Military Review

Carriers and money: the opinion of G. Hendrix

126
Above the military of the United States still hangs "Damocles sword" of funding cuts. According to the plans of the presidential administration and Congress, the Pentagon must reduce its spending by at least 500 billions over the next ten years. For military officials who are accustomed to the constant growth of defense spending and in some cases simply forgot how to save, such plans of the country's leadership have only one consequence - a serious debate and a search for articles that can be used to reduce costs.




For several days, Henry Hendrix, a military expert and retired US Navy officer, once again spoke about possible ways of saving. In general, in his new article "What is an aircraft carrier worth?" he did not express any new arguments that had not previously been voiced by him. However, the proposed reduction technique naval the cost looks interesting enough and worthy of consideration. Hendrix's criticism, as before, was the current concept for the development of the American aircraft carrier fleet. In its current state, in his opinion, it cannot fully ensure the fulfillment of all current and possible in the future tasks, therefore it must be revised and adjusted.

Remembering almost a century history US Navy aircraft carriers, Hendricks moves on to the main question: the cost of existing and promising ships of this class. Carriers in this case are considered as part of the carrier strike group (AUG). According to analysts, the contents of the AUG, which includes one aircraft carrier, five cruisers and destroyers, a multipurpose nuclear submarine, about 80 units aviation technology and at least 6700 people, the Pentagon costs a very large figure - about six and a half million dollars a day. Since December 1, last 2012, when the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier was expelled from the Navy, the United States has ten such ACGs. About 65 million daily are spent on their maintenance and operation.

Currently, the lead aircraft carrier project Gerald R. Ford is under construction. Its delivery to the fleet will take place no earlier than 2015 of the year, and by that time the total cost of construction, according to plans, will reach 13,5 billions of dollars. Hendrix is ​​considering alternative options for completing the fleet with equipment with a lower cost. So, he cites figures on the possible purchase of destroyers. With the current financial situation, up to five ships of this type can be purchased on 10 billions, which are fully capable of performing a number of tasks currently assigned to aircraft carriers. In this case, the operation of all five destroyers will cost no more than two million per day. Even more financially efficient is the replacement of aircraft carriers with littoral ships of new projects. In this case, ten units of equipment will be available for five billion, and their operation will cost less than a half million daily. With such replacements, it is worth noting that there is a serious change in the appearance of the ship group, so it is necessary to calculate in advance all its pros and cons.



Hendrix also compares the cost of existing ships and the construction of "Gerald R. Ford." The last of the Nimitz class aircraft carriers cost the American taxpayers about seven billion dollars. The new ship will cost almost twice as much. However, it does not have a significant superiority over the existing ships in a number of parameters. According to the analyst, the newest electromagnetic catapult of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford will make about 160 sorties a day. The Nimitsev steam catapult provides only 120 departures per day. Thus, with an almost two-fold increase in price, the new aircraft carrier will be able to work only on 30% more actively. The increase in combat potential while still remain the responsibility of the aircraft. According to Hendrix, even with all the current trends in savings on the operation of various systems, it will not be possible to achieve an acceptable balance between price and performance improvement.

Having finished with the price of the ships themselves, the analyst moved to their main arms - Aircraft F / A-18. The price of each of them is approximately equal to 50 millions of dollars. Over the years of service, at least 60 million is spent on fuel, maintenance, repair and armament for these aircraft. In addition, several million are spent on training pilots, etc. things. Thus, the full cost of the F / A-18 aircraft, taking into account both its own price and operating costs, reaches the level of about 120 million. According to official data from the US Navy Command, in the past ten years, deck aircraft have used 16000 bombs and missiles of various types. Given the total number of aircraft in the naval forces, it turns out that every single F / A-18 delivered to the target all 16 missiles or bombs. By a simple calculation, Hendrix comes to the conclusion that dropping each unit of ammunition cost the Pentagon 7,5 millions of dollars.

For comparison with extremely expensive bombs and rockets, the analyst led the Tomahawk family of rockets. One such ammunition costs only about two million dollars. In this case, one cruise missile of the family, launched from a ship or submarine, gives the same results as several aircraft missiles. In other words, the use of Tomahawk missiles is actually much cheaper than flying deck-based aircraft with guided weapons. It must be admitted that at present the methods of using aircraft missiles and Tomahawks are significantly different, so for the time being such calculations and comparisons should be considered only an interesting feature of modern weapons of the US Navy.

In addition to the financial problems characteristic of the current path of development of American aircraft carriers, G. Hendrix cites the controversial situation with the main armament as an example. Perhaps the biggest problem of the Ford under construction was illustrated with just one diagram. It clearly shows how much the radius of action of the Chinese anti-ship missiles DF-21D is larger than the radius of flight without refueling the carrier-based fighter F-35C. Thus, new aircraft carriers with fighter-bombers, on which high hopes are now placed, with modern capabilities, approaching the area of ​​operation, may be hit by enemy anti-ship missiles. The situation with the Chinese DF-21D missiles looks even worse if we take into account the financial side of things. According to Hendrix, one such anti-ship missile costs about 11 million dollars. Accordingly, for an amount equivalent to the cost of Gerald R. Ford, China will be able to assemble more 1200 missiles. Such a balance of power does not bode well.

The expert sees the development of unmanned aircraft systems as a way out of this situation. Since in such aircraft instead of a man-pilot there will be a set of certain communications and control equipment, their design will be simplified and, as a result, the price and cost of operation will decrease. Also expect a significant increase in combat qualities in comparison with existing aircraft. In addition, aircraft carriers will be able to take on a larger number of drones than in the case of manned aircraft. As a result, UAVs at the moment, according to Hendrix, are the most convenient and promising option for arming new aircraft carriers.



In addition, Hendricks considers the idea of ​​replacing aircraft carriers with cruisers and destroyers with high-precision weapons to be promising. In some cases, they will have much greater opportunities in comparison with aircraft carriers, and some shortcomings can turn a blind eye due to the economic aspects of the construction and operation of a particular class of ships. Rockets like the Tomahawk family can also be used on submarines. Currently, the United States has several dozens of multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the types Los Angeles, Seawolf, Virginia and Ohio, each of which is capable of carrying a certain number of cruise and anti-ship missiles. All of them have a characteristic advantage over any surface ship: stealth. The submarine can quietly enter the area of ​​attack and launch missiles at intended targets. However, it most likely will not attract undue attention, unlike the carrier-based strike group.

Henry Hendrix concludes his article with a logical conclusion that follows from all the facts presented. The US Navy has always tried to implement new solutions as quickly as possible. However, in the light of recent trends, new actions are required. The defense budget will continue to decline in the coming years, so the naval forces and the Pentagon need to look for a new course of development in order to maintain both combat capability and money. This course, according to the analyst, should not be grounded in the form of the current Pentagon’s views on the future of the aircraft carrier fleet.


Article by G. Hendrix: At What Cost a Carrier?
Author:
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 08: 34 New
    11
    HOORAY !
    Let them cut faster. Well, so be it, let a couple of aircraft carriers leave, and the rest - on needles :)) On the run :))) And - let them not forget to repurpose the shipyards for the construction of AB and plants for the production of F / A-18 for the production of pots and pans ... You can even - tefal :)))
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 26 March 2013 09: 13 New
      +5
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      HOORAY !
      Let them cut faster. Well, so be it, let a couple of aircraft carriers leave, and the rest - on needles :)) On the run :)))

      Popular sign - the less money the Pentagon has, the calmer the world over))
      But the X-47 program is causing serious concern. If they can bring it up, then the role of carrier-based aviation will only increase.
      1. Nesvet Nezar
        Nesvet Nezar 27 March 2013 08: 09 New
        +1
        If I’m not mistaken, then the first drone was the BURAN. The first time he completed all the tasks in automatic mode. He only landed on a stationary airfield, but also flew into space. We just need to return all the engineers who developed it from France and the United States back. )))))
    2. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 26 March 2013 09: 34 New
      +4
      No, let them build it, and more, maybe it will reach the sum. with outstretched hand around the world. It’s clearly written, to build another half of the case, to contain this is the problem.
    3. self-propelled
      self-propelled 26 March 2013 10: 55 New
      +2
      and so it’s interesting - it’s kind of cutting back on defense spending, and they provide “free” military assistance to the allies (a recent example of 40 billion $ promised to Israel). raking in heat with the wrong hands ...
      1. Russian
        Russian 26 March 2013 11: 50 New
        +1
        So they always do that, why fight by themselves? They are better than potential opponents to quarrel, play against each other, and they themselves will make money, as in the Second World War. And with opponents weaker, they manage with the forces of the allies.
      2. mda
        mda 26 March 2013 12: 00 New
        +4
        Quote: self-propelled
        a recent example of $ 40 billion promised to Israel

        Well, how will the US government not give money to the homeland?
    4. to
      to water 26 March 2013 13: 04 New
      +2
      No need to convince them to reduce the carrier fleet. For us, this is better - an aircraft carrier is "all eggs in one basket." Destroying such a giant is always easier than 10 destroyers or 15 frigates. They live in the first half of the last century - when rocket weapons did not yet exist, let them stay there.
      1. Nesvet Nezar
        Nesvet Nezar 27 March 2013 08: 26 New
        0
        In part, I join you in the opinion. At the expense of the last century, I think you're wrong. The strategic initiative of the West and East remains unchanged for a thousand years. West - a man on a horse all in armor - an aircraft carrier - a tank. East - a man on a horse with a bow - cruiser - RPG.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 27 March 2013 13: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Nesarya Nesvet
          In part, I join you in the opinion. At the expense of the last century, I think you're wrong. The strategic initiative of the West and East remains unchanged for a thousand years. West - a man on a horse all in armor - an aircraft carrier - a tank. East - a man on a horse with a bow - cruiser - RPG.

          This is a classic fallacy. Large "horse and armored" units are the east - Russia, Persia, to a lesser extent - eastern Europe, the west - a huge, poorly armed army led by a small number of horse and armored warriors.
          A Western warrior is not a knight, an example of a Western warrior - this is a Roman legionnaire - a half-naked, dirty, uneducated savage - this is the face of the West. These western warriors were trampled into dust by the cataphracts who came from the east - this is an example of an eastern warrior - mounted warriors in full armor.
    5. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 26 March 2013 13: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      HOORAY ! Let them cut faster.

      So what about savings?
      It turns out that there was a reason for discussion and it was not for nothing that I wrote angry letters to CNAS?))))


      New Obama-class carrier (CVN-85)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 14: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        So what about savings?

        Calculated by expert Hendricks? So he needs to be given the Hero of Russia, for his mistakes in the calculations :)))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        It turns out that there was a reason for discussion and it was not for nothing that I wrote angry letters to CNAS?))))

        I don’t know what CNAS is, alas. But if this leads to a reduction in US aircraft carriers - then definitely not in vain :)))
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 26 March 2013 15: 19 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Calculated by expert Hendricks? So the Hero of Russia should be given to him, for his errors in the calculations

          I wonder what is he wrong about?
          Could it be that the bomb dropped by the deck bomber becomes "gold"?

          Is it easier and cheaper to release Tomahawk? How to drive an 100 000-ton Wafer with a crew like that of the 10 Burke destroyers, burn its uranium and aviation kerosene, risk pilots and 60 (70-80?) Millionth SuperHorn aircraft?

          Maybe he is wrong in the fact that today means have been created that can stop any AUG and from which there is no reliable protection - Chinese DF-21

          Or his words are at odds with what = are we seeing lately? - the aircraft carriers rust at the base, the Air Force and Tomahawks are at war
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I don’t know what CNAS is, alas.

          Center of a New American Security, on behalf of this center, Hendricks prints his pamphlets.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 15: 43 New
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Could it be that the bomb dropped by the deck bomber becomes "gold"?

            You know, you torture me in the end :))) I am slowly planning my own article on the actions of naval aviation during a Storm in a glass.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Is it easier and cheaper to release Tomahawk?

            Releasing Tomahawk is NOT easier and NOT cheaper. Simply, Hendricks calculated for sea aviation a lot of all sorts of costs and compared Tomahawk with the cost alone. Missing, for example, the cost of satellite systems that provide data centers for the Tomahawk.
            There are a lot of restrictions on Tomahawks. By the way, there is an opinion. that Iraq’s air defense with the Tomahawks fought quite successfully.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Maybe he is wrong in the fact that today means have been created that can stop any AUG and from which there is no reliable protection - Chinese DF-21

            Naturally. Because for the time being, in addition to the loud squeak of the Chinese about a super rocket (and a pair of holes in the ground, supposedly from the hits of the warheads of these missiles) there is absolutely nothing. Where are the tests for naval targets? :))
            Moreover - the whole "expertness" of Comrade Hendrix and his passage about Dongfeng gives out, specifically this
            According to Hendrix, one such anti-ship missile costs about 11 million dollars. Accordingly, for an amount equivalent to the cost of Gerald R. Ford, China will be able to collect more than 1200 missiles.

            To begin with, under no circumstances can Hendrix know about the cost of this missile - no one knows about it, Chinese military secret, however :))) But that’s not even the point - the respected “expert” “forgot” to add to the cost missiles the cost of deploying a system of radar and optoelectronic satellites, which are needed to direct these missiles to the target :)))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Or his words are at odds with what = are we seeing lately? - the aircraft carriers rust at the base, the Air Force and Tomahawks are at war

            And what, lately there have been some wars against the enemy, who had serious air forces and air defense? :)
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 26 March 2013 16: 04 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I am already slowly setting my plans for an article on the actions of naval aviation during a Storm in a glass.

              The main thing is not to confuse the air force deck carrier and the KMP, which flew from Sheikh Isa air base in Bahrain
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              There are a lot of restrictions on Tomahawks.

              And the carrier-based aircraft do not have them?))))
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Missing, for example, the cost of satellite systems that provide data centers for the Tomahawk.

              You might think AUG replaces satellite intelligence systems))))
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Simply Hendricks calculated for sea aviation a lot of all sorts of costs and compared with the cost alone Tomahawk

              tomahawk doesn't need a carrier plane
              tomahawk no training needed

              Hendricks calculated everything correctly - compared the life cycle of F-18 and his 16 dropped bombs with SLCM Tomahawk
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But that’s not the point - the respected “expert” “forgot” to add to the cost of missiles the cost of deploying a system of radar and optoelectronic satellites, which are needed to aim these missiles at a target

              He did not take into account the cost of the Ford wing. 50 F-35 x 200 million + operation - this is ten times more than the cost of space reconnaissance systems.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              against an enemy with serious air force and air defense?

              where is the aircraft carrier here?
              they were six afraid to climb into Iraq - they waited half a year for a group of 2000 land planes to gather + a certain number of Apaches
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 16: 18 New
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The main thing is not to confuse the air force deck carrier and the KMP, which flew from Sheikh Isa air base in Bahrain

                do not worry:)))
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                And the carrier-based aircraft do not have them?))))

                much less
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                You might think AUG replaces satellite intelligence systems))))

                Everything is a bit more complicated here. But, I repeat, why do the calculations if you did not deign to understand even the smallness that I laid out?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                He did not take into account the cost of the Ford wing. 50 F-35 x 200 million + operation - this is ten times more than the cost of space reconnaissance systems.

                Firstly - Ф-35 is not a dogma. And secondly - are you aware of the cost of space reconnaissance systems? :)
                The funniest
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Hendricks calculated everything correctly - compared the life cycle of F-18 and his 16 dropped bombs with SLCM Tomahawk

                Alas. The right or wrong criterion for you is exclusively "for or against aircraft carriers" If for aircraft carriers - it means wrong. If against aircraft carriers - it means right.
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 26 March 2013 16: 44 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  much less

                  deck aviation is afraid to climb into a zone with powerful air defense
                  deck aviation, like any aircraft, but even more so, depends on the weather
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  It's all a bit more complicated

                  Does AUG have a space component?
                  If not, then why did you remember about her.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Firstly - Ф-35 is not a dogma. And secondly - are you aware of the cost of space reconnaissance systems? :)

                  50 x F-35 = 10 billion + operation, repairs and training of pilots = 20 billion (the “trifle” like Hawkayev and helicopters can be neglected)

                  regarding space launches - http://www.roscosmos.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=15954&hl=zakupki+%E1%F0%E8%E7-%EC
                  reconnaissance satellite is hardly more expensive than 13-ton Phobos-Grunt))))

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  If for aircraft carriers - it means wrong. If against aircraft carriers - it means right.

                  In your own way, calculate the life cycle of Hornet and the cost of his 16 dropped bombs - compare them with Ax's fist. If it turns out that the Ax is more expensive - I agree in you.
                  1. Papakiko
                    Papakiko 26 March 2013 20: 43 New
                    +4
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    In your own way, calculate the life cycle of Hornet and the cost of his 16 dropped bombs - compare them with Ax's fist. If it turns out that the Ax is more expensive - I agree in you.


                    Why compare the taste of guano and jam?
                    Each type has its own methods, techniques and weapons.
                    Stop waving yatagan about the "uselessness" of the "NIMITZ system irons".
                    Only minuses catch and all.
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 21: 17 New
                    +4
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    deck aviation is afraid to climb into a zone with powerful air defense

                    Tomahawks ingloriously die in a zone of powerful air defense
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    deck aviation, like any aircraft, but even more so, depends on the weather

                    Like the tomahawks. Or do you think they are all-weather? :)
                    The disadvantages of the Tomahawks.
                    1) They can be used ONLY for stationary purposes.
                    2) They cannot be in the combat area on combat duty and cannot be redirected after launch.
                    3) They have significant restrictions on the route to the destination due to their terrain guidance system.
                    4) In the air, these missile defense systems are completely defenseless against both ground and air defense systems.
                    Enough for you? :)
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Does UG have a cosmic component?
                    If not, then why did you remember about her.

