Reflections on the future of aircraft carriers

Over the past decades, the naval strategy of the United States of America has been based on the use of aviation shock groups (AUG). The formation, consisting of an aircraft carrier with an air group, missile cruisers and destroyers, multipurpose submarines and auxiliary vessels, is capable of relatively quickly reaching the required area and performing strike missions there. The composition allows the aircraft carrier strike group to operate at a great distance from the base and at the same time effectively conduct combat work. AUG has been actively used since the Second World War and has repeatedly shown its benefits and effectiveness. Nevertheless, in the US military circles, the opinion spread according to which the aircraft carriers and ship groups that have them in their composition no longer meet the requirements of the time.

With enviable regularity, there are articles and discussions in which aircraft carriers are viewed from different angles and corresponding conclusions are drawn. Naturally, supporters and opponents of this class of ships find in the available facts arguments in favor of their point of view. Therefore, in the foreseeable future, the dispute will not only cease, but will intensify. Let us try to consider the opinions of the parties and draw our own conclusions about the prospects of aircraft carriers in their current state.

According

The main argument in favor of AUG in general and aircraft carriers in particular is the long-term experience of the successful use of such compounds. Aircraft carrier groups participated in the mass of armed conflicts and almost always showed high efficiency of combat work. In recent decades, with the development of guided weapons, the benefits of AUG have only increased, since it became possible to attack targets not only by aviation weapons, but also cruise missiles launched from cruisers or destroyers.

If we ignore stories combat use of aircraft carriers and other ships from the AUG, it is easy to see that the main advantage of such compounds is their versatility. A group of several ships of various types is capable of protecting itself from the enemy’s missile or air strikes with the aid of anti-aircraft missiles or artillery mounts and at the same time attacking them with their own weapons. Cruisers and destroyers in this case, use anti-ship or anti-submarine missiles, and the aircraft carrier provides the work of attacking aircraft.

On the role of an aircraft carrier in the composition of the AUG should pay special attention. In fact, a modern aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type (the only type of ships of this class currently in use) is a floating airfield with an air group capable of performing a wide range of tasks. First of all, it is air combat and ground attack, for which there are three squadrons of F / A-18 Hornet fighter-bomber aboard a ship of the Nimitz type. Since the ship cannot independently coordinate full-fledged combat work of the aircraft at a long distance, the air group also includes four E-2 Hawkeye long-range radar detection aircraft and EA-6A Prowler electronic warfare aircraft. Finally, there are several transport aircraft and helicopters for transporting people and goods on aircraft carriers. Thus, aircraft carrier aircraft are able to independently perform a wide range of combat missions, which provides the ship or the naval compound with high flexibility of use.

However, modern US aircraft carriers can not independently defend themselves from enemy ships or submarines. Therefore, the composition of the AUG has a number of ships with anti-ship, anti-submarine and anti-aircraft weapons. This fact also significantly increases the combat capability of the entire strike group.

The shock power and versatility of AUG in combination with their mobility allow using them not only for military purposes. The potential of strike groups is known in the world and therefore their presence in a certain region alone can to some extent change the situation in it. This so-called power projection can either simply demonstrate the US presence in the region, or exert psychological or political pressure on local countries. Thus, carrier strike groups are also a political and diplomatic tool.

As a result, aircraft carriers and AUGs turn out to be a multi-purpose political and military tool capable of performing tasks of various kinds. On the example of military conflicts in recent years, we can consider the traditional scheme of work of AUG. With the tensions of the international situation in any region, the ships of the United States come there and only by their presence demonstrate the seriousness of the intentions of their country. If the situation does not change for a long time, one group can change the other. This ensures the almost uninterrupted presence of ships in the area.

If it comes to armed confrontation, then the cruisers and destroyers of the attack group attack the ground and surface targets of the enemy with guided missiles, and the aircraft carrier ensures the combat work of its aircraft: fighter-bombers, long-range aircraft, etc. As a result, by joint efforts, AUG can destroy enemy forces within a radius of several hundred kilometers from its location. Due to the geographical features of the planet, aircraft carriers and other ships are capable of striking most of the land.

In the future, the Pentagon plans to develop carrier-based aircraft, as well as actively work towards the creation of unmanned fighter-bombers. As expected, such systems will positively affect the combat capabilities of ships and AUG. First of all, it refers to the economic component. An unmanned aerial vehicle costs significantly less than a manned aircraft of the same purpose. At the same time, he is also not without flaws. The main problem is to find the right balance between advantages and disadvantages. Then deck-based unmanned aerial vehicles can, if not completely replace, then at least press their “brothers” with the pilots on board and thereby improve the financial aspect of AUG as a whole.

Против

The arguments of the opponents of aircraft carriers and AUG as a whole are quite diverse, but mostly go back to the same thing - money. In the middle of March, the month came another article of one of the main critics of the modern concept of aircraft carriers, G. Hendrix. Among other things, the American analyst mentioned the unacceptably high cost of operating existing aircraft carriers, and the price of building new ones. Thus, the operation of AUG, which has one aircraft carrier, five cruisers and destroyers, one multipurpose nuclear submarine and about 80 airplanes and helicopters, as well as about 6700-6800 manpower, costs 6,5 million dollars a day. All in all, the US Navy currently has ten carrier strike groups, and their exact composition and, as a result, the cost of operation, is significantly different from those given by Hendrix.

By 2015, the US Navy should receive a new aircraft carrier of the Gerald R. Ford type. The lead ship, after whom the project is named, will cost 13,5 billion dollars to US taxpayers. Thus, the cost of a new aircraft carrier is almost twice the price of the previous aircraft carrier. USS George HW Bush (CVN-77) cost about seven billion. Over the next ten years, two more aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford type will be put into operation: USS John F. Kennedy and USS Enterprise. According to current plans, the construction of three ships in total will cost about 42 billion dollars. It is easy to calculate that for this money it would be possible to build six “George Bush” at once.

The second argument of the opponents of aircraft carriers concerns the inadequate cost-effectiveness ratio. For example, steam catapults of modern US aircraft carriers can carry out up to 120 sorties a day. The new “Gerald R. Ford” will be equipped with electromagnetic catapults that can provide normal “rate of fire” at the level of 160 departures per day. Thus, with an equal number of catapults, the new aircraft carriers will be able to provide only 30-percentage increase in the intensity of sorties. The effectiveness of combat work in this case is likely to increase proportionally, because in the coming years, F / A-18 will remain the main attack aircraft of aircraft carriers. Thus, a two-fold increase in price has insufficient tactical implications.

It is noteworthy that even the use of deck fighters-bombers to perform combat missions is being criticized. G. Hendrix gives the following figures. The full life cycle of each F / A-18 of about a thousand existing in the Navy costs about 115-120 million dollars (50 million aircraft itself, plus the cost of maintenance, training of pilots and technical staff, etc.). Over the past ten years, all US Navy aircraft have spent around 16000 missiles and bombs. By simple calculations, you can find out that each plane drops all 1,5-1,6 conditional ammunition per year, and each such discharge ultimately costs more than seven million dollars.

It is worth noting that critics of the idea of ​​carrier strike groups adhere to the well-known principle of "criticize - offer." So, in light of the financial features of the aircraft carrier fleet It is proposed to build missile cruisers and destroyers. With similar strike capabilities, these ships will cost the budget much cheaper: instead of one Gerald R. Ford, you can build at least three or four Ticonderoga cruisers or the Arleigh Burke destroyer. Although such an approach to the formation of naval strike groups will have specific consequences, such as the need to revise a number of important requirements, the economic benefit will cover all costs.

Instead of aircraft in a similar shock fleet, it is proposed to use cruise missiles. The latest modifications of the Tomahawk family of missiles, with some reservations, are capable of performing the same tasks as airplanes, but they cost significantly less. Using one Tomahawk will cost at most 2,5-3 million dollars, which is much cheaper than a single missile or bomb with a total cost of seven million. With regard to air, anti-ship or anti-submarine defense, modern American cruisers or destroyers are quite capable of leading it independently. In extreme cases, as suggested by opponents of aircraft carriers, it is possible to give a multi-purpose nuclear submarine to the strike compound. And even with such a composition, the construction and operation of the ship's shock group will cost several times less than in the case of the modern AUG.

Looking from the outside

It is difficult to say who is right, the supporters or opponents of aircraft carriers. At first glance, the arguments of both sides seem logical and reasonable. This is not surprising, because aircraft carriers and AUG, like any other thing, have their own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, both supporters and opponents can only look for facts that satisfy their point of view.

Nevertheless, the positions of the parties are good in that they help the outside observer, and also the high-ranking commander of the US Navy, to form their own opinion and come to some solution. This decision, perhaps, will not be in favor of critics of aircraft carriers and AUG. The fact is that for all their shortcomings, aircraft carriers have a number of characteristic advantages that no other class of ships possesses. First of all, these are airplanes. Yes, the attack of targets with the help of carrier-based aircraft ultimately turns out to be too expensive compared to alternative methods. However, the aircraft has a great advantage over cruise missiles. It is controlled by the pilot and therefore can act in accordance with the changing situation. In the case of cruise missiles, a change in the target, the cancellation of an attack or the breakthrough of an air defense will almost always be associated with an increase in ammunition consumption.

Naturally, in some situations, the use of guided missiles placed on ships will be much more convenient and smarter, but in the case of direct support for ground formations or other similar operations, the aircraft remain the only acceptable "tool." In the context of aviation technology, one should also remember airborne early warning and electronic warfare aircraft. They significantly increase the range and combat capabilities of the ship group, but by definition they need a base in the form of an aircraft carrier. Theoretically, instead of the E-2 Hawkeye, you can use specially converted helicopters. However, such development will entail extremely additional costs, but not cost savings.

Finally, the political component. The carrier strike group combines ships of several classes and therefore creates a formidable impression. As already mentioned, the mere appearance of AUG in the region leads to a corresponding statement by political scientists. For several decades, carrier groups have become such a convenient and mastered tool of influence on third countries that they should not be abandoned. Probably, connections from cruisers and destroyers can also, as they say, project force, but in the present circumstances an attempt to rebuild the existing system will not be justified. AUG has long shown its worth, and other types of shock groups will have to demonstrate their capabilities and prove their necessity.

Arguing about the future of US aircraft carriers, one involuntarily recalls the well-known principle of “working — don't touch”. The US naval system, with ten carrier strike groups, performs the tasks assigned to it and has repeatedly shown its necessity. Therefore, it is definitely not worth waiting for a complete abandonment of AUG in general and aircraft carriers in particular. First of all, for the reason that such a move would require a significant reworking of almost all views on the conduct of modern warfare. At the same time, the economic state of the United States transparently hints at a possible reduction in carrier groups.

If such a reduction will be, it is unlikely that it will become widespread. The AUG is the main strike force of the US Navy, and no one will significantly reduce its combat potential. Now ten of the US-owned aircraft carriers are divided into ten strike groups, not counting the combat training 4, in which there are currently no ships with an air group. Six AUG serves as part of the Atlantic fleet, the rest - in the Pacific. It should be remembered that the 14-I AUG is also devoid of an aircraft carrier. Thus, any reduction in the AUG of the Atlantic fleet will significantly affect its defense potential, and the same actions in relation to the Pacific Ocean will only significantly reduce its capabilities. Therefore, opponents of aircraft carriers can count on the reduction of only one or two carrier-assault groups, but no more.

In general, there are many more aircraft carrier supporters in the Pentagon than opponents. Therefore, even in the face of a significant reduction in the military budget, the power of the United States naval forces will continue to be held by carrier-based attack groups. Opponents of this strategy, in turn, will continue to insist on their position and in the foreseeable future, disputes will not subside. Who knows what will end these disputes. Perhaps the aircraft carrier project following the “Gerald R. Ford” will be deprived of the characteristic flaws of previous ships and at the same time significantly surpass them in their combat capabilities. However, the construction of these ships will begin no earlier than the end of the current decade. The estimated service life (50 years) of the oldest USS Nimitz aircraft carrier (CVN-68) ends only in the mid-twenties, after the expected entry into service of the last planned Fords, the new Enterprise. Therefore, the command of the US Navy still has enough time for a balanced analysis of the current situation, prospects and needs. How will this analysis end? It's too early to talk about it. So far, it is safe to say only about the preservation of aircraft carriers and carrier-assault strike groups.


On the materials of the sites:
http://navy.mil/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://defensedaily.com/
http://military.com/
http://naval-technology.com/

Comments

[Predator-74]

So at this point in time, US aircraft carriers represent a huge burden for American taxpayers, which certainly plays into our hands, as a potential enemy of the United States.
This looks even more depressing against the backdrop of the enormous economic problems of the states.

