, and if a classic AUG is deployed against it, then its chances of survival are rapidly approaching zero. Of course, he will not “butt heads” with any Americans in distant corners.

            Regular AB also needs to be protected. And against the classic AUG we field 2 UDCs with an escort. You can also butt heads.

            But its combat value will always be limited.

            Compared to classic AB - undoubtedly. Just like a heavy cruiser compared to a battleship. Send a couple of cruisers, what a problem. If only the main caliber matches.

            I fully understand your concern, UDCs with VTOL aircraft in the near future look much more realistic than nuclear-powered Ulyanovsk, but... for me, it’s better to use these funds: 1. for the construction of a ship engine plant in order to triple the production of frigates, 2. for overhaul of Kuznetsov and modernization of carrier-based fighters, incl. with a version of the electronic warfare aircraft, 3. in the future (after graduation from the Northern Military District) to begin the design and construction of a classic aircraft carrier of moderate displacement with a nuclear power plant.

            Yes, this is a real topic. As for the rest, I agree with everything except Kuznetsov. It's good to torment the little animal. laughing
            1. +2
              27 January 2024 14: 54
              Quote: Arzt
              I agree with everything except Kuznetsov

              Be that as it may, Kuznetsov needs to be dragged, because without him that very thin and fragile thread - carrier-based aviation, or more precisely, pilots - will disappear. Before a new nuclear power plant comes into operation, you need to have at least something; training on the ground complex and on the deck of an aircraft carrier is incomparable (according to the same pilots).
              Quote: Arzt
              One such ship, with aircraft with a combat radius of 800 km, will completely control the Barents, Kara, Okhotsk, and Bering Seas.

              It won’t, I don’t have enough strength. In fact, he will be able to constantly keep no more than 4 cars in the air (this is ideal), but in reality - 2. What seas and oceans? Without DLRO planes...
              Quote: Arzt
              Regular AB also needs to be protected. And against the classic AUG we field 2 UDCs with an escort. You can also butt heads.

              J. Ford. has 5 Hokai, 1 of them constantly in the air + 4 fighters (in the threatened period up to 8) against 4-8 VTOL aircraft from two UDCs, without their “far eyes”, obviously having less fuel (combat radius), carrying less combat load ...
              Two UDCs with 40-50 VTOL aircraft will still be inferior both quantitatively and qualitatively to one atomic 100 kt. aircraft carrier. During a threatened period (for a short time), Nimitz/Ford can take on board up to 72 Hornets + 5 Hawkeyes. Evaluate the schedules for yourself...
              Quote: Arzt
              Just like a heavy cruiser compared to a battleship. Send a couple of cruisers, what a problem. If only the main caliber matches.

              And again I disagree, sorry wink Choosing between 9-405 mm. and 18-203 mm. I'll choose the first...
            2. +5
              27 January 2024 16: 26
              Quote: Arzt
              Open the map and figure it out. One such ship, with aircraft with a combat radius of 800 km, will completely control the Barents, Kara, Okhotsk, and Bering Seas. Being pushed 500 miles from Avacha Bay is guaranteed to ensure a hidden exit for our nuclear submarines.


              No, he can't. If only because the United States will be able to drag two or three Nimitz against one such ship. And create an overwhelming superiority in the number of aircraft.
              In addition, the question has already been asked many times: WHY is an aircraft-carrying ship needed? After all, it’s one thing to fight enemy ships, another thing to fight carrier-based aircraft. And the third thing is air strikes on the coast. If attacks are planned on ships, then you need to remember that over the last 30 years, the US has been strengthening ONLY the air defense/missile defense component of ships. And most likely, in an attack on an AUG order, the air link will be reduced to zero in 1-2 times. The plane is a convenient target for air defense. Here is a supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missile - no. And a breakthrough of the US PJSC/MD AUG with such a missile is much more likely. Therefore, to attack ships, we need not aircraft carriers, but missile carriers.
              Same for shore shots. Coastal air defense has practically unlimited ammunition resources compared to the fleet, and is superior to naval systems both in terms of energy and echelon depth. And again, it is more likely to break through the air defense/missile defense here with missiles rather than airplanes.
              Are there any flaws in my reasoning?
              It turns out that an air defense aircraft carrier is needed. Fly airplanes, right?
              And here many questions immediately arise regarding the composition of the air wing. We need not just airplanes, we need airplanes that are superior in performance characteristics to the US aircraft. And it is fighter aircraft, and not information security or attack vehicles. With long-range missiles, but not heavy ones. And you definitely need an AWACS aircraft. And preferably a developed shipborne radar detection and air wing control system. And it would be even better to greatly expand the system of satellite active radars.