                    Then, for some reason, they forgot to take into account the space assets of TsU for the Tomahawks :)
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    50 x F-35 = 10 billion

                    Why is there F-35? Silent Hornet decides :)))
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    regarding space launches - http://www.roscosmos.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=15954&hl=zakupki+%E1%F0%E8%E7-%EC
                    reconnaissance satellite is hardly more expensive than 13-ton Phobos-Grunt))))

                    Of course - more expensive, and much more. On communications satellites, figures from 30-50 to 200 million dollars and higher are given in print.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    In your own way, calculate the life cycle of Hornet and the cost of his 16 dropped bombs - compare them with Ax's fist. If it turns out that the Ax is more expensive - I agree in you.

                    I have already calculated the cost of round-the-clock patrolling of land-based aircraft over the sea in comparison with aircraft carrier :))) You did not refute the calculations, but you couldn’t agree with them :))))
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 26 March 2013 21: 53 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Tomahawks ingloriously die in a zone of powerful air defense

                      to crack a powerful air defense (Japan, Israel), thousands of planes, attack helicopters and SLCMs, ground special forces groups, air traffic controllers-spotters and saboteurs, launches of tens of thousands of HARM missiles, squalls of electronic jamming are required ...

                      where does the miserable Nimitz with 50 combat aircraft?
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The disadvantages of the Tomahawks.

                      1) They can be used ONLY for stationary purposes.
                      More is not required of her. Objectives: bunkers, bridges, radar, air defense positions, etc. important objects. shoot tanks - the task of Apache helicopters.
                      2) They cannot be in the combat area on combat duty and cannot be redirected after launch.
                      They can.
                      Tomahawk Block IV is equipped with a bi-directional satellite communication channel, which allows the operator to redirect the missile in flight. A missile can barrage over the battlefield and expect target designation to hit the most important target.
                      Material prepared by S.V. Gurov
                      Source: raytheon.com

                      3) They have significant restrictions on the route to the destination due to their terrain guidance system.
                      This is a solvable problem.
                      4) In the air, these missile defense systems are completely defenseless against both ground and air defense systems.
                      Compensated by the cheapness and lack of a living pilot
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Then, for some reason, they forgot to take into account the space assets of TsU for the Tomahawks

                      as if they are not needed for AUG)))
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Why is there F-35? Silent Hornet decides :)))

                      10 billion.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      reconnaissance satellite is hardly more expensive than 13-ton Phobos-Grunt)))) Of course - more expensive, and much more

                      Spy satellite can't be more expensive than 13-ton interplanetary research station
                      and it doesn’t need a super-proton to run it
            2. Andrey58
              Andrey58 26 March 2013 22: 49 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Releasing Tomahawk is NOT easier and NOT cheaper. Simply, Hendricks calculated for sea aviation a lot of all sorts of costs and compared Tomahawk with the cost alone. Missing, for example, the cost of satellite systems that provide data centers for the Tomahawk.

              Target designation at the Tomahawks, if I am not mistaken, is provided by GPS, and it is dual-purpose. An aircraft carrier is a purely specific military thing, and all expenses for its maintenance lie solely with the fleet. You can’t divide them in any way.
              At the current level of development of industry and electronics, I fully admit that a missile strike is cheaper than using an airplane.
            3. T-130
              T-130 26 March 2013 23: 50 New
              +1
              Judging by the prices of Chinese goods, the Chinese made the rocket for $ 11 million exclusively with files and the like!
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 26 March 2013 14: 32 New
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        So what about savings?
        It turns out that there was a reason for discussion and it was not for nothing that I wrote angry letters to CNAS?))))

        Hendricks does not claim, like you, that aircraft carriers are useless)))
        He simply says that in order to save the budget, there is no need to build new ones.
        And in aircraft carrier aviation, he considers the X-47 program, rather than the F-35 program, promising.
        And then, this is just his private opinion, and by no means the official position of the Navy.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 26 March 2013 15: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: Odyssey
          Hendricks does not claim, like you, that aircraft carriers are useless)))

          What are you saying
          Quote: Odyssey
          He simply says that in order to save the budget, there is no need to build new ones.


          is means that the current acquisition cost
          of 1.00 presence is $ 13.5 billion, which raises the
          question of whether an alternative combination
          can achieve this level of presence at a lower cost.


          USS George HW Bush, the last
          Nimitz carrier, cost $ 7 billion and the USS Gerald
          R. Ford is coming in at $ 13.5 billion. In the end,
          the nation is paying nearly 94 percent more for a
          carrier that can only do 33 percent more work

          specific run over "Ford". Hendrix is ​​right 100%, Ford is even more monstrous wunderwafel

          Including the previously stated life-cycle cost of an
          F / A-18 Hornet, that works out to $ 7.5 million per
          bomb. #at is quite substantial when compared
          with the precision-strike Tomahawk cruise missile,
          which each cost a conservative $ 2 million.


          carrier had its
          day, but continuing to adhere to 100 years of
          aviation tradition, even in the face of a direct
          challenge, signals a failure of imagination and
          foreshadows decline.

          good epilogue

          Quote: Odyssey
          And then, this is just his private opinion, and by no means the official position of the Navy.

          And the official position of the U.S. Navy - aircraft carriers have been rusting at bases for years.
          Lack of Funding Affects USS Lincoln Refueling and Complex Overhaul
          Story Number: NNS130208-17Release Date: 2 / 8 / 2013 4: 14: 00 PM
          From Defense Media Activity - Navy
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 26 March 2013 17: 06 New
            +5
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            USS George HW Bush, the last
            Nimitz carrier, cost $ 7 billion and the USS Gerald
            R. Ford is coming in at $ 13.5 billion. In the end,
            the nation is paying nearly 94 percent more for a
            carrier that can only do 33 percent more work

            What is this hitting? He just thinks Ford is "uneconomical."
            The meaning of his article is that aircraft carriers are expensive, so let's make more active use of the Kyrgyz Republic, the F-35 program is inefficient, so let's develop UAVs more actively, this will save us money while maintaining fleet efficiency.
            His article has nothing to do with your “carrier phobias”.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And the official position of the U.S. Navy - aircraft carriers have been rusting at bases for years.

            The official position of the Navy aircraft carrier Ford is part of the fleet in the 2015 year.
            The Royal Navy's official position, Queen Elizabeth, is part of the fleet in 2016.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 26 March 2013 17: 23 New
              -4
              Quote: Odyssey
              What is this hitting? He just thinks Ford is "uneconomical."

              And that means - their construction is unjustified
              Nimitz carrier, cost $ 7 billion and the USS Gerald
              R. Ford is coming in at $ 13.5 billion. In the end,
              the nation is paying nearly 94 percent more for a
              carrier that can only do 33 percent more work.13
              Even factoring in projected savings from reduced
              manning and lower maintenance costs,this
              investment is still not a good use of US taxpayer
              money

              Quote: Odyssey
              The meaning of his article is road carriers

              The meaning of his article on the cover - take another look at the illustration attached above))))
              Quote: Odyssey
              His article has nothing to do with your “carrier phobias”.

              I do not have any aircraft carrier phobias. I have my own opinion, which coincides with the change of the American captain.
              this investment is still not a good use of US taxpayer money
              also applies to disputes about the construction of a Russian aircraft carrier
              Quote: Odyssey
              The official position of the Navy aircraft carrier Ford is part of the fleet in the 2015 year.

              They can build anything. The main thing is that these waffles are not used anywhere
              Pentagon to cut aircraft carrier presence in Persian Gulf to 1 due to budget strains
              Published February 06, 2013
              FoxNews.com

              Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/pentagon-to-cut-aircraft-carrier-pres





              ence-in-persian-gulf-to-1-due-to-budget / # ixzz2Oehn3PNM


              The US military is planning to shrink its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf from two to one due to looming budget constraints - in a dramatic signal from the Pentagon about the real-world impact of automatic budget cuts that still have not been averted.
              US military officials confirmed Wednesday that the Navy would reduce its presence. The decision will go into effect immediately


              Not sour?
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 26 March 2013 23: 58 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                also applies to disputes about the construction of a Russian aircraft carrier

                The Americans have no military bases around the world in Russia.
              2. Odysseus
                Odysseus 27 March 2013 03: 33 New
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The meaning of his article on the cover - take another look at the illustration attached above))))

                No doubt, trump illustration)))
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                I do not have any aircraft carrier phobias. I have my own opinion, which coincides with the change of the American captain.

                That own opinion is excellent. But in my opinion your opinion and the opinion of the American captain are still different. He believes that aircraft carriers are currently "uneconomical", too expensive and offers options for improving their use, and you think that aircraft carriers are useless.
                In my opinion, your point of view is too radical. You do not need to make miracle weapons from aircraft carriers and pray for them, but you should not spread rot. This is just one of the important elements of American military power. Important, but not the only one.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                also applies to disputes about the construction of a Russian aircraft carrier

                These are completely different things. We are in a different situation with America. First of all, we need to restore the submarine fleet and develop the production and scientific base. What kind of aircraft carriers can we talk about if we have no one to go to the ocean soon!
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                They can build anything. The main thing is that these waffles are not used anywhere

                We’ll wait and see. I will only be glad if you are right. In any case, due to the geographical position, aircraft carriers do not pose a particular threat to Russia (at least until the notorious X-47 is adopted) So we can calmly and with academic interest observe the development of this process.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Not sour?

                Normally. There is no money, there are no aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. The military, by the way, also blackmail politicians in this way.
                Like, give us some money, otherwise all your plans will go to waste.
            2. Kars
              Kars 26 March 2013 17: 33 New
              0
              Quote: Odyssey
              The official position of the Navy aircraft carrier Ford is part of the fleet in the 2015 year.

              The only question is how many aircraft carriers will remain by 2015. How many will be written off or left in reserve.
              Quote: Odyssey
              Royal Navy official position - Queen Elizabeth is part of the fleet in 2016

              Well, Quin’s equal to America is somehow not kosher. Like a Frenchman, pure colonial bendors. And it is very likely that he will immediately be put into reserve and the second can already be filed for purchase. Hints go to Taiwan.
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus 27 March 2013 03: 48 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                The only question is how many aircraft carriers will remain by 2015. How many will be written off or left in reserve.

                There will be 10, but how much will be used depends on the amount of money the Pentagon has.
                Quote: Kars
                Well, Queen is equal to Amer as it’s not kosher.

                Why? The same aircraft carrier, even the main aircraft is the same. Only the British have less money and ambitions, so that it is non-nuclear and smaller.
                Quote: Kars
                Like the Frenchman, pure colonial bendors.

                So the influence / control of weak countries is one of the main tasks of aircraft carriers. And the ability to control countries 3 cap.world is the basis of the welfare of Western countries (first cap.world)
                Quote: Kars
                and at the same time it will very likely be immediately put into reserve

                It all depends on what kind of aircraft he gets-F-35C, or F-35B.
        2. SPACE
          SPACE 26 March 2013 20: 03 New
          -1
          Quote: Odyssey
          And then, it's just his private opinion, and not the official position of the Navy

          I also have a private opinion that AUG is IRON! "Global Wary of waiting for a Blow"
          1. Papakiko
            Papakiko 26 March 2013 20: 57 New
            +1
            Quote: SPACE
            I also have a private opinion that AUG is IRON! "Global Wary of waiting for a Blow"

            Do you prefer ironing to wear or what?
            Without AUG, they could impose on the presence of air force bases in such numbers in all regions. Take away the AUG and soon you will have to collapse all the bases. wink
      3. SPACE
        SPACE 26 March 2013 19: 56 New
        -1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        It turns out that there was a reason for discussion and it was not for nothing that I wrote angry letters to CNAS?))))

        I confirm! I wonder what the AUG fans will now say ...? Yeah. I think they don’t hear the voice of common sense.
    6. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 26 March 2013 14: 05 New
      +4
      Che cheer then? If they begin to rivet the cruiser URO more often than destroyers it will be a full 314zdets. Relatively inexpensive in construction and maintenance, but no less effective than aircraft carriers, they simply overwhelm the mass of any enemy. There will come such an armada of say 10 cruisers of 140 missiles each and vehicles with 14000 missiles in the hold and say 10 more Espintsy missile defense, will stand 600 kilometers from the point and begin to nail 1400 per hour ... Damascus will be razed to the ground in 3 hours ... and you won’t do anything with inmi, only a massive nuclear strike will save ...

      Here it is necessary to pray that the vile leadership does not hear what this Hendrix is ​​talking about because he has more brains than the entire State Department.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 14: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: Geisenberg
        If they begin to rivet the cruiser URO more than destroyers it will be a full 314dets.

        To the American Navy - of course.
        Quote: Geisenberg
        Relatively inexpensive in construction and maintenance, but no less effective than aircraft carriers

        This is Hendrix's nonsense.
        Quote: Geisenberg
        Such an armada will come from say 10 kerisers on 140 missiles in each

        let's get right away - 100 cruisers on 1400 missiles in each. And two Star Destroyers in orbit ...
        The cost of constructing one aircraft carrier of the Gerald Ford type is about 9-11 billion dollars (13,5 billion dollars per head ship are connected with the fact that all the costs of developing an aircraft carrier are completely summed up in this cost). The cost of an air wing with F / A-18, Hokayami and so on (roughly) is still about 3,5 billion. With this money (13-15 billion), you can build an 7-9 EM type Arly Burke. (depending on the price, it ranges from 1,7 to 2,2 billion apiece, most likely it will be on the order of 2 billion) -we will take 8 for an even account. But they only have 96 rocket mines, which, of course, can be scored by the Tomahawks in theory, but in practice the number of these tomahawks does not exceed 56 missiles (standards and terms for self-defense are needed)
        Quote: Geisenberg
        and start nailing on 1400 per hour ...

        So what? Do you seriously believe that in the absence of air supremacy, these slow and sad subsonic CDs are a terrible threat? Flight time is almost 2 hours. From the AWACS plane they are seen as flaky. You can bring them down in batches, all the way up to short-range aircraft SD. And I’m silent about the fact that overloading missiles at sea is rarely possible when it’s possible, and when it’s possible, it takes by no means an hour or two
        Quote: Geisenberg
        and you won’t do anything with inmi, only a massive nuclear strike will save ...

        :))) They can be finished with a regular Su-34 air raid (provided that there are normal anti-ship missiles for this aircraft). one A-50U "draws" the position of the destroyers, the Su-34 regiment goes on the smallest - so that the radar of the destroyers do not catch them - then the launch of anti-ship missiles from the horizon, and whatever cool Aegis some anti-ship missiles will still reach the target, airplanes at the same time, air defense of destroyers cannot be fired at all.
        The only small thing is to provide this very regiment of Su-34, A-50U or A100 and anti-ship missiles.
        1. Kaa
          Kaa 26 March 2013 15: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Are these slow and sad subsonic CDs a terrible threat?

          But what if these? "The press, relying on information from American intelligence and assumptions of Pentagon analysts, said that a fundamentally new class of anti-ship weapons is being developed in the Celestial Empire. According to the United States Naval Institute, a non-governmental organization. - Ed. .), information about these weapons was published in one of the Chinese specialized publications, which American military experts consider to be a reliable source. Then, a translation and a more detailed description of the missile system appeared on the naval portal Information Dissemination. These are ballistic missiles intended for destruction of surface ships, primarily aircraft carriers.The new weapons received the designation Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) .It is assumed that its development is based on a medium-range missile DF-21 (Dong Feng 21, another designation CSS-5) with firing range of about 1500 kilometers. The proposed ASBM Chinese missile radar homing system selected mobile targets such as a large combat ship and an aircraft carrier as the main targets of destruction. Most likely, the DF-21-based missile homing system is more similar to the homing heads (radar sighting) of anti-ship cruise missiles, especially since as already mentioned, some of them have a large supersonic speed, commensurate with the flight speed of the warhead of a medium-range ballistic missile. Aeroballistic missiles AGM-69 SRAM (USA) and X-15 (Russia) are examples of medium-range air-to-surface missiles with ANN. The anti-ship version of the X-15C was equipped with a radar homing head (RLGSN) on the final section of the flight. According to news agencies, ASBM can fly about 1800-2000 kilometers. The rocket travels this distance in 12 minutes. In mid-2011, the Chinese newspaper China Daily published small material based on comments by the head of the PLA General Staff, Chen Binde. The note said that the firing range of the anti-ship BR DF-21D, based on “revolutionary technologies”, is 2700 kilometers. It is now known that China is developing a new over-the-horizon radar station that can detect large ships such as aircraft carriers at a distance of up to three thousand kilometers and use this data is for directing missiles. Probably, ASBM anti-ship ballistic missile has low visibility (Stealth technology) for radar and has an increased level of maneuverability, making the flight path unpredictable for the enemy. According to the American military, the trials of “killer aircraft carriers” could have been carried out as far back as 2005-2006. Http://dokwar.ru/publ/vooruzhenie/aviacija_i_flot/ballisticheskie_rakety_k
          nr_ubijcy_avianoscev / 15-1-0-118
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 15: 50 New
            +2
            Regarding the Dongfeng - answered a little higher
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 26 March 2013 16: 16 New
              -2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Regarding the Dongfeng - answered a little higher

              Dongfeng is amazingly similar to Pershing
        2. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 26 March 2013 15: 44 New
          -2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          They can be ended with a regular Su-34 air raid (provided that there are normal anti-ship missiles for this aircraft). one A-50U "draws" the position of the destroyers, the Su-34 regiment goes on the smallest - so that the radar of the destroyers do not catch them - then the launch of anti-ship missiles from the horizon, and whatever cool Aegis some anti-ship missiles will still reach the target, airplanes at the same time, air defense of destroyers cannot be fired at all.

          1. why did Andrey get the idea that the US Navy would be left without air cover?

          Andrei will not deign to show the region where the Su-34 could reach, but the F-15 of the US Air Force and its allies could not reach

          2. How to be with Ohio submarine.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But they only have 96 rocket mines, which, of course, can be scored by the Tomahawks in theory, but in practice the number of these tomahawks does not exceed 56 missiles (standards and terms for self-defense are needed)

          50x4 = 200 axes. Why more? If necessary, the destroyer will reload mines in Sasebo, Singapore or Diega Garcia (as varinat - in Gaet, on the island of Guam or in any port of the allied country) and in a couple of days will continue to strike.
          the rest 4 destroyer - air defense / PLO

          However, it seems reasonable to build, instead of part of the destroyers, a couple of Ohio boats in the VARNT variant
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 15: 48 New
            +6
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            why did Andrey get the idea that the US Navy would be left without air cover?