[svp67]

Quote: Predator-74

T.O. at the moment, US aircraft carriers are a huge burden for US taxpayers,

And the Army in general is a "high-cost" structure. But woe to the one who will unnecessarily save on it ...

[Canep]

Quote: svp67

And the Army in general is a "high-cost" structure. But woe to the one who will unnecessarily save on it ...

Woe to him who throws grandmothers left and right.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

Woe to him who throws grandmothers left and right.

Woe to the one who is trying to throw a strong opponent with his caps.

[Canep]

No one is trying to throw caps in their hats. Aircraft carrier is the most attractive target both in military and political sense. Also not very difficult. Firstly, Secondly, an aircraft carrier is easy to neutralize, you just need to sink supply tankers with jet fuel with the help of submarines, this can be done in the supply ports, they will not guard the Tanker like the aircraft carrier itself, after which it (the aircraft carrier) will turn into ballast for escort ships. Thirdly, the strike power of an aircraft carrier is negligible compared to an underwater missile carrier. Fourthly, ONE submarine is required for the liquidation of an aircraft carrier, and for the elimination of one nuclear submarine anti-submarine ships, just to find her. Fifth, aircraft carriers consume a huge amount of resources (since you don’t feel like talking for money), both material and human.
One aircraft carrier costs 5 billion dollars, and with escort ships this figure goes over 50 billion, for this money you can build 50 Borei-class nuclear submarines. that's the whole alignment.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

the aircraft carrier is easy to neutralize, you just need to sink supply tankers with jet fuel using submarines, this can be done in the supply ports

and someone, somewhere, has already done this at least once?

Quote: Canep

the strike power of an aircraft carrier is negligible compared to an underwater missile carrier.

the use of an underwater missile carrier is a nuclear war that will swallow everything. Carriers, as we see, can be used not only in nuclear war

Quote: Canep

ONE submarine is required to eliminate an aircraft carrier

This is if the submarine is VERY lucky

Quote: Canep

Aircraft carriers consume a huge amount of resources (since you don’t feel like talking for money), both material and human.
One aircraft carrier costs 5 billion bucks, and with escort ships, this figure surpasses 50 billion

Well, if the Americans allowed themselves this, then they can

Quote: Canep

for this money you can build 50 Borey-class nuclear submarines

We did not build them. That's the whole layout

[Canep]

Quote: Delta

Quote: Canep
the aircraft carrier is easy to neutralize, you just need to sink supply tankers with jet fuel using submarines, this can be done in the supply ports
and someone, somewhere, has already done this at least once?

No one has set such a task.

Quote: Delta

Quote: Canep
ONE submarine is required to eliminate an aircraft carrier
This is if the submarine is VERY lucky

In 1999, Kursk conducted 5 training sessions with simulated torpedo launches on ships of the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea. Including aircraft carriers. However, it was not found. The commander of "Memphis" was punished "including" for which he took revenge in the Barents Sea.

Quote: Delta

Quote: Canep
Aircraft carriers consume a huge amount of resources (since you don’t feel like talking for money), both material and human.
One aircraft carrier costs 5 billion bucks, and with escort ships, this figure surpasses 50 billion
Well, if the Americans allowed themselves this, then they can

Wikipedia has an article "US National Debt" and for one divide this debt by the US population - every American owes a "Maybach"

Quote: Delta

Quote: Canep
for this money you can build 50 Borey-class nuclear submarines
We did not build them. That's the whole layout

It was ordered that 24 nuclear submarines be built before the 20th year, in my opinion, there are no aircraft carriers in the armament program.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

No one has set such a task.

I also said that it remains in theory. Those. in theory, they are easily drowned by them, but in practice - not yet

Quote: Canep

In 1999, Kursk conducted 5 training sessions with simulated torpedo launches on ships of the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea. Including aircraft carriers.

everyone is training. Including strategic underwater missile carriers. Does this mean that their effectiveness has been proven?

Quote: Canep

Wikipedia has an article "US National Debt"

Below I wrote about the US public debt - when the States are bent, then we’ll talk about their debt. While they live, they eat, they create weapons ...

Quote: Canep

Ordered while 24 nuclear submarines will be built before the 20th year

It’s not difficult to figure out whether they can build 24 boats before 2020. In any case, this is not 50. And for some reason, the USSR built not only a submarine fleet, but also aircraft-carrying ships

[Canep]

In general, I understand from your point of view: 1. Gennady Lyachin was given the star of the hero for drowning Kursk. 2. Take the example of the Americans and destroy the budget for the construction of aircraft-carrying targets.
And in my opinion it would be possible to build more nuclear submarines and let the Americans spend their strength and money on catching them across the oceans.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

Gennady Lyachin was given the star of the hero for drowning Kursk.

And for what was the whole crew of the Kursk awarded? do you know?

Quote: Canep

Take the example of the Americans and ditch the budget for the construction of aircraft-carrying targets.

we killed our own without aircraft carriers. What grounds do you call them targets? is there a drowned aircraft carrier in the history of the cold war?

Quote: Canep

And in my opinion it would be possible to build more nuclear submarines and let the Americans spend their strength and money on catching them across the oceans

The USSR submarine fleet was the largest in the world. At the same time, the Americans spent on their search and the creation of aircraft carriers. And as a result, the collapsed USSR so far. What will happen to the States is the future, no one can know it

[Canep]

Quote: Delta

And for what was the whole crew of the Kursk awarded? do you know?

Yes, in your opinion, 72 submariners were awarded for helping Kingstones to open Lyachin.
And in my opinion, for the conditional destruction of 2 AUGs, the one that was in the Mediterranean Sea, and the one that did not come to replace it. Moreover, the Forer line and Gibraltar went unnoticed.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

Yes, in your opinion, 72 submariners were awarded for helping Kingstones to open Lyachin.

let this phrase remain on your conscience. But the crew was awarded after the death of the boat. As for the Mediterranean campaign and its results (and awards): who told you that the Kursk was not being followed? from the memoirs of Admiral Ryazantsev: "In the mid-90s of the XX century, the nuclear submarine of the Pacific Fleet 949 A of the project performed tasks in the Pacific Ocean. During the voyage, she discovered the AUG of the US Navy, which was making a transition from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, to the Persian Gulf After a while, by order of the headquarters of the Pacific Fleet, surveillance of the AUG was stopped and the nuclear submarine returned to base. For the successful performance of combat training missions at sea, the crew of the submarine was presented by the command of the fleet to be awarded state awards.
Two months have passed. One of the officers of the General Staff of the Navy in Moscow received a letter from an acquaintance of an American naval officer with whom he spoke during mutual official visits. An American colleague in a letter talks about his family and himself. An American officer wrote about himself that he is on the ships of the US Navy AUG in the Persian Gulf and invites the Russian officer to visit after he returns from sailing. The letter ended with a postscript, where, as if by chance, an American officer informs his Russian friend that when his AUG sailed in the Pacific Ocean, they were watched by a Russian nuclear submarine. It was also reported that the nuclear submarine, while observing American warships, clearly fulfilled the requirements of bilateral agreements between the United States and Russia and did not come closer to the distances established by the Treaty to the AUG. "

who said that having gone the distance of a torpedo attack, he could have made it in a BATTLE setting? consider the difference - peacetime and war, when the boat would have been destroyed, if it had only been discovered. In peacetime, she is little prevented from conducting her maneuvers that do not interfere with the activities of the same AUG.

[Canep]

Do not forget that the American ships in the Mediterranean Sea in 1999 were not on a courtesy visit, and the planes did not carry out training exercises. They were in a real BATTLE setting, and could destroy ALL ships that in their opinion represent a danger to them. If forgotten, then Belgrade was bombed. And ship commanders, instead of military awards, received a penalty, and some lost their epaulettes.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

They were in a real battle environment

in battle. Yes, just not at war with Russia. You have to be a big eccentric to drown a submarine in the Mediterranean Sea, not realizing that it can only be a NATO submarine or Russia, and certainly not Yugoslavia, Iraq or anyone else

[Canep]

But in the Barents Sea, this did not prevent them from sinking the Kursk (Memphis did their best). Or we will continue to carry the version about the torpedo that Putin was forced to come up with, so as not to bring it to war.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

continue to carry that version about the torpedo

of course, of course, "Memphis"

[silver_roman]

I'm interested in something else: could not amerskaya nuclear submarine without a command from above attack the Russian nuclear submarine ??? after all, at that time their arrogance knew no bounds, but again there are rumors that as a result of the Russian Federation a certain piece of debt was written off ... something about 10 billion dollars. Consequently, the amerovskoe leadership could not have paid that kind of money for "firing combat torpedoes" and not a conventional attack? Maybe memphis was marked by its audacity ??? Although, of course, there can be as many conjectures as you like, but still interested in kapets how ...

[Delta]

Quote: silver_roman

the Amer’s nuclear submarine could not attack the Russian nuclear submarine without a command from above

I could not. Some people want to think so, but could not. Why would you do this if this didn’t happen even during the Cold War?

Quote: silver_roman

rumor has it that as a result of the Russian Federation a certain piece of debt was written off ... something about 10 billion bucks.

Is this somehow connected with that catastrophe? so after all, any event can be associated with the death of the boat. There are still zealous dreamers and Putin’s conversation with the US president drew here. As if the presidents have nothing to talk about. Especially considering the loss of the boat. And the arrival of the head of the CIA here. Although such visits are prepared in advance. But who wants to think about it? drowned and that's it

[silver_roman]

Well, the cold war is a time of parity. the time of the sinking of Kursk is the time of the post-Soviet space, so there is a huge difference. Therefore, I pointed out the arrogance of amers at that time. And what's the point of giving them 10 billion. If, in fact, we paid them an indemnity ???

As if presidents have nothing to talk about

Well, for me, this is exactly the topic that presidents should speak on a closed meeting by itself, and not hotheads. because such irresponsible actions can indeed lead to nuclear war. And what does the arrival of the CIA-shnik ??? dude decided to make a gift to the poor and unhappy RF? I beg you .... of course you can guess forever ... okay, anyway, if we find out the truth, then after 50 years

[Canep]

After 38 years. Maybe I’ll survive.

[Old_kapitan]

But in the Barents Sea, this did not prevent them from sinking the Kursk (Memphis did their best).

Well, how much can you come up with French magazines, just as far from the submarine fleet as you, repeating rubbish?
Are you a sapper? Well, tell this fable to sappers, maybe they will believe it. Just do not tell her submariners.

[Atrix]

Quote: Delta

who said that having gone the distance of a torpedo attack, he could have made it in a BATTLE setting? consider the difference - peacetime and war, when the boat would have been destroyed, if it had only been discovered. In peacetime, she is little prevented from conducting her maneuvers that do not interfere with the activities of the same AUG.

Many here do not understand that when there will be wartime and when the AUG is in full combat readiness it will not be so easy to approach. To whom does the nuclear submarine interfere in peacetime, well, has swam that now to drown it?

[silver_roman]

The aircraft carriers of the USSR began to build most likely for one reason: the rut of weapons. amers have, it should be us. That is what undermined the economy. Unfortunately, building a nuclear submarine does not mean creating a powerful submarine fleet. Do not forget about the infrastructure and training of crews, and this is sooo not easy and extremely expensive. Therefore, it is worthwhile to raise from the bottom of the institution for the training of submariners (and not only them). In this aspect, I agree with you.
In addition, we have never particularly attacked anyone. They didn’t terrorize us, so long as we still don’t even need to dream about aircraft carriers with our pace of economic development. And besides, building it on the likeness of Amer AUG, as for me, should not be. Innovation needs to be invested, a different approach ... you need to think a lot and hard

[Delta]

Quote: silver_roman

That’s what undermined the economy.

it is impossible to undermine the economy with 5-6 aircraft carriers, which, moreover, did not have a large air wing. It was not the "Nimitz" after all

[silver_roman]

I did not say about 5-6 aircraft carriers, but about the arms race. And by the way, if you choose the right time, then you can break the budget with aircraft carriers. It was by order of the Atlantic that the Arabs lowered their oil prices and killed the USSR oil prices, which in fact was the final chord!

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

The commander of "Memphis" was punished "including" for which he took revenge in the Barents Sea.

your imagination has no limit

[Canep]

Are there other arguments? If the “Memphis” didn’t drown the Kursk, then it turns out that the crew received awards for drowning the Kursk, if they were presented for awards for the Mediterranean campaign, then the loss of the ship in peacetime is a crime for which the submissions are responded.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

Any other arguments?