              And somehow it turns out that airplanes with vertical takeoff/landing and a ship don’t really fit under them...
              1. +1
                27 January 2024 20: 19
                Quote: abc_alex
                Therefore, to attack ships, we need not aircraft carriers, but missile carriers.

                I agree with you, but only partly. For example, having 24 deck-based ISs, you can send 48-72 anti-ship missiles towards the enemy’s command and control group, and after two hours the same number... Even Peter the Great is not capable of this, or up to 6 frigates are needed. Moreover, it is much more difficult to repel an aviation attack (combat radius up to 1000 km + 300-500 km range of anti-ship missiles + electronic warfare aircraft) than to provide surveillance of an enemy ship/ships 300-500 km away. from AUG...

                Quote: abc_alex
                Same for shore shots. Coastal air defense has practically unlimited ammunition resources compared to the fleet, and is superior to naval systems both in energy and separation depth

                I completely agree here. It will be impossible to pin down an enemy that is technically equal with one Fleet.

                Quote: abc_alex
                It turns out that an air defense aircraft carrier is needed. Fly airplanes, right?

                Absolutely agree. The Russian Navy has and will need an air defense aircraft carrier. For him, there are simply a ton of tasks in the Navy: the fight against enemy carrier-based aircraft, the destruction of numerous enemy reconnaissance and anti-submarine aircraft, and possibly the destruction of enemy SLCMs launched towards our coast. And all this in a numerical minority...
                Quote: abc_alex
                We need aircraft that are superior in performance characteristics to US aircraft. And it is fighter aircraft, and not information security or attack vehicles.

                Exactly!
                Quote: abc_alex
                Somehow it turns out that airplanes with vertical takeoff/landing and a ship don’t really fit under them...

                They don't fit in at all. These must be heavy vehicles with the maximum possible fuel supply (radius and patrol time), the maximum possible combat load (the more missiles, the better), good flight characteristics, powerful avionics, two-seater, in a word - it must be a masterpiece of the national aircraft industry. It is precisely this aircraft that should become the cornerstone of the entire national aircraft carrier program. Not 80 kt. a ship, not a reactor and a catapult with finishers, but a carrier-based interceptor fighter with maximum parameters. In combination with massive modern frigates and medium-displacement small submarines, such a Navy will simply cause panic in the camp of the Ameros/Anglo-Saxons. It seems to me that shipyards and aircraft factories will need to be protected no worse than the Kremlin...
                1. +1
                  27 January 2024 20: 30
                  Quote: Doccor18
                  48-72 anti-ship missiles, and two hours later the same number...

                  Here I was wrong, about four hours later, no less.
          2. 0
            29 January 2024 03: 32
            Quote: Doccor18
            so it’s better to use these funds: 1. for the construction of a ship engine plant to triple the production of frigates,
            Yes Hello!!

            Quote: Doccor18
            2. for major repairs of Kuznetsov and modernization of carrier-based fighters,
            recourse but it already seems like there are at least 4-5 frigates there... what stop stop
    2. -1
      26 January 2024 19: 15
      I won’t even “chew” the fallacy of your thought; I could write a couple of pages. I will only say one thing: during vertical takeoff and landing, the “penguin” has a minimal combat load - that says it all.
      1. -1
        27 January 2024 09: 32
        I won’t even “chew” the fallacy of your thought; I could write a couple of pages. I will only say one thing: during vertical takeoff and landing, the “penguin” has a minimal combat load - that says it all.

        What does minimum mean? The deck C has 8160, the vertical C has 6800. Quite.
        MIG has 29K - 4500, just in case. wink
        1. 0
          27 January 2024 10: 27
          The Lockheed company loves to juggle numbers, especially when it comes to selling its products. An airplane is also an interesting device; to fly further, you need more fuel, which means less fuel and vice versa. Therefore, theoretically, a vertical “penguin” can lift 6 loads, but what will be the range and maneuverability?
          1. 0
            27 January 2024 13: 36
            The Lockheed company loves to juggle numbers, especially when it comes to selling its products. An airplane is also an interesting device; to fly further, you need more fuel, which means less fuel and vice versa. Therefore, theoretically, a vertical “penguin” can lift 6 loads, but what will be the range and maneuverability?