            From the fact that if you are not lazy to retype this scheme for the eleventh time, then I do not need to retype my calculations - well, if mathematics does not reach you, what can I do? It’s possible to provide air defense for destroyers, but this will cost a little more than an aircraft carrier. I have already given all the calculations.
            You can’t understand the difference between hitting a point target at the edge of geography and air defense patrols.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 26 March 2013 16: 14 New
              -2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              It’s possible to provide air defense for destroyers, but this will cost a little more than an aircraft carrier. I have already given all the calculations.

              Your calculations are incorrect.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              You can’t understand the difference between hitting a point target at the edge of geography and air defense patrols.

              Show the region of the Earth where the Su-34 could get, but the F-15 of the US Air Force and its allies could not get.

              spoiler: every time, the airfield will be closer than the aircraft carrier Nimitz
              1. tungus
                tungus 26 March 2013 19: 50 New
                +2
                Andrey just wants to explain to you that F-15 will be able to get everywhere. But the destroyers will not be able to provide constant air cover. They will not be able to fly over destroyers for hours.
                After all, they do not know when and who wants to drown these destroyers, so the F-15 CONSTANT presence over the water area of ​​their fleet., Round-the-clock coverage is necessary. This is not feasible from coastal bases.
                And SU-34 does not need to cover anyone. They flew up, fired rockets and flew away.
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 26 March 2013 20: 48 New
                  -1
                  Quote: tungus
                  But the destroyers will not be able to provide constant air cover. They will not be able to fly over destroyers for hours.

                  F / A-18 can, but F-15 can’t fly over the sea ... why would it?)))
                  Quote: tungus
                  CONSTANT F-15 presence over the water area of ​​its fleet., Round-the-clock cover. This is not feasible from coastal bases.

                  Who told you?

                  Sometimes it’s closer to fly from a coastal base than from an aircraft carrier - 865 US Air Force bases on all continents
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 20: 48 New
                +4
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Your calculations are incorrect.

                Sinking :))) Well, put your fingers of precision in the gaping wounds of my mistakes :))))
                You, Honorable Oleg, could not object ANYTHING in essence, you didn’t point out errors in my calculations and did not present alternative calculations in favor of your point of view. So your accusations are unfounded.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Show the region of the Earth where the Su-34 could get, but the F-15 of the US Air Force and its allies could not get.

                Do you even understand that you just signed Hendrix's death sentence? Since destroyers require air cover, what you just agreed with, so where are the cost estimates for this cover from Hendrix? :)
                And you can calculate the required outfit of forces to ensure round-the-clock duty of at least the F-15 pair yourself - depending on the location of the EM and its removal from the nearest base. :)))) According to my technique :)))) Then tell me - they can whether the required number of planes and refueling tanks are based on the base indicated in the diagram :))))
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 26 March 2013 21: 23 New
                  -3
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  no errors were indicated in my calculations

                  The key error in the calculation of Ander - he did not know the average duration of the departure of the plow aircraft.
                  Hours of combat flights from the Arabian Sea to Afghanistan alternate with half-hour training flights in a box around the top mast.
                  Hendricks says that of the 8600 hours of the Hornet’s life cycle, he only spends 20% of his time in the war zone - the rest is training and pilot qualifications
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  so where are the cost estimates for this cover at Hendrix?

                  I will answer for Hendrix
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  the required outfit of forces to ensure round-the-clock duty at least a pair of F-15 you can calculate yourself

                  - instead of buying the ship Nimitz (6,2 billion), you can buy 60 F-15
                  - and instead of operating Nimitz (30 billion without an air wing) - it is possible to ensure a continuous flight of each of these 60 F-15 for 17 000 hours (provided 30kilobaksov per hour).
                  - for 17 000 hours F-15 flies 15 million kilometers - 375 times around the globe


                  amazing numbers. if necessary, this is enough to control anywhere in the world’s oceans and lands for decades
                  Just sakonomili on the construction of one Nimitz)))))

                  ps / we did not calculate the cost of the air wing of Nimitz. Let this colossal cost become a fee for servicing the air force ground bases
                  pps / for continuous monitoring of the ocean Nimitse need at least two, because 30 of 50 years of their life they spend in the docks
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 22: 35 New
                    +3
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The key error in the calculation of Ander - he did not know the average duration of the departure of the plow aircraft.

                    In other words - you are not that you did not find errors in my calculations, but you could not even read from :)))
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    - instead of buying the ship Nimitz (6,2 billion), you can buy 60 F-15
                    - and instead of operating Nimitz (30 billion without an air wing) - it is possible to ensure a continuous flight of each of these 60 F-15 for 17 000 hours (provided 30kilobaksov per hour).
                    - for 17 000 hours F-15 flies 15 million kilometers - 375 times around the globe

                    Leave these "calculations" for the children of the younger group of kindergarten. I asked you a specific question - how many planes are needed to ensure round-the-clock duty for at least a pair of F-15 in the areas of deployment of American EMs with tomahawks. Will the answer be?
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 27 March 2013 02: 12 New
                      -2
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You are not that you didn’t find errors in my calculations, but you couldn’t even read from

                      I had no desire to read a lie - you do not know the average duration of a deck aircraft.
                      And without this, your method does not work
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      I asked you a specific question - how many planes are needed to ensure round-the-clock duty for at least a pair of F-15 in the areas of deployment of American EM with tomahawks. Will the answer be?

                      So-and-so (rubbing his hands) Where is the area of ​​combat maneuvering of the OBK? Of your choice.

                      ps / options the Ross Sea, the Weddell Sea or the North Pole are not considered as obviously absurd
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 27 March 2013 02: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        how many planes are needed to ensure round-the-clock duty of at least F-15 pairs in areas of deployment of American EMs with tomahawks


                        the answer is WHY)))) destroyers with Aegis and anti-aircraft missiles, which do not even have to go 500 km to the coast to strike, at a very decent depth. Moreover, there is a US satellite system, and it does not intersect with aircraft carriers.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 March 2013 07: 10 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        the answer is WHY))))

                        So that the aircraft does not break
                        Quote: Kars
                        At the same time, there is a US satellite system, and does not intersect with aircraft carriers in any way.

                        But intersects with tomahawks
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 27 March 2013 18: 49 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So that the aircraft does not break

                        but that the air defense of the Burke-class Eminer is worthless? and two fighters will be able to change something))))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But intersects with tomahawks

                        That's it. With this constellation of satellites, many military branches are used, and not just tomahawks. At the same time, the progress of the tomahawk navigation systems continues.

                        and it does not make sense to cover destroyers in Murmansk. They will inflict it anyway. There will only be a question of how many missiles can be intercepted.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 March 2013 07: 00 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        But what does the Burke-class Eminer air defense cost?

                        In this case, it does not cost anything, because attack planes (for example, Su-34), following the tip of a large plate, A-50U or A-100 attack, without leaving the radio horizon. Air defense cannot attack what it does not see. Therefore, the role of the air defense of Berkov in this case is reduced to missile defense.
                        Quote: Kars
                        and two fighters can change something

                        Generally - yes, something they can. But not much. I took the F-15 pair not because they can provide air defense of the connection, but because it is easier to calculate them. Having made a calculation for a couple, you can already estimate the four, the squadron, etc.
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 29 March 2013 01: 26 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        A-50U or A-100 attack

                        At the same time, destroyers must wait for the Su-34 to fly up, and not launch tomahawks at the first exposure to their AWACS aircraft.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        attack without leaving the radio horizon

                        well, let them attack, and what? missiles will come nearer and get out of the horizon. Air defense, jammers. So the attack on Murmansk will be made. This is of course given the fact that the airfields will not be disabled by tomahawks earlier.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Having made a calculation for a couple, you can already estimate the four, the squadron, etc.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        -50U or A-100 attack

                        maybe then ohio will strike with tomahawks earlier? And how many armies of the world have AWACS aircraft? and more than a hundred attack aircraft?

                        And by the way, what are we going to do with the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3)
                        operative
                        range> 500 km (270 nautical miles)
                        Ceiling> 160 km (100 miles)
                        Mach speed 7,88, or 9600 km / h
              3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 March 2013 07: 08 New
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Had no desire to read a lie

                In-in. You declared my calculations a lie without even reading them
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                You do not know the average duration of the departure of a deck aircraft.
                And without this, your method does not work

                It works great - the average duration of a departure has nothing to do with it.
                Do you know the average duration of the departure of F-15? :) In your opinion, they just do that they fly along intergalactic routes? :)
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                ak-tak (rubbing his hands) Where is the area of ​​combat maneuvering of the military industrial complex? Of your choice.

                You know better :))) But I can offer, for example, the area of ​​the northern tip of Norway - for an attack on Murmansk and Severodvinsk. Or. for example, the region of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk
              4. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 27 March 2013 19: 50 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Do you know the average duration of departure F-15?

                For me it does not matter - but it is a key factor in your calculations. And you do not know him.
                As well as the ratio of training / demonstration / test and combat sorties.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                area of ​​the northern tip of Norway - for a blow to Murmansk

                Ahahaha. You are clearly playing along with me.

                - Smelgur-Vardo Airport (at the exit of the Varanger Fjord) - 200 km from Murmansk
                - Berlevag Airport (near Vardø, just north)
                - Honningsvåg Airport (Cape Nordkapp)

                Fly closer than with an aircraft carrier)))))

                900 meter runway (from number to number) - is it enough to base the F-16 fighter squadron?
                Placing combat aircraft at airports is a common practice of the U.S. Air Force - during a desert storm, amers occupied all civilian airports in the area (Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia)

                Heavy AWAXS, JSTARS and F-15E can be placed at air bases
                Andøya air station
                Bardufoss air station
                Both are located approximately 500 km from Murmansk

                Strategists - from the air bases of Great Britain (Feaford, Mildenhall), Iceland (Keflavik) and Greenland (Thule)

                + potential opportunity to use Longyear International Airport (Svalbard) - Runway 2800 meters.
                400 km to about. Bearish. 800 km to Cape Nordkapp. F-15, F-15E, AWACS, EP-3 Aries, EC-130 Compass Call

                Moral No. 1: The Barents and Norwegian Seas are completely blocked from land bases and airfields.
                Morality No. 2; in these areas, the weather factor is very important. it’s very difficult for ordinary aviation - and it’s unrealistic to use Nimitz

                Caponier of the Norwegian air base Bodø. Not sour?
              5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 March 2013 07: 05 New
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                For me it does not matter - but it is a key factor in your calculations. And you do not know him.

                This is NOT a key factor in my calculations. Moreover - the average duration of the departure of a deck aircraft (in the form in which you understand it) does not participate in the calculations at all
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Ahahaha. You are clearly playing along with me.

                Well. I asked you a specific question
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                how many planes are needed to ensure round-the-clock duty for at least a pair of F-15 in areas of deployment of American EM with tomahawks.

                You could not answer it.
                Drain counted
              6. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 28 March 2013 12: 03 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You could not answer it.
                Drain counted

                Andrew realized that he had driven away
                Frightened, Andrei turned on the back and went into a dead denial
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                how many planes are needed to ensure round-the-clock duty for at least a pair of F-15 in areas of deployment of American EM with tomahawks.

                "how much to hang in grams" (c)

                X-NUMX F-3 squadrons may be deployed in the Vardø-Nordkapp area
                At 500 km from Murmansk at two air bases - F-15
                AWAKS - in Bodø

                Calculation for F-15 - 60 min. round-trip flight (round-trip, 1000 km), 1 hour of duty in the air over the Nordkapp.
              7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 March 2013 12: 26 New
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Calculation for F-15 - 60 min. round-trip flight (round-trip, 1000 km), 1 hour of duty in the air over the Nordkapp.

                Damn ... laughing laughing laughing
                Do you understand Russian at all, or not? crying
                I HAVE ASKED YOU MANY TIMES
                HOW MUCH PLANES ARE NEEDED TO ENSURE THE F-15 COUPLES ON DAY 24 HOURS TO COVER EM?
                What the hell are you telling me about the 60 min flight in both directions? Why are you writing to me about airfields? Did I ask you about flying time? Did I ask you about runway lengths in Norway? If you have such huge problems with perception - well, turn to specialists, in the end! Heal.
                The answer to my question (hint) sounds like this
                "To ensure round-the-clock duty at a distance of __ km from the aerodrome, ____ F-15 and ___ units of tankers are required to be stationed at this aerodrome."
                All
              8. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 28 March 2013 18: 19 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                If you have such huge problems with perception

                You have perception problems.
                All the facts presented about the airfields of Norway mean one thing - from there fly to the cover of destroyers closer than from the deck of Nimitz.

                And your increased craving for accuracy can be explained only by your unwillingness to admit your mistakes, blaming everything on arithmetic.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                "To ensure round-the-clock duty at a distance of __ km from the aerodrome, ____ F-15 and ___ units of tankers are required to be stationed at this aerodrome."

                As many as deck aircraft

                If you consider Andøya Air Station and Bardufoss Air Station, F-15E, 4AIM-120 load, 4 sidewinder, 3 PTB.
                - take-off and flight along the route (500 km) 40 minutes
                -patrolling 40 minutes.
                -Return to the airport 40 minutes

                F-15 must fly into the air every half an hour so as not to remain in battle without fuel (as Andrey already understood, there will be twice as many cars in the “shift shift” in the air).
                In days 24 hours - 48 departures for patrolling.
                For a couple - 96 sorties.
                The preparation time for the F-15 for the subsequent departure is 4 hours.
                In total, 26 aircraft and 52 crew will be required

                a pair of tankers are on the ground - take off in an emergency, with fighter being delayed over the patrol zone.

                However, you can do without the constant presence of the F-15 - the regiment F-16 is dispersed at the civil airfields of northern Norway. the nearest - in 200 km from Murmansk
              9. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 28 March 2013 18: 21 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                If you have such huge problems with perception

                You have perception problems.
                All the facts presented about the airfields of Norway mean one thing - from there fly to the cover of destroyers closer than from the deck of Nimitz.

                And your increased craving for accuracy can be explained only by your unwillingness to admit your mistakes, blaming everything on arithmetic.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                "To ensure round-the-clock duty at a distance of __ km from the aerodrome, ____ F-15 and ___ units of tankers are required to be stationed at this aerodrome."

                As many as deck aircraft

                If you consider Andøya Air Station and Bardufoss Air Station, F-15E, 4AIM-120 load, 4 sidewinder, 3 PTB.
                - take-off and flight along the route (500 km) 40 minutes
                -patrolling 40 minutes.
                -Return to the airport 40 minutes

                F-15 must fly into the air every half an hour so as not to remain in battle without fuel (as Andrey already understood, there will be twice as many cars in the “shift shift” in the air).
                In days 24 hours - 48 departures for patrolling.
                For a couple - 96 sorties.
                The preparation time for the F-15 for the subsequent departure is 4 hours.
                In total, 26 aircraft and 52 crew + four in five-minute readiness will be required

                a pair of tankers are on the ground - take off in an emergency, with fighter being delayed over the patrol zone.

                However, you can do without the constant presence of the F-15 - the regiment F-16 is dispersed at the civil airfields of northern Norway. the nearest - in 200 km from Murmansk
              10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 March 2013 09: 39 New
                +1
                Ohhhh, really?! :))) finally I hear the voice of not a boy, but a husband :))) I’ll even put a plus for you - all work should be rewarded, and you have not been given an answer to my question for so long :)) )
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                All the facts presented about the airfields of Norway mean one thing - from there fly to the cover of destroyers closer than from the deck of Nimitz.