There is. The catastrophe occurred due to the explosion of its own torpedo. There is a lot of evidence for this. In my opinion, everyone has already stopped discussing this, but no - there is still a person who wants to blame everything on the damned Americans. Do you have evidence of American involvement in the tragedy? go to court with them

[Canep]

The hole in the starboard side of the "Kursk" with the edges curved inward from where it came from. There was a version that this is a technological hole left after the removal of the rudder, but there is no such hole on the left side. And I repeat once again for the loss of a warship in peacetime, no awards are given.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

The hole in the starboard side of the Kursk with the edges bent inwardly from where it came from

twenty-five again .... yes what is it ... there is a hole in the lightweight case, the strong case WILL NOT BE PUNCHED !!! how much can this be repeated? in addition, the torpedo does not penetrate the hull of the ship, it does not need it. It explodes near the ship, thus enhancing the effect of the explosion

[Canep]

If Russia announced that the Americans drowned the Kursk, it would mean the beginning of the 3rd World War.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

If Russia announced that the Americans drowned the Kursk, it would mean the beginning of the 3rd World War.

Well, right, but no demand from you))) you can

[Canep]

I didn't understand the last comment. But there was a case with the nuclear submarine "Kostroma" is the one with an asterisk and the number "1" on the superstructure, take an interest. The Americans didn't yell then either.
To summarize our discussion: - aircraft carriers are the best ships, no one can destroy them because not a single Nimitz-class ship was sunk. This axiom.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

there was a case with the nuclear submarine "Kostroma"

Well? there was a collision. Were there few of them? what does the Kursk have to do with it?

Quote: Canep

To summarize our discussion: - aircraft carriers are the best ships, no one can destroy them because not a single Nimitz-class ship was sunk. This axiom.

did i say that? these are your own fabrications, you like to do it. As for their unsinkability, there are no such ships in nature, however, not a single aircraft carrier was sunk after WWII. This is really a fact

[Canep]

As for the "Kostorma" - it was not a collision but a ram, after which the American boat was decommissioned and cut. I will not believe that the commander of the "Kostroma" did not know that along the course of ascent, across, at periscope depth, there was a strange boat. And I made my conclusion based on your arguments.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

it was not a collision but a ram

You like to draw conclusions from the realm of fiction. Novels would write. Here are the conclusions about aircraft carriers

[Canep]

We do not hear each other, about the Kursk you ran into the official version, although there is a contradiction on the face: the submariners were awarded for the loss of the ship, the conditional destruction of 2 aircraft carriers is not an argument: they did not drown. And the fact that in the 70s and 80s the Americans did not carry out a single peacekeeping operation apart from the capture of Grenada, this is a fact, I think they were chasing our boats. Memphis is drowning Kursk - the same is not a fact, they cut a hole in the side themselves, and Memphis (or Toledo) climbed into the Norwegian dock without painting. Buoy green in the sea - hallucination. I did not find your arguments in our dialogue, only minuses.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

although there is a contradiction: the submariners were awarded for the loss of the ship

Do you need a justification for the award after death? and when did they recognize the dead as guilty? how often? if it was, then under the Union. Ethics, you know. What do you think the crew was awarded after the death?

Quote: Canep

Conditional destruction of 2 aircraft carriers - not an argument

Do you seriously consider the real destruction of two aircraft carriers by one boat ???

Quote: Canep

Buoy green at sea - hallucination

there was no hallucination. There was a jellyfish that looked like a buoy. This is from the chronicle of the rescue operation, this is not speculation. Arguments in favor of what else do you want to hear? how did the torpedo explode and why? will write for a long time, this topic has long been closed

[Canep]

A hole in the board of the mouse was gnawed.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

A hole in the board of the mouse was gnawed.

Hmm ... invincible obstinacy ... I kind of wrote above (you do not want to see the arguments, but demand them) that a torpedo could not make such a hole. In that place the LIGHT body was broken. The body is STRONG in that place int. In addition, the explosion came from the first compartment (EVERYTHING knows about this, the hatch of the first compartment was sealed to the bulkhead of the second. And this hole is yours in the area of ​​the second compartment. What other arguments are needed? I have them

[Canep]

Then you have to admit that the crew was posthumously awarded for the loss of a warship.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

Then you have to admit that the crew was posthumously awarded for the loss of a warship.

This is your business, how to count. Is that about the hole in the case? or will we still?

[Canep]

All your arguments and facts are based on the official version (about the hatch, about the solid case, etc.), I saw the hole with my eyes (in the film), the solid case is not visible behind it or not, and I’m still hearing it on TV I heard that it is forbidden to remove the case from the right side. No one could intelligently explain the origin of the hole.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

I saw the hole with my eyes (in the film)

but ... everything is clear. Did you watch the French movie?))) There is still about a torpedo burning something there))) does it make sense to continue if you base your judgments on similar materials ...

[Canep]

Where does the hole in the starboard side of Kursk come from? Is there a plausible explanation? And about the ban on shooting from the starboard side it would not hurt to find out.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

Where does the hole in the starboard side of Kursk come from? Is there a plausible explanation?

you don’t perceive any explanation, right?))) there is an explanation: after the fall, the boat dragged along the ground for about 30 meters. At the same time, she was thrown from side to side. Any large boulder at the bottom could be the cause of such a hole. Lightweight body is susceptible to such damage, it says any submariner. It will meet with the iceberg, then it will touch the bottom. And without explosions on board (and even more so - without torpedoes of mythical, American) photographs of such damage is not a problem.

Quote: Canep

about the ban on shooting from the starboard side would not hurt to find out.

where have you seen such a ban? and show you a photograph taken from the starboard side?

[Canep]

As for the hole: if the boat was dragged along the bottom, then the hole from the stone will be torn, and its shape will not be round but elongated along the impact vector (direction). An example is a hole in the Titanic.
And as for the prohibition of starboard filming, I repeat: this was said in the reports about raising the boat. I heard it with my own ears.

[Canep]

Silence - no argument?

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

Silence - no argument?

hasty conclusions (all the more so) are a sign of development. It’s clear what. I sometimes also work, and not only argue here)))

[Canep]

Regarding the prohibition to remove the boat from the starboard side - the information is reliable, then I recently left the army (had admission), - I thought: - "what could be more secret on the starboard side than on the left side"

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

As for the prohibition to remove the boat from the starboard side

so you still show a photo from the starboard side?)))) then calm down?

[Canep]

I'll see (and another minus - not an argument)

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

minus is not an argument)

you, I look jammed on the minuses. If only I had minus you, there wouldn’t be so many minuses. Turn on brains and logic at last
A starboard photo? Yes please

[Canep]

Well, where is the photo.
And if I were fixated on the minuses, I would not defend my position that it is not necessary to copy the actions of Americans, but to go their own way, they have a lot of money (and debts) as they want to spend, and frighten the Papuans (and not only ) it is possible and this

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

Well, where is the photo.

for some reason I didn’t attach the photo. I can send it by mail if I haven’t seen it myself. Although something tells me that this is banter. Well here is a link for example
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vM0BZWEH5wI/UMC-wBpGe9I/AAAAAAABHnQ/bzhKBeFSCB8/s1600/
%25D0%259A%25D1%2583%25D1%2580%25D1%2581%25D0%25BA.png

[Canep]

The same picture was shown by the French. A hole in the face is approximately in the middle of the hull (in height) in order to get it from an impact on the bottom, or the stone at the bottom of the ship should have a 90 degree roll. And as you know, the boat at the bottom lay almost flat (without a roll), otherwise the rescuers would not have tried to dock to the emergency hatch. And about the bows and bulkheads, how can I determine where, what was the state, after sawing off the first compartment. The photo is not visible, go rugged case. Damage could fall into place of the cut. I will repeat the photo for the rest.

[Delta]

the boat AFTER STOP lay without a roll. Regarding the hatch (stubbornness does not leave you) - sawed off the first compartment, and I said about the second bulkhead. Do you need to give these results? or do you not a priori believe them? Well, you don’t have to believe that the Earth is round. But you yourself haven’t seen this, then it’s not round))) tell me, do you want the Americans to do this? you could not comprehend a simple truth - if it were a torpedo, there would be destruction of a solid building. And it’s not exactly how the cumulative jet pierces tanks, but the destruction is serious. THEY ARE NOT HERE!

[Canep]

I hate them (government) behave like masters of the world. There is a high probability that the Americans did it. We do not have the first compartment as you can judge, about the whole building or not. We will find out the truth when all the documents are declassified.
So far no one has clearly explained the hole. But there was still a ban to starboard. This photo (and video) is a leak. And in my opinion, such a crew could not allow such a mistake, as a result of which a torpedo explosion occurred in the first compartment.
As for the earth is round, it is visible during a lunar eclipse, and proved by Magelan.
And we have already night, and tomorrow to work.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

I hate them

your hatred should have nothing to do with those events. So you can blame anything you hate on people. We must at least try to be objective. There is no chance that anyone else did this.
If there was a ban on the starboard photo, then why is there so much? you know, all this is from a series of knocks from a boat that they allegedly heard after a few days, although it is clear that the latter died a few hours after the explosion. A hole - anything, a boulder, part of a technological section, except for a torpedo

[Canep]

I hate them because of this. The phrase on the TV: - "we can not show you the boat from the starboard side for reasons of secrecy" - was.

At this time, put the DOT. Time will judge us.

[Canep]

I thought such a hole could leave the bow wheel of the depth torn off during the explosion, that is, it formed along the body and down at an angle of about 30 degrees. The photo shows a whole solid case below.
But one way or another, they did not reward for the loss of a warship, and only 72 out of 118 were awarded.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

But one way or another, they did not reward for the loss of a warship, and only 72 out of 118 were awarded.

You still do not understand. You are talking about a Mediterranean campaign, and I tell you that after the death the whole crew was awarded the Order of Courage. Of course awarded, do not plant the same dead. Yes, and it would be necessary to plant from myself starting: with Kuroedov, Popov ....

[bulgurkhan]

Here is a photo of a durable case just under the hole of a light case.

[Vashestambid]

Have a camomile here

DELTA - Human Aircraft Carrier Steers !!

Minesweeper - you are mistaken of emotions and not of any facts !!

Attention! You do not have permission to view hidden text.

[Canep]

You don't want to see the facts, the Americans removed 4 admirals for missing Kursk. After which he suffered an "accident". Yes, and the AUG can be destroyed with a ballistic missile, just don't talk about missile defense, it's a bluff. With one warhead, a hundred false ones will fly.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

The Americans removed 4 admirals for having missed Kursk. After which he suffered an "accident".

these are your speculations, and certainly not the facts

[Vashestambid]

Quote: Canep

Yes, and AUG can be destroyed by a ballistic missile

Dear Minesweeper with a ballistic missile, you can destroy anything, even a city, but this is not a reason not to build them !!

[Delta]

Quote: VashEstambid

with a ballistic missile you can destroy anything, even a city, but that’s no reason not to build them !!

[Canep]

Cities are not an army combat unit.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

Cities are not an army combat unit.

yeah. Yes, only ballistic missiles were just created to destroy primarily cities. They are now aimed at

[Canep]

I agree with this 100%, but it’s impossible to destroy the submarines with a ballistic missile, we need to find ahead.

[Delta]

Quote: Canep

but it’s impossible to destroy the submarines with a ballistic missile, you need to find ahead.

and someone wanted to do this?))

[patsantre]

Quote: Canep

PRO, it's a bluff. A hundred warheads will fly with one warhead.

This is a bluff.
And it’s not a fact that they will not be able to distinguish false from real ones. Toward the end of the trajectory this is done easily. Although the question, again, is not this. Who will get a sufficient distance and give target designation? And how quickly can you change the coordinates of the target in the mine / cruiser with BR?

[Canep]

Accurate target designation will be given by their radars, beacons, satellites, noise of propellers of surface ships, and all the rest of the ACG activity gives it out with its head.
And when you start to distinguish false warheads from real ones, it will be too late, the approach time of the warhead will be no more than 10 seconds, and besides, you can detonate the first warhead at the boundary of the atmosphere, it will blind the entire missile defense with an electromagnetic pulse, and the second with a delay of 5-10 seconds. at the surface, destroying AUG in bulk. Only submarines will survive if they are deep.

[inverse]

I read Canep's ravings for a long time, but this one just killed.
While the ballistic missile will be retargeted, while it will fly toward the target (I recall that the flight of the BR is uncontrollable on most of the trajectory), the ACG will dump to the other end of the ocean. That is why the targets for the BR are fixed objects.