            The deck-based F-35C has a range of 2220 km, while the vertical F-35B has a range of 1670.
            Look at the combat radius, it is measured with a full BC, that’s more accurate. The vertical one is smaller, of course, but it’s quite enough. 830 km. From Moscow to Kyiv 760. wink
            1. 0
              27 January 2024 15: 51
              Didn’t Wikipedia write about the fact that the Penguin has serious engine problems? What, you need to either remake the engine along with part of the airframe, or limit the operating modes of the engine. And this is not the only thing that Lockheed prefers to remain silent about. Yes, and overestimation of performance characteristics, compared to real ones, is a common occurrence. Tsifirka 1670 km. - this is, under ideal conditions, achieved by a test pilot. The level of an ordinary pilot is much lower. Ideal conditions, as a rule, do not happen in war.
            2. +2
              27 January 2024 16: 08
              Quote: Arzt
              The deck-based F-35C has a range of 2220 km, while the vertical F-35B has a range of 1670.
              Look at the combat radius, it is measured with a full BC, that’s more accurate. The vertical one is smaller, of course, but it’s quite enough. 830 km. From Moscow to Kyiv 760.



              Yes Yes Yes. At one time, everyone was foolishly told that an aircraft carrier was capable of launching almost 2 aircraft per minute. True, “some details” later became clear. This we combat radius is measured with full ammunition. And how Lohawk Martin measured it is a complex question, no less complex, just like how they measured the price of an aircraft in their time :)
              1. -1
                27 January 2024 20: 38
                Yes Yes Yes. At one time, everyone was foolishly told that an aircraft carrier was capable of launching almost 2 aircraft per minute. True, “some details” later became clear. Our combat radius is measured with full ammunition. And how Lohawk Martin measured it is a complex question, no less complex, just like how they measured the price of an aircraft in their time :)

                The combat radius is the same in Africa. smile Even if they added, it is insignificant. This is the case, buyers can check it. wink Let it be not 830, but 800. Acceptable.
                In addition, we are not talking about a penguin, but about OUR future plane. F-35 as a model of the difference between a VTOL aircraft and a conventional carrier-based one.
                In range it is inferior by 25%, in load by 17%. But no catapults or other finishers, that’s all there is to it in our North.
                And most importantly - it’s real. fellow
              2. 0
                27 January 2024 20: 38
                Yes Yes Yes. At one time, everyone was foolishly told that an aircraft carrier was capable of launching almost 2 aircraft per minute. True, “some details” later became clear. Our combat radius is measured with full ammunition. And how Lohawk Martin measured it is a complex question, no less complex, just like how they measured the price of an aircraft in their time :)

                The combat radius is the same in Africa. smile Even if they added, it is insignificant. This is the case, buyers can check it. wink Let it be not 830, but 800. Acceptable.
                In addition, we are not talking about a penguin, but about OUR future plane. F-35 as a model of the difference between a VTOL aircraft and a conventional carrier-based one.
                In range it is inferior by 25%, in load by 17%. But no catapults or other finishers, that’s all there is to it in our North.
                And most importantly - it’s real. fellow
              3. +1
                27 January 2024 20: 50
                Quote: abc_alex
                They were selling that the aircraft carrier was capable of launching almost 2 aircraft per minute. True, “some details” later became clear

                I even read somewhere about “30-second intervals”... But in reality, once every 3-5 minutes, the strike unit takes from an hour to two, and the first 6-8 vehicles with PTB...
                1. 0
                  29 January 2024 16: 57
                  Quote: Doccor18
                  I even read somewhere about “30 second intervals”...

                  Yes, almost everywhere. Theoretical ejection takeoff cycle - 2 minutes per catapult. 4 catapults - 1 plane in 30 seconds.
                  But this only works for airplanes parked on the flight deck in holding areas next to the catapults. That is, scramble to strengthen air defense will still go away at this rate, but a full-fledged strike is already in question.
    3. 0
      26 January 2024 21: 27
      our option is UDC with vertical take-off aircraft

      The problem is that there is no such plane.
      1. 0
        27 January 2024 09: 25
        The problem is that there is no such plane.