                A rather original statement - especially given the fact that the aircraft carrier may be directly in the order of the destroyers, while the airfield is beyond 500 km.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                For a couple - 96 sorties.
                The preparation time for the F-15 for the subsequent departure is 4 hours.
                In total, 26 aircraft and 52 crew + four in five-minute readiness will be required

                In fact - of course not. Because according to your calculations, it turns out that one aircraft per day is able to make almost 4 flights. This is a completely unrealistic indicator in a combat situation. Allied aviation (about 2 thousand aircraft) during the "Storm in a Glass" made about 2,5-3 thousand sorties per day. Therefore, the first thing you must understand absolutely precisely - your figure is "slightly" underestimated. More than double. Given the fact that the combat tension of land aviation practically did not even reach 2 sorties per day (but still based on the fact that a combat aircraft will make these two sorties) the real number of F-15 to ensure round-the-clock patrol over the formation of destroyers - not 26, but 48. If we take the combat stress on the actual indicators of "storm in a glass" - then this figure will grow even more.
                I’m telling you, as an amateur, I’ll tell you everything according to real indicators :)))
                And now - quite real indicators of carrier-based aviation in the same "Desert Storm"
                To accomplish air defense tasks, carrier-based aviation carried out daily flights from 80 to 300 sorties. The average flight duration of carrier-based fighters was 3 hours, and the maximum - up to 5 hours. Aircraft AWACS and control E-2С "Hokai" in the air were until 7 hours.
                http://navycollection.narod.ru/library/docenko/11.htm
                At the same time, we recall that the US Navy did not have 6 AB at all from the beginning of the operation - at first there were only 4. With this in mind, we can assume that ONLY for air defense tasks from one AB was made from 20 to 50 sorties per day. In fact, from aircraft carriers, of course, they took off not only to ensure air defense :)))
                So, Honorable Oleg, even having limited the departure time of the 3 carrier-based fighter to hours and having allocated half an hour from them for takeoff and landing procedures (which you completely forgot to do in your calculation for the F-15, well, okay), it turns out that the carrier-based carrier-based fighter, the destroyers in the warrant will be able to patrol for 2,5 hours. Around-the-clock duty of one aircraft is provided by 10 flights / departures per day, but to organize a standard patrol (one EW aircraft, one AWACS, and two fighters) you will need 40 sorties. For the organization of reinforced patrols (one EW, one AWACS and 4 fighter) - respectively 60 sorties. As we can see, this is quite affordable for an aircraft carrier.
                But in order to ensure the same duty from your lovely Andøya Air Station and Bardufoss Air Station, you need an 96-144 aircraft :)))) Whether they can accommodate at your bases is a separate issue, but I'm kind today.
              11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 March 2013 09: 39 New
                +1
                I will accept your number - 26 aircraft to ensure round-the-clock duty of two fighters (13 aircraft to provide round-the-clock duty of one aircraft). Accordingly, to organize the patrol of two deuces, you will need an 52 aircraft. In order to add EW aircraft to them, 13 aircraft will be needed, the overall outfit increases to 65. But the fact is that without an AWAC such an air travel is still inferior - will we add another 13? :)))) Total 78.
                But here is the thing. Neither the 2 nor the 4 fighter will be able to repel a massive air attack on ships. I will not now recall the regiments of missile-carrying aviation allocated for the destruction of the USA AUG, but it is still necessary to defend Su-30 from the attack of one regiment (34 vehicles).
                I came across data from the air defense missile system that one air defense fighter is able to "tie" up to 4 attacking enemy aircraft and prevent them from reaching the target. I repeat - do not shoot down all 4, but shoot down somehow, and do not let the rest attack the target, these are two different things. So, to repulse the 30 attack, the Su-34 not covered by fighter aircraft will need 8 fighters.
                The aircraft carrier will provide them easily - with 4 fighter in the air and 4 - in full combat readiness on catapults. But you can’t accomplish such a feat with your Andøya Air Station and Bardufoss Air Station - for those 40 minutes of flight time, the F-15 simply will not have time to go to the battlefield. Thus, in order to compensate for the cover of a group of destroyers at the level of non-tensioned operation of the AB air group (6 aircraft in the air - AWACS, REB and 4 fighters) and another 4 are ready for take-off, you will need to organize the duty of AWACS, REB, and 8 fighters IN THE AIR . Since the round-the-clock vigil of one aircraft requires 13 aircraft, you will need 130 aircraft (of which - 104 - Ф-15). then according to your calculations with a combat strength of more than 3,6 sorties per day. And since it does not exceed 2 - then you will need 240 aircraft and 192 Ф-15 :)))
                So, in order to perform the work of one aircraft carrier with one aircraft wing, you will have to use OVER HALF of the total number of F-15 in the regular US Air Force :)))
                But in reality - everything is much worse. Because I strongly doubt that Andøya Air Station and Bardufoss Air Station can provide the basing and intensive use of 240 (or even 130) aircraft. Thus, the US Air Force simply will not be able to cover the EM connection at the level of protection, which is easily provided, I repeat, by ONE aircraft carrier
              12. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 29 March 2013 15: 41 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But here is the thing. Neither 2 nor 4 fighters will be able to repel a massive attack on aircraft ships

                Andrei still definitely doesn’t like the airfields of Smelgur-Vardo, Berlevog and Honnigsweg, where the F-16 regiment is dispersed)))
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Accordingly, to organize the patrol of two deuces

                A couple of heavy fighters are enough. In Norkappa on three civilian runways stands regiment F-16

                Honningsvåg Airport

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The aircraft carrier will provide them easily - with 4 fighter in the air and 4 - in full combat readiness on catapults. But you can’t accomplish such a feat with your Andøya Air Station and Bardufoss Air Station - for those 40 minutes of flight time, the F-15 simply will not have time to go to the battlefield.

                F-16 regiment on civilian runways
                Concerning AWACS - four E-3 in Bodø, there are also based EC-130H Compass Call EW aircraft

                ps / 40 min flying time on cr. speed. F-15 with pendants capable of accelerating to at least 1,8M?
            2. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 29 March 2013 15: 25 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              especially considering the fact that the aircraft carrier can be directly in the order of the destroyers, while the airfield is located at 500 km.

              Andrei stubbornly does not notice 900-meter GDP of airfields
              Smelgur-Vardo, Berlevag and Honnigsweg, where the F-16 regiment is dispersed
              Nodkapp-Vardø area - destroyers why not go further.
              Airfields are located directly in the order of the destroyers (50 km - not a distance for modern aviation)

              I am interested in how Andrei will comment on this moment, calling into question all his arithmetic)))
              However, the rest is no better:
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Given the fact that the combat tension of land aviation practically did not even reach 2 sorties per day

              ... The best teacher was everyday work: on the day of the crews you took up 5-6 sorties, spending in the air up to 8 hours.
              V. Markovsky, "The Hot Sky of Afghanistan"
              I, by the way, have 2 interchangeable crews, i.e. on 2 departure per day.
              In less than two days, with a rather small number of aircraft, the Israeli Air Force completed about 1100 sorties, and many pilots made 8 - 10 sorties per day.
              Six Day War
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In fact, from aircraft carriers, of course, they took off not only to ensure air defense

              A total of 141 000 tons of explosives were poured into Iraq. It is interesting to compare this value with the capacity of Forrestal or Nimitz cellars. wink
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              that ONLY for air defense tasks from one AB was made from 20 to 50 sorties per day

              - 249 F-16 fighters;
              - 120 fighters gaining superiority in the airF-15C;
              - 71 air superiority fighter F-15 Saudi Air Force. arabia
              - British Air Force fighters (83 vehicles), French Air Force (37 vehicles) ...

              all this of course, it costs nothing)))) all decided 68 F-14 fighters "Tomcat")))))
            3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 March 2013 12: 54 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Andrei stubbornly does not notice 900-meter GDP of airfields
              Smelgur-Vardo, Berlevag and Honnigsweg, where the F-16 regiment is dispersed

              Well, why? I notice, but you indicated Andøya Air Station and Bardufoss Air Station, didn’t you? :)
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Nodkapp-Vardø area - destroyers why not go further.
              Airfields are located directly in the order of the destroyers (50 km - not a distance for modern aviation)

              Of course. But there is 3 nuance.
              Firstly, as you yourself have just noticed, an air base really acquires the ability to cover ships at sea if ... if it is located no further than in 50, well, maybe in 100 (or even 200 - but not further) km from the ships. Then it is of course. But even 800 + American bases do not create the desired density
              Secondly, the airdromes you have indicated are located approximately 400 km of the Russian border, and as such can be turned into trash in the very first minutes of the war — using the most common tactical “ballistic” - unlike an aircraft carrier, the coordinates of which are not known at any time , the coordinates of the indicated aerodromes are known exactly, so if there are adequate armaments for these runways, there is simply no chance — they will be knocked out in the first minutes.
              Thirdly, (and this is the most controversial issue of your calculations). These bases are located on the territory of Norway :))) You see, all these military bases are excellent ... when there was a terrible USSR, and here in a case when its armored tanks would suddenly rush across the border, killing everyone in their path (including and freedom-loving Norwegians) - but yes, these bases would certainly play a role.
              But now there is no terrible USSR, but there is the Russian Federation, which is lyrically incapable of threatening the old Europe, because there is nothing simple. And if in such a situation the preconditions for a conflict with the USA suddenly arise, then the USA will be the aggressor, it is the USA that will need to strike at the Russian Federation. And I have a question - where does such confidence come from that the Norwegians, food with delight and losing toilet articles along the way, rush to provide the US Air Force with their bases for attacking the Russian Federation? I can imagine a situation where the United States wants to fight with the Russian Federation, but a situation where NORWAY wants to fight with the Russian Federation (except for the case of the Russian invasion of Norway) is quite difficult to imagine. Shelf? Is it worth the risk of a conflict with a nuclear power?
              In general, Honorable Oleg, there is a great non-zero probability that the US Navy will have no bases at all, either in Smelgur-Vardø or Bardufoss Air Station, since the use of these bases directly depends on the desire / unwillingness of a third country to participate in the conflict .
            4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 March 2013 12: 54 New
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              .. The best teacher was everyday work: on the day of the crews you took up 5-6 sorties, spending in the air up to 8 hours.
              V. Markovsky, "The Hot Sky of Afghanistan"

              You, please, Oleg, decide for yourself - either we take the calculated values ​​or the results actually achieved. And then it turns out interesting, where it is profitable, you use one or the other. If you want to take the calculated values ​​- OK, it’s not a question, I’m ready to accept your 26 planes, but then reconcile with the calculated 140 planes from Nimitz (as normal). If you would like to take the actual patrol time of carrier-based aviation and the actually achieved number of carrier-based sorties, this is not a question, but then use not calculated, but actually achieved results for land aviation
              But there is no need to juggle, I’m not worse than you (if you still haven’t noticed this) Markovsky actually writes not about airplanes, but about Mi-8 helicopters :))) And I don’t really understand why I should for determination of the actual indicators of the combat strength of the US ground aviation not to take their own indicators in the Desert Storm, but the indicators of Soviet (!) helicopters (!!) In addition, 5-6 sorties with a total time of up to 8 hours are, in fact, two long-range missions .
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              In less than two days, with a rather small number of aircraft, the Israeli Air Force completed about 1100 sorties, and many pilots made 8 - 10 sorties per day.

              And this is where (I can’t guess something)?
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              - 249 F-16 fighters;

              laughing laughing laughing Did they also carry out air defense tasks? :)
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              all this of course, it costs nothing)))) all decided 68 F-14 fighters "Tomcat")))))

              The juggling attempt was not counted :))) I gave figures on the intensity of the air defense sorties from the AB in order to demonstrate the capabilities of carrier-based aircraft in real combat conditions, but the carrier fighters did all the work - I didn’t say so I don’t have to attribute too much :))) But if you have already decided to list ALL the fighters that participated in the desert storm - then then "forgot" about F / A-18? :)))
            5. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 31 March 2013 15: 54 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But there is no need to juggle, I’m no worse than you (if you still haven’t noticed this) Markovsky actually writes not about airplanes, but about Mi-8 helicopters :)))

              I re-read Markovsky the last time about four years ago. And, indeed, quoted the wrong chapter
              Doctors recommended reducing the flight load, shortening the waiting time before departure and creating favorable conditions for rest. In practice, the only implemented recommendation was compliance with the maximum allowable flight load defined in 4 - 5 sorties per day. In fact, the pilots sometimes had to perform up to 9 sorties.
              This is Su-Xnumx
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              the total time to 8 hours is, in essence, two long-haul flights.

              sortie and combat air patrol - a little different things
              plus in my calculation 2 interchangeable crew
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And this is where (I can’t guess something)?

              http://shaon.livejournal.com/78838.html
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              249 F-16 fighters; Did they also carry out air defense tasks? :)

              not excluded
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But if you have already decided to list ALL the fighters participating in the desert storm - well then "forgot" about F / A-18

              146 Deck Hornets
              72 Korneta KMP on land

              For the big picture, you can take into account, for example, 24 multipurpose F-15E US Air Force and 89 interceptors F-5 Air Force Saud. Arabia
          2. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 31 March 2013 15: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            but you indicated Andøya Air Station and Bardufoss Air Station, didn't you?

            In my first comment on Norway, I pointed out the existence of civilian GDP
            But you pretended not to be
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Of course. But there is 3 nuance.

            There are 2 nuances that Andrei, with his characteristic straightforwardness, did not notice, delving into calculations of the duration of sorties.

            Nuanas No.1. This is a classic. The question of patrolling the F-15 is removed by one question: Why ?!
            Squadron Berkov - this is not an aircraft carrier with an escort who needs to constantly hang around near enemy shores. This is a raid operation - the berks advanced to the position, in a couple of hours they shot the ammunition of the Axes, went to Trondheim to reload the MK.41. Everything! Works for F-15 and F-16 for only half a day.

            After the first, deafening blow with Axes (+ F-15E, F-16, B-1B), the enemy will have neither Su-34, nor A-50.

            Nuance No.2. Once it came to ballistic Iskanders, then it’s time to put the Ashen, Barracud and 971's “pike” squadron into the sea. Boats will be killed by an aircraft carrier like a big seal
            533 mm, Caliber complex ... and since Andrei so boldly dreams of Su-34 regiments, I will have to dream about "long torpedoes" 65-76))))
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Is it worth the risk of a conflict with a nuclear power?

            Andrei was finally visited by a bright thought. The story with Norway does not roll in any way - in the case of a hypothetical non-nuclear conflict with the Nimitz Nimitz is not needed - tomahawks and land aviation do a great job.
            In the event of a conflict with the Russian Federation, Nimitz is too vulnerable and useless. In addition, a nuclear power is a completely different scale here.
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 1 2013 10: 45 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In my first comment on Norway, I pointed out the existence of civilian GDP
            But you pretended not to be

            Nope :))) I didn’t do any kind :))) I just found out from you how many planes you need to provide a round-the-clock air patrol - and that when you gave me your calculation, it did not take into account civil Runway is not my fault.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Nuanas No.1. This is a classic. The question of patrolling the F-15 is removed by one question: Why ?!

            You are confused in the testimony :)))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            1. why did Andrey get the idea that the US Navy would be left without air cover?

            If you believe that air cover is not necessary in principle - it’s not a question, it’s also a point of view, but then you should write like that and not convince others that you need air cover, but it can also be provided by ground F-15
            Further. You do not find that
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            the berks advanced to the position, in a couple of hours they shot the ammunition of the Axes, went to Trondheim to reload the MK.41

            И
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The story with Norway does not roll in any way

            Somehow weakly interconnected?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Nuance No.2. Once it came to ballistic Iskanders, then it’s time to put the Ashen, Barracud and 971's “pike” squadron into the sea. Boats will be killed by an aircraft carrier like a big seal

            Very controversial statement. In this area, the PLO will turn out ... extremely powerful.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The story with Norway does not roll in any way - in the case of a hypothetical non-nuclear conflict with the Nimitz Nimitz is not needed - tomahawks and land aviation do a great job.

            What are they dealing with? :))
            If Norway does not want to intervene, then no strike from the north without AB is possible at all, because it is necessary to send EM to the line of launching axes without any cover. All hope will be solely that it will be possible to quickly get out / quickly flee, but given the presence of the same Kuznetsov in the Federation Council, there will not be many chances for this.
          4. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 1 2013 13: 39 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You are confused in the testimony

            Andrew is standing up to make excuses. It turns out a pity.
            by the way, what about the top comment? or Andrew again pretended not to be
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            If you believe that air cover is not necessary in principle

            The US Navy will not be left without fighter cover. The destroyers took to positions with air cover - fired back - went to Trondheim.
            I don’t need to hang over the front edge for weeks: firstly, I have no one to coversecondly, I have no one to fear - all A-50 and Su-34 are burnt by tomahawks and F-15E
            And "no need in principle" - these are your fantasies
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            the berks advanced to the position, in a couple of hours they shot the ammunition of the Axes, went to Trondheim to reload the MK.41
            И
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The story with Norway does not roll in any way
            Somehow weakly interconnected?

            For Nimitz, the story of Norway does not roll in any way
            For tomahawks and trondheim - rolls)))
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In this area, the PLO will turn out ... extremely powerful.

            and half more destroyers will sink
            and without destroyers the whole operation makes no sense
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            If Norway doesn’t want to intervene, then no strike from the north without AB

            Andrei has enlightenment again - if Norway does not intervene, there will be no blow from the north
            Will have to start an invasion from the Baltic states, Turkey or Poland

            And to break up the berths of Severomorsk, SRZ-82, Gadzhivevo and Ara-lip can pair "Ohio" with axes. Fast and efficient
          5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 1 2013 17: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Andrew is standing up to make excuses. It turns out a pity.

            Oh-she-she :))) Is that a sense of humor? :))))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            by the way, what about the top comment? or Andrew again pretended not to be

            I thought you would change your mind. But if you like your puddle so much ...
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This is Su-Xnumx

            It is very nice to use Su-15 to evaluate F-17. You still take La 5FN. Russian was written to you in white - the desire to take real numbers - take REAL numbers. For F-15. And not for Mi-8, Su-17 or Lagg-3. Because Ф-15 is not Lagg-3 even once.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            not excluded

            Yeah ... on 9 sorties per day.
            http://shaon.livejournal.com/78838.html

            Read
            IDF included 275 thousand people, about 1000 tanks, 450 aircraft

            и
            In less than two dayshaving a fairly small number of aircraft, the Israeli Air Forceperformed about 1 100 sorties

            и
            many pilots made 8 - 10 sorties per day

            Now attention is a question. How are the numbers of 450 aircraft (according to other sources - 300) combined for two days and 1100 sorties? And if some pilots flew 9-10 sorties, then sorry, what did everyone else do at that time?
            During the six-day war, the Israeli Air Force made fighter-bombing flights on all fronts of the 3279. http://www.airwar.ru/history/af/iaf/stati/born4.html If we assume that the war lasted 6 days, then this is almost 550 sorties per day for at least 300 cars.
            I answered your top comment, or else add? :)))
            A little lower - on the current comment
          6. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 1 2013 20: 28 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I thought you would change your mind. But if you like your puddle so much ...

            Andrei was bogged down in a pool for a long time. And with each post it sinks deeper
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Because Ф-15 is not Lagg-3 even once.

            during the Tim Spirit-82 exercises held in the western part of the Pacific Ocean, the 24 of the F-15A fighter, based at the Kaden air base (Okinawa Island), made 9 "sorties" over the course of 418 days, of which 233 - during three days. At the same time, the degree of combat readiness of aircraft amounted to almost 100%.
            and this is not Lagg-3, this is http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f15.html
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            How are the numbers of 450 aircraft (according to other sources - 300) combined for two days and 1100 sorties? And if some pilots flew 9-10 sorties, then sorry, what did everyone else do at that time?

            450 digits (according to other 300 data))))
            In total, from the beginning of the 50 to 1967, Israel purchased (produced under license) 300 jet combat aircraft (Mr., Hurricane, Mirage, Votur, Majister). some of them were lost in wars, disasters, the end of the resource - by 1967, Israel had no more than 190 warplanes
            of which the latest mirages - 70. It is logical that the “first line” planes flew more and more often than the old cars Mr. or Hurricane.

            300 machines are obtained taking into account the "Piper Cab" and turntables))))

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            A little lower - on the current comment

            ?
          7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 1 2013 22: 53 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Andrei was bogged down in a pool for a long time. And with each post it sinks deeper

            Yeah. Wait a moment, gurgle for the last time, and probably enough
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            during the Tim Spirit-82 exercises held in the western part of the Pacific Ocean, the 24 of the F-15A fighter, based at the Kaden air base (Okinawa Island), made 9 "sorties" over the course of 418 days, of which 233 - during three days. At the same time, the degree of combat readiness of aircraft amounted to almost 100%.