[patsantre]

Quote: Canep

One aircraft carrier costs 5 billion bucks, and with escort ships, this figure surpasses 50 billion,

According to mathematics, 2.There and 20 billion doesn’t work out. But the Northwind is needed at all for other tasks, so a comparison is not appropriate.

[Canep]

As for the tasks: nuclear submarines are needed to defend the homeland, and aircraft carriers are used mainly to establish democracy and intimidate the presidents of the banana republics. Hunting to get dirty by American methods - we are building strike aircraft carriers, no - ships are less for air cover of surface and submarine formations. Example - "Admiral Kuznetsov"
In mathematics: one hundred planes of 50 million - 5 billion. 2 cruisers, 4 frigates, 2 nuclear submarines, and another 5-10 escort ships cost a total of clearly more than 10 billion.

[patsantre]

We are talking about something else. These types of equipment were created for different wars, and one excludes the other. In a nuclear war, aircraft carriers will not be needed, in a regular one they will not need an SSBN.

Quote: Canep

In mathematics: one hundred planes of 50 million - 5 billion. 2 cruisers, 4 frigates, 2 nuclear submarines, and another 5-10 escort ships cost a total of clearly more than 10 billion.

4 destroyers, not frigates
5-10 escort ships? Which ones? What is listed above are not escort ships?
As if I said that this whole thing will be cheaper than 10 lard. However, feel the difference between 20 and 50.

[Canep]

10 billion remains on all escort ships, including material support ships.

[patsantre]

Total - just 20ka.

[Atrix]

Quote: Canep

No one is trying to throw caps in their hats. Aircraft carrier is the most attractive target both in military and political sense. Also not very difficult. Firstly, Secondly, an aircraft carrier is easy to neutralize, you just need to sink supply tankers with jet fuel with the help of submarines, this can be done in the supply ports, they will not guard the Tanker like the aircraft carrier itself, after which it (the aircraft carrier) will turn into ballast for escort ships. Thirdly, the strike power of an aircraft carrier is negligible compared to an underwater missile carrier. Fourthly, ONE submarine is required for the liquidation of an aircraft carrier, and for the elimination of one nuclear submarine anti-submarine ships, just to find her. Fifth, aircraft carriers consume a huge amount of resources (since you don’t feel like talking for money), both material and human.
One aircraft carrier costs 5 billion dollars, and with escort ships this figure goes over 50 billion, for this money you can build 50 Borei-class nuclear submarines. that's the whole alignment.

Lord, where do you come from? I hope you do not serve where. Above the rank of private? And then it becomes scary if at the helm there will be such theorists.

[Atrix]

Quote: Canep

. Aircraft carrier is the most attractive target both in military and political sense. Also not very difficult. This is firstly, Secondly, the aircraft carrier is easy to neutralize, you just need to sink supply tankers with jet fuel with the help of submarines, this can be done in the supply ports, they will not guard the tanker like the aircraft carrier itself, after which it (the aircraft carrier) will turn into ballast for escort ships. Thirdly, the strike power of an aircraft carrier is negligible compared to an underwater missile carrier. Fourthly, ONE submarine is required for the liquidation of an aircraft carrier, and the connection of anti-submarine ships is required to eliminate one nuclear submarine, only to find it

You drown it easily?)))

I wonder what the composition is going to drown?

[Civil]

all the same, it is necessary to develop deck-based drones, and ordinary ones too, they will be cheaper to operate, smaller in size, better performance characteristics due to the lack of restrictions on overload for the pilot, combine this with an aircraft carrier, by the way the former conventional enemy goes this way

[redwolf_13]

Yes, but only that is the question, and this is the main protection of the data transmission channel and noise immunity, as well as the ability to operate more than 15 devices simultaneously. These are the pitfalls that the UAV concept breaks about. Otherwise, having aircrafts with UAVs and not solving these problems, you can not only spend money in vain, but also get it on your neck from your own weapon and it will be like in a "wedding in Malinovka" on these breeches "

[SPACE]

Quote: svp67

And the Army in general is a "high-cost" structure. But woe to the one who will unnecessarily save on it

They say politics, there is a concentrated expression of the economy, war is the continuation of politics by radical methods, which means that war is the economy.
Do not confuse the possibilities of the Armerika, which has crushed financial opportunities for more than half of the world, with Russia, look at the amount of armaments of the states, what is this for? for the world? They are aggressors and aircraft carriers, etc. they have not for protection, but for oppression and robbery. Russia, what is the military budget? Defense must be built on the basis of real capabilities and an asymmetric response is a reasonable solution. And what in the strategic plan of RUSSIA will give even the heels of the built aircraft carriers? What will they do?

[Nick]

Quote: svp67

And the Army in general is a "high-cost" structure. But woe to the one who will save unnecessarily on it ..

It is certainly true, but the US army is a priori redundant to protect its own territory, and already insufficient for global domination. So isn’t it easier to reduce the fervor a bit, given the current economic difficulties of the United States, and save a little on military spending by changing the concept of global domination to the concept of protecting one’s own territory?

[Kaa]

Quote: Nick

isn't it easier to lessen your fervor, given the current economic difficulties of the United States

"" The fact that the Americans have re-elected President Obama suggests that they have no reason to abandon their previous line in foreign policy. This line is significantly less aggressive than the one demonstrated by the Republicans during the election campaign. "The fact that Obama won gives him a certain margin of safety in order to keep from slipping into any new forceful actions in the Middle East. because this is the hottest region at the moment.
Of course, there are topics of relations with the EU, with Russia and the CIS countries. Europeans themselves are slightly disappointed that during the election campaign, the topic of cooperation with Europe did not sound at all. Europe fell out of the field of view of candidates during the pre-election debate. This is a shame for her, she needs cooperation with the United States in order to hold on to the next round of the economic crisis., therefore, this is bad news for those political forces and those countries that in Europe counted on more active involvement of Americans in business.
Today, the United States faces such huge problems internal that they talk about a new self-isolation of the United States from external affairs. I think that it will not reach the extent to which it was before the Second World War (and before the First, too), nevertheless, isolationism syndrome is observed. The active, stormy foreign policy of the Republicans, Bush in particular, the operations in Afghanistan, Iraq - all this had its opposite side, and today it is presented to the public. It is associated with losses, with the growth of various kinds of threats - and now this is cited as an argument by those who would not want to take a new responsibility on the United States, taking action in the Middle East. Bush would surely have run into the campaign against Libya directly, and Obama would have resisted this, and although he supported everything that was happening there, nevertheless, the British and French played the first violin. The Americans under Obama looked at the events related to the Islamic revolution in Egypt through fingers. That is, the signs of fatigue and isolationism in US foreign policy are clearly visible. http://www.from-ua.com/news/1a358c4c76bf5.html

[svp67]

Quote: Nick

It is certainly true, but the US army is a priori redundant to protect its own territory, and already insufficient for global domination.

They still have a "frenzy" of greatness. But the further the financial situation worsens, the faster it will pass for them. And besides, they understand very well that if they start a massive reduction now, then first of all it will affect units and subunits abroad and from the outside it may resemble a flight. And on the "shoulders" of the "fleeing" troops, those with whom America fought so hard will come to America.

[svp67]

For example, steam catapults of modern US aircraft carriers allow carrying out up to 120 sorties per day. The new "Gerald R. Ford" will be equipped with electromagnetic catapults, which can provide normal "rate of fire" at the level of 160 sorties per day

I wonder how long their aircraft carrier is able to operate at such an intensity, without refueling? And what is the daily rate of sorties for aircraft carriers with a "springboard" start?

[Delta]

Quote: svp67

I wonder what time their aircraft carrier is able to work with such intensity, without refueling?

About 3-4 days. "Nimitz", performing training flights, with an intensity half as much as in a combat situation, replenishes aviation fuel once a week. Accordingly, Ford will spend more. Although it will take more fuel (with certain design changes compared to the "Nimitz". This is just my opinion). Hence the conclusion about 3-4 days

[vadson]

the larger the cabinet, the louder it falls, the Titanic proved it. get involved in a conflict with Iran - you look and drown the Iranians this mega scow with their mosquito fleet, then it’s just a bunch of questions will be the price - effectiveness

[Canep]

It would be nice to watch this show, and listen to the cries of the congressmen after that. And it would not be bad if he was blown up by a sea mine apiece of bucks, and directly in the Strait of Hormuz made shipping difficult there.

[vadson]

Why Iran Yao? they need a flurry and that's it

[mojohed]

Interesting article. It is important to remember here that, indeed, every country with access to the sea has anti-ship missiles. Even in Somalia, outdated Soviet ones are in stock (in one of the materials the military informant read). Well, 1, 2,3,4, but the mass launch of such missiles will not save any air defense warrants. Hit a rocket in an aircraft carrier and although it doesn’t drown it, it will be able to permanently damage the runway with catapults, and here the AUG efficiency = 50% or less, because warrant becomes in the dead defense of an aircraft carrier and flee from the battlefield. The US Navy has such a strategy that it costs a group around an aircraft carrier. Dolbani is an unknown submarine with 50-100 km. from the target with the same granite or with which rocket and torpedo multiplied by zero.
It also makes no sense to exclude the effectiveness of a strike against AUG by Iranian Navy boats at night with explosives. Any accident or luck of the enemy will already complicate takeoffs and landing on an aircraft carrier. So, the future is for drones, starting and landing on ordinary ships (parachute or vertically). The war of drones is coming.

[Papakiko]

Quote: mojohed

So, the future is for drones, starting and landing on ordinary ships (parachute or vertically). The war of drones is coming.

Highlighted in bold reduces the level of coal armadillos to your advanced epic about Drones.

Naturally, the future belongs to "drones", and in what Epostasis there are already nuances.

[Canep]

The future of American aircraft carriers is a joke and scrap. I read somewhere in connection with budget savings, they put 4 ships for conservation, their budget could not withstand such costs. Money is not an unimportant factor.

[common man]

The high survival of AUG in modern wars is not confirmed for two great reasons.
1. The USA after the 2nd World War did not wage war with an equal adversary.
2. The main thing. No one tried to seriously sink their aircraft carrier. Firstly, the possibility of explosion of reactors. Secondly, given that for an aircraft carrier, Americans will tear anyone up to the tenth generation, fear for themselves, their relatives, and their people. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who took revenge for Pearl Harbor, really prove it.

[shurup]

If the question can be solved for money, then this is not a question. It’s cheaper to feed North Korea than to project an aircraft carrier onto it.
Cheaper to buy Iraqi generals in bulk than to fight their army.
Russia needs aircraft carriers, and aircraft carriers also need to be built, but for sale to China and India. Let the United States have a headache on this subject.

[Nayhas]

Fans of missile cruisers and destroyers forget about the information field or "fog of war". Not a single AWACS helicopter will replace Hawkeye, the size of the antenna, the amount of necessary equipment, the power consumption of this economy is not available for installation in a helicopter.

[Canep]

Hokai will successfully replace the ground-based A-50, with refueling it can be on duty for days.

[Nayhas]

Yeah, and the zombie operators, they do not care how many stare at the monitors? Three hours or a day? And pilots on the same willpower stretch?

[Santa Fe]

The main argument in favor of the AAG in general and aircraft carriers in particular is the many years of experience in the successful use of such formations.

Can the author give a concrete example of the successful use of aircraft carriers since the 1952 of the year?))

* In 1952, the airborne refueling system was first tested in combat conditions

benefit from AUG only increased, since it became possible to attack targets not only with aircraft weapons, but also with cruise missiles launched from cruisers or destroyers.

Key moment! Benefit from AUG or from an Aircraft Carrier?

AUG is not only a Nimitz with carrier-based aircraft. These are missile cruisers and destroyers, anti-submarine frigates, submarines, supply ships, etc.
AUG - this is the US Navy. Hundreds of warships brought together in 10 battle groups.

Even in the absence of an aircraft carrier, the AUG retains a powerful offensive potential, primarily thanks to hundreds of cruise missiles on board destroyers + unique capabilities of Aegis cruisers (air defense, missile defense, interception of targets on LEO) + anti-submarine functions.

[avt]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Can the author give a concrete example of the successful use of aircraft carriers since the 1952 of the year?))

Pancake ! Did not have time ! I just wanted to write that Oleg Kaptsov was coming and would already register the author for his aircraft carriers! Whatever in a nightmare they didn’t dare to think.

[Delta]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Can the author give a concrete example of the successful use of aircraft carriers since 1952?

No, of course, they were all drowned, and planes shot down)))))

[avt]

Quote: Delta

No, of course, they were all drowned, and planes shot down)))))

One McCain is worth what, he fucked Forrestal when he dabbled in buttons before launching the buttons on the plane and Zuni launched , miraculously the ship to the joy of Oleg Kaptsov did not drown. Here amers appreciated his merits, they keep the senator. And we are ungrateful not only as a hero - we did not give a medal for courage, well, at least now we would give some order for merit or friendship of peoples.