        It can actually be designed and built. Unlike an aircraft carrier.
        The main advantage of this approach is reality.
        1. +2
          27 January 2024 20: 53
          Quote: Arzt
          It is actually possible to design and build it

          Realistically, in 15 years (at best)...
        2. 0
          28 January 2024 01: 16
          More precisely, more realistic. I agree, there is a greater chance that such an aircraft will be built, but it will take at least 15 years if nothing changes. That an aircraft carrier - the chances are close to zero.
    4. 0
      28 January 2024 22: 11
      Quote: Arzt
      As for me, our option is UDC with vertical take-off aircraft. Firstly, it’s real, secondly it’s cheap, and thirdly it’s enough. hi

      Is it real?
      1. Build a UDC, without experience in such construction (forget the Soviet attempts at construction, there were only copies of the British. And the continuity was lost, 60 years have passed since that design system.
      2. The development of a modern aircraft, both ours and theirs, costs approximately 5-6 billion dollars. New generation engines may cost even more to develop than an airplane. When small-scale production eventually begins, be prepared that the cost of the aircraft will be similar to the B-2...
      3. Nothing is enough.
      1. 0
        29 January 2024 09: 20
        Is it real?
        1. Build a UDC, without experience in such construction (forget the Soviet attempts at construction, there were only copies of the British. And the continuity was lost, 60 years have passed since that design system.
        2. The development of a modern aircraft, both ours and theirs, costs approximately 5-6 billion dollars. New generation engines may cost even more to develop than an airplane. When small-scale production eventually begins, be prepared that the cost of the aircraft will be similar to the B-2...
        3. Nothing is enough.

        This is an order of magnitude simpler, without a catapult and finishers. They'll do the lift.
        Even 10 billion, it's worth it.
        10-12 UDC, each with 20-25 aircraft, plus a reserve, planned replacement... This is not small-scale production.
        1. 0
          29 January 2024 17: 24
          Quote: Arzt
          10-12 UDC

          And you also call yourself a realist...
          This is from 2,5 to 3 trillion. rub., another 1,5 trillion. will go to aviation, total: 4,5 trillion. rub. "Where does the money come from"? With the same funds, three hundred thousand meters can be rebuilt. In terms of timing, it won’t work out that way, because designing aviation is a drawn-out process...
          1. 0
            29 January 2024 17: 40
            10-12 UDC

            And you also call yourself a realist...
            This is from 2,5 to 3 trillion. rub., another 1,5 trillion. will go to aviation, total: 4,5 trillion. rub. "Where does the money come from"? With the same funds, three hundred thousand meters can be rebuilt. In terms of timing, it won’t work out that way, because designing aviation is a drawn-out process...

            There will be no need for hundreds of thousands. and UDC will become truly UNIVERSAL. 250 billion per year with a 20-year program. With planned replacement.
            But this is already a FLEET. wink
            1. 0
              29 January 2024 20: 26
              Quote: Arzt
              No need for hundreds of thousands

              Of course, this is just me, to illustrate the costs.
              Quote: Arzt
              UDC will become truly UNIVERSAL

              A universal LANDING ship will never be able to be a “universal” aircraft carrier. It will either be a UDC with two VTOL flights, or a light aircraft carrier with limited combat capabilities. The third, alas, is not given. hi

              Quote: Arzt
              250 billion per year with a 20-year program

              12 UDC in 20 years? Yes, you are simply an incorrigible optimist!
    5. +1
      29 January 2024 03: 25
      Quote: Arzt
      ..UDC with vertical take-off aircraft. This is first really,
      ? !! belay Wow (!), lol do they already have them?! recourse
      Quote: Arzt
      .. Secondly cheap
      belay ?!! develop and create in the required quantity vertical lines normal?!! what also fast and cheap..?!! request request
      Quote: Arzt
      As for me, our option...
      winked wink
      1. -2
        29 January 2024 09: 33
        Quote: Arzt
        ..UDK with vertical take-off aircraft. First of all it's real
        ?!! belay wow (!), lol do you already have them?! recourse

        Eat. Yak-38. It is possible to develop a new one using stealth technology in 10 years. By this time, the UDC will be in time.

        belay?!! develop and create normal verticals in the required quantity?!! what else is fast and cheap..?!! request request
        Quote: Arzt
        As for me, our option...

        The UDC+VTOL ship-aircraft complex is cheap and fast. Compared to the classics.
        We can’t build a classic AB for 100 years. And we won’t be able to do it anymore. And not really... in our northern seas.
        1. 0
          29 January 2024 17: 03
          Quote: Arzt
          Eat. Yak-38.