            You see, my time is precious to me. And spending it on people who have 2 + 2 = then 5 then (-8) is extremely uninteresting to me. Therefore - try to COUNT what you quoted me right now
            418 departures in 9 days is 46,4 average departures per day; for 24 airplanes, the intensity factor is 1,94. 233 departures in three days - 77,7 average daily departures, i.e. 3,23 combat flight departure per day. Where here
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            and many pilots made 8 - 10 sorties per day.

            or
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In fact, the pilots sometimes had to perform up to 9 sorties.

            Which are you telling me here which comment on your ears? And nowhere. Alas, the skill of simple counting is clearly not within the competence of current "expert-publicists."
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            by 1967, Israel had no more than 190 warplanes

            What are you? :))))))) Wow! :)))) And here is your link, Oleg,
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            http://shaon.livejournal.com/78838.html

            which you quoted here with sooo aplomb, the number of aircraft in Israel by the beginning of the war
            IDF included 275 thousand people, about 1000 tanks, 450 aircraft and xnumx warships.

            So do not argue with me - argue with the author of the link that you gave.
            And I have a question for you. Since you determined the number of the Israeli Air Force in 190 vehicles, why the hell are you giving a link to the material where this figure is more than doubled? :)))
            You yourself generally read your link, or what? :)))
          8. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 2 2013 01: 55 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            233 departures in three days - 77,7 average daily departures, i.e. 3,23 combat flight departure per day.

            Are you enraged by this figure?)))

            consider that you leaked the argument
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            o according to your calculations with a combat strength of more than 3,6 sorties per day. And since it does not exceed 2 - then you will need 240 aircraft and 192 Ф-15 :)))



            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In fact, the pilots sometimes had to perform up to 9 sorties. Which are you telling me here which comment on your ears?

            These are questions to Markovsky.
            I can quite admit that at a slight distance from the base, such a density of departures could be achieved for a short time.
            About the Tsakhal Air Force - one often hears that the Jews reduced the preparation of the Mirage for the subsequent departure from the scheduled 40 mines. to eight. Draw conclusions yourself.

            However, this is not important in our case - most importantly, F-15 showed that they are capable of performing on 3 and more departures per day.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Since you determined the number of the Israeli Air Force in 190 vehicles, why the hell are you giving a link to the material where this figure is more than doubled?

            Why are you completely stuck by the evening)))

            190 combat aircraft - it was a question of purely combat jet vehicles capable of engaging in air combat, delivering strikes and providing fire support to Tsakhal. (Hurricane, Mr., Mirage, even the combat training Majister counts)
            450 is taking into account turntables, transport boards, Piper Cab corncrackers, etc .... but even this figure is probably overestimated ... I am more inclined to three hundred ... I don’t know how much. and nobody probably knows.
          9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2013 07: 43 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            consider that you leaked the argument

            Oleg, who is here and what leaked - this, I think, will be decided by those who read our discussion :) I can tell you one thing - no matter how much you say "halva" in your mouth it will not become sweeter :))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            These are questions to Markovsky.

            Yes, these are not questions to Markovsky, but to you. Do you forgive, Markovsky did not say that you can make over 15 flights a day on F-9000 :))) He wrote about Mi-8 and about Su-17 :)))) You simply grab any number that suits you, tearing it out out of context. Liar :))))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            However, this is not important in our case - most importantly, F-15 have shown that they are capable of performing over 3 and more flights per day.

            N-yeah? :))))) Someone here recently painted that once with Nimitz they also made 200 flights per day, but this was just a freebie, because a significant part of these flights consisted of airplane lifting, whirling around the mast and landing on the deck :))))
            So I have a question - Oleg, and do you know at least something by the DURATION of these sorties? How long did one sortie take there? Let’s say, I’m not at all surprised if the plane took to the air 3-4 times for less than an hour.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            450 - taking into account turntables,

            Oleg, well, don’t, huh :))))) If your livjournel writes
            450 aircraft

            but implies
            450 planes and helicopters

            Then what should I call an "expert" who does not know that an airplane and a helicopter are "slightly" different aircraft? :))))
            In general - if you already gave a delusional link, then at least have the courage to admit it, or just keep quiet silently if you do not know how to admit your mistakes.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            190 combat aircraft - it was a question of purely combat jet vehicles capable of engaging in air combat, delivering strikes and providing fire support to Tsakhal. (Hurricane, Mr., Mirage, even the combat training Majister counts)

            I will list some types of Israeli Air Force aircraft and their numbers as of the beginning of the six-day war
            Dasso Mister IVA - 40 units
            Super Mystere B.2 - from 31 to 34 units
            MD 450 Hurricane - 51 units
            Votur - 18 units
            Mirage - 70 units
            Majister - 80-100 units
            http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/vautoure/vautoure.html
            http://jewish.in.ua/historyblog/israel_army/air_force/page,1,724-kratkaya-istori
            ya-vvs-izrailya-1948-2003-gg.html
            http://aviacollections.ru/v_izraile.html#more-948
            http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/md454/md454.html
            http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/cm170.html
            http://airwar.ru/enc/fighter/smisterb2.html
            Total - 290-313 units However, the list does not purport to be complete.
            Oleg, he is such an Oleg ...
          10. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 2 2013 18: 44 New
            0
            I was wrong. But all the worse for Andrey
            I took the flight range of the F-15E to 1500 km. This is not true, this is its combat radius.
            Armed with four AIM-120As, four 2000 lb Mk 84s and fitted with LANTIRN and three drop tanks, the F-15E will manage a combat radius better than 750 nm with a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi / 100 nm dash mission profile.
            source - http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-15E-Strike-Eagle.html
            750 miles = 1400 km.
            with 4 tons of bombs, 4 AIM-120, LANTIRN containers and three PTBs.
            in the case of a combat air patrol, bombs and lantirn are removed - the flight range increases + the optimal flight profile without jerks at low altitude. 1500 km combat radius - Andrey still had questions, how did this figure come about?

            The Norwegian air base is located 500 km from the combat maneuvering area of ​​the destroyers. 45 minutes in each direction (the figure is slightly overestimated - made for easy counting) + 90 minutes of patrol.
            90 minutes after takeoff of the first pair, the second takes off - as a result, we have the need for 48 sorties per day to ensure round-the-clock duty for a pair of two aircraft in the air.

            What do official sources say about this
            A Global Access Strategy for the US Air Force
            page 60 - For missions longer than about 750 nm to target crews can no longer fly more than one sortie per day.
            if you remember, I initially took this moment into account - I have 2 interchangeable crews.

            p. 62 - Figure 3.6 displays the results and shows that for F-15s and F-16s at very close ranges (less than 200 nm) the ability of maintenance crew to turn aircraft limits sortie production
            At minimum distances to the target, a limit on the number of departures is imposed by the maintenance schedule.
            At distances over 200 miles, the main limitation is crew fatigue (I took this into account)
            At long distances (1500 miles - 3000 miles!) - the problem is in the tankers.
            (see illustration)

            Note: Americans take an 18-hour day into account. But in Norway, the sun shines in the summer around the clock.

            Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: Alternatives for Jet Engine Intermediate Maintenance
            page 27 - The wartime flying schedule has a ten-day surge in which the F-15s fly approximately 1,6 sorties per day and the F-16s about 2.0 sorties per day, followed by a 90-day sustain period in which both F- 15s and F-16s flying schedule is 1.0 sortie per day

            Gentle conditions of the US Air Force - 1,6 departure per day for the F-15. In addition, I have 2 interchangeable crews - they have to cope, dead people, fell, wrung out)))

            As a result, we have: 48 / 1.6 = 30 F-15 fighters


            Andrei can keep his horror stories about 104 aircraft. He blew the argument - the land aviation jokingly provides air cover at a distance of 500 km.
          11. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 2 2013 18: 49 New
            0
            I was wrong. But all the worse for Andrey

            I took the flight range F-15E ~ 1500 km. But this is his combat radius!
            Armed with four AIM-120As, four 2000 lb Mk 84s and fitted with LANTIRN and three drop tanks, the F-15E will manage a combat radius better than 750 nm with a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi / 100 nm dash mission profile.
            http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-15E-Strike-Eagle.html
            750 miles = 1400 miles with 4 tons of bombs, 4 AIM-120, LANTIRN containers and three PTBs.
            in the case of a combat air patrol, bombs and lantirn are removed - the flight range increases + the optimal flight profile without jerking at low altitude.

            The Norwegian airbase is located at 500 km - 45 minutes in each direction (the figure is slightly overestimated for the convenience of counting) + 90 minutes of patrol.
            90 minutes after takeoff of the first pair, the second takes off - as a result, we have the need for 48 sorties per day to ensure round-the-clock duty for a pair of two aircraft in the air.

            What do official sources say about this
            A Global Access Strategy for the US Air Force
            page 60 - For missions longer than about 750 nm to target crews can no longer fly more than one sortie per day.
            if you remember, I initially took this moment into account - I have 2 interchangeable crews.

            p. 62 - Figure 3.6 displays the results and shows that for F-15s and F-16s at very close ranges (less than 200 nm) the ability of maintenance crew to turn aircraft limits sortie production
            At minimum distances to the target, a limit on the number of departures is imposed by the maintenance schedule.
            At distances over 200 miles, the main limitation is crew fatigue (I took this into account)
            Over long distances (pay attention to 1500 miles!) - the problem is in the tankers.
            (see illustration)

            Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: Alternatives for Jet Engine Intermediate Maintenance
            page 27 - The wartime flying schedule has a ten-day surge in which the F-15s fly approximately 1,6 sorties per day and the F-16s about 2.0 sorties per day, followed by a 90-day sustain period in which both F- 15s and F-16s flying schedule is 1.0 sortie per day

            Gentle conditions of the US Air Force - 1,6 departure per day for the F-15. In addition, I have 2 interchangeable crews - they have to cope, dead people, fell, wrung out)))

            48 / 1.6 = 30 F-15 fighters

            Andrei can keep his horror stories about 104 aircraft. He blew the argument - the land aviation jokingly provides air cover at a distance of 500 km.
          12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 2 2013 21: 56 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I was wrong. But all the worse for Andrey

            (heavy sigh) I know. Now you’ll invent another horror, but I have to refute it ...
            But, frankly, this ... I did not expect from you, Oleg :))) wassat
            I won’t even argue - I will take it for granted that to ensure round-the-clock patrolling of the F-15 pair, you will need
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            48 / 1.6 = 30 F-15 fighters

            This means that to provide the four fighters, you need 60 fighters, the eight - 120 fighters, and taking into account the AWACS aircraft and the EW aircraft and taking their combat strength equal to F-15 comes out - 150 cars :)))
            Oleg, here all sorts of taunts are asking for my language. 104 of my planes came out of your calculation that you need 13 (in words - THIRTEEN) machines or 26 machines for a couple of hours to ensure one aircraft
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In total, 26 aircraft and 52 crew + four in five-minute readiness will be required

            13 * 8 = 104 of the aircraft
            And now, by reading imported literature, you have come to the point that they need not 26 but 30
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            48 / 1.6 = 30 F-15 fighters

            Those. the number of aircraft to ensure the round-the-clock duty of one aircraft YOU INCREASED from 13 to 15.
            And you, screaming the internet
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Andrei can keep his horror stories about 104 aircraft. The argument he blew

            Are you happy to run to report this to me? :) laughing
            Oleg, if 8 planes require 13 planes rather than 15 planes to ensure round-the-clock duty, the number required to provide the same 8 machines in the air has slightly increased - from 104 to 120 machines. So yes, I blew the argument - they need not 104 but 120 laughing laughing laughing
            Oleg, you better kill this post of yours. And then after all, someone will read it - they’ll tear their tummies with laughter, and you will sculpt cons in articles without even reading yes
          13. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 2 2013 23: 18 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            This means that to ensure the four fighters you need 60 fighters

            Well it’s like the wing of a nimitz)))
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            eights - 120 fighters

            excessively
            I have less than a day's work - the berks went to the position, shot, went to the trondheim
            + F-16 regiment at three airfields in close proximity
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            and taking into account the AWACS and EW aircraft

            There are no difficulties with them - it is enough to have a pair of E-3 in Bodø
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And now, by reading imported literature, you have come to the point that they need not 26 but 30

            in reality there will be less.
            For the sake of laughter, I counted 1.6 departure per day - this is with two crews!
            the nameplate shows that with two interchangeable crews you can easily make 2 sorties per day (combat radius 750 miles), moreover, a combat air patrol is not a bombardment
            And one more thing - Americans take into account the 18-hour day wink
            and in Norway in our country the sun shines in the summer round the clock

            Make them at least 2 departure - the required number of machines will be reduced from 30 to 24.
          14. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 2 2013 23: 41 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The Norwegian airbase is located at 500 km - 45 minutes in each direction (the figure is slightly overestimated for the convenience of counting) + 90 minutes of patrol.
            90 minutes after takeoff of the first pair, the second takes off - as a result, we have the need for 48 sorties per day to ensure round-the-clock duty for a pair of two aircraft in the air.

            Huh! And even Andrey looked, didn’t see the inaccuracy
            Why 90 minutes?))) 120! I have the same reserve on patrolling 2000 km.

            this gives me significant savings - pairs take off every 2 hours, the required number of flights per day is 12 for one and 24 for a pair of Needles.
            24 / 1.6 = 15 F-15 aircraft to ensure round-the-clock duty at 500 km from the base

            And where are Andrei’s horror stories about hundreds of planes that covered the whole sky?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            eights - 120 fighters

            60 machines
            possible, but redundant. I have less than a day's work - the berks went to the position, shot, went to the trondheim
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            and taking into account the AWACS and EW aircraft

            There are no difficulties with them - it is enough to have a pair of E-3 in Bodø
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And now, by reading imported literature, you have come to the point that they need not 26 but 30

            in reality there will be less.
            For the sake of laughter, I counted 1.6 departure per day - this is with two crews!
            the nameplate shows that with two interchangeable crews you can easily make 2 sorties per day (combat radius 750 miles), moreover, a combat air patrol is not a bombardment
            And one more thing - Americans take into account the 18-hour day wink
            and in Norway in our country the sun shines in the summer round the clock
          15. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2013 11: 57 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Huh! And even Andrey looked, didn’t see the inaccuracy

            That's what a restless one :)))) Oleg, I wrote in Russian in white about the result of your calculations
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I won’t even argue - I’ll take it for granted,

            Oleg, what is the point for me to do your calculations, if you immediately refuse them and go to draw new ones? :))) let's do it better - you come up with such a calculation, in which a couple of planes are patrolled around the clock by one F-15, and it’s end, huh :)))))))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Why 90 minutes?))) 120! I have the same reserve on patrolling 2000 km.

            Oleg, the range in 2000 km reached only the F-15 with two conformal tanks, at the cost of a decent deterioration in performance characteristics. This is a well-known story, in contrast to the fighting radius of the Needle, which only the lazy did not fantasize, because figures from 1200 to 1900 km are given.
            F / A 18 Hornet, having a smaller mass but a larger supply of fuel (meaning Eagles with PTB and Hornet with PTB) has a combat radius
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Huh! And even Andrey looked, didn’t see the inaccuracy

            That's what a restless one :)))) Oleg, I wrote in Russian in white about the result of your calculations
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I won’t even argue - I’ll take it for granted,

            Oleg, what is the point for me to do your calculations, if you immediately refuse them and go to draw new ones? :))) let's do it better - you come up with such a calculation, in which a couple of planes are patrolled around the clock by one F-15, and it’s end, huh :)))))))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Why 90 minutes?))) 120! I have the same reserve on patrolling 2000 km.

            Oleg, the range in 2000 km reached only the F-15 with two conformal tanks, at the cost of a decent deterioration in performance characteristics. This is a well-known story, in contrast to the fighting radius of the Needle, which only the lazy did not fantasize, because figures from 1200 to 1900 km are given.
            Super Hornet, having 8% less mass (of an empty plane) and 3% less fuel than Eagle, has a park range of 1280 km of warheads http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f18ef.html
            Your quote from A Global Access Strategy for the US Air Force on the 11 page gives out
            fighters and attack aircraft
            such as the A-10, F-15, F-16, and F-117 have unrefueled combat radii
            of 300 – 500 nm.

            And here's another interesting
            Current procedures allow an F-15E crew to fly two sorties per day to a maximum radius of about 610 nm. Under our assumptions, the crew could fly two sorties per day to a maximum distance of up to 750 nm. We are indebted to Major Mike Pietrucha and others at HQAF / XOXS for their thoughtful comments and suggestions regarding
            our fighter mission profile assumptions.
            (86 page)
            And then - of course, the drawing you quoted.
          16. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2013 11: 58 New
            +1
            So, Oleg, two sorties to a range of 610 nm (1130 km.) Is never a combat radius. Because we are talking about the departure TO THE PURPOSE LOCATED in 1130 km. flew-snorted-flew-everything. A dogfight requires some time and increased fuel consumption for maneuvering - i.e. the combat radius, taking into account possible air combat, will be even smaller. But today I am kind, so we pull F-15 this difference.
            Even if the combat radius is 1130 km, then the F-15 will overcome 2260 km in departure, the average cruising speed is 900 km / h, total flight time is 2,5 hours, of which approximately 35 minutes are at 500 km to the patrol point, another 35 minutes - on 500 km back (in fact, you should have taken 40 minutes at least, oh well) 80 min remains on patrol. Thus, to ensure round-the-clock duty, 18 shifts are necessary, since our planes have the opportunity to make (in theory) 2 departures per day - it turns out to provide 9 aircraft for providing one aircraft on round-the-clock duty. To organize a patrol of two cars, you need 18 aircraft, for a patrol of 8 cars - 72 aircraft. Actually - a little more, because limit parameters taken.
            But if you turn to your departure 1,6, then it is not 72 but 92 that goes to them, but if you go to the quite realistic 1,17 of departure (the indicator of the Storm in the Desert) then the 123 of the car
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There are no difficulties with them - it is enough to have a pair of E-3 in Bodø

            Which will provide round-the-clock patrolling and efok? laughing
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            possible, but redundant. I have less than a day's work - the berks went to the position, shot, went to the trondheim

            The ship, moving at a speed of 30 knots, travels 1333 km per day. Thus, moving with 30 knots at a speed to the launch point (say, 400 km from the coastline of the Russian Federation) the ship will be within reach (no more than 1100 km from the coast of the Russian Federation) a day plus the time to launch the missiles.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And one more thing - Americans take into account the 18-hour day

            yes, Oleg, do not forget to count the weekend laughing
          17. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 3 2013 15: 08 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            So, Oleg, two sorties to a range of 610 nm (1130 km.) Is never a combat radius. Because we are talking about the departure TO THE PURPOSE LOCATED in 1130 km. flew-snorted-flew-everything.