[Per se.]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Can the author give a concrete example of the successful use of aircraft carriers since the 1952 of the year?))

I hope the author will speak for himself, but on my own behalf I will note that in 1982, it was the war for the Falklands that showed the need for the presence of modern aircraft carriers in the naval group. Dear SWEET SIXTEEN needs to work on the American website, convincing the Yankees of the "uselessness" of this class of ships, and we have all kinds of "eccentrics", lobbyists and traitors, and so the entire aircraft carrier fleet was practically destroyed.

[Delta]

Quote: Per se.

it was the war for the Falklands that showed the need for the presence in the naval group of modern aircraft carriers

what do you! Now he will tell you that the container ship carried the Harriers there. And when he remembers that the aircraft carriers were there, he will say that the Harriers shot down few enemy planes. And when it comes to him, that 30% is a lot, he will argue that the "Harriers" should have shot down all 100%, otherwise what is the use of them)))

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Delta

The Harriers were transported by a container ship.

The bulk of the aircraft delivered container ships:

- Contender Bezant (4 Harrier + 9 Helicopters)
- Atlantic Conveyor (12 Harriers + 11 Helicopters)
- Atlantic Causeway (28 helicopters)
- Europic Ferry (4 helicopter + parts)
- Astronomer (13 helicopters)

Quote: Delta

that the Harriers shot down few enemy planes.

The main losses of the Argentine Air Force: naval air defense systems and anti-aircraft artillery + 9 more Argentine aircraft shot down using MANPADS

Quote: Delta

that the "Harriers" had to shoot down 100%, otherwise what is the use of them)))

Death:
- destroyer "Coventry"
- frigates "Ardent" and "Antilope"
- landing ship "Sir Galahad"
- military transport "Atalantic Conveyor"

severe damage:
- destroyers Entrim and Glasgow
- frigates "Plymouth", "Brodsward" and "Argonaut"
- landing ships "Sir Tristram" and "Sir Lancelotte"
- naval tanker "British Way"
(all these ships are corpses, explode at least one of the bombs that hit them)

damage:
- destroyer "Glamorgan" (hit by anti-ship missiles "Exocet")
- frigates "Brilliant", "Elecrity", "Arrow"
- landing ship "Sir Bedivere"
- military transport "Stromness"

Harriers were unable to provide air cover for the squadron

[Delta]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The main losses of the Argentine Air Force: naval air defense systems and anti-aircraft artillery + 9 more Argentine aircraft shot down using MANPADS

which was required to prove)))) not all shot down the "Harriers" - it means that aircraft carriers are useless))) the logic is iron

[Santa Fe]

Would you like to comment?)))

Death:
- destroyer "Coventry"
- frigates "Ardent" and "Antilope"
- landing ship "Sir Galahad"
- military transport "Atalantic Conveyor"

severe damage:
- destroyers Entrim and Glasgow
- frigates "Plymouth", "Brodsward" and "Argonaut"
- landing ships "Sir Tristram" and "Sir Lancelotte"
- naval tanker "British Way"
(all these ships are corpses, explode at least one of the bombs that hit them)

damage:
- destroyer "Glamorgan" (hit by anti-ship missiles "Exocet")
- frigates "Brilliant", "Elecrity", "Arrow"
- landing ship "Sir Bedivere"
- military transport "Stromness"

they were bombed by submarine Skyhawks with free-fall bombs, shot from low-level flight by Daggers and combat training Aermakki
Harriers, help! Attack from the air! Air alert !!!

[Delta]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Would you like to comment?

what else is there to comment on?)))) I said above about your logic, according to which the "Harriers" were supposed to shoot down all 100% of the Argentineans' aircraft, inche benefits from aircraft carriers - zero. You just confirmed that. What else to comment on? By the way, you contradict yourself (as usual). You say that the Hariera was delivered there by a container ship, then you say that the aircraft carriers turned out to be useless. What was so bad about them if they did not participate in battles? so all nuclear missiles are bullshit. And only because they have never shown themselves. So?))

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Delta

I said above about your logic, according to which the "Harriers" had to shoot down all 100% of the Argentineans in LA

where did you get this?

Harriers were required to thwart attacks, drive away enemy planes from ships, disrupt their formation, knock them off the battle course - what air cover does.

Harrieres did not fulfill their task - all the facts about the death of the ships presented above

Quote: Delta

so all nuclear missiles are bullshit, and only because they have never shown themselves

aircraft carriers are not part of the strategic nuclear forces
it’s an expensive toy for local wars in which they, as a rule, are useless - Her Majesty’s squadron was not protected

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Per se.

that in the 1982 year, it was the war for the Falklands that showed

Persei, I have a very serious argument about this.
There is almost no mention of Harrier FOB on the Russian-speaking Internet. This thing completely changes the idea of ​​using Harriers in the Falklands. And, in fact, explains many of the paradoxes of that war.
http://topwar.ru/26614-s-korablya-na-bal-epizody-folklendskoy-voyny.html

[img] http://www.arrse.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=72047&d=1334412059 [/ img]

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Per se.

that in the 1982 year, it was the war for the Falklands that showed

Persei, I have a very serious argument about this.
There is almost no mention of Harrier FOB on the Russian-speaking Internet. This thing completely changes the idea of ​​using Harriers in the Falklands. And, in fact, explains many of the paradoxes of that war.
http://topwar.ru/26614-s-korablya-na-bal-epizody-folklendskoy-voyny.html

[Per se.]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

I have a very serious argument about this

I re-read your article with interest, but regarding a serious argument, let me disagree. The so-called FOB, "ersatz" air base in the Bay of San Carlos, was created, rather, as a forced measure, due to the lack of a full-fledged modern aircraft carrier. Britam was very lucky that the Argentines did not destroy it (here, by the way, a plus of VTOL aircraft appeared, in terms of the possibilities of their camouflage and use from small stripes). But, a suitable piece of land in the ocean is not always found near the place where the fleet will have to fight. Your conclusion is that an ordinary airfield on land is incomparably better than an aircraft carrier ... Well, you can say so, and that a villa in the valley is better than a cabin on a cruise ship, but, only, a villa does not float on the sea. Why oppose at all what should not be mutually exclusive, but complement each other? After all, so, according to your logic, it would be better to replace all ships with sailors with land, "normal" weapons, and conduct operations in an environment more suitable for humans. However, one cannot do without a fleet, and the fleet should not be castrated in terms of capabilities, but full-fledged, with air cover anywhere in the world ocean, that is, with aircraft carriers.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Per se.

The so-called FOB, "ersatz" air base in the Bay of San Carlos, was created, rather, as a forced measure, due to the lack of a full-fledged modern aircraft carrier.

A full-fledged modern aircraft carrier?
Such a car with a trained crew is more expensive than the Falklands, Argentina and Britain combined))) "If you want to ruin a country - give it a cruiser"

It is obvious that today only the United States can maintain a system of "full-fledged modern aircraft carriers". But what should the rest of us do?

Quote: Per se.

But, a suitable piece of land in the ocean is not always found near the place where the fleet will have to take the battle

show a place on the world map wherever the legs of the U.S. Air Force reach
("give me another globe")

Quote: Per se.

with aviation cover anywhere in the world’s oceans, that is, with aircraft carriers.

the trick is that for an aircraft cover anywhere in the ocean does not require an aircraft carrier

Route f-111, Operation Eldorado Canyon, 1986
In 2011, F-15E flew along the same route
Sour opportunities in modern combat aircraft? In one night, jump over the English Channel, Bay of Biscay, Gibraltar, the Mediterranean Sea, the Libyan Desert and return to the base. In such conditions, the need for a floating airfield completely disappears

[Per se.]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

the trick is that for an aircraft cover anywhere in the ocean does not require an aircraft carrier

You, no doubt, will be right if for this the whole globe is covered with many air force bases and their supply and security are ensured. Here, only, the maintenance of such "unsinkable aircraft carriers" will cost incomparably more expensive than aircraft carriers. As for Operation Eldorado Canyon, it is one thing a one-time strike in a special operation on a fixed target, planned in advance, quite another, a lot of operational combat missions, in a constantly changing environment, where you don't fly so much from the base. It is possible, after all, to reach the logic of Khrushchev, where not only aircraft carriers seem superfluous, but also aviation itself (why, when there are missiles). In general, the fact that one can fly around the globe without landing is not an argument that aircraft carriers are unnecessary.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Per se.

You will undoubtedly be right if for this you cover the entire globe with many air force bases

865 US military bases on all continents of the Earth
+ the potential to use airbases and civilian airfields in allied countries (favorite focus of the US Air Force; during Desert Storm, the Yankees occupied all civilian and military runways in the region)

Few?

Quote: Per se.

Here, only, the maintenance of such "unsinkable aircraft carriers" will cost incomparably more expensive than aircraft carriers

Airbase cannot be compared to an aircraft carrier
1. This is a powerful political influence.
2. Transport node
3. The base of strategists, tankers, scouts U-2 and E-8 J-STARS, attack aircraft A-10, heavy fighters F-15 and F-22
4. Airbase is not only runways and hangars. This is a whole complex. For example, the legendary Ramstein is not just a U.S. Air Force base, and the Landstuhl Military Hospital (the largest in Europe) is located next to it
5. Placement of special equipment (do you believe in the Echelon global RT-intelligence system? )

Those. an air base can replace an aircraft carrier, but an aircraft carrier can not.
+ It is worth considering that part of the costs falls on the US allies (sharing, etc.)

Quote: Per se.

As for Operation Eldorado Canyon,

the Yankees were just kidding, practicing ultra-long sorties.
They had an air base on about. Crete, at 300 km from the coast of Libya + 20 air bases in Italy

Quote: Per se.

completely different, many operational sorties, in an ever-changing environment

see paragraph 1

Map of the Pentagon military facilities. Not sour)))

[Per se.]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

865 US military bases on all continents of the Earth

And yet, the Americans did not give up on aircraft carriers. Tell me, are you crazy about fat? Not at all! It doesn’t interfere with one another, the basic aviation supplements the deck, but it is the deck, being part of the naval group, that allows the fleet to be a full-fledged force in the sea. You, after all, do not urge to leave ship missiles on the shore (and bases), let alone cannons, I don’t understand why, such an obsession to disarm the fleet from carrier-based aircraft ... The Yankees are not stupid, like everyone else who builds and plans to build aircraft carriers ships. It seems that we will remain with our opinions, thanks for the conversation.

[Delta]

Quote: Per se.

It does not interfere

Unfortunately, this is too logical and clever argument, expressed more than once Kaptsov does not perceive it)))

[Boa kaa]

Aircraft carrier - the top of surface shipbuilding. That amers know how to count money is a fact. It's expensive, however they contain 10 atomic aircraft carriers. The author revealed the reasons, I will not repeat. Depending on the situation, they can even be put out for conservation, and with the growth of tension, they can be transferred from one theater to another.
The role of AVU in the war showed the fact of the sinking of the "Bismarck", the battle in the Coral Sea. Suffice it to say, to carry out the disruption (defeat) of the AMG task, a fleet operation is carried out. And if, according to the calculations, the strength is not enough, the Fleet Commander turns to the Supreme for reinforcement. And this is with 1 AMG! What if their 3-4 !? AMG actions can be a prelude to a database using nuclear weapons, as except for nuclear weapons it is difficult to get anything. According to very conservative estimates, the 1 AMG needs 2 MRA divisions, 1 anti-aircraft anti-aircraft submarines, 2-3 multipurpose submarines. All these forces must be (in terms of electronic warfare) distributed across borders, time, determine the order of actions, coordinate the strike.
The General Staff of the Navy understands the importance of the AVUTherefore, they will build 60-thousandths with 60-80 aircraft on board. This decision has been approved by the government. China is also building an 2 aircraft carrier. So not only we need this thing. The future appearance and composition of the wing will change depending on the capabilities of the economy and industry. Impact drones are not the case of this 10 anniversary, but the electromagnetic catapult will appear soon. We also ordered it.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

The role of AVU in the war was shown by the fact that the Bismarck was drowned, the battle in the Coral Sea.

After meeting with the "Bismarck", the British tried for 4 years to destroy his sister ship "Tirpitz". The German battleship pinned down all the forces of the British fleet in the North Atlantic, led to the defeat of the PQ-17 convoy and withstood the raids of 700 British aircraft

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

That amers know how to count money is a fact. It's expensive, however they contain 10 atomic aircraft carriers. The author revealed the reasons, I will not repeat

But there is only one reason - Nimits were built at our expense.