          KB actually died in the early 2000s. The remnants barely tormented the Yak-130 and Yak-152. Today, the former NPK Irkut, whose main products are Su-30s, operates under the name Yakovlev.
  9. 0
    26 January 2024 12: 03
    eh, it’s been a while since there’s been anything about aircraft carriers. with the beginning of its aircraft carrier sect named after Timokhin, it somehow became quiet, hid...
    1. +2
      26 January 2024 13: 22
      Phahaha, go get a hangover, or put on a tin foil hat after all!)))
      PS You’re not “Vladimir 1155” by any chance, he was just as crazy wassat laughing
    2. -2
      27 January 2024 17: 45
      It was replaced by the sect of the Aircraft Carrier's Witnesses.
  10. +1
    26 January 2024 12: 31
    Recent years nask. I understand that the Americans are trying to move away from the model of their own control, to the model of supporting control by their allies, at least in some areas where they can do this.
    The same AUKUS is an attempt to plug a gap in the Indo-Pacific region, which Japan, as an ally, is in principle unable to patch. , and completely controlling the United States is too painful.
    In Europe they can rely on this design, in Asia they will try to figure out something like this. They can’t do it in BV, apparently - and in the foreseeable future they won’t be able to.
    The capacity of the American economy is also not unlimited, they have very. large military expenses and they can be reduced only by transferring part of them to the allies. In addition to one-time expenses, as the author noted, there will be permanent expenses - for people. There are already quite a lot of security forces in the USA, above definition. % of society is already an outright burden. +4 aircraft carriers are additional infrastructure and the people working on it, additional crews and supplies.
    Now, among other things, cash injections are needed in hypersonic missile systems - the United States lags behind in this area. And in missile defense - for interceptors from such missiles, LO components, interceptors from ICBMs (ground-based or space-based systems), because a couple more adversary states have acquired ICBMs, and the PRC is increasing its fleet. It's also costly.

    The key to whether or not they can pull it all off comes down to economics.
  11. +4
    26 January 2024 12: 40
    But you see, mathematics, on the one hand, is a very exact science that does not allow liberties, and on the other hand, there is the geometry of Euclidean, and Riemann, and Lobachevsky... Not math, but you get the gist, I hope.

    The point is that geometry, any (Euclidean, spherical, Lobachevsky, Riemann) is still section of mathematics.
    1. +4
      26 January 2024 12: 49
      By the way, about mathematics and geometry - this is the entire author’s achievement of this article. The rest is an article from “Popular Mechanics” by the well-known multi-machine operator Mizokami. Even the name is the same - How Many Aircraft Carriers Does the US Have—or More Importantly, Need?
  12. -4
    26 January 2024 13: 10
    To put it mildly, I'm freaking out about mattress admirals. It seems that Beadon has completely left our reality; his national security assistant, Sullivan, is a man who is very far from the military, and especially from the problems of the Navy. But what the admirals don’t understand is that you can’t drive aircraft carriers like raid boats. BS and repair schedules are going down the drain. And given the situation in the world, it may not be possible to make up for the “shift of schedules to the right.”
    1. -1
      26 January 2024 18: 56
      Nikolai, after the flight was extended, any crew has limited combat capability, especially on an aircraft carrier. The psyche changes radically for many.
      1. 0
        26 January 2024 19: 19
        Good day, Andrey. Glad to hear that. So after 8 - 10 months at sea, anyone can go crazy. Our fishermen know this well.
        1. +1
          27 January 2024 17: 49
          The combat service of a surface ship during the Cold War - 9 months - was normal.
    2. 0
      29 January 2024 17: 04
      Quote: TermNachTER
      But what the admirals don’t understand is that you can’t drive aircraft carriers like raid boats.