            1. you underestimate the F-15E, especially in the patrol variant. no bombs, no lantirn, optimal flight profile. 750 nm will pull without problems.
            2. I am talking about the goal located in 500 km from the base. flew - circled a couple of hours - flew away, all
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            A dogfight requires some time and increased fuel consumption for maneuvering - i.e. the combat radius, taking into account possible air combat, will be even smaller.

            This was discussed at the beginning of the dispute.
            in case of unforeseen delays, there are two tankers on the lane that will help the fighters to reach home after the battle.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Which will provide round-the-clock patrolling and efok?

            day hang in the air, replacing each other.
            you can add a third for confidence - I have unlimited financial opportunities, 12 billion was saved for the construction of two wafers))))
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The ship, moving at a speed of 30 knots, travels 1333 km per day. Thus, moving with 30 knots at a speed to the launch point (say, 400 km from the coastline of the Russian Federation) the ship will be within reach (no more than 1100 km from the coast of the Russian Federation) a day plus the time to launch the missiles.

            1100 km - 400 km = 700 km.
            700 km / 30 kn (55 km / h) = 13 hours.

            - time for launching axes: 56 with an interval of 2 minutes = 112 minutes ~ 2 hours.
            - flight time of the aircraft to the target (at this time the squadron falls on the return course) ~ 1,5 hours.

            during this time, a fire shower with B-1B, B-2, F-15E and F-16 will fall on the enemy’s military facilities - the Navy and Air Force missile-bomb strike will destroy airfields and all A-50 along with Su-34.
            in the end, I need air cover for 16-17 hours.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            for patrol from 8 cars - 72 aircraft

            just the wing of the nimitz))))
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            and if it’s a very realistic 1,17 departure (Desert Storm indicator) then 123 cars

            desert storm - shock operation.
            aircraft came in waves of several hundred cars, and then waited many hours until the reconnaissance established the results of the strike and assigned a new mission
          18. Kars
            Kars April 3 2013 17: 28 New
            0
            Not tired of resolving a dispute between two nuclear powers?
            can we go down to poorer countries? (let some have nuclear weapons, but it’s not kosher to use against a non-nuclear power)

            Maybe we’ll examine the question of which is it more efficient to build aircraft carriers or rocket-artillery ships with a limited budget? (As it is implied that there are no foreign airfields with F-15)
          19. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 3 2013 20: 59 New
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            Not tired of resolving a dispute between two nuclear powers?

            Madly tired :))))
            Quote: Kars
            Maybe we’ll examine the question of which is it more efficient to build aircraft carriers or rocket-artillery ships with a limited budget? (As it is implied that there are no foreign airfields with F-15)

            Looking at how limited the budget is and looking at why ...
          20. Kars
            Kars April 3 2013 21: 26 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Looking at how limited the budget is and looking at why ...

            choose from whom.
            http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

            and you can also see which sea powers have aircraft carriers and how many, and how many, for example, destroyers with missile / cannon weapons.

            but for what the question is really complicated.
            Blockade.
            Landing force
            Escort
            What else is there?
            It can also be specified by the distance between the states. For example, Transcontinental Spain-Venezuela, or the neighbors Ukraine-Romania / Argentina-Brazil
          21. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 3 2013 23: 55 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Madly tired :))))

            Simply put: you lost the argument.
            Modern jet aircraft is able to effectively control the space in 500 km from the base
          22. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 4 2013 10: 08 New
            +1
            Read below, the "winner" :))))
            It’s simple, Oleg, that the argument has lost all meaning for a long time - you dodge trying to prove the unprovable and draw one castle in the air after another.
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 3 2013 23: 41 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Not tired of resolving a dispute between two nuclear powers?

        This was discussed at the very beginning of the dispute - the theoretical conflict between NATO and the Murmansk Democratic Republic is considered
        Quote: Kars
        Maybe we’ll examine the question of which is it more efficient to build aircraft carriers or rocket-artillery ships with a limited budget?

        Equally bad.
        Aircraft carrier is too expensive a toy for the poor (Brazilian sao paulo - profanity, ceremonial status ship). And the rich do not need it - they have F-15E and foreign bases

        Ganship is useless and quite expensive.
      3. Kars
        Kars April 3 2013 23: 49 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        your ganship is useless and quite expensive

        What is it more useless for a couple of dozens of F-15?, And it may come out cheaper.
        And the bases can not even be considered - this is not only money, but also influences,

        the other day, by the way, according to Histoi, we compared the super dreadnought at the prices of 2008, less than two milards came out.
      4. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 4 2013 00: 12 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        What is it more useless for a couple of dozens of F-15?, And it may come out cheaper.

        those who are poorer do not fight on distant shores. Russia-Georgia, India-Pakistan, Zimbabwe-Zimbabwe ... all conflicts are close by, Ganship is nowhere to be applied

        for random skirmishes at sea (Japan-China, Malaysia-Singapore), submarines and frigates Lafayette / Formable are more effective
      5. Kars
        Kars April 4 2013 00: 37 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        india pakistan

        They fought at sea, conducted raids, and shelling the coast. Iran-Iraq war, Arab-Israeli
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Lafayette / Formidable frigates

        Well, I have a ship a little more than Lafayette, but also much more ethetivny. I imagine how Lafayet will support the landing operation.

        At the same time, do not forget that stationary aerodromes, especially in neighboring countries, are rather vulnerable, for example, Israel does not have an aerodrome to which tactical missiles can not be reached, and according to rumors they are going to buy destroyers, not aircraft carriers, like submarines.

        And it is interesting, without the total suppression of air defense, how the United States can do this, how many sorties the bomber fighter can make until it is shot down, can it justify the costs for itself, or is it easier to stockpile the OTR and MLRS.
      6. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 4 2013 02: 19 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        conducted raids and shelling of the coast. Iran-Iraq war, Arab-Israeli

        where does the Queen Elizabeth type battlefield come in?
        missile boats coped there
        Quote: Kars
        Well, I have a ship a little more than Lafayette

        remind what it is about. Singapore Formidable - 3600 Tons
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formidable-class_frigate
        perhaps the best frigate to date
        Quote: Kars
        how Lafay will support the landing operation.

        Lafayette will not support the landing operation. he does not have such tasks
        in the case of the Papuans, it is enough to capture the capital airport
        in the case of Iraq of the 1991 model, an army, aviation and navy, allies and numerous bases in the region will be required.
        Quote: Kars
        Now Israel does not have an airfield until which operational-tactical missiles are finished. And according to rumors, they are going to buy destroyers

        and according to other rumors they are creating the Iron Dome
        which destroyers are Jews - they have the flagship corvette 1200 tons.
        Quote: Kars
        Will he be able to justify the costs for himself? Or is it easier to stockpile OTR and MLRS

        OTR cannot perform some tasks - aviation will be required here.
      7. Kars
        Kars April 4 2013 15: 47 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        where does the Queen Elizabeth type battlefield come in?

        Idea fix
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        missile boats coped there

        but this does not mean that they would abandon more powerful ships.


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        remind what it is about

        24-28 thousand tons.
        400 UVP and 6X10 inches.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Lafayette will not support the landing operation. he does not have such tasks

        it might be easier to say - CANNOT?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        in the case of the Papuans, it is enough to capture the capital airport

        this can happen only in case of a surprise attack. And so it is countered by the elementary mining of the airport)) a couple of hundred kg of TNT and all the same, we all the same consider the conflict of approximately equal capabilities of the countries.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        in the case of Iraq of the 1991 model, an army, aviation and navy, allies and numerous bases in the region will be required

        Iran is unstoppable
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        and according to other rumors they are creating the Iron Dome

        Is that against the Kassam

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        like the destroyers of the Jews - they have the flagship corvette 1200 tons

        so they want something bigger from South Korea.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        OTR cannot perform some tasks - aviation will be required here.

        They can perform the main function, and the role of aviation will then be able to perform relatively inexpensive aircraft and helicopters.
      8. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 4 2013 21: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        but this does not mean that they would abandon more powerful ships.

        Of course, if the USSR gives the cruiser
        Quote: Kars
        24-28 thousand tons.
        400 UVP and 6X10 inches.

        however, this is not Lafayette at all
        Quote: Kars
        it might be easier to say - CANNOT?

        Unaccounted for
        Just like the KU2012, it is not designed to be submerged or to destroy air targets beyond the horizon
        Quote: Kars
        And so it is countered by the elementary mining of the airport

        Land a point landing with Mi-8 before the arrival of the main forces. They will put things in order.
        Quote: Kars
        Iran is unstoppable

        the Persians had an army, aviation and a common border with Iraq
        Quote: Kars
        Is that against the Kassam

        and the skads were shot down quite well by a patriot
        Quote: Kars
        They can perform the main function, and the role of aviation will then be able to perform relatively inexpensive aircraft and helicopters.

        Interestingly
      9. Kars
        Kars April 4 2013 21: 45 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Of course, if the USSR gives the cruiser

        Well, why give it, maybe the United States will sell, or England. Or the French.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        however, this is not Lafayette at all

        naturally.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Unaccounted for

        means can not.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        As well as KU2012 it is not designed to dive under water

        and it’s already as lucky that he’ll be able to load accurately))) about to emerge))))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        destroy air targets over the horizon

        Well, this is not easy, I think the AWACS helicopter is quite abundant and not expensive if the balloon does not suit you.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Land a point landing with Mi-8 before the arrival of the main forces. They will put things in order.

        don't blow up anyway
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the Persians had an army, aviation and a common border with Iraq
        And the fleet, but find where I said that the fleet will be able to win the war itself. But here is my boat, it will be able to deliver devastating blows, but to win))) it’s hard to claim.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        and the skads were shot down quite well by a patriot

        They shot down, but warheads usually fell on target. And you see, patriots are worth buying instead of airplanes.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Interestingly

        There is a little bit of space available even for combat training.
      10. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 4 2013 21: 58 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        maybe the US will sell, or England. or the French.

        expensive
        if they only give, and buy, they will probably choose perry or German diesel-electric submarine
        Quote: Kars
        Well, this is not easy, I think the AWACS helicopter is quite abundant and not expensive, if you do not approach the balloon

        Your AWSX will be personally allocated to your ganship.
        Quote: Kars
        don't blow up anyway

        Bagram, Shindad, Kandahar, Ruzine, Budapest, Pristina, Mogadishu - with suckers rolls with a bang
        Quote: Kars
        But here is my boat, will be able to deliver crushing blows

        his submarines bang
      11. Kars
        Kars April 4 2013 22: 52 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        if they only give, and buy, they will probably choose perry or German diesel-electric submarine

        Well, we mentioned the cruiser in the concept of the Arab-Israeli wars, so this refers to the post-war period when artillery cruisers were sold.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Your AWSX Ganship will be allocated

        Well, why such difficulties, especially since it unmasks intentions.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Bagram, Shindad, Kandahar, Ruzine, Budapest, Pristina, Mogadishu - with suckers rolls with a bang

        None of them fit, the troops that landed were from a country that declared war? Here's a landing at the airport of Kuwait in 1990, or Baghdad in 1991 could still come.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        his submarines bang

        maybe, maybe not.
      12. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 4 2013 23: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        therefore, this refers to the post-war period when artillery cruisers were sold.

        and sometimes they gave ... 68 bis-not?
        Quote: Kars
        why such difficulties

        what difficulties? lift the little Gulf Stream into the air?
        Every day, thousands of kilometers fly around the world

        Gulfstream supplied the Israeli Ministry of Defense with the first DRLO system based on the G550. "The extremely long range of the G550 allows it to stay on combat alert for a long time - this is a fundamental requirement in reconnaissance tasks. Also, compared to old planes, the G550 has much greater application efficiency at a much lower cost," says the company's vice president.
        Quote: Kars
        None fit, the landed troops were from a country that declared war?

        this happens in Mali, Senegalese is a French foreign legion, black riots, suppression of protest, civil war - tactics with the airport are suitable for complete suckers
        Quote: Kars
        Here the landing at the airport of El Kuwait at 1990, or Baghdad at 1991 could still have come.

        Iraq was not a sucker
      13. Kars
        Kars April 5 2013 15: 16 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        and sometimes they gave ... 68 bis-not?

        I honestly don’t know.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        what difficulties? lift the little Gulf Stream into the air?

        And then what's the point of carrying a deck helicopter?
        At the same time, he climbed up to 300-700 m and everything is already as it should.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        this happens in Mali, Senegalese is a French foreign legion, black riots, suppression of protest, civil war - tactics with the airport are suitable for complete suckers

        Well, are we not discussing complete suckers? It seems like we are talking about countries capable of, if not building, then buying an aircraft carrier. Destroyer. Submarine. Ordering the construction of my boat in Spain is ruinous in the USA or Russia.
      14. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 5 2013 15: 37 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        I honestly don’t know.

        How so!
        Pacific squadron, Indonesia ... EMNIP cruiser Orjonikidze
        Quote: Kars
        And then what's the point of carrying a deck helicopter?

        there is always work for a helicopter
        Quote: Kars
        At the same time, he climbed up to 300-700 m and everything is already as it should.

        Ganship will need air cover in the war zone
        otherwise they will be thrown with harms, exosets and QABs
        Quote: Kars
        order the construction of my boat in spain

        Rather order the frigate "Alvaro de Basan"
      15. Kars
        Kars April 5 2013 15: 46 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How so!

        I do not pretend to know everything, and torment Google with laziness.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        there is always work for a helicopter

        and DRLO is that.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ganship will need air cover in the war zone
        otherwise they will be thrown with harms, exosets and QABs

        Mine will not be needed. Especially if I raise the radio horizon.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Rather order the frigate "Alvaro de Basan"

        Vryatli, the more it is mentioned in
        Quote: Kars
        submarine destroyer

        compare my drummer with a frigate))))
        interestingly, its casing can withstand at least a close explosion of warhead anti-ship missiles shot down by its own short-range air defense system.
      16. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 5 2013 18: 15 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Especially if I raise the radio horizon.

        And what's the use?
        a conventional naval air defense system is still not capable of shooting over the horizon
        and the cost of missiles with an active seeker is more expensive than a tomahawk
        Quote: Kars
        compare my drummer with a frigate)

        especially at cost
        Quote: Kars
        interestingly, its casing can withstand at least a close explosion of warhead anti-ship missiles shot down by its own short-range air defense

        once on a cruiser CG-18 (one of Lehi, I don’t remember the name) two Shrike missiles accidentally fell. Warhead at 20-30 meters from the ship. all antennas tumbled, 1 killed, 9 injured.
        It was in 1972 year

        in this sense, your ganship is no different from CG-18 or Basan
      17. Kars
        Kars April 5 2013 18: 41 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And what's the use?
        a conventional naval air defense system is still not capable of shooting over the horizon

        and which one is ordinary?
        Fort? Or Standard? which is estimated to cost half a million.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        especially at cost

        What a cost. Such and efficiency. A system capable of delivering a strategic strike.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        in this sense, your ganship is no different from CG-18 or Basan

        In which? And something is doubtful to me that all antennas tumbled down.
        Then these Leggs were not warships at all. And they fell, which means a collision with water, and two at once. It would be necessary in more detail. It is doubtful that the weight of the explosives there is probably kg 20 maximum, or even less.
      18. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 6 2013 15: 40 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        and which one is ordinary?

        one that shoots zur with semi-active gos

        Sense from AWAXA - for shooting ordinary zur, you need a radar for target illumination (type AN / SPG-62)

        Cost of Zur with an active seeker:
        RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM) - aka Standard Missile 6 (SM-6).
        In December 2011, Navy PEO IWS reported the expected Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) to be $ 4.620M
        It’s cheaper to flood the frigate than to fire such gold missiles))))

        Quote: Kars
        In which? And something is doubtful to me that all antennas tumbled down.
        Then these Leggs were not warships at all. And they fell, which means a collision with water, and two at once. It would be necessary in more detail. It is doubtful that the weight of the explosives there is probably kg 20 maximum, or even less.

        Warden Cruiser (CG-18)

        During the strike, Worden was damaged by two anti-radiation missiles inadvertently fired by United States support aircraft.
        One crew member was killed, and nine others were seriously injured;
        they were airlifted by helicopter to the carrier Tripoli (CVU-64) for treatment.
        Worden proceeded to Subic Bay for a 10-day repair period

        Hmm ... strange Tripoli CVU-64 (formerly CVE-64 Tripoli, an escort of the Casablanca type) was scrapped back in the 1960 year ... or
        is it about another ship?

        Nevertheless - two shriks exploded at an altitude of 20-30 meters above the cruiser. Warhead of each rocket ~ 66 ... 67 kg
        the explosion damaged the antennas, crew members suffered,
        Repair took 10 days.

        Question: Could the Shriki have done significant damage to the cruiser Warden?
        and than the fragile wars of the cruiser Warden radar
        different from your over-protected ganship's grilles?

        met in Google: To the indignation of society, he gave Khrushchev to President Sukarno
        2-th Pacific Squadron)))))
      19. Kars
        Kars April 6 2013 17: 57 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        one that shoots zur with semi-active gos

        So Fort with a range of 90 km does not suit you?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Olku from AWAKSA - for shooting ordinary zur you need a radar for target illumination (type AN / SPG-62)

        There is no illumination for firing SAMs, there is a radar radar, and for firing from an aircraft at a target behind the Avarax radio horizon, it’s enough.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Cost of Zur with an active seeker:
        RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM) - aka Standard Missile 6 (SM-6).
        In December 2011, Navy PEO IWS reported the expected Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) to be $ 4.620M


        rocket speed about 3,5 M
        Maximum range up to 240 km
        The height of the affected area is 33 km
        Inertial guidance system in the initial phase of the flight and active radar in the final phase

        In my opinion it’s cheaper than you can’t find an airplane?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        m ... strange Tripoli CVU-64 (ex. CVE-64 Tripoli, an escort like Casablanca) was scrapped back in 1960 ... or
        it's about another ship

        I didn’t understand anything, the photo of the ship also intact.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Warhead of each rocket ~ 66 ... 67 k

        Now you will tell me that the coefficient of fullness is close to 100%

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the explosion damaged the antennas, crew members suffered,
        repair took 10 days

        But I don’t see the loss of combat effectiveness, because the repair took ten days is not long. At the same time, the ships continue to fight with unrepaired damage.
        Something I didn’t come across that LC and cruisers with radars in WWII lost their combat readiness after each hit.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Question: Could the Shriki have done significant damage to the cruiser Warden?

        the question remained unanswered.

        The first major air strike on Haiphong since 1968 took place on April 15. During the strike, Warden was damaged by two AGM-45 Shrike anti-radiation missiles accidentally fired by United State Support aircraft. One crew member died and nine were seriously injured, they were airlifted by helicopter carrier USS Tripoli (CVE-64) for treatment. Worden embarked on a Subic Bay over a 10-day repair period. The frigate returned to the Gulf of Tonkin until May 11 and worked as an escort for the USS Kitty Hawk (CVA-63). She took a break from May 8 to May 11 and was supposed to have search and rescue stations from Thanh Hoa during the first mine attacks in North Vietnam. [ 1 ]

        Well, I don’t know that you’ve found anything special here, that you tie it to the antennas.
      20. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 6 2013 18: 28 New
        0
        Quote: Kars
        So Fort with a range of 90 km does not suit you?

        he is powerless against low-flying targets
        Quote: Kars
        There is no illumination for firing SAMs, there is a radar radar, and for firing from an aircraft at a target behind the Avarax radio horizon, it’s enough.

        air-to-air missiles always with an active seeker (thermal, radar)
        the F-15 radio horizon is many hundreds of kilometers, but there is a problem with the radar power - then the AWNX 9 meter comes to the rescue. Liaison officers will appreciate the airborne environment and bring in the F-15.
        Quote: Kars
        In my opinion it’s cheaper than you can’t find an airplane?

        Aegis's capabilities with RIM-174 and F-15 are not comparable. at the same cost.
        fleet is weak against aviation
        Quote: Kars
        Something I didn’t come across that LC and cruisers with radars in WWII after each hit lost combat effectiveness

        Scharnhorst
        Quote: Kars
        Well, I don’t know that you’ve found anything special here, that you tie it to the antennas.

        Word was that a USAF pilot turned the wrong way (toward the Gulf) after his raid on Hanoi. His ECM interpreted Worden's SPS-39 radar signal as an NVN fire-control gadget.
        He cut loose with a Shrike which homed on the SPS-39 and detonated on
        the radar mast just below the antenna platform. A white-hat sleeping on
        the flying bridge at the base of the mast (Some nights in the Gulf were
        so hot that sleeping below was almost unbearable ...) was wounded by the
        shrapnel SPS-39 antenna was OOC. Worden had to leave station bound
        for Subic for repairs. Mahan went north from Yankee station to cover.
        Of course when we woke up at Oh-Dark-Thirty to the sounds of setting
        Zebra and making thirty knots, we didn't know what or who had hit
        Worden. Exteme pucker-factor for a little while. Later, back at SRF
        Subic, they cannabilized Mahan's SPS-39 antenna for Worden. Left us
        doing plane-guard for the carriers for several months.
        Regards,
        ETCM Ken Fowler, USN (Ret)


        did not translate, do not blame me. Google will cope

        Conclusions:
        1. antennas damaged - the ship turned into a trough
        2. quick repair - radars were removed from the destroyer Mahan (cannibalization)
      21. Kars
        Kars April 6 2013 20: 12 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        he is powerless against low-flying targets

        With what joy is it? The radio-horizon is already unsuitable as an excuse. 25 meters is quite normal,
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        air-to-air missiles always with an active seeker (thermal, radar)

        And we have air, land, and not always. Still say that they all shot, forgot))))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the F-15 radio horizon is many hundreds of kilometers, but there is a problem with the radar power - then the 9-meter AWACS antenna comes to the rescue. Liaison officers assess airborne conditions and deploy F-15s

        And 200 km is enough for me
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Scharnhorst

        What Sharghorst? If we are talking about the last fight, then there 14 inches worked. And can you specifically what?

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        egards,
        ETCM Ken Fowler, USN (Ret)

        And?
        HE cut off freely from the shrike stationed on the SPS-39 and NaRadar mast Just below the antenna area. White hat, sleeping A flying bridge at the base of the mast (some nights in the Persian Gulf were so hot that sleeping below was almost unbearable ...) Shrapnel was wounded. The SPS-39 antenna was OOC. Warden had to leave the station connected for Subic for repairs. Makhan went north from the Yankee station to cover. CERTAINLY WHEN WE Woke UP TO Oh-Dark Thirty Sounds Setting Zebra And making 30 knots, WE DID NOT KNOW WHAT OR WHO WAS A Hit Warden. Exteme Packer Factor For a while. Later Back In OSRSubik, they cannabilized Mahan SPS-39 Antenna FOR Warden. Left Planned Guard aircraft FOR carriers For several months. Regards, ETM Ken Fowler, USN (Ret.)
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        1. antennas damaged - the ship turned into a trough

        I do not see a loss of combat effectiveness.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        2. quick repair - radars were removed from the destroyer Mahan (cannibalization)

        And?
      22. Kars
        Kars April 6 2013 20: 25 New
        0
        It’s interesting, but are the radars damaged? And who is interested in this?

        Photo of a burning shepherd was not attached)))
      23. Kars
        Kars April 6 2013 23: 02 New
        0
        By the way there is something else that occurred to me
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM) - aka Standard Missile 6 (SM-6).
        In December 2011, Navy PEO IWS reported the expected Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) to be $ 4.620M

        Quote: Kars
        rocket speed about 3,5 M
        Maximum range up to 240 km
        The height of the affected area is 33 km
        Inertial guidance system in the initial phase of the flight and active radar in the final phase


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        air-to-air missiles always with an active seeker (thermal, radar)

        So didn’t it come to you that in this missile system the cost of the GOS is not the largest part of the ideological?

        И

        Quote: Kars
        Aegis capabilities with RIM-174 and F-15 are not comparable. at the same cost

        And do not compare Aegis with the F-15 in terms of cost)) when you need to add an airfield, training flights, pilot training, etc. to it.
        but in fact one rocket minus one plane.
        And really, how to compare a falling airplane with a rocket that hit her.

        So my battle spikes at a lower cost and with greater security will even send the economy of a small country into the Stone Age with tomahawks, and then provide an assault landing on the enemy’s coast.
        And the F-15 cannot even suppress air defense normally without the help of cruise missiles.
  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 4 2013 10: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    1. you underestimate the F-15E, especially in the patrol variant. no bombs, no lantirn, optimal flight profile. 750 nm will pull without problems.

    Oleg, well, I do not agree with you. But, let’s say, I repeat, let's LET you right. What's next?
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    in case of unforeseen delays, there are two tankers on the lane that will help the fighters to reach home after the battle.

    Look what happens. You have a fighter capable of stretching out 750 nm (that is, 1389 km in one direction) without problems. In both directions it will exit 2778 km. Given the cruising speed in 900 km / h, we believe that in the air the aircraft can be 2778 / 900 * 60 = 185 minutes. So?
    now we take your stratotanker. He stands at the airport, so he needs time to get into the air and fly to the point at which the refueling will be carried out. Suppose a stratotanker is able to reach the patrol site of a fighter (in 500 km from the aerodrome) in 40 minutes (i.e. taking into account the time taken to take off and climb and so on, the average speed on the route is 750 km / h)
    Understood, why so? After the AWACS detects the enemy and an air battle becomes inevitable, you need time to give the command to the stratotanker to fly into the air, well, all sorts of events there - taxiing there, maybe take off, etc. how much cruising speed the stratotanker has - I don’t know, but I don’t think it is more than 900 km / h.
    In other words, the patrol time should be calculated so that if the fighter had to join the battle, then he should have fuel for
    a) Air combat
    b) Waiting for a stratotanker
    Suppose that, on average, an air battle takes 15 minutes, but the fuel is consumed like 25 minutes of a cruise flight - the numbers may be incorrect, but I do not think that I am mistaken by orders of magnitude. Thus, it turns out that
    a) In an air battle, the fighter will use up fuel for 25 minutes of cruising in 15 minutes, and after that it will have to wait another 25 minutes for the stratotanker (the fighter fought for 15 minutes, i.e. the stratotanker needs 40-15 = 25 minutes before reaching the point ) Those. a fighter CANNOT engage in combat, having a fuel reserve less than 50 minutes of cruise flight. (25 minutes - expense for the battle and 25 - waiting for the tanker). Plus, you need a margin of at least 5-10 minutes to meet with the stratotanker, "get in" to catch a hose, etc. Total fighter must enter the battle, having a fuel reserve for 55-60 minutes of flight at cruising speed.
    This means that the aircraft must end patrol after 185 - 55 (60?) = 130 (125?) Minutes. Otherwise, he simply will not have enough fuel and he will fall into the sea without waiting for the stratotanker.
    During these 130 (125?) Minutes, the fighter must still reach the patrol point, which requires 500 / 900 = 33,5 min. It turns out that on the actual patrol, the fighter has approximately 91 - 97 minutes.
    Accordingly, providing daily patrols of ONE fighter requires approximately 15-16 sorties, which with the 2 coefficient gives us the need for 8 vehicles to ensure round-the-clock duty of one fighter. And to provide 8 fighters, you need 64 vehicles.
  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 4 2013 10: 05 New
    +1
    And plus one stratotanker for each pair of patrolling fighters - i.e. if there are 4 deuces in the air of the stratotankers, you also need 4. But, it turns out, 68 machines, including 64 Ф-15
    But this, I repeat, is EXCLUSIVELY on your numbers, Oleg, who, alas, in reality do not find confirmation. the actual number of fighters needed will be significantly larger.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    day hang in the air, replacing each other.

    Of course - if Oleg asks in person ... Why not? laughing
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    during this time, a fire shower with B-1B, B-2, F-15E and F-16 will fall on the enemy’s military facilities - the Navy and Air Force missile-bomb strike will destroy airfields and all A-50 along with Su-34.

    Oleg, you still need to learn to distinguish between erotic fantasies and harsh reality. All 100500 MNS aircraft during the desert storm were never able to knock out airfields and Iraqi aviation (it just flew to Iran in the bulk, and no one could stop it, although they seemed to be trying :))) And this despite the fact that It is very difficult for Iraq to find a place where the width of Iraq between the borders is at least 1000 km :)))))) About Yugoslavia - I am generally silent - the US was beaten and the Yugoslav armed forces only scratched, and even then slightly.
    And you - RRRAZ - and all were killed in one flight :))))
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    just the wing of the nimitz))))

    Oleg, how would it be softer, huh :)))))
    In order to have 64 F-15, 8 EW aircraft and 2 AWACS aircraft (although it’s nonsense, but Oleg will ask personally) and 4 stratotankers (and all in all - 78 airplanes) with two trained crews for each (didn’t forget?) you need to train 156 crews per year. Given that each flight should be at least 200 hours per year, and the average cost of flights (including depreciation of the aircraft) will be at least 25 thousand dollars / hour per year, this will cost you 156 * 200 * 25 000 = 780 million. dollars, and during 50 years of AB service - 39 billion dollars laughing
    And this is not counting the cost of maintaining a pair of air bases in EVERY place where you may have to use aviation :)))
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    desert storm - shock operation.
    aircraft came in waves of several hundred cars, and then waited many hours until the reconnaissance established the results of the strike and assigned a new mission

    Oleg, it’s better to take your words back, huh :))))) Well, reluctance to spend time on THIS :)))
  4. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe April 4 2013 12: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Of course - if Oleg asks in person ... Why not?

    I wonder if a Boeing 707 can spend 12 hours in the air?))))
    For comparison, the flight time on the route St. Petersburg-Yucatan - 12 hours 30 minutes (Boeing-777 ER)
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    those. if there are 4 deuces in the air of stratotankers, 4 must also be

    not deadly
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    (she simply flew to Iran in bulk, and no one could stop this, although they seemed to be trying

    good
    And your Su-34 will fly to Finland)))
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    will leave at least 25 thousand dollars / hour per year in any way; it will cost you 156 * 200 * 25 000 = 780 million dollars, and during 50 years of AB service - 39 billion dollars

    this horror story would make sense if F / A-18E hung in the air for free)))

    According to Hendricks, the average flight haul of a carrier-based aviation pilot at home is 30 hours per month.


    ps / half of the raid - on the T-33 Talon TCB for which the cost of an hour of flight is less than 25 thousand dollars)))
  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 4 2013 13: 52 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    this horror story would make sense if F / A-18E hung in the air for free)))

    Oleg, do you re-pay the calculation, or what? :)))) Deck aviation in this case costs:
    1) Where fewer planes
    2) With single, not double crews.
    You can’t understand one thing - to ensure the same patrol, an aircraft carrier just has to put a patrol in the 4 fighter + 1 EW + 1 AWACS in the air (moreover, if you take your calculation method, the carrier-based fighter is able to patrol about 2,5 hours at least). e. To organize a patrol, you will need 20 fighters 5 EW aircraft and 4 AWACS. + 4 aircraft on the catpult with 3 crews for organizing round-the-clock duty for 8 hours :)))) - i.e. total 33 aircraft with 41 crew :))) And the training of these crews will rise (for the same 200 hours for the same 25 thousand dollars, although it will be cheaper) in 41 * 200 * 25 000 = 205 million dollars per year or 10,25 billion in xnumx years. So the cost of carrier-based aviation to solve our problem (excluding the cost of an aircraft carrier) is "slightly" lower than that of land-based aircraft - almost $ 50 billion laughing laughing laughing - and this does not take into account the content of two full-fledged airbases for 50 years :)))))
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    I wonder if a Boeing 707 can spend 12 hours in the air?))))

    Oleg, E-3 Sentry and Boeing, these are "slightly" different things, although they are certainly very similar :)))
    And then - I took into account the 2 of the plane, right? :)
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    And your Su-34 will fly to Finland)))

    Of course. And then - to Germany, then - to France, and there already - foggy Albion and Washington are ahead :)))))
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Nearer.
    A fighter with empty tanks doesn’t have to hang around in the patrol zone - even before the stratotanker takes off, the F-15 will head home.

    Oleg, you keep in mind that the air battle will not end at the patrol point :)))) Then the fighter will have to return to it.
  6. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe April 4 2013 20: 53 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Deck aviation in this case costs:
    1) Where fewer planes

    do not forget, you need to build 2 names))
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    2) With single, not double crews.

    primitive conclusion
    Or does Andrei seriously consider that the F-15 pilots are chained to their planes?))
    It's all about concentration of forces. In my calculation, you need 64 F-15 and 128 crews. Fighters with the main crew will arrive from Lakenhit. The reserve crew will fly by a transport board from Mountain Home Air Base (their planes will remain at home). More questions?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Oleg, E-3 Sentry and Boeing, these are "slightly" different things, although

    These are all irrelevant trifles. two sentry. for reliability, you can add a third.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Of course. And then - to Germany, then - to France, and there already - foggy Albion and Washington are ahead :)

    Consider that you leaked the question
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Oleg, you keep in mind that the air battle will not end at the patrol point :)))) Then the fighter will have to return to it.

    also a solvable problem.
    the patrol point is located above the Berkov combat maneuvering area, at 500 km from the base .. deviation at 50-100 km is non-fatal.
  7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 5 2013 07: 29 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    do not forget, you need to build 2 names))

    Oleg, I need not 2 names, but approximately 1,5 names for every place of attack. Those. if I am going to attack CR with EM in two places, I will need 3 nimits, if - in three places, I need about 5 Nimitse, in 4 - 6, etc.
    and you need to maintain 800 bases and train twice as many pilots :))) But to be more precise - then for each attack site you need EXTRA 115 trained crews and 2 airbases :)))
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The reserve crew will fly by a transport board from Mountain Home airbase (their planes will remain at home)

    And we come to what we started with - the cover of the destroyers will connect about a third of the available staff of the US Air Force F-15. Who cares what they stand in Texas? The main thing for us is that they don’t fight :)))
    It makes no difference, Oleg, where do you get these extra crews from? The fact is that to solve a specific problem you need 156 trained crews and a point :))) And you can get them only in two ways
    a) Refuse to perform any other tasks
    b) Prepare additional crews. And it costs money.
    You see, Oleg, there are tasks of the armed forces. And there are outfits of forces that can solve these problems. In case of abandonment of the AB, their tasks can be solved, but only by hellish expansion of existing air bases and the number of air forces.
    Do you remember how you joyfully informed me about the airfields in the Trondheim area? There they say the 3 runway and the F-16 regiment are on them, and if necessary, they will destroy the destroyers ... Oleg, and you thought that this regiment actually has its own tasks? And what if you set this shelf to a NEW task, then most likely you will have to remove some of the previously standing ones? If the F-16 will be covered by destroyers delivering the first strike with their own missiles (along with all sorts of strategists, etc.), then at least these F-16 will not be able to take part in such a strike themselves. And what in order to solve the NEW task of covering the destroyers without prejudice to the old ones that stood in front of this regiment, you need to build additional runways and put additional F-16 on them?
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    These are all irrelevant trifles. two sentry. for reliability, you can add a third.

    Oleg, I took into account two. I’m kind, I’m not sorry :))) If you want - count on three :))))
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Consider that you leaked the question

    No, Oleg, you leaked the question, and leaked the question to all 100%. When I cited Iraq as an example, where despite the efforts of the MNS Air Force over many days, more than 65% of airdromes retained their functionality, and Yugoslavia, where despite the unprecedented concentration of the Air Force, Mig-29 still took off and fought, you could not object essentially and joked Finland. So - no need to drain. And then I’ll start to remember how much you merged in this thread and it will double in length :)))
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    also a solvable problem.

    Oleg, what are the 50-100 km? Say 200-300, this will be approximately true.
  8. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe April 5 2013 14: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Oleg, I need not 2 names, but approximately 1,5 names for every place of attack.

    Minimum number of built Nimitz = 2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    and you need to contain 800 bases

    1. most of these costs are borne by allies
    2. the base is used by many military branches: it is watered. influence, transport hub, base of strategists and F-15, special operations (U-2 in Bodø), vaults, arsenals, hospitals ...
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In case of abandonment of the AB, their tasks can be solved, but only by hellish expansion of existing air bases and the number of air forces.

    ))))) this is especially noticeable in Libya and Yugoslavia))))
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Who cares what they stand in Texas? The main thing for us is that they don’t fight

    Aircraft are in reserve. But their pilots are fighting. This is the specifics of the operation in Norway.
    You also have 2 names and 2 air wings - will you count?)))
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    a) Refuse to perform any other tasks

    Yes, concentration of forces implies. that the inhabitants of Great Britain for some time will cease to see F-15 in the sky from Lakenhirt base, and the inhabitants of Mountain Home will cease to hear the roar of aircraft engines
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    I gave you an example of Iraq, where despite the many days of efforts of the Air Force of the MNF, more than 65% of airfields retained their functionality

    On January 24, in an effort to demonstrate their ability to retaliate, the Iraqi Air Force attempted to launch an air raid on the largest oil refinery in Saudi Arabia. Two Iraqi MiG-23 and two Mirags with bomb load flew out on this mission. However, they were intercepted by the Saudi F-15. Both Mirages were shot down, MiGs managed to escape. After this episode, the Iraqi Air Force no longer attempted to launch ground-based attacks.

    Where the planes went - were destroyed or flew to Iran, where they were interned - it does not matter. Iraqi aviation ceased to exist.
    Perhaps the assessment of the destruction of the aviation of the Murmansk Democratic Republic on the first day is somewhat overestimated. On the other hand, the MDR is not Iraq. Secondly, what prevents me from using Los Angeles and Ohio in the first strike? - in this case, the task of combat patrol at a distance of 500 km is completely removed)))
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 8 2013 14: 21 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Minimum number of built Nimitz = 2

    Yeah, but the use of the Kyrgyz Republic from the near-Norwegian region is not the only task of the US armed forces :)
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    1. most of these costs are borne by allies

    Which, in the event of unpleasant circumstances, may revise the allied treaties and ask not to use these bases in case it involves the ally country in an unnecessary conflict. And who actually pays for the maintenance of these bases is another question.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    ))))) this is especially noticeable in Libya and Yugoslavia))))

    Oleg, if all conflicts in the future are limited to war with countries such as Libya and Yugoslavia, then of course it is. But if you have to fight with someone at the level of Russia or China, then ...
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    You also have 2 names and 2 air wings - will you count?)))

    You just forgot that my 2 air wings are much more than you need to organize a patrol over destroyers - accordingly, they can perform AND OTHER tasks. for example, to support the air strike of the Kyrgyz Republic with air strikes, and at the same time, to cover the deployment area of ​​destroyers with helicopters of anti-aircraft defense. These are OTHER tasks, Oleg, which the land-based aviation I calculates DOES NOT SOLVE - and therefore I do not need to take its cost into account.
    Similar must be compared with like.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Yes, concentration of power implies. that the inhabitants of Great Britain for some time will cease to see in the sky F-15 from the base of Lakenheart

    :))) Oleg, you again proceed from the fact that the United States has aircraft to solve all conceivable tasks and also 100 squadrons from above. And this is already not so. In any case, the EXCESS squadrons (which you drive to the Normandy airfields from England) also cost money. And what you write sounds like this - "well, do we still pay for them?"
    consider that question from a different angle, if you think that the United States has an excess of equipment - without prejudice to military operations, you can withdraw an aircraft carrier from the 1 aircraft or .... so many Air Force combat aircraft :)))
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Perhaps the assessment of the destruction of the aviation of the Murmansk Democratic Republic on the first day is somewhat overestimated.

    And thanks for that :)))
  10. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe April 4 2013 12: 13 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Suppose a stratotanker is able to reach the patrol site of a fighter (in 500 km from the airfield) in 40 minutes

    Nearer.
    A fighter with empty tanks doesn’t have to hang around in the patrol zone - even before the stratotanker takes off, the F-15 will head home.
    "A and B met at point C"
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    a) In an air battle, a fighter will use up fuel for 25 minutes of cruise flight in 15 minutes, and after that it will have to wait another 25 minutes for the stratotanker

    Even in the most pessimistic case - an air battle took place 10 minutes before the end of the patrol: F-15 has 50-minute fuel supply + the first eight may not engage in close combat at all - the second shift is coming.
  11. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe April 3 2013 14: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Oleg, the range in 2000 km reached only the F-15 with two conformal tanks, at the cost of a decent deterioration in performance characteristics. This is a well-known story, in contrast to the fighting radius of the Needle, which only the lazy did not fantasize, because figures from 1200 to 1900 km are given.

    You don’t like the combat radius of 750 miles (nautical), i.e. 2800-3000 flight range km

    Based on ~ 35,100lbs of gas (full internal, two CFTs, ​​and 3 610 gallon tanks) the F-15C has a ferry range of 3,100nm according to the USAF officially.
    forum http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5999.html
    three PTB and two KnF. tanks give a range of 3100 miles ~ 5700 km
    I do not need such a range. the patrol radius in my calculation is taken in 1500 km (flight range - 3000 km)

    3,100 nm (3,570 miles; 5745 km) ferry range with CFTs and drop tanks
    2,400 nm (2,765 miles; 4445 km) with drop tanks
    1,000 nm (1,150 mi; 1,853 km) Max Combat Radius
    685 nm (790 miles; 1270 km) combat radius

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-specs.htm
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Current procedures allow an F-15E crew to fly two sorties per day to a maximum radius of about 610 nm.

    leaving the table - the limitation imposes crew fatigue
    I took this into account, the guys work in 2 shifts
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Under our assumptions, the crew could fly two sorties per day to a maximum distance of up to 750 nm

    Quite satisfied. Especially since I have two crew
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    such as the A-10, F-15, F-16, and F-117 have unrefueled combat radii of 300 – 500 n

    compared A-10, 117 and Ф-15Е))))
    here we are talking about combat radius, in my calculation just the distance 3000 km.
  • SPACE
    SPACE 26 March 2013 20: 08 New
    +1
    Quote: Geisenberg
    Che cheer then? If they begin to rivet the cruiser URO more often than destroyers it will be full 314

    But this is true. It’s easier to drive a mammoth than a pack of jackals.
  • T-130
    T-130 26 March 2013 23: 40 New
    +1
    Yeah, let the Chinese take the whole metal! And the Chinese will figure out what to do with them!
  • svp67
    svp67 26 March 2013 08: 40 New
    0
    A holy place is never empty. And who will take it, after the USA?
    1. Blad_21617
      Blad_21617 26 March 2013 09: 21 New
      +6
      who is who is China and maybe India. and we, as always, will spend all the money on the Olympics, renaming something into something, building a limousine for the government, and allocating money to Kaukaz and other crap ...
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 26 March 2013 09: 40 New
      +1
      Russia. Now it's our turn.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 26 March 2013 15: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: svp67

        A holy place is never empty. And who will take it, after the USA?

        Gold words!!!
        Quote: Wedmak
        Russia. Now it's our turn.

        It will not be Russia.

        The rhetoric of the opponents of the United States reminds me of the rhetoric of the republics of the USSR when disconnected, “Now we will live !!!!”. With the collapse of the current economic system, everyone will suffer. The stronger the country's dependence on exports - imports, the more painful the decline will be.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 26 March 2013 09: 29 New
    +3
    You never know what Mr. Henry Hendricks says against the aircraft carriers, we have such Hendricks here, perhaps I’ve gotten a handle on them from the site. Who else would convince the States that they only need a coastal fleet?
  • VEKT
    VEKT 26 March 2013 09: 36 New
    +1
    When the author talks about the secrecy of submarines in comparison with aircraft carriers, he apparently does not understand that the whole essence of the AUG is window dressing, muscle play to the public, and it does not matter that the muscles are on steroids.
  • Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 26 March 2013 10: 05 New
    +4
    Canoe!!! Let them switch to canoe !!! Nationally, cheaply, secretively and angrily !!!
    1. smirnov
      smirnov 26 March 2013 15: 21 New
      +1
      Then cakes))
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 26 March 2013 17: 32 New
        0
        Quote: smirnov
        Then cakes))

        No, the pie, and we won’t give it to anyone. We will eat;)
  • tforik
    tforik 26 March 2013 10: 14 New
    -4
    Yes, our Admiral Kuznetsov is completely useless compared to the Ford) When will we finally have 10 aircraft carriers and planes?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 March 2013 12: 35 New
      +6
      Quote: tforik
      When will we finally have 10 aircraft carriers and planes?

      10 aircraft we already have.
      1. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 26 March 2013 21: 06 New
        0
        wassat good
        There are 10 aircraft carriers left with a capacity of 1 aircraft to build.
        But seriously, I always considered the Soviet concept of an aircraft carrier cruiser to be more rational. fellow
  • Sharingan
    Sharingan 26 March 2013 10: 36 New
    0
    Well, if they grow wiser and listen to the views of Hendrix, instead of AUGs they will build more missile cruisers, air defense destroyers, etc., then their fleet will become even more powerful, mobile and cheaper than now. And they will always find ground-based air bases.
    The main thing now is not to grow wiser wink
  • Tartary
    Tartary 26 March 2013 10: 58 New
    +7
    Quote: tforik
    Yes, our Admiral Kuznetsov is completely useless compared to the Ford) When will we finally have 10 aircraft carriers and planes?

    Why is Russia so much? Mimicry let others get sick.

    We are not going to play with muscles ... We rarely went to fight in a foreign territory when we were going to, and even more often in the form of help.
    And Russia in itself is an unsurpassed aircraft carrier unsurpassed in its ...
    We would have to bring to mind what has already been conceived, and to anticipate the ideas of vrazhin, which potential "friends" do not tire of scaring us.
    This is enough in the medium term.
  • politruk419
    politruk419 26 March 2013 10: 59 New
    10
    Paupuasam at Tomahawks The Papuans do not have a worthy goal for them. So aircraft carriers are needed for the new Grenada.
    More grenadies are good and different. America is invincible !!!!!!!!
    A worthy answer: Aircraft carrier-purchase of a brand new DShK model 1939 for the Papuans. In oil. And more rounds. And if the Papuans will be led by a retired Cuban major, then it remains to be seen how many raptors and lightnings America will need to organize another "safari" ....
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++


    This year marks the 30th anniversary of the events of Grenada. The good memory of the Cuban workers and the Grenadian policemen who were not afraid to fill up 2000 vaunted US marines led by the entire Delta group
    soldier
    Grenada is the eternal symbol of America’s disgrace and stupidity. And a symbol of steadfastness and courage of people fighting for their homeland and freedom.
  • Vovka levka
    Vovka levka 26 March 2013 13: 46 New
    +2
    An article as an article, a person’s opinion. That such articles in the US press are sea, and opinions are different. Do you think they are stupid? Do not flatter yourself. There decisions are not made spontaneously, and to the extreme no one falls, decisions are made after a comprehensive study of all aspects and nuances. Where where, but analysts are appreciated there. It is not necessary to fall into illusions, then they are expensive.
    1. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 26 March 2013 13: 53 New
      +2
      They are not stupid, but they are capitalists, now imagine a huge enterprise for the design and construction of aircraft carriers, tens of thousands of people, a billion-dollar budget, and who, in your opinion, just wants to stop all this, refuse money from the military budget. Do you think that such a concern does not have a lobby in the government? here you have the whole bill and the whole logic. The machine should spin, once the flywheel is running, it should not stop. Even if the futility of tactical use will be proved with reason.
      1. Vovka levka
        Vovka levka 26 March 2013 14: 19 New
        0
        Naturally, this is taken into account, they are well aware that the basis of everything is production, and especially engineering, technical and highly skilled workers who have been training for decades. The same applies to specialists in the military field. Now look at the difference in approaches. There is harm in the money, but the problem is with the staff, we survived as best we could. This can be commented on for a long time.
        Yes, they are capitalists, and they understand that without trained people there will be no capital and there will be no high-tech production, so they must be protected.
      2. SPACE
        SPACE 26 March 2013 21: 00 New
        0
        wherever you throw, everywhere a wedge
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 26 March 2013 14: 07 New
    +1
    Hendrix urgently needs to be compromised ... money to his account to him, rumors about relations with gebnya, etc., urgently.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 26 March 2013 15: 28 New
    0
    Emphasis is placed on drones, and to see the terminator was not a favorite film of more than one Pentagon general. In Afghanistan, they tried to water the farmers, they think everyone now has caught God by the beard, how interesting are they for the war, for example, with China using UAVs? the cloud took off the Chinese in a panic fled, victory.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 26 March 2013 15: 32 New
    -1
    That’s the question for potential Russian aircraft carriers: Have you calculated all the costs of creating and operating?
  • Simple
    Simple 26 March 2013 16: 49 New
    +4
    Professor Rubel is Dean of Naval Warfare Studies at the
    Naval War College.

    http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/87bcd2ff-c7b6-4715-b2ed-05df6e416b3b/The-Futu
    re-of-aircraft-carriers


    Carriers are one of the instances of US colonial policy.

    As long as this policy course continues,
    AUG will be in one form or another.

  • Skuto
    Skuto 26 March 2013 18: 33 New
    0
    Reduce the military budget ... Sooner rejoice: they will reduce, the money saved will be invested in the economy and in a couple of years will be back on horseback. It would be better to continue to inflate your budget ...
  • CARBON
    CARBON 26 March 2013 19: 00 New
    +1
    I understand that he is not against aircraft carriers in general. He does not like the path of their development. Criticism is based on Ford's improved version of Nimitz. He points out that the concept of these ships, which have been under construction since 1968, is outdated. It turns out that the US Navy will receive a ship in 2015, which may be more progressive, but not a weapon of confrontation in the future. With his report, he is trying to show that something should be built in a modern way, that, taking into account military-technical progress in the world, this direction of development of aircraft carriers will not bring the desired result by the criterion of "Cost-effectiveness".
    And also we must not forget about lobism. Northrop-Grumman wants to build the Improved Nimitz, which was fully mastered by the shipyards, for good money, providing itself with a good order for $ 42 billion for 3 units of Ford, Kennedy, and Enterprise.
    The Americans are not reducing the number of aircraft carriers, they are just thinking which way to go. All these conversations are a political move.
    1. SPACE
      SPACE 26 March 2013 20: 41 New
      +3
      Quote: CARBON
      With his report, he is trying to show that it is necessary to pile something in a more modern way.

      An aircraft carrier is, in simple terms, a transport barge with the function of landing aircraft landing, which everyone prays for and is guarded by an entire squadron. EVERYTHING! What is everything that is fantastically unique in this tub? Mom wants this toy, but Mom doesn’t have any money, but I want everything early. The trough, which in the event of hostilities before drowning in the area of ​​the 10 database, will be drowned, 10 in many ways and in general I think no one will drown them, because why take the effort into this useless floating nuclear reactor. And your 70 aircraft, any more or less properly organized air defense, can easily be lowered from heaven to earth. Conicalizers damn it, sorry colonizers ..
  • Torus
    Torus 26 March 2013 21: 13 New
    0
    During the Cold War, the Americans threw through the press all kinds of misinformation for us, like this article.
    For example, when the Soviet Union decided to build aircraft carriers, the United States launched an active company in the specialized press (on military topics) that heavy aircraft carriers are not optimal, that the future is for helicopter carriers, etc.
    The result is known.
    Then, when our mistake was understood and decided to build a normal aircraft carrier, in the states of the special press again began to publish article after article that the springboard launch is more interesting, cheaper and more promising than too complicated, unreliable and expensive springboard.
    well, etc.
    So Herr Heyndricks - "Amelie Emelya, your week."
  • I think so
    I think so 26 March 2013 22: 24 New
    -2
    It is necessary that the p.i.nd.s.os.s.ya and further built aircraft carriers. The real benefits of them are large and convenient targets. With modern means of delivery, not even a nuclear ballistic missile GUARANTEED disables this trough. It is clear that a couple of three ballistic missiles are cheaper than this coffin with airplanes.
    1. I think so
      I think so 26 March 2013 23: 27 New
      0
      I once spoke with a Chinese engineer about ten years ago (they came to our company to look at developments) for a glass of tea (pretty much typed then), so he chatted about a ballistic missile guidance system based on a CCD matrix ... Now I only understand for what purpose they needed a system ...
  • Andrey58
    Andrey58 26 March 2013 22: 54 New
    0
    Rights analyst. States carriers are not exactly not needed, but not needed in such numbers. In 1956, when the law on the minimum number of aircraft carriers was adopted, the ships were smaller, simpler and cheaper. But rocket science was only developing. Now the situation is completely different.
  • knn54
    knn54 26 March 2013 22: 58 New
    -1
    The author is right, this is where the funds are needed
  • Gecko
    Gecko 27 March 2013 10: 59 New
    0
    The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy decided to upgrade the large anti-submarine ships of Project 1155 Frigate, the newspaper Izvestia writes. 30-year-old ships will be equipped with 192 mm A-130 artillery mounts, Caliber cruise missiles and anti-aircraft missile systems with Redut missile systems. Thanks to the replenishment of the arsenal of weapons, the BOD will become universal, capable of destroying underwater, surface and air targets.

    http://www.lenta.ru/news/2013/03/20/bpk/