US External Debt Counter at 44 Street and 6 Avenue

[Delta]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

After meeting with the "Bismarck", the British tried for 4 years to destroy his sister ship "Tirpitz". The German battleship pinned down all the forces of the British fleet in the North Atlantic, led to the defeat of the PQ-17 convoy and withstood the raids of 700 British aircraft

and nevertheless the fact remained - "Bismarck" was sunk by a deck boat

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

US External Debt Counter at 44 Street and 6 Avenue

when bent, then yes. So far, neither aircraft carriers have cut their sake for metal, nor have they gone with outstretched hands, to ask for humanitarian assistance

[tlauicol]

Oleg, admit, if Tirpitz collided with carriers at sea, would he survive to the 44th year? And so it was protected by unsinkable ground airfields, anti-aircraft guns, radars, etc.

[Kars]

this aircraft carrier collided with a pair of light battlecruisers.

[tlauicol]

with a couple of battleships! (there are no light battle cruisers) and his deck was loaded with fighters, which he evacuated from Norway, i.e. he was defenseless. For comparison: 20 torpedo bombers from Illustries sunk three battleships in a guarded parking lot

[Kars]

Quote: Tlauicol

with a couple of battleships! (there are no light battlecruisers)

There are, are.
Sharni and Grazy do not pull on the battleship, nor on the battlecruiser, but after re-equipping them on 6X2 381 they would come down.

Quote: Tlauicol

his deck was loaded with fighters

These are his personal problems.

Quote: Tlauicol

For comparison: 20 torpedo bombers from Illustries sunk three battleships in a guarded parking lot

Italians, it’s something they didn’t get from Brest and Trondheim

[tlauicol]

those. The Germans' tactics was to hide the English forces behind themselves with a smoke curtain and nets? or were they afraid to go to sea against 1916 aircraft carriers built with biplanes on board? They were afraid and how!

[Kars]

Quote: Tlauicol

.e. German tactics was

Is it their problem? Or can you say that the Anglo-Americans didn’t have an overwhelming advantage in the number of warships?

Quote: Tlauicol

against 1916 aircraft carriers built with biplanes on board

biblans? were they really the main striking force until 1944-45?

let's get back to our rams.

Quote: Tlauicol

if Tirpitz collided with carriers at sea,

the aircraft carriers were still not all-weather, and they didn’t work at night either. One out of seven, Tirpitz will win against the British aircraft carriers. With the American Essex depending on the weather. And if you take out the battleship at night, from which there are no fjords, then the aircraft carrier has no chance.

[Delta]

Quote: Kars

And pop out the battleship at night, from which there are no fjords, then the aircraft carrier has no chance.

I remember from history how a Japanese squadron, consisting of battleships and heavy cruisers, went to escort US aircraft carriers. Sank only ONE, losing several heavy cruisers. Nobody is trying to oppose an aircraft carrier to a battleship. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sank the aircraft carrier only because it was unsecured. Two destroyers don't count. Modern AUGs consist of cruisers and submarines. Are there many surface ships capable of engaging with this force? and most importantly, where and which country has so many surface ships?

[Kars]

Quote: Delta

remembered from history as a Japanese squadron

If you knew her well, you could remember that the Yankees had 1200 aircraft there, submarines, which by the way sank the Japanese flagship, and the admiral had to bathe to switch to another ship.
Well, what can I say. The devil is in the details, they didn’t drown them all, but most of them were damaged. And the whole thing is about the Japanese shells, we are talking about German ships.

Quote: Delta

Modern AUGs are made up of cruisers and submarines

at the bottom of the sea, I saw a modern AUG only the USA can afford it, and a war with the USA is a nuclear war.
Let's bring to the field of the Brazilian AUG from Sao Paulo?

[Delta]

Quote: Kars

. And it's all about Japanese shells

as you said above - "these are his problems." So the problems with the shells are their problems. The result is important. You opposed the aircraft carrier to the battleship by saying "no chance". Here is an example from history I have given. The submarines sank the flagship before the battle, after which they did not intervene in the battle. Where were the planes from? not from aircraft carriers?

Quote: Kars

war with the USA is a nuclear war.

is not a fact. The USA has been waging war for many years without the use of nuclear weapons. And if Russia intervenes where, then it’s not at all a fact that both sides will think of its application. In WWII, even Hitler, the possessed, nevertheless listened to the call of reason and Churchill with Stalin and did not use poisonous substances, fearing the answer. So it will be IMHO with nuclear weapons even in the war between Russia and the United States

[Kars]

Quote: Delta

Here are the problems with the shells - their problems

naturally.
And for them, Americans should thank Tsushima.

Quote: Delta

You opposed the aircraft carrier to the battleship saying "no chance"

If you carefully read, you will understand that what is meant is not a Japanese battleship.

Quote: Delta

Where were the planes from? not with aircraft carriers?

from the air bases on the islands, and the intact aircraft carriers --- as usual the Yankees have the total advantage of the second half of the war. It is more surprising that most of the Japanese were able to leave.

Quote: Delta

not a fact

fact, and the most natural.

Quote: Delta

US wars wars for many years without nuclear weapons

with Russia?

Quote: Delta

And if Russia intervenes where, then it’s not at all a fact that both sides will think of its application.

So you don’t want to take São Paulo to the sea? Can Charles de Gaulle? Vikromantiyu? Liayan (silt like him there)

As soon as a Russian plane strikes an American aircraft carrier

[Delta]

Quote: Kars

fact, and the most natural.

fact is something accomplished))) WHERE?

[Kars]

Quote: Delta

fact - this is something that happened))) WHERE

In the doctrines prescribed by the states, the Russian Federation intends to launch nuclear strikes even against non-nuclear states.
And if HERE, then Nafiha?

[fzr1000]

And there are other stories when the campaigns of Japanese aircraft carriers (sometimes the first exit) nipped American submarines.

[tlauicol]

Until the age of 45, Suodfish was actively used, and Tirpitz climbed into a hole even before the Barracudas began to build

[Kars]

Quote: Tlauicol

Until the age of 45, Suodfish was actively used, and Tirpitz climbed into a hole even before the Barracudas began to build

Okay, how many Sfordffish made sorties to attack Tirpitz?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

the British tried to destroy his sister ship "Tirpitz" for 4 years.

I deliberately did not mention on the role of aircraft carrier aircraft in the raid on Pearl Harbor 7.12.41 Where it was sunk 4 LC, 2 Em, 1 ZM; incapacitated: 4LC, 3 Cr, 1 Em; loss of coastal aviation: 188 aircraft destroyed, 159 heavily damaged; 2403 people were killed, 1178 people were injured. Loss of the Japanese: 29 aircraft, 5 over small submarines, 55 people died.
About "Tirpitz". The battleship left for the Norwegian skerries not because of a good life, but under the protection of coastal air defense, air cover of coastal fighters. But! Here too, the (first) aircraft carrier aircraft got it. The raid of 3.04.44g resulted in 19 direct hits of aerial bombs on the ship: 5x800 kg and 15x100-250kg bombs. As a result, a fire and 3 months of recovery, relocation from Altenfjord to Tromsøfjord (out of harm's way, more precisely from British aviation, away), but, as you know, the Lancaster found him there too. He already could not bear the 5,5 t superbomb.
And here is how Japan’s largest battleship perished in 1944: The Japanese compound was discovered early in the morning of April 7. Starting at noon, the Yamato and its escort were subjected to powerful attacks by American carrier-based aircraft (227 total aircraft). Two hours later, the battleship, having received up to 10 hits of torpedoes and 13 hits of air bombs, failed. In 14.23 local time, due to the displacement of the 460-mm shells from the roll, the bow of the main caliber artillery explosion exploded, after which the Yamato sank. Only 269 people were saved, the 3061 crew member died. The losses of the Americans amounted to 10 aircraft and 12 pilots. I think the comments are superfluous.

[common man]

At the same time, it is worth noting that, despite all the efforts and even the use of kamikaze, Japanese aviation could not do anything with the American battleships in the middle and at the end of the war. The reason is the saturation of ships with anti-aircraft artillery, the use of radars and a clearly defined fire control system. What was so lacking for the Japanese.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

I think the comments are superfluous.

Pretty boring examples)))

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

I deliberately did not mention the role of carrier aircraft in the raid on Pearl Harbor 7.12.41

And not worth it.
Pearl Harbor is the failure of carrier-based aircraft. A mediocrely planned operation, as a result of which the Japanese sank only 4 outdated troughs of the First World War (the loss of the old mine mine, "Utah" and 2 destroyers can be neglected)

But not a single bomb fell on the workshops and the power plant - this allowed the Yankees to begin repair work within an hour after the end of the raid. THE IMPORTANT GOAL was not damaged - the giant 10 / 10 dock for repairing battleships and aircraft carriers (then it will become fatal at Midway).

But most importantly - the Japanese "gave" the Americans 4 million barrels of oil - the US Navy's oil storage, the main filling station in the Pacific, remained safe and sound. For comparison - in December 1941, the oil reserves in Pearl Harbor exceeded all the reserves of Japan!

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

About "Tirpitz". The battleship left for the Norwegian skerries not from a good life

It is enough to recall the number of warships of the allies in the North Atlantic, thrown to neutralize the German battleship.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

And here is how Japan’s largest battleship perished in 1944

it took 9 aircraft carriers of the 58-th operational connection.

and that would hardly have been sunk if the Japanese had Mk.12, Mk.37, Mk.53 and enough fuel to develop full speed

an anti-aircraft projectile with a Mark.53 radar fuse - if the Japs had such toys, they would have killed the American Avengers and Hellkets like chickens and made it safely to Okinawa

[VohaAhov]

Dear forum users. And let's proceed from the contrary. Suppose the United States has no aircraft carriers. And then how we will look at the power of the US Navy. I think that it will fall to the level of China.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: VohaAhov

And then how we will look at the power of the US Navy. I think that it will fall to the level of China.

84 Aegis Cruiser and Aegis Destroyer
))))

[Parabelum]

Well, here you’ve grabbed a little, the United States has many other ships besides aircraft carriers, and you also forgot about submarines, of which there are many states.

[patsantre]

It’s not just that they have a lot of combat-ready nuclear submarines like the rest of the world of these nuclear submarines. And ships of the 1st rank are more than all the other countries combined.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Parabelum

and also you forgot about submarines, of which there are many states too.

115 Tank Airborne Transport Command One of the foundations of world hegemony of the United States, one of the most important components of the US Navy

Each is the size of the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. Little is said about them and are never shown on television. Here it is, the real strength of the American fleet - capable of delivering a million-strong army to the other side of the world

[nagi]

In general, now in the Pentagon there are much more supporters of aircraft carriers than opponents. Therefore, even in the face of a significant reduction in the military budget, the power of the US naval forces will continue to rest on aircraft carrier strike groups.

It would be strange if there was a reverse picture. At the Pentagon, they also work out the arms lobby money as they do on Capitol Hill. They have a lot of cities almost in the process of bankruptcy, and the military says everything, we need more money for the defense of our country. They wouldn’t crap other people and who would need them so much on their island.

[Delta]

Quote: nagi

They have a lot of cities almost in bankruptcy proceedings

how can a city be in bankruptcy proceedings? this is not a business company

[gauche]

Read about Detroit, girl. And do not argue with men!

[Delta]

Quote: thick

Read about Detroit, girl. And do not argue with men!

latent homosexuals hesitated. Let the girls continue to dream of your youthful dreams. Scatter out of here

[Standard Oil]

Carriers helped the United States defeat the Japanese, successfully oppose the USSR, and ensure a military presence in all parts of the world. Who will refuse such a sweetheart?

[Canep]

You can neutralize an aircraft carrier by simply destroying the tankers delivering aviation fuel to them using submarines. They will not guard tankers since the aircraft carrier itself. After the supply of jet fuel expires, the aircraft carrier will turn into ballast for escort ships, which they cannot throw, and which cannot help them with anything.

[tlauicol]

support vessels are included in the AUG. And then, really, no one would have guessed for two worlds? And the aircraft carrier will have enough fuel for 7 Midway or Pearl Harbor

[Canep]

About 10 tons of kerosene need to be poured into one plane, 100 tons into 1000 planes - this is a serious figure, during Pearl Harbor the planes were more economical.

[tlauicol]

kerosene also needs to be poured into a ground plane, but during the time of the PX and oil was mined less and GDP was less.

[gauche]

... or one big firework

[vardex]

There are two types of ships in the fleet, these are targets and submarines !!!!!!!!!!

[vardex]

THERE is more that today nuclear submarines with military arsenals of its low noise ............. try to find .....

[vardex]

The fleet has two types of target ships and submarines ........

[Canep]

There are also aircraft-carrying targets.

[Semurg]

Aircraft carriers buried battleships, in turn, cruise missiles and torpedo missiles will be buried by aircraft carriers. Well, who will deliver these ammunition specifically to planes, boats, submarines or container ships with container cruise missiles will show time and practice. For me, these bridges (battleships and aircraft carriers) are beautiful and powerful, but their time goes by, too expensive and large (excellent targets). Well, the fact that not a single carrier was sunk was the case for the small ones, until the container complex of cruise missiles or aug would have to shy away from all civilian ships.

[tlauicol]

winged anti-ship missiles will not fly as many as other missiles delivered by plane. No ship will see another at such a distance as an aircraft carrier launched Hawkey. that's the whole secret

[SPACE]

AWACS planes do not hang constantly in the air, well, maybe in wartime, and how long can they be kept constantly in the air? Even if he notices a threat, yes, until his missile group is hung with its missile group, yes, until it takes off ??? Time will pass so much that ... Granite take off five five seconds, and the 500-700 flight is m / s, in general, while a couple of three planes rise from the deck just in time for Granit's arrival.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Semurg

the container complex of cruise missiles will fall to the riders and the aug will have to shy away from all civilian ships.

1. Wartime lots strongly recommend ways. Anyone who leaves the recommended course (path) risks being blown up, being fired, and so on.
2. The AMG has a "safety" zone to enter which is strongly discouraged: they can use weapons.
3. Security ships inspect such ships. In case of suspicion, the team is arrested, the ship is sent to the nearest port for inspection in full.
4. Undercover naval intelligence is working out its money, it doesn’t eat bread for nothing.
Of course, he is impressed to inflict damage on the enemy with the hands of "outlaws", but after undermining the Amer.EM in the port by a high-speed boat, they made conclusions.
Maneuvering warhead MBR, PLRK, MPA during mass raid can actually damage (incapacitate, drown) during mass raid. At the same time, 100-10 will reach AWU from 12 KR. The main thing is to set fire and damage the catapults, and then without an air umbrella you can fight with it.

[Pashhenko Nikolay]

The author is an ardent opponent of aircraft carriers, I have long understood. But let me ask, do you think that fools are sitting in the Pentagon? What is the difference to you how much an aircraft carrier costs if American taxpayers spend money on it? If you want to tell us that Russia does not need aircraft carriers, then I would completely agree with you. We still have to develop and develop our territory, and not seek our interests somewhere abroad.

[Delta]

In my opinion, this author is not just an opponent of aircraft carriers. Quite calmly listed all the arguments as supporters of aircraft carriers, and their opponents. Without my own emotions

[Simple]

Scheduled Autonomous Air Refueling (AAR) Tests X-47B
on FY 2014 will be removed from the program in the FY14 budget.
Captain Jaime Engdahl, UCAS Navy Program Manager: "We are planning to conduct final AAR flight tests later this fall on manned aircraft to demonstrate several AAR technologies."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_04_15_2013_p03-01-5
68738.xml


FY 14 budget: Sequester puts key Air Force objectives at risk:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123344032

[igor36]

Quote: Delta

Quote: Canep
the strike power of an aircraft carrier is negligible compared to an underwater missile carrier.

the use of an underwater missile carrier is a nuclear war that will swallow everything. Carriers, as we see, can be used not only in nuclear war

Quote: Canep
ONE submarine is required to eliminate an aircraft carrier
This is if the submarine is VERY lucky

The submarine will not necessarily use nuclear weapons, and the AUG attack is a standard task for Russian nuclear submarines, which will be completed if necessary. Do not hesitate.

[Delta]

and why was the SSBN created? for firing rockets?

[barbiturate]

Quote: igor36

The submarine will not necessarily use nuclear weapons, and the AUG attack is a standard task for Russian nuclear submarines, which will be completed if necessary. Do not hesitate.

why not doubt it?) such attacks have never been carried out in combat, we did not see a mass launch of rockets from the water, nor did we overcome the air defense and plane of an aircraft carrier in combat conditions. So far there are only examples of the fact that an aircraft carrier needs almost any a group of ships and their is being built by an increasing number of countries in one or another hypostasis (calling them anything like an aircraft carrier), that’s the answer. And in general, why look for an answer to the question whether or not aircraft carriers are needed, if they are already being built or designed by who have at least some claim to a piece of the sea or dream of an aircraft carrier, only the economy does not allow.

[Thomas A. Anderson]

Personally, I would not bet on a bunch of huge ships with aircraft ...
It would be reasonable for Russia to create an ATAVKR (atomic heavy aircraft cruiser) Not large in size, the ship has good air defense, as well as anti-submarine weapons. The deck is not large; Aviation consists of 20 VTOL aircraft such as Yak 201 (naturally 5 generations). Convertibles for the transport of goods and people, 3 anti-submarine helicopters, and 5 shock with a long range. And a lot of drones. It turns out a relatively small ship is simpler to build, since there is no deck for horizontal take-off, because there are only VTOL aircraft on board. For Russia, having 3 of these complexes is enough) PS and the giant rattles of Americans are frankly outdated)

[patsantre]

It’s just the American Kolyma that is the standard of the aircraft carrier, and what you proposed is just useless junk, a bucket of nails floating. What can this squalor be without the AWACS? These planes are the main advantage of American AUGs, thanks to them they see everything a thousand kilometers ahead of you, and accordingly, they’ll be able to destroy everything they see with an aircraft flying behind a horizon, receiving a command center from an aircraft that is out of reach of the enemy’s aircraft. SVVPs have significantly worse performance and a Nimitz’s air group that is superior in quantity and quality, it’s not even cutting your air group tensing up.

[kontrol]

some comments today are not very patriotic. no Yankees or liberals on the site

[patsantre]

I’m also surprised. Where did the number of adequately minded people appear in the subject from? Practically not a single hat-taker.

[1c-inform-city]

He wrote many times already. An aircraft carrier is only good at driving Papuans. If a country has satellites and missiles with a range of up to 700 km it becomes a target (radius of a deck aircraft). Any ordinary plane is superior to a deck aircraft. In all recent wars, aircraft carriers account for only 10% of the bombing. What is the point of them if for a serious country they can only scratch the coast and die immediately.

[xomaNN]

Amerikosy for several decades butted among themselves on the pluses / minuses of the AUG and aircraft carriers in particular. They are crushed by the real experience of the war with Japan and the role of aircraft carriers in it. As in the year 41 of our strategists tenaciously held the throat of the experience of the cavalry civil war.

[Megatron]

Carriers are good only for war with the Papuans.
1 nuclear submarine with a nuclear charge will immediately end the whole AUG.
And thanks to the craftsmanship of our submariners, who had already led many times behind the noses of the NATO, it would be safe to leave.

The Americans are not stupid and know this, and therefore, while our ships are standing near Syria, they will not even go close.

By the way, the use of tactical nuclear weapons, exclusively against the enemy’s armed forces, for example against the AUG, does not guarantee a massive use of nuclear weapons on enemy territory by all available means.

[Canep]

It is better not to take risks, but to suppress the actions of the AUG with the help of active electronic warfare (electronic warfare) from surface ships.

[77bor1973]

It's just that some advocating aircraft carriers as a panacea in armed confrontation at sea, forget that the carrier-based aircraft has become ten times heavier since the Second World War, and the strike power has not increased significantly. The old "Essex" of the Second World War, in my opinion, was a more formidable force in those years than "George W. Bush" at the present time.

[Delta]

Quote: 77bor1973

advocating aircraft carriers as a panacea for armed confrontation at sea

Yes, nothing is a panacea. There is a balance. More precisely - should be

Quote: 77bor1973

a decker aircraft has been ten times heavier since the Second World War, and not significantly increased impact power

not sickly - "insignificantly". Not counting guided weapons, which (from experience, not theory) can be so effective that a single $ 100 missile destroys a ship worth millions of dollars.

[77bor1973]

The list of weapons on the F-18 is diverse, only with an aircraft carrier it takes off far from full combat load. And the loss of a plane worth 57 million dollars that costs like some ships, how about you? From this, real combat effectiveness is insignificant.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: 77bor1973

And the loss of an aircraft worth 57 million dollars

Super hornet
> 80 million as of 2012

[Delta]

Quote: 77bor1973

the loss of a plane worth 57 million dollars that costs like some ships, how about you?

as an example - the Falklands. There the Argentines destroyed a destroyer with one missile. And the plane returned to the base. As an example? good? And where does the data come from that the Hornet is not taking off at full load?

[Windbreak]

Better write about the combat load of deck aircraft of World War II, ten times less in weight than modern deck aircraft

[Windbreak]

Quote: 77bor1973

forget that a decker aircraft has been ten times heavier since the Second World War, and not significantly increased impact power

[Jurkovs]

And yet the aircraft carrier is a large "gunboat" that keeps the Third World countries at bay. All cases of combat use of AUG are associated with weak countries and this is their main purpose. I affirm that the aircraft carriers were not created for the conditions of the war against the Soviet Union / Russia. Constantly high waves in the Barents and Okhotsk seas do not allow the use of carrier-based aircraft, and in the Baltic and Black seas they are simply cramped and they become easy prey for coastal missile batteries. In addition, aviation from land airfields is much more effective than carrier-based aviation. We must be able to effectively destroy AUG, but we do not need to create them for ourselves. Otherwise, we will lose the respect of the third world countries, they will simply be afraid of us. It is not intentions that are taken into account, but opportunities.

[Canep]

For those who are minus, I want to say that your cons are not arguments in defense of attack aircraft carriers and the AUG.

[1c-inform-city]

Summary Aircraft carrier at the moment is a way to cut money and show oneself. It does not fit our doctrine.

[tlauicol]

Okay, how many Sfordffish did the sorties to attack Tirpitz? [/ Quote]
not a single one - since Tirpitz immediately bounced off to repeat the fate of Bismarck. And what can he boast of?

[SPACE]

Talking about the coolness of an aircraft carrier, citing the arguments of 70 a year ago, the times of tirpitz and pearl harbor, with the time of rockets, satellites and flights into space, with the same success and galleys can be given as an argument. I would also install the 6-8 OTRK Iskander on Orlan and the BOD. A missile is like an attack drone. So all the same, I consider the aircraft carrier tactically ancient, like a mammoth.

[Mikola]

There are newer examples (Falkland, Yugoslav, Libyan) but you stubbornly see only 70 years ago)

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Mikola

Yugoslav, Libyan

?
Explain your point

[Mikola]

General article. But. But the author did not dare to draw conclusions.

1. What is the difference between a cruise missile (such as replacing an aircraft carrier) and aircraft (the main weapon of an aircraft carrier)? A cruise missile is good against static targets, but in a rapidly changing environment, the presence of an aircraft is indispensable.

2. To gain air superiority, again, an airplane is indispensable, and cruise missiles have nothing to do with it.

3. The issue of high cost. The main weapon of an aircraft carrier is airplanes. And soon, drone drone will be added to them. But drones will not be able to completely replace aircraft, especially fighters. But they can reduce the cost of operation. Another point, three missile cruisers will be blind in the absence of air supremacy of their aircraft and will not be able to strike missiles and even more so gain air supremacy. So the aircraft carrier is not replaceable and the question of its operating cost is not how much is military, but how much is economic for the host country. And these are different concepts.

4. Since the main weapon of an aircraft carrier is aircraft. The evolution of this type of ship depends on the evolution of aircraft. As soon as there are aircraft that can fly around the earth at one refueling station, the value of aircraft carriers will immediately decrease, but again it will not disappear. Such planes, as for me, should fly in the stratosphere. So far, progress in this area is weak and it means that there is nothing more "shock" than an aircraft carrier in the sea ...

5. Now about the type of Nimitz-Ford. The bloodline of these aircraft carriers comes from the Cold War. With the collapse of the USSR, their power was excessive - this was also understood in the USA. In the 90s, fighters of gaining air superiority F-14 were removed from them and only F-18 drums were left. Stopping their operation did not make sense, a lot of money was invested in them and the United States knows how to count their money) But with the advent of a new superpower of China (and maybe also India later), their role becomes again key. And we should expect the appearance of new fighters on them to gain superiority in the air ... So there will be no savings on the quality of US aircraft carriers, like other countries. But the number of them in operation will depend on the political situation. While events are developing in such a way that there is no point in reducing their number.

6. Russia in the aircraft carrier race will take part as a statistician. Primarily due to the weakness of the economy. A country that is not included in the 10 developed economies of the world cannot physically contain the second fleet in the world, much less develop aircraft carriers.

[Mikola]

Addition. It seems that in the late 90s, when the West felt like winners in the Cold War, the United States checked whether a repetition of Pearl Harbor was possible in the modern world. The AUG compound was tasked with getting lost in the ocean and "hitting" Pearl Harbor. The "enemy" knew that a strike was being prepared and used it in means (up to satellite ones to detect the AUG. And .... AUG got lost in the ocean and its planes flew over Pearl Harbor. This plunged the American admirals into SHOCK !!!) After these exercises no one at the Pentagon questioned the feasibility of the AUG and the decision was made to develop the Nimitz class, and the British decided to design new aircraft carriers.

[I think so]

Modern high-precision homing weapons and in particular ballistic missiles (even with non-nuclear charges) in combination with space satellite constellations put (and have already actually put) a fat cross on aircraft carriers. I think things will go even further and the dreams of submariners will come true when only submarines will fight in the oceans (the rest will be sunk in the first week of a serious mess). Of course it would be chic so that the p.i.nd.s.d.sy continued to build these chic targets even faster.

[gauche]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

The AMG has a "security" zone to enter which is strongly discouraged: they can use weapons.
3. Security ships inspect such ships. In case of suspicion, the team is arrested, the ship is sent to the nearest port for inspection in full.

The inaccessibility of the AUG is a miserable myth, a stranglehold. Facts are a stubborn thing. AUG is a machine for beating babies and liquefying brains. Clinical example:

Quote: Delta

in addition, the torpedo does not penetrate the hull of the ship, it does not need it. It explodes next to the ship in this way enhancing the explosion effect

at the same time, the subject conducts public auto-training:

Quote: Delta

Turn on brains and logic at last

I will only remind famous cases from history:
1. 1984 Sea of ​​Japan. The Soviet nuclear submarine K-314, observing the AUG maneuvers led by the Kitty Hawk, "accidentally" pierces that bottom with retractable devices.
2. 1983 Sargasso Sea. The nuclear submarine K-324 "accidentally" wound a towed antenna on the propeller during the tests of the TASS system with the frigate "McCLoy".

Aircraft carriers are a legacy of the pirate past of the founders of the United States. It is a means of terror and the destruction of democracy. It is not that the enemy is a hindrance to him. Project 949A nuclear submarine (for example) sinks this handsome man almost guaranteed. This is not counting the Tu-22M3 strike missiles. Equipping Russian SSBNs with maneuvering warheads, coupled with bringing to mind space target designation and reconnaissance systems, puts a three-dimensional cross on the threat from AUG. In the best case, their remnants can become an "island of lost ships" - before nuclear fuel is used up.

The more criminal is the squandering of Russia's resources for the construction of floating command graves on the basis of the Mistrals. Their only application is to suppress a riot in the coastal regions of Russia itself - a type of the ever-memorable "war" with the coastal guerrillas.

But how fabulously the same converted Sharks could look !!! Titanium hulls, perfect combat survival, the ability to launch space reconnaissance equipment directly from the board (huge missile silos!), Ten-headed missiles (including non-nuclear). And underwater tank-carrier landings - there were even projects! However ... Radiant publicly pokes a pointer to the shark conversion schemes for transporting p (Indo) Gazku itself. M-la.

[patsantre]

Quote: thick

Facts are a stubborn thing.

Yeah, not a single aircraft carrier has been destroyed over the past 70 years. Here's a fact.

Quote: thick

1. 1984 Sea of ​​Japan. The Soviet nuclear submarine K-314, observing the AUG maneuvers led by the Kitty Hawk, "accidentally" pierces that bottom with retractable devices.
2. 1983 Sargasso Sea. The nuclear submarine K-324 "accidentally" wound a towed antenna on the propeller during the tests of the TASS system with the frigate "McCLoy".

And because of what happened these accidents, didn’t you try to think? The above points have been described, but your highest degree of erudition in this matter does not allow you to read the opinions of others, you would sooner ruin your portion of nonsense.

Quote: thick

Project 949A nuclear submarines (for example) drown this handsome man almost guaranteed.

Is this verified somehow? Are there real examples?

Quote: thick

the ability to launch space reconnaissance equipment directly from the board, ten-headed missiles (including non-nuclear)

only in your dreams

[SPACE]

Quote: patsantre

Yeah, not a single aircraft carrier has been destroyed over the past 70 years. Here's a fact.

Yeah STE faaak tons, and apparently you do gluboooky from this conclusion that the aircraft carrier is unsinkable EUREKA .. you almost managed to surpass Archimedes Only in one case is an aircraft carrier unsinkable ... this is when it is aground

Quote: patsantre

And because of what these accidents arose, we did not try to think

Probably because of shitty HACKs or the same acoustics, but that's not the point, the point is that the submarine can get close to the aircraft carrier.

Quote: patsantre

Is this verified somehow? Are there real examples?

"the apl 949 is guaranteed to sink an aircraft carrier", this is almost the same as "not a single aircraft carrier has been destroyed in the last 70 years"

[gauche]

Quote: SPACE

the bottom line is that a submarine can get close to an aircraft carrier.

Atlishna, friend - a direct hit. But the point is not entirely in this, i.e. in this - but not quite Listed incidents, testifying (very vividly) about, scamtak, extreme vulnerability of AUG even from unintentional ("accidental") actions of submarines. The boat in the center of the order is detected by a hole in the bottom - and during maneuvers. Can there be any doubt that in this situation, ANY submarine comes out UNSIGNED on the firing line even of a "dagger" attack with torpedoes (Flurry). And, all the more, is it worth it to be tormented by doubts - will the 949th boat reach the launch range of its Granite Swarm? I didn’t mention Aport and Atrina - this is actually a real imitation of war. In that story, the word "aircraft carrier" was not even mentioned - this is its combat effectiveness in a duel with a boat.
I, sobsno, think that an aircraft carrier is in essence a good weapon, suitable. Indications for use - air defense of surface formations, support for assault forces. "Kuznetsov" is the golden mean. My post was more political - about amerskie AUGs. And this, I repeat, is purely a means of exporting democracy.

[patsantre]

Quote: thick

Quote: SPACE

the bottom line is that a submarine can get close to an aircraft carrier.

Atlishna, friend - a direct hit. But the point is not entirely in this, i.e. in this - but not quite Listed incidents, testifying (very vividly) about, scamtak, extreme vulnerability of AUG even from unintentional ("accidental") actions of submarines. The boat in the center of the order is detected by a hole in the bottom - and during maneuvers. Can there be any doubt that in this situation, ANY submarine comes out UNSIGNED on the firing line even of a "dagger" attack with torpedoes (Flurry). And, all the more, is it worth it to be tormented by doubts - will the 949th boat reach the launch range of its Granite Swarm? I didn’t mention Aport and Atrina - this is actually a real imitation of war. In that story, the word "aircraft carrier" was not even mentioned - this is its combat effectiveness in a duel with a boat.
I, sobsno, think that an aircraft carrier is in essence a good weapon, suitable. Indications for use - air defense of surface formations, support for assault forces. "Kuznetsov" is the golden mean. My post was more political - about amerskie AUGs. And this, I repeat, is purely a means of exporting democracy.

And what about blacksmiths? Not fish, not meat. On the contrary, the same nuclear submarines are not any better, the air group is several times weaker, there are no AWACS aircraft, 3 fighter jets, take off with an incomplete load, autonomy is not so hot.

[patsantre]

Quote: SPACE

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ...

Show me where I said this? Presented a fact, no more.

Quote: SPACE

Probably because of shitty HACKs or the same acoustics, but that's not the point, the point is that the submarine can get close to the aircraft carrier.

It is still completely incomprehensible who will see whom first.

[Delta]

Quote: thick

at the same time, the subject conducts public auto-training:

child miracle, go home, play. What have you led to the torpedo and collisions of submarines with surface ships and a wound antenna? What connection?)))) Yes, by the way, if you suddenly do not know what a torpedo is .... well, I don’t know, read Wikipedia first. Suitable for your level. The topic concerned the Kursk and its supposedly murderer MK-48. Study its action))))

[patsantre]

Why talk about this clown when he offers satellites to launch satellites.

[SPACE]

Quote: patsantre

Why talk about this clown when he offers satellites with the nuclear submarines to launch

"Calm" - Russian launch vehicle, created on the basis of the ballistic missile submarine R-29РМ (PCM-54).

The rocket has three stages and operates on high-boiling fuel components.
"Calm-1" - is a serial missile R-29РМ (PCM-54) with additional telemetry equipment. Payloads up to 0.183 m³ are located in the standard rocket compartment. Start is carried out from the submarine shaft from an underwater position. "Calm-1" allows you to put into a circular orbit with an altitude of 400 km and an inclination of 79 ° payload weighing 70 kg.
The world's first launch of a satellite from a submarine took place on July 7 1998. The Calm-1 rocket launched from the Novomoskovsk K-407 nuclear submarine launched two German satellites, Tubsat-N and Tubsat-N1, into low Earth orbit [ru]

[patsantre]

I agree, my jamb.

[gauche]

Quote: patsantre

Why talk to this clown?

Quote: Delta

read Wikipedia ... Learn its effect))))

Quote: Delta

juvenile miracle

Quote: Delta

Suitable for your level.

Quote: patsantre

This is ... verified ... There are real examples.

[Waterfall]

Quote: thick

This is not counting the shock missiles with the Tu-22M3

X-22M with its noise immunity and high-altitude trajectory is a fig variant. Yes, and intercept media.

Quote: thick

1984 Sea of ​​Japan. Soviet nuclear submarine K-314, observing the AUG maneuvers led by Kitty Hawk, "accidentally" punches that bottom

The submarine commander according to the results was removed.

Quote: thick

ideal combat survival

In which place? With such a secondary HAP against modern means it will be very bad.

[gauche]

How the incident ended for the commander - I know, talked with another commander from the same compound. I heard a lot of interesting things about the melt. About the secondary HAP - what can I say, there in general the paint has already peeled off ...

Quote: Wasserfall

X-22M with its noise immunity and high-altitude trajectory is a fig variant. Yes, and intercept media

The price of the issue is the development of a new missile, with launching out of reach of the AUG air wing. The work is being done, judging by the open publications. This is an eternal dispute between armor and shell - in this case missiles and air defense units. With a massive launch and the X-22M is enough. Moreover, the worked out variant of neutralizing the AOG included a simultaneous attack with missiles from nuclear submarines.

Quote: SPACE

"Calm" - Russian launch vehicle, created on the basis of the ballistic missile of the submarines R-29RM (RSM-54)

The conversation for that was that while all the launches were carried out with BDRMs - and there are smaller mines and easier missiles. On the Shark, on the other hand, a 90-ton rocket (unfortunately), in principle, the missile compartment on it can be adjusted to fit large dimensions. And this is the conclusion of a full-fledged reconnaissance spacecraft.

[Ratibor12]

Hmmm. I read the discussion as an adventure novel! Great plot with active mutual govn. throwing. Figures, examples from history, colorful speech turns!
Some shout: "AUG cannot be broken! But Pasaran! The aircraft carrier will give a beep and all the enemy submarines will float belly up!" Well, we've already heard something similar: "Abrams" do not burn, "Stealth" cannot be knocked down, and diapers stay dry and breathe.
Others, on the contrary: "As I give one - so you will go to the bottom! Our missiles and with one Mach seven AUG beats! And if they are supersonic fires, they will drown in fear, even before they reach them!"
Oh, these tales! Oh, these storytellers!
Everything that one person has built, another can destroy. And for every cunning ass there is a h ... r with a screw. "War is not someone who will shoot someone, but someone will change his mind!" So, everything will be simple with aircraft carriers. If they meet a commensurate opponent, they will have to fight seriously. Someone they will sink, someone will sink them. War is dumb and full of surprises. And immortality and endless patrons, this is from another opera.

[gauche]

"... Let me go to sea, division commander, I will sink five aircraft carriers by Easter. I know the business for sure - even if the nachpo does not write, our Russian land, as he does, love ..."
There is also nothing complicated here - who in childhood watched "The Mystery of the Third Planet" and "Guest from the Future" - and now shows them to their children. And some - "Star Wars" and "Chip & Dale rush to the rescue". For the latter, the war will be a complete surprise - and "full of surprises." I mean a serious - "dumb" - war ... And with saliva others chide on the western "chydesa tekhniki", and furiously spit in the face of anyone who could doubt their strength - you will do it, everyone chooses faith himself.