      From afar you can hear the vengeful giggling of “Kuznetsov” - “Let their ABs now feel the hard way what it is like when regulations bend to political necessity". smile
      1. 0
        29 January 2024 19: 14
        “Kuzya” is more a matter of prestige, but mattress sheds are a matter of survival. If the mattress makers lose the opportunity to rob the entire planet with impunity, they will die.
  13. +1
    26 January 2024 19: 56
    Many people were wondering why. Obviously, two hundred aircraft and several hundred cruise missiles are not about Palestinian terrorists with small arms. However, this floating circus showed up, burned several tons of dollars in cauldrons and perhaps strengthened the morale of the Israelis.
    It seems obvious that this was an unambiguous warning to Iran, which it understood (though it continued the “game” with the wrong hands).
    But in general, the message of the article is unclear...
  14. -2
    27 January 2024 15: 18
    The author correctly noted:
    Everything flows, everything changes. Everything is relative..
    If the Americans “fight” the Papuans on pies.... Then the current AUGs will not be enough.
    But if Iran gets an analogue of the “Dagger” or “Zircon”, then the Americans will quickly switch to pirogues or canoes....
    It all depends through what lens we look at the Question...
  15. -1
    28 January 2024 21: 46
    Is Skomorokhov putting an owl on the globe again?
    Why are buffoons driving aircraft carriers to the Baltic?
    They were never there, because everyone understands that an aircraft carrier is not needed there at all...
    And Skomorokhov is apparently so untrained that he is seriously considering the option of placing an aircraft carrier in the Baltic...
    Seriously.
    This indicates either a complete lack of knowledge of the subject, or a deliberate exaggeration of one’s own illiteracy
    1. 0
      29 January 2024 17: 08
      Quote: SovAr238A
      Is Skomorokhov putting an owl on the globe again?
      Why are buffoons driving aircraft carriers to the Baltic?

      Imago (here: substitution - lat.) - the sixth method.
      It consists in the fact that the reader is slipped some unimaginable scarecrow that has nothing to do with the real enemy, after which this fictional enemy is destroyed.
      For example, thoughts are refuted that never occurred to the enemy and which he, naturally, never expressed; they show him that he is a fool and deeply mistaken, citing examples of truly stupid and erroneous theses.
      © K.Chapek

      The author just needs to prove that the USN only needs one AB to control the Mediterranean and Atlantic. Therefore, as the only theater of operations in the Atlantic against Russia, he invents the unimaginable chimera “AV in the Baltic Sea,” which is easily destroyed. And it turns out that in this way one AB is enough for the Atlantic - well, don’t drive the second one to the Baltic.
      About the North in this concept is modestly silent - they are covered up by the Baltic project. smile
  16. 0
    2 February 2024 06: 59
    The power of the aug is absolute. But! While the enemy has nothing at sea or on the shore. One single attack nuclear submarine can send the entire order to the bottom without even approaching it. Detonation of a charge of 25 kt at a depth of 50 m under the aug, if you think that it is an atom weapon if they are used, you’re an optimist, it will only leave a radioactive stain of memories. A quick and relatively inexpensive solution to the problem, which our Soviet admirals understood very well and the American ones remember. With conventional weapons, everything is a little more complicated, but not much. I would say quantitatively. By Soviet naval doctrine required from 5 to 8 Granites per aircraft carrier to ensure its disabling, it is quite difficult to sink an aircraft carrier. And 15-22 anti-ship missiles in a salvo for the entire order. Can we do this? We can. Moreover, the SVO shows the practical insolvency of Western systems Air defense against our missile defense and ballistics.
    PS: As soon as it became known that the Houthis have not only home-made products, the Yankees immediately, out of harm’s way, removed their AUG from their shores.
  17. 0
    25 February 2024 21: 19
    How much is needed against the Russian Federation - not at all. They are completely useless in a full-scale war with us.
    From the south - you know - "a submarine in the steppes of Ukraine." From the north - well, what if you tell the amazing story of using an aircraft carrier in polar latitudes, gee...) From the west - well, to the Black Sea. I can imagine 5 aircraft carriers (or whatever number you have in your delirium) groups imposingly pouring in through the straits and canals, slowly deploying. And our armed forces from Crimea are looking at this... well, they’re just looking, and what the hell, it’s like an oil painting)
    It remains (in theory) from the Pacific Ocean... where modern silent hunter boats, strategists with anti-ship X-22 (and analogues) and Mig-31 with a “dagger” are already waiting for them. Plus - stupidly coastal Balls and Bastions. The result is that the group simply physically cannot reach the area where the air group is deployed - it will be destroyed, no matter how many Augs there are, even all 12 (which is basically impossible).
    With Keith, they can still butt heads. To take it in a half-circle along the sea - aug 5.... But that's a completely different story. And the longer the United States drags it out, the worse the story will be for them.
    1. 0
      25 February 2024 21: 25
      Before, there was another body talking about the “suddenness” of the Aug. My friends, aug is the kind of crap that is seen always and everywhere - because it is an aircraft carrier + at least 5-10 supply support ships, etc. to suddenly attack with an aug is like a bull in a china shop quietly stealing a spoon. Don’t bring nonsense to the masses, take